Photos of Anchors Setting

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Factor

Anyway, question for Noelex, Is the the toe sharpened in any way?

If you are asking if Mantus have sent me a modified anchor that has been especially sharpened so that it tested better than a standard anchor, I don't think so.

This is a photo of the tip of my anchor taken before it was used. It does not look any different to me than photos I have seen of other Mantus anchors:

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Coops

I think it stirs up the sour grapes.

Coops.

Uncalled for, with or without smiley. I have no sour grapes at all, why would I - I don't sell anchors. This is a great thread and congrats to noelex for it. I do have some questions, though and I do think that one mans experience does not a statistically valid analysis make, but its a great start. I just wish the anchorages round here were as crystal clear as those in the med.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

If you are asking if Mantus have sent me a modified anchor that has been especially sharpened so that it tested better than a standard anchor, I don't think so.

This is a photo of the tip of my anchor taken before it was used. It does not look any different to me than photos I have seen of other Mantus anchors:

Thanks

I am not suggesting they sent a modified anchor, but one company did do that to me - so it was worth checking. All I am trying to do is remove variables and identify why some sugar scoop anchors are better than others, It appears that, not surprisingly, a large surface area, flatter, sharper anchor is better than smaller surface area, blunter, less curved anchor.

BTW - any chance of trying it without the roll bar? Greg from Mantus suggests that it should work fine, if it did, it would open up its market to a lot more boats.

[Fortress]

Gents,

I have been following this thread with great interest and regrettably we did not have underwater cameras during the 4 days of testing we just completed in the Chesapeake Bay, although with the murkiness of the water, I don't think we could have seen much.

While most anchors will perform dependably in harder soils, we found that anchor setting and holding capabilities are dramatically different in a soft mud bottom, and anchors that are designed and optimized for harder soils will have a consistent holding ratio (holding power divided by weight) of 10-15, with possible peaks to 20, and that is all in soft mud.

For example, a 45 lb anchor might be able to achieve a holding power of 5,000 - 6,000 lbs in a firm bottom such as hard sand, similar to some of the images on this thread, but in soft mud this anchor might only achieve 450 - 700 lbs.

According to the ABYC horizontal loads table (image below), this might be enough to hold only a 25-30 foot boat in up to 30 knots of wind, or up to a 70 foot boat in a 15 knot wind when anchored in soft mud.

Safe anchoring,
Brian

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

It would be interesting to hear more of Your impressions how two designs compare?
My present impression is they are on par regarding performance, with Mantus having an edge as being possible to dismantle and stow in pieces, and Rocna having an edge as being smaller for the given weight and so less cumbersome on the bow

Hi Tomasz
I will start a new thread in the near future about my overall thoughts on these two designs. I would like to see the Mantus in a few slightly different substrates before reaching any conclusions.

My impression so far is that like the Rocna, the Mantus is a fantastic anchor and I don't think anyone can go wrong buying either of them. However, I think the Mantus is just a little bit better - it sets a fraction quicker and is just a little more roll stable in response to a change in wind direction, but I stress the differences are small.

The one area where I think there may be a significant difference in performance is at short scope. The Rocna is very good on a very short scope, but the Mantus seems exceptionally good. It will take more trials to try and quantify the magnitude of improvement, but my confidence in the short scope performance of the Mantus has already proved useful on occasions.

The only drawback of the Mantus compared to the Rocna is that it is wider and taller with a longer and slightly bigger blade area. Therefore, there will be boats that cannot fit the Mantus, but can just squeeze a Rocna in.

[noelex 77]

Next a claw.

This was dropped by a large (80 foot?) powerboat that Med-moored. They dropped a lot of chain (100m), and the anchor was in quite deep water (13m) even though their stern was tied to a rock.

Unfortunately, they missed the patches of sand that are scattered thought the anchorage and dropped on lightish weed.

The claw did not cope with this very well. As you can see it is lying totally on its side unset. It had dragged about 10m at this stage. They were gradually dragging all night pulling in a few metres of chain every couple of hours. In the morning they picked up the anchor and re-dropped tying back to the same rock.

[kas_1611]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Unfortunately, they missed the patches of sand that are scattered thought the anchorage and dropped on lightish weed.

The claw did not cope with this very well. As you can see it is lying totally on its side unset. It had dragged about 10m at this stage. They were gradually dragging all night pulling in a few metres of chain every couple of hours. In the morning they picked up the anchor and re-dropped tying back to the same rock.

I'd call that upside down personally Not surprised this type of anchor does not like even light weed. The original Bruce anchor was designed to hold floating oil rigs in the North Sea, actually on the Bruce field, hence the name, in what is generally a soft substrate. I've actually been on a rig with 8 of these in 1600m of water, now that's a lot of rode!!!

Keiron

[colemj]

Originally Posted by kas_1611

The original Bruce anchor was designed to hold floating oil rigs in the North Sea, actually on the Bruce field, hence the name,

Are you sure the name wasn't an attribute to its designer Peter Bruce?

Mark

[SVNeko]

Noelex, put a bit of chain on the end of that spare rode.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[noelex 77]

Time for a quiz.

1. What anchor is this?
2. As you can see from the second photo It is dragging rapidly in only 15 knots of breeze. Why?

The first correct answer gets a week's detox at their local anchorholics facility .

[cagney]

1. It looks like a Kobra
2 The schank has not been fixed in the correct position.

Looking forward to the detox....


/Thomas

[kas_1611]

Originally Posted by colemj

Are you sure the name wasn't an attribute to its designer Peter Bruce?

Mark

Mark,

You are indeed correct so perhaps it was pure coincidence that they were used on the Bruce Field in the UK.

Keiron

[monte]

Kobra without the bolt

[kas_1611]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Time for a quiz.

1. What anchor is this?
2. As you can see from the second photo It is dragging rapidly in only 15 knots of breeze. Why?

The first correct answer gets a week's detox at their local anchorholics facility .

1) As it looks kind of like a Delta I'd say a copy or as Cagney stated it is a Kobra

2) As it looks like it landed upside down that certainly wouldn't help the setting. Have they used the "lob it all over the side then reverse at high speed" technique?

If an anchorholic goes to detox do they "dry out"?

Keiron

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by cagney

1. It looks like a Kobra
2 The schank has not been fixed in the correct position.

Originally Posted by monte

Kobra without the bolt

You guys are too good

The skipper was on his third drop and still had not realised. My Mermaid set him straight.