nomadwilly wrote:
1.* You're the guy cruising the San Juan's with miles of blue protectors covering your bright work that was finished w the "next generation" (ng) Finnish. Obviously you expect your ng Finnish to go south like most others.
2.* Your Bruce claw anchor just wasn't big enough.
3.* The Rocna has only fair performance in rocks and mud and more like poor holding at short scope. Almost all PNW anchorages require 3-1 anchoring and many are so crowded that's not even possible.
4. The fishermen do so much boating they don't need bow thrusters and when they choose an anchor it's almost always a claw when it isn't a Forfjord. The small aluminum charter boats usually a bit under 30' are 95%+ claw. These guys anchor in deep water regularly to bottom fish. And probably more significant to you I'll bet more guys have claws on this forum than any other anchor.
1.* No finish is going to hold up forever.* We (and many others) have found that Bristol holds up so much better than varnish or anything else in our climate it's not even a contest.* But I'm*real lazy and I don't care if our boat has blue covers on it, so I'm maximizing the longevity of the Bristol.* If the covers help me get ten years out of it without my*having to touch it up or apply more coats, so much the better.* Even with the rail covers on during part of the year, varnish didn't last much*more than a year before it had to be redone or repaired.** We started exploring other finishes and Bristol outperformed all of them by a long shot.* So we switched.
2.* Don't know what your anchoring experience was down here but we never put out less than 5:1 and sometimes we put out 7:1.* With all-chain.* In over*twelve years we've never needed to shorten up to 3:1 anywhere.
3.* Guess you haven't read many independent reports on the Rocna (or Sarca).* As I've said before, we started looking for an anchor to replace the crappy Bruce, *which I am convinced is crappy by design, not by size unless you're trying to anchor a North Sea oil rig-- the design seems to work pretty good when it weighs a zillion tons and is the size of a house.*
But we had no preconceived notions.* In fact we hadn't even heard of the Rocna at the time.* But a query on the GB owners forum caused us to check the Rocna out and we**read*a bunch*of independent user reports about them, from the Dashews to ordinary boaters.* The Rocna was rated by these folks as being the best, or one of the best, in every bottom they used it in, including rock, mud, and everything else.* Having read all these positive reports we decided to check the anchor out further, so we looked at the Rocna website, watched the videos, and so on.* Then I called the company in New Zealand and talked to one of their people quite awhile about the anchor.* I also talked to the fellow who makes them under license in BC.* In the end we decided that was best thing going for the conditions we anchor in up here so we bought one.* So far we've not been disappointed.
That's not to say there aren't other anchor designs that are just as good, or perhaps even better in certain bottoms.* It's pretty hard to beat a Danforth/Fortress in sand, for example (which is one reason*why we carry a Fortress as well as the Rocna.)* But for all around performance, the Rocna, along with other anchors of similar design like the Sarca, keep racking up report after positive report from users.* I*tend to discount what*a manufacturer says about their product, but when the bulk of independent user reports are giving a product four and five stars, I do pay attention to that.
4.* The Rocna is new (or relatively new) so by definition a lot of boaters, and particularly commercial fishermen who are one of*the most conservative,*resistant-to-change groups on the planet, are going to stick with what they've always used or what*everybody else is using.***This is why we bought a Bruce in the first place--- everybody had them so*they*must be great,*right?**
It wasn't until we started experiencing poor performance from the Bruce that we began to realize*there had to be something better out there and set out to find it.***So far as I observed, ours was the only boat in our large marina with a Rocna for several years.* Now they (and Manson Surpremes) are starting to appear at an increasing rate.
Old is old.* Everything can be improved on.* It's significant to me that the people who most vehemently defend old stuff are themselves old (either in years or in attitude and outlook).* I'm not*young but I believe in new technology and applying it*to everything-- anchors, engines, boats, airplanes, cars, and toasters.**Clinging to old stuff (RTF's significant other excepted) is a waste of time in my mind.* It may be a requirement--- new stuff is often out of our*financial reach and being out on the water in an ancient boat is far better than not being out on the water at all.** But in my mind this doesn't mean old is better, it just means I can't afford new.
