snowleopard
Active member
Last edited:
Anchors. I hate to do this but...
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
- Status
Poignard
Well-known member
snooks
Active member
Nope, it was a link to one of Brian's attachments, the one of the Yachting Monthly graph of results (now corrected)
The other link I removed was because it was a direct scan of the anchor article from Yachting Monthly. Scanning and redistributing pages of Yachting Monthly is a breach of copyright and our syndication team are in "talks" about their illegal usage.
Last edited:
craigsmith
Member
www.rocna.com/kb/Independent_testing
See the SAIL chart, "average of peak strain at all locations".
Rocna have used for their marketing chart just the "max before release", i.e. holding power, figures. Personally I think they should just use the original SAIL chart itself as it opens them up to the sort of attacks you're seeing from Fortress.
The YM chart I believe is based on the "max pull" figures, which are the peak loads generated while dragging. Most boaters will care about the max force before releasing rather than this.
The summary comments from West Marine themselves are helpful to put the numbers into context.
See the SAIL chart, "average of peak strain at all locations".
Rocna have used for their marketing chart just the "max before release", i.e. holding power, figures. Personally I think they should just use the original SAIL chart itself as it opens them up to the sort of attacks you're seeing from Fortress.
The YM chart I believe is based on the "max pull" figures, which are the peak loads generated while dragging. Most boaters will care about the max force before releasing rather than this.
The summary comments from West Marine themselves are helpful to put the numbers into context.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
And what about your attacks on Fortress?
Pye_End
Well-known member
But you also find yachtmen who also find that they fail to set, which is why they change to a modern anchor.
If you had a choice of two anchors - one that you had to nurse in, maybe doing it several times before it bit, and another that you could quite happily just lob over the side and find that it buries iteself with no further intervention, which would you rate as the better anchor?
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Sound thinking, and more important to the majority of us than the last lb. of strain it will take in survival conditions.
RichardS
N/A
Exactly what I suggested in post 305.
I repeat - if the complete chart reproduced on the Rocna website is indeed exactly the same as the one published in SAIL magazine in 2006, then Rocna have done exactly what any sensible marketing department would have done and have taken for their "headline" the particular test which shows their product in the best light against its competitors.
Rocna have also given their reasons as to why the particular test they have chosen to highlight is the most relevant in the "real world". You may wish to challenge this selection although it seems reasonable to me but I'm not an expert.
The bottom line is that Rocna have published the full data set and then highlighted the particular test which demonstrates that their product is the best. As someone else said, this is hardly news!
What would be news is if someone out there has a copy of SAIL magazine and can scan the chart actually published by SAIL and show us that Rocna have altered the data. That is not marketing but mis-representation.
Richard
melandnick
New member
Anyone know about the seablade, I think made by the same people as the spade?
looks like the rocna
anyu idea how much or from where?
could be a cheap rocna alternative?
Nick
looks like the rocna
anyu idea how much or from where?
could be a cheap rocna alternative?
Nick
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Iffen it's 'Made by Spade' unlikely to be cheap.
We're you thinking of the Sword...
"SWORD Anchor
The latest offering from SPADE, this anchor really is something special. The clever shank profile and pulling angle give unrivalled holding power and the anchor is designed to adopt the right angle for penetration without a roll bar to take weight away from where it is needed. Tests have shown that the anchor penetrates leaving little or no wake in the seabed, demonstrating its efficiency.
For
· Concave shaped Blade
· Excellent surface area/weight ratio – Unrivalled holding power
· Good weight distribution
· “Ears” to prevent edge penetration
Against
· No ballast chamber
· Assisted penetration only"
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
From the manufacturer:-
"They are still under design and modification status and won't be released for sale until complete. We did have the prototypes at the recent Miami Boat Show for display purposes only. We expect that when they are ready, that the Spoon and SeaBlade will be somewhere in the 30-40% range less than the Spade Anchor. But that is just a guess at this point until the final designs have been determined"
snowleopard
Active member
Nope, it was a link to one of Brian's attachments, the one of the Yachting Monthly graph of results
The other link I removed was because it was a direct scan of the anchor article from Yachting Monthly. Scanning and redistributing pages of Yachting Monthly is a breach of copyright and our syndication team are in "talks" about their illegal usage.
So are the results of the YM test available anywhere on the web? I have long since recycled my copy.
melandnick
New member
Nope, I have a sword, 5kg, for my dinghy.
The seablade is a new offering.
It looks like a manson copy
Nick
Brian@Fortress
New member
Rocna misrepresentation of charts explained
If you look back on my posts 308 and 310, you will see the charts in question and with a simple explanation once you open them up. In summary:
- Rocna took one of the charts from Sail magazine for their marketing. It had a false reading and was not used by the other two magazines, Yachting Monthly and Power & MotorYacht.
- Rocna took the chart with the false reading and then dummied it up further for a new chart on their web site, and no one can figure how they arrived at the test numbers presented in this chart. They are also lying by saying that this chart came from the magazines, which it obviously did not.
In the case of Fortress, what is shown is an incredibly fraudulent misrepresentation of our anchor's performance in this test, and Rocna has not put forth any effort to change it, which is infuriating as you can understand.
If you look back on my posts 308 and 310, you will see the charts in question and with a simple explanation once you open them up. In summary:
- Rocna took one of the charts from Sail magazine for their marketing. It had a false reading and was not used by the other two magazines, Yachting Monthly and Power & MotorYacht.
- Rocna took the chart with the false reading and then dummied it up further for a new chart on their web site, and no one can figure how they arrived at the test numbers presented in this chart. They are also lying by saying that this chart came from the magazines, which it obviously did not.
In the case of Fortress, what is shown is an incredibly fraudulent misrepresentation of our anchor's performance in this test, and Rocna has not put forth any effort to change it, which is infuriating as you can understand.
BelleSerene
Active member
It seems to me that there are two things informing this debate.
The first is data from anchor tests. It's long been my conviction that these tests are unreliable. Sea bed conditions vary hugely, and the magazines don't conduct a statistically significant number of tests on the anchors - so most of the results purport to mean more than they do.
There are some obvious exceptions - for example, modern, concave anchors set faster, and then more importantly reset on turn of tide more reliably, than do the older sorts - but then common sense and experience (if you've used one) told us that anyway. But this doesn't differentiate between the modern anchors.
The other source of 'information' is the unjustified implications made by many contributors to threads such as this. They include the ad hominem attacks above, which sometimes start in response to the pugnacious tactics of some manufacturers' reps (no, I don't believe Craig of Rocna is alone in this). They also include the following kind of nonsense:
By definition, innovation comes as it always did from the newer competitors in a market and from each era's younger generation. "We've done it this way so it must be better" isn't exactly clever; getting technicians certified by an institution such as Lloyds doesn't improve the quality of a product one bit; and the attacks on Craig's alleged youth (come on, tell us Craig!) don't prove anything either.
Personally I'm really on the fence in the War of the Anchors. Possibly the truest thing said in this thread has been its title ("I hate to do this but...") I happen to own a Rocna, and yes, it sets fantastically, resets unquestioningly on turn of tide and is manifestly stronger than the chain (and deck fittings?!) I attach it to, which is clearly strong enough for the job. I suspect that if I'd gone for a Spade I would feel as content with that; I didn't because it seemed to me the Rocna's roll-bar would give it a better chance of resetting in a short space on turn of tide. [Now someone's going to comment on that.]
But really, on a topic where our sources of information are (a) dodgy magazine comparisons whose method (only three goes per anchor, etc) wouldn't pass muster in any scientific journal, (b) suppositions and innuendo about the relevance of years in manufacture, personal age or country of manufacture and (c) (sometimes pseudo-) science about how anchors set/ bend/ fracture in practice, perhaps what we need is less of (a) and (b) and more of the latter.
In the meantime, if there's a decision to be made, why not just buy a third-generation anchor that you fancy - on price if there's nothing else worth going by - and move on?!
The first is data from anchor tests. It's long been my conviction that these tests are unreliable. Sea bed conditions vary hugely, and the magazines don't conduct a statistically significant number of tests on the anchors - so most of the results purport to mean more than they do.
There are some obvious exceptions - for example, modern, concave anchors set faster, and then more importantly reset on turn of tide more reliably, than do the older sorts - but then common sense and experience (if you've used one) told us that anyway. But this doesn't differentiate between the modern anchors.
The other source of 'information' is the unjustified implications made by many contributors to threads such as this. They include the ad hominem attacks above, which sometimes start in response to the pugnacious tactics of some manufacturers' reps (no, I don't believe Craig of Rocna is alone in this). They also include the following kind of nonsense:
By definition, innovation comes as it always did from the newer competitors in a market and from each era's younger generation. "We've done it this way so it must be better" isn't exactly clever; getting technicians certified by an institution such as Lloyds doesn't improve the quality of a product one bit; and the attacks on Craig's alleged youth (come on, tell us Craig!) don't prove anything either.
Personally I'm really on the fence in the War of the Anchors. Possibly the truest thing said in this thread has been its title ("I hate to do this but...") I happen to own a Rocna, and yes, it sets fantastically, resets unquestioningly on turn of tide and is manifestly stronger than the chain (and deck fittings?!) I attach it to, which is clearly strong enough for the job. I suspect that if I'd gone for a Spade I would feel as content with that; I didn't because it seemed to me the Rocna's roll-bar would give it a better chance of resetting in a short space on turn of tide. [Now someone's going to comment on that.]
But really, on a topic where our sources of information are (a) dodgy magazine comparisons whose method (only three goes per anchor, etc) wouldn't pass muster in any scientific journal, (b) suppositions and innuendo about the relevance of years in manufacture, personal age or country of manufacture and (c) (sometimes pseudo-) science about how anchors set/ bend/ fracture in practice, perhaps what we need is less of (a) and (b) and more of the latter.
In the meantime, if there's a decision to be made, why not just buy a third-generation anchor that you fancy - on price if there's nothing else worth going by - and move on?!
snooks
Active member
I've yet to see the SAIL chart these figures were taken from...So "the graph below is from SAIL:" was that chart taken from SAIL?
You say see the chart...I have, "average of peak strain at all locations" yet I worked out as (figures of 5:1 scope of all three locations 2x East of wharf 1 x West of wharf 1 x New Brighton):
2:Fortress 4551
4:Manson 3516
1:Rocna 5061
5:Sarca 2294
3:Spade 4252
However according to Rocna graph the figures see to be around:
5:Fortress 2100 (-2451) (no mention of adjustment)
3:Manson 2450 (-1066)
1:Rocna 4750 (-311)
4:Sarca 2250 (-44)
2:Spade 3300 (-952)
A bit of a difference don't you think?
It then goes on to call peak strain "Effective Holding Power" ("Max before releasing" is the force the anchor withstood before moving (i.e. the effective holding power) and is the critical indicator of performance.)
But if that was the case and we work out the average from a 5:1 pull using the figures titled "Holding Power" (there's a clue there
) we find:1:Fortress 4226
4:Manson 3510
3:Rocna 3887
5:Sarca 1275
2:Spade 3981
All figures in lbs
So were the figures an "average of peak strain at all locations"?
not unless you pick and choose which figures you would like to use as an average
noelex
Well-known member
I think Rocna made an adjustment for the weight of the anchor (or the equivalent weight in the case of the Fortress). The Rocna was one of the smaller anchors on test. The normalization to a standard size alters the numbers slightly.
Pye_End
Well-known member
What size Fortress is that against the non-lightweight anchors?
How is it determined what size lightweight is equivalent to the others - ie is it comparing apples with pears, or is it a fair test (whatever that is)?
How is it determined what size lightweight is equivalent to the others - ie is it comparing apples with pears, or is it a fair test (whatever that is)?
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Surface area?
craigsmith
Member
No - the chart at www.rocna.com/kb/Independent_testing is the SAIL chart. Period. Taken directly from their article. It's the only chart that gives averages for all the testing and distinguishes between holding power and max strain, which is why I like it.
FX-37 vs approx 15 kg (33 lb) steel anchors. The Fortress would weigh over 25 kg if steel.
- Status
Other threads that may be of interest
