Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-07-2011, 09:00 PM   #201
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,670
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Sounds good so far Benn. However, can you enlighten me just as to how the Excel differs from the Delta, as I'm sure it must, because superficially they do appear very similar? Seems a big divergence from the old Super Sarca with the agricultural looks that mine has. I suspect that is why they developed it. It certainly looks more 'glamorous' on the bow roller.
__________________
Advertisement

Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 11:54 PM   #202
Guru
 
Conrad's Avatar
 
City: Calgary
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blue Sky
Vessel Model: Nordic Tugs 42 Hull #001
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,553
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Had a good chat at the Vancouver Boat Show today with Mark Pocock of Suncoast Marine, who is the North American Distributor for Rocna Anchors. Notice that I did not say manufacturer. All Rocnas are now manufactured in China, not in Canada and not in New Zealand. According to Mark, because this change would create the inevitable questions about quality, they put in place a very stringent QC program that has resulted in improvement of quality and uniformity for their anchors. I hope he's right because we bought one. Boat show price for a 15 Kg (33pound) model was $407 CDN.
__________________

Conrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 05:02 AM   #203
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Conrad,

Congratulations on your purchase and I hope that your new Rocna gives you many years of dependable service.

I certainly hope that the quality and performance of the Chinese-made Rocna anchor is more honest than their marketing. Please have a look at the video below that was posted by Peter Smith, the Rocna designer, in which they did a beach pull test against a SARCA anchor, and see if both anchors were pulled at the same speed and in the same soft mud bottom:



This forum has a very astute group of guys. Can you tell the difference?

This type of fraud not only reflects badly on Rocna, but I am afraid on all anchor manufacturers, as we might possibly be "guilty by association."

Best regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 06:04:04 AM
Brian-Fortress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 10:04 AM   #204
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,715
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Conrad,
The Rocna must be a cheap anchor as I just paid the same price for an 18lb anchor. Ha Ha But yours is at least guaranteed to set. I got to thinking about how my Manson roll bar anchor would work if I cut off the roll bar. Wouldn't be much left of it. Would probably make a good hook for pulling up submerged cables. In the roll bar anchor I'm convinced the roll bar and the interference drag through the hole is a major contributor to the overall holding power. Of course if the roll bar was removed the RB anchor wouldn't set either. But w the RB gone it looks like there's not much surface area to the fluke so it would seem the RB itself is a major contributor to the anchor's ability to hold. Also w/o the RB it would probably bury itself VERY deep. Would be fun to do some experiments. But I paid $200 for the Manson and at this point it's my rock anchor.

Brian,
I couldn't find your Youtube link. Found lots of stuff but no anchor stuff. Do you think testing anchors out of the water on the beach is legitimate?

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Friday 11th of February 2011 11:09:36 AM
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 10:39 AM   #205
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Eric,

This link should take you right to the video if you copy and paste it into your brower:



or on Vimeo: **

Is there a better way to embed a video on this type of a forum?


I think the idea of beach testing is to have an inexpensive and controlled method of conducting a pull test with no variables, but as you will see from the Rocna video, beach testing can still be skewed.


One of the best anchor tests I ever saw was done by an Italian magazine where they had a diver on the sea bottom filming the behavior of each anchor. The variables were eliminated. That type of test would be my preference. No anchor manufacturer could ever offer an excuse as to why their anchor did not perform well, it was all right there on film.....and taken on a real sea bottom.


Regards,
Brian


Fortress Marine Anchors



-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 02:33:01 PM
Brian-Fortress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 12:20 PM   #206
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Brian-Fortress wrote:

This type of fraud not only reflects badly on Rocna, but I am afraid on all anchor manufacturers, as we might possibly be "guilty by association."


Well, at least we can say that manufacturers and manufacturers reps are consistent througout industry.* Airbus constantly whines about the claims we make for our aircraft and we constantly whine about the claims they make for theirs, and we both maintain that the other one is mis-representing the facts and dodging the truth.* Seems it's no different in the anchor industry

As I said earlier, I put zero credibility in anything a manufacturer's rep says.* Their claims are a good starting point for determining the actual merits of their product but it's the independent tests and user testimonials and the potential purchaser's experience, common sense, and good judgement that carry the weight.* That's why a big part of my job is going out to airlines around the world and asking them to tell us what they think of our products and how they perform for them in actual service.

Brian is doing an admirable job of subtly bashing the competition while promoting his own anchor, which I find no fault with that as that's what his company expects him to do.* But reading his responses and comments in this discussion is a bit like listening to one of our sales guys extole the virtues of the 737 to an airline while at the same time casting a shadow on the A320
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 01:13 PM   #207
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,715
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Marin,
I think you jumped on the bandwagon without seeing what Brian was talking about. I could'nt find it myself but I'm not going to throw tomatoes at him until I see what it is he's critisizing. From what we've seen from Rocna he probably is justafied in what he said. If Rocna was presenting video of 2 anchors setting, one on a beach and the other on a different beach I would definitely**** bash*** in a very unrestrained way the guilty party.
Now I need to see it**** ..the link.

Brian,
This is your link and I get some mostly naked woman w shinny tits and her legs are not at all together either.

Where do you see the anchor video in here???


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Friday 11th of February 2011 02:23:43 PM
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 01:33 PM   #208
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
nomadwilly wrote:

Marin,
I think you jumped on the bandwagon without seeing what Brian was talking about.
My only point is that every manufacturer is going to present their product in the best possible light.* Fortress does it, Rocna does it, Manson does it.* In an industry like this where there are variables at every turn it becomes very easy to slant the buyer's perception.* I'm not saying that Rocna hasn't done a test that could be interpreted to be unfair.* In the video I've seen of their anchor being compared to other popular anchors all the anchors were being tested on the same patch of ground using the same test rig.* But even with that setup I'm sure there are ways to "encourage" one anchor to perform better than another.

Which is why we made our anchor purchase decision primarily on the testimonials from a wide variety of folks who had been using the Rocna in their own cruising under a wide range of conditions.* As I recall (it was some five years ago) a few folks said the Rocna was just "okay," but most of them said it significantly out-performed the anchors they had been using.* So that's what we based our decision on.* Rocna itself provided us with the "why's" of the anchor's design (which made a lot of sense to us), but the "how good" came from users.* I expect Rocna (and Fortress and Manson and....) to say their anchor will outperform all others even in the slippery dust of the moon.* Which is why I tend to discredit anything a manufacturer says about the performance of their product.

On another topic, you are correct in that cutting the roll bar off your Manson will defeat the whole design.* The fluke won't dig in (or won't dig in very well) unless it's on its side and the pull on the shank pivots the point of the fluke down into the bottom like knife blade.* The roll bar ensures the anchor always ends up on its side.* Take that off and I suspect the fluke will just slide along flat on the bottom.



*


-- Edited by Marin on Friday 11th of February 2011 02:37:43 PM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 01:54 PM   #209
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Marin wrote:
Well, at least we can say that manufacturers and manufacturers reps are consistent througout industry.* Airbus constantly whines about the claims we make for our aircraft and we constantly whine about the claims they make for theirs, and we both maintain that the other one is mis-representing the facts and dodging the truth.* Seems it's no different in the anchor industry

As I said earlier, I put zero credibility in anything a manufacturer's rep says.* Their claims are a good starting point for determining the actual merits of their product but it's the independent tests and user testimonials and the potential purchaser's experience, common sense, and good judgement that carry the weight.* That's why a big part of my job is going out to airlines around the world and asking them to tell us what they think of our products and how they perform for them in actual service.

Brian is doing an admirable job of subtly bashing the competition while promoting his own anchor, which I find no fault with that as that's what his company expects him to do.* But reading his responses and comments in this discussion is a bit like listening to one of our sales guys extole the virtues of the 737 to an airline while at the same time casting a shadow on the A320 Good point Marin. However, while the field might be the same, I believe that the game is different here. Imagine a new upstart aircraft manufacturer who built a brand new plane that promised better performance, and they are desperate for sales to the various airlines.


This new upstart aircraft manufacturer is willing to resort to whatever means necessary to make sales, including falsifying or demeaning independent tests, and spreading blatant lies about the performance of established aircraft manufacturers like Boeing.

How long would it be before Boeing reacted in some way to expose this fraud and protect their reputation? A month, maybe two, maybe a year? Well, it has been several years now, and I have "turned the other cheek" for far too long. We have a hard earned reputation to protect, and I will not tolerate Rocna's efforts to damage it for a moment longer.

Additionally, I believe that Rocna's deceptive tactics should be exposed to the unknowing public, and if you want to fault me for that by saying "I put zero credibility in anything a manufacturer's rep says" then that is fine with me.

Further still, I have nothing but a deep respect for our other anchor competitors. I have personally spoken with hundreds, if not thousands of their owners who have been very satisfied by the performance of their anchors in a wide variety of wind & bottom conditions that they have encountered all over the world.

So if there is any "bashing" as you call it, it is against one and only one company who by their fraud is deserving. Finally, I challenge you to have a look at that video, and tell me if the Rocna designer was fair with his test. I welcome your thoughts.


Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 03:11:48 PM
Brian-Fortress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 02:07 PM   #210
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,715
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Well I clicked on my own posting of Brians link and see clearly what he's talking about. The Rocna was set at about 1/6th the setting speed as in fps. The SARCA was draged over the ground at almost 10mph at one point. A good trick to maximizing the way an anchor sets is to do it VERY slowly and that's exactly what Rocna did. I wonder why Rocna needed to pull their anchor so very slowly and needed to pull the SARCA so fast??????
One word for this****** FRAUD!.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 02:42 PM   #211
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

This test was not done by some renegade, overly enthusiastic sales rep, but by the Rocna designer himself. *Check the bottom as well. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, the Rocna side of the beach looks like it is softer mud, vs. a harder side for the SARCA.

This link should be good:










-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 03:43:34 PM
Brian-Fortress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 02:47 PM   #212
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Brian--- Two problems (in my opinion) with your response to my previous post. One, if your competitor's design is bogus as you seem to imply, then why are so many boaters all over the world switching to the Rocna? This anchor's been around for quite some time now, and if it was a flawed design the consumers would have figured this out a long, long time ago. Yet throughout the past couple of years I've seen more and more Rocnas being put on boats in our marina and on the Grand Banks forum, the only other forum I pay much attention to, more and more of the GB owners there are switching to Rocna. Lots of Fortresses here as stern anchors, as on our boat, but not as main anchors (don't see many true Danforths, either). I wonder if this is because the Danforth design is not as versatile in our area as the Rocna-Bruce-CQR?

Two, implying that a comparison test says it all about the manufacturer's product design or quality is a bogus assumption in my opinion. Manufacturers "lie" all the time about their products. It may not be the warm and fuzzy ideal but it's reality. And Fortress is every bit as "desperate" to sell it's products as Rocna or Manson or whoever. By the way, I liked your subtle reference to the "Chinese-made" Rocna. Good job of playing on the common assumption that everything from China is crap, which of course, it isn't. But I don't fault you for bringing it up. We and Airbus can't do that, of course, since the Chinese make a lot of stuff for our airplanes and do an excellent job of it, I might add.

I looked at the video and while the Sarca was pulled along faster, I don't know if this is because it didn't dig in and provide resistance, or if the test was rigged. But I actually don't care. The only part of the test that interested me was how fast and how deep the Rocna dug in. The Sarca may well do the same thing if the drag speed is the same, the sand density is the same, etc., I don't know. If so, good on them.* I wasn't there to see what the differences-- if any-- in the testing were. * In my case it's a moot point because here in the US I can't easily acquire a Sarca even if I wanted one.

As I keep repeating, your claims about the Rocna and the Fortress and Peter's claims about the Rocna and the Sarca would be at very bottom of my credibility list when deciding what to buy. An anchor has to perform on a real boat under real conditions. So the people with real boats who anchor in real conditions are the only true source of meaningful information, pro or con, as far as I'm concerned. In this respect, the Rocna beat out everyone else when we were researching what anchor to get. Report after report from boaters around the world praised the performance of the design, and that was good enough for us.

Is rigging product comparisons ethical? Of course not. But ethics don't hold my boat in place on a windy day, the anchor design does. If Peter's anchor works as advertised--- which by almost all the user comments it does and then some--- I don't care if Peter runs comparison tests setting his anchor in Jello and your anchor in concrete. I can understand why, as a manufacturer's rep you find this frustrating. But rather than harping on a competitor's testing methods, I would be more inclined to improve the performance or versatility of my own product. I realize in this instance we're talking apples and oranges since a spade anchor is a whole different animal than a Danforth, and as the manufacturer of a Danforth-type anchor Fortress is constrained by the limitations of the design. But I think you get my drift. If when we set out to replace our Bruce we had come across testimonial after testimonial from boaters around the world proclaiming the superiority of the Fortress over everything else in as wide a variety of anchoring conditions, we would have bought a Fortress as our main anchor. But we didn't see any testimonials like that.* But we did about the Rocna.

So was our decision to buy a Rocna right or wrong?




-- Edited by Marin on Friday 11th of February 2011 03:53:58 PM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 03:13 PM   #213
Senior Member
 
Avista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 106
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

I would just like to thank Brian for the parts to fix my 17 year old Fortress FX-55 which Fortress supplied at no charge under their lifetime warranty--Thanks Brian!--

Not trying to hijack the thread but didn't see any purpose in starting a new one for this.* No fault of the anchor by the way, fault of the *stupid captain.*
Avista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 03:24 PM   #214
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,715
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Well Marin you saw that as soon as the SARCA got turned around it went right down in the beachbed (ha ha ) but as soon as the rode speed sped up it's decent rate was arrested. " I don't know if this is because it didn't dig in and provide resistance, or if the test was rigged.". You got eyes Marin?? The rode speed was so different one cannot conclude anything other than deception was at work here. Were they so stupid they didn't realize the speed of the pull was way different? I don't think so. The Rocna is a good anchor if given enough scope so I don't see why they felt the need to do this. But they did and what they did is called fraud. You have a good anchor manufactured by people that misrepresent thier product.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 04:53 PM   #215
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
nomadwilly wrote:

Well Marin you saw that as soon as the SARCA got turned around it went right down in the beachbed (ha ha ) but as soon as the rode speed sped up it's decent rate was arrested. " I don't know if this is because it didn't dig in and provide resistance, or if the test was rigged.". You got eyes Marin??
Eric--- I saw the same thing you did.* But neither one of us was there, we don't know if they were measuring resistance with a strain gauge on the tow vehicle and were tying to maintain the same resistance on all the tests, we don't know the condition of the sand--- in other words, we don't know squat other than what we see on the screen.* You maintain that what you see is all you need to know in this case.* I don't argue at all what you saw, but I don't *feel it's enough to pass judgement because there is a lot I can't see or feel because I wasn't there.

Also, you are biased against Rocna anyway, so I suspect that had the test been performed by NASA in a pressurized sand chamber at Edwards AFB you would still be inclined to doubt the results

Rocna sales are accelerating from what I see in our marina and read on forums and so on.* So I don't think Peter has to be too concerned about whether or not his anchor design is going to "catch on" and sell well.* If he's rigging tests, I don't think he has any need to do this.* But I don't know him so I have no idea if he's a "win at all costs" kind of guy or not.

But I could care less.* All I care about is the performance of his anchor design.* And since that seems to be indisputable given all the testimonials about it from people who use it all over the world, how Peter decides to conduct his anchor tests is of no relevance to me.* Like I said, watching the Rocna bury itself out of site in the video is the only part of the video that interested me.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 05:35 PM   #216
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,715
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Marin wrote:
"we don't know squat other than what we see on the screen." To be sure and what WE saw is an anchor test w one anchor going at a crawl pace and the other ripp'in along.
And that's a whole lot more than squat.
Oh yes very biased against** ...no not Rocna. Just that Peter Smith.
Marin wrote:
"Rocna sales are accelerating from what I see in our marina"
Did you know you can't judge the world by what goes on in your marina?
Marin wrote:
" All I care about is the performance of his anchor design.* And since that seems to be indisputable"
Have you forgotten the anchor test where Rocna came out the looser***** ...as in the bottom of the list?
Something I should say is that Brian's comment about Rocna being made in China was not necessary. The implication wasn't exactly bashing but it was unnecessary and a tad below the belt feeding on assumptions that are only partially true. Remember when we thought Japanese products were cheap junk? Well at some point in time, either in the past or the future Chinese products may be better than our's. But this is a different time and place so ????
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 05:38 PM   #217
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Delfin wrote:

Kind of hard to argue with....



Interesting video and thanks for posting the link.* But..... even this one is not ideal.* While there is no doubt that there is more force holding back the Sarca Excel side it would have been a more effective video if they had done a split screen and showed us what the anchors themselves were doing at the same time.* I'm not disputing the results, only that for their illustration to have had its maximum effectiveness for me, I'd have wanted to see what the anchors were doing at the same time.

I produce films/videos for a living, including ten years making national television spots.* So I'm afraid to say that about the last thing I am inclined to believe is what I see on a screen because I know how easy it is to be deceptive, and with today's technolgoy it's even easier than it was back then.**I have been involved in the production of national commercials for nationally distributed products which were so misleading it makes Peters anchor test look like the most above-board thing*ever*done on*the planet.* We didn't outright lie in the commercials, but we cetainly didn't tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth *
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 05:52 PM   #218
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,496
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Marin wrote:We didn't outright lie in the commercials, but we cetainly didn't tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth
That's it, I'm never getting on another Boeing plane again.* Antonovs only for me from now on.

I don't think they jiggered this film since they panned rather than cut to the towbar, although I suppose you can do anything with film editing.* I like the idea of side by side comparisons like this that make cheating more difficult (like towing the competitor's anchor at 30 mph, and your's at 1.2 mph), and thank you Eric for mentioning this design.* Well worth considering.* The Sarca Excell is of special interest because it appears to just keep burying itself, leaving a slit in the seabed, disrupting the ecosystem a bit less while providing pretty stunning holding power.

*
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 06:29 PM   #219
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Marin, rather than quote your message, I will try and address your points as you brought them up:

- I did NOT state or imply that the roll bar design was bogus!* I simply gave the opinion of Robert Taylor, a long time anchor design expert for the US Navy. Bob stated right away that the huge roll bar was a "penetration inhibitor" which is obvious. He also pointed out that you cannot adjust the fluke angle, so performance will suffer in soft mud.

There are many other issues with the concave, shovel type fluke. One was pointed out in Sailing Today: "A downside to scoop anchors with roll bars can be compression of the seabed into the scoop - if the anchor were to drag it can't be re-set without being cleaned."

Additionally, I am hearing that in mud or clay, the concave shovel type fluke is bringing up a ton of sea bottom with it, which is a pain to wash off, and the additional weight is hard on winch systems. I'd be very surprised if you have not yet heard about this in your circles.

- Sorry, but that concave fluke design has only been out since Rocna, which was then copied by Manson, and I'd be surprised if it was earlier than 2004, so certainly less than 10 years. The original roll bar Bugel has a flat fluke, and the roll bar Sarca has a convex fluke.

- I believe that I have mentioned this before: If you have a wide variety of grass, weeds, or rocks where you are anchoring, then a plow anchor might be better suited than a fluke type. Which again brings up a question about the roll bar: How is the roll bar anchor going to penetrate this type of bottom better than a Delta, which does not have the roll bar in the way?

- The comment about us being "desperate" to sell our product is an exaggeration and implies that we will say or do anything to promote our business, whether ethical or not. Totally false. I challenge you to find a company within the marine industy who has a better reputation for honesty and integrity, and who stands behind their product more passionately than Fortress.

- The previous gentleman made the reference to the Rocna being made in China. I do not believe that I made a put down by simply repeating what he said. If so, sorry.

- I cannot believe that you did not clearly see the difference in how they tested the two anchors. Count how many seconds in the very first video, starting from the time that the tip of Rocna shank was at that brown wooden stick, as they SLOWLY waited for the Rocna to sink into the bottom, BEFORE they started pulling on it.

You slough off the test as being inconsequential and inconclusive, which I cannot comprehend. That "test" was a shameful embarrassment and a farce.

- Please tell me what "claims" I have made about Fortress?* That it will provide outstanding holding power in a sand, mud or clay bottom....as if that has not been repeatedly proven already over the past 20 years by our customers?

- I didn't quite understand the jello and concrete comment. It is ok for a company to use BS to sell a product, as long as at the end of day, the product works?

- Was your decision to buy a Rocna right or wrong? Only time will tell. I certainly hope that it was the right decision, and that the Rocna also gives you many years of dependable service.

I suspect that you sized up to a much larger Rocna anchor than what you had previously used with your Bruce. As a number example only, I understand that boaters with a 35 lb CQR do not replace it with a 35 lb Rocna, more often they replace it with a 45 lb or 55 lb Rocna, so of course they are going to get greater holding power simply by the fact they are now using a larger anchor.

This certainly gives them a greater margin for safety, and insures that they are more likely to be pleased with the Rocna.

We know from our warranty registration totals that 80% of our customers use their Fortress as their main, or primary anchor, and in those cases, customers often go in the opposite direction, as they replace much heavier steel anchors with a lighter Fortress.

Respectfully,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 07:50:30 PM
Brian-Fortress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 06:53 PM   #220
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Brian-Fortress wrote:

1. I simply gave the opinion of Robert Taylor, a long time anchor design expert for the US Navy. Bob stated right away that the huge roll bar was a "penetration inhibitor" which is obvious

2. The previous gentleman made the reference to the Rocna being made in China. I do not believe that I made a put down by simply repeating what he said.

3. It is ok for a company to use BS to sell a product, as long as at the end of day, the product works?

4. I suspect that you sized up to a much larger Rocna anchor than what you had previously used with your Bruce.Respectfully,
Brian

1.* If you watch the Rocna bury itself out of sight in the same video you/ve been*talking about, Mr. Taylor's theory pretty much goes out the window.

2. I know the China reference was brought up by someone else, but I thought it was a clever "inference" on your part to bring it up again.* Good salesmanship on your part, but misleading.

3.* All I'm interested in is*the quality and performance of a product.* I don't give a rat's ass how the manufacturer promotes it.* GE's promoting itself right now with a dancing CGI elephant.* If I was in the market for a GE railroad locomotive, I'm not gonna pay much attention to their dancing elephant promos am I*(which are very good, by the way).

4.* No, we didn't.* Our Rocna is a whopping eleven pounds heavier than our old Bruce.* Eleven pounds isn't going to make enough difference by itself to even be noticeable.* The design changeover, however, makes a huge difference.

*
__________________

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rocna revealed Delfin Anchors and Anchoring 155 10-08-2011 02:20 PM
CT-40 Owners? Tony B General Discussion 0 08-07-2011 08:01 AM
Credit where credit is due regarding Rocna Delfin General Discussion 7 07-31-2011 08:47 AM
Rocna put to bed Delfin Anchors and Anchoring 9 06-18-2011 09:48 PM
Rocna Anchor botemon General Discussion 5 10-30-2007 10:43 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012