Anchor Warranties

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Mantus Anchors

It's really very simple, I believe Mantus Anchor is the most reliable anchor on the market and the safest anchor to put on your bow....why? Bc it will set every time! Every Single Time!

Mantus may have the best anchor in the world but when a sales person says things like this it makes me not want to buy their product. Claiming something that is plainly impossible puts all other claims in doubt in my opinion.

[motion30]

Greg
Does the 105 I bought from you at the annopolis show have the 514 shank ?

[Mantus Anchors]

Originally Posted by motion30

Greg
Does the 105 I bought from you at the annopolis show have the 514 shank ?

I thought I would call you but, I lost your phone number email me at gregkutsen@mantusanchors.com or give me a buzz
Greg

[nimblemotors]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Not much! That is why there is so little risk to a manufacturer to give a lifetime anything goes warranty on something that probably cost more to ship that make. There is so little risk to them.


If you study marketing you learn that one of the ways to overcome poor quality is to offer a warranty because people then are willing to buy it. So offering a life time anything goes warranty results in much more sales than it costs. In this case I'm not saying that the anchors are poor quality, just that the fact of warranty doesn't make the high quality.

That is exactly right, so most new businesses offer big warranties, as the cost of them is in the future when/if replacements have to be sent, and they can be gone by then. I never buy a warranty or use it as factor for buying or not.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Mantus Anchors

the only trouble was my fault broached with a 110 square meter spinnaker
Greg

I hope you didn't rip it. Unfortunatly spinnakers don't come with a lifetime warranty

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Mantus may have the best anchor in the world but when a sales person says things like this it makes me not want to buy their product. Claiming something that is plainly impossible puts all other claims in doubt in my opinion.

+1!

b.

[hellosailor]

I suppose that all one has to do, is make the anchor stronger than the attachment point for the rode. Anchor rode snaps, anchor is lost, voila, nothing to return for warranty.

Warranties are a sales opportunity, as long as you can set aside enough earnings to cover the failed product, and the shiny new warranty attracts enough more sales to make it all profitable.

But along with the new warranties, have you noticed if anyone is changing the attachment points, to ensure the rode can't be robust enough to pull up half an anchor?

[congo]

Noelex wrote:

Super high holding power (sounds fantastic doesn't it):

1. Holding power:
The anchor will hold 4x the holding power of an admiralty anchor. Yes, one of those primitive things that big ships use (picture below). How good is one of those is in a 30lb anchor?
Another definition is that a SHHP power anchor has to hold 6x its mass.
For say a 35lb anchor, that's 210 lb. The yachting world tests showed similar sized anchors were holding over 5,000 lb.

2. Proof load:
The standard is unfortunately for a vertical pull which means little. Anchors don't bend this way. It encourages very deep shanks which is detrimental to holding.
A 55kg anchor is required to hold 2.4T in this test. A Chinese Rocna held over 15T. (It actually didn't break with 29T )

In reality the current standards mean almost nothing to the sort of anchors we use, but they are selling points.

Rex Wrote:

Noelex I really am amazed with your above comments given the thread that you have started on warranty.

Your first point implies proof testing is ho hum, it’s a joke, Super High Holding Power, you know for all of the good people out there that go to the extreme to produce a Quality product and then have the balls to get them tested to a stringent standard for you to make a mockery, yes mockery as you have given the wrong information, the points I am making probably have no significant to you. Your comments really disappoint me.

For your information, The Australian standards anyway, A STD stockless anchor is three times it’s mass, an anchor such as a genuine CQR, Delta is rated High Holding Power and is 6 times its mass, Super High Holding power is rated at 12 times its mass, now this may all sound insignificant to you as you my friend have no idea of just what it all means. You really need to attend one of these tests to appreciate the enormous benefits, expense and trouble one go’s to.

Warranty is all about testing and quality of an anchor build for more reasons than I have the time to go into, your Rocna proof test as you know was absolutely incorrectly demonstrated, the way in which it was tested wouldn't have surprized me to have survived at 45 ton, yet rather than research the correct way you will argue the point, let it all hang out Noelex, check out the correct way to proof test, the spot light is on you, you are the guru.

Unfortunately many are guided by your comments, the real reasons I bring that proof test to light is an example of the last time I trained your attention to it, your comments indicated you will except what you see rather than research the correct method, ourselves, we test to destruction on a regular basis of wich is expensive, I also know that Fortress do the same, this is not done as a sales pitch, it is a responsible thing to do, it is to comply to a standard, further guides us, gives us figures for the next anchor size and the customer has the safest product we can produce.

Thank God there are those that appreciate it, and Noelex our testing is for safety and has everything to do with all boats, yours to.

I really do not know what part of the world that some of you live in, I don’t mean this disrespectfully but bent shanks and twisted anchors are all very common in Australia, especially amongst the trawlers, this is why we have a standard, without them there would be more accidents and rubbish anchors than we see, the only looser would be you the customer.

I have no problem with Gregs enthusiasm but obviously due to his comments he never intends to have his anchor certified, it’s not just the shank that gets tested as he would know, I find it hard to understand how many will buy without asking the question, how about a standard with the product to back the warranty.

Greg states his anchor will dig in every time (every time) and is the fastest setting anchor, try an oyster shell over the toe, try sand over flat rock, sharpen any anchor design to a fine long point like the Mantus and you will probably match it, Grind back the shoulders on your Rocna, the arrow head on the Manson, we cannot have a pointed anchor that sharp and slender as it is just not durable on work boats, neither can Rocna or Manson, our proof testing would probably see the toe simply fold, now if I am wrong Greg for your customers sake, their sales are providing your financial future, prove it by meeting these standards to acquirer certification of any grade will do.

You have stated the Mantus anchor can land on its back, an amazing public statement that would be enough for many to shudder.

You have stated that you have now moved to stronger shank steel; tell me the real reason why.

These anchor threads get heated yes, they have weeded out, exposed, a lot of shonky claims and snake oil, they have made warranties a lot clearer, anchor manufacturers more accountable, now push for standards, it’s the very least and the first place a heated point should be made, then you the end user have achieved much.


CEO of Anchor Right Australaia.

[noelex 77]

Rex I am not against standards per se. I just don't think the current standards are relevant for our small boat anchors. They were written for large ships. To take a stockless say 35lb anchor and use this a reference point, is the sort of decision that could have only been made by a committee .

Stockless anchors just don't work in these small sizes.
To jump up and down and attach a sticker that says "super high holding power anchor" because it will hold 4x a stockless anchor, is something that misleads the anchor buying public.
Its like attaching a sticker to car "super high accelerating" because its 4x quicker than a Ford model T

Originally Posted by congo

For your information, The Australian standards anyway, A STD stockless anchor is three times it’s mass, an anchor such as a genuine CQR, Delta is rated High Holding Power and is 6 times its mass, Super High Holding power is rated at 12 times its mass, now this may all sound insignificant to you as you my friend have no idea of just what it all means

This is the standard:
A1.4.1.3 Super high holding power (SHHP) anchors (a) Definition:
A super high holding power anchor is an anchor with a holding power of at least four times that of an ordinary stockless anchor of the same mass.

You are really saying the same thing (3x4=12) just in a slightly more confusing way than the standard.

I cannot find anything in the current standard on absolute holding power, but my apologies if 6x the mass is wrong for SHHP. 12x the mass for SHHP would mean a 35 lb anchor would be required to hold 420 lb ( at 10:1 scope, which is how the test is conduced).

If 420 lb is 'super high holding' what do we call the same size anchors that hold over 5,000 lb (@ 5:1) in the independent tests? What about: "super extra good special high holding with sprinkles on top"

Originally Posted by congo

your Rocna proof test as you know was absolutely incorrectly demonstrated, the way in which it was tested wouldn't have surprized me to have survived at 45 ton, yet rather than research the correct way you will argue the point, let it all hang out Noelex, check out the correct way to proof test, the spot light is on you, you are the guru.

There was a long discussion here on the proof load tests conducted by both Rocna and yourself:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1189904
(It is a long thread the relevant sections are around post 460)

There was some great comment from some knowledgeable people on CF. You can read the whole discussion yourself, but there was some criticism of the way both Rocna's and Anchor Rights' proof load tests were conducted. This does not inspire consumer confidence in the standard.

At the end of the day I think it matters little. The vertical proof load test is largely irrelevant. Most anchors exceed the minimum requirements by such large margin that the the whole specification is irrelevant, despite the high cost of testing which is ultimately passed on to consumers. That's us.

[congo]

Noelex wrote:


If 420 lb is 'super high holding' what do we call the same size anchors that hold over 5,000 lb (@ 5:1) in the independent tests? What about: "super extra good special high holding with sprinkles on top"


Rex wrote:


Well Noelex you have convinced me to the point of I believe you could comment on brain surgery and be believed even though none qualified.


I say this as to your response above, if this is what you make of USL CODE ,DNV, Lloyds, as I suspected you know absolutely very little on this subject , as for boats of your size, all boats from ten foot tinnies up to trawlers Under survey must all have certified anchors.


I do not believe discussion any further on this subject would be of no interest to anyone, you would drive your theory not fact for conversation, hot thread, whereas I want to get the facts out and that won’t happen between you and myself.


Noelex wrote:


There was some great comment from some knowledgeable people on CF. You can read the whole discussion yourself, but there was some criticism of the way both Rocna's and Anchor Rights' proof load tests were conducted. This does not inspire consumer confidence in the standard.

Rex Wrote:

Noelex you are right, the proof load testing on Rocna WAS DONE BY Rocna with welded braces, totally not excepted, big difference being Anchor Rights test was not Anchor Rights test, it was done independently by a NATA testing Authority appointed by the National Marine Safety Committee, yes and no welding of brackets permitted.


Noelex Wrote:

At the end of the day I think it matters little. The vertical proof load test is largely irrelevant. Most anchors exceed the minimum requirements by such large margin that the the whole specification is irrelevant, despite the high cost of testing which is ultimately passed on to consumers. That's us.

Rex Wrote:

How wrong you are Noelex, many anchors certainly do not make the proof load test, with our stainless anchors we had to move to a 2205 grade stainless as the 316 would not reach the load required. You are familiar with the controls on your car but have no idea what makes it work.

Well I suppose many costs are past on to consumers, we at Anchor Right haven’t had a price rise since 2011 but have proof and field tested many anchors since.

It matters little you say, well try telling your boat insurer you have an anchor that once on its back can drag and not right itself, some insurance companies will not insure multi hulls if the anchor they carry is not certified, yes I do think it matters.

I suppose with the Mantus the price will come down even further as the customer has no reason to buy the roll bar.

CEO of Anchor Right Auastralia.
__________________

[noelex 77]

This is a further example of why I think the Super high holding power label is misleading.

Consider if you have chosen a 45 lb anchor for your 30 foot boat. Nicely oversized and it is rated as SHHP so you are confident it has been tested to hold with "super high holding power". It should have been tested by the standard up to the equivalent of a high windspeed for your sized boat. Correct?

Well the anchor had to hold 12x45= 540 lb
We can estimate the force on a 30 foot yacht based on the wind strength. It's not an exact science and there is some dispute about the numbers, but the most widely used calculator can be found here:
Forces


A 45 lb SHHP certified anchor on a 30 foot boat is tested to hold at 10:1 scope up to the equivalent of:........

26 knots.

(Note the formula only takes drag into account, so even the low estimate above is probably optimistic)

As a appellation Super High Holding Power is very impressive. The true meaning much less so.

[congo]

Noelex you should take more time to answer rather than shoot from the hip, you are way of target.

To start with the figure you are using is a field test, orientation test, place the anchor in its worst possible on sand and then have a continues drag over a five meter distance, anchors holding power for each accreditation is then measured in this distance, that is for you to ponder, do you think this measured holding power is really relevant for what the anchor S/H/H/Power stands for?

What I will tell you is if you have a stockless anchor weighing 50 lb for a certain size boat the authorities will allow you a third reduction of weight if you go to a high holding power anchor, two thirds anchor weight reduction if you go to a S/H/H/Power ANCHOR?

Why do you think this so, further the proof loads totally different compared to the figures you are using and are normally measured in kilotons, this also varies for the anchors standard, holding power abbreviations.

Sorry Noelex you stick with your assumptions and I will stick with the standards certification and concentrate on producing tougher anchors for all.


There is no more mileage in this one for you.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia

[noelex 77]

I have received a reply from Ultra Anchors (Quickline) and they have indicated they will join the forum and provide an answer about the warranty in the near future.
I suggest we stop speculating and give them a chance to respond.

[Erkut]

Hello everyone,

My name is Erkutay Yücel. I am the director of sales and marketing at UltraMarine which is the designer and sole manufacturer of ULTRA product range.

I normally don't like to post forums as I have a professional side but it looks like you are after our company policy details this time instead of my comments.

Below you can see the details how we act with Life Time Warranty on the ULTRAnchor;
Our answer to first question " Would it be replaced at no charge?” is “yes it would as the numbers of bent ULTRAnchors so far is around 1/1000”.

Our answer to second question “If yes, are there any restrictions? (Do you have to be the original owner, is it lifetime or is it age restricted etc)” is “you don’t have to be the original owner, the warranty is for lifetime but the bent anchor needs to be selected as per our ULTRAnchor Selection Table. Since, this is already an extreme condition, giving warranty to a small anchor for the boat doesn’t make sense. We are even planning to create online life time warranty registration page in our web site for 2014 to make sure that the anchors are selected as per our ULTRAnchor selection table.

Our answes to the final questions “Does the anchor need to be returned? What about the delivery cost of the new anchor?” are that yes the anchor has to be returned and the delivery costs of the bent anchor and the new anchor have to be paid by the customer.

Thanks

Erkutay Yücel

[noelex 77]

Welcome to the forum Erkutay and thanks for the reply. That is great news.
To make it clearer these are the questions I posed (via email)

Comments or Questions: I am trying to find out some detailed information
about the waranty policy on anchors. The information will be published here:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1366903

This forum is a very popular site for cruising yachtsmen. We already have
several members with your anchor.

Your participation would be appreciated. You can join the forum yourself or
email me your thoughts and (with your permission) I will make this available
to the forum.

Specifically I am interested in this sort of situation:

Let's take the scenario that a cruising sailor has an anchor that is caught
under a rock and some part of the anchor bends. There is no question of a
"manufacturing defect" with the anchor, but it's bent nevertheless.

Would it be replaced at no charge?

If yes, are there any restrictions? (Do you have to be the original owner,
is it lifetime or is it age restricted etc)
Does the anchor need to be returned?
What about the delivery cost of the new anchor?

Thanks for your time
Cheers