Anyone own a Rocna anchor???

[Maine Sail]

Does anyone here own a Rocna anchor? I have an aluminum Spade that I have been less than happy with. I love the performance of my Bruce but every time it blows I keep thinking about all the reviews that say it has limited holding power and then consequently don't sleep well. Although my Bruce has yet to fail me I think I want more holding power and good set, re-set capability something my aluminum Spade has not done well..

[sailortjk1]

I have not had any trouble with my Bruce.

Have you tried an anchor angel? This should help hold the Bruce down on the bottom and aide in resetting. Of course there are pro's and con's to the use of an angel. Like if your going to use an angel, you may as well deploy two anchors. Only you can make that decision.

[TrueBlue]

Don't have a Rocna, but our 35# CQR has never failed us while anchoring in nearly every bottom type. One night, while ducking into a cove to escape a 35 knot blow, we watched several other boats resetting their spades and Danforths while ours never budged . . . even with our 18,000 lb displacement and extra windage of the aft cabin & pilothouse. Of course, an all chain rode helps too.

CQR stands for se-cu-re.

[Maine Sail]

A CQR, Delta Fast Set, Fortress, Bruce & Spade. Over 18 years of anchoring boats longer than 30 feet the Bruce has been the best performer. I've never dragged it and for me, anchoring with it well over 300 times, it has always re-set on wind /tide shift I worry that I could drag and that is why I went with the Spade but it has not lived up to its advertising. I want an anchor as reliable as the Bruce with more holding power. hence looking for real world experience with Rocna..??

[Maine Sail]

and I can't believe I missed the glaring problems with this test. For years everyone has been saying the Bruce has less holding power than the CQR, Spade & Fast Set. If you look at the article carefully you'll see that they compared a Bruce 22# to a Spade A80 (the equivalent Spade anchor in steel is 33# and a CQR 35#. No crap the Bruce had less holding power it's a far smaller anchor and not an equal test! In terms of setting the Bruce came in #1. Setting is based on shape not weight so setting charactistics are more fair. Only the Delta & the Bruce we're of the 22# size and held 550lbs. and 610lbs. but the Delta was rated 7th for setting. I'll opt for better setting re-setting over a 10% holding difference any day...

In terms of re-setting the CQR rolled out and dragged 9 feet before digging in again. The Spade did not move but was rated 7th for setting in mud. The Delta Fast Set broke free and dragged 5 feet before re-setting. The Bruce "rotated horizontally" and moved a total of 4 inches.

Results can be very misleading. I would love to know the holding power of the Bruce 33# and Delta 33# compared to the CQR and Spade. My guess is they would all be fairly close. So I should have read the results more carefully before buying the Spade. Perhaps my Bruce really does have good holding power after all.....

[WHOOSH]

Acoustic, there is always a lot of discussion on the topic of anchor performance - and rarely agreement. The basic problem we all have is that anchor performance out in the real world can not be empirically modeled, and so those tests - while perhaps outlining the issues thoroughly - probably don't offer hard/fast guidelines for what's "best" (as tho' there is such a thing).

Your aluminum spade is an anchor designed & built to be light (for a given level of performance), yet what you want is ultimate holding power; it's no wonder you are a bit dissatisfied. You'll find Alan (the Spade 'inventor') and Peter (ditto for the Rocna) are both very persuasive in selling their 'next generation' anchors (I just love how that phrase 'positions' us to think about old vs. new and good vs. bad) and they are both seasoned cruisers...and yet, in this thread as elsewhere, we find that people are experiencing the same basic issues with the performance of those 'new' anchors as the old standards. Out in the anchorages (see TrueBlue's comment above) we can see different boats having different experiences with their ground tackle and it's easy to attribute it to different anchors...but in truth, the variables involved are almost infinite: varying seabed, boat windage, different bottom contours, wind & wave patterns within the same general area, varying scopes and with varying lengths of chain and, most important of all, varying skills in choosing the anchor spot & setting the anchor in the first place. While you can find test results that might compare the anchors you are asking about, it's hard to know what that will really mean - for you, or any of the rest of us.

You seem pleased with your Bruce's performance, yet are willing to spend meaningful sums to have 'better' performance. Why not stick with what your experience tells you works for you and, if you must buy more 'insurance', move up to the next size Bruce? One thing that has been generally validated in all the anchor tests I've seen is that the performance of burying type anchors (CQR, Bruce et al.) is more than linearly improved by using a bigger model.

Jack

[gc1111]

I completely agree with WHOOSH. Be careful about searching for the "best". You only need an anchor that is good enough. What that is will be mostly a matter of experience. Your experience that is. There are many, many variables that make one anchor the right one for you. Published anchor tests are not the final answer, in fact probably only a small part.
I have 15-20 years experience with a CQR and all chain rode. This is mostly East coast and Caribbean experience (Maine-Florida, Bahamas and most of the Caribbean). I am totally happy with that system.
The only thing that I can say for certain is that a bigger anchor will hold you better in most conditions and size is more important than style. If at first you don't succeed, use a bigger hammer