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.


http://www.rocna.com/boat-anchors/ma...eme-anchor.php

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 theanchorhas to reset itself. Up to now,
the prudent sailor carries more than oneanchor. In my case I carry a 35
poundBruce, 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 Fishermananchorbut I do not know much about it
performance and reliably? I have sent an email to Rocna and I am awaiting a
reply.- Hide quoted text -


http://www.rocna.com/distributable/r...nd-testing.pdf

The Rocna will work just as well as any other anchor in rock and weed,
and works quite well in weed or grass over sand. There is a good
amount of positive feedback concerning its performance in those
conditions where other anchors will not set.

Carrying a Fishermans is not necessary in the modern world.

"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

YES! More than once I've cringed to hear someone zip into the anchorage
(upwind of me of course) & toss anchor (chain rattling) & run for the bar.
I woke up one morning to find one such boat beside me after dragging all the
way across the anchorage. He insisted he didn't drag.

The first time I ever anchored, I drug anchor more than half a mile. Since
then I'm a pretty fussy anchorer. I am slow about it and not in a hurry.
I'm seldom done in a few minutes & if there's room use lots of scope. I see
lots of folks struggling with holding in a good anchorage because they've
too little scope out. Yes, people mostly use the depth of water and forget
the distance from bow roller to the water in their scope calculations (if
they calculate at all). I'm anything but an expert but as I'm keenly aware
I am responsible for the safety of my vessel and those aboard, I take
anchoring very seriously.

Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

Skip Gundlach wrote:
On Oct 30, 4:37 pm, Gordon wrote:
Researching anchors and keep popping up testimonials on how
absolutely great the new Rocnas are! Always set the first time, never
drag in any bottom, yada, yada.
Then I realized why! They size them twice the size of other anchors!
My boat calls for a 15 kg Bruce for 60 knot winds.
A 35# CQR. (16 kg) and
A whopping 33 kg for Rocna!

So does this mean the Rocna design is so lousy it takes twice the
weight to work properly?

Gordon

Sorry about a duplicate thread - this was where the reference to the
Rocna pdf was found.

Just a small commentary from when I was doing my research: The Rocna
has a hollow roll bar, to minimize weight above. The Beugel (can't do
the umlauts) has a solid one, at least based on my direct observation
of one in a rack. I have not seen a Manson, so can't comment,. but,
certainly, it would be simple to use rod stock vs major heavy tube, if
the claim has merit...

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog and/or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to
make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its
hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts."
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)



The Supreme also has a hollow roll bar.

I'm very happy with mine. I bought it to replace my CQR that I never
really trusted to hold in blow on on a weedy bottom. I was going to
go for a Delta but chose the Manson based on a review. That same review
also had the Rocna in it but there were no dealers (don't think there
are any now)where I live. I must confess I haven't used it a lot but
have been happy with it every time I've dropped it. Far superior to the
CQR and that's what I was looking for.

Cheers,
Nick.

" wrote in news:1193955657.085230.177120
@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

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.


http://www.rocna.com/boat-anchors/ma...eme-anchor.php

That certainly was an eye-opening article. I guess that the old addage
applies: You get what you pay for. I was also quite surprised at the
differences in holding power and/or setting when comparing knock-offs to
the real-thing as shown in the YM article below:

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

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:55:08 -0500, Geoff Schultz
wrote:

" wrote in news:1193955657.085230.177120
:

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.


http://www.rocna.com/boat-anchors/ma...eme-anchor.php

That certainly was an eye-opening article. I guess that the old addage
applies: You get what you pay for. I was also quite surprised at the
differences in holding power and/or setting when comparing knock-offs to
the real-thing as shown in the YM article below:

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

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

Before you get too excited about the Lloyd's certificate do a google
on "lloyd's high holding power anchor". Manson is far from the only
anchor so certified. In fact, from a superficial reading of the
results of that search it appears that nearly all modern anchors are
so certified.



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)

Geoff Schultz wrote:
" wrote in news:1193955657.085230.177120
:

: 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.
:
:
: http://www.rocna.com/boat-anchors/ma...eme-anchor.php

:That certainly was an eye-opening article. I guess that the old addage
:applies: You get what you pay for. I was also quite surprised at the

With out commenting about the merits of either anchor, it's worth
noting some things about the article. One, it doesn't actually make
any claims that the Manson anchor is infringing on any protection the
Rocna anchor has. It merely makes vague (and incorrect) claims about
patents and their purposes and implies that Manson have stolen the
design. It makes almost zero claims, couching everything in language
like "might" or "seems".

"David Scheidt" wrote in message news:fgh0a8 :
: http://www.rocna.com/boat-anchors/ma...eme-anchor.php

:That certainly was an eye-opening article. I guess that the old addage
:applies: You get what you pay for. I was also quite surprised at the

With out commenting about the merits of either anchor, it's worth
noting some things about the article. One, it doesn't actually make
any claims that the Manson anchor is infringing on any protection the
Rocna anchor has. It merely makes vague (and incorrect) claims about
patents and their purposes and implies that Manson have stolen the
design. It makes almost zero claims, couching everything in language
like "might" or "seems".

Exactly. One also notes that both anchors copied the roll bar . . . adding
more blade area to improve holding.

I also note that Rocna has added an addendum to the article which plots
performance against different criteria to show the Rocna in a more
favourable light. Other high performance anchors could choose other criteria
to show their designs as superior - but they've chosen not to.

The real point is, it's difficult to differentiate between all these high
performance anchors, so it doesn't matter a stuff which you choose. The real
step is their improvement over older designs like the CQR, claw, and some
versions of the 'flat' anchors. The real differentiation for most people
will be whether or not they're easily available, and which will best fit on
the bow roller!
--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

"Glenn (s/v Seawing)" wrote in message
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

YES! More than once I've cringed to hear someone zip into the anchorage
(upwind of me of course) & toss anchor (chain rattling) & run for the bar.
I woke up one morning to find one such boat beside me after dragging all
the way across the anchorage. He insisted he didn't drag.

snipped a bit

Yes, people mostly use the depth of water and forget the distance from bow
roller to the water in their scope calculations (if they calculate at
all). I'm anything but an expert but as I'm keenly aware I am responsible
for the safety of my vessel and those aboard, I take anchoring very
seriously.
Glenn.
s/v Seawing.

YES! And the test of good anchoring is to check that your anchor holds
aginst full astern.
--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 11:02:47 -0000, "JimB" wrote:

YES! And the test of good anchoring is to check that your anchor holds
aginst full astern.

Heh. Full astern on a substantial twin engine trawler is about 15,000
pounds of thrust. Not today, thanks.