Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

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

nomadwilly wrote:

Why should anchor performance change from small anchors to large? At this time I don't buy into that.

Click to expand...

I think the answer would be the effect of gravity.* I'd rather be anchored to a D9 Cat than a 45# CQR in a hurricane anyday, although the CQR is probably a better design for an anchor than the bulldozer.* I think Steve Dashew said it best.* When people see how huge your anchor is and say "are you kidding?", then you're getting in the ball park of one that's big enough.

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

*

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

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

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

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


-- Edited by Peter B on Saturday 29th of January 2011 10:23:21 PM

markpierce wrote:

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

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

Meanwhile, I'm*holding onto a Bruce.* Perhaps*I'll upgrade on my 65th birthday after you guys/gals test out and applaud*Quickline's.

Click to expand...

Nobody's addressed the topic so I'll make a contribution.

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

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

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

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

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

So the usual story is: avoid copies.

As to performance claims, better than a Rocna? Yeah right. The Rocna consistently out-performs the genuine Spade, so the likelihood of a compromised copy doing better hardly seems high! Where is the valid repeatable independent testing?

nomadwilly wrote:

I think the Rocna is slightly superior in holding power and the Manson Supreme is better at short scope. Beyond that it seems a toss up. I'd go the Rocna if I almost always had more than 4-1 scope and lots of chain.

Click to expand...

That's just not correct, the genuine Rocna outperforms the Manson copy in all scenarios.
www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/manson-supreme-anchor.php

nomadwilly wrote:

Why should anchor performance change from small anchors to large?

Click to expand...

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

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

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

-- Edited by Craig Smith on Saturday 29th of January 2011 10:37:35 PM

Conrad wrote:
I think that you are correct re the Bruce patent Marin. It does make one wonder why they ceased production though; on the surface it would appear that they couldn't compete with their own design!Thanks Eric for that reminder - I had read the review before but had forgotten about the Ray. Great performance in that size range.
And perhaps Marin your comments re the performance knockoffs are bang on, although I have read anecdotal accounts of diminished performance so I'd still go back to my original comment that caution should be applied since not all knockoffs will have the same quality behind them as the Ray apparently has.
We're still looking at the Rocna although my partner (brother) is more inclined toward the Manson Supreme. One of us will win I'm sure.

Click to expand...

Bruce ceased production ostensibly because it's too hard to compete with cheap copies of your product that are willing to make significant cost-cutting compromises that you are not. The Bruce is/was a high quality heat treated casting. Additionally, the design frankly doesn't work very well in extreme seabeds, I expect they saw the writing on the wall with the release of the Delta and other anchors since the Bruce's heighday.

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

They do the same with their Rocna copy, the fluke is two thin plates edge welded together. See the link above. Totally unconscionable. Avoid copies folk.

Craig Smith,
To bad we can't avoid some OPINIONS.
You can't make something real by just stating it is so.

Craig Smith wrote:
Specifically, the Ultra is made from 316 stainless, which is a very weak material to build an anchor from. (Tensile strength below mild steel). Read: inadequate.

Click to expand...

The tensile strength of 316 stainless is 90,000 psi, while that of A36 mild steel is pehaps 2/3 to 3/4 of that.* The Rocna seems like a good anchor, so I doubt that misrepresentation is needed to sell it.* Perhaps it was inadvertent, but it does call into question other assertions of fact on your part.




*


-- Edited by Delfin on Saturday 29th of January 2011 11:18:43 PM

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

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

We care more about yield than UTS - it tells you when your anchor's shank will bend.

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

Just a thought - Rocna makes a fine anchor that can be sold on its merits rather than exagerrating or making up defects of competitor's products.

Gents,

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

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

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

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

Have a look:

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

Safe boating,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

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

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Sunday 30th of January 2011 11:01:41 AM

nomadwilly wrote:

The Rocna is such a product. Finding anchorages that realistically have enough swinging room for 5-1 scope or more is living in a dream world that is not real. Even where there are large anchorages there are lots more people these days and even large anchorages have limited swinging room. So an anchor that won't perform at short scope is NOT A GOOD ANCHOR and the Rocna is such an anchor.

Click to expand...

This is utter rubbish willy. Whose Kool Aid are you drinking, are you on the feed from Manson or Fortress or is there some vested interest?

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

The likes of Steve Dashew routinely anchors his boat in very restricted anchorages at scopes as low as 2:1, and reports that he considers it completely reliable. More independent feedback is easily available. West Marine's 2006 testing included 3:1 scopes for example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be safe,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors



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

-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Sunday 30th of January 2011 12:11:36 PM

Craig Smith wrote:This is utter rubbish willy. Whose Kool Aid are you drinking, are you on the feed from Manson or Fortress or is there some vested interest?

Click to expand...

On feed ... vested interest?* As if a representative of Rocna in its own anchors doesn't have.*

*

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

-- Edited by Steve on Sunday 30th of January 2011 02:39:15 PM

Steve wrote:

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

-- Edited by Steve on Sunday 30th of January 2011 02:39:15 PM

Click to expand...

You're so right Steve - it used to be a mainstay on PMM as well.

*

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

I also learned that there is no best product for all occasions. I buy products that will do a good job for the type of boating I do in the area I boat. Perhaps someone could document when the last hurricane force winds came thru the Puget Sound? Or even the last time we saw winds over 50 mph that weren't forcast in advance, giving recreational boaters the chance to seek shelter.

Mr Smith,
Before you accuse me of talking "utter rubbish" again you better go back to page 6 of this thread and review what they said about Rocna's short scope performance. And before you say it I'm not buying that it only applies to large anchors. The other Mr Smith may not be thrilled by your tone here Craig and most here on TF won't either.

2bucks wrote:I learned a long time ago that anyone who has to denigrate the competitions product to try and prove theirs is best, doesn't have the best product.

Click to expand...

Ken, that's what's odd.* Rocna does have a good product.* Apparently just a salesman who needs to attend salesmanship 101.

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

*

2bucks wrote:Perhaps someone could document when the last hurricane force winds came thru the Puget Sound?

Click to expand...

Dec. 14-16, 2006 80 mph, 114 mph in Oregon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2bucks wrote:

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

I also learned that there is no best product for all occasions. I buy products that will do a good job for the type of boating I do in the area I boat. Perhaps someone could document when the last hurricane force winds came thru the Puget Sound? Or even the last time we saw winds over 50 mph that weren't forcast in advance, giving recreational boaters the chance to seek shelter.

Click to expand...

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

*

Delfin,

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

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anchor/anchor_study.htm#INDEX

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

Delfin wrote:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

Well said Carl!!!

*

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

Brian-Fortress wrote:

Delfin,

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

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anchor/anchor_study.htm#INDEX

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

Click to expand...

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

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

*

nomadwilly wrote:

About the size issue I really can't see how an anchor can perform differently in different sizes. I would think a 10lb Magic Hooker anchor should perform exactly like a 100lb Magic Hooker.

Click to expand...

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

*

While my boat is coming with a Bruce-like anchor, I'm thinking of getting a much heavier one*(20-40% heavier based on your opinions)*once I determine what will fit.* Out my way, there are "in and back" currents in protected waters, so an anchor that readily*self-resets is more important than ultra-maximum holding.