boomerangben
Well-known member
As an addendum to my last……. Perhaps Rocna are in greater need of a new anchor than the market is?
Rocna Mark 2
- Thread starter noelex
- Start date
sailoppopotamus
Active member
In recent tests, SV Panope has shown that non-rollbar anchors such as the Vulcan and Spade don't work very well in soupy mud, and the rollbar anchors seem to do much better. So if you can get the best of both worlds, why not?
Did the world 'need' a new anchor after the Bruce, CQR, or Delta came to be? Each design is an iterative improvement over previous designs (and hopefully the ones that are not an improvement don't succeed commercially). Have we reached the point where anchor design and construction cannot possibly be improved? I don't think so, so anchor development continues. Of course whether the new Rocna is an improvement on the old one, or the Vulcan, remains to be seen.
Did the world 'need' a new anchor after the Bruce, CQR, or Delta came to be? Each design is an iterative improvement over previous designs (and hopefully the ones that are not an improvement don't succeed commercially). Have we reached the point where anchor design and construction cannot possibly be improved? I don't think so, so anchor development continues. Of course whether the new Rocna is an improvement on the old one, or the Vulcan, remains to be seen.
Neeves
Well-known member
Interesting thought.
Anchors can be highly profitable, I think.
I don't pay much attention to prices. It costs as much, or a similar amount, to fabricate a 15kg Delta as a Rocna - both are made in China. I suspect their is a difference in price at the chandlers.
Jonathan
doug748
Well-known member
Bouba
Well-known member
I think that when Lewmar only supplied the Delta there was a market for upgrading…but with the new Epsilon I am not so sure…unless it turns out worse than a Delta…Lewmar have got the new boat market pretty much sewn up. The fact that anchors don’t ever wear out..and most yotties are stingy…then I agree that the world probably doesn’t need a new anchor.
Perhaps that’s why Rocna’s new anchor is only stainless steel…jewellery for upmarket motorboats
Neeves
Well-known member
noelex
Well-known member
I think we accept the limitations of our anchoring gear without really thinking about the compromises involved. Having a large swinging circle, being unable to anchor in certain locations (because of poor substrate or inadequate protection), having to escape to marinas or mooring balls in bad weather, the nuisance of swapping anchor design depending in the substrate, deploying multiple anchors and having to extend the scope in the middle of night when an unexpected squall hits are all limitations commonly reported. To many that anchor out infrequently these compromises mean little, but they do matter to a small minority.
We are not likely to see the perfect anchor that solves all issues anytime in the near future, but the competitive nature of the industry is striving towards this goal. It remains to be seen if the Rocna MK2 is step forward, but I hope so.
Last edited:
noelex
Well-known member
The initial information about the Rocna Mk2 showed some very blurry images of a stainless steel prototype anchor. I would now be almost positive that it will be also available in a galvanised version.
Neeves
Well-known member
Most anchors are designed to self right, either because of the roll bar, the ballast, the shank shape or a combination. If the roll bar or shank sink in the mud then the anchor loses the ability to self right and in the Fortress Chesapeake tests virtually every non-fluke anchor (so except Fortress and Danforth) were a major liability (which is why Fortress conducted the tests).
I have tested non fluke anchors, Spade, Excel etc etc in soupy mud and watched them being dragged upside down, shank like a keel - for ever...
Bruce is a bit of an exception - the 'fins' are designed like wings and if one is 'submerged' it then provides lift and self right the anchor (but Peter Bruce was originally an aeronautic engineer)
Jonathan
Neeves
Well-known member
Does the market need another, better, anchor?
'We' can surely answer that.
How many have dragged as a result of using a 'new gen' anchor and the dragging was as result of the anchor being inadequate, not bad luck, caught a discarded shopping trolley etc, could only use a short rode (when a longer might have been better).
I don't recall anyone posting that they dragged (or saw someone dragging) using their Rocna, Spade, Excel, Supreme, Knox, Vulcan etc etc. Interestingly though Rocna is commonly reported to lift mud - no-one complains (its recorded as the price to pay for excellence).
Jonathan
'We' can surely answer that.
How many have dragged as a result of using a 'new gen' anchor and the dragging was as result of the anchor being inadequate, not bad luck, caught a discarded shopping trolley etc, could only use a short rode (when a longer might have been better).
I don't recall anyone posting that they dragged (or saw someone dragging) using their Rocna, Spade, Excel, Supreme, Knox, Vulcan etc etc. Interestingly though Rocna is commonly reported to lift mud - no-one complains (its recorded as the price to pay for excellence).
Jonathan
Bouba
Well-known member
If your anchor is ‘inadequate’...then you need a bigger anchor
geem
Well-known member
Our Spade regularly lifts mud/sand where we anchor. It's also sets really well such that the very powerful windlass with a 1750w motor can't budge it. Once the chain is vertical often we have to motor over it to break it out. I just wish Spade could sort the galvanising problem. Their galvanising is truly awful
Kelpie
Well-known member
Our Rocna has dragged a few times. Generally when holding has been questionable and with sudden wind shifts. I no longer treat 3:1 as the standard scope, I aim for 5:1 if possible.
We've also had some failures to set.
I've come to learn that, despite everybody saying how terrible it is to dump all your chain out too quickly, it's preferable to carefully paying it out as you fall back. The 'careful' method can lead to the anchor skipping along the bottom if you're too slow, and once the anchor builds up speed it's very unlikely to set, IME.
Of course in a pure sand bottom the thing holds like it's glued to the seabed, even on a short scope. But you don't always get that kind of holding.
We've got a 25kg Rocna on 10mm chain, on a 39ft mono. Have used Rocnas for nearly ten years now on two different boats, only began to have problems when we started full time cruising. Of course we spend more time at anchor in one month then we did in a year back home so maybe it's just the sheer number of days that matters.
Bouba
Well-known member
In fact the Rocna instruction book says dump out all your chain then reverse
geem
Well-known member
I find in the Caribbean that most seabeds are sand/grass/broken coral. We modified our anchor setting process some time back. It works well and we get far less issues setting the anchor now. We generally slow the boat head to wind at about 1 to 2 kts depending on how windy it is. The windier it is the faster we can go. We drop the anchor on free drop by releasing the clutch whilst still making forward motion. As soon as the anchor has bottom we turn the wheel hard over and the extra windage of the boat beam on helps pull the chain out of the locker. We run all the chain out to 3 or 4 times the depth of water then fit the snubber. We wait until the boat has stretched out the chain then apply reverse, slowly initially, then increase revs to about 80% of full power. We never drag. Most people never drag but when we do see draggers they seem to be on short scope on CQRs or Delta anchors. We never see new generation anchors drag.
We are currently at anchor with 4:1 scope in grass and sand and have had several squalls to 32kts. Sleeping soundly on our none over sized anchor.
Neeves
Well-known member
It has been implied I should not bite to such provocationIf your anchor is ‘inadequate’...then you need a bigger anchor
(as it will result in excommunication) - so excuse me - but like Mr Wilde I can resist anything... except temptation .......??
Neeves
Well-known member
It has been implied I should not bite to such provocation
.......??
But I believe that resisting such provocation will result in a loss of free speech, loss of an ability to learn. Its a bit like burning books.
Jonathan
Neeves
Well-known member
We regularly dragged our Manson plough, a CQR clone. We upgraded to Excel and Spade, arguably undersized, slightly. 8kg alloy anchors the same size as the 15kg steel versions, 38' cat 7t cruising weight.
We have dragged once with the Excel, which is our primary anchor, sits on the bow roller. We also dragged when we caught a 4.5kg gas cylinder - but I don't count that.
When we dragged.
The location is wind blown sand, the location is famous for the sand, historically it was mined. Metres thick and built up over thousands of years. Through the sand are channels, creeks, which are now full of soupy mud, prime oyster locations.
We had anchored down wind of an oyster farm. I don't recall all the detail but we had a decent amount of rode deployed, 5:1 (standard for us) and the water was about 4m deep. A huge front came through 55 knot winds (at the mast head) - we saw it coming and I had both engines running in neutral and full wet weather gear on. As the front hit visibility disappeared (rain). Our helm station is fully protected and I waited to see what would happen.
We were driven slowly back and I spent much time looking behind us, the creek not being straight, as we slowly approached the bank. I was not particularly concerned as the bank would be soft.
As we were driven back the Excel suddenly set and all dragging stopped.
This is all exactly as the Fortress tests would have predicted - the Excel (in common with most other anchors) would not hold in soupy mud. When the Excel did set we had been driven slowly to shore, more shallow water and the sand on which the soupy mud was 'sitting' was pierced by the Excel - and like most modern anchors it set like ..... Basically the creek was a channel cut into the sand and full of mud, the banks of the creek are all sand. The channel/creek bed was mud but as the creek shallowed the sand had less mud over it allowing the Excel to engage.
The exercise convinced me of the value of the Fortress tests (and anchor testing) - and we now carry a FX 37, fully assembled (the Oz east coast being famous for its oysters - and soupy mud).
Most of the time we see few other yachts and we choose anchorage that are sheltered from Storm force winds. We knew of this front and did not move as the following morning we were due at the adjacent slipway.
Our forecast are generally very good and as bad weather comes across the Indian Ocean we have plenty of warning - at least a week. We don't see yachts dragging as most people take note of Storms and take appropriate action (they move to place where there will not be Storm force winds (as some did in the Scilly island Storm). Sailing is meant to be a pleasure not a TV reality show.
Jonathan
Its not about size but, good, design appropriate to the conditions. If you look at the Fortress Chesapeake results you would need an enormous non fluke anchor, ridiculously large, to resist a Storm (and/or match a Fortress) if anchored in soupy mud. Even their results on a FX16 were hardly stellar (which is why we now carry a FX37).
We have dragged once with the Excel, which is our primary anchor, sits on the bow roller. We also dragged when we caught a 4.5kg gas cylinder - but I don't count that.
When we dragged.
The location is wind blown sand, the location is famous for the sand, historically it was mined. Metres thick and built up over thousands of years. Through the sand are channels, creeks, which are now full of soupy mud, prime oyster locations.
We had anchored down wind of an oyster farm. I don't recall all the detail but we had a decent amount of rode deployed, 5:1 (standard for us) and the water was about 4m deep. A huge front came through 55 knot winds (at the mast head) - we saw it coming and I had both engines running in neutral and full wet weather gear on. As the front hit visibility disappeared (rain). Our helm station is fully protected and I waited to see what would happen.
We were driven slowly back and I spent much time looking behind us, the creek not being straight, as we slowly approached the bank. I was not particularly concerned as the bank would be soft.
As we were driven back the Excel suddenly set and all dragging stopped.
This is all exactly as the Fortress tests would have predicted - the Excel (in common with most other anchors) would not hold in soupy mud. When the Excel did set we had been driven slowly to shore, more shallow water and the sand on which the soupy mud was 'sitting' was pierced by the Excel - and like most modern anchors it set like ..... Basically the creek was a channel cut into the sand and full of mud, the banks of the creek are all sand. The channel/creek bed was mud but as the creek shallowed the sand had less mud over it allowing the Excel to engage.
The exercise convinced me of the value of the Fortress tests (and anchor testing) - and we now carry a FX 37, fully assembled (the Oz east coast being famous for its oysters - and soupy mud).
Most of the time we see few other yachts and we choose anchorage that are sheltered from Storm force winds. We knew of this front and did not move as the following morning we were due at the adjacent slipway.
Our forecast are generally very good and as bad weather comes across the Indian Ocean we have plenty of warning - at least a week. We don't see yachts dragging as most people take note of Storms and take appropriate action (they move to place where there will not be Storm force winds (as some did in the Scilly island Storm). Sailing is meant to be a pleasure not a TV reality show.
Jonathan
Its not about size but, good, design appropriate to the conditions. If you look at the Fortress Chesapeake results you would need an enormous non fluke anchor, ridiculously large, to resist a Storm (and/or match a Fortress) if anchored in soupy mud. Even their results on a FX16 were hardly stellar (which is why we now carry a FX37).
Last edited:
Bouba
Well-known member
Sounds like Fraser Island