A Second Wind for Rocna

[LWatson]

Evans, while you might rail about my posts and do your own so called tests on a rocky beach where less than 1% of the cruising community will ever visit, what I posted of my experience in La Paz is simply the truth, unlike some of the posts on this blog. I do not work for or have any interest in Rocna, I do have a Bruce, a Fortress and a CQR, none of which are knockoffs such as the Manson Ray. When we anchored last week in Balandra Bay the Manson dragged and the Rocna did not, nor did it bend, that is the truth pure and simple. I did not offer any analysis on anchoring techniques, bottom conditions other than the two boats are basically the same. I am not any sort of a metal expert but merely reiterated and reinterpreted what was posted primarialy by Delpin, who I feel delibertly distorted some of his information or in the very least put it in such a light as to cast dispersions on Rocna. I do not condone the actions of Rocna, it is deplorable, and the new people seem to be unable to come to grips with the problem at least as far as advertising.
My experiences with Vovlo have been most satisfactory, having had the MD17C for about 25 years and the D2-40 for only 3 years. The first was bullet proof, for me at least, and the current engine (Perkins but made in Japan) so far has lived up to expectations, in fact exceeded them in being easy to maintain, quiet and relatively vibration free.
May I state that when you are pointing at others three fingers are pointing back at you!

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

LWatson, you have made 15 posts in total since you joined CF. 13 have been about anchors (one about android and one about Volvo). All of the last 11 have been either attacks on Manson and/or defenses of ROCNA. All in a similar anecdotal 'virus attack marketing' fashion to the above post. In one post you claimed not to know much about steel or metallurgy but then in another you are quite aware of the details of the ROCNA steel issues. I have to say that you walk and talk exactly like a ROCNA sock puppet (including making the two non-anchor posts), and they have a history of using them. You say you don't work for ROCNA but I am curious if you have some other incentive or relationship that makes you come here with an agenda?

I wondered the same thing, when out of the blue, LWatson sent me a PM defending Rocna, essentially saying that if Peter Smith said that lesser steel was good enough, then by Golly, it was good enough for old Lief Watson. I referenced his email in a posting, but did not identify the source of the message. However, since you brought it up, here is my response to Mr. Watson:

Lief, I'm not clear why you would send this to me after accusing me of "blowing smoke" over this issue. Be that as it may, I have a slightly different take on Mr. Smith's response. His statement that the shank of your anchor, or even one made of Q620 steel will not bend before the chain breaks is nonsense, unless you are using hopelessly inadequate chain. The bending moment required to bend the Rocna I tested was 1550#, The breaking strength of the chain Rocna recommends for this anchor is 11,700#. If Peter is going to continue to make clearly erroneous statements to you that he knows are false, why would you assume that anything he says is accurate?

Another thing that bothers me about his response to you is the continued trashing of a competitor's product. In the independent tests Manson did the metal they use in their shanks was verified to have a yield of over 850 mpa. On what basis how would he state that he would rather have a defective Rocna half as strong as a Manson twice as strong? I understand that there are slight testing differences between these two fine designs, neither one of which I own. However, it is statements like this coupled with obvious falsehoods that continue to ring alarm bells with many.


Such a sordid tale. But mesmerizing, nonetheless.

[JonJo]

Actually no-one has ever said that the Rocna is a bad design, nor that it does not perform. Its a compromise like lots of anchors and anyone who suggests its perfect and does not drag is living an unrealistic dream. Its up there with some of the best and much better than many anchors around. But to have a decent Rocna you need to have bought a New Zealand made model (and as these are now unobtainable) it must take considerable courage, or some other motivation, to recommend the design today. No-one knows how many offspec anchors are sitting in the corners of chandlers and given that the Supreme has been publically and independently tested much more often than the selected testing of the Rocna, considering the Supreme is cheaper (in many markets) anyone wanting a roll bar, cancave anchors has a 'safer' choice. The Supreme is made to its original specification (and to quote Peter Smith) no compromises have been taken. But there are other reliable, and importantly reputable, anchors, the Fortress available in almost any market, the Spade available in America and Europe and SARCAs available in Australia (and remarkably NZ). So (quoting Peter Smith) no compromises are necessary.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by LWatson

, I do have a Bruce, a Fortress and a CQR, none of which are knockoffs such as the Manson Ray.

So the Fortress you own is not a "knock off" of a Danforth but a Manson Supreme or Ray are knock offs...?? Kind of tough to swallow that one...

BTW the Rocna is ALSO a knock off stealing much of it's influence from other anchors such as the Delta (shank), Spade (fluke) and hoop (Wasi / Bugel)........ Peter invented nothing new just "borrowed" bits and pieces from other anchors already out there.

Oh and I own both a Manson Supreme and a Rocna. There is not an ounce of performance difference I can find between the two and I've tried. They both perform extremely well.

I will never again buy another Rocna if the Bambury's or Smiths remain associated with the brand. Apparently you'd buy one even if they made one out of rubber bands and that's why I assume you have ruffled some others feathers..

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Actually no-one has ever said that the Rocna is a bad design, nor that it does not perform. Its a compromise like lots of anchors and anyone who suggests its perfect and does not drag is living an unrealistic dream. Its up there with some of the best and much better than many anchors around. But to have a decent Rocna you need to have bought a New Zealand made model (and as these are now unobtainable) it must take considerable courage, or some other motivation, to recommend the design today. No-one knows how many offspec anchors are sitting in the corners of chandlers and given that the Supreme has been publically and independently tested much more often than the selected testing of the Rocna, considering the Supreme is cheaper (in many markets) anyone wanting a roll bar, cancave anchors has a 'safer' choice. The Supreme is made to its original specification (and to quote Peter Smith) no compromises have been taken. But there are other reliable, and importantly reputable, anchors, the Fortress available in almost any market, the Spade available in America and Europe and SARCAs available in Australia (and remarkably NZ). So (quoting Peter Smith) no compromises are necessary.

Well said. You summarize nicely my conclusions. The Rocna is a fine design incorporating (knocking off?) the features of other peoples creative designs, and it performs well, but has been cheapened for the sake of profits and is now a very suspect product. Additionally, the Manson is equivalently performing, as Maine Sail notes, so my question is why buy an anchor from people demonstrated to be congenitally incapable of telling the truth when an excellent analog is available? Since I don't own either, I have no particular axe to grind, other than a preference for truth in advertising and honest dealing.

But I have another question for the forum in general, and it is this. We all are aware of relentless trashing of competitors by Craig Smith, and many of us have experience with either useful idiots promoting Rocna in the face of continuing revelation of what skunks they have been. What other anchor manufacturer has ever engaged in such scurrilous behavior? Who has received an unsolicited private message from an ostensible Manson supporter who trashes Rocna? Where has anyone associated with another manufacturer ever got on this, or any other forum for the sole purpose of deceiving people about the quality of their product while taking every opportunity to trash the competition? What anchor manufacturer has tried to use the Internet and forums like this to bamboozle and hoodwink their customers while using the medium to try to damage more honest competitors?

Who but Rocna and its allies? None. For that reason alone if no other - a pox on their house.

[JonJo]

I do not like to see someone ignored but Peter Bruce was the first, of whom I am aware, to incorporate the roll bar. It was in his original patent (so anyone could read about it) but he found it unnecessary - which is why we have the Bruce design as it is today. Arguably the Rocna is a Bruce with lower 'wing tips' - necessitating the support of Peter's Roll Bar idea.

But I distinctly recall the Rocna camp condemning demountable shanks (as in the Spade) and retrieval slots (as in the Supreme and SARCA). Interesting to condemn (and then quietly forget the condemnation) and incorporate the ideas oneself. I recall the Rocna camp damning Manson and Anchor Right for not processing Bisplate 80 correctly (when they were using Q420 themselves). I recall the Rocna camp crowing about the superior holding power of their model when it turned out they were tweaking the result, the result was one pull in one test (and never repeated) and Rocna it turned out only submitted specially tuned anchors for testing. But this might be getting boring and repetitive

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by JonJo

But this might be getting boring and repetitive

Yep!

But, I await further NEW inputs from whatever source...

Jim

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by LWatson

Evans, while you might rail about my posts and do your own so called tests on a rocky beach where less than 1% of the cruising community will ever visit

hmmm . . . honestly have you read that test? The one where we tested in 15 different bottom conditions? Or are you just repeating word for word points from CS - you do seem exceptionally well versed on their disinformation?

Please take an objective look at your last dozen posts here and tell me honestly you don't look like a ROCNA sockpupet; right down to the language about manson knock-offs. If you like your RONCA that's terrific, but why the repeated specific attacks on Manson?

Originally Posted by LWatson

"May I state that when you are pointing at others three fingers are pointing back at you!"

Do you care to explain exactly what you mean by that! LOL, Are you implying I am a sock puppet for some anchor brand

I certainly have no ax to grind, other than to try to help bring sunlight into a very murky corner that is important to all cruisers.

[JonJo]

Leif, if I may call you that or

LWatson otherwise.

I may have missed it in an earlier post - but when did you buy your Rocna? Do you have one of the NZ ones with the Bisplate 80 shank, a 2009/2010 Chinese model with the 420 shank, or something more recent that might have a Q620 or Q420 shank.

If you have NZ model - good luck to you, you are obviously happy. But anyone looking to buy today is unable to buy a quality product - in fact they have no idea what they might get and it does not seem very fair for you to make your recommendation without possibly warning people of the problems. Maybe a little balance, pointing out that the current employees are the same ones who changed the spec to 420 (which has 50% of the strength of design specification steel), misled the public over RINA certification and by all accounts wanted to bribe RINA employees.

A yachtsmen bought a Rocna in the south of Spain as recent as 2 months ago. Subsequent to purchase he wanted confirmation of quality - why he did not demand it at the time is one of those interesting questions that remains unanswered. CMP, through their representative Mr Bambury, were unable to confirm the quality and have offered to replace it. (I have the full email correspondnce).

Today's Rocna might be good - but personally I would wait a little time to see if the brand can develop any credibility.

I am also bemused, if your Rocna is so good - why one earth have you not discarded the Supreme (seems a waste of space and a bit of unnecessary extra weight to me)? Resale values are probably quite high.

[GMac]

A quick tidy up needed here.

The rollbar on the Supreme and Rocna are only there as Alain Mr Spade was clever and patented his Spade in such a way there were major concerns if that was copied lawsuits would follow.

The rollbars have been made into 'features' but they are anchor negative and do reduce performance, especially in sticky bottom types like clay, more so on the Rocna than the Supreme. The Rocna has that small kick-up on the back of the foot, it needs to go also. On the Supreme there is no kick-up so the grunge slides thru a lot easier so balling isn't such a worry as it is on the Rocna.

The prototype Rocnas I built for Peter had no rollbars but they were then added to make sure they orientated correctly come setting time.

Want a SHHP approved anchor with no rollbar? You can have either a Fortress or a Sarca Excel, both are damn good.

[olaf hart]

Originally Posted by LWatson

Evans, while you might rail about my posts and do your own so called tests on a rocky beach where less than 1% of the cruising community will ever visit, what I posted of my experience in La Paz is simply the truth, unlike some of the posts on this blog. I do not work for or have any interest in Rocna, I do have a Bruce, a Fortress and a CQR, none of which are knockoffs such as the Manson Ray. When we anchored last week in Balandra Bay the Manson dragged and the Rocna did not, nor did it bend, that is the truth pure and simple. I did not offer any analysis on anchoring techniques, bottom conditions other than the two boats are basically the same. I am not any sort of a metal expert but merely reiterated and reinterpreted what was posted primarialy by Delpin, who I feel delibertly distorted some of his information or in the very least put it in such a light as to cast dispersions on Rocna. I do not condone the actions of Rocna, it is deplorable, and the new people seem to be unable to come to grips with the problem at least as far as advertising.
My experiences with Vovlo have been most satisfactory, having had the MD17C for about 25 years and the D2-40 for only 3 years. The first was bullet proof, for me at least, and the current engine (Perkins but made in Japan) so far has lived up to expectations, in fact exceeded them in being easy to maintain, quiet and relatively vibration free.
May I state that when you are pointing at others three fingers are pointing back at you!

So, you are defending Rocna and Volvo in the same post, seems somehow appropriate.

[READY2GO]

I bought a 25 lb Manson Supreme for my 25 foot 4200 lb sailboat. I have been using it for about a month now. Twice I have had to hang it back on the bow and get my old Danforth copy out to save the day. First time was in Clearwater FL. I tried three times to get it to set. No luck. The bottom was muck, you couldn't even call it mud. The Danforth dug in immediately. The second time was about three hours ago in the Pine Island sound (FL). It would not set, second time I pulled it up it looked like the picture above, totally clogged with muck. Took out the Danforth, it bit insantly.

I don't think I am ready to give up on the Manson, but I'm not ready to get rid of my Danforth either. The Manson held great while we were in Dunedin during a 30 knot blow one night, but it has to be the right bottom.

In my limited experence I like having both new and old school anchors ready.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by READY2GO

. The second time was about three hours ago in the Pine Island sound (FL). It would not set, second time I pulled it up it looked like the picture above, totally clogged with muck. Took out the Danforth, it bit insantly.

Um, the picture of the clogged anchor IS a danforth.

[Steve Pope]

Ready to Go, I'm sure you know as do most experinced yachties that there is no miracle Anchor that will work perfectly in the huge range of bottom conditions that we all encounter from time to time. therefore a Supreme, Rocna, Spade etc.etc. will always fail in some conditions as you have found in mush/slurry type bottoms, that is why most carry a Danforth / Fortress or similar as a back up for when these bottoms are encountered, just as some carry a fishermans anchor for rocky bottoms.
IMHO these "new" type of anchor are a great improvement on earlier designs but don't and cannot excell in every type of bottom condition. In 4 years of using a Rocna I have only had 1 drag experience and that was in similar bottom mud / slurry consistency that your Supreme failed. My Danforth also saved the day. Would I reject my Rocna on that experience, never, it's the best thing since sliced bread!!

[READY2GO]

Originally Posted by cat man do

Um, the picture of the clogged anchor IS a danforth.

Yes cat man do, I know it is a Danforth I copied it from a post above saying this is why you shouldn't use a Canforth. My point is that any anchor can do this, and that it is good to have more than one type of anchor.