Messages

And perhaps a third generation anchor that at first looks like most of the others but may almost be a breakthru design.
Ultra (a new Turk on the scene that describes itself as MIXED)

That's just a knock-off of the Spade...!

Certainly, we do not consider cheap copies of other types, especially of our own - why would we provide such free exposure?

There are also copies of the Spade which could be included in that page, but why bother.

As commanderpete notes, the price difference now in the US is much reduced, and the discrepancy between the original Rocna and Manson Supreme anchor now is truly a case of "you get what you pay for".

New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared and Rated -

Interested in your accessment.

Here is our assessment. With tongue partly placed in cheek...
New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared, and Rated

A copy of the October, 2006 Sail Magazine was on the optometrist table today, so the reading was a little more pleasant than usual.  Beginning on page 60, there is a rather lengthy article on anchor testing that is a worthwhile read.  

There main conclusion:  "Anchor design is evolving, but our results still confirm the rule of thumb that every boat should carry at least three different anchor designs and weights to deal with a wide variety of bottom types."

The SAIL testing has been discussed above.

In any case their conclusion is one thing we disagree with. As a matter of fact, several anchors displayed a consistency of performance that is very desirable. Furthermore it is hard to see how they can draw such a conclusion, when they have only tested on one bottom type, not a variety.

Most important anchor test of the decade.  It's great to see  all the anchors mentioned in our discussion here (both kiwi and roo), plus a bunch more - so far as we consumers can tell - tested impartially and fairly.  The weights of the anchors are generally out of our range.  Guys from West Marine* are  represented at the event as well as the magazine press, including Yachting Monthly from the UK.  A lot of money was spent putting this test together.  A lot of money will be made by MARKETERS and manufacturers whose anchors came out on top.  And that is wonderful for the small guys.  Lot of claws and plows at the last flea market I went thru!

Here is a chart of the testing results:

I had pretty much decided to order a Rocna 10, and contacted the company in Canada, Suncoast Marine that was listed as the North American distributor for your anchor.
 
The $400 was based on the quote I recieved at the time. I wonder if the price has been lowered? I will look for my notes on Monday.

Well it's there in your own link :confused: lol, CA$365 ~= US$320.

Prices outside North America a bit cheaper again: NZ$450 ~= US$270

Rocna

25 lbs

$400+

:confused:

We do not, to my knowledge, produce a 25lbs model.

Current New Zealand pricing:
Rocna 10 (22lbs): NZ$450 ~= US$270
Rocna 15 (33lbs): NZ$560 ~= US$335

Wasi is the Company (a big German Stainless gear supplier) and Buegel is the anchor they make/sell.

And Buegel is the term for the anchor, "Bügelanker" litterally meaning "handle anchor" or "roll-bar anchor" in German. It has become a rather generic design; since it is so simply built, there are more copies than originals around the Mediterranean, and "Buegel" is no longer a brand.

Alain Hylas (Spade, SSCA forum) says you should never use chain unless you are in coral, anyway.

I don't think so!

Tony you might just as well ask the same question if you lived 2000 years ago:



The bow and arrow still works rather well eh - but that doesn't mean it's the best choice anymore.

Of the small range of anchors shown, a Sarca was in the lineup and was NOT shown in the video as part of the 'test'.  There was also a Spade anchor NOT shown in the 'test'.

...

In the P.S. straight pull mud test the Rocna 15 did well on long scope but dragged on short scope. This to me is an indication that this Rocna is not as versatile nor as dependable as some other anchors in that test.

lol Mac give up . . .

:rolleyes:

BY EXTENSION I see that as a problem with any SCOOP style anchor.
NOT KNOWING NOW, OK? - even if the anchors have sharp points the blade could or does fill with a ball of the bottom it has penetrated.

I have used the analogy of a spoon digging into a melon: once the spoon is started in it will want to follow its radius and scoop back out.  I thought that image might describe what happens with round bottom anchor blades.  They'll slip in. grab their bite and that's it, follow theirselves back out.

No. Ebb the idea is to create a concave shape similar to that of a spoon; this will generate the most resistance. If a blade is filling with a ball of the bottom, it is holding well. If it is letting go of that ball and moving through the seabed, well then it is not holding is it. (In simplistic terms. In fact the "balling" problem has not appeared for the Rocna; even hard clay manages to clear from the blade quite easily. In reality the anchors will bury themselves, but this brings up another issue with testing, as the burial process takes some time. You can't do it when you first set the anchor - it has to have time to work its way down. Therefore the ultimate holding power of most anchors slowly increases from the time it is first set, over perhaps a 12 or 24 hour period, depending on the seabed type).

But the superior nature of a concave fluke is really beyond debate. Concave is better than flat is better than convex, and this has been proven and demonstrated countless times now. Did you not like Graham Alderwick's comment: "My old 30lb Manson plough, while adequate most of the time, and during settled weather, just would not have cut it under these conditions. They should all be relegated to where they belong – on the farm." :cool:

No they will not follow the radius of their curve in the lengthways axis :rolleyes:. If they did that we wouldn't get much very good feedback would we. Saying this is like saying a parachutist will rotate vertically around his 'chute as he falls . The motion the anchor wants to perform is related to the average reaction vector of the blade and the angle of pull as dictated by the rode through the shank. And of course all this is very carefully worked out to be optimum.

The Manson Supreme has no curvature in the lengthways axis because they roll the fluke's two laminated layers rather than fabricating it out of brake pressed sections as we do, and it would be too difficult to get the shape right (curve a piece of card then try to make it spoon shaped, and you'll see what I mean). So this is a result of cheaper construction and nothing to do with core design principals.

If I were comparison testing, I would gather ALL anchors (including the Buegel) in a certain sailboat tonnage range and set up a series of real world and straight pull tests.  Might even blindfold the testers so that they could fudge numbers for their personal favorites.

You would have to consider other factors also. What about strength of the fluke, strength of the shank (in all different directions), weld/build quality, durability, simplicity and ease of construction (important to the consumer also because a complex design generates quality control issues meaning some units are "lemons"), quality of finish (galvanizing), reliability, fit on bow rollers, value (cost), versatility (different bottom types), I could go on...

If we wanted to do well in your hypothetical "comparison testing" (which is the same as what most magazines continually try to do while never understanding all the factors involved - although not all are as bad as Powerboat Reports / Practical Sailor), we could consider your test set-up and build you the perfect anchor that would win every time. But it would be at the sacrifice of most of the factors listed above.

Straight line pulling tests that Practical Sailor just published produces scewed results and imco (and many others) are pretty useless.

The Powerboat Reports tests have been mentioned a few times now on this thread. We have a FAQ relating to the results - you can read it here:
www.rocna.com/press/press_0603_ps_faq.pdf

[standards]

Maybe the Rockna is destined to influence all anchors hereafter.  Elegant, strong, good looking, and versatile.  Anchors are like stone age spearheads.
When the fluted Clovis point finally appeared after thousands of lifetimes of flaking tools for survival it changed everything suddenly.  Those who went with Clovis became modern man and those who didn't ended up on the rocks of Time.

That is a nice sentiment ebb, thank you.

Do you feel the same about the Supreme you ordered?

When we order an important piece of safety equipment from a dealer and/or manufacturer, technical information is of prime importance.
You know, and the whole thing has to be laid out.
Nobody should have to make any assumptions about technical excellence or indeed the technical honesty of an anchor.

But you most certainly do have to. What technical information do you consider of prime importance? Are independent appraisals of that information available? Regarding construction, are you an expert in steel fabrication techniques? Welding? Steel grades? Even if you know your stuff, most consumers most certainly do not.

There are no standards with anchors, which we think is a tragedy since an anchor is really a safety device (as you say). Cheap imports, Chinese copies of Bruce, CQR, and Danforth, flood the market with impunity.

"You get what you pay for." is untrustworthy as well.

"You get what you pay for" is not a subjective statement. It is a measure of relativity. What we mean is:

We do not know of any anchor, from any company in any country, that is a "rip-off"; in other words, the price of every anchor is more or less fair. The price represents what has been invested in its construction. You may decide that money has been spent where you don't want it, but that is your choice.

But the 25# Rockna cost more than twice as much as the anchor that does the same as the Rockna. Why?.

An excellent question. What do you think the answer is?

[epiphany]

Is this not to say that the Buegel was also lifted from the Rocna design?  Or did both your  designs appear similtaneously - as has been said about pivotal human inventions?

No, the Buegel was around for quite a while before we came to the party. The roll-bar concept for the Rocna was indeed lifted from it (and the SARCA mentioned above was using it too, so no-one can claim it as original).

But the similarities end there. The extra functional components (of the Rocna) are identical on the Supreme:

- Concave blade
- Heavier plated toe than heel
- Skids in order to assist setting
- Roll-bar attached to fluke and skids in identical fashions
- An identical inside line of the shank
etc

Now, blatant copying, using cheaper materials and fabrication is definitely criminal, imco.  So what has to be assumed is that there has been no patent infringement on the Rocna with the Supreme's "dual shank".  You'd be taking them to court, Right?  So, I am corrected on the time line, but is it important?

We would not necessarily be taking them to court. Consider the cost. And the outcome? They simply modify the anchor further, to the point it really doesn't infringe. We're not sure we'd really benefit from the investment.

However, options for the US and Europe are on the table.

NOW, what I'm interested in is what  the anchor is made from - and why. Is the method of manufacture the best?  Is the welding perfect and the welding rod correct for the plate?  Do the various metal pieces match in alloy as well as the added metal from the rod in the weldings.    Galvanising has to be perfect as well, how long will it last.

This, and the rest of your comments, are quite fair enough. This is where we could get technical and try to back up my comment "you get what you pay for". But, as you yourself have demonstrated, it doesn't seem to matter. The dollar price quoted on the phone is all that really matters to the majority of consumers...

As an aside, Manson use the same galvanizers as us in New Zealand, so you can assume the quality is identical! (Doesn't apply to Rocnas produced in Canada).

'You get what you pay for' wasn't proved to me from the literature or the visuals on the net.  Some real world testing has to be done with the rollbar spoon delta (inverted plow) anchors pitted against each other with some of the old ones tossed in for control.  Probably could leave out  flat plate anchors like the Bulwagga and concentrate on comparing all of the plow or spoon, or claw anchors,  in the marketplace.  If the makers, together, put up the funds for independant SIDE BY SIDE testing  and published the results, I know I, for one, would be more likely to accept that data.  Since nothing substantive or non-ambiguous exists yet from any maker,  I depend on intuition, looks and price, if I want one.  Real results from real tests would get the "winner", if there was one, into the catalog stores and chandleries.  If a maker declined to be part of the test,  I'd know, we'd know, and  who would trust their anchor?

Well, every test we've ever seen done we have had reason to question the methodology. I think tests of anchors can at best only ever serve as a guide.

As far as our comment, it wasn't intended wrt pure performance. The Supreme should, and does in our experience, perform identically to the Rocna (they're practically the same after all). I was talking about quality of construction.

When somebody can prove that they want to sell me the best all round anchor for my boat, bar none, that's what I want on the bow.  
That may have to include a whole new anchoring philosophy to go with the new design.  

Like coming up short on the tether  while setting because the anchor buries itself so quickly.  Tandom anchoring when preparing for a blow - thats new to me.  Including the little things like using dacron instead of nylon for the rode.  Hmmmmm. :confused:

But now I'm confused... that sounds like our material and concepts, yet you went with a Supreme?

It is easy to see that the Beugel is, metaphorically, a Porche version of the more practical pickup truck Rocna. Agree? :rolleyes:

No. The Buegel is a flat plate with a hoop and straight bar welded to it. It is exceedingly primitive. The differences listed above make the Rocna, and therefore the Supreme, a much more sophisticated design, in all respects.

epiphany

Thanks for all your comments Kurt. You have some good ideas. I'm not sure how practical the idea of "trial" anchors are, but it's certainly something I can put on the table with the other guys here.

Anchors are currently shipped to the States from Vancouver. Not ideal and we are looking to change that soon.

Re Bulwagga, we simply haven't implemented such an "official" policy, but it may indeed be time to do so.

:cool:

The Rocna, an upstart version of the Manson with a plain shank.

:eek:

Get your facts straight please! The Rocna design first registered in New Zealand: August 2004.

In fact we talked to Manson briefly about having them produce the Rocna under license, but we got nowhere. Six months later we saw the first photos of the Supreme.

It is worth taking a look at Manson's range of product to see if you can find a single original design.

Let's give it a try.

'Ronca, Ronca, Ronca' (tapping heels together).

*Poof*, here i am.

Spelling the name properly might help next time if you want a faster response, but I won't hold that against you, it is a strange one :rolleyes:

There is very little feedback on the net. Much is based on cruisers saying how much they love their Bruce or their Bull or their CQR. Since 338 is not sailing yet, thought I'd ask. Get an update.

As far as any of the new anchors are concerned, you will not see much feedback at all for a while. Even once there is a good number of people out there using them, it will take time for experience to build up, and opinions to form.

As far as particular people telling you how great their plow, claw, Danforth, or whatever is, it is wise to be cautious. Very few people have sufficient experience with all types to make valuable conclusions. Furthermore, saying that one has had 20 years of excellent experiences with X anchor may prove that anchor X is a good one, but this is also a little like saying one has had 20 years of excellent experiences with candles, and why bother with that electric lighting thingy.

(Very interesting that Manson also makes a copy of the CQR and it is featured on their web site. They have a little movie of their best seller setting in the sand without a bit of fuss. Wonder why?

Watch our video on our website to see the same anchor skidding along the sand and not setting at all.

Went and checked out the Manson website, Ebb. Looks pretty good, very similar to the Rocna. Hate it when a company won't put a price on their product! How much does a 25# Manson cost? I bet it's close to the Rocna's price, a bit more than the 17# Bulwagga I intend to get later this year...

No, it is quite a bit cheaper.

You get what you pay for.

Wish that the marinesuperstores would have some "try before you buy" anchors for our own testing. That way we could do our own testing, in our usual ancoring grounds, and see how the things work in real life...

Well, we will offer a money-back guarantee on request. If you returned the anchor claiming you were unimpressed, we would charge you for re-galvanizing, which is only ~$1/Kg, but otherwise refund you in full. We don't offer it by default to prevent people "borrowing" anchors.

I'm skeptical about the "dual shank" design in terms of the stress points where shackle would bear on the anchor. I talked with the Navico (Plastimo) importer about the photos on the Manson site ("Dual Shank Anchoring - How It Works") purporting to show a Supreme being pulled out from coral (looks like a piece of concrete to me) with the shackle slid down in the "tripping" position. I said, it looked to me that the point of the spade would still be pulled upward because the pull is still on the lever arm of the shank.

The full length slotted shank is an attempt at stealing some of AnchorRight's market share down here in New Zealand and Australia. AnchorRight produce the SARCA, basically a heavily modified plow, the primary selling point of which is the slot.

Although popular with small boats, the SARCA has done terribly in reviews, testers generally having problems with the slot. As you suggest, Manson have not properly copied it, and their version would not work even as well as that.

We have a bit more info about that on our website under "features & details" (bottom of 2nd page).

I've heard it said that one can not spend too much money on ground tackle.
 
Thanks Craig, for coming here to discuss your anchor.  Good web site, lots of info.

Thank you for your comments and you're welcome.
 

The problem with the #25 CQR is that it somehow weighs about #300 when I am handling it.  :confused:   Not sure how that works, but the thing is really hard to mess with, guess it is the hinge that makes it tough to use.  I have a bow roller that I 'intend' to mount it on, which will keep me from lugging it back and forth, but I am thinking that anchor with 50' of chain are more then I want to deal with on a regular basis.

It's kind of an "unbalanced" anchor. All that lead weight in the tip combined with its articulation... makes it hard to handle. We like to advertise the fact that you can't lose a finger with the Rocna... :eek:
 

What about that Fortress (aluminum) anchor?  I have heard good things about them, what does the panel think?

1) Any aluminium anchor is automatically less strong than the steel equivalent. Consider this carefully before choosing one.
2) Danforth style anchors are now part of the "old generation". As above we would recommend a Bulwagga as a superior alternative.
3) Danforth style anchors in general give decent holding power but are not good primary anchors. They do not set reliably, and are not roll-stable. For this reason they're a good second anchor, as you can set them manually, then keep a watch on them. Your primary anchor needs to be a good holder plus able to reset itself should it come out, be reversed, etc. It also needs to be strong and durable if you're going to give it the abuse most cruisers will.

Right enough posting from me... :rolleyes:

The best holding in the P.S. tests was the Spade 80, with the Bul coming in second.

The Rocna was not tested at that time.  To me the Rocna is a Spade with a roll bar.  Not a bad idea.  We don't see it, a Spade being dragged along not digging in like the CQR eg.  So there must be something to the shaping of the shaft that will pull the blade down into the bed.  But still,  the roll bar looks like an improvement leading to more sure setting, especially if any grass is involved.

Of the three we now might agree have the greatest holding power:  Bulwagga, Rocna, Spade 80 - the spade is the most expensive, probably a function of its holding power.

Be careful with any testing, even Practical Sailor's. Their size selection methodology is very questionable, and some of their recent tests have been rather less impressive than their earlier ones. Aside from that, most testing that magazines do only consider several factors such as setting performance and holding power. There are many other factors which can be just as important.

The Spade is the most expensive because of its costs of production. The shank is demountable and hollow. This creates a stowable anchor and one with an increased percentage weight-on-tip (lighter shank). This also creates an anchor designed to come apart and one with a weaker shank. Again you must decide if this arrangement of cost and function is what you want.

What I would like to see is ACTUAL videos of anchors setting in the four or five different bottoms we are concerned with.  Mud, sand, weed, shale, rock.
I really appreciate what Practical Sailor is doing,  primarily because it is impartial.  I could be persuaded by a munufacturer video of his product outperforming others.  Don't know that I've been convinced yet.

That is fair. Our video is intended to be primarily a demonstration of the Rocna, and we show the two stalwarts of the "old generation" - i.e. the claw and plow - to show what we're improving on. It is not intended to be an exhaustive and impartial documentary.

I thought dry sand would more approximate a sand bottom under water because of the stirring-up of the bottom that an anchor might cause.  Assume the anchor breaking in under water would 'fluff' up the sand around the hole it makes.  Therefor dry sand, a lighter medium, perhaps.

No. Anchors have much more trouble setting in dry sand. They behave so differently to the point that such a test would be worse than useless. You would design an anchor differently for use in dry sand or soil.

A cruiser should carry more than two anchors.   The Bulwagga seems to be a good choice.  It's a lot of sheet metal that I guess gains strength by being buried.  Would more trust a hook in rocks.  Would like to hear what we have to say about this.  An oversize Spade migth be carried as the ultimate storm anchor.  And the Rocna as the primary for new unknown bottoms.  That's a bunch of cash,
BUT, it's also cheap up close and personal insurance.  NO???

YES!!!

The Bulwagga we would recommend as a superior alternative to a Danforth or Fortress style anchor. Similar "values", i.e. good holding power for light-weight.

And between the Spade and Rocna, well that is up to the individual :rolleyes: