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

[Deleted member 36384]

I have dozens of photos of my Rocna in which the length of the set is very obviously the same or less than the total length of the anchor. This is considerably less than one metre.

I know that as you have posted the pictures on here and made that observation. I don’t doubt that it rapidly sets. I just think that the majority of those that anchor don’t measure what distance their anchor sets in, nor are interested, as the many new designs now set very quickly.

The point that was made, is that as it sets in its length it has less probability of fouling. That’s nonsense as it could equally foul on setting in its length as setting at some other arbitrary length. Why, because we don’t know exactly and precisely what we are dropping our anchors onto. I know you and others dive on your anchors and see the bottom, many sailors don’t nor cant.

I am not trying to nit pick, but it’s a fact that many people anchor successfully with all sorts of anchors, even in extreme conditions. It’s interesting that Skip Novak used on his last boat a CQR for a very, very long time.

I’ll reiterate the point I made earlier in the thread, as others have too, the majority of anchors work if deployed correctly. The details between them, especially in the NGA space, is inconsequential as Novak demonstrates.

 

[Bouba]

If you drop the anchor on a small patch of sand, then it would be nice if it set before it’s dragged into the weeds

 

[Neeves]

I have dozens of photos of my Rocna in which the length of the set is very obviously the same or less than the total length of the anchor. This is considerably less than one metre.

If you are lucky to have clear water it is easy to see distance from where the anchor 'started' and how far it took to set - just look from the dinghy. I agree with Vyv's comment.

Jonathan

 

[Kukri]

… what is this “clear” water??

 

[Neeves]

True, with my above mentioned anchor choice it took 5 nights at anchor to compensate for the expensive costs of Croatian marinas

Thanks a lot for mentioning your experience with Viking 10 and the Z Shank, I love the design and thinking behind it! Also good to know the Galva thickness, mine had minor issues in that respect, but your measurements are very reassuring and their staff is very responsive and helpful. I only tested mine away from real life scenarios in a hard garden substrate with a winch and 4,5:1 scope. Biting/setting ability is impressive, however this thread is about unfair video press about Rocna, so I won't go into too much off topic.

Don't get excited about the 'Z' shank, yet

I have tested the Viking with the standard shank deployed. from our deck, and retrieved to the same location. It offers exceptionally good performance - considering its weight. I cannot tell the difference between it and the aluminium Spade and Excel. The Viking is a bit heavier - but the extra weight, 2-3kg, is not an issue.

We too had an issue with the galvanising - it was far too thin. We had an early model - It was around 40 microns - the anchor was quickly replaced. Good customer service. What fascinated me was that most 'industrial standards' are 70-80 micron and I could not understand why it was so thin (still do not know). In many applications thin gal would really not be an issue - but more important for an anchor that is constantly being abraded.

I have only tried the 'Z' shank in one seabed - it worked fine. I have only had the 'Z' shank for 3 weeks. The seabed I have tried is a very soft sandy mud. It took me some time to work out how to rig it, I can be a bit dense at times, as it is held on the bow roller 'upside down'. This means the Boomerang needs to be reversed, or the chain needs to be reversed through the gypsy. Some of the pictures I took show the Boomerang upside down - not a good look - now rectified. It took me some time to sort this out and I was only able to make 3 pulls - as I mentioned I don't have access to lots of different seabeds, lockdown, and now that lockdown has eased we have had a weeks worth of winter weather and rain.. I'm not so keen to test anchors in the rain.

There is no perfect anchor, yet, and I'm not so confident to think that Viking is 'the one'. Currently the 'Z' shank looks interesting (if unusual) but the standard Viking with a conventional shank is a good replacement for a Spade, Excel - as long as you can accept the roll bar on your bow roller (which we cannot - hence testing the 'Z' shank). Time will tell.

I don't think there is a perfect anchor, it is an impossibility. An anchor to work well in weed (accepting that much weed is impenetrable anyway) needs to have a narrow fluke with a sharp toe, like the Excel (or maybe a Fishermans), maybe better the Kobra if it had a sharper toe. This same anchor is not so effective in mud, unless it is grossly oversized. A Fortress works well in mud, but not in weed. Seabeds with loose rocks and pebbles are also difficult for Fortress whereas a Kobra or Excel can wriggle through. I thus lack the confidence there will ever be 'the one'.

Our conclusion is to accept the compromises and carry more than one design..

We also believe that constant veering, through wind sheer (nothing to do with yacht design), horsing (from chop) seriously results in a reduction in hold of a single anchor as it is constantly reacting to a change in tension direction. In this situation we would deploy 2 anchors in a 'V'' guessing at the extremes of the veers - and then each anchor becomes the primary as the rode and yacht swings from one side to the other - and the anchors cyclically become the primary - and does not suffer the reduction in hold (to the same degree). This does mean you need to deploy 2 anchors which many consider a bit of a faff and prefer to carry one monster anchor......though its hold will be no different to a single small anchor and will also diminish due to veering.

What I have noticed is that yachts using (call them) old gen anchors drag with a worrying consistency but reports of new gen anchors (any of them and there are huge variations in design now) dragging are exceptions. The big difference between old gen and new gen anchors is the one the Classification Societies underline - new gen have double the hold of old gen. This is a well designed and quantitative assessment, repeated by many independent test teams and the results have been consistent. For this reason I still consider 'hold' a key, or the key, characteristic to look at. New gen anchors are more forgiving of setting technique (or lack of) which also maybe a factor. The fact that high hold of concave anchors, Rocna, Supreme, Viking and high hold of convex anchors Excel, Kobra, SARCA results in low dragging frequency is a powerful characteristic for us. And conversely the lower hold (which is still, apparently high enough 1000kg tension is a lot for a 15kg anchor) of Bruce, Delta and CQR which drag offers a simplistic conclusion.

High hold develops from deep setting (just look at and compare a Delta and Excel set). We found the recommended size Fortress set shallow and if you reverse a shallow set Fortress it retrieves relatively easily, if only because the rode can get under the stock which will only bury if the anchor is small. Use a smaller Fortress it sets more deeply and is more difficult to retrieve. This adds to our belief in not oversizing (we use a FX16 not the recommended FX23 (but have a FX37 for soupy mud).

Combining these ideas - we carry Excel and Spade a bit smaller than recommended, possibly for one to be replaced by the Viking and 2 x Fortress (FX16 and FX37 and maybe the Viking will replace the FX16 (NOT the Spade or Excel).

And keeping on thread - we would not use a Rocna - its roll bar would not allow it to be retrieved on our bow roller. In terms of hold its as good as those we use - clogging does not appeal - but for many, they accept and cope.

Interestingly Vyv who has used a Rocna, I think for well over a decade (6 months of the year for 10 years, or more, is a good workout) - has had no issues. I have this feeling he would not exchange for the 'equally as good' CQR.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

… what is this “clear” water??

I believe it exists in NW Scotland or the Med, Caribbean, Australia - you need to get out more.

 

[srm]

I inadvertently carried out an extreme load anchor test way back in the 70's. I hauled my first boat, an 8 metre cruising catamaran up a short beach on boards to just above the high tide line for the winter. The following spring I had to reverse the process. I laid the boat's anchors, 35lb CQR patent and a lighter Danforth style well out on a sand seabed.

Power was multiple tackles tailed on to the sheet winches. Hauling off the shore was almost as bad as hauling up the beach. The CQR was soon abandoned as it was pulled through the sea bed to the stone beach. The Danforth style held. Once the boat was afloat I went to lift the Danforth but could not move it; in the clear water I could see the vertical chain going straight down in to the sand. I had to use diving gear and dig the anchor out. From memory it had dug itself around half a metre below the sea bed.

 

[Yooha83]

Don't get excited about the 'Z' shank, yet

I have tested the Viking with the standard shank deployed. from our deck, and retrieved to the same location. It offers exceptionally good performance - considering its weight. I cannot tell the difference between it and the aluminium Spade and Excel. The Viking is a bit heavier - but the extra weight, 2-3kg, is not an issue.

We too had an issue with the galvanising - it was far too thin. We had an early model - It was around 40 microns - the anchor was quickly replaced. Good customer service. What fascinated me was that most 'industrial standards' are 70-80 micron and I could not understand why it was so thin (still do not know). In many applications thin gal would really not be an issue - but more important for an anchor that is constantly being abraded.

I have only tried the 'Z' shank in one seabed - it worked fine. I have only had the 'Z' shank for 3 weeks. The seabed I have tried is a very soft sandy mud. It took me some time to work out how to rig it, I can be a bit dense at times, as it is held on the bow roller 'upside down'. This means the Boomerang needs to be reversed, or the chain needs to be reversed through the gypsy. Some of the pictures I took show the Boomerang upside down - not a good look - now rectified. It took me some time to sort this out and I was only able to make 3 pulls - as I mentioned I don't have access to lots of different seabeds, lockdown, and now that lockdown has eased we have had a weeks worth of winter weather and rain.. I'm not so keen to test anchors in the rain.

There is no perfect anchor, yet, and I'm not so confident to think that Viking is 'the one'. Currently the 'Z' shank looks interesting (if unusual) but the standard Viking with a conventional shank is a good replacement for a Spade, Excel - as long as you can accept the roll bar on your bow roller (which we cannot - hence testing the 'Z' shank). Time will tell.

I don't think there is a perfect anchor, it is an impossibility. An anchor to work well in weed (accepting that much weed is impenetrable anyway) needs to have a narrow fluke with a sharp toe, like the Excel (or maybe a Fishermans), maybe better the Kobra if it had a sharper toe. This same anchor is not so effective in mud, unless it is grossly oversized. A Fortress works well in mud, but not in weed. Seabeds with loose rocks and pebbles are also difficult for Fortress whereas a Kobra or Excel can wriggle through. I thus lack the confidence there will ever be 'the one'.

Our conclusion is to accept the compromises and carry more than one design..

We also believe that constant veering, through wind sheer (nothing to do with yacht design), horsing (from chop) seriously results in a reduction in hold of a single anchor as it is constantly reacting to a change in tension direction. In this situation we would deploy 2 anchors in a 'V'' guessing at the extremes of the veers - and then each anchor becomes the primary as the rode and yacht swings from one side to the other - and the anchors cyclically become the primary - and does not suffer the reduction in hold (to the same degree). This does mean you need to deploy 2 anchors which many consider a bit of a faff and prefer to carry one monster anchor......though its hold will be no different to a single small anchor and will also diminish due to veering.


Jonathan

I have read most of your former posts and numerous articles on anchoring related topics and your personal approach and I kindly want to thank you for giving some more insights with the recent post and also for putting the viking's personal potential use and performance into perspective. Don't worry, some people don't like sailing in bad weather, why would one voluntarily test anchors in such conditions? Many professional magazine anchor tests were terminated or limited in their extent (only one seabed, certain anchors not being fully tested but rated) due to bad weather.

Ref no one perfect anchor - agree, although there is good allround NG ones having their chocolate sides to use to maximize anchoring performance by carrying 2-3 different ones like you described. I especially like enhanced setting ability of SHHP anchors and possibility of slightly downsizing (no official recommendation) to further weight savings (performance boats) and moreover easier handling.

My experience of sailing 2hd 30-40 ft so-called performance cruisers 4-6 weeks/year in Croatia avoiding marinas led to the purchase of a used FX-16 which I have tested 2 weeks on a Salona 37RK 6.5t, in my preferred anchorages and overall performed more reliable than Bruce, Claws, Deltas/undet. ploughs in the past in different seabeds mostly a rocky base layer with alternatively cobbles (worst for Fortress), seagrass, occasional layers of sand/fine gravel and sometimes mud, because when there was a potentially ok seabed, still "OG" ones would terribly start dragging in 15-25kts in mostly tight anchorages whereas the FX-16 would often find that tiny bit of grab needed. I added a Viking 7 now, however, except my funny hard substrate garden test (impressive setting within less 1m , started at 90degree pull angle at 4,5:1, rope only), have never been able to use it so far, let's blame corona

Ref rollbar Rocna -Take out all columns referring to his unique sandy mud, where strong clogging appears (btw also with Spade winch testing) keep these cobbles (3.5), soft mud (4) and "surf sand"(3), wait for further seabeds and the rollbar Rocna will come out as a very decent anchor. I'd be happy to use one in Croatia and I've seen several intl cruiser sucessfully using one there, although I know there is better ones (Vulcan, a Rocna product) and various competitors now. If I had one I would keep it and also keep that clogging in mind, just like I'd remember the strong and weak spots of other models, in order to maximize anchoring success and relaxation in my holidays

As for the genuine CQR, watch the videos and draw your own conclusions (same for the rollbar Rocna and the rest). The CQR seemingly has its strong sides in sandy mud and less dense substrates which are currently overrepresented in Steve's testing. If I remember correctly early 2000s, Yachting monthly had the CQR quite in the middle or even top of the pack (I excuse it is dating back to my days before sailing)
I'd still prefer a rollbar Rocna as I have seen (genuine?) CQRs failing to set and drag many times in the Cyclades in seagrass and hard sand. But "I would" is theory as it doesn't affect me in my current situation. I have a lightweight Fortress 4,5 kg and Viking 5,6kg and I have not planned yet to go around the world, and likeliness of something very unforeseen would hit me in my well-known protected coastal anchorages is rather low.

I can only encourage sailors to identify one's requirements, do their maths, get what you think you need to fulfill your requirements, develop your favorite realiable technique and always prepare well.
Appreciate the good thing nowadays: many sources of information and a wide range of high performance gear available, no need to load up an aircraft carrier full of heavy ground tackle on a sailboat anymore

We could furthermore debate Yacht magazine's 16/2013 unfair treatment of an Ultra in a video and written report, and the dragging of anchors by Voile magazine at speeds of up to 0.4kts and drawing conclusions on hold, which is key, and I am questioning here, I could only anticipate fast movement!
Next up might be : the use of a rollbar Rocna as a mono-waterski at 35kts? - probably you could even sit on the rollbar as long as it's rollstable then?

As to Yacht 2013: testbeds sand, sticky mud? (german Schlick), and fine gravel. Result: Kobra 2 16kg (declared winner): 5 stars, Ultra 16kg 3 stars.
"Funfact" - they didn't test the Ultra in sticky mud due to bad weather termination but criticized it for it's lack of hold in gravel, page 23/24/25, what remains, Ultra is good in sand -wow. The testers all were well reputated professionals, thus have responsibility and power, and should do a lot better imho.

Have a nice day!

 

[LONG_KEELER]

What I want to know is whether new age anchors were designed and tested by a computer given certain variables, or just made as an improvement on existing anchors by perhaps trial and error. None seem to be particularly radical in design.

I think our resident gurus have enough data now to create an anchor programme where values could be entered according to one's needs just like propellers.

 

[vyv_cox]

… what is this “clear” water??

It's a refreshing change from the North and Irish Seas.

 

[Neeves]

What I want to know is whether new age anchors were designed and tested by a computer given certain variables, or just made as an improvement on existing anchors by perhaps trial and error. None seem to be particularly radical in design.

I think our resident gurus have enough data now to create an anchor programme where values could be entered according to one's needs just like propellers.

Anchors that enjoy longevity and offered some aspect of originality, in my book, would be Bruce and Spade. Peter Bruce trained formally as an aeronautic engineer (and the original anchor incorporates some aspects of that background) - computer design might have been used. Most anchors lift characteristics from earlier iterations - then tweak, test, tweak, test..... you need patience. Though other anchors are hardly a major step in development parts of the anchor were original and adopted by later generations - Lyall's shank on the Delta, Bruce's roll bar (that he never used), Smith's heavy marketing of the HT shank, Francis' use of the perforated fluke, Fortress and their use of aluminium and.....???

Noticeably - most anchors are developed by passionate individuals, not 'corporations' (Epsilon is an exception).

My assessment is - computers were not a major part of anchor development.

If you can weld, have a shed and an understanding wife (or husband) - all the background is out there - find a different mix of features, you could develop the next winning design .

Choosing an anchor by inputting characteristics to a compute programme - you would also need to know the characteristics of the seabed and as Kukri implies sometimes you cannot see the seabed. Complicating the issue even more - my idea of weed or mud is different to others. It is often said that an oversize anchor is the answer to a maidens prayer (or a skippers dilemma) in difficult seabeds - but no-one ever defines what a 'difficult' seabed might be. Add to this mix and weather forecasts are still forecasts - no certainty.

Forecasts - last night we were forecast severe weather today and we had severe weather warnings issued. Today dawned clear and sunny, cloud cover increased but the storm warnings removed around lunch time - its now severe hail, lightening and somewhere, very, nearby had 25mm of rain. Forecasts - Pah!!

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

 

[Roberto]

What I want to know is whether new age anchors were designed and tested by a computer given certain variables, or just made as an improvement on existing anchors by perhaps trial and error.

No computer was used for the Spade, historically the first of these "New Generation" anchors, fwiw Alain Poiraud himself was the first to use such term which eventually became so widespread (after having been ridiculed by almost everyone at the beginning). He was originally working in bioengineering, heart valves and the like.

 

[Neeves]

I was sent the spreadsheet, see below - I though it merited an airing

And I'm not afraid to ask the difficult questions

I understand that the vertical axis refers to the scaling and is a multification factor for each anchor. So to calculate the actual hold measured simply multiply the anchor weight with its score. I don't know how many pulls the data points represent.

The results with the arrow heads - the tension was beyond the limits of the measuring equipment available.

For a 15kg anchor to achieve a hold of 2,000kg the multiplier would need to be of the order of 130 in clean sand. As can be seen the multiplier varies with seabed but should be roughly applicable (if accurately derived) for other sizes of the same design of anchor.

I'm not aware that the order, left to right, has any significance - except that the lower scoring anchors are to the right. Is this a subliminal order - as I might focus on clean sand hold - as that is the seabed we would prefer to use.


A summary of my understanding of Rocna's place in the anchor hierarchy historically:

In most tests including and since the West Marine tests in 2006 Rocna has had a stellar performance. For any anchor Rocna set the new limits - it was top of the pack. It was awarded SHHP classification by RINA and Manson's Supreme was also rated SHHP, by Lloyds. Later Ultra (not on the spreadsheet), Excel and Spade have been given the same rating. Older anchors Delta, CQR and Bruce have historically been awarded HHP status (hold 50% of a SHHP anchor) and both CQR and Delta also tested by Lloyds.)

In most tests, and I average, Rocna for a 15kg anchor would have a hold of around 2,000kgs in clean, good holding sand and depending on the tests the other SHHP anchors would have a similar hold. The triumvirate of the old gen anchors would return hold, tested at the same time in the same good holding sand, and also of 15kg weight of 1,000kg. The results have been well publicised - the data is widely available. Rocna in most tests has been a consistent performer (along with Spade also widely and independently tested). As an aside - Epsilon (I believe) is also rated as SHHP - but, I recall, did not produce a stellar performance under the Panope regime.

There have been a number of tests, those 2006 West Marine tests and two series of tests from Voile et Violeurs (spelling) published by Yachting Monthly or Yachting World. Just check the spelling and google.

These results, see below, are simply a reiteration, in a different but easily comparable form, of previous results produced under the Panope banner. The results suggest that Rocna is a real lemon - it depends on what sort of seabed in which you anchor - but in most cases a Delta or CQR would have been a better choice (in fact any anchor (almost) would have been better.

Two consistent features - most of the anchors would be totally unreliable in 'soft mud', holds of 200kg for a 15kg anchor and don't anchor in 'cobblestones' with any anchor. The first result is roughly what the Fortress Chesapeake test reveals. Also note that the difference between the 21lb and 17lb Excel are indication of the possible variability, or spread, of results. They should be scaled relatively accurately and you would expect the results to be similar, or very similar - differences are experimental error and/or seabed inconsistencies.

The worrying factor is that the results have not be compared to results produced from other test protocols - no mention has been made. Most or all other protocols have been conducted with a number of people many of whom have tested anchors and many of whom represented the media (call it a degree of independent verification). Leading on from this the inconsistency of Rocna results from every other previous test has been ignored.

To me - the results of Rocna are inexplicable, totally - its possibly the most popular 'modern' anchor yet its maximum hold for a 15kg, steady pull, no seas, no chop in clean sand is 342kg - not the sort of anchor that would secure the skin of a rice pudding....


Now - I'm writing this so I'll cherry pick the results - I have been saying that the Mantus M1 has the hold similar to a Delta........ A forum member was upset when I would not endorse (I'm sure against the desires of other members) his choice of the Mantus M1. The results are what I would expect - and I would not use one as a primary - so I hope the member did not ignore my opinion.


So......next time someone asks for a recommendation for their next anchor - maybe think twice before you suggest they check the Panope videos.


Until the inconsistency is clarified - I'm 'twitchy'. Rocna is not perfect, the warnings have been issued - but I still believe it is up there with Spade and Excel (+ Supreme, Ultra, possibly Epsilon, Knox) none of which are perfect either - but having tested all but Epsilon - they all have the hold of an SHHP anchor

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan





Edit

If you wonder why high hold might be important then think that for anchors of the same size, approximately, high hold means deeply set.

Then read this article

Deep Anchors Stay Put in Moderate Yawing - Practical Sailor

J

 

[stephen_h]

The title of the graph is SV PANOPE ANCHOR TESTING. Why would he add other testing results from sources that he had no control over?

 

[Yooha83]

Believe or not believe - some seafarers are said to start praying in severe conditions ?

Excel vs Rocna (2sec intervals over 5m -> dragging)
https://www.anchorright.com.au/downloads/Robertsons-TATS-AnchorTestChart.pdf

So I confess I am a non-believer, doubting a steel anchor's (especially Rocna) efficiency of 130 for static hold at commonly used scopes (not infinite) and with due respect would put this to my shelf of fairy tales.

Prof Knox imo is the only one having researched ultimate static holding (UHF) in a so far unmet scientific manner and conlcudes the best perfomers' efficiency ranging (from 6) to 32 (Rocna/Spade, PBO 538, August 2011), UHF versus Dynamic Holding Force (DHF, at ploughing of 3-5cm/sec) is referred to as a seabed dependent factor of 0,5- 0,7 at best.
Also holding capacity at infite scope reduces to 70-85% of max at 5:1 (PBO 428 August 2002)

Taking these results into account, Voile's dragging test at 5:1 (Voile Magazine, may 2012, page 74) for a

Kobra 2 (16kg) at 0,1kts/sec: 781 kgf x0.5=390,5 kgf static, efficiency: 24,4
Rocna (15kg) 0,1kts/sec: 680kgf x 0.5= 340kgf static, efficiency : 22,7

efficencies at 5:1 looking realistic. For better understanding and matching voile mag vs Knox: 0.1 kts/h equals 185,2m of dragging/hour or apprx 5.1cm/sec, completely inacceptable for my kind of anchoring. Btw watching SV Panope's videos and estimating static hold of tested anchors also often result in an efficiency Prof Knox would agree.

Prof Knox's efficiency values also correspond with my real life experience of Bruce's, Delta copies and Claws, start dragging at >20kts of wind.

Happy anchoring!

 

[geem]

Believe or not believe - some seafarers are said to start praying in severe conditions ?

Excel vs Rocna (2sec intervals over 5m -> dragging)
https://www.anchorright.com.au/downloads/Robertsons-TATS-AnchorTestChart.pdf

So I confess I am a non-believer, doubting a steel anchor's (especially Rocna) efficiency of 130 for static hold at commonly used scopes (not infinite) and with due respect would put this to my shelf of fairy tales.

Prof Knox imo is the only one having researched ultimate static holding (UHF) in a so far unmet scientific manner and conlcudes the best perfomers' efficiency ranging (from 6) to 32 (Rocna/Spade, PBO 538, August 2011), UHF versus Dynamic Holding Force (DHF, at ploughing of 3-5cm/sec) is referred to as a seabed dependent factor of 0,5- 0,7 at best.
Also holding capacity at infite scope reduces to 70-85% of max at 5:1 (PBO 428 August 2002)

Taking these results into account, Voile's dragging test at 5:1 (Voile Magazine, may 2012, page 74) for a

Kobra 2 (16kg) at 0,1kts/sec: 781 kgf x0.5=390,5 kgf static, efficiency: 24,4
Rocna (15kg) 0,1kts/sec: 680kgf x 0.5= 340kgf static, efficiency : 22,7

efficencies at 5:1 looking realistic. For better understanding and matching voile mag vs Knox: 0.1 kts/h equals 185,2m of dragging/hour or apprx 5.1cm/sec, completely inacceptable for my kind of anchoring. Btw watching SV Panope's videos and estimating static hold of tested anchors also often result in an efficiency Prof Knox would agree.

Prof Knox's efficiency values also correspond with my real life experience of Bruce's, Delta copies and Claws, start dragging at >20kts of wind.

Happy anchoring!

I recently posted about CQR and Delta anchors dragging in a grass bottom at the magic 20kts figure. You can only assume these anchors never actually set due to their inability to penetrate the grass. By contrast, boats using Spade and Rocna anchors never dragged even as the wind approached 30 kts. I think the Rocna is a good anchor but given the choice to choose either it would be the Spade every time for me.
By the way, there is a 53ft steel yacht on the pontoon we are on with a Rocna70kg!!

 

[Yooha83]

Cannot edit my posts yet please delete kts/sec or kts/h- nonsense! I got distracted while writing #115. Also did the maths with voile data for spade 15kg achieving an efficiency of almost 43 thus I’d agree to geems post rather choose a spade over a rocna unless anchoring in mud. A Rocna Vulcan seems to be a good choice as well.

 

[Kukri]

By the way, there is a 53ft steel yacht on the pontoon we are on with a Rocna70kg!!

… and the owner says his Rocna never drags…

 

[Sandy]

… what is this “clear” water??

Something not found on the east coast of England in my experience.

 

[Neeves]

The title of the graph is SV PANOPE ANCHOR TESTING. Why would he add other testing results from sources that he had no control over?

It is common practice with testing to compare the test results with test results made previously and test results available from other tests made by other people using the same or different protocols. If the 'new' results are different to other results then either the other results are wrong or the new results are wrong. You cannot have a series of test results for a product, in this case a Rocna anchor, that are different by a factor of 2 - without comment or explanation. This is particularly relevant where your test results potentially denigrate the product and to do so, without explanation, is trolling. There might be a good reason the results are at such a variance to everyone else - if which case - say so. If not the results are invalid and should be totally disregarded until such time as an explanation is available.

On the assumption the same protocols are used for all the other anchors - and this what we are led to believe - then if the Rocna results are flawed - then so are all the others.

I simply find it very difficult to accept that Lloyds, RINA, Australian Maritime Safety, West Marine, Voile and others (including members here and the 'general' market place) all got it so wrong, and consistently wrong and the Panope results are the only results of technical excellence.

I also find it interesting that the Mantus M1 seems to be located 4th in the overall excellence. Its hold in the best seabed available, based on a multiplier of 65 for a 15kg anchor is 1,000kg and this result is based on testing in ideal conditions. With a safe factor of 2:1 (not uncommon for anchors) this gives Mantus a 'hold' of 500kg - no yawing. nor horsing from chop - and it is rated 4th!....? And people rave over the Mantus M1. In contrast Spade is rated worse, not by much 5th, vs 4th, yet it has a hold beyond the limits of the equipment as do the 2 Excels. Now - which seabed to most prefer - clean sand or......?


I have said at the outset I am not a fan of Peter Smith, nor CMP but to repetitively denigrate a product which for example, is highly rated in use by most people here, and contradicts every previous test results makes the whole exercise questionable. Furthermore to ignore the difference in the results suggests a contempt for all previous tests (West Marine/Voile et al) and the results produced by the Classification Societies.

Many of the results look robust. The two Excels have a similar ranking. The Mantus M1 hold data in comparison with Delta is not unexpected (its what I have been saying and I have been enjoying the bile of the 'Mantus (M1) Lovers ever since). The poor showing in soft mud for most anchors is what Fortress defined - with the Mantus M1 being the best of a bad bunch. So the protocols look good - with Rocna being an outlier - that demands explanation (or complete removal of the data).

However you cannot remove, in my estimation, the most popular modern anchor from a test programme - without explanation

I do think Rocna is being unfairly hammered - 'why' is the unknown.

Finally - I have questioned the protocols - but also pointed out that most results look robust (its Rocna that is 'wrong' and everything else looks 'right' (except the position in ranking of the M1). The anchors we use, Excel, Viking, Spade all perform well - I cannot comment on the Mantus M2 and the Vulcan never having tested them.


Take care, stay safe

Jonathan