Anchors. I hate to do this but...

[snooks]

I was just reading the YM article, and one thing struck me

Take a look at this:

This was YM's test of anchors, this show the results of the 5:1 pulls

All fair and well....now take a look at the chart using the results form the same test being used by a certain anchor manufacturer

Anyone notice anything different?

See if you can guess the anchor manufacturer

I think this is what Brian from Fortress has been alluding to, but it was all too subtle for a simple photographer like me.

I need pictures!!!!!!

 

[RichardS]

Anyone notice anything different?

See if you can guess the anchor manufacturer

I think this is what Brian from Fortress has been alluding to, but it was all too subtle for a simple photographer like me.

I need pictures!!!!!!

Not necessarily saying that you're wrong Snooks but a good result for Wasi is included in the "Rocna" comparison chart but Wasi does not feature at all in the YM tests.

Are you sure that these are based on the same set of results?

Richard

 

[snooks]

Are you sure that these are based on the same set of results?

Richard

From the website:

"To answer that question, here are some hard figures. This data is independent; it is from West Marine's 2006 anchor testing, which involved no less than fourteen types, three locations, and three different scopes (3:1, 5:1, and 7:1). The testing was written up in SAIL magazine (USA) and Yachting Monthly (UK) and the graph below is from SAIL:"

YM have only ever done one anchor test with Sail, and that was in 2006

 

[truscott]

Might sound like a dumb question, but if the two sets of data are from the same tests, how'd the Fortress end up scoring so poorly in the second graph?

FWIW, I've got a Delta and a Brittany on the big boat and Bruce knock off on the little one, so no vested interest in any of the brands being bandied about here in this thread.

PT.

 

[RichardS]

But also from the Rocna website:

Below is a chart as published by SAIL magazine which
shows for all 14 anchors three averaged measures, being "max before releasing", "stable dragging", and "max pull".

Max before releasing is the average force the anchor held before
dragging (in other words, holding power). It is the more important of the three.

If the chart referred to, which does include the Wasi, is indeed the chart published by SAIL magazine, then I don't see what Rocna have done wrong.

OK, they have taken the "max before releasing" results for their headline chart, and who can blame them, but they have give the full data in a link.

The YM data is obviously different for some reason, hence the omission of the Wasi, but Rocna are not claiming to show the YM data but the SAIL data.

We could debate forever whether Rocna should have shown 100% of the SAIL test data in every detail (assuming that there is a lot more)
but every Company I have ever heard of is selective with the data when it comes to marketing.

However, being selective is not the same as changing, and I'm not sure
that Rocna have changed the data, assuming that the master chart
shown by Rocna is indeed exactly the same as the one published by SAIL.

Richard

 

[Rigger Mortice]

We could debate forever whether Rocna should have shown 100% of the SAIL test data in every detail (assuming that there is a lot more)

At the risk of stating the obvious, several people have already pointed out that Rocna's presentation has been highly questionable. The anchorsmith has been asked to explain his pseudo science and he has consistently ignored the request; probably because he just can't see or appreciate the numerous errors.

I think that most will accept marketing blurb but, when things are being presented as properly tested research, it should stand on its own merits. I expect a higher standard then we have been getting.

I don't think we need to debate it. I think Rocna should explain the balloney which it has been peddling. Until then, in my view, they remain guilty as charged.

 

[westernman]

The spade looks good.

As does the Fortress - but I would not want to use that as a bower as I doubt it takes to direction changes as well as the spade.

All IMHO.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

Ok, time to blow the lid off of this and I hope I make it easy to follow. Sail magazine published two sets of charts from the West Marine test, one which the Rocna did well, and the other in which the Rocna was not the top performing anchor. Guess which one Rocna has published? The specifics:

The "Average Peak Strain" chart (below) was the one from Sail magazine that the Rocna did well, but here's the rub: It was based on a false reading during one single pull at the New Brighton test location!

I have attached the actual test notes from West Marine which shows the details of this false pull of >5,000 lbs. Apparently the Rocna held briefly, maybe it was stuck on a rock.....but then it gave away immediately, as noted.

The two other magazines, Yachting Monthly and Power & MotorYacht, which were published after Sail magazine, did not use this "Average Peak Strain" chart, as they must have realized the error.

However, never one to miss an opportunity, Rocna has made this chart the focal point of their entire marketing program with such outrageous claims that they "won" this test AND that their anchor had "40% more holding power than the next best anchor."

Again, Rocna completely ignored the other Sail magazine charts (below also) which show that the Rocna was NOT the top performing anchor in the West Marine test.

Rocna has also completely ignored the other charts from Yachting Monthly and Power & MotorYacht as well (below) for the same reason.

Considering that at last count, Rocna has NOT been the top performing anchor in 8 anchor tests (Australia, Germany-2, Italy, Sweden, and USA-3) since then, you can understand how important it has been for Rocna to use this one Sail magazine chart and hype that the West Marine test was the "one credible scientific" test......and all others are bogus.

 

[snooks]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying the figures have been altered, but if Rocna did come out on top of the 3:1, 5:1 and 7:1 both the Spade and the Fortress must have done much worse in these tests which seems to buck the trend that the YM graph is showing.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

More bogus Rocna charts

Below is the chart discussed before from Rocna's new web site. Again, this chart was dummied up with help from the one Sail magazine chart that had the false reading.

Better still, below is the chart that Rocna had previously used on their web site, where they magically converted the aluminum Fortress into a steel anchor so it would fall way down on another dummied up chart showing "Average Holding Power per Size."

 

[Delfin]

It's possible for a company to make a great product and trash their competitors as a marketing strategy. It's also possible for a company to make a great product and not muzzle a 'spokesman' who irritates almost everyone exposed to him. It is further possible for a company to jigger test results to fool customers and still make a great product, and it is even possible for a company that does all of the above to manage the challenges of quality manufacturing in the third world. However, the odds are deeply against it, and that pretty much sums up why I won't likely ever be a Rocna customer under the present management.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I got a roll bar one so's swmbo could carry it easier

You're all heart. I expect you're one of those people who if SWMBO had a bad back would move the coal shed nearer the house so she wouldn't have to carry the coal so far?

 

[snowleopard]

You're all heart. I expect you're one of those people who if SWMBO had a bad back would move the coal shed nearer the house so she wouldn't have to carry the coal so far?

I'm considerate like that. I often say 'Leave the washing up dear, Do it in the morning.'

 

[Poignard]

I try to help with the housework - when she's hoovering (dysoning?) I lift my feet off the carpet.

 

[macd]

...and so we seamlessly move on from considering old-style v renaissance anchors to the same amongst hubbies. You have to admire the sheer versatility of this forum.

[Typed by the missus to my dictation]
(I momentarily thought of suggesting a SWMBO forum, but that would be folly. Next they'd be demanding the vote.)

 

[cliff]

Nearly slipped off the page!
So what is the consensus of opinion as to the integrity of the Wanchorsmith - would you buy an anchor from him after the revelations posted above?

 

[Cape of Storms]

Ok, time to blow the lid off of this and I hope I make it easy to follow. Sail magazine published two sets of charts from the West Marine test, one which the Rocna did well, and the other in which the Rocna was not the top performing anchor. Guess which one Rocna has published?

Business uses best test to highlight product. News at 11.

Good job at bringing this to our attention but it sounds like you are expecting Rocna to highlight tests where they did badly rather then where they did well on their website where they are trying to sell their anchors.

That's hilariously naive mate.

 

[stevepick]

Cliff

Your trollish reply is appalling. I have dealt with rocna before, and would be more than happy to buy another anchor from them. They are extremely good,reliable anchors, the company is friendly and customer focused. If you have a "modern anchor" then you will understand how good they are, if you don't, then don't criticise something you know nothing about. Can I suggest you edit your childish prose. The only thing in your defense is you are not alone in this thread.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

, the company is friendly and customer focused.

I don't think you've been following this very well. The Anchorsmith, despite all his postings to the contrary, has finally admitted that he is nothing to do with the company. He is neither a shareholder nor an employee. He has failed to respond to the many questions which have been put to him. He cannot support his dubious reports. After bragging about Rocnas performance in a test rig, Manson offerered to put one in their test rig; he ran away........and for good measure he is now accusing people of being "bigots" simply because they query production quality in an anknown Chinese factory.

Rocna themselves are so customer focused that, though they are well aware of this thread, they haven't put in an appearance.

Except where they have had specific problems nobody has criticised the anchors......in fact I am sure that many just don't care about it. They do care however about the Anchorsmiths behaviour.

The anchor may, or may not be good, but your post does not reflect the impression which many have had of Rocna.

I think you should read the whole thread. Properly.


PS. Cliff: Integrity (the Anchorsmiths) , Zero. ...and I wouldn't buy one.

 

[snooks]

Business uses best test to highlight product. News at 11.

Good job at bringing this to our attention but it sounds like you are expecting Rocna to highlight tests where they did badly rather then where they did well on their website where they are trying to sell their anchors.

That's hilariously naive mate.

I've been through some of the original test data and I'm struggling to see where they got their figures from. According to the test they have taken an average. An average of what I'm still at a loss to discover.

Have they taken their best three results and everyone elses worst three?

Because they haven't taken an average of the holding powers and peak stress, they haven't taken the average of holding strength, or peak strain individually. And I haven't been able to find the graph which reportedly came from SAiL that those figures came from.

If a source is quoted, is it naive to think that they have taken that data from the source? Or is it incorrect to take the data from a quoted source adjust that data and then credit it to the previous source?