New Rocna

[carstenb]

It will be very interesting to hear from those that get one and actually use it.

I'll be buying a new anchor next year - if anyone hears of real-life experiences please let me know

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

It seems strange to me that they are applying for a patent partially for a shank with a sharpened leading edge. This is a good idea and I am surprised it is not used more, but to try and patent it?

I'm not a patent analyst, just a keen amateur. The patent application (and I should note my earlier error calling US2013006812 a 'patent' when both it and CA2790598A1 are 'patent applications' under consideration and analysis) has been revised since 2011 when PK Smith first applied. Further revisions may well take place before any patent is granted. I think the wording in the abstract, seeming to prioritise the v-cross section of the shank, is an artifact of the application and revision process.

PKS's application may succeed. We'll see.

Note that the Rocna Original is only covered by a US Design Patent, not a patent.

Contrast that to the work of Rex William Francis, who was judged by US patent analysts to have truly innovated.

Apart from the question of how the US Patent Office will decide, the big questions are the cost of manufacturing the shank and at what price the new Rocna can be brought to market.

From the convergent evolution perspective, it's interesting to note commonalities among this new Rocna and the Raya, XYZ Anchor etc. Note well the shift from the Delta style shaped shank, one that incorporates a self-righting geometry by its shape, to a curved shank.

From the phylogeny perspective, it's interesting to note the continued significance of Poiraud and his Spade, in the sense of the grafting of the Spade ballast chamber into this PK Smith design (not to mention, to my untrained eye, that the fluke of the 'preferred second embodiment' looks more similar to a Spade fluke than a Rocna Original fluke).

Note well that the US Patent Office examiner (unnamed so far - the examiner will be named if the patent is granted) had elected to compare PK Smith's application to patents already awarded to Rex Francis and Alan Poiraud (among others - the others including Manson Anchors and Yves Gelb).

Looking at the Canadian patent application (see https://www.google.com/patents/CA2790598A1) reveals an examination request in July 2014!

Al

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I'll be buying a new anchor next year - if anyone hears of real-life experiences please let me know

It would be great to get some reports from users, but it not going to be released for a month and half so I think it will be while.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

It would be great to get some reports from users, but it not going to be released for a month and half so I think it will be while.

yeah - but we do happen to have some anchor "junkies" on this forum that just can't wait to get a new fix

Willing to bet a beer that someone has a write no later than January/February.

Of course - you have to come to copenhagen to collect if I'm wrong

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by carstenb

yeah - but we do happen to have some anchor "junkies" on this forum

I don't believe it

[Alan Mighty]

Close reading of PK Smith's patent application shows his recognition of a common criticism of the Rocna Original, to wit:

"[0009] Existing anchors that self-right by way of a roll-bar
have hitherto made use of solid round bar or hollow tube.
Solid bar is either too thin to reliably keep the rear of the
anchor when upside-down from sinking into a soft seabed, or
unnecessarily heavy if made of larger bar diameter. Alternatively
a hollow tube may fill with mud entering by way of the
openings which cannot be sealed if the anchor is to be hot dip
galvanized. Neither method provides any further benefit once
the roll-bar has performed its function of orienting the anchor
to the correct attitude for setting. This is disadvantageous.

"[0010] Furthermore anchors may sink some distance into
the seabed when the rear edge of the fluke digs into the
seabed. This reduces the ability of the anchor to roll into the
correct attitude for effective use. Again this is disadvantageous."

The remedy the new Rocna proposes includes:

"[OO82] In further preferred embodiment shown in FIG. 7,
the anchor is made to self-right and attain the correct attitude
for setting by way of a flange 50 at the rearward end of the
fluke 3 along which the anchor will roll even when deployed
on a soft seabed. The flange 50 works in conjunction with the
shank 2, which must have an outside curve 51 also designed
to permit the anchor to roll. Thus the rearward edge 7 of the
fluke 3 may have a continuous flange 50 extending therefrom
over at least a substantial part of the rearward edge 7. The
flange 50 preferably extends onto the side edges 8 and 9 at
least a short distance as shown in FIG. 7."

and

"[OO83] The shank 2 is curved along its length such that in
use the shank 2 and flange 50 co-operate to allow the anchor
1 to rotate about the flange 50 and at least parts of the outside
curve 51 of the shank 2. By suitably proportioning the length
and depth of the flange 50 and the shape of the shank 2 either
the shank 2 or the flange 50 can be in contact with the seabed
during the full or almost full rotation of the anchor in use.

"[OO84] Typically in this construction the angle between the
flange and the fluke at their intersection is between substantially
60° and substantially 120°.

"[OO85] In use then the anchor 1 may then roll on a flat
surface when finding itself in an upside-down or sideways
attitude as shown in FIG. 9. As the combined geometry is such
that the seabed surface 52 is always only in contact with one
point on the flange 50 and one point on the shank edge 51 with
the anchor's center of mass 53 always offset from the plane
defined by these two points, the anchor 1 will rotate until its
forward end 6 is also in contact with the surface 52 and the
anchor 1 thus ready to be set (FIG. 11).

"[OO86] The anchor 1, when dropped onto the seabed 52 in
an upside-down or sideways attitude, will therefore be able to
self-right itself without the use of either a roll-bar or other
undesirable protrusions above the rear of the fluke, an unnecessarily
large amount of ballast in the tip of the fluke, or a
shank mounted impractically close to the forward end 6 of the
fluke 2.

"[OO87] A moderate amount of ballast added to the fluke
adjacent the forward end 6 may be added if necessary in order
to provide sufficient counter-weight to shift the center of mass
far enough toward the forward end 6. The ballast can be added
in the form of a bulb 55 at the bottom of the fluke 2, as shown
in FIG. 8a or a deepened section or an added insert substantially
as shown in FIG. 8b. Other cross sectional shapes could
be used but it is desirable that the shape is such that the added
ballast will easily pass through a mud or similar seabed."

I read para 0086 as including a criticism of the XYZ Anchor ("a shank mounted impractically close to the forward end of the fluke") but I have not, unfortunately, used an XYZ Anchor (I lust after one!) so I don't know how 'impractical' the shaft mounting of an XYZ Anchor is.

Al (who has been happy with his Rocna Original, which has proven itself a massive improvement over his earler CQR)

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by onestepcsy37

Spade was my first choice when I was new gen anchor hunting, but couldn't buy it in the USA. Still, very happy with my choice of Manson Supreme.

Isn't Sea Tech still importing Spades?
Spade Anchor by Sea Tech and Fun

Alain Poiraud, the original designer of the Spade, is probably smiling in his grave looking at the 'new' rocna. He always argued against the need for the roll-bar. I can't see how these patent applications could be valid -- novel, not obvious to someone skilled in the art? I don't think so.

[onestepcsy37]

Seatech must not have been here three years ago. They're located less than100 miles from me. I had to drive that far to get my manson. Think I'll call them today.

[Sail IC]

The market for an affordable, modern, non-rollbar anchor is wide open. The one who claims it can be the "new Delta" (volume) in the market place.

If it performs like the Spade, but more reasonably priced (like the rollbar Rocna) and a decent distribution network, I think its a winner. But to get to Delta volumes it probably needs to be cheaper, but they will probably skim the market first. It would make business sense.

[DoubleWhisky]

To get to the Delta volumes they need to make a sizing chart similar to Delta, may be with disclaimer of the kind: "sizing chart is good for anchoring in the settled weather, wind up to 20 kts, on the reasonably well holding ground, in anchorage protected from swell". Of course this disclaimer must be well hidden somewhere, like on the last page of catalogue, or on the website, accesible only through sitemap, and only from page giving the details of the corporate structure.
Other way this anchor will never attract mass production builders, like Delta with its amusing sizing chart

I'm in doubt if Rocna will ever go this way...

[GMac]

Interesting to see the new Rocna anchor is the one we tried to get to work in the 1st place but couldn't as no one was willing to breach patents, hence the Supreme and Rocna had to use roll bars to get the correct orintation rather than Alains tip weight he had in his Spade. Alain being clever patented the tip weight in NZ knowing someone would try to copy it.

Now with Rocna copying the Supreme shank and the Spade I suppose it answers the who copies who debate



And as I've been told I need to add this to posts now - Disclaimer - I have been told I must disclose any commercial connections to anchors so I'd like to state here that I do sell anchors and I sell the following brands - The Anchor Right range, The Manson range, Rocnas, Deltas, CQR, Fotress, Raya, Brittany's, Pool, Flipper Delta as well as many others types sizes from other manufacturers in many assorted countries all of which get used in recreational, commercial and for other uses, even anchors used by 4x4's. I have sold anchors between 0.3 kilos through to 12,500 kilos. But don't bother trying to buy any from me as it makes no logical or financial sense what so ever for either you or me, as I have stated many times in the past and to many PMers. I also helped Pete Smith with he development of his 1st anchor and still have the prototypes I built for him.

[transmitterdan]

The patent specification says not to use extra weight in the tip. That's one of its claimed advantages over a tip ballasted anchor.

[kbudd]

I'll be happy to take the old Rocna off your hands when you get the new one.

[downunder]

Thanks Alan Mighty for the patent info.

Interesting that ROCNA themselves recognised some of the issues of roll bar anchors that have been uncovered by the discussions on various threads.

Can't imagine that they will be cheaper than the current ROCNA. Expect a premium if it is considered better.

Cheers

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Willing to bet a beer that someone has a write no later than January/February.

And so it goes. With Grant McDuff's invaluable contribution, CF has put together solid background for any write up on the Rocna 'New'.

According to the counter on the rocna.com website, we're still 48 days before the launch of the Rocna New (or whatever it may be called, should it ever be launched commercially). Decisions by the US Patent Office (and its Canada counterpart) are yet to come.

I had earlier noted that the Rocna Original is protected by a US Design Patent. It is also a NZ registered design, a protection that expires in 2019; see http://www.iponz.govt.nz/app/Extra/I...87371428449419.

Manson Anchors' The Supreme is also protected by a US Design Patent in the name of Stephen Michael Mair (application filed February 16, 2006 and granted December 4, 2007) USD 556666S. Manson Anchors has several NZ registered designs of non-roll bar anchors, dating from 2011.

Al