New Rocna
- Thread starter Noelex
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Carl,
I was on the floats looking at possible slips and saw a Rocna. A genuine Rocna sighting. Looking closely at the RB I saw that the bottom (hole in the tube) was clogged w mud and there was a small hole at the top so there will be no air chamber to be found and no righting moment either. Was more of a passing thought.
Another curious thing about the Rocna is that they put the bevel on the edge of the "toe" (as Rex says) on the bottom (or underside) of the fluke so it would appear they thought the toe would do it's "digging" w the anchor laying on it's side only. If you pulled the Rocna like the Mantus guy did on the beach right side up w about 14' of line the bottom of the fluke would be horizontal and the bevel on the tip would not be inclined to penetrate the beach or sea bottom. Rex even bends his fluke tip "toes" down to give the anchor every chance do "dig" in. It looks like it didn't occur to them that people would be setting the anchor at short scope as the anchor would not be inclined to penetrate then. Smith even said (about the short scope inability) that one is supposed to set at long scope and then shorten up for tight spaces. That was not, however an explanation of why the anchor failed to impress the anchor testers at 3-1 scope after setting. The bevel on the bottom of the fluke does IMO help set the anchor at long scope laying on it's side. It looks like Rocna had a choice. Optimize for upright setting or side setting and they did the latter. Other anchors have this same feature but to a lesser degree.
I was on the floats looking at possible slips and saw a Rocna. A genuine Rocna sighting. Looking closely at the RB I saw that the bottom (hole in the tube) was clogged w mud and there was a small hole at the top so there will be no air chamber to be found and no righting moment either. Was more of a passing thought.
Another curious thing about the Rocna is that they put the bevel on the edge of the "toe" (as Rex says) on the bottom (or underside) of the fluke so it would appear they thought the toe would do it's "digging" w the anchor laying on it's side only. If you pulled the Rocna like the Mantus guy did on the beach right side up w about 14' of line the bottom of the fluke would be horizontal and the bevel on the tip would not be inclined to penetrate the beach or sea bottom. Rex even bends his fluke tip "toes" down to give the anchor every chance do "dig" in. It looks like it didn't occur to them that people would be setting the anchor at short scope as the anchor would not be inclined to penetrate then. Smith even said (about the short scope inability) that one is supposed to set at long scope and then shorten up for tight spaces. That was not, however an explanation of why the anchor failed to impress the anchor testers at 3-1 scope after setting. The bevel on the bottom of the fluke does IMO help set the anchor at long scope laying on it's side. It looks like Rocna had a choice. Optimize for upright setting or side setting and they did the latter. Other anchors have this same feature but to a lesser degree.
Noelex
Veteran Member
These photos may help.
The first photo shows the bevel on the fluke.
The second shows the setting position. The Roll bar anchors normally develop this position in order to set.
The skids are designed to concentrate the weight on the toe rather than the bevel, especially in a harder substrate.
Last edited:
Nomad Willy
Guru
Noelex,
Indeed and thanks for the pics. I would have been inclined more toward the Rocna if the bevel would have been the other way.
The photo also shows that probably most of the weight of the anchor will be well aft on the skids and on the rode end of the shank. Dosn't leave much for the fluke tip but it must be enough as they seem to set well if given enough scope. This anchor is very scope dependent. But if used as directed by it's maker/designer it delivers excellent performance. Oh I forgot about the soupy mud.
Indeed and thanks for the pics. I would have been inclined more toward the Rocna if the bevel would have been the other way.
The photo also shows that probably most of the weight of the anchor will be well aft on the skids and on the rode end of the shank. Dosn't leave much for the fluke tip but it must be enough as they seem to set well if given enough scope. This anchor is very scope dependent. But if used as directed by it's maker/designer it delivers excellent performance. Oh I forgot about the soupy mud.
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,347
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
In picture 2 the welding of the leading edge section of the spade is apparent and the galvanizing appears "fresher" than on the rest of the anchor. Why is that? Is this a modified or repaired anchor?These photos may help.
The first photo shows the bevel on the fluke.
The second shows the setting position. The Roll bar anchors normally develop this position in order to set.
The skids are designed to concentrate the weight on the toe rather than the bevel, especially in a harder substrate.
Nomad Willy
Guru
BruceK,
Want some guesses?
Probably due to differences in the surface texture. The individual pieces of metal are from different processing. Some may be bent by a machine of a different type and the other pieces came from different sources w somewhat different processing and materials. Some could be bent hot but most are probably bent cold. The metal itself may be of a different type of steel. The "toe" of an anchor frequently is made from harder steel. I have an anchor w a toe usually made of stainless steel. Quite different from the base that is probably mild steel.
That's my guess.
Want some guesses?
Probably due to differences in the surface texture. The individual pieces of metal are from different processing. Some may be bent by a machine of a different type and the other pieces came from different sources w somewhat different processing and materials. Some could be bent hot but most are probably bent cold. The metal itself may be of a different type of steel. The "toe" of an anchor frequently is made from harder steel. I have an anchor w a toe usually made of stainless steel. Quite different from the base that is probably mild steel.
That's my guess.
Noelex
Veteran Member
My Rocna is one of the NZ models. It has been re-galvanised, but never repaired or re-welded.
It has been used over 1500 days and nights at anchor.
Its a brave man who re-galvansises a HT steel. Many galvanisers would refuse to touch a known HT steel that has been galvanised once already. Most galvanisers acid wash and this can result in hydrogen embrittlement of HT steels. And galvanising degrades the strength of an HT steel, regalvansing makes this degradation worse. This is why G70 chain should not be regalvansied.
No wonder you now use your Mantus.
The steel in the toe of the Rocna fluke is the same steel as the rear part, except the toe is thicker - its the weighted toe that it is sometimes suggested does not exist in this product. The design called for both the roll bar and fluke to be the same steel, it is possible that they might have been different steels (it would depend on what was easily available - anything substituted would have been better than the specification). Different thicknesses of steel of the same quality can 'galvanise' differently - and the roll bar is a thin tube, the rear of the fluke much thicker and the toe much thicker still (I think the toe might be near twice as thick - I'd need to check the drawings if anyone is interested). Some HT steels have been notoriously difficult to galvanise (particularly ASTM 514A).
Last edited:
Nomad Willy
Guru
Dbangi,
That's very interesting. Seems like you'd have to be the manufacturer of the anchor to know all that stuff.
About the galvanizing I had no idea. Was planing to make a new toe for my XYZ out of (probably) 4140 steel. How would that galvanize since you seem to know of such matters. At this point however I can specify whatever I want and I'll confer w people that know. They will also be cutting and machining the part. Perhaps I should use thicker mild steel and thus ballast the toe some. The anchor is 19lbs now .. about right.
The toe of the new Rocna is probably ballasted in the same way but I'm sure Smith will forever say there's no ballast.
Nolex,
How on earth would you anchor that many times? Interesting that you say DAYS and nights. Were you anchored in one spot for 5 years?
That's very interesting. Seems like you'd have to be the manufacturer of the anchor to know all that stuff.
About the galvanizing I had no idea. Was planing to make a new toe for my XYZ out of (probably) 4140 steel. How would that galvanize since you seem to know of such matters. At this point however I can specify whatever I want and I'll confer w people that know. They will also be cutting and machining the part. Perhaps I should use thicker mild steel and thus ballast the toe some. The anchor is 19lbs now .. about right.
The toe of the new Rocna is probably ballasted in the same way but I'm sure Smith will forever say there's no ballast.
Nolex,
How on earth would you anchor that many times? Interesting that you say DAYS and nights. Were you anchored in one spot for 5 years?
Noelex
Veteran Member
My wife and I have been cruising full time for the last 7 years (five with the Rocna) and almost always anchor. We don't like marinas much so other than haul outs it is usually years between marina stays for us. I know this would not suit everyone.
We usually move anchorages about every 3-14 days, but it depends on how nice the location is, protection from prevailing winds etc.
It is lifestyle we love, but we are dependent on good anchoring gear, hence my [STRIKE]obsession[/STRIKE] healthy interest in anchors
.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Dbangi,
OK good.
Looks like that Rocna in the pics has a very thick shank. Is it one of the mild steel Rocna's?
Since you're so interested in anchors stay tuned. We're known for our good conversations on anchors.
Have you any knowledge re the Bugle?
OK good.
Looks like that Rocna in the pics has a very thick shank. Is it one of the mild steel Rocna's?
Since you're so interested in anchors stay tuned. We're known for our good conversations on anchors.
Have you any knowledge re the Bugle?
Eric-- Judging by the photo, the shank in the picture looks the same in terms of thickness as our Rocna, which is an "original." There are several boats on our dock now that have "new" Rocnas. I haven't measured anything, but their shanks look just like ours. The metal the newer anchors are made of looks a bit brighter, but other than that the design seems identical.
I assume the shank width might get greater as the weight of the anchor goes up, but I don't know this for a fact. Ours is a Rocna 20 (44 pounds). The ones on our dock are Rocna 20s and 25s. The 25 has a longer shank, but I don't know if it's any thicker.
BTW, you can tell a "new" Rocna from an original by the raised lettering on the underside of the lip at the wide end of the fluke that spells out the name of the anchor. The "original" Rocna does not have this lettering, only the label affixed to either side of the shank.
I have no idea if there is any visual way to tell a Rocna made early on in China by Holdfast from the anchors made in China today by Canadian Metals.
So far as I know, while the manufacturing locations and (possibly) processes have changed, the actual design has remained the same from the outset.
Manyboats,
I investigated the Rocna during the debate over which steel was bing used in the shanks and how the RINA certificate applied, to the Rocna. As part of the investigation I was given 2 out of spec Rocnas, files covering the time when the low strength steel was used in the shanks and had email discussion with the Shanghai office of RINA. RINA were sufficiently concerned with what was happening (for one thing their name was being besmirched) the then President of RINA joined the correspondence.
I had a couple of bent Rocnas tested for steel quality. I also actually bent the Rocna I had to find the load under which it would fail.
I have more recently conducted an investigation into anchor chain, primarily American but also Italian, Chinese and Australian. This has involved looking at galvanising. As part of the investigation I am also looking at a new form of galvanising.
If you want to read the results of work I conduct check, with Practical Sailor, back over the last 3 years or so and abstract their articles on anchors and anchoring, they are all mine. The chain articles are in the middle of publication. The article on chain strength has been released, abrasion is being edited and shackles and swivels etc is in the wings. If you want to read my comments on Rocna look at the articles of the time in YM. I wrote one and co-authored another 2.
However I do not claim to be an expert on galvanising, its a bit like anchoring - there does seem to be something of an art left in the process.
Of the Bugel, there are very few genuine Bugels, made by Wasi. Wasi only made stainless versions and virtually all the ones I have seen, they are very common in the eastern Med, are steel and copies. Most look cheap (as they are often bent and painted). In the western Med Bugels are replaced with Brittanys, as a common anchor. But Bugels come in many forms, I have even seen one with 2 toes, like a welded Britanny with a roll bar.
All Rocna were made with the correct shank thicknesses which are 'scaled' up for the larger versions. Steel plate only is made in specific thicknesses and as you scale up sometimes there is not a thickness to suit. The anchor maker then ends up with a shank thicker, or thinner, than he would like. Obviously they do not want to buy sheets of steel that are seldom used so they make conscious decision on what they will stock (some anchor makers weld 2 cut shanks to get the right thickness - its a common practice). So the steel in the image might be a bit thicker, proportionately, which will alter balance - but in this case, without knowing which weight of anchor it is I cannot comment. But the mild steel versions had the same shank thickness as the HT steel versions.
On the subject - as it has been glossed over - the Mantua shank has a width (not thickness) of plate about 60% of a Delta, Excel or Rocna. If the steel is the same strength, quality, and as they use the same plate thicknesses then the strength of the HT Mantua shank is 60% of that of, what seems to be, an industry standard. Many of the Rocnas that bent had a strength 60% of what was intended. I have the steel analysis, by an independent laboratory, of Rocna shanks that bent in use, to support what I post. So whether Noelex shank was mlild steel or HT steel I am not surprised - just surprised he glosses over it and did not independently verify what steel was used.
Whilst I have every drawing of every Rocna, signed by the designer, I try not to publicise what they do - if you understand - unless its a safety issue and then I have no morals at all!
I always wanted to test the XYZ but it was insufficiently mainstream and its one that slipped through my net. I have tested many other anchors (not the Bugel) and when I comment on anchors I have usually actually used them, as well as tested them. And when I say use them - we take them on 1,000nm cruses and use them in a high cross section of seabeds, mud, sand, weed.
I will try to stick with TF, you are a nice bunch of guys. You debate with some caution, you appear to use your anchors and those that are commercially motivated declare that connection. But I do 'use' the information when I write my articles as I need user feedback - and if you say something with which I do not agree - I go and test what you say to confirm your comments (or not) and I am sometimes found wanting (but I seldom admit to being wrong - I just change my ideas).
I investigated the Rocna during the debate over which steel was bing used in the shanks and how the RINA certificate applied, to the Rocna. As part of the investigation I was given 2 out of spec Rocnas, files covering the time when the low strength steel was used in the shanks and had email discussion with the Shanghai office of RINA. RINA were sufficiently concerned with what was happening (for one thing their name was being besmirched) the then President of RINA joined the correspondence.
I had a couple of bent Rocnas tested for steel quality. I also actually bent the Rocna I had to find the load under which it would fail.
I have more recently conducted an investigation into anchor chain, primarily American but also Italian, Chinese and Australian. This has involved looking at galvanising. As part of the investigation I am also looking at a new form of galvanising.
If you want to read the results of work I conduct check, with Practical Sailor, back over the last 3 years or so and abstract their articles on anchors and anchoring, they are all mine. The chain articles are in the middle of publication. The article on chain strength has been released, abrasion is being edited and shackles and swivels etc is in the wings. If you want to read my comments on Rocna look at the articles of the time in YM. I wrote one and co-authored another 2.
However I do not claim to be an expert on galvanising, its a bit like anchoring - there does seem to be something of an art left in the process.
Of the Bugel, there are very few genuine Bugels, made by Wasi. Wasi only made stainless versions and virtually all the ones I have seen, they are very common in the eastern Med, are steel and copies. Most look cheap (as they are often bent and painted). In the western Med Bugels are replaced with Brittanys, as a common anchor. But Bugels come in many forms, I have even seen one with 2 toes, like a welded Britanny with a roll bar.
All Rocna were made with the correct shank thicknesses which are 'scaled' up for the larger versions. Steel plate only is made in specific thicknesses and as you scale up sometimes there is not a thickness to suit. The anchor maker then ends up with a shank thicker, or thinner, than he would like. Obviously they do not want to buy sheets of steel that are seldom used so they make conscious decision on what they will stock (some anchor makers weld 2 cut shanks to get the right thickness - its a common practice). So the steel in the image might be a bit thicker, proportionately, which will alter balance - but in this case, without knowing which weight of anchor it is I cannot comment. But the mild steel versions had the same shank thickness as the HT steel versions.
On the subject - as it has been glossed over - the Mantua shank has a width (not thickness) of plate about 60% of a Delta, Excel or Rocna. If the steel is the same strength, quality, and as they use the same plate thicknesses then the strength of the HT Mantua shank is 60% of that of, what seems to be, an industry standard. Many of the Rocnas that bent had a strength 60% of what was intended. I have the steel analysis, by an independent laboratory, of Rocna shanks that bent in use, to support what I post. So whether Noelex shank was mlild steel or HT steel I am not surprised - just surprised he glosses over it and did not independently verify what steel was used.
Whilst I have every drawing of every Rocna, signed by the designer, I try not to publicise what they do - if you understand - unless its a safety issue and then I have no morals at all!
I always wanted to test the XYZ but it was insufficiently mainstream and its one that slipped through my net. I have tested many other anchors (not the Bugel) and when I comment on anchors I have usually actually used them, as well as tested them. And when I say use them - we take them on 1,000nm cruses and use them in a high cross section of seabeds, mud, sand, weed.
I will try to stick with TF, you are a nice bunch of guys. You debate with some caution, you appear to use your anchors and those that are commercially motivated declare that connection. But I do 'use' the information when I write my articles as I need user feedback - and if you say something with which I do not agree - I go and test what you say to confirm your comments (or not) and I am sometimes found wanting (but I seldom admit to being wrong - I just change my ideas
).
psneeld
Guru
So you test anchors?
Like Noelex???
Like Fortress?????
You debate and write articles yet offer no stats or charts or pics yet get pretty sticky with Noelex and his process when...where is yours?
You come to TF and only post in anchor threads yet you have no affiliation with anchor manufacturers....
What's up with that????
Like Noelex???
Like Fortress?????
You debate and write articles yet offer no stats or charts or pics yet get pretty sticky with Noelex and his process when...where is yours?
You come to TF and only post in anchor threads yet you have no affiliation with anchor manufacturers....
What's up with that????
Delfin
Grand Vizier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,820
Djbangi is a respected independent marine journalist who doesn't toot his own horn. If you subscribe to Practical Sailor you are familiar with his work, because in that venue he isn't pretending to be a Zulu warrior but rather our humble correspondent Jonathon Neeves. Who, by the way, has the honor and distinction of being the only journalist I know of ever banned for life from a forum - in this case Cruisers Forum - for the crime of speculating that a commercial interest was being promoted by Mantus via various compliant moderator surrogates. His writings do include testing of anchors, but include a great many other subjects. Perhaps subscribe to Practical Sailor, which is an outstanding publication unpolluted by ads and as a result commercial pressure to perfume various equipment pigs to retain advertising.
If you wish to characterize Noelex' pictures of anchors as testing them, feel free. To me, they are interesting pictures of anchors setting, or not, depending on the technique of the user. What is clear is that our new member is an enthusiastic promoter of Mantus, which seems like a very good anchor, if weakly made.
Fortress is a manufacturer, who has done the boating community a service by occasionally paying for a bake off between anchors, even though not surprisingly, their product frequently comes out on top. There is a reason the Coast Guard uses them and it isn't marketing hype.
What an interesting subject anchors are....
p.s. Jonathan, I hope you don't mind that I have blown your cover and revealed that you are not a Zulu warrior.
p.p.s. I am hoping that by this, I too will achieve the much coveted lifetime ban from Cruisers Forum, rather than the lousy six month suspension I got for related crimes.
psneeld
Guru
Delfin
Grand Vizier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,820
I over stated my case, I do the research and I write the articles. The editorial team then drag the article apart for technical inconsistencies and any evidence of commercial bias. If there is evidence of bias I assume they edit it out and I'd guess if you habitually favour someone/thing then they drop you as a writer.
And Scott, the reason for my reticence is because of the reaction you have just given, Personally I think it unnecessary.
Practical Sailor pay me. They take no advertising. They survive on subscription. They are beholden to no-one and say what they think is right. I respect their decisions and like the ability to say what I like. I do not like the need to choose my words so carefully in case an advertiser is offended. I also like the fact that articles are not ascribed to an author - the articles are by Practical Sailor - what I hope is a balanced team. Some article do have an author, as do images (but I have not quite worked out what the policy really is). But in return, and for the other publications that pay me, I do not detract from their income by breaching the agreement I have with them, that in most cases they have legal right to my material, usually its restricted to one country but as I write in America, UK and Australia, a lot of the english speaking world - it does restrict. The printed media has enough problems with competition from the internet without their authors giving away material free of charge.
So I will not be providing free links to articles, that are for subscribers only.
If enough members feel as you do Scott, and I would not need many dissenters like you - I simply will accept the view and withdraw.
And Scott, the reason for my reticence is because of the reaction you have just given, Personally I think it unnecessary.
Practical Sailor pay me. They take no advertising. They survive on subscription. They are beholden to no-one and say what they think is right. I respect their decisions and like the ability to say what I like. I do not like the need to choose my words so carefully in case an advertiser is offended. I also like the fact that articles are not ascribed to an author - the articles are by Practical Sailor - what I hope is a balanced team. Some article do have an author, as do images (but I have not quite worked out what the policy really is). But in return, and for the other publications that pay me, I do not detract from their income by breaching the agreement I have with them, that in most cases they have legal right to my material, usually its restricted to one country but as I write in America, UK and Australia, a lot of the english speaking world - it does restrict. The printed media has enough problems with competition from the internet without their authors giving away material free of charge.
So I will not be providing free links to articles, that are for subscribers only.
If enough members feel as you do Scott, and I would not need many dissenters like you - I simply will accept the view and withdraw.
I only post on anchor threads because I happen to specialise in that area. If you check YBW you will find I similarly limit my comment to anchors and anchoring. I'm not quite sure about your comment on needing an affiliation to anchor makers, Why can someone not spend years testing anchors and the rode (or other product) and report on them independent of a manufacturer and be paid to do same.
Would you desire that I talk about subjects about which I know nothing. I know that is common on the internet - but not my scene.
On Noelex, I agree with Delfin - if you would like me to repeat it, are you suggesting shouting load makes it more right. If you think Noelex process is correct and fair - fine, and I am sure he will appreciate your support. But I (and anyone from a technical background) would laugh their socks off. The images are fantastic, possibly the best collection of underwater mages of anchors anywhere, but that does not make the comments pertaining to those images accurate or fair. Again if you are convinced, fine - but frankly I think it dangerous as people without your knowledge may misinterpret.
By all means challenge anything I say - that's what these threads are about. Its also why I and others are here - anyone who dissents offers a new view that deserves consideration and exploration. It is so much nicer if the debate stays civilised
Jonathan--- While I may not be in agreement on some things having to do with anchors, I certainly appreciate your willingness to share on this forum what you've learned and experienced.
When I was eleven or twelve I thought I knew a lot about horses. In fact, I thought I knew everything about horses. One day, when I was shooting my mouth off to the other kids about how they should be doing something or other with their horses, our instructor turned to me and in exasperation told me to shut up and followed this with, "Marin, I've forgotten more about horses than you will ever know."
We've owned our old glass GB36 for 16 years now, and it's easy to get to thinking that I know a hell of a lot about boating. But then I'll get into a forum discussion with someone like Bob Lowe, the founder of the Grand Banks owners forum and the former owner of a boatyard that specialized in both wood and glass Grand Banks, and I'll realize that Bob has probably forgotten more about boats and their care and feeding that I'll ever know. Even if I don't agree with some of his views or opinions, he's a brilliant guy and I'm a better boater and boat owner for knowing him.
One really bad thing about the internet is that all we are to each other are the words we type in this little box. We don't see expressions, we don't hear inflection, we have nothing but the typed words to judge each other by.
The other really bad thing about the internet is that there are no penalties for what we say or how we say it. Again, it's because we are all just typed words to each other. I can call someone a dumbass idiot in this box here, and nothing's going to happen to me outside of the moderators perhaps becoming fed up and and pulling the plug on me.
All this makes it very easy to get carried away in the defense of one's ideas or beliefs or biases to the point where it's a very small step to becoming rude, insulting, and disrespectful. Lord knows I've done it enough times myself.
But I believe that most of the members of this forum--- maybe all of them-- fundamentally appreciate hearing what experience, research, reading, talking to other boaters, and simply paying attention has taught each one of us over the years.
It's not all hearts and flowers, though, and there are folks here who are opinionated and are not afraid to say what they think. There are rough edges and tempers and egos and stuff.
But the bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that we're all better off for being exposed to other people's ideas and opinions, let alone their real-life experience and knowledge.
I don't always agree with Eric Henning (Manyboats). I sometimes get really frustrated at the ideas he holds onto, particularly to do with anchors and anchoring. But I know something of what Eric has done in the boating world. So regardless of how short or sarcastic I might get in a reply to him, I know that when it comes to boating up the Inside Passage and in Southeast Alaska, Eric has forgotten more than I will ever know. He's done real-life things with boats that I will never have the chance to do. And you have to respect something like that. As with Bob Lowe, I'm a better boater because Eric makes me think about stuff, and that's how we learn.
So that's this forum. Whether I agree with you or not on this, that, or the other is not as important as the fact that I've been exposed to what you think or have done, and that gives me something to think about. So I hope you continue to contribute when the mood strikes because in the end, I think we'll all be the better for it.
Cheers,
When I was eleven or twelve I thought I knew a lot about horses. In fact, I thought I knew everything about horses. One day, when I was shooting my mouth off to the other kids about how they should be doing something or other with their horses, our instructor turned to me and in exasperation told me to shut up and followed this with, "Marin, I've forgotten more about horses than you will ever know."
We've owned our old glass GB36 for 16 years now, and it's easy to get to thinking that I know a hell of a lot about boating. But then I'll get into a forum discussion with someone like Bob Lowe, the founder of the Grand Banks owners forum and the former owner of a boatyard that specialized in both wood and glass Grand Banks, and I'll realize that Bob has probably forgotten more about boats and their care and feeding that I'll ever know. Even if I don't agree with some of his views or opinions, he's a brilliant guy and I'm a better boater and boat owner for knowing him.
One really bad thing about the internet is that all we are to each other are the words we type in this little box. We don't see expressions, we don't hear inflection, we have nothing but the typed words to judge each other by.
The other really bad thing about the internet is that there are no penalties for what we say or how we say it. Again, it's because we are all just typed words to each other. I can call someone a dumbass idiot in this box here, and nothing's going to happen to me outside of the moderators perhaps becoming fed up and and pulling the plug on me.
All this makes it very easy to get carried away in the defense of one's ideas or beliefs or biases to the point where it's a very small step to becoming rude, insulting, and disrespectful. Lord knows I've done it enough times myself.
But I believe that most of the members of this forum--- maybe all of them-- fundamentally appreciate hearing what experience, research, reading, talking to other boaters, and simply paying attention has taught each one of us over the years.
It's not all hearts and flowers, though, and there are folks here who are opinionated and are not afraid to say what they think. There are rough edges and tempers and egos and stuff.
But the bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that we're all better off for being exposed to other people's ideas and opinions, let alone their real-life experience and knowledge.
I don't always agree with Eric Henning (Manyboats). I sometimes get really frustrated at the ideas he holds onto, particularly to do with anchors and anchoring. But I know something of what Eric has done in the boating world. So regardless of how short or sarcastic I might get in a reply to him, I know that when it comes to boating up the Inside Passage and in Southeast Alaska, Eric has forgotten more than I will ever know. He's done real-life things with boats that I will never have the chance to do. And you have to respect something like that. As with Bob Lowe, I'm a better boater because Eric makes me think about stuff, and that's how we learn.
So that's this forum. Whether I agree with you or not on this, that, or the other is not as important as the fact that I've been exposed to what you think or have done, and that gives me something to think about. So I hope you continue to contribute when the mood strikes because in the end, I think we'll all be the better for it.
Cheers,
Last edited:
Nomad Willy
Guru
"So that's this forum. Whether I agree with you or not on this, that, or the other is not as important as the fact that I've been exposed to what you think or have done, and that gives me something to think about. So I hope you continue to contribute when the mood strikes because in the end, I think we'll all be the better for it."
Marin you're so right and I don't think anyone will ever top that!!
Marin you're so right and I don't think anyone will ever top that!!
Marin,
Inside you are just a big soft, rather nice lump (and do not take that as being in anyway insulting). I must have had a teddy bear like you.
But you hide that warm, soft,caring interior inside a rather tough facade, I'll try to remember that you are much nicer than me
Thanks Marin.
Jonathan
Inside you are just a big soft, rather nice lump (and do not take that as being in anyway insulting). I must have had a teddy bear like you.
But you hide that warm, soft,caring interior inside a rather tough facade, I'll try to remember that you are much nicer than me
Thanks Marin.
Jonathan
CPseudonym
Moderator Emeritus
Bay Pelican
Moderator Emeritus
Spoke with the Rocna staff at the Annapolis Boat Show. Was told that the reason for the new Rocna was to have an anchor to sell to that portion of the market which cannot fit a rollbar on their anchor pulpit.
No surprise here. Most of us thought this was case.
No surprise here. Most of us thought this was case.
gwkiwi
Guru
Our Rocna 60 held us just great during the Great loop with the only issue being pulling it up sometimes due to how deep it dug, although we never had to retrieve via the trip line "yet".
Our bow roller didnt like the bar so I modified a "V" rubber attached to the roll bar which then contacted the front of our Defever and protected the bow from damage.
Had the new anchor been available I would have probably gone that route although I know for a fact the roll bar helped correct the anchor when deployed if it contacted the bottom at a bad angle.
I also spoke directly with the NZ designer of the Rocna which is what sold me on this choice especially with 300' of all chain rode.
Next add on is a better anchor wash system.
Our bow roller didnt like the bar so I modified a "V" rubber attached to the roll bar which then contacted the front of our Defever and protected the bow from damage.
Had the new anchor been available I would have probably gone that route although I know for a fact the roll bar helped correct the anchor when deployed if it contacted the bottom at a bad angle.
I also spoke directly with the NZ designer of the Rocna which is what sold me on this choice especially with 300' of all chain rode.
Next add on is a better anchor wash system.
Similar threads
