ROCNA & (possible) clones

[vacendak]

2 Craig Smith

what do you think about this ("bracket") anchor ?

SVB *-* Bracket Anchor - Stainless-Steel

not that much sellers of orignial Rocna here ... or is the above decent substitute ?

[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.

[vacendak]

it's the shape I was thinking of, not steel grade
they have the same (and other) anchors in galvanized

SVB *-* Anchor

it's great because they look so nice at the marina

I saw one wise guy with gold-plated anchors & hawse-holes (in Copenhagen -
a ~65" motorboat); I wonder if he ever dropped anchor - and if so, what was
the cost of such luxury

As to me - if I plan to show off, then it takes small effort and time of:
- washing the anchor
- wiping it dry
- spray silver (or GOLD) paint all over it
- and proudly moor with great vanity
but IMHO the above does not make sense

[Pblais]

I wonder if he ever dropped anchor

Doubt it. Might scratch easy. I'm sure deckhands polish it several times per week. Be terrible if it got scratched.

As far as the "Bracket anchor" it may be a copy but it's not even a poor copy of a Rocna nor trying very hard. It actually looks like a partial copy of a Delta with the hoop added. The plate on the bottom looks flat and not shaped like a plow. The angle on the shank does not look correct either. Maybe the picture is just poor. Probably really shiny though. They must be importing them really cheap to make a serious huge profit.

[vacendak]

well, this 20kg "bracket" galv steel is priced @ USD 450, but SS > USD 1100 ex-VAT
did you mention 'huge profit' ?

[High Cotton]

mmmmmmmm..............

I think the ROCNA AND the MANSON SUPREME look like they may have better "holding" power...............

I LUV my MANSON SUPREME !!!!

[craigsmith]

No no the Buegel (above) is not a copy of the Rocna.
(The Manson Supreme anchor definitely is and like all knock-offs must be avoided at all costs! )

vacendak, here is a copy of a reference re the Buegel vs Rocna:

About the Bügel (AKA “WASI”)

"Bügel" is German for "handle" or "bracket", and is also used when English-speakers would say "roll-bar". The full name is "Bügelanker" which of course just means "roll-bar anchor". The German steel firm WASI produces a version which is called the WASI Bügelanker, and this name is frequently shortened to just “WASI”, particularly in the USA. This is marketed as part of the WASI GTS (Ground Tackle System) which includes their stainless steel PowerBall swivel and chain.

However, the Bügel design is very simple to build and happens to work very well in weed, which has made it popular in the Mediterranean. These two factors mean that cheap knock-offs are readily available in most countries, especially those in the Med such as Italy, Greece, and Turkey. The design was patented but it seems the intellectual property was never defended, and has since expired in any case, and these knock-offs are just collectively referred to as "Bügels".

When you look at the Rocna next to a Bügel, you will see that the Rocna is a far more sophisticated design. Get a sheet of steel, cut out a triangle, attached a half-pipe to the rear, weld on a straight bar for a shank, and you have yourself one Bügel. It is very primitive and the roll-bar is really the only similarity with Peter's design. The straight bar shank of the Bügel creates problems when stowing on a boat’s bow (it is hard to pull home properly). The Rocna has the concave fluke, it has tip-weight (the toe is thicker than the heel), it has the skids, and the shank is a much more practical design.

A properly built Bügel (many are not done right and don't work as well as they should) will work well in weed, at least better than plows and claws. They also offer a bit more fluke area than the older types of anchors, meaning they generally are superior.

The WASI version is available only in 316 stainless. This is a bit of an issue and we advise people to find a galvanized alternative. 316 is not particularly strong – we offer the Rocna in stainless too, but use an Australian high grade steel called SAF 2205 which has roughly 3 times the tensile strength, and even that is less than our regular galvanized models. There are lots of stainless anchor manufacturers who use 316 – but we don’t like this.

Also provide the independent summary comments of West Marine following their 2006 testing. Complete and verbatim:

Rocna 15: “Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately.”
WASI 35lb: “Varied results from 1,300lb to maximum tension. Failure mode was generally dragging.”

Nb.: “Bügel” can be correctly circumscribed as “Buegel” if generating the umlaut ü is awkward
Nb.: Direct enquirers to the West Marine 2006 testing results at the “testing & demonstration” page on our website, which shows the WASI Bügel against the Rocna

[irwinsailor]

Craig if I wanted one of your anchors where would I find some sort of sizing chart?

[craigsmith]

What do you mean sizing chart? Sizing recommendations table is on our website.

If you want dimensions, then e-mail us and let us know what you need.

[irwinsailor]

I did not think of your web site, I looked on the West Marine site and they don't have much to work with there. It looks like I would need a model 40.

[High Cotton]

(quote)no the Buegel (above) is not a copy of the Rocna.
(The Manson Supreme anchor definitely is and like all knock-offs must be avoided at all costs! )(unquote)
QUOTE BY CRAIGSMITH !!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but outlandish statements like what you just made REALLY TURN ME OFF ABOUT ROCNA's !!!! I was considering buying a ROCNA for my sisters Hatteras flush deck.............but.......

People like you that make ridiculous statements like that really hurt a good company regardless of how good their product is......

But, then again, you didn't get into that job because you're a "marketing genius", you're obviously "born" into the ROCNA family, right?

Don't mean to sound like a jerk, just one of many observations that I don't like when someone in your position denegrades the competition that way..........

and I've been making observations for over 60 years...... don't like your method of promoting ROCNA......... not meant to be offfensive, just an observation.

[Alan Wheeler]

(The Manson Supreme anchor definitely is and like all knock-offs

Craig, that is not a true statement. You know full well that Manson had the design on their desks well before Rocna. The difference is that Rocna got the hard product to the market first.

There are lots of stainless anchor manufacturers who use 316 – but we don’t like this.

OK that's fine. But that is not to say that 316 is not strong enough. If it is designed, built and tested properly, then an anchor in 316 can be made to be as strong as you want it. You keep inferring that 316 is weak and will not make a reliable anchor. That is simply not true.

[High Cotton]

ALLRIGHT ALAN !!!!!

Now we're back to an intelligent conversation about the merits of different anchors....

one wonders........ if the MANSON SUPREME was the original design........
why are they the copy?????

I'm no expert on anchors (or much of anything else, for that matter..hehehe).....
but even after reading the comparison I can't justify the price difference between the two, which is quite substantial.

I mean, really, they look very similar, so I just can't imagine any significant difference in the real world........ but I could be wrong.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by High Cotton

Don't mean to sound like a jerk, just one of many observations that I don't like when someone in your position denegrades the competition that way..........

and I've been making observations for over 60 years...... don't like your method of promoting ROCNA......... not meant to be offfensive, just an observation.

Well, I'm sorry Cotton, and perhaps I am a bit emotional about it, but then it is a sore subject for me. We were involved in talks with Manson concerning licensing the Rocna brand and design to them, but we ended up rejecting their proposals. They then turned around and produced a slightly varied clone of the Rocna which copies exactly every principle functional element of the design. And I feel justified in saying so - and further, in doing my best to draw attention to those construction short-cuts and compromises they have made in order to cut the cost as much as possible.

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Craig, that is not a true statement. You know full well that Manson had the design on their desks well before Rocna. The difference is that Rocna got the hard product to the market first.

Perhaps you would find, on inspection of the relevant evidence, that your confidence in Manson's communiques to you is not so well placed.

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

OK that's fine. But that is not to say that 316 is not strong enough. If it is designed, built and tested properly, then an anchor in 316 can be made to be as strong as you want it. You keep inferring that 316 is weak and will not make a reliable anchor. That is simply not true.

316 has roughly a third the tensile strength of 2205, other factors notwithstanding, period.

We fine the shanks on the Rocnas down as much as we dare, and any alternative material without drastic design modifications would not be acceptable. A 316 shank on a generic Buegel design, the example in this case, is not in our opinion strong enough - I would not be comfortable with one on my own boat.

[Alan Wheeler]

Annnd....so what is the test rating your anchor shank is going to fail at? What point do you expect a shank of same dimension built in 316 to fail at? And then to add, at what point will the shackle or chain link you have the entire anchor shank (which ever material) connected too fail at? I think you will find that in all cases, the weakest point in the entire system is your shackle/chain link.