Spade anchor size and insurance

[ QUOTE ]
I'm considering getting a spade anchor because it will fit in my anchor locker.......The Rocna was the other choice and I have been speaking to the importers. Unfortunately it is not possible to try a Rocna, so I have worked on the basis of the measurements which suggest it will be too large with the roll bar to fit in the anchor locker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had exactly the same problem in the early Spring. Paddy Boyd, the agent for Rocna in Eire, offered to send me one 'sale or return' to test the fit, but not soon enough for my April departure.
Then I walked into a local chandler, found they had just taken delivery of Manson Supremes, took a 10kg to the boat, tried it for fit on the bow, in the locker, and transfer between, and bought it.
Performance-wise in sixty anchorages it has been a revelation: I'm sure the Rocna would be just as good, and probably better engineered for ultimate strength and longevity, but like you, I could not check that it would fit. I thought the roll-bar would be a problem passing through the pulpit and in the locker.
In the event, the Manson (perhaps slightly smaller than the equivalent Rocna) stays neatly and securely on the bow roller, and when we use a mooring it passes through my pulpit easily enough (no furling drum!) and is no problem at all in the locker. We bring all the cable on deck, then stow the anchor shank into the bow, blade flat down in the V, roll-bar upwards: the chain and warp flake down over the blade fore and aft of the roll-bar until it is buried. It is easier to stow there than my 25lb CQR with its longer shank.
I hope this helps.
 
Re: Unfair to Craig?

The differences - Spade (steel), Rocna, Supreme

Setting = equal

Performance in weed = Heard very good things about Spade and Supreme. Not much about the Rocna yet but early indicators look good for that as well.

Quality = All 3 very well made. Supreme could tickle finish a bit better though, cosmetically a bit rough sometimes.

Strength = a none issue I would think (all being right up there) but reasonably equal and above general requirements of most boats. Probably Rocna by a nose.

Looks = Personal choice but Spade does get more 'it's a sexy looker' comments. If you stand and watch a lot more people will stop and look at a Spade when they just walk straight past the other 2. NB: Don't pick your anchor on looks alone. That is the stuff of superboats and idiots.

Rollbar = Rocna and Supreme have one, Spade doesn't.

Fitting to boat = Spade usually is a lot easier due to rollbar on the other 2.

Price = Supreme wins followed by Rocna. Then again the Spade does take considerably more man-hours to build so you would expect it to cost more.

Ultimate Holding power (general average) = Spade/Rocna followed (by not very much) by Supreme but all are up a lot over most other designs and in an area most will never find out.

Additional features = Spade for the 2 parts when storing, Spade for the alloy version, Supreme for the rock slot. All have holes for retrieval lines.

Performance to $$ ratio (general boater) = Supreme then Spade. Rocna slips a bit here but the larger numbers made of the Supreme does help to keep costs lower. Spade is above Rocna due to the work involved in making one so it starts from a higher value base.

The Deep Blue Spade thing was not a failure of the anchor. I've spent a of of time looking into this (job related) and it all comes back to 'did the boat owner do-up the nut?'. Obviously he says Yes but indications all point to 'no'. The parts retrieved were in perfect condition and showed zero load stress's i.e no drama happening where the bolt is/was.

NB: The Spade NZ people (at the time, now changed) handled this in a shockingly poor manner. This set the boat owner off on a bit of a crusade against them and Spade. Personally I would have done the same and don't blame the guy at all. That is the main reason this has had so much coverage.

We have tested the Spade using a bit of rolled up cardboard instead of the bolt. It made absolutely no performance difference. The only thing that happened was after 2 1/2 hours the cardboard got to soggy and the shank pulled out. The bolt only holds the shank to the foot when not in use, it is not a structural component when in use.

Note: I sell and specify anchoring gear as a job. I stock and sell all 3 anchors mentioned in this post as well as others.
 
Re: Unfair to Craig?

[ QUOTE ]

Performance to $$ ratio (general boater) = Supreme then Spade. Rocna slips a bit here but the larger numbers made of the Supreme does help to keep costs lower. Spade is above Rocna due to the work involved in making one so it starts from a higher value base.



[/ QUOTE ]

Don't understand this. On the one hand performance is pretty equal across the 3, on the other the prices vary a lot. I would have said Performance to $$ would be Supreme, Rocna and Spade last. The Spade differentiates by having some features that are useful eg dismantling and smaller to fit in lockers which may be critical to a purchase.

In the end I would be very happy with the Spade, but it is considerably more than the Rocna in the UK, which makes it more difficult to justify. I wouldn't consider the supreme because I hate funding people that copy (this is actually a practical point more than a moral one, as we need people to constantly innovate for improvement and there is a price to that) and secondly the shank slot must surely weaken it.
 
Re: Unfair to Craig?

[ QUOTE ]
Performance to $$ ratio (general boater) = Supreme then Spade. Rocna slips a bit here but the larger numbers made of the Supreme does help to keep costs lower. Spade is above Rocna due to the work involved in making one so it starts from a higher value base.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with Richard here - it costs x, and it performs y - end of story.... this particular comparison doesnt care how much work goes into making it.

One would expect that the extra work involved contributes to performance, thus contributing to the ratio indirectly. However, as the extra work increases the price, it obviously cancels itself out, more or less.

If the Rocnas performance is similar to the Spades performance, and you say that it is, and the Spade is more expensive than the Rocna, then Rocna comes out ahead in this comparison.
 
Re: Unfair to Craig?

Sorry gents, badly worded maybe.
It was meant to be more a 'bang for your bucks' sort of thing. As much as some may not like it the Rocna and the Supreme should be closer in value than they are in my opinion hence the Rocna loses a bit here.

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't consider the supreme because I hate funding people that copy

[/ QUOTE ]

/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif interesting statement based on ?????

Also the whole thing was quite 'general' and not too use specific i.e not targeted as cruisers only for example.
 
Re: Unfair to Craig?

What do you think you get with a Spade that you dont get with a Rocna, (apart from the Spade splitting into 2 pieces, which means nothing to anyone who has their bower on the bow full time).

That's not meant to be arsey - I'm genuinely interested as I'm going to buy one or the other... in fact, I guess if I walked into achandlers and they had a Manson, I might like the idea of being able to buy there and then.
 
Re: Unfair to Craig?

As a primary, not that much difference at all really. The Spade is usually a lot easier to fit and looks a lot better (to my eyes anyway). More people will ask you what it is if you have a Spade, strange but true, we see it often.

Not as the primary, the Spade does store better, if alloy is a lot easier to handle if you need to chuck it in the ding and a few small things like that.

It's pretty much a 33/33/33 call between them. The other 1% was taxed by your local government for no apparent reason.

I have 2 Spades (A60 and a size down from recommended) fitted 3 reasons only.
1 - they are alloy so light. I've had over 1000kg on them while testing so more than happy they will hold and be structurally sound. My secondary system is 25kg total and bagged so I can deploy it inside 30 seconds form anywhere on my boat. Primary stays up the pointy end even when racing. Maybe a bit of light = lazy here.
2- fitting, the primary fits into my locker. The others don't.
3 - they look sexy. A sad statement I know but I have been known to change ropes just because I don't like the colour.

I have actually used all 3 for long periods in the interest of product knowledge. I have 10 or so differing sorts spots I do things at, while away for Xmas, weekends and so on. Interesting to see what happens when you have the same boat, rodes and user.

I don't know of anyone who is unhappy with their Spade, Rocna or Supreme. That does exclude the idiots who really don't know how to anchor, in the trade the technical term is 'dumbarses'.

If I had to pay for anyone but money was no object - Spade 1st, Rocna and then Supreme. Based on the goodness we see, are told by our punters and by asking people all the time. You can learn a lot by being nosey, we do and are /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Unfair to Craig?

Well I ordered the Spade in the end.

Basically it came to one of the points that GMac mentioned. Although the Rocna does fit in my anchor, it takes a lot of shuffling around to get it in, which I really can't see me doing when the chain is attached. It's the roll bar that makes it difficult. The Spade just drops straight in! Also after looking at the Rocna it has a lot more sharp edges to it, which would make a mess of the anchor locker when it is bouncing around in rough weather.

Not only that, I bit the bullet I went for the larger size, the S80, on the basis I will sleep well and it's ease of storing meaning I will put it in the locker rather than leave it on the bowsprit. I also calculated that I need about 3 metres less chain to make up the difference in weight, so 22 metres of 8mm chain spliced to octoplait rather than 25.

Service from both anchor suppliers was great and neither knocked the other, although they both knocked old school anchors /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Unfair to Craig?

[ QUOTE ]
The differences - Spade (steel), Rocna, Supreme

Setting = equal

[/ QUOTE ]Rubbish.

[ QUOTE ]
Performance in weed = Heard very good things about Spade and Supreme. Not much about the Rocna yet but early indicators look good for that as well.

[/ QUOTE ]Nonsense, you know very well about examples like this and cases like the guy in one of the links below who tested his Rocna in thick dry grass /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Fitting to boat = Spade usually is a lot easier due to rollbar on the other 2.

[/ QUOTE ]It also doesn't fit as well as a Rocna when the roll-bar isn't an issue. It doesn't lock home as well on bow-rollers.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimate Holding power (general average) = Spade/Rocna followed (by not very much) by Supreme but all are up a lot over most other designs and in an area most will never find out.

[/ QUOTE ]I should say the differences are rather more widely spread, as independent testing confirms - although all are above a high bar, it's true.

[ QUOTE ]
Performance to $$ ratio (general boater) = Supreme then Spade. Rocna slips a bit here but the larger numbers made of the Supreme does help to keep costs lower. Spade is above Rocna due to the work involved in making one so it starts from a higher value base.

[/ QUOTE ]Value? Is that what you get divided by the pounds spent?

I think the boat owner is instead interested in the best value proposition.

Not that there's much wrong with the Spade but the Rocna consistently out-performs it by at least a little, just as it's designed to, and is less costly. I refuse to advise against the Spade because it doesn't have the roll-bar (a problem with fitting on some boats) and the demountable shank may be desirable.

The Supreme is a copy of the Rocna and, as with all knock-offs, the cost must be lower. I would argue the return-per-£ ratio is worse - a false economy - but even if MacDuff is correct and in the best case it's close to equal, this "value" as defined by return on investment is a little misleading. Following this logic a £1 anchor at the same ratio might represent an attractive option. But do you want an anchor giving you a quid's worth of value? Maybe if you're anchoring your rubber duck - but your yacht? What's it worth to you?

Don't you want to squeeze as much "value" in there, for a given size, that you can?

Given that all feedback to date greatly favors the Rocna and largely agrees with the above, I am challenged to see the reasoning behind GMac's comments.

This page outlines what I consider the compromises made by Manson. But, independent stuff is hardly less harsh. For instance, last year's WM / SAIL / Yachting Monthly testing concluded about the two:

Manson: "In six pulls never held less than 2,300lb, and held over 5,000lb three times. Seemed to engage the bottom immediately."

Rocna: "Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately."

Even SAIL, otherwise mirroring WM's (at the time) pro-Manson attitude, admitted that "subtle differences might explain the Rocna's slightly better test results."

Hey even Spade admitted it: "Very similar to the ROCNA but with the superficial inclusion of a slot for tripping the anchor in rock. The advantages of this are questionable as it could be argued that it weakens the shank. This is virtually a copy of the ROCNA although some tests have shown it not to perform as well."

Maybe these sorts of differences just don't matter. But what about when they're seen in feedback from the average sailor?

<ul type="square">[*]www.sailnet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=152146&postcount=2 (that one's good cos the Spade's in there too - this guy has an obsession with finding the best anchor)
[*]www.sailnet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=142946#post142946
[*]archives.sailboatowners.com/pviewarch.htm?fno=122&sku=2007260070954.20&id=494373&ptl=#2007264035327.77
[*]archives.sailboatowners.com/pviewarch.htm?fno=122&sku=2007189171053.34&id=484077&ptl=#2007190100101.17 (another weed report there)[/list]Etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top