New Generation Anchor

[ebb]

Craig,
[Craig (Peter?) Smith is the inventor of the Rocna - in New Zealand.]

Is this not to say that the Buegel was also lifted from the Rocna design? Or did both your designs appear similtaneously - as has been said about pivotal human inventions?

"Hey! THAT is a great design. Let's improve on it! Let's make it better. How 'bout a slot down the shank to slide the shackle, etc. Let's make it out of TITANIUM!!!"
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And the profit motive.


As a boat owner, tho, my concern is for my boat and my life. OK?


Now, blatant copying, using cheaper materials and fabrication is definitely criminal, imco. So what has to be assumed is that there has been no patent infringement on the Rocna with the Supreme's "dual shank". You'd be taking them to court, Right? So, I am corrected on the time line, but is it important?



NOW, what I'm interested in is what the anchor is made from - and why.
Is the method of manufacture the best? Is the welding perfect and the welding rod correct for the plate? Do the various metal pieces match in alloy as well as the added metal from the rod in the weldings. Galvanising has to be perfect as well, how long will it last.

'You get what you pay for' wasn't proved to me from the literature or the visuals on the net. Some real world testing has to be done with the rollbar spoon delta (inverted plow) anchors pitted against each other with some of the old ones tossed in for control. Probably could leave out flat plate anchors like the Bulwagga and concentrate on comparing all of the plow or spoon, or claw anchors, in the marketplace. If the makers, together, put up the funds for independant SIDE BY SIDE testing and published the results, I know I, for one, would be more likely to accept that data. Since nothing substantive or non-ambiguous exists yet from any maker, I depend on intuition, looks and price, if I want one. Real results from real tests would get the "winner", if there was one, into the catalog stores and chandleries. If a maker declined to be part of the test, I'd know, we'd know, and who would trust their anchor?

A 25# (in that weight class) Rocna was priced to me over the phone at over $300. At Azure Marine, when Wayne said, 'about $165,' for a Supreme of equal weight with the tricky shank, I was hooked. The 24# Buegel in galvanized is available for $260 plus shipping from Inter-Yacht in North Carolina. They also sell another invention called the PowerBall which connects the anchor to the chain that allows it to freely rotate. Impossible to kink the chain, I guess. Something to consider.


When somebody can prove that they want to sell me the best all round anchor for my boat, bar none, that's what I want on the bow.
That may have to include a whole new anchoring philosophy to go with the new design.

Like coming up short on the tether while setting because the anchor buries itself so quickly. Tandom anchoring when preparing for a blow - thats new to me. Including the little things like using dacron instead of nylon for the rode. Hmmmmm.

I am persuaded that the handsome design concept is sound. I'm not persuaded that I have the right anchor. YET.
It is easy to see that the Beugel is, metaphorically, a Porche version of the more practical pickup truck Rocna. Agree?


Since some heat has been generated on this subject, I would suggest that interested 'new generation anchor' buyers go to all the different anchor web sites and cruising boards and make an evaluation not only about this new style anchor - and the hype - but also about what is NOT said about EACH product. What is NOT said is often much more important than the b.s. Your life depends on it. It is not about who crossed the road first but how well the egg is protected.

[craigsmith]

Is this not to say that the Buegel was also lifted from the Rocna design? Or did both your designs appear similtaneously - as has been said about pivotal human inventions?

No, the Buegel was around for quite a while before we came to the party. The roll-bar concept for the Rocna was indeed lifted from it (and the SARCA mentioned above was using it too, so no-one can claim it as original).

But the similarities end there. The extra functional components (of the Rocna) are identical on the Supreme:

- Concave blade
- Heavier plated toe than heel
- Skids in order to assist setting
- Roll-bar attached to fluke and skids in identical fashions
- An identical inside line of the shank
etc

Now, blatant copying, using cheaper materials and fabrication is definitely criminal, imco. So what has to be assumed is that there has been no patent infringement on the Rocna with the Supreme's "dual shank". You'd be taking them to court, Right? So, I am corrected on the time line, but is it important?

We would not necessarily be taking them to court. Consider the cost. And the outcome? They simply modify the anchor further, to the point it really doesn't infringe. We're not sure we'd really benefit from the investment.

However, options for the US and Europe are on the table.

NOW, what I'm interested in is what the anchor is made from - and why. Is the method of manufacture the best? Is the welding perfect and the welding rod correct for the plate? Do the various metal pieces match in alloy as well as the added metal from the rod in the weldings. Galvanising has to be perfect as well, how long will it last.

This, and the rest of your comments, are quite fair enough. This is where we could get technical and try to back up my comment "you get what you pay for". But, as you yourself have demonstrated, it doesn't seem to matter. The dollar price quoted on the phone is all that really matters to the majority of consumers...

As an aside, Manson use the same galvanizers as us in New Zealand, so you can assume the quality is identical! (Doesn't apply to Rocnas produced in Canada).

'You get what you pay for' wasn't proved to me from the literature or the visuals on the net. Some real world testing has to be done with the rollbar spoon delta (inverted plow) anchors pitted against each other with some of the old ones tossed in for control. Probably could leave out flat plate anchors like the Bulwagga and concentrate on comparing all of the plow or spoon, or claw anchors, in the marketplace. If the makers, together, put up the funds for independant SIDE BY SIDE testing and published the results, I know I, for one, would be more likely to accept that data. Since nothing substantive or non-ambiguous exists yet from any maker, I depend on intuition, looks and price, if I want one. Real results from real tests would get the "winner", if there was one, into the catalog stores and chandleries. If a maker declined to be part of the test, I'd know, we'd know, and who would trust their anchor?

Well, every test we've ever seen done we have had reason to question the methodology. I think tests of anchors can at best only ever serve as a guide.

As far as our comment, it wasn't intended wrt pure performance. The Supreme should, and does in our experience, perform identically to the Rocna (they're practically the same after all). I was talking about quality of construction.

When somebody can prove that they want to sell me the best all round anchor for my boat, bar none, that's what I want on the bow.
That may have to include a whole new anchoring philosophy to go with the new design.

Like coming up short on the tether while setting because the anchor buries itself so quickly. Tandom anchoring when preparing for a blow - thats new to me. Including the little things like using dacron instead of nylon for the rode. Hmmmmm.

But now I'm confused... that sounds like our material and concepts, yet you went with a Supreme?

It is easy to see that the Beugel is, metaphorically, a Porche version of the more practical pickup truck Rocna. Agree?

No. The Buegel is a flat plate with a hoop and straight bar welded to it. It is exceedingly primitive. The differences listed above make the Rocna, and therefore the Supreme, a much more sophisticated design, in all respects.

epiphany

Thanks for all your comments Kurt. You have some good ideas. I'm not sure how practical the idea of "trial" anchors are, but it's certainly something I can put on the table with the other guys here.

Anchors are currently shipped to the States from Vancouver. Not ideal and we are looking to change that soon.

Re Bulwagga, we simply haven't implemented such an "official" policy, but it may indeed be time to do so.

[ebb]

Craig Smith,
Also, thank you for taking the time to talk with us in this little corner of the net. Personally I'm a believer in the natural and ethical (BS?) supremecy of small entrepenuers in the marketplace, and will naturally in my small way do business with them, as much as possible. Rather deal with sensitive individuals first, then the tight-lipped but big teeth corporate dinosaurs. Where's Manson in this discussion?

Praktical Sailor's slick new color issue has arrived with a reprise of their horizontal winch pulling test on anchors in the 25# range - this time in a 'soft mud' Florida marina slated for condo redevelopment. Part 1 of a two part 'short scope' comparison has many of the usual suspects on the block but includes some stranger ones like the Box, the Hans C, and the Sascot.

In soft mud on short scope (I guess you can't create a catenary with this test method) the Bruce, the Lewmar Claw and Delta Fast Set, and the Spade bested this group of 18 danforths and plows by a little, or a lot. The Lewmar Claw (a knockoff Bruce) came out on top.

We'll see what anchors are included in Part two.

The P.S. tests are directed at the consumer. Usually the consumer with bucks and a big boat. Best-Bang-for-Your-Buck is the rating theme like Consumer Reports' 'Best Buy'. But it is a mistake to think that soft mud deep setters (deep digging or burying is the key, imco) are multibottom anchors. A cruising Ariel cannot carry 5 or 6 hooks in the bow. These tests imco are of almost no help to a small cruising sloop that can carry only 1 or 2 all purpose anchors.

The makers of alternative and new generation anchors should do as suggested above and organize a real world 3rd party test of their own. Have it published no holds barred in a trusted cruiser mag. Or on the net. The P.S. test is OK as far as it goes (the marina ?) OK for retirees aslip in Florida.

Maybe the Rockna is destined to influence all anchors hereafter. Elegant, strong, good looking, and versatile. Anchors are like stone age spearheads.
When the fluted Clovis point finally appeared after thousands of lifetimes of flaking tools for survival it changed everything suddenly. Those who went with Clovis became modern man and those who didn't ended up on the rocks of Time.

The right anchor is essential to survival. The wrong one gets you a Darwin Award.

[ebb]

Anybody interested in looping this discussion might go to google

Beugel anchor - SSCA Discussion Board

where you will meet Craig Smith again, he gets around.
Maybe Peter Smith is his father or mother?
But also enjoy this similar kind of search for the mythical all purpose anchor - along with opinions and prejudices and diatribes from the salts of the sea.

Generally have no problem with the maker of a new product promoting an anchor on a board (but has to introduce himself as such), he takes flack for his hype from the old generation anchor lovers and maybe another competitors and wags as well! So the feedback is important.

But EVERYBODY makes unsubstantiated and hearsay statements about other unrepresented anchors. It's a chore to come up with a concensus wading thru these 4 SSCA packed pages. And most of these guys have much larger boats and ground tackle and egos then me.


Will no doubt have sumthing to say again when the Supreme I ordered arrives.
In the meantime, the newly published Practical Sailor's (Feb 2006) mud test seems even more peculiar and useless to me than it did yesterday. It's an OK test if you are planning to cruise soft mud marinas slated for redevelopment.


"Numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate."
Known as Occam's Anchor. the Latin translates:
"Multiples should never be used if not necessary."

IE, continue searching for that one simple and perfect anchor!


Curious that BOWER is not used by anyone for an anchor carried on the BOW.
Nor is the term SHEET anchor used for the main or largest anchor aboard.

[ebb]

Since I am afterall only a consumer here, and not a researcher - except by necessity - let me say this:
When we order an important piece of safety equipment from a dealer and/or manufacturer, technical information is of prime importance.
You know, and the whole thing has to be laid out.
Nobody should have to make any assumptions about technical excellence or indeed the technical honesty of an anchor.

The manufacturer's reputation is pure 'hearsay.' His product, as has been shown many times over from a number of sources, 'mostly BS.' "You get what you pay for." is untrustworthy as well.
OK, how then does one purchase anything as necessary as an anchor? Nearly everybody recognizes the importance of a wellmade sturdy anchor.
We've all been burned, all been hyped, all been told what we want to hear.



I know I'm repeating myself here. And I may be a fool. But the 25# Rockna cost more than twice as much as the anchor that does the same as the Rockna. Why?

[craigsmith]

Maybe the Rockna is destined to influence all anchors hereafter. Elegant, strong, good looking, and versatile. Anchors are like stone age spearheads.
When the fluted Clovis point finally appeared after thousands of lifetimes of flaking tools for survival it changed everything suddenly. Those who went with Clovis became modern man and those who didn't ended up on the rocks of Time.

That is a nice sentiment ebb, thank you.

Do you feel the same about the Supreme you ordered?

When we order an important piece of safety equipment from a dealer and/or manufacturer, technical information is of prime importance.
You know, and the whole thing has to be laid out.
Nobody should have to make any assumptions about technical excellence or indeed the technical honesty of an anchor.

But you most certainly do have to. What technical information do you consider of prime importance? Are independent appraisals of that information available? Regarding construction, are you an expert in steel fabrication techniques? Welding? Steel grades? Even if you know your stuff, most consumers most certainly do not.

There are no standards with anchors, which we think is a tragedy since an anchor is really a safety device (as you say). Cheap imports, Chinese copies of Bruce, CQR, and Danforth, flood the market with impunity.

"You get what you pay for." is untrustworthy as well.

"You get what you pay for" is not a subjective statement. It is a measure of relativity. What we mean is:

We do not know of any anchor, from any company in any country, that is a "rip-off"; in other words, the price of every anchor is more or less fair. The price represents what has been invested in its construction. You may decide that money has been spent where you don't want it, but that is your choice.

But the 25# Rockna cost more than twice as much as the anchor that does the same as the Rockna. Why?.

An excellent question. What do you think the answer is?

[ebb]

OK, Dr Rocna,
I'm going to chew on this one last time.

The Manson Supreme "has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping and is intended to receive SHHP status." Manson says it's the only production anchor in the world that has this (yet to occur) honor.
I'm not sure what kind of warranty this implys and have not a clew what SHHP means.* (Super Hot Holding Power) The photo accompaning this statement shows a s.s. Supreme. If it is made from 316 it wouldn't be as tough and unbendy as Bisplate 80.

I would assume Rocna is waiting for their 'official recognition' from this Buzzword assurance company?
I sure hope that Rocna is included in Praktical Sailor's second part soup test. It's something, anyway.

Rocna makes one mention of the steel plate material their anchor shanks are made from: QT100. (ASTM A514S)
It is considered a low alloy steel. It forms well, flame cuts well, welds great with the proper electrodes, and has high strength NOTCH toughness. (assume that's the hole where the shackle goes) It's used for grader blades, backhoe buckets, pallet forks, safes, perforated seive screens and the bottoms of sport/fishing boats that need 'abrasion resistence' from rocks. Strong stuff.

That it is "a quenched and tempered high tensile steel extremely resistant to the twisting and bending forces present when the anchor is under load." is no doubt true. But this language connected to the next paragraph:
"Your Rocna is assembled by a team of trained specialists. Skilled workers precision-weld every component together using techniques that make the joints the strongest parts of the anchor. Welds and edges are hand-detailed until the finish is such that you'll be proud to display one on your boat."
Well, I dun know, a red flag just went up! Whotzis a pricey kitchen range or a suit? ....I guess this is the real world!

My point is, this is a shill outside a strip joint trying to get me to come inside by pumping up the charms of the ladies. Actually, what really bothers me is too many words that are just too full of merchandising - I'm on the "construction" page and I want DETAILS not HYPE. No way to evaluate the product - so I have to evaluate the source. But the source is messing with my head. Since reality is so limited, I have to base my evaluation on faith. What a way to get burned. Yes, I have.


Like someone on another board mentions about your site's video, the Rocna is not exactly subjected to the same drag test as the other anchors. We have to ASSUME the anchor has dug in and cannot be dragged along under the surface of the sand like a plow with the SUV. Your video is coy about real world anchoring in water by showing us computer enhancements that show us nothing. I have no sound with my monitor - so I'm not commenting on the narrator - who looks like a very nice but rather serious person.

You don't show your anchor setting and digging-in in any kind of bottom.

The Manson Supreme evidently is made of very similar alloy, whether the slot design makes it weaker than a solid shank is conjecture - unless you have tests to prove otherwise. Yes?
I would like to see independant tests that these shanks are resistant to bending under load. What load? Have tests been done? Like to see one lodged in coral or rock. Maybe the shank will hold up to "bending forces" but the unknown and uncelebrated alloys of the other parts of the anchor might not. I must be too stupid to care.

I wonder about the stand-alone pipe bow being strong enough and also if it'll get hung up on something. It is a kind of hook in its own right.
You do say. tho, that the pipe is galvanized inside. I wonder if the pipe and the rest of the product is in the same alloy range as the shank.


Would also like assurance that smaller anchors (your site testimonials are nearly all boats over 40' that use heavy Rocna's) that lighter Rocnas will set and dig in with smaller and lighter boats at the other end.

Will your 25# Rocna on the end of certain length of rode and chain, let's say in 20 or 30 feet of water, connected to a 5400 pound 26 foot full keel boat SET and DIG as the advertising suggests?

My life depends on it.


It's a treat to talk with anybody about a product. Specially a new anchor AND the mysterious and inexact science of anchoring. I'm glad you have a great team there and make the best anchor possible. Reflected in the price we must pay. Anchors are such an important piece of equipment that, for me, they are all already in the public domain. The evolution of the bow, you have pointed out, proves the idea is accepted by the puiblic.

*Manson assumes their reader knows what being reviewed by Lloyds means.
Do they test this anchor? What do they test? What is SHHP? It's not obvious and enters Hypeville because it is obscure. Guess I'm dumb again! Rocna raises a good point that if the anchor shackle inadvertently slides toward the blade it could pull the anchor out from set. The 'dual' shank is problematic BUT NO PROOF has been published by its critic(s).

[Breakawave]

Hi all
My name is Rex francis from anchorright Australia.Web site www.anchorright.com.au Email rex@anchorright.com.au
I invented the SARACA boat anchor back in 1993, when we did our patent search there was nothing like it on record, after many long years of r+d we releast this anchor onto the market just before the turn of the twenty first centuary, and yes we have got it right. It wasn't long before we had learnt that there was another anchor launched about the same time called a bugle but after close examination it was clear to us that it's over all concept was well outside the scope of our invention. After launching the SARCA with well documented evidence all types of water born craft took to this new design like ducks on water, it looked different had a money back garantee and was not more of the same, but more importantly it worked. It wasn't long before a Mr z from New Zealand contacted me after seeing a demonstration at a Queensland boat show, this is where it gets interesting after reading some of the forums in relation to two new anchor designs from NZ. Mr z could sell ice to the eskimos and as it turned out I fell for his tactics ,to cut a long story short we exported the SARCA into NZ in 2003 again as our oposition can confirm we took the market by storm and then started manufacturing in NZ in 2004 it wasn't long before Mr z started his handywork by plotting to take over ownership of our patents and in fact all rights to our invention, talk about an experience in NZ next thing you know 2005 the crockna turned up follwed closley by the other NZ oposition theires sported not only the hoop like the crockna but a trip release that mimicked the SACA design. Needless to say we have now taken back all rights from NZ and manufacture here in Australia, A slightly differnt version of the state of affares as to the reasent reading on this forum. There have been so many untruths babled by our opposition to push there own barrow with absolutely no regards for fair comment or general buisness ethic's. The reason we have not picked this up before is because Iam not a forums buff and have far better things to do than bag our opposition but enough is enough. this forum was bought to my attention by my marketing manager here in Australia and pointed out that there are a lot of readers asking inteligant questions and only recieving a smoke screen, there Ive had my say and you probably wont here from me again unless you email rex@anchorright.com.au Iwill reply via email. As far as anchor tests go, sure you have heard enought lets see proof of what we are crowing about and why we are of such an interest to our oppositionn, check out our web site and pay attention to the incredible Tsuami report and watch our uncut DVD, this will take a while to streem load but once done will play smoothly. Iam sure many of the questions that you have not been given direct ansers for will be fully understood without ducking and diving. Any of our statments can be verified. If you would like to trial the SARCA simply email me you will pay for the anchor and frieght, you have three months for trial and if your not satified with it's perfomance a full money back garauntee will see you refunded and then you can enter your own report.
and incidentley you wont be charged for regalvanizing, however if you loss the anchor there is no refund.
One gentleman asked a question, why isn't the roll bar fixed to the rear of the shank, woudn't this give it more srenght? our resaerch over a period of six to seven years said yes it does, Sarca is fixed to the rear of the shank, why arn't the others it seems our patents have been pushed to the limits take he next step?

Regards. Rex Francis.

[Bill]

The Feb '06 Sailing mag has an article titled The ABC's of Anchoring beginning on page 38. In this thread, it might be considered a "look back," since it does not mention any of the newer patented anchors being discussed here.

". . . most sailors rely on two basic types: the plow anchor, which has flukes shaped like a plow and relies on its weight for the initial set, and lighter anchors with flat flukes that rely on pivoting design and the pull of the boat to set them . . . Offshore cruisers . . . generally swear by the Lewmar CQR and the Bruce, both proven plow anchors that will hold tight during unseemly weather. Inshore sailors . . . will swear by their Danforth or Fortress . . . but (they) have one drawback, especially for offshore sailors; they do not easily self-tend when raised . . . CQR, Bruce and . . . the Delta all lend themselves to being raised with a windlass and secured on a bow roller with minimal attention.

". . . there is one anchor that many people . . . would never leave port without, and it's the old-fashioned kedge anchor or Fisherman, also known as the Yachtsman or Herreshoff. . . . once down it grabs where most other anchors skip and as such is often used as a storm anchor."

There’s more to the article, especially on setting and retrieving anchors. Check it out.

[Admin]

Hi all
My name is Rex francis from anchorright Australia.Web site www.anchorright.com.au Email rex@anchorright.com.au
I invented the SARACA boat anchor back in 1993, when we did our patent search there was nothing like it on record, after many long years of r+d we releast this anchor onto the market just before the turn of the twenty first centuary, and yes we have got it right. It wasn't long before we had learnt that there was another anchor launched about the same time called a bugle but after close examination it was clear to us that it's over all concept was well outside the scope of our invention. After launching the SARCA with well documented evidence all types of water born craft took to this new design like ducks on water, it looked different had a money back garantee and was not more of the same, but more importantly it worked. It wasn't long before a Mr z from New Zealand contacted me after seeing a demonstration at a Queensland boat show, this is where it gets interesting after reading some of the forums in relation to two new anchor designs from NZ. Mr z could sell ice to the eskimos and as it turned out I fell for his tactics ,to cut a long story short we exported the SARCA into NZ in 2003 again as our oposition can confirm we took the market by storm and then started manufacturing in NZ in 2004 it wasn't long before Mr z started his handywork by plotting to take over ownership of our patents and in fact all rights to our invention, talk about an experience in NZ next thing you know 2005 the crockna turned up follwed closley by the other NZ oposition theires sported not only the hoop like the crockna but a trip release that mimicked the SACA design. Needless to say we have now taken back all rights from NZ and manufacture here in Australia, A slightly differnt version of the state of affares as to the reasent reading on this forum. There have been so many untruths babled by our opposition to push there own barrow with absolutely no regards for fair comment or general buisness ethic's. The reason we have not picked this up before is because Iam not a forums buff and have far better things to do than bag our opposition but enough is enough. this forum was bought to my attention by my marketing manager here in Australia and pointed out that there are a lot of readers asking inteligant questions and only recieving a smoke screen, there Ive had my say and you probably wont here from me again unless you email rex@anchorright.com.au Iwill reply via email. As far as anchor tests go, sure you have heard enought lets see proof of what we are crowing about and why we are of such an interest to our oppositionn, check out our web site and pay attention to the incredible Tsuami report and watch our uncut DVD, this will take a while to streem load but once done will play smoothly. Iam sure many of the questions that you have not been given direct ansers for will be fully understood without ducking and diving. Any of our statments can be verified. If you would like to trial the SARCA simply email me you will pay for the anchor and frieght, you have three months for trial and if your not satified with it's perfomance a full money back garauntee will see you refunded and then you can enter your own report.
and incidentley you wont be charged for regalvanizing, however if you loss the anchor there is no refund.
One gentleman asked a question, why isn't the roll bar fixed to the rear of the shank, woudn't this give it more srenght? our resaerch over a period of six to seven years said yes it does, Sarca is fixed to the rear of the shank, why arn't the others it seems our patents have been pushed to the limits take he next step?

Regards. Rex Francis.

I must point out that this post looks a lot more like marketing than an attempt to add to this discussion. Someone might want to consider taking Rex up on his offer for more info by emailing him and then posting the dialog for everyone, or possibly trying to get him to return and actually participate in the discussion.