Rocna's new Anchor????

[Steve Bedford]

"I may deliver the anchors to Steve (for submerged experimentation) or work on them myself this winter. Right now I'm scrambling to get things done on boat and around the house before non painting or freezing weather arrives."

Been prepping for the bad weather threatening the east coast for the last couple of days and oh my, what I missed on this thread. The ability of any anchor to be in the penetration position when force (pull) is placed on the rode is due to a number of factors, hopefully researched by the anchor manufacturer, in the anchor design. I would refer to the manufacturer to have them explain then compare this information to your own experiences and what others have experienced. I can only speculate about other anchors from what I read, am told, and experimented on. Know for sure about our anchor's design.

As far as sending me some anchors for "submerged experimentation", I would love to have them. I have quite an inventory of other company's anchors but always looking to add to that collection.
Steve

 

[ranger58sb]

Peter B wrote;
"Eric, I always have to tie off and use motor power when directly over the Sarca to engage the trip mechanism to get the thing out no matter what unless on pure shingle or over rocks."

I think this is very interesting. VERY INTERESTING.

Most of the time I don't even notice when the slack is gone and I'm lifting the anchor off the bottom. And I use various anchors.

Without regard to slots, our normal is having to use the engines, and usually a 180-degree turn-around once the rode leads straight up from the anchor. That's with SuperMAX and Fortress. Not so often with the Deltas we used at one time...

Thought more about this. When I say "our normal" I mean pretty much "always."

If you can't tell when the anchors are breaking out... perhaps they aren't really setting deeply in the first place?

Can it be maybe some combination of your boat mass, engine power, anchor weight and design, substrate make-up... whatever... that is prohibiting your anchors from deeply setting?

Just pondering...

-Chris

 

[Steve Bedford]

"Can it be maybe some combination of your boat mass, engine power, anchor weight and design, substrate make-up... whatever... that is prohibiting your anchors from deeply setting?"

All of the above and then some. Generally, anchor manufactures have their recommendations for proper setting, however, there are more commonalities than differences from other techniques. That being said, I recommend following the manufacturer's procedure. Some anchors are not deep setting so you may never get a deep set. Other's say they are but experience and documentation counter's the deep setting claim. To that, I am not willing to say an anchor is not what it claims as a deep setting by design. I would look at some of the other variables you listed above, including technique. Only after I am sure I have accurately accounted for the variables including using the recommendations of the manufacturer would I dispute the claim.

I know I have a set at about 3:1 scope. The more I pull with the engines, the deeper I dig. On Monday, I was on a cove off Indian Creek off the Chesapeake in Virginia. I was in mud (typical for this area) and a stiff breeze was blowing and was predicted to continue overnight. Put some extra rpms on the set and again about 6:1. Paid the price in the morning trying to get it up with significant seabed, including a large rock, piled on the fluke and covering the shank, and much of the first few feet of chain. Eventually came up. Guess I should take some pics next time that happens.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Chris,
I can readily see why you would think my anchors aren't set very good. If they are easy to pluck out. My engine is only 40hp driving an 18" prop through a 2.57-1 BW gear so not much thrust availible .... and I use little of what I have as I back down w 1200 to 1400rpm and I'm not overpropped. That's the great think about TF. We would all think what we did was normal unless we knew otherwise. My anchors are relatively small though. But I'm inclined to think I've set them enough though as I've never dragged. When I was quite young and first heard of setting anchors I thought it was dumb. Any fool can see that any good anchor will set by itself as that is what anchors are designed to do. I ran OB cruisers then a little less that 20' and light plywood.
And basically what we're doing by setting is testing the bottom .. not the anchor.
And Chris if the wind blows my anchors will get set harder and all the experts say slowly setting anchors is the most effective way.
I'm trying to decide if I'm setting too light and having trouble getting my head around that. They may dig deeper if I set them harder but sometimes certian anchors break out during setting that hold fiercely if set again.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Steve Bedford,
I'm sorry my "experimentation" comment was actually directed at Steve that took the videos a short time ago. At this point I'm not sure I'm going to part w them at all. Sometimes it takes a very long time to sell a boat. And before I send them to Steve ... (username panhope I think) I want to weld some appendages on.

Re your Max it has a big fluke that promises lots of holding power but a big "T" shaped shank that is very strong due to it's T shape but presenting lots of drag against penetration but w the big fluke maybe not much penetration will/would be necessary. But it needs the strong T shape as it's got to manhandle that big wide fluke, It's all Ballance and trade and just when you think you've figured it out the bottom isn't like the sandbox at the boat show and a hard layer is only 4" down. Then any anchor isn't going to do much other than buldozing.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marin,
You love to say "all chain rode". And now that we're not arguing about chain v/s line it has a certian ring to it.

It's interesting that you've had to use your trip line several times. Paid for itself then! I gave up on the trip line. Hate to admit it but it's just too much work and another variable to deal with.

You may not "belive in them" but lots of people do believe in them and have used them successfully .. slotted shank anchors. But the attach place/point for trip lines on most anchors (that have them) is in a far better location for anchor extraction than the end of the slot .. At the heavy end of the anchor. So IMO is reversed extraction needs to be employed using the trip line could very likely work whereas the slot would not. Probably would seldom happen but when it does your trip line would likely be better at getting your anchor back.

 

[Steve Bedford]

"Steve Bedford, I'm sorry my "experimentation" comment was actually directed at Steve that took the videos a short time ago. At this point I'm not sure I'm going to part w them at all. Sometimes it takes a very long time to sell a boat. And before I send them to Steve ... (username panhope I think) I want to weld some appendages on."

Just messing with you anyway. Never thought you would part with them.

"And Chris if the wind blows my anchors will get set harder and all the experts say slowly setting anchors is the most effective way."

Absolutely. Another reason that one has to be careful about "mass-testing" anchors.

"Re your Max it has a big fluke that promises lots of holding power but a big "T" shaped shank that is very strong due to it's T shape but presenting lots of drag against penetration but w the big fluke maybe not much penetration will/would be necessary. But it needs the strong T shape as it's got to manhandle that big wide fluke, It's all Ballance and trade and just when you think you've figured it out the bottom isn't like the sandbox at the boat show and a hard layer is only 4" down. Then any anchor isn't going to do much other than buldozing."

Well said. The "T" shape is indeed stronger than an "l" (there are other shapes that are even stronger including "I" and "0" among others) but there are indeed compromises. A lot goes in to steel strength, width, thickness, length of shanks and shank components. Based on the amount of seabed on top of my shank, the "T" does not appear to interfere with deep penetration.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter.
Interesting about the mud and the SARCA coming up backwards but it's dependant on the mud.

Something very interesting has occurred to me as we were talking about shank lengths.
The early XYZ has a fluke very much like the SARCA. Go to <xyzanchor.com> and then to "company" and then to "images". Go three more over to the right and one down (hope I remember it correctly) and you'll see a picture of the old XYZ anchor. Put a SARCA shank and roll bar on it and it's close to a dupe of the SARCA. So the big difference is the shank and roll bar. The XYZ uses a horn instead of the roll bar but much more importantly the shank is much the same. Just very small on the XYZ and long and tall on the SARCA. and then another interesting comparison comes to mind. Your SARCA shank is the same shape as the Claw. And the Claws shank is a good shape as the bottom dosn't get a chance to lift the anchor w fwd motion like most anchors untill the anchor is 5 to 7" down in the seabed. But the Claw shank is big and heavy .. most likely over 50% of the anchors weight. It has often been said that the Claw lacks fluke surface area. But the fluke goes quickly to a usable depth.
But the shank length is important in every design. And if you can have a short shank and it does it's job it can be made of lighter materials and is smaller in the first place so all that weight saved goes into the fluke where it will do the most good. And if ballast isn't needed one can get sorta close to an all fluke anchor. That's what the XYZ is .... the closest thing to an all fluke anchor. So it is extreme .. as advertised.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

So the Admiral and I took the boat out this past weekend to practice anchoring. We have a new Rocna 77Lb anchor with 550 ft of chain. When we went out there was a good steady wind and max river flow. We figured this would be pretty close what we would face next year on the inside passage.


My windlass is electric and I can operate it from 3 stations, bow, fly bridge and salon station. The Admiral's station is on the bow and mine is on the fly bridge. We also switched duties so we could experience both stations. We found the following:

• The quick release clutch was stuck. I greased the fittings and backed down on the clutch and broke it free.
• The Rocna set each and every time.
• When retrieved, we found the anchor would be twisted and comes up to the bow pulpit backwards. I reach down and twist the chain a 1/4 turn and then the anchor aligns. Rocna recommends not to use a swivel, but.....
• We found out the Admiral has problems pushing over the chain cone in the chain locker. So this will be my duty.
• Washdown is very important.
• The harness a friend made for us to take the pressure off the windlass works great!
• Keep an eye on the anchor pin as it is attached by a cheap chain and can be knocked into the water.

Still learning and practicing as we will be anchoring 90% of the time.

 

[ranger58sb]

Chris,
I can readily see why you would think my anchors aren't set very good. If they are easy to pluck out. My engine is only 40hp driving an 18" prop through a 2.57-1 BW gear so not much thrust availible .... and I use little of what I have as I back down w 1200 to 1400rpm and I'm not overpropped. That's the great think about TF. We would all think what we did was normal unless we knew otherwise. My anchors are relatively small though. But I'm inclined to think I've set them enough though as I've never dragged.

And Chris if the wind blows my anchors will get set harder and all the experts say slowly setting anchors is the most effective way.
I'm trying to decide if I'm setting too light and having trouble getting my head around that. They may dig deeper if I set them harder but sometimes certian anchors break out during setting that hold fiercely if set again.

Wasn't really trying to second-guess you experience; just seems we mostly have to work a lot to break an anchor free, and if you don't... seems something in there is different from what happens to us. Whatever (how ever many whatevers) that could be. Certainly we have more horsepower, and wifey isn't afraid to use it when we're anchoring!

Well, to a certain extent, anyway. No violent throttle action.... but we do allow the engines to do some work for us.

Steve Bedford,
Re your Max it has a big fluke that promises lots of holding power but a big "T" shaped shank that is very strong due to it's T shape but presenting lots of drag against penetration but w the big fluke maybe not much penetration will/would be necessary.

I think I've not seen any reluctance for the T-shaped shank to bury. Would guess it would have more resistance if it were an I-shape. But I don't have any way to compare against something else...

-Chris

 

[Marin]

Marin,
You love to say "all chain rode". And now that we're not arguing about chain v/s line it has a certian ring to it.

It's interesting that you've had to use your trip line several times. Paid for itself then!

I mentioned all-chain rode only because when we are directly over the anchor with the rode tight there is no stretch at all between the chain hook and the anchor shank so the anchor is broken out very easily by even minimal movement of the boat. A combination or line rode might be a bit more difficult as it has stretch to it.

We've had the anchor foul a couple of times on something on the bottom in BC-- old cable, chain, ?? -- so the only way to free the anchor was with the trip line. These times have been when we anchored in places known for logging debris on the bottom so we rigged the trip line as a precaution. Ours is very easy to deploy and does not interfere with the anchor deployment or retrieval at all. And it didn't cost us anything as we made it from components we already had.

 

[markpierce]

I can't explain it. The decades-old anchor design holds my boat yet comes out without a struggle. Must be the San Francisco Estuary's heavy mud in combination with the "claw." Foot on the peddle:



For boats over 30 feet in length, an all-chain rode "rules."

 

[HopCar]

Well dang. I was hoping on a new thousand reply thread!!!! It hard being a pot stirrer....

Don't give up, this thread has a lot of well worn road to cover yet.

 

[CPseudonym]

don't give up, this thread has a lot of well worn road to cover yet.

 

[Nomad Willy]

I was looking fwd to more interesting discussion here but if all I've got to respond to is "all chain rules" I'll pass. We've uncovered some interesting new things though especially comparisons not thought of before.

As to the Vulcan I'm shure it will be a good anchor for the mainstream and because of the Rocna popularity many will be sold. I was even excited about it untill I discovered the ballast chamber. Everything old is new again?

 

[HopCar]

Yeah but the Vulcan really looks cool! If I ever get Possum out on the water again, I'm going to try a Vulcan that is the same size as my Delta. I can't use a roll bar type anchor on my pulpit.

I expected the Vulcan to be smaller than a Rocna, of the same weight, but the fluke area is surprisingly close.

 

[hmason]

I have two anchors on the pulpit; a CQR, and a Supreme. I have a question that I do not think has been addressed before despite all of the endless anchor posts. What is proper anchor etiquette, the Supreme on starboard and the CQR on port or the opposite?

Howard

 

[hmason]

Meant to post the above on the roller thread. Sorry to hijack.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marty,
I don't know how important looking cool is for anchors but it seems to carry some weight. Weight is a good word here eh? I agree it's a good looking anchor and that's surprising since the prototype was so awful looking. Remember all the tractor seat jokes?

If the Rocna's fluke has close to the same fluke area then the roll bar must be solid steel. I'd put my money on the Rocna re that source but other than looking cool the Vulcan looks like it should be a good above average performer. On a performance level I really don't see how it could be anything but a smigin different from the Spade. And that ain't at all shabby. Physically I see almost no difference at all.

 

[Peter B]

So the Admiral and I took the boat out this past weekend to practice anchoring. We have a new Rocna 77Lb anchor with 550 ft of chain. When we went out there was a good steady wind and max river flow. We figured this would be pretty close what we would face next year on the inside passage.
My windlass is electric and I can operate it from 3 stations, bow, fly bridge and salon station. The Admiral's station is on the bow and mine is on the fly bridge. We also switched duties so we could experience both stations. We found the following:

• When retrieved, we found the anchor would be twisted and comes up to the bow pulpit backwards. I reach down and twist the chain a 1/4 turn and then the anchor aligns. Rocna recommends not to use a swivel, but...

• 
  
  I recently disposed of my swivel after several posters convinced me it was unnecessary. Often my Sarca would come up back to front as it were also, which is why I thought the swivel should stay. Then I really looked closely and realised, with all chain, the 'teeth' on the gypsy basically always orient the chain in the same way, so if you sight along the chain from gypsy to roller, you will see a line of links in one orientation, eg vertical, and the alternating links lined up horizontally. If not, detach the anchor and untwist those last few feet from gypsy to roller so they do.
  
  So then all you need to do is turn your anchor/ shackle assembly and refit to the chain when the final chain link and anchor assembly, ie with associated shackle, are such that the anchor is now fluke point down, and as the gypsy does not allow the chain to twist, it should always orientate the anchor the correct way when it comes up. Eric mentioned this once, and I admit I was sceptical, but it appears to be so, and better still it works...every time since I made that change so far anyway...touch wood...

 

[dwhatty]

I recently disposed of my swivel after several posters convinced me it was unnecessary. Often my Sarca would come up back to front as it were also, which is why I thought the swivel should stay. Then I really looked closely and realised, with all chain, the 'teeth' on the gypsy basically always orient the chain in the same way, so if you sight along the chain from gypsy to roller, you will see a line of links in one orientation, eg vertical, and the alternating links lined up horizontally. If not, detach the anchor and untwist those last few feet from gypsy to roller so they do.

So then all you need to do is turn your anchor/ shackle assembly and refit to the chain when the final chain link and anchor assembly, ie with associated shackle, are such that the anchor is now fluke point down, and as the gypsy does not allow the chain to twist, it should always orientate the anchor the correct way when it comes up. Eric mentioned this once, and I admit I was sceptical, but it appears to be so, and better still it works...every time since I made that change so far anyway...touch wood...

Did the same. Same result. Albeit with a Rocna.

 

[markpierce]

I have two anchors on the pulpit; a CQR, and a Supreme. I have a question that I do not think has been addressed before despite all of the endless anchor posts. What is proper anchor etiquette, the Supreme on starboard and the CQR on port or the opposite?

Howard

CQR to port, the other to starboard.



(We don't have Supremes in our neighborhood.)

 

[Marin]

Eric-- The Rocna's rollbar is a tube open at both ends with a small regalvanizing hole on the underside at the top of the arch.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Yes Marin,
I remember looking at a Rocna on our float and know that it is a tube as is the Supreme. The Supreme's roll bar has 1/8th" wall thickness. Seems a little excessive to me.

 

[angus99]

CQR to port, the other to starboard.



(We don't have Supremes in our neighborhood.)

Jeez, I wouldn't want to be stumbling back to my boat in the dark on that dock!

 

[Peter B]

Did the same. Same result. Albeit with a Rocna.

On one retrieval today, I thought I had cooked my goose by the above post, as the anchor, when I stopped it just under the water to swish it clean, was back to front, and stayed that way most of the way up. However, as it happened it turned at the last moment, and still came up and over correctly orientated. So far, still 100% correct orientation on the roller since the anchor re-alignment after losing the swivel.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I recently disposed of my swivel after several posters convinced me it was unnecessary. Often my Sarca would come up back to front as it were also, which is why I thought the swivel should stay. Then I really looked closely and realised, with all chain, the 'teeth' on the gypsy basically always orient the chain in the same way, so if you sight along the chain from gypsy to roller, you will see a line of links in one orientation, eg vertical, and the alternating links lined up horizontally. If not, detach the anchor and untwist those last few feet from gypsy to roller so they do.

So then all you need to do is turn your anchor/ shackle assembly and refit to the chain when the final chain link and anchor assembly, ie with associated shackle, are such that the anchor is now fluke point down, and as the gypsy does not allow the chain to twist, it should always orientate the anchor the correct way when it comes up. Eric mentioned this once, and I admit I was sceptical, but it appears to be so, and better still it works...every time since I made that change so far anyway...touch wood...

Thank you....good points