Which resetting anchor should I go for ??

BigJoe

BigJoe

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Mar 2009
Messages
541
Location
South, Costa Blanca, Spain
Visit site
Having just discovered my anchor getting fouled in its own chain, I am going to bite the bullet and purchase a new generation self/resetting type.

Just wondering if anyone has purchased a Rocna, since the bad publicity?.

Also eager to hear if anyone has any experience with the Manson Supreme ?.

Sorry if I am starting another anchor thread BUT, I would appreciate any comments.

Thanks........
 
Yes, I wondered if it was a Danforth. They are good anchors if the pull on them is pretty much in the one direction, but as you have discovered, not so good in wind changes etc. I carry a Danforth, (actually just changed to a Fortress, but the same idea) as a second anchor. At present my boat is lying to a Bruce, and a Fortress, arranged in a Bahamian Moor, which means that the direction of pull on the anchors varies very little.
For general purpose, single anchor anchoring, you would be better with one of the more modern anchors, which interestingly don't have any moving parts to trap fingers. There is no way that you will drag out of me a particular recommendation among the many competing modern anchors. Let's just say that those who shout the loudest, don't always have the best case.:)
 
We changed from 15kg CQR lookalike which regularly dragged to 20kg Manson Supreme which hasn't let us down so far. Sets first time and no problems resetting when tide turns. Use Fortress as kedge.
 
BigJoe said:
Having just discovered my anchor getting fouled in its own chain, I am going to bite the bullet and purchase a new generation self/resetting type.

Just wondering if anyone has purchased a Rocna, since the bad publicity?.

Also eager to hear if anyone has any experience with the Manson Supreme ?.

Sorry if I am starting another anchor thread BUT, I would appreciate any comments.

Thanks........
Click to expand...

You will find supporters for just about all of the "modern" anchors. Any of them will be better than what you have at the moment for a general purpose bower anchor. Budget conscious people tend to buy Delta or Kobra. Those with bigger budgets buy more expensive anchors, often of the roll bar type. What you buy may well be determined by which will fit your bow roller if you stow it there.
 
A very informal survey shows me the following, in Greece :-

The vast majority of charter yachts seem to be equipped with Deltas. Many private boats also use them.
Perhaps the next most popular anchor in this highly multi-cultural marina is the Bugel.
Roll bar types, Rocna and Manson, are seen more now than a few years ago.
Spade seen on many French boats, also have seen a couple with Brake.
Still a sprinkling of CQRs and fewer Bruce (genuine)
 
Manson Supreme, brilliant anywhere other than Palma Nova (Mallorca) where dragging is compulsory :)

Please feel free to laugh at me, asked Boss to explain "self re-setting" as had imagined anchor with its own sensor and mechanics to move....oh dear!!
 
Tranona said:
....What you buy may well be determined by which will fit your bow roller if you stow it there.
Click to expand...

+1

Some makers provide a template that can be drawn or printed to get some idea of the fit. I bought a Spade mostly because my roller is deep set in the bow so those anchors with roll bars dont stow properly. Also the angles between stock and blade are different with the new generations (I replaced a CQR) so the way the stock sits inboard of the roller may be a factor.
 
We dragged our fake CQR anchor round a lot of the Med before we changed to a Manson. When I sold it I was asked if we had anchored often with it. I told the thousands of times, I failed to mention mainly in the same place!

Manson has been great everywhere apart from Palma nova this year when it badly dragged in a gale at four in the morning, but I think that was just bad holding and judging by the small rainforest on it when we finally recovered it was not really its fault
 
One of the main morals would appear to be, "Don't use fakes".
The reputations of many good, reliable anchors have been dragged through the mud by makers of cheap fakes, often blunt where they should be sharp, and often using dubious materials. Mind you, some well known makers have used dubious materials also.
 
Ours dated back to when the yacht was in charter and clearly the original anchor had been lost and the company operating it met pedro in a bar who took a picture of one and gave it to Stavros who got his mate sancho to knock one up in his garage from recycled angle iron!
 
NormanS said:
One of the main morals would appear to be, "Don't use fakes".
The reputations of many good, reliable anchors have been dragged through the mud by makers of cheap fakes, often blunt where they should be sharp, and often using dubious materials. Mind you, some well known makers have used dubious materials also.
Click to expand...


If you are referring to Rocna, I don't think Rocna used dubious material, merely a lower quality than specified. I don't think anyone with the lower quality Rocna has actually had a problem caused by the lower quality. I think there is a picture of 1 new gen anchor with a bent point, but IIRC it was a Manson. Even if a Rocna, 1 pic proves nothing.

I think if Rocna had marketed what they actually used, there wouldn't have been an issue.

If you don't mean Rocna, it would be interesting to know who you mean?
 
Richard10002 said:
If you are referring to Rocna, I don't think Rocna used dubious material, merely a lower quality than specified. I don't think anyone with the lower quality Rocna has actually had a problem caused by the lower quality. I think there is a picture of 1 new gen anchor with a bent point, but IIRC it was a Manson. Even if a Rocna, 1 pic proves nothing.

I think if Rocna had marketed what they actually used, there wouldn't have been an issue.

If you don't mean Rocna, it would be interesting to know who you mean?
Click to expand...

Regarding Rocna, as probably everyone knows by this time, Rocna management boasted that their design was so high tech that it needed to use a fancy, and expensive type of steel. They then proceeded to use steel of a lower, and cheaper, spec. Don't you think that is dubious?

Either the design needs the fancy steel, in which case the use of a lower spec is dishonest and dangerous, or the design doesn't need the fancy steel, in which case the original claim was dishonest. But really we've all heard plenty about them, which is one of the reasons why I didn't name any particular anchor.
 
Richard10002 said:
If you are referring to Rocna, I don't think Rocna used dubious material, merely a lower quality than specified. I don't think anyone with the lower quality Rocna has actually had a problem caused by the lower quality. I think there is a picture of 1 new gen anchor with a bent point, but IIRC it was a Manson. Even if a Rocna, 1 pic proves nothing.

I think if Rocna had marketed what they actually used, there wouldn't have been an issue.

If you don't mean Rocna, it would be interesting to know who you mean?
Click to expand...

you obviously missed out on the posts on the fraudulent Rocna anchors.

Pray, why if a designer specified a very high tensile steel (which Manson also specified) why do you think it is not necessary and its quite ok for them to be made out of cheap bendy steel?

As for the Manson one - that was dug out as part of Rocna's fraud cover up - probably bent when caught under a rock - to divert attention in their slanging match against Manson.

I have had a Manson for 7 years - its been heavily used and has been caught in rocks and forced out - it did not bend.
 
NormanS said:
Regarding Rocna, as probably everyone knows by this time, Rocna management boasted that their design was so high tech that it needed to use a fancy, and expensive type of steel. They then proceeded to use steel of a lower, and cheaper, spec. Don't you think that is dubious?

Either the design needs the fancy steel, in which case the use of a lower spec is dishonest and dangerous, or the design doesn't need the fancy steel, in which case the original claim was dishonest. But really we've all heard plenty about them, which is one of the reasons why I didn't name any particular anchor.
Click to expand...

Without doubt the claims were dubious, and it was stupid and wrong of the them to do what they did, and it was equally stupid of them to behave the way they di when the truth was out.

What I am saying is that, with hindsight, the material doesn't seem to have been dubious. I have not heard of anyone with a Rocna anchor having had an actual problem.
 
Chris_Robb said:
you obviously missed out on the posts on the fraudulent Rocna anchors.

Pray, why if a designer specified a very high tensile steel (which Manson also specified) why do you think it is not necessary and its quite ok for them to be made out of cheap bendy steel?

As for the Manson one - that was dug out as part of Rocna's fraud cover up - probably bent when caught under a rock - to divert attention in their slanging match against Manson.

I have had a Manson for 7 years - its been heavily used and has been caught in rocks and forced out - it did not bend.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss any of the posts, although I certainly didn't read all of them.

I wasn't defending what Rocna did. I merely suggested that they could have specified the lower quality material in the first place, and all would have been fine. With hindsight, it seems that it wasn't particularly the material that was dubious, more their marketing, their claims, and their cover up.
 
Richard10002 said:
I didn't miss any of the posts, although I certainly didn't read all of them.

I wasn't defending what Rocna did. I merely suggested that they could have specified the lower quality material in the first place, and all would have been fine. With hindsight, it seems that it wasn't particularly the material that was dubious, more their marketing, their claims, and their cover up.
Click to expand...

Richard, I think you will find that the stresses these modern anchors incur - because they dig in very deep - not just ploughing the surface - means they require a very high tensile steel to prevent bending when turning direction in the bottom. The slightest bend will cause an asymmetrical attack on the bottom and that will cause the anchor to role out.

I think you will find it essential to use the good steel. Why does Manson bother to use expensive high grade steel when something cheaper would do?
 
Chris_Robb said:
Richard, I think you will find that the stresses these modern anchors incur - because they dig in very deep - not just ploughing the surface - means they require a very high tensile steel to prevent bending when turning direction in the bottom. The slightest bend will cause an asymmetrical attack on the bottom and that will cause the anchor to role out.

I think you will find it essential to use the good steel. Why does Manson bother to use expensive high grade steel when something cheaper would do?
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying, and I'm no engineer.

Out of all the posts and threads on the issue, I merely don't recall any of those sold the inferior anchors complaining that they didn't work, or had a problem. In fact, the biggest difficulty seemed to be identifying whether a lesser quality anchor had been supplied.

To the layman in me, this suggests that what was supplied worked fine.

Having said that, the SWLs of a variety of equipment I used in a previous life was generally a fifth of the point at which it might fail - cranes, cables, shackles, hooks, etc.. So, perhaps Rocna and Manson etc. need to specify a material that has NO chance of failing under the conditions where it might be used.

Again, I'm not condoning Rocnas actions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top