Is anybody familiar with the XYZ anchor? Their web site makes it seem like this is the world's best - high holding power, quick setting, low weight. (See link for their web site.)
xyz anchor
- Thread starter John
- Start date
- Status
False claims
Their entire website is full of misleading material, too much to list. If the anchor itself is given a fair chance, the company behind it notwithstanding, I'm afraid a more representative summary of independent testing is as from Maine Sail, and the following summary comment: XYZ 10.6lb - "Could not get anchor to work. One pull at 900lb, but mostly dragged on the bottom." - West Marine
Their entire website is full of misleading material, too much to list. If the anchor itself is given a fair chance, the company behind it notwithstanding, I'm afraid a more representative summary of independent testing is as from Maine Sail, and the following summary comment: XYZ 10.6lb - "Could not get anchor to work. One pull at 900lb, but mostly dragged on the bottom." - West Marine
Craig
I am a big fan of the Rocna and am getting ready to order my own but they list a Pratical Sailor review that speaks very favorably of them and not so well of the Rocna. They clearly have taken quotes out of context instead of publishing complete articles but that PS chart is pretty convincing. Just playing a little devils advocate here. No offense to you Maine Sail but I am more likely to believe a review published by PS over Sail.
I am a big fan of the Rocna and am getting ready to order my own but they list a Pratical Sailor review that speaks very favorably of them and not so well of the Rocna. They clearly have taken quotes out of context instead of publishing complete articles but that PS chart is pretty convincing. Just playing a little devils advocate here. No offense to you Maine Sail but I am more likely to believe a review published by PS over Sail.
Except
it wasn't done by Practical Sailor, but by Powerboat Reports (published in both). And SAIL's was not done by SAIL, but by West Marine. Powerboat Reports' anchor testing was shocking - terrible methodology to the point where I don't consider their results valid to any degree whatsoever. The results are worse than useless. At the time we made a FAQ in response to it, I think it's still on our website.
it wasn't done by Practical Sailor, but by Powerboat Reports (published in both). And SAIL's was not done by SAIL, but by West Marine. Powerboat Reports' anchor testing was shocking - terrible methodology to the point where I don't consider their results valid to any degree whatsoever. The results are worse than useless. At the time we made a FAQ in response to it, I think it's still on our website.
Dang Craig
Do you run search engines daily looking for Rocna threads? I mean, if there's a thread with your anchor in it, you certainly show up, no matter which forum.
Do you run search engines daily looking for Rocna threads? I mean, if there's a thread with your anchor in it, you certainly show up, no matter which forum.
Devils Advocate
While I like PS and do read it from a pure science and data perspective PS does not gain much credibility with the their anchor reviews with me. you really need to dissect PS data to gain any sense of any actual comparison between anchors. My one gripe with the WM/Sail test is I wish they had given more info on 180 degree re-sets. I'm a little concerned, by the test results, that some folks will run out and buy a Fortress, as a primary, and have tide/wind re-set issues like I have had with mine. I now only use my Fortress as a, direct line pull, stern anchor where no "shifts" from tide or wind can occur. There are more holes you can poke in the data with the PS/Powerboat review than you can with Sail Mag/ West Marine tests. While no tests re real world the WM/Sail tests came about as close as I've seen. I bought an aluminum Spade based on a PS review and it DOES NOT set they way they touted it to. The Steel spade on the other hand sets quite well. Maybe weight does play a role in the actual initial setting with weighted tip anchors? The Sail Magazine article had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were. The XYZ was a poor performer in this test! People on other forums, and this one, have made some ridiculous claims that Sail gave preference and may have "fixed" the results to satisfy advertisers? Using this logic Sail magazine really cut off their supply of ad money that month. It seems two of the anchors that got beat up the worst were the LEWMAR Claw and the West Marine Performance 20. Lewmar is one of Sails larger advertisers! In that months issue alone they had one full pager and one quarter page advertisement. West Marine's VP of product development Chuck Hawley was actually involved in the testing and WM also spends big ad money with Sail. Three of the best performers Manson, Hydrobubble & Rocna had NO, NADA, ZERO advertising in Sail Magazine at all. From a pure science standpoint the test was actually a very "biased" test BUT only when it came to the CQR & Claw but not any of their competitors like th Hydro Bubbly, Rocna and Manson Supreme. They investigators went so far as to have "in-depth discussions" to figure out a way to get the Bruce and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results? Biased yes! However, this bias was POSITIVELY directed towards the anchors that FAILED to perform and NOT they anchors that DID perform! Keep in mind this test was only a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were hard sand tests. Hard sand is something you are likely to encounter and any anchor you are carrying should be able to set in a hard bottom if you encounter one. I'm assuming they did not use soft mud because most any anchor will perform and set in it. Of course holding will vary but this was not a mud test and they made that perfectly clear. The authors/testers had many debates about the rather shocking test results and this quote kind of sums it up: "The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom." This to me sounds like they perhaps had to give the CQR a little "extra" by going slower than with other anchors and trying to manually coax it to set. How can anyone claim bias against the CQR when they clearly gave it preferential treatment? This seems a little unfair if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors to make it as "fair" as possible. The results however don't surprise me, as I own a Bruce and a CQR and though they perform well they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion that 80% of boaters never actually set an anchor and get very lucky using basically a "rope on a rock" seems more true than ever. So the Sail tests were biased but NOT in a pro-new generation way. The tests were slanted to the old generation of anchors and yet even with "coaxing" they still failed to perform and the new generation anchors did. The XYZ, like the Rocna, Hydro Bubble, Manson Supreme and Spade got NO additional "coaxing" and those results are all about as scientific and accurate, in a hard bottom, as I've seen in any anchor test and the XYZ did NOT perform well in a hard bottom.... It's funny that prior to this test WM never stocked the Manson Supreme nor the Rocna and neither anchor advertised in Sail Magazine. Now West marine sells both the Supreme and the Rocna yet Rocna still does not advertise in Sail.. Think about it! Oh and WM did not start carrying the XYZ after the tests either...
While I like PS and do read it from a pure science and data perspective PS does not gain much credibility with the their anchor reviews with me. you really need to dissect PS data to gain any sense of any actual comparison between anchors. My one gripe with the WM/Sail test is I wish they had given more info on 180 degree re-sets. I'm a little concerned, by the test results, that some folks will run out and buy a Fortress, as a primary, and have tide/wind re-set issues like I have had with mine. I now only use my Fortress as a, direct line pull, stern anchor where no "shifts" from tide or wind can occur. There are more holes you can poke in the data with the PS/Powerboat review than you can with Sail Mag/ West Marine tests. While no tests re real world the WM/Sail tests came about as close as I've seen. I bought an aluminum Spade based on a PS review and it DOES NOT set they way they touted it to. The Steel spade on the other hand sets quite well. Maybe weight does play a role in the actual initial setting with weighted tip anchors? The Sail Magazine article had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were. The XYZ was a poor performer in this test! People on other forums, and this one, have made some ridiculous claims that Sail gave preference and may have "fixed" the results to satisfy advertisers? Using this logic Sail magazine really cut off their supply of ad money that month. It seems two of the anchors that got beat up the worst were the LEWMAR Claw and the West Marine Performance 20. Lewmar is one of Sails larger advertisers! In that months issue alone they had one full pager and one quarter page advertisement. West Marine's VP of product development Chuck Hawley was actually involved in the testing and WM also spends big ad money with Sail. Three of the best performers Manson, Hydrobubble & Rocna had NO, NADA, ZERO advertising in Sail Magazine at all. From a pure science standpoint the test was actually a very "biased" test BUT only when it came to the CQR & Claw but not any of their competitors like th Hydro Bubbly, Rocna and Manson Supreme. They investigators went so far as to have "in-depth discussions" to figure out a way to get the Bruce and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results? Biased yes! However, this bias was POSITIVELY directed towards the anchors that FAILED to perform and NOT they anchors that DID perform! Keep in mind this test was only a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were hard sand tests. Hard sand is something you are likely to encounter and any anchor you are carrying should be able to set in a hard bottom if you encounter one. I'm assuming they did not use soft mud because most any anchor will perform and set in it. Of course holding will vary but this was not a mud test and they made that perfectly clear. The authors/testers had many debates about the rather shocking test results and this quote kind of sums it up: "The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom." This to me sounds like they perhaps had to give the CQR a little "extra" by going slower than with other anchors and trying to manually coax it to set. How can anyone claim bias against the CQR when they clearly gave it preferential treatment? This seems a little unfair if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors to make it as "fair" as possible. The results however don't surprise me, as I own a Bruce and a CQR and though they perform well they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion that 80% of boaters never actually set an anchor and get very lucky using basically a "rope on a rock" seems more true than ever. So the Sail tests were biased but NOT in a pro-new generation way. The tests were slanted to the old generation of anchors and yet even with "coaxing" they still failed to perform and the new generation anchors did. The XYZ, like the Rocna, Hydro Bubble, Manson Supreme and Spade got NO additional "coaxing" and those results are all about as scientific and accurate, in a hard bottom, as I've seen in any anchor test and the XYZ did NOT perform well in a hard bottom.... It's funny that prior to this test WM never stocked the Manson Supreme nor the Rocna and neither anchor advertised in Sail Magazine. Now West marine sells both the Supreme and the Rocna yet Rocna still does not advertise in Sail.. Think about it! Oh and WM did not start carrying the XYZ after the tests either...
On the plus side...
...the ubiquitous Danforth seems to be a pretty good choice. It is pretty amazing to see that many of the plow anchors, including the vaunted CQR, often test out as an expensive mushroom anchor. Of course I agree that the validity of the tests is always a question. Any real life opinions on the Danforth? I have two on my new (to me) boat and it seems strange to have two anchors of the same type on board unless perhaps the Danforth is useful in a broad range of bottom types. Bob
...the ubiquitous Danforth seems to be a pretty good choice. It is pretty amazing to see that many of the plow anchors, including the vaunted CQR, often test out as an expensive mushroom anchor. Of course I agree that the validity of the tests is always a question. Any real life opinions on the Danforth? I have two on my new (to me) boat and it seems strange to have two anchors of the same type on board unless perhaps the Danforth is useful in a broad range of bottom types. Bob
Danforth, Fortress etc.
Are all commendable anchors however there is a "BUT". While the Fortress has out performed both the Danforth and the West Marine Performance 20 (knock off) and "Danforth knock offs" they are still not considered reliable anchors in wind and tide shifts. I actually use a Fortress as my dedicated stern anchor because I know it won't break out on a wind or tide shift something we see lot of here in Maine. When I used a Fortress as my primary years ago I had it break out on tide shifts a fair number of times, we actually do 360's up here with the tides, so I now only use it where I know it will be a direct line pull with no chance of a break out. The Fortresses have always put up some of the highest holing power ratings which are probably due to the fluke angles and sheer surface area of the flukes themselves. In the North East I would not feel comfortable with a Danforth style anchor as my primary. My personal opinion on anchors, based on much experience, is listed bellow. Please remember this is my opinion but do know that I have owned the following anchors and used them all extensively: Bruce, CQR, Fortress, Delta, Super Max, Rocna, Spade Manson Supreme & Danforth) My preference Primary Anchors (in order): Rocna, Manson Supreme, Steel Spade, Delta Fast Set, Supermax, Bruce, CQR Fortress, Danforth... P.S. How I rank Anchors (In order) #1 holding power (no dragging) #2 ability to stay set and re-set on wind tide shifts #3 setting ability
Are all commendable anchors however there is a "BUT". While the Fortress has out performed both the Danforth and the West Marine Performance 20 (knock off) and "Danforth knock offs" they are still not considered reliable anchors in wind and tide shifts. I actually use a Fortress as my dedicated stern anchor because I know it won't break out on a wind or tide shift something we see lot of here in Maine. When I used a Fortress as my primary years ago I had it break out on tide shifts a fair number of times, we actually do 360's up here with the tides, so I now only use it where I know it will be a direct line pull with no chance of a break out. The Fortresses have always put up some of the highest holing power ratings which are probably due to the fluke angles and sheer surface area of the flukes themselves. In the North East I would not feel comfortable with a Danforth style anchor as my primary. My personal opinion on anchors, based on much experience, is listed bellow. Please remember this is my opinion but do know that I have owned the following anchors and used them all extensively: Bruce, CQR, Fortress, Delta, Super Max, Rocna, Spade Manson Supreme & Danforth) My preference Primary Anchors (in order): Rocna, Manson Supreme, Steel Spade, Delta Fast Set, Supermax, Bruce, CQR Fortress, Danforth... P.S. How I rank Anchors (In order) #1 holding power (no dragging) #2 ability to stay set and re-set on wind tide shifts #3 setting ability
Danforth/Fortress
When we bought our "new to us" boat, it too came with two Danforth style anchors. One, a Fortress which we use as our primary, and two, a Danforth knock off that is our back up. We've never used the back up. The Fortress always set quickly and held well until last year when we had a 180 degree wind shift mid morning (thank god!). We happened to be on the beach swimming and hanging out when I noticed the wind shift and the boat slowly moving backward toward the beach! I jumped into the kayak and paddled faster that I normally care to back to the boat to find it ever-so-lightly tapping on the sand bottom. The wind shift had been quick and intense enough to break us free but short lived not to drive us hard to the beach. When I pulled up the anchor, the rode had fouled in the flukes of the Fortress thus not allowing it to re-set. Now this may have been partially my own fault. I never went out to check the set and perhaps I didn't back down hard enough to completely bury the anchor including the shank (which you can bet I do now!) which would have allowed the rode to get up underneath the shank and pick it up in a 180 degree shift. The kicker to all of this was that while dragging, we slid between a very nice Cape Dory and a monster power boat, neither of which had anyone on board. Someone was watching over us that day. That one experience has gotten me thinking about finding another style anchor to add to our arsenal. BTW, 95% of our anchoring is in hard sand.
When we bought our "new to us" boat, it too came with two Danforth style anchors. One, a Fortress which we use as our primary, and two, a Danforth knock off that is our back up. We've never used the back up. The Fortress always set quickly and held well until last year when we had a 180 degree wind shift mid morning (thank god!). We happened to be on the beach swimming and hanging out when I noticed the wind shift and the boat slowly moving backward toward the beach! I jumped into the kayak and paddled faster that I normally care to back to the boat to find it ever-so-lightly tapping on the sand bottom. The wind shift had been quick and intense enough to break us free but short lived not to drive us hard to the beach. When I pulled up the anchor, the rode had fouled in the flukes of the Fortress thus not allowing it to re-set. Now this may have been partially my own fault. I never went out to check the set and perhaps I didn't back down hard enough to completely bury the anchor including the shank (which you can bet I do now!) which would have allowed the rode to get up underneath the shank and pick it up in a 180 degree shift. The kicker to all of this was that while dragging, we slid between a very nice Cape Dory and a monster power boat, neither of which had anyone on board. Someone was watching over us that day. That one experience has gotten me thinking about finding another style anchor to add to our arsenal. BTW, 95% of our anchoring is in hard sand.
I switched to Manson Supreme this year
I am very impressed with this anchor. I usually spend a month in the spring on the Sea of Cortez which usually has coarse sand bottoms in most anchorages, but can have sand with cobbles, or weedy bottoms. I have had danforths get a cobble jammed in the flukes rendering it worthless. The Manson sets VERY quickly and holds like there is no tomorrow. This spring we anchored in San Pedro bay in the south bight and had the wind shift about 120 degrees in the middle of the night and pick up to 25 knots. there were 7-8 foot breaking waves passing our boat and the Manson didn't move 6 feet. 2 other boats ended up dragging anchor onto the beach. One afternoon just for grins I dropped it in 40 feet of water with 75 feet of rode out. As soon as I cleated it off the anchor set immediately and held in a stiff breeze for 2 hours while we had lunch and did some swimming. The first time I tried the Manson it was wierd, it sets so fast and hard it's like backing down on a 1000 pound mooring.
I am very impressed with this anchor. I usually spend a month in the spring on the Sea of Cortez which usually has coarse sand bottoms in most anchorages, but can have sand with cobbles, or weedy bottoms. I have had danforths get a cobble jammed in the flukes rendering it worthless. The Manson sets VERY quickly and holds like there is no tomorrow. This spring we anchored in San Pedro bay in the south bight and had the wind shift about 120 degrees in the middle of the night and pick up to 25 knots. there were 7-8 foot breaking waves passing our boat and the Manson didn't move 6 feet. 2 other boats ended up dragging anchor onto the beach. One afternoon just for grins I dropped it in 40 feet of water with 75 feet of rode out. As soon as I cleated it off the anchor set immediately and held in a stiff breeze for 2 hours while we had lunch and did some swimming. The first time I tried the Manson it was wierd, it sets so fast and hard it's like backing down on a 1000 pound mooring.
on the hook in Maine
In the process of getting my Mac 26M ready for the Bahamas,the advice was get a good dinghy,and a good anchor. Dinghy is all set(Brig Baltic 310) and I'm in the process of hanging a Rocna 10 with 40ft of chain. My Fortress FX 11 will be retired to stern duty. I do a fair amount of sailing in Maine,and I know about the 360 swing and the tides. The Rocna 10 will be a good "sleeping pill". Thanks Maine Sail and others for all the input.
In the process of getting my Mac 26M ready for the Bahamas,the advice was get a good dinghy,and a good anchor. Dinghy is all set(Brig Baltic 310) and I'm in the process of hanging a Rocna 10 with 40ft of chain. My Fortress FX 11 will be retired to stern duty. I do a fair amount of sailing in Maine,and I know about the 360 swing and the tides. The Rocna 10 will be a good "sleeping pill". Thanks Maine Sail and others for all the input.
XYZ feedback
Since a year,I use a XYZ Extreme as primary anchoring gear for my yacht (centreboard 47', 13 tons). At the beginning I was a bit skeptical about this strange design and the outstanding performances as written on the website. Because the dollar rate was low,I deceided to experiment. In the Mediterranean area where I am navigating most of time, bottoms are usually weeds, mi hard sand,gravels and rocks. Before XYZ ,I had a DELTA which was for me the very best of the very best. It remains the best for rocks bottoms because of wweight and and very solid structure. But for other bottoms ,I was delightly surprised with the performance of XYZ despite the only 7kg weight and the very strange design. The main default of this hook is that it is difficult to fit propery on bow roller except on dolphin nose davits (the only translation I have found for dolphin nose is overhang stemhead ?).Apart of that, as the holding is the most important feature for an anchor, I was really impressed , whatever the anchor and chain are dropped in the water ,the anchor dig the bottom within a meter of the bottom touch point, and hold. We had,many times, somme severe conditions to face and the anchor was holding, digging more and more deeply (it was mid hard sand). On gravel it was the same as it is important to dig deep to find high density to hold. I agree that on rocks bottom, because of light weight ,it is not a good one , but same for all light anchors, soI use a heavy and reliable DELTA. In weeds (Posidonia),I must admit that it is the very first one which hold at first dop (before ,I have tried many such as DELTA, CQR, FOB, FORTRESS,SPADE etc.). thanks to sharp edges and little shank, it digs instantaneously under the roots and hold So after a year of use and many doubts at the beginning, I feel very confident with this anchor, but anyone has his own feeling !
Since a year,I use a XYZ Extreme as primary anchoring gear for my yacht (centreboard 47', 13 tons). At the beginning I was a bit skeptical about this strange design and the outstanding performances as written on the website. Because the dollar rate was low,I deceided to experiment. In the Mediterranean area where I am navigating most of time, bottoms are usually weeds, mi hard sand,gravels and rocks. Before XYZ ,I had a DELTA which was for me the very best of the very best. It remains the best for rocks bottoms because of wweight and and very solid structure. But for other bottoms ,I was delightly surprised with the performance of XYZ despite the only 7kg weight and the very strange design. The main default of this hook is that it is difficult to fit propery on bow roller except on dolphin nose davits (the only translation I have found for dolphin nose is overhang stemhead ?).Apart of that, as the holding is the most important feature for an anchor, I was really impressed , whatever the anchor and chain are dropped in the water ,the anchor dig the bottom within a meter of the bottom touch point, and hold. We had,many times, somme severe conditions to face and the anchor was holding, digging more and more deeply (it was mid hard sand). On gravel it was the same as it is important to dig deep to find high density to hold. I agree that on rocks bottom, because of light weight ,it is not a good one , but same for all light anchors, soI use a heavy and reliable DELTA. In weeds (Posidonia),I must admit that it is the very first one which hold at first dop (before ,I have tried many such as DELTA, CQR, FOB, FORTRESS,SPADE etc.). thanks to sharp edges and little shank, it digs instantaneously under the roots and hold So after a year of use and many doubts at the beginning, I feel very confident with this anchor, but anyone has his own feeling !
Not quite that soon!
MaineSail,my trip is still a ways off. Like 2 years. I'm slowly upgrading the boat to be ready for then. Just finished a full propane install,ss sink and stove. Still to add-20 gal addn't water(currently 35)120 watts of solar,and an Engel 35 fridge. The plan is to become residents of George Town from Jan-April. We already have several friends there,and we've been introduced as "the new neighbors who aren't here yet". I already have my spot picked out!
MaineSail,my trip is still a ways off. Like 2 years. I'm slowly upgrading the boat to be ready for then. Just finished a full propane install,ss sink and stove. Still to add-20 gal addn't water(currently 35)120 watts of solar,and an Engel 35 fridge. The plan is to become residents of George Town from Jan-April. We already have several friends there,and we've been introduced as "the new neighbors who aren't here yet". I already have my spot picked out!
New XYZ Omega Anchor
I recently purchased the 27# XYZ. I have a 34ft PDQ power cat. She is about 14,000 lbs. We live on the water in the Great South Bay of Long Island, NY. I was first attracted to the anchor from reading reviews from Practical Sailor or Power Boat Reports. My maiden use of the anchor was outstanding in a muddy bottom. It set immediatedly and held well in a steady 15 kt wind with only 2.5:1 scope. With both diesels in reverse (twin 100HP Yanmars) the anchor held. I tried to swing to port and stbd using the throttles and the anchor held. Impressive debut!
I recently purchased the 27# XYZ. I have a 34ft PDQ power cat. She is about 14,000 lbs. We live on the water in the Great South Bay of Long Island, NY. I was first attracted to the anchor from reading reviews from Practical Sailor or Power Boat Reports. My maiden use of the anchor was outstanding in a muddy bottom. It set immediatedly and held well in a steady 15 kt wind with only 2.5:1 scope. With both diesels in reverse (twin 100HP Yanmars) the anchor held. I tried to swing to port and stbd using the throttles and the anchor held. Impressive debut!
ARRGHHH!
Wherever I go, at whatever time of day and whoever I'm with, 2+2 always = 4. Why can't the rest of life be so simple? I'd just about decided that the next anchor I buy would be a Rocna, and then I read this post from Mitch P., and everything is up in the air again. (My present Delta doesn't hold that well.) Maybe one argument for trying the XYZ is that they offer a six month money-back guarantee if you're not satisfied. Well, I guess if everything were that simple, life would be pretty dull.
Wherever I go, at whatever time of day and whoever I'm with, 2+2 always = 4. Why can't the rest of life be so simple? I'd just about decided that the next anchor I buy would be a Rocna, and then I read this post from Mitch P., and everything is up in the air again. (My present Delta doesn't hold that well.) Maybe one argument for trying the XYZ is that they offer a six month money-back guarantee if you're not satisfied. Well, I guess if everything were that simple, life would be pretty dull.
abuse of this list
Craig: As far as I understand it, the purpose of this list is for different sailors with different levels of expertise to exchange ideas and advice about all sorts of sailing-related issues. I may be mistaken, but I don't remember having seen you participate in any discussions on this list other than those which allow you to promote your product. Of course, I assume that you honestly believe that the Rocna is the best anchor around, and I agree that you should be free to explain why you believe that. However, since as far as I know this is the only topic where you participate, I can only interpret this to mean that you are simply using this list as a form of free advertising. I think this is an abuse of this list. You are starting to seriously annoy me to the extent that I am feeling right now that I wouldn't buy a Rocna even if it is the best anchor for me and my needs just because of your misuse of this list. John
Craig: As far as I understand it, the purpose of this list is for different sailors with different levels of expertise to exchange ideas and advice about all sorts of sailing-related issues. I may be mistaken, but I don't remember having seen you participate in any discussions on this list other than those which allow you to promote your product. Of course, I assume that you honestly believe that the Rocna is the best anchor around, and I agree that you should be free to explain why you believe that. However, since as far as I know this is the only topic where you participate, I can only interpret this to mean that you are simply using this list as a form of free advertising. I think this is an abuse of this list. You are starting to seriously annoy me to the extent that I am feeling right now that I wouldn't buy a Rocna even if it is the best anchor for me and my needs just because of your misuse of this list. John
- Status