Anchors. I hate to do this but...

[vyv_cox]

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)

Ken,

Like this?

I don't have words on the necessity for it at the moment but it is included in my CA presentation at last year's Med forum. Slides 8 and 9.

Heels are doubtless healing but it will be a lengthy process. One operation down, at least two to go. Take care on ladders!

 

[Chris_Robb]

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

Per, you have just summed up perfectly what it took 40 pages of slanging to not even get there! Well said! Me - Manson and Fortress - CQR in garden

 

[Twister_Ken]

Ken,

Like this?

I don't have words on the necessity for it at the moment but it is included in my CA presentation at last year's Med forum. Slides 8 and 9.

Heels are doubtless healing but it will be a lengthy process. One operation down, at least two to go. Take care on ladders!

Ta very much.

 

[snooks]

The demonstration applies a constant force. If the anchor cannot quickly set and resist, it builds speed - tough.

At what time does the test apply constant force? From the start or a frame no.? The control of the clutch (or brake if it's an auto) appears to be different for tests, and I think this is where that video has lost credibility for me. It might well reach a constant forces, but the speed at which it arrives there is different in each pull.

From someone on the outside, looking at the speed the chain is pulled from no movement to the constant applied force, there seems to be more time when the chain is pulled at a slower speed when testing the Rocna, than there was for the Sarca.

When the anchors are reversed and not digging in there can be no resistance except the weight of the anchor, but in the same time the chain on the sacra test appears to travel further, faster than it does on the Rocna test before either anchor had started to dig in.

 

[jordanbasset]

At what time does the test apply constant force? From the start or a frame no.? The control of the clutch (or brake if it's an auto) appears to be different for tests, and I think this is where that video has lost credibility for me. It might well reach a constant forces, but the speed at which it arrives there is different in each pull.

From someone on the outside, looking at the speed the chain is pulled from no movement to the constant applied force, there seems to be more time when the chain is pulled at a slower speed when testing the Rocna, than there was for the Sarca.

When the anchors are reversed and not digging in there can be no resistance except the weight of the anchor, but in the same time the chain on the sacra test appears to travel further, faster than it does on the Rocna test before either anchor had started to dig in.

+1

 

[davidfox]

Ken,

Like this?

I don't have words on the necessity for it at the moment but it is included in my CA presentation at last year's Med forum. Slides 8 and 9.

Thats great! just solved my problem, do you have problem with stainless steel and galvanised mixed?

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

With all these claims and counter claims, perhaps we should somehow run the definitive anchor test ourselves.

Come on Snooks. You can film it for IPC.

Shouldn't be too difficult to get anchors from all the manufacturers. Southampton Uni would help from a techie standpoint.

What I would like to see is some sort of scientific way of ensuring the anchors are tested in similar conditions. There is no guarantee that one bit of sand is the same density as the bit next to it.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

At what time does the test apply constant force? From the start or a frame no.? The control of the clutch (or brake if it's an auto) appears to be different for tests, and I think this is where that video has lost credibility for me. It might well reach a constant forces, but the speed at which it arrives there is different in each pull.

From someone on the outside, looking at the speed the chain is pulled from no movement to the constant applied force, there seems to be more time when the chain is pulled at a slower speed when testing the Rocna, than there was for the Sarca.

When the anchors are reversed and not digging in there can be no resistance except the weight of the anchor, but in the same time the chain on the sacra test appears to travel further, faster than it does on the Rocna test before either anchor had started to dig in.

+2.


After all this, and still no official response from Rocna. Nothing at all. Odd.

 

[snooks]

With all these claims and counter claims, perhaps we should somehow run the definitive anchor test ourselves.

Come on Snooks. You can film it for IPC.

Shouldn't be too difficult to get anchors from all the manufacturers. Southampton Uni would help from a techie standpoint.

What I would like to see is some sort of scientific way of ensuring the anchors are tested in similar conditions. There is no guarantee that one bit of sand is the same density as the bit next to it.

I posted this on another thread, but since you ask it seems a good place to repeat it. There is no real way of testing anchor what is why the subject causes such debate. No matter how a magazine/Magazines/chandlers tests them, they are exposing themselves to any number of unknowns that make it impossible to perform a good scientific test.

If a magazine tested the anchor out of the water, the magazine would get slated for a test that is a totally unrealistic of what any reader would experience.

If they do it in the water, no one can see what the anchor is doing unless we go somewhere with clear water, so that will have a different sea bed than we have in most of the UK.

The main problem with an anchor test is that you cannot get controlled conditions. Each part of an anchoring area will vary in density and material. See Craig's response about the mud sand mix at the waterline that they tested the anchors in the video

What you would need is an identical bit of beach for as many anchors as would like to be tested. Then you need to test each anchor at least 3 times in the bit of anchor bed you've just anchored in and made sure there are no rocks/trolleys/scaffold pole/Ford escorts in the sand to upset the results

Even if you could find this holy grail of perfectly reproducible sea bed, what about the different types of sea bed? Gravel, weed, rock, sand, brown east coast mud, black sikflex Scottish mud.

Then how does a magazine test them? A constant pull? An snatch test? A 180 degree pull and reset -at what speed? Or leave a boat there and if it's still there the next morning the anchor has passed. Each test would have to be done at least 3 times preferably 5 for accurate results

So 6 different sea beds, 5 different pull tests, and 5 tests of each (6x5x5=150) for a "proper test", each anchor would have to be tested 150 times to get anything nearing something that could become an authoritative test.

So then we'd need a week of no wind, but of course that too is unrealistic so we'd have to repeat those tests with wind and a bit of swell to see how that effects the results.

Then how does the magazine compare them with each other? Surface area? Weight? Suggested size? Price? A Rocna is more expensive than Fishemans, but if you take a fishermans with the same surface area, the Fishemans will be massive and weigh much more than a fortress. So should we test three sizes of each anchor for three different sized boats?

Once you've decided on a criteria to compare anchors you can take the number of anchors available, times it by 150 , times that by 3 (different sizes) then times that by 2 (different conditions)

In reality most readers will experience the "will I be where I was in the morning" test and for the majority of readers any anchor that comes with the boat will suit their needs most of the time.

It's obviously a subject that stirs such debate, and I think we should do another anchor test, but it's how to test, and how much time/staff/resources we can dedicate to the subject, after all how many people are un happy with their anchor? Poll anyone?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

With all these claims and counter claims, perhaps we should somehow run the definitive anchor test ourselves.

Come on Snooks. You can film it for IPC.

Shouldn't be too difficult to get anchors from all the manufacturers. Southampton Uni would help from a techie standpoint.

What I would like to see is some sort of scientific way of ensuring the anchors are tested in similar conditions. There is no guarantee that one bit of sand is the same density as the bit next to it.

Exactly what's needed.
Manson, Spade, Rocna, as so called modern anchors.
CQR, Danforth, Bruce as "known" anchors.
Fortress as a special because it is unique and Chris_Robb summarised it perfectly earlier.

Test them underwater, but play around on the beach if necessary.
Keep manufacturers away when the tests take place.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Looking at Grehan’s poll (yeah, I know it’s not scientific, but then neither is much else on this thread) it seems that ultimate holding power is only the fourth favourite factor in anchor choice (at 60%), being beaten by holding and resetting (89%), ability to work in different sea-beds (87%) and speed of setting (82%).

So maybe dick-measuring over ultimate hold is not where the mfgs should be directing testosterone in their attempts to win over the floating voter.

 

[Delfin]

My experience is that people who unabashedly fabricate facts and when exposed tenaciously hang onto the lie cannot be trusted. Companies who do this as a standard component of their business practices are a bit of a phenomenon, and that is probably at the heart of why this whole thread is so fascinating.

Quote from Craig on their video: "The demonstration applies a constant force. If the anchor cannot quickly set and resist, it builds speed - tough."

Fact: From the time counter on the video, edited by Craig, produced by Peter, the time for the Rocna shaft to be pulled in line with the direction of pull is 8 seconds. The similar time for the Sarca is 4 seconds. I guess you can believe what you wish, but in my space/time dimension, the video shows that Craig and Peter pulled the Sarca twice as fast. Since this is not disputable, the fascination of the thread is why Craig continues to insist otherwise.

Quote from Craig: "Both anchors were placed at the water line"

Fact: From the video it is clear that neither anchor was placed at the water line. I deduce this by the absence of, well, a waterline which is nowhere to be seen. In fact, at the very beginning of the video we can see a line up of anchors on the hard 5 feet or so behind the test area. The reason they call it a waterline is because there is usually water present. Not so here.

Quote from Craig: ", the initial conditions were identical."

Fact: Again from the video you can clearly see that the Rocna is tested in a low spot containing mud and enough water that at about 1:00, the sun is shown glinting off standing surface moisture. As one of the actors makes a great show of pulling the Rocna out you can see the wet footprints he tracks about. The trench left by the Rocna is dark, because the sand is wet. Fast forward to the Sarca. Its test location is higher and drier. The trench it leaves behind shows the sand to be lighter in color and friable because of the absence of water. These are not identical conditions since they occurred in two different locations with visibly different sets of test conditions.

Quote from Craig: "The Sarca video was uploaded as a temporary response to their beam balance scam testing to give a bit of a counter."

Here Rocna accidentally veers into the truth, but appears to miss the irony. Their company did provide and does promote on their website a counter to a test methodology used by Sarca that is designed to provide identical test conditions needed for comparison. The Rocna counter was a test method that did exactly the opposite - different pull speeds, different soil conditions; all different. The one as honest as a test method could be, theirs, as dishonest. Craig is right on, this is their counter to ethical testing.

What is important here is not demonstrating that Craig or Peter Smith feel the need to make things up and trash competitors to sell anchors. That is about as clear as it can be. What is important is whether new buyers of anchors should take into account the fact that the manufacturer of a very important piece of safety equipment cannot be trusted. Since I can't trust them to tell the truth even in the face of undeniable evidence that contradicts what they are saying, how can I trust anything else that they say? That Craig likens a concern about Rocna's ability to manage Q.C. of a very tricky manufacturing process in China to anti-Chinese bias is predictable. When confronted with factual refutation, the scoundrel always resorts to attacking the motives of the opponent in possession of the inconvenient facts.

I understand why existing owners of a Rocna want to defend their purchase. I cannot understand why anyone would want to join their club since there are comparable devices like the Spade, the Manson, the Sarca, the Buegel, etc. etc. made by honest companies. To each his own I guess.

 

[vyv_cox]

Thats great! just solved my problem, do you have problem with stainless steel and galvanised mixed?

Zinc will be lost by galvanic corrosion on the three or maybe four links immediately adjacent to the swivel. The steel of the chain is almost uncorroded because the surface is a zinc/steel compound when galvanising is done by hot dip. In the photograph the 8 mm chain has been in service for three years and the 10 mm links for one season. I anchor most nights for a six-month season.

 

[vyv_cox]

Fact: From the time counter on the video, edited by Craig, produced by Peter, the time for the Rocna shaft to be pulled in line with the direction of pull is 8 seconds. The similar time for the Sarca is 4 seconds. I guess you can believe what you wish, but in my space/time dimension, the video shows that Craig and Peter pulled the Sarca twice as fast. Since this is not disputable, the fascination of the thread is why Craig continues to insist otherwise.
.

Some independent tests can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGAckf69pE It appears to me that the pulling speed of the Rocna in the CQR v Rocna test is similar to the Sarca speed in the Rocna test. But then I would say that as I am trying to justify my mistaken purchase of a Rocna.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Some independent tests can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGAckf69pE It appears to me that the pulling speed of the Rocna in the CQR v Rocna test is similar to the Sarca speed in the Rocna test. But then I would say that as I am trying to justify my mistaken purchase of a Rocna.

You should definitely have gone for a Mafia Anchor - dead bloke encased in concrete.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Quote from Craig: "The Sarca video was uploaded as a temporary response to their beam balance scam testing to give a bit of a counter."

..and that's the difference between Rocna and all the other munufacturers.

The Sarca video shows their anchor and A. N Other. To be frank I couldn't tell whose it was, it may have been Manson or Rocna or even another anchor. I couldn't tell and I didn't really care; Sarca didn't make an issue of it.

Rocna then announce that it is a "scam". How on earth do they support that arguement? The balance beam is a simple, self explanatory method of ensuring equal pulls on both arms. Simple, easy and effective.

They then make their own video. A blatant, no holds barred, attack on Sarca.
Biased, dishonest and meaningless too.

 

[BelleSerene]

I wish you the maximum of safety with your Rocna anchor.

There he goes again with his insinuation.

Does anyone come out of this debate without mud on his hands? (Erm...)

 

[Delfin]

Some independent tests can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGAckf69pE It appears to me that the pulling speed of the Rocna in the CQR v Rocna test is similar to the Sarca speed in the Rocna test. But then I would say that as I am trying to justify my mistaken purchase of a Rocna.

Yes this does look like a fair test of a Rocna and a CQR under a given set of equivalent conditions. In that it is a refreshing contrast to the video posted by Peter and Craig Smith. This independent video tells me two things. First, an honest man can conduct an honest test if they wish to. Second, the Rocna of the size tested under these conditions digs in a lot better than a CQR of the size tested under apparently the same conditions.

What it doesn't tell me is why Rocna can't/won't conduct an honest test and why I should buy an anchor from them under those circumstances, or how a Rocna compares to a Sarca.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

There he goes again with his insinuation.

Does anyone come out of this debate without mud on his hands? (Erm...)

Please. There was no insinuation meant or implied, and I am sorry if you took it that way.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

Yes this does look like a fair test of a Rocna and a CQR under a given set of equivalent conditions. In that it is a refreshing contrast to the video posted by Peter and Craig Smith. This independent video tells me two things. First, an honest man can conduct an honest test if they wish to. Second, the Rocna of the size tested under these conditions digs in a lot better than a CQR of the size tested under apparently the same conditions.

What it doesn't tell me is why Rocna can't/won't conduct an honest test and why I should buy an anchor from them under those circumstances, or how a Rocna compares to a Sarca.

Friends who are CQR owners are infuriated with this video, as they quickly point out that they set their CQRs using a shorter scope, which keeps the pull on the shank more vertical and not horizontal as shown.

In turn, the fluke will bury into the bottom faster and not glide along.