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

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)

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

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.

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

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.

..

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

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

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)

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