Anchors, once again.

Did the same with beach test videos some time back - all the other anchors on moist sand (so grains held together by surface tension), Rocna in saturated sand so no surface tension - big, big difference between moist sand and saturated sand as anyone who has tried digging in both will attest.

When the link to the videos was put up some time ago this was commented on by a number who viewed them. Didn't see the tests in real life though, just the videos. A knowledgeable manufacturer would have recognised the problem (whether one of appearance on the video, or one of attempted trickery) immediately - I suppose, in the end, beach tests are always of questionable value, just from the surface tension effect on the moist sand which is not an influence under the sea.

Regarding the anchor weight on the Chico 40's - my own boat of same length carries a 60lb plough as main anchor in order to be independant with an older generation anchor, I suspect they did not and so were under anchored in my (and my friend's) view and manufacturers own recommendations are usually (always? for independant vessel) on the quite light side (have a look at the Fortress recommendation for an around 130 foot boat as I had cause to do recently for a new build MoBo - eeeek!!! - am not criticising Fortress anchors, just the size).

I think a relevant point amongst what I, and I think sbc say regarding weight - I had a look today at a Delta on a cruising free ranging independant boat similar size to our boat and was probably adequately fitted as the Delta was probably several sizes bigger than recommended by manufacturer. Area of the anchor was probably quite similar to our own plough so probably the main penalty we pay is in weight (maybe 20 lbs) which is not a big problem for us (never had a problem with setting). Sorry for all the "probably"'s in that but working from a jaundiced eye.

Not saying I would not go to a Delta (or something /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif) if replacing our anchors now or commissioning another new build for ourselves (that ain't goin' to happen /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif, once is enuff for the bank balance) now that newer generation anchors are available but above comments just an indication for comparison purposes. I do, however, tend to sympathise with sbc that there is some merit in weight for setting.

Looking around tho', goodness, some pretty small anchors on some yachts, no wonder some peeps have problems [aghast smiley here] and make a rush for the moorings down in the Sounds (interesting squabbles over them at times /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif).

Whatever, I respect your views GMac so am not a nasty scratchy cat with you /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

John
 
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that your chart came directly from Sail or are you saying that it did not come directly from Sail?

[/ QUOTE ]

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Poor Rocna has a time of it here don't they.

The note at the bottom of that chart says DATA FROM WEST MARINE / SAIL 2006 COMPARISON TESTING. I personally never had the impression it was actually from the Sail article, but then I had already seen it (the magazine) by the first time I saw the Rocna chart.

Perhaps they wanted their own chart so as to avoid issues of copyright infringement?

In any case I don't see the problem, as the data is still accurate and the whole things is very similar to Sail's own graph as near as I can see. All they seem to have done is rank the anchors by the "max before release" figures, so Rocna is at the "top" (far right) - makes their anchor look better yes but is that such a big deal? - and change the measure to a ratio of holding ability versus size.

I think the comments by _hylas_ here are a bit objectionable, they seem motivated by an intent to hurt Rocna as much as possible. Opinions from industry people are to be welcomed I think, but not deliberate attempts at discrediting or sabotage. That seems an abuse of the forums. No offence _hylas_ /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif but honestly that is how your post comes across. The sarcasm doesn't help.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think the comments by _hylas_ here are a bit objectionable, they seem motivated by an intent to hurt Rocna as much as possible

[/ QUOTE ]

one might say 'objection' - how can you discern the intent? however this is a forum not a court romm so your opinion is as valid as anyones.

mine is that that the diagreement here is over Rocna's arbritatory decision to adjust the data in relation to aluminum anchors. given that the figures under discussion relate to holding I also find this an inappropriate 'fiddle factor'.

setting is at least as important an issue but no the one being graphically represented here and the relative impact of pulling angle, dynamic or static weight, tip shapes etc would all have to be taken into account on such a discussion as indicated in many posts here.

What doesn't seem to be in dispute is that if you put a similar weight aluminum spade up against a CQR it would be no contest in just about any testing situation including setting! So what is there to argue about?
 
[ QUOTE ]

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Poor Rocna has a time of it here don't they.

The note at the bottom of that chart says DATA FROM WEST MARINE / SAIL 2006 COMPARISON TESTING. I personally never had the impression it was actually from the Sail article..

In any case I don't see the problem, as the data is still accurate and the whole things is very similar to Sail's own graph as near as I can see.

All they seem to have done is rank the anchors by the "max before release" figures, so Rocna is at the "top" (far right) - makes their anchor look better yes but is that such a big deal? - and change the measure to a ratio of holding ability versus size.

I think the comments by _hylas_ here are a bit objectionable, they seem motivated by an intent to hurt Rocna as much as possible. Opinions from industry people are to be welcomed I think, but not deliberate attempts at discrediting or sabotage. That seems an abuse of the forums. No offence _hylas_ /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif but honestly that is how your post comes across. The sarcasm doesn't help.

[/ QUOTE ]

No MerseaMercy ,

What Rocna did was to take only a part of the test, to show that his anchor was the best..

I would accept he will have said: "have a look at the Sail test results, the Rocna did perform well" (wich is perfectly exact)

What about the other figure page 69 - Holding on different locations where:
- In two places out of the three, the results of the Rocna is good and average in the third:
- at "East of warf" Rocna arrives in third position behind Fortress and Spade
- at "West of Warf" Rocna arrives in fifth position behind Fortress, Hydrobulbe, Océane and Spade
- Finally at New Brighton, Rocna arrives in third position behind Hydrobulbe and Suprème..

For me, the best anchors have been the Hydrobubble and the Fortress (not talking about the Spade) NOT THE ROCNA

Now why did they change the measure to a ratio of holding ability versus WEIGHT. From my point of view it would have been more precise to introduce a ratio of holding ability versus SURFACE AREA.

I fully believe that the way of publishing the (modified) results and presenting then as results from the Sail magazine test, has been done to give a wrong idea of the results, in favor of the Rocna anchor..

"Opinions from industry people are to be welcomed " Please note that I do not have now ANY FINANCIAL, COMMERCIAL OR MARKETING INTEREST WITH ANY ANCHOR MANUFACTURER..
 
Location:
New Zealand
South America
Dodge City
Just Sth of the Border

Time:
Dawn
Noon
Dusk
Midnight
7 after 10 (UTC of course)

Weapons:
Dualing Pistols
Sabres
10kg freshly caught Tuna
Pre-loved 20lb CQR's (just to be independant)

Contestants:
All the way from the EU and representing Spade in the Blue corner Mr Alain P
And from the colonies representing Rocna in the Red corner Mr Craig S

The voting line is open. Please ask the bill payer first. All calls cost $1 and go the the 'GMac wants a bigger Boat fund'

Please send stamp address envelope to 123 Wobbly Way for copy of DVD. But wait there's more, order in the next 87 minutes and receive a free, yes free, and slightly used Jock Strap from the 1921 tour of England by the All Blacks. (will need washing... unless ?? Nope not going there /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif)

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
No MerseaMercy ,

What Rocna did was to take only a part of the test, to show that his anchor was the best..

I would accept he will have said: "have a look at the Sail test results, the Rocna did perform well" (wich is perfectly exact)

What about the other figure page 69 - Holding on different locations where:
- In two places out of the three, the results of the Rocna is good and average in the third:
- at "East of warf" Rocna arrives in third position behind Fortress and Spade
- at "West of Warf" Rocna arrives in fifth position behind Fortress, Hydrobulbe, Océane and Spade
- Finally at New Brighton, Rocna arrives in third position behind Hydrobulbe and Suprème..

For me, the best anchors have been the Hydrobubble and the Fortress (not talking about the Spade) NOT THE ROCNA

Now why did they change the measure to a ratio of holding ability versus WEIGHT. From my point of view it would have been more precise to introduce a ratio of holding ability versus SURFACE AREA.

"Opinions from industry people are to be welcomed " Please note that I do not have now ANY FINANCIAL, COMMERCIAL OR MARKETING INTEREST WITH ANY ANCHOR MANUFACTURER..

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the other numerous graphs in the testing. You have done exactly what you are accusing Rocna of, by taking the one graph (which is incomplete anyway) and using it to criticize Rocna. (This is what annoys me; you are not arguing the case for Spade, but instead you are repeatedly trying to put Rocna down.) As Craig said Rocna's graph is the one of complete averages, so surely this is the best one to use as a summary, whether or not it is modified from Sail mag's own version.

There are other graphs in the magazine that make the Spade look awful compared to the Rocna, if Rocna Inc really wanted to cook the books, e.g. the 3:1 figures for "effect of scope on holding power" on page 68. I don't see them doing that.

The holding ability thing versus weight is just a silly argument, I don't believe you even really think that. Even I can see that weight is the defining feature of an anchor. I can prove this by pointing to the fact that people define what "size" anchor they have by referring to the weight. People are going to care about how heavy the anchor is with respect to carrying it around. Besides, how do you expect them to graph "surface area" when there is no such data? At least not in the Sail article. And you are the one trying to build a case against them for not copying exactly Sail's graph. It is a stupid argument and I do not get the impression you are stupid - so what can I conclude from this?

I assume Rocna have only done that ratio business because there are differences in the anchor weights. I notice the Spade is heavier than the Rocna by a few lbs. 35lbs vs. 32lbs. That's nearly 10 percent difference. Something you don't want noticed or accounted for?!

Finally, in response to my query regarding your actual connection to Spade, you just blindly repeated your signature which I am sure you know I have already seen. So you haven't answered my Q at all and I must say this makes me cynical.

Even if you don't have any connection at all with Spade, I will consider you an "industry person" as the designer (not a bad thing). I don't think that's unfair, you will still want to defend your design. I will welcome and study your opinions. But not this anti-competition campaign. I think it hurts your image.

Sorry for the trollish posting. Just my opinion.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Please send stamp address envelope to 123 Wobbly Way for copy of DVD. But wait there's more, order in the next 87 minutes and receive a free, yes free, and slightly used Jock Strap from the 1921 tour of England by the All Blacks. (will need washing... unless ?? Nope not going there /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif)

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I've missed the 87 minute cut-off time, but I only have one thing to say, and they say a picture tells a thousand words:

_39513924_john_getty_270.jpg


Yay the picture thingy works. Fantastic.

You can keep your jock strap, we'll keep the cup /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Even I can see that weight is the defining feature of an anchor. I can prove this by pointing to the fact that people define what "size" anchor they have by referring to the weight. People are going to care about how heavy the anchor is with respect to carrying it around.

[/ QUOTE ]

this would seem to be an argument against the application of any factor in respect of the aluminum anchors in the test ie from your perspective a 15kg anchor is a 15kg anchor.

I completely agree!












Which is why I have a problem with Rocna taking test data and adjusting it themselves in respect of the aluminium anchors.

I agree again with the principle of an adjustment for weight but with the caveat that any such factor introduced to the raw test data should be clearly stated and explained when presenting the results. In this case only one graph was presented (by Rocna) and an overall summary given. It is therefore quite logical to address concerns that were raised by this and I personally think hylas is to be commended for staying on the ground selected by Craig rather than heading off in other directions. I am not sure where either would go anyway as both Alain and Craig clearly agree that on balance both the Spade and the Rocna are 'good anchors'. Going further if Craig were forced to choose between a Spade and CQR for his boat he would choose the Spade - and Alain would choose a Rocna over a CQR for his.
 
Yes I agree but then obviously aluminium is lighter than steel so you can't just use weight, it isn't a fair comparison because the aluminium anchor is bigger and so will hold better. Yes? I don't know what the solution is in that sense. There must be reasons most anchors are steel and the aluminium ones are the exception.

I disagree about _hylas_, he is not staying on the same ground as Craig, he is doing everything he can to put Rocna down, and I think not in a very sporting fashion. Given what I have seen of Craig's posts, I don't see how he could even avoid it. The absence of a pile of math supporting the note on their chart seems a pedantic issue to me. I am fairly willing to trust it is accurate as companies are not in the habit of blatantly lying about such things lest they face defamation lawsuits from those they lie about.

Anyway enough of that.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I disagree about _hylas_, he is not staying on the same ground as Craig, he is doing everything he can to put Rocna down, and I think not in a very sporting fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - but it isn't just hylas.
 
I suspect - <span style="color:blue"> MerseaMercy </span> -, that it is YOU who is trying to change a discussion about anchors into a fight between Craig and myself..

Everybody there knows that I’m used to call a spade a spade (not a Spade :0) /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif) and I did express my opinion when I saw the “ modified ” curves done by Craig.. As I have just been correcting GMac in another forum (SSCA) when he said” The 'Bruce' anchor we know, is a version of the original Bruce which is for oil rigs and the like.” And you can be sure that I don’t like to fight against him as he is a man that I respect a lot for his knowledge and his honesty ..

<span style="color:blue">“What about the other numerous graphs in the testing”. </span>

They are only three graphs talking about HOLDING:
- 1° - the one “ trafficked” by Craig: Average of peak strain at all locations – page 63 ( this one becoming “comparative holding power” in the “Rocna" version .)
- 2° - Effect of scope on holding power – page 68
- 3° - Effect on location on holding power – page 68

The only ones talking about Holding are 2° and 3°

I didn’t take the 2° “Effect of scope on holding power”, just because I believe that in severe conditions, nobody will use a 3/1 scope, 5/1 will be a minimum and at least a 7/1 will be a must. But as you ask, I have a look at this one too:

- The best one has been the Fortress, but I agree, its surface is much bigger than the one of steel anchors.

- The Second one was the Spade ( which has less surface area than the Rocna of the same weight )

- The third ones where tie the Supreme and the Rocna

From this graph the assumption that the Rocna was the best is WRONG.. the best, in both scopes, was the Supreme.. for 5/1 scope the best was the Fortress, and the Spade the best of steel anchors.. Is is that you call “ <span style="color:blue"> Spade look awful compared to the Rocna </span> ”??

3° - “Effect on location on holding power “ can you explain what you means when saying ( <span style="color:blue"> which is incomplete anyway)</span> ?? as it is an exact copy of the graph from Sail magazine test??

In two places out of the three, the results of the Rocna is good and average in the third:
- at "East of warf" Rocna arrives in third position behind Fortress and Spade
- at "West of Warf" Rocna arrives in fifth position behind Fortress, Hydrobulbe, Océane and Spade
- Finally at New Brighton, Rocna arrives in third position behind Hydrobubble and Supreme..

Now, can you explain me how, after being in third, and fifth positions, the Rocna can become number one in average??

“ <span style="color:blue"> and using it to criticize Rocna</span> .” Please explain WHERE I’m criticizing the Rocna?? Is it where I said “the Rocna did perform well" (which is perfectly exact) -

I’m not criticizing the Rocna, what I criticise is the action of Craig, who took one of the graphs called “Average of peak strain at all locations”, who change both the values and the title for “ Comparative holding power” and publish it on the Rocna Web site and on several nautical forums.. and this in order to CHEAT those who doesn’t see the U.S. original study..

If you still can trust a man who can do that?? Sorry but I don’t..

“ <span style="color:blue"> The holding ability thing versus weight is just a silly argument </span> ”

Fully agree with you as it is now more that 10 years that I’m fighting against that assumption.. The correct figure (up to my own opinion) is “holding versus Size” (surface area) and using this you can easily compare steel and aluminium anchors..

“ <span style="color:blue"> how do you expect them to graph "surface area" when there is no such data?” </span>
There is.. just have a look at the Rocna web site.. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif :0).

“ <span style="color:blue"> I notice the Spade is heavier than the Rocna by a few lbs. 35lbs vs. 32lbs.” </span>
Perfectly right but the Surface area of the Rocna is bigger that the one of the Spade.. :0) /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

“ <span style="color:blue"> in response to my query regarding your actual connection to Spade, So you haven't answered my Q at all </span> ”

Oh just because I think this thread was about anchors.. not to tell my life to everybody.. If you want to know more about me, please just click on my PROFILE.. :0)

<span style="color:blue"> “I will consider you an "industry person" as the designer” </span>

Thanks for that.. but the difference with a manufacturer is that advertising or not.. I will not earn one single penny (Euro?) more..

You can suppose that, as a designer of anchors, I have some knowledge on the subject.. When I was directly and FINANCIALLY interested by the sales of one particular model, it was VERY difficult for me to say, what I think and what I know.. Now, I don’t have any more commercial interest with any brand, then please allow me to freely give my own opinion..

an my opinion is not “ <span style="color:blue"> anti-competition”, </span> just because I don’t have anymore competitors.. :0) /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif but against somebody who change the results of one test WITHOUT SAYING IT.. in order to <span style="color:red"> CHEAT </span> the sailing community..
 
Ahhh, a post from Hylas with which I can agree 100% /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

I'm trying to make my mind up whether MerseaMercy is Mr Rocna's mother, or Mr Rocna himself doing the dual username thing /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif, or a chandler with a container load of Rocna anchors to sell, or...?

Whatever, his/her discussion seems more about justifying, promoting and protecting Mr Rocna than about anchors.

John
 
I am giving serious consideration to buying a Rocna and am looking through your website. I see that you won't accept credit card sales. I am generally very reluctant to deal mail order with a company that cannot qualify as a credit card merchant and the correct anchor for my boat would be the 33, at a cost of €515 plus package and delivery. That is a lot of money to send by wire before the goods are sent. Can you explain, please? While you are about it, can you tell me what a 33kg Rocna will cost delivered to a marina in Spain, in Pounds of Euros? Many thanks.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect - <span style="color:blue"> MerseaMercy </span> -, that it is YOU who is trying to change a discussion about anchors into a fight between Craig and myself..

[/ QUOTE ]

_hylas_ this is getting boring. I just don't think you should slug off your competitor publicly. I think it hurts your image. If you truly have no connection with Spade, which I do find surprising given the amount of time you just spent selecting font colors in your post, then perhaps you should think about their reputation.

Finally you haven't really properly addressed any of my points, so I can't be bothered repeating them in the vain hope you'll take them seriously. Your posts are dangerously close to rants.

I wish you well.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ahhh, a post from Hylas with which I can agree 100% /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

I'm trying to make my mind up whether MerseaMercy is Mr Rocna's mother, or Mr Rocna himself doing the dual username thing /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif, or a chandler with a container load of Rocna anchors to sell, or...?

Whatever, his/her discussion seems more about justifying, promoting and protecting Mr Rocna than about anchors.

John

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? I don't like these negative posts and I am entitled to complain.

You John seem not to help. You see something from me you don't like, and your first response is to attempt to discredit me in the above manner? Or you just wanted a reason to post, couldn't let your average number of posts go below a steady, what is it, 10 per day?

Sorry, that was provocative. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Sorry, that was provocative.

Not provocative at all - any comment from you claiming so could not be taken seriously enough to be worried about until you have contributed something constructive to the forum.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

zoidberg
The definitive anchors article?
2
Replies
20
Views
760
Wansworth
W

Share this page

Top