Rocna owners, seems you need a better anchor

This test was not done by some renegade, overly enthusiastic sales rep, but by the Rocna designer himself. *Check the bottom as well. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, the Rocna side of the beach looks like it is softer mud, vs. a harder side for the SARCA.

This link should be good:









-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 03:43:34 PM

Brian--- Two problems (in my opinion) with your response to my previous post. One, if your competitor's design is bogus as you seem to imply, then why are so many boaters all over the world switching to the Rocna? This anchor's been around for quite some time now, and if it was a flawed design the consumers would have figured this out a long, long time ago. Yet throughout the past couple of years I've seen more and more Rocnas being put on boats in our marina and on the Grand Banks forum, the only other forum I pay much attention to, more and more of the GB owners there are switching to Rocna. Lots of Fortresses here as stern anchors, as on our boat, but not as main anchors (don't see many true Danforths, either). I wonder if this is because the Danforth design is not as versatile in our area as the Rocna-Bruce-CQR?

Two, implying that a comparison test says it all about the manufacturer's product design or quality is a bogus assumption in my opinion. Manufacturers "lie" all the time about their products. It may not be the warm and fuzzy ideal but it's reality. And Fortress is every bit as "desperate" to sell it's products as Rocna or Manson or whoever. By the way, I liked your subtle reference to the "Chinese-made" Rocna. Good job of playing on the common assumption that everything from China is crap, which of course, it isn't. But I don't fault you for bringing it up. We and Airbus can't do that, of course, since the Chinese make a lot of stuff for our airplanes and do an excellent job of it, I might add.

I looked at the video and while the Sarca was pulled along faster, I don't know if this is because it didn't dig in and provide resistance, or if the test was rigged. But I actually don't care. The only part of the test that interested me was how fast and how deep the Rocna dug in. The Sarca may well do the same thing if the drag speed is the same, the sand density is the same, etc., I don't know. If so, good on them.* I wasn't there to see what the differences-- if any-- in the testing were. * In my case it's a moot point because here in the US I can't easily acquire a Sarca even if I wanted one.

As I keep repeating, your claims about the Rocna and the Fortress and Peter's claims about the Rocna and the Sarca would be at very bottom of my credibility list when deciding what to buy. An anchor has to perform on a real boat under real conditions. So the people with real boats who anchor in real conditions are the only true source of meaningful information, pro or con, as far as I'm concerned. In this respect, the Rocna beat out everyone else when we were researching what anchor to get. Report after report from boaters around the world praised the performance of the design, and that was good enough for us.

Is rigging product comparisons ethical? Of course not. But ethics don't hold my boat in place on a windy day, the anchor design does. If Peter's anchor works as advertised--- which by almost all the user comments it does and then some--- I don't care if Peter runs comparison tests setting his anchor in Jello and your anchor in concrete. I can understand why, as a manufacturer's rep you find this frustrating. But rather than harping on a competitor's testing methods, I would be more inclined to improve the performance or versatility of my own product. I realize in this instance we're talking apples and oranges since a spade anchor is a whole different animal than a Danforth, and as the manufacturer of a Danforth-type anchor Fortress is constrained by the limitations of the design. But I think you get my drift. If when we set out to replace our Bruce we had come across testimonial after testimonial from boaters around the world proclaiming the superiority of the Fortress over everything else in as wide a variety of anchoring conditions, we would have bought a Fortress as our main anchor. But we didn't see any testimonials like that.* But we did about the Rocna.

So was our decision to buy a Rocna right or wrong?




-- Edited by Marin on Friday 11th of February 2011 03:53:58 PM

I would just like to thank Brian for the parts to fix my 17 year old Fortress FX-55 which Fortress supplied at no charge under their lifetime warranty--Thanks Brian!--

Not trying to hijack the thread but didn't see any purpose in starting a new one for this.* No fault of the anchor by the way, fault of the *stupid captain.*

Well Marin you saw that as soon as the SARCA got turned around it went right down in the beachbed (ha ha ) but as soon as the rode speed sped up it's decent rate was arrested. " I don't know if this is because it didn't dig in and provide resistance, or if the test was rigged.". You got eyes Marin?? The rode speed was so different one cannot conclude anything other than deception was at work here. Were they so stupid they didn't realize the speed of the pull was way different? I don't think so. The Rocna is a good anchor if given enough scope so I don't see why they felt the need to do this. But they did and what they did is called fraud. You have a good anchor manufactured by people that misrepresent thier product.

nomadwilly wrote:

Well Marin you saw that as soon as the SARCA got turned around it went right down in the beachbed (ha ha ) but as soon as the rode speed sped up it's decent rate was arrested. " I don't know if this is because it didn't dig in and provide resistance, or if the test was rigged.". You got eyes Marin??

Click to expand...

Eric--- I saw the same thing you did.* But neither one of us was there, we don't know if they were measuring resistance with a strain gauge on the tow vehicle and were tying to maintain the same resistance on all the tests, we don't know the condition of the sand--- in other words, we don't know squat other than what we see on the screen.* You maintain that what you see is all you need to know in this case.* I don't argue at all what you saw, but I don't *feel it's enough to pass judgement because there is a lot I can't see or feel because I wasn't there.

Also, you are biased against Rocna anyway, so I suspect that had the test been performed by NASA in a pressurized sand chamber at Edwards AFB you would still be inclined to doubt the results

Rocna sales are accelerating from what I see in our marina and read on forums and so on.* So I don't think Peter has to be too concerned about whether or not his anchor design is going to "catch on" and sell well.* If he's rigging tests, I don't think he has any need to do this.* But I don't know him so I have no idea if he's a "win at all costs" kind of guy or not.

But I could care less.* All I care about is the performance of his anchor design.* And since that seems to be indisputable given all the testimonials about it from people who use it all over the world, how Peter decides to conduct his anchor tests is of no relevance to me.* Like I said, watching the Rocna bury itself out of site in the video is the only part of the video that interested me.

Marin wrote:
"we don't know squat other than what we see on the screen." To be sure and what WE saw is an anchor test w one anchor going at a crawl pace and the other ripp'in along.
And that's a whole lot more than squat.
Oh yes very biased against** ...no not Rocna. Just that Peter Smith.
Marin wrote:
"Rocna sales are accelerating from what I see in our marina"
Did you know you can't judge the world by what goes on in your marina?
Marin wrote:
" All I care about is the performance of his anchor design.* And since that seems to be indisputable"
Have you forgotten the anchor test where Rocna came out the looser***** ...as in the bottom of the list?
Something I should say is that Brian's comment about Rocna being made in China was not necessary. The implication wasn't exactly bashing but it was unnecessary and a tad below the belt feeding on assumptions that are only partially true. Remember when we thought Japanese products were cheap junk? Well at some point in time, either in the past or the future Chinese products may be better than our's. But this is a different time and place so ????

Delfin wrote:

Kind of hard to argue with....

Click to expand...

Interesting video and thanks for posting the link.* But..... even this one is not ideal.* While there is no doubt that there is more force holding back the Sarca Excel side it would have been a more effective video if they had done a split screen and showed us what the anchors themselves were doing at the same time.* I'm not disputing the results, only that for their illustration to have had its maximum effectiveness for me, I'd have wanted to see what the anchors were doing at the same time.

I produce films/videos for a living, including ten years making national television spots.* So I'm afraid to say that about the last thing I am inclined to believe is what I see on a screen because I know how easy it is to be deceptive, and with today's technolgoy it's even easier than it was back then.**I have been involved in the production of national commercials for nationally distributed products which were so misleading it makes Peters anchor test look like the most above-board thing*ever*done on*the planet.* We didn't outright lie in the commercials, but we cetainly didn't tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth *

Marin wrote:We didn't outright lie in the commercials, but we cetainly didn't tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth

Click to expand...

That's it, I'm never getting on another Boeing plane again.* Antonovs only for me from now on.

I don't think they jiggered this film since they panned rather than cut to the towbar, although I suppose you can do anything with film editing.* I like the idea of side by side comparisons like this that make cheating more difficult (like towing the competitor's anchor at 30 mph, and your's at 1.2 mph), and thank you Eric for mentioning this design.* Well worth considering.* The Sarca Excell is of special interest because it appears to just keep burying itself, leaving a slit in the seabed, disrupting the ecosystem a bit less while providing pretty stunning holding power.

*

Marin, rather than quote your message, I will try and address your points as you brought them up:

- I did NOT state or imply that the roll bar design was bogus!* I simply gave the opinion of Robert Taylor, a long time anchor design expert for the US Navy. Bob stated right away that the huge roll bar was a "penetration inhibitor" which is obvious. He also pointed out that you cannot adjust the fluke angle, so performance will suffer in soft mud.

There are many other issues with the concave, shovel type fluke. One was pointed out in Sailing Today: "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."

Additionally, I am hearing that in mud or clay, the concave shovel type fluke is bringing up a ton of sea bottom with it, which is a pain to wash off, and the additional weight is hard on winch systems. I'd be very surprised if you have not yet heard about this in your circles.

- Sorry, but that concave fluke design has only been out since Rocna, which was then copied by Manson, and I'd be surprised if it was earlier than 2004, so certainly less than 10 years. The original roll bar Bugel has a flat fluke, and the roll bar Sarca has a convex fluke.

- I believe that I have mentioned this before: If you have a wide variety of grass, weeds, or rocks where you are anchoring, then a plow anchor might be better suited than a fluke type. Which again brings up a question about the roll bar: How is the roll bar anchor going to penetrate this type of bottom better than a Delta, which does not have the roll bar in the way?

- The comment about us being "desperate" to sell our product is an exaggeration and implies that we will say or do anything to promote our business, whether ethical or not. Totally false. I challenge you to find a company within the marine industy who has a better reputation for honesty and integrity, and who stands behind their product more passionately than Fortress.

- The previous gentleman made the reference to the Rocna being made in China. I do not believe that I made a put down by simply repeating what he said. If so, sorry.

- I cannot believe that you did not clearly see the difference in how they tested the two anchors. Count how many seconds in the very first video, starting from the time that the tip of Rocna shank was at that brown wooden stick, as they SLOWLY waited for the Rocna to sink into the bottom, BEFORE they started pulling on it.

You slough off the test as being inconsequential and inconclusive, which I cannot comprehend. That "test" was a shameful embarrassment and a farce.

- Please tell me what "claims" I have made about Fortress?* That it will provide outstanding holding power in a sand, mud or clay bottom....as if that has not been repeatedly proven already over the past 20 years by our customers?

- I didn't quite understand the jello and concrete comment. It is ok for a company to use BS to sell a product, as long as at the end of day, the product works?

- Was your decision to buy a Rocna right or wrong? Only time will tell. I certainly hope that it was the right decision, and that the Rocna also gives you many years of dependable service.

I suspect that you sized up to a much larger Rocna anchor than what you had previously used with your Bruce. As a number example only, I understand that boaters with a 35 lb CQR do not replace it with a 35 lb Rocna, more often they replace it with a 45 lb or 55 lb Rocna, so of course they are going to get greater holding power simply by the fact they are now using a larger anchor.

This certainly gives them a greater margin for safety, and insures that they are more likely to be pleased with the Rocna.

We know from our warranty registration totals that 80% of our customers use their Fortress as their main, or primary anchor, and in those cases, customers often go in the opposite direction, as they replace much heavier steel anchors with a lighter Fortress.

Respectfully,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


-- Edited by Brian-Fortress on Friday 11th of February 2011 07:50:30 PM

Brian-Fortress wrote:

1. I simply gave the opinion of Robert Taylor, a long time anchor design expert for the US Navy. Bob stated right away that the huge roll bar was a "penetration inhibitor" which is obvious

2. The previous gentleman made the reference to the Rocna being made in China. I do not believe that I made a put down by simply repeating what he said.

3. It is ok for a company to use BS to sell a product, as long as at the end of day, the product works?

4. I suspect that you sized up to a much larger Rocna anchor than what you had previously used with your Bruce.Respectfully,
Brian

Click to expand...

1.* If you watch the Rocna bury itself out of sight in the same video you/ve been*talking about, Mr. Taylor's theory pretty much goes out the window.

2. I know the China reference was brought up by someone else, but I thought it was a clever "inference" on your part to bring it up again.* Good salesmanship on your part, but misleading.

3.* All I'm interested in is*the quality and performance of a product.* I don't give a rat's ass how the manufacturer promotes it.* GE's promoting itself right now with a dancing CGI elephant.* If I was in the market for a GE railroad locomotive, I'm not gonna pay much attention to their dancing elephant promos am I*(which are very good, by the way).

4.* No, we didn't.* Our Rocna is a whopping eleven pounds heavier than our old Bruce.* Eleven pounds isn't going to make enough difference by itself to even be noticeable.* The design changeover, however, makes a huge difference.

*

Marin wrote:

*Eleven pounds isn't going to make enough difference by itself to even be noticeable.* The design changeover, however, makes a huge difference.

Click to expand...

I'd think a 20 to 33 percent increase in anchor weight is significant, as in moving from a 33-pound Bruce to a 44-pounder.

*

Mark--- Pick up a ten-pound dumbbell sometime (I don't believe they make them in 11 pound weights) and tell me that that piddling amount of weight is going to make any difference in the ability of most anchor types to set and stay set. (It might help a Fortress but that anchor doesn't weigh much to start with.) It certainly makes no difference with the Bruce. I've talked to people who've experienced the same dragging problem with a 44 pound Bruce as we and others did/do with the 33 pound Bruce, and that's with boats in the same size and weight range as ours.

Add the eleven pounds AND make the overall anchor design more effective and I'll for sure buy into the fact there will be an improvement. But eleven pounds? That's nothing. Pick up that amount of weight sometime and see for yourself.

Marin wrote:1.* If you watch the Rocna bury itself out of sight in the same video you/ve been*talking about, Mr. Taylor's theory pretty much goes out the window.

4.* No, we didn't.* Our Rocna is a whopping eleven pounds heavier than our old Bruce.* Eleven pounds isn't going to make enough difference by itself to even be noticeable.* The design changeover, however, makes a huge difference.

Click to expand...

1. Sure, but how deep?* Any anchor will bury to a certain depth under a load and then the design becomes more of a factor. Anchor design experts know this.

2. The difference between our FX-37 and FX-55 is 11 lbs. The difference in holding power in hard sand between the two is 4,000 lbs. A 60' boat with average beam and windage has a force of 4,000 lbs on it in 42 knots of wind. Point: Weight and size make a HUGE difference.

By the way, does Rocna publish any holding power numbers for their anchors?* If not, then why not?

Size makes a huge difference. Design makes a huge difference. Weight, not so much. If weight was so all-fired important, your anchor wouldn't work. But test after test shows that the Fortress holds as well as a conventional Danforth the same size but many times heavier.

The Rocna website includes the results of an independent anchor test calling out the average strains measured in pounds encountered in maximum pull, stable dragging, and maximum before releasing, if that's the sort of thing you mean.

Marin wrote:
The Rocna website includes the results of an independent anchor test calling out the average strains measured in pounds encountered in maximum pull, stable dragging, and maximum before releasing, if that's the sort of thing you mean.

Click to expand...

No. Those numbers are for only one anchor. Do they have any holding power numbers for EACH of their anchor models?

*

I have no idea. If they do it's not obvious on their website. When we were shopping for a new anchor and had talked to Rocna in NZ about what size would be best and what the dimensions were so we could determine if the shank would fit under our pulpit bail, they sent us a sheet with the specs and dimensions of the Rocna 20 since that's the anchor that was best suited for our boat. There was holding power information in the specs for that particular anchor but to be honest I didn't pay a lot of attention to it since we'd already read the independent anchor tests that had been conducted to date with the Rocna. So we had a pretty good picture of how the anchor was stacking up against the other types. Whether they still have or supply this information to customers or potential customers is something you'd have to ask them about.

I will say this about the Fortress. We bought the model that was sized (by Fortress' charts) to be the main anchor for our boat. And we sized the rode the same way. The anchor sits in a simple mount on the swimstep and we keep the rode in a rectangular milk-type crate on the aft deck that my wife made a cover for. So far, we've only used it as a stern anchor. As such, I go out in the dinghy, lower it down, and "set" it by hand. It's been put to the test twice, once when the wind did a 180 and the whole boat hung off the stern anchor for a day or so with 20+ knot winds. We were on a mooring buoy so if it had dragged it wouldn't have been a big deal but nevertheless it held us in position the whole time. When we left I could not budge it by hand so we transferred the rode to a forward cleat, dropped off the mooring buoy and then recovered the Fortress with the boat and the windlass. Pretty damn good for an anchor that had originally been set by me simply pulling on the rode.

The other time was when I put it out as a stern anchor--- and set it by hand---- and it kept our raft of four boats pointed where we wanted it to be pointed despite a shifting and often very gusty wind. Had the anchor dragged and let the raft swing we would have tangled up the rodes of the two main anchors that were holding the raft. Again, excellent performance for what we needed it to do. Add to this the light weight which encourages one to use the anchor when it could be beneficial rather than avoid it because it's too heavy and awkward, and the Fortress is a terrific product as far as I'm concerned.

-- Edited by Marin on Friday 11th of February 2011 10:42:16 PM

Hi all, this is*Rex Francis from Anchor Right Australia. I have today had many extracts of the*recent Sarca thread sent to me, to be honest I am a little bit speechless and after sifting through it all, I*have a head ache. It is sad that a thread such as this has been bombarded with slanderous content and had*to be pulled.

I have only entered a forum such as this*once*some five years ago, simply to defend the rubbish that was being posted; unfortunately it was the same culprit then, that was part of the cause for the pulling of this Sarca thread.

Forums I stay out of, but I was emailed by one of your members to come in and*respond. If your product is any good these forums over time will either promote, or bury it, it*has to stand on its own merit. Furthermore there is no better anchor test*than*feedback from*the*boaties using*the product;*you receive*honest unbiased opinions*from one another during these discussions.

It is not for*manufacturers to come and promote their product let alone slander opposition, I am hoping after the bashing Anchor Right Australia has received the moderator will at least give me the right of reply, I promise to keep it clean. I will not be able to be*contacted via this*thread as*this will be my one and only visit, but you can email me via our website.

To all of you guys*who have put in a good word for our product, it is great to see that through the smoke screen*Sarca has*still gained the reputation it deserves, Brian from Fortress, thank you for*taking on such a*task,*your comments*have been constructive in cleaning up the rubbish I have just witnessed,*you know at the end of the day if we want to encourage new product, new ideas, then we have to eradicate such behaviour.

There is something else I*should clarify, Craigs remark regarding Jon Neeves. Jon Neeves is a free-lance journo with no affiliation with Anchor Right Australia what so ever. Jon purchased an anchor from me and I can assure you there was no discount.****

To Craig, mate your anchor works well, after all it is a copy of the Sarca, shame it turned out to be a mud bucket. So leave these forums to get on with their heated discussions for good reasons other than what we have just seen.

To the members, if you are happy with your anchor then why replace it, and yes if you are having problems holding then I have to say anchor technology moves ahead the same as any other, so choose wisely.************

To all Sarca*users, you know the myths created in relation to our trip release*to be untrue. However, if due to seeds of doubt*sown by my unsavoury competitor you are not convinced, you can simply fit a bolt through the anchor shank and lock off the trip release when anchoring overnight. During the day or anchoring around rocks you simply loosen the bolt slide it to the rear of the shank and lock it back up to redeploy the trip release, very simple.**

Regards*to all,

Rex**
Anchor Right Australia
*

To all, Rex is making a reference to a thread that was recently pulled from Cruisers Forum, in which Craig Smith of Rocna made libelous comments against Jon Neeves, a boating author who wrote a story in Sailing Today about anchors, which included some favorable comments about the SARCA anchor. Mr. Neeves complained to Cruisers Forum about Craig Smith's libelous comments, and they immediately pulled the thread.

This thread had been initiated by a reader who was simply trying to get information about the SARCA anchor, which is manufactured by Rex's company Anchor Right Australia, and Craig Smith of Rocna immediately in the 3rd post tried to direct that reader to the Rocna web site, which bashes the SARCA and every other type of anchor.

I believe that Rex Francis is a first class gentleman who manufactures a fine product, and I wish him well.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

Marin, thank you for your kind words and stories about the performance our product. They are very much appreciated!

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

<a>file:///Users/erichenning/Desktop/Sailing-Today-November-2009-Anchor-Test.pdf</a>
file:///Users/erichenning/Desktop/Power%20Motoryacht.pdf
file:///Users/erichenning/Desktop/Yachting%20Monthly%20-Anchor%20Test%20Nov09-1%20copy.pdf
file:///Users/erichenning/Desktop/Yachting%20Monthly%202006.pdf
<a>file:///Users/erichenning/Desktop/Practical%20Sailor%20Large%20Anchor%20Tests-6.pdf</a>
<a>file:///Users/erichenning/Desktop/MBM%20Club%20ankertest%20mei%202007-1.pdf</a>
file:///Users/erichenning/Desktop/PracticalSailor-April06.pdf

These are all the anchor tests I have bookmarked. Some you've already seen but most of you have not seen several of these. I had to learn a trick or two to do this post and I don't think I've got it right yet. Bear w me and I hope there's stuff to learn for everyone.

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Saturday 12th of February 2011 03:50:06 PM

The first anchor test is written by Jon Neeves. Rex made reference to him in his post.
There are problems, bias, limitations and methods employed that don't represent the real anchoring dynamics but even though these tests are laced w much of the above a lot of usable information is presented here and many of the people involved went to a whole lot of trouble to bring this about. Lastly several of the tests are quite dated and several anchors are available now that aren't represented in these tests. I think if one reads between the lines much valuable knowledge and/or information can be realized.

Rex wrote:.... if you are happy with your anchor then why replace it, and yes if you are having problems holding then I have to say anchor technology moves ahead the same as any other, so choose wisely.

Click to expand...

After some 24 pages of discussion Rex's statement sums it all up very nicely.

*

Eric, points well made and I can't add anything further to them. You nailed it.**

Marin, agreed. I think Rex hit the ball out of the park with that statement.

Thank you!

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

So Brian, if you're still monitoring this site, would you explain to me the when and why the flukes of the Fortress should be set to a different angle? I'm sure the reason is in the instructions that came with the anchor (which are up on the boat) and I'm sure it's on the Fortress website, which I'm too lazy to look up. My memory tells me the flukes should be set to go to a greater angle (relative to the shank) if the bottom is expected to be hard. But my memory has let me down before.

Marin,
I'm quite sure it's 45 degrees in soft mud and 32 degrees otherwise.

Did you find any anchor tests you haven't seen yet?

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Saturday 12th of February 2011 08:15:33 PM

Okay, thanks. But I'm curious (from ignorance not argument) why change the fluke angle at all? If 45 degrees is an optimum fluke angle for this type of anchor in soft bottoms, why not leave it at that angle for any bottom? How does reducing the fluke angle improve the setting or holding?

Hi back Marin,Yea I wondered about that a while back and here's my conclusions. 32 degrees is the optimum for harder normal bottoms but in the real soft stuff if the anchor is set at 32 degrees it dosn't have enough purchase on the bottom. The mud can easily slide around the flukes without offering much resistance or holding power. A little like water. When in dense stuff the bottom dosn't "flow" around the flukes and provides good holding. But when the flukes are set at 45 degrees it's more like a little barn door at right angles to the flow of the fluid. It all has to do w the density of the fluid. Anyway that's how I see it.

Eric--- Your explanation makes sense but I still wonder why not just leave the fluke at 45 degrees for everything? If it holds good at that angle in soft mud, would it not also hold good (or better) in firmer bottoms at the same angle? It's puzzling..... Maybe Brian will come in with the answer.

Marin,
I think the flukes would jack the anchor up in the air and prevent it from setting and IF it set it prolly wouldn't bury in very far. Try to imagine scooping up dirt w a trowel on fairly hard ground keeping the blade at 45 degrees from the surface. Would work much better if the blade was kept at a shallow angle. That compute?? That's my guess again.

Makes sense. Particularly since the Fortress doesn't have a lot of weight to press it into the bottom.