Anchors. I hate to do this but...

[westernman]

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.

That is the first time in any of this anchor thread nonsense that I have seen something to make me think about getting a new generation anchor.

If Craig had just done something like that, he would get more orders than wasting his time with doubtful data and doubtful tests and slagging off other manufacturers.

I am now convinced for the first time that the a new generation anchor would be a significant advantage over my CQR.

I doubt very much there are many people who already have a competitors new generation anchor who are going to go and change it. It seems much more sensible to concentrate of people like me who have a CQR or other old design.

 

[vyv_cox]

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.

Like this, you mean. 2:1 scope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAKk4OsTlOM&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

 

[Rigger Mortice]

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

Don't worry Brian. I doubt if many took it that way.

FWIW, I thought that you were being more than magnanimous.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

To stir the pot a bit, here's another beach test video from Sarca and once again, as Rigger pointed out, they compare their product against other competitive brands......but they do not mention names. Interesting & more respectful approach.

 

[Poignard]

The scientifically-proven inadequacy of the popular CQR explains why our coastline is littered with wrecked yachts.

 

[asteven221]

Booohooo I am feelimg left out. I have a Delta.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Booohooo I am feelimg left out. I have a Delta.

No need to feel left out. You can find your share of condescending opinions here
http://www.rocna.com/kb/Delta_anchor

 

[Brian@Fortress]

No need to feel left out. You can find your share of condescending opinions here
http://www.rocna.com/kb/Delta_anchor

Just wondering: Is there any other manufacturer of any product on this planet who has taken the time, effort, energy, and space to disparage competitive products on their web site as Rocna has?

I don't believe one exists, and to the Rocna fan base out there, do you approve of that?

 

[Delfin]

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.

Fair point. Anchor testing is hard to get right even when you are honest. If you intentionally fiddle with the conditions to make them unequal as Rocna has done, then the test is useless, and should be treated as more of a comment on the testers than the tested.

 

[Djbangi]

Responsibility

I might be flogging dead horse here, and horses have not yet been mentioned - so it might make a refershing change.

But we have all forgotten that The Smiths sold out, their anchor, name etc, to Holdfast and The Smiths have no responsibility to speak on Holdfast's behalf. In fact Steve Bambury, CEO (or up there in the oyster bed) told me that young Smith was not employed by Rocna and was simply defending his father's invention and somewhere back in the mists of this thread young Smith confirmed he had no authority to speak on behalf of Rocna/Holdfast. (I assume young and old Smith are separate 'thread' entities - but it does not actually matter). Concluding young Smith works in isolation from Holdfast/Rocna - or that is what we are being asked to believe.

Basically any technical issues related to welding and manufacturing in China etc have never been answered as young Smith cannot be privy to the detail of the process. Or if he is privy to this information then Mr Bambury's comments are slightly economical with the truth. Obviously young Smith et al can comment on some of the data in the website as it seems to have been developed prior to Holdfast buying them out. Though why a manufacturer wants to rely on a one pull test (I think the result quoted is one pull) that took 10 minutes to complete and was conduucted 6 years ago is perculiar - to say the least.

However a greater issue might be - why have Holdfast/Rocna and Mr Bambury and his colleagues allow young Smith to tarnish a product that could have been considered up there with the good ones and why are they so reluctant to comment on a simple issue - like welding of cast steel. Equally why do they not update contentious web site detail.

If the business is growing exponentially and demanding the employment of 3 new staff then surely a look at image and marketing would see that exponential development being sustained - and in these harsh times anything positive ought to be grabbed and embraced.

This is not in tended to be critical of The Smiths, they are as entitled to their opinion as I am and if they beleive in their results fine, personally I do not - but we cannot all be that clever. I am critical of some of their personal attacks and in some Forum this is weeded out. This contributuiion is intended to suggested maybe we should wonder at Holdfast's reticence, their decision - but in the 21st century - really peculiar.

And for those in the Rocna camp - do not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Good evening and have a good weekend

 

[Poignard]

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.

That's an interesting idea, I have never heard it before. If my CQR didn't work reliably I would be tempted to try it. I just follow Eric Hiscock's advice ('Cruising Under Sail') for the CQR, which is to use one weighing no less than 35lb and to give it plenty of chain straight away, so as to be sure it does get a horizontal pull.

Anyway, are anchor tests carried out on beaches really a good indicator? Surely sand which is submerged is much easier to penetrate. I have no scientific knowledge to offer but when I go to the beach I find that I don't sink in when I am standing on sand which is out of the water but I do when I stand on sand which is under water

 

[Ubergeekian]

There is no "data manipulation" by Rocna. They ...

"They"?

What precisely is the nature of your "affiliation" with Rocna, please?

 

[Conachair]

The scientifically-proven inadequacy of the popular CQR explains why our coastline is littered with wrecked yachts.

Nah, it's because your coastline is littered with marinas.

CQR's were it for a long time.
Don't think there's any scientifically-proven inadequacy, they were what most cruisers swore by for ages and many still use without problems, it's just that newer designs are better.

 

[Poignard]

Nah, it's because your coastline is littered with marinas.

CQR's were it for a long time.
Don't think there's any scientifically-proven inadequacy, they were what most cruisers swore by for ages and many still use without problems, it's just that newer designs are better.

Well if 'most cruisers ... still use them without problems', there doesn't seem much point in 'most cruisers' buying 'better' ones.
(Which is probably why they don't)

 

[Conachair]

Well if 'most cruisers ... still use them without problems', there doesn't seem much point in 'most cruisers' buying 'better' ones.
(Which is probably why they don't)

They do buy better though. you'd find it very hard to find any cruiser who have tried a new gen who would ever go back.
Face it , new gen are better than cqr, they dig in quicker and reset better. Doesn't mean a cqr is rubbish but there are better out there.

 

[Djbangi]

rubbishing CQRs

One reason some people do not change from a CQR is that they use them without problem, and these people do not consider themselves special. Then they read an article, a number of articles now - do not mention them by name as someone is bound to be too sensitive - in which a bunch of experts cannot get the CQR (or maybe another anchor design) to set, so rubbish them. If experts rubbish something that the average use without problem - what credibility does the article have? There might be good reason, or not, why the CQR (or another design commonly in use) does not set in the test - so explain, or expect less support for the conclusions.

 

[snooks]

One reason some people do not change from a CQR is that they use them without problem, 8< snipped

This I think makes a very good point. How many people seeing a force 8 will anchor?...ok then how many in a 7? I think most people give a strong wind forecast will head for the pontoons, I know I would if I could. So how many people are "really" going to see an advantage of changing from a CQR if it works for them up to a F6?

I think the average sailor will be more than happy with a CQR or whatever, and it's only the relatively small percentage that go away from marinas who will really make the most of increased holding power, not a small percentage on here, but of the boat owners btw. In day to day use what strain loads can a yachtsman expect? And is that more than a CQR can take?

 

[Ubergeekian]

I think the average sailor will be more than happy with a CQR or whatever, and it's only the relatively small percentage that go away from marinas who will really make the most of increased holding power, not a small percentage on here, but of the boat owners btw. In day to day use what strain loads can a yachtsman expect? And is that more than a CQR can take?

I broke my 8mm anchor chain last summer in sustained gusts of 40kt+ off the north of Bute. The 20lb CQR at the other end really held quite well ...


Don't forget size as well. Any anchor will work if it's big enough.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

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..

Thanks Craig. All useful information which helps me enormously.

you need to support them with evidence

Yes, I do agree with the need for evidence. Would you just quickly let us have the evidence that the Manson shanks are collapsing around the world as a result of this "issue"? (Rocnas' own "independent tests don't count by the way )

Would you also let us know how Rocna overcame all these metallurgical problems when they cut a slot in this anchor?

 

[Ubergeekian]

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.

As far as I can see, the bottom, thicker part of the shank in a Manson is the same size as the whole shank in a Rocna. Same size, same metallurgical issues. That the extra bit above on the Manson is cut from the same sheet is neither here nor there.

In any case the cross-section of both shanks is so much greater than the cross section of any chain which could conceivably be attached that failure there is inconceivable.