Rocna's bad press by video - anchor thread don't read if you don't like anchor threads!

[Robih]

Back on topic, this article shows that the Rocna was bottom of their tests, and for the first time showed some information on the new Lewmar CQR, (The picture is of a genuine one for some odd reason). I knew some type of Danforth would be top, but stunned to see a Rocna at the bottom of the bar chart.
Top Anchors Tested | Boating Mag

A test that ranks anchors by “maximum average load” is in chocolate teapot territory. There are many other characteristics of a decent anchor that should feature in any quality assessment/ranking. It’s also seven years old. Good for firelighters though if not shiny paper.

 

[vyv_cox]

Back on topic, this article shows that the Rocna was bottom of their tests, and for the first time showed some information on the new Lewmar CQR, (The picture is of a genuine one for some odd reason). I knew some type of Danforth would be top, but stunned to see a Rocna at the bottom of the bar chart.
Top Anchors Tested | Boating Mag

Once again you quote a test to suit your prejudice. This test carried out by Fortress was done specifically in extremely soft Chesapeake mud, the likes of which may not exist anywhere else. Naturally the 'flat' anchors, Fortress and Danforth, did better than plough and concave types.
There have been countless other tests carried out in seabeds more likely to be encountered by the majority. These unfailingly put new generation anchors at the top, Ultra, Spade, Rocna, Manson not necessarily in that order but almost always CQR at the bottom. In the very well run joint test of 2006 the CQR failed to set at any of the three locations, whereas the good ones set and held to 2 tons pull.

 

[TNLI]

A test that ranks anchors by “maximum average load” is in chocolate teapot territory. There are many other characteristics of a decent anchor that should feature in any quality assessment/ranking. It’s also seven years old. Good for firelighters though if not shiny paper.

Sorry I didn't finish last last post as I was going to add the report below that shows Rocna is No 1, so it does appear that the any tester who might in some way be connected with selling modern anchors can provide the results they want.
Yachting Monthly and Motor Boats Monthly Anchor Testing Commentary (marinechandlery.com)

Very few tests start with an analysis of the anchor strength when subject to a 90 degree pull or how thick the Zinc coating is. Then they fail to do anywhere near enough tests in different types of bottom to work out a statistical variance, or do a 180 degree veer etc.

Drifting off topic a bit, I was reading about the Bruce and thinking about what some Amercian users had said about it, and that is that it works fairly well in coral or rocky areas becuse the US Navy used it for the stern anchor of their tank landing craft to pull them back off the beaches in WW2. Anchors with points have a nasty habit of getting jammed in such situations if they do get to hold in the first place. So if you don't carry a Fishermans or grapnel that will work in rocks, the Bruce is a good choice of main anchor. Alas none of the modern anchors are any good in weeds, so I'm not about to get rid of my grapnel just becauser I've got a small Bruce. If you do mess about anchoring in rocks or around wrecks it's a good idea to rig a trip line. The other alternative is to buy or make a cheap grapnel that if pulled hard enough will unbend. I've made one with thin rebar and a galvanised eye, so in fabrication and welding terms they are easy to make.

 

[vyv_cox]

Sorry I didn't finish last last post as I was going to add the report below that shows Rocna is No 1, so it does appear that the any tester who might in some way be connected with selling modern anchors can provide the results they want.
Yachting Monthly and Motor Boats Monthly Anchor Testing Commentary (marinechandlery.com)

The 'press release' was composed by Craig Smith, of fond memory to long-term forum members. He manipulated the figures to benefit the Rocna and wrote wriggle words to justify them. His statement that no conclusions were drawn is nonsense. I posted the chart showing the results further up the thread, or maybe in another similar one. The Fortress was the best holding anchor, although as he says its size was out of all proportion compared with the others. The three NG anchors were similar, the Spade just edging it over Manson and Rocna. Claw and CQR (the most expensive anchor on test) were notably poor.

 

[NormanS]

Your reply is of

So which 3 anchors do you use and which 3 would you buy if money was no object ??

I reckon that there's a lot more to dependable anchoring than just buying this year's, or month's, most fashionable anchor. I use a fishfinder, which I find invaluable for finding a good clear bottom. Clear of weed, stones, or anything else that might prevent an anchor from performing properly.
For many years, I cruised in a 60ft converted Scottish wooden fishing boat, and almost always used a fabricated plough, which was pretty much identical to a CQR. It performed perfectly, but it weighed 140 lbs, so not really comparable with average yacht anchors. With that boat, my second and third anchors were both Danforths, also 140lbs.
For my present 36ft ketch, my everyday anchor is a 20kg genuine Bruce, on an all chain rode. My second is a Fortress FX23, which has roughly the same dimensions as the 20kg Danforth, which it replaced. My third anchor, which is admittedly very seldom used, is a 20kg Fisherman. All of these anchors have their uses in different conditions.
I make no particular claims, or recommendations, about my choices, but I would say that rather than going out and buying the current most fashionable anchor, it is much more important to use all available information about the proposed anchoring site, before dropping the anchor.

 

[Arcady]

https://www.marinechandlery.com/media/userfiles/anchor comparison(1).pdf

Drifting off topic a bit, I was reading about the Bruce and thinking about what some Amercian users had said about it, and that is that it works fairly well in coral or rocky areas becuse the US Navy used it for the stern anchor of their tank landing craft to pull them back off the beaches in WW2.

Bearing in mind that the Bruce anchor was introduced in the early ’70’s, your claim that it was used in WWII is simply wrong. It would be helpful if you did some unbiased research before cluttering up this forum with such errant nonsense.

 

[RobF]

Back on topic, this article shows that the Rocna was bottom of their tests, and for the first time showed some information on the new Lewmar CQR, (The picture is of a genuine one for some odd reason). I knew some type of Danforth would be top, but stunned to see a Rocna at the bottom of the bar chart.
Top Anchors Tested | Boating Mag

I'm not entirely sure what your intended outcome of all your posts are? If it's to defend the CQR and recommend it as an anchor of choice to forum members, I suspect you'll be unsuccessful. You may have noticed that not a single response to your many posts has suggested that anyone else here would use a CQR as their anchor of preference (or have bought a new one in the last 10 years). And at the risk of an argumentum ad verecundiam, the critics of the CQR includes people who most on this forum would consider to have expert knowledge.

I don't profess to have expert knowledge, but your findings are completely contrary to my personal experience of a CQR compared to a Rocna. Whilst I'm aware of some limitations of the Rocna, I have found it outperformed the CQR in every respect (and this was on the same boat, with the same chain / rode combination etc)

 

[john_morris_uk]

I think that almost every time I’ve anchored in my 50 odd years of sailing, we’ve swung on our anchor at some time. I’ve anchored in tidal rivers, in gales and once I anchored in a hurricane where the eye went over us and the wind backed nearly 180 degrees. All this anchoring with a variety of anchor designs. I’m trying to work out how we’ve never bent an anchor shank!

 

[AngusMcDoon]

...once I anchored in a hurricane where rye went over us...

The one down Hastings way? Lummy! Must have been windy. Did anyone ever put in back? Six always was one too many Cinque Ports, so no loss really if not. (Perhaps they good burghers of the town should have anchored themselves to East Sussex with a CQR anchor )

 

[Poey50]

I'm not entirely sure what your intended outcome of all your posts are?

It's a good question. While most of us value rational discourse and the exchange of factual information there is gratification for some in being controversialists - heroically standing firm against the crowd. It's a pity to waste so much time on this but there is a responsibility to others to challenge nonsense.

 

[john_morris_uk]

The one down Hastings way? Lummy! Must have been windy. Did anyone ever put in back? Six always was one too many Cinque Ports, so no loss really if not. (Perhaps they good burghers of the town should have anchored themselves to East Sussex with a CQR anchor )

??

 

[srm]

the Bruce and thinking about what some Amercian users had said about it, and that is that it works fairly well in coral or rocky areas becuse the US Navy used it for the stern anchor of their tank landing craft to pull them back off the beaches in WW2.

At last, definitive proof that TNLI is indeed writing from "Cloud Cookoo Land", the Bruce patent anchor was developed for oil rig anchoring in the 70's, then scaled down for small boat use. The rig size anchors were truly impressive.

However, his magic CQR that "kept on getting better" was developed during WWII as a light weight anchor to be carried on seaplanes and patented after the war for small boat use.

 

[vyv_cox]

However, his magic CQR that "kept on getting better" was developed during WWII as a light weight anchor to be carried on seaplanes and patented after the war for small boat use.

It was developed by Geoffrey Ingram Taylor in 1930s. First reported in YM in 1934 and I believe had been patented by then. He developed it for seaplanes but, a keen yachtsman himself, all testing was carried out from boats.

 

[Kukri]

The RNLI use a Spade, made in Tunisia, and not tested by either Lloyds or ABS. The RNLI carry 2 Spades. There are anchors tested to an identical rating as Spade, by Lloyds, Manson's Supreme or ABS, Ultra and Fortress all Super High Holding Power (SHHP) anchors. There is a suggestion that Lewmar's Epsilon has also been approved by Lloyds to SHHP - but I have never seen a certificate. These did not cut the mustard at the RNLI who chose Spade. The requirements of TNLI don't actually enjoy much support with the RNLI who find Bureau Veritas, who certificated Spade, perfectly acceptable.

The Spade featured below, picture courtesy of a crew member, is carried on all of the RNLI's current state of the art Shannon lifeboats. The second, identical Spade (also made in Tunisia and similarly certificated by Bureau Veritas) is carried below deck in an easily accessible locker.

The Engineering Department at the Head Office of the RNLI have formally confirmed there is no investigation nor any current plan to replace Spade anchors in the Shannon Class vessels.

View attachment 139500

It merits note:

Vessels 'In Survey' - which includes the RNLI vessels are required to carry equipment certificated with a current certificate. Certification and maintenance of Certification is expensive and time consuming. Whereas CQR and Delta 'were' certificated (a cost incurred by Lewmar) I have not seen a current Certificate for these anchors (I have not looked). I simply don't see much motivation to certificate an anchor replaced by a better product (Epsilon) especially as, when I last heard, both the CQR and Delta were made in China. No reflection on China but the manufacturing processes would need to be re-checked by Lloyds - and simply accessing China over the last 36 months would have been a Herculean and expensive task (Covid).

Possibly an expert and with access to the RNLI can provide a current copy of a Lloyds certificate for both products.

Jonathan

Sorry to be a bore but my day job involves a fleet of container ships trading to China and classed with LR, who maintain a huge permanent staff in China for new ship construction, drydockings and surveys of equipment under construction and approvals of manufacturing processes for equipment. Including anchors.

 

[Kukri]

At last, definitive proof that TNLI is indeed writing from "Cloud Cookoo Land", the Bruce patent anchor was developed for oil rig anchoring in the 70's, then scaled down for small boat use. The rig size anchors were truly impressive.

However, his magic CQR that "kept on getting better" was developed during WWII as a light weight anchor to be carried on seaplanes and patented after the war for small boat use.

Sorry to be a bore but the CQR was developed as a yacht anchor in the 1930s by Professor Sir Geoffrey Taylor, FRS, who was himself a very keen yachtsman and who had got fed up with the Fisherman pattern anchors on his own boat. The original article about it in the « Yachting Monthy » was written by Maurice Griffiths in iirc 1934. The CQR was carried as an anchor by RAF flying boats in WW2 (they also carried an aluminium Baby Blake) but the anchor carried by US flying boats was the Northill, which was indeed developed for that purpose.

 

[srm]

It was developed by Geoffrey Ingram Taylor in 1930s. First reported in YM in 1934 and I believe had been patented by then. He developed it for seaplanes but, a keen yachtsman himself, all testing was carried out from boats.

Sorry to be a bore but the CQR was developed as a yacht anchor in the 1930s by Professor Sir Geoffrey Taylor, FRS, who was himself a very keen yachtsman and who had got fed up with the Fisherman pattern anchors on his own boat. The original article about it in the « Yachting Monthy » was written by Maurice Griffiths in iirc 1934. The CQR was carried as an anchor by RAF flying boats in WW2 (they also carried an aluminium Baby Blake) but the anchor carried by US flying boats was the Northill, which was indeed developed for that purpose.

Thank you for the corrections.

 

[vyv_cox]

Sorry to be a bore but the CQR was developed as a yacht anchor in the 1930s by Professor Sir Geoffrey Taylor, FRS, who was himself a very keen yachtsman and who had got fed up with the Fisherman pattern anchors on his own boat. The original article about it in the « Yachting Monthy » was written by Maurice Griffiths in iirc 1934. The CQR was carried as an anchor by RAF flying boats in WW2 (they also carried an aluminium Baby Blake) but the anchor carried by US flying boats was the Northill, which was indeed developed for that purpose.

I hesitate to dispute what you say on this topic knowing your expertise but I recall reading in G.I. Taylor's obituary, I think, that his development work was funded by seaplane manufacturer(s). I do have the copy of YM upstairs and would check but just about to light the BBQ?

 

[Kukri]

I hesitate to dispute what you say on this topic knowing your expertise but I recall reading in G.I. Taylor's obituary, I think, that his development work was funded by seaplane manufacturer(s). I do have the copy of YM upstairs and would check but just about to light the BBQ?

I think we are both right!?

I only have the YM article, I never saw the obit and I’m sure you are right. ? I rather fancy that he saw a chance to subsidise his sailing!

The Wikipedia page, here,

G. I. Taylor - Wikipedia

is vague (although it does cover his attachment to the RAE at Farnborough in WW1, from which he would have known all the plane makers) but it turned up this!

https://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/docs/taylor-the-holding-power-of-anchors-1934.pdf

 

[Kukri]

And there’s even a Wikipedia article on our favourite subject:

Anchor - Wikipedia

 

[vyv_cox]

And there’s even a Wikipedia article on our favourite subject:

Anchor - Wikipedia

Which includes the nonsensical Coastal Quick Release comment that has no basis. G.I.Taylor tried to patent the name Secure but it was deemed to be a word in common usage, so instead he called it CQR.