Rocna's new anchor/ Hey, Anchor thread!!!

[HopCar]

"Please tell me if I will be ok. I just bought a N.O.S. 35# Delta for $120 US for my 13000# sailboat."

On this forum, it doesn't matter what anchor you bought. The answer is always the same.

Your anchor is too small, it's the wrong kind, and you don't have enough chain.

[Suijin]

Interesting that in the main video for the Vulcan Mr. Smith intimates on two occasions that it does not perform as well as the original Rocna...that the Vulcan rolls almost as well as the original Rocna, and that it has all, no wait, all the leading characteristics of the original.

It's pretty clearly a compromise design targeted at bow configurations which which do not allow for the roll bar. If it were at least equal in performance they would state it flatly and unequivocally. The inference of the video is that if you can accommodate the original design, you're better off going with that.

[HopCar]

" The inference of the video is that if you can accommodate the original design, you're better off going with that."


That's exactly what they are saying. There is a huge market of boats that can't use a roll bar anchor. That market is currently dominated by Delta. That is the market they are going after with the Vulcan.


If you compare a Rocna and a Vulcan of the same weight, the Vulcan will be a smaller anchor because it relies on a weighted tip to set.


I wish I could use a Rocna on my boat but I can't. I'm going to try the Vulcan to replace my Delta and see if it is any better. By the way, I think the Delta is a pretty good anchor.

[Opie91]

Originally Posted by HopCar

"Please tell me if I will be ok. I just bought a N.O.S. 35# Delta for $120 US for my 13000# sailboat."

On this forum, it doesn't matter what anchor you bought. The answer is always the same.

Your anchor is too small, it's the wrong kind, and you don't have enough chain.

HopCar is correct. There is no right answer.

[LEOCAT66]

Just purchased a Rocna Vulcan 44# for our 26000# cutter from West Marine in Pensacola. We have been using a 35# Delta, which will be retained as a backup. We also have a Fortress FX 55 and a Fortress FX 23. The finish, on the Vulcan, especially the welds are excellent, much better than the Delta. That said, we have never had an issue with the Delta, it has never dragged etc. We are now headed south and desire to anchor out as a rule and will be cruising in areas with varied bottoms, different than we have normally encountered. Decided on the Vulcan based on fit under bow sprit, as we cannot use a roll bar type anchor. We also exchanged e-mails with Peter Smith on sizing. He was most pleasant, and helpful, with a prompt and positive response. I was impressed.

[HopCar]

Leocat, I'm doing the same thing but my new Vulcan weighs within a pound of what my Delta weighs. I've been happy with my Delta and I want to make a comparison between the two. I'm also very impressed with the quality of the welds and the galvanizing. Time will tell how well it holds up, but it's a damn good looking anchor.

[ReMetau]

Just changed out my 66# Bruce for the 55# Vulcan. I was happy with the Bruce other than the rare time anchoring in a grassy bottom. I'm hoping the Vulcan performs better and saves me 11#s on the bow. I really like how much better it fits on the sprit and doesn't snag the bobstay on the way up. Haven't used it at anchor yet.

We also got rid of our 45# CQR and got a Fortress FX-37 saving us another 24 pounds at the bow.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Galvanization does not "heal itself." It's a zinc coating that wears off like a sacrificial anode. But you're correct about paint being a complete waste of money offering nearly zero protection.

We ended up just buying new spade anchor but I did find this that claims that painting after galvanizing might make sense. Keep in mind that the bruce anchor I was going to paint was rusted throughout the shank and everything, so its likely that it would have helped extend the life of the anchor a bit. Its not like the bruce ever set past the tips! It would probably have to be reapplied several times year, as you point out.

http://www.galvanizeit.org/images/up.../paintprep.pdf

In the end we are much happier with the spade and fortress configuration anyhow.

[s/v Beth]

Does anyone know of independent testing on the Vulcan yet?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by s/v Beth

Does anyone know of independent testing on the Vulcan yet?

I think you will find that nobody can agree if "independent testing" has ever been done with any anchor.

Mark

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by colemj

I think you will find that nobody can agree if "independent testing" has ever been done with any anchor.



Mark

I would agree it has not been done nor is it likely to be any time soon.

[LEOCAT66]

Just finished our first test of our 44# ROCNA VULCAN this past week. We anchored in the Ft. McRae cut off of Big Lagoon, near Pensacola, Fl., in 12' of water using 125'of all 5/16" HT Acco chain with a 30' 1/2" nylon snubber. The anchor was slow set by drifting back while slowly letting out chain to the desired scope, after it touched bottom using no power. After we felt it stop the boat, we powered up to 2000 RPM gradually for about a minute.

For the next three days we experienced dead calm at night with rain during the days. During the day winds were normally in the 15 kt range, with squalls normally producing 30 to 40 kts with occasional gust to around 50. Our protected area produced little wave action, as we had total cover from N S & E, with partial protection from the West.

During the entire time we held solid, near our original coordinates with swing accounted for. We experienced numerous changes in wind directions to all points of the compass during the three squally days.

There is no doubt that the Vulcan is a confidence builder, as no drag could be detected. We were in all sand in an area indicating only fair holding. The Vulcan launched easier than our Delta 35, and retrieved about the same from the bottom. It stowed into the roller much easier.

No drag was detectable.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by colemj

I think you will find that nobody can agree if "independent testing" has ever been done with any anchor.

Mark

While it is true that results are distorted by manufacturers, your statement is just lazy.

Practical Sailor has done this (I am doing some now). The resent Solomons Island tests were unbiased. I've compared my data to other studies as well and believe the range of results is consistent with field conditions. There are reams of Navy data. I feel there have been many unbiased tests.

The problem is bottoms are extremely variable, and that really difficult bottoms--rock and weed--are too variable for meaningful testing. The result is that many anchors are optimized for sand or mud, and less thought is given to overall performance.

But I do know, from the testing I have done, that the general trends reported in sand and mud are correct. If you want to understand testing, you have to look at the raw data, which includes how many times it didn't set, how far it dragged during the setting process, and how it was to break out.

Anyone who wants to jump in and try this should feel free. It is an incredible bag of cats to sort through, a lot of work, and if anyone did report full data on a range of bottoms and through shifts, few would be able to interpret the data and no publisher would print it at full length. But go for it.

How do you interpret this data? And this is just one bottom, one anchor, no veer. Good luck.
* Holding power varied over a 3:1 range (those that set)
* Setting distance varied from 20-70 feet.
* Sometimes it didn't set. Don't know whether it fouled or just didn't dig.
* Do you report the best set, or the worst set (worst IMHO)

The data for every brand was complicated. Some were more consistent, some stronger, and performance on a different bottom will be completely different; I've actually tested one anchor that is better in soft mud than it is in good sand.

And this it what makes these threads so fun!

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by thinwater

How do you interpret this data? And this is just one bottom, one anchor, no veer. Good luck.
* Holding power varied over a 3:1 range (those that set)
* Setting distance varied from 20-70 feet.
* Sometimes it didn't set. Don't know whether it fouled or just didn't dig.
* Do you report the best set, or the worst set (worst IMHO)

The data for every brand was complicated. Some were more consistent, some stronger, and performance on a different bottom will be completely different; I've actually tested one anchor that is better in soft mud than it is in good sand.

From the point of view of a user I am interested in two specific attributes.

1. The holding force and variability in the force (for an number of trials) as a function of bottom type compared with the holding force and variability as a function of same bottom type for a standard (plow, Bruce, a common anchor) given various scope.

2. The propensity and distance (may be infinity) to reset when compared to a standard as a function of bottom type and scope.

These measurements are statistical trials covering a number of trials.

What is missing from your example is a standard. I want to know if I am doing better or worse than my old anchor (or an older anchor design.)

Since the data is statistical in nature there are statistical tests to determine benefit or not wrt the standard. The analysis would take into account the variability within the test data.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by thinwater

While it is true that results are distorted by manufacturers, your statement is just lazy.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger (and go look again for where you misplaced your sense of humor - its probably next to your keys).

I didn't say I thought there was no independent testing - I was just pointing out that in the past 4,000 anchor threads going back 10 years, they always end up revolving around people arguing that none of the data are truly independent. Even when "independent" people do the testing, they are accused of favoring a manufacturer. Any anchor that tests better than someone's preferred one will be tainted as a failure in testing methodology or cherry-picked conditions.

Go ahead - search the archives, since you are not lazy. Find me an anchor testing thread where it was agreed that the measurements and methodology were independent and done correctly.

Myself, I find even the manufacturer testing to be useful and much less biased than others believe. Even the past stuff that Rocna did where it was obvious data were twisted shows clearly a large separation gap between certain anchor types and design generations, with the good ones pretty closely piled together and far away from the bad ones. That is all I really need to know.

Finding meaning in minute differences between, say, a Rocna and Manson Supreme is to me, well…. meaningless.

Mark