Anchors. I hate to do this but...

[Delfin]

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.

Bellene, I don't think we can know what the deleted audio was. However, if you look at the video, the manipulation is almost comical, so it's not hard to imagine that someone not wishing to fool the gullible would comment on the disparate towing speeds. I'm not sure about you, but my first command after the anchor hits the seabed is definitely not "Full speed astern". In fact, I don't think my boat will go as fast in reverse as they were towing that Sarca. You might also notice that the Rocna is being pulled in wet sand, the Sarca in dry. If their anchor is as good as they say, why do they so consistently resort to subterfuge?

If this video really was posted by Peter Smith, then all I can say is, like father, like son.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

BTW, I have no allegiances here, but I know a potential libel when I see one.

I doubt that Brian would make such a comment without good cause but, of course, Rocna could reinstate the original sound track if they wanted.

Why do we know they won't?

In any event I can't see much point in those tests. Dry beach sand will have completely different characteristics from the wet stuff under our keels. Completely meaningless.

 

[Twister_Ken]

. Dry beach sand will have completely different characteristics from the wet stuff under our keels. Completely meaningless.

Yeah, but it stops the camera getting wet.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Yeah, but it stops the camera getting wet.

 

[cliff]

Have a look at this 2:30 gem:



Now that's marketing!

Good night & God bless back to you!

"Copyright © Craig and Peter Smith" - see last few frames @ 2:27

 

[cliff]

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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bhjdlKwTdv8

Can you guess who was driving the pickup? - Go on have a guess......

Better still, can you guess who did the editing? - Go on have another guess then scroll down.

 

[craigsmith]

They also removed part of the audio afterwards because someone was overheard commenting how quickly they were pulling the Sarca.

That's a complete fabrication.

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.

The demonstration applies a constant force. If the anchor cannot quickly set and resist, it builds speed - tough. This simulates the worst-case-scenario of having to drop an anchor in restricted space in strong winds. Your boat, motor gone and wiping off in gale force conditions on a lee shore, will not wait patiently for the anchor to set.

Both anchors were placed at the water line, the initial conditions were identical.

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.

Rocna wants to focus on the old generation anchors, and the improvements of the new which their own product embodies, rather than play these little games with the modern competitors. I have footage here from the same pull testing of both Spade and Buegel performing less than ideally, but no need to impugn either. The Sarca video was uploaded as a temporary response to their beam balance scam testing to give a bit of a counter.

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.

The gas cut slot is an issue in high tensile steel because it is two extra runs of the cutter up and down the length of a beam of steel that depends on its tensile strength. The two runs around the outside are bad enough, but when you do double that in the interior, the extra heat poured into the steel is a problem.

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!

I have never rubbished stainless steel; on the contrary regulars here will know I routinely defend against some of the anti-SS myths that linger, especially to do with shackles and swivels. What I do "rubbish" is the use of 316/L for anchor shanks, an inappropriately weak choice for the purpose. Rocna have always produced stainless steel anchors, and do not use 316/L for the shanks. The likes of the Ultra, a Spade copy only available in 316L, is not using appropriate materials compared to the genuine Spade.

The debate over data manipulation by Rocna (not Craig, but by the company itself)

There is no "data manipulation" by Rocna. They are using directly the data as published by SAIL. Period.

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?

Because there are independent examples that illustrate the point, not to mention the aforementioned RINA certified pull testing that broke an anchor hung up on something in the seabed at a force point above that of the breaking point of the appropriate chain. Because all Rocna anchors are produced under the regime of classification society certification which requires destruction proof testing, mandates strict specifications regarding materials and welding, and requires certified welders. Because there's not a single example / known case of a Rocna weld failing, in any situation.

Ever.

You and your associates are disingenuously trying to make me or Rocna prove a negative by casting aspersions based on vicious little rumors that originate either from embittered competitors or just plain anti-Chinese sentiment. If you wish to make such disparagements, you need to support them with evidence.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

you need to support them with evidence.

Look in the mirror to see the evidence. Lot's of people here can see it, I don't know why you can't.

 

[Sybaris]

These anchor sit-coms are admittedly quite entertaining, but unfortunately often full of irrelevant and highly opinionated ranting. Once a message has been posted it becomes permanent and the author feels committed to his/her line of thought which can at times lead to a Basil Fawlty type of hole digging. When two or three posters seem to agree it is easy for readers to be influenced and feel that some sort of general consensus has been reached.

I was at one stage influenced by the comments made in this thread (and many others) about Rocna and made a mental note to remove Rocna from my list of potential anchors to look at when it comes time for that in the future.

I then reflected over this and decided to look into the matter a bit deeper than just taking the word of some angry and anonymous forum posters. A first step was to look at the Rocna website. Their website is very nice and full of good information. Of course their information will be biased towards their own products, but why wouldn’t it. I also dug out some old anchor test I had been saving, and read some older anchor threads on various forums.

I find the discussion about the test data in SAIL completely ridiculous. The figures on the chart on Rocnas website are identical to the figures shown in the SAIL article as printed. Brian at Fortress keeps referring to the full test data and argues that the figures shown in SAIL are wrong. That may be the case, but that doesn’t make Rocna guilty of “twiddling” the data as suggested by [Delfin] and others. If it is true, I suggest that Brian who has raised the allegation contact SAIL magazine to get an acknowledgement for all to read. I am sure that if such a proof was sent to Rocna that they would make whatever necessary changes on their website.

I have yet to see any constructive information that proves Rocna anchors to be inferior to other new generation anchors, or that would make them a high risk anchor to use even in very rough and adverse conditions, and I have yet to read a negative comment from a Rocna owner or a situation where a Rocna anchor has broken.

Craig is certainly biased (and why shouldn’t he) and very direct, but I cannot find anything he has written in this thread offensive as opposed to many of the other messages accusing Rocna for publishing false data, manufacturing in China, and trying to belittle Craig by calling him “young Craig”, Anchorsmith”, “Wanchorsnith” (spelling see 347), “daddy’s boy” and more.

Thanks to this thread I have now turned from being a bit sceptical of Rocna to placing their products high on my list of a future anchor purchase. I use a Delta as my bow anchor and a Fortress as my kedge anchor and am very happy with both. We are live aboards and anchor in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea most of the year. I have read all the messages in this thread very carefully.

Happy anchoring
Per Kjellqvist

 

[BelleSerene]

When two or three posters seem to agree it is easy for readers to be influenced and feel that some sort of general consensus has been reached...

Brian at Fortress keeps referring to the full test data and argues that the figures shown in SAIL are wrong. That may be the case, but that doesn’t make Rocna guilty of “twiddling” the data as suggested by [Delfin] and others...

I have yet to see any constructive information that proves Rocna anchors to be inferior to other new generation anchors, or that would make them a high risk anchor to use even in very rough and adverse conditions, and I have yet to read a negative comment from a Rocna owner or a situation where a Rocna anchor has broken...

Craig is certainly biased (and why shouldn’t he) and very direct, but I cannot find anything he has written in this thread offensive as opposed to many of the other messages accusing Rocna for publishing false data, manufacturing in China, and trying to belittle Craig by calling him “young Craig”, Anchorsmith”, “Wanchorsnith” (spelling see 347), “daddy’s boy” and more.

Thanks to this thread I have now turned from being a bit sceptical of Rocna to placing their products high on my list of a future anchor purchase. I use a Delta as my bow anchor and a Fortress as my kedge anchor and am very happy with both. We are live aboards and anchor in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea most of the year. I have read all the messages in this thread very carefully.

Happy anchoring
Per Kjellqvist

Rocna may have ill served themselves by giving the somewhat over-exuberant and direct Craig such free rein as their PR man: his evident intelligence could have been better applied to point out the fallacy of people's assertions about the SAIL data and to avoid this bunfight which won't do Rocna any good.

But as Per is right to observe, the thrust of much of this thread has been to malign Rocna anchors, not for any technical deficiency, but for a combination of people's distaste for Craig's style and of unfair imputation about him and Rocna.

Delfin's comment is rich in irony, as to judge from this thread (of which I've read every post) it applies far more to Fortress than to Rocna:

If their anchor is as good as they say, why do they so consistently resort to subterfuge?

Rising above the heat of the name-calling going on here, two things emerge. Firstly, your PR man needs to be not just technically good but to have a maturity of dealing with people (that's not just about Mr Smith). Secondly, on reflection the debate leaves Rocna anchors unimpeached and Fortress looking rather shady for maligning a competitor for irrelevant attributes such as age/ years of manufacture/ country and accusing him of precisely the behaviour being used against him.

Now I've stirred it up! I'm on page 40 so far as I haven't changed my user settings.

 

[RichardS]

Hey, its misrepresenting and hiding the facts, but that's marketing!

Come on Brian - this is not the real world.

As you requested, I have spent 2 hours analysing your data and explained why the SAIL interpretation of the original test data is highly questionable and that, in fact, the Fortress comes out on a par with the Rocna if the data is analysed with greater scientific rigour. I also suspect that Craig would agree with my conclusion if attitudes were not so polarised.

However, you still seem to be intent on criticising Rocna for not publishing the test results which show their own product in a poor light but only choosing the results which show the Rocna to be the best choice. To call this "hiding the facts" is risible.

I have quickly looked at the Fortress website and can only see test results which show the Fortress as the best choice. There must be hundreds of pages of anchor data available from such tests over the last 10 years. Where are all the facts that Fortress have "hidden". Or have Fortress simply been selective - just like Rocna!

I would be delighted if you could show me where Fortress have published data which shows other anchors are better than the Fortress.

Richard

 

[Mark-1]

However, you still seem to be intent on criticising Rocna for not publishing the test results which show their own product in a poor light but only choosing the results which show the Rocna to be the best choice. To call this "hiding the facts" is risible.

I cannot find anything he has written in this thread offensive as opposed to many of the other messages accusing Rocna for publishing false data, manufacturing in China, and trying to belittle Craig by calling him “young Craig”, Anchorsmith”, “Wanchorsnith” (spelling see 347), “daddy’s boy” and more.

Never used a Rocna and never had a problem with an old generation anchor but personal attacks and name calling really annoy me.

Craig's been criticized for the year he was born and for going on some pretty cool sailing trips. Seem odd things to pick on - personally, I wish I was younger and I wish I had done some sailing in the Antarctic.

 

[Stingo]

When will this thread be available on Kindle?

 

[Sybaris]

Oh, I would like to add another thing to my previous posting.

I don’t consider Fortress and Rocna as competitive anchors, they are complementary. I find the Fortress to be an extremely versatile anchor which should be standard equipment on any boat planning on staying more than just a few days on anchor every year. It is light and can be carried by almost anyone, it is easy to deploy in situations that require swift action, it is extremely strong and has better holding than probably any other anchor. I can easily swim out with our FX37 (which has proved more than enough on our 22 tonne 16m yacht over the last 6 years) on a small inflatable float and drop it exactly where I want it. I use it in stern-to situations in Greece when the meltemi kicks in and the wind is on the beam as extra security (or if the holding is not good for the Delta i.e. soft slicky sand, or thin sand layer on a hard bottom). I use it as a second anchor when staying on remote reefs in the Red Sea where the northerly can be plenty strong. And if I am unsure late at night I might just pop the Fortress over the bow with 50m line lying on the deck “just in case”. On top of that the Fortress has the best guarantee in the market so you simple can’t go wrong getting one.

Any boat carrying a Manson, Delta, Spade, or Rocna (and possibly others) on the bow roller with chain rode and a windlass, and a Fortress with around 5m chain and some 60m of rope rode can handle just about any situation.

Cheers,
Per

 

[Conachair]

When will this thread be available on Kindle?

Definitely under fiction.

Reality TV meets forums.

 

[Twister_Ken]

When will this thread be available on Kindle?

Available in all bad bookshops.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Available in all bad bookshops.

You'll need a bigger battery than standard....

 

[vyv_cox]

Oh, I would like to add another thing to my previous posting.

I don’t consider Fortress and Rocna as competitive anchors, they are complementary. I find the Fortress to be an extremely versatile anchor which should be standard equipment on any boat planning on staying more than just a few days on anchor every year. It is light and can be carried by almost anyone, it is easy to deploy in situations that require swift action, it is extremely strong and has better holding than probably any other anchor. I can easily swim out with our FX37 (which has proved more than enough on our 22 tonne 16m yacht over the last 6 years) on a small inflatable float and drop it exactly where I want it. I use it in stern-to situations in Greece when the meltemi kicks in and the wind is on the beam as extra security (or if the holding is not good for the Delta i.e. soft slicky sand, or thin sand layer on a hard bottom). I use it as a second anchor when staying on remote reefs in the Red Sea where the northerly can be plenty strong. And if I am unsure late at night I might just pop the Fortress over the bow with 50m line lying on the deck “just in case”. On top of that the Fortress has the best guarantee in the market so you simple can’t go wrong getting one.

Any boat carrying a Manson, Delta, Spade, or Rocna (and possibly others) on the bow roller with chain rode and a windlass, and a Fortress with around 5m chain and some 60m of rope rode can handle just about any situation.

Cheers,
Per

Well said. Fortress is excellent at what it does best but it would be unwise to rely on a single design for all eventualities. I carry a Rocna, a Delta, a Fortress and a small grapnel and may use any of them when the situation demands.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Vyv,

I recall some sage advice from you regarding putting a few links of chain twixt swivel and anchor, but can't find a reference. Any chance you could oblige?

(hope your heels are healing)

 

[Brian@Fortress]

I have quickly looked at the Fortress website and can only see test results which show the Fortress as the best choice. There must be hundreds of pages of anchor data available from such tests over the last 10 years. Where are all the facts that Fortress have "hidden". Or have Fortress simply been selective - just like Rocna!

I would be delighted if you could show me where Fortress have published data which shows other anchors are better than the Fortress.

Richard

Our web site is archaic and the charts that are published there go back to the time when Moses was in diapers.

We are currently undergoing a complete overhaul of our web site, and rest assured that we will NOT be using selective data from a published test with a false pull reading to promote our product, as Rocna has done.

Additionally, we will NOT be taking up space on our new web site to disparage other anchor manufacturers, as Rocna has also done.

Our site will be totally focused on our product's feature & benefits, and any test charts that we reference will be straight from the magazines and with their prior approval, or we simply won't use them. We will NEVER put ourselves in a position where we have to defend anything that we publish.

For those in this thread who have turned a blind eye to the incredible amount of evidence that has been brought forth about Rocna and their mis-dealings......I wish you the maximum of safety with your Rocna anchor.