Visit our Popular Forums

**boatman61** · 22-05-2011, 17:49

[QUOTE=Delfin;691958] Personally, I don't, not because they aren't good designs but because in the weight anchor I need, a Bruce type is probably a better choice (Delfin ducks for cover....)
QUOTE]

No need to duck mate... they're good anchors (Bruce) that have served many of us well over the years...
and the only folks slagging them down have been the "I bought a ROCNA" owners waving their "I've spent loadsa dosh" status receipts around...
It don't really matter what anchor one owns/uses as long as it does the job the owner requires... and 'most' anchors will... provided one uses them correctly...
The only anchor I don't trust is the Danforth...
Mansons and ROCNA's are overpriced in my opinion and I've better things to spend my money on...

**sarafina** · 22-05-2011, 17:52

[QUOTE=boatman61;691965]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

The only anchor I don't trust is the Danforth...

horses for courses on that mate...

Here on the bay and in the delta we have endless flat muddy anchorages and that danforth does a dandy job...

**boatman61** · 22-05-2011, 18:03

I totally agree Sarafina.... like I said above...
It don't really matter what anchor one owns/uses as long as it does the job the owner requires... and 'most' anchors will... provided one uses them correctly...
I just said that I don't trust them (Danforths).... once bitten twice shy on the flip... and I cover varied regions
I'm also aware of the american penchant for minimum chain and lotsa rope...
Horses for courses....
the only rope on mine is the snubber..

S/V Alchemy · 22-05-2011, 20:26

Even when the Phoenicians used a rock in a cleft stick, there would've been a galley skipper who understood scope and windage and somehow made it work when all the other tied-plank wonders were smashed on the shore. So the "how" is definitely part of the issue. I have wondered for some time if the new style anchors are in fact as great an advance over the older Bruce/CQRs, or if they simply are more tolerant of shoddy, short-scope technique.

My impression is yes, they are better, in the same way that airbags in cars are better because they allow you to drive terribly without Darwinesque consequences.

That said, I appreciate that there is a lot of choice, because I don't subscribe to the "one anchor does it all" theory, irrespective of how bendy the shank is.

smackdaddy · 22-05-2011, 20:43

Personally, Alch, I think the design of the Rocna is very, very good. So do other manufacturers apparently.

Look, this business about the specs is definitely a huge black eye. But that shouldn't detract from the fact that the design itself was a significant step forward in many ways.

As for "shoddy scope technique"...as a designer you can either work to change the entire market, or you can design for it as it is. The money's always in the latter.

Agility · 22-05-2011, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cormorant

Agility -- somehow I misread your post the first time around and I thought both the 33 and the 40 bent their shanks. On re-reading, I see you're talking about only the 33.

Since you're the only first-person account of a bent Rocna shank we've come across, we would all love to hear some particulars of how it happened. I know you weren't there, but can you relay any details that you were told -- wind speed, direction (any sudden shift?), waves, bottom type, etc? I think everyone who is following this is just trying to get a fix on whether "normal" cruising conditions might lead to a bent shank.

Sorry, but I wasn't there. The conditions were strong enough that the delivery captain and I agreed that they should hang out behind an island off the coast of chile south of Santiago before continuing to head north. Maybe 40kts. I can say that we were under specked for our boat a little, based on being a catamaran at our weight and length.

S/V Alchemy · 23-05-2011, 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Personally, Alch, I think the design of the Rocna is very, very good. So do other manufacturers apparently.

Look, this business about the specs is definitely a huge black eye. But that shouldn't detract from the fact that the design itself was a significant step forward in many ways.

As for "shoddy scope technique"...as a designer you can either work to change the entire market, or you can design for it as it is. The money's always in the latter.

I recall a movie from a few years back about the Tucker automobile, a "design [which]was a significant step forward in many ways."

Smacky, I have never called the Rocna a bad anchor, or a bad design. The problem with the specs as found versus the specs as claimed is one of marketing and I suppose a sort of fraud, like making a Concorde out of papier mache. Yes, it will go twice the speed of sound, but for how long is unknowable, as we don't assume supersonic passenger jets will be formed of gluey newspaper strips, just as we don't assume an anchor shank will be made of a lesser steel when the entire focus of the brand is on a premium, expensive and troublesome to galvanize stronger steel.

The anchor market is such that, barring a theft, a rare structural failure or the unexpected loss due to a parted rode, a bad snag or cutting and running, a typical boat owner might only buy one anchor during the ownership of one boat. Given the robust secondary market for old, well-preserved CQRs, Bruces and even Danforths, plus the appeal to an aging boat-owning population of large fluke area aluminum lightweight types like the Fortress, Rocna is competing in a subset of a subset of the anchor market.

Reputation is all and claims are scrutized closely as are those frequently poorly designed (in my view) anchor tests which involve tugs and beaches and never sailboats with windage and wind. Anecdotal evidence becomes an important endorsement: the guy who tells you at the bar that the Rocna he just bought held him all night when three 50 knot squalls went through may be the only guy you've ever met who has "tested" a Rocna in real life.

But without knowing his boat, whether the wind veered, whether the hook broke free and reset, the ratio of his scope, whether he used chain, part-chain or all nylon, whether he used bridles and snubbers and maybe even kellets, and whether others, using older designs, dragged in the same conditions, you can't say the Rocna's the "best" design.

You can say it didn't fail. Not failing gets you a "good". Failing if you veer, if you break and reset a lot, if you bend in normal (not hooked under a boulder or multi-ton objects on the seabed) usage means "not good", or "not worth the premium".

Rocna has made big claims over the years, claims that no longer add up. That doesn't make them a bad anchor, nor does it mean they are not good enough. If I wanted "good enough" in that style, Manson is the obvious choice given that they are made of the better steel "suited for the purpose" of keeping the boat anchored in bad conditions. Rocna, as a company, are tiresome, false and apparently lacking in scruples, and so will not receive my business. The quality and distinctiveness of their product is not sufficient to justify their price premium (the very arguments they used to slag their competitors!), nor to forgive their business practices.

All the same, enjoy your Rocna.

**Dockhead** · 23-05-2011, 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Knight

You could go on forever with that arguement. FWIW I haven't seen test results for CQR, Sarca, Fortress, Danforth, Bruce, Spade etc etc etc but I'm not overly worried about them.
The only company that seems to have been playing fast and loose with the boating community is Rocna. Until somebody produces evidence to the contrary I, for one, am happy to accept the integrity of the other companies at face value.

I think, on the contrary, Rocna's behavior has spattered all anchor makers with mud. In my opinion, skepticism is healthy, particularly since Manson played an active role in uncovering Rocna's misdeeds. Maybe they were just performing a public service. But the whole story is also directly profitable to them.

So in my opinion it's quite reasonable for people to be skeptical and to want to see some independent test data. I think one very good thing to come out of this whole soap opera is that people have a much heightened awareness of anchor metallurgy. It's not that expensive to test the strength of anchors, and I have no doubt we will now see some independent testing being done, with reliable data getting into the public domain.

**Dockhead** · 23-05-2011, 08:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

. . . As for "shoddy scope technique"...as a designer you can either work to change the entire market, or you can design for it as it is. The money's always in the latter . . .

I agree. Moreover, "shoddy scope technique" is an easy cop-out defense for a poor piece of equipment -- if you have superb skill, you can make even the poor piece of equipment work.

That may be true, but so what? Does that magically make the poor piece of equipment into a good one? I honed my anchoring technique on a piece of c**p CQR in our first boat. With plenty of scope, with very patient, carefully backing down to bury it, with a full throttle test after being well set, it would sometimes hold if the wind kicked up overnight. Wow!

The new anchors set so well that you can probably get away with worse technique. But that's like anything good. A good car with ABS and stability control is easier to drive and will be much more forgiving of stupid mistakes by the driver. What's wrong with that?

I still use plenty of scope, patiently and carefully bury the anchor, and test the holding with a full power pull at the end. Anybody who has ever been terrified dragging anchor in the middle of the night (that is, any experienced cruiser) will never lose such a habit. The difference is now I KNOW I won't drag, and there's no mistaking the violent jolt when the new-style anchor sets.

mikereed100 · 23-05-2011, 08:58

[QUOTE=boatman61;691965]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

Personally, I don't, not because they aren't good designs but because in the weight anchor I need, a Bruce type is probably a better choice (Delfin ducks for cover....)
QUOTE]

No need to duck mate... they're good anchors (Bruce) that have served many of us well over the years...
and the only folks slagging them down have been the "I bought a ROCNA" owners waving their "I've spent loadsa dosh" status receipts around...
It don't really matter what anchor one owns/uses as long as it does the job the owner requires... and 'most' anchors will... provided one uses them correctly...
The only anchor I don't trust is the Danforth...
Mansons and ROCNA's are overpriced in my opinion and I've better things to spend my money on...

LOL! Dude, have you priced a "Bruce" recently? A Ray of equivalent weight to my Rocna 33 or a Manson 80 costs $400 to $500 more. Sure, a Claw would be cheaper but they have a tendency to break. Don't get me wrong, I love my (genuine) Bruce, but if I ever lose it I will replace it with a Manson Supreme, not only because it is better but because it is cheaper.

Mike

captain58sailin · 23-05-2011, 11:33

Bad, Bad, Bad anchors. I am never anchoring again!

wolfenzee · 23-05-2011, 12:23

One advantage of people wanting the "latest, greatest newest gadgets" out there it allows perfectly good equipment to surface really cheap. This applies to anchors as well. Tired and true anchors end up in used marine stores because people put more faith in advertisers than decades of experience using anchors all over the world in all sorts of conditions and applications.

smackdaddy · 23-05-2011, 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Rocna has made big claims over the years, claims that no longer add up. That doesn't make them a bad anchor, nor does it mean they are not good enough. If I wanted "good enough" in that style, Manson is the obvious choice given that they are made of the better steel "suited for the purpose" of keeping the boat anchored in bad conditions. Rocna, as a company, are tiresome, false and apparently lacking in scruples, and so will not receive my business. The quality and distinctiveness of their product is not sufficient to justify their price premium (the very arguments they used to slag their competitors!), nor to forgive their business practices.

All the same, enjoy your Rocna.

For me, this will be the most compelling aspect of this crapfest. Will Rocna re-position itself to compete on price now that the "premium" aspect of the product has been tarnished?

And will other manufacturers take a look at their own marketing claims to make sure they're not leaving the door open for a hammering?

At the end of the day, I agree with Dock. Everyone's got some mud on them.