Rocna anchors; where are they made?

[Palarran]

They look very different to my eye. Sorry your so offended though.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by Adelie

What size Rocna do you have and what size Delta did you have?

Both were 15 kg (33 lb) anchors.

One thing that I did like about the Lewmar, was that it was self-launching. My Seawind has anchor rollers in a trough that's aft of the front beam. They are set up to allow the anchor to drop as soon as tension is released from the anchor chain.

Due to the roll bar on the top of the Rocna, when its in this standard anchor position, the roll bar doesn't allow it to be fully retracted. As such, the shank sticks up a bit and forms a tripping hazard. The alternative is there is another anchor roller over the top of the forward beam. We use that with the Rocna.

I considered getting a Vulcan so it could go in the stock anchor position, where the Lewmar used to be. However, was told by Rocna that greatest holding power would be with the original version Rocna with the roll bar. So kept that one.

[a64pilot]

Interesting that you used this article, did you read the last line?



"Testing and feedback demonstrate that a well-designed roll-bar anchor such as a Rocna offers both greater holding power and setting ability than a ballasted-tip anchor such as a Spade."

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

It is hard to believe a company that can not be consistent.

Rocna in the past condemned our Spade Oceane (2nd anchor pic)( please see pictures and link). A design that we scraped due to poor test results.. Rocna reviewed the design and states quite clearly & frankly why the Vulcan/Oceane design is a failure. We fully agree with that and have not made that anchor in over 8 years. Now Rocna has released the Vulcan (last pic), that is a blatant copy of the Spade Anchor Oceane design and states it performs well.

New Generation Anchors: Explained and Compared

Why would a company produce something that they know does not perform?

Why would a company knowingly, repeatedly use Chinese metal?

With so many anchor options available please take the time to ask these questions, before purchasing.

This isn't the first time you've come here to kick sand in someones face. By your own admission, the Vulcan/Ocean was not made anymore since it was a failure. Why not be the bigger man and show better character.
It's clear ROCNA's new anchor resembles yours but physical familiarities can be deceiving. Slight tweaks to a design can make all the difference.

[SV THIRD DAY]

So now vendors are not to post in CF when they have something to say because some consider it "kicking sand"....na...sometimes sand needs to be kicked around and I'm always grateful some vendors care enough about their stand up for it on a public forum and take the slings and arrows.

More did discussion not less, even if it offends is better.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So now vendors are not to post in CF when they have something to say because some consider it "kicking sand"....na...sometimes sand needs to be kicked around and I'm always grateful some vendors care enough about their stand up for it on a public forum and take the slings and arrows.

More did discussion not less, even if it offends is better.

They need to be careful Getting involved in discussions as more than one has been banned.

[Celestialsailor]

Rich...when you discuss watermakers, you don't immediately toot your own horn unless you are asked. That's because you are tactful. You offer facts that you have learned in regards to your experience with your products.
Yes we all have a right to express our opinions. That's different than waiting to point out someones short comings.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Ah.....true (and thanks for the compliment) but can't you learn about people by how they communicate and represent themselves online...crap...did... "Mr Smart Ass Me" just say that?

I'll be in La Paz for two weeks 5th - 17th so if you are there amigo I'll buy you a Taco.

[Celestialsailor]

I should be. I'm at Don Jose. Just had 3 fish Tacos with the fluffiest rice I've ever had at the restaurant atop Marina de La Paz (120 pesos($6). I was at the Mardi Gras this last week. Totally fun.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by AiniA

Sorry, should have provided the link below. I don't think that there is another cruising boat like this. And it was 22.000 hours - at English prices. Most of Kiwi Roa's life has been spent at high latitudes including wintering numerous times in the Falklands and Patagonia.

About “Kiwi Roa�

2006?/7 until early 2009 in Patagonia... a fair bit of that alongside at Oxxean in Montt, 2010 until he left for S Africa in the Falklands. Dunno when that was as we quit the Falklands in late 2011.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

Now Rocna has released the Vulcan (last pic), that is a blatant copy of the Spade Anchor Oceane design

I think that is a little harsh.

The Vulcan is an interesting design. As you point out, it has a lot of similarities to the Ocèane so we can expect it to have some similar characteristics. However, the design of the underneath of the fluke (which is not shown in the photos of the Ocèane) is quite different.

The Ocèane relies entirely on geometry to adopt the correct setting position. A simplistic view is that the round curved shank acts in a similar way to a roll bar ensuring the only stable position is in the correct orientation. Contrast this with an anchor like the Spade or Ultra, which relies almost entirely on their ballast to achieve the correct orientation.

The Vulcan adopts both solutions. It has a reasonable amount of ballast (unlike the Ocèane), but also uses a high curved shank. The shank design helps reduce the ballast needed. This has the advantage that the fluke can be thinner than the bulky tip of the Spade, helping the anchor penetrate weed and hard substrates. The reduced ballast weight also allows the fluke area to be potentialły bigger.

So the Vulcan can be thought of a cross between non ballasted concave anchors like the Ocèane, Raya, Sword and Manson Boss and heavily ballasted anchors like the Spade and Ultra. Rocna are obviously trying to incorporate the advantages of both these types of anchor design.

It is a little too early to determine if they have succeeded. I have not seen the Vulcan underwater. From user reports and photos of the anchor underwater it is obvious it is a good anchor, but I suspect it is not as good as the Rocna or the Spade. Time will tell.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I think that is a little harsh.

The Vulcan is an interesting design. As you point out, it has a lot of similarities to the Ocèane so we can expect it to have some similar characteristics. However, the design of the underneath of the fluke (which is not shown in the photos of the Ocèane) is quite different.

The Ocèane relies entirely on geometry to adopt the correct setting position. A simplistic view is that the round curved shank acts in a similar way to a roll bar ensuring the only stable position is in the correct orientation. Contrast this with an anchor like the Spade or Ultra, which relies almost entirely on their ballast to achieve the correct orientation.

The Vulcan adopts both solutions. It has a reasonable amount of ballast (unlike the Ocèane), but also uses a high curved shank. The shank design helps reduce the ballast needed. This has the advantage that the fluke can be thinner than the bulky tip of the Spade, helping the anchor penetrate weed and hard substrates. The reduced ballast weight also allows the fluke area to be potentialły bigger.

So the Vulcan can be thought of a cross between non ballasted concave anchors like the Ocèane, Raya, Sword and Manson Boss and heavily ballasted anchors like the Spade and Ultra. Rocna are obviously trying to incorporate the advantages of both these types of anchor design.

It is a little too early to determine if they have succeeded. I have not seen the Vulcan underwater. From user reports and photos of the anchor underwater it is obvious it is a good anchor, but I suspect it is not as good as the Rocna or the Spade. Time will tell.

Yes the Vulcan is an interesting anchor.

However the damaged flute posted earlier in this thread suggests some serious issues - not as good as a Rocna or Spade ????? !!!!!!!!

Not so sure. Lets hope its not a rerun of the Chinese steel.

[El Pinguino]

Any shank will bend if you apply enough force.....

BTW this is not photoshopped.... actual anchor belongum a big LNG tanker... you now know why flatfish are flat..

[HopCar]

You can't judge an anchor's shank strength by its thickness. If you look at a Standard Danforth shank, it is much thicker than a Hi-Tensile Danforth's shank. The Hi-Tensile shank is much stronger as it is forged and the Standard is just cut from plate.

I've seen a Hi-Tensile that got mixed up with a propeller. The shank was wrapped so tightly around the line that the line had to be cut to get the anchor loose. The shank didn't break but it sure did bend. The surprising thing is that the anchor continued to work for a couple of weeks until it could be replaced.

The Vulcan has a forged shank that has an I beam cross section.

[noelex 77]

The modified "I" beam cross section of the Vulcan shank is another interesting aspect of the Vulcan design. Of course the idea is not new. The CQR shank is an "I" beam construction. However, in designing the Vulcan, Rocna has produced a very clever design incorporating a tapered leading edge. This eliminates the criticism of the CQR shank, which unfortunately reduces the anchor's ability to bury.

For most anchor designs, minimising the shank weight is important for anchor performance. For an anchor like the Vulcan without a roll bar or large amounts of ballast, it is especially critical. Without a shank as light as possible, the anchor will not adopt the correct setting position.

It is important to realise this trade off. Anchor shanks that can almost never bend are not hard to make, but a lighter shank with a sensible balance of strength and performance is better in my view.

The 'I" beam shank on the Vulcan looks to have been engineered primarily to maximise the strength with a pull in a vertical direction. Contrast this with the CQR's much less deep "I" beam construction that adds a lot of strength in the horizontal direction.

The reason for the Vulcan maximising the vertical strength is likely to be the rather silly (in my view) SHHP classification. This certification tests anchor shank strength only with a vertical pull, so manufacturers that want to pass this test are forced to design anchor shanks are very strong in the vertical direction. There is no requirement to test anchor shanks with a horizontal pull, even though this is how the vast majority of anchor shanks will bend. The CQR was designed well before the SHHP classification was developed and has a more balanced approach to the shank strength in a vertical and horizontal direction.

So the SHHP test does little to ensure anchor shanks are strong where it counts, but consumers end up with a heavier shank than necessary and hence a worse performing anchor simply so that the anchor passes the proof load test that has little relevance.

You can see the sophisticated profile of the Vulcan shank in this photo. rocna call it an "I-V" shank.

Originally Posted by HopCar

The Vulcan has a forged shank that has an I beam cross section.

Rocna have not released many details of the Vulcan's construction. Can you confirm the shank is forged?