Ultra Anchor Review

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Interesting thanks for the report.

The new generation anchors are much better than the old, but one area they do not seem to improved upon is performance on a very short scope.

The old generation Bruce (as long as is is large) I would still rate as perhaps the best anchor if you must anchor at a very short scope.
It seems the Ulra may offer some significant improvement in this regard.

With my own Rocna I do occasional anchor at very short scopes say 2:1, or less but the anchor does not set well, or at all. I can get it to hold full reverse on occasions, (meaning its probably OK to around 30k ) but when diving the anchors set is pretty appalling. Most of the holding is due to large size. I expect a similarly sized old generation anchor would do as well. A Bruce probably better.

I useful technique is to set the anchor on a larger scope and then shorten it. Once set and buried it will hold on a short scope much better, but this is not always possible. If the Ultra is an anchor that sets well on a short scope it would be significant improvement.

Keep in mind that you need less scope in deep water.

Nevertheless, I don't think I've ever anchored at less than 3:1, and that was in calm conditions and water which was nearly 30 meters deep at high tide.

I generally try not to go below 5:1, and if I have swinging room, I don't mind putting out 8:1. Scope is your friend if you don't want to drag (but scope is no substitute for properly setting your anchor).

[Kenomac]

We've just completed our first full cruising season lasting four months using the 45kg Ultra anchor with Ultra swivel and 12mm chain. No complaints, we don't even bother to do nighttime anchor checks any more.... never had that sort of confidence with the Rocna, but maybe my confidence is the result of diving/snorkeling the anchor more often to see what's down there here in the Med. We used an oversized Rocna and Danforth on our last boat and also used a 75lb CQR on this boat prior to the Ultra switch.

An interesting note:
Mr. Dockhead couldn't get his 100 lb Spade to hold one evening in St. Peterport where I was anchored at the same time, same place using a 75lb CQR. Sometimes this anchor science just doesn't make sense.

The Ultra anchor exceeds all our expectations and excels over all the other anchors we've tried including Fortress 55, but in all fairness to Fortress, it's intended for a different use, kedging. I was very pleased with the Rocna until discovering the Ultra which does much, much better in weed/eel grass. It digs itself in slowly by simply allowing the wind or current do the work for 30 minutes, then can be dug in all the way by bringing the throttle up to around 1800rpm. If one tries to dig the anchor in too quickly into a grassy bottom, it'll just pull out like any other anchor, been there, done that. The Ultra just never seems to come up with a ball of bottom like the Rocna did.

One time anchoring off a beach just outside of the surf line, I misjudged the forward speed of the boat, and thought we'd already come to a full stop. Lowered the Ultra using the windlass brake release.... I couldn't believe how fast our 25 ton boat swung a 180 degree turn & stopped dead. We're normally very careful setting the anchor, that was a slip up I'll never forget.

Sorry about the large font, I can't get it to switch back to normal size.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

We've just completed our first full cruising season lasting four months using the 45kg Ultra anchor with Ultra swivel and 12mm chain. No complaints, we don't even bother to do nighttime anchor checks any more.... never had that sort of confidence with the Rocna, but maybe my confidence is the result of diving/snorkeling the anchor more often to see what's down there here in the Med. We used an oversized Rocna and Danforth on our last boat and also used a 75lb CQR on this boat prior to the Ultra switch.

An interesting note:
Mr. Dockhead couldn't get his 100 lb Spade to hold one evening in St. Peterport where I was anchored at the same time, same place using a 75lb CQR. Sometimes this anchor science just doesn't make sense.

The Ultra anchor exceeds all our expectations and excels over all the other anchors we've tried including Fortress 55, but in all fairness to Fortress, it's intended for a different use, kedging. I was very pleased with the Rocna until discovering the Ultra which does much, much better in weed/eel grass. It digs itself in slowly by simply allowing the wind or current do the work for 30 minutes, then can be dug in all the way by bringing the throttle up to around 1800rpm. If one tries to dig the anchor in too quickly into a grassy bottom, it'll just pull out like any other anchor, been there, done that. The Ultra just never seems to come up with a ball of bottom like the Rocna did.

One time anchoring off a beach just outside of the surf line, I misjudged the forward speed of the boat, and thought we'd already come to a full stop. Lowered the Ultra using the windlass brake release.... I couldn't believe how fast our 25 ton boat swung a 180 degree turn & stopped dead. We're normally very careful setting the anchor, that was a slip up I'll never forget.

Sorry about the large font, I can't get it to switch back to normal size.

No need to shout, Kenomac...

I did an experiment last weekend while crabbing. 15 - 18 knots, 49 feet from the bow roller to the seabed, and we held without budging on our Ultra with 61 feet out. Wouldn't want to go to sleep with 1.25 scope, but I thought it was interesting that we stayed put. Delfin has a fair amount of windage with the crow's nest and mast, so I was pretty impressed.

[noelex 77]

I get to see dozens of anchors underwater every week. So I don't usually base my anchor posts on a just few performances.
However, I think the Ultra anchor is an exciting new option.With its Spade like features that have not been copied by any other anchor manufacturer, presumably due to patient restrictions.

The Steel Spade is an excellent performer, but we have seen that sometimes anchors with similar features can perform very differently.
The Ultra anchor is an expensive option and it would nice to aqumulate as much independent data as possible.

However I stress this only one data point. It is the first Ultra anchor I have seen underwater.

Conditions are medium hard sand with a very light covering of weed. The boat in question dropped directly in front of me (I came into this poorly charted anchorage last night and so dropped in reasonably deep water (17m).
The drop was well executed, good scope, but with only a moderate amount of reverse pull.

Verdict:
The anchor did a good job in a difficult substrate. It was acceptably set, with a mild list. It has set within a few inches and considering the moderate reverse applied it had done a very good job. Giving every indication it would have buried very well with a more force.
It is one very limited data point, but still an impressive performance.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Delfin

We replaced an 80 kg Claw with the same weight Ultra and have been cruising with it for a few months. All of what follows is purely anecdotal, but may be of interest to some.

To get a sense of whether this design was superior in this weight to the Claw, we've been anchoring at 2:1 scope, which would have been insufficient with the Claw. 2:1 scope falls under the 'don't try this at home, kids' arena, but with a relatively heavy anchor it's not much of a problem unless it really starts blowing. We have experienced no dragging with the Ultra in winds up to around 20 knots.

At 3:1, the anchor seems to bury deeply. It now has scratches on the top of the shank, which could only get there if the shank is under the sea bed during tidal and wind shifts. Since we have 9 foot tides routinely, such shifts involve a fair amount of current, so resetting capability is important.

The biggest difference between the Ultra and the Claw is felt on retrieval. We have a 4,000# hydraulic windlass, and to retrieve the Claw, we just hauled in on the chain to tension it, pause, repeat and the anchor comes free. Not so much with the Ultra. We now have to motor over the top of the Ultra to retrieve it, and as it is brought in you can see by the way the chain jerks around that it is pulling a buried anchor out of the seabed. Seabeds have been sand and gravel, muck, grass, etc.

Based on this limited data set, I am pretty impressed with this design. I have a very hard time seeing this hook drag if there is anything for it to dig into.

Heavy anchors will always perform differently than light ones of the same weight. This seems especially so for Bruce types, which are only adequate holders (in my experience) in lighter weights, but really good in heavier sizes. As much as I liked my Claw, this Ultra is a demonstrable improvement. I can't compare it to a Rocna or Manson because I don't have any experience with those, but as a digging anchor, the Ultra should always outperform an anchor with a hoop, which has to limit burying to some degree.

Thanks for the report, and I'm glad you like your choice. I don't know how applicable it is, however, because if 5% of the readers here had an 80Kg anchor, I would be quite surprised.

I concur about the Bruces, of which I have a 15 kg. one as a "lunch hook" for my 16 tonne steel 41-footer. It has limitations, but if you know them, you're fine. Clearly, oil rigs still find them perfectly adequate.

I would also ask why you would ever haul in on the chain (implying you are winching in the boat to the anchor) for the Claw, as opposed to simply motoring up to the float, or the approximate position of the anchor at 1:1, and then just reel in the slack chain. I only have a Lofrans Tigre, but even in calm conditions, I would never want to (short of an emergency) wish to tax it with anything other than the weight of slack chain, or slack chain plus anchor broken out by the inertia of my boat, not the pull off the windlass.

Or did I misunderstand?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Thanks for the report, and I'm glad you like your choice. I don't know how applicable it is, however, because if 5% of the readers here had an 80Kg anchor, I would be quite surprised.

I concur about the Bruces, of which I have a 15 kg. one as a "lunch hook" for my 16 tonne steel 41-footer. It has limitations, but if you know them, you're fine. Clearly, oil rigs still find them perfectly adequate.

I would also ask why you would ever haul in on the chain (implying you are winching in the boat to the anchor) for the Claw, as opposed to simply motoring up to the float, or the approximate position of the anchor at 1:1, and then just reel in the slack chain. I only have a Lofrans Tigre, but even in calm conditions, I would never want to (short of an emergency) wish to tax it with anything other than the weight of slack chain, or slack chain plus anchor broken out by the inertia of my boat, not the pull off the windlass.

Or did I misunderstand?

No, you didn't misunderstand. The windlass is hydraulic and fairly heavy, but when I say tension the chain, I just mean hauling in what is lying on the seabed. You wait a minute, then induced catenary will also then be lying on the ground, so you reel that in. A couple of repeats, and you're over the anchor, so it never really puts much of a load on the windlass. Or so I think..... The other element in play is that I use a hydraulic high pressure washdown on the chain as it comes in. As a result, a pause in the process to let the boat sidle up to the anchor gives me a chance to rest my chicken arms which get tired holding the wand in one hand.

And you're right. 176# is heavy enough that it could probably be an engine block and it would work well, so my experience may not be applicable to different weights.

[barnakiel]

Which makes me think if anchors that bury deep are good in bottoms that have bed rock.

b.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Which makes me think if anchors that bury deep are good in bottoms that have bed rock.

b.

I guess I'm not sure why not. If all you've got is rock, nothing is going to work, although heavier is better. If there is some seabed over rock, better to have all of it over the anchor than under the anchor. But maybe I misunderstand you...

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I guess I'm not sure why not. If all you've got is rock, nothing is going to work, although heavier is better. If there is some seabed over rock, better to have all of it over the anchor than under the anchor. But maybe I misunderstand you...

What I wanted to say was that some anchorages have say a foot of loose material (sand, shells, small stones, etc.) over a hard bed (volcanic or coral). Maybe in such bottoms, an anchor that digs in very deep is a disadvantage.

Unfortunately, this kind of bottom is quite common in the Pacific (coral lagoons) as well as in dry volcanic islands (e.g. Canary Islands, Cabo Verde, etc.).

Just thinking aloud.

b.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

What I wanted to say was that some anchorages have say a foot of loose material (sand, shells, small stones, etc.) over a hard bed (volcanic or coral). Maybe in such bottoms, an anchor that digs in very deep is a disadvantage.

Unfortunately, this kind of bottom is quite common in the Pacific (coral lagoons) as well as in dry volcanic islands (e.g. Canary Islands, Cabo Verde, etc.).

Just thinking aloud.

b.

So what's your answer? Drop a 600 pound engine block?

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

So what's your answer? Drop a 600 pound engine block?

Sure would be best. But when not viable, perhaps an anchor that accumulates plenty of material rather than digs deep could do.

I know some copies of Danforth (Fortress?) have adjustable flukes angle - perhaps not a bad thing in difficult bottoms.

b.

[noelex 77]

Rock with a thin covering of sand is one of the most frustrating bottom types.

The anchor can hold on the thin sand layer in full reverse, but if the wind force gets over this level (about 25-30 knots for most sailboats) the anchor cannot burry any deeper and the anchor drags.
Really the only guide is to dive on the anchor and even then you can sometimes be fooled if the sand is uniform.

The wider fluke angle of the Fortress would not help. This is only good for very soft bottoms.

The best solution seems to be be an anchor with a large fluke area, such as most of new generation anchors (as oversized as possible) or a fisherman type anchor which won't hold on the thin layer of sand but can hopefully gain some purchase in a fissure in the underlying rock.

The results are unpredictable so be wary of leaving the boat and set an anchor alarm.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

An interesting note:
Mr. Dockhead couldn't get his 100 lb Spade to hold one evening in St. Peterport where I was anchored at the same time, same place using a 75lb CQR. Sometimes this anchor science just doesn't make sense.

Yes, it's true! I was there!

I think it's important to keep in mind that no anchor is infallible, and a good anchor is no substitute, in any case, for good anchoring technique. To reduce the risks of anchoring problems, you need to be strong in every area: good anchoring spot selection, good shelter, good anchor, big anchor, enough/right chain, proper snubber, good technique, diligence in getting the anchor properly set and being able to determine that it is (I really admire Noelex's anchor-diving), then decent anchor alarm/anchor watch.

The thing about anchoring -- I was discussing this with Pete7 last weekend -- is that 90% of the time, for most cruisers, you don't actually need any of this -- you are being held just by your chain just lying on the seabed. So you might not actually know what are the deficiencies in your anchoring, until it's too late. So I think it really pays to be really systematic and do it properly every single time, even when the forecast is a dead calm. My father laughs at me for digging in the anchor long and hard in calm conditions.

One of the things I like about my present Spade is that it more often digs in first time than any other anchor I've used, including the previous 121 pound Rocna. But it doesn't always, and sometimes there is no logical explanation for it, like that time last year I just couldn't anchor next to Kenomac no matter what I tried. That was really an adventure-packed day; the story is here: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ain-86277.html. I regret that we didn't know Kenomac at the time.

[Mantus Anchors]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Thanks for the report.

There is not a lot of information on this anchor and it looks a very promising design.

Coincidently I saw my first Ultra anchor only 10min ago. Unfortunately the boat could not get it to set well enough to hold moderate reverse and left. I will go for a dive later and look at its drag marks.

The anchorage has hard sand and I have only seen 1 anchor (out of about 40) that have set well here. The rest have been 2 ok sets 18 poor sets and the balance unset.

Their anchoring technique was not great and this probably had some influence. One example does not mean much, but I offer it because there are not a lot of independent information on this anchor. I will report when I see some more hopefully underwater next time.

Noelex can you u tell me where this is and we will send you a Mantus
and you give it a shot.... than tell the crowd.... what do you think...
Greg

[noelex 77]

Thanks Greg
That sounds like a great offer. I am planning to get an underwater camera shortly, so I hope to take lots of stills and videos of anchors when they are setting, rotating around to new positions etc and it would be great to see how the Mantus performs.
I will PM you and see what we can arrange.