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

[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

 

[NormanS]

There seems to be an echo in here. ?

 

[Neeves]

There seems to be an echo in here. ?

You are one of the few who reads every post.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

 

[Deleted member 36384]

You are one of the few who reads every post.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

How can we trust your information when you make such an obviously subjective comment, that lacks any objective basis. ?

 

[Neeves]

How can we trust your information when you make such an obviously subjective comment, that lacks any objective basis. ?

I just read many threads, not particularly long, where members answer exactly as someone has previously - which suggests to me that they have not read previous posts. Maybe I have it wrong and as Norman says - its just an echo.

In any event you don't need to trust - that's a judgement you make of any information - I hope for important points I provide objective information with links to offer further background.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

 

[LONG_KEELER]

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


View attachment 124474


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

It's always difficult when someone sticks their neck out. Looks like a good yard stick for selecting an anchor.

First I've seen showing the variables in an easy to read format. Well done.

 

[jaminb]

Not daring to start a separate anchor thread, could anyone recommend a good book or video on best anchoring practice. It is all new to me and having tried a couple of times unsuccessfully this season, I am keen to restore some confidence from the comfort of my marina berth. My new boat appears to be excessively effected by currents and can lie with a bow anchor and the cockpit facing into a force 3! This is not something I am not used to and has led to a couple of hairy dragging moments after wildly spinning around!

thanks

 

[Neeves]

Not daring to start a separate anchor thread, could anyone recommend a good book or video on best anchoring practice. It is all new to me and having tried a couple of times unsuccessfully this season, I am keen to restore some confidence from the comfort of my marina berth. My new boat appears to be excessively effected by currents and can lie with a bow anchor and the cockpit facing into a force 3! This is not something I am not used to and has led to a couple of hairy dragging moments after wildly spinning around!

thanks

Perhaps give a bit more detail, boat, anchor, chain and location where you have issues.

We will try to treat you gently and be educational

You are not alone - many boats will lie contrarily when the tide/current opposes the wind. The first thought is - check your chosen anchorage for tide/current (pilot book, cruising guide) and if it is impacted - find somewhere else

BUT

Never fear to start a thread - that is what the Forum is for. Ignore those bored with anchor threads, or exhaust elbows and choice of a MFD. Cherry pick the posts.

Jonathan

 

[TNLI]

Have y

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

Have you read this article: Anchor Tests: Bending More Shanks - Practical Sailor (practical-sailor.com)

The worst offenders for getting bent are modern aluminium anchors. It is possible to make a Danforth that will pass the Lloyds or ABS, (Anmerican) certification tests, but only Lewmar make them. The Danforth design is unbeatable to fast set and reset performance, which is why I always carry one as a secondary.

If you like spade anchors, the one sold by UK Spade Ltd and painted yellow is used by the RNLI and has a full loyds approval. Alas there are a few issues that have been noticd that put me off it, firstly the yellow paint falls off and it rusts fairly quickly. None of the spades passed the 180 degree veers tests, and this has resulted in several groups appologising for promoting them as main anchors.
Rocna Resetting Failures and evaluation of Vulcan and Mantus (morganscloud.com)

West Marine offers refunds on Rocna anchors over manufacturing issue (sail-world.com)

 

[Poey50]

None of the spades passed the 180 degree veers tests, and this has resulted in several groups appologising for promoting them as main anchors.
Rocna Resetting Failures and evaluation of Vulcan and Mantus (morganscloud.com)
West Marine offers refunds on Rocna anchors over manufacturing issue (sail-world.com)

Uh? You do know that Rocna anchors are different to Spade anchors?

 

[Kukri]

I subscribe to MC and I have followed Panope for a long time. Have a 75lbs CQR and a 45kg Delta. I think looking round a marina might not be the best way to evaluate what works!

 

[TNLI]

Yes,

Uh? You do know that Rocna anchors are different to Spade anchors?

Yes, but they were included with the others in the bent shank and 180 degree veer tests.

Whilst I'm on this important subject, it's probably best to ignore all the test results that were not done by Lloyds, ABS, RNLI or USCG, as they are a tad confusing and contradictory. Just pick anchors from combined Lloyds & ABS approval lists for small boat anchors, as it's not a long one:

Admiralty pattern Fishermans, (For thick weeed or rocks only).
Lewmar FX series Danforth of genuine Danforth.
Lewmar CQR or genuine CQR.
Lewmar Claw or genuine Bruce
Lewmar Delta (Not as good as the CQR in RNLI tests)

For a main storm anchor I would always go for a CQR or Bruce. The CQR is slightly better in holding terms, BUT the Bruce is better on a shorter scope.

Finally never rely on one anchor in a storm, set another, (Normally at 90 degrees). I tend to use a steel Danforth, but you could use a Bruce or a CQR, and finally it's a good idea to be able to anchor in deep water in an emergency, and although a Fishermans will work on a very short scope, a grapnel is just as good. The actiual holding power of both is poor in mud or sand, but you just can't get a Bruce or CQR to hold with a 2 to 1 rope rode. I've had to tow a few boats clear of the rocks because they did not have a rode long enough to be able to anchor. My 2 main anchor rodes are both led to the bottom of the anchor locker and connected together, so I can decide to use both lengths of chain together, a total of 100m of chain, and that is enough for any area of deep water that I might need to anchor in if the wind fails and the donkey will not start.

 

[TNLI]

I subscribe to MC and I have followed Panope for a long time. Have a 75lbs CQR and a 45kg Delta. I think looking round a marina might not be the best way to evaluate what works!

Thanks fot that, and my main anchor is a genuine CQR, BUT it only weighs 15 lbs! Luckily my lifeboat is only 27ft and 3 ft of that is rudder. It's also an alloy composite, so very light. That means I don't have to rely on a powered windlass to weigh anchor. Oddly enough I got put right off by an incident I was involved with a big Oyster when we dropped anchor, but finished up in the wrong position a tad too close to another yacht, so tried to weigh anchor again using the hydraulic windlass. It overheated and the thermal cut out switch activated. Panic stations for a while until I got the RIB in action to take a secondary anchor out whilst we waited for the hydraulic fluid to cool down. Part of the issue was caused by us short tacking into the area and the main winches used the same hydraulic pump, so I had in effect been heating the fluid up already. That was an old Oyster 68, and in reality some of the gear was in need of replacement.

The problem is not boaters looking at what other boats are using, it's their belief in all the advertising and sponsored anchor tests. One test of modern anchors done in Australia was done without them comparing with the results from a Danforth, (It would have been the best), and was done with a rope rode of 3 to 1. That might be enough for a Spade and some Deltas, but not for a CQR. Even the Bruce did not do well. It was a test designed to sell modern anchors. They actually said in the notes that they could not find a Danforth in the marina they were in, when it is probably the most popular anchor down under.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Thanks fot that, and my main anchor is a genuine CQR, BUT it only weighs 15 lbs! Luckily my lifeboat is only 27ft and 3 ft of that is rudder. It's also an alloy composite, so very light. That means I don't have to rely on a powered windlass to weigh anchor. Oddly enough I got put right off by an incident I was involved with a big Oyster when we dropped anchor, but finished up in the wrong position a tad too close to another yacht, so tried to weigh anchor again using the hydraulic windlass. It overheated and the thermal cut out switch activated. Panic stations for a while until I got the RIB in action to take a secondary anchor out whilst we waited for the hydraulic fluid to cool down. Part of the issue was caused by us short tacking into the area and the main winches used the same hydraulic pump, so I had in effect been heating the fluid up already. That was an old Oyster 68, and in reality some of the gear was in need of replacement.

The problem is not boaters looking at what other boats are using, it's their belief in all the advertising and sponsored anchor tests. One test of modern anchors done in Australia was done without them comparing with the results from a Danforth, (It would have been the best), and was done with a rope rode of 3 to 1. That might be enough for a Spade and some Deltas, but not for a CQR. Even the Bruce did not do well. It was a test designed to sell modern anchors. They actually said in the notes that they could not find a Danforth in the marina they were in, when it is probably the most popular anchor down under.

“It would have been the best”
On what basis can you make this statement? No evidence; just saying something doesn’t make it true.

FWIW I’m very happy with my Spade anchor as used by the RNLI. It’s always set much better and more reliably than the CQR it replaced.

 

[Arcady]

None of the spades passed the 180 degree veers tests, and this has resulted in several groups appologising for promoting them as main anchors.
Rocna Resetting Failures and evaluation of Vulcan and Mantus (morganscloud.com)

I fear you are confusing matters by referring to all concave design anchors as spades. My reading of that article by John Harries was that he rated the genuine Spade anchor very highly in real-world 180 deg veering situations, unlike the Rocna (a concave design with roll-bar and which I think you refer to as a spade) which was prone to clogging and subsequent failure to reset in the same conditions.

 

[TNLI]

“It would have been the best”
On what basis can you make this statement? No evidence; just saying something doesn’t make it true.

FWIW I’m very happy with my Spade anchor as used by the RNLI. It’s always set much better and more reliably than the CQR it replaced.

Previous tests had shown the classic Danforth set faster and did better in the 180 degree veer tests in mud or sand. That's why it is one of the most common and most copied anchors around. If it was not for the fact it can get bent it would almost certainly dominate the anchor market. If you look at ships anchors, they are in effect fat unbreakable or unbendable Danforth type designs.

The RNLI did not use the original CQR in recent years because it was out of production, so they decided to use the Lewmar Delta and the UK spade. I susapect the paint and rust issues will result in the standardising on the Lewmar Delta or the new Lewmar CQR. All of the RIBS use the Delta. I thought all of the offshore boats use the UK spade, but some of them also use the Delta. They do test anchors during training and read other anchor test reports, so I would not be surprised if the change to fitting the CQR to all new boats.

The 2 tests I would like to see done is an Admiralty pattern fishermans vs a normal fishermans and a grapnel, then a genuine vs a new Lewmar CQR and their new Epsilon.

On the lighter side I had to laugh about one article on modern anchors that said they liked the ones that come in a kit form and bolt together, because it's cheaper to post back the bent parts for a warranty claim like Fortress have.

 

[Arcady]

Previous tests had shown the classic Danforth set faster and did better in the 180 degree veer tests in mud or sand. That's why it is one of the most common and most copied anchors around. If it was not for the fact it can get bent it would almost certainly dominate the anchor market. If you look at ships anchors, they are in effect fat unbreakable or unbendable Danforth type designs.

The RNLI did not use the original CQR in recent years because it was out of production, so they decided to use the Lewmar Delta and the UK spade. I susapect the paint and rust issues will result in the standardising on the Lewmar Delta or the new Lewmar CQR. All of the RIBS use the Delta. I thought all of the offshore boats use the UK spade, but some of them also use the Delta. They do test anchors during training and read other anchor test reports, so I would not be surprised if the change to fitting the CQR to all new boats.

The 2 tests I would like to see done is an Admiralty pattern fishermans vs a normal fishermans and a grapnel, then a genuine vs a new Lewmar CQR and their new Epsilon.

On the lighter side I had to laugh about one article on modern anchors that said they liked the ones that come in a kit form and bolt together, because it's cheaper to post back the bent parts for a warranty claim like Fortress have.

At the risk of repeating what others have already pointed out: there is no ‘UK SPADE’ as you keep referring to. These are UK distributors of the French designed Spade anchor.

My layman’s understanding of the RNLI’s position is that the Delta used to be the default anchor on offshore boats, but that they subsequently specified the Spade - presumably as they have found it to be a better anchor!

 

[Poey50]

Yes, but they were included with the others in the bent shank and 180 degree veer tests.

So because the Spade shank bent in a 90 degree shock-loading test, it is equivalent to those other anchors in the test and therefore it is legitimate to argue that the concerns that Morgan's Cloud raises about Rocnas (taken mostly from S.V. Panope testing) apply to Spades even though the author goes on to select Spade as his preferred anchor? That is some pretty spectacular logic. It's almost like you have an agenda and are willing to distort facts to support it.

 

[Roberto]

UK spade,

FWIW, Spade is not a UK product. It was invented at the end of 90s by French sailor Alain Poiraud, manufactured in Tunisia. He then transferred rights to his daughter and eventually the present STF company, still based in Tunisia (afaik).

edit, Arcady was quicker

 

[TNLI]

I fear you are confusing matters by referring to all concave design anchors as spades. My reading of that article by John Harries was that he rated the genuine Spade anchor very highly in real-world 180 deg veering situations, unlike the Rocna (a concave design with roll-bar and which I think you refer to as a spade) which was prone to clogging and subsequent failure to reset in the same conditions.

The genuine UK Spade is the best of the spades in reset test terms, but it is still possible although more difficult to bend and the RNLI say it did well, but not as good as their Delta in reset terms. So yes it's a good main anchor but the galvanising and paint needs to be improved by using either a good epoxy paint, (Or simply giving up on the yellow nose idea and stamping or marking their name like Lewmar does), and more dips in the hot Zinc tank.

At the risk of repeating what others have already pointed out: there is no ‘UK SPADE’ as you keep referring to. These are UK distributors of the French designed Spade anchor.

My layman’s understanding of the RNLI’s position is that the Delta used to be the default anchor on offshore boats, but that they subsequently specified the Spade - presumably as they have found it to be a better anchor!

Yes I've pointed out that the UK Spade Ltd's spade is not made in the UK before, but it's good to have a way of indicating the supplier as there are a number of different spades around with no real common design. I agree the UK spade did before perform better in some tests, but I don't know what the basis was for the changes, it might have been veer or scope length performance, as anchors that work on a short scope are popular with lifeboat designers, as it allows you to get closer to a target.

On a different tack, I can't understand why the present anchor manufacturers do not make cheaper shiny anchors, as their present 316 SS ones are a tad too expensive. There is no reason why they can't use cheaper 302 or 4 SS, or even add a Chrome top coat to galvanised steel. Every boater likes shiny anchors and they even function better in reset terms in mud, cos lumps of mud sticking to an anchor make it slower or even stop it resetiing. It's one of the bad things about using a spade in mud, as it might set well and hold well to start with, but if you turn it through 180 degrees it comes up with too much mud to reset easily. The Delta or CQR don't get a mud adherence problem.