Rocna or Manson Supreme? (OP Ducks His Head)

[sailing_gal]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Oh, damn. I see the turned up lip you’re talking about at the rear of the fluke.

I’m in mud plenty. I got the wrong anchor? Ugh.

Maybe I should sell this and get another Manson Supreme?

I have a Rocna and have anchored many times in mud in the Chesapeake. It holds just fine. Brought up lots of mud with it. Never had an issue setting it. Never dragged.

[purplesunrise]

Until recently and in over 40 years of owning many different sail and power boats with many different brands of anchors that I have had an anchor that sets every time (even with two to one scope) as I have had with the traditional American made Mantus. It is uncanny how well it works.

[jhiller]

I had difficulty getting my Rocna to bite in Biscayne Bay. It was a 75lb model and I have a 47ft sailboat. I switched to a Spade anchor and have been extremely happy with it.

[Gaia]

Imho personal anecdotes are of limited use. The devil is in the details. Search for welldone reputable tests, there are plenty and go with that.

Just yesterday someone here in our marina was boasting about his "trusty" CQR . "I only dragged badly once last year" Dragging can be as bad as having the wheels come off your car.

Having said that we use a Spade as a regular anchor and have an Aluminum Spade as a backup. Our Luke fisherman and two Fortress anchor, one an FX55, hardly ever get wet. The new anchors are just that good.

Mantus or Rocna? The tests, the only thing that counts, show little difference as far as I remember but I have not looked in a long time.

Jim sv GAIA

[Shrew]

I've used Rocna (Tradional) and Manson Supreme on a boat with an 'over-the-pulpit' style roller. My current boat has a through0pulpit design, so now I use a Rocna Vulcan.

I trust all three equally. I wouldn't get rid of one for the other. I would also trust a Spade in a Through-pulpit design as well.

While I love my Mantus Swivel and Mantus S1 Chain hook, I don't love the idea of a bolt together anchor.

[Bargain Bill]

Manson worked great but serious corrosion developed where shank attached to blade. Crud gets trapped in here and Manson says bad luck. It was less expensive for what appeared to be Rocna knock-off, but I guess I got what I paid for. Other than it disintegrating over 7 years, It always grabbed and held when other boats were dragging and re-setting.
If I had it to do again, I'd go with a Rocna.

[CarinaPDX]

I believe all of these anchors are mainly based on the Spade anchor, with contributions from the Bugel. They can all be expected to outperform older designs such as the Delta and Bruce, and even moreso the CQR and navy style. The big difference is the other gear and how it is used. No anchor is going to work well in heavy weeds. Sometimes anchors hook on the edge of bottom crust, which can break away as loads increase. It is these sorts of things that result in dragging; properly set any of these anchors will do the job.

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I have a Manson Supreme because I vowed I would never be a source of money for Peter. But I am sure a Rocna is a good anchor.

Could you explain please? As I understand it Rocna was in discussions with Manson about producing the anchor for them, and suddenly before the discussions were complete the Manson Supreme appeared on the market - pretty much IP theft. At least that was what was claimed IIRC. Of course ownership of the Rocna brand has changed since then, but my initial reaction is to avoid doing business with people who violate trust and steal designs. If that is the case - my memory is less than perfect. Corrections welcomed...

Greg

[evm1024]

I would be very careful in stating that some specific anchor design was ripped off from some other. I think we agree that (with very few exceptions) anchors are evolutions of prior work. And if we pay attention to the anchor mods that Panope did we see that even small changes in geometry can result in widely differing performance. A lot goes into a design other than the basic shape.

I also can Identify with not wanting to put any royalty money into Peter's pocket. If we get into our wayback machine we find that the designer of the Rocna was adamant that BisAlloy80 steel must be used in the shank and that there was a lot of badmouthing going around. Skip ahead a few years and Q620 steel was deemed fit for purpose by Peter in a reversal of his prior opinion.

Toss in some distractions on Peters website RE steel properties "...the Rocna shank was referenced in literature and elsewhere as a “grade 800” steel, which referred to a high strength low alloy steel characterized by an ultimate tensile strength of 800 MPa and a yield strength of 690 MPa."

For the Record Bisalloy80 spec sheet states that Bisalloy80 is proof tested to 690MPa and has a tensile strength of 790 to 930 MPa in the thickness range used in shanks.

There was a number of Rocna manufactured with Q420 steel shanks and there was a big to-do about it. More mud slinging and misinformation. At the time I was in communications with the production engineer who was thrown under the bus. Quite an effort was put into discrediting his statements and assertions. Hard to know what actually went on. But there is more than a little change that The company that help the production rights at that time did change the shank steel to Q420.

In regards to the sub standard shank steel Peter's website states that:

Preliminary investigation of manufacturing records discovered a number of anchors put onto the market in the first half of 2010 which suffered from this problem, affecting models from 4 kg to 110 kg. This issue is real, legitimate, and affects just under 700 units. No evidence has been found that calls into question units from before or since this period.

Granted that the statement does state that the issue is real. However that is the statement in 2020. It was quite different in 2012.

And yet we have reports from outside of that time period:

I would like to share a good experience with CMP, manufacturer of Rocna anchors. In 2009 we purchased a Rocna 33 kg for our Allures 44. Later I learned from sailing magazines that we had one of a batch of anchors that were made in China. Possibly anchors of this batch could get a bent shaft due to a softer kind of steel but it was also possible that nothing would happen as different kinds of steel had been used for this batch of anchors.

We took off for our circumnavigation in July 2009 and had no problems with our anchor. On the contrary, we were very happy with it as it was setting quick and well in all types of bottom, excellent holding in strong winds often while other boats were dragging and no bending at all. Until June 2016. We were anchored in Rodrigues, Indian ocean, in strong veering winds. The anchor had dug in very deep, difficult to get it out, it emerged with a bent shaft.

We sailed on to Richards Bay South Africa where we contacted CMP in Canada, the manufacturer of Rocna. They looked at the pictures, desired the purchase slip and decided that we could exchange the old one for a new anchor at a chandler in Durban. Completely free of charge, after more than 7 years of heavy use! Compliments for this excellent after-sales service and looking forward to many more years of happy anchoring!

Gerrit and Anne-Mieke Weijers

Sy Fruit De Mer

It really was a big issue for example there is someone on CF (they can speak up if they wish) that bought a Rocna at that time period and had it independently tested with their own money and indeed it was of much lower strength steel.

I had a Rocna that was also made of the low strength steel based on the ball bearing test. Which West Marine took back. This was at the time that West Marine issued their Product Advisory for Rocna anchors. (The person that authored the Advisory is on CF too I think)

I want to end with 2 thoughts - First is the effort that CMP has gone through to restore the Rocna Brand. CMP really has done a worthy job in terms of making a quality product and standing by it.

Second, Peter has annoyed some people deeply enough that they will not support him in any form even though Rocna as made under CMP is a very high quality anchor.

Of course having had a Rocna, a Manson and a Mantus on my boat I would rather have the Mantus. But that is me and I am biased.

10 year old history...

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Right. Which is why I should sell the Rocna and get another Manson Supreme if the Rocna struggles in mud.

It doesn't struggle in mud. None of the new generations anchors do. They love mud and sand.

[Scorpius]

I have a 35kg Rocna on Scorpius. I anchor, usually in mud, pretty well every day as I cruise this beautiful coast - kept here by COVID-19. My anchoring technique is to put Scorpius in reverse at about 1200 rpm, then go forward and drop the anchor as Scorpius comes to comes to a stop. As she gains speed astern I pay out the rode (50' of chain, then rope). When I cleat the rode off, she stops dead, even on short scope. I realize it is somewhat oversize, but I'm absolutely sold on the Rocna.

[Jim Cate]

IP theft by Manson??? I dunno 'bout that.

All anchor designs are derivative in my view, starting with a rock on the end of a vine no doubt. And in the case of Rocna vs Manson, well, the roll bar concept was originally patented by Bruce, though he never made one as far as I know. Then came the Buegel (sp?) from Germany... the first popular roll bar anchor to appear in the cruising fleet. It was a triangular flat plate with the roll bar at the wide end, and worked quite well. Some years later the Manson and the Rocna appeared, morphing the flat plate of the Buegel into a concave shape, curved in the case of the Manson, angular in the Rocna... and they too work well, likely with improvement over the Buegel. And then a slew of "new" roll bar designs came along, with models from Anchor Rite, Viking, Mantus and others, all of which claim to be even better than their predecessors... and they may be.

But they are all damn good anchors, and arguing about the differences between them is silly. It is obvious that there are happy owners of all the designs and the anecdotal claims of superiority are poorly supported. And theories about IP theft, well, not too easily supported. And one needs to also look at the non roll bar designs which employ the concave shape... who is the originator of that, and who is "stealing" the concept? And in the end, who cares? One buys the anchor that seems best for one's application, with little concern about it's history of development... at least that's what I do!

Jim

[SailFastTri]

I own a Rocna and a Manson Supreme. There is so little difference in performance that I would not change one for another. They are both on par with each other.

Some minor differences:

- The hoop and the top of shank of the MS is higher than an equal size Rocna. If you have a sprit or other pass-through that interferes with either hoop or shank, this might enable you to fit one size larger Rocna than MS.
- The tip of the MS is sharper and narrower in width. This might enable it to cut into weed or hard-pack sand more easily. So it might set more easily. I have never had a problem with the Rocna set, so probably not an issue.
- The heel of the Rocna tilts up like a "spoiler". The MS is a straight roll shape. I can't tell if this makes any performance difference. They seem to be on par with each other in practical use -- both always set and hold well.
- The stupid slot in the MS. I would never use it. IMHO it's a marketing gimmick perhaps practical for fishermen who anchor for short intervals while aboard and never sleep on the hook nor leave the boat unattended on the hook.

[CarinaPDX]

While I agree that anchor designers have liberally cribbed from one another for years, what I mentioned was something quite different. When the Manson Supreme came out the designer of the Rocna (Peter?) had a website that explained the history. He claimed that he designed the Rocna anchor and needed a manufacturing partner, and as Manson was also in NZ and made knockoffs of other anchor designs he went to them. During the discussions that lasted over a period of months he showed them his design and explained the thinking. Then they went silent, followed by the introduction of the Supreme. In retrospect it appears that Manson was negotiating in bad faith, first to get the design and then to get the anchor to market before Rocna could find another partner (which they didn't yet know they needed). This is what I remember from reading that web page years ago - there might be some errors but I'm pretty certain I have the gist right. If that is so then I think there are ethical issues at play. Of course one might question the wisdom of sharing a new design with a company that made a living out of knocking off name brands, but there ya go...

The proper spelling is "Bügel" anchor, for those that want to search their character map for the umlaut-u. AFAIK they are the only ones made with a flat plate like that; they were designed to be both effective and easy to construct, the latter resulting in many knockoffs.

I think the Spade is the first to make the cupped palm, and it worked a treat. I had an original forged model, until I didn't - a little too popular it seems. The later design I have now and is IMHO a lesser anchor, with the shank formed by welding three plates together. Still, it sets quickly and holds well; I am just a bit nervous about anchoring in rocky areas.

Greg

[Akapeterc]

Forget them both and get a SARCA EXCEL great holding

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Akapeterc

Forget them both and get a SARCA EXCEL great holding

And they don't bring a chunk of the bottom up with them.

Have you looked at Steve Goodwin's anchor tests ? If not they are well worth the time.