--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe
"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
I feel like I'm almost in danger of be accused of being a rep for Rocna
(believe me, I'm not), but I literally just got this unsolicited e-mail
from a friend who bought a Rocna based upon recommendation from me. We
haven't talked in quite a while, and this was quite timely for this
discussion. He has a 53' Swan and was replacing a CQR. Anyhow, here's
the
e-mail:

------------
clip a bit

Rocna has absolutely exceeded my expectations and has availed me many very
comfortable nights sleep while the wind was blowing hard.

Thanks for the recommendation. it's one of very few marine products that I
have found to be fairly priced and built and designed to exceed my hopes.

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

I expect you'd have had the same email if you'd recommended any of the high
performing anchors listed in the tests which sparked off this debate. The
test report quotes 'all of them' as a revelation in performance compared to
older types - which describes the CQR.

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:47:24 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

Another problem is when they get set deeply in the Chesapeake mud. Any
time we got hit by solid wind, much less a squall, it could take a very
long time to get it out in the morning.

I know the feeling but it's actually a good problem to have.

On Nov 3, 6:13 am, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:47:24 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
Another problem is when they get set deeply in the Chesapeake mud. Any
time we got hit by solid wind, much less a squall, it could take a very
long time to get it out in the morning.


I know the feeling but it's actually a good problem to have.

Sounds like the kinda problem Skip needs.
Bob

On 2007-11-03 10:13:50 -0400, Wayne.B said:

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:47:24 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

Another problem is when they get set deeply in the Chesapeake mud. Any
time we got hit by solid wind, much less a squall, it could take a very
long time to get it out in the morning.

I know the feeling but it's actually a good problem to have.

I used to think so, or more properly I was worried that the Spade came
out too easily, but though both anchors have about the same area and
"dive" about the same depth (sometimes several feet into the mud), it
seems the Spade rotates around it's "tail" and presents a smaller area
as it's being pulled up. Though I haven't done side-by-side tests, I
believe the Spade's sharp point penetrates faster and easier, so it's
usually deeper than the Danforth would be.

--
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/

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:49:50 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

I
believe the Spade's sharp point penetrates faster and easier, so it's
usually deeper than the Danforth would be.

Probably so, ours usually comes up with a huge mud ball on it,
probably weighing more than the anchor itself. We've got a 1 hp
generator driven high pressure wash down pump and it still takes
several minutes to clean the anchor off when it has been well dug in.