C08
Well-Known Member
So which of these two is best and why leaving aside the subject of fitting on the bow roller? A 15kg Rocna is about the same price as a 12kg Vucan.
Last edited:
Rocna or Vulcan
- Thread starter C08
- Start date
duncan99210
Well-Known Member
I'd say it's probably down to personal preference. I'm very happy with my Rocna.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
First you need to find someone who has used both for sufficient time to be able to comment reliably.
Its worth looking at this thread:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?487143-Best-Value-For-Money-New-Generation-Anchor
Its worth looking at this thread:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?487143-Best-Value-For-Money-New-Generation-Anchor
Last edited:
RichardS
N/A
Take a coin and assign Rocna to one side and Vulcan to the other ...... and toss.
Whichever side falls face upwards should be your choice as that will be just as valid as any recommendations on here.
Richard
noelex
Well-Known Member
The Vulcan is a bit too new to tell. There is limited information. There are some underwater photos of both anchors in action on this thread, and also some user impressions:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/photos-of-anchors-setting-126073-140.html#post2469293
Do a search for both "Vulcan" and "Rocna" if these are the anchors are interested in.
To my eyes both look very good anchors, but the Rocna looks to have the edge, perhaps not surprisingly, given that it was not designed with the limitation of fitting all bow rollers, but look at the images and make up your own mind. It would be nice to see more images of the Vulcan to be able to form some more definite conclusions.
Certainly the Rocna is an excellent and very well proven anchor so it would be my choice over the Vulcan at this stage if both anchors fit.
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/photos-of-anchors-setting-126073-140.html#post2469293
Do a search for both "Vulcan" and "Rocna" if these are the anchors are interested in.
To my eyes both look very good anchors, but the Rocna looks to have the edge, perhaps not surprisingly, given that it was not designed with the limitation of fitting all bow rollers, but look at the images and make up your own mind. It would be nice to see more images of the Vulcan to be able to form some more definite conclusions.
Certainly the Rocna is an excellent and very well proven anchor so it would be my choice over the Vulcan at this stage if both anchors fit.
Last edited:
C08
Well-Known Member
Well Rocna also make the Vulcan and imply it is an alternative that may fit some boow rollers better, also has a shank with an I section that is claimed to be more rigid, also the curved shank.
From the designer of the original Rocna Anchor Peter Smith, the Vulcan promises improved bow stowage dimensions whilst retaining all the holding power of the original.
"The Original Rocna set the bar for modern anchor holding power, The Vulcan fine tunes all the best design elements to produce a superior anchor. The bow roller sympathetic design gives the Vulcan a universal appeal."
I am not sure if the angle of the flukes to the shank are the same-it is difficult to tell with the Vulcan's curved shank.
From the designer of the original Rocna Anchor Peter Smith, the Vulcan promises improved bow stowage dimensions whilst retaining all the holding power of the original.
"The Original Rocna set the bar for modern anchor holding power, The Vulcan fine tunes all the best design elements to produce a superior anchor. The bow roller sympathetic design gives the Vulcan a universal appeal."
I am not sure if the angle of the flukes to the shank are the same-it is difficult to tell with the Vulcan's curved shank.
Chris_Robb
Well-Known Member
I think the interesting thing about this new Vulcan is that it has no role bar. As a long term user of a Manson Supreme - very similar to the Rocna, I have found that the only failing of this type of anchor is the fact that any dragging on setting in thick weed, chokes the anchor and you have to bring it up.
The Spade never would choke in the same way. -
If I was buying a new anchor to day it would be a Spade type purely because of the choking problems - no other criticism of the performance of the Manson.
noelex
Well-Known Member
The shank design of the Vulcan is indeed innovative. The main aim is to save weight. Nearly all designs perform better when the shank weight is reduced, but it is especially critical with this type of design. Without a roll bar the anchor needs a low COG to ensure it is unstable when upside down.
The Spade and Ultra are anchors that belong in the same category, so face the same challenges . Spade solved the problem producing a fabricated hollow triangular shank. Ultra did the same thing but theirs is an oval section and is apparently sealed which adds a little buoyancy to the shank reducing the effective weight in water.
The Spade and Ultra are anchors that belong in the same category, so face the same challenges . Spade solved the problem producing a fabricated hollow triangular shank. Ultra did the same thing but theirs is an oval section and is apparently sealed which adds a little buoyancy to the shank reducing the effective weight in water.
Trop Cher
Well-Known Member
afterpegassus
Well-Known Member
In another post you mentioned you liked to support British buisiness so why not consider the Knox?
Garold
Well-Known Member
I’ve had three rocnas, one spade and one Vulcan. (Different boats) (and a couple of deltas and others).
I bought the Vulcan to go on a motorboat because the rocna wouldn’t fit well and the Vulcan is designed to fit these type of bow roller.
Of the three, I prefer the rocna and have it once more on my current boat.
The spade was good but felt like it slipped through mud and sand for too long before setting, and the Vulcan needed repeat attempts to set. I’ve never really so far had any problems with Rocnas
So, my choice would be a rocna. The Vulcan was cheaper when I tried it.
Garold
I bought the Vulcan to go on a motorboat because the rocna wouldn’t fit well and the Vulcan is designed to fit these type of bow roller.
Of the three, I prefer the rocna and have it once more on my current boat.
The spade was good but felt like it slipped through mud and sand for too long before setting, and the Vulcan needed repeat attempts to set. I’ve never really so far had any problems with Rocnas
So, my choice would be a rocna. The Vulcan was cheaper when I tried it.
Garold
Bradders
Well-Known Member
Vulcan gets my vote ! we have a 25KG Vulcan on a Jeanneau 44i and are very pleased with its performance..
Sjk1000
Well-Known Member
We fitted a Rocna in April and have anchored 40-odd times since then between Cowes and Scotland and, to be honest, the CQR we had fared just as well. We kept an eye on the weather reports and, if the forecast was really crappy we scampered up a river, or found a mooring buoy, or a marina, or at worst found a sheltered anchorage. If you're going somewhere remote and you're the kind of person that stays at anchor in bad weather then go for it, get the best you can afford, otherwise save your money for a decent meal and a beer and stick something cheaper on the bow.
Last edited:
benchmark
Well-Known Member
None of the above. Go for a Fortress anchor which has less weight and better holding power. It's performance is so good that it is the official anchor of the US navy and coastguard.
http://fortressanchors.com
Neeves
Well-Known Member
I have only seen Vulcan's at boat shows, there is usually a prominent display at the 2 big Oz shows. I have seen a few on bow rollers, less than 5 and have seen a few underwater shots of set anchors. I have never used one. My comments are qualified by these restrictions.
The Vulcan is untested by anyone independent, I have not seen one single magazine report. Having exposed the bendy shank saga I no longer receive Xmas wishes either from the Smiths nor CMP - and I certainly have never been offered an anchor to try! The only reports are from owners (and some owners having stuck their necks out in buying a totally untested product are not going to admit to have made any fundamental errors).
A comment on performance is from Peter Smith, and I recall the words of his son being questioned previously - and I would like to see some factual independent reviews. There are a few owners who have commented - see above - but no-one is particularly rapturous.
The anchor has obviously not been offered to the media to test, has had virtually no advertising and unsurprisingly has made no waves. In fact the anchor is being sold on the integrity of the Smiths.
The comment above about the fluke of a roll bar anchor clogging, as result of seabed filling the fluke under the roll bar, is the reason Morgan's Cloud removed their recommendation for the Rocna (after a few yachts dragged and ended up on beaches). Morgan's Cloud are committed to Spade (but also carry Fortress). Removal of the roll bar is an ideal design focus - it was achieved with the Spade in the early 90's - and Spade works exceptionally well and has stood the test of time.
Interestingly Spade introduced an ballasted Spade variant, Oceane/Sword - it sank like a stone.
Few anchors work well in soft sand and mud, that's when a Fortress comes into its own. If you discarded a Spade because it would not set in mud then you were using the wrong anchor in that seabed. All anchors a re a compromise - there is no one perfect model.
I have heard it is very difficult to house the Vulcan hard against a bow roller, to stop it wobbling, as result of the geometry of the shank - many physically need to lift the anchor to house tightly. You could lash it down but that seems extra work (difficult in a restricted space).
There seems to be a suggestion that the Vulcan may be similar to a Spade or Ultra. This is totally misleading and erroneous as the Vulcan has no ballast whereas the ostensibly similar Spade and Ultra both contain lead in the toe. Oddly the Vulcan has an empty ballast chamber.
The fluke angle, the angle of the fluke to the 'effort' of the shank of the Vulcan - is 30 degrees, the same as every other anchor (except the 'variable' Fortress, which is 32 or 45 degrees). However the Vulcan's centre of gravity and centre of effort is very different to other anchors - primarily because it has no ballast.
The few images I have seen underwater - suggest that the Vulcan sets flat, with a low fluke to seabed angle - but we now know that images can be deceptive (and interpretations of images totally incorrect). My interpretation is that the centre of effort is in the wrong place (like the Mantus).
As mentioned the Knox is achieving good support (and is designed and made in the UK with UK steel). You might wonder at the similarity of price between, say Knox and Vulcan, considering one pays UK costs the other pays Chinese costs.
Spade has consistently good reviews and even the Excel from far away Australia has found some support in the UK. If you want to anchor in mud or soft sand or any sand then Fortress is unbeatable. If you are impecunious then the Kobra stands head and shoulders above the rest and its manufacturing costs are similar to any other anchor made in China (but be cognisant that its shank is a bit weak - though 'normally' this will not be an issue).
Modern high performance anchors without roll bars have been well tested, Excel, Spade (both in either steel or alloy) and Kobra. Kobra has much support in YBW members. There is a design for every taste and budget.
All modern anchors tend to be over specified in terms of weight, except maybe Spade, and all will outperform their older siblings, like Bruce, CQR and Delta. Many find these older relatives perfectly adequate - which simply underlines that the new models tend to be over specified (and more so as many people oversize from the manufacturers recommendations).
Why you would want to consider an unproven, hardly cheap, product is a mystery - but hopefully your question was academic. If however you progress and buy one - please let us know how it performs - user feedback is thin on the ground (as you will note from the paucity of replies on Vulcan).
Good luck
Jonathan
Edit:
I would refer you, again, to this thread
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?487143-Best-Value-For-Money-New-Generation-Anchor
which gives some current comment on anchors and sharply illustrates how easy it is to misinterpret images. You might also note that Vulcan is noticeable by its absence - which might tell you something.
close edit
The Vulcan is untested by anyone independent, I have not seen one single magazine report. Having exposed the bendy shank saga I no longer receive Xmas wishes either from the Smiths nor CMP - and I certainly have never been offered an anchor to try! The only reports are from owners (and some owners having stuck their necks out in buying a totally untested product are not going to admit to have made any fundamental errors).
A comment on performance is from Peter Smith, and I recall the words of his son being questioned previously - and I would like to see some factual independent reviews. There are a few owners who have commented - see above - but no-one is particularly rapturous.
The anchor has obviously not been offered to the media to test, has had virtually no advertising and unsurprisingly has made no waves. In fact the anchor is being sold on the integrity of the Smiths.
The comment above about the fluke of a roll bar anchor clogging, as result of seabed filling the fluke under the roll bar, is the reason Morgan's Cloud removed their recommendation for the Rocna (after a few yachts dragged and ended up on beaches). Morgan's Cloud are committed to Spade (but also carry Fortress). Removal of the roll bar is an ideal design focus - it was achieved with the Spade in the early 90's - and Spade works exceptionally well and has stood the test of time.
Interestingly Spade introduced an ballasted Spade variant, Oceane/Sword - it sank like a stone.
Few anchors work well in soft sand and mud, that's when a Fortress comes into its own. If you discarded a Spade because it would not set in mud then you were using the wrong anchor in that seabed. All anchors a re a compromise - there is no one perfect model.
I have heard it is very difficult to house the Vulcan hard against a bow roller, to stop it wobbling, as result of the geometry of the shank - many physically need to lift the anchor to house tightly. You could lash it down but that seems extra work (difficult in a restricted space).
There seems to be a suggestion that the Vulcan may be similar to a Spade or Ultra. This is totally misleading and erroneous as the Vulcan has no ballast whereas the ostensibly similar Spade and Ultra both contain lead in the toe. Oddly the Vulcan has an empty ballast chamber.
The fluke angle, the angle of the fluke to the 'effort' of the shank of the Vulcan - is 30 degrees, the same as every other anchor (except the 'variable' Fortress, which is 32 or 45 degrees). However the Vulcan's centre of gravity and centre of effort is very different to other anchors - primarily because it has no ballast.
The few images I have seen underwater - suggest that the Vulcan sets flat, with a low fluke to seabed angle - but we now know that images can be deceptive (and interpretations of images totally incorrect). My interpretation is that the centre of effort is in the wrong place (like the Mantus).
As mentioned the Knox is achieving good support (and is designed and made in the UK with UK steel). You might wonder at the similarity of price between, say Knox and Vulcan, considering one pays UK costs the other pays Chinese costs.
Spade has consistently good reviews and even the Excel from far away Australia has found some support in the UK. If you want to anchor in mud or soft sand or any sand then Fortress is unbeatable. If you are impecunious then the Kobra stands head and shoulders above the rest and its manufacturing costs are similar to any other anchor made in China (but be cognisant that its shank is a bit weak - though 'normally' this will not be an issue).
Modern high performance anchors without roll bars have been well tested, Excel, Spade (both in either steel or alloy) and Kobra. Kobra has much support in YBW members. There is a design for every taste and budget.
All modern anchors tend to be over specified in terms of weight, except maybe Spade, and all will outperform their older siblings, like Bruce, CQR and Delta. Many find these older relatives perfectly adequate - which simply underlines that the new models tend to be over specified (and more so as many people oversize from the manufacturers recommendations).
Why you would want to consider an unproven, hardly cheap, product is a mystery - but hopefully your question was academic. If however you progress and buy one - please let us know how it performs - user feedback is thin on the ground (as you will note from the paucity of replies on Vulcan).
Good luck
Jonathan
Edit:
I would refer you, again, to this thread
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?487143-Best-Value-For-Money-New-Generation-Anchor
which gives some current comment on anchors and sharply illustrates how easy it is to misinterpret images. You might also note that Vulcan is noticeable by its absence - which might tell you something.
close edit
Last edited:
Garold
Well-Known Member
Our next door neighbour in Soller Mallorca has a Bavaria 42 with a Vulcan 25 on the front.
I spoke to him yesterday and he told me that he’s had it only a month or two but so far he’s very happy with it. He dived on it the first time he used it in sand and he says that it was completely buried with only chain showing. He also said that it launches well with the curved shank and comes up cleaner than he’s seen roll top rocnas come up.
He showed me that he has a small buoy which he uses when he deploys it near rocks. It looks like it would be otherwise unretrievable if the point caught under the edge of any solid rock.
It certainly looks purposeful on his bow. I’ve never seen one so big before.
Garold
I spoke to him yesterday and he told me that he’s had it only a month or two but so far he’s very happy with it. He dived on it the first time he used it in sand and he says that it was completely buried with only chain showing. He also said that it launches well with the curved shank and comes up cleaner than he’s seen roll top rocnas come up.
He showed me that he has a small buoy which he uses when he deploys it near rocks. It looks like it would be otherwise unretrievable if the point caught under the edge of any solid rock.
It certainly looks purposeful on his bow. I’ve never seen one so big before.
Garold
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
Wise words from Jonathan. A good unbiased review IMHO.
patrigo
New Member
I have a Vulcan and it has an abundance of ballast. It has proved itself to me, that its reason for being, is to stick itself into the surface it finds itself on. Take it out in your yard/beach, whatever, wrap rope or chain all around it, pull, trying to "trap it" and it will unwind on the spot and dig in. To say it is un ballasted is not correct.
geem
Well-Known Member
Having a spade myself and having examined the Rocna and Vulcan along side each other in a shop, it is surprising how similar the Vulcan is to my Spade. I guess if you can't fit a roll bar type on your bowroller you end up with a spade design. The Vulcan certainly looks strong. I would consider one for my next anchor since I like the Spade design but the loss of galvanising from my Spade is more than irritating.
Tim Good
Well-Known Member
Word on the street says that the Vulcan is an effort to match the Spade in design and also fit on bow sprits.
In tests the Spade and Rocna come out very well but the Spade has the edge on resetting in sudden wind shifts I believe. Apparently it barely even breaks out whereas the Rocna breaks out and then skips along the ground before resetting. There is some talk of this on MorgansCloud.com and on youtube. I've never been in a place when the wind has switch 180 degrees quickly but apparently it does happen in the tropics if caught out in a storm.
In tests the Spade and Rocna come out very well but the Spade has the edge on resetting in sudden wind shifts I believe. Apparently it barely even breaks out whereas the Rocna breaks out and then skips along the ground before resetting. There is some talk of this on MorgansCloud.com and on youtube. I've never been in a place when the wind has switch 180 degrees quickly but apparently it does happen in the tropics if caught out in a storm.
Last edited: