I hate to do this...but

[Greenheart]

As a boy, in northern England, I witnessed with disgust, as my schoolmates found flattened-out chewing-gum on pavements. They'd lever it off the tarmacadam, then start chewing it themselves. Revolting!

But, if you have read this far, you've helped support this deadbeat thread, so your own point and purpose must be a shade vague...can't we do better than this crud? Shameful, isn't it?

Maybe we who are actually interested in ANCHORING may start over? Does anybody have positive (or, alternatively, entertainingly negative) remarks to make, about CQRs or Bruce anchors?

Given these types' forged permanence, and the trust we've always put in their construction, it'd upset a big apple-cart to hear these models slated. Not that I want that. But ANYTHING beats another twenty pages like the last 20 on this thread...

 

[vyv_cox]

I'm not sure that that's fair. AFAIK nobody has queried the figures for other manufacturers, unless you are now doing so?

Manson certainly produced the test result for their anchors, as well as Racno, and their figures seemed to be pretty good. (Though I hasten to add that I don't understand the difference between 800 Mpa and a pot of yoghurt!) http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/Supreme_Anchor_high_standards.htm

Fortress have details on their site at http://www.fortressanchors.com/dnv.html. On past performance, I'm sure that if you asked Brian for more details he would happily provide it.

Sarca (Anchor Right) have produced several test certificates on their site too
http://www.anchorright.com.au/about-us/certification. From what I've seen of Rex he would be more than happy to provide any figures which he may have.

The corollary is, of course, that Racno promised to produce independent test results a couple or so weeks ago. Nothing. Zilch. Silence.

So, No, I haven't noticed any other manufactureres going quiet, but if you've got information to show that anyone else is making false claims it would be interesting to see it.

I'm not querying their figures. I'm saying it is easy to be holier-than-thou when the yields on the steel cut from a Rocna anchor are about 500 MPa compared with the Manson one of over 800 MPa. However, if the sample was cut from an aluminium or stainless stock of several anchor manufacturers that as far as I can see have the same dimensions as the steel versions, then not a single one of them would come anywhere near 500 MPa. The Fortress figure, for an anchor whose stock from memory is quite a bit smaller in section than that of a Rocna, is 385 MPa on their certificate. So, being generous, a Fortress is about 2/3 as strong as the 'sub-standard' Rocna.

When these same manufacturers accuse Rocna of producing unsafe anchors they are being somewhat economical with the truth.

I don't disagree for one moment that if Rocna say they are using 800 MPa steel then that's what it should be.

 

[vyv_cox]

As a boy, in northern England, I witnessed with disgust, as my schoolmates found flattened-out chewing-gum on pavements. They'd lever it off the tarmacadam, then start chewing it themselves. Revolting!

But, if you have read this far, you've helped support this deadbeat thread, so your own point and purpose must be a shade vague...can't we do better than this crud? Shameful, isn't it?

Maybe we who are actually interested in ANCHORING may start over? Does anybody have positive (or, alternatively, entertainingly negative) remarks to make, about CQRs or Bruce anchors?

Given these types' forged permanence, and the trust we've always put in their construction, it'd upset a big apple-cart to hear these models slated. Not that I want that. But ANYTHING beats another twenty pages like the last 20 on this thread...

I can only suggest that you read it again. This thread, and its predecessor, may make dull reading unless you take the trouble to understand what it is about, but actually it has proved to be extremely revealing. It has slowed down of late but is far from over. I suspect that big things have yet to come from it.

The thread doesn't need to reveal anything about CQR or Bruce - the many anchor tests are virtually unanimous about them.

 

[Delfin]

Thank you Richard,
This is part of the Dilema I have. Rocna owners or those who have spoken out say they are good but there must be a doubt in the mind over there intergity if you have a latter china model. Also on the evidence presented so far would you risk your family on one. At this time I couldn't and that is why I am trying to solicit the views of others.

One of the difficulties of making an anchor decision on the basis of user's comments is that most users don't find themselves in a position where the integrity of the manufacturing becomes critical. The Rocna appears to be a good design, and even with substandard steel would perform under a broad range of conditions as intended. The limitation of the design is that in heavy grass, chunks are directed by the concave shape of the flukes to pile up against the hoop and prevent setting, but no anchor is perfect for all conditions.

The problem with the Rocna is not with the design, or even with Craig Smith's obnoxious postings, but with two other critical defects.

The first is that Rocna lies. They lie about RINA certification, SHHP certification, the performance of their anchors in tests, the quality of their competitors, etc., and so as a result a buyer of their product has to first ask themselves if, with equal anchors made by honest people being available, why buy one from the morally challenged?

The second is that there are credible test results indicating that they are manufacturing a product that might be ok under 'normal' circumstances, but uses shank steel that is inadequate under stressful conditions that most everyone will experience sooner or later. This is not acceptable - some might even call it criminally negligent and I'll quote an anchor expert, Peter Smith to make the point. He said:

"Because the Rocna is a sensitive design which pushes the limits in terms of both performance and construction, it is not a type which tolerates much compromise".

Being a sensitive design, Peter Smith specified 800 MPa high tensile steel for the shank. The NZ lab found steel significantly weaker in the anchors they tested. I call that compromised manufacturing, and will agree with Mr. Smith that such an anchor should not be purchased by anyone.

 

[Delfin]

The Fortress figure, for an anchor whose stock from memory is quite a bit smaller in section than that of a Rocna, is 385 MPa on their certificate. So, being generous, a Fortress is about 2/3 as strong as the 'sub-standard' Rocna.

Not to quibble, but I own a Fortress (either an FX 85 or 125 - I can't remember) and its shank must be 3 to 4 times thicker than equivalent weight Rocnas I've seen, but again that is from memory. Its about as thick as the 176# Bruce I have. Which raises a pertinent point, I think. As you suggest the steel used could be different grades and still perform fine. Lower grade, but thicker shank, no problem. Lower grade, thinner shank, problem. The Rocna is designed for high tensile steel, but apparently uses lower grade steel. Problem.

 

[CONGO]

If only it was all that simple

VYV

Don’t quite understand how you reach your decision, if a substandard rickety was proof loaded it would certainly not cut it and yield before basic requirement of load was reached, if another anchor design with a thinner shank was two thirds as strong of a substandard rickety there would be no point in apply a proof load at all?

Dancrane

CQR, proven themselves over again, genuine ones rarely brake or bend, performance has proven to be less than new Gen types, but what has not been proven is do we need more holding power than a genuine CQR to do the job?

The major problem with CQR genuine or not is their pivoting shank, many of our customers that have upgraded to a Sarca have often said, our old CQR work so well for many years but of late we have a lot of trouble setting it, we have found by setting it at two and a half to one we can get it to bite and then increase our scope to five to one, all’s fine but if it break out it then simply continues to drag unless we go back to our reset mode, never used to have this problem.

Problem being is the physical relationship between the end of the anchors shank and the anchors toe has increased, a worn pivot in the shank can over time completely render the CQR incapable of working at all, for instance a one millimeter wear in the pivot will extend to 10 mm increase in height by the time it runs out at the pulling end of the shank , this is what is called the throat opening, the wider the throat opening the less drive is concentrated through the toe, don’t throw them out as someone I know likes these anchors to test against as when badly worn will simply just drag and not penetrate.

This is where Delta was a major breakthrough, no moving parts, unfortunately Delta is now made in china, I have two deltas from china for comparison testing, both of same weight stamped on the cast, oddly they have two different thicknesses of shank?

I found the Deltas performance to be consistent over a variety of bottom types but relatively low compared to a genuine CQR in soft sand,to be fair I have never tested a genuine Simpson and Lawrence one.

Rex.
Anchor Right Australia

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Vyv,

Sorry, I missunderstood what you were saying in your earlier post; I blame the wedding noise in the background.
As you know, I'm anything but qualified to comment on the differences between stainless, alloy and high or low tensile steel. In many ways, that's why I just want to feel confident that, if I'm told I'm getting one sort of metal, I want to be confident that that is true.
Brian (Fortress) doesn't seem to be around at the moment but he may want to comment when he returns.
On the stainless anchors AFAIK nobody has produced any figures and how the hollow construction of some (Spade & Ultra?) affects the strength, heaven only knows. However, once again we have been told that Racno have been using a lower grade than they claim.

 

[vyv_cox]

Not to quibble, but I own a Fortress (either an FX 85 or 125 - I can't remember) and its shank must be 3 to 4 times thicker than equivalent weight Rocnas I've seen, but again that is from memory. Its about as thick as the 176# Bruce I have. Which raises a pertinent point, I think. As you suggest the steel used could be different grades and still perform fine. Lower grade, but thicker shank, no problem. Lower grade, thinner shank, problem. The Rocna is designed for high tensile steel, but apparently uses lower grade steel. Problem.

The anchors I have are a Rocna 15 and a Fortress FX16, each of which is the one specified for my size of boat. I cannot measure them as they are several thousand miles from me but from memory I think the Fortress shank is perhaps slightly thinner and definitely less deep. Even if we said they were the same my 2/3 figure is pretty close.

So a 'sub-standard' Rocna is half as strong again as a Fortress. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this lets Rocna off the hook, but let's not get swayed by anchor manufacturers' agendas.

 

[noelex]

I found the Deltas performance to be consistent but relatively low compared to a genuine CQR, but to be fair I have never tested a genuine Simpson and Lawrence one.

Anchor Right Australia

Rex I have dived and observed the set and performance of a lot of anchors and have to disagree. The Delta is superior to the CQR in almost every way. It sets quicker and deeper and stays set much better than the CQR. It will also work in a harder bottoms substrates where the CQR really struggles.
It looses out against the new generation anchors in its ultimate holding ability. It will drag, (even when still set ) earlier than the new generation anchors, but in real life its performance is much better than the CQR.
Does your test rig really show the CQR is superior to the Delta?

 

[noelex]

The anchors I have are a Rocna 15 and a Fortress FX16, each of which is the one specified for my size of boat. I cannot measure them as they are several thousand miles from me but from memory I think the Fortress shank is perhaps slightly thinner and definitely less deep. Even if we said they were the same my 2/3 figure is pretty close.

So a 'sub-standard' Rocna is half as strong again as a Fortress. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this lets Rocna off the hook, but let's not get swayed by anchor manufacturers' agendas.

I think the concerns about material quality are very valid and make this thread much more interesting than the personality basing that at one stage look like it was going to take over the discussion.
There are a lot of anchor manufactures posting on this forum and I think that’s great and a valuable resource, but we do need keep these comments in perspective and recognise that some of the comments are naturally commercially driven.
Its good to hear your comments vyv cox I think if we can keep the discussion on track and in perspective hopefully, we the customers, will benefit.

 

[Greenheart]

CONGO, I'm fascinated by what I believe I understood from your input.

So, aged CQRs, by their necessary movement in use, grow significantly less efficient with the years? This, I never knew. Thank you. You've saved me £30 which I might have spent on a neighbour's outgoing hook.

Isn't there a non-corporate-funded research body that treats anchorage as a science, absolute results from which we may treat as reliable, even for trusting our lives with?

If not, why not?!

 

[CONGO]

noelex

You are quite right, the Delta will outperform the CQR every day of the week, but I found in soft sand the CQR set and produced more holding power than the Delta, I am sorry as I didn’t clarify; I have since edited my post, problem being the only time I get to post is always in the we hours of the morning, you will find consistency with what you say in our test data from Robertson’s on our web page, if you click on certification, scroll down to the right hand corner you will be able to view graphs in two forms confirming your comments, I would post these results but they are property of Robertson’s and can only be viewed in pdf. www.anchorright.com.au

Dancrane.

There will never be the perfect anchor, but there are better ones, if you get the sales pitch you will not drag this anchor, there are those that will state this, treat it with a grain of salt as it is a dangerous statement.
If you are looking for an anchor design I would suggest any anchor with proven Super High Holding Power certification, reason being to get this rating the anchor design has to be proven to produce higher levels of holding power and has to with stand severe proof loads as compared to standard, this is closest you will get to increasing anchor safety.

Unfortunately from what we have seen there are those that will state S/H/H/Power but cannot produce the evidence, do your own research and demand a copy of the original test cert.

Rex.

Anchor Right Australia.

 

[Nostrodamus]

In a previous post it was mentioned that you may be liable if you knew about the Rocna tests and the anchor failed.
Apparently Craig Smith backs this up in a previous post entitled “spade anchor size and Insurance” from 19/09/07 when he said
“As Richard said, we would recommend a 10 for your boat and would even be happy to provide a letter endorsing the sizing choice along with justification if you were concerned about it.
There's little more you could do to impress the insurance company, but don't worry about it. In the event of an incident, the local authority would investigate (I assume the MAIB in the UK) - you would only be found wanting had you used a very clearly inadequate anchor.”
Should a Rocna fail because of the steel strengths do you think the Insurance would pay out?

 

[RichardS]

Should a Rocna fail because of the steel strengths do you think the Insurance would pay out?

There is no doubt that they would. You bought the anchor in good faith from a recognised supplier who have sold thousands of anchors.

There is no obligation on you to research on internet forums before you purchase from such a supplier or act on anything which you read there. If this were the case you might well believe that Elvis is still alive, JFK was shot by the FBI, the Twin Towers were hit by the CIA and Diana was killed by MI5!

Richard

 

[noelex]

noelex

You are quite right, the Delta will outperform the CQR every day of the week, but I found in soft sand the CQR set and produced more holding power than the Delta, I am sorry as I didn’t clarify;.

Thanks for the clarification.
Those comments fit in well with the observed performance in practice.
The Delta sets well and is a good anchor overall, but its major weakness is it does not offer very high resistance when set. This characteristic means it performs worse in soft substrates.
I am not surprised in soft sand that it struggled on your test rig.

 

[vyv_cox]

Those comments fit in well with the observed performance in practice.
The Delta sets well and is a good anchor overall, but its major weakness is it does not offer very high resistance when set. This characteristic means it performs worse in soft substrates.
I am not surprised in soft sand that it struggled on your test rig.

The reason I replaced mine with a Rocna. Vliho Bay, Ionian Sea about three years ago. Very strong winds were forecast so we headed there as being a well sheltered anchorage, although the bottom is soft mud. Anchored as normal, winds arrived shortly and we were amazed to find ourselves dragging, first time in about 15 years on this anchor. Winds continued to increase and gust viciously, some of the worst I have ever experienced. The Delta was completely unable to cope, three further attempts all unsuccessful. Each time I hauled it there was no weed, just the soft mud. Many other boats around us were experiencing problems, although quite a few were soundly anchored.

Ultimately I went astern upwind towards some trees until we touched bottom and we took lines ashore to them. On reflection later I suspect that replacing the Delta with the Fortress would have been a good solution, but by this time I had trapped my finger in the windlass and didn't fancy the effort.

If not for that experience I would still use a Delta, otherwise excellent on a wide variety of bottoms from the Baltic to the eastern Med.

 

[[55354]]

Insurance

RichardS

I hope you are correct - but if we had more than one failure, and we have had a well publicised failure in Venice - where would the Distributors stand?

The importers, distributors and retailers have a higher level of 'duty of care' - they presumably should know. The hapless individual who damages his yacht should enjoy full compensation - but when do those who are making money - knowing the product might enjoy (now there is an odd use of the word enjoy) defects - when do they start to enjoy (used it again) sharper focus.

Insurance companies are not fools, they never pay out money lightly, they look to cover their costs.

RichardS?

 

[[55354]]

Dragging anchors

Vyv,

We have an almost identical story, except we were using a copy of the CQR made by a reputable anchor manufacturer. The anchorage is not that exposed but there were storm force winds and the noise over the tree line was a bit like a jumbo jet. The anchor alarm woke us, scantily clad wife on bow made a slightly evocative image, except it was bitterly cold and one must concentrate on more important issues. She raised the anchor, I gunned engines and we tied to an unused buoy used by deep ocean fishermen. We subsequently chose what we thought, and has proven to be, an excellent product.

But that is not the issue.

No-one has made many negative comment on the basic design, its a compromise - but so are they all.

Today we have a denigration of the design, and my view is - financially and dishonestly driven, unless someone comes up with a better answer. Accident - get real!

So what next? My thoughts, now the factory is making to spec and the correct spec will be abck on the shelves (at least short term), or they are trying to develop a test sched that shows 400MPa is acceptable. Take the best option, back to the original spec of 800MPa, what next, well with the track record (and profits at the forefront) your guess will be as good as mine, but save a bit on shank thickness, cut back on time to weld - but given the choice, I'd rather my old CQR copy, at least I would know it is not reliable.

And the poor buggers out there, who do not read the forum - well, apparently the insurance company will pick up the costs and the distributors and manufacturer will pocket their profit and sleep soundly at night. Seems a really nice end to hundreds of postings and pages of a forum - we can all return to normal, forget it ever happened. But pity those poor buggers that do not read the forums - they need to get a life. Surely we can do better than this?

 

[RichardS]

I hope you are correct - but if we had more than one failure, and we have had a well publicised failure in Venice - where would the Distributors stand?

I guess it's possible that an insurance company that was receiving too many claims related to failed Rocnas might decide to claim against the manufacturer or the distributor but Rocna itself would be out of business long before the yachtsman is likely be held liable.

Look at it this way - if you search the internet at the moment you will find many stories about failed anchors and one concerning a Rocna. You will also find hundreds of stories by yachtsmen who have moved from an old generation anchor to a Rocna and who claim that their new anchor is far better and far safer, and, as far as I can recall, not one story from someone going back in the opposite direction.

Taken at face value, this would suggest that anyone who currently buys an old generation anchor, in the face of all this evidence, is taking a risk by not making an optimum purchase and, using the "Rocna liability" logic, could potentially be held liable by their insurer!

In reality, we all know that puchasers of old-generation anchors are not invalidating their insurance and therefore the "Rocna-liability" hypothesis must be even less a reflection of reality.

Richard

 

[noelex]

The reason I replaced mine with a Rocna. Vliho Bay, Ionian Sea about three years ago. Very strong winds were forecast so we headed there as being a well sheltered anchorage, although the bottom is soft mud. Anchored as normal, winds arrived shortly and we were amazed to find ourselves dragging, first time in about 15 years on this anchor. Winds continued to increase and gust viciously, some of the worst I have ever experienced. The Delta was completely unable to cope, three further attempts all unsuccessful. Each time I hauled it there was no weed, just the soft mud. Many other boats around us were experiencing problems, although quite a few were soundly anchored.

Ultimately I went astern upwind towards some trees until we touched bottom and we took lines ashore to them. On reflection later I suspect that replacing the Delta with the Fortress would have been a good solution, but by this time I had trapped my finger in the windlass and didn't fancy the effort.

If not for that experience I would still use a Delta, otherwise excellent on a wide variety of bottoms from the Baltic to the eastern Med.

Yes Vlicho bay has some soft mud.
The bottom also has a lot of debris, which may or may not, have been a factor stopping the anchor working. It once took me an hour to cut away an old spinnaker that had wrapped itself around the chain there.
My Rocna held in 50K there one winter, didnt stop us getting hit by lightning though