Rocna's bad press by video - anchor thread don't read if you don't like anchor threads!

[Neeves]

If someone is looking for an anchor recommendation on almost any forum one of the recommendations is to look at the 'Panope' videos. You would need to be very patient to watch all the videos, it would take days but there are summary spread sheets, of which this is one



On this spread sheet one Rocna had its shank misaligned but the other Rocna, defined as '2020' is a regular production model.

The stunning conclusion is that the Rocna 2020 is not rated as good as a CQR and really not much better than a Bruce or Delta. 15 years ago that same Rocna was the best thing since sliced bread and in 2006 when YM reported on the West Marine tests - Rocna was the best anchor - in terms of hold. Hold is not measured for the Panope videos - a major and critical omission in my book - in fact I don't know how you can judge an anchor if you do not measure ultimate hold.

As mentioned by a forum member last week Rocna seems to be subject to some bad press. If I look at the spread sheet Rocna performs particularly poorly in terms of resetting, veering, tip weight to total weight and self launching.


If we go back some years Morgans Cloud removed their recommendation for Rocna as a result of Rocna anchors dragging resulting in yachts on beaches and I did some clogging tests, which underlined what MC had said - the fluke is prone to clogging and the anchor will not reset until it 'self cleans'.


If I walk round a local marine and check the anchors on bow rollers the most common modern anchor is a Rocna. Reading posts here, on YBW, Rocna is a common and popular anchor. I don't recall anyone on YBW complaining of the performance of a Rocna (but I may well have missed something).


My conclusion is that the Panope tests do not reflect reality - if they did I would not see so many Rocna anchors and we would have even more anchor threads - devoted to people dumping their Rocna in favour of other designs. The Panope videos are tremendously popular and are becoming or are very powerful. If they don't reflect reality - they are dangerous. If they damn a product that people find more than satisfactory do they praise a product for situations that don't exist.


I'm not a Rocna fan, I jointly wrote the article in YM with Vyv Cox on the bendy shank saga and I am aware that on retrieval a Rocna can lift a big clog of seabed - necessitating some effort with a deck wash. This same clot is part of the bad press that Rocna suffers - but this seabed clog actually does not seem to deter buyers. Though I'm not a fan of Rocna my views are partly emotive, the bendy shank saga, and I do think there are better anchor (though many would say a Rocna is the best). However I am not a great supporter of evidence that does not reflect what the market appears to think and I too think Rocna is being unfairly maligned.

Declaring our usage - we use an aluminium Excel, aluminium Spade and Fortress, are testing a Viking 10 as our primary (and neither of our aluminium anchors gets a good press either! ). I also think the Mantus M1 grossly overrated (in the spreadsheet) and am suspicious of the damning of the Epsilon (as I simply cannot believe Lewmar got it so wrong - very subjective . ). I cannot comment on the Epsilon, Mantus M2, nor Vulcan, not on the spreadsheet - I have never used any of them

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

 

[Boathook]

I've got a 15Kg rocna and over 3 years it has only once not taken hold and that was due to eel grass in an area where I anchor quite often. It self cleaned once of the bottom and took straight away afterwards in the same area.
Normally it feels the bottom and digs straight in on a 2 to 1 scope though I use 3 to 1 or even greater. Personally I rate it well over a danforth and delta both of which I have had on the same boat.

 

[robmcg]

If you have a boat like the one on the Panope videos and you anchor where he does and you are subject to the violent pulling and changes of direction etc that the tests are based on then I have no doubt in their accuracy.

However, I live in the real world and anchor a yacht which behaves very differently to the Panope test criteria. The result is Panope videos are not applicable to how I deploy, set or use an anchor. Full disclosure - current bow anchor is a Delta and yet to have any problems with it but it is up for replacement, partly as it has gone quite rusty ?.

 

[NormanS]

Anchor fashions. ?

 

[cherod]

Not sure that what is seen in the local marina is representative of owners thoughts as just how many people are willing or able to fork out more money on an alternative anchor just because they are not completly satisfied with their current one

 

[doug748]

Anchor fashions. ?

It's good to see the CQR climbing the charts again.

.

 

[geem]

If someone is looking for an anchor recommendation on almost any forum one of the recommendations is to look at the 'Panope' videos. You would need to be very patient to watch all the videos, it would take days but there are summary spread sheets, of which this is one

View attachment 123751

On this spread sheet one Rocna had its shank misaligned but the other Rocna, defined as '2020' is a regular production model.

The stunning conclusion is that the Rocna 2020 is not rated as good as a CQR and really not much better than a Bruce or Delta. 15 years ago that same Rocna was the best thing since sliced bread and in 2006 when YM reported on the West Marine tests - Rocna was the best anchor - in terms of hold. Hold is not measured for the Panope videos - a major and critical omission in my book - in fact I don't know how you can judge an anchor if you do not measure ultimate hold.

As mentioned by a forum member last week Rocna seems to be subject to some bad press. If I look at the spread sheet Rocna performs particularly poorly in terms of resetting, veering, tip weight to total weight and self launching.


If we go back some years Morgans Cloud removed their recommendation for Rocna as a result of Rocna anchors dragging resulting in yachts on beaches and I did some clogging tests, which underlined what MC had said - the fluke is prone to clogging and the anchor will not reset until it 'self cleans'.


If I walk round a local marine and check the anchors on bow rollers the most common modern anchor is a Rocna. Reading posts here, on YBW, Rocna is a common and popular anchor. I don't recall anyone on YBW complaining of the performance of a Rocna (but I may well have missed something).


My conclusion is that the Panope tests do not reflect reality - if they did I would not see so many Rocna anchors and we would have even more anchor threads - devoted to people dumping their Rocna in favour of other designs. The Panope videos are tremendously popular and are becoming or are very powerful. If they don't reflect reality - they are dangerous. If they damn a product that people find more than satisfactory do they praise a product for situations that don't exist.


I'm not a Rocna fan, I jointly wrote the article in YM with Vyv Cox on the bendy shank saga and I am aware that on retrieval a Rocna can lift a big clog of seabed - necessitating some effort with a deck wash. This same clot is part of the bad press that Rocna suffers - but this seabed clog actually does not seem to deter buyers. Though I'm not a fan of Rocna my views are partly emotive, the bendy shank saga, and I do think there are better anchor (though many would say a Rocna is the best). However I am not a great supporter of evidence that does not reflect what the market appears to think and I too think Rocna is being unfairly maligned.

Declaring our usage - we use an aluminium Excel, aluminium Spade and Fortress, are testing a Viking 10 as our primary (and neither of our aluminium anchors gets a good press either! ). I also think the Mantus M1 grossly overrated (in the spreadsheet) and am suspicious of the damning of the Epsilon (as I simply cannot believe Lewmar got it so wrong - very subjective . ). I cannot comment on the Epsilon, Mantus M2, nor Vulcan, not on the spreadsheet - I have never used any of them

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

I am not sure a marina survey of anchors is a great indicator of anything useful. Plenty of people anchoring every day who never go in marinas. Not been in a marina for three months now.
I might be one of the few people that sold a Rocna to buy a Spade. Our current boat came with a brand new Rocna. I tried it for a season, didn't rate it so bought the Spade.

 

[cherod]

I am not sure a marina survey of anchors is a great indicator of anything useful. Plenty of people anchoring every day who never go in marinas. Not been in a marina for three months now.
I might be one of the few people that sold a Rocna to buy a Spade. Our current boat came with a brand new Rocna. I tried it for a season, didn't rate it so bought the Spade.

What size boat , weight , general purpose ?

 

[vyv_cox]

I find something extremely odd about the Rocna score of 1 for veer in sandy mud. These are exactly the seabeds that I anchor in for six months of the year. We have experienced big windshifts on many occasions, I have posted underwater photos of several of the examples, and the Rocna has never failed to reset.

 

[Poey50]

There does seem a large disconnect between the tests of Steve of Panope and the reported experience of many using Rocnas as exemplified by Vyv's comment above. One question I have is whether there is quite a specific recipe of mud and sand found in Steve's test seabed which has a higher risk of clogging. The error then is to generalise to other sandy-mud seabeds of different recipes. In fairness, Steve himself makes that point. It seems to me that the low 'scores' are all linked to that specific seabed. His tests show Rocna's doing better than Spades in softer mud for example.

 

[srm]

Laying an anchor is an act of faith - we do not know what seabed conditions it will have to work in. You may see a nice sandy bottom but what lies a few centimetres below it, mud, pebbles, or smooth rock are all possibilities that I have observed.

50 years ago my boats had CQRs, they had to be gently coaxed into the seabed while motoring astern and could pull out of the sea bed without warning. Changing to a genuine Bruce of the same weight was a revelation, provided that the flukes did not get blocked by a herring barrel hoop of a large slab of rock (both happened and were lifted to the bows) it dug in or hooked rock and held reliably without pulling more than a boat length. I have tried a few 'modern' anchors since but settled for a Rocna a few years ago and have no complaints. (It even held without dragging in moderate conditions when the fluke landed in a woven sack). Max wind speed experienced with the Rocna was around 50 knots in sheltered waters and and in the 70 to 80 knots range while lying to the Bruce. We also carry genuine Bruces as second and third anchors. (I do not equate modern copies with the genuine Bruce patent anchor design)

Others have different experiences and many armchair sailors on forums have very vocal opinions. As always its the skipper / owner's responsibility to make the best judgement for their situation.

 

[C08]

An interesting spreadsheet but what do the X's mean?

 

[Sandy]

My conclusion is that the Panope tests do not reflect reality

I have stated this before on several threads Panope's methodology is fundamentally flawed. He needs to look at what he is doing and how he is doing it. Things like what does 'deep set in sandy mud' actually mean? How is he defining deep? Has anybody actually seen sandy mud? I've seen sand, I've seen mud, but never sandy mud.

I know it feels like the entire planet thinks he is due the Nobel Prize for 'services to anchoring', but to date none of his test data has been repeated.

@Neeves good to see you posting about anchors again.

 

[Sandy]

An interesting spreadsheet but what do the X's mean?

Test not performed is my interpretation.

 

[pandos]

I anchor infrequently, but in the past I happily sat for days waiting out bad weather.

At that time I had a CQR as I had on my previous boat. (Also a 35 foot boat)All chain rode and plenty of it (with a snubber) ..never had a problem either anchoring or staying put...always used the same tecnique...

About a year ago, with plans for some more serious cruising in mind I swapped my CQR for a Rocna.

So far I have used it twice in anger. On each ocassion it failed to set first time and on each ocassion it came up (having set on the second attempt) carrying a huge sticky mess.

Had it broken free on either ocassion it would never have reset.

The last time I used it, a visitor mooring became available and I lifted my anchor after 20 mins and opted for that instead as I now lack confidence in the Rocna.

I have no doubt that Rocnas are good anchors and all fault lies in my technique or the seabed type, I have less faith in it than I had in my old CQR although I retain sufficient confidence in it (and the first hand opinions of others who have used them),to give it a chance.

If I go further afield, the CQR will be brought along in the bilge as a backup and a spare...and if my percentage of successful sets does not improve there may be a rochna for sale...

I have considered spraying it with ptfe or drilling holes in the spade!

But I will probably just continue to use it and eventually I will have a major success in that it will hold me in a storm or it will fail to set on too many ocassions and I will never develope any faith in it...


Meantime the Rocna will sit on my bow looking like I think it is the Bees knees.

 

[stephen_h]

Panopes results may not be to everyone's liking but they do compare different anchors in different types of seabed. It may not match
what we anchor in but the results are relative. I have a Mantus which also does not score so highly in certain conditions in Steve's tables
but it has never let me down, including two major storms in the Isle of Scilly. Until other practical, independant tests are replicated in other areas/seabeds,
I believe Panope's testing results are the best we have. I would also suggest people look at Noelex's pictures of set anchors to also get some very good real world examples.

 

[geem]

What size boat , weight , general purpose ?

Panopes results may not be to everyone's liking but they do compare different anchors in different types of seabed. It may not match
what we anchor in but the results are relative. I have a Mantus which also does not score so highly in certain conditions in Steve's tables
but it has never let me down, including two major storms in the Isle of Scilly. Until other practical, independant tests are replicated in other areas/seabeds,
I believe Panope's testing results are the best we have. I would also suggest people look at Noelex's pictures of set anchors to also get some very good real world examples.

For me photos of set anchors don't tell me how many attempts it took to set or what happens when a 180 Deg wind shift occured or tide changed. Worth nothing in my opinion

 

[noelex]

For me photos of set anchors don't tell me how many attempts it took to set or what happens when a 180 Deg wind shift occured or tide changed. Worth nothing in my opinion

Thanks for the feedback.

If you are referring to my photos, I have usually (always for my own anchor) noted if there is more than one attempt at setting. The only exceptions are the boats where I could not witness the anchoring process.

There are many photos showing the effect of changes in wind direction on anchors. These photos show the responce to real wind shifts.

Interestingly, when responding to a real wind shift anchors behave differently than a simulared windshift produced with a boat or beach pull. The reason for this difference is not clear. I suspect it is due to the substrate having plenty of time to consolidate around the anchor in real world situations, but there may be other factors that are more important. It certainly is an area that warrants more research.

 

[noelex]

Panope is to be congratulated for his excellent videos. Still photos are hard enough, but video results require a monumental amount of work.

The final table is interesting. Overall I would very much agree with these results with a few exceptions. Personally, I would rate the Rocna much higher, the Excel worse, and the CQR slightly worse. Compared to the vast differences frequently seen between various traditional anchor tests, this is a reassuringly close result.

Panope's tests also help provide some insight into a few questions that crop up frequently on the forum. As expected, the videos show the significant advantage of larger anchors especially in poor substrates, confirm the great performance of the Mantus M1 and also show that the steel Spade and Excel perform significantly better than the aluminium versions. It is great to see some objective evidence for these frequently disputed points.

 

[Roberto]

FWIW, have a Rocna, used in a number of anchorages I'd say around 700 (looking at time spent on the boat between sailing and anchoring). I see no reason to change it as I have found it perfectly satisfactory, as other anchors are of course but I have not directly used them so I cannot comment.
If an anchor works well and does not cause any problem, what would be a "better anchor"?
Under different operating conditions I think "better" to me is a light alloy anchor, as I can bring it on the dinghy, or swim with fenders, weigh by hand, etc etc. Another "better" anchor type are those cheap enough I can afford to loose in very foul bottoms, when maximum holding is very very secondary, it's "better" cheap polypropylene rode and welded rods/plate, once it's stuck leave it there, that's another type of "better". But they are of course all different purposes from a bower.
Incidentally, a significant number of anchorages we made have been on rivers/inlets with strong current and reversals at every tide cycle, never seen the anchor move from its place. Whatever tests Panope did, or if boats ended up on rocks because of a tide reversal, all I can deduce is we have different ways of anchoring, somehow. My personal statistical sample as to the anchor overall efficiency is good enough for me.
Ask directly, in person, real world, anyone you know has a significant anchoring experience, when you average there are two three four different setups which work well, they are different and keep people equally safe, so what would be "the best"?