"Gordon" wrote in message
...
Manson Supreme
The 35-pound Manson Supreme was certainly an unusual-looking entrant. It
has a broad single fluke that was among the sharpest of the bunch,
combined with a rigid shank and a roll bar. The shank is equipped with
both a fixed-shackle attachment and a channel that allows a shackle to
slide, reportedly making for easier retrieval. Manufactured in New
Zealand, the Manson proves the Kiwis know anchors, as it set quickly each
time and held to a maximum of 5,332 pounds, releasing and dragging only
once.
Quoted from West test

Rocna
The Rocna was designed and manufactured in New Zealand. The 33-pounder
looks similar to the Manson, with a roll bar and sharp fluke, but lacks a
channel in its shank for an alternate rode attachment. The anchor tended
to drag at first but finally set each time and held once to 5,000 pounds.
Quoted from West test

Rocna 20kg (44#) $638 at Port Supply
Manson Supreme 45# $445 at Port Supply
Read the two paragraphs carefully and just based on this, which would
you buy?
Gordon

Further up this thread you probably saw my post about Rocna's selective use
of performance criteria to show that 'their anchor is the best'. You
probably also saw Craig's reply, defending his selection of criteria. You
probably also noted that he made some quotes from reports (less
comprehensive than yours above), specifically omitting to mention anything
about the Manson Supreme.

I maintain that there is very little to choose between the various modern
designs - they all perform well, very much better than older designs. I
admire Rocna's PR effort, but I do not like their sly slagging off of
'copies' (who copied whom, I wonder?), their selective quotes, and their
re-arrangment of the magazine's graphs in a way that misleads the public to
believe that the publications concerned in the tests concluded that 'tests
prove Rocna is the best'. None of the magazines made such a conclusion, as
you've clearly pointed out.

They obviously have a big chip on their shoulder about Manson. Their
problem. --
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

Bruce in Bangkok wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:43:07 -0600, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:43:23 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

.... for anyone looking for the Manson,
http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/grou...on.asp#supreme


The Azure URL (above) notes:
"The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so."

Brian Whatcott Altus OK


Not to start an argument but where did you find that information?
...
Bruce-in-Bangkok

My note read like this, Bruce:
"The Azure URL (above) notes [ it ]"

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Yes, I saw that and posted a follow-up message that doesn't seem to
have appeared, as follows:

I have been looking for that kind of data all over the Net. Even
e-mailed Lloyd's but no answer.

(hit return too quickly)

I did look at the URL, above, and in one place it states that the
anchor has received Lloyd's certificate but in another place it says
that the test is being conducted.

First statement
The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so.

Second statement
The anchor is currently being surveyed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and will be certified as a Super High Holding Power Anchor, the first
production anchor in the world to receive this status & certification.

Thus my question.

Bruce-in-Bangkok

I find it interesting that I received an e-mail from Ned Wood, who works
for Manson Anchors, stating in part that:

"I have been watching the comments made about the Manson Supreme." and

"I would suggest not believing everything that the Rocna Salesman writes
online..." and

"Lastly, we never really want to get involved in the online mudslinging
that has become rife in these chat rooms...".

I certainly can appreciate the later comment, but it certainly would be
nice if they would answer some of the questions that people have. It
doesn't need to devolve into mud-slinging, but it would be nice to get
answers from someone who knows the product.

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

In article ,
wrote:

Are the sub-contractors qualified to an approved quality assurance standard?
Do they have an approved inspection and test plan? Who does the quality
control during fabrication?
What method is used to inspect the welding and the purchased steel? It is
not uncommon to see burned through welds and treated steel that exceeds
hardness specifications (Rockwell or Vickers scale)

Same questions for inhouse production.

Modern quality assurance does rely on producing quality, not testing it
in afterwards.

Anyway - just my thoughts (I have managed precision heavy machinery
fabrication and know have seen different setups - heavy QC and still
difficulties, qualified people with good results but less QC).
Some of the best products we had built were by subcontractors knowing
their business very well.
In doubt I favour welders who are used to producing high quality work,
wherever they are. And make sure they are well paid and proud of their
work.

Marc

PS: Testing of the anchors for mechanical stability can be done, but it
requires quite an effort (both machinery and money).

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
http://www.heusser.com

"Marc Heusser" d wrote in
message ...
In article ,
wrote:

Are the sub-contractors qualified to an approved quality assurance
standard?
Do they have an approved inspection and test plan? Who does the quality
control during fabrication?
What method is used to inspect the welding and the purchased steel? It
is
not uncommon to see burned through welds and treated steel that exceeds
hardness specifications (Rockwell or Vickers scale)

Same questions for inhouse production.

Modern quality assurance does rely on producing quality, not testing it
in afterwards.

As you have stated Quality Assurance is intented for Manuals to follow.
Quality Control is the physical control of a product as the inspection and
test plan. Quality control of welding is something else. Surface cracks
are detected by using liquide penetrant or magnaflux. To measure the depth
of a crack or burned trought you need a destructive test.
X rays will not tell you exactly the magnetute of the welding defect. At
the end of the day no Quality Assurance and Control can replace the skill
and craftsmanship of the workers not mention a sound design, specifications
and selection of material.

Anyway - just my thoughts (I have managed precision heavy machinery
fabrication and know have seen different setups - heavy QC and still
difficulties, qualified people with good results but less QC).
Some of the best products we had built were by subcontractors knowing
their business very well.
In doubt I favour welders who are used to producing high quality work,
wherever they are. And make sure they are well paid and proud of their
work.

Marc

PS: Testing of the anchors for mechanical stability can be done, but it
requires quite an effort (both machinery and money).

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
http://www.heusser.com

On 2007-11-06 07:13:18 -0500, "JimB" said:

Further up this thread you probably saw my post about Rocna's selective use
of performance criteria to show that 'their anchor is the best'.

Yeah, I noticed that as well.

FWIW, if they included the aluminum Spade in their "weight vs
performance" graph, Rocna would be a far distant second. I used an
aluminum 80 extensively before our current steel 80. My experience has
been that, other than situations where sheer weight is the determining
factor, the aluminum version performs just as well as the steel one,
and I inadvertently tested it in conditions far outside of it's
expected performance envelope over the years.

Until I see the Rocna tested in a wide variety of bottoms, as has been
the case in the anchors tested by Practical Sailor, it's on the "watch
and see" list. NO anchor has been best in all their tests, but a few
seem to always be in the running.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On 2007-11-06 09:04:01 -0500, Geoff Schultz said:

I find it interesting that I received an e-mail from Ned Wood, who works
for Manson Anchors, stating in part that:

"I have been watching the comments made about the Manson Supreme." and

"I would suggest not believing everything that the Rocna Salesman writes
online..." and

"Lastly, we never really want to get involved in the online mudslinging
that has become rife in these chat rooms...".

I certainly can appreciate the later comment, but it certainly would be
nice if they would answer some of the questions that people have. It
doesn't need to devolve into mud-slinging, but it would be nice to get
answers from someone who knows the product.

Obviously, he doesn't know RBC very well, nor this thread, as there has
not been *any* "mudslinging" (yet), just honest debate.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2007110620345850073-jerelull@maccom...

Obviously, he doesn't know RBC very well, nor this thread, as there has
not been *any* "mudslinging" (yet), just honest debate.
--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Some of the worst stuff occured on Wikipedia, 'anchors' entry. The history
can be seen on the the 'notes' pages. The accusations were that 'badmonkey'
aka Craig, of Rocna, hijacked the entry to promote his anchor, using
selective quotes and graphs. Sad when that happens.

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:29:32 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

On 2007-11-06 07:13:18 -0500, "JimB" said:

Further up this thread you probably saw my post about Rocna's selective use
of performance criteria to show that 'their anchor is the best'.

Yeah, I noticed that as well.

FWIW, if they included the aluminum Spade in their "weight vs
performance" graph, Rocna would be a far distant second. I used an
aluminum 80 extensively before our current steel 80. My experience has
been that, other than situations where sheer weight is the determining
factor, the aluminum version performs just as well as the steel one,
and I inadvertently tested it in conditions far outside of it's
expected performance envelope over the years.

Until I see the Rocna tested in a wide variety of bottoms, as has been
the case in the anchors tested by Practical Sailor, it's on the "watch
and see" list. NO anchor has been best in all their tests, but a few
seem to always be in the running.

Had a rather boring day at home and did a bit of web surfing about
anchors. There is considerable name calling and back biting about the
Rocna anchor with at least one individual stating that they lie about
their tests.

Before I leaped at the chance to order a Rocna I think I'd do some
fairly extensive research.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:27:01 -0000, "JimB" wrote:

Some of the worst stuff occured on Wikipedia, 'anchors' entry. The history
can be seen on the the 'notes' pages. The accusations were that 'badmonkey'
aka Craig, of Rocna, hijacked the entry to promote his anchor, using
selective quotes and graphs. Sad when that happens.

Yes, good as the Rocna may (or may not) be, that speaks poorly for the
company. The Manson is also less expensive if memory serves.

In article ,
Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:27:01 -0000, "JimB" wrote:

Some of the worst stuff occured on Wikipedia, 'anchors' entry. The history
can be seen on the the 'notes' pages. The accusations were that 'badmonkey'
aka Craig, of Rocna, hijacked the entry to promote his anchor, using
selective quotes and graphs. Sad when that happens.

Yes, good as the Rocna may (or may not) be, that speaks poorly for the
company. The Manson is also less expensive if memory serves.

Perhaps it is easy to cut costs by stealing other's designs and avoiding
the need for R&D.

h

--
To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?