Panope Rocna video

[JumbleDuck]

I have a Rocna, I like it and trust it. I would say the same about my previous Kobra 2 which never failed me.

OK, I'll bite. Why replace it? New boat, more hold, lighter anchor, faster setting ... ? No snark, just interested.

 

[doug748]

Doug, thanks for this steer, shame the Sarca anchors seem not to be available in the UK, consequently out of that list I'm only left with the Spade that would fit my boat.

Jimmy Green do the Mantus range, I was only put off by the nuts and bolts holding it together.

I had a chance of a cheap (er - its relative!) Spade but was always wary because of the rust problem that I have seen just looking around marinas also to some extent the lead in the toe and two part construction - the galvanising may now be improved.

.

 

[ctva]

OK, I'll bite. Why replace it? New boat, more hold, lighter anchor, faster setting ... ? No snark, just interested.

Wife gave it to me as a 25th wedding anniversary present. True love!

Still got the Kobra in the shed...

 

[KompetentKrew]

… I'd delay replacing the Bruce until the spring - by which time we all might have had time to see review of the Epsilon.

I've just looked up the Epsilon - am I correct in understanding it is similar to the Spade in that it has no roll bar and a lead-filled tip - or, at least, similar specifications / features on paper - but a third of the price?

I understand the Spade to be the recommendation of yourself and Morgan's Cloud, but it's big money and Morgan's Cloud report galvanising problems.

The Epsilon is not only cheaper than the Rocna's price new, it's also cheaper than the only 20kg Rocna I can find secondhand.

 

[[2574]]

I've just looked up the Epsilon - am I correct in understanding it is similar to the Spade in that it has no roll bar and a lead-filled tip - or, at least, similar specifications / features on paper - but a third of the price?

I understand the Spade to be the recommendation of yourself and Morgan's Cloud, but it's big money and Morgan's Cloud report galvanising problems.

The Epsilon is not only cheaper than the Rocna's price new, it's also cheaper than the only 20kg Rocna I can find secondhand.

Yes it looks interesting, see some specifications here:

and drawings here:

The anchor sizing table is extraordinary compared to other anchor sizing tables.

 

[KompetentKrew]

The anchor sizing table is extraordinary compared to other anchor sizing tables.

Seems to be about the same as Spade?

I think Rocna specify their 20kg model for my 12m/40' boat, Spade their model 80 (15kg in steel or stainless) and Epsilon the 16kg.

 

[[2574]]

Seems to be about the same as Spade?

I think Rocna specify their 20kg model for my 12m/40' boat, Spade their model 80 (15kg in steel or stainless) and Epsilon the 16kg.

My 43', 12t boat is either 16kg or 20kg for Epsilon or 25kg for Rocna, currently fitted with a 30kg Bruce. Quite a difference.

 

[Chae_73]

Now that I've reminded myself how much a Spade for a 33' boat costs, I've gone back to wondering about other options.

 

[Neeves]

The 'logic' between the 30kg Bruce and the 15kg/20kg/25kg Epsilon/Rocna/Spade reflects a belief, to which I subscribe, that a SHHP anchor has higher hold than a HHP, In fac t the hold of Bruce will be about 50% that of Rocna/Spade/Epsilon. Current common thinking is to suggest ignore the data, ignore the recommendation of the anchor maker and buy the biggest anchor you can afford and fit to your yacht - consequently people tend to retire a Delta/Bruce/CQR and buy the same sized newer anchor or one that is even bigger.

You will find people on this forum, who seem sober, intelligent and knowledgeable and who use those same anchors, Bruce/Delta/CQR of the recommended size

Quite why the idea that you need this monster better anchor, that can be very expensive, curries favour is questionable. The answer to the obvious question is - all long term cruisers use big anchors - but there is no data behind this statement - you might even call it a 'Trumpism' . I do accept that some vocal long term cruisers use big anchors - but all of them? (not the ones that I see).

You will also hear the comment that a big anchors has more hold - of course it does - but the hold developed is that of the yacht and the opportunity for you to even equal 50% of the holds of a, say, 15kg Rocna (whose ultimate hold is 2,000kg) is almost non-existent. If this is pointed out proponents will say 'Ah but in difiicult seabeds the big anchor will be better'. Again there its no data, there is no definition of these 'difficult' seabeds and the idea that a smaller Rocna will be more difficult to set in a hard seabed than a large Rocna......? They will counter by saying - 'in weed the bigger anchor will develop more hold' - to which I might reply 'Data', and it contradicts the idea of using a Fishermans that has a small fluke allowing to worry its way through the weed (you never hear anyone saying using a fisherman with a big fluke.

But the market is beguiled by weight and blinded to the idea that a lighter anchor might actually be as good - if not better. I'd mention aluminium anchors, Spade, Excel, Fortress and the steel Viking who save weight by using thinner High Tensile steel plate (and are currently cheap). If you are on a budget and want the anchor quickly and need the confidence of established sales then consider Kobra,

So tell me that Sunstone dragged their old, conventionally sized CQR when they cruised the Aleutians, look at Skip Novaks storm anchoring videos and tell me 'yes but he dragged' and I might change my view. In the meantime buying bigger simply shows you have money to burn (and maybe lack confidence in your ability to anchor).

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

You need a bit of time for this video

Jonathan

 

[[2574]]

The 'logic' between the 30kg Bruce and the 15kg/20kg/25kg Epsilon/Rocna/Spade reflects a belief, to which I subscribe, that a SHHP anchor has higher hold than a HHP, In fac t the hold of Bruce will be about 50% that of Rocna/Spade/Epsilon. Current common thinking is to suggest ignore the data, ignore the recommendation of the anchor maker and buy the biggest anchor you can afford and fit to your yacht - consequently people tend to retire a Delta/Bruce/CQR and buy the same sized newer anchor or one that is even bigger.

You will find people on this forum, who seem sober, intelligent and knowledgeable and who use those same anchors, Bruce/Delta/CQR of the recommended size

Quite why the idea that you need this monster better anchor, that can be very expensive, curries favour is questionable. The answer to the obvious question is - all long term cruisers use big anchors - but there is no data behind this statement - you might even call it a 'Trumpism' . I do accept that some vocal long term cruisers use big anchors - but all of them? (not the ones that I see).

You will also hear the comment that a big anchors has more hold - of course it does - but the hold developed is that of the yacht and the opportunity for you to even equal 50% of the holds of a, say, 15kg Rocna (whose ultimate hold is 2,000kg) is almost non-existent. If this is pointed out proponents will say 'Ah but in difiicult seabeds the big anchor will be better'. Again there its no data, there is no definition of these 'difficult' seabeds and the idea that a smaller Rocna will be more difficult to set in a hard seabed than a large Rocna......? They will counter by saying - 'in weed the bigger anchor will develop more hold' - to which I might reply 'Data', and it contradicts the idea of using a Fishermans that has a small fluke allowing to worry its way through the weed (you never hear anyone saying using a fisherman with a big fluke.

But the market is beguiled by weight and blinded to the idea that a lighter anchor might actually be as good - if not better. I'd mention aluminium anchors, Spade, Excel, Fortress and the steel Viking who save weight by using thinner High Tensile steel plate (and are currently cheap). If you are on a budget and want the anchor quickly and need the confidence of established sales then consider Kobra,

So tell me that Sunstone dragged their old, conventionally sized CQR when they cruised the Aleutians, look at Skip Novaks storm anchoring videos and tell me 'yes but he dragged' and I might change my view. In the meantime buying bigger simply shows you have money to burn (and maybe lack confidence in your ability to anchor).

Jonathan

Jonathan,

The reality, at least in the UK by my experience, is that there is a good deal of fear about anchoring and little knowledge. I’ve mates who’ve determined to anchor then when the phone anchor alarm fires off there’s no consideration of why it might have gone off just a simple up anchor and back to the marina. Also we’ve all seen the weekend warrior anchoring technique - arrive, stop, wind anchor chain down in a big pile on top of the anchor. Go below. Open a bottle. Then guess what happens. That scares the crew and consequently never anchor again - too scary.

So how to mitigate fear? Buy a bloody big anchor! That’ll sort it! Maybe, in a quiet anchorage, just the weight of all that kit will keep the boat in one place. Rather like a mud weight on the Norfolk Broads. Hence the argument also for heavy chain for the catenary. When we all know that after about 30kts, when a catenary might be helpful, the chain is bar straight!

So to go to a smaller anchor is going against all the hoary seafaring advice of years gone by, it requires a belief in improved design. Who wants to believe a snake oil salesman? Hence we need excellent equipment reviews to show us that it’s not all salesman’s hyperbole, it’s real.

I’m not immune from what I describe. You could just about hear my thinking in the post above when I thought “what? A 16kg anchor to secure my precious 12t boat?” But I try to conquer my 58 years of belief that “big is best”.......who knows if I’ll succeed.....but I have gone to 8mm chain.....so I’m not a complete luddite.......

 

[Bouba]

A comment made in the article was that the concave anchors with roll bars did not reset until such times as their fluke was washed out by the action of them dragging over the seabed and allowing the sea to 'wash them out'. You surely still do not need a recommendation over whether to invest in a convex or concave/roll bar design?

Of those of you who have Rocna or Supreme - how many times when you retrieve does the fluke come up full of mud demanding some effort to clean it off? I have heard some owners say this is indicative that the anchor was well set. Has it never occurred that if you enjoy a sudden and strong wind shift through 180 degrees, a thunderstorm, or large front, what might happen if your clogged anchor is tripped? Your anchor was designed with specific characteristics - which did not include a huge clot of seabed in the fluke.

There is no best design, this was one series of tests in one specific, but not uncommon, seabed. Spade is slightly concave but the issue was not a major problem.

Kobra, convex, is an excellent product - but I question its wimpy shank - but accept that reports of shanks bending are not significant (at all). Excel is an excellent product and might be coming to a chandler near you, if you are based in the UK. Viking looks to be an excellent product that through application of high tensile steels allows a considerable weight saving but maintain hold characteristics (in the same way the aluminium Fortress has the hold of a steel anchor of a similar physical size but the Fortress weighs about half the weight) Not forgetting Lewmar';s Epsilon.

Since the article was published new anchors have been developed and both Knox and Viking offer a concave design with roll bar and perforations. You will note that at the end of the video positive mention was made of a perforated fluke and how the Supreme had been perforated to good effect. My tests on Viking, perforated fluke, concave, roll bar, show that it does not collect mud, in the exact same seabed where Rocna and an unperforated Supreme DID collect mud. In a different thread it was mentioned of the Knox that the split fluke was required to allow seabed to wash through before it compacted into a clod.

So --- there are no hard and fast rules - but convex anchors (Kobra/Excel) do not suffer from the issue (note the convex 'centre' to the Epsilon). A perforated fluke seems to minimise clogging, Viking and Knox - even though both have roll bars - though I'm not sure why the perforations reduce this problem - it does not matter, why, it works.

So some convex anchors (Kobra/Excel) do not suffer as both the Supreme and Rocna suffer, perforated flukes appear to offer a remedy for a concave fluke design, (Viking, Knox).

ctva is correct - I have an entrenched position. I have tested and seen what happens. I appreciate that many think my conclusions are not relevant to them - but I take some comfort that Morgans Cloud say the same thing and the Panope video repeats the same conclusion. I am happy to accept people will think I am biased (my bias is based on the data) - are they going to level the same criticism at Morgans Cloud and Panope who arrived at the same conclusion based on totally different tests and analysis AND we certainly did not confer together. It merits note - Margan's Clouyd analysis was based on reports, from owners, they received of anchors dragging - resulting in some yachts ending up on beaches - so real life.

One vested interest is that many who have invested in a Rocna, at some considerable expense, will not want to hear anything negative said of their anchor - so another vested interest that ctva can add to his list. Who needs to be told maybe in some circumstances they - have a lemon.

Anchors are a compromise, wake up to the simple fact, carry more than one anchor, preferably of different designs and make sure you have spares that can act as your primary.

Simply be cognisant that your anchor might be perfect in your usual seabeds but has a weakness is some other seabeds - don't be complacent

Jonathan

As usual a fact filled response. Can I ask a question ? When your Rocna comes off the seabed clogged with mud and sand, is it possible that it is the result of the retrieval that caused it. That lying on seabed changing direction with the wind, the anchor is mostly clean

 

[Neeves]

The worst case scenario is the 180 degree, or near 180 degree, tension direct ion change. Think of swift flowing tide with some added wind, think of a big front coming through, think of a thunderstorm. In these situations the chain will move through 180 degrees and trip the anchor, it will not swivel round (I've tested it). This action is no different to when you retrieve an anchor, you motor over and lift the shank, in a similar manner to the action when the wind or tide changes. I don't recall the angle, 130 degrees? but a wind shift greater than 130 will result in the anchor somersaulting, below that angle the anchor may swivel round and not trip - some depends on the speed of the change of tension.

On Australia;s east coast our prevailing winds tend to be northerly our fronts are southerlies and the winds 'parallel' the coast. Some of our fronts are sudden and swift, google 'Southerly Buster'. In the north, round the reef and in NW Tasmania we have anchorages subject to 6 knot tidal flows. My scenario is not unknown.

When I conducted my tests we simulated this 'change'. Set the anchors at 500kg tension, about the setting of the 15 kg anchors in 35 knots, then simply reversed the tension angle and tensioned up until the anchor tripped. This was done in shallow water, knee deep, I could then watch the anchors. The concave anchors lifted the clod of seabed and dragged until the tension on the rode dragging the anchor over the seabed resulted in (or not) the clod washing free, or falling out.

I'm pretty sure the simulations were fairly representative.

Knox anchor specifically have a split fluke as when they closed the fluke the clod 'turned' the anchor from ma concave anchor (the design) to a convex anchor. The slot allowed that clod to not materialise.

As mentioned anchor threads develop into vehicles generating fear. My simulation is extreme, how often do you anchor when a major front is due, or thunderstorm. How many locations do you anchor in with a strong tide? These are worst case scenarios - BUT Morgans Cloud was made cognisant of the issue by owners reporting back to them that IT DOES HAPPEN. Yacht have ended up on beaches.

The issue is that you do not need to buy a concave roll bar anchor of reputable performance. There are other options, Spade being the obvious one, but also Kobra. If you exclusively anchor in clean sand, are not at anchor when a big front comes through (you listen to the forecasts and sensibly don't want to scare the family) then my worst case scenario may never materialise. But take note. If you venture to new anchorsgaes whatever the forecast - maybe think twice - it may happen to you.

If you think this is all airy fairy nonsense - you might be surprised. The data is too consistent.

Jonathan

Edit,

I confess that as stand alone conclusions one could argue bias, inapplicability, unreasonable and unrealistic test methods (though the fact 3 sources come to the identical answer might suggest that each method is valid). But I've tried to simulate 'real life' in such a way as I could stand and watch how each anchor reacted. You could do this underwater but life is simply too short. Panope used a 'real' yacht and video and also tried to simulate real life - and its really the key test in his armoury - he obviously thinks 're-setting' at 180 degrees is a very important characteristic. But if my methodology is insufficiently applicable Panope's is closer to real life. The final analysis is from a summation of users reports.

To me its powerful analysis - but then I am truly biased ! If some do not believe then I would have to ask - what test would convince you? We are all trying with limited resource to provide 'data' such that people can make their own judgements - but we all sincerely believe in what we do - we try to suppress our bias, for or against, individuals or individual companies and maybe over compensate - but if there is a better way of testing we would like to know.

 

[Bouba]

The worst case scenario is the 180 degree, or near 180 degree, tension direct ion change. Think of swift flowing tide with some added wind, think of a big front coming through, think of a thunderstorm. In these situations the chain will move through 180 degrees and trip the anchor, it will not swivel round (I've tested it). This action is no different to when you retrieve an anchor, you motor over and lift the shank, in a similar manner to the action when the wind or tide changes. I don't recall the angle, 130 degrees? but a wind shift greater than 130 will result in the anchor somersaulting, below that angle the anchor may swivel round and not trip - some depends on the speed of the change of tension.

On Australia;s east coast our prevailing winds tend to be northerly our fronts are southerlies and the winds 'parallel' the coast. Some of our fronts are sudden and swift, google 'Southerly Buster'. In the north, round the reef and in NW Tasmania we have anchorages subject to 6 knot tidal flows. My scenario is not unknown.

When I conducted my tests we simulated this 'change'. Set the anchors at 500kg tension, about the setting of the 15 kg anchors in 35 knots, then simply reversed the tension angle and tensioned up until the anchor tripped. This was done in shallow water, knee deep, I could then watch the anchors. The concave anchors lifted the clod of seabed and dragged until the tension on the rode dragging the anchor over the seabed resulted in (or not) the clod washing free, or falling out.

I'm pretty sure the simulations were fairly representative.

Knox anchor specifically have a split fluke as when they closed the fluke the clod 'turned' the anchor from ma concave anchor (the design) to a convex anchor. The slot allowed that clod to not materialise.

As mentioned anchor threads develop into vehicles generating fear. My simulation is extreme, how often do you anchor when a major front is due, or thunderstorm. How many locations do you anchor in with a strong tide? These are worst case scenarios - BUT Morgans Cloud was made cognisant of the issue by owners reporting back to them that IT DOES HAPPEN. Yacht have ended up on beaches.

The issue is that you do not need to buy a concave roll bar anchor of reputable performance. There are other options, Spade being the obvious one, but also Kobra. If you exclusively anchor in clean sand, are not at anchor when a big front comes through (you listen to the forecasts and sensibly don't want to scare the family) then my worst case scenario may never materialise. But take note. If you venture to new anchorsgaes whatever the forecast - maybe think twice - it may happen to you.

If you think this is all airy fairy nonsense - you might be surprised. The data is too consistent.

Jonathan

Impressive. Looks like you covered all eventualities ?

 

[doug748]

An update, well worth watching for the general anchor fiend and particularly Rocna owners:

.

 

[Neeves]

An update, well worth watching for the general anchor fiend and particularly Rocna owners:

.

As far as I can ascertain the Rocna being tested is a NZ version, there is no embossing on the heel of the fluke, so the fluke is fabricated not cast and the NZ anchors were all fabricated. The NZ anchors all had a Bis 80 shank - Rocna no longer define what they use for the shank (I think they say the steel used now is 'adequate'.)

There s a problem toward the end of the video in which the shackle locks up and the tension applied is offset. This is described and illustrated in more detail in the shed right at the end of the vid. More recent versions of the anchor have a bevelled slot for the shackle and the locking up of a shackle should be a much reduced problem.

Jonathan

 

[Bouba]

An update, well worth watching for the general anchor fiend and particularly Rocna owners:

.

That was one video I didn’t want to see yet I was glued to the screen.
How does a Rocna perform so well in everyone else’s tests?
Could I improve my Rocna with a drill, angle grinder and thirty foot pry bar?

 

[Pete7]

I note Doug's comment, previous post and I would not touch a Mantus but note he Steve/Panope suggested that Viking was a better buy. Jonathan

Sadly the last time I looked the genuine Mantus was cheaper through Jimmy Green than importing a Viking, so may as well have the original.

You will also hear the comment that a big anchors has more hold - of course it does - but the hold developed is that of the yacht and the opportunity for you to even equal 50% of the holds of a, say, 15kg Rocna (whose ultimate hold is 2,000kg) is almost non-existent.

Well now, as we have seen in Steve's latest video a 20Kg Rocna with a slight bend held consistently up to 680lbs. Under a rock or other substrate perhaps a higher force could be held. However, does raise the interesting question of what sort of WL (working load) the chain should be? 8mm titan from CMP is 1100kg. Seems a bit over the top for an average holding force of 310kg. You may have something with lighter chains which enables the weight to be put into the anchor. Wasn't me but I think on CF someone said there is nothing quite like a big anchor thumbing into the sea bed and making a big hole to hold you tight. They have a point, Skip's 110kg CQRs are not going to be troubled by a bit of kelp now are they!

One vested interest is that many who have invested in a Rocna, at some considerable expense, will not want to hear anything negative said of their anchor - so another vested interest that ctva can add to his list. Who needs to be told maybe in some circumstances they - have a lemon.

Not true. Actually I bought a Rocna because it was half the price of the Spade and available locally, 200 yards from the boat. Will I now change it in light that if a large mud ball sticks to it and if the tide turns and we have 55 knots? ........No. The forecasting for NW Europe is really good enabling you run away and hide. If we ever go "off piste" as you say then well I might buy the next size up Spade for that just in case situation, best to be safe with a bigger anchor

BTW you have trashed your way through Mantus and now Rocna, what is the next anchor for the treatment?

Pete

 

[Neeves]

BTW you have trashed your way through Mantus and now Rocna, what is the next anchor for the treatment?

Pete

I'm pleased you hav e noticed - if you think the data behind the 'trashing' is invalid - why have you not said so. Would you rather sweep design imperfections under the carpet and leave people unaware.

Any faults are that I might highlight are looked at by my peers and are only published if the faults are real.

On my comments on Mantus - no-one has contradicted what has been said. 3 different and independent parties have come to the same conclusion on Rocna. Your point is? In case you missed it - a Viking has a much higher hold than a Mantus, because they are different designs. If you think cheapness and low hold are the major criteria on which to choose an anchor - you have come to the correct conclusion.

Maybe you would like to define what makes the Mantus design SO original. It has the fluke design of Spade and Rocna. Its a Bugel with a bent fluke. It is demountable like a Spade or Aluminium Excel, it has a HT shank like most anchors, it has a roll bar like ..... so the design originality is what precisely.

There is nothing wrong with a Mantus. For the same weight as a Delta it has similar hold - many people use a Delta. Mantus will set more reliably and quickly than a Delta. To suggest that a Mantus and Rocna are comparable is ignorance, at its best. If Mantus Anchor, the company thought my comments were wrong or unfair - they could simply hold a holding capacity test, invite a few independent observers and show me up for the sham I am - not happened.

If you are careful and cognisant of the weakness of a Rocna you are good to go. Just don't be complacent.

A Fortress is not the best choice in stony or weedy anchorages but cannot be beaten in soupy mud - and is very light.

Most anchors can catch weed and grass between the fluke and shank. Concave anchors can also catch stones between fluke and shank.

A Kobra has a weak shank, compared with most other anchors.

Be careful of threads with pretty photos, pretty photos do not make good anchors.

Look at the comments made by anyone about any anchor with a very high degree of scepticism. The author may not know what he is talking about, is massaging reality. If the comments enjoy peer review you have a higher degree of confidence in what is being said. As an example - the bigger is better mantra is looking a bit questionable.

Anchors are a compromise - get used to it.

Jonathan

 

[Pete7]

Look at the comments made by anyone about any anchor with a very high degree of scepticism. The author may not know what he is talking about, is massaging reality.

Wise words indeed.