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

" 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

On Nov 3, 11:56 pm, "JimB" wrote:
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.

No Jim, the chart shows the complete averaged summary data of West
Marine and SAIL's 2006 testing on a totally fair size-for-size basis.
It is the most complete picture of this testing that can be shown
concisely, despite the squawks from Rocna's competitors and attempts
to muddy the waters.

As to differentiating factors, perhaps West Marine's own summary
comments could be of assistance. On the top three anchors with the
highest holding power:

Delta: "Variable results ranging from around 1,500lb. to 4,500lb.
Drags at limit."
Spade: "Somewhat mixed results with three OK pulls, and three maximum
pulls. Set immediately each time."
Rocna: "Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and
engaged immediately."

These are in their entirety (short I know) and verbatim. Again,
concise and complete - this is no cherry picking or careful selection
of out-of-context quotes. Anyway, the point is, I don't think that
West finds it so "difficult to differentiate between all these high
performance anchors".

The remaining contenders below the Delta figured topped out at only
just over half that of the Rocna, with Manson's Rocna copy so badly
compromised that it even failed to beat the WASI Beugel, which is as
you correctly comment the original "roll-bar" anchor - from the early
80s! Why? Not because it didn't perform well (it did, a few times) -
but because it couldn't perform consistently.