Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-30-2011, 04:22 PM   #81
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
2bucks wrote:Perhaps someone could document when the last hurricane force winds came thru the Puget Sound?
Dec. 14-16, 2006 80 mph, 114 mph in Oregon
__________________
Advertisement

RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 05:45 PM   #82
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Rick,
Then there's that howler that messed up the Hood Canal Bridge some time before that I think.

Delfin,
Do you really think Rocna's are average at short scope? Practical Sailor didn't in that article "Rock and Roll" that I hyperlinked on page 6. Do you think they screwed that one up? I think they screwed up their anchor test that had the ad for Rocna's included in the article. That test indicated the claws and Danforths had about 1/50th as much holding power as the newer anchors. If that were true most of the pleasure boats all over the world would be on the rocks/beach or out to sea. The results of that test are just impossible. I noticed all the pictures of the anchors in action were on the beach out of the water. Maybe that's why the claw had less than 1/20th as much holding power as some of the newer anchors. And I notice Rocna keeps emphasizing the tests. There was a test that was conducted under water w a large fish boat in Calif but I can't find that one.

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Sunday 30th of January 2011 06:47:18 PM
__________________

Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 06:23 PM   #83
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,495
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Eric, anchor tests are like bodily orifices - every manufacturer has at least two.* I discount most tests unless they are comparing anchors in the weight I am carrying.* We had a Bruce 44# that dragged in Hospital Bay (mud) and off Lahaina (sand), in both cases endangering the vessel.* In this size range the Bruce tests poorly compared to other designs.* The larger size we have now - 176# - appears to set immediately in all bottoms, and having spent a long night in pitch black in a supposed hurricane hole near Friendship Cove in mud/shell at 50 knots and 100 yards off shore glued to the radar and gps to detect dragging but not seeing a bit, I have some confidence in what we have.* The test you referenced in PS somewhat confirms this, where the 118# Bruce style seemed to perform best.*

The short scope test of 2:1 in the PS article isn't short scope, it's lunatic "I haven't got a clue what I'm doing" scope, so I'm not particularly interested what the results were since I won't be anchoring anywhere at 2:1.* If the anchorage is that tight, I'm going someplace else.

In other tests I've seen, the Rocna does fine at what I would consider legitimate 'short scope' of 4:1.* However, what scope is needed to set the anchor, and what scope is ok to go to bed with can be different.* I'll set our anchor at 5:1 and sleep like a baby after reeling it in to 3:1 on a snubber.

So yes, I think the Rocna is probably a very good all around anchor and I might consider buying the 110 kg model if we go some of the places I would like to go. * Although the Sarca also looks interesting, something about that slider slot bugs me.
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 08:01 PM   #84
Guru
 
Carey's Avatar
 
City: Bellingham, WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Happy Destiny
Vessel Model: Custom Lobster Yacht
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,101
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
2bucks wrote:

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.
OK, without looking at my log book, I can say beyond any doubt that about seven years ago, we were rafted at anchor in the San Juan Islands in what was predicted to be a benign, fifteen knot night, when out of the clear blue, we found ourselves in six to eight foot swells, real close together. Fortunately, we were rafted to a 61' steel ex fireboat. The owners of the big boat called me on the radio and asked me to climb aboard their boat and look at their anemometer. It read sixty five knots. This continued for hours. At the time their anemometer showed 65 mph, NOAA was reporting fifteen to twenty, with no worse predicted. This was only one of many incidents I've personally experienced, so please let me be prepared for the worse.

*
Carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 08:03 PM   #85
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Delfin,

This extensive anchor holding power test was done in your Oregon backyard, and a 44 lb Bruce was included along with comparable anchors:

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anch...tudy.htm#INDEX

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors
Brian-Fortress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 08:07 PM   #86
Guru
 
Carey's Avatar
 
City: Bellingham, WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Happy Destiny
Vessel Model: Custom Lobster Yacht
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,101
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Delfin wrote:

Eric, anchor tests are like bodily orifices - every manufacturer has at least two.* I discount most tests unless they are comparing anchors in the weight I am carrying.* We had a Bruce 44# that dragged in Hospital Bay (mud) and off Lahaina (sand), in both cases endangering the vessel.* In this size range the Bruce tests poorly compared to other designs.* The larger size we have now - 176# - appears to set immediately in all bottoms, and having spent a long night in pitch black in a supposed hurricane hole near Friendship Cove in mud/shell at 50 knots and 100 yards off shore glued to the radar and gps to detect dragging but not seeing a bit, I have some confidence in what we have.* The test you referenced in PS somewhat confirms this, where the 118# Bruce style seemed to perform best.*

The short scope test of 2:1 in the PS article isn't short scope, it's lunatic "I haven't got a clue what I'm doing" scope, so I'm not particularly interested what the results were since I won't be anchoring anywhere at 2:1.* If the anchorage is that tight, I'm going someplace else.

In other tests I've seen, the Rocna does fine at what I would consider legitimate 'short scope' of 4:1.* However, what scope is needed to set the anchor, and what scope is ok to go to bed with can be different.* I'll set our anchor at 5:1 and sleep like a baby after reeling it in to 3:1 on a snubber.

So yes, I think the Rocna is probably a very good all around anchor and I might consider buying the 110 kg model if we go some of the places I would like to go. * Although the Sarca also looks interesting, something about that slider slot bugs me.
Well said Carl!!!

*
Carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 09:42 PM   #87
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Carl,
The slot dosn't bother me with an anchor that will quickly reset and the SARCA looks like it will. I like the way it sets in the videos and I criticize myself for saying anything that subjective. The only thing that bothers me about the SARCA is it's bird cage look. And the look of an anchor carries some weight as it usually sits on the end of a boats nose for all to see.
About the size issue I really can't see how an anchor can perform differently in different sizes. I would think a 10lb Magic Hooker anchor should perform exactly like a 100lb Magic Hooker. Can't see how it could be any other way but I respect what you say and will file it away to wait for some sort of reinforcement.
If and when you come to Alaska you will spend lots of nights in town if you don't anchor on short scope. And finding room at the crowded floats in most/all small SE Alaska towns is a hassle. Get very familiar w your chart plotter's scale and the size of anchorages you feel comfortable with. And if you are frequently going to turn your nose up at the anchorages you will need to get there very early if you intend to go to another before dark as it will prolly be quite a distance away. In our favor though most anchorages have a sand/mud bottom that will hold quite well. It's not uncommon for me to set my anchor at 3-1 and hang at 2-1. Despite what Marin says most people anchor at 3-1 in Puget Sound. Boats wouldn't fit into places like Echo Bay if they didn't.
I could see myself getting a SARCA but then I'd need at least a little capstan and I prolly would have time to install it. Guess I'm still undecided. It's my "P" type personality.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 10:08 PM   #88
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,495
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Brian-Fortress wrote:

Delfin,

This extensive anchor holding power test was done in your Oregon backyard, and a 44 lb Bruce was included along with comparable anchors:

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anch...tudy.htm#INDEX

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors
Thanks Brian.* I wouldn't contest these results, and I think I remember seeing this test - published in a little brown book as I recall.* Kind of confirmed my experience with that size Bruce.* Reliable set, less than reliable holding power.* I believe the dynamic is different for the heavier Bruce anchors, or hope so since I have a rather large example on my bow.* I also carry an FX-125 as a secondary because I don't know of another anchor with as much holding capacity (once set) that can be as conveniently stored as a big Fortress.

Although the deployment would be challenging, trailing a big Fortress behind a heavy primary anchor on major chain has always seemed to me to be a reliable option for storm anchoring.* Can't imagine a better combo...

*
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 10:22 PM   #89
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,495
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
nomadwilly wrote:

About the size issue I really can't see how an anchor can perform differently in different sizes. I would think a 10lb Magic Hooker anchor should perform exactly like a 100lb Magic Hooker.
I think it's just Newtonian physics at play.* A heavier anchor has more mass, which just means that in a given seabed with a given amount of resistance to penetration, the heavier anchor will penetrate faster and deeper.* That's why (I assume) that heavy Bruce type anchors perform well while lighter ones not so much.* Once a Bruce is buried, I don't know of a form factor, other than a Danforth/Fortress type that provides comparable holding.* It's just getting the latter set that can be the challenge.* For your size boat, the Fortress seems like a good choice, although I would go for the biggest one you can fit on the bow.* Sarca, Rocna, Manson - these would probably work just fine as well for most conditions and possibly be easier to store on the bow than the Danforth/Fortress type - depends on your roller.

*
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:08 PM   #90
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

While my boat is coming with a Bruce-like anchor, I'm thinking of getting a much heavier one*(20-40% heavier based on your opinions)*once I determine what will fit.* Out my way, there are "in and back" currents in protected waters, so an anchor that readily*self-resets is more important than ultra-maximum holding.
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:13 PM   #91
Guru
 
Carey's Avatar
 
City: Bellingham, WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Happy Destiny
Vessel Model: Custom Lobster Yacht
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,101
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
Delfin wrote:

*
nomadwilly wrote:

About the size issue I really can't see how an anchor can perform differently in different sizes. I would think a 10lb Magic Hooker anchor should perform exactly like a 100lb Magic Hooker.
I think it's just Newtonian physics at play.* A heavier anchor has more mass, which just means that in a given seabed with a given amount of resistance to penetration, the heavier anchor will penetrate faster and deeper.* That's why (I assume) that heavy Bruce type anchors perform well while lighter ones not so much.* Once a Bruce is buried, I don't know of a form factor, other than a Danforth/Fortress type that provides comparable holding.* It's just getting the latter set that can be the challenge.* For your size boat, the Fortress seems like a good choice, although I would go for the biggest one you can fit on the bow.* Sarca, Rocna, Manson - these would probably work just fine as well for most conditions and possibly be easier to store on the bow than the Danforth/Fortress type - depends on your roller.Again, I must agree with Carl. In order to hold, an anchor must first penetrate the bottom, and a bigger anchor does a better job against a bottom of equal density. Compact sand or mud must be penetrated.

*
Carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:31 PM   #92
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

" don't know of a form factor, other than a Danforth/Fortress type that provides comparable holding.* It's just getting the latter set that can be the challenge."
You mean the Fortress has setting problems? They seem to do well in the tests and my Danforths setting is bullet proof. They do have only a small % of their weight on the fluke tips but the flukes are sharp. That's a good thing about the claws*** ...have a large % of their weight on their flukes.
Carey,
" a bigger anchor does a better job against a bottom of equal density." Yes but a smaller anchor presents a smaller instrument to penetrate. A spike can be easily pounded into the ground whereas a propeller shaft is more difficult.


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Monday 31st of January 2011 12:36:30 AM
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:40 PM   #93
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Danforths and Fortresses don't set particularly reliably, one of the issues that make their tendency not to handle veers well so serious. It's easy to get them to skip along a hard bottom.

For example, in several of the old tests that Fortress themselves refer to in marketing, examination of the actual data shows a fairly high degree of inconsistency of setting.

Similarly claws don't have a good setting record, particularly the small ones. It's easy to get them to lie on their backs and skate along a hard bottom without self-righting, where the tip-weight is irrelevent.

Craig Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:53 PM   #94
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
nomadwilly wrote:

Finding anchorages that realistically have enough swinging room for 5-1 scope or more is living in a dream world that is not real.
Can't speak for your part of the world because we don't boat there.* But in the part of the world we've taken the GB so far, which goes from the San Juans to Desolation Sound, we have never anchored with less than 5:1 scope and we prefer to anchor with 6:1 or 7:1 scope if the water depth permits it.* As you know we use all-chain rode.* And we have done this in Garrison Bay on Labor day where there were more boats than I would have thought could fit in there, and in Fishermen's Bay on 4th of July with the same situation.* Same thing in all the anchorages we've visited in Desolation Sound.* We won't anchor with less than 5:1 scope.* We've never had a problem anchoring with 5:1 or even more anywhere we've been to date.

*



-- Edited by Marin on Monday 31st of January 2011 02:20:46 AM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 12:03 AM   #95
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
nomadwilly wrote:


About the size issue I really can't see how an anchor can perform differently in different sizes.
Because as any design engineer will tell you, you can scale the object but you can't scale the environment.* To expect an anchor design that performs well at a weight of many tons and Lord knows how many feet across to perform equally well at a weight of 30 or 40 poounds a a few feet across is unrealistic because both anchors have to perform in the same bottom.*

You can scale the anchor down, but you can't scale sand, mud, gravel, rock, the density of mud, the density of sand, etc. down.* Whether you drop an anchor off a boat that's 15 feet across or an anchor that's 2-1/2 feet across, the sand or mud or gravel or whatever they land on is going to be the same.* So guess which one is going to penetrate the bottom easier and faster and have more holding power in the same mud, the same sand, the same gravel.* The anchor that's 15 feet across and the weight to go with it, or the anchor that's 2-1/2 feet across and the weight to go with IT?


-- Edited by Marin on Monday 31st of January 2011 02:25:25 AM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 12:09 AM   #96
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

Craig, that is nothing like the way my 15 lb-or-less Bruce-copy behaved.* It was always a "quick-set" and "hold"*in SF Bay Area mud.* Plowing/digging a field doesn't equate to*real anchoring experiences.
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 12:12 AM   #97
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
2bucks wrote:

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.
Last winter (or possibly the winter before, I don't remember the date) the highest gust recorded in the Bellingham Bay area was 84 mph.* The sustained winds were some 60 mph or more.* The data I saw for this was recorded by the anemometer on the roof of Bellingham Cold Storage in Squalicum Marina but the same winds were recorded by other stations in the same area and on either side of Rosario Strait on both Lummi and Orcas islands.* It happens, and in the northern Sound, at any rate, winds higher than forecast are not uncommon at all.* It was exactly this sort of occurance that caused us such grief back when we had our Bruce.

One of the problems with forecasting winds in the islands (we were told by KING-TV meteorologist Jeff Renner who taught the weather class in the USCG Auxilliary boating class we took) is that the conditions created by the proximity and configuration of the islands, bays, channels, and passes in the San Juans and Gulfs can accelerate or decelerate winds in a way that is totally unpredictable and unforecastable (if that's a word).* So where the average wind in the northern waters may be 30 mph, there can be certain passes between islands where the winds can be almost twice that, and other passes where the winds may be almost calm.

It not ucnommon to go out on a typical day when the overall northern waters wind forecast calls for SW winds @ 5-15 knots and you find four foot waves in Bellingham Bay driven by 20-25 knot winds.* Turn the corner into Rosario Strait and it's 1 to 2-foot waves and 10 knots.



-- Edited by Marin on Monday 31st of January 2011 02:28:53 AM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 01:04 AM   #98
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Quote:
markpierce wrote:

Craig, that is nothing like the way my 15 lb-or-less Bruce-copy behaved.* It was always a "quick-set" and "hold"*in SF Bay Area mud.* Plowing/digging a field doesn't equate to*real anchoring experiences.
It's not a "field" Mark, it's a beach (wet sandy mud) and it has dragged all the way from the water line to the point shown in the frame very stably in the on-side position shown. This is typical behavior of small claws.

It equates exactly to what we would expect from claws in harder substrates.

That you can set your Bruce in soft mud is hardly a revelation. You can set a brick tied to a piece of string in mud. The litmus test of setting anchors is on harder surfaces. Mud on the other hand tests the anchor's ability to bury and then hold. The Bruce type is notoriously inefficient when it comes to holding in soft mud - even experienced proponents of it know they have to use massively heavy anchors for their purpose.

www.rocna.com/kb/Old_generation_anchors

West Marine on the Lewmar Claw on hard sand: "Failed to set during this test. Maximum tension under 700lb., briefly."

"... much of their popularity derives from the ease with which they stow on the stemhead. But their performance proved disappointing... the Bruce anchor's reputation was founded on it being used to anchor oilrigs but a Bruce of dozens of tons is a very different animal from the ones we tested. In gravel these claws bounce about whereas in sand they lie down on their side and rarely exceed 200 kg of holding power." -- Antoine Sézérat on the Bruce and its copies, writing for Voiles et Voiliers

etc


-- Edited by Craig Smith on Monday 31st of January 2011 02:05:58 AM
Craig Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 01:42 AM   #99
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

OK, Craig.* Send me a suitable Rocna for a 14-ton, 35-foot powerboat.* I'll test it and send you (and everyone else here)*the results.* (I don't expect to obtain my Coot before this summer, so there is no hurry.)* *Send me a PM and I'll*give my mailing address.* After testing, I'll*either return it or purchase it.*

I am*serious.
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 01:48 AM   #100
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
RE: Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

Rocna offer a no-questions-asked money back guarantee with every sale, which is tantamount to precisely the same thing at the end of the day, so go nuts!
__________________

Craig Smith 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 05:30 AM.


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