SlowlyButSurely
Well-Known Member
But what about Hylas's tests which mathematically prove that the Spade is the best anchor since erm the last best anchor?
The Kiwi Rocna Anchor - odd choice for an odd bloke?
- Thread starter jonjo
- Start date
duncan
Well-Known Member
don't think he's been suggesting quite that recently; he points people in the direction of very large tests that do, admittedly, suggest that it's pretty damn good on the holding power/kg setting and handles various grounds well but in each category one of the others pips it - just not the same one!
If I needed one good cruising anchor I wouldn't hesitate to get an aluminum spade if my bank balance ran to it!
As it is I am going to test a 10kg Delta against my existing 10kg Bruce over the summer to see if there is any discernable difference in general use.
If I needed one good cruising anchor I wouldn't hesitate to get an aluminum spade if my bank balance ran to it!
As it is I am going to test a 10kg Delta against my existing 10kg Bruce over the summer to see if there is any discernable difference in general use.
craigsmith
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Quite an interesting video and at first sight convincing. Strange however that the competitors they demonstrated were all pretty old technology. No sign of Delta, Spade or Fortress. I think that may say something about the credibility of the sames pitch.
[/ QUOTE ]
Snowleopard, we do not show anchors that are instantly recognizable as a particular brand for reasons that should be obvious. The anchors we do show are generic types. We name the Spade in our testing graphs as we do not think M Hylas can complain too much about the result.
At the end of the day, the primary purpose of the video is to show a demonstration of the Rocna's setting ability, and explain some of the philosophy behind its design. Its secondary purpose is to draw attention to the flaws of the "old technology" anchors, as you put it. We do not claim it to be a comprehensive comparison test, as such a test from an anchor manufacturer would clearly be greeted with understandable skepticism. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[ QUOTE ]
It looks as though the Rocna is a very similar configuration to the Spade though the roll bar makes it look more like the Bugel I wonder if it has the same problem as the Spade in soft mud, i.e. digging out a conical lump of mud that effectively makes it plough-shaped!
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't - although I would question that this is really an issue with the Spade.
[ QUOTE ]
yep had seen that test result before - amazed me they were so proud that their winner, at 53lbs, managed to do better at setting and holding than the others, including 17lb steel ones!
[/ QUOTE ]
Duncan, are you talking about our testing? If so you are confused. The Rocna tested is a 10Kg (22lb) model. If you are talking about the Creative Marine testing, my apologies.
[ QUOTE ]
I am in NZ and have never seen one fitted to a keel boat - in fact I have only seen them for sale in small boat retail outlets (open to small decked MoBo's) - but no doubt there are some on large sailboats, but they certainly are not common.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ships_Cat, I think you are also confused - we do not have many small boat retail outlets selling Rocna anchors at all; in fact our product is present in very few retail shops as we mostly sell direct. I think you are confusing us with the Australian SARCA, which is quite popular with small boat users. Such confusion should be considered a mortal sin! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif The Rocna is nothing like a SARCA - the roll-bar is not the only distinguishing feature.
In fact 90% of our customers so far are cruisers with medium to large sized yachts. This is the market we target.
[ QUOTE ]
In general I warmed to the whole Rocna presentation, exemplary online promotion of a small single product business. The anchor looks right to me, at distance in profile there is a hint of a Delta but closer up the fluke angles indicate Spade scoop principals are used. Having seen the Bruce and CQR slide along on their sides, I am sold on the stabilizer hoop.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for your comments Jonjo. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Happy to help anyone with queries.
Quite an interesting video and at first sight convincing. Strange however that the competitors they demonstrated were all pretty old technology. No sign of Delta, Spade or Fortress. I think that may say something about the credibility of the sames pitch.
[/ QUOTE ]
Snowleopard, we do not show anchors that are instantly recognizable as a particular brand for reasons that should be obvious. The anchors we do show are generic types. We name the Spade in our testing graphs as we do not think M Hylas can complain too much about the result.
At the end of the day, the primary purpose of the video is to show a demonstration of the Rocna's setting ability, and explain some of the philosophy behind its design. Its secondary purpose is to draw attention to the flaws of the "old technology" anchors, as you put it. We do not claim it to be a comprehensive comparison test, as such a test from an anchor manufacturer would clearly be greeted with understandable skepticism. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[ QUOTE ]
It looks as though the Rocna is a very similar configuration to the Spade though the roll bar makes it look more like the Bugel I wonder if it has the same problem as the Spade in soft mud, i.e. digging out a conical lump of mud that effectively makes it plough-shaped!
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't - although I would question that this is really an issue with the Spade.
[ QUOTE ]
yep had seen that test result before - amazed me they were so proud that their winner, at 53lbs, managed to do better at setting and holding than the others, including 17lb steel ones!
[/ QUOTE ]
Duncan, are you talking about our testing? If so you are confused. The Rocna tested is a 10Kg (22lb) model. If you are talking about the Creative Marine testing, my apologies.
[ QUOTE ]
I am in NZ and have never seen one fitted to a keel boat - in fact I have only seen them for sale in small boat retail outlets (open to small decked MoBo's) - but no doubt there are some on large sailboats, but they certainly are not common.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ships_Cat, I think you are also confused - we do not have many small boat retail outlets selling Rocna anchors at all; in fact our product is present in very few retail shops as we mostly sell direct. I think you are confusing us with the Australian SARCA, which is quite popular with small boat users. Such confusion should be considered a mortal sin! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif The Rocna is nothing like a SARCA - the roll-bar is not the only distinguishing feature.
In fact 90% of our customers so far are cruisers with medium to large sized yachts. This is the market we target.
[ QUOTE ]
In general I warmed to the whole Rocna presentation, exemplary online promotion of a small single product business. The anchor looks right to me, at distance in profile there is a hint of a Delta but closer up the fluke angles indicate Spade scoop principals are used. Having seen the Bruce and CQR slide along on their sides, I am sold on the stabilizer hoop.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for your comments Jonjo. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Happy to help anyone with queries.
BrendanS
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The Rocna is nothing like a SARCA - the roll-bar is not the only distinguishing feature.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please elucidate for us mere mortals who merely see similarities between many of the more modern anchors
The Rocna is nothing like a SARCA - the roll-bar is not the only distinguishing feature.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please elucidate for us mere mortals who merely see similarities between many of the more modern anchors
craigsmith
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Please elucidate for us mere mortals who merely see similarities between many of the more modern anchors
[/ QUOTE ]
Pictures tell a thousand words.
URLs for pictures (sorry this forum's [image] tags don't seem to work):
Picture of a SARCA (click here)
Picture of a Rocna (click here)
Apples and oranges. The roll-bar is about the only similar characteristic.
<ul type="square">[*]SARCA's blade is convex (i.e. it is a plow)
[*]Shank is totally different, as is the angle between the rode attachment point and the center of resistance on the fluke
[*]The Rocna does not have the full-length slotted shank (read more about why not on our website if you care)
[*]Rocna has what we call "skids" on the side of the blade to guide it into the substrate during setting
[*]The roll-bar and subsequent behavior on the seafloor is different. The SARCA is designed to set from an 'upright' position, i.e. resting on its fluke. The Rocna is designed to set lying on its side. We would comment that the 'thinner' roll-bar is less effective, since it could easily penetrate soft mud and simply not work (that's what the triangular piece of plate at the top of the SARCA is for) - but anchors do not usually land upside down anyway. [/list]There are other differences of course, such as construction materials and methods, but those are the key ones.
Please elucidate for us mere mortals who merely see similarities between many of the more modern anchors
[/ QUOTE ]
Pictures tell a thousand words.
URLs for pictures (sorry this forum's [image] tags don't seem to work):
Picture of a SARCA (click here)
Picture of a Rocna (click here)
Apples and oranges. The roll-bar is about the only similar characteristic.
<ul type="square">[*]SARCA's blade is convex (i.e. it is a plow)
[*]Shank is totally different, as is the angle between the rode attachment point and the center of resistance on the fluke
[*]The Rocna does not have the full-length slotted shank (read more about why not on our website if you care)
[*]Rocna has what we call "skids" on the side of the blade to guide it into the substrate during setting
[*]The roll-bar and subsequent behavior on the seafloor is different. The SARCA is designed to set from an 'upright' position, i.e. resting on its fluke. The Rocna is designed to set lying on its side. We would comment that the 'thinner' roll-bar is less effective, since it could easily penetrate soft mud and simply not work (that's what the triangular piece of plate at the top of the SARCA is for) - but anchors do not usually land upside down anyway. [/list]There are other differences of course, such as construction materials and methods, but those are the key ones.
BrendanS
Well-Known Member
To my admittedly uneducated eye, I can't see much difference. Why are these subtle differences so important?
hlb
RIP
Because he's selling one of them of course. Mind they both look a bit duff to me!!
craigsmith
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Because he's selling one of them of course. Mind they both look a bit diff to me!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
I suppose they are similar in the same way a CQR is similar to a Bruce. They both have shanks and flukes, are both made out of metal, and both try to do the same job.
Because he's selling one of them of course. Mind they both look a bit diff to me!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
I suppose they are similar in the same way a CQR is similar to a Bruce. They both have shanks and flukes, are both made out of metal, and both try to do the same job.
BrendanS
Well-Known Member
You are being given an opportunity to sell your anchor and explain the differences, and why yours is better. I'd get selling quickly, and do a good job of it, which you haven't so far. All you've done is point out features.
Good selling involves understanding of benefits as applied to the customers buying, and while you think you might have addressed a few of these issues, we are a sceptical lot here, and will question you statements, and you don't really seem to have a unique selling point that can be verified without question.
The real issue here, is why do you think your anchor is better, and how can you prove it beyond the scepticism of us doubters who would like to be convinced. If you really do have a better product, then prove it, and you'll have hordes of people here sponsoring it, and telling everyone here how wonderful it is.
Good selling involves understanding of benefits as applied to the customers buying, and while you think you might have addressed a few of these issues, we are a sceptical lot here, and will question you statements, and you don't really seem to have a unique selling point that can be verified without question.
The real issue here, is why do you think your anchor is better, and how can you prove it beyond the scepticism of us doubters who would like to be convinced. If you really do have a better product, then prove it, and you'll have hordes of people here sponsoring it, and telling everyone here how wonderful it is.
Ships_Cat
Well-Known Member
Ships_Cat, I think you are also confused - we do not have many small boat retail outlets selling Rocna anchors at all
Sorry, I do not think that I am confused at all - I said ...in fact I have only seen them for sale in small boat retail outlets (open to small decked MoBo's)....
I do believe that I have seen them on small MoBo's that are for sale from such outlets. I do not recall whether the boats were new or second hand and I am obviously not going to spend my time surveying such boat retailers to now prove a point.
So perhaps you could prove your point by claiming that your anchors are never fitted to any boat, new or second hand, that may be for sale in NZ from a boat retail outlet?
John
Sorry, I do not think that I am confused at all - I said ...in fact I have only seen them for sale in small boat retail outlets (open to small decked MoBo's)....
I do believe that I have seen them on small MoBo's that are for sale from such outlets. I do not recall whether the boats were new or second hand and I am obviously not going to spend my time surveying such boat retailers to now prove a point.
So perhaps you could prove your point by claiming that your anchors are never fitted to any boat, new or second hand, that may be for sale in NZ from a boat retail outlet?
John
hylass
Well-Known Member
[After much internet anchor research I have decided the Rocna anchor is right for me. Do any of our resident antipodean correspondents have an opinion on this Kiwi designed anchor?
]http://www.rocna.com/home.php?region=global]
First question, who is this “New” sailor?? On several (I mean, quite a lot..) nautical forums, there is quite a lot of “new” participants asking the same question, with the same reference to the same Web page??
(see for example www.ssca.org – SSCA Discussion Board - “Best anchor” thread )
[Quite an interesting video and at first sight convincing. Strange however that the competitors they demonstrated were all pretty old technology. No sign of Delta, Spade or Fortress. I think that may say something about the credibility of the sames pitch.
I wait with interest for the response from M. Hylas,]
Thanks Snowleopard,
As pointed out in several other forums, and as you also point-out, no comparison with all others “new technology” anchors?
Also a typical comment came quite often on other forums, just one example:
“I also noticed the Rocna was tested in muddy/wet sand whereas all others were tested on drier, hard packed sand. If you believe their test results, no other anchors ever set and hold. Obviously false.
Rick Davis
Triall T31, #20
On the video (if they didn’t change it) People testing competition anchors are wearing tennis shoes and boots to test the Rocna??..
- As you can imagine, we already have tested such a design several years ago.. should I explain (again) why we didn’t choose to use it on our own anchors??
This design is not new !.. already patented by Peter BRUCE more than 30 years ago, and popularized by the German “Bügel” anchor.. (Bügel in German means “roll bar”).
In addition to the “Bügel”, the new comers in the market are
- The Sarca anchor
- The Manson “Supreme”
- The NZ “Rocna”
An soon some others!.. who find more easy to copy existing products than spending time and money to design new improved designs..
BUT? did you ask yourself, the reason of this CUMBERSOME APPENDAGE??
- One clear explanation is found in one of the web page of one of these manufacturers:
“The roll-bar serves one main purpose: it ensures the anchor will adopt the correct setting attitude,
as well as ensuring that the anchor will always achieve the correct orientation, the roll-bar means that the toe does not need to be weighted with extra lead or cast iron.”
But the main reason is not clearly explained:
- all these “new” anchors are “BADLY BALANCED” which means that, as there is not enough weight on the anchor tip (or toe) (which is not weighted) and much too much weight on the back portion of the blade, they absolutely need a “roll bar” to adopt the correct setting attitude..
On the opposite of the previous statement, the anchor tip NEED to be weighted, as weight on the tip is one of the two criteria to ensure a good penetration. (the second one is the right penetrating angle)
As there is not enough weight on the tip (about only 16% of the total anchor weight) and too much weight on the back part of the blade (or fluke), the only way to achieve the correct orientation is to use a “roll bar”.. but, if this appendage will solve this question, it also add some more weight, again at the worse place, at the back part of the blade.. and not on the toe of the anchor!.. (where it should be!)
VIDEO - It is very easy to make any video showing what you want to show.. I know several places where the sand is hard packed.. like concrete.. on this very specific bottom, all, I say ALL anchors, without any exception, are sliding without any penetration.. in this very specific ground, the Oceane (the most similar to the Rocna) doesn’t penetrate either.. and the Spade penetrate (and hold) in less than 50 cm.. This is so impressive, that we decide to not showing it, as nobody will believe it “ON A VIDEO”.. Now, if you make the same video on “normal” sand, the setting difference is much less obvious..
An anchor tests has just been released by the French magazine “ Moteur Boat Magazine” (July issue) testing new exciting designs: the W8 – the YATIWA (made in Titanium) and the SARCA (another kiwi design!) .. Funny, but none of them did set.. and then no holding at all!.. :0)
The comments of the journalist about the Kiwi SARCA are (Translated from French):
SARCA 4 kg
A slotted shank
The Sarca is an anchor with a slotted shank. We had tested this concept on a model called “Arbalète” sold by “le Pècheur d’Antioche”. This system is designed to retrieve the anchor if it would be wedged, in the opposite direction of the pulling direction. Moreover, the Sarca feature a ROLL BAR which allows, as a principle, to position itself in the right position. In fact, the mechanical complexity make that the chain has all chances to wedge itself into the anchor and to impede the holding, this is what happens to us.
To test this model, we have used 10 meters of 8 mm chain and 30 meters of leaded rope. Results: no holding.
A lot of research and of complexity in the architecture of this anchor for poor results
Our Valuation:
(Plus) could be useful, at a pinch, to fishermen who anchor in rocks, the slotted shank should allow at a pinch to disengage the anchor.
(Minus)
- a too complex technique which has all possibility to wedge the chain.
- the price
Our advice * (one star = bad)
During the mooring, the chain has slid on the shank. As a result, the anchor has position itself on the ground at the vertical (A) no holding under traction (B) One can clearly see on the left photo, the slot in the shank.
My own conclusion is: After much anchor research, I have decided neither an anchor with a roll bar nor a slotted shank is right for me. :0)
Alain
]http://www.rocna.com/home.php?region=global]
First question, who is this “New” sailor?? On several (I mean, quite a lot..) nautical forums, there is quite a lot of “new” participants asking the same question, with the same reference to the same Web page??
(see for example www.ssca.org – SSCA Discussion Board - “Best anchor” thread )
[Quite an interesting video and at first sight convincing. Strange however that the competitors they demonstrated were all pretty old technology. No sign of Delta, Spade or Fortress. I think that may say something about the credibility of the sames pitch.
I wait with interest for the response from M. Hylas,]
Thanks Snowleopard,
As pointed out in several other forums, and as you also point-out, no comparison with all others “new technology” anchors?
Also a typical comment came quite often on other forums, just one example:
“I also noticed the Rocna was tested in muddy/wet sand whereas all others were tested on drier, hard packed sand. If you believe their test results, no other anchors ever set and hold. Obviously false.
Rick Davis
Triall T31, #20
On the video (if they didn’t change it) People testing competition anchors are wearing tennis shoes and boots to test the Rocna??..
- As you can imagine, we already have tested such a design several years ago.. should I explain (again) why we didn’t choose to use it on our own anchors??
This design is not new !.. already patented by Peter BRUCE more than 30 years ago, and popularized by the German “Bügel” anchor.. (Bügel in German means “roll bar”).
In addition to the “Bügel”, the new comers in the market are
- The Sarca anchor
- The Manson “Supreme”
- The NZ “Rocna”
An soon some others!.. who find more easy to copy existing products than spending time and money to design new improved designs..
BUT? did you ask yourself, the reason of this CUMBERSOME APPENDAGE??
- One clear explanation is found in one of the web page of one of these manufacturers:
“The roll-bar serves one main purpose: it ensures the anchor will adopt the correct setting attitude,
as well as ensuring that the anchor will always achieve the correct orientation, the roll-bar means that the toe does not need to be weighted with extra lead or cast iron.”
But the main reason is not clearly explained:
- all these “new” anchors are “BADLY BALANCED” which means that, as there is not enough weight on the anchor tip (or toe) (which is not weighted) and much too much weight on the back portion of the blade, they absolutely need a “roll bar” to adopt the correct setting attitude..
On the opposite of the previous statement, the anchor tip NEED to be weighted, as weight on the tip is one of the two criteria to ensure a good penetration. (the second one is the right penetrating angle)
As there is not enough weight on the tip (about only 16% of the total anchor weight) and too much weight on the back part of the blade (or fluke), the only way to achieve the correct orientation is to use a “roll bar”.. but, if this appendage will solve this question, it also add some more weight, again at the worse place, at the back part of the blade.. and not on the toe of the anchor!.. (where it should be!)
VIDEO - It is very easy to make any video showing what you want to show.. I know several places where the sand is hard packed.. like concrete.. on this very specific bottom, all, I say ALL anchors, without any exception, are sliding without any penetration.. in this very specific ground, the Oceane (the most similar to the Rocna) doesn’t penetrate either.. and the Spade penetrate (and hold) in less than 50 cm.. This is so impressive, that we decide to not showing it, as nobody will believe it “ON A VIDEO”.. Now, if you make the same video on “normal” sand, the setting difference is much less obvious..
An anchor tests has just been released by the French magazine “ Moteur Boat Magazine” (July issue) testing new exciting designs: the W8 – the YATIWA (made in Titanium) and the SARCA (another kiwi design!) .. Funny, but none of them did set.. and then no holding at all!.. :0)
The comments of the journalist about the Kiwi SARCA are (Translated from French):
SARCA 4 kg
A slotted shank
The Sarca is an anchor with a slotted shank. We had tested this concept on a model called “Arbalète” sold by “le Pècheur d’Antioche”. This system is designed to retrieve the anchor if it would be wedged, in the opposite direction of the pulling direction. Moreover, the Sarca feature a ROLL BAR which allows, as a principle, to position itself in the right position. In fact, the mechanical complexity make that the chain has all chances to wedge itself into the anchor and to impede the holding, this is what happens to us.
To test this model, we have used 10 meters of 8 mm chain and 30 meters of leaded rope. Results: no holding.
A lot of research and of complexity in the architecture of this anchor for poor results
Our Valuation:
(Plus) could be useful, at a pinch, to fishermen who anchor in rocks, the slotted shank should allow at a pinch to disengage the anchor.
(Minus)
- a too complex technique which has all possibility to wedge the chain.
- the price
Our advice * (one star = bad)
During the mooring, the chain has slid on the shank. As a result, the anchor has position itself on the ground at the vertical (A) no holding under traction (B) One can clearly see on the left photo, the slot in the shank.
My own conclusion is: After much anchor research, I have decided neither an anchor with a roll bar nor a slotted shank is right for me. :0)
Alain
[ QUOTE ]
First question, who is this “New” sailor?? On several (I mean, quite a lot..) nautical forums, there is quite a lot of “new” participants asking the same question
[/ QUOTE ]
Who's new? I have been posting here for 2 years and have never posted an anchor question on another marine forum.
I think it is unreasonable for you to knock the Rocna design by quoting a test of another anchor design particularly one based on a 4kg field test. The Rocna does not feature a slotted shank which is a major criticism in the French magazine review. The Sarca is an over designed mess to my eye, whereas the Ronca exhibits clarity of thinking as do other respected anchor designs like yours.
You criticize the roll bar but at the end of the day it is just an alternative approach to persuading the anchor to orientate and dig in. If time to set and ultimate holding power are similar or better to a Spade why do you consider a rollbar design inferior by definition?
The question with the online presentation of the Rocna is were the test conditions equitable. I and others have noticed that the Rocna benefited from wetter sand on camera but I put this down partly to the major struggle extracting the set Rocna anchor. Maybe the video undermines the Rocna case.
First question, who is this “New” sailor?? On several (I mean, quite a lot..) nautical forums, there is quite a lot of “new” participants asking the same question
[/ QUOTE ]
Who's new? I have been posting here for 2 years and have never posted an anchor question on another marine forum.
I think it is unreasonable for you to knock the Rocna design by quoting a test of another anchor design particularly one based on a 4kg field test. The Rocna does not feature a slotted shank which is a major criticism in the French magazine review. The Sarca is an over designed mess to my eye, whereas the Ronca exhibits clarity of thinking as do other respected anchor designs like yours.
You criticize the roll bar but at the end of the day it is just an alternative approach to persuading the anchor to orientate and dig in. If time to set and ultimate holding power are similar or better to a Spade why do you consider a rollbar design inferior by definition?
The question with the online presentation of the Rocna is were the test conditions equitable. I and others have noticed that the Rocna benefited from wetter sand on camera but I put this down partly to the major struggle extracting the set Rocna anchor. Maybe the video undermines the Rocna case.
Ships_Cat
Well-Known Member
...and the SARCA (another kiwi design!)
Is actually an Australian anchor built by Anchor Right Australia.
John
Is actually an Australian anchor built by Anchor Right Australia.
John
hylass
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
But what about Hylas's tests which mathematically prove that the Spade is the best anchor since erm the last best anchor?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hi SlowlyButSurely..
I’m very surprised to read such comments.. As I NEVER publish any tests done by SPADE company.. Yes, we have them, but for purely Ethic reasons (unlike some others..) I don’t think it is a good practice to publish them..
Now, about independent tests performed by Sailing magazines.. if they prove that the Spade anchor is the Best!.. how can I be held responsible ?? (except for designing the anchor.. :0) )
If you don’t agree with their comments, don’t held me responsible..
But what about Hylas's tests which mathematically prove that the Spade is the best anchor since erm the last best anchor?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hi SlowlyButSurely..
I’m very surprised to read such comments.. As I NEVER publish any tests done by SPADE company.. Yes, we have them, but for purely Ethic reasons (unlike some others..) I don’t think it is a good practice to publish them..
Now, about independent tests performed by Sailing magazines.. if they prove that the Spade anchor is the Best!.. how can I be held responsible ?? (except for designing the anchor.. :0) )
If you don’t agree with their comments, don’t held me responsible..
silver-fox
Well-Known Member
I am really curious to know what you think of the Rocna anchor a few years on. Was it an odd choice .... or a stroke of genius?
[ QUOTE ]
I am really curious to know what you think of the Rocna anchor a few years on. Was it an odd choice .... or a stroke of genius?
[/ QUOTE ]
It is too early say as I only took delivery of my Rocna last month.
I suggest you search the forums back about 3 months as another forum member posted a +ve report about his initial experiences of the design.
I am really curious to know what you think of the Rocna anchor a few years on. Was it an odd choice .... or a stroke of genius?
[/ QUOTE ]
It is too early say as I only took delivery of my Rocna last month.
I suggest you search the forums back about 3 months as another forum member posted a +ve report about his initial experiences of the design.
silver-fox
Well-Known Member
Sorry jonjo - had a senior moment and looked at the date you registered NOT the date you posted - hence thinking you had a few years experience with your new anchor.
Do let me know how you get on when you feel you have clocked up enough anchor hours with your new Rocna
Do let me know how you get on when you feel you have clocked up enough anchor hours with your new Rocna
craigsmith
Well-Known Member
Try this perhaps: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ym&Number=1080646