Rocna Doesn't Fit . . . Do I Go with Ultra or Delta ?

[GMac]

No we don't publish our results for 3 main reasons. One is we are usually only after one or 2 aspects rather than the whole package so this can screw the numbers sometimes making them a bit useless unless you know exactly what we were looking for. And 2, it's a small country which is the home of 2 anchor outfits who are basically at war with each other and I'm not using the word 'war' lightly. We say something one doesn't like and the bitching reaches elevated levels at light speed. We just don't need the grief when all we are doing is trying to get our customers into the best place they can be while weeding out the marketing to find the real truth.

And 3 is all tests are flawed in some manner so we just don't want to add to the fast growing pile of dodgy and mis-information the interweb is collecting. We often have people come is swearing black and blue a XX anchor is best because...... and then they peel out a line off some website, usually a manufacturers one. That's called marketing people, of course theirs is the latest and greatest. It's hard case when we reply "so did you like XX's website?". "Err... how did you know we were looking at that?" is the usual reply. Each anchor does have certain catch phrases attached to it, it's not hard to know where they have been.

The Ultra set faster and held bigger loads than the Delta. Average was approx 28% higher in firm sand with some broken shell and a few very small stones, a common bottom type around here. From previous tests in other bottoms and a bit of extrapolation of numbers from those we don't have a problem saying the Ultra will out hold a Delta in most bottom types, if not all. Setting was fast and easily in line with the other new designs, that being usually within it's own length she was heading down into the seabed very well.

Ultra V's Supreme and Rocna (which we regard as having pretty much equal performance due to them being basically the same anyway). Slight edge to the Sup and Roc but not that large. As the Ultra does have some lead in it so kg (or 'lb' for those using the old school measurement system ) for kg the Sup and Roc have a little more surface area which does increase the holding loads.

I'd fit a Ultra to my boat tomorrow based on both performance and looks, they are great lookers ...... but as long as I didn't have to pay for it

But then I'd also fit a Rocna, Supreme, Raya or Spade. I do currently have 2 of those 5 aboard.

We firmly believe that when you are trying to compare a Spade to a Raya to a Supreme to a Rocna to a Ultra, it's the same as trying to compare a Ferrari to a Maserati to a Lambo sort of a thing. All are bloody good and the differences just aren't there as much as many seem to think they are.

[Pa La O La]

An important thing to remember in all this is the person deploying the anchor. It isn’t just the type of bottom it is being let down onto. I have seen everything from an eight pound Hooker with three feet of maybe 3/8” chain and 3/8” rode being tossed of the bow of a 27 foot sloop the day before Hurricane Ivan up in Shalimar FL. (This was 50 ft. off our dock). As he drifted back on the anchor and readied to leave the boat I told him I intended to set him adrift before he could reach the shore. He did leave and moved out of shouting range and yes he did lose the boat under and into the bridge on the lee shore. The point being even the best anchor without enough care in deploying will make little difference. I have had people complain that their anchor won’t hold and come to find out they don’t have any chain because they didn’t want to scratch the gel coat. Or they want an anchor to fit the under the cockpit seats so it will be out of site. Never mind that at that size it wouldn’t even make a minimal lunch hook. What are you going to use it for and where? I really enjoy honest input from people who have used a product and how it was set up, someone without a dog in the hunt. At work I don’t make a commission I just like to match folks up with what they need. I know what works for me but that doesn’t make it a one size fits all. Honest information so a person can weigh out the pros and cons. The killer is when they ask why it costs so much. Sometimes all I can think of is “Because they can?”
Gary

[Hiracer]

Thanks GMAC.

[RaySea Lady]

I have purchased the 35K Stainless Ultra from Quickline along with the 200ft stainless reel to use as a trip line just in case...

The lady is currently in storage for the winter so I cannot try it out yet but I will let you know in the spring.

Slight modifications had to be made to adapt it to the chute but all is well.

Thanks again for all your input.

[Extemporaneous]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

The purpose of the hoop is to ensure than the anchor roles off its back and presents the tip to the bottom. Other anchors use weight and/or shape to perform the same function.

I don't think the hoop would help the Delta unless tip weight was increased, but then any increase in tip weight would likely only be incremental.

Further, one of the things I think is frequently missed is that surface area of the anchor blades is not the only way an anchor resists movement.

The friction coefficident of the bottom is very important. I once did an emergency anchorage on a lee shore where local knowlege claimed the bottom was too soupy to hold anything. We had 25 - 30 knot winds but held, despite all protestations.

The anchor was the Super Max which is well known to be a good burrower. It went pretty deep, over fifteen feet where it hit bottom material that had a much higher friction coefficient than the surface material.

Meaning, digging or burrowing is important, IMO, for high holding power because sometimes good bottoms are hidden under lousy top material. I suspect that the use of the hoop, while aiding setting and resetting, may actually hinder digging thus preventing the anchor from getting to bottom material that provides much better friction coefficient.

For that reason, I would not recomend putting a hoop on an anchor that is not designed for it.

Hiracer,
There was a Super Max on my boat when I bought it. It seams to hold quite well in semi firm bottoms (only bottom I've used it in) but I have had trouble finding other first hand experience with this anchor.
I'd sure appreciate any info/comments you could make about this anchor.
Any bad experiences with it?
What setting angle do you (or did you) have it setup for?

Any insights into the use of this anchor would be great.

Note this has become my secondary anchor (was primary when I got the boat) as I now have a 25kg Rocna. I'm thinking the Super Max should compliment the Rocna quite well???

Regards and Happy New Year to all.
Extemp.

[Hiracer]

Well, you asked, so I guess in all fairness I should comment.

I used both the Max without the articulating shovel and the one with the articulating shovel. At first I would on occasionally change the angle for soft bottoms, but over time I decided that it was too much of a pain and the anchor worked so well it seemed superfulous anyhow.

I used the anchors in SouthCentral Alaska, primarily Kenai Fjords National Park where achoring is deep and difficult.

The anchored worked fabuluously, except for one time. That one time nearly cost me the boat.

Ironically, that one time was in shallow water (20' or so) with a sandy bottom. Both conditions are pretty rare for the area. I let out about 10:1 scope. I figured I could sleep really well that night because I thought I was about bombproof.

Very early in the morning I got up to take a leak. Pissing off the stern I about had a heart attack when I realized that I could see the bottom. The wind was about 15 - 20 knots directly on shore and the rudder was within inches of pitching into the bottom. I crank on the engine in my underwear, put her in gear, and ran forward to pull up the nylon rode. We made it out OK.

While I was pissing off the stern, the boat was pitching pretty good. With each drop, I could see the stern hop backwards about 4 inches.

Years later, I joined a thread on SSCA wherein Andy Peabody (inventor or chief retailer, or both, not sure) told me that the Max comes with instructions that the anchor cannot be used with too much scope. Too much is almost as bad as too little. (BTY, my general experience was that the Max held on short scope very well--better than my current Spade).

So my theory as to why we dragged in nearly perfect conditions is that (1) I had too much scope (that still hurts my head) or (2) the shovel scooped up a rock that held while setting but not when the wind picked up.

Either way, I've since decided I do not want an anchor with either of those potential liabilities. I now have two Spades and two Fortesses. (Yes, I like backups.)

I would be singing from the tree tops about the fine performance of the Max and Supermax anchors were it not for that one time. As it is, the anchor failed me or I failed it, and not knowing which kind of bothers me.

[Extemporaneous]

Hiracer,
Okay, thanks for taking the time to tell me about it.
I didn't know, nor had I ever heard about the too much scope thing. I'll have to give that some thought, at this point, it's not making sense to me.
On the articulating one you had, which setting did you end up settling on?
Right now mine is on the middle one of the 3 settings.

Thanks again,
Extemp.

[Boomp]

Original poster, RaySea Lady, you were wise to not change that neat, very pretty bowsprit. The anchor fits nicely and Rocna would have killed it. Me, love my Rocna. I had to change the roller to make it fit and its pretty nice now. Its snowing and cold here and I don't have a picture. I do hope you let us know how your choice works in the future.

[Hiracer]

Extemp,

Maybe my recollection is going batty again, but I recall only two settings, normal and soft mud. The soft mud was the more open angle. I almost always used the normal setting. Sounds like the anchor has evolved to become more sophisticated with three settings. I eventually just used the Max without the articulating shovel.

Don't rely on me, but for some reason I seem to think scope was supposed to remain within 3:1 to 5:1. Contact the retailier in Florida, CreativeMarine.com to be sure. I"m sure Andy Peabody would be willing to help you out. He's a good guy.

Good luck. Choosing anchors is an expensive and difficult process.

[RaySea Lady]

Hi again,

Got my boat in the water a couple of weeks ago and got to try out my new Ultra 77lb anchor twice so far.

I am glad to report that the only inconvenience so far is that it takes me 10 minutes to wash off all the dirt that it brings up on it... as well as 3 foot long grass hanging from it.

It does grab almost instantly as advertised. I am very happy with it.

I will post some pics of the installation this week.

thanks again for all your help, This was definitely the right decision for me.

[James S]

Glad it all worked out...looking forward to seeing the pictures.

[Laidback]

The great thing about the Rocna anchor is that imitated the German Buegal anchor. The worst thing about the Rocna is the marketing BS - which continues to extol the values of the German anchor. Remember imitation is the highest form of flattery.

The Buegal :_

[RaySea Lady]

The only change that it required was backing off the roller a little over an inch. As you can see the Ultra fits snugly under the bow. I also added the Ultra Quick Line, 200 foot line attached to the head of the anchor just in case...

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by RaySea Lady

I have determined with the prints supplied that the Rocna anchor will not fit my boat. I am looking at a 35 to 40 KG anchor.

I am down to either a Delta or an Ultra that will fit that opening.

This is part of an email I have received from Ultra comparing the two, but Delta just refers me to WM.

Does all this make sense to you guys?

There are several features about the Ultra Anchor that make it have higher holding power and set quicker than the Delta Anchor which ultimately makes it a better choice. The Ultra anchor was engineered from the beginning to be made from and use the benefits of being manufactured from Stainless Steel.
The Delta Anchor was made of galvanized material and then copied in stainless steel.

Holding Power:
The Delta Anchor is an aerodynamic plow shape (there is a reason there is a point on the bow of our boats). This shape allows soil to flow across its face. The holding power of the Delta can be defined as the resistance to friction of the soil on the steel face of the anchor. The Ultra Anchor is a concave shape that builds a plug of soil on the surface of the anchor. This plug of soil stays on the face of the anchor in a pyramid shape and for the Ultra Anchor to move soil must shear soil on soil. The holding power of the Ultra Anchor can be defined as the resistance to friction of the soil against soil. Soil on steel (Delta) can be equated to sliding on glass versus sliding on sand paper (Ultra). For the same cross sectional area, a flat or concave anchor(Ultra Anchor) will have 30 to 40% higher holding power than a plow shape (Delta Anchor) depending on soil conditions


Setting ability:
The Delta Anchor has a high center of gravity and is designed to lay to its side before it catches on the sea floor and begin to penetrate. Any time an anchor must lay to its side there is a potential for the anchor to begin to slide on any grass, weeds or other difficult to penetrate substance. It typically takes 3 or 4 anchor lengths for a Delta to penetrate to developed its holding power. The Ultra Anchor is built with a very low center of gravity. The shank of the Ultra Anchor is hollow, the base is filled with lead. The bouyancy in the shank places the center of gravity when submerged practically at the point of the anchor fluke. The reverse curved chisel tip and low center of gravity of the Ultra Anchor causes the Ultra Anchor to penetrate and developed its extremely high holding power with in its own length without laying to its side. Digging deeper and quicker, the Ultra Anchor will set within its own length. The Ultra Anchor will set with a 2.5 to one scope with or without anchor chain to assist.

Reverses of direction:
With its low center of gravity and reverse wings the Ultra Anchor will stay buried and rotate below the soil surface keeping itself buried. The Delta has to roll out and reset on reverses of direction based on the mechanics of how it is designed to set which potentially leads to dragging conditions.

Materials:
We use only 316L Stainless steel and hand polish to a beautiful finish. The Delta uses only 316 stainless steel and is electro polished to a smooth sheen not the high luster of the Ultra.

Let's take Ultra's premises one at a time:

A) Original design in stainless vs converting design from galvanized to stainless.
-So what, during conversion the important issue is that the geometry and weight distribution are the same to get the same holding power. Regular and stainless have the same density so that should be a staitforeward change. During fabrication there will be changes in the welding and pre- & post-welding treatments, but any welding engineer should be able to come up with a new Weld Procedure Specification for stainless that gives strength and toughness equal to galvanized.

B) Holding Power
-1)Discussions about the aerodynamic shape of a Delta making it behave similar to sliding on glass vs the concave shape of the Ultra making it behave similar to sliding on sand paper is like arguing about the nature of the universe from first principles, worthless until you go out and do the experiments to confirm or reject the theories you have drawn from first principles.
-2)The statement about the Ultra having 30-40% more holding power for a given cross-sectional area is misleading. It may be that the Ultra that has the same cross-sectional area is one or two sizes larger/heavier than the Delta. People don't buy anchors by cross-section, they buy them by weight, weight affects price, boat trim and how much effort is involved in retreiving the anchor, so comparisons should be for similar weights.

C) Setting ability
-Would be interested in reviewing their data sources, otherwise reserving judgement.

D) Reverses of direction
-I watched the video entitled 'Anchor behavior when the wind changes' Quickline (Ultra's US maker or distributor) had linked from their website:
Ultra Anchor Video
It shows a CQR and an Ultra being towed in a "U" in a sand tank. As the CQR is pulled around the stock touches the raised tank edge. As the Ultra is pulled around there is at least 1 anchor length of chain between the edge and the stock during the turn. Effectively the CQR is being tested with a shorter scope. I would like to see better evidence before accepting this premise.

E) Material
-1)For the end consumer, me and you, 316L has a slight advantage over 316 in corrosion resistance around welds at the cost of slight changes in other material properties and in price. I would talk to Lewmar about this, they may be using 316L and the marketing department may have left out the 'L' in advertising because it confused people, or they may be using 316. The following link discusses the corrosion differences between the 2 alloys:
316 vs 316L
-2)Who cares whether the anchor has a smooth sheen or a high luster, if the anchor is very shiny after a year, you probably aren't anchoring that much.

Basically what you got from Quickline was a bunch of marketing hype. Lewmar would have sent you similar BS showing why their anchor was better. I would see if there is any independant testing available such as by Practical Sailor.

[RaySea Lady]

Adelie, thanks for the technical post, however, my approach is much simpler.

I had a 35lb CQR, which did not work for me unless I retried many times, and this was not in a tub. I now have an ultra 77lb which works great, grabs quickly everytime and happens to be stainless and more importantly fits my bow with minor modifications.

When you keep it simple, life is good...