Anchor Geekdom

Autonomous

Turgid Member
4,251
1,424
PNW
I agree with Russell. Speaking directly to Steve and it seems issuing a warning of the prevalence of litigation.

Q, you remember earlier how I said fuck you? Well, it still stands.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Autonomous

Turgid Member
4,251
1,424
PNW
Steve,

I simply do not understand the results you generate with the Rocna.

At least two Classification Societies have tested Rocna, RINA and Lloyds and they give it a SHHP rating - meaning it has twice the hold of a HHP anchor, say CQR or Delta (and it would have a hold similar to Excel and Spade, also SHHP anchors) - in a number of different seabeds, (I think three different seabeds) and the anchor tested 3 times.  Virtually every magazine reported anchor test has Rocna at the top of the heap, the Yachting Monthly/West Marine test in 2006 and the Voile tests also reported in Yachting Monthly and/or Yachting World (and a host of other tests).  Every one, with one or two exceptions, who use a Rocna report on its tenacious hold and if you ask - no-one admits to their Rocna dragging.  Rocna is possibly the most popular 'new gen ' anchor - and if it had the hold you define - no-one would touch it with a barge pole.  Rocna was chosen by Morgans Cloud as their anchor of choice until some dragging incidents were reported due to a clogged fluke - but since those reports - there have been minimal negative reports.  Your testing is for hold and Mornags Cloud report is as a result of clogging - not a straight line hold

Either you have a duff Rocna or there is something very peculiar about your seabeds and/or protocol.  If there is something peculiar about your seabeds or protocol then all your results are equally invalid.

If you think there is something wrong with your results for Rocna and do not have an explanation for the contradiction and your seabeds and protocol are valid - then the Rocna results demand an explanation or it might be said you have some grudge against Rocna. 

It is quite common to have a short footnote at the bottom of a table of results - add it!

To me the contradiction raised by Rocna is simply too large to ignore, especially as many are going to look at the summaries and not look at 100 videos.  If you are happy that some might question your methodology or ignore what you do (because their experience with a Rocna is at odds with yours) just think what they might think .........  If I were Rocna or CMP - I might be sufficiently well entrenched in the market to think I can ignore you - I might also think to consider doing something about the anomaly - and then you might be looking for subscriptions for costs other than testing.  Americans can be very litigious.
For posterity.

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2
I think saw Q made the place a bit un-friendly. Who needs that?
So if you ask for clarification or make a controversial point - you are not welcome.

Restricting debates to sycophants will not move your technology forward.  

Asking for an understanding of why Steve's Rocna results are in contradiction to virtually every other test of a Rocna underlined by the simple fact that Rocna is possibly the most popular NG anchor on bow rollers.  And this is deemed unfriendly.

Yes better to sweep it under the carpet - we don't need difficult questions.  Having someone with a different slant - not here - ban them.  Let's have an easy life.

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2
This thread is one window on one method of anchor testing.  Some time ago, that much maligned individual "Neeves" initiated a thread on Yachting Boating World (or YBW) which I link to here.   https://forums.ybw.com/index.php?threads/rocnas-bad-press-by-video-anchor-thread-dont-read-if-you-dont-like-anchor-threads.573702/  Neeves makes his beliefs clear in his opening post and the thread resulted in well over 100 posts from people offering their views.  I doubt many here will wade through the posts - it might upset their sensitivities.

But I, and Neeves, are not alone in our views - many share them, as documented in the thread.

Steve wants to receive financial support so that he can extend his work.  The YBW thread offers views, differing from those here, but those views are expressed by people who are potential donors to Steve.  As long as people question his work those people are not going to sponsor Steve.   Ignoring any questions, however hard and difficult, and leaving them to remain unanswered will guarantee those potential donors will remain potential not actual donors. 

CJE raised the question and Russel answered and seems to imply the reason that Steve has not posted his video here, I think its available on Cruisers Forum is because there are unfriendly elements - does this mean Steve is afraid of being questioned, that his videos do not stand scrutiny?  Surely he is not afraid of one lone voice in the wilderness :)

Interestingly I do recall that Starzinger also raised a question on this thread regarding the apparent fall from grace of Rocna implied by Steve's results,  - I suspect he must also be considered unfriendly.

 
407
207
Perth WA
Hopefully Ive uploaded an image of a delta with tip modification. I haven't been able to contact the owner as yet, but was from a cruising forum where they were also wanting to improve the tip. I presume others have done this, whether it is sufficient will be interesting to find out.

image.png

 

Steve_sos

New member
31
11
UK
Saw Q and Neeves  - the same person!

Constant questioning of why Rocna don't do as well as you want (no doubt because you and an other done your own Rocna testing, for a magazine, which doesn't agree with Steve's) and the same questions as to why Mantus do so much better than you want.

Not just here but also on YBW and Cruisers forums.

Steve's tests are just in his own backyard and he clearly states results may vary elswhere. If you don't like them go and do your own as comprehesvily as Steve does. It is the best testing I have found anywhere.

 

snubber

Member
161
65
Idaho
I think you will find that the Delta is a steel cast solid toe as is a Kobra.  The Excel is slightly different it is a steel box into which steel is cast and an end plate welded on.  Spade is a steel box with lead cast into the space (and now has a resin cap to seal the lead).  Rocna is also ballasted but by use of steel plate with, about, twice the thickness of steel the rest of the fluke.  Because the steel of the Rocna does not have the focus of Spade's lead or Exc els casting - they need a roll bar.
Lead tip according to Lewmar's literature. 

https://us.binnacle.com/pdf/Lewmar Delta Selection Guide & Specifications.pdf

Delta_lit.jpg

 

estarzinger

Super Anarchist
7,625
1,012
Steve's tests are just in his own backyard and he clearly states results may vary elsewhere. ...
I personally think Steve has/is doing an excellent job, and I appreciate his efforts.

Anchor testing is complicated and hard to do well, near impossible to do 'comprehensively'.  The difference between various tests are a useful measure of the complications and of our uncertainty.

For my own use, I evaluated other people's tests, made my own tests, and then ultimately after significant use, shuffled anchors around until I had the ones I was most comfortable with - and that ultimate selection was not particularly what you would have concluded was obvious from any of the tests.

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2
Hopefully Ive uploaded an image of a delta with tip modification. I haven't been able to contact the owner as yet, but was from a cruising forum where they were also wanting to improve the tip. I presume others have done this, whether it is sufficient will be interesting to find out.

View attachment 488109
Interesting post, keep us upto date if you get reports back on performance.

Even better - offer a link - then anyone, everyone can keep up to date.

 

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,185
2,603
Outer Banks
For my own use, I evaluated other people's tests, made my own tests, and then ultimately after significant use, shuffled anchors around until I had the ones I was most comfortable with - and that ultimate selection was not particularly what you would have concluded was obvious from any of the tests.
CQR for #1?

 

Cruisin Loser

Super Anarchist
I had a CQR, it was OK, had a Rocna, it was OK, those went with that boat. Got this boat, had an underperforming 66# claw type, but it was definitely NOT a real Bruce, it was crude and dull. Replaced it with (at Steve's suggestion) a 44# Spade, which fits the bow like a glove, digs in and sets hard, launches and retrieves nicely. The paint or sticker on the thing seems to shed mud very nicely, we'll see how that lasts. 

My first race series with the new anchor was the Boothbay Shipyard Cup, looking in the bow locker crew found the 66 # claw still on the boat. We sent Elegua's strong young son ashore with it with a tag saying "FREE ANCHOR", to leave near the club parking lot. I'm told it disappeared quickly. Good riddance.

new anchor.jpg

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2
I love it - anchor designers know that the shank of an anchor can be subject to stress, so they try to ensure they will not bend.  Owners then drill holes in the shank, commonly to secure the anchor on the bow roller.  The idea that drilling a hole might, will, compromise strength .......?

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2




If you check Lewmar's current website, not the website of a distributor nor an old specification, you will find no mention of lead in the toe.

https://www.lewmar.com/node/11594

Lead in the toe would be an advantage as it concentrates the ballast.  Having lead in the toe is a technical advantage you would not omit in your marketing information if you were a manufacturer.   Sadly it is an 'extra' step during manufacture, especially if you have to seal the lead in the toe by welding on a backing plate.  Lead in the toe would also be a disadvantage as is evidenced when people try to re-galvanise a Spade.  

It maybe of course that Lewmar make 2 versions of the anchor which would explain why there are 2 specifications.

I'm not sure what happens with a lead ballasted, sealed, toe when you galvanise.

 

Elegua

Generalissimo
I had a CQR, it was OK, had a Rocna, it was OK, those went with that boat. Got this boat, had an underperforming 66# claw type, but it was definitely NOT a real Bruce, it was crude and dull. Replaced it with (at Steve's suggestion) a 44# Spade, which fits the bow like a glove, digs in and sets hard, launches and retrieves nicely. The paint or sticker on the thing seems to shed mud very nicely, we'll see how that lasts. 

My first race series with the new anchor was the Boothbay Shipyard Cup, looking in the bow locker crew found the 66 # claw still on the boat. We sent Elegua's strong young son ashore with it with a tag saying "FREE ANCHOR", to leave near the club parking lot. I'm told it disappeared quickly. Good riddance.

View attachment 488207
That's good to hear. Based on Steve's advice I got the 66lb one. My mom might get another anchor for her garden. She already has my CQR.  Now she'll have a CQR and a genuine Bruce... should I take back the 2 bladed spare prop? 

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2
I detect sarcasm.

A magazine infomercial.
At least someone noticed.

Except virtually no information.  No wonder printed media is having a tough time.

There is a wealth of quantitative data on most of the anchors, just pull out a summary from this thread for a start.  The comments on the Epsilon, where a serious review is over due, appear to have been made without actually using one.

Makes you weep if this was meant to actually be useful and help owners to make a decision

 




Top