Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#3
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Testing Anchors | ASA | |||
Anchors | General | |||
More Anchors! | ASA | |||
How many anchors ? | ASA | |||
Sascot Anchors | General |