Thanks for all the parties on this thread for continuing to be civil to one another in the face of disagreement.
Oh, I'll lash out soon enough, no worries. I
do have a rep to maintain after all..
I grew up going two sizes up on CQR and Bruce anchors. Delta anchors I went up one size. Rocna I bought right off the factory sizing table. Somewhere buried--at least at one time--on Rocna's site was a definition of the conditions that drove their sizing table. Spade is one size up. I have no calculations to back these choices up, simply experience and judgment (which may just be another word for opinion *grin*).
It has always seemed to me that the manufactures seem to recommend the smallest size you can get away with. I suspect it's for the ease/convenience factor for the end user (you know, like roller furlers and chart plotters), but this is just a guess on my part.
I haven't seen any indication in the press of bad welds on Rocna anchors. Citation please?
My only citation is simply what I wrote before - personal observation of the welds at various retailers over the last couple of years.
I do not trust welds to begin with in an application like this (my own personal hang up maybe, but I'm just being honest), and after seeing some Rocnas with huge blobs of weld material, and some with what appears to be somewhat carefully applied weld material, I can only draw the conclusion that the weld quality control stinks at Rocna. This doesn't even take into account the off center shanks I mentioned either.
As Gary notes welding is a big concern and a tough practice to fully control. Similarly it isn't something a customer can evaluate with x-ray, magnaflux, or destructive testing. Pretty welds are not always good welds, and some darn good welds are not pretty. I spent a lot of times working on structural crack abatement on the USNS Observation Island and looked at a lot of visual and x-ray imagery of welds side by side.
Exactly why I don't trust my boat on a welded anchor, for better or worse.
Also, I do know that a weld doesn't take shearing stress better than the steel it's welded to does, and the way Rocna welds the shank to the scoop, you
could see the anchor getting fouled and breaking at the weld point in a shearing stress situation. It's not a hard visual to bring to mind, no?
I think we should differentiate between Rocnas built in NZ and Canada under the Smiths and those built in China under the Bamburys/Holdfast.
My NZ and Canada Rocna 25s may turn out to be a pretty good investment.
Maybe, I dunno. How about posting some pics of your welds compared to the Chinese made Rocnas? Let's see a pic "dead on" on the shank as well, to verify it's straight as an arrow..
Interesting. I'll play. I have two Rocna 25 anchors on my 28k# 41' monohull. I'll even agree to be the test boat if we can source appropriately sized anchors of the other types. It would be great to borrow a load cell as well. We could use a biggish dinghy to swap anchors around out of view of the driver -- I have a remote windlass control in the cockpit.
I don't like the caveat about going with manufacturer rated sizes (if that's what you're saying). My boat (30') calls for something ridiculous like a 22# Bruce (I think it was 22#, I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment but I remember laughing out loud when I read the manufacturers recommended size for my boat.
That aside though, if you're willing to make the claim that you can blindly tell which hook you have set and retrieved out of a selection of danforths/fortresses, cqr's, bruce's, spades and rocnas, I'd be willing to participate for sure. I honestly don't believe anyone could tell, but you may prove me wrong.
OR ...I might prove that my contention that rocnas are the over prescribed sugar pills of the anchoring world true... it'd be fun either way honestly, and I'm sure we could find a way to involve beer and food in the experiment as well..
I do believe that technique is as important as the hunk of metal at the end of the chain so we'd have to agree on a protocol for apples and apples comparisons.
Agreed. I'd say each run ought to be done in this way:
1- Drop mystery hook with at least 60' of chain on the rode (if not all chain rode), pay out about 10 to 1, kill motor
2- Drop aft hook (same one on each run here, a danforth prolly), and lightly set it using a sheet winch, then crank in manually the front rode till at about 5 to 1
3- Crank aft rode on a sheet winch till the front hook is set and the aft hook rode is bar taut. Doing it this way might insure you "feel" what's going on when you set the hook. Wait 15 minutes watching the aft rode to make sure your set and not dragging (if the taut rode aft goes slack, you know you're not set)
4- Make your guess which hook you just set.
5- Drop back to 10 to 1, retrieve aft hook
6- Motor (or preferably, sail) off the hook, reaffirm OR change guess at this point.
Rinse, repeat.
In the literature "plow" is used to describe anchors like the CQR and Delta. "Scoop" is used to describe anchors like the Bruce. I haven't seen any real consistency in descriptors for Rocna, Manson Supreme, Spade, and Raya beyond "new generation." The literature for recreational anchors is pretty limited to that of Hinz (old), Poiraud, and to some extent Frasse.
Well, whichever keeps the proper word usage harpies of my back, that's the one I meant to use..
Jon Eisberg is correct (again) in calling the Chesapeake Bay benign anchoring grounds but one does have to start somewhere.
I never contended otherwise. Maybe Jon could chime in with where the Rocna shines best in his opinion..
?