ROCNA & (possible) clones

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by cooper

I would be interested to know when you think the SARCA anchor fits on this time line.

Rex's first patent relating to his anchor was filed in 1998, but I can't speak to his development timeline before then. However there is a second 'improved' filing which more closely describes the actual current SARCA, which was filed in 2003. The SARCA came to our attention at about the same time we were starting to think seriously about commercializing the Rocna.

Originally Posted by cooper

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.

Oh of course you're correct. But copies must usually compete with the genuine item based on price, and that means making construction short-cuts and the like. You won't find the Manson plough priced the same as a genuine CQR! - and the same for other knock-offs.

Originally Posted by cooper

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........

Well, what is wrong with independent testing? If it's funded by any manufacturer, jointly or not, there will always be credibility issues, even if all the contenders agree to be bound by the results.

If you want to look at differences between the genuine Rocna and Manson version, here are the relevent entries on SAIL's chart from West Marine's testing data:



I could point out the Supreme is over 10% larger than the Rocna in this example and results should really reflect that.
In any case two of the tests here are pretty comparable, as you'd expect with anchors of essentially the same design. The forces vary with the different quality of holding per location. But, Manson's design mistakes and short-cuts make themselves felt in the "West of Wharf" location, where the average holding power is severely compromised.

Or we could compare the comments from West Marine themselves, who even resell the Supreme (and now Rocna). These are complete quotes from their 2007 catalog. The emphasis is added by myself to draw attention to the differences in the language:

Supreme 36lb:
"In six pulls never held less than 2,300lb, and held over 5,000lb three times. Seemed to engage the bottom immediately."

Rocna 32lb:
"Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately."

Even assuming that the knock-off's performance is "good enough", none of this speaks to issues with longevity, maintenence, strength, etc.

[cooper]

So it is fare to say that the SARCA was actually first which means that we can stop worrying about time lines and start watching all the new brands very carefully for peoples opinions and actual failures. I suspect this may take some time, and till that time, price and availability will probably dictate most peoples choices..

[craigsmith]

First what? The CQR was the first "proper" small boat anchor, way back in 1933...
The SARCA is nothing like the Rocna design; it's a modified plow with a convex fluke, a secondary fluke on the top, suction slots in the blade, and a slot in the shank. Don't get distracted by the hoop.

[Celestialsailor]

Well I see the anchor warriors are at it again. Just when I thought it was safe... I know from my own experience with products I have had on the market, patents mean almost nothing especially if you are a cash strapped venture. What I do know is competition is good for the consumer. Believe me. These new anchors are very expensive for the "average" sailor.
It is easy to become emotional about your product, especially when it is your livlyhood. But I will say that you can sell more of your product with a level head, kind, carefully choosen words and customer service. Gone are the days before Internet when opinions of products were difficult to find and hear. Now a days, these forums and customer feed-back via the Internet can make you or break you. All too many times I have seen great products go belly-up due to the fact the company turned people off.
Sometimes its better to hire a pro to do your marketing and put your efforts into product development where it might belong...

[cooper]

...sigh....

[MidLandOne]

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.

Craig Smith responded

Originally Posted by craigsmith

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.

Hey Craig, I asked Manson a perfectly reasonable neutral question and you turn my question and their considered neutral response (they even suggested I email them if I wanted specific information rather than proselytise on the forum) into part of another of your anti Manson tirades. I did not ask for such usage by you nor did I expect any manufacturer would be immature enough to use my question and the response to it in a cheap way for running down another as you have.

I regard product development, including anchor development, as part of a continuum. And any particular manufacturer who argues that its own product, developed borrowing ideas from many others as yours and everyone else's has, with some slight embellishment of its own has some amazing advantage over all-comers and then goes on to claim that another is just a copier and that all copies are ipso facto inferior, really is an immature player.

I do use Manson ploughs (when our boat was built Alain's Spade was only just appearing on the market so was not due to any aversion to the modern) and can assure you that Manson's comment about them deep burying is correct, at least in circumstances that allow easy recognition of that. When anchoring in firm mud the evidence of deep burying is plain on the chain as it is brought aboard in the way of mud firmly embedded in the chain links for several metres up the chain if the anchor has been lain to in heavy weather.

And I suggest that you don't just dismiss my comments in your mind as just from some other sailing Joe or respond with some blindly biased garbage. I am used to arguing cases for anchoring requirement exemptions from class for specialist commercial vessels while maintaining a good and efficient anchoring and mooring equipment classification for them, so will be unimpressed.

Sadly it seems that given your demand to hold the floor alone with sweeping dismissals of your competitors means we will be prevented from asking others of their views on anchoring matters as they will not want to be part of such nonsense.

For the sake of good order I should make it clear that I have no association whatsoever with Manson Anchors and have, in fact, never communicated with them on any matter ever.

[GordMay]

The time-line(s) of who invented (innovated, adapted, copied, etc) what, and when, might be more usefully debated in a court of law, rather than a court of public (cruisers) opinion. I don’t believe this an appropriate venue for such (unresolvable) controversy and argument.

Our interest, as users of anchors, should be more focused on the issues of quality and cost. Users define the (percieved) meaning of “quality”.

The Function describes how the anchor is used, converting a particular Feature into a user Benefit (quality).

Functions: A feature is any physical aspect, element, characteristic, or part of a product. It is also the name given to that component. (ie: material)

Features: A function is what the feature does. (ie: strength & corrosion resistance)

Benefits: A benefit is the positive outcome the prospect will enjoy from the feature. Every feature should offer a benefit (or several). It is the benefit that fulfills the cruisers’ need(s), and convinces the customer that this is the right product. (ie: fewer failures, longer life)

Cost (ie: initial & life cycle, and total)

So, as should be obvious, the fact that I (or someone else) invented a Feature (concave fluke), doesn’t seem to affect the Function of an anchor, nor provide any Benefit to we, the users.
What does affect the Function, and provides (or not) a Benefit, is the actual Feature (fluke shape).
It might even be argued (or not) that a Feature represents such an overwhelming improvement (in the “state of the art”) that it affects cost (the shape works in all bottoms, eliminating the need to carry different types of anchor).

These represent the types of issue that interest me, and which I think the various manufacturers (and other “experts”) are particularly qualified to address. I welcome such technical input from our valued commercial/vendor contributors.

[neelie]

A most interesting discussion/thread especially as I'm researching an anchor replacement purchase. I'm pleased to see competing manufacturers "duking" it out on these pages with the proviso that FACT and TRUTH are not to be compromised by ever escalating and outlandish claims and counter claims of the marketing pit bulls.

I will, however, not be happy to read anything that is later proved to be untrue or unable to be proved as being true. Lose your credibility and you lose at least one sale.

Note to Rocna/Manson et al: Your target audience on this site are a bunch of skeptical sailors who, at one time or another, have all been duped into buying expensive "stuff" that just never worked as advertised.

[Alan Wheeler]

I suppose the attempts at behind-the-scenes manipulation of MacDuff and Wheeler aren't quite enough.

OK folks, this has made my blood boil. I am dropping my Admin hat to the floor for a mo.
Craig, this really show's your level of imaturity. I/they have never discussed anything anytime with myself/Manson. I have no idea who they or any of their employees are, apart from making anchors. Does this comment being incorrect also mirror the rest of your comments?? In fact the only person/manufacturer I have ever had an email from was you when you gave me a "strong suggestion" that my anchor was inferior and I should keep quite about it and you would "help me" into one of your anchors with a special deal at cost of one of your genuine anchors. Which was still rediculousely over priced by the way.
OK now I am putting my hat back on.
Craig you know the rules here. You have been told time and time again about posting commercial information in regards to your product. We even went to the extent of producing a "Vendors Forum" so as you and others could post such info. I would appreciate you keeping to the rules of this here forum and stick to answering the questions posed to you.
If you wish to continue posting comments that are untrue like the one refering to me and posting comments that continue to make you seem like a mad man, then that is upto you, but you only end up discrediting yourself and your product.

[GMac]

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.

I sat wondering for a moment as to why I don't respond to, an irrational personal attack, the many factual errors and blatantly creative, some may say slick others use the word dodgy, marketing in Craigs posts. The same posts you must have been writing last night at the same time as you were talking to me about getting the rock-slotted rocna info up onto my website and out to my customers.

As someone who helped in the Rocna development by providing factor and storage space, tools, forklifts, ideas, suggestions, my staffs time, I was the one who actually organised and paid for the bloody prototypes to be made and many others things, all at my own cost, I'm wondering 'why I bothered'.

It is now quite apparent Craig has lost the plot and become so deeply involved with the anchor he just can't see see the flukes for the shanks. If that is how Rocna intend treating someone who has gone out of his way to help them I'd dread to think what they think of the people who aren't so connected i.e the user/ customer.

Craig, you are only young and have the vast majority of your life in front of you. Please try not to spend it so bitter and twisted. It's not like I haven't tried to tell you before many times.

(and no I don't mean your 'Kewene' - truly, how many knock-off styles do you build? )

In the interest of being FACTUAL for Manson, the Kewene and the people involved with them;
Yes Manson do indeed manufacture the Kewene Anchor (this is only a recent thing since the last Kewene manufacturer changed tacks business wise) but they do not sell them as it not their anchor. Raymond Investments sell the Kewene through Marine Specialities Ltd. The Kewene is not a knock-off or being knocked off by anyone. It is a nice multi-purpose anchor if anyone is wondering. Oh it was also possibly the 1st sliding shank anchor to be commercially sold here. It's been around for many many years.

Raymond Investments (actually it is one real nice older gentleman) who does not make anchors but gets someone to make their anchor for them EXACTLY the same as Rocna does as they are also not an anchor manufacturer, they only 'market the brand'. This also explains why Mansons Supreme is so much cheaper than the Rocna, it's nothing what so ever to do with quality of manufacture or materials used, it is just the Supreme doesn't have all the 'ticket clippers' in the supply chain. Not to mention economies of scale Manson has and Rocna hasn't.

Your Kewene comment above is pure 100% blatant twisting of the truth and you bloody well know it.

What makes you think it's Steve?

What makes you think it's Ned?

Oh one last thing - Craig can you please name the 'independent testing conducted here in NZ by a certain government organization' so we may bask in youre magnificent twisting of the facts yet again. Photo essay, my arse. You created that just as you have created most of the 'facts' and even steel Fortress anchors.

I could very easily tear Craigs posts apart but why bother when most will recognise them as the 90% BS are.

If anyone at all would like to verify anything I've said please PM me and I'll pass on the names and ph numbers of the parties Craig is trying hard to trash. I'll even give you the number of the 'certain government organization' but be aware the answer you'll get will be a bit different than implied.

I personally do like the Rocna anchor, it rates in my 'Top 3' easily. But I'm over the publishing of known un-truths, twisting of facts and pure bollix used to market it. I'm leaving it at that in case I let more truth out of the bag which may un-intentionally and incorrectly damage the anchor, which I don't want to do due to one persons inability to listen too or recognise common sense.

Mental note to self: Next time you see a good idea don't try to help a couple of struggling kiwi boys to do good for their country and boaters in general (at your own cost). Then spend a few years biting my tongue at some of the BS they (actually only one of them) publish even after numerous off-forum 'pull your head in' type comments. They'll only turn irrational and go bad on you.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by GMac

I sat wondering for a moment as to why I don't respond to, an irrational personal attack, the many factual errors and blatantly creative, some may say slick others use the word dodgy, marketing in Craigs posts.

It wasn't a personal attack on you at all, it was a comment on Manson's apparent strategy in handling negative commentary and feedback on their knock-off. Whether you are susceptable to that strategy or not is up to you and I make no comment on you personally - although, it is curious that you react so defensively. Perhaps I shouldn't have disclosed your name. If you're offended regardless, I apologize.

It must be nice, though, as the NZ importer/distributor for Spade, to see two of the Spade's primary competitors involved in a public dispute.

[Alan Wheeler]

It wasn't a personal attack on you at all, it was a comment on Manson's apparent strategy in handling negative commentary and feedback on their knock-off.

Boy!... you really don't give up and you really don't get it do you.
Craig, You know how you said Manson was kicked off another board, well you are very close to making the score one all. I am giving you a weeks ban from now. If you wish to come back, I expect you to post as suggested by the rules.

[GMac]

It certainly looked like a 'go'.

I know full well what the deal is with the Supreme and as such can not regard it as a knock-off, as I have told you. No I will not detail it as that is not for me to do so, it is Manson to decide when and if they want too. Your post/s did appear a bit frustrated (as was mine to a point, you know why) so I'm willing to accept your apologie (even if I can't spell it, damn) as long as you refrain from making further stupid and untrue comments especially the ones I know you know are such. (eerr.. that make sense?)

It does no-one any favours by mudding the waters to the degree you have/are trying. We often get people in who are genuinely confused after reading Rocna info either on a forum or website. Some buy Rocna, some Supreme, the odd one something else.

Manson will not just go-away as I'm sure Rocna won't. The Supreme will not be the 'only' anchor in use in years to come just as the rocna won't, mind you NZ would love the export receipts if they were. That's a simple fact.

As most people will tell you, selling by trashing the competitor does you no favours. I can name 2 anchoring system related companies here in NZ that use that technique and both, while probably having a couple of the 'best brands' in the game, sell less than the rest. The common comment as to "why didn't you go with a XXX" is "I don't like the company style and if their product is so good it'll speak for itself". The Rocna is good, no question and is more than capable of selling itself.

You can see on this forum how some of your negative comments are responded to. Not that I really know but maybe Wheels or one of the other moderators (yeah good idea pissing a moderator off by the way, smart move...not) will be able to tell us how many just 'watch' rather than post, I think it could be quite a few.

I know for a fact your comments have sold Supremes for Manson and if little old me in the bottom end of the world knows of a couple there must be many more out there. While I'm sure Manson would love to Thank you for that I don't think it is your intended plan.

You are not a stupid guy, far from it, so use a few of those many cells to think about what your doing. I'm a self-confessed dumbarse and it's pretty damn obvious to me so someone with your amount of smarts should be able to see it as well.

Last week I was very surprised at the number of emails and PM's I got when Manson posted that 1st post. ALL were pretty much 'Good on Manson for sticking it to Craig and being so open about their product'. Some did use some not nice words about you, idiot and stupid was common. The word Cowardly popped up as well.

Please please please just sell the Rocna on it's own merits, it has many you can use. Drop the Manson obsession and acknowledge the Rocna is a Spade derivative just as Manson has with the Supreme. I'm sure that will increase your sales far more than the continual attacks and dodgy use of facts.

I'm really sorry that this all is happening in the public domain now but I have many many times told you the same thing off-forum.

FYI - I sell a pile more Supremes and Rocnas than Spades. Mostly a price issue but I'm working on that and when (if) sorted then just watch out baby .

As for watching the 2 of you fight it out, I don't like it one tiny bit. It's non-productive, causing confusion, completely un-necessary and just bloody silly. As a matter of interest, a week or 2 back I spelled out very clearly to the Manson management that if I saw anything of theirs I considered dodgy I would pull them up over it as well. To their credit they said that in the heat of battle if they did say anything I considered dodgy to please make sure and do so. I assured them I would. As you know I've already had a go at Sarca for what I considered dodgy antics, which to their credit they acknowledged I was probably right and changed a few things. And anchor makers/sellers are not alone in getting an earful from me. I don't just do it because I'm bored or to wind anyone specific up. Yes I have 'stirred' you on the odd occasion but hopefully it was pretty obvious I was purely doing so for fun.

Yes I can be blunt, bolshe and obstinate (I do like that word )but I deal with people and anchoring systems day in day out so I know how many users think. Many just don't know bugger all about anchors so to see threads like this just confounds them further. We are potentially playing with people lives and boats here so anyone pushing dodgy info should be pulled up on it just in case they take something the wrong way and end up dead. I do take this subject and my job very very seriously. To see something that could potentially kill someone really gets to me, if you hadn't already guessed.

It wasn't all Manson only on the other board sorry Wheels, 2 to tango things you know. I do think your 'cooling off period' is fair and reasonable though considering you could have just said 'go forth'. I think some of the combatants could do with a nice tall glass of 'calm the F down', myself included.

If I may ask the viewers something, moderators willing (even the now pissed off at you one ). I would like to ask the viewers a simple question and would like a simple Yes/ No type answer rather than another rant. I've done enough of that for this thread already for everyone, sorry folks but it's been building for a while and I'm hopefully finished now.

What sales technique is more likely to get you to buy any product, attacking the competitor or selling the product on it's own merits? Assume both products are the same.

Sorry about the lengthy rant everyone but I genuinely think Craig has real good information he could part with for the benefit of all, just as Manson has. Now if we could just get the 2 to do so in a civil and truthful manner everyone would be far better off and safer anchored. If you want to watch a boxing match suss ESPN.

Novel ends, Thank god. Thanks for the patience to the moderators. Hopefully you won't see it again.

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by Pblais

Stainless Steel anchors look great on the bow and stay nice and shiny. They are not as stong and are subjet to crevice corrosion. If you don't anchor much it's great because they look so nice at the marina.

OK, lets talk about stainless steel and alternatives. What steel do you suppose is better in salt water than 316?

[Alan Wheeler]

Trim, in fairness to Craig, I am going to close this particular thread, seeing as he is "on holiday" for 7 days. I think your question is a good one. Would you mind re-posting that as a new topic heading? I would cut and paste and do it for you, but I have tried that in the past and it doesn't quite work properly. It gets all messed up.
Sorry for the inconveniance.