Ultra Anchor Review

[Delfin]

We replaced an 80 kg Claw with the same weight Ultra and have been cruising with it for a few months. All of what follows is purely anecdotal, but may be of interest to some.

To get a sense of whether this design was superior in this weight to the Claw, we've been anchoring at 2:1 scope, which would have been insufficient with the Claw. 2:1 scope falls under the 'don't try this at home, kids' arena, but with a relatively heavy anchor it's not much of a problem unless it really starts blowing. We have experienced no dragging with the Ultra in winds up to around 20 knots.

At 3:1, the anchor seems to bury deeply. It now has scratches on the top of the shank, which could only get there if the shank is under the sea bed during tidal and wind shifts. Since we have 9 foot tides routinely, such shifts involve a fair amount of current, so resetting capability is important.

The biggest difference between the Ultra and the Claw is felt on retrieval. We have a 4,000# hydraulic windlass, and to retrieve the Claw, we just hauled in on the chain to tension it, pause, repeat and the anchor comes free. Not so much with the Ultra. We now have to motor over the top of the Ultra to retrieve it, and as it is brought in you can see by the way the chain jerks around that it is pulling a buried anchor out of the seabed. Seabeds have been sand and gravel, muck, grass, etc.

Based on this limited data set, I am pretty impressed with this design. I have a very hard time seeing this hook drag if there is anything for it to dig into.

Heavy anchors will always perform differently than light ones of the same weight. This seems especially so for Bruce types, which are only adequate holders (in my experience) in lighter weights, but really good in heavier sizes. As much as I liked my Claw, this Ultra is a demonstrable improvement. I can't compare it to a Rocna or Manson because I don't have any experience with those, but as a digging anchor, the Ultra should always outperform an anchor with a hoop, which has to limit burying to some degree.

[Celestialsailor]

Thanx for the input. I think all the new style anchors are a vast improvement over the older style anchors. In the past I had used a CQR exclusively on my other boats. Mt HR came with a Bruce. I had been intrigued with the Rocna style anchor but put off by the original designer of it and the change of material quality it had gone through.
I went to the boat show this year and gave a second look at these anchors. In that design, there were 3 players. Rocna, Manson and Mantus. The Rocna was now owned by a Canadian company and the welds were top quality. I could not say the same for the Manson. The Mantus break-down feature made little sense to me other than them saving shipping charges from China.
So my comparison is between Rocna and CQR. Generally my CQR would set within 50 ft. Usually 25 ft. Only once was it difficult retrieving after 2 days in hurricane winds. The rest of the time came up without much effort. The Rocna is a different story. I set it 5:1 and it sets in less than 10 ft., so far, every time. When I bring it up it usually it has a big ball of bottom on it and I have to motor in circles with my boat hook cleaning it 1 ft. under the water. The anchor really lets me get a good nights sleep.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Heavy anchors will always perform differently than light ones of the same weight.

????

Jim

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

????

Jim

Too many days on the boat tends to make my mind function just a tad bit less efficient. What I meant to say was different weights, same design, different performance.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Thanx for the input. I think all the new style anchors are a vast improvement over the older style anchors. In the past I had used a CQR exclusively on my other boats. Mt HR came with a Bruce. I had been intrigued with the Rocna style anchor but put off by the original designer of it and the change of material quality it had gone through.
I went to the boat show this year and gave a second look at these anchors. In that design, there were 3 players. Rocna, Manson and Mantus. The Rocna was now owned by a Canadian company and the welds were top quality. I could not say the same for the Manson. The Mantus break-down feature made little sense to me other than them saving shipping charges from China.
So my comparison is between Rocna and CQR. Generally my CQR would set within 50 ft. Usually 25 ft. Only once was it difficult retrieving after 2 days in hurricane winds. The rest of the time came up without much effort. The Rocna is a different story. I set it 5:1 and it sets in less than 10 ft., so far, every time. When I bring it up it usually it has a big ball of bottom on it and I have to motor in circles with my boat hook cleaning it 1 ft. under the water. The anchor really lets me get a good nights sleep.

That is one thing I also appreciate about the Ultra. I suppose it is because it is stainless, but it rarely comes up with any crud on it at all. And you are right on the Rocna build quality. The welds and galvanizing look much improved. The only persistent question I have on it is whether the Q620 steel really is going to be strong enough. Probably will, but it isn't as robust as Bisalloy 80, used in the Manson. However, if the Manson has lousy build quality, then it's probably a push. Either way, people do seem to like their Rocnas, and but for my aversion to hoop anchors it would be one to consider.

[Jim Cate]

My older Manson S has good looking welds... dunno about the new ones.

But, until there are instances of failed welds on MS anchors I don't see that one should worry much about weld cosmetics. They have been in the anchor biz for a long time (long before Rocna) and have a pretty good reputation AFAIK.

My main problem with the Ultra is the price... and maybe the hollow shank, but following the above logic, until I hear about them folding or breaking I'll stay quiet on that subject!

Cheers,

Jim

[Delfin]

Jim, the price is pretty absurd, although I got a very fair price on mine. If you never lost it, I could justify the price on the basis of never having to regalvanize. They did have some bent shanks on at least one Ultra I know of, but then they added an internal horizontal plate to stiffen it. Doubt it could bend now.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

My older Manson S has good looking welds... dunno about the new ones.

But, until there are instances of failed welds on MS anchors I don't see that one should worry much about weld cosmetics. They have been in the anchor biz for a long time (long before Rocna) and have a pretty good reputation AFAIK.

My main problem with the Ultra is the price... and maybe the hollow shank, but following the above logic, until I hear about them folding or breaking I'll stay quiet on that subject!

Cheers,

Jim

Hey Jim...I'm sure the welds are just fine but the one I saw at the show had MIG wire sticking out of the welds. They didn't even clean it up before galvanizing it. That was a quality issue for me. The welds appeared sunk and over puddled, possibly indicating gaps in the fit. I don't have Xray eyes and can't tell if the issue is there or not.

[noelex 77]

Thanks for the report.

There is not a lot of information on this anchor and it looks a very promising design.

Coincidently I saw my first Ultra anchor only 10min ago. Unfortunately the boat could not get it to set well enough to hold moderate reverse and left. I will go for a dive later and look at its drag marks.

The anchorage has hard sand and I have only seen 1 anchor (out of about 40) that have set well here. The rest have been 2 ok sets 18 poor sets and the balance unset.

Their anchoring technique was not great and this probably had some influence. One example does not mean much, but I offer it because there are not a lot of independent information on this anchor. I will report when I see some more hopefully underwater next time.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The anchorage has hard sand and I have only seen 1 anchor (out of about 40) that have set well here.

I'd be curious to know what anchor that is.

[Delfin]

I've never been a big fan of vigorous backing down on the anchor as soon as scope is played out. It's always made more sense to me to let the darn thing settle for an hour or so, as even difficult bottoms will be penetrated sometimes if you subject the anchor to tugging vs a power pull. Kind of like driving a nail into hard wood - a few taps gets its started, then you can whack away.

If I suspect the bed is problematic, or expect a blow, we'll let out scope taking into account the height of the bow roller to the bottom, plus any additional tidal change, let it sit for a half hour, then back down on it to verify set, then attach 30' of snub line. So far, so good.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I'd be curious to know what anchor that is.

That's my Rocna
About 1/4 of the top of shank visible which is about what I typically achieve under full reverse with a hard sand bottom.
The anchors that set OK were a Delta and a Brake.
The poor sets were mostly Deltas
Unset were a mixture of CQR Delta, Brittany and one Fortress (which was used as stern anchor, still had the sticker on it) The Fortress was adjusted to the totally inappropriate 45 degree setting. I told the skipper and he adjusted it to the correct 32 degrees and it held the stern overnight, but they left before I could see how it had set.

I found the drag marks of the Ultra. They were quite deep meaning it was at least trying to grip.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

That's my Rocna
About 1/4 of the top of shank visible which is about what I typically achieve under full reverse with a hard sand bottom.
The anchors that set OK were a Delta and a Brake.
The poor sets were mostly Deltas
Unset were a mixture of CQR Delta, Brittany and one Fortress (which was used as stern anchor, still had the sticker on it) The Fortress was adjusted to the totally inappropriate 45 degree setting. I told the skipper and he adjusted it to the correct 32 degrees and it held the stern overnight, but they left before I could see how it had set.

I found the drag marks of the Ultra. They were quite deep meaning it was at least trying to grip.

What I suppose would be hard to know would be what scope the gentleman had out before backing down. 2:1 might be less effective than 4:1, no?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

That's my Rocna
About 1/4 of the top of shank visible which is about what I typically achieve under full reverse with a hard sand bottom.
The anchors that set OK were a Delta and a Brake.
The poor sets were mostly Deltas
Unset were a mixture of CQR Delta, Brittany and one Fortress (which was used as stern anchor, still had the sticker on it) The Fortress was adjusted to the totally inappropriate 45 degree setting. I told the skipper and he adjusted it to the correct 32 degrees and it held the stern overnight, but they left before I could see how it had set.

I found the drag marks of the Ultra. They were quite deep meaning it was at least trying to grip.

Thanx for the field report. I like the fact that you checked. These slick Willy anchor manufacturers with their Youtube videos I feel can;t be trusted. I have the 44# Rocna on front with a steel Danforth (30#) and a small fortress on the stern. But all that is for Mx which is a relatively easy place to hook. The Marquesas on the other hand...

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I've never been a big fan of vigorous backing down on the anchor as soon as scope is played out. It's always made more sense to me to let the darn thing settle for an hour or so, as even difficult bottoms will be penetrated sometimes if you subject the anchor to tugging vs a power pull. Kind of like driving a nail into hard wood - a few taps gets its started, then you can whack away.

If I suspect the bed is problematic, or expect a blow, we'll let out scope taking into account the height of the bow roller to the bottom, plus any additional tidal change, let it sit for a half hour, then back down on it to verify set, then attach 30' of snub line. So far, so good.

This is a commonly used technique especially with CQR anchors.
It does seem to help many anchors set although I struggle to understand why it makes any difference in light wind. With a hardish substrate you can dive on the anchor leave it for a long time and if there has been less than 15 k, or even 20k wind it looks exactly the same. In stronger wind it will start to wriggle itself in, but proponents of the technique claim the "give it time to settle" works irrespective of the wind/current conditions and it does seem to be of some help. Why I do not know.

Without being able to explain any plausible mechanism I am still not sure its not a placebo, but it worth a try if nothing else will set the anchor.

It is annoying to do and with a new generation anchor should be unnecessary they usually set no matter what abuse you give them (other than very short scope)