Bob wrote in
ps.com:

On Oct 31, 2:56 am, Geoff Schultz wrote:

We regularly have to pull the Rocna out with the engine whereas that
was a much more rare event with the CQR.

I also know that anchors are like religion.
-- Geoffwww.GeoffSchultz.org

Hi Geoff:

Anchors as religion............................. agreed there.
For a guy who spent a few years in a Catholic grade school those
Sisters cured me of that problem.

I am very interested in you expernce with the Rocna. Specifically, ID
like to know exactly the bottom type. Ive been all over the GOM but
never that far east where you sailed. I read closely your praise but
If you have a spare moment would you please detail the bottom type
where you deployed the ground gear?

Sand -mud-silt-rock-shell-coral % of mix?
Color?
What is the visibiltity/clarity/turbidity of the water in feet.
Were there any rivers/creeks that emptied into the anchorges?
What was the flora description for surrounding area: heavy jungle, dry
grass, trees, rock outcrops with short scrub/grass cover??
What is the anual rain fall?
Can you squeeze the bottom stuff and make a snowball or does it just
fall between your fingers?
Does it stick to your anchor or chain if so how much?
When you walk through it does it stick to your feet.... suck your
shoes off.... or "churp" when you scuff your bare feet?
How does it smell? Rotten eggs or sweet like the sea, or earthy like a
good woman?
When you retrieve the anchor is there a clowd of silt but the chain/
ancor is clean? If there is silt cloud what size is it?
What kind of creatures live in the water?

Bob

Bob,

Clearly you maintain much better logs than I do. My typical log states
something like "Anchored in 8' over (sand, turtle grass, mud, etc.)
Holding was (very good, good, marginal, etc.)." All of my logs with
cruiser info such as the above have sailboat incons next to them.
You're more than welcome to peruse the logs and glean what you can from
them. I think that I created about 50 logs last year and I'd guess that
about 50% of them have cruiser info incons next to them.

However, I will state that in the Caribbean and Bahamas that I typically
anchor in sand or turtle grass over sand. Up and down the US East
coast it's typically been mud.

The times that I've seen other boats drag where we haven't has typically
been in very coarse sand or turtle grass over silty sand.

When we deploy/retrieve the anchor I drive the boat while Sue handles
the anchor. In tight locations she prefers that I drive, so we tend to
maintain that arrangement. We do swap on occassion, but most of the
time she's at the bow and I'm at the wheel, so I typically don't get as
up close and personal as she does with the bottom material.


-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

On Oct 31, 1:33 pm, Geoff Schultz wrote:
Bob wrote oups.com:


Clearly you maintain much better logs than I do.


Not really, was hoping for a real specific description whrer that
Rocna worked so well. ALso hoped to give Skip an idea of what to
consider when assessing bottom types: It all aint just "bottom."

I am truly interested in how that anchor works.


You're more than welcome to peruse the logs and glean what you can from
them. I think that I created about 50 logs last year and I'd guess that
about 50% of them have cruiser info incons next to them.


thank you. Where would I find that link??


However, I will state that in the Caribbean and Bahamas that I typically
anchor in sand or turtle grass over sand.


So light color course sand primarly from coral?


The times that I've seen other boats drag where we haven't has typically
been in very coarse sand or turtle grass over silty sand.

Humm, and you stayed put when using that Rocna?

bob

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:56:15 -0500, Geoff Schultz
wrote:

I'm one of the new converts to the Rocna and I am amazed at how well it
works.

The Rocna looks to me like a Spade with a roll bar. Are there any
other significant differences?

I've been using Spades on 2 different boats over 7 years and have been
very happy with them.

On Oct 31, 5:59 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
... The Rocna looks to me like a Spade with a roll bar. Are there any
other significant differences? ...

It doesn't have ballast and the blade is just a plate. I'm anxious to
hear how it works in very soft bottoms.

-- Tom.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:56:15 -0500, Geoff Schultz
wrote:

I'm one of the new converts to the Rocna and I am amazed at how well it
works.

The Rocna looks to me like a Spade with a roll bar. Are there any
other significant differences?

I've been using Spades on 2 different boats over 7 years and have been
very happy with them.

So...this means I can weld a 'roll-bar' on my pair of old CQR's? :-)

Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

Bob wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 31, 1:33 pm, Geoff Schultz wrote:
Bob wrote
oups.com:


Clearly you maintain much better logs than I do.


Not really, was hoping for a real specific description whrer that
Rocna worked so well. ALso hoped to give Skip an idea of what to
consider when assessing bottom types: It all aint just "bottom."

I am truly interested in how that anchor works.


You're more than welcome to peruse the logs and glean what you can
from them. I think that I created about 50 logs last year and I'd
guess that about 50% of them have cruiser info incons next to them.


thank you. Where would I find that link??

You can find a link to my web site in my signature line. To make things
easy, it's www.GeoffSchultz.org

However, I will state that in the Caribbean and Bahamas that I
typically anchor in sand or turtle grass over sand.

So light color course sand primarly from coral?

I would guess that it was coarse ground shells or coral. I would lean
towards to shells.

The times that I've seen other boats drag where we haven't has
typically been in very coarse sand or turtle grass over silty sand.

Humm, and you stayed put when using that Rocna?


As I said, I've been very impressed with the Rocna. It's held in places
that the CQR would never have held. The only times that we've had problems
getting it to set is in thin sand over a hard bottom, but then I don't
think that I'd get any anchor to set well.

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

"Glenn \(s/v Seawing\)" wrote in
news:JPcWi.165780$1y4.121970@pd7urf2no:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:56:15 -0500, Geoff Schultz
wrote:

I'm one of the new converts to the Rocna and I am amazed at how well it
works.

The Rocna looks to me like a Spade with a roll bar. Are there any
other significant differences?

I've been using Spades on 2 different boats over 7 years and have been
very happy with them.

So...this means I can weld a 'roll-bar' on my pair of old CQR's? :-)

Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

I see the smiley, so I know that this was in jest, but the shape of the CQR
and the Rocna are completely different. You can see a photo of a CQR he

http://www.geoffschultz.org/2002_Sai...a/P6200673.jpg

and the Rocna he

http://www.geoffschultz.org/2007
_Sailing/Photos/BlueJacket_Equipment/images/20070304_092900.JPG

As you can see, the Rocna is an inverted plow.

Regarding Wayne's question about the differences between a Spade and the
Rocna, I will simply point you to

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf

as it does a much better job of describing the various differences between
anchors than I can.

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
.. .
"Glenn \(s/v Seawing\)" wrote in
news:JPcWi.165780$1y4.121970@pd7urf2no:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:56:15 -0500, Geoff Schultz
wrote:

I'm one of the new converts to the Rocna and I am amazed at how well it
works.

The Rocna looks to me like a Spade with a roll bar. Are there any
other significant differences?

I've been using Spades on 2 different boats over 7 years and have been
very happy with them.

So...this means I can weld a 'roll-bar' on my pair of old CQR's? :-)

Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

I see the smiley, so I know that this was in jest, but the shape of the
CQR
and the Rocna are completely different. You can see a photo of a CQR
he

http://www.geoffschultz.org/2002_Sai...a/P6200673.jpg

and the Rocna he

http://www.geoffschultz.org/2007
_Sailing/Photos/BlueJacket_Equipment/images/20070304_092900.JPG

As you can see, the Rocna is an inverted plow.

Regarding Wayne's question about the differences between a Spade and the
Rocna, I will simply point you to

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf

as it does a much better job of describing the various differences between
anchors than I can.

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

Yes, I was chuckling as I wrote that.

On a more serious note, I am interested in the performance of this anchor.
I am planning to replace one of my CQR's this year. I was planning on a
larger Delta & a Fortress. The Rocna is interesting in place of the
Delta...though double the price...but if it's what people say it is, I'm not
worried about the price. Anchors are one of those things that it's hard to
get the straight goods on. Often I think that folks anchoring woes have
less to do with the anchor and more to do with scope, chain and their
methods.

Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

"Glenn \(s/v Seawing\)" wrote in
news:x7lWi.165055$Da.35456@pd7urf1no:


"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
.. .
"Glenn \(s/v Seawing\)" wrote in
news:JPcWi.165780$1y4.121970@pd7urf2no:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:56:15 -0500, Geoff Schultz
wrote:

I'm one of the new converts to the Rocna and I am amazed at how
well it works.

The Rocna looks to me like a Spade with a roll bar. Are there any
other significant differences?

I've been using Spades on 2 different boats over 7 years and have
been very happy with them.

So...this means I can weld a 'roll-bar' on my pair of old CQR's?
:-)

Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

I see the smiley, so I know that this was in jest, but the shape of
the CQR
and the Rocna are completely different. You can see a photo of a CQR
he

http://www.geoffschultz.org/2002
_Sailing/Honduras_La_Ceiba/P6200673.jp
g

and the Rocna he

http://www.geoffschultz.org/2007
_Sailing/Photos/BlueJacket_Equipment/images/20070304_092900.JPG

As you can see, the Rocna is an inverted plow.

Regarding Wayne's question about the differences between a Spade and
the Rocna, I will simply point you to

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf

as it does a much better job of describing the various differences
between anchors than I can.

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

Yes, I was chuckling as I wrote that.

On a more serious note, I am interested in the performance of this
anchor. I am planning to replace one of my CQR's this year. I was
planning on a larger Delta & a Fortress. The Rocna is interesting in
place of the Delta...though double the price...but if it's what people
say it is, I'm not worried about the price. Anchors are one of those
things that it's hard to get the straight goods on. Often I think
that folks anchoring woes have less to do with the anchor and more to
do with scope, chain and their methods.

Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

I'll point out that the Manson Supreme appears to be amlost identical to
the Rocna, yet is much less costly. I have no idea how there aren't
patent infringement lawsuits between the companies. Lloyds of London
was sufficiently impressed by the Manson Supreme to certify it as a
"high holding power" anchor. I have no personal experience with it, and
know no one who has one, so do what you want with this tidbit.

West Marine carries both vendors. At WM, the Manson 60 LB is $595
compared to $800 for the Rocna 55 LB (25 kg). I will also point out
that if you know someone with a Port Supply account, that the Manson is
$438 vs $785 for the Rocna. If you have it shipped to a local WM, the
shipping is free.

Regarding anchoring technique, I always do a 5:1 scope and make sure
that I include the tidal range and the height of the bow roller above
the water in the calculation. It's amazing how mane people forget the
later in their calculation, especially in shallow water. We also back
down heavily on the anchor with a reversing Max prop, so we get a good
feel for the holding. I'm always amazed at the people who throw their
anchor overboard and don't back down!


-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
.. .
"Glenn \(s/v Seawing\)" wrote in
news:x7lWi.165055$Da.35456@pd7urf1no:


"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
.. .
"Glenn \(s/v Seawing\)" wrote in
news:JPcWi.165780$1y4.121970@pd7urf2no:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:56:15 -0500, Geoff Schultz
wrote:

I'm one of the new converts to the Rocna and I am amazed at how
well it works.

The Rocna looks to me like a Spade with a roll bar. Are there any
other significant differences?

I've been using Spades on 2 different boats over 7 years and have
been very happy with them.

So...this means I can weld a 'roll-bar' on my pair of old CQR's?
:-)

Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

I see the smiley, so I know that this was in jest, but the shape of
the CQR
and the Rocna are completely different. You can see a photo of a CQR
he

http://www.geoffschultz.org/2002
_Sailing/Honduras_La_Ceiba/P6200673.jp
g

and the Rocna he

http://www.geoffschultz.org/2007
_Sailing/Photos/BlueJacket_Equipment/images/20070304_092900.JPG

As you can see, the Rocna is an inverted plow.

Regarding Wayne's question about the differences between a Spade and
the Rocna, I will simply point you to

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf

as it does a much better job of describing the various differences
between anchors than I can.

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

Yes, I was chuckling as I wrote that.

On a more serious note, I am interested in the performance of this
anchor. I am planning to replace one of my CQR's this year. I was
planning on a larger Delta & a Fortress. The Rocna is interesting in
place of the Delta...though double the price...but if it's what people
say it is, I'm not worried about the price. Anchors are one of those
things that it's hard to get the straight goods on. Often I think
that folks anchoring woes have less to do with the anchor and more to
do with scope, chain and their methods.

Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

I'll point out that the Manson Supreme appears to be amlost identical to
the Rocna, yet is much less costly. I have no idea how there aren't
patent infringement lawsuits between the companies. Lloyds of London
was sufficiently impressed by the Manson Supreme to certify it as a
"high holding power" anchor. I have no personal experience with it, and
know no one who has one, so do what you want with this tidbit.

West Marine carries both vendors. At WM, the Manson 60 LB is $595
compared to $800 for the Rocna 55 LB (25 kg). I will also point out
that if you know someone with a Port Supply account, that the Manson is
$438 vs $785 for the Rocna. If you have it shipped to a local WM, the
shipping is free.

Regarding anchoring technique, I always do a 5:1 scope and make sure
that I include the tidal range and the height of the bow roller above
the water in the calculation. It's amazing how mane people forget the
later in their calculation, especially in shallow water. We also back
down heavily on the anchor with a reversing Max prop, so we get a good
feel for the holding. I'm always amazed at the people who throw their
anchor overboard and don't back down!


-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

The Rocna gives me a warm feeling.

However, the only video I have seen was done on a sandy beach using a motor
vehicle to pull.

I may have missed other tests related to all type of bottoms.

When we anchored, over here, we have to deal with high tides and all type of
bottoms. When the tide change the anchor has to reset itself. Up to now,
the prudent sailor carries more than one anchor. In my case I carry a 35
pound Bruce, 18 pounds Fortress and a light Danford. I am now looking at
getting a Fisherman for rocky bottom and weed. I would prefer to carry a
Rocna instead of a Fisherman anchor but I do not know much about it
performance and reliably? I have sent an email to Rocna and I am awaiting a
reply.