Mantus M1 vs M2

[TiPegleg]

I recently was recommended the Mantus M2 over the M1 because I have s bow roller/sprit. The reason being that the M1's roll bar would get in the way of the sprit but the current anchor is a Buegel 65 with a roll bar so I imagine both would work. Picture of my anchoring set up included.

Here's my question: does anyone have first hand experience of the M2? Even better have you used an M2 and an M1? I'd be looking at the 85lb model.

I have to confess, and this is as non-technical as it gets, that I like the look of the M1 better than the M2 but at the end of the day, I want what works the best.

[Muaddib1116]

Cool boat. Is that the Dinieper that was for sale in the Caribbean a couple years ago? I remember it looked really nice.



The rollbar on the Bugel is much smaller than on a corresponding Manuts M1, so I wouldn't count on it fitting just because your Bugel does. I don't have personal experience with the M1 or M2, but the M2, along with a number of other non-rollbar anchors have been shown to be very good designs. I've personally used the Sarca Excel and Rocna Vulcan, both are excellent. Based on testing done by Steve of SVPanope, I think the M2 should perform very well also. Personally, I think the non-rollbar designs show competitive performance to rollbar designs, they get rid of a couple risk avenues, and they look better.

[shrspeedblade]

SV Panope on youtube. He has tested both (and many others) extensively.

[ItDepends]

I have an 105lb M1, and it works way better than the 88lb Rocna it replaced. And that Rocna worked much better than the Bügel it replaced.

Either of the Mantus anchors will work better than the Bügel. Pick the one that fits best.

[hugosalt]

Originally Posted by TiPegleg

I have to confess, and this is as non-technical as it gets, that I like the look of the M1 better than the M2 but at the end of the day, I want what works the best.

Since we are talking non-technical. fwiw...
Been using my M1 for years without the roll bar cruising in my home waters.
Spoke to Greg at Mantus years ago and although he was measured he did not object as I anchor mostly in sand and mud. I attach bar when bottom rock/grass.
Think Steve from Panope indicated about 50% of anchor weight in tip.
Has never failed to set and hold in winds up to 50 kts.

[Lodesman]

Print the template and see if it will fit. https://www.mantusmarine.com/mantus-anchors/

[noelex 77]

The Mantus M1 is a brilliant anchor, unfortunately I have not seen enough of the M2 to form a worthwhile opinion so cannot answer your question directly.

However, I think looking at the photo of your bow that an M1 should fit without any problems. The M1 has a much larger rollbar than the Bugel or Rocna anchor. The rollbar of the M1 should comfortably fit outside your bowsprit without interference. I would make a scrap wood or cardboard template to check before purchase.

The difference in size between the Mantus M1 and other rollbar anchors is not readily apparent from most photographs, so I took this snapshot to illustrate the difference. In this photo I have balanced my Mantus M1 rollbar on my almost identical weight Rocna anchor:

[GRIT]

Excellent photo for comparison Noelex 77!

Cheers.
Paul.

[Panope]

I've done some testing with both M1 (12lb, 17lb, 43lb, and 55lb,) and M2 (17lb and 45lb) anchors. Here are some of my findings and thoughts:

HOLDING POWER:

While the M2 records some of the highest holding numbers of any "non pivoting fluke" anchor in the seabeds that contain at least some SAND, the anchor has fairly low holding performance in the seabeds of sand free, softer mud.

The M1, on the other hand, has some of the best holding numbers (again, for "non pivoting fluke" anchors) in the softer muds, but has sort of "middle of the pack" numbers in the seabeds containing sand.

Notice in the following graph that the softer mud seabeds ("Soft Mud", "Sucia Island") have much lower overall holding potential for all anchors. One could argue that it would be wise to select an anchor that "does the best - in the worst seabeds". By this measure, the M1 clearly wins over the M2.



Be advised that I have "only" tested in 7 unique seabeds, all in the PNW. I feel that a comprehensive analysis should include many more seabeds from various parts of the world. By all means, supplement my findings with other peoples comparison testing of the M1 and M2 anchors (if they exist).

STRENGTH

Although I have not conducted much laboratory stress testing, I have bent 6 different anchors in the course of my normal, in-water testing.

The M1 (17lb) suffered a bent rollbar during a straight line pull in the "soft mud" seabed.

The M2 has not had any deformations.

CORROSION

Like all anchors with holes at the bottom of the their HOLLOW rollbars, mud will be compacted into the rollbar of the M1. Even after just one test, I will spend many minutes of direct, high pressure water spraying to remove this mud. If the mud is allowed to harden like concrete, it can be almost impossible to remove (don't ask how I know). Unless a thorough cleaning occurs regularly, this mud will retain some moisture and will almost certainly increase the rate of corrosion of the rollbar - from the inside > out.

While the M2 does not have hollow structures, the fluke does have a slot that the shank fits (loosely) into. The resulting gap between the fluke and shank can trap some seabed material that, if not cleaned, may increase the rate of corrosion in that area. So far, I have been able to clean this by spraying, but if anything became encrusted, removing the shank (one bolt) would allow complete cleaning.

Note: I believe that the longest lasting anchors (from a corrosion point of view) will have NO holes, laps, gaps, or hollow spaces that may trap seabed. A genuine Bruce is an example of what I call a "forever anchor".

TIP WEIGHT/PENETRATING ABILITY

Both the M1 and M2 have very high tip weights and present their tips to the seabed at similar, angles. That said, the M1 tip weight is higher and will likely penetrate extremely hard seabeds a bit better than the M2 (Note: I have not yet found this type of test seabed).

RESETTING

I have conducted extensive, 180 degree reset testing in a "sandy mud" seabed. While the M1 does re-engage the seabed after direction changes, setting quality diminishes due to some seabed clinging to the fluke of the anchor. The M2 on the other hand, was better able to re-engage AND repeat its excellent holding in this SANDY MUD seabed.

However, in a softer mud seabed (Sucia Island), the M1 out outperformed the M2 at (straight line) resetting: The M1 was able to re-engage while the M2 was hopelessly fouled and failed to re-set. See pic:

M2 on it's side, dragging with a mud fouled fluke.


In the future I will conduct much more thorough re-set testing in softer muds. However, a pattern has already become very clear: Rollbar anchors (M1, Viking, Rocna) are all around better than non-rollbar (fixed fluke) anchors in soft mud.

ROLLBAR REMOVED

Some folks have solved M1 fitment problems by removing the rollbar. I have tested the performance of the M1 and similar Viking anchors without their rollbars and found that the anchors can be landed on the seafloor in the upright position with a high degree of success. After which, they will penetrate and engage normally.

However, both anchors had lower holding power (than with rollbars installed) but even more disturbing was a tendency for the anchors to roll-out, sometimes INVERTED with little to no chance of re-setting.

M1 anchor without rollbar - 100% inverted after a straight line rollout. No re-set


One last thought. Because of the very tall shank of the M2, the anchor will remain somewhat "wobbly" in the bow roller even when snugged up tightly with a strong windlass. On the other hand, the geometry of the M1 shank results in an anchor that stows in the bow roller much more solidly.

I hope this helps with your decision.

Steve

[goboatingnow]

I have a delta , whilst not as ultimately as good as a rocna , I find the roll bars are spectacularly good at snagging other chains if they are crossed which happens a lot here in Greece whereas my delta often slides of the other chain

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Panope

Notice in the following graph that the softer mud seabeds ("Soft Mud", "Sucia Island") have much lower overall holding potential for all anchors. One could argue that it would be wise to select an anchor that "does the best - in the worst seabeds".

That's what I do. My main focus is soft mud and weed.

[Madehn]

Mantus with rollbar should fit just fine Attached is pic of mine on similar bow.

[Madehn]

Another shot from the side.

[zboss]

We have cruised with our M2 for the last two years. Our real world experience with the anchor tracks very closely to Panope's tests. We have had Spade, Delta, Bruce, and Fortress. However, we have been able to get the anchor to work much better in soft mud by letting it soak for a period (so it gets down to harder mud) after applying just enough backdown to straighten the whole anchoring system out in the bottom and properly right the anchor.

We carry several Fortresses in different sizes and for certain situations (mud with higher winds or waves) the fortress is better than the M2 but we have only had to break out the fortress a handful of times from Long Island Sound to the Bahamas.

[TiPegleg]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

Cool boat. Is that the Dinieper that was for sale in the Caribbean a couple years ago? I remember it looked really nice.

Thanks! I believe so, I bought her down in Florida after the previous owner solo sailed her for about a year all over the Caribbean including from Antigua to South Florida. Currently refitting and happy she survived Hurricane Ian, we were at the absolute center of the eye at one point...

Thanks for the info on the anchors.