Equal Time for Rocna (John)
posted by John & Phyllis Web Site
A couple of weeks ago we received a comment from Alain Poiraud, designer of the SPADE anchor, which we posted; a few days after that we received an email from Craig Smith, of Rocna, which, in the interest of fairness and balance, we are posting below. Craig, while not the designer of the Rocna, was involved in the process and all the testing, and is clearly very knowledgeable about anchors.
I just want to emphasize that we are not setting ourselves up as arbitrators of a best anchor battle between SPADE and Rocna; however, several resources are mentioned that may help you choose between these two fine anchors. I would also restate that we are skeptical of reading too much into anchor tests, particularly between two great performers like the SPADE and Rocna.
As we have said before, for us the important points to be taken from all of this and our own experience with the SPADE are:
- The SPADE and Rocna blow old style anchors like the CQR and Bruce out of the water, so to speak. To put it quite simply, changing to one of these anchors will change your cruising life, it certainly has ours.
- Alain and Peter (designer of the Rocna) are two real voyaging sailors who have used their smarts and experience to move the state of the art a huge step forward. Both SPADE and Rocna are proud of, and aggressively promote and defend, their respective brain children. In my opinion, that is as it should be and is nothing to criticize either of them for.
- It would be a mistake to ignore what these guys have to say, just because they are promoting their own products. The very fact that they were able to come up with dramatically better anchor designs shows that both companies know a heck of a lot more about anchors than the rest of us.
Craig’s Comment
Just a quick note in response to your recent blog entry. I see Alain Poiraud’s anti-competitor campaign has reached you – almost inevitable for any website which dare mention the Rocna.
It amazes us too that “people are still passionately defending older anchor designs”; as you might imagine education is the primary component of our marketing – however,
Poiraud’s style is very confrontational. I wanted to briefly address a few of Poiraud’s points.
I won’t harass you with claims and counter-claims, but since last year’s West Marine / SAIL anchor testing was mentioned, here’s some more commentary for you. (The write-ups are on our website by the way – both SAIL and Yachting Monthly – under “independent reviews”).
Rocna’s “modified curve” is above, which is simply a version of the original from SAIL, adjusted for each anchor to be compared on a size-for-size basis, as there is quite a range of sizes in the testing. Not to mention the Spade of 35lb vs the smaller Rocna 32lb. (Even the raw chart shows some interesting discrepancies in averaged “max before releasing”, don’t you think?)[The chart above was adjusted by Rocna based on the orginal SAIL Magazine chart, which you can see on the third page of this PDF.]
We agree with your comments concerning the requirement to perform well consistently in all bottoms. Commensurate with that however is the requirement to perform consistently on a consistent bottom, if that makes sense.
The West Marine testing does only cover sand, but it is hard sand, which separates the men from the boys, so-to-speak, in terms of setting ability, and is the reason the older anchors are shown in such a harsh light (a result you will concur is realistic, I am sure).
Anyway, of arguably more definition is the comments from West Marine themselves. In their 2007 catalog is a page about the testing, and this is a table of their comments on the overall thing:
[Craig included a table from the 2007 West Marine catalog page 221. The relevant entries are:]
- Rocna 15, Steel, 32 lb. Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately.
- Spade S80, Steel & lead, 34.4 lb Somewhat mixed results with three OK pulls, and three maximum pulls. Set immediately each time.
For me, I'm going to write about something other than anchoring for a while!
Labels: Anchoring
3 Comments:
[We received this comment via e-mail.]
I know you have sworn off commenting about anchors but I think a little defense of the CQR is in order.
This anchor was developed during the second world war for holding temporary "mulberry" units at the "D" day landings and was a vast improvement on the fisherman anchor in use before then. The main attributes being, one that it needed to be only half the weight of the equivalent fisherman and two that in a tideway it did not snag the rode on the tide turn and reset.
The fact that a better anchor has been developed along with all the other better sailing gear is a matter of joy not an opportunity for slogging off an old friend!
However we shall be purchasing a SPADE for 2008 when we return to the reasonable prices of the UK. In the meantime we shall be relying on our old friend for northern Norway.
Good point and an interesting piece of history; I did not know that.
I guess my very real resentment toward the CQR comes from my feeling that the anchor was, and still is, “sold” as the best all round solution for cruisers long after it is past it’s best-before-date. My seven years of cruising with a CQR were full of frustrating, and in some cases dangerous, experiences when the anchor just refused to set in sea bottoms where a even a Danforth or Bruce, never mind a SPADE, had no problems at all. Yes, the CQR will set and hold tenaciously in good thick mud, but then so will just about any anchor.
A few notes. The history above is quite incorrect - the CQR was not developed during the war or for the specific purpose of holding the Mulberry harbors; in fact its patent was filed and published in 1934, well before the war began (especially if you're American!). The patent itself gives a good overview of intent, as well as the fundamentals of the design:
CQR patent
I am not aware of what style of anchors were used to anchor the Mulberrys. If, however, whoever was responsible had placed their faith in the CQR, I imagine that this is something which CQR proponents would wish to forget.
There were two Mulberry harbors which were deployed several days after beachheads had been secured following D-Day. The "American" one at Omaha however was destroyed several weeks later during bad weather...
Funnily enough because, partly, the anchors dragged.
Post a Comment
<< Home