SailNet Community

SailNet Community (http://www.sailnet.com/forums/)
-   Gear & Maintenance (http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/)
-   -   Rocna Anchor (http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/23321-rocna-anchor.html)

kavakava 09-24-2006 12:45 PM

Rocna Anchor
 
Is there a US source for this anchor? Also, I'd like some feedback from anyone who has practical experience with this anchor. Currently use a Delta, but looking for more hold. We'll be at the Annapolis show in a few weeks. Thanks.

camaraderie 09-24-2006 05:56 PM

kava...I think they only have a Canadian distributor. Craig from Rocna and Alain from Spade are regulars on the SSCA.org bulletin board. You might try there for more info or if they'll have any boat show presence. I hear great things about both anchors though have been quite happy with my Delta and hate the CQR.

Vasco 09-24-2006 06:07 PM

Kavakava,

Have you seen the Manson Supreme, looks and performs much like the Ronca but quite a lot cheaper as they have a US distributer. Try www.azuremarine.com/. I'm getting one to replace an old CQR.

Maine Sail 09-24-2006 07:33 PM

I use a Manson Supreme...
 
And love, love love it. Although it's a knock off of the Rocna it performs very similarly. The Sail Magazine anchor test results were just published and confirm what I've been saying on this and other boards for quite a while now. The Rocna & Manson are excellent performers.

The "tried and true" anchors most sailors use are not the king pins they once were. These tests are about the most scientific and real world I've seen done to date. At least they used anchors of similar size unlike the Practical Sailor tests. My one gripe is I wish they had given more info on 180 degree re-sets and tested in soft mud. 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 with mine. I only use my Fortress as a, direct line pull, stern anchor where no "shifts" from tide or wind can occur. The authors/testers had many debates about the rather shocking test results and this quote kind of sums it up.

"Having several anchors with established reputations fail to set sparked many hours of debate. We questioned our methodology and tried to determine what could be done to insure that all anchors could at least return some results apart from "did not set"."

I stopped using my CQR a longtime ago because of terrible setting performance and a few dragging incidents. I also stopped using my Bruce for similar reasons. My observations, in Maine, NH, MA and Carib anchorages is that most folks never really bother to set an anchor properly. If they don't set properly they would not know that their trusty CQR is lying on its side only partially burried, at best, and acting like a rock on a rope. In normal benign summer conditions the chain and the weight of the anchor (rock on a rope) probably hold most boats and most people are clueless until a squal or 20+ knot winds pipe up. I someimes like to dive on anchors to observe the set and doing this is what caused me to stop using my CQR! On top of the poor performance it was the straw that broke the CQR's back for me.

We actually keep an anchor log and have been doing so for quite a while because we like to anchor whenever we can. I started this log after an incident where every boat in the anchorage, except us and one other, draged during a wind storm with winds of only 35-40 knots. We almost got taken out by a 70 foot Swan dragging its CQR. I was so angry the next morning that I wrote down what each boat was using for ground tackle as I watched as each boat weigh anchor and leave. I now keep track any boats that have dragged anchor around me. I log what anchor they used and to be as fair as possible if I saw them actually set the anchor or not.

I have done my own personal anchor testing and made videos of them setting on an inter tidal zone and my results are very similar to the Sail Magazine results. I have tested and own/owned the Bruce, CQR, Manson Supreme, Fortress, Spade (both Aluminum and Steel) and a Delta Fast Set. I chose the Manson Supreme as my clear winner with the Spade and Fortress as my back ups. The Manson Supreme, Rocna, Spade & Fortress were the clear winners in Sails tests, along with the Hydro Bubble which I don't own, and closely mirror my own very un-scientific results. I have sold my Fast Set, did not set as well as Spade, and my Bruce and CQR are on loan to friends who don't really anchor much and just needed a lunch hook hanging off the bow. My Spade A-80 (aluminum) sits in my garage because I had some real problems with getting it to penetrate a hard bottom. This is most likely due to its very light weight. The S-80 (identical size but in steel) performs much better and does set in tough bottoms. Theoretically the Spades should set identically but they don't??

The Fastset is a decent anchor compared to a CQR or Bruce and will hold well but according to the Sail tests it does not like anything less than a 5:1 scope where the Rocna and Manson Supreme don't mind a 3:1 at all.

I wish more people took anchoring & mooring as seriously as I do but they don't. Last season my boat sustained considerable damage because a boat broke free in a wind storm and dragged onto my boat due to poor mooring maintenance. I'm sure this clown has similar anchoring manners. Fortunately the damage was cosmetic only but the whole event set me back some serious pocket change with a 2% deductible.

My question is this. Why do people choose to use anchors that have been proven time and time again, in test after test, to be considerably less effective than other commercially available models? I know I bought a CQR because everyone else had one but I tested it myself and decided it was a less than robust anchor for my taste. Do others not actually put a product through the paces and just rely on mass appeal?????

I actually had a few salty types laugh at my "ugly new fangeled" anchor this summer and I found it to be quite idiotic. One guy actually told me of how he dragged into another boat last year in a "bad" wind storm. This as he laughed at my "ugly" anchor while I was washing he boat at the dock. I only wish I knew what anchor he was using for my log book..

I can't speak highly enough of the performance my Manson Supreme has given me compared to my other anchors and I'm sure the Rocna performs the same or better. I've never had an anchor set so definitively and immediately and it's just plain jarring. With this anchor, when you back down to set it, there is NO guessing if it set you KNOW it set.. It even bests my Spades by enough to notice a distinct difference. Hamilton Marine in Maine sells Manson Supremes and Rocna has a distributor in Canada..

These new style anchors really DO work but I'm sure, like the GPS, it will take some of the salty types to come around to them...

Craig Smith 09-25-2006 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kavakava
Is there a US source for this anchor? Also, I'd like some feedback from anyone who has practical experience with this anchor. Currently use a Delta, but looking for more hold. We'll be at the Annapolis show in a few weeks. Thanks.

Kava, if you're going to be at the Annapolis show, you'll find Rocna. There will be a little demonstration model you can play with. Nothing very impressive I'm afraid, we're still working on North American distributors.

Last word: don't be fooled by copies...

camaraderie 09-25-2006 10:10 AM

Craig... while I frown on anyone knocking off another's patented design can you give any details on how Manson Supreme would "fool" anyone? Are there differences in construction or performance that you think are significant or should they be avoided simply because they are making $$ off of your proprietary work?

Craig Smith 09-25-2006 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camaraderie
Craig... while I frown on anyone knocking off another's patented design can you give any details on how Manson Supreme would "fool" anyone? Are there differences in construction or performance that you think are significant or should they be avoided simply because they are making $$ off of your proprietary work?

Now who said I was talking about the Manson Supreme? :cool:

There is a difference in price - any American buying a Rocna has two options, buy from us in NZ and pay horrendous freight costs, or buy from Vancouver at a higher retail price and - well, still pay horrendous freight costs. This we hope to rectify shortly. However there remains the "you get what you pay for" difference, and our USD recommended retail will still be "moderately priced", not "cheap"; we're not about making cheap rip-offs, we're not based in China, etc. However you will find us competitive with most other genuine brands, and especially competitive with the top stuff, like genuine CQRs and Spades.

When a copier sits down to make his copy, he has two options. One is to copy the anchor identically but take manufacturing short-cuts to save money (the only way he'll sell his copy is by making the retail price cheaper). Witness many Chinese made claws. The other is to "improve" it, but most "improvements" are done by idiots that don't fully understand the original product, certainly not like the original inventor did. Witness any number of CQR and recent Delta copies that are not as good as the originals. Or any with gimmicks like slotted shanks, floatation bubbles, etc.

There are certain things we refuse to compromise on. For example:

Since we don't have a three-dimensional tip (like a plow or the Spade, which have because of their lead inserts), we need to make sure the tip is very strong. We do this by creasing the blade, which is a more expensive process than rolling. The crease then runs the full length of the fluke and together with the solid steel provides as much strength as possible.

We don't laminate steel. Metal doesn't gain strength from lamination in the same way that other materials do, it's often just edge-welded so the space between the sheets is effectively hollow. In addition to a ridiculous lack of strength, this has massive other implications. For example the weld is usually ground off to make it look nice, and the laminate edges might not be properly chamfered before joining. Result: not much weld holding your fluke together. Or, maybe the galvanizing blows it apart. Or, it doesn't, and the anchor rusts from the inside out.

We form a proper concave shape by raising the heel of the fluke, so it is a two dimensional spoon, not a one dimensional upside-down plow.

We have a properly designed shank intended to fit on as many rollers as possible, and work well with regard to self launching and retrieval. A shank with a tall profile is a bad idea, since anchors frequently come up sideways or upside-down. The shank must be of such a shape that it can rotate while in the roller, and it needs to do it fairly quickly. If you look at plows and claws, their shanks are usually of quite a low profile - for a reason.

Our shank is high tensile steel. We don't destroy the metal's tensile strength by running a gas cutter up and down the inside of the shank.

Our tip-weight is 30% the weight of the anchor. That's more than a Delta and not bad for an anchor with no dedicated tip-weight (lead).

etc

And we know a whole bunch of stuff that other, ahem, designers don't, so they make mistakes.

All of which adds up to an anchor which apparently did better than a certain other anchor (supposed to be the same) in a certain recent independent test, and by the way said certain anchor was 10% larger than the Rocna.

Sorry if that sounds like an informercial, but, with no names, hopefully that should arm you with some knowledge with which to go comparison-shopping. Any more and it'd read like a list of instructions "how to fix my copy".

sanctuarysam 09-25-2006 07:25 PM

now i'm really confused (this is nothing new)
 
great..i have a cqr hanging from my bow, that as best i can tell is a heavy paperweight. now to complicate matters, i've been reading these threads and now am not sure what to replace my cqr with.
i sail on the chesapeake, keep my boat in a well protected marina, near mobjack bay and want something to occasionally drop or have on hand should something nastier than "ernesto" come screaming through should i need to move my boat. i also don't want to spend the night on anchor watch for fear some inferior anchor design will drag on me.
i saw the Rocna, Manson Supreme and then the Hydrobubble. now i am completely lost. all three of these anchors make the most design sense to me. now i'm looking to the venerable senior members here to make up my mind.
oh...1990 sabre 30 mkIII, draws 5'3" if this matters...
so, do i make the cqr a piece of "yard art" and get two new anchors..or make the cqr my back-up..oh..and although i understand you get what you pay for, i don't want to spend a ridiculous amount on a new hook.

sailingdog 09-30-2006 07:14 PM

The hydrobubble is junk IMHO, as anything that reduces the weight of the anchor in the water is going to reduce its effectiveness at digging in.

I have a Rocna, and love it..but it is a bit expensive. I ordered mine from the guys in Canada.

My main complaint on it is that it tends to bring up lots of the bottom with it...and it is a bear to break out. I'm adding a windlass and bow roller to my boat to make using my Rocna a lot more user friendly. :D

I got the 15 kg Rocna, since I depend on it to hold the boat when I'm anchored out, and like the security it gives me, even if the current and wind shift.

Skimping on ground tackle is pennywise and pound foolish IMHO, especially if you're on the hook in bad weather. Getting undersized or badly designed ground tackle is putting your boat at risk. Why carry two small anchors and have to deploy them both, when a slightly larger single anchor will hold you more securely and with fewer complications.

If you have specific questions, let me know via PM.

Craig Smith 09-30-2006 09:32 PM

Quote:

The hydrobubble is junk IMHO, as anything that reduces the weight of the anchor in the water is going to reduce its effectiveness at digging in.
I am unsure what the displacement of the bubble itself is in relation to the rest of the anchor. In concept I agree with you sailingdog, although the emperical evidence would suggest it's not a terribly important factor - the HydroBubble did reasonably well in the SAIL testing (and that was hard sand). See the graph in the document linked to below.

Some clown on another board stated that this negative factor must get worse with increasing depth, as the floatation would increase, rendering the anchor useless in deep water :rolleyes: - now that's not right folks...

From Peter concerning the float: "I will make no harsh comment on this, save to point to possible issues concerning durability in the harsh conditions anchors are subjected to, and longevity if exposed to UV."

Peter has written a little something about the SAIL testing and also addresses copies and variations of genuine anchor types. We've put it online here. Comments welcome.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012