ROCNA & (possible) clones

[craigsmith]

Do you want me to start posting pictures of anchors with bent shanks?

[GMac]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

Do you want me to start posting pictures of anchors with bent shanks?

Oh.. a pissing contest no-one wins. How constructive.

Note the 5th and 6th words. Actually it my just be the 5th word. Do hyphenated words count as 1 or 2?

[Manson Anchors]

Craig, stop being an idiot. People are seeing through your childish approach. The Spade/Bugel/Power/Sarca anchors were all around before either the Rocna or the Supreme.
The Rocna is simply a Delta shank stuck onto a modified Spade fluke with a Bugel roll bar....its not brain surgery Craig. Your Father hasnt reinvented the wheel. You shoud pay Alain a LOT of credit for his Spade anchor, its what your father based the design off and you know it.

And while we are on the topic of knock-offs, I see Rocna has now come out with a rockslot/sandslot ala The Supreme. If thats not a direct copy of The Supreme, tell me what is.

Craig, get off the forums and leave them as a sounding board for like minded individuals to air their views and UNSOLICITED information and experiences.

[Pblais]

I think we need a little more civility here. I don't think we are going to turn this into a loser leaves town wrestling match nor settle the entire set of questions presented.

I would request that members not bait the vendors into disruptive arguments and remind vendors Cruisers Forum will not be used as a platform to destroy your competition. We run a nice place here and we don't have to take no for an answer.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Manson Anchors

... The Spade/Bugel/Power/Sarca anchors were all around before either the Rocna or the Supreme.

Steve:
As I look at photos of all the "new" anchors (including Mansons); I note that they mostly look like the earlier gear, I'm more familiar with.
1. Is there any new and revolutionary anchoring technology out there (now, or coming soon)?
2. What are the technical features of good anchors, that offer the greatest benefits? Identify those benefits (and, if you like, how Manson achieves them).
Thanks,
Gord

[MidLandOne]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Steve:
As I look at photos of all the "new" anchors (including Mansons); I note that they mostly look like the earlier gear, I'm more familiar with.
1. Is there any new and revolutionary anchoring technology out there (now, or coming soon)?
2. What are the technical features of good anchors, that offer the greatest benefits? Identify those benefits (and, if you like, how Manson achieves them).
Thanks,
Gord

Manson are in the position of having one of the new generation anchors and a plough in their stable. I would be interested, if it is possible for them to release their experience/knowledge, in the approximate comparative performances of the plough and the better performing new generation anchors (Supreme, Rocna, ?) as a group ie not comparing the new anchors with each other, with respect to -

1. Same anchor weight
2. Same exposed area (of plough/spade/whatever one wishes to call the lumpy bit on the end )

Just looking for generalities as am well aware there are a lot of system and environment variables.

Thanks

John

[High Cotton]

STEVE........ we get to try out our new MANSON SUPREME Saturday at the GASPARILLA SAILING REGATTA on Tampa Bay................

We are the COMMITTEE BOAT for the races, should be loads of fun ......

Of course, we'll be anchored in TAMPA BAY with only 10k winds (according to weather reports)............won't be much of a test, but we'll be "LOOKIN' GOOD!"

and I guarantee that SUPREME will get everybody's curiosity up on Friday afternoon when everybody gathers at the dock.........

[Manson Anchors]

Thanks Gordmay
I will endeavour to be as succint as possible.

1. The SPADE is probably the most revolutionary anchor available at the moment - it changed anchor design considerably. Before that it was the CQR. The Hydrobubble is pretty cool too. It seems to work and certainly adopts different principles. A revolutionary anchor changes the way designs tend to go and doesnt just combine existing features. This is in my humble oppinion. Yes, new anchors will be coming out.

2. The technical features? Nor super-technical but A -Super high holding. B -quick setting. C -Easy stowing. D -Value for money (not so much a feature but super important).
Thats the order I put on them for my boat. Other people may consider them in different order but really its those 4. Please visit Manson Anchors: The Worlds Finest Stainless Steel Anchors and Galvanised Anchors if you want to find out more or for a more in depth discussion contact me directly.

I dont want to abuse this forum as an advertising platform. There is a seperate forum section for self-promotion.

Thanks again

[GordMay]

The "lumpy bit on the end", often spade shaped appendage of the arm, used for digging into the sea bed in order to secure the vessel, is usually called the FLUKE.

[Manson Anchors]

Thanks High Cotton
You are right, not sure 10 knots is ideal for anchor testing. Im sure those getting transit lines before the start will be happy you are staying put though.

Midlandone
The Plough (generic plough) is an anchor that only works - really works - once it has dug deep. This happens by it dragging through the bottom to get to harder, more compact material. No other anchor digs deeper than the plough over time. The Plough's downside is it takes more experience/practice to set. Once set however, it CAN exceed all of the new anchors simply by being able to get very deep. Fluke area is what dictates holding although at 6ft below the seabed the seabed material is around 25 times more compact/dense than the first foot. Therefore its not hard to imagine the impact on holding power when an anchor can drag/dig to much deeper depths.
Unfortunately most tests are done over a short time with small scope.

But again, email me directly if you want more info.

[GMac]

Originally Posted by Pblais

I think we need a little more civility here. I don't think we are going to turn this into a loser leaves town wrestling match nor settle the entire set of questions presented.

Damn I've gone and brought the popcorn already and was hoping to get a Corporate box booked

I would request that members not bait the vendors into disruptive arguments and remind vendors Cruisers Forum will not be used as a platform to destroy your competition. We run a nice place here and we don't have to take no for an answer.

Good call. Shame the lads can't play nicely together, imagine the good info they could share with the forum.

[CSY Man]

Me too, I have the popcorn and the beer ready, now I want some action..

Already put my money on them Rocna people: Bought a 20 Kg piece last summer and so far I am happy with it.

As for who invented what first: I would like to know the order of those things as there seem to be a disagreement.
Craig says the other guys were copying Rocna, and the other guys says the exact opposite.

I like the Spade and I have tried it on a friends boat with impressive results, but was turned off by 2 factors: 1) High price, 2) Two- piece construction with some noise from a guy that claims he lost his boat because the 2 pieces separated.

Having lived on a boat in my youth and in the hurricane belt (Virgin Islands) without insurance and having almost lost the boat once due to a dragging Danforth, I take my anchors seriously.
I have owned all the big names, Bruce, Delta, Danforth, Fortress, etc.
So far I am fairly impressed with the Rocna but must admit I bought it due to slick marketing such as testimony from the Dashews and a good web-page with good info and also test results from West Marine's and Sail magazines anchor test.

If the Rocna is as good as they claim, and so far I think it is, it is one hell of an anchor.

(Should I see rust spots on the Rocna in the next year or two, and should I drag, or fail to set at any time in the next year or two, I will certainly say so on these here pages. Stay tuned.)

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by Manson Anchors

Craig, stop being an idiot. People are seeing through your childish approach. The Spade/Bugel/Power/Sarca anchors were all around before either the Rocna or the Supreme.
The Rocna is simply a Delta shank stuck onto a modified Spade fluke with a Bugel roll bar....its not brain surgery Craig. Your Father hasnt reinvented the wheel. You shoud pay Alain a LOT of credit for his Spade anchor, its what your father based the design off and you know it.

Hi Ned!

I'm pleased to see you've come out of the woodwork, especially after last time! I suppose the attempts at behind-the-scenes manipulation of MacDuff and Wheeler aren't quite enough.

The SARCA wasn't around (perhaps we can jog your memory with the timeline below) - and the "Power" is merely a slight variation of a Buegel (although it's sure nice to see you credit the style from which you copied the "diamond head" tip on the Supreme).

As to the Spade and Buegel, naturally, and we have always credited both these anchors as sharing the ancestry of the Rocna. However, Peter has made a number of developments which are very new and unique - and these are what you have copied. And therein lies the problem.

Originally Posted by Manson Anchors

And while we are on the topic of knock-offs, I see Rocna has now come out with a rockslot/sandslot ala The Supreme. If thats not a direct copy of The Supreme, tell me what is.

Sure, we're doing a slot option now a la the SARCA, from which again you copied your "rock slot". Good idea I have to admit, and it seems we need it too for the Australasian market. Grant, as a local reseller, will confirm the demand for it (good or bad...)
Not that even SARCA can claim originality; slotted shanks with sliding shackle facilities have been around in Danforth styles for decades (and no I don't mean your 'Kewene' - truly, how many knock-off styles do you build? )

Originally Posted by GordMay

Steve:
As I look at photos of all the "new" anchors (including Mansons); I note that they mostly look like the earlier gear, I'm more familiar with.
1. Is there any new and revolutionary anchoring technology out there (now, or coming soon)?
2. What are the technical features of good anchors, that offer the greatest benefits? Identify those benefits (and, if you like, how Manson achieves them).
Thanks,
Gord

What makes you think it's Steve?
They've been kicked off forums before; the YBW.com editor pulled two entire threads for fear of joint liability, six months or so ago when we complained after they posted a few things that shall we say stretched the truth.

Gord's question #2: As I argue on our page on the Manson Supreme, Manson could not give you a detailed reply. They don't fully understand the details of the design in its original and copied form. A brief look at their generic response to your query will illustrate this. We find that in their marketing they have clearly studied our copy and text, and mix it around, but always get little bits wrong here and there.

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

Manson are in the position of having one of the new generation anchors and a plough in their stable. I would be interested, if it is possible for them to release their experience/knowledge, in the approximate comparative performances of the plough and the better performing new generation anchors (Supreme, Rocna, ?) as a group ie not comparing the new anchors with each other, with respect to -

1. Same anchor weight
2. Same exposed area (of plough/spade/whatever one wishes to call the lumpy bit on the end )

Just looking for generalities as am well aware there are a lot of system and environment variables.

Manson are interested in maintaining sales of all their range, and understand like us that it is very difficult to bring a new design to market. There is a lot of resistance by way of the established plows and claws. So, they must continue to market their CQR copy (and Bruce copy) as good "alternative" anchors, despite their Rocna copy clearly being superior. They have too many accounts throughout New Zealand and Australia ordering in ploughs and the like.

Their response concerning burying depth is utter nonsense.

I'll post here a link to an interesting set of independent testing conducted here in NZ by a certain government organization, which includes the genuine Rocna but compared to 1) a genuine CQR and 2) Manson's CQR copy (no Supreme sorry, this was well before it came about). The results are of some interest:
www.rocna.com/distributable/cqr_manson_rocna_testing.pdf

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

As for who invented what first: I would like to know the order of those things as there seem to be a disagreement.
Craig says the other guys were copying Rocna, and the other guys says the exact opposite.

Right.
Here's a summary timeline for you.
(The context that should be considered is SARCA's very fast commercialization in the first few years of the decade, and arrival on the scene with a significant marketing budget. You haven't seen that outside of Australasia, but it began to hurt Manson's CQR and Bruce copies, and they knew they needed something new. Additionally, MacDuff's Spades must have been a small irritance. Then along comes Peter and his Rocna...)

1998-2001
Peter develops original Rocna prototype with I-beam shank but all other functional elements present (concave fluke, skids, thicker toe section, roll-bar).

2001 (early)
Two prototypes produced.

2002 Jan-Oct
Peter tests one prototype in circumnavigation of New Zealand.

2004 Jan
Discussions with first business potentials regarding Rocna possibilities.

2004 April
First production run by fabricator of confirmed Rocna design.

2004 Aug
Rocna design registered in New Zealand (IPONZ # 405185). International patents etc filed later connect back to this.

2004 Aug
Initial dialog with Suncoast Marine (present North American licensees & manufacturers)

2004 Sep
Steve Mair, Manson, meets with Peter and Craig, Rocna, to discuss possible license or other deal after being approached by Peter earlier. A Spade and Rocna were left at Manson’s for their assessment relating to discussions.

2004 Nov
Kerry Mair, Manson proprietor, visits Peter in person and makes casual offers for purchase / license of design which are rejected.

2004 Nov
Fine tuned Rocna design communicated to fabricators (slight change in skid-to-rollbar configuration).

2005 mid Feb
Manson send e-mail to Rocna complaining re published comparisons between Rocna and Manson’s CQR knock-off, and also advising of a new anchor they had “developed” (but with no details).

2005 Apr:
Manson Supreme released with first photos showing a variant Rocna with a slotted shank intended to compete with SARCA.

***

I'm quite happy to publish all this although the lawyers might be annoyed. Transparency is key in these public debates.

Whether I can pinpoint exactly the period during which the Supreme was drawn up, I can't disclose, but it should be clear that the NZ design registration is the legal marker, and Manson would have to have the Supreme not only finished but viewed by Peter as early as 1998 for their counter-claim to be valid.

In their marketing they frequently use the statement "after 18 months of research...", which I interpret to be a pre-emptive falsification (unless you consider studying the Rocna to be research) designed to defend against our inevitable allegations.

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Having lived on a boat in my youth and in the hurricane belt (Virgin Islands) without insurance and having almost lost the boat once due to a dragging Danforth, I take my anchors seriously.
I have owned all the big names, Bruce, Delta, Danforth, Fortress, etc.
So far I am fairly impressed with the Rocna but must admit I bought it due to slick marketing such as testimony from the Dashews and a good web-page with good info and also test results from West Marine's and Sail magazines anchor test.

If the Rocna is as good as they claim, and so far I think it is, it is one hell of an anchor.

Would you believe me if I say that the 'slick marketing' is, you might say, genuine. In that it mostly comes directly from the mouth of the inventor, with some editing from me and others. None of this stuff has been cranked out by some contracted marketing firm. Dashew is certainly his own man and says just exactly what he pleases, whether we like it or not. And this material that we can produce works on guys like you, because really you're just a guy like me or Peter or Dashew!

The general engineering outfits, such as Manson, but also many others worldwide, only know how to do what they've always done: build knock-offs, cut costs, distribute product. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but if they're going to shaft us by copying our own baby, I for one am going to broadcast what I think about it.

Originally Posted by Pblais

I think we need a little more civility here. I don't think we are going to turn this into a loser leaves town wrestling match nor settle the entire set of questions presented.

Apologies... but I think I've explained myself above. Manson tend to present or at least imply a set of untruths and fabrications which I need to refute.

[cooper]

I would be interested to know when you think the SARCA anchor fits on this time line. I say this because the designer lives in my neighborhood, and he had one welded to the roof of his old F250 with crude sign writing around it years ago. We used to comment when he pulled up in the servo for fuel. (I have a danforth and Australian made CQR and no investment in any company). I would be more than happy to trial any donated anchors and publish the results !! I need a size that would work with a 38 foot steel yacht..........Truth be known, copyright can be tested in court. Anything else is a moral victory only and has very little sway with most punters. Ultimately its the product that is cheap, available , and that works that will stay in the market. I would like to see the owners of the contesting brands, pay for an evaluation together. This way the terms of testing would have to be agreed on by all, and the test mutual scrutinised by those parties. ...and the judges decision is final........