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

[Goosebumps]

just to comment on my anchor, i decided that rocna looked good in reviews notwithstanding the debacle with poor steel qyality for few years, got one, love it, as where my cqr, bruce, danforth failed me on numerous occasions the rocna in same anchor grounds simp,y bit the bottom and stayed put even in heavy tidal current changes.

[skipgundlach]

I love our rocna - except that it hauls up a monster load of bottom, most of the time, leading to running along to rinse.

That leads to stern-to orientation of the roll bar, leading to fouling trying to get it up in the chocks, as the top of the shank presents rather than the bottom.

This design looks much like a spade, and I think that it would eliminate the fouling on raising I have nearly every time (when the bottom is non-stick sand, it comes up fine, but any rinsing makes it point-forward, and I have to use a boat hook to twirl it to the right orientation).

One concern is that it's already 'sharp' in terms of a roller; the new design seems to have an even sharper presentation to the roller. Perhaps without an over-center upside-down issue, that won't be of concern, but I go through any type of material I've tried, eventually. I admit I've not paid to have a custom SS roller made, but it may come to that.

Getting the anchor up has been a bit of a challenge, sometimes, as I suspect that there have been times where there was at least 100# of bottom (usually with grass to help hold it together, but sometimes looking very much like concrete or tabby) attached, and frequently taking a great deal of motoring with the anchor at various depths to clear that off before loading.


From that I impute that if it has a bottom other than rock, I'm unlikely to drag, and if it manages to upset (I watched it do that once, as we were anchoring in clear water but difficult current/wind conditions), it will reset immediately. Because it's usually so deeply set (we back hard), my norm is to pull up using the catenary to advance the boat, which develops way on our 44k# boat. When it gets to vertical, I just quit raising and let the weight of the boat and the zero scope pull it loose. See above for raising, at that point ☺

HTH; I don't want to spend the big bux for a vulcan, but if I were doing what I did 4 years ago when I got the standard 33KG model, I'd go with vulcan. It would have made my anchor roller system much simpler...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by colemj

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

Amen.

And not only is it mostly of questionable independence, I don't think any of it is methodologically valid, even if some of it shows some trends which convey some meaning.

The root problem is that sea bed consistency is wildly variable even in a small area, and setting behavior of anchors is not consistent enough for a few throws to have any statistical validity.

Also, ultimate holding power, which is the main quality measured in most of these tests, is not the quality which is most interesting for us. It's how well the anchor achieves a set. Maybe how well the anchor resets in a wind or current shift.

To make a really valid anchor test, in my opinion, one would have to:

1. Devise a method for very consistent, very repeatable setting technique.

2. Use a very large statistical sample, comprised of a very large number of throws, large enough to overcome the variations in seabed consistency.

3. Use a variety of setting techniques (how long does the anchor settle, how rapidly do you back down on it, how long do you back down on it).

4. Test in a significant variety of different types of seabed.


Then, the most interesting output will be % of missed sets, and time and distance to achieve a set. Not ultimate holding power.

It would be a major operation, far beyond the budget of sailing mags.

Until someone does something like this, the only valid way to determine comparative anchor performance, in my opinion, is to try them yourself and see how they work for you in the places where you anchor and using your own setting technique.


And much more valuable information about how different anchors perform, more valuable than all the tests ever performed, put together, can be gleaned from Noelex's superb set of photographs and actual observations about the setting behavior of different anchors.

[Goosebumps]

A good contribution here would be to find out who has been living on the hook for years, in which circumstances, not next to a marina in its protected mooring area. Then find out what their anchor experience is considering the type of boat, cruising area, climate, tides, prevalent winds..... i have a 34 foot cat, ditched the CQR, the electrical windlass, installed manual windlass and 20kg, 5kg more than minimum for my boat, Rocna. I am only sorry I didnt do that earlier. i have tried to get the Rocna to drag where my CQR, my Bruce, my Danforth dragged! Result failed. Sure the Rocna ships loads of soil when in mud but are we cruisers not always prepared for that, with deckwash pressure or simple oar?

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Amen.

And not only is it mostly of questionable independence, I don't think any of it is methodologically valid, even if some of it shows some trends which convey some meaning.

The root problem is that sea bed consistency is wildly variable even in a small area, and setting behavior of anchors is not consistent enough for a few throws to have any statistical validity.

Also, ultimate holding power, which is the main quality measured in most of these tests, is not the quality which is most interesting for us. It's how well the anchor achieves a set. Maybe how well the anchor resets in a wind or current shift.

To make a really valid anchor test, in my opinion, one would have to:

1. Devise a method for very consistent, very repeatable setting technique.

2. Use a very large statistical sample, comprised of a very large number of throws, large enough to overcome the variations in seabed consistency.

3. Use a variety of setting techniques (how long does the anchor settle, how rapidly do you back down on it, how long do you back down on it).

4. Test in a significant variety of different types of seabed.


Then, the most interesting output will be % of missed sets, and time and distance to achieve a set. Not ultimate holding power.

It would be a major operation, far beyond the budget of sailing mags.

Until someone does something like this, the only valid way to determine comparative anchor performance, in my opinion, is to try them yourself and see how they work for you in the places where you anchor and using your own setting technique.


And much more valuable information about how different anchors perform, more valuable than all the tests ever performed, put together, can be gleaned from Noelex's superb set of photographs and actual observations about the setting behavior of different anchors.

We conducted such a major operation in August of last year when we chartered the Rachel Carson, an 81-ft research vessel owned by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science out of Solomons, MD.

Over the course of 4 full days, 12 anchors were pulled in a close geographic area 5x each using the exact same starting scope, pull speed, and distance.

Bob Taylor, a retired US Navy anchor design and soil mechanics expert with over 45 years in the field, consulted for us on this project.

Boating writers from magazines which represented over 1 million readers were aboard to witness every step of the testing, and several of their stories and videos from the testing are on the link below:

Fortress Anchors – The World's Best Anchors! – Chesapeake Bay Anchor Test

This was a soft mud test, which is a bottom condition that is not uncommon in bays, harbors, lakes, and rivers throughout the world. The test was not perfect in every sense, as no anchor test would ever be, but it was controlled and repeatable, and much was learned.

[Goosebumps]

Originally Posted by Fortress

We conducted such a major operation in August of last year when we chartered the Rachel Carson, an 81-ft research vessel owned by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science out of Solomons, MD.

Over the course of 4 full days, 12 anchors were pulled in a close geographic area 5x each using the exact same starting scope, pull speed, and distance.

Bob Taylor, a retired US Navy anchor design and soil mechanics expert with over 45 years in the field, consulted for us on this project.

Boating writers from magazines which represented over 1 million readers were aboard to witness every step of the testing, and several of their stories and videos from the testing are on the link below:





Fortress Anchors – The World's Best Anchors! – Chesapeake Bay Anchor Test

This was a soft mud test, which is a bottom condition that is not uncommon in bays, harbors, lakes, and rivers throughout the world. The test was not perfect in every sense, as no anchor test would ever be, but it was controlled and repeatable, and much was learned.

I am very sorry but I abhor reading anything more about anchor tests. before buying my rocna 20kg i read all I could get my hands on and the sense of dread I came away with was fed by the incompetent, biased manner in which all tests set out to make sure their favorite came tops, I dont exclude rocna from this bias! But simply the best for me a liveaboard cruiser who lives on the hook since 2007 outside of marinas in crusing areasthat have all types of bottoms imagineable.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Goosebumps

I am very sorry but I abhor reading anything more about anchor tests. before buying my rocna 20kg i read all I could get my hands on and the sense of dread I came away with was fed by the incompetent, biased manner in which all tests set out to make sure their favorite came tops, I dont exclude rocna from this bias! But simply the best for me a liveaboard cruiser who lives on the hook since 2007 outside of marinas in crusing areasthat have all types of bottoms imagineable.

Goosebumps,

i completely understand your sentiments and I think your skepticism regarding anchor testing is well-deserved. There is no better testing than firsthand, practical experience and I sincerely hope that you continue to be safe during your travels.

All the best,
Brian

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by Goosebumps

A good contribution here would be to find out who has been living on the hook for years, in which circumstances, not next to a marina in its protected mooring area. Then find out what their anchor experience is considering the type of boat, cruising area, climate, tides, prevalent winds..... i have a 34 foot cat, ditched the CQR, the electrical windlass, installed manual windlass and 20kg, 5kg more than minimum for my boat, Rocna. I am only sorry I didnt do that earlier. i have tried to get the Rocna to drag where my CQR, my Bruce, my Danforth dragged! Result failed. Sure the Rocna ships loads of soil when in mud but are we cruisers not always prepared for that, with deckwash pressure or simple oar?

Having to clean our Rocna is far preferable to dragging. That's a good problem to have.

Just further confirmation, in the absence of good statistically valid real world testing, of the capability of the Rocna.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Fortress

We conducted such a major operation in August of last year when we chartered the Rachel Carson, an 81-ft research vessel owned by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science out of Solomons, MD.

Over the course of 4 full days, 12 anchors were pulled in a close geographic area 5x each using the exact same starting scope, pull speed, and distance.

Bob Taylor, a retired US Navy anchor design and soil mechanics expert with over 45 years in the field, consulted for us on this project.

Boating writers from magazines which represented over 1 million readers were aboard to witness every step of the testing, and several of their stories and videos from the testing are on the link below:

Fortress Anchors – The World's Best Anchors! – Chesapeake Bay Anchor Test

This was a soft mud test, which is a bottom condition that is not uncommon in bays, harbors, lakes, and rivers throughout the world. The test was not perfect in every sense, as no anchor test would ever be, but it was controlled and repeatable, and much was learned.

I read your test back then -- and I think it is one of the better ones done by manufacturers. Good marketing for you since your design is unbeatable for those bottom conditions (I carry a Fortress myself for just these kinds of conditions -- and with the mud palms ).

But I think it's of relatively little value for anything besides marketing Fortresses.

That's because:

1. Only one specific bottom type gives a very narrow picture of anchor performance.

2. Five throws is not nearly enough to give a complete picture even in one specific bottom type. Evidence of that is in the very wide variation among the five throws -- just look at the huge differences between the red, blue, and green throws of the F37 at 32 degrees test, for example. I think you need more like 50 throws to start to see the pattern -- what is normal and what is an outlier.

3. Starting scope and pull speed are not the only variables at all. How long does the anchor settle on the bottom before you start to back down on it? Or is it just a pure runnning start with the anchor thrown off a vessel moving at a certain speed? If the latter, this is even worse, since that's no way to set most anchors.

4. Likewise, just dragging anchors through the mud and seeing what force they develop while dragging is just not at all representative of how anchors are actually used. The force developed while dragging is not even a particularly useful quality of an anchor. We do not indeed just drag them through the mud; we try to get them to settle in and bite. And it's whether or not they will get fixed in the sea bed which is the real test. You didn't test that at all.



That's my opinion of your test, which does not mean that it was a bad one. It was better than most manufacturer tests (which are mostly complete rubbish), and great for its intended purpose. You have a great product which is very well marketed; kudos for that.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Goosebumps,

i completely understand your sentiments and I think your skepticism regarding anchor testing is well-deserved. There is no better testing than firsthand, practical experience and I sincerely hope that you continue to be safe during your travels.

All the best,
Brian

Fortress is one of the few marine companies that have the integrity to address their product pros and cons. Topping that, I think most people's empirical experience mirrors that of the company, so their integrity remains intact.

[transmitterdan]

I agree that Fortress has displayed transparency and integrity.

In general, I am unimpressed by anchor demonstrations that have any of these characteristics:

1) Small anchor (few kilos) as "proof" that the design works at larger sizes.

2) Dragging any size anchor through soft gunk like a plow just to prove it can "dig deep".

3) Test conditions that tend to favor one anchor design over all others. Especially so if those conditions are uncommon.

4) Tests that appear to intentionally cast a competitive anchor in a bad light. Even if that test seems legitimate I am so skeptical that it has little value to me.

5) Tests that attempt to "prove" stainless steel does anything to improve an anchor's intended purpose.

[colemj]

I find dry/wet sand tests to be informative because they show the physical orientation and initial setting dynamics of anchors. Even with the smaller models. Heck, I find PICTURES of the anchors next to each other informative.

Many of these tests cast competitive anchors in a bad light simply because those anchors do not perform well. I find that informative also. While it is easy to dismiss a Rocna test showing their anchor to be 10% better than the Manson and Spade (and vice versa), how many tests from these multiple anchor manufacturers showing a CQR to be just awful can one dismiss?

I haven't seen any tests that attempted to prove anything improved about a SS anchor, except how clean they come out.

Mark

[jeepbluetj]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And much more valuable information about how different anchors perform, more valuable than all the tests ever performed, put together, can be gleaned from Noelex's superb set of photographs and actual observations about the setting behavior of different anchors.

What this Dockhead said. That thread is better than all anchor tests put together.

I rarely anchor. But I never did trust my old CQR copy. After reading Noelex's thread, I now know why. And I now have a Mantus on the bow.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

2. Five throws is not nearly enough to give a complete picture even in one specific bottom type. Evidence of that is in the very wide variation among the five throws -- just look at the huge differences between the red, blue, and green throws of the F37 at 32 degrees test, for example. I think you need more like 50 throws to start to see the pattern -- what is normal and what is an outlier.

Actually, 5 throws demonstrated several very important truths in anchor testing. I've done anchor testing, and this is what I have learned.

• The scatter is all over the place in variable bottoms. In this case, the bottom had very soft mud with layers of shell interspersed. The testing was truthful... and scattered, as anchor holding in that area is known to be.
• All of them were bad much of the time. No anchor is better than the bottom.
• Since you can't set the anchor as hard as the wind will blow, you really never know. Many of these would have withstood backing, but let go in a blow.
• Setting in soft mud, with deep setting require to generate any real hold, takes really long distances. Most of the anchors took about 50 feet to set. They have to slowly work their way down. Those that did well were 8-15 under.

My thoughts are these:

• It is the WORST set that matters, not the best one.
• If the bottom is good sand, no one (competent) drags. Fun for videos, but not really important.
• If the bottom is really bad, weight and size help, and no one is really safe. Go somewhere else if high winds are coming, and place a second anchor if you cannot (however, the correct way to set 2 anchors depends on the bottom type and the anchor you have to work with!).

I like Fortress for what it does. It always wins sand and mud tests when the angle is fixed or changed slowly. I like other anchors for consistency on variable bottoms.

[motion30]

The problem with the fortress, danford design is related to resetting when the current shifts 180 degrees. That design has proven unreliable on resetting. In my experience