Anchors. I hate to do this but...

[Pye_End]

Surface area?

That is also probably a contentious way of deciding which anchor to pit against another as a 25lb Rocna/Manson has a greater surface area than a 25lb CQR. However it is going to be a better answer than weight as far as the Fortress is concerned.

Perhaps it should be on density of materials?

 

[Twister_Ken]

That is also probably a contentious way of deciding which anchor to pit against another as a 25lb Rocna/Manson has a greater surface area than a 25lb CQR. However it is going to be a better answer than weight as far as the Fortress is concerned.

Perhaps it should be on density of materials?

Or inside leg measurement.

 

[RichardS]

Either I am being really thick or some people just can't read graphs!

Look at the chart which Rocna say is reproduced from SAIL magazine. Unless someone can show otherwise, let us assume that it was.

Look at the "Max before releasing" results for all anchors from the SAIL chart, reading within the limits of the coarse scale.

Bulwagga - 2200
CQR - 2250
Delta - 3200

etc.....

Now look at the Rocna headline summary of the SAIL chart, where Rocna have changed the orientation of the chart and re-printed only the "max before releasing" results.

Bulwagga - 2200
CQR - 2250
Delta - 3200

etc.....

I simply cannot see where there has been any averaging or mis-representation. There may well be averaging within the SAIL results but Rocna appear to have taken what was apparently published by SAIL.

If you have any issues about the averaging or the validity of the method or the reproducibility of the test method, it seems to me that you should take it up with West Marine or SAIL.

Richard

 

[Pye_End]

FX-37 vs approx 15 kg (33 lb) steel anchors. The Fortress would weigh over 25 kg if steel.

The Fortress website says that an FX-37 is 9.5Kg, and is designed to replace a steel anchor of weight 15Kg to 23Kg.

Perhaps FX-37 should have been up against 20Kg anchors, or arguably larger, as a fairer test.

Personally I find the distiction between all of the new gen anchors as ultimate holding power a distraction. They are clearly streets ahead of the older designs, and for me the most important point is in their ability to set in the first place, unaided.

 

[Conachair]

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

Having problems following that logic.

You won't buy a specific brand of anchor which no one has criticised because someone who admits to having no links with the company has wound you up on an internet forum?.......

 

[snooks]

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.

Well that makes it alright then

Lets work it out then

The weights:
Fortress 22lb 10kg
Manson 35.9lb 16.3kg
Rocna 32lb 14.5kg
Sarca 33lb 14.8kg
Spade 34.4 lb 15.6kg

Average 5:1 of the peak strain figures for a 32lb anchor (this is so false - I've taken the average peak strain divided it by it's weight and then times it by 32 cos the Rocna was 32lbs) and we have:

Fortress 6632 (-4522)
Manson 3134 (-684)
Rocna 5061 (-311)
Sarca 2224 (+25)
Spade 3956 (-656)

I still haven't got their figures.....Now what?

Each lb of anchor weight has a "peak strain" of
Fortress 193
Manson 86
Rocna 119
Sarca 39
Spade 115

But I think this is totally false information because I believe anchors work differently at different scales

 

[cliff]

Your trollish reply is appalling.

trollish? - think again - the post did what it was intended to do - prevent the thread slipping off the page

I have dealt with rocna before, and would be more than happy to buy another anchor from them.

Your choice

They are extremely good,reliable anchors, the company is friendly and customer focused.

In your opinion /experience having bought ONE of their products

If you have a "modern anchor" then you will understand how good they are,

I have and I do

if you don't, then don't criticise something you know nothing about.

Unlike many I do not comment on something I know nothing about nor at any point have I criticised the product only the methods used to try to brainwash and con potential customers and trash competitor's products

Can I suggest you edit your childish prose.

You can suggest that if you like but.....

The only thing in your defense is you are not alone in this thread.

Defense? - Oh, you mean defence - defence against what?
As you noted I am "not alone in this thread"
Does that not tell you something? I mean if I was "a voice in the wilderness" then perhaps I had got it wrong, but......
Bottom line is I see nothing in the tests to make me want to acquire one of the wanchorsmith's products which appear to me to be little more (if any) than a middle of the road "newgen" anchor - having said that if they were reasonably priced, say £ 100-150 I might entertain one as a spare or for "show"
Oh, BTW, yes I did have the opportunity to try one and I must admit I was not particularly impressed - perhaps it was the "wrong" type of sand/silt on the seabed.

 

[craigsmith]

Well that makes it alright then

I think I'm repeating myself and will second Richard's comment above.
It is not adjusted. It is the original chart. Period.

 

[snooks]

I think I'm repeating myself and will second Richard's comment above.
It is not adjusted. It is the original chart. Period.

I haven't seen the chart in SAIL, so I can neither confirm or deny that it is the actual chart.

What I'm having trouble with it that I'm trying to replicate the figures from the Sail Chart that has been reproduced.

I have the test figures in front of me, the same figures that Sail have used, and I have tried numerous ways in which to make the figures fit the graph....and I can't.

If you know how they got those figures, please enlighten me

What Rocna have done is take this Average Peak Strain, and called it "Effective Holding Power" rather than taking the actual "Holding Power" figures from the test

 

[RichardS]

I haven't seen the chart in SAIL, so I can neither confirm or deny that it is the actual chart.

What I'm having trouble with it that I'm trying to replicate the figures from the Sail Chart that has been reproduced.

I have the test figures in front of me, the same figures that Sail have used, and I have tried numerous ways in which to make the figures fit the graph....and I can't.

If you know how they got those figures, please enlighten me

What Rocna have done is take this Average Peak Strain, and called it "Effective Holding Power" rather than taking the actual "Holding Power" figures from the test

Hi Snooks - I think you are mis-reading the graphs.

Forget the heading which says "Average of Peak Strain at All Locations". This is just a direct copy from the SAIL chart. I can understand that Rocna have kept this as the title of their summary becuase it then refers directly to the SAIL data. However, the blue bars which Rocna actually show in their chart is "Max before releasing", the data and is taken directly from the SAIL chart.

I think that the "average of peak strain...." heading is the source of the confusion and would have been better left out!

Richard

 

[Brian@Fortress]

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.

Once again, young Craig shows his idiocy. Do you think these readers are all dopes? The only reason why you "like" this chart is because it is the ONLY chart in 3 magazines that the Rocna presented well and....

IT HAD A FALSE READING ON ONE PULL FOR THE ROCNA! Read below from notes:

Rocna 35 >5,000 Set immediately, but began dragging. Tension shown indicates a single spike on the graph. Anchor would not reset after it released. This tension is not representative of the actual performance.

Regarding the weight of the FX-37 vs. a steel anchor, go look at a Danforth chart.

The 22 lb / 10 kg FX-37 is almost identical in size to the 35 lb / 16 kg steel Danforth anchors.......which is a long way from the 25 kg that young Craig said it would weigh.

I do understand young Craig's embarrassment that a much lighter Fortress FX-37 has out-performed a heavier Rocna anchor in two head-to-head anchor tests. Imagine what the difference would be if there was a "pound for pound" anchor test?

I also understand the embarrassment now that Rocna has been in 8 other anchor tests and has not been the top performing anchor....in fact, it has been beaten by copies and old generation anchors that young Craig detests!

 

[Brian@Fortress]

Hi Snooks - I think you are mis-reading the graphs.

Forget the heading which says "Average of Peak Strain at All Locations". This is just a direct copy from the SAIL chart. I can understand that Rocna have kept this as the title of their summary becuase it then refers directly to the SAIL data. However, the blue bars which Rocna actually show in their chart is "Max before releasing", the data and is taken directly from the SAIL chart.

I think that the "average of peak strain...." heading is the source of the confusion and would have been better left out!

Richard

Richard,

You need to look at the actual West Marine test spreadsheet from which the charts were made so you can get on the same sheet of music with Snooks and I.

Please send me a PM with your e-mail address and I will send it to you. It is too big of a file to attach here, and if anyone else wants it, I would be glad to send it to them as well.

You will clearly see the fraud and misrepresentation of the chart on Rocna's web site.

 

[snooks]

Hi Snooks - I think you are mis-reading the graphs.

Forget the heading which says "Average of Peak Strain at All Locations". This is just a direct copy from the SAIL chart. I can understand that Rocna have kept this as the title of their summary becuase it then refers directly to the SAIL data. However, the blue bars which Rocna actually show in their chart is "Max before releasing", the data and is taken directly from the SAIL chart.

I think that the "average of peak strain...." heading is the source of the confusion and would have been better left out!

Richard

I can see that the lime green bars vertical bars are the same as the blue horizontal bars. But the blue chart with horzontal bars is not "the graph below from SAIL", the data might well have been taken from the SAIL chart, but that chart is not the chart.

As I said above, I'm struggling to get the same results from the figures I have. Take Brian up on his offer of sending you the figures for the test and see if you can work it out

 

[RichardS]

Once again, young Craig shows his idiocy. Do you think these readers are all dopes? The only reason why you "like" this chart is because it is the ONLY chart in 3 magazines that the Rocna presented well and....

IT HAD A FALSE READING ON ONE PULL FOR THE ROCNA! Read below from notes:

Rocna 35 >5,000 Set immediately, but began dragging. Tension shown indicates a single spike on the graph. Anchor would not reset after it released. This tension is not representative of the actual performance.

Regarding the weight of the FX-37 vs. a steel anchor, go look at a Danforth chart.

The 22 lb / 10 kg FX-37 is almost identical in size to the 35 lb / 16 kg steel Danforth anchors.......which is a long way from the 25 kg that young Craig said it would weigh.

I do understand young Craig's embarrassment that a much lighter Fortress FX-37 has out-performed a heavier Rocna anchor in two head-to-head anchor tests. Imagine what the difference would be if there was a "pound for pound" anchor test?

I also understand the embarrassment now that Rocna has been in 8 other anchor tests and has not been the top performing anchor....in fact, it has been beaten by copies and old generation anchors that young Craig detests!

The summary chart from I'm looking at on the Rocna website for the Rocna says "Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately"

When you refer to the >5000 pull are you refering to the "Max pull" results from the SAIL chart? This may well show the Rocna in an artificially good light BUT this is not the data which Rocna are choosing to highlight. Rocna are highlighting "max before releasing" result which is clearly less that 5000 and, unless I'm missing something, is not a result which is being queried by SAIL.

You could send me as much data as you like which shows that Rocna and/or Fortress are good/bad/indifferent but that is not the point of my posts.

All I am challenging is the allegation that Rocna are mis-representing the SAIL chart data which they have posted on their own website. There may well be lots of other data which shows Rocna in a bad light which they have not shown on their website but I suspect that the general consenses amongst previous posters is "that's hardly surprising".

Richard

 

[RichardS]

I can see that the lime green bars vertical bars are the same as the blue horizontal bars. But the blue chart with horzontal bars is not "the graph below from SAIL", the data might well have been taken from the SAIL chart, but that chart is not the chart.

As I said above, I'm struggling to get the same results from the figures I have. Take Brian up on his offer of sending you the figures for the test and see if you can work it out

Come on now, surely that is being a bit pedantic

OK, I agree that Rocna should say "the data below is from the SAIL graph" rather than "the graph below is from SAIL".

But they give the link to the original SAIL graph and the data is exactly the same and has not been mis-represented as far as I can see.


Richard

PS Brian - on reflection, please PM me your data and I'll take a look at it.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

All I am challenging is the allegation that Rocna are mis-representing the SAIL chart data which they have posted on their own website.

Richard

See the West Marine spreadsheet with the test results, and you will see the light. Rocna's web site chart is fraud. Anxiously awaiting a PM with your e-mail address. I just sent the spreadsheet to another viewer.

 

[snooks]

Come on now, surely that is being a bit pedantic

OK, I agree that Rocna should say "the data below is from the SAIL graph" rather than "the graph below is from SAIL".

I think that by writing:
"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:" from here

It gives the impression that Yachting Monthly agree with that chart. They do not.

The only chart Yachting Monthly printed is this one:

Which is the one they stand by and have the figures that can be verified by the test figures, there was no equations, formulas, averages or conversions to the figures. They were printed as they were collected.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

on Craig's alleged youth (come on, tell us Craig!)

He's very shy when it comes to answering questions so it's left to me to tell you that he was born in 1982.

 

[Delfin]

The debate over data manipulation by Rocna (not Craig, but by the company itself), is pertinent because in some cases YOUR LIFE WILL DEPEND on the integrity of the people making a critical bit of safety equipment. An earlier poster said that they were sure their Rocna was "stronger than the chain". Really? How exactly would one know that - because Rocna, tweaker of data, says so? Without belaboring the point, just Google "welding plate steel to cast steel" and see what welders say about the difficulty of the process. Unless you think the shank of a Rocna alone will save your boat if that weld goes, this is a perspective you might find useful.

Our course plate can be welded to cast. Just like toys can be painted with lead free paint. Which company would you trust to ensure that a product manufactured in China would meet specifications - Rocna or multi billion $ Mattel? Here's what the NYTimes had to say about toys made for Mattel in China that had to be recalled:

"Mattel has blamed its Chinese contract manufacturers for failing to use the unleaded paint required in their contracts."

Am I being unfair because I wonder if Rocna's Chinese manufacturer might not uniformly pre-heat the cast before welding on the plate shank, or perhaps use those rods it got such a deal on in that bulk buy from Afghanistan - even though the manufacturing specifications indicated otherwise?

Because of such repeated, self defeating and lunatic breaches of contract, the Chinese rarely use lead based paints anymore. They've started to sneak in Cadmium based paints, which is like the alcoholic giving up bourbon in favor of scotch.

With an anchor, you are not talking about a choice between boat waxes, but the single piece of equipment that you depend on to protect the entire vessel from damage or destruction. The fact that Craig is about as appropriate a spokesman for Rocna as Hannibal Lecter would be for Jimmy Dean sausage is beside the point. You have to decide how much confidence to place in Rocna to manage off shore production while letting Craig run amok without correction, and continuing to post fudged data on its website to try to convince consumers that its product is the best available.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Well said Delfin!

The only thing I would add is that the Anchorsmith bragged about putting his product in a test rig. Manson then offered to do exactly that..........and he ran away as fast as his legs would carry him!

Confidence in his product?