Dave is a pretty reasonable guy, IMHO, so I doubt that will happen. I am just surprised by his take on all this, especially his take on Rocna not copying.. I would expect that sort of support from others I know, but did not expect if from Dave...
Disclaimer: I own & use a Rocna but still to this day find their (The Smith's & Bambury's) behavior & ethics sickening & despicable. Some of the worst I have seen in this industry. Sadly it has become a real black eye on the anchor industry as a whole and thanks to them it is likely no one will ever trust what any anchor manufacturer says..
Yeah, I think you're pretty safe on staying off his naughty list. Heh-heh.
I agree though that it's pretty hard to stomach ANYONE defending Rocna in ANY way - especially someone like Ausp who's been around here for a while and had to have seen a lot of this play out.
At the end of the day, as I said, I like what Mantus is doing. I actually thought the holding power test rig was pretty smart. It very clearly illustrated the performance of each anchor in that particular condition. Sure, it wasn't precise, but it was compelling.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing some "scientific" testing on holding power for the Mantus vs. the others. I wish the mags would pick this up (per Mantus' requests) and do some testing. There are interested readers out there.
As for the question above regarding what the anchor would do in a big wind shift...doesn't that come down again to setting ability? In other words, if you get a 180 degree shift and the anchor twists out, it's the ability to quickly set again that is the primary factor?
If so, Mantus seems to be a very good choice. I don't know, I'm just having a hard time seeing the downsides here.