Will be trying out a Rocna anchor

[Strygaldwir]

Vasco;

I wish I could say I had never dragged on my Bruce, but alas, I did twice. The first time was at Fraziers Hog Cay in the Berries, the second time was in Nassau. At Frazier's it pulled out because of the shifting current. It then couldn't reset because there was so much grass about. So up at about 2 am, I am trying to get the Bruce to reset, some where. After 1 1/2 hours, I gave up. I switched to my CQR, it bit immediately and set and I got at least 2 more hours of sleep that night. My wife, she got none.

In Nassau, we were in the harbor, once again we had a serious tidal flow. But, this time I think it was just the area we had set in. Very close to the area we had be set in for a week, there was a marled bottom. We got a blow and the anchor tripped. Not sure whether the other anchor tripped it or what. Well, after diving to untangle the three anchor chains that intertwined, reseting the anchor of the boat behind us because we tripped his, we spent the next two nights in a marina. Very annoying. The last nght we were there we anchored out again. When we pulled up our anchor, the chain was wrapped around what looked like a piece of corrogated roofing. Took us 1/2 hour to get it untangled.

Up until that point, I didn't realize what a difference the anchoring substrate really makes. I started diving my anchor regularly. I was surprised how many times I though I had a good set, only to dive down and see my bruce laying on its side with only 1 1/2 of it's flukes burried. If there is any grass around, it does NOT seem to do that well! Be aware, and careful. Some folks compensate for this by having VERY havy bruce's I have seen 37 foot cats with 55 lb Bruces. The real solution is probably a different, better anchor.

I think the spade type anchors are a superior solution. I'll buy one and give my experiences maybe next year! Now to just figure out which one.

Cheer,

Keith

[Strygaldwir]

Craig;

I am in general disagreement with the "you get what you pay for" concept. If this is the case, then all knock offs, new products, should charge MORE for their products, cause if it cost more, it is obviously superior!! (my econ profs would flip over that one, but then again none of them could quite explain the dynamics of the stock exchanges either! Oh yeah, people are irrational, and don't always make the correct logical decisions! Sorry Dr. Mansfield! )

I agree, a spade type Rocna is superior to a CQR type plow. I have an orignal one, can't wait to get rid of it. About 25% of the time, it is laying on its side and I have had to haul it to re-anchor. Not very inspiring.

I am more and more confused as to this concept of the Manson being a copy of the Rocna. It doesn't LOOK like a Rocna. In truth, both the Rocna and the Manso look like variants of the Spade. From what I was able to understand, it seem the Spade was the orignal break-through. If it was the break-through and thus the original, aren't both the Rocna and Manson copies? Oh, you both have the roll bars! Well, if that were the best solution, and if I understood you correcly:

Also, when variations are made, it's a naive copier that really thinks his variations are original. When we look around at the variations of all different types of anchors, we can immediately see why the original designer did not do the same thing (there's usually a reason!). The original designer or team that spent years working on the R&D will know a whole lot more about his concept than the copier who sits down for a week and tries to figure out something that'll make his thing look a bit more exciting. They probably considered said "improvements" and discarded them for a good reason. The fact is the copier simply doesn't have the experience and knowledge necessary.

By this logic, Spade must have known what it was doing when it did NOT put the roll bar on THEIR anchor.

But that's an aside, I don't think any of your anchors are copies, I think you are probablly all good products with significant improvements over what has been previously available. I think some Chinese manufactures have made copies of some CQR and Bruce anchors and they may be inferior to the original. I haven't seen any that look like the Rocna yet, though.

I wonder what the issue is with the slot. I am not sure I'd ever use that. If I anchor an rocks, I guess I'd just have to dive for the anchor. $500 is a bit to be thrashing it about. I'd probably just keep my Bruce. Now that's a great use for it. I don't care how much I bend it up!

You're definely right about the $500 and $1000 lump of steel though, most people can't tell the difference.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by Strygaldwir

I am in general disagreement with the "you get what you pay for" concept. If this is the case, then all knock offs, new products, should charge MORE for their products, cause if it cost more, it is obviously superior!! (my econ profs would flip over that one, but then again none of them could quite explain the dynamics of the stock exchanges either!

My point is most anchor prices in the market around the world are pretty natural; there is little or no price fixing; the manufacturers usually try to set the MSRP as low as possible in order to compete, and the retail price to the consumer is usually a direct result of factors such as costs of production and middle-man margins. I don't care about the economics, I'm just saying that seems to be the reality. Period.

Originally Posted by Strygaldwir

I am more and more confused as to this concept of the Manson being a copy of the Rocna. It doesn't LOOK like a Rocna. In truth, both the Rocna and the Manso look like variants of the Spade. From what I was able to understand, it seem the Spade was the orignal break-through. If it was the break-through and thus the original, aren't both the Rocna and Manson copies? Oh, you both have the roll bars!

The only similarity the Rocna has with the Spade is a concave fluke, and to be pedantic that wasn't an original concept of Spade's, so you haven't found the original - keep looking. As an aside we developed the skids almost concurrently with Spade (the early Spades didn't have any), so who's to say which of us deserves credit for that.

They are variations of the Spade in the same sense that any anchor is a variation of another, lol, they all do the same thing.

The Manson anchor has a concave fluke, skids on the heel, and a roll-bar. This configuration was at the time unique to the Rocna. The inside (roller-side) line of the shank is next to identical and so is the particular arrangement of the roll-bar, heel, and skid.

All other differences, we considered - and rejected - during design and initial prototype building.

With specific regard to the slot, it comes not from us, we don't like it, but from an Australian anchor called the SARCA which features it as its main selling point. The SARCA (Sand And Reef Combination Anchor) has proven quite popular on small boats, and has taken quite a large chunk of the Australian and NZ market (i.e. away from Manson, who used to dominate it with their CQR, Bruce, and Danforth copies).

Originally Posted by Strygaldwir

By this logic, Spade must have known what it was doing when it did NOT put the roll bar on THEIR anchor.

The roll-bar is not a "variation", it is a completely different concept. The Spade uses dedicated tip-weight in order to do the same thing as the roll-bar, and yes (of course) they did know what they were doing. We just disagree with what they do, which really dates back to the CQR, and modified the idea of the Buegel, which allows us to get a stronger anchor with a larger fluke area. By variation I mean the little wings that appear on some Delta copies, the flatter plows on some CQR copies, the modified shanks on copies of all types, etc.

In simple terms you may consider the history as follows, with the gradual improvements in bold:

- Convex blade with dedicated tip-weight and articulated shank (CQR)
- Convex blade with dedicated tip-weight and fixed shank (Delta)
- Concave blade with dedicated tip-weight and fixed shank (Spade)
- Concave blade with no dedicated tip-weight and fixed shank (Rocna)

with convex blades, dedicated tip-weight, and articulated shanks being evil things to be avoided if possible.

[cchesley]

Not really meaning to hijack this thread, but...
Craig,
Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the roll bar to attach an anchor trip line? It seems that the hole provided would be hard on a small line unless a shackle were added in to it. And since I don't always use a trip line (i.e. when anchoring in good Maine mud) I just add the trip line to the roll bar. Thoughts? Thnx

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by cchesley

Not really meaning to hijack this thread, but...
Craig,
Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the roll bar to attach an anchor trip line? It seems that the hole provided would be hard on a small line unless a shackle were added in to it. And since I don't always use a trip line (i.e. when anchoring in good Maine mud) I just add the trip line to the roll bar. Thoughts? Thnx

It's already been sort of hijacked...

The hole shouldn't be hard on the line if you're not using it all the time, i.e. there's no strain being placed on it, but better to use a shackle. However no reason not to use the roll-bar if you prefer, it's just that the dedicated attachment point is in a better position (farther forward) and will work better if the anchor is really stuck. Hang the anchor from the roll-bar then hang it from the trip line hole, and you will see what I mean.

[Vasco]

Keith,

Fraziers Hog has some of the worst holding in the Berrys although your draft should allow you to anchor further from the shore where there is more sand. If you go in during daylight there are two patches of good sand near shore just off the little man-made cut. Last year I got in at night and couldn't find the sand, luckily it was blowing from the west. I moved in the morning to the sandy spot. The rest of the strip near shore is scoured out, the whole length of the cay.

Nassau is notorious for all the crap on the bottom and it's pretty scoured out. I've found better holding in the west anchorage right up near the cruise ships. I used to anchor east of Nassau Harbour Club where the holding is better but it's now pretty crowded as it's a small area to begin with and now there's a couple of boats moored there. I have tried anchoring off a few spots on Paradise Island but have never been successful. I try to make my stay in Nassau as short as possible, clear in, get rum, move out.

The Bruce is useless in grass. I don't even attempt to use it in grass anymore. I use my secondary, a 35 lb. Kingston plow. I have not had to do this for the last two seasons as I don't go to the Abacos anymore where I used to find a lot of grass.

The following picture was taken at anchor last season so it gives you some idea how far west I anchor.

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Some notes concerning the West Marine/ SAIL test

First I should say it is a great test.. in real situation and comparing (favourably) news designs with the old ones..

Nevertheless, some points needs to be discussed :

1° - As pointed out: “ effectiveness of any anchor is highly dependent on a long list of variables”.. They where some “variables” tested there, but in different conditions, results could also have been different. This is not because the new “hydrobulbe” anchor did good results that you should throw away your faithful one and buy it.

2° - Anchors have been tested in three different locations, both with a fine layer of fine sand over harder claylike sand. In three different locations with nearly the same ground, the results are quire different.. It could have been interesting to make tests in (at least) three DIFFERENT types of sea bottoms, normal sand, hard sand, mud.. a good anchor in hard sand would not be as good in mud??

3° - If different parameters have been studied, the only one published is the holding.. in three different locations and three different scope. Would we have the chance to see other parameters in a following issue??

4° - A good point is that test is looking for anchors behaviors beyond “normal” conditions when anchor performance are critical… anchoring in a good holding mud bottom with 15 knots of wind is an easy task that the worse available anchor will perform flawlessly.

5° - Most anchor performed poorly at 3/1 scope.. I’m not surprised.. Which sailor will use a small 3/1 scope for dealing with conditions “beyond “normal” conditions’’ ?? - a 5/1 or better 7/1 scope should be used..

Some comments of various models of anchor.

The NEGATIVE side:

Bulwagga – since that test I was a believer in the characteristics of this weird anchor. I have heard comments of users who had the anchor line trapped under the protruding third fluke during a veering of wind direction, breaking the anchor free. I don’t like either the comments of the test: “ held.. before releasing abruptly’ This is the characteristic of what I call “Unstable” anchors.. A SAFE anchor could drag slowly under the strongest gust, but shouldn’t releasing abruptly.

Bruce (CLAW) – testers have been surprised by the rather low holding of it.. “ it seemed to set and release rapidly without ever really catching”.. This is the general comment we can read on nearly ALL anchors tests.. The Bruce penetrate rapidly most sea beds but has the reputation of relatively low holding.. Which wouldn’t be a problem to anchor in settle conditions, but not for conditions” beyond “normal” conditions”.


CQR – CQR holding has also been very poor and “most of the time we never felt the anchor set – it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom”.. If the CQR could give good results in the good holding mud around UK, it is well known for non penetrating in hard bottoms.. (Too much weight at the hinge and not enough at the tip).

PERFORMANCE – like the CQR it didn’t set in a variety of scope and location. This design of anchor usually works well in “standard” conditions – sand and mud - but is not conceived for hard or weedy bottoms..

XYZ.. (Etc..) - First by far in the latest “Practical Sailor” test. This time this weird anchor did poorly.. Perhaps in the soft sand or mud tests the results would be better??

The POSITIVE side:

DELTA No surprise if this “fixed shank” plow anchor gave much better results than the CQR.

FORTRESS.. - did very well.. and surprisingly set always quickly. It should be interesting to compare the surface area of this anchor to the one of steel anchor tested.

HYDROBUBBLE.. Surprising results to for this relatively unknown anchor.. no explanation for that??

MANSON / ROCNA – these “brother in law” anchors did also very well.. a new proof that the “new generation” anchors will give by far much better results than the old generation ones..

OCEANE – give some good results too, but testers should have known that this model has been replaced by a more performing model: the Sword.

SPADE – “one of the most better-performing anchors..” - no comments

WASI - Quite modest results when compared with other “roll bar” anchors and other “new generation” ones..


Considering these various comments, I couldn’t agree more with the conclusions of this tests:

- We were surprised that the CQR, CLAW, XYX and PERFORMANCE performed poorly in the test (I’m not surprised at all.)
- The results of the new sharp point/roll bar designs along with the Hydrobubble and the Fortress have been impressive..

Safe anchoring to all.

Alain

[GordMay]

I think that Keith ( Strygaldwir) has discovered one of the fundamental laws of secure anchoring. As a Missourian fastball pitcher might say: “show me”, and “you can’t hit, what you can’t see”.

”... Up until that point, I didn't realize what a difference the anchoring substrate really makes. I started diving my anchor regularly. I was surprised how many times I though I had a good set, only to dive down and see ...”

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Originally Posted by Strygaldwir

Craig;

I am more and more confused as to this concept of the Manson being a copy of the Rocna. It doesn't LOOK like a Rocna. In truth, both the Rocna and the Manson look like variants of the Spade. From what I was able to understand, it seem the Spade was the orignal break-through. If it was the break-through and thus the original, aren't both the Rocna and Manson copies? Oh, you both have the roll bars!

By this logic, Spade must have known what it was doing when it did NOT put the roll bar on THEIR anchor.....

Strygaldwir - Just a short note to thank you for saying that everybody is thinking and that Craig is the only one to not recognise...

Peter Smith himself (the "designer" of the Rocna) wrote:
I developed the Rocna after using a Delta. I had seen early versions of the Spade, and decided the spoon shaped concave fluke was the way to go..


ROLL BAR - If your anchor has enough weight on the tip (an important factor for the first phase of static penetration) it will automatically position itself in the right setting position. The "roll bar" is not a new concept... already patented by Peter Bruce, more than 30 years aggo.. it is a good mean to correct the bad weight distribution on the fluke..

Spade has also a model without ballast (like the Rocna and the Supreme): the Sword, and it doesn't need a "roll bar" to right itself in the setting position..

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

The only similarity the Rocna has with the Spade is a concave fluke, and to be pedantic that wasn't an original concept of Spade's, so you haven't found the original - keep looking. As an aside we developed the skids almost concurrently with Spade (the early Spades didn't have any), so who's to say which of us deserves credit for that.

...The Spade uses dedicated tip-weight.. which really dates back to the CQR,

In simple terms you may consider the history as follows, with the gradual improvements in bold:

- Convex blade with dedicated tip-weight and articulated shank (CQR)
- Convex blade with dedicated tip-weight and fixed shank (Delta)
- Concave blade with dedicated tip-weight and fixed shank (Spade)
- Concave blade with no dedicated tip-weight and fixed shank (Rocna)

It seems that you're right Craig when you said " The fact is the copier simply doesn't have the experience and knowledge necessary."


- I will be very interested to know who was the "original concept" of the concave fluke??

- Ballasting the anchor doesn't date back to the CQR, but from the "Kilick" anchor, a very old anchor datting from before ancient Greek and Roman anchor (Fisherman anchor)
In fact the lack of ballast is one of the main drawback of the CQR and the reason why it didn't work during the recent SAIL tests.. (only 18% of the total weight on the tip)

- Yes, the early PROTOTYPES of the Spade didn't have the two lateral skids.. but all commercial anchors did have them.. again one point that you have copied from the Spade..

Juste come back, you have been copied by the Supreme and you will soon see new "variations" of the Rocna with improved characteristics and cheaper prices..

[Seeratlas]

Very interesting discussion. Just priced a suitably sized Manson Supreme at around 3100.00 US not including tax etc.,,,hate to think what the comparable Rocna would cost. Seems silly to me. Scrap 316 Stainless could be had for around 2.00 a lb last time I looked, (a few years ago). I can't imagine a quality machine/welding shop would charge me 2900-3000 to weld one of these types together LOL. Funny but I just finished reading where one of the guys on this site bought his 45 foot steel yacht for 5k. took him 7 weeks to repair the rust spots, clean it up and put it in the water... Imagine paying what, 60 percent more for the anchor? sans chain/line/windlass? LOL.

What is it about the words 'marine' or 'yacht' that magically multiplies the inherent value of relatively simple devices?

silliness.

seer

[Frank, Southern Voyager]

I recently got myself a ROCNA anchor and WOW...anchoring has not been the same!!! There is no exageration on Rocna's website as far as setting or holding is concerned.
The anchor sets and hold amazingly, i would highly recommend ROCNA anchors to anybody!!!

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL!!!

[Auspicious]

I had planned to get a Spade S100 as a secondary (I have Rocna 25 as primary). The prices and delivery times in the US have me rethinking the issue. I'm not sure what I'll do now. I was looking forward to a secondary that disassembled nicely for stowage.

[Maine Sail]

You have a Catalina 27 and are thinking about Rocna 20! That's a mooring for that boat not an anchor!

Here are a couple of photos of my Rocna 33lb. (15kg) next to my Spade A-80 (which is 35lb in steel and the same physical size as the A-80).

As you can see the Rocna is HUGE comparatively speaking and has volumes more surface (read holding) area than the Spade at 2lbs more..






In this last photo I included my well worn genuine CQR 35...

So the Rocna is 2 lb's lighter than a Spade S-80 and a CQR 35 yet has VOLUMES more surface area for holding. It's tip profile also allows it to dig in where my Spade's and CQR's never could.

Here's one of the Rocna, Spade and CQR tips:


I can't even get my 17,000 pound 36 footer to drag on as little as 3:1 scope in 35-40 knots with my Rocna 15 it's tremendous overkill for a C-27...

You will love the Rocna and just ignore the anti-Rocna crowd they are the same folks that are still using sextants on a regular basis and hate GPS... Hell they are probably knitting up a new baggy wrinkle as we speak!

[jdoe71]

Acoustic, there's no such thing as overkill with anchors, if ya like to sleep! We have a Delta 35 lb. for our C28, yes, it's a mooring and yes, I drag it up by hand. But it sets and holds and we sleep.

I would buy a Rocna, like the concept, but there's only so much money to go around and the Delta, which we got used really cheap, does the job very well so far...