Will be trying out a Rocna anchor

[rsn48]

I am intrigued by the Rocna anchor and the favourable reviews from cruisers it has been getting (yes, I do know that anchors are like a religious demonination thing, and everyone recommends their denomination). I was toying with getting one but was reluctant because I really do hate bringing things over the border where shipping is concerned.

Turns out the North American distributor is right here in Vancouver. I'm still on the mend with my new hip (heading into week 6 of healing) so I won't be on the water for about another 6 weeks or more. I will report back on my results.

I think I'll be getting the Rocna 15 but I'm tempted to go to the 20. I think it was here in this forum that some one said, you know you're getting the right size anchor when everyone in the marina starts laughing at you.. maybe I should get a bigger yet Rocan; my boats a Catalina 27.

[craigsmith]

The primary anchor on Wind Horse is a 240-lb. Rocna anchor... it seemed that the 240-lb. anchor is way more than the typical 100-lb. anchor found on a vessel with an 86,000-lb. displacement. I asked Steve how big is big enough. “When people in the marina start laughing,” he said, “You’re getting close.” He explained that such a heavy anchor can be set with a short scope, if conditions dictate...
Bill Parlatore, PassageMaker magazine

If your Catalina 27 is anything close to the spec displacement of ~ 3 tonnes, then our suggestion is for a 10, not even a 15. Our advice is conservative and furthermore the 10 is rated for a LOA of 30' at up to 4 tonnes in all conditions, so there's a considerable safety margin there.

Having said that bigger is always better, and if you can handle the extra weight and don't mind the added cost, then why not. Do a Dashew and go for the 15. But the 20 is starting to become pointless.

Incidentally we recommended our 70 (154lbs) for Dashew!

[RandyAbernethy]

Craig,

What would you recommend for a 50' catamaran, say around 13 tons? Do you treat cats the same as monos (LOA and displacment)?

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by RandyAbernethy

What would you recommend for a 50' catamaran, say around 13 tons? Do you treat cats the same as monos (LOA and displacment)?

No we don't treat them the same, and to be honest we should probably add something to our sizing chart, which is designed for monos.

A cat might have 40 or 50% more windage than a mono, so the fluke area of the anchor needs to increase as well, although not proportionately as windage is not the only factor to consider.

Either a 30 (66lbs) or 40 (88lbs) for a cat of 50' at 13T. The 40, the bullet-proof solution if your next port of call is in Antarctica - the 30, what would be fine for most cats in most places 99% of the time.

Sizing can be part art part science; what suits one boat and its owner(s) may not suit another. Rode needs to be considered at the same time... for example, if you need to anchor on smooth rock using a 2:1 scope then you better have a heavy anchor and there's no point in having lots of heavy chain - but if you need to anchor in soft mud and have plenty of room to swing, then you should have a smaller anchor and lots of heavy chain.

Our recommendations are worked out to be conservative and as far as application is concerned we take the middle-of-the-road line in general, so whatever the sizing chart throws up is suitable for an offshore cruising boat needing an entirely versatile and reliable anchor, and then we can go from there on a case-by-case basis as required.

[rsn48]

People who have viewed the "tests" being done with the Rocna and other anchors are often sceptical since the tests are independent. Though to be honest, even in sand on a beach, you'd expect some of the anchors to bite faster than they did - that can't be denied. I was going to get a CQR until I saw it dragging and not catching.

Below is a review (from the Rocna site) from a New Zealand magazine called "Professional Skipper." The Rocna is tested out by one of their staffers:

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_051...per_review.pdf

And now on to me. I have been seriously thinking about what I want and I was toying with a 15 or 20 Rocna; now I am headed in the opposite direction. It occurred to me is that if I am lazy (and I am - and I have dragged anchors before - being lazy I don't want to do it again) I should get the 10 and the 6 Rocna. I would anchor in series (or tandem - take your choice) and even if the second anchor didn't bite - a problem I anticipate if the first Rocna bites in quickly, the second anchor would act as a kettle and reduce the amount of chain I need (older Catalina 27's don't have a lot or "rode" room).

If the second Rocna bit in as well, I know the combination would hold up well in a decent blow - I'm thinking Beaufort 6 or 7. I was thinking the Rocna 10 as the lead anchor and the Rocna 6 as the secondary anchor (or kettle if it doesn't bite).

[Strygaldwir]

I am in the market for a new anchor, my Bruce, while okay for the Bahamas, was not outstanding. My CQR, worked when I could not get my Bruce to set. This occurred only in weeds. I knew I wanted to get a heavier anchor.

I have been looking at the Delta. Then, this thread. I have been looking for a Rocna, but the only distributor I could find was in Canada. The cost differential between the Rocna and Delta is "significant". After reviewing the difference in holding and setting time, there appeared to be a slight difference in performance, with the Rocna having the edge. But, when factoring the cost, it seems like the Delta came back to head of my list.

After some additional searching for distributors and sources in the US, I came accross a Maynard Supreme. It appears to have a similar configuration to the Rocna, it is Loyllds rated and is available and "Significantly" less expensive, here in the US. Has anyone any experience with the Maynard?

Thanks

Keith

Raliegh!

[RandyAbernethy]

I have not tried any of the "new generation" anchors but I know that the Rocna, the Bugle (which I hear can be had fairly inexpensively) and the Spade are all very well received. As RSN48 says it's a bit of religion choosing from the group but they all seem to get resounding reviews and positive comments from folks previously using deltas, fortresses, CQRs, Bruces and the like. Practical Sailor has done some empirical work showing the Spade and Rocna in particular to stand out. As always bottom composition and holding requirements change what’s best.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by Strygaldwir

I have been looking at the Delta. Then, this thread. I have been looking for a Rocna, but the only distributor I could find was in Canada. The cost differential between the Rocna and Delta is "significant". After reviewing the difference in holding and setting time, there appeared to be a slight difference in performance, with the Rocna having the edge. But, when factoring the cost, it seems like the Delta came back to head of my list.

Dammit I knew we needed to re-do that!

While the Delta was definitely the best of its kind when it was developed (i.e. streets ahead of articulated plows, Bruces, etc) the Delta really got lucky in that test. Managed to find nice hard holding every time. So good for it, and we could only report the findings as we found them, but we know from experience of use that it isn't quite all that.

The Delta will give problems in two conditions: 1) weed, 2) soft mud. Peter had a Delta on his yacht all the way from the UK to New Zealand, and it was one of the motivations in developing the Rocna in the first place! The thing would not hold in softer bottoms, it just doesn't have the fluke area.

With regard to cost, I'm not sure what size you're looking at, but get a quote direct from NZ - the smaller ones (15 and below) can be shipped quite cheaply.

Originally Posted by Strygaldwir

After some additional searching for distributors and sources in the US, I came accross a Maynard Supreme. It appears to have a similar configuration to the Rocna, it is Loyllds rated and is available and "Significantly" less expensive, here in the US. Has anyone any experience with the Maynard?

Yes, but no comment, save to say that as with all copies and knock-offs you get what you pay for. The originals are usually better, and the copiers haven't had the benefit of experience involved in the design's development (i.e. they frequently don't really know what they're doing ).

There are also some construction issues with the Rocna that inflate its cost a bit, which can be removed by making several compromises that the average consumer without an engineering or technical background would not notice. Making those short-cuts is comensurate with the attitude required to copy something in the first place, yes? Short term gain for long term loss.

Originally Posted by rsn48

And now on to me. I have been seriously thinking about what I want and I was toying with a 15 or 20 Rocna; now I am headed in the opposite direction. It occurred to me is that if I am lazy (and I am - and I have dragged anchors before - being lazy I don't want to do it again) I should get the 10 and the 6 Rocna. I would anchor in series (or tandem - take your choice) and even if the second anchor didn't bite - a problem I anticipate if the first Rocna bites in quickly, the second anchor would act as a kettle and reduce the amount of chain I need (older Catalina 27's don't have a lot or "rode" room).

If the second Rocna bit in as well, I know the combination would hold up well in a decent blow - I'm thinking Beaufort 6 or 7. I was thinking the Rocna 10 as the lead anchor and the Rocna 6 as the secondary anchor (or kettle if it doesn't bite).

I think that's an ideal proposition. As we said we recommend the 10 as a primary anchor, so you will be able to use it on its own most of the time, and use the 6 as a spare, stern, or tandem anchor as required.

With regard to tandem anchoring, I find it strange that we're talking about it for a Catalina 27, as we're usually thinking about things like "is 14mm chain strong enough" , but there is some general advice. The heavier anchor should be the primary (attached closest to the boat) and the lighter anchor be the tandem (attached to the primary). This is because the primary has to deal with a vertical component of force in the rode, whereas the force on the tandem, if there even is any, is horizontal.

More advice, ask.

[Strygaldwir]

Opps... It is Manson not Maynard!
I am looking for a 20 or 25.

I am not certain about the "get what you pay for" as being a certainty in the marine field. There are economies of scale that must not apply, for certainly there is a loose relationship between cost/performance/quality in many aspects of the marine industry. (I am certainly not suggesting this in Rocna's case). It is just difficult to ascertain where the quality/performance/cost relationship actually is. Actually, in reaching back into my economics models memory, price is largely predicated on demand. A good business charges so that they maximize their profits, irrespective of the type market place (at least in perfectly competive markets, oligopolies, and monopolies).


It is difficult for a consumer to ascertain which is the copy and just as importantly, which is the better solution. I have noticed that it is always much easier to improve on a product than bring a new product to market. The new supplier can look at the weaknesses in the original product from a production/manufacturing, market placement, economies of scale, business managment, matierial acquisition and find ways to make it better. So, the newer provider may be able to come out with a higher quality product, that may be less expensive than the original. I believe that is the basic premise in capitalistic/free market economy.

So I guess what I am trying to understand is what specifics makes the Rocna a superior solution over the Manson. Do they hold better, last longer, look better, set quicker, cost more, provide better customer service, have a better warrenty, and/or have a longer service life?

The only thing I can see from the websites is that Maynard appears to have been in the business of making anchors for a significant amount of time (1972) (They make other anchors? some REALLY big! see Mirabella (sp?)). They also say "The anchor has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat anchor in the world to do so." But the Rocna website is WAY cooler (product differentiation through marketing?)!

So, didn't mean to be long winded, just trying to better understand. I must thank you, Craig, for the time and effort in providing input and education for us here. That counts for a lot too!!

Keith

[rsn48]

Craig,
During the summer, around much of coastal BC relatively accessible from Vancouver, I could probably get by with a Rocna 6; the winds just aren't that big a deal, in fact the reverse to be true - "Where's the d--- wind." However as soon as you break free from the summer sailing mentality and sail forth during most of the months of the year - the rain can be pretty depressing in Nov, Dec and Jan - you run into another scenario in which gale force winds along the coast are the norm.

So during the summer, I agree the double anchor thing is over kill, but during the fall, winter and spring, not so much over kill. For example, take Plumper's Cove, a great beginner's place to anchor, lots of boats in the summer. But it is open to some interesting Northerly winds in the "off season" for sailing, and I would double anchor there in late October, lets say. I have a soft spot for Plumper's Cove as it was the first place I dragged an anchor (and surprise, surprise.... scope was the problem).

Again, many of the weather benign areas is Gulf Islands during summer, can be a challenge wind wise in the "off" season. So being lazy and wanting to sleep at night and not worry about the anchor, and not getting paranoid when the wind comes up, anchoring in series has appeal for me.

[craigsmith]

The anchor business is pretty competitive. There are no anchors I know of, including all the competition, that are "rip offs" - in other words, you do get what you pay for, and it's up to you to decide whether it's worth paying for, if you see what I mean. For example the Rocna is cheaper than the expensive Spade, because the Spade's fabrication is still more complex - I would argue the Rocna is better value all factors considered, but the Spade is still sold at a fair price.

However what you say about copiers improving on products is not true in reality, at least not with regard to anchors. Find an example if you can - and there are lots of CQR and Bruce copies to choose from. Fortress might be one, an improvement over Danforth, but not really in terms of value.

When a copier sits down to copy an existing product, they need to do one of two things: 1) cheapen the product to compete on price, or 2) add improvements or variations to differentiate the product.

Most copies of the CQR are an example of the first, especially those from China etc. The CQR is easy to beat on price because of its costly drop-forged construction, so why bother varying the design. Most people do not see the difference between the $500 lump of steel and the $1000 lump of steel. Hence why the Delta, the first real improvement on it, took so long in coming (1980 when the CQR has been around since 1933 and long out of patent!).

More recently now that the Delta is out of patent, there have been knock-offs of it appearing. These are actually attempting to make variations, because the genuine Delta is not too expensive.

The issues are that, assuming the original is not a rip-off, the copier can only cheapen the product by taking short-cuts in its construction (of course there's not much R&D cost too). Use cheaper steel, laminate plate instead of using solid, roll plate instead of brake-pressing, don't cast a more sophisticated shape if it doesn't seem entirely necessary and can be mimicked with plate - there are all sorts of things that can be done.

Also, when variations are made, it's a naive copier that really thinks his variations are original. When we look around at the variations of all different types of anchors, we can immediately see why the original designer did not do the same thing (there's usually a reason!). The original designer or team that spent years working on the R&D will know a whole lot more about his concept than the copier who sits down for a week and tries to figure out something that'll make his thing look a bit more exciting. They probably considered said "improvements" and discarded them for a good reason. The fact is the copier simply doesn't have the experience and knowledge necessary.

The short answer to your question is that the Rocna is better built, but I won't expand on that in a public forum lest I give Manson a set of instructions for improvements to their product. Performance is next to identical. There are major issues with the full length slotted shank they use. Other details that will affect the service life. As an aside, some of our distributors here in NZ have replaced several of their customers' Supremes with Rocnas after the users came back complaining. And so on.

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.

Yes, Manson have been making anchors since 1972, since they first looked at a CQR and figured they could build the same thing cheaper. Good for them. Here's a series of photos of a genuine CQR vs their copy.

Now they do a range of five different types. Point to an original design if you can.

Lloyds certification amounts to $50K spent on a piece of paper that certifies that someone from the organization watched a sample anchor hold a certain multiple of something else. SHHP is just a step up from HHP. Perhaps we could get Lloyds to create a new category called UHHP (Ultra High Holding Power) and get "certified" for that . We would rather spend $50K on other things. Anyone can get Lloyds' approval for a specific anchor, if desired.

Thanks for the comment on the website. Hopefully people correctly assume that a similar level of effort and skill has gone into the product itself, which is the more important thing! Market perception is critical.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by rsn48

Again, many of the weather benign areas is Gulf Islands during summer, can be a challenge wind wise in the "off" season. So being lazy and wanting to sleep at night and not worry about the anchor, and not getting paranoid when the wind comes up, anchoring in series has appeal for me.

Yep, nothing wrong with it, just unusual on a small boat where a heavier anchor can be easily handled and is usually the solution (whereas once you already have a 40Kg, having a second 30Kg is more appealing than a single 70Kg ). We're one of the few manufacturers to include specific functionality for it with the anchor (the Delta has an attachment point in about the right place but I've never seen Simpson Lawrence or Lewmar call it a tandem anchor attachment point).

It allows you to pull some weight off the bow and put it down below, and use the lighter easier-to-handle hook most of the time, so great.

Oh and if you haven't done it before, make sure you practise at least a few times in conditions where it's not going to matter if you make mistakes. Even with the small sizes, deployment and retrieval is complicated a good deal. And feel free to ask for advice.

[Vasco]

Keith,

I have been quite happy with my Bruce(s) in the Bahamas. The only drawback being grassy bottoms. On my CS36 I had a 15 kilo with 50 ft 3/8 chain and 200' nylon. On my B393 I have a 20 kilo Bruce knockoff with 200' of 3/8 chain and 200' nylon (which I have yet to use, the most chain I've paid out so far is about 130'). I've only had it two seasons but have not dragged yet. (knock on wood). I do believe the Delta is a better anchor as it'll grab in grass and wish I had gotten one when I bought the boat.

[Talbot]

tandom anchoring is not a clever concept. You will achieve far better holding by deploying the two anchors seperately, even if one of them has to be on a rope.

[rsn48]

Talbot, I intend to try both. For what its worth, I'm not holding up Rocna as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I will admit that I like the fact that some one is trying to build a better mouse trap. For what its worth, a Danforth and Bruce have come with my boat. I haven't been a Danforth fan for a long time, and in some types of tests they don't hold up well. I just purchased "The Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring" by Earl Hinz I will quote two charts, this first one from pages 179 - 80.

In destruction tests of anchors - I won't go into what happened just at what point they gave out - the following occurred:

1. Sentinel 15 Economy (pivoting fluke) - Max load in lbs 300
2. Sea Hook, Fluke type 15 - 1,150
3. Sentinel 22, pivoting Fluke - 1,250
4. Danforth s-1600, Pivoting Standard Fluke 24 lbs - 1,500
5. Fortress FX-11, Pivoting fluke 6 pounds - 2,000
6. Danforth T-400 Deepset, Hi-tensile, Pivoting Fluke, 30 - 2,600
7. Fortress FX-23, Pivoting Fluke, 14 lbs - 4,650
8. Danforth H-1500, Hi-tensile, Pivoting Fluke 20 - 5.250
9. Seaspike 35, Plow, 35 pounds - 3,400
10. Danforth P-1500, deepest Plow, 35 pounds - 5,700
11. Harborfast 35 from Simpson-Lawrence, Plow, 35 lbs - 8,150
12. Lake Storm Anchor, Old Fashioned, 25 pounds - 9,000
13. CQR, Plow, 35 pounds - 13,250
14. Bruce 33, Spade, 33 pounds - 18,500

The above destruction test was sponsored by Cruising World and by the Boating Safety Division of BOAT/US and conducted by Com-Tex Development Corp.

Below is drag distances of various anchors, some I don't recognize but as the test was carried out by the French, I'm sure some are European brands. I'm just going to quote here the drag distance to fully set an anchor - this bears out Craig Smith's test (which people challenge - since he is not independent):

1. FOB HP, 16 kg pivoting fluke 130 feet
2. Britany, 20 kg Pivoting fluke 165 feet
3. FOB light 15 lbs pivoting fluke 200 feet
4. Bruce 20 Kg spade 33 feet
5. CQR 45 plow (I was surprised) 50 feet
6. Fortress FX-23 pivoting fluke 16 feet

There are two charts for anchors holding power in sand and mud; sand holding strength is significantly higher so I will quote the mud hold power stats.
(It should be noted, I'm taking a somewhat imprecise reading from a chart, but I'll be accurate to within 10 percent)

Rode Scope of 5:1 was used:

1. Bruce 20 kg Spade 250 lbs holding
2. CQR 45 Plow 475 lbs
3. Delta 35 Plow 480 lbs
4. Danforth H-1800 Pivoting fluke 33 lbs 750 lb
5. Danforth H-4000 Pivoting fluke 30 lbs 760 lb
6. Fortress FX-37 (32 deg fluke angle) 19 lbs 770 lbs
7. Danforth Deepset VSB-3600 pivoting fluke 30 lbs 1250 lb
8. Fortress FX-37 (45 deg fluke angle) 19 lbs 2,250 lb

So there is data out there, and sometimes interesting data. Notice the last Fortress in this chart was only 19 lbs but had the highest holding power; this due to the increased fluke angle.