Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[JonJo]

Shas Cho

Thank you, very erudite.


One might consider that their (CS) rules are only adopted because an awful lot of people find them acceptable?

Their rulings on anchors might not be perfect but its all we have. I have requested on this Forum in the past for members views on anchor testing - and no-one has responded which suggests

people think CS testing is as good as we are going to get

or

they do not care.

Maybe you would care to comment on what you find objectionable about trying to define rules for an item of safety equipment, viz anchors, such that certain minimum standards could be set and the unwary not encouraged to buy something that is potentially unsafe.

Interestingly there is a thread on another Forum on anchor testing which is enjoying some civil airing.

I do like the idea that there are rules on liferafts, lifejackets etc - seems quite sensible to me (and I do not find it any way onerous). I do have a personal interest - my father was rescued from the North Sea after spending 3 days in a liferaft, early one December.

Jonathan

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

One might consider that their (CS) rules are only adopted because an awful lot of people find them acceptable?

Their rulings on anchors might not be perfect but its all we have. I have requested on this Forum in the past for members views on anchor testing - and no-one has responded which suggests

people think CS testing is as good as we are going to get

I don't believe the current anchor certification is satisfactory. The standard was developed for large commercial ships changing from a traditional stockless anchor. The problems of applying such a standard to our much smaller anchors are considerable.

Manufactures go to the expense because it is necessary, in many countries, to sell anchors to commercial ships. The Super High Holding Power sticker looks very impressive and sells a lot of anchors.

The classification could be made relevant with a few simple changes.

1. Increase the holding power requirement substantially, or change the labels to reflect common usage meaning of "super high holding".
A 35 lb anchor only has to hold 420 lb. this is not Super High Holding as most would understand the term. The better anchors of this size will hold 5,000 lb. The holding requirement needs to change, or the label wording needs to reflect the true meaning of the test, say satisfactory holding. (What about "Satisfactory Holding In Test" )

2. The standard needs to adopt a normal small boat anchor (not the stockless anchor which works very poorly in the small sizes that we use) as its reference point. This is part of the problem with the terminology. The anchor is certified as Super high holding when compared to stockless anchor.

3. The proof loading requirement needs to change from a vertical pull to a horizontal pull.

4. Independence from anchor manufacturers needs to be guaranteed. I don't believe this is a widespread problem, but nevertheless any hint of a lack of independence is of concern. Anchor manufacturers should not be allowed to sit on boards and make major changes on how these tests are conducted, when there own anchors are subject to certification. No matter how well intentioned such influence destroys the very independence that these standards should achieve.

5. We should strive for single standard instead of tests that are conducted completely differently in different countries.

6. The standards committee should police companies that claim certification, but have not achieved it, or when changes in manufacturing have made the certification invalid. We also need to clear if the testing has been only partially completed (claiming SHHP classification without making it clear that only the proof load testing has been achieved for example.) We also need to clear which anchor sizes have been tested.

The certification standards are often regarded by the boating public in positive light, keeping us safe and indeed they should do, but the anchor certification has had a number of significant downsides.

1.It increases the cost of our anchors

2. It stifles development. Most of new anchors have been developed by small companies lead by a single designer with a passion to make anchor better.
This is true of Rocna, Spade, Mantus , Sarca, Tern, Fortress and many others. Without these companies we would have very poor anchors indeed. Certification favours the big anchor manufacturers. We need innovation and this invariably comes from the small players.

3.There is evidence the standards are counterproductive. The vertical proof load testing for example results in anchor shanks that are much stronger in a vertical direction (because this is the only direction the standard test in). This makes the shanks heavier and decreases anchor performance.
Have a look at CQR shank (designed before there was any need to pass a vertical proof load test). It is about equally strong for vertical, or horizontal pull. Then look at Delta shank this is much stronger for a vertical pull (which will be tested by the standard) compared to a horizontal pull (which is not tested at all)


Sorry for the rant, but you did ask.

[Shas Cho]

I see a very significant difference
between tests, standards, and rules.
I applaud the rigourous testing of anchors
in all sorts of bottoms, conditions and applications,
whether by manufacturers or third parties.
I think the Practical Sailor tests, for example,
are of enormous value to sailors wanting to make informed decisions.
Always bearing in mind the purpose of the tests
and the source of the funding.

But to morph these results into rules and laws
is both meddlesome and counterproductive.
As an example, consider building codes for private homes:

Prior to codes a principled contractor could point to his reputation
as a builder of strong, secure, safe, convenient houses.
Those who sold sub-standard homes could expect to have a short career.

Now that every builder is obliged to meet *minimum* standards,
there's no room to say,
"My roofs will never sag under Minnesota snows"
because the public responds,
"Of course your roof beams are adequate-
the law insists upon it!"
So the guy who builds really sturdy roofs
has to compete with the guy who barely meets the minimums,
meaning that the extra lumber or fasteners or adhesives
come out of the builder's pocket.
The result?
ALL homes are built to minimums
while craftsmanship and care are no longer assets.

These same standards prevent innovation and progress-
I built the first modern earth-sheltered home in North Dakota
back in the 1970s.
My roof was solid 10-inch logs laid side-to-side
on 12-foot spans over 6-inch concrete bearing walls
(I was creating thermal mass).
But I was obliged to build it in a remote area
where the building codes either did not apply
or were not enforced,
because my bomb-proof roof failed to fit into a bureaucrat's niche.

Information is valuable.
Forcing others to follow rules is not.
Rather than making laws about PDFs,
I suggest transparent testing and education.
Some people will purchase flimsy vests with insufficient floatation.
That is their choice and none of our business.
Others will choose sturdy construction and ample floatation.
That is their choice and still none of our business.
They will sink or swim based upon their decisions.

Some people climb sheer rock faces.
Shall we outlaw that as well?
Some watch television six hours a day.
Is that really safer than rock climbing?
Not in my opinion, but it's none of my business.

I didn't mean to preach.
I appreciate all the information I can get regarding anchors.
Based on that info I buy and employ them.
I don't want rules to tell me that I have to carry five anchors
nor that I am not allowed to carry five anchors.
The lazy (or 'unwary' if you prefer)
will soon enough pay the cost for their irresponsibility.
No fines or sanctions required.
The sea will take care of that.

[JonJo]

Noelex,

I do not mind the rant, many of us can be guilty

I think it healthy that anchor makers sit on bodies that set rules for testing of anchors. They know a lot about anchors (certainly more than any bureaucrat). Its all about balance. Bodies that set rules should be representative, an anchor maker, some one representing fishermen, some one representing sail boat owners, someone representing motor cruiser owners, someone representing boat builders, academics (if they have a specialisation in anchors or seabeds - something relevant), bureaucrats ( for example Marine Safety and/or Marine rescue organs) a Master Mariner or 2 and whoever is funding the committee.

Its all about balance - no-one has an overwhelming voice all would have a common objective (better anchors and ways to test them).

Jonathan

By the way, I hope you are suggesting everyone needs a CQR shank, I have 3, any offers?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

I see a very significant difference
between tests, standards, and rules.
I applaud the rigourous testing of anchors
in all sorts of bottoms, conditions and applications,
whether by manufacturers or third parties.
I think the Practical Sailor tests, for example,
are of enormous value to sailors wanting to make informed decisions.
Always bearing in mind the purpose of the tests
and the source of the funding.

I agree the magazines do a great job in a difficult area. Magazine anchor tests have some inherent limitations, but the magazines are to be applauded for doing them (at least the better ones).

My rant was only referring to the HHP and SHHP classification.

[JonJo]

Shas Cho,

Currently the only rule I know that exists for leisure anchors is that you must carry one. As far as I know the anchor does not need to work - it just needs to be there, though I think they do not except floating anchors.

I think being required to carry an anchor is good - if meeting that requirement means that a volunteer rescue operator is not called out. So its not only the lives of those who are stupid but the lives of those who try to rescue people (and their children etc).

Currently the CS produce, if you pay, certification defining the quality of anchors (whether any leisure mariner wants to buy those certified anchors is upto them) but surely it would be better if that certification was as 'applicable' as possible.

There is no suggestion the rules (or tests) would become legal requirements for leisure mariners - simply a more applicable technique to make the monies spent on the tests more meaningful and realistic.

Tests are already being conducted, anchor companies spend money having the tests completed (and as Noelex suggest - we the customer pay). I'd rather we paid for something relevant as it would not cost any more.

Jonathan

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

4... Anchor manufacturers should not be allowed to sit on boards and make major changes on how these tests are conducted...

I appreciate most of what you've said here,
but I disagree with this.
Why should we prevent
one of the most knowledgeable groups of people
from participating in the process?
If we *are* to have a certification process
I want the most informed people possible involved.
We can't allow manufacturers or sellers
to dictate standards and procedures
which favour only a particular type of product,
but as members of boards they are valuable.

5... The certification standards are ...keeping us safe

Are they?
Do you really believe that?

1.It increases the cost of our anchors

Absolutely.

2. It stifles development.

No doubt about it.
Standards ALWAYS lag behind technology.
Innovators have always had to swim upstream
against the embedded, vested interests.

3.There is evidence the standards are counterproductive.

Amen, brother!
If we *must* have a certification process,
let it simply certify that the product matches the promises;
that the weight and strength and resistance to applied forces
be what the manufacturer and salespeople claim.
But that, of course, is precisely what is ignored in most certification.
So long as the product fits neatly into the rules of the bureaucrat,
the claims can be a tissue of lies
and no penalties incurred from the governors.

In fact, one of the most counterproductive effects of certification
is that the consumer is lulled into the belief
that she/he can trust the advertising hype of the sellers.
The claims *must* be true, the buyer thinks,
because, look!
This little sticker on the fluke says it's been certified!

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Shas Cho,

Currently the only rule I know that exists for leisure anchors is that you must carry one

Yet they are under no legal obligation to know how to use the thing.
Does this make sense?

I think being required to carry an anchor is good - if meeting that requirement means that a volunteer rescue operator is not called out. So its not only the lives of those who are stupid but the lives of those who try to rescue people (and their children etc).

This, along with the shared costs of socialised medicine,
is the *only* valid justification I can see
for the government (notice the "-ment" *grin* ) taking notice
of the equipment aboard a private vessel.
But the rescuers, who are sanctioned to take risks,
do so voluntarily.
If they don't want to rescue fools, they don't have to.

Being a retired paramedic
who has had numerous opportunities to risk life and limb
to save fools from their own folly,
I might say the same about playing rugby
or smoking cigarettes or eating too much fried food.
We all take risks.
It frustrates me to see people eager to interdict the folly of others
while brooking no interference with their own imprudences.

Sailing is already the safest sport in North America.
Certification is a solution looking for a problem.

There is no suggestion the rules (or tests) would become legal requirements for leisure mariners

Currently, yes.
But the more rules we put in place,
the more they *will* become law.
History makes that abundantly clear.
I see the day coming when part of the CG inspection
will require a stamp certifying that the anchor(s) are certified
for the size and type of vessel
and the use stated on the mandatory sail plan submitted.

I'd rather we paid for something relevant

So would I.
I just doubt that the path to relevancy is bureaucracy.

- Shas

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

I appreciate most of what you've said here,
but I disagree with this.
Why should we prevent
one of the most knowledgeable groups of people
from participating in the process?

Yes its a valid point. It is common for industry to have some appropriate representation on standard and certification committees. Their involvement should be limited, with due consideration of unavoidable commercial bias. The structure and leadership of the committee is paramount in ensuring that the standard, or certification retains its independence. Industry naturally wants the cheapest possible certification process with the lowest standards. Their input should be limited to minor technical, or practicality points not wholesale changes.

For a manufacture to suggest, and have adopted, a complete change in how these tests are conducted is not appropriate in my view. Especially when the change involves using the same equipment and techniques they have used for developing the anchor and is a major departure from how this certification is achieved in other countries.

An anchor that is developed using specific and unique test equipment should not be able to successfully campaign for these same techniques to be used when testing anchors to a standard.

Testing with equipment owned, developed and even leased from a manufacturer when that governs the factors such as the rate of pull, suitable test locations etc is not the independence that standards should achieve.

Frankly I think the SHHP standard is so low none of this detail matters, but perhaps one day we will have some meaningful standards that can be used by sailors to select better anchors. Then the testing process should remove any hint of bias by using their own test equipment and techniques. Striving for some uniformity regarding how the tests are conducted across the world would be helpful when most of us are considering different anchors certified by different organisations.

One danger with any standard is once and the testing procedures are announced manufacturers can design products that will do well in the test without necessarily adopting the most appropriate design or construction. I believe we have seen this this to certain extent with anchor shanks that are very strong for a vertical pull without any consideration for the effect of side load. Using a standard testing procedure that has been developed by a manufacturer to produce a product also risks this same problem.

I don't think these issues of how the standard is implemented should concern the average sailor. The practical effects are minor, or non existent at this stage. An overall significant raising of the holding power requirement and a change to proof loading in a horizontal direction are much more important.

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I think being required to carry an anchor is good - if meeting that requirement means that a volunteer rescue operator is not called out.

Jonathan

May I use another off-topic example
for this on-topic consideration?

Some jurisdictions now "protect" sailors
by requiring them to carry an EPIRB.
This has little effect but to *ensure*
that rescuers will be called
if the mariner gets into difficulty.

Personally, I would never use such a device
unless help was quite near,
apt to be of real assistance,
and unlikely to incur substantial costs or risks.
A personal choice, and so it should be.

Similarly, those absurd "Life Rafts"
that cost obscene amounts of money,
encumber the decks,
and encourage frightened mariners
to abandon their best hope of safety.
But, hey-
they are certified!

I appreciate and have implemented
the advice of experienced sailors
to make my dinghy a secure and familiar vessel
far safer and more effective
than the well-intended fantasies of ignorant legislators.

Not so far off-topic after all, perhaps.

-Shas

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Yes its a valid point. It is common for industry to have some appropriate representation on standard and certification committees. Their involvement should be limited, with due consideration of unavoidable commercial bias. The structure and leadership of the committee is paramount in ensuring that the standard, or certification retains its independence. Industry naturally wants the cheapest possible certification process with the lowest standards. Their input should be limited to minor technical, or practicality points not wholesale changes.

For a manufacture to suggest, and have adopted, a complete change in how these tests are conducted is not appropriate in my view. Especially when the change involves using the same equipment and techniques they have used for developing the anchor and is a major departure from how this certification is achieved in other countries.

An anchor that is developed using specific and unique test equipment should not be able to successfully campaign for these same techniques to be used when testing anchors to a standard.

Testing with equipment owned, developed and even leased from a manufacturer when that governs the factors such as the rate of pull, suitable test locations etc is not the independence that standards should achieve.

Frankly I think the SHHP standard is so low none of this detail matters, but perhaps one day we will have some meaningful standards that can be used by sailors to select better anchors. Then the testing process should remove any hint of bias by using their own test equipment and techniques. Striving for some uniformity regarding how the tests are conducted across the world would be helpful when most of us are considering different anchors certified by different organisations.

One danger with any standard is once and the testing procedures are announced manufacturers can design products that will do well in the test without necessarily adopting the most appropriate design or construction. I believe we have seen this this to certain extent with anchor shanks that are very strong for a vertical pull without any consideration for the effect of side load. Using a standard testing procedure that has been developed by a manufacturer to produce a product also risks this same problem.

I don't think these issues of how the standard is implemented should concern the average sailor. The practical effects are minor, or non existent at this stage. An overall significant raising of the holding power requirement and a change to proof loading in a horizontal direction are much more important.

Noelex,

Please quote an example - where a manufacturer has hijacked a complete and learned committee to his own and biased (in your view) methodology, a methodology unique to him and devised to preferentially show his product (in this case an anchor, or anchors) in good light where those same products have been shown to simply be a charade (only performing with the special methodology).

Jonathan

[noelex 77]

Jonathan I don't agree with your summary of my views. I have not used, nor do I agree with terms like hijacked and charade, but to answer your basic question

The Australian tests for SHHP were not tested using the techniques adopted by the other certification bodies. The test for certification were conducted using a TATS machine. Tidal Anchor Test Skid Machine

The equipment used for testing has an influence on the test results. The speed of pull, application and measurement of load, even the type of rode are governed by the equipment.

Most critically the type of substrate that can be accessed by this testing method is limited. The TATS machine can only be used in shallow water close to shore. Close or within the tidal zone. There also needs to be ready beach access to position the equipment further limiting the choice of substrates.

The TATS machine was developed, designed, and is sold by Anchor Right the same company seeking to have their anchors certified. I believe Rex the CEO is a member of the marine board.

The TATS machine was used in the development of Anchor Right anchors. Presumably an anchor modification that tested well with this equipment was retained while others that did less well were rejected.

If tested with different equipment (a tug boat for example) it is, I believe, reasonable to conclude that the different substrate in deeper water the more erratic load induced by wind and waves would have resulted in a slightly different design of anchor being developed.

Certification involves testing the holding power of the anchor against rival models. The "home ground" advantage seems obvious and unfair.

In addition if a rival anchor company that wanted to develop an anchor that would do well in this test would be forced to purchase the TATS equipment from their opposition company, which does not seem appropriate.

I don't feel this has had any effect on awarding certification. The standard is low, and don't have any doubt that the anchors would have passed the test if it had been conducted differently.

However if want stricter more meaningful standards I think the tests should be conducted using equipment that is not designed and sold by a single anchor manufacturer. It should be tested worldwide, as far as possible, in a similar way so the anchor buying public can have confidence that the ratings mean the same thing.
It should be conducted with equipment (like for example the load cell used) that can be readily obtained by any anchor manufacturer on an equal footing.

You asked how the standard could be improved and these are part of my suggestions, although I feel the holding power numbers and the direction of proof load testing are far more critical to developing a standard that would be meaningful in the real world.

[congo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77
Yes its a valid point. It is common for industry to have some appropriate representation on standard and certification committees. Their involvement should be limited, with due consideration of unavoidable commercial bias.


The structure and leadership of the committee is paramount in ensuring that the standard, or certification retains its independence. Industry naturally wants the cheapest possible certification process with the lowest standards. Their input should be limited to minor technical, or practicality points not wholesale changes.

For a manufacture to suggest, and have adopted, a complete change in how these tests are conducted is not appropriate in my view. Especially when the change involves using the same equipment and techniques they have used for developing the anchor and is a major departure from how this certification is achieved in other countries.

An anchor that is developed using specific and unique test equipment should not be able to successfully campaign for these same techniques to be used when testing anchors to a standard.

Testing with equipment owned, developed and even leased from a manufacturer when that governs the factors such as the rate of pull, suitable test locations etc is not the independence that standards should achieve.

Frankly I think the SHHP standard is so low none of this detail matters, but perhaps one day we will have some meaningful standards that can be used by sailors to select better anchors. Then the testing process should remove any hint of bias by using their own test equipment and techniques. Striving for some uniformity regarding how the tests are conducted across the world would be helpful when most of us are considering different anchors certified by different organisations.

One danger with any standard is once and the testing procedures are announced manufacturers can design products that will do well in the test without necessarily adopting the most appropriate design or construction. I believe we have seen this this to certain extent with anchor shanks that are very strong for a vertical pull without any consideration for the effect of side load. Using a standard testing procedure that has been developed by a manufacturer to produce a product also risks this same problem.

I don't think these issues of how the standard is implemented should concern the average sailor. The practical effects are minor, or non existent at this stage. An overall significant raising of the holding power requirement and a change to proof loading in a horizontal direction are much more important.


Rex wrote:


Well we are back to its all about Anchor Right, surley if you keep this up you may be labled as part of our gang for giving us so much publicity, ther has to be more important topics than Anchor Right.

The shonky anchor Right Gang, N.M.S.C, Robertson, independent survey officers, boat builders, you have named them all, Noelex you are very good at discrediting anything that Anchor Right has had anything to do with.


I suppose next year when we have D.N.V. certification you can throw them in as being part of our gang, your post in all its entirety is rubbish, not worth going through the points that you continuously punish over many threads.


Never mind you had better throw in A.M.S.A. as our anchors have approval from them on boats under survey as well, like I said the Tsunami that hit Phuket , three boats survived on Sarca’s whilst many were washed out to see, many smashed on the rocks, non with the Sarca s moved, one of the boats in the main path of that Tsunami was able to save a life, pull a lady onto their boat and revived here whilst being caught in a vortex, the good old certified Sarca proved its strength , proved its holding power, proved its ability mot to break out.


Would have a non-certified anchor achieved this, we will never know, and really don’t care, just nice to know that we were able to contribute for a good outcome with well-designed and strong anchors achieved by qualifying for certification.

Sorry to annoy you but we have set a new standard for testing anchors worldwide, this new method is now being looked at by other classification societies, when adopted I will be sure to let you know, originated by yours truly Anchor Right Australia, it is catchy.


Meanwhile Mantus has already taken a leaf out of our book by deploying our boom test, this is the only test they do that show the opposition anchors actually working as it is hard to cheat.
Your diving will just have to be the main source of credibility on how anchors perform and the lack of evidence as to how certification doesn’t really matter.


For those that don’t think certification is worth salt your objections are fine as it should be on all forums, the major difference between you and Knoelex is you don’t continually direct you criticism at Anchor Right.


Regards Rex.

[JonJo]

Noelex,

The consultation committee to which Anchor Right was requested to join in order to develop an Australian anchor testing regime consisted of:

A Master Mariner, a qualified Captain.
The Chairman of the Seafood Industries Council
President of the Australian Marina Management
Partner of a major Yacht building company
Associate Professor, Coastal and Ocean Engineering (major and respected Oz University)
Senior Surveyor, NSW Maritime Authority
Marine Surveyor, Marine Safety, Victoria
Senior Surveyor, Dept Planning Infrastucture, Marine Safety, Commercial Vessels, Western Australia
Manager Vessel Standards and Survey, Marine and Safety Tasmania.
CEO Anchor Right
Projects Manager, National Marine Safety Committee

The results of the committee were open to public consultation.

You are telling me the CEO of Anchor Right impressed upon all these people of the excellence of his design even though his design, you suggest, is flawed! Rex Francis - the new Gregory Peck?


The Anchor Right design is a simple modification of a test rig used by Prof John Knox (the outline of which was published in PBO around 15 years ago). Craig Smith said of John Knox that his results were the only true and scientific testing of anchors.


The SARCA anchor was introduced in the early 1990's, only about 15 years before the TATs machine. The first protoype Excel was introduced in around 2006 at the same time as TATs was introduced. Yet you say Anchor Right product were developed using the TATs machine (sorry John Knox ideas - ideas endorsed by the makers of the Rocna).


I have said it before - 1,000's of Australian boat owners rely on their SARCA's and many (again 1,000s) yachtmen rely on their Excels and they seem to think - and recall they not only have seen them they actually use them - they work, in fact their experiences all generally endorse the product (and the results of the TATs machine). Oddly despite your constant barracking of Anchor Right they are a company that survives and appears to be going from strength to strength (new factory, more employees at a time when the marine industry is looking over its shoulder) - odd for a product you seem to enjoy criticising? The products are sold in Australia and are selling well in New Zealand, according to Chains, Ropes and Anchors in Auckland, and sales have been made in Europe and America - you saw a couple recently. I have seen them in the UK (on bow rollers).

I have tested the Excel and SARCA and I cannot fault their holding capacity - in fact I use an Excel regularly, would not be without it. There are other good anchors, Fortress, Spade, Ultra (some of which I also would not be without) etc - and an Excel is as good (might be better might be worse, in some minds - but you certainly will not tell by looking at a picture). You have never seen the TATs machine in operation, you have never tested a series of anchors in different seabeds and produced quantitative results, you have never used an Excel (possibly never actually seen one - except for the one you counted a week or so ago).

Now please explain your agenda.

The products have stood the test of time.

The machine is simply a modification of a technique used by John Knox, a technique endorsed by The Smiths. I suspect the technique is used by other anchor makers (Manson said they had something similar).

The machine has been endorsed by people, respected across a spectrum of the marine 'population', who have seen the machine in action and who have a responsibility for use, testing and approval of anchors. You think you know better than 12 just men?

The machine is a cheap way of sorting out the good from the bad. No-one says its perfect but its cheaper than a tug boat and if we needed to rely on tug boats - where would we be now?


Why this incessant, personal vendetta against Anchor Right - your motives look very questionable - which is making many of your other comments look equally questionable.

I noted when the Mantus debate was in full flight you were noticeable by your absence of criticism.

Excuse me if I think you might have questionable motives and that you are insulting the integrity of the individuals who sat on that committee.

Jonathan

[congo]

Noelex as to the Tats, your second Anchor Right post in one night, firstly testing of anchors via a tug has many variables as one can imagine, to name a few.

Not knowing the consistency of the terrain you are testing in, throttle speed, the smallest tweak will give you a higher or lower reading, wave height, wind conditions.

TATS see our web site for confirmation, accurately quantifying the type of terrain, being able to walk in the water watching every move of an anchors behaviours, accurately measuring the distance to orientate and then set, and most important all anchors are pulled at the same speed every time, the list goes on, it’s called evolution regardless of whom designed it.

In this case it was Anchor Right Australia, your claim on load sells is another rubbish, all load cells during proof testing are owned by Robertson, as to the type of equipment they test a calibration certificate must be present at all times for inspection of when last calibrated by the load cell testers and signed off.

Same as field testing, if you think you can just purchase a load sell and test you again are way of the mark, Robertson require a certificate of calibration from us on each week of testing, all test anchors, load cell were kept by Robertson under lock and key for a period of three months or more until all testing was complete.

You simply have no idea when it comes to just what the incredible TATS offers, further I don’t know why you care as certification is mean less in your eyes so why keep beating the drum.

Any way we are extremely proud of our achievements and good to see Mantus using one of our methods.

Regards Rex.