ccscott49
Active member
The only reason I dont have one of these "new genenration anchors" is the shanks are too big to fit in my hawse pipe and there's no way I'm going to haul a 60kilo anchor aboard!
Anchors. I hate to do this but...
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
- Status
Conachair
Guest
or google "brocken rocna".
If they are that dangerous where is the evidence?
Why is it in every anchorage in the world you would find it hard to speak to anyone with a rocna who does not praise the anchor.
You may not like the company but all the evidence out in the real world points to it being a very good anchor.
And cruisers are a very hard bunch to please.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Agreed, but the evidence also seems to suggest that other new generation anchors are also very good. And so the manufacturers have to try and differentiate themselves from their competitors to make more sales. All sorts of marketing theory postulates that slagging off the competition is not the way to win customers.
Buy BP petrol, coz Shell and Esso are rubbish.
No, don't remember hearing that slogan.
Delfin
New member
Well, perhaps you can be the first.
My likes or dislikes really have nothing to do with Craig's postings, data twiddling by Rocna or the difficulty of managing manufacturing in China. Those are just facts.
By the way, when did Rocna shift production from Down Under to China? Might be worth knowing if you own one.
Conachair
Guest
Agree squared
I have a rocna on the bow but probably couldn't tell the difference between it and a spade from talking to fellow cruisers. Skimming the surface on this thread they're all having a dig at each other. As long as it carries onsetting and staying there I really don't care.BelleSerene
Active member
Precisely. How can this thread be on 37 pages?!
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I think you are missing the point.
I don't think anyone is commenting on how good or bad the Rocna may be. The comments are based on the Anchorsmiths tactics of relentlessly knocking the competition, frequently dreaming up new things to try to sow the seeds of doubt in peoples minds.
On one site he ripped into the Manson retrieval slot, trying to make out that the very process of cutting that slot would damage the shank....ie the Manson was a poor product because of that slot. Pure rubbish. Even more so now that Rocna have copied the slot and produced a Manson lookalike!
On another thread he tried to rubbish stainless steel anchors by some mickey mouse analysis of the qualities of stainless steel. Since then Rocna have miraculously resolved all the metalurgical problems of stainless and introduced their own SS product!
Delfin is talking about the problems of welding shank to blade. It's fair comment. Rocna goes into petty detail about Mansons welded construction. The difference is that Rocna is knocking to try to gain a competitive advantage over Manson, wheras Delfin has no vested interest.
People are now giving Rocna a taste of their own medicine. Good.
Good businesses very rarely knock the competition because it leaves a nasty taste in peoples mouths and is simply seen as being negative. As a general rule the only time you see anything vaguely approaching knocking is when the supermarkets compare prices. Prices are a matter of fact, but they do not criticize service, product quality or any of the many other things which motivate consumers.
Last edited:
Poignard
Well-known member
And the old ones aren't very bad.
snowleopard
Active member
That's a UK phenomenon. Knocking copy is commonplace in other parts of the world e.g. the USA.
Poignard
Well-known member
Like the dodgy builder preparing you for a big bill:
'Cor, who done this job then?'
Stork_III
Well-known member
Set your preferences to 30 posts/page and it is only 13.
snooks
Active member
Stork_III
Well-known member
I did have 100/page but a previous Dan changed the max allowed. Now we have lost the ads can we have it back at 100 max?This is page 10 for me
Brian@Fortress
New member
I thought long and hard about this, and I cannot think of a single recent example of one manufacturer flogging another in an advertisement here in the USA. You might hear a bold statement, such as "Our car is best in its class for gas mileage" but never "Our product is great and your product sucks."
And you certainly never hear false and or even questionable allegations by one manufacturer against another. By contrast, I was in the Cruisers Forum recently and Craig of Rocna was ready to flog the Ultra anchor when a reader asked about it, but Craig had been told that he would be banned from the forum if he ever insulted another manufacturer again.
Craig wrote, "I can't comment on it without risking the ire of a mod who won't like what I have to say. E-mail me or start a thread on another forum." He couldn't wait to trash the Ultra, as the all un-knowing Anchorsmith he is.
I complimented the Ultra anchor by saying that it had performed quite well in an Italy test and received some positive accolades......and then the Ultra rep came aboard to say that he was going to be at an upcoming boat show and he could answer questions there.
One reader posted "I have never seen an anchor thread with all vendors being so nice,"........to which the Ultra rep replied "We all respect each other and their products."
Amen to that, with one notable exception.....and without him or his company, rest assured..... there would be no "Anchor Wars."
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I'm surprised, but I'm just not qualified to talk about the US advertising scene.
What I can tell you is that the American yachties response to the Anchorsmith is exactly the same as on YBW.
Over the last few days, as he had dropped out of sight here, I thought I would join him
rolleyes over on http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna/page3. Many of the comments are exactly the same.There are lots of US boaty forums (I can't quite bring myself to say "fora"). The response to the Anchorsmith is always the same.
Everyone here is a potential customer. I really don't know why he doesn't see it.
RichardS
N/A
OK Brian - and anyone else who is still interested
First, let me preface this by stating clearly my assumption, so far not disproven, that the full Anchor Testing Analysis chart published on the Rocna website and attributed to SAIL magazine, is a correct, factual representation of the chart published by SAIL magazine.
As has already been acknowledged, the summary chart of "Max before releasing" results has been correctly transcribed by Rocna from the data in the SAIL chart. I've therefore analysed the comprehensive data provided by Brian to try and identify how this data has been represented in the original SAIL chart.
I have only analysed the data for Rocna and Fortress as otherwise I would be here all night!
1) Peak Strain data. This is renamed "Max Pull" by SAIL magazine when displayed on their chart.
This figure, 5500 for Fortress (the best result of all anchors) and 5488 for Rocna, is the single maximum force recorded by the testers across all three locations. It is not an average result as described by Rocna, who have presumably taken this description from the SAIL magazine article.
SAIL magazine have disregarded the freak result of 5904 achieved by the Rocna in New Brighton. I understand why Brian keeps referring to this freak result but, as it has been disregarded by SAIL, it does not appear in the Rocna data summary either. I think we should forget it.
2) Holding Power data. This is renamed "Max Before Releasing" by SAIL magazine when displayed on their chart.
This is where the problem occurs, but as far as I can see, the problem is with SAIL magazine and not Rocna.
Max Before Releasing appears to be a subsection of the original Holding Power test data and is an average of those tests in which the anchor actually released. It does not include the results where the test has been terminated because the anchor had not moved by the time the test duration was completed. Of course, for these terminated tests, the data shown under Holding Power is simply a repeat of the data shown under Peak Strain!
To my mind, this is not a particularly well-constructed series of tests as the same result appears in what purports to two different test dimensions. Presumably, to avoid double-counting of the same result, SAIL magazine have eliminated the "test terminated" results from their "Max Before Releasing" average. However, in avoiding this pitfall, I would argue that SAIL have exaggerated a somewhat artificial distinction between so-called "peak strain" and "holding power" - in the real world this is probably nonsense!
Which would you rather have, an anchor which sets and holds at a huge force and never budges, or an anchor that sets and gets to a not-quite-so-high force and then releases. I would have thought the former was preferable - but the former would not be counted in the "max before releasing" results at all!
The Rocna "max before releasing result" of around 4500 does look a lot better than the Fortress result and I understand why Rocna have used it in their marketing. The blame lies with SAIL magazine for not thinking through what the raw data actually means.
A side issue is that, as far as I can see, the SAIL magazine "Max before releasing" result for the Fortress, has actually been mis-calculated by SAIL!
The Fortress result should be more like 2600 rather than 2100. It's still well below the Rocna but is better than most of the other anchors.
In summary, I agree that Brian and Fortress have good reason to question the validity of these charts but the focus of their frustration should be SAIL magazine who have summarised the original test data is a way that, I believe, does not stand up to scrutiny.
I am sure that the people at Rocna are not fools and have probably been through this analysis themselves and are aware of the flaws in the SAIL presentation. However, as long as what they have re-produced on their website is the same as that published by SAIL magazine, I would say their hands are clean
Snooks is also correct that the SAIL magazine data on the Rocna website bears little relation to the YBW interpretation of the raw data, or indeed, to my interpretation if I was asked to produce it for all the anchors. That is why Rocna have chosen to reproduce the SAIL magazine chart and not the YBW chart. But hey, that's marketing
Good night and God Bless.
Richard
Brian@Fortress
New member
That is why Rocna have chosen to reproduce the SAIL magazine chart and not the YBW chart. But hey, that's marketing
Good night and God Bless.
Richard
Hey, its misrepresenting and hiding the facts, but that's marketing!
And those Rocna guys sure know how to do that, don't they??? Have you seen Peter Smith's beach video comparing a Rocna against a Sarca, where they pulled the Rocna oh so slowly, allowing it to sink into a softer soil...and then they pulled the Sarca oh so quickly on a harder soil??
They also removed part of the audio afterwards because someone was overheard commenting how quickly they were pulling the Sarca. I can't imagine why anyone would ever have to remove the audio out of a beach anchor test video. Can you?
Have a look at this 2:30 gem:
Now that's marketing!
Good night & God bless back to you!
BelleSerene
Active member
That's quite an accusation, that the reason some of the track doesn't have audio is specifically that Rocna removed it because someone was making a comment that cast doubt on their test.
Can you defend your accusation against your competitor?
BTW, I have no allegiances here, but I know a potential libel when I see one.
Kilter
New member
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
That 4WD must have been in third gear by the time they finished with the Sarca. Any faster and it would have flown like a kite.
Rocna also has over 8 minutes of video on its site comparing their anchor with older generation ones, but not showing any comparison with new tech anchors, despite having them lined up on the beach in the video at about 1m40s. One can only assume that the modern designs performed well enough to not make the Rocna look outstanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bhjdlKwTdv8
- Status
Other threads that may be of interest
