Rocna resetting issues real ?

Our new-to-us boat comes along with a 40k Rocna, which is a good size for the boat.

My partner, however, has watched all the “SV Panope” anchor reviews available on YouTube, and on that basis has decided that Rocnas aren’t reliable in a situation requiring a reset. (We’ll be in the PNW.). There’s a post on a blog by a sailor named MorgansCloud that collects anecdotal evidence from about 20 owners who provided comments reporting the same thing.

For those of you who haven’t seen this video review, SV Panope sets the anchor in sand/mud with a 3:1 scope on all chain rode and then switches the pull 180 degrees to simulate a change in current or wind. Then, according to his tests, the anchor fails to reset after many many attempts. His hypothesis is that the point of the anchor gets fouled and prevents reset.

This might be a losing battle on my part, but I’ve heard so many great things about Rocnas from so many people that it’s hard to believe that this is an actual thing that happens in real life cruising conditions. My partner is convinced — based on experience that we have had personally and also the SV Panope review — that Mantus is the way to go. I don’t mind Mantus at all, but I’m not eager to swap out the anchor if this whole Rocna reset issue is a bunch of hooey.

Does anybody out there care to weigh in on their experiences — bad and good — with Rocna resets? I’m particularly interested in experiences that you and/or your friends have had — not so much in unverifiable internet chatter.

Cheers!

You are correct. It is a bunch of hooey. After about 300 sets of a couple of different Rocha s, I have never had a failure to reset after a wind or current reversal. What an anchor can or cannot do at 3:1 is irrelevant.

I feel like it's one of those things that can happen, but in the real world, given a big enough anchor, there are a limited set of locations and circumstances where this would actually occur.

I call BS We have one on our 49 Defever and it works great, even in rocky bottoms of the inside passage, always resets. Would not trade it for any other type. That guy needs to set out a little more scope.

3 to 1 scope is a bit wimpy for me. I think you could get any anchor to have issues with that scope, especially an abrupt 180.
I still have my trusty plow and plenty of scope never an issue resetting.

Well there was that one time when ASD was side tied to us in Shearwater and the winds (40+) dragged both of us across the bay. Maybe 115 pound anchor wasn't big enuff for that particular instance. Maybe if we had used ASD’s Rocna it “might of held” us. LOL!!!!

Tons of boaters we have met, swear by the Rocna they have on the pointy end of there boat!

We had the Manson Supreme (same design as the Rocna) and agree that the reports are not anything to worry about. 5 years with the Supreme, and 2 years with the Manson Boss have been problem free.

Much experience with most available anchors. I'll stick with my Rocna.

Crusty Chief said:

3 to 1 scope is a bit wimpy for me. I think you could get any anchor to have issues with that scope, especially an abrupt 180.

Click to expand...

I agree! I don't have a ROCNA but using a 3:1 set is right on the edge of not holding or resetting. (IMHO.)

Our Vulcan (Rocna without roll bar) has no problem at 3:1 in winds at 15 knots. Each 5 knots we go up a digit. In reality though with our 15 + foot tidal ranges and scope calculated at high tide, the scope is higher as tides decrease

We had our 25kg Rocna on all-chain drag 3 times, 2 times on tidal reversals (Ladysmith and Clam Bay) and once on an incoming tide (Oro Bay, S. Puget Sound.) in Ladysmith we watched the chartplotter as we went directly across the anchor and kept going. All three locations have excellent holding so I would tend to agree with Steve’s conjecture.
In Oro Bay we had gone paddling and hiking, and the boat wasn’t where we left it. Not a good feeling so we changed to an Excel.

Will pay top dollar for scrap metal value of your Rocna.

You can make your own anchor here

Not a Rocna user, but have a 66# S140
spade anchor set up with all-chain rode. Sets, resets, never drags, and typically on 3-1 scope....I am sure Rocnas perform equally well!

We are into our 1200th set + - with our similar to rocna Manson Supreme, often in areas with several knots of tidal current, 180 degree shifts and often with 3:1 scope.
Never had a problem.

Early in the series, Steve (SV Panope) states clearly that his is an extreme test to try to show small differences between anchors. With 3:1 scope and driving directly over the anchor at 3+ knts, It's not a real world simulation - which is why I and others on this forum have found Rocnas & Vulcans to perform very well in the wild despite his results.

Imo the only take home from Steve's videos is that if your Rocna doesn't set hard immediately, pull it up, clean it off & reset as excessive mud on the flukes may impede the reset. Once set you have a reliable anchor that you can depend on.

My 2c worth. Our new to us boat came with a 110# Lewmar Claw as main bower and a 60 # CQR (apparently very common on East Coast). My first order of business was to take the CQR of the boat and in to consignment and move the Claw over to back up status and replace main bower with a Rocna Vulcan (which I loved on previous PNW boat). If I had to do it all again, I would have left the Claw on for the first season to test it out and only replace it if I had dragging issues. I have had no problems with the Vulcan, so this is not why I am recommending thus. We anchor almost every night on our cruise up and down East Coast this season, almost all in mud and sand, and I think the Claw would have been just fine, but I didn't know it when we bought the boat as we were new to East Coast Cruising. I suggest try the Rocna and only replace it if you lose confidence in it.

That has not been our experience with Rocna (or with Mantus or Manson Supremes, which we have used as well.)

We've taken a Rocna to the Bahamas twice, where we were anchored in tidal reversing currents for months, where our Rocna had to reset four times a day, where it never had a problem resetting.

We've also used to anchor in tidal flow rivers in Florida, like the Steinhatchie, Little Shark, and Indian Key, where the same thing happened and it re-set faithfully and consistently.

But, loose mud, is not the Rocna/Mantus/Manson Supreme's best ground for high performance. We also carry a Danforth style anchor (Fortress) and that style does seem to hold a little better in loose mud. That style has it's own problems with resetting with a 180 degree swing (I retrieved ours once and found the chain had wedged itself in the flukes and it was being drug sideways as we went downwind).

But, I always set an anchor alarm so as to be awakened when anchored in a location when 180 degree shifts occur, to make sure the anchor does reset. The performance of my Rocnas/Mantus/Manson Supreme doesn't really justify that level of concern. But, I'm a worry wart when it comes to anchoring.

I really appreciate all the input guys. Thanks. Maybe the search for a 1,000% bombproof anchor is like the search for the holy grail. You can keep looking, and even believe that you’ve found it, but . . .

I guess Av8r’s experience (post 10) demonstrates that isolated reset problems can do occur. They’re not unicorns. Still, I’m left wondering about what SV Panope’s tests actually show about real world cruising, and if they’re a useful benchmark to judge one anchor against another. Flatswing (Post 14 has a useful takeaway.) I’m guessing that even the Mantus - which passes the video review reset test with flying colors - would have more of a problem relative to the other anchors at certain scope/bottom/reversal conditions. Or maybe not. Maybe that Rocna result was just a fluke. �� Even the reviewer, in the comments section on the Rocna review acknowledges that his conditions are not real world conditions.

I’d bet that if I posted a similar inquiry asking about Mantus reset issues, I might find one poster in 20 who reported a problem similar to the problem that Av8r had with his Rocna. (Av8r - do you still use your Rocna? Have you lost confidence?). Any Mantus users out there who care to report?

I’m in the “use it for a season and see how it performs for you the way you use it” camp. But at the end of the day, if my partner is staring at an anchor alarm all night long anticipating a dragging event at the next wind shift, that doesn’t sound like much fun either. For whatever reason - whether rational or not - that video review has been the seed of a doubt about the Rocna.

Kawini said:

I really appreciate all the input guys. Thanks. Maybe the search for a 1,000% bombproof anchor is like the search for the holy grail. You can keep looking, and even believe that you’ve found it, but . . .

I guess Av8r’s experience (post 10) demonstrates that isolated reset problems can do occur. They’re not unicorns. Still, I’m left wondering about what SV Panope’s tests actually show about real world cruising, and if they’re a useful benchmark to judge one anchor against another. Flatswing (Post 14 has a useful takeaway.) I’m guessing that even the Mantus - which passes the video review reset test with flying colors - would have more of a problem relative to the other anchors at certain scope/bottom/reversal conditions. Or maybe not. Maybe that Rocna result was just a fluke. �� Even the reviewer, in the comments section on the Rocna review acknowledges that his conditions are not real world conditions.

I’d bet that if I posted a similar inquiry asking about Mantus reset issues, I might find one poster in 20 who reported a problem similar to the problem that Av8r had with his Rocna. (Av8r - do you still use your Rocna? Have you lost confidence?). Any Mantus users out there who care to report?

I’m in the “use it for a season and see how it performs for you the way you use it” camp. But at the end of the day, if my partner is staring at an anchor alarm all night long anticipating a dragging event at the next wind shift, that doesn’t sound like much fun either. For whatever reason - whether rational or not - that video review has been the seed of a doubt about the Rocna.

Click to expand...

With all due respect- don’t overthink it. The rabbit hole of the internet can lead one to want to put on the tinfoil hat and go live in a cave with Bedouins, if you believe al the silliness touted as “factual”.

Anything can be skewed to produce a desired result. The Rocna is a proven anchor, as are the Manson, Sarca, etc. One test in unrealistic conditions does not set the bar for this product.

In the real world, the boat being driven straight ahead over the anchor in a reversing current or clocking wind IS a unicorn. Let alone being accelerated forward at 3knots in such a short distance. And most of how well any anchor will perform has to to with technique more than the lump of metal one chooses. When we were cruising full time and anchoring out well over 100 nights a year (250 one year, and 50+ once we stopped cruising full time) , it was almost always in situations where the boat was going to clock. Our trusty (the horror!) Delta served us well, as did a Danforth before it. I've posted this picture many times here, it illustrates how a boat moves in a reversing current as well as a sudden wind squall.

Rocna is a good anchor in the real world.
Two seasons in PNW-6 months each with a 40kg Rocna Vulcan and no problems.
Sometimes with a 3:1 scope due to water depth but tried to pick my spots when doing that (more protected)

Saying the Rocna never fails to reset is like saying there are no black swans.

But if you paid attention to Steve's work, he pretty much cured that tendency, even in his severe tests, by drilling a series of holes in the fluke. That seems to break the suction of the mud stuck to it and it slides off on the next set.

Codger2 said:

I agree! I don't have a ROCNA but using a 3:1 set is right on the edge of not holding or resetting. (IMHO.)

Click to expand...

We have a 77lb Rockna with 550 ft of chain. It has never failed for us to set. That being said, if it lands upside down it takes about 30 ft or so to get the anchor to "roll over" and stick. But the secret to an anchor holding is making sure you have properly SET the anchor with proper scope. Our average scope last year was 230ft.

Crusty Chief said:

3 to 1 scope is a bit wimpy for me. I think you could get any anchor to have issues with that scope, especially an abrupt 180.
I still have my trusty plow and plenty of scope never an issue resetting.

Well there was that one time when ASD was side tied to us in Shearwater and the winds (40+) dragged both of us across the bay. Maybe 115 pound anchor wasn't big enuff for that particular instance. Maybe if we had used ASD’s Rocna it “might of held” us. LOL!!!!

I was wondering if you were going to bring that up!! Your clam anchor dug a ditch deep enough to plant corn!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The Mantus is weak in the shank and heavy in the misleading hype. But there are good things about the Mantus anchor. For example it has a very large and especially wide roll bar so the RB may affect mud plugging positively as in less prone to plug and fail like many. But the nuts and bolt ends sticking up above the fluke upper surface would very much help mud plugging. I’m talking about the bolts that attach the shank to the fluke. Bad design IMO. They are right in the place on the anchor where compaction forces are the greatest and putting a flange, bolt ends and nuts obstructing the path of substrate is just asking for plugging problems. Of course if you only anchor in sand .....

It may likely be that the Rocna having a relatively small RB opening where mud and other substrate must pass through could be or is a problem. Also the RB is positioned relatively low so and small so obstruction or compaction of mud/substrate is more likely than most. Also the trailing edge of the fluke is up-turned like flaps on an airplane turned the wrong way. That would tend to compact the substrate and amplify plugging. It almost certainly increases holding power though. The position of the RB, the size of the RB and the up-turned trailing edge of the fluke all probably help, aid and assist the Rocna achieve phenomenal holding power at high/long scope.
The SARCA from ARA is an anchor that has a roll bar that is very large in diameter (OD) but the RB itself is small in dia. These features probably reduce the mud impacting tendency to such a low lever that it’s hardly an issue. The slots on the anchor fluke reduce it even further and the fluke being not concave but convex reduce the impaction factor to even less. But see Steve’s Vid’s.

3-1 scope is about normal for anchoring in the PNW. All matters of tide taken into consideration. That is so the tide can’t decrease your scope to less than 3-1. If you study Steve’s “Anchor Setting Video's” carefully one of the biggest takeaways will be that the performance of most anchors at 3-1 scope is indeed excellent. I don’t recall Steve using over 3-1 scope. This is a very conservative forum chocked w conservative people that believe more is better re anchoring scope. That’s almost true but it is not. I useless than 3-1 in tight spots and benign weather.
Speaking of 3-1 scope the Rocna performed relatively poorly in one of the biggest and most extensive anchor tests I have seen. The operators of this test approached the head cheese for Rocna and asked for an explanation about this discrepancy. They didn’t get any. He just said that they tell their customers to anchor at 5-1 and shorten up scope. Good advice short of getting a different anchor but left the anchor testers w/o their explanation. The explanation is, of course, that the Rocna just dosn’t do well at 3-1 .. and presumably less.
But anchor testing is taken extremes that most most pleasureboaters will not encounter. Think a 5000lb pull on a 35lb anchor.

There are many anchors that do do well at 3-1 or even less in the real world. And I think there are many many skippers out there in the real world anchoring at 3-1 not allowing things like tide and bow heights to interfere w their complicated anchoring scenario. Thinking the’ve anchored at 5-1 when if one went the extra mile scoping out the geometrical physics of their anchoring they'd need to confront the reality of anchoring scope. Swinging room is large w 5-1 and 7-1 requires the better part of the better part of many anchorages to accommodate a boat at 7-1 scope.

The anchors from ARA Australia do really well at short scope and really really well at setting and coming up w little or minimal mud and/or substrate on the anchor fluke. This fowling is prone to reducing the performance of an otherwise good anchor to well south of that or near zero.

Steve G’s Anchor Setting Videos were done w extremely violent reversals. It was his opinion that it can happen and he wanted to address that. He did. But to say it’s not real world stuff has a lot of validity IMO.
BUT if he could come up w anchors that came up to his “bar” one would surely say it didn’t prove they were not good anchors. Indeed the capabilities of the anchors in his tests were at times amazing. Set good and hold. Then slam-bang 3 knot reversals over and over again on seafloors that did have “salad” as he called it, and other substrate that could trip up other anchor brands. Some brands made amazing performances that showed the anchors had very high capabilities. One could say “I’ll never encounter that in the real world” but Steve’s tests clearly went beyond showing just what’s ”good enough”.
And one must keep in focus that Steve’s tests were “setting” tests exclusively.

Nomad Willy said:

And one must keep in focus that Steve’s tests were “setting” tests exclusively.

Click to expand...

Not quite. He usually ran at full throttle for awhile, and has bollard pull tested his drive train for calibration. There were some anchors that dragged in that test. The ones that held at full throttle we don't know what the limit is.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Steve's testing is that he has only a manual windlass to retrieve. There is a lot of lever pumping that went into those videos.

Here is a shot of our chartplotter screen at an anchorage we spend several days at in the Bahamas with our Rocna 55lb anchor. The gaps are only there because of the chart plotter not being on all of the time, (it would have been a full circle otherwise).

This is pretty normal.

We used that Rocna (and a Manson Supreme 45 lb.) for seven years.

We now have a 85 Mantus and a 60 lb. Manson Supreme (last two and a half years). If anyone can tell a real difference in the performance of those three anchor brands, they are better than me.

I personally observe the Mantus as being the most heavily built (maybe it's just those big ass bolts!), but none of them look like they would fail in normal duty, and I like all three brands.

Kawini,
My "free" advice would be to stay with the Rocna!
Why? First, as you have stated, it is a good size for the boat. If it was on the "small size" for your boat, that might cause me to look at it differently. Secondly, on what basis would you change? How would you know that spending that money was actually going to make a substantial difference and be "money well spent"?
Is the Rocna a perfect anchor for all conditions? Probably not. Is there an anchor out there that is? Same answer. There have been many "anchor tests" conducted. Some very flawed, some testing only a few brands, some testing only in limited conditions. it is difficult to draw truly good conclusions from this.
Anecdotally, I had used a Rocna 20 kg on a Bavaria 36 sailboat for about 10 years. We anchored out alot in mostly mud and/or sand. The anchor always set easily and we never dragged once in all that time, including some very windy, choppy anchorages.
We liked the anchor so much we took it with us when we sold. We then installed in on our Nordic Tug 37. Actually the anchor was right on the cusp of being "undersized" for this boat. In our first season, we dragged anchor one night. In hind sight, probably not the anchor's fault. We were anchored in a very rocky bottom, with a fairly large reversing tidal stream. The anchor held firm for 2 complete tidal swings, but on the third one (at 3 AM) it dragged. Did I blame the anchor? No. Lesson learned - don't anchor on a rocky bottom in areas of large tidal current!
To be fair, as previously planned (before dragging), I have since moved up to a 25 kg Vulcan keeping my 20 kg Rocna as part of my backup ground tackle. The Vulcan (is a good size for my NT) has served us well for one season now with no issues (so far) using 275 feet of chain and 150 feet of rope as my rode. I usually put out between 4-5 to 1 scope, sometimes more if conditions warrant and space is available.

So far (14 years of use averaging at least 50-70 nights at anchor per year) I am happy with the performance of both my Rocna and Vulcan anchors (only dragged the one time discussed above).

Extremely happy with my Rocna for the last 4 years including the Great Loop. I usually anchor 7:1 and not less than 5:1. Rarely anchor in over 20' and usually half that. Scope is very relative to depth. 3:1 in 10' of water is foolish. IMO, if you lift all the chain off the bottom in normal conditions, you don't have enough out.

Ted

DDW said:

Not quite. He usually ran at full throttle for awhile, and has bollard pull tested his drive train for calibration. There were some anchors that dragged in that test. The ones that held at full throttle we don't know what the limit is.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Steve's testing is that he has only a manual windlass to retrieve. There is a lot of lever pumping that went into those videos.

Click to expand...

Yes a lot of winch lever cranking. But he seemed to always do it smartly and never slow down like I do w my electric capstan. But I’m an old man.

You can’t do pull tests w 40hp. That gave him the shy side of 1000lbs of pull. The anchor test I alluded to re the short scope performance of the Rocna had 35 to 40lb anchors being subjected to 5000lbs of rode tension. I don’t imagine the average trawler coming close to 5000lbs of anchor rode tension in even 50 knots of wind. But some do have a high degree of windage I’ll grant. This is just my opinion but when I’m on the bow pulling up on the rode behind the bow roller with 1400 rpm in reverse I’m convinced l could stay put with my anchor set thusly.

I had an awful time getting the ARA anchors up after the pull on this bottom labeled sand on the chart.
On Steve’s tests dragged yes ... a Claw or two, the Forfjord and a few others. But Steve was working on a bottom that was mud/sand/mud. A relatively loose substraight that probably varied considerably. And the bottom is the (broken record) “biggest variable in anchoring”.

Steve’s windlass performance aside testing 30 to 40lb anchors w 40hp isn’t much of a test. Anchors that got pulled out should still be holding their heads low in shame. But if you think about it a lot and a lot more than alot of successful anchoring has been done the world over w less ground tackle. The rare time when anchors fail shows how very well most all to in the real world.

But the biggest takeaway I think is how low one can go w scope and still hold a boat in anything but a top tier gale or hurrycane.

firehoser75,
Re the Rocna I wouldn’t advise most people changing out a propperly sized and rigged Rocna. The only downside of the Rocna is at 3-1 and a lot of wind. The anchor test I alluded to did the same gig on quite a number of other anchors so it’s a relative thing. If you anchored somewhere w everybody on a different high performance anchor and the wind got stronger and stronger the Rocna may be one of the first ones to let go. But in the lot there would probably be other anchors that have been given less short scope performance in favor of long scope. What boaters are interested in is maximum holding power. That’s the benchmark that they use to choose an anchor. So it’s no supprise anchor manufacturers put their engineering into the scope that produces the highest holding power. The Rocna seems to be engineered to generate the best holding power and of course that will be revealed at the scope that works best. And that scope will certainly not be 3-1. But boaters everywhere will be anchoring at 3-1.

I’m not of the opinion that the Rocna isn’t a good anchor ... it is. But there are at least two circumstances where it’s performance is less than other anchors in the same category. The Vulcan (also by Rocna) is a very impressive anchor and I once thought of buying one. Sunchasser has had one for some time and hasn’t spoken a bad word at all. It’s mostly a copy of the Spade and the Spade is the anchor all other scoop anchors should be judged by ... IMO.

So the advise given by Rocna to set at 5-1 and shorten up as needed is good. And that’s what most experienced skippers would do anyway.

Dragging Anchor

I have a Vulcan 55kg on my 49 GB classic. A 3 to 1 scope is marginal at best. I typically use about 5 to 1 with the anchor setting very quickly. I would not trust any anchor that I have used at 3 to 1 in any significant weather or current conditions. I switched from a 30kg Bruce after experiencing dragging in Prevost Harbor to the larger Vulcan after dragging with 150 chain in 20 ft of water with gusts about 70mph in August 2015 summer storm. Key in my opinion is to go on the heavier side for an anchor and have sufficient scope. We watched 4 boats drag by us in Ganges Harbor (Canadian Gulf Islands) with insufficient scope with 25 knot with gusts this past summer, we were at 5 to 1 with the Vulcan 55. The anchor windlass will stall out when lifting the anchor vertically (about 2000 lb pull but lifts easily after wait about a minute with the vertical chain.