Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-29-2011, 04:03 PM   #61
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,719
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

If one finds out that a Lewmar or Sea Dog performs well then one would be inclined to look for same.
I think the Rocna is slightly superior in holding power and the Manson Supreme is better at short scope. Beyond that it seems a toss up. I'd go the Rocna if I almost always had more than 4-1 scope and lots of chain.
Did you know the M Ray costs about $1000?
Why should anchor performance change from small anchors to large? At this time I don't buy into that. And also I think if you're looking at a 33lb MS or Rocna you'd probably be just as happy w a 44lb claw. And there's a lot of guys on this forum that are very happy w the Delta. I personally think it needs scope like the Rocna. And if the M Ray was $400 I'd have one in a heartbeat (as they say)
__________________
Advertisement

Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 04:57 PM   #62
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,496
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
nomadwilly wrote:

Why should anchor performance change from small anchors to large? At this time I don't buy into that.
I think the answer would be the effect of gravity.* I'd rather be anchored to a D9 Cat than a 45# CQR in a hurricane anyday, although the CQR is probably a better design for an anchor than the bulldozer.* I think Steve Dashew said it best.* When people see how huge your anchor is and say "are you kidding?", then you're getting in the ball park of one that's big enough.

The boat in this video weights 55,000# and carries a 120# Rocna, which means none of us have a big enough anchor if we're going to go to Georgia Island.*
<a href="
__________________

Delfin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 09:18 PM   #63
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
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Peter B wrote:
Mark, how is it possible for you to be buying a new vessel, and just have to take the anchor alternatives they supply with it?* That, 'scuse my French, is, as you guys say...dumb-arsed.* Surely with something as important as the bit that sticks you where you want to stay, and you are paying for it, it's possible to say, "sorry guys, you can keep the whatever anchor you normally put on these things, I want this type of bow set-up and one of these".....I know I would......
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Markpierce wrote

I like the Bruce. ...* I suppose for the same*reason Rocna users haven't upgraded to a better anchor yet.* Peter, have you upgraded yet?* Why not?

I had a 15-pound Bruce "lunch hook" for my 22-foot pocket cutter and it set and held, everytime, first-time in the SF Bay/Delta mud.
_____________________________________________
No, I have not upgraded to a Rocna, or from a Rocna, because I use a Sarca, which sadly it appears is unobtainable in the Northern hemishere thus far, unless one wanted to order online and pay shipping extra, of course.* Probably possible. http://www.anchorright.com.au/
Mine, which replaced an CQR/plough, performs so well, I have no need or desire to upgrade.

However, Mark, your point re the Bruce is taken, but then again, nearly all anchors set and work quite well in soft mud, as long as reasonably heavy, it is when the bottom is not ideal that trouble begins, and an all-rounder becomes more relevant.


-- Edited by Peter B on Saturday 29th of January 2011 10:23:21 PM
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 09:31 PM   #64
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
markpierce wrote:

The manufacturer claims his anchor is a significant improvement over the Rocna.* Be prepared to pony-up $1500 to $2500 for the "best."

http://www.quickline.us/stainless-steel-anchors.aspx

Meanwhile, I'm*holding onto a Bruce.* Perhaps*I'll upgrade on my 65th birthday after you guys/gals test out and applaud*Quickline's.
Nobody's addressed the topic so I'll make a contribution.

The Ultra is a Turkish copy of the Spade. It is made by a Turkish outfit happily just outside of EU patent jurisdiction. If Quickline are silly enough to import the thing, with what seems like a rather high risk of infringing Spade's US patent, I guess that's not the customer's problem.

From this you can assume certain things on the basis that the genuine Spade will be superior in both performance and quality.

Specifically, the Ultra is made from 316 stainless, which is a very weak material to build an anchor from. (Tensile strength below mild steel). Read: inadequate. Unfortunately high tensile stainless steels are very expensive and it's not something the majority of customers question. Galvanized options are not available because the Ultra's hollow shank cannot be hot-dip galvanized (the Spade is a two parter) - it would be blown apart. Not only is constructed from a poor grade of steel but is built in cranked sections (unlike the Spade's even curves) which introduces obvious stress concentrations (weak spots).

Stainless steel is generally very expensive - unless it isn't. A good quality stainless product should cost around 3-5 times (yes) that of the galvanized equivalent. If not, then there are some serious compromises somewhere. The Spade is a complex design which is challenging to fabricate. Look at the price of a galvanized Spade and do the math.

(You consider the Ultra expensive, but only because you're looking at stainless pricing - it actually is rather cheap).

So the usual story is: avoid copies.

As to performance claims, better than a Rocna? Yeah right. The Rocna consistently out-performs the genuine Spade, so the likelihood of a compromised copy doing better hardly seems high! Where is the valid repeatable independent testing?
Craig Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 09:36 PM   #65
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
nomadwilly wrote:

I think the Rocna is slightly superior in holding power and the Manson Supreme is better at short scope. Beyond that it seems a toss up. I'd go the Rocna if I almost always had more than 4-1 scope and lots of chain.
That's just not correct, the genuine Rocna outperforms the Manson copy in all scenarios.
www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/manson-supreme-anchor.php

Quote:
nomadwilly wrote:

Why should anchor performance change from small anchors to large?
It is harder to get anchors to perform well at small scales. Small Bruces are pretty useless. A lot of Bruce "fans" turn out to be on larger/heavier boats, and use very over-sized anchors. Inefficient at best.

For example, the Rocna design goes through a number of subtle design changes over its size range, a 275 kg Rocna is quite different to a scaled up 4 kg.

-- Edited by Craig Smith on Saturday 29th of January 2011 10:37:00 PM

-- Edited by Craig Smith on Saturday 29th of January 2011 10:37:35 PM
Craig Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 09:50 PM   #66
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Conrad wrote:
I think that you are correct re the Bruce patent Marin. It does make one wonder why they ceased production though; on the surface it would appear that they couldn't compete with their own design!Thanks Eric for that reminder - I had read the review before but had forgotten about the Ray. Great performance in that size range.
And perhaps Marin your comments re the performance knockoffs are bang on, although I have read anecdotal accounts of diminished performance so I'd still go back to my original comment that caution should be applied since not all knockoffs will have the same quality behind them as the Ray apparently has.
We're still looking at the Rocna although my partner (brother) is more inclined toward the Manson Supreme. One of us will win I'm sure.
Bruce ceased production ostensibly because it's too hard to compete with cheap copies of your product that are willing to make significant cost-cutting compromises that you are not. The Bruce is/was a high quality heat treated casting. Additionally, the design frankly doesn't work very well in extreme seabeds, I expect they saw the writing on the wall with the release of the Delta and other anchors since the Bruce's heighday.

The Bruce design is very sensitive to errors - easy to mess up. If it were the only anchor design available, I don't know of any knock-offs I would use. Possibly the North Star. Certainly nothing from Manson, the quality of their copies is abysmal. Their "Ray" Bruce copy is not even cast - they form what is supposed to be a fairly sophisticated solid geometry by welding together plate. To form bulk, they edge weld the steel plates together, then grind it all down to look like one piece. The geometry is never quite right, and it's not solid steel = massively compromised strength.

They do the same with their Rocna copy, the fluke is two thin plates edge welded together. See the link above. Totally unconscionable. Avoid copies folk.
Craig Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 10:05 PM   #67
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,719
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Craig Smith,
To bad we can't avoid some OPINIONS.
You can't make something real by just stating it is so.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 10:17 PM   #68
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,496
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Craig Smith wrote:
Specifically, the Ultra is made from 316 stainless, which is a very weak material to build an anchor from. (Tensile strength below mild steel). Read: inadequate.
The tensile strength of 316 stainless is 90,000 psi, while that of A36 mild steel is pehaps 2/3 to 3/4 of that.* The Rocna seems like a good anchor, so I doubt that misrepresentation is needed to sell it.* Perhaps it was inadvertent, but it does call into question other assertions of fact on your part.

[img]download.spark?ID=866689&aBID=115492[/img]
[img]download.spark?ID=866690&aBID=115492[/img]

*


-- Edited by Delfin on Saturday 29th of January 2011 11:18:43 PM
Delfin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2011, 11:09 PM   #69
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Nonsense Delfin, regular 316 has a 0.2% yield of anywhere between 170 and 300 MPa depending on metallurgy and treatment. The lower figure of 170 is typical for 316L plate. You can expect 250 MPa + for mild steel.

We consider minimal steel grades appropriate for anchor shanks to be 450 MPa + with UTS's well in the high tensile region.

We care more about yield than UTS - it tells you when your anchor's shank will bend.
Craig Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 08:46 AM   #70
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,496
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

So, blowing the smoke out of the room, you were incorrect when you stated that the tensile strength of stainless was less than that of mild steel, but the inaccuracy of the statement doesn't matter because you don't actually care about UTS, since it's yield that matters.*

Just a thought - Rocna makes a fine anchor that can be sold on its merits rather than exagerrating or making up defects of competitor's products.
Delfin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 09:16 AM   #71
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Gents,

Regarding Craig Smith of Rocna and his advice to avoid copies, may I humbly suggest that anchor copies might very well have performance improvements over the originals?

Case in point would be the results below of a holding power test that was conducted last summer by the 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association, who have been testing anchors for over 20 years in the clay bottoms off of their coastline.

They take boating and anchoring very seriously over there, as 1 in 7 Swedes owns a boat.

As you will note in their 5 star rating system, a Bruce copy (4 stars) not only out-performed the original Bruce version (1 star), but also the Rocna and the Ultra (both 2 stars).

Have a look:

http://www.watski.se/mail/anp/ankartest.pdf

Safe boating,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors
Brian-Fortress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 09:57 AM   #72
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,719
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

An anchor, like a car or a boat or a radio needs to have balance or to be an "all around product" Any fool knows a product that exceeds dramatically in any one act deed or function is going to be something less than it could be if it were a balanced product. The Rocna is such a product. Finding anchorages that realistically have enough swinging room for 5-1 scope or more is living in a dream world that is not real. Even where there are large anchorages there are lots more people these days and even large anchorages have limited swinging room. So an anchor that won't perform at short scope is NOT A GOOD ANCHOR and the Rocna is such an anchor. The Rocna seems to be the mother of all anchors in a hurricane at an anchorage that has lots of space but we already have such an anchor*** ...the Fortress. And the Fortress will perform well at (down to) at least 3-1 scope. But there are also things it won't do well. People buying anchors can be quickly convinced that the anchor w the highest holding power is the best anchor and it's also easy to forget about the other things a good anchor must do quite well. The best looking woman is not necessarily the best wife. The Rocna is the best anchor***** .....but only at one task. In all other tasks it's average or below average. The claw anchor does the best job at doing all things fairly well and thats why so many people buy them. Admittedly one must buy an anchor 25% heavier than otherwise necessary to get really good holding power but almost everybody on this forum thinks heavy ground tackle is just fine. But if Rocna were to redesign their anchor to do everything well then it would not have the highest holding power and they would need to promote their product in a different way. Maybe we will see a balanced product from Rocna some day but it seems unlikely as they are so focused on and dependant on super high holding power to promote sales.

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Sunday 30th of January 2011 11:01:41 AM
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 10:06 AM   #73
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
nomadwilly wrote:

The Rocna is such a product. Finding anchorages that realistically have enough swinging room for 5-1 scope or more is living in a dream world that is not real. Even where there are large anchorages there are lots more people these days and even large anchorages have limited swinging room. So an anchor that won't perform at short scope is NOT A GOOD ANCHOR and the Rocna is such an anchor.
This is utter rubbish willy. Whose Kool Aid are you drinking, are you on the feed from Manson or Fortress or is there some vested interest?

The Rocna works superbly at short scopes, and the improvements evidenced against other anchors are similar at short scopes just as they are at long scopes. All valid testing/feedback supports this.

The likes of Steve Dashew routinely anchors his boat in very restricted anchorages at scopes as low as 2:1, and reports that he considers it completely reliable. More independent feedback is easily available. West Marine's 2006 testing included 3:1 scopes for example.
Craig Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:07 AM   #74
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

I believe that Eric's comments are spot on, and we do not serve Kool Aid at Fortress. Beer, yes...sometimes imported during a good year, otherwise domestic. Maybe even an occasional glass of fine wine, if our guests prefer....or a good stiff Rum Runner.

Further to Eric's comments, no anchor will perform with 100% dependability in ALL wind & bottom conditions, and as an anchor manufacturer, it is irresponsible to claim otherwise.

Steve Dashew is using a super heavy 253 lb. (115kg) Rocna aboard only a 65' (20m) boat, so sure...this anchor should hold his boat with a short scope, and even in a hurricane, for that matter.

By contrast, for many years the US Coast Guard has used a 47lb (21kg) Fortress FX-85 as the primary anchor aboard their 87' (26m) Coastal Patrol Boat (CPB).

Additionally, the USCG has used the 69lb (31kg) Fortress model FX-125 as the primary anchor aboard their 110' (33m) Island Class Patrol Cutter (WPB).

Both of these anchors have Super High Holding Power (SHHP) certifications, so Steve is certainly putting a ton of unnecessary weight on his bow with the Rocna anchor and supporting system.

Be safe,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors



-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Sunday 30th of January 2011 12:09:39 PM

-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Sunday 30th of January 2011 12:11:36 PM
Brian-Fortress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:51 AM   #75
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Craig Smith wrote:This is utter rubbish willy. Whose Kool Aid are you drinking, are you on the feed from Manson or Fortress or is there some vested interest?
On feed ... vested interest?* As if a representative of Rocna in its own anchors doesn't have.*

*
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 01:38 PM   #76
Guru
 
Steve's Avatar
 
City: Thibodaux, Louisiana
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Gumbo
Vessel Model: 2003 Monk 36
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,607
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Wow, It's as Yogi Berra said " This is like Deja Vu all over again", the Craig Smith vs Alain Hylas, Rocna vs Spade anchor battles that used to rage on in one of the*cruising forums I follow.
Hang on
Steve W.

-- Edited by Steve on Sunday 30th of January 2011 02:39:15 PM
Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 01:40 PM   #77
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

Quote:
Steve wrote:

Wow, It's as Yogi Berra said " This is like Deja Vu all over again", the Craig Smith vs Alain Hylas, Rocna vs Spade anchor battles that used to rage on in one of the*cruising forums I follow.
Hang on
Steve W.

-- Edited by Steve on Sunday 30th of January 2011 02:39:15 PM
You're so right Steve - it used to be a mainstay on PMM as well.

*
Conrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 01:40 PM   #78
Guru
 
2bucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 698
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

OK, I just sent the wife out to get more popcorn. This pissing contest is pretty good. I learned a long time ago that anyone who has to denigrate the competitions product to try and prove theirs is best, doesn't have the best product.

I also learned that there is no best product for all occasions. I buy products that will do a good job for the type of boating I do in the area I boat. Perhaps someone could document when the last hurricane force winds came thru the Puget Sound? Or even the last time we saw winds over 50 mph that weren't forcast in advance, giving recreational boaters the chance to seek shelter.
2bucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 01:44 PM   #79
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,719
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Mr Smith,
Before you accuse me of talking "utter rubbish" again you better go back to page 6 of this thread and review what they said about Rocna's short scope performance. And before you say it I'm not buying that it only applies to large anchors. The other Mr Smith may not be thrilled by your tone here Craig and most here on TF won't either.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 03:54 PM   #80
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,496
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
2bucks wrote:I learned a long time ago that anyone who has to denigrate the competitions product to try and prove theirs is best, doesn't have the best product.
Ken, that's what's odd.* Rocna does have a good product.* Apparently just a salesman who needs to attend salesmanship 101.

Eric, Rocna does as well on short scope as most any anchor does.* A lot depends on the rode and the anchor weight.

*
__________________

Delfin is online now   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 07:40 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