New Rocna

N4712 wrote "It's a totally different design."

I mentioned ballast earlier and supposed there may be ballast disguised. Looking at the "tractor seat" I see something that looks a lot like a roll bar. The outer edge of the "seat" looks a lot like a roll bar. Perhaps they just moved the roll bar down and back. With a clever arrangement of the CG maybe it could work as the roll bar did.

But I still think it looks more like a Spade than anything else.

Went back an looked at the link on the OP.
" The new anchor design features a unique combination of shank and fluke geometry, which in conjunction with a roll-palm at the rear of the fluke, self-rights the anchor". Hmmmmmm

Actually I went back to find this;
" "Rocna Anchors designer, New Zealand sailor Peter Smith, has been designing, building and sailing boats since the early 1960s and experienced the same anchoring problems that are still prevalent today – unreliable anchors that make boaters feel insecure. “Your anchor should provide you and your crew with reliability, security and confidence,”.."
He seems to be trying to scare boaters into thinking their anchors are unsafe and the only responsible thing to do is buy his product. Blow their confidence out of the water and they must have great motivation to get a new anchor. It's called creating a market where there was none. I think I've heard a lot of similar stuff from PS and it's worked well for him.

I don't like the above at all but I actually kinda like the new anchor. But there's no new market. We don't need it. The seven anchors I have have never failed me and if one does I've got 6 to go.

RTF, I have a new generation version of that anchor. It has a hole drilled through the rock to aid in the attachment of the rope.

HopCar said:

RTF, I have a new generation version of that anchor. It has a hole drilled through the rock to aid in the attachment of the rope.

Click to expand...

Parks you and RTF are wayyyyyyy behind. You need the new gen rock anchoring device.

Hi Oliver, I see you have the famous Egyptian Pyramid Anchor, invented by Ramses himself. All great civilizations are know by their anchor designs. Our civilization will be remembered as confused.

Sorry Gents,

I should also have posted the next para in Peter Smith's new patent but thought you would have already appreciate the problems of an anchor that relies on a roll bar for self righting.

Here is a more complete quote:

Close reading of PK Smith's patent application shows his recognition of a common criticism of the Rocna Original, to wit:

"[0009] Existing anchors that self-right by way of a roll-bar
have hitherto made use of solid round bar or hollow tube.
Solid bar is either too thin to reliably keep the rear of the
anchor when upside-down from sinking into a soft seabed, or
unnecessarily heavy if made of larger bar diameter. Alternatively
a hollow tube may fill with mud entering by way of the
openings which cannot be sealed if the anchor is to be hot dip
galvanized. Neither method provides any further benefit once
the roll-bar has performed its function of orienting the anchor
to the correct attitude for setting. This is disadvantageous.

"[0010] Furthermore anchors may sink some distance into
the seabed when the rear edge of the fluke digs into the
seabed. This reduces the ability of the anchor to roll into the
correct attitude for effective use. Again this is disadvantageous."

The remedy the new Rocna proposes includes end quote etc

Fortress actually raised this problem only 2 weeks ago, prescient comes to mind. It appears they might well be right.

Now none of you might have experienced the problem (or these problems) but if the designer of your anchor (who has used that same anchor much more than anyone else) perceives a problem sufficient for him to spend an enormous amount of time and money to design something to overcome these same problems then sadly I respect the opinion, in this instance, of the designer. I also believe the designer as he preached so much about the advantage of the roll bar he has swallowed his pride to state that he was wrong. Maybe swallowing pride will become more common place As I said he has put real and lots of money toward the issue so his comments have credibility. Now if you think you know better - fine you ignore it and keep preaching your mantra.

I like it! I'm just not sure it would hang handsomely on the Coot's bow.

HopCar said:

Hi Oliver, I see you have the famous Egyptian Pyramid Anchor, invented by Ramses himself. All great civilizations are know by their anchor designs. Our civilization will be remembered as confused.

Click to expand...

We'll have see if we could add that into the world history textbooks.:lol:

markpierce said:

I like it! I'm just not sure it would hang handsomely on the Coot's bow.

Click to expand...

Yes, but a larger version on ship wouldn't look half bad, the whole shank would be inside the hawse pipe. The only thing you'd be able to see from the outside would be a triangle that could double as one hell of a battering ram.

Where's Larry when you need him?

Djbangi said:

Sorry Gents,

I should also have posted the next para in Peter Smith's new patent but thought you would have already appreciate the problems of an anchor that relies on a roll bar for self righting.

Here is a more complete quote:

Close reading of PK Smith's patent application shows his recognition of a common criticism of the Rocna Original, to wit:

"[0009] Existing anchors that self-right by way of a roll-bar
have hitherto made use of solid round bar or hollow tube.
Solid bar is either too thin to reliably keep the rear of the
anchor when upside-down from sinking into a soft seabed, or
unnecessarily heavy if made of larger bar diameter. Alternatively
a hollow tube may fill with mud entering by way of the
openings which cannot be sealed if the anchor is to be hot dip
galvanized. Neither method provides any further benefit once
the roll-bar has performed its function of orienting the anchor
to the correct attitude for setting. This is disadvantageous.

"[0010] Furthermore anchors may sink some distance into
the seabed when the rear edge of the fluke digs into the
seabed. This reduces the ability of the anchor to roll into the
correct attitude for effective use. Again this is disadvantageous."

The remedy the new Rocna proposes includes end quote etc

Fortress actually raised this problem only 2 weeks ago, prescient comes to mind. It appears they might well be right.

Now none of you might have experienced the problem (or these problems) but if the designer of your anchor (who has used that same anchor much more than anyone else) perceives a problem sufficient for him to spend an enormous amount of time and money to design something to overcome these same problems then sadly I respect the opinion, in this instance, of the designer. I also believe the designer as he preached so much about the advantage of the roll bar he has swallowed his pride to state that he was wrong. Maybe swallowing pride will become more common place As I said he has put real and lots of money toward the issue so his comments have credibility. Now if you think you know better - fine you ignore it and keep preaching your mantra.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm a little confused here, I understood that Peter Smith not been associated with Rocna's for quite a few years, surely this new model is a Canada Metal product.

Personally I don't see an issue with two different style anchors under the one brand, Rocna is not the only manufacturer to go down this path.

Some people don't like the hoop concept on principle , so I guess this is Rocna's attempt to woo this group and sell some more anchors.

Now I'm confused:

Peter Smith who developed the original Rocna and who was reported by IBI in July? (this year) as testing the New Rocna on a motor boat (and the image looks like the anchor in the recent Press Release) in Vancouver licenses the manufacture of his designs to CMP. He is also the individual to apply for Patent protection from the American Patent authorities. But maybe I'm wrong.

N4712 said:

Yes, but a larger version on ship wouldn't look half bad, the whole shank would be inside the hawse pipe. The only thing you'd be able to see from the outside would be a triangle that could double as one hell of a battering ram.[
Where's Larry when you need him?

Click to expand...

Those little pyramids must be interesting to watch dig in like a mushroom.

The USCG started using them on ICW buoys (at least up here in NJ) instead of the old 500-2000 pound concrete blocks.

Someone told me they are actually more effective at up to 10X their weight.

I had to untangle one off a boat prop and was pleasantly surprised I could lift it as opposed to dig under a concrete block.

Rocna and Spade have always been fierce rivals.
Spade released their concave toll bar anchor the Sea Blade which was very close to the Rocna.

I think Rocna felt they had to follow suit, even if it was just to spite Spade .

This is a photo of the Sea Blade from Spade:

manyboats said:

Could a Spade engineer possibly have abandoned ship and gone over to the Rocna dock?

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the Rocna brand is now owned and manufactured by Canadian Metals, a large international manufacturing company (in their marine products group they also make the Martyr/Divers Dream line of zinc anodes, for example). So there's no telling where the design came from or who designed it unless it's called out on the Rocna/Canadian Metals website.

Marin said:

Don't forget that the Rocna brand is now owned and manufactured by Canadian Metals, a large international manufacturing company (in their marine products group they also make the Martyr/Divers Dream line of zinc anodes, for example). So there's no telling where the design came from or who designed it unless it's called out on the Rocna/Canadian Metals website.

Click to expand...

You can tell.

Patent CA2790598A1 - An anchor - Google Patents

Apparently, you can't rely on your anchor anymore Marin, since it can't self right.

"Existing anchors that self-right without the use of a roll-bar may make use of fins, modified skids, or other protrusions raised above the fluke surface. These protrusions collect soil from the seabed substrate in which the anchor is used, which may be compacted by the pressure of normal anchoring activity. This can alter the anchor's weight balance to the point it does not self-right as designed if the anchor is later pulled free from the seabed.
Without self-righting the anchor cannot be relied upon to re-set. This is clearly disadvantageous." - Peter Smith

Marin said:

Don't forget that the Rocna brand is now owned and manufactured by Canadian Metals, a large international manufacturing company (in their marine products group they also make the Martyr/Divers Dream line of zinc anodes, for example). So there's no telling where the design came from or who designed it unless it's called out on the Rocna/Canadian Metals website.

Click to expand...

The Patent application for the new Rocna is in the name of Peter Smith.

Delfin said:

Apparently, you can't rely on your anchor anymore Marin, since it can't self right.

"Existing anchors that self-right without the use of a roll-bar may make use of fins, modified skids, or other protrusions raised above the fluke surface. These protrusions collect soil from the seabed substrate in which the anchor is used, which may be compacted by the pressure of normal anchoring activity. This can alter the anchor's weight balance to the point it does not self-right as designed if the anchor is later pulled free from the seabed.
Without self-righting the anchor cannot be relied upon to re-set. This is clearly disadvantageous." - Peter Smith

Click to expand...

So I'm reading the above quote and it seems to me that what it's saying is...

"Existing anchors that self-right WITHOUT the use of a roll-bar may make use of fins, modified, skids, or other protrusions raised above the fluke surface. THESE PROTRUSIONS COLLECT SOLIDS from the seabed substrate in which the anchor is used, which may be compacted by the pressure ot normal anchoring activity. This can alter the anchor's weight balance to the point it does not self-right......." and so on.

Peter's phrase ".... without the use of a rollbar..." seems to me to mean that if it doesn't have a rollbar, the anchor won't self-right because its fins, modified, skids or other protrusions can prevent it from self-righting by changing the balance of the anchor under certain conditions.

Our anchor HAS a roll-bar. So reading Peter's statement as it was quoted, it would seem to be saying that because our anchor HAS a roll-bar, it will self right. As opposed to anchors WITHOUT a rollbar that have fins, modifed skids, etc.

This is assuming I'm correctly reading Peter's statement as it has been quoted above. Maybe I'm not.....

Marin,

Maybe you should read the complete Patent Application and give your interpretation of the 'whole' rather than one part.

But I give you credit, your interpretive skills certainly support you contentions.

One wonders what will happen if the application is rejected. Any Patent experts out there?

Djbangi said:

Marin,

But I give you credit, your interpretive skills certainly support you contentions.

Click to expand...

I guess that's the penalty of being a writer/author by profession.

Marin said:

So I'm reading the above quote and it seems to me that what it's saying is...

"Existing anchors that self-right WITHOUT the use of a roll-bar may make use of fins, modified, skids, or other protrusions raised above the fluke surface. THESE PROTRUSIONS COLLECT SOLIDS from the seabed substrate in which the anchor is used, which may be compacted by the pressure ot normal anchoring activity. This can alter the anchor's weight balance to the point it does not self-right......." and so on.

Peter's phrase ".... without the use of a rollbar..." seems to me to mean that if it doesn't have a rollbar, the anchor won't self-right because its fins, modified, skids or other protrusions can prevent it from self-righting by changing the balance of the anchor under certain conditions.

Our anchor HAS a roll-bar. So reading Peter's statement as it was quoted, it would seem to be saying that because our anchor HAS a roll-bar, it will self right. As opposed to anchors WITHOUT a rollbar that have fins, modifed skids, etc.

This is assuming I'm correctly reading Peter's statement as it has been quoted above. Maybe I'm not.....

Click to expand...

No, I think you are reading it correctly, and I read it wrong.

His comments on the deficiencies of roll bars follow in the patent language, although his positive one about a larger, hollow shank self righting in soft sea beds isn't always the case, as the Fortress test demonstrated. By the way, I don't fault him for writing the application as he did as the point in such exercises is not always to state what is strictly true with respect to the value of the art, but to identify what is novel about the art described. In fact, his design may be an improvement - time will tell, and since this looks like the offspring of the mating of a Boss with a Spade it may be. I just thought it ironic that he points out some, if not all, of the disadvantages of the product he used to build and state was the pinnacle of the craft.

All anchors are compromises and each new one represents a new set of compromises while hopefully presenting some new advantages.

Djbangi said:

Marin,

Maybe you should read the complete Patent Application and give your interpretation of the 'whole' rather than one part.

But I give you credit, your interpretive skills certainly support you contentions.

One wonders what will happen if the application is rejected. Any Patent experts out there?

Click to expand...

No expert, but I have been through the process successfully a few times so the answer to the question, at least in my experience is you can't tell. A lot depends on the examiner, and Smith's willingness to continue to keep punching after being denied a few times. His problem will be demonstrating novelty, which may not be easy. You'll be able to tell when the examiner comes back with what he sees as competing art, of which I suspect there may be quite a bit.

Curious if the new design without a rollbar is replacing the current rollbar anchors (Original and Fisherman) or if it is simply augmenting the current lineup. Rollbar anchors don't fit a number of pulpit types, or don't fit very well, so I can see why a manufacturer would want to add a product that satisfies this segment of the market.

However, since a rollbar anchor won't work without the rollbar, I can also see why the non-rollbar addition to the lineup would need to use a very different shape rather than simply be the existing rollbar anchor minus the rollbar.

Marin said:

Curious if the new design without a rollbar is replacing the current rollbar anchors (Original and Fisherman) or if it is simply augmenting the current lineup. Rollbar anchors don't fit a number of pulpit types, or don't fit very well, so I can see why a manufacturer would want to add a product that satisfies this segment of the market.

However, since a rollbar anchor won't work without the rollbar, I can also see why the non-rollbar addition to the lineup would need to use a very different shape rather than simply be the existing rollbar anchor minus the rollbar.

Click to expand...

I think there is an ad (that says) or its been said by Rocna/CMP somewhere that a motivation for the new anchor was simply because the existing or original did not fit on some bow rollers. I have this vague idea there was a motor boat focus (rather than sail) but I might have imagined that. All well and good - but he does seem to have gone out his way to denigrate one of the key points of the original (which seems a strange marketing ploy - given how much they championed it previously).

I cannot believe the intent is to replace the existing anchor and assume it is extending the range.

I like the idea of the range extension as being a believer in multiple anchors of different styles (no one style does everything) then having a Roll Bar and (whatever we call this new one) a 'Spade' type meets those needs. But I have never seen the point of the roll bar - so for people like me it might draw us into the CMP camp (though the new model will need to be much better (or cheaper) than either Spade or Ultra).

I wonder how long it will take Ultra to release a galvanised version?

Djbangi said:

But I have never seen the point of the roll bar....

Click to expand...

When we were researching what anchor would be best to replace our very disappointing Bruce (original, not knock-off), one of the testimonials we read regarding the rollbar anchor came from the owner of the then-largest charter fleet in the Mediterranean. In this case, he was talking about the Bugel.

He said a problem they had been struggling with for years was the high number of bad anchoring experiences on the part of his customers. I have no idea what kinds of bottom conditions are encountered in the Med, but whatever they are, they often frustrated his customers' efforts to anchor securely.

As I recall his article, a friend told him about the Bugel and how great it was working on his own boat. So the charter company owner put Bugels on some of his own boats to see what would happen. And, according to him, the customers using those boats had virtually no anchoring problems anymore. He was so impressed with the change that he put Bugels on his entire fleet and the number of customer anchoring problems dropped to near zero.

In his opinion, the rollbar anchor gave his customers two advantages. One was the basic principle of how the anchor worked. Second was the consistency with which it worked. Since the rollbar forces the anchor to work correctly every time no matter how it initially lands on the bottom, problems with poor sets or needing multiple tries to get a good set went away.

Based on this and other testimonials we decided to give the Rocna a try. I don't know how it compares to the Bugel in performance, but the Bugel wasn't available in our part of the world at the time.

Our experience so far has been identical to what the charter company owner described. Not only does the anchor's design make it work every time in every bottom we have encountered to date, but it operates, if that word can be applied to an anchor, the same way every time. The anchor grabs and digs in as soon as the slack comes out of the rode. Usually it grabs and sets so fast and hard that the boat yaws around on the end of the rode.

It is this consistency of performance that has impressed us so much. Our previous anchor was pretty good at finding an initial set, although it sometimes took a bit of dragging around before it would dig in enough to stop the boat's rearward drift. We replaced it because of its low holding power.

But the Rocna performs the same every time we use it. It knifes that fluke down into the bottom at which point it sets fast and then holds hard. I know there are other anchor designs out there that will hold as hard or harder than a Rocna in the right bottom. There are other anchor designs that will dig in deeper than a Rocna in the right bottom.

But from our experience and what I read in testimonials and have been told by other users, the rollbar anchor has a consistency of performance that the non-rollbar anchors currently available don't seem to have.

And that, I believe, is the major contribution of the rollbar. You get the same result every time.

Marin said:

So I'm reading the above quote and it seems to me that what it's saying is...

"Existing anchors that self-right WITHOUT the use of a roll-bar may make use of fins, modified, skids, or other protrusions raised above the fluke surface. THESE PROTRUSIONS COLLECT SOLIDS from the seabed substrate in which the anchor is used, which may be compacted by the pressure ot normal anchoring activity. This can alter the anchor's weight balance to the point it does not self-right......." and so on.

Peter's phrase ".... without the use of a rollbar..." seems to me to mean that if it doesn't have a rollbar, the anchor won't self-right because its fins, modified, skids or other protrusions can prevent it from self-righting by changing the balance of the anchor under certain conditions.

Our anchor HAS a roll-bar. So reading Peter's statement as it was quoted, it would seem to be saying that because our anchor HAS a roll-bar, it will self right. As opposed to anchors WITHOUT a rollbar that have fins, modifed skids, etc.

This is assuming I'm correctly reading Peter's statement as it has been quoted above. Maybe I'm not.....

Click to expand...

That's the way I read it as well. Which begs the next question, was that statement made before they launched the new roll-bar-less Rocna, where in the patent application Djbangi has previously posted, he admits to some concerns re this same roll bar on the original Rocna, as apparently, justification for now releasing a non-roll-bar anchor…?
It's all getting very muddy in here…

Somewhat of a contrast with the Anchor Right anchors, where they make no bones about the fact that the new Ex-cel was motivated by both a need to supply a good design that did fit the modern slotted pulpit designed boats, but was also at least as good or better at holding as the Super Sarca, but makes clear throughout that it is another in the range, and NOT a replacement for Super Sarca

Greetings,
Further post #28...Good grief!

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Further post #28...Good grief!

Click to expand...

Thats pretty darn good for an anchor thread!

Since joining this forum I have read more about anchors than any other topic. Since I am anchored in Atlantic City NJ (Manson Supreme, 60#) waiting out poor sea conditions before continuing south, I have had time to consider all of the posted opinions. It has give me an interesting business concept and I have begun the process of setting up a corporation.

I think it only fair to give TF members a ground floor opportunity. For a mere $250/month, we will send to you every new anchor to become available (up to 2 per year, not to exceed 60# each) immediately upon commercial availability. The only additional charges are shipping and handling. *Polished stainless steel quoted at extra cost. Just think, a new anchor proudly sitting on the bow. Be the envy of every boater in your marina. Make checks payable to Soupy Sails.

We are looking for local distributors.

I've not thought much about the air inside the hollow roll bar as acting like lift or anti-weight. My Supreme has a little weight ballast in the tip of the fluke so the weight under the fluke tip and the air chamber (RB) do to some degree act in concert to orient the RB anchor right side up.

Of course when I cut off most of the RB I'll loose that lift ... but also the weight of the RB removed.

Obviously RB anchors work and obvious to the same degree anchors w/o RBs also work. There's plenty of each. I for one have pointed out a number of advantages and disadvantages to the relatively new RB type. The market dosn't say which one's best, The opinions of users have serious faults and biases and anchor tests are loaded w misleading results but are probably closer to scientific study and observation than any other input we have.

We continue to grab at the small bits of information that may/could lead us not to the truth but a baby step closer. That's the holy grail but it's really bits and pieces and w so much unknown it's very very interesting. Hence all the interest in anchor talk. Quite a number of posts on the Fortress thread I'd say.

manyboats said:

I've not thought much about the air inside the hollow roll bar as acting like lift or anti-weight. My Supreme has a little weight ballast in the tip of the fluke so the weight under the fluke tip and the air chamber (RB) do to some degree act in concert to orient the RB anchor right side up.

Of course when I cut off most of the RB I'll loose that lift ... but also the weight of the RB removed.

Obviously RB anchors work and obvious to the same degree anchors w/o RBs also work. There's plenty of each. I for one have pointed out a number of advantages and disadvantages to the relatively new RB type. The market dosn't say which one's best, The opinions of users have serious faults and biases and anchor tests are loaded w misleading results but are probably closer to scientific study and observation than any other input we have.

We continue to grab at the small bits of information that may/could lead us not to the truth but a baby step closer. That's the holy grail but it's really bits and pieces and w so much unknown it's very very interesting. Hence all the interest in anchor talk. Quite a number of posts on the Fortress thread I'd say.

Click to expand...

Eric, I just went by an aluminum ketch, perhaps 48' (Tattoo) with what looked like a 200# fisherman's on the bow. Likely bought it at a swap meet for $50 and it will probably hold that boat in Force 10 winds.

Or perhaps it was a 4th generation Rocna.....not sure.