| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Anchors
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 |
Anchors
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:37:52 -0800, 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 Anchor weights for the conventual "yacht" anchor are really just a number indicating size as the actual weight of the anchor has very little effect on its holding power. Weight certainly helps in setting an anchor but once the anchor is "set", i.e., buried, the weight has only a minor effect on the holding power. The Rocnas that I have seen were made from much heavier plate then other anchors and in addition the hoop at the back of the anchor appears to be solid steel although its only function is to keep the anchor in the correct position. The Rocna anchors I have seen were typically on European yachts, the Germans seem to particularly like them, and the owners all claimed that they were the best anchors in the world. It is also my impression that they are actually a European design although the Rocnas appear to be manufactured in New Zealand. Of course most people brag about their anchors but I doubt that you will have any problems with the Rocna (although I don't use them myself). See aluminum anchors for comparison of weight to holding power. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:displayed e-mail address is a spam trap) |
Anchors
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? I guess by this logic, the Delta is the best anchor, since it is one of the lightest with it's recommendations. Stephen |
Anchors
On Oct 30, 7:04 pm, Stephen Trapani wrote:
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? I guess by this logic, the Delta is the best anchor, since it is one of the lightest with it's recommendations. Stephen I think each manufacturer uses different parameters for their recommendation. I noticed too that Rocna recommended a larger size anchor compared to other manufactures. They address this on their website, that the other recommendations are overly optimistic. I've anchored with Navy's, Danforths, Bruces, CQRs and a Rocna copy (Manson Supreme) Just this weekend, we went to retrieve our Manson Supreme and we had a difficult time breaking it out. I was sure that we snagged something gawd awful, but when we finally got it up, it had about 60 lbs of mud on it. I'm a believer in the Rocna design but I also keep a big danforth on board for really soft mud/sand. |
Anchors
Hi.
The Rocna is designed and made in New Zealand. A very similar anchor is the Manson Supreme, also designed and made in New Zealand. I have seen a slinging match online about who copied who but nonetheless, they are both very good anchors. I have bought the Manson Supreme for my yacht and it is the same weight as recommended for the size of yacht as the CQR that I replaced. I was originally going to replace the CQR with a Delta when I discovered the Manson Supreme in the chandler's catalogue and did some research on it which convinced me that it would be a more effective anchor than the Delta (although only slightly so...). With the CQR, I never really felt the anchor bite and rarely had it set effectively and opted mostly to use an admiralty anchor which is very effective but cumbersome. The Supreme on the other hand is very easy to use and set. It's like being chained to a power pole when backing down - rock solid. I'm very happy with my choice. The Manson is also the first anchor to be certified by Lloyds as Super High Holding Power. In Australia, I didn't find a dealer for the Rocna, and indeed only became aware of them after I had ordered my Manson. That said the Manson is also quite a bit cheaper than the Rocna. Both anchors are designed to dig in immediately and will work very well even on a weed covered bottom. Check their websites. Rocna have included a comprehensive West Marine anchor test on their site. http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf Hope this helps. Regards, Nick. 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 |
Anchors
On Oct 30, 5:29 pm, nick wrote:
... The Rocna is designed and made in New Zealand. A very similar anchor is the Manson Supreme, also designed and made in New Zealand. I have seen a slinging match online about who copied who but nonetheless, they are both very good anchors. ... They are both developments from a European anchor style (originally Bugle?) which had the roll bar but with a flat triangle as the plow blade. There are lots of these around on European boats. The Manson Supreme and Rocna mated this with the concave blade of the Spade. They should, pound for pound, have more holding power than a conventional plow. -- Tom. |
Anchors
.. Check their websites. Rocna have included a comprehensive West Marine anchor test on their site. http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf Hope this helps. I think you'll find the data published on the Rocna site differs slightly from that published by Sail magazine. There's a certain, say, selectivity . .. . Read the notes to 'anchors' on Wikipedia for the full sordid story. I think the reality is that there's little to choose between the many recent anchor designs, Spade, Bugel, Rocna, Manson, Bulwagga. But they're all improvements on older designs . . . -- JimB Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com Compares Cruise areas of Europe |
Anchors
Gordon wrote in
: 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 I'm one of the new converts to the Rocna and I am amazed at how well it works. A 25 KG (55 lb) replaced a 45 LB CQR as my primary anchor and the CQR displaced a 46 lb Bruce as a secondary. This is hardly a 2x weight factor. What we found is that the Rocna does a much better job of holding than the CQR did in similar bottoms. We spent 5 months in the Bahamas last year and several times we watched other boats with 45 lb CQRs drag whereas we didn't drag at all. A boat that we travelled with had a Hydro-bubble anchor, and he had a lot of trouble holding in strong blows, when we didn't have any. He replaced his Hydro-bubble with a Rocna. Another friend with a 53' Swan just replaced his CQR with a Rocna and reported that he was amazed at how well it held in places where he had problems getting the CQR to stick. One thing that I really noted was that I used to have to hand set the CQR in turtle grass over sand bottoms. Sue would back down on the anchor while I uprighted the anchor and made sure that it was set. With the Rocna we just drop it and there's no doubt as to when it has set as the bow swings hard around and the chain tightens. I'll swim over it to check to make sure that it's set, but I know what I'll find. 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. You trust your life, or at least your boat's life to them, so you have to have faith in them. Your mileage may vary, but Rocna made a convert out of me. -- Geoff www.GeoffSchultz.org |
Rocna vs Buegel/Manson Anchors
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) |
Anchors
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 |
Anchors
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 |
Anchors
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 |
Anchors
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. |
Anchors
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. |
Anchors
"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. |
Anchors
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 |
Anchors
"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 |
Anchors
"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. |
Anchors
"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 |
Anchors
"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. |
Anchors
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 |
Anchors
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. |
Anchors
"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. |
Rocna vs Buegel/Manson Anchors
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. |
Anchors
" 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 |
Anchors
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) |
Anchors
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". |
Anchors
"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 |
Anchors
"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 |
Anchors
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. |
Anchors
On 2007-11-03 07:02:47 -0400, "JimB" said:
YES! And the test of good anchoring is to check that your anchor holds aginst full astern. Maybe, but only AFTER it's been set and settled in for a while with lesser strain. It's so amusing to watch someone immediately punch it and drag through the most friendly anchorages. With our Maxprop, full reverse will drag pretty much any anchor if it isn't thoroughly buried first, and we have 20 HP. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Anchors
"Jere Lull" wrote in message news:2007110313362816807-jerelull@maccom... On 2007-11-03 07:02:47 -0400, "JimB" said: YES! And the test of good anchoring is to check that your anchor holds aginst full astern. Maybe, but only AFTER it's been set and settled in for a while with lesser strain. It's so amusing to watch someone immediately punch it and drag through the most friendly anchorages. With our Maxprop, full reverse will drag pretty much any anchor if it isn't thoroughly buried first, and we have 20 HP. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ This is a lesson I learned early on. Anchoring for me is two minute process. The anchor needs time to settle in. I usually watch it (my 'old' style CQR) go down and lay, pay out some chain & let the boat pull it tight, pay out more....eventually with more than enough scope out & several tugs, I reverse the engine & wait then gradually begin to increase rpm but not to max. Sometimes on a rode that's not all chain, where I've not room for max scope, I've used mushroom/river anchors clipped onto the rode with an extra line to hold the rode down (simulating larger scope). I usually use the dingy to hand-over-hand out on the rode to deploy these. I'm no expert anchorer but my experience has taught me that care & thought in anchoring (vs. drop & run) has more to do with anchor performance than the type & weight of anchor. One cannot assume that because an anchor is overboard that it is set. Care in setting my smaller secondary CQR in less than ideal bottom has seen us stay put in blows 50+ knots...where the boat is rising and falling in the swells & shuttering with the gusts. I have also had boats drag around me in a great anchorage with good protection & holding in pretty moderate breeze (because they dumped the anchor & chain overboard & ran for the bar). Glenn. s/v Seawing. |
Anchors
On Nov 4, 9:42 am, "Glenn \(s/v Seawing\)"
wrote: I'm no expert anchorer but my experience has taught me that care & thought in anchoring (vs. drop & run) has more to do with anchor performance than the type & weight of anchor. If your experience is limited to your CQR and/or the other old types, which it almost certainly is if you stick with the plow, it is no surprise that you think this. Naturally care and attention, guided by expertise, are important factors. But this sweeping comment is like saying it doesn't matter what car you drive, no difference between a Corolla and a Ferrari - all that matters is the ability of the driver. The nice thing about feedback from "early adopters" of the new generation anchors is that those users typically DO also have experience with the older types, be it plows or claws or some variation. The resulting feedback is thus doubly valuable, because it is COMPARATIVE. |
Anchors
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. |
Anchors
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... 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. Of course. Sorry, speaking as a sail person. But you'd have a good idea what your suitable astern revs were to check proper holding? -- JimB Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com Compares Cruise areas of Europe |
Anchors
"Jere Lull" wrote in message news:2007110313362816807-jerelull@maccom... On 2007-11-03 07:02:47 -0400, "JimB" said: YES! And the test of good anchoring is to check that your anchor holds aginst full astern. Maybe, but only AFTER it's been set and settled in for a while with lesser strain. It's so amusing to watch someone immediately punch it and drag through the most friendly anchorages. With our Maxprop, full reverse will drag pretty much any anchor if it isn't thoroughly buried first, and we have 20 HP. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ I did say 'holds', as apart from 'set'. I assumed that no-one is foolish enough to try and set a anchor with full power, or with inertia forces present. Apart from the fact that it's bad technique with old plough anchors and flat anchors, with a quick setting modern anchor there's a high risk you'd screw the winch apart, if you didn't pull it out of the deck. -- JimB Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com Compares Cruise areas of Europe |
Anchors
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 10:19:34 -0000, "JimB" wrote:
Of course. Sorry, speaking as a sail person. But you'd have a good idea what your suitable astern revs were to check proper holding? I ususally start with one engine at idle speed which generates about 600 lbs of thrust, then reverse the second engine for a total of around 1,200 lbs. That will take the catenary out of 3/8ths chain and begin to stretch a 7/8ths 3 strand nylon hook line. If I want to really ensure a good set I'll bring the engines up to 900 RPM or so which begins to really stretch out the hook line. I'd estimate well over 2,000 lbs of pull at that point with the engines putting out around 40 hp each into 30 inch 4 bladed props. |
Anchors
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 10:19:34 -0000, "JimB" wrote: Of course. Sorry, speaking as a sail person. But you'd have a good idea what your suitable astern revs were to check proper holding? I ususally start with one engine at idle speed which generates about 600 lbs of thrust, then reverse the second engine for a total of around 1,200 lbs. That will take the catenary out of 3/8ths chain and begin to stretch a 7/8ths 3 strand nylon hook line. If I want to really ensure a good set I'll bring the engines up to 900 RPM or so which begins to really stretch out the hook line. I'd estimate well over 2,000 lbs of pull at that point with the engines putting out around 40 hp each into 30 inch 4 bladed props. Great. Should look after a good F7 as long as there's not too much seaway. It always amazes me how so many people don't test their set, then wonder why they drag. Another bit of useful info you get from testing is how much rode you need for your anchor. Some stick beautifully at 4:1, others need 6:1 minimum. -- JimB Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com Compares Cruise areas of Europe |
Anchors
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:37:52 -0800, 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 Of course most people brag about their anchors ... That's probably because they found one that works for them. I have one anchor that I favor 'cause it seems to work everywhere I go but then the bottom doesn't change much. Jim |
Anchors
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 And for anyone looking for the Manson, http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/grou...on.asp#supreme They seem to have better prices than West. Jim. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com