Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Walt,
Iv'e seen these sport fish anchor winches. Ther'e kind of a fish & move fish & move commercial charter boat product. I'd never get my 325' of 5/8ths nylon Brait anchor line on that little drum much less that and 30 to 50' of chain (5/16") min. Just looked at the picture again*** ...perhaps I spoke too soon. Looks like a bigger boat than I thought. I'll* go check it out. Wonder what's to the left of the drum. Must be a motor and drive.
Thanks Walt.
PS,
I looked at the site and the biggest one comes close to being big enough. I bookmarked it. Price isn't too awful bad. Web site is very minimal. I'll just call.
Thanks again Walt

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Sunday 6th of February 2011 10:25:35 PM
 
Some of y'all need to do a group hug and some trust building exercises! Relax y'all- it's just the internet.

Anyway, I have it on good authority that a similar type argument had been on going between the 2 captains in this video. They could never agree on the best set up and they both started pointing fingers at each other and getting upset. Anyway, things got out of hand as you can see:

 
nomadwilly wrote:Marin,

1. Brian didn't even mention the roll bar. How could he be incorrect about the roll bar when he didn't even mention it?

2. Marin wrote that Smith said*** ..."He says he took the roll bar idea from the Bügel.".... Are you saying we should believe what Peter Smith said?
1.* Brian said the Rocna copied the Sarca which copied..... etc.* The roll bar is common to both the Rocna and Sarca so I assumed that Brian was including the roll bar as part of the Sarca design the Rocna supposedly copied.* It's certainly the most distinctive design feature of both anchors.* Any other commonalities are pretty subtle after that one. So I would have thought that if Brian wasn't including the roll bar aspect of both anchors he would have said so.* But perhaps I assumed wrong.

2.* Well, where to you draw the line?* At what point should what a person says not be believed?* When should people not believe what you say, or what I say, or what anyone else says?*

Peter designed the Rocna initially for his own use (he says), and he said (in print) that he took design features he liked from several different existing anchors and refined them with his own design changes.* He said he got the idea for the rollbar from the Bügel.* I'm not sure I see any reason to disbelieve him.* I would be skeptical if he'd said he was the first person to ever think of using a rollbar on an anchor, given that the Bügel pre-dated the Rocna by a number of years.* But he didn't.* So I'm curious what it is about Peter's statement about where he got the idea for the rollbar that you find suspicious?

If you're interested, and if you haven't read these already, here are two article excerpts where Smith talks about the Bügel.

1.______________________

The Bügel, developed in Germany by Rolf Kaczirek, is the first of the new generation anchors, and it pioneered a novel configuration involving a semi-circular roll-bar. The weight of the fluke rolls the anchor about the roll-bar, pivoting on the shank end. The Bügel is very primitive, consisting of:

A straight bar shank
A roll-bar to turn anchor
A flat fluke with sharp tip to gain rapid penetration
It represents a good development on most old generation anchors, except perhaps the Delta in some circumstances, but is hampered by its simplistic configuration and non-optimized design.

[the article continues]

The Rocna was developed by New Zealander Peter Smith in 2000, released commercially in 2004 following strong demand developed from early models produced privately for Smith and friends. The Rocna uses a roll-bar like the Bügel, and develops the rest of the anchor to a far more sophisticated level. Both the shank and fluke are carefully optimized in order to maximize efficiency, with an eye to strength and durability. The Rocna consists of:

A concave fluke similar in form to that of the Spade but with more surface area
Tip-weight in the form of a thicker tip section, which keeps the tip profile slim while adding strength to the tip
Skids to assist with setting
Sensible shank designed to minimize early setting resistance and enable practical stowage on bow rollers.

2._________________________

When asked if Mediterranean charter operation Yildiz Yachting had problems with holiday-makers dragging their anchors, Kees Verboom replied "We used to. We often had to repair boats that were damaged on rocks after [the] anchor dragged. But since I changed the whole fleet over to German Bügel anchors, theres been no problem."

Others have invested in the more costly Spade, the anchor from Tunisia designed by Frenchman Alain Poiraud. John Harries and Phyllis Nickel on Morgans Cloud, authors of the Norwegian Cruising Guide, recently wrote an article in Cruising World about their upgrade to two Spade anchors, saying they had effectively solved all their old anchoring problems in their high-latitude cruising grounds.

"Ploughs are designed to divide the seafloor the planar Bügel will resist more than a simple wedge [plow] and the concave shaped Spade will resist the most." Adrian Faulkner discussing which shape an anchors fluke should be; convex, flat, or concave; in Practical Boat Owner.

Yet, as good as the Bügel (AKA Wasi) and the Spade are, there was room for improvement, and the Rocna in a simplistic sense represents the best of both. It has a roll-bar like the Bügel, which guarantees the anchor achieves the correct attitude every time it hits the bottom. The Rocna also has a concave fluke shape, like the Spade, aiming for the optimum resistance given by the spoon form, which maximizes holding power once set.

___________________________

*


-- Edited by Marin on Sunday 6th of February 2011 10:59:44 PM
 
nomadwilly wrote:

I've never seen the Manson Supreme or the Rocna bury itself.
Have you watched the video on the Rocna website?* As I recall there is at least one scene in which they had to dig down to expose the rollbar so they could get hold of it and haul the anchor up out of the sand.* The anchor had completely disappeared.* My guess is that a Sarca or Manson Supreme would have behaved the same way under the same condtiions.

One of the reasons we use a trip line with the Rocna in sand or soft mud bottoms is all the independent testimonials we read while deciding what anchor to get to replace the Bruce from boaters with Rocnas who talked about the deep-burying tendency of the Rocna as being a bit of a "problem" at times--- it made it a lot of work, they said, to get the anchor out of the bottom.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Sunday 6th of February 2011 11:18:01 PM
 
Marin,
I don't like Peter Smith. He's too full of himself. He presents his product like it's going to save the world and tries to make himself look as much like the savior as possible. When he talks about other anchors he makes them look as stupid as possible. He comes of to me as a big stuffed up bird and I've heard enough Rocna squawking. And I think the Spade is a better anchor*** ...but I'm not buying one of them either.
PS*** ...don't look at Rocna sites.

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Sunday 6th of February 2011 11:17:10 PM
 
nomadwilly wrote:

Walt,
Iv'e seen these sport fish anchor winches. Ther'e kind of a fish & move fish & move commercial charter boat product. I'd never get my 325' of 5/8ths nylon Brait anchor line on that little drum much less that and 30 to 50' of chain (5/16") min. Just looked at the picture again*** ...perhaps I spoke too soon. Looks like a bigger boat than I thought. I'll* go check it out. Wonder what's to the left of the drum. Must be a motor and drive.
Thanks Walt.
PS,
I looked at the site and the biggest one comes close to being big enough. I bookmarked it. Price isn't too awful bad. Web site is very minimal. I'll just call.
Thanks again Walt

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Sunday 6th of February 2011 10:25:35 PM
Hi Eric...my interest had been piqued by the EZ-Puller a while back, and I'd asked about it on some forum (forget which one) and got a fairly strong push back from someone who commented that the drive was essentially from a truck front bumper winch (sorry about the none - technical term) and therefore subject to salt corrosion. I have no idea how correct that comment was, but something to look into I think.

*
 
nomadwilly wrote:PS*** ...don't look at Rocna sites.
Well, how you feel about Smith or anyone else is how you feel and I wouldn't try to change your mind one way or the other.* But it seems to me that if you don't want to look at the Rocna website or read testimonials from boaters who have and like them, it makes it pretty hard to make credible judements about the anchor, regardless of how you may feel about its designer.

As I've said, we'd never heard of the Rocna when we started our search (or the Bügel or the Manson or the Sarca).* When we first looked at it and saw the roll bar our initial reaction was, "How weird is THAT?" and we figured it was just a crazy gimmick.* Like the Algae-X
smile.gif
* But we went ahead and looked at the website and read the articles about how the anchor works and reviews and tests and independent testimonials and began to see that it wasn't a dumb idea at all, it made a lot of sense.

The only way in my opinion to be able to make a sensible judgement about a piece of hardware, be it a computer, a lawn mower, or an anchor, is to learn everything you can about it.* You may not end up wanting to buy it, but at least you'll know your decision was based on something more substantial than the personality of the person who designed it.* I've met people at Boeing I wouldn't want to be in the same room with for more than three minutes, but they design a hell of an airplane, which to our customers is all that's important.
 
Meanwhile, I'll keep my head down and hang onto my Bruce.
 
markpierce wrote:

Meanwhile, I'll keep my head down and hang onto my Bruce.
Probably of more importance is your boat's hanging onto your Bruce
smile.gif


*


-- Edited by Marin on Monday 7th of February 2011 12:35:49 AM
 
Marin wrote:


markpierce wrote:

Meanwhile, I'll keep my head down and hang onto my Bruce.
Probably of more importance is your boat's hanging onto your Bruce
smile.gif


*-- Edited by Marin on Monday 7th of February 2011 12:35:49 AM
Dang!, you're right again!

*
 
nomadwilly wrote:
Brian wrote:

"They acknowledge that there is no perfect anchor,"

How could they not as they make at least 5 different types that I know of. They seem to be throwing them out to see which one survives and of course being a manufacturer the style that sells best is the best anchor. Welcome to Manson R&D.
Eric,

Excellent point! Manson has copies of most other anchor types.

Brian

*


-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Monday 7th of February 2011 07:11:48 AM
 
Tsk Tsk, Eric, you didn't read Brian's post correctly. He said the 'Sarca' website admits there will never be a perfect anchor - not Manson, and they only have their original 2 types, the Super Sarca, like mine, and the more recent Sarca Excel, which apparently Benn has. Hey Benn, how does it go? Are you happy so far?

By the way Eric, that EZ Anchor system looks virtually ideal for your needs if it performs as those on the forum say. Loks by far the neatest drum system I've seen. The tips relating to correct positioning of the drum with respect to the bow fitting, and checking re the resistance to corrosion of the electrics sounds good advice. Sorry, didn't have time to call Anchor Right today - will do so tomorrow.
 
Marin wrote:The Rocna also has a concave fluke shape, like the Spade, aiming for the optimum resistance given by the spoon form, which maximizes holding power once set.

Sailing Today had this to say about the concave fluke shape:

A downside to scoop anchors with roll bars can be compression of the seabed into the scoop - if the anchor were to drag it can't be re-set without being cleaned.

I have read in other forums where Rocna customers mentioned the pain it was to clean out "the scoop."

*

I have attached an image that was next to this note in the story.*I can imagine the additional load that a bucket of heavy wet clay would put on the winch.

Regards,

Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors



-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Monday 7th of February 2011 11:41:03 AM
 

Attachments

  • sailing today_rocna.jpg
    sailing today_rocna.jpg
    154.1 KB · Views: 107
Brian-Fortress wrote:

A downside to scoop anchors with roll bars can be compression of the seabed into the scoop - if the anchor were to drag it can't be re-set without being cleaned.
What you say, or quote in this case, proves that every anchor has the potential to not do it's job and no anchor is perfect.* Around here--- and one of the reasons the Danforth-type of anchor is not so popular up here--- is the potential for the flukes to be jammed with a rock or other bottom debris and thus not set until it is brought up and cleared.* We've had this happen once with our Fortress when using it as a stern anchor, and I've talked to other boaters over the years who've had this happen as well.* So.... no anchor is perfect is a very accurate statement
smile.gif
 
Well I was going to use my roll bar anchor for a rock anchor but now that I know it jams rocks in it's hole I can't even do that. The only anchor I know of that is a good rock anchor is the Kedge. I could prolly put one flat on my foredeck and use it as a back up for another anchor like the Fortress as there's very few rocky bottoms in SE Alaska. I'm sure some knowledgeable chap will point out that neither of those two anchors are in the "next generation" category and I'll be certain to wind up on the beach, rocky or not. Size matters. Obviously Marin's sack of rocks is a bullet proof anchor if large enough. And it seems the claw anchor does well if a size larger and for people who need extra security....2 sizes larger. And who needs a light anchor w hundreds of pounds of chain already. Well there it is guys** ... the perfect anchor*** ....for a skiff. Just kidding as I know it's for his fishing gear.******* PS I have a skiff like this.* Oh ..and Marin** ...I've used Danforths all my life and never had a rock or anything else jam between the flukes. I don't even know for sure it's ever happened as my only presumed knowledge of that happening is from you Marin. I just assumed it was true as it seemed like it could very well happen.





-- Edited by nomadwilly on Monday 7th of February 2011 12:34:45 PM
 

Attachments

  • sth71071.jpg
    sth71071.jpg
    226 KB · Views: 101
nomadwilly wrote:

Well I was going to use my roll bar anchor for a rock anchor but now that I know it jams rocks in it's hole I can't even do that.
I don't think you have to worry about that too much, Eric.* If you look at the size a rock would have to be to jam itself in the roll bar of your Manson, the chances are that if that's the sort of thing that was on the bottom you wouldn't be getting any kind of anchor to set there.

I think what's happend to a large degree with this discussion is the armchair theorists have taken over.* Spade anchors get clogged with mud so they won't re-set, rollbar anchors* get rocks jammed in the rollbar hoop, Danforth anchors get their flukes jammed with a rock or piece of wood and so won't set, plow anchors plow forward and don't set and so on.* There have probably been just enough examples of these things happeneing to give the armchair folks some ammo.

But in all the research we did and reading about anchors that we did, we never saw any testimonials about rocks getting caught in rollbars or anchors not resetting because of lots of mud (the Bruce can bring up a ton of mud so in theory, it too, could be prevented from resetting if it got too loaded up with packed-in mud), and so on.* We got a rock caught in the flukes of our Fortress that prevented it from digging in when I was trying to set it as a stern anchor, but we were anchoring in a place with rocks, which everything I've ever read about the Danforth says it's not so good for.

So I wouldn't jump to a lot of conclusions and not try somehting just because the armchair crowd (which can include me at times, I admit) spouts off about what could happen.* Just go out and do your thing and let us know what you find out.

*
 
Marin wrote:

" Just go out and do your thing and let us know what you find out."

Already did.

Eric wrote:

"I've used Danforths all my life and never had a rock or anything else jam between the flukes."

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Monday 7th of February 2011 12:50:21 PM
 
nomadwilly wrote:"I've used Danforths all my life and never had a rock or anything else jam between the flukes."
It happens based on what I've read on forums like T&T and the GB owners forum and in anchoring books but I get the impression it's rare.* If a Danforth was a good design for the kinds of bottoms we were anchoring in--- like San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento River where mud is apparently the flavor of the day every day--- I certainly wouldn't elminate the Danforth as an ideal anchor just because a few people for whatever reason got something jammed in a fluke.* And even if it does happen, it's not like you have to turn around and go home.* You just haul it up, clear it, and put it back down.

*
 
Eric

Google John Marples anchor. He has a yachtsmen anchor you can have fabbed at local welding shop (or at home). The nice thing about it is you can modify as you see fit. It probably won't reside in a roller, and you will need a winch to retrieve it.
Warning Disclaimer: yachting press and anchor nazis' won't like it. You can't get it at West Marine and it probably won't/shouldn't be made of stainless steel.

Warning Disclaimer Two: It does not come with a certificate of authenticity stating that will hold in typhoon or other wx phenoms.

Warning Disclaimer Three. It does not come with a Website or underwater video.

It WILL hold your boat in rocky bottom,stow in lazzarette until YOU need it, and give some additional peace of mind to this otherwise foolishness of a thread!

MY anchors better! --NO my anchors better-NoNo* my anchors better!

-- Edited by Sailor of Fortune on Monday 7th of February 2011 03:50:21 PM
 
Peter B,
Only got to use the new anchor for 3 weeks before I cooked my engine.
Was anchoring up every night in varying bottom conditions and wind stregths.
Found it VG in all conditions.
Was a bit suspect in The Susan River when anchored in a mud shale bottom with 45 knot winds.
Started to drag a bit and I then uped and moved.
Due to area restrictions I was a bit short on the amount of chain out so at preswent not being too critical.
Pretty happy with the new set up so far.
Must put a decent swivel non it in the future as it is a bit heavy to flick over by hand.
Have allways had a swivel but this time will go with one of the newer high strength units..

Benn
 
Sounds good so far Benn. However, can you enlighten me just as to how the Excel differs from the Delta, as I'm sure it must, because superficially they do appear very similar? Seems a big divergence from the old Super Sarca with the agricultural looks that mine has. I suspect that is why they developed it. It certainly looks more 'glamorous' on the bow roller.
 
Had a good chat at the Vancouver Boat Show today with Mark Pocock of Suncoast Marine, who is the North American Distributor for Rocna Anchors. Notice that I did not say manufacturer. All Rocnas are now manufactured in China, not in Canada and not in New Zealand. According to Mark, because this change would create the inevitable questions about quality, they put in place a very stringent QC program that has resulted in improvement of quality and uniformity for their anchors. I hope he's right because we bought one. Boat show price for a 15 Kg (33pound) model was $407 CDN.
 
Conrad,

Congratulations on your purchase and I hope that your new Rocna gives you many years of dependable service.

I certainly hope that the quality and performance of the Chinese-made Rocna anchor is more honest than their marketing. Please have a look at the video below that was posted by Peter Smith, the Rocna designer, in which they did a beach pull test against a SARCA anchor, and see if both anchors were pulled at the same speed and in the same soft mud bottom:


This forum has a very astute group of guys. Can you tell the difference?

This type of fraud not only reflects badly on Rocna, but I am afraid on all anchor manufacturers, as we might possibly be "guilty by association."

Best regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 06:04:04 AM
 
Conrad,
The Rocna must be a cheap anchor as I just paid the same price for an 18lb anchor. Ha Ha But yours is at least guaranteed to set. I got to thinking about how my Manson roll bar anchor would work if I cut off the roll bar. Wouldn't be much left of it. Would probably make a good hook for pulling up submerged cables. In the roll bar anchor I'm convinced the roll bar and the interference drag through the hole is a major contributor to the overall holding power. Of course if the roll bar was removed the RB anchor wouldn't set either. But w the RB gone it looks like there's not much surface area to the fluke so it would seem the RB itself is a major contributor to the anchor's ability to hold. Also w/o the RB it would probably bury itself VERY deep. Would be fun to do some experiments. But I paid $200 for the Manson and at this point it's my rock anchor.

Brian,
I couldn't find your Youtube link. Found lots of stuff but no anchor stuff. Do you think testing anchors out of the water on the beach is legitimate?

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Friday 11th of February 2011 11:09:36 AM
 
Eric,

This link should take you right to the video if you copy and paste it into your brower:


or on Vimeo: **SARCA anchor tested

Is there a better way to embed a video on this type of a forum?


I think the idea of beach testing is to have an inexpensive and controlled method of conducting a pull test with no variables, but as you will see from the Rocna video, beach testing can still be skewed.


One of the best anchor tests I ever saw was done by an Italian magazine where they had a diver on the sea bottom filming the behavior of each anchor. The variables were eliminated. That type of test would be my preference. No anchor manufacturer could ever offer an excuse as to why their anchor did not perform well, it was all right there on film.....and taken on a real sea bottom.


Regards,
Brian


Fortress Marine Anchors



-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 02:33:01 PM
 
Brian-Fortress wrote:

This type of fraud not only reflects badly on Rocna, but I am afraid on all anchor manufacturers, as we might possibly be "guilty by association."

Well, at least we can say that manufacturers and manufacturers reps are consistent througout industry.* Airbus constantly whines about the claims we make for our aircraft and we constantly whine about the claims they make for theirs, and we both maintain that the other one is mis-representing the facts and dodging the truth.* Seems it's no different in the anchor industry
smile.gif


As I said earlier, I put zero credibility in anything a manufacturer's rep says.* Their claims are a good starting point for determining the actual merits of their product but it's the independent tests and user testimonials and the potential purchaser's experience, common sense, and good judgement that carry the weight.* That's why a big part of my job is going out to airlines around the world and asking them to tell us what they think of our products and how they perform for them in actual service.

Brian is doing an admirable job of subtly bashing the competition while promoting his own anchor, which I find no fault with that as that's what his company expects him to do.* But reading his responses and comments in this discussion is a bit like listening to one of our sales guys extole the virtues of the 737 to an airline while at the same time casting a shadow on the A320
smile.gif
 
Marin,
I think you jumped on the bandwagon without seeing what Brian was talking about. I could'nt find it myself but I'm not going to throw tomatoes at him until I see what it is he's critisizing. From what we've seen from Rocna he probably is justafied in what he said. If Rocna was presenting video of 2 anchors setting, one on a beach and the other on a different beach I would definitely**** bash*** in a very unrestrained way the guilty party.
Now I need to see it**** ..the link.

Brian,
This is your link and I get some mostly naked woman w shinny tits and her legs are not at all together either.
Where do you see the anchor video in here???


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Friday 11th of February 2011 02:23:43 PM
 
nomadwilly wrote:

Marin,
I think you jumped on the bandwagon without seeing what Brian was talking about.
My only point is that every manufacturer is going to present their product in the best possible light.* Fortress does it, Rocna does it, Manson does it.* In an industry like this where there are variables at every turn it becomes very easy to slant the buyer's perception.* I'm not saying that Rocna hasn't done a test that could be interpreted to be unfair.* In the video I've seen of their anchor being compared to other popular anchors all the anchors were being tested on the same patch of ground using the same test rig.* But even with that setup I'm sure there are ways to "encourage" one anchor to perform better than another.

Which is why we made our anchor purchase decision primarily on the testimonials from a wide variety of folks who had been using the Rocna in their own cruising under a wide range of conditions.* As I recall (it was some five years ago) a few folks said the Rocna was just "okay," but most of them said it significantly out-performed the anchors they had been using.* So that's what we based our decision on.* Rocna itself provided us with the "why's" of the anchor's design (which made a lot of sense to us), but the "how good" came from users.* I expect Rocna (and Fortress and Manson and....) to say their anchor will outperform all others even in the slippery dust of the moon.* Which is why I tend to discredit anything a manufacturer says about the performance of their product.

On another topic, you are correct in that cutting the roll bar off your Manson will defeat the whole design.* The fluke won't dig in (or won't dig in very well) unless it's on its side and the pull on the shank pivots the point of the fluke down into the bottom like knife blade.* The roll bar ensures the anchor always ends up on its side.* Take that off and I suspect the fluke will just slide along flat on the bottom.



*


-- Edited by Marin on Friday 11th of February 2011 02:37:43 PM
 
Marin wrote:
Well, at least we can say that manufacturers and manufacturers reps are consistent througout industry.* Airbus constantly whines about the claims we make for our aircraft and we constantly whine about the claims they make for theirs, and we both maintain that the other one is mis-representing the facts and dodging the truth.* Seems it's no different in the anchor industry
smile.gif


As I said earlier, I put zero credibility in anything a manufacturer's rep says.* Their claims are a good starting point for determining the actual merits of their product but it's the independent tests and user testimonials and the potential purchaser's experience, common sense, and good judgement that carry the weight.* That's why a big part of my job is going out to airlines around the world and asking them to tell us what they think of our products and how they perform for them in actual service.

Brian is doing an admirable job of subtly bashing the competition while promoting his own anchor, which I find no fault with that as that's what his company expects him to do.* But reading his responses and comments in this discussion is a bit like listening to one of our sales guys extole the virtues of the 737 to an airline while at the same time casting a shadow on the A320
smile.gif
Good point Marin. However, while the field might be the same, I believe that the game is different here. Imagine a new upstart aircraft manufacturer who built a brand new plane that promised better performance, and they are desperate for sales to the various airlines.


This new upstart aircraft manufacturer is willing to resort to whatever means necessary to make sales, including falsifying or demeaning independent tests, and spreading blatant lies about the performance of established aircraft manufacturers like Boeing.

How long would it be before Boeing reacted in some way to expose this fraud and protect their reputation? A month, maybe two, maybe a year? Well, it has been several years now, and I have "turned the other cheek" for far too long. We have a hard earned reputation to protect, and I will not tolerate Rocna's efforts to damage it for a moment longer.

Additionally, I believe that Rocna's deceptive tactics should be exposed to the unknowing public, and if you want to fault me for that by saying "I put zero credibility in anything a manufacturer's rep says" then that is fine with me.

Further still, I have nothing but a deep respect for our other anchor competitors. I have personally spoken with hundreds, if not thousands of their owners who have been very satisfied by the performance of their anchors in a wide variety of wind & bottom conditions that they have encountered all over the world.

So if there is any "bashing" as you call it, it is against one and only one company who by their fraud is deserving. Finally, I challenge you to have a look at that video, and tell me if the Rocna designer was fair with his test. I welcome your thoughts.


Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 03:11:48 PM
 
Well I clicked on my own posting of Brians link and see clearly what he's talking about. The Rocna was set at about 1/6th the setting speed as in fps. The SARCA was draged over the ground at almost 10mph at one point. A good trick to maximizing the way an anchor sets is to do it VERY slowly and that's exactly what Rocna did. I wonder why Rocna needed to pull their anchor so very slowly and needed to pull the SARCA so fast??????
One word for this****** FRAUD!.
 
Back
Top Bottom