Panope Vid No 138

@vyv_cox
Neeves provided the link Panope vid 138 in post #1. A video where clearly the Rollbar Rocna excels in a very popular US anchorage chosen by Panope, nominating it one of three best allrounders above multiplier 20x anchor weight in multiple seabeds along Viking and Mantus M1.

Strikingly, question was raised by the thread opener „The big question is - how can the buying public, who have Rocna on their bow roller, have got it so wrong - or what is wrong with the test protocols? The question is obvious and unanswered.“

My post #40 was intended to reveal this contradiction and deliver the likely answer of a winning rollbar rocna.

„Scam“? - I am not judging- take it as it suits you best :)

Best to you all!
Y
 
Few people choosing an anchor are going to watch 138 videos, or even a few videos. Most are going to move directly to the summary charts, both of which are available in Video 138.

If you check the holding capacity bar chart Rocna languishes - yet this was the characteristic that persuaded many to buy a Rocna in the first place. Note the position of the CQR in the same chart. Looking at the spread sheet Rocna has the same score as a CQR. It seems that those of you who retired your CQR and replaced with a Rocna - wasted your money.

Testing to be of value should provide consistency of results. Results should be reproducible.

My understanding is that the same anchors are being used, the test protocols are the same but in a different seabed, and now producing different results to earlier testing

And Rocna is still being rated similar to a CQR.

Nothing has changed - there is something wrong.

Jonathan
 
Yooha83 said:
@vyv_cox
Neeves provided the link Panope vid 138 in post #1. A video where clearly the Rollbar Rocna excels in a very popular US anchorage chosen by Panope, nominating it one of three best allrounders above multiplier 20x anchor weight in multiple seabeds along Viking and Mantus M1.

Strikingly, question was raised by the thread opener „The big question is - how can the buying public, who have Rocna on their bow roller, have got it so wrong - or what is wrong with the test protocols? The question is obvious and unanswered.“

My post #40 was intended to reveal this contradiction and deliver the likely answer of a winning rollbar rocna.

„Scam“? - I am not judging- take it as it suits you best :)

Best to you all!
Y
Click to expand...
Your link on my screen says "unwelcome content deleted". I was asssuming that admin or somebody deleted it.
 
I had not paid much attention but tip weight is give the same 'importance' as galvanising and is included as a high or good tip weight score is indicative of good performance.

Looking at the in water performances and correlating with tip weight show no correlation at all - in fact anchors with poor tip weight scores are good performers and a good tip weight score is certainly not indicative of a good performance.

I also note that Spade does not score well against a CQR - maybe prices of genuine CQRs will rebound :) . There must be a good few Spade anchor owners shaking their heads in disbelief.


Yooha83 said:
@vyv_cox


Strikingly, question was raised by the thread opener „The big question is - how can the buying public, who have Rocna on their bow roller, have got it so wrong - or what is wrong with the test protocols? The question is obvious and unanswered.“

My post #40 was intended to reveal this contradiction and deliver the likely answer of a winning rollbar rocna.


Best to you all!
Y
Click to expand...

We had all been led to believe, or I believed, that most of the 'in water' testing was in seabeds common in character (cobblestones excepted) - world wide - nothing special. If we now are to believe that the new seabed is more typical - then well over 100 videos were a complete waste of time and the spread sheets derived from these videos can be totally ignored.

Jonathan
 
Correlating popularity with quality, accuracy, or any measure of "best" is dubious at best.
  • Politics. We've elected some pretty goofy leaders by measuring popularity instead of competence. Tell the people a story that makes them feel better about themselves, and repeat it loud and often. They aren't interesting in actual facts.
  • Religion. We're all certain we're right, and there are smart people in every camp.
  • Fashion. Enough said.
What we often see is confirmation bias, wherein we want to believe that our choice was the correct one, no matter if we bungled it or not. No one wants to be wrong. Popularity of equipment, like Rocna, can simply be herd mentality (see "fashion").

Scientists are human and also vulnerable to confirmation bias We fight it though consistent methodology and controls. I like nothing better than to see an expereiment prove soundly that I was wrong about my initial guess. It means I am doing my job.

---

And I don't think anyone is debating that Rocna was a leap forward.
 
I'm following all this with interest as, as stated in a previous post, I have inherited a 15kg Bruce type anchor with my boat that i bought in February. Happy with it thus far but would be happier with a NG anchor.
So, who has what and would you recommend it to others? Neeves, Thinwater and Vyv Cox, you guys seem to have a deep knowledge on the subject. What do you rely on to keep your boat in the same place when you go to sleep?
 
Farmer Piles said:
PS, I was thinking Rocna but am increasingly confused.
Click to expand...
What do I know about a anchors , I only live full time while cruising all over Europe, for more years then I like to remember. :)
Let me ask you a question .
Are you planning to cruise away from where you Been cruising ?
If no .
Have your anchor held well ?
I see you posted your happy with it so I guess so far it's been fine.
If the answer to 1 is no and yes to 2, why do you want to spend money changing it .
 
Last edited:
Farmer Piles said:
I'm following all this with interest as, as stated in a previous post, I have inherited a 15kg Bruce type anchor with my boat that i bought in February. Happy with it thus far but would be happier with a NG anchor.
So, who has what and would you recommend it to others? Neeves, Thinwater and Vyv Cox, you guys seem to have a deep knowledge on the subject. What do you rely on to keep your boat in the same place when you go to sleep?
Click to expand...
You appear to be sailing around Cornwall. In general the area is blessed with sandy seabeds that are not terribly testing. For many years, in Irish and North Sea where the seabed is fairly similar, I used a Delta and was very happy with it. It has limitations, as does your Bruce, but if you are happy to understand them and avoid difficult places, I would keep what you have until it is found wanting.
 
Farmer Piles said:
I'm following all this with interest as, as stated in a previous post, I have inherited a 15kg Bruce type anchor with my boat that i bought in February. Happy with it thus far but would be happier with a NG anchor.
So, who has what and would you recommend it to others? Neeves, Thinwater and Vyv Cox, you guys seem to have a deep knowledge on the subject. What do you rely on to keep your boat in the same place when you go to sleep?
Click to expand...
I think whether it is a genuine Bruce, or not, matters. I had a Lewmar Claw in stainless, it was a poor anchor, at least for Clyde anchoring. Looked pretty though so was quickly sold to someone attracted to aesthetics. The genuine Bruce anchors are, i think, a decent performer. I’ve gone NG.
 
Robih said:
I think whether it is a genuine Bruce, or not, matters. I had a Lewmar Claw in stainless, it was a poor anchor, at least for Clyde anchoring. Looked pretty though so was quickly sold to someone attracted to aesthetics. The genuine Bruce anchors are, i think, a decent performer. I’ve gone NG.
Click to expand...
What model?
 
sailaboutvic said:
What do I know about a anchors , I only live full time while cruising all over Europe, for more years then I like to remember. :)
Let me ask you a question .
Are you planning to cruise away from where you Been cruising ?
If no .
Have your anchor held well ?
I see you posted your happy with it so I guess so far it's been fine.
If the answer to 1 is no and yes to 2, why do you want to spend money changing it .
Click to expand...
Hi Vic,
I suppose the point is that the general consensus is that the NG anchors are generally better. Thus far I have only anchored in fairly benign conditions in mud and sandy mud - apart from one occasion - where, to be fair, it held really well. But yes, I am planning to cruise elsewhere, to Scilly - strong currents and changeable weather and lots of rocks - but lots of sand on the bottom. I don't want the time that my anchor is found wanting to be when it's dragged overnight.
But I get your point, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
BTW - what do use use and what did you change from?
 
Thanks for the replies. Broadly the Bruce works well - sets and holds alright. Just trying to make sense of all the opinions and tests. There is, of course, the boys and toys and gadget element to anchors and their respective merits. Not looking to blow money but just the wish to sleep soundly and to find the boat where I left her whilst exploring ashore - peace of mind.
Vyv, did I read in a previous post that you have a Rocna?
 
Yooha83 said:
@Farmer Piles Please find Post#5

@vyv_cox please clarify or link please, there is no Manson Supreme in video 138 testing 22lbs range anchors, subject of this thread
Click to expand...

Testing anchors of a similar weight has some validity, except when one specific anchor is included and has around a 30% increase in fluke area - because it is made from high tensile steel. All anchors of the same design should work similarly, this may not be so valid with very small anchors - but in general most people here are interested in anchors for a yacht not their tender. But if a 10kg anchor works significantly different to a 20kg anchor - of the same design - then they are not of the same design (they may look the same but something is different or they would perform in a similar way).

Now it might be interesting to know that a manufacturer has his scaling 'wrong' but the 'Panope' work was envisaged to evaluate design not quirks in scaling.

Consequently though Manson's Supreme is missing from this specific video it has appeared in other videos and as the videos are meant to be a cumulative collection of anchor characteristics (emphasised by some of the spreadsheets) it does not seem untoward to mention its performance against Rocna (and other anchors). After all it was Peter Smith himself who suggested The Supreme was but a cheap (or poor) copy of a Rocna. Both have been rated as Super High Holding Power anchors by RINA (Rocna) or Lloyds (Supreme) so to have them rated on these videos differently merits a comment.

It merits note also that in terms of hold anchors of the same design but of different weight have a simple relationship between hold and weight - so why differentiate our anchors. I think most people reading a review by Yachting Monthly, SAIL or Voile et Voileurs of 15kg anchors would expect 20kg or 30 kg models to performed similarly - why suddenly this is not the case would merit quantitative explanation. Sadly there is little interest in defining the relationship of weight vs hold for individual designs - primarily because there is no great need and it would be very hard work for little return.

Fortitously the relationship between weight and hold has been defined for Fortress - and the result emphasises that doubling anchor weight does not double hold (hold increases more leisurely) and it is dangerous to think it is that simple.

Yooha83

You suggest Rocna does well in video 138, this does not appear to be reflected, at all, in the summary spreadsheet nor bar graph at the end of the video - and as I have mentioned - no-one is going to watch 138 videos before investing in a new anchor - they will simply look at the summary sheet.

Farmer Piles

I sympathise with your confusion and you will have noted there is some healthy scepticism, which I share, of the results of the Panope work. Like Vyv I find some of the results inexplicable and questionable and wonder as Vyv has expressed if there is an agenda of which we are all unaware. But to have Rocna and Spade rated as similar to CQR is totally incomprehensible. Testers do have bias - they are human but most suppress their bias and their work is commonly subject to independent adjudication and editing.

If you were to focus you attention to Rocna, Supreme, Knox, Spade, Viking, Excel and consider an anchor based on the anchor makers recommendation for size of anchor for your specific yacht you will not go far wrong. If you are on a tight budget you can throw Kobra into the mix - but in general you get what you pay for and Kobra is not as good as the others in my list but better than the old stalwarts and better than some of the new 'Johny come latelies'. Epsilon has not achieved much positive feed back (and no positive feedback from the Panope work) but as it has been certificated by a Classification Society (I assume Lloyds) as Super High Holding Power and I would not ignore it. I don't think you would differentiate the 6 anchors in my list - but some might be expensive, some might not be easily available, some might not fit on your bow roller - so my list might be whittled down by your own restrictions. You will not go far wrong with whatever is left. Just remember no anchor is perfect - they are all a compromise. If you do whittle down a short list - do not feel afraid to ask for help from users here - that is what the forum is for.

My list is of anchors I have tested and we use, Spade, Excel, Fortress - all in aluminium - our choice is by design not weight. We cannot house a roll bar anchor with our bow roller but we now also carry a Viking. Why so many - we often anchor in a fork or 'V', we sail a cat and dry out surprisingly frequently, needing 3 anchors, people do lose anchors and we sail 'off piste' no chandlers, no roads, no mobile phone coverage, no shops - just wombats, crayfish and sea eagles :)

Jonathan
 
Farmer Piles said:
Hi Vic,
I suppose the point is that the general consensus is that the NG anchors are generally better. Thus far I have only anchored in fairly benign conditions in mud and sandy mud - apart from one occasion - where, to be fair, it held really well. But yes, I am planning to cruise elsewhere, to Scilly - strong currents and changeable weather and lots of rocks - but lots of sand on the bottom. I don't want the time that my anchor is found wanting to be when it's dragged overnight.
But I get your point, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
BTW - what do use use and what did you change from?
Click to expand...
I used a Rocna 25kg on our last boat ( 14ton) for well over 13 years and we anchored every day for 9 months each year , once set it stayed set and a few times when it wouldn't set we just moved to a different place.


We have dragged a couple of time , each time we found once a old net and another time a shopping trolley was the problem ,
Unlike the video kings who have super under water camera I can only guess the items where well into the mud and once enough the wind picked up they broke free.
We now have a much small boat a 36 foot which we now had for 4 months , we been cruising Northern Europe since we brought it ,
Most of that been in the Netherlands the boat came with a 15kg Manson anchor ,
Unlike some I didn't just chuck it away and replace with a new Rocna instead I'm trying it out and see how well it will do ,
So far it's worked well , other then 6 days when we been in a marina we anchored every day.
but not to miss led you mostly it's been mud and sand ,
Now I sure you been read this view then anchors like the Rocna and the Manson with hoop can not reset because of rocks or mud clocking up ,
This may be the case I'm not going to get into an argument with tho who insist.
I can only tell you of my own experience especially where we been anchoring lately,
Most of the time our Manson have come up cake in Mud and so far not once as it not reset, from that people can work out what they like.
Many many people go out and buy anchors because of what they read in forum.
When really there no need for them to do so as their own anchor works well especially as they seem to anchor in the same places each week end.
My experience of anchor dragging and I've seen hundred believe me ,
is nothing to do with the anchors being used , it's the user.
Before the Rocna we used a Delta which times we had some problems with.
WE also carried fortress which once in sand or mud would never move
 
Last edited:
Having watched all Panope videos, I think it unlikely that he has a conscious bias. (Unconscious bias is a different matter, but I note how pleased he was with the Rocna's performance in the last test.) The latest video supports my theory that his regular testing seabed is uncommon and that the error is to generalise. If you multiply this with the rare likelihood of real world conditions matching his demanding tests then uncommon x rare = an uncommonly rare chance of a Rocna failing which is pretty much what Rocna users report. That meets the Occam test, for me, and doesn't require bias.
 
Poey50 said:
Having watched all Panope videos, I think it unlikely that he has a conscious bias. (Unconscious bias is a different matter, but I note how pleased he was with the Rocna's performance in the last test.) The latest video supports my theory that his regular testing seabed is uncommon and that the error is to generalise. If you multiply this with the rare likelihood of real world conditions matching his demanding tests then uncommon x rare = an uncommonly rare chance of a Rocna failing which is pretty much what Rocna users report. That meets the Occam test, for me, and doesn't require bias.
Click to expand...

If his historic seabeds (plural) are uncommon that makes roughly 60-100 hours of test video, ignoring the time invested in editing, invalid and his spread sheets a complete waste of time. It also suggests he did not know his seabeds were uncommon which might be a bigger problem - make of that what you like.

Jonathan
 
Farmer Piles said:
Vyv, did I read in a previous post that you have a Rocna?
Click to expand...
Yes. I bought one of the very first Rocnas in UK, NZ made and supplied from Ireland as there was no UK importer at the time. I think this was 2008, not quite certain now.
I have used it for 6 months of most years since, in Greece, riding out many gales and a few storms. Plenty of 180 degree wind reversals, never a problem of any kind once set properly.
 
Yooha83 said:
@Farmer Piles Please find Post#5

@vyv_cox please clarify or link please, there is no Manson Supreme in video 138 testing 22lbs range anchors, subject of this thread
Click to expand...
I do not have sufficient spare time to watch videos whose accuracy I doubt. There have been many anchor tests that find the performance of Manson and Rocna anchors to be very similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top