Rocna's new Anchor????

Thanks Eric. You are correct about new generation but that is the term that is typically used. Both tests and testimonials have their place and function. Typically for boaters, a testimonial or review is more similar to their practical use of the product. I suggest folks weigh the information from both and decide what it best for their use.

When anchor designs and visual looks rely on the "eye candy" and "ohhh that's new" syndrome... their meaning for purpose got lost. Buy a Fortress... set anchor (correctly)... be safe... enjoy boating!

On scale of 1 to 10 for importance of functionality aboard boat... the anchor rates 9.99. Unless of course the boat is a dock queen or just takes short day cruises and seldom if ever anchors out. Then the $1000 + shined, gleaming, protruding bow anchor might be felt important to have... for some... but not for me!

Marin said:

Here are both of them. To me, while there are similarities, notably the relatively short, curved shanks, they are quite different in their fluke designs. It would appear that for a given size, the Vulcan has the greater fluke area, which I think is a plus. I'm not sure what the Cadillac fins on the Boss bring to its function but I assume they contribute something, at least in theory.

I'm not going to speculate on how well they perform based on a couple of photos, and while I've seen several boats in this area with Vulcans I've not talked to anyone who's used one. I've never seen a Boss at all.

Click to expand...

Marin,
"Short shank"? I don't think so. The Bugle has a short shank because it goes straight from attach point to attach point and as far as I know the XYZ has the shortest. The XYZ is closest to being all fluke. But the Boss and Vulcan would be typical (in length) if they wern't so curved. The curve of the Boss and the Vulcan shanks is the substitute for the silly roll bar. Most likely an excellent trade and the curved shank seems to work as I've heard nothing to the contrary .... considering that the Boss has been on the market for some time now. The curve in the shank makes it longer. It looks like Rocna made the shank w an "I" beam shape (or cross section) to minimize it's weight (because of it's length) and still get the strength needed. The roll bar on the Supreme isn't light and the roll bar on the Rocna probably isn't either. Good trade. And of course now the products fit on many more boats.

I'm very impressed w what I see in the Vulcan now. They even made it slightly above average for the beauty contest. The ugliness of the first Vulcan pics we saw has been put to rest. Looks like a good anchor. But like the XYZ it's not been tested.

Edit;
Now I've got to take back most of my praise for the Vulcan.
Unlike the Boss the Vulcan has a big bulky ballast chamber under the fluke tip. Every pound of ballast weight in that chamber takes away from what otherwise would be fluke size. That should (more importantly) inhibit penetration considerably like it does on all anchors that have that feature. Go to the Rocna web site and look at the pictures there. It's like a big fat Vampite stake. Better buy a Rocna .... or better yet a Manson.

Steve Bedford said:

Thanks Eric. You are correct about new generation but that is the term that is typically used. Both tests and testimonials have their place and function. Typically for boaters, a testimonial or review is more similar to their practical use of the product. I suggest folks weigh the information from both and decide what it best for their use.

Click to expand...

Tests and testimonials become more irrelevant by the day. I could tell you about office towers in China full of kids writing positive and negative product reviews, but I won't.

Couple days ago I was dock walking when I realized Bruce was everywhere. Without actually counting, if I saw 100 boats, 90 of them hand a salty old Bruce hanging on or off the bow.

What did that say?
Bruce is awesome?
Bruce is best in our area?
Owners are stuck in another generation?
Nothing?

Bruce is fine but when I go forth w a Claw I join the bigger is better club. Now that I'm through experimenting w anchors (at least temporarily) that's what I fitted to Willy's bow. It's twice as heavy as most all of my other anchors (33lbs) and I think it will perform fine here in Puget Sound.

By the way I've always poo poo'd the "genuine Bruce is best" (re Claws) thinking there could likely be a "clone" that is an improvement on the original Claw. I've discovered the Bruce anchors I see on the floats here have sharper flukes. When I bought my Lewmar I sharpened all three flukes w considerable grinding. The Bruce that is a forged anchor most likely has stronger steel and they can have thinner fluke edges. Those thinner edges may very well have a beneficial effect on setting and penetrating performance. So all the talk about the original being better may be true after all.

manyboats said:

Bruce is fine but when I go forth w a Claw I join the bigger is better club. Now that I'm through experimenting w anchors (at least temporarily) that's what I fitted to Willy's bow. It's twice as heavy as most all of my other anchors (33lbs) and I think it will perform fine here in Puget Sound.

By the way I've always poo poo'd the "genuine Bruce is best" (re Claws) thinking there could likely be a "clone" that is an improvement on the original Claw. I've discovered the Bruce anchors I see on the floats here have sharper flukes. When I bought my Lewmar I sharpened all three flukes w considerable grinding. The Bruce that is a forged anchor most likely has stronger steel and they can have thinner fluke edges. Those thinner edges may very well have a beneficial effect on setting and penetrating performance. So all the talk about the original being better may be true after all.

Click to expand...

I wasn't promoting the Bruce, just stating what I had seen.

In reality, based on the general condition of most of the boats I saw, I'd guess the owners shied away from spending money on their boats in general, much less on the latest greatest anchor. I think they just bought the fad of the day and stayed with it.

Hornsby and Springsteen, now that's a whole other Bruce to get excited about.

Hawg--- When you consider that probably 90 percebt of recreational powerboat owners never anchor their boats at all, the type of anchor their boats have is no indication whatsoever of that anchor's effctiveness. The Bruce had a very effective sales effort in this area thanks to a very persuasive distributor (I've met him). And most boaters who don't anchor much or at all tend to stick with whatever anchor came with the boat. In most powerboat cases in this area, that anchor is a Bruce or Bruce knockoff.

There is also a big "I'm going to get what I see other boaters getting" factor in boating. It's why we put a Bruce on our cabin cruiser when we acquired it in 1998. If most other powerboaters have it, it must good, right?

It was only when we started actually using it that we discovered it's not so good.

Like the CQR, the Bruce/knockoff stows well on any type of pulpit or bow mount. The sailboaters I know who have CQRs have told me that the main reason they have one or have stayed wirh one is that it stows so well on the bow of their boat.

However on the sailboats in our part of the harbor I know get used a lot and are anchored a lot I've been seeing more and more rollbar anchors over the last few years. For example the sailboaters who share our finger installed a rollbar anchor some years ago when they were in SFO Bay. They then went off and sailed the southwest Pacific for awhile.

They've told us of times in the open, exposed anchorages there when in high winds they stayed put while almost every other boat in the anchorage with more conventional anchors dragged. Based orn their actual anchoring experience these longtime sailboaters are totally convinced of the rollbar anchor's superiority in almost every anchoring situation one might encounter.

Marin said:

Hawg--- When you consider that probably 90 percebt of recreational powerboat owners never anchor their boats at all, the type of anchor their boats have is no indication whatsoever of that anchor's effctiveness. The Bruce had a very effective sales effort in this area thanks to a very persuasive distributor (I've met him). And most boaters who don't anchor much or at all tend to stick with whatever anchor came with the boat. In most powerboat cases in this area, that anchor is a Bruce or Bruce knockoff.

There is also a big "I'm going to get what I see other boaters getting" factor in boating. It's why we put a Bruce on our cabin cruiser when we acquired it in 1998. If most other powerboaters have it, it must good, right?

It was only when we started actually using it that we discovered it's not so good.

Click to expand...

Yup and like I said, "I think they just bought the fad of the day and stayed with it."

Now, if I can only figure out how to entice a cormorant to come squat on my arm so I can go fishing.

manyboats said:

Edit;
Now I've got to take back most of my praise for the Vulcan.
Unlike the Boss the Vulcan has a big bulky ballast chamber under the fluke tip. Every pound of ballast weight in that chamber takes away from what otherwise would be fluke size. That should (more importantly) inhibit penetration considerably like it does on all anchors that have that feature.

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your reasoning there; why would more ballast weight prohibit larger fluke size?

-Chris

manyboats said:

Testimonials have their limits...

Click to expand...

Yep.

Shoulda used the Danforth for the bow and wrapped the Bruce around a tree. https://youtu.be/nrmD0WxtJAc

Chris,
Every pound of ballast is weight (metal) that could otherwise be used for increasing the size of the fluke. Ideally speaking the highest holding power would be achieved w an anchor that was 100% fluke. But the fluke needs to be controled and provide attachment to the boat. There are some anchors that don't require specific oreintation like a mushroom anchor and mostly a Bulwagga and of course the Danforth has two options. But most modern anchors require some element of their design directed to bring them to one or two specific orentations ... or one could say right side up.

The Rocna employs it's roll bar and the Vulcan uses the trailing edge of it's fluke, the shape of it's shank .. and ballast weight under the fluke tip to right the anchor to it's setting position .. one of two or possibly three under certian conditions. The Manson Boss uses it's shank shape and the trailing edge of it's fluke to right itself. But Rocna didn't (appearently) think the Vulcan would right itself consistantly enough w just the special shape of the shank and fluke trailing edge so they gave it a ballast chamber .. probably filled w lead like the Delta and CQR and Spade. The Spade has been a very good anchor but many anchors w/o the ballast chamber have done even better .. like the Rocna. The wedge could be 5 to 8 square inches (depending on anchor size) and that requires some force to push into the sea bottom. Not exactly a knife like shape. So without the ballast chamber the Vulcan could assumabily penetrate considerably further into the seabed greatly increasing holding power. Remember the small anchor in the Chesapeake Bay test by Fortress? The small anchor penetrated deeper and was much harder to extract. That's basically it ... and then a bit.

manyboats said:

Chris,
Every pound of ballast is weight (metal) that could otherwise be used for increasing the size of the fluke.

Click to expand...

But why would ballast weight interfere with just increasing the fluke size anyway?

-Chris

Chris,
Whith that philosophy any anchor can be made to perform at any level of performance providing the anchor will set.

If one is to say an anchor has "X" amount of holding power it's meaningless unless it's compared to it's weight or/and size. Everyone wants an anchor of minimal size and weight so it's a game of performance per pound and size. My 33lb Claw I feel has adequate performance but why should I use that big heavy thing if an anchor half the weight and size will do the same job? The Claw now will hold the boat (I think) on basically any kind of bottom. I could use a very high performance anchor of only 15lbs. I used a 13lb early XYZ anchor for a day and a half in Alison Harbour near QC Sound in a 50 knot gale. The boat sailed back and forth jerking the rode for hours and we didn't move. But the anchor refused to set more often than it did. When it did it held. My Claw will probably hold too but it weighs about 2.5 times as much. I've chosen .... at least temporally ... to use a low performance anchor because it's flexability is great. Extremely good short scope performance, very convenient bow storage, super low purchasing cost and availability plus being way above average in looks.

You can pick the highest performance anchor you know of and exceed it's performance with a low performance anchor just by increasing the weight of whatever low performance (per pound) anchor you choose. Choose a Navy or a Dreadnought anchor and it will be very heavy but if heavy enough the performance will be great. Or if having a very small and lightweight anchor is important your choice will be much more demanding and you may spend more even for a small anchor. Or if you're paranoid there's always the option of super big and super high performance.

Old deckhand said:

Yes, we have a Boss.

Click to expand...

As of today, so do we!

The original plan was to sell the 60lb Supreme (accomplished) and go with a larger Supreme- then modify the anchor roller so the Supreme would fit properly into the roller slot.

After many hours of research, we opted for the Boss instead. Test results as we get them.....

Pau Hana said:

As of today, so do we!

The original plan was to sell the 60lb Supreme (accomplished) and go with a larger Supreme- then modify the anchor roller so the Supreme would fit properly into the roller slot.

After many hours of research, we opted for the Boss instead. Test results as we get them.....

Click to expand...

Sweet, looking forward to your reviews!

I'm sold on the Supreme, and all research leads me
To believe that the Boss will perform just as well.

manyboats said:

Chris,
........ Ideally speaking the highest holding power would be achieved w an anchor that was 100% fluke. But the fluke needs to be controled and provide attachment to the boat.

Click to expand...

Eric, there is another issue which one needs to consider. with anchor holding power. It is possible for there to be too much. Apart from the fact they have to be attached to the rode in some way, it needs to be remembered there is another important function of the shank. That being as a lever to help prise it out of the bottom, when one wants to leave the anchorage. Putting it another way, your entirely fluke based anchor, even if possible to make one such that it would actually set, (an issue you have already described as being a problem with the XYZ, which comes close to almost being a fluke only anchor), there would be huge problems trying to up-anchor as it could bury itself so completely one would have to apply enormous force to break it out. Something which actually proved to be the case with the small fortress anchors in that recent anchor comparison done by Fortress, as they do bury quite deeply. Fortunately they do have a shank to lever them up with. I think the only problem worse than an anchor that is hard to set and does not hold all that well would be one that just won't let go when you need it to.

ranger42c said:

But why would ballast weight interfere with just increasing the fluke size anyway?

-Chris

Click to expand...

manyboats said:

Chris,
Whith that philosophy any anchor can be made to perform at any level of performance providing the anchor will set.

Everyone wants an anchor of minimal size and weight so it's a game of performance per pound and size.

Click to expand...

Ah. I didn't understand your original premise prohibited adding to overall weight.

Have to admit I probably don't fall completely into that "Everyone wants..." category. There's a limit to dead weight I'm willing (or able) to lift manually, but up to that limit, that's what our electric windlass is for. Given that, I look for the biggest honker I can find at (up to) that weight that will fit our pulpit, has a good track record for our typical substrate, etc.



-Chris

Peter B said:

Eric, there is another issue which one needs to consider. with anchor holding power. It is possible for there to be too much. Apart from the fact they have to be attached to the rode in some way, it needs to be remembered there is another important function of the shank. That being as a lever to help prise it out of the bottom, when one wants to leave the anchorage. Putting it another way, your entirely fluke based anchor, even if possible to make one such that it would actually set, (an issue you have already described as being a problem with the XYZ, which comes close to almost being a fluke only anchor), there would be huge problems trying to up-anchor as it could bury itself so completely one would have to apply enormous force to break it out. Something which actually proved to be the case with the small fortress anchors in that recent anchor comparison done by Fortress, as they do bury quite deeply. Fortunately they do have a shank to lever them up with. I think the only problem worse than an anchor that is hard to set and does not hold all that well would be one that just won't let go when you need it to.

Click to expand...

Peter - Complete inability to break loose an anchor for retrieval would be bummer for sure... however:

I feel a small (probably much less expensive) bummer compared to an anchor dragging and boat landing on the rocks in middle of night. In decades of boating I've only had to cut loose two anchors (both Danthforth designs). One was our own Danforth in Block Island mid 1960's, and, one was another boat's in SF Delta 2012. Both seemed to have been caught on cable or other item; after hours of trying to get each free the "cut-it" decision was made.

That said... from Parks marine store (avatar - HopCar) this spring we purchased a brand new Fortress FX-23 for setting/holding in the silty/gummy-mud bottom of SF Delta. Although life problems limited our 2015 boating opportunities we have had chance to use it four times. It is by far and away the best I’ve encountered for setting and holding in SF Delta mud bottom. Then comes the time of retrieval! So far so good. Each task of breaking loose out of bottom has needed to be accomplished by rode being straight down off boat cleat and breaking loose by engine power; windless and hand power have been unable to accomplish what’s needed. The FX-23 always comes up with Really BIG Gob of mud… showing how great it sets… which is exactly why we purchased it. But, I must admit that Fortress’ deep-setting capabilities have made me wonder if it could ever get set so deep that standard means of retrieval might become a problem. Due to close quarters with passing boats, where we anchor there is no room for anchor buoy. I’ve had some interesting things happen with our Fortress and plan to post a descriptive thread about the FX-23 after several more anchor-outs have been accomplished.

Happy Anchoring Daze! – Art

Chris,
Most everybody here has power winches so using a double size anchor has little downside. All chain rode carries 2 to 3 times as much weight penalty as a double size anchor. Lots of skippers feel the chain weight is trivial so a bigger anchor should work fine. But the "biggest honker you could find" would sink your boat bow first ... dramatically. But doubling the recomended anchor size would probably add less than 100lbs to a typical boat here. You probably haven't even dated a girl weighing less than 100 lbs. adding 75lbs to a boat as large as yours wouldn't be significant. And adding weight unessasairly to a boat is something I've condemed regularly here.

So the option of a big anchor is open to everyone w a power winch and the performance that goes w it. With the extra weight any of the old anchors will probably have excellent performance.

But the newer anchors are very popular here and it's mostly a case of needing the "right stuff". If your a skier you sport a certian kind of skis. If you are a sports car buff it's a certian brand of tires that's in .. or cool. Kool in our culture carries a lot of weight. That's the big reason skippers here buy new style anchors. It shows they are knowledeable, selective and don't use just any ordinary anchor. Not very objective but frequently it's not objectivity that makes the world go around. If anchors were traditionally stowed in the bilge far fewer new anchors would be sold.


Peter B,
I said setting was a problem w the early XYZ. And it was. No such problem w w the later XYZ's. I think you didn't read carefully or made assumptions out of thin air. Also both of the XYZ's I've had come up out of the bottom easily.

Last year we upgraded our anchoring system with a 77lb Rocna and 550' of BBB chain. This past weekend the Admiral and I took the boat out to practice anchoring. The conditions were heavy current (Columbia River) with a opposite wind about 10mph.


It was good practice so we could try out each others duties. We did find out that she has difficulty pushing over the chain cone. I also don't have a swivel on the anchor as recommended by the manufacture. I did have to twist the chain about a quarter turn in order to bring the anchor into the pulpit.


Next year when we are in the Inside Passage, we will be anchoring 90% of the time.

I just received a 35# Manson Boss that I ordered from Amazon. The price was too good to pass up- $224 including shipping if you have Amazon Prime. That is almost $150 cheaper than Defender.

When it arrived I was floored. It was huge, probably twice the surface area of the 35# Bruce that it will replace. I was sure that they shipped a 50# anchor by mistake. But I weighed it (and me) and it came out 35#. Like the roll bar Manson Supreme it has a weighted point, but it also has those funny winglets.

I think that the winglets let it start digging in if it lands on its side, then it rotates upright so both flukes will continue digging. I am looking forward to seeing how it performs. I had a pre China Rocna that dug in like it was tunneling to China. I was always amazed at how much ocean floor I pulled up with it.

I will report on how the Boss works in practice, but I bet it digs like the old Rocna.

David

We got rid of our swivel years ago, and when we bought our Rocna back in 2006 or 7 the folks I talked to at Rocna in New Zealand did not recommend using a swivel. They didn't say not to, only that it wasnt needed and if we didn't need one to align the anchor when it came back aboard we'd be better off without one, which we'd already determined which is why we'd long since gotten rid of ours.

We have never had an issue with anchor alignment on retreival since the wildcat always aligns the chain the same way wich in turn always aligns the anchor the same way.

They also told me, as did the instruction sheet that came with our new anchor, to use all-chan rode and anchor with a minimum scope ratio of 5:1 and more was better if conditions warranted.

I have no idea what the current owner of the Rocna brand recommends today.

Marin said:

We got rid of our swivel years ago, and when we bought our Rocna back in 2006 or 7 the folks I talked to at Rocna in New Zealand did not recommend using a swivel. They didn't say not to, only that it wasnt needed and if we didn't need one to align the anchor when it came back aboard we'd be better off without one, which we'd already determined which is why we'd long since gotten rid of ours.

We have never had an issue with anchor alignment on retreival since the wildcat always aligns the chain the same way wich in turn always aligns the anchor the same way.

They also told me, as did the instruction sheet that came with our new anchor, to use all-chan rode and anchor with a minimum scope ratio of 5:1 and more was better if conditions warranted.

I have no idea what the current owner of the Rocna brand recommends today.

Click to expand...

Still the same. When the anchor came up it was backwards to the roller and I had to "twist" the chain about a 1/4 turn to get it the right way.

djmarchand said:

I just received a 35# Manson Boss that I ordered from Amazon. The price was too good to pass up- $224 including shipping if you have Amazon Prime. That is almost $150 cheaper than Defender.

When it arrived I was floored. It was huge, probably twice the surface area of the 35# Bruce that it will replace. I was sure that they shipped a 50# anchor by mistake. But I weighed it (and me) and it came out 35#. Like the roll bar Manson Supreme it has a weighted point, but it also has those funny winglets.

I think that the winglets let it start digging in if it lands on its side, then it rotates upright so both flukes will continue digging. I am looking forward to seeing how it performs. I had a pre China Rocna that dug in like it was tunneling to China. I was always amazed at how much ocean floor I pulled up with it.

I will report on how the Boss works in practice, but I bet it digs like the old Rocna.

David

Click to expand...

David, I like the Manson Boss and toyed with the idea of putting it on the bow of Moonstruck. My conception of the purpose of the winglets is to right the anchor similar to a roll bar. I think it could do this without the tendency to collect rocks. Please let us know you results with it.

David,
I picked up a Manson Boss at a boat show and thought it was light. Re your comments about it's size it could be the lightest anchor per surface area out there. And since it's slightly concave it's holding power should be excellent.
My 15lb Supreme was actually 18lbs and I wondered if other Manson anchors were heavier than their advertised weight. Sounds like the Boss weighs as advertised.

What happened to your Rocna?

Peter B,
Re your heads up on the issue of extraction there was such a problem in the Cheasapeke Bay test and the anchor having the problem was a Fortress. I suspect that using it in the wide throat opening position probably caused the difficult extraction. Obviously extracting the anchor w no throat opening at all would seem very easy. And a throat angle of close to 90 degrees would be impossible at times.
Due to the roll bar's position roll bar anchors should be harder to extract than most others.

Do you have problems w your SARCA ?

Re my last sentence ...
I think I mucked up. The roll bar should pitch the anchor more straight up and other than the drag the roll bar presents it should be an asset to extraction. Not as I said. I thought about this as I was painting the deck in the fore cabin and salon today. Don't know what I was think'in.

The problem Peter raises about breaking out a well set anchor may be overcome by an anchor with a sliding slot in the shank attachment, so that the pull comes close to the flukes and not at the far end of the shank.
(That should get the hares running .)

BruceK said:

The problem Peter raises about breaking out a well set anchor may be overcome by an anchor with a sliding slot in the shank attachment, so that the pull comes close to the flukes and not at the far end of the shank.
(That should get the hares running .)

Click to expand...

And if you're anchored for anything over a half day or more in tidal waters, what do you predict when the tidal current reverses?