How good is the Rocna?

[Jim Cate]

Very interesting, Steve. One can now but wonder what the effect of putting holes in a stock Supreme would be? That is, the several modifications you made prior to the "holing"... how did they influence the final picture?

Your test results seem fairly conclusive re resetting, one wonders if there was any change in its ultimate holding power. I know that this is outside the purview of your testing, but one is curious!

At any rate, you get full marks for enthusiasm and resourcefulness, and quite possibly for a good breakthrough in design, pplicable to all of us with Supremes.

Well done, and thanks.

Jim

[downunder]

Congratulations Steve on a great video.

Unfortunately Reg Francis of Anchoright has mostly been hunted from these forums and rarely contributes thesedays. In the flesh he has great knowledge and is always willing to share.

He has some rather forthright views backed by his life experience of designing, building and selling anchors.

A great contribution.

[Panope]

Jim, knowing what I know now, I would leave the Manson Supreme TIP alone as my tip modifications gave no noticeable improvements.

The 'cutting down the shank' modification did help things but it is my belief that the perforated fluke is the larger factor. Hard to know for sure without getting my hands on another virgin.

Also, I should note that my Manson is several years old and I have learned that the newer Mansons are built with thinner shanks. I my opinion, my shank was 'overbuilt' and therefore upsetting the balance. A newer, thin shank model might be perfect right out of the box.

I've been thinking exactly the same as yourself about how the perforations might aid penetration/holding power. For my next test, I'd like to cover the holes on side of the anchor and note any tendency for one side to bury deeper than the other. Ultimately, if I can convince myself that this effect on penetration is real, I might drill the fluke of my Bruce anchor as I have found it suffers from an inability to dive.

Certainly, the negative structural effects of drilling should be examined very carefully as it would be easy to weaken the anchor in a dangerous way.

Steve

[uncle stinkybob]

WOW, that was an eye opening video. I like other's have said thought the other mods would have worked better and doubted the holes would do much at all. Very interesting. Thank you for sharing your mods. I use a Mantus and have been very pleased thus far. But it to has failed when clogged with mud also.

[Snowpetrel]

Awesome work Steve, glad my second hand supreme Isnt perfect, so I can justify some panope holes in it, and a regalvanise job! Cheers

Sent from my SM-G930F using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Hudson Force]

Steve, Your videos of modifications of Panope's anchor are outstanding. Well done, thanks!

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

.

I'm surprised the stainless models aren't more popular in North America, it really does solve several of the issues associated with galvanized models.

My assumption would be money. A 55lb galvanized spade is around $1k, where a 55lb stainless Spade is around $2,300. That's a lot of money that could be spent on other systems, like a fuel polishing system perhaps.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by downunder

Congratulations Steve on a great video.

Unfortunately Reg Francis of Anchoright has mostly been hunted from these forums and rarely contributes thesedays. In the flesh he has great knowledge and is always willing to share.

He has some rather forthright views backed by his life experience of designing, building and selling anchors.

A great contribution.

Rex Francis is certainly a real force in the world of anchor development and as you imply, a genuine person. Unfortunately, his 'passionate' writing style often came across in a negative light. He still reads these anchor threads and at times he surely would like to comment, but even he acknowledges that it is for the best that he does not.

Rex called me yesterday after viewing this latest video and we had a nice chat about perforated flukes, and general anchor ramblings. Naturally, he thought my investigations are great as my drilled fluke testing affirms this technology that he himself developed.

He also wanted me to let people know that he holds patents on his anchors that include holes in the fluke. He as no problem with individuals drilling holes in their personal anchors but he (like myself) caution that any drilling will weaken the structure, possibly to the point of becoming unsafe.

Additionally, he wants it do be known that he does not want another manufacturer to take advantage of this concept (holes in fluke) and he feels that his patent coverage is broad and enforceable.

I hope the comradary that I share with Rex does not lead to anyone to believe that I give preferential treatment to his anchors. Prior to viewing my initial group of test videos, Rex did not know anything about me. What he saw in my videos (and my boat project thread) was a person who, in his words, is a "real bloke". His trust in me, coupled with the faith he has in his own products, gave him the confidence to start sending anchors to me from halfway around the world - no strings attached. Two of his anchors have performed perfectly in my tests but for a third anchor, it was not all roses. This was disappointing for Rex but I will say that he accepted the results fully.

I even chose a non-Anchor Right product as my favorite personal anchor (Spade).

Steve

[TheThunderbird]

My first criterion of choice remains mass.

Because recommending any specific size by the boat length sounds inappropriate, to me, and deceptive.
As the length (LOA) to Displacement ratio has changed a lot historically...

More, the mass is key in piercing the bottom, irrespective of the boat size.

And, positively, there is now a well affirmed trade off for a heavier anchor and a lighter chain, the total mass being the same, in terms of (higher) holding force.


That said, it sounds like new gen anchors fare better. I hope so.

My experience with a Bruce was good but not brilliant.
My current CQR original of 75# found onboard is just standard, but i feel insecure on a 25tonn boat

I ordered a Manson 100#, one size above recommendations, and i hope to have the peace of mind I am still missing .

While maintaining a watchful doubt ever. Anchors are bitches, didn't anyone say it yet !?


Cheers

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

My assumption would be money. A 55lb galvanized spade is around $1k, where a 55lb stainless Spade is around $2,300. That's a lot of money that could be spent on other systems, like a fuel polishing system perhaps.

The cost is prohibitive for most people, but also --

Polished stainless will have far less friction with the sea bed -- won't that degrade performance?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The cost is prohibitive for most people, but also --

Polished stainless will have far less friction with the sea bed -- won't that degrade performance?

No. It bites in easier and comes up clean.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

No. It bites in easier and comes up clean.

Coming up clean I can imagine, and that would be a great advantage.

But how can it stick in the seabed as well? Doesn't make any sense.

Has anyone tested this?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Coming up clean I can imagine, and that would be a great advantage.

But how can it stick in the seabed as well? Doesn't make any sense.

Has anyone tested this?

Yes we have. We've owned and used a 55lb galvanized Rocna for two years on our Hunter and now a 45kg stainless Ultra for four years on our Oyster, but you can go on believing whatever makes sense to you.

The Ultra anchor also has a weighted tip, but unlike the Spade, the Ultra also has an air filled bouyant shaft in order to insure landing on the bottom correctly every time.

How do we know it digs in quicker? I can watch it every time following the drop. I let out 1:2 scope the Pam reverses slowly as I watch the very shiny flukes dig in prior to letting out more scope from the bow. Easily seen through clear or eaven slightly murky water.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TheThunderbird

. . . More, the mass is key in piercing the bottom, irrespective of the boat size.. . .

The phrase "irrespective of the boat size" is very true -- it means that how anchors work don't necessarily SCALE.

As to mass being the only factor in how well the anchor "pierces the bottom", no, it's not -- there's also sharpness of the flukes, balance, angle of the fluke, shape. It's not so simple. But yes, the more mass, obviously, the better.

The reason why so many people prefer the Spade is that it has a sharp pointed fluke, and it is ballasted with lead, so well balanced and dense. The weight of the anchor is centered over that sharp point which improves your chances of its going in, compared to almost any other design.

Probably does not hold as well, kg for kg, as an anchor like the Mantus with very wide flukes, especially in softer bottoms, but will surely penetrate much better.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Yes we have. We've owned and used a 55lb galvanized Rocna for two years on our Hunter and now a 45kg stainless Ultra for four years on our Oyster, but you can go on believing whatever makes sense to you.

The Ultra anchor also has a weighted tip, but unlike the Spade, the Ultra also has an air filled bouyant shaft in order to insure landing on the bottom correctly every time.

How do we know it digs in quicker? I can watch it every time following the drop. I let out 1:2 scope the Pam reverses slowly as Inwatch the very shiny flukes dig in prior to letting out more scope. Easily seen through clears water.

I remember some testing (Panope's?) in which the Ultra reset very well, better than most, and wondered if the SS was the reason. If shedding the bottom contributed to resetting.