Visit our Popular Forums

sailorboy1 · 07-03-2013, 07:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by carstenb

aah Don, you cynic you. To think that you believe civil servants sit and make up regulations just to make them up

Don't know if that really makes me a cynic!

But what I believe is that politicians make laws and regulations that make themselves look good and supportive of a "cause", but which only a small portion of people are impacted by. This way they get to say they did "good" while pissing off the fewest people that later will not vote for them. And if the impacted people are boaters that don't really have any say in their district, well that is even better!

Just for some more thread drift!

Bash · 07-03-2013, 08:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by congo

Further to your comment, it's not the convex that creates disturbance ,it is the plow shears attached to the convex ,it may be of interest to you, our anchors are convex without the plough shears, leaving the substrate the same way up with little disturbance.

Our anchors? Sheesh. I should have known. Is this a way of trying to sell SARCA anchors? Excel, is it?

Less substrate disturbance. Sheesh.

I'm shaking my head. Well, at least you've discovered your spell checker. A shame the don't make these word processors with logic checkers.

Bash · 07-03-2013, 08:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by congo

Dumnad,

We dont make the environmentle laws here in a Australia ,for the greens, they are chasing votes, take our Port Phillip bay for instance, we have a pest starfish that has lobbed here from the ballast water from big ships, these star fish granted are desecrating our bays, the environmentalists's are trying and believe will succeed, when a tralier boat is retreived you will have to boat wash the whole boat and motor prior to leaving so as if you visit another bay you wont spread these star fish.

Ironicaly you can motor through Port Phillip bay around and into Westerport spreading the star fish spawn, this movement from one bay to another is now being identified as a prime source of spreading this pest.

How do you think this will go , so it is not only anchors destruction it is the abilty for these concave designs to carry lardge clumps of spawn and then deposit in another part of the bay, worse still in another bay all together, yes it is a worry as we are loosing fishing grounds at a greate rate now, I think they will simply ban all anchors, you cannot argue with them with a display like this.

Yes I know all anchor designs can carry some mud but not volumes like this, and the ones that will complain, protest over more non anchoring areas are probably some of the culprites with concave anchors that could have reduced this interest by simply washing them of on retrieval, simply could not be botherd.

Regards Rex.

Assuming yet another anchor salesman has been outed here, please allow me to point out a forum rule that may have been violated in the post quoted above. Among other rules about Commercial Members are these two:

Commercial Members are prohibited from making direct, emotionally-charged posts to, or about, competitors.

Commercial Members may not post product comparisons.

Bash · 07-03-2013, 08:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJo

Cotemar,

A minor point, the SARCA Excel and Super SARCA have down turned toes. The opposite, I think to what you alluded.

JonJo, are you working for SARCA? If this is the case, I think you owe it to the forum to register as a commercial member.

**Cotemar** · 07-03-2013, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bash

JonJo, are you working for SARCA? If this is the case, I think you owe it to the forum to register as a commercial member.

I am a bit concerned for JonJo and his discussions and behavior in these anchor threads.

As a writer for Practical Sailor and other magazines, I was always led to believe that the writer and testers are impartial and will not show any bias as to personal likes and dislikes.

We are not seeing this behavior with Jonjo’s writings here.

**Hudson Force** · 07-03-2013, 12:44

I think that most here believe that this thread is driven by marketing and not an unbiased comparison of anchors. I'm with Boatman61 and relying on my Bruce and I also have my CQR as a back-up. I will also be quick to use one of the more "modern" anchors if one is readily available when I feel a need to have an anchor replaced. Forty-two years of cruising may leave me with some older equipment. I wouldn't find any fault in someone taking on a newer design, but I could never have such a fervent driving mandate for all to reform to a specific new anchor unless I had a monetary interest. Even then, I just couldn't be so focused on making all come to agreement with my anchor mandate!

Please don't come back again with the, "Oh it's not me it's the facts." or "It's not what I'm saying,- I'm just passing on what others have claimed."

Panope · 07-03-2013, 13:20

From the Fortress anchor website sizing guide.
"For storm conditions use an anchor one or two sizes larger"

From the Manson anchor website sizing guide.
"If in any doubt about anchor selection always use a bigger anchor"

From the Forfjord anchor website sizing guide.
"Use next size larger for heavily laden commercial boats and for Alaskan winter waters"

From the Rocna anchor website sizing guide.
"If in doubt, give preference to the larger anchor model"

Like the posters above, I also like Bruce anchors. If I could have found a used (genuine Bruce) example in the size I wanted I would have not bought the Manson Supreme that I have. BTW - I bought the Manson (45lbs) from a CF member classified add for $300.

Steve

**boatman61** · 07-03-2013, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panope

From the Fortress anchor website sizing guide.
"For storm conditions use an anchor one or two sizes larger"

From the Manson anchor website sizing guide.
"If in any doubt about anchor selection always use a bigger anchor"

From the Forfjord anchor website sizing guide.
"Use next size larger for heavily laden commercial boats and for Alaskan winter waters"

From the Rocna anchor website sizing guide.
"If in doubt, give preference to the larger anchor model"
Steve

ROFLMTO.... there's confidence for ya from the makers of the 'New Generation'... never saw that with Bruce way back when...

but then if you've a good product...

Stand by for the defence of spending to much dosh... ehehehehehhe

DumnMad · 07-03-2013, 14:19

I agree with the above statements from the Mods.

Shonky science makes you think of shonky salesmen with shonkey products.

JonJo · 07-03-2013, 14:41

A quick comment.

I'm completely independent.

I happen to use an Excel and think it an excellent product. I also think a Spade and Fortress are excellent products, and have said so. I maintain, as of today, an open mind on the Mantus, time will tell.

I have used a Supreme, Rocna, Spade, Fortress, Excel, SARCA, Delta, Claw, Ray as part of test programmes. Full sized anchors 'real' usage. I have also tested them on beaches etc. Most of the people commenting here have used one or 2 anchors but seem free to make comment on anything else, often sight unseen. I do not comment on anchors I have not tested, but if I find one I like, I say so. If I find one I do not like, I say so.

I am not keen on Concave anchors with roll bars because they carry mud and that mud with weed might choke the fluke and result in the anchor not resetting. People are entileld to agree or disagree - but the fact I do not like roll barred anchors does not make me a commercial member nor one with a financial interest in a product. I think the roll bar a dated design feature, it was invented in the 1970's and Spade and Boss show that it is unnecessary. In an article published recently I did say that the carrying of mud might be a feature of scale, that it was only an issue with small anchors, as I had not found the problem in the bigger versions. The posts over the last couple of months demonstrate that this is not a scale issue and is potentially a real problem.

I am free to comment negatively about roll barred anchors, the fact I write for PS and others does not deny me freedom of speech nor making comment that is the basis of real comparisons. I have noted many have commented negatively about a design they have never seen - that shows both ignorance, stupidity and bias. Any suggestion that I have a commercial interest in any product is a gross insult. The fact I do not like the products that an individual likes and supports does not make my contrary views that of a commercial member. The implied suggestion that as a contributor to PS I should support all and anything, against my findings, smacks of rank stupidity.

Possibly a few apologies might be in order.

**Hudson Force** · 07-03-2013, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJo

................. I do not comment on anchors I have not tested, but if I find one I like, I say so. If I find one I do not like, I say so....................I am free to comment negatively about roll barred anchors.......................
Possibly a few apologies might be in order.

Certainly you are free to continue many more repititions of your opinions despite how excessive they might be and without apology.

Bash · 07-03-2013, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJo

Possibly a few apologies might be in order.

Good luck with that.

Now that you've vented your steam, let me explain why your bias seems unusual for someone not commercially invested in a given product.

In the first post of this thread, you stated, "Interestingly the advocates of big is better - seem to use only one type of anchor - coincidence?" In the second post a forum member asked you to clarify which type of anchor you were concerned about, and you refused to do so. Read post #3 again, and perhaps you'll understand why readers could interpret you as being overly coy. The natural inference here would be to ask why you have it out for a particular brand of anchor.

You started a new thread shortly after the SARCA thread was closed, and in this thread you have basically advocated an argument straight off the front page of their website. Hmmm. Later on in the thread, you concluded that no one using the prescribed size anchor of the brand you're out to get was happy with that size, despite evidence within the thread itself to the contrary. Hmmmm.

I'm sure that many of us would not be comfortable with a specific style of anchor, but how many open up a thread with an agenda to go after a specific brand? You clearly have such an agenda, and that's a bit unusual for someone without a vested interest.

Let's take another look at the rhetorical question you pose in Post #1: "Interestingly the advocates of big is better - seem to use only one type of anchor - coincidence?" Is it true that the advocates of big is better only use the type of anchor? No. That has been demonstrated over and over on this thread, and throughout this forum, by people who use all sorts of anchors. So why are you insisting on a non-truth?

Sophistry? The only other conclusion that came to my mind was that you might have had a vested interest in SARCA. That's why I asked you the question directly.

No apologies for that.

JonJo · 07-03-2013, 16:33

There are 6, maybe 9 modern or efficient anchors, Fortress, Spade, Rocna, Supreme, SARCA, Excel and untested Mantus, Boss and Racer. Of these one only is convex and has no roll bar. It is very difficult to support convex non -roll barred designs without supporting the Excel.

But if you prefer this logic,

CQR is convex, CQR does not work, Convex does not work, Excel is Convex - QED Excel does not work (even though the correspondent has not seen an Excel, has not touched an Excel and certainly has not used an Excel). One has to wonder, what their agenda is - or are they just bigots?

To actual hands on experience

Then good luck!

Have a great evening