Will be trying out a Rocna anchor

[tyrntlzrdking]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

There's an ethical issue here too, and although most consumers couldn't care less, some do. A certain Hollywood screenwriter is importing a 30Kg Rocna from NZ, refusing to buy the copy from his local store because in his industry he hates "pirates" . The cost is a bit more but not a deal-breaker.

Craig,
I agree, and your timeline of events (in locked tread) is very persuasive to me. I am also leaning toward your product because of the comparison test results.



What type of bottom was it in which your Rocna peformed so much bettter in? Was it sand, rocks, weeds.....etc?

[High Cotton]

That's a good question as to the 3 different (I ASSume) bottoms...............

were the anchors "dropped" one time in each location......

and what does "west of Wharf" mean in relation to the bottom and what time frame were these anchors deployed, and who conducted this test ?

Just my opinion, but I don't understand how there can be THAT much diversity between these drops when you're talking about "copies" and "pirates", regardless of which is which..........(one blames the other) what caused this supposed "difference" in holding power when they seem so similar........ what would cause one to perform 100% better than the other when one is a "copy" of the other........

but, then again, I never put much confidence in product tests unless the 3rd party is totally independant, which may be the case here, I don't know...............

At "twice" the price, I just don't see it justified, not twice the performance, not when a number of people on this board are 100% satisfied with the lower priced model....... including my own experience......... I do believe these "new generation" anchors are here to stay and will no doubt be successful in their own right.....

[Alan Wheeler]

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/ANDYR%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]Is this test done in New Brighton, CHCH NZ???
Because if it was, then that test has issues. The beach along there is the same. Having the test vary between west and east of the warf (New Brighton Pier) leads me to think something is wrong with the test as the beach/bottom is the same for some maybe 50Kms along the beach and it is 30ft deep for some maybe 30Kms out to sea. It is pure sand.

[tyrntlzrdking]

Here is a link to the tests.
http://www.rocna.com/press/press_061...il_testing.pdf

[Steve Pope]

It is interesting that the East of wharf and West of wharf, must mean something different to New Brighton. There is a Pier at New Brighton, so east of that would mean moving out into deeper water as that is all there is east of the pier, and West of the Wharf (pier) would mean moving towards the centre of Christchurch which is away from the water ie.inland.Therefore the tests must be at different locations.
I do have to say though my Rocna 20 is doing all that I could wish for in sand and mud. (weed and rock still to come) 180 degree wind shifts no problem. I now sleep easy when at anchor.
I believe that Rocna now make a version with a rock slot like the Manson Supreme although I have yet to see one.

[Steve Pope]

Now I know how we were fooled there is a New Brighton in the US as well as NZ, and thinking about it probably another couple of dozen other New Brightons around the world at least. Rocna being NZ made naturally I thought that it was New Brighton NZ.
As they say if in doubt read the instructions (report)

[Morgan Paul]

Now I know how we were fooled there is a New Brighton in the US as well as NZ, and thinking about it probably another couple of dozen other New Brightons around the world at least.

There must be half a dozen New Brightons in the USA. The closest one to me is on Staten Island(wich is part of New York City on the Kill Van Kull. I would not want to anchor in the Kill Van Kull.

[tyrntlzrdking]

I am surprised by how many involed in the heated discussion have not read the Sail magazine test results.

[GMac]

Originally Posted by tyrntlzrdking

I am surprised by how many involed in the heated discussion have not read the Sail magazine test results.

I'm surprised you're looking to rely so much on anchor tests. Everyone one knows they can't mimic real life, the nature of the beast sadly.

[GMac]

Originally Posted by Morgan Paul

the Kill Van Kull.

Is that a place?
Sound more like something that will take out the Alien or Predator in the next hollywood blockbuster

[tyrntlzrdking]

Originally Posted by GMac

Everyone one knows they can't mimic real life, the nature of the beast sadly.

Can you explain to me how the Sail magazine test did not mimic real life?
What were its flaws? How can the next anchor test be improved?
I know it was not the perfect test covering all possible variables, but it seemed well done to me.

[GMac]

How many people go into a bay, chuck out an undersized anchor and then pour serious piles of horsepower on it to the point it pulls out, breaks and so on?

Anchors need to set and settle to get a real result and sadly anchors don't do this properly in 2 minutes.

And other things.

To get more real life results I'd suggest you need to 'set' a few anchors and leave them for a while then start pulling. Then we will see some differing results, on some anchors quite a bit of difference.

[tyrntlzrdking]

Originally Posted by GMac

How many people go into a bay, chuck out an undersized anchor and then pour serious piles of horsepower on it to the point it pulls out, breaks and so on?

Anchors need to set and settle to get a real result and sadly anchors don't do this properly in 2 minutes.

So you are saying the test was not fair because the boat putting the loads on the various anchors was to big and the anchors realized this?

You dont think the testers attempted to set the anchors properly?

You beleive the testers did not wait long enough for the anchors to set?

and other things?

[Steve Pope]

I had read the test report some considerable time ago, there have been several threads re anchoring on the cruisers forum discussing the merits or not of various anchors. It was the use of "Brighton Beach" that threw me and I conclude that my memory of the article had slipped a little, my excuse anyway

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by tyrntlzrdking

Craig,
I agree, and your timeline of events (in locked tread) is very persuasive to me. I am also leaning toward your product because of the comparison test results.



What type of bottom was it in which your Rocna peformed so much bettter in? Was it sand, rocks, weeds.....etc?

From SAIL:
"We tested in three different locations—on the west and east sides of Santa Cruz’s wharf and off New Brighton Beach, near Capitola. The seas had just a hint of swell in all three locations, and the wind varied from flat calm to a maximum of 12 knots. We took bottom samples at each location with a weighted core sampler to determine the composition of the top 5 inches of the bottom surface. All three locations had a layer of fine dark sand on top of harder, finer, claylike sand. The New Brighton location appeared to have a thinner layer of sand and a harder layer of claylike sand than the two wharf locations."

We're talking about hard sand. We particularly like this testing, because it shows the CQR and Claw up for what they are - hard surfaces shine a harsh light on poor setting ability. In any case, based on the average pull results, we can also see any flaws shown up if the anchor doesn't perform consistently.

As to the other posts, I have assumed in referencing these tests that it's common knowledge that West Marine is based in California and SAIL is not a New Zealand publication.

Originally Posted by High Cotton

Just my opinion, but I don't understand how there can be THAT much diversity between these drops when you're talking about "copies" and "pirates", regardless of which is which..........(one blames the other) what caused this supposed "difference" in holding power when they seem so similar........ what would cause one to perform 100% better than the other when one is a "copy" of the other........

There isn't THAT much, but enough to make a difference. A significant contributor here is the Rocna's tip-weight of over 33%, vs the copy's figure of about 20% (depending on the size). For example.
As a further argument not specific to the Rocna, you can also see the obvious differences between for instance a genuine CQR and plow knock off in the testing I've linked to before, which illustrates the shocking variations between two anchors which just don't seem superficially to be THAT different. The point is small and seemingly subtle flaws can make themselves well felt.
I better stop here, as Wheeler has recently made clear his displeasure with this line of conversation from myself before, by way of a week long ban.

Originally Posted by tyrntlzrdking

Did you agree to produce the prototypes free of charge for someone who stole the design, or did you produce it for the original designer?

I suppose I should address this now after confirming the facts with Peter, although again I suppose I am in danger from Wheeler. For the record:
MacDuff's claim that he organized or paid for any Rocna prototypes is false (at least, none that were authorized). He was involved in early testing but never design or construction. I do not know if he did anything for any others.