I live aboard in Med and sleep with 40kg rocna and min 7:1 with chain of 10mm ....in many years never fail. Rocna (like many other ancors) need’s minimun 5 :1. Testing at 3,5:1 is ridiculous...
He mentions it was just a test with this scope. Although watching Sailing Atticus in a real blow in Bermuda with a 7 to 1 scope that Mantus dragged and basically couldn't reset. These row bars are interesting. I saw the same thing with UMA with their Rocna.
Hey Steve after looking through and binge watching your videos. I keep seeing the same things when an anchor reset drags; mud from the square shank piled up compacted to the anchor. Maybe rounding the shank to allow mud to come off, or how about painting or polishing the anchor to be smoother and to stop the mechanic bonding of mud to the surface. The galvanized coating is really rough with lots of small surface imperfections that allow a lot of surface area for mud to stick to. Think a coat of polish and wax to a cars paint to bead off dirt and grime.
Steve, as per the last two videos, you know by now that I, as you, have a 45 lbs Mason Supreme anchor. I drilled holes into it, as you did, after seeing your testing results. I drilled the same number of holes, i.e. 9, on both sides of the shank, as per what you did, in my own Manson anchor, with the exception that follows. I added two holes in a line at the base of the shank close to the tip, i.e one more than what you did to this Rocna. When I now retrieve my Mason, all the mud is gone!!! Let me know if you want a picture. With regards to weakening the anchor because of the holes, I’m going to reassure you here. My neighbour is a structural engineer. He said technically it did weaken the anchor, but not within the context of its usage i.e. because of the way the anchor is pulled in the seabed. Said otherwise, we marginally weakened our Mason Supreme by drilling the holes into the fluke of the anchor as we did. More importantly, we improved its performance by doing so. Now, I still have to sharpened the tip of my Manson, as you did, because, as I stated in your previous video, the Manson Supreme is completely inefficient in a hard-packed sand bottom, i.e. a prevalent seabed up here in upstate NY.
I agree that the extra holes in front of the shank will likely have little impact on strength of the toe. The only way the toe would bend is if it was jammed into a rock in storm unsheltered (biggish waves) conditions but in such extremely rare conditions it would likely bend with or without a few holes. So if anchoring in a rocky area during a storm and are worried about the toe bending then a steel excel or delta anchor would be preferred.
I am not a sailor. I am not a boater. I'm just a retired molecular biologist. And I LOVE your videos! the scientific method rules! Thank you for your wonderful videos!
Steve. You make good points about modifying an anchor. If the boat drags and wrecks the insurance company might have something to say about a modified anchor.
That is a very good point Barry, never thought of that. Thanks for pointing that out. Even if the modification was an obvious improvement and the seabed substrate or debris on the seabed was the problem the insurance company could still deny the obvious and blame a boat owners anchor modification for a shipwreck.
F#4k making decisions based on insurance companies! Since 2001 they have sucked the fun out of life. Just chuck the anchor overboard and tell ‘em it was shackle failure. 😂🤠
Wow, your testing is the best! You have really put a lot of thought and effort into this. After viewing your tests, I bought a Spade Have been very happy with it. It deploys and retrieves with NO hang ups and has never drug. Before, used a Delta. Went to 55 # on my 44’ boat. 3/8 BBB chain. Had very good luck with it. But spade much better. Delta was best bang for the buck back then, but maybe Rocna good bargain buy now. Spade is pricy but well worth it. It’s like have a very nice car with poor tires. Just doesn’t make sense. Again. Great work!!
With all your knowledge gained I’d say you need to come up with a best of the best designs and incorporate into a “Panope Anchor” that thing should be bomb proof...I’m sure if you announced that, anchor manufacturers would take a deep breath. That would make a nice winter project while the boat is out of the water 👍 good job sir
He didn't have enough room because the wood was deflecting too much. He was running into the wall practically. Three 10-foot lengths of 3" rigid conduit screwed together and placed over the shank for a 30' lever would have either done the job or moved the anchor under the car tire. A cable winch or chainfall at the end of the lever to an attachment on the wall or a dirt anchor would have been able to impose some.massive force into that lever. More than an adult male could just by pushing on the end. Something would break or bend eventually :D
It is funny that the Rocna gets such bad marks here. I'm new to sailing and have had my Fortress anchor drag a bit (scary at night). All my vid watching and mag reading, everyone spoke so highly of their Rocna. Many saying, I've never had a problem. So I went I to the marine store for an anchor; they basically had Fortress and Rocna. I went home with their #10 (23 lb) anchor for a 24', 5,000 lb sloop. I was out this summer on a night with 35 kt winds in a mud bottom with 10' of chain somewhere Downeast. I went out at midnight to check (and decided to let a little more rode out). The tension on my rode line was unbelievable. I actually got sleep that night (with my anchor drag alarm) thinking "now worries" I have a Rocna. I later saw your test vids. Hmmm. Won't sleep as soundly next time.
For all of the Rocna fans that got offended by this video ask yourself why Rocna thought they needed to come out with a Mk2 version. Watch the video Rocna produced showing the changes they made vs the original. Why would they go through the expense of designing a new one if the original didn't have a problem?
An interesting tale. I was watching Sailing Atticus recently in a real blow in Bermuda and their anchor dragged and dragged and basically wouldn't reset. They had a ton of scope out. Pretty sure they had a roll bar anchor. Mantus!
Possible that the shank was slighty distorted when it was welded by the asymmetric heat application instead of initial alignment. I'm a retired nav.arch. and have seen massive distortions in steel on ships due to welding.
i have a 20KG Rocna works well, ill check the square just for fun, mine is 3 years old. my steel 40" sailboat is 26000 Lbs we use all 5-1/6" chain 300' available usually 5-1 scope more if necessary. thanks for all your research.
Rocna anchor tends to perform better at 5 to 1 scope. It is when scope is reduced to like 3.5 to 1 for tight overcrowded anchorages that these test videos seem to suggest is a problem for the rocna.
Very interesting Steve, think my Rocna will get the flattened flukes with total of 3 holes at front. I travel in sand here in Florida so expect better performance from a mod like this. Love your channel and also love this kind of real world experimentation.
So after going out to retrieve my Rocna ??? it turns out that I did not own a true Rocna ... it already has done away with the flukes. The mystery anchor is a Manson and seems to hold well in sand ... so there's that.
Re your comments on the Northill anchor. For years they dominated the commercial fishing fleet here in BC I suspect mainly because they could be welded up in the backyard out of mild steel plate and because they do work given the major limitation that you note. The other limitation in my view is they tear the bejesus out of your topsides when recovering them.
Thanks for this!!! Patterns of what works and what does not are becoming more apparent. Based on your theory of the mud build up, another potential mod would be to sharpen (or build up a sharper point) the leading edge of the shank and then polishing this area so that the mud does not have a 1/2" flat and sand paper to grab on to. Since the mud gummed up the front holes I wonder if putting an angle to them so that as the anchor became more horizontal the holes would tend to open up more on the bottom would also help. I also +1 the idea of bending the back down instead of up such that it makes the anchor set more deeply with pressure there.
I will test a MKII when one becomes available to me. It appears that the anchor has not been released. This is a quote from the Rocna website: "Ready for sale in the marketplace in Winter 2023"
I stopped watching before half way. Absolute rubbish. Do you think for a minute that the manufacturer didn’t perform all these test prior to mass production ? As already stated you have just voided the insurance claim if something was to happen because of dragging. I have a 25 kg rocna and have been anchoring in sand all summer. Fully loaded Oceanis 41.1 with 14 passengers and 700 liters in 3 tanks. . Dropped and caught first time every time.
Eddie, watch to the end and his other videos before calling ^absolute rubbish^. I have a 35kg Rocna and holds extremely well but every time I lift in mud, the mud sticks like rock on the top of the fluke and I have to force off with a boat hook. His test is once set, driving forward over the anchor at 3.5knots. In his tests, all filmed, the Rocna does not reset, nearly every other anchor does. I haven't tried this but I would not be surprised if mine did the same given the density and amount of solid mud I find on lifting. I can understand why Rocna may not have tested (3.5kt immediate change in flow/tide direction is not normall) and also drilling holes adds to cost. At least thanks to his videos I am aware of something to consider when anchoring in mud with my Rocna.
@@johnhart29 I think Rocna anchor works a better at 5 to 1 scope or even 7 to 1 scope. The issue is when resetting at short 3.5 to 1 scope, such short scope might be necessary in e.g. crowded anchorages.
@@Dave-SailsAway you are mostly right, but in my view an exception exists with a CQR which is very prone to failing at 10 to 1 scope but performs best at mid range scope of about 5 to 1.
The turned up rear flange as originally designed seems to be acting as aeroplane’s elevator, and as the anchor ploughs into the mud it forces the rear of the anchor down and the fluke upward.
Could be that the more the anchor points downward when buried, the more the pulling force from the chain trys to pull it bodily out and the less force there is pulling the anchor forward and down. In engineering terms, the force (F) can be resolved into the force along the fluke axis (Fh) and the force at right angles (Fv). The steeper the angle of the flukes, the greater Fv and correspondingly smaller Fh. That may be the thinking behind the turned up flange - keep the anchor from pointing down too steeply once buried. Unfortunately, it acts as a mud retainer/ rear weight when the anchor does pull out.
Remove the rollbar and test what happens. I know its not authorised or backed by most tribes but do it ! Also sharpen the leading edge of the shank. Note my old original Delta mk1 and new Rocna 2 have this feature.
Its often too costly for manufacturers to produce a sharp edge to the shank but we do not have to follow like tribal sheep. Please test it. It will improve the flow of substrate at the anchor blade. Maybe moreso than drilling holes (?)
Bought a 25 kilo Rocna. Would love to see the modification of sharpening the front edge of the shank near the blade. (Like that is on my original 16k Delta design) And also the removal of the rollbar. Note that that would also benefit the weight distribution. Great work !
We had a 15KG Rocna and wanted to upgrade for full time live aboard . The different between the 15 and 20KG in size is not much but between the 20 and 25 the difference is more substantial. Between the weight difference the surface area os much greater. The Mantus dont seem to have that big jump between sizes
Yes, the Rocna works quite well when at 5 to 1 scope or greater and lots of chain. The point this video test is making is anchoring with a Rocna at short scope in a crowded anchorage with a strong wind shift may very well cause your Rocna to fail. If you are anchoring exclusively in areas that few other boats anchor in and you can swing on long lengths of rode then fine, just ignore this video test.
Have you ever considered painting the flukes with an epoxy/graphite mix instead of (or additionally to) the holes? It creates a slightly slippery surface and is plenty strong. Would be interesting to see if it helps with the mud fouling. Thanks for doing these tests!
I believe the yellow paint that the SPADE anchor company applies to their flukes is intended to help prevent mud from sticking. Unfortunately, the paint quickly wore off due to the great difficulty of getting anything to stick to galvanized metal. I'll note that there was no change in performance (in my tests) after the paint was removed.
Just done a search on polishing galvanized steel and waxing after cleaning does seem to be a thing. Anything more abrasive would wear the tin/zinc coating. Worth a test?
Been out to have a look at my Rocna 25kg and it has a pretty smooth finish. How about the one you tested? Could the finish get rougher with age and use?
I jave a hard time with this. Surely Rocna did engineering testing...this giy sledge hammers it and it goes from fail to success? Bro has Rocna called you yet?
Is it possible to modify a cheaper anchor like delta? Buying a rocna and modify it is no option. Then u can buy a Viking etc for nearly the same. But modifying a cheap standard anchor could be a option for people like me who anchor only 1 to 5 times over night per year
Yo Steve! Work has been really quiet here in Melbourne. Looks like I’m eating some contracts in next week. Will def chuck you some cash when they come through. as i have watching for years and made my decision to get a sarca excel primarily from your videos. This was 2 years ago before its recent outstanding performances. + plus its locally designed and made. Fantastic unbiased research here by the way! I’m sure Rocna would like to see it.
Very interesting video. Is this an "abnormally performing" Rockna or have others you have tested fared better? I like your reasoning at the end. I think one lesson I take away is that a 4:1 scope is sometimes insufficient for these rollbar anchors, which goes against the current thinking that they actually need less. We run a 45lb Mantus on our 35' Hallberg-Rassy Rasmus and anchor out full time. Rarely will we stay in any one spot for more than a few days since we do the US East Coast migration every season. It is usually someplace new in an area we have never anchored in before. All we have to go on is the chart's description of the sea bed and thr reviews of others on Active Captain and other sites of these anchorages. We have only drug a couple of times in the past three years and those were both VERY slow drags and both times at true scopes of 4:1 or worse. Both were in very soft mud with deep burials/penetration and the mud caking into the 10-15 feet of the chain near the anchor. I believe you are right about the issue of the chain coming down through the mud to the deeply-buried anchor in a concave curve. The chain can't cut through the mud like a knife and has a lot of drag itself, especially when caked with mud. A wire rope leader off of the anchor might do better in these situations, as would using more scope. To make matters worse for the scope equation when the anchor buries deep like this it is actually serving to shorten the scope and the angle of the rode even more. In shallow water situations with extremely soft mud the anchor burial depth may come close to the actual water depth, effectively doubling true depth and halving the scope ratio. In 10 feet of water with 40' of rode under the surface you will have 4:1 but if the anchor plunges 10 feet deeper into the mud the scope is now 20 feet below the boat and at 2:1 -plus the curving chain issue further tends to lift the shank upward as well. Oooops! The times we drug in soft mud I did notice that we seemed to be too close to where we dropped the anchor beforehand using the GPS. I believe this was because the anchor went in so deep that more of the rode was being used coming up to the boat and therefore the boat wasn't as far away horizontally as the projected rode angle would predict. When the anchor did drag it would lunge slowly and then reset. When I noticed this on the anchor alarm app on my phone the boat would move a few feet and then stop, then wait a number of minutes before doing it again. The winds were pretty steady and not gusting too badly. I think the anchor was slowly turning upwards, then surfacing to near the top of the mud. Near the surface the chain angle was better and the anchor would dive again and reset to a point where the chain angle was again too steep and do it all over again. We were moving about 30' per hour and I let this go on for about 3 hours (100') before it became light outside and my wife woke up. We had plenty of room to drag on another 300 feet, but I figured we were staying the day and another night to wait out the weather so we should figure out what was going on right away. There were no other boats around us except for a couple of dericlicts a few hundred yards off to the side. We retrieved the anchor and it was buried very deep, about 10 feet down but it did come up slowly with constant pressure once the chain was vertical. I was surprised that an anchor buried that deeply was dragging. There was nothing at all fouling the anchor like weeds, sticks, netting or clothing/bedding*. We returned to the initial spot and reset the anchor, this time allowing for this extra 10 feet of burial depth in the scope equation. It held fine after that and never budged so much as a could be determined by the GPS accuracy. These days we put out at least 7:1 if we can get away with it and even 10:1 if there is room. An extra few seconds of the electric windlass is all it costs to be sure there is plenty of scope. We rarely anchor in water over 14-16 feet deep, so we are not talking about a whole lot of extra room needed. *We once picked up a heavy down parka jacket when anchoring. The anchor took an uncharactoristically long (50 feet). distance to set, skittering along before finally digging in. There was a bad storm coming, the remnants of Hurricane Eta and we later saw max gusts in the 50's that evening in N. Carolina. I am glad we didn't just leave it because when we pulled up the anchor to check it was piercing the thick parka. The Mantus has an extremely sharp point compared to the Rockna but I was impressed that it was able to rip right through all the layers of the heavy nylon jacket and insulation to make a huge hole so that the tip of the anchor could dig in and set. It hadn't ripped all the way through so the entire fluke and rollbar could fit through, so before I could hook it well with the boat hook it fell off the anchor back into the water. It was SO HEAVY and waterlogged I was having trouble just pulling it off. We didn't budge that storm but nearly all the other cruisers sharing this anchorage did have issues and we watched them struggle out in 50+ gusts and driving rain trying to put out more scope and in one case extra anchors. No thanks. I am grateful the dragging boats were not upwind of us, and they were all able to eventually stabilize their situations. Their problems did not become our problem too.
Thanks for sharing your insights, SV Barry Duckworth. I especially appreciate your point about the depth of bury significantly shortening scope (when in shallow water). As to your question about this particular Rocna, yes, this anchor performed worse than two other examples (both smaller). A theory that I am currently investigating is effects of anchor "surface roughness" on performance. This particular anchor came to me in used condition and while the galvanizing was intact, there may have been some roughness that contributed to seabed adhering to the anchor. The other two (better performing) Rocnas were both in new, unused condition with "shiny" and perhaps more "slippery" galvanizing.
It is very interesting to me how counter-intuitive some of these factors seem to be in anchor design and performance. A slippery anchor seems to hold better, and adding holes seems to also help in certain circumstances? It seems crazy to me. Your explanation of the solid ball effect of a loaded plow anchor moving through the seabed is intriguing. I wish I had taken higher-level physics and engineering classes to have studied fluid dynamics. I have talked to Greg from Mantus at boat shows and have taken his anchoring seminar. His extensive beach-testing of his early designs seems to have yielded a few improvements over the Rocna. I do like how the bolt-on shank seems to yield a more consistent product over the welded. I have noticed that many new Rocnas are slightly misshapen with shanks tipped off of 90-degrees or bent off at an angle going forward. I have never seen a new Mantus that had these shape defects. If the shank bent in use a new bolt-on shank would be much less costly to replace than a whole new anchor when it is welded -even shipping would be much less. The tip of the Mantus anchor seems to be much sharper too. Maybe a rounded leading edge to the shank is another improvement. I hope you do some experimenting with this and can get some data comparing the same anchor with standard flat leading edge shank and with it rounded. Maybe a V-shape like a knife blade would cut through the seabed easier and keep the shank angle down? I also wonder how different the qualities of dry or moist sand on a beach are compared to fully submerged and waterlogged sand, I would think the friction and stiction of the material would be different. Testing underwater must be superior to testing on the beach in all but the ease of doing the tests. Your extensive underwater tests are a valuable resource, especially since you are not affiliated with any of these anchor manufacturers.
What if the flattened fluke plates were bendable to begin with - like keep them flat for thick mud & weed and bend them upwards for cobblestone and soft sand?
Very good idea. Would be a challenging engineering feat to make a strong, movable flap. Probably easiest to have the flap bolted on thus removable or installed upsidedown if the "downturned" position was desired. Might be difficult to for the user to determine what seabed is under him and therefore difficult to choose the correct flap setting.
@@flygoodwin difficult - absolutely, but not impossible if Rocna wants to do it, they would want convincing evidence though. I hope they see your video, ask your opinion and do some experiments on their own. I think you may be on to something with these mods (Manson and Rocna) your are doing 😉
Hi Steve love the testing you are doing ,I've just got a copy rocna and on your dynamic reset and the cobbles I wondered if you have noticed that in the upright position these anchors have no angle of attack unless the chain can depress the shank or cause a fall over? Could this be relevant. Steve
I'm not sure that the thinking that mud on the anchor upon retrieval is a factor on the anchor not holding. If there is force forcing the anchor down, would the mud stuck on the fluke hold the anchor back? I imagine a shovel, a shovel with mud on the fluke. If you were digging a hole with the shovel, pushing it down in the dirt with your foot, doesn't seem like the mud would make much difference.
I have heavy clay soil in my backyard. If I use a shovel when the soil is wet it will stick securely. Then if I try to use a shovel with clay still attached, it is almost impossible to press it into the ground. Mud on the anchor preventing resetting makes sense.
Testing anchors in a way they were not intended to be used confuses me. Anchors are designed to set and then be loaded horizontally, not 3.5 to 1 scope measured from the bow to bottom at high tide. I have to wonder how they would perform when tested as designed? 5 to 1 or 7 to 1 is typical for that last 40 years. Lifting the shank of an anchor is how you unset it, not set it. Holes? Wierd logic.
The Rocna website has a downloadable User's Guide that lists 3 to 1 as the minimum recommended scope. 5 to 1 or 7 to 1 scope is impossible in the majority of anchorages in my cruising area (PNW) due to Deep Water and Confined/Crowded Harbors. I learned about the benefits of drilling holes in the fluke from Rex Francis, the founder of Anchor Right Anchors. This is a well proven concept for which Rex holds an Australian patent.
@@flygoodwin What the Rocna website actually says is "A scope of 3:1 should normally remain the minimum. In very shallow water this minimum may be too low. " In deep water, most scope calculations for shallow water do not apply. I think anchoring depths over 25' need a different set of rules for scope. This truly could be a huge project to do correctly for different anchors at different scopes and depths, but depths under 20' with 5 to 1 scopes seems a typical scenario most anchors would be used for.
Hard to say. Certainly, the exposed steel (inside the holes) will rust. Not sure if this rust will "creep" under the adjacent galvanizing. If I were to place a modified anchor in regular service, I would have it re-galvanized.
That anchor is designed for the "normal" (i.e. recommended virtually everywhere) scope of 5:1 or better. The angle of the pull is taken into account when designing the angle of the shank versus the plow. It seems to me to be mildly disingenuous to do all the testing with such a short scope of 3:1, and I certainly would never encourage anyone to use that for an overnight. I would love to see a relative test of the same anchor at 3:1 and then at least 5:1 as I think there would be a tremendous difference.
The combination of the long, heavy chain and the poor holding of this anchor, meant that the angle of pull (during the 3.5 to 1 testing) was not greater than what would occur at 5 to 1 scope with a mostly rope rode. I have tested this 44lb. Rocna at up to 7 to 1 scope and a 22lb Rocna at up to 9 to 1 scope, and while performance did improve (over the shorter scopes) they both performed poorly compared to numerous other designs (in some, but not all seabeds). 5 to 1 scope is not possible in a large percentage of anchorages in my cruising area (PNW). 3 to 1 scope is indeed '"normal".
I do wonder if the rocna fluke ears extended out further, like a mantus, if this would improve the performance of this anchor. That is of course a welding job but might be an idea for next season when panope is relaunched. Just a, hopefully helpful, suggestion.
@@flygoodwin - I was not thinking with regard to mud fouling, you have largely cured that part of the rocna, I was actually thinking that extending the rocna ears further out would increase and improve the setting angle of the fluke tip. As for the roll bar, it does prevent the edge sinking into soft mud but might not be necessary to change to extend the ears. I was just thinking a triangular or some such shape and piece of metal welded to extend the fluke ears further out. I think the rocna has an inferior setting angle and this is why just the slightest fouling, e.g. with mud, causes it to fail. The mantus has an aggressive setting angle in large part because of the wide fluke ears and even with mud attached it does not foul, at least the larger mantus anchors (small mantus 6kg anchor is not as resistant to fouling though as your testing suggests).
@@flygoodwin I mean, look at 3:36 in your video and see how the tip is not at an aggressive setting angle, because the fluke ears do not extend far enough out...
@@MrAthlon4800 I now understand. Yes, the wide ears/rollbar of the Mantus does aim the toe downward and also increases the weight/balance of the toe. Not sure if that aspect helps with the mud fouling. Certainly, when the Rocna fouled during the "deep set" test, it was already upright.
Aye m8, I must say I doubt that the flattening of the back fluke of that Rocna could affect the performance in a bad way. To me it isn’t logical, since they are bended upwards in original design, and then becomes like a rudder, turning the whole fluke up(!) from the bottom. I reckon a test with them turned downwards would be very interesting.
Hi Steve, I'm a fan of your investigations. Have you come across a Knox anchor? www.knoxanchors.com/ I'm curious to see what you think about the gap between the flukes. Would this save all the drilling? Likewise a flat trailing edge without the Rocna 'spoiler' would save on the hammering? Knox are a Scottish company and I am contemplating buying local but wondered if you had an opinion. Keep up the great work!
I have not tested a knox anchor. Fluke slot could help with mud attachment. However, I have found the area at the base of the shank to be a strong collector or mud (no slot there).
@Renegade Show Oh great, you've infiltrated another one of my favorite channels. Exact same location??? What, did Steve text you the Lat and Longitude of where he was testing? Your CQR is junk, in just about any bottom, with the exception of being extremely fouled on a submerged derelict WWII battleship.
12:00...worlds worst neighbor! Also, I'm really concerned about my Rocna anchor now for my sailboat...and can't see myself modifying it like you did. hmmm, perhaps I should go back to my Bruce?
I live aboard in Med and sleep with 40kg rocna and min 7:1 with chain of 10mm ....in many years never fail.
Rocna (like many other ancors) need’s minimun 5 :1. Testing at 3,5:1 is ridiculous...
I agree 5:1 is minimum my 25 kg never drag 3.5:1 is ridiculous yes
He mentions it was just a test with this scope. Although watching Sailing Atticus in a real blow in Bermuda with a 7 to 1 scope that Mantus dragged and basically couldn't reset. These row bars are interesting. I saw the same thing with UMA with their Rocna.
@@maritimetees2315 7 to 1 is not enough for a "real blow" just sayin"!
Why is the Rocna the only one that can't pass the test without modification??
I totally agree. 3.5:1 silly and irresponsible. 5:1 minimum. 7:1 good.
Hey Steve after looking through and binge watching your videos. I keep seeing the same things when an anchor reset drags; mud from the square shank piled up compacted to the anchor. Maybe rounding the shank to allow mud to come off, or how about painting or polishing the anchor to be smoother and to stop the mechanic bonding of mud to the surface.
The galvanized coating is really rough with lots of small surface imperfections that allow a lot of surface area for mud to stick to. Think a coat of polish and wax to a cars paint to bead off dirt and grime.
This is what I did, used grinder to take away sharp corners and painted smooth. No mud stick and looks pretty.
Steve, as per the last two videos, you know by now that I, as you, have a 45 lbs Mason Supreme anchor. I drilled holes into it, as you did, after seeing your testing results. I drilled the same number of holes, i.e. 9, on both sides of the shank, as per what you did, in my own Manson anchor, with the exception that follows. I added two holes in a line at the base of the shank close to the tip, i.e one more than what you did to this Rocna. When I now retrieve my Mason, all the mud is gone!!! Let me know if you want a picture. With regards to weakening the anchor because of the holes, I’m going to reassure you here. My neighbour is a structural engineer. He said technically it did weaken the anchor, but not within the context of its usage i.e. because of the way the anchor is pulled in the seabed. Said otherwise, we marginally weakened our Mason Supreme by drilling the holes into the fluke of the anchor as we did. More importantly, we improved its performance by doing so. Now, I still have to sharpened the tip of my Manson, as you did, because, as I stated in your previous video, the Manson Supreme is completely inefficient in a hard-packed sand bottom, i.e. a prevalent seabed up here in upstate NY.
Glad to hear your modifications produced a positive result!
I agree that the extra holes in front of the shank will likely have little impact on strength of the toe. The only way the toe would bend is if it was jammed into a rock in storm unsheltered (biggish waves) conditions but in such extremely rare conditions it would likely bend with or without a few holes. So if anchoring in a rocky area during a storm and are worried about the toe bending then a steel excel or delta anchor would be preferred.
Archimedes would be proud of your dedication to levers. Rocna clearly build strong shanks - even if they're not straight!
I am not a sailor. I am not a boater. I'm just a retired molecular biologist. And I LOVE your videos! the scientific method rules! Thank you for your wonderful videos!
Thanks, Dale
Excellent work! So valuable to the sailing community!
Steve. You make good points about modifying an anchor. If the boat drags and wrecks the insurance company might have something to say about a modified anchor.
That is a very good point Barry, never thought of that. Thanks for pointing that out. Even if the modification was an obvious improvement and the seabed substrate or debris on the seabed was the problem the insurance company could still deny the obvious and blame a boat owners anchor modification for a shipwreck.
F#4k making decisions based on insurance companies! Since 2001 they have sucked the fun out of life. Just chuck the anchor overboard and tell ‘em it was shackle failure. 😂🤠
@@Steve-ul8qb fuck yeah, exactly bro!
I have the 45 lb. Ronca.....thanks for all ur hard work.
Wow, your testing is the best! You have really put a lot of thought and effort into this. After viewing your tests, I bought a Spade Have been very happy with it. It deploys and retrieves with NO hang ups and has never drug. Before, used a Delta. Went to 55 # on my 44’ boat. 3/8 BBB chain. Had very good luck with it. But spade much better. Delta was best bang for the buck back then, but maybe Rocna good bargain buy now. Spade is pricy but well worth it. It’s like have a very nice car with poor tires. Just doesn’t make sense. Again. Great work!!
I was waiting for a Wile E. Coyote moment when you were trying to straighten out the bent shank, lol! Love your vids - keep up the good work!
With all your knowledge gained I’d say you need to come up with a best of the best designs and incorporate into a “Panope Anchor” that thing should be bomb proof...I’m sure if you announced that, anchor manufacturers would take a deep breath. That would make a nice winter project while the boat is out of the water 👍 good job sir
Give me a lever long enough and I will move the world - but not the rocna shank!! - Archimedes 😂🤣 great video!
He didn't have enough room because the wood was deflecting too much. He was running into the wall practically. Three 10-foot lengths of 3" rigid conduit screwed together and placed over the shank for a 30' lever would have either done the job or moved the anchor under the car tire. A cable winch or chainfall at the end of the lever to an attachment on the wall or a dirt anchor would have been able to impose some.massive force into that lever. More than an adult male could just by pushing on the end.
Something would break or bend eventually :D
Thank you for your videos. You have helped me choose my new anchor. Keep up the great work!
Steve, I love your tenacious efforts.
It is funny that the Rocna gets such bad marks here. I'm new to sailing and have had my Fortress anchor drag a bit (scary at night). All my vid watching and mag reading, everyone spoke so highly of their Rocna. Many saying, I've never had a problem. So I went I to the marine store for an anchor; they basically had Fortress and Rocna. I went home with their #10 (23 lb) anchor for a 24', 5,000 lb sloop. I was out this summer on a night with 35 kt winds in a mud bottom with 10' of chain somewhere Downeast. I went out at midnight to check (and decided to let a little more rode out). The tension on my rode line was unbelievable. I actually got sleep that night (with my anchor drag alarm) thinking "now worries" I have a Rocna. I later saw your test vids. Hmmm. Won't sleep as soundly next time.
For all of the Rocna fans that got offended by this video ask yourself why Rocna thought they needed to come out with a Mk2 version. Watch the video Rocna produced showing the changes they made vs the original. Why would they go through the expense of designing a new one if the original didn't have a problem?
An interesting tale. I was watching Sailing Atticus recently in a real blow in Bermuda and their anchor dragged and dragged and basically wouldn't reset. They had a ton of scope out. Pretty sure they had a roll bar anchor. Mantus!
Possible that the shank was slighty distorted when it was welded by the asymmetric heat application instead of initial alignment. I'm a retired nav.arch. and have seen massive distortions in steel on ships due to welding.
i have a 20KG Rocna works well, ill check the square just for fun, mine is 3 years old.
my steel 40" sailboat is 26000 Lbs we use all 5-1/6" chain 300' available usually 5-1 scope more if necessary. thanks for all your research.
Rocna anchor tends to perform better at 5 to 1 scope. It is when scope is reduced to like 3.5 to 1 for tight overcrowded anchorages that these test videos seem to suggest is a problem for the rocna.
Very interesting Steve, think my Rocna will get the flattened flukes with total of 3 holes at front. I travel in sand here in Florida so expect better performance from a mod like this. Love your channel and also love this kind of real world experimentation.
So after going out to retrieve my Rocna ??? it turns out that I did not own a true Rocna ... it already has done away with the flukes. The mystery anchor is a Manson and seems to hold well in sand ... so there's that.
2:55 - As the gentleman, you should marry that anchor after this video aired.
Looks like you helped it some. I ll stay with my old Spade!
Re your comments on the Northill anchor. For years they dominated the commercial fishing fleet here in BC I suspect mainly because they could be welded up in the backyard out of mild steel plate and because they do work given the major limitation that you note. The other limitation in my view is they tear the bejesus out of your topsides when recovering them.
Your videos are fantastic!
Thanks for this!!! Patterns of what works and what does not are becoming more apparent. Based on your theory of the mud build up, another potential mod would be to sharpen (or build up a sharper point) the leading edge of the shank and then polishing this area so that the mud does not have a 1/2" flat and sand paper to grab on to. Since the mud gummed up the front holes I wonder if putting an angle to them so that as the anchor became more horizontal the holes would tend to open up more on the bottom would also help. I also +1 the idea of bending the back down instead of up such that it makes the anchor set more deeply with pressure there.
Great idea. I wish I would have sharpened the shank leading edge. Maybe next year.
Sv Panope would you consider testing the recently released MKII. Be interesting to see if their changes address the resting issue.
I will test a MKII when one becomes available to me. It appears that the anchor has not been released. This is a quote from the Rocna website:
"Ready for sale in the marketplace in Winter 2023"
I stopped watching before half way. Absolute rubbish. Do you think for a minute that the manufacturer didn’t perform all these test prior to mass production ? As already stated you have just voided the insurance claim if something was to happen because of dragging.
I have a 25 kg rocna and have been anchoring in sand all summer. Fully loaded Oceanis 41.1 with 14 passengers and 700 liters in 3 tanks. . Dropped and caught first time every time.
What scope do you use for anchoring?
Eddie, watch to the end and his other videos before calling ^absolute rubbish^. I have a 35kg Rocna and holds extremely well but every time I lift in mud, the mud sticks like rock on the top of the fluke and I have to force off with a boat hook. His test is once set, driving forward over the anchor at 3.5knots. In his tests, all filmed, the Rocna does not reset, nearly every other anchor does. I haven't tried this but I would not be surprised if mine did the same given the density and amount of solid mud I find on lifting. I can understand why Rocna may not have tested (3.5kt immediate change in flow/tide direction is not normall) and also drilling holes adds to cost. At least thanks to his videos I am aware of something to consider when anchoring in mud with my Rocna.
@@johnhart29 I think Rocna anchor works a better at 5 to 1 scope or even 7 to 1 scope. The issue is when resetting at short 3.5 to 1 scope, such short scope might be necessary in e.g. crowded anchorages.
@@MrAthlon4800 every anchor holds better at a longer scope.
@@Dave-SailsAway you are mostly right, but in my view an exception exists with a CQR which is very prone to failing at 10 to 1 scope but performs best at mid range scope of about 5 to 1.
The turned up rear flange as originally designed seems to be acting as aeroplane’s elevator, and as the anchor ploughs into the mud it forces the rear of the anchor down and the fluke upward.
Could be.
Could be that the more the anchor points downward when buried, the more the pulling force from the chain trys to pull it bodily out and the less force there is pulling the anchor forward and down. In engineering terms, the force (F) can be resolved into the force along the fluke axis (Fh) and the force at right angles (Fv). The steeper the angle of the flukes, the greater Fv and correspondingly smaller Fh.
That may be the thinking behind the turned up flange - keep the anchor from pointing down too steeply once buried. Unfortunately, it acts as a mud retainer/ rear weight when the anchor does pull out.
Remove the rollbar and test what happens.
I know its not authorised or backed by most tribes but do it !
Also sharpen the leading edge of the shank.
Note my old original Delta mk1 and new Rocna 2 have this feature.
Its often too costly for manufacturers to produce a sharp edge to the
shank but we do not have to follow like tribal sheep. Please test it.
It will improve the flow of substrate at the anchor blade.
Maybe moreso than drilling holes (?)
The mud is probably building up from the squared off shank, it seems like rounding off the front of the shank would help shed seaweed and mud.
Good idea.
Thanks!
Bought a 25 kilo Rocna. Would love to see the modification of sharpening the front edge
of the shank near the blade. (Like that is on my original 16k Delta design) And also the removal of the rollbar. Note that that would also benefit the weight distribution. Great work !
We had a 15KG Rocna and wanted to upgrade for full time live aboard . The different between the 15 and 20KG in size is not much but between the 20 and 25 the difference is more substantial. Between the weight difference the surface area os much greater. The Mantus dont seem to have that big jump between sizes
Not right. The rocna needs a lot of chain so the angle is downwards and digs in.
Yes, the Rocna works quite well when at 5 to 1 scope or greater and lots of chain. The point this video test is making is anchoring with a Rocna at short scope in a crowded anchorage with a strong wind shift may very well cause your Rocna to fail. If you are anchoring exclusively in areas that few other boats anchor in and you can swing on long lengths of rode then fine, just ignore this video test.
Anchoring with a short scope in a crowded anchorage??
Isn’t that asking for trouble?
@@johnstarkie9948 Ha, you don’t sail in the Med!
@@SailGeja
I have, often.
@@johnstarkie9948 Then you are plenty familiar with short scope and crowded anchorages.
Have you ever considered painting the flukes with an epoxy/graphite mix instead of (or additionally to) the holes? It creates a slightly slippery surface and is plenty strong. Would be interesting to see if it helps with the mud fouling. Thanks for doing these tests!
I believe the yellow paint that the SPADE anchor company applies to their flukes is intended to help prevent mud from sticking. Unfortunately, the paint quickly wore off due to the great difficulty of getting anything to stick to galvanized metal.
I'll note that there was no change in performance (in my tests) after the paint was removed.
Just done a search on polishing galvanized steel and waxing after cleaning does seem to be a thing. Anything more abrasive would wear the tin/zinc coating. Worth a test?
Been out to have a look at my Rocna 25kg and it has a pretty smooth finish. How about the one you tested? Could the finish get rougher with age and use?
I jave a hard time with this. Surely Rocna did engineering testing...this giy sledge hammers it and it goes from fail to success? Bro has Rocna called you yet?
I've read that it is the seabed that hold you in place and the anchor's job is to not disrupt the seabed.
Is it possible to modify a cheaper anchor like delta? Buying a rocna and modify it is no option. Then u can buy a Viking etc for nearly the same. But modifying a cheap standard anchor could be a option for people like me who anchor only 1 to 5 times over night per year
I would turn the lee flaps down to drive the blade deeper. Other modes would be to increase the pitch and decrease the shank length.
Yo Steve! Work has been really quiet here in Melbourne. Looks like I’m eating some contracts in next week. Will def chuck you some cash when they come through. as i have watching for years and made my decision to get a sarca excel primarily from your videos. This was 2 years ago before its recent outstanding performances. + plus its locally designed and made.
Fantastic unbiased research here by the way! I’m sure Rocna would like to see it.
Glad I was of some help.
Very interesting video. Is this an "abnormally performing" Rockna or have others you have tested fared better?
I like your reasoning at the end. I think one lesson I take away is that a 4:1 scope is sometimes insufficient for these rollbar anchors, which goes against the current thinking that they actually need less.
We run a 45lb Mantus on our 35' Hallberg-Rassy Rasmus and anchor out full time. Rarely will we stay in any one spot for more than a few days since we do the US East Coast migration every season. It is usually someplace new in an area we have never anchored in before. All we have to go on is the chart's description of the sea bed and thr reviews of others on Active Captain and other sites of these anchorages.
We have only drug a couple of times in the past three years and those were both VERY slow drags and both times at true scopes of 4:1 or worse. Both were in very soft mud with deep burials/penetration and the mud caking into the 10-15 feet of the chain near the anchor.
I believe you are right about the issue of the chain coming down through the mud to the deeply-buried anchor in a concave curve. The chain can't cut through the mud like a knife and has a lot of drag itself, especially when caked with mud. A wire rope leader off of the anchor might do better in these situations, as would using more scope.
To make matters worse for the scope equation when the anchor buries deep like this it is actually serving to shorten the scope and the angle of the rode even more. In shallow water situations with extremely soft mud the anchor burial depth may come close to the actual water depth, effectively doubling true depth and halving the scope ratio. In 10 feet of water with 40' of rode under the surface you will have 4:1 but if the anchor plunges 10 feet deeper into the mud the scope is now 20 feet below the boat and at 2:1 -plus the curving chain issue further tends to lift the shank upward as well. Oooops!
The times we drug in soft mud I did notice that we seemed to be too close to where we dropped the anchor beforehand using the GPS. I believe this was because the anchor went in so deep that more of the rode was being used coming up to the boat and therefore the boat wasn't as far away horizontally as the projected rode angle would predict.
When the anchor did drag it would lunge slowly and then reset. When I noticed this on the anchor alarm app on my phone the boat would move a few feet and then stop, then wait a number of minutes before doing it again. The winds were pretty steady and not gusting too badly. I think the anchor was slowly turning upwards, then surfacing to near the top of the mud. Near the surface the chain angle was better and the anchor would dive again and reset to a point where the chain angle was again too steep and do it all over again.
We were moving about 30' per hour and I let this go on for about 3 hours (100') before it became light outside and my wife woke up. We had plenty of room to drag on another 300 feet, but I figured we were staying the day and another night to wait out the weather so we should figure out what was going on right away. There were no other boats around us except for a couple of dericlicts a few hundred yards off to the side.
We retrieved the anchor and it was buried very deep, about 10 feet down but it did come up slowly with constant pressure once the chain was vertical. I was surprised that an anchor buried that deeply was dragging. There was nothing at all fouling the anchor like weeds, sticks, netting or clothing/bedding*. We returned to the initial spot and reset the anchor, this time allowing for this extra 10 feet of burial depth in the scope equation. It held fine after that and never budged so much as a could be determined by the GPS accuracy.
These days we put out at least 7:1 if we can get away with it and even 10:1 if there is room. An extra few seconds of the electric windlass is all it costs to be sure there is plenty of scope. We rarely anchor in water over 14-16 feet deep, so we are not talking about a whole lot of extra room needed.
*We once picked up a heavy down parka jacket when anchoring. The anchor took an uncharactoristically long (50 feet). distance to set, skittering along before finally digging in.
There was a bad storm coming, the remnants of Hurricane Eta and we later saw max gusts in the 50's that evening in N. Carolina. I am glad we didn't just leave it because when we pulled up the anchor to check it was piercing the thick parka. The Mantus has an extremely sharp point compared to the Rockna but I was impressed that it was able to rip right through all the layers of the heavy nylon jacket and insulation to make a huge hole so that the tip of the anchor could dig in and set.
It hadn't ripped all the way through so the entire fluke and rollbar could fit through, so before I could hook it well with the boat hook it fell off the anchor back into the water. It was SO HEAVY and waterlogged I was having trouble just pulling it off.
We didn't budge that storm but nearly all the other cruisers sharing this anchorage did have issues and we watched them struggle out in 50+ gusts and driving rain trying to put out more scope and in one case extra anchors. No thanks. I am grateful the dragging boats were not upwind of us, and they were all able to eventually stabilize their situations. Their problems did not become our problem too.
Thanks for sharing your insights, SV Barry Duckworth. I especially appreciate your point about the depth of bury significantly shortening scope (when in shallow water). As to your question about this particular Rocna, yes, this anchor performed worse than two other examples (both smaller). A theory that I am currently investigating is effects of anchor "surface roughness" on performance. This particular anchor came to me in used condition and while the galvanizing was intact, there may have been some roughness that contributed to seabed adhering to the anchor. The other two (better performing) Rocnas were both in new, unused condition with "shiny" and perhaps more "slippery" galvanizing.
It is very interesting to me how counter-intuitive some of these factors seem to be in anchor design and performance. A slippery anchor seems to hold better, and adding holes seems to also help in certain circumstances? It seems crazy to me. Your explanation of the solid ball effect of a loaded plow anchor moving through the seabed is intriguing. I wish I had taken higher-level physics and engineering classes to have studied fluid dynamics.
I have talked to Greg from Mantus at boat shows and have taken his anchoring seminar. His extensive beach-testing of his early designs seems to have yielded a few improvements over the Rocna. I do like how the bolt-on shank seems to yield a more consistent product over the welded. I have noticed that many new Rocnas are slightly misshapen with shanks tipped off of 90-degrees or bent off at an angle going forward. I have never seen a new Mantus that had these shape defects. If the shank bent in use a new bolt-on shank would be much less costly to replace than a whole new anchor when it is welded -even shipping would be much less. The tip of the Mantus anchor seems to be much sharper too.
Maybe a rounded leading edge to the shank is another improvement. I hope you do some experimenting with this and can get some data comparing the same anchor with standard flat leading edge shank and with it rounded. Maybe a V-shape like a knife blade would cut through the seabed easier and keep the shank angle down?
I also wonder how different the qualities of dry or moist sand on a beach are compared to fully submerged and waterlogged sand, I would think the friction and stiction of the material would be different. Testing underwater must be superior to testing on the beach in all but the ease of doing the tests. Your extensive underwater tests are a valuable resource, especially since you are not affiliated with any of these anchor manufacturers.
What if the flattened fluke plates were bendable to begin with - like keep them flat for thick mud & weed and bend them upwards for cobblestone and soft sand?
Very good idea. Would be a challenging engineering feat to make a strong, movable flap. Probably easiest to have the flap bolted on thus removable or installed upsidedown if the "downturned" position was desired.
Might be difficult to for the user to determine what seabed is under him and therefore difficult to choose the correct flap setting.
@@flygoodwin difficult - absolutely, but not impossible if Rocna wants to do it, they would want convincing evidence though. I hope they see your video, ask your opinion and do some experiments on their own. I think you may be on to something with these mods (Manson and Rocna) your are doing 😉
Hi Steve love the testing you are doing ,I've just got a copy rocna and on your dynamic reset and the cobbles I wondered if you have noticed that in the upright position these anchors have no angle of attack unless the chain can depress the shank or cause a fall over? Could this be relevant.
Steve
I'm not sure that the thinking that mud on the anchor upon retrieval is a factor on the anchor not holding. If there is force forcing the anchor down, would the mud stuck on the fluke hold the anchor back? I imagine a shovel, a shovel with mud on the fluke. If you were digging a hole with the shovel, pushing it down in the dirt with your foot, doesn't seem like the mud would make much difference.
I have heavy clay soil in my backyard. If I use a shovel when the soil is wet it will stick securely. Then if I try to use a shovel with clay still attached, it is almost impossible to press it into the ground.
Mud on the anchor preventing resetting makes sense.
Testing anchors in a way they were not intended to be used confuses me. Anchors are designed to set and then be loaded horizontally, not 3.5 to 1 scope measured from the bow to bottom at high tide. I have to wonder how they would perform when tested as designed? 5 to 1 or 7 to 1 is typical for that last 40 years. Lifting the shank of an anchor is how you unset it, not set it. Holes? Wierd logic.
The Rocna website has a downloadable User's Guide that lists 3 to 1 as the minimum recommended scope.
5 to 1 or 7 to 1 scope is impossible in the majority of anchorages in my cruising area (PNW) due to Deep Water and Confined/Crowded Harbors.
I learned about the benefits of drilling holes in the fluke from Rex Francis, the founder of Anchor Right Anchors. This is a well proven concept for which Rex holds an Australian patent.
@@flygoodwin What the Rocna website actually says is "A scope of 3:1 should normally remain the minimum. In very shallow water this minimum may be too low. "
In deep water, most scope calculations for shallow water do not apply. I think anchoring depths over 25' need a different set of rules for scope. This truly could be a huge project to do correctly for different anchors at different scopes and depths, but depths under 20' with 5 to 1 scopes seems a typical scenario most anchors would be used for.
do you think that drilling holes is likely to upset the galvanising barrier?
Hard to say. Certainly, the exposed steel (inside the holes) will rust. Not sure if this rust will "creep" under the adjacent galvanizing.
If I were to place a modified anchor in regular service, I would have it re-galvanized.
That anchor is designed for the "normal" (i.e. recommended virtually everywhere) scope of 5:1 or better. The angle of the pull is taken into account when designing the angle of the shank versus the plow. It seems to me to be mildly disingenuous to do all the testing with such a short scope of 3:1, and I certainly would never encourage anyone to use that for an overnight. I would love to see a relative test of the same anchor at 3:1 and then at least 5:1 as I think there would be a tremendous difference.
The combination of the long, heavy chain and the poor holding of this anchor, meant that the angle of pull (during the 3.5 to 1 testing) was not greater than what would occur at 5 to 1 scope with a mostly rope rode.
I have tested this 44lb. Rocna at up to 7 to 1 scope and a 22lb Rocna at up to 9 to 1 scope, and while performance did improve (over the shorter scopes) they both performed poorly compared to numerous other designs (in some, but not all seabeds).
5 to 1 scope is not possible in a large percentage of anchorages in my cruising area (PNW). 3 to 1 scope is indeed '"normal".
Maybe don’t drill the holes in a straight line. Maybe alternate? For strength. Bigger holes? Maybe turn the ailerons down, or make them longer?
I do wonder if the rocna fluke ears extended out further, like a mantus, if this would improve the performance of this anchor. That is of course a welding job but might be an idea for next season when panope is relaunched. Just a, hopefully helpful, suggestion.
My guess is that yes, the Mantus wider ears and resulting larger diameter rollbar would be less likely to clog with mud.
@@flygoodwin - I was not thinking with regard to mud fouling, you have largely cured that part of the rocna, I was actually thinking that extending the rocna ears further out would increase and improve the setting angle of the fluke tip. As for the roll bar, it does prevent the edge sinking into soft mud but might not be necessary to change to extend the ears. I was just thinking a triangular or some such shape and piece of metal welded to extend the fluke ears further out. I think the rocna has an inferior setting angle and this is why just the slightest fouling, e.g. with mud, causes it to fail. The mantus has an aggressive setting angle in large part because of the wide fluke ears and even with mud attached it does not foul, at least the larger mantus anchors (small mantus 6kg anchor is not as resistant to fouling though as your testing suggests).
@@flygoodwin I mean, look at 3:36 in your video and see how the tip is not at an aggressive setting angle, because the fluke ears do not extend far enough out...
@@MrAthlon4800 I now understand. Yes, the wide ears/rollbar of the Mantus does aim the toe downward and also increases the weight/balance of the toe. Not sure if that aspect helps with the mud fouling. Certainly, when the Rocna fouled during the "deep set" test, it was already upright.
Minimum scope should be 4:1
next time we get a tsunami im goin to your house ;)
Give a little heat and it would bend lighter
Aye m8, I must say I doubt that the flattening of the back fluke of that Rocna could affect the performance in a bad way. To me it isn’t logical, since they are bended upwards in original design, and then becomes like a rudder, turning the whole fluke up(!) from the bottom. I reckon a test with them turned downwards would be very interesting.
Very good point about the up turned fluke acting to rotate the whole anchor.
You are missing the German Bugel anchor.
Agreed. When one becomes available to me, I will test it.
Hydraulic press to straighten anchor
Hi Steve, I'm a fan of your investigations. Have you come across a Knox anchor?
www.knoxanchors.com/
I'm curious to see what you think about the gap between the flukes. Would this save all the drilling? Likewise a flat trailing edge without the Rocna 'spoiler' would save on the hammering? Knox are a Scottish company and I am contemplating buying local but wondered if you had an opinion. Keep up the great work!
I have not tested a knox anchor. Fluke slot could help with mud attachment. However, I have found the area at the base of the shank to be a strong collector or mud (no slot there).
You know what is bad is that my 40 lb CQR holds better when anchored in that exact same location.
@Renegade Show
Oh great, you've infiltrated another one of my favorite channels.
Exact same location??? What, did Steve text you the Lat and Longitude of where he was testing? Your CQR is junk, in just about any bottom, with the exception of being extremely fouled on a submerged derelict WWII battleship.
Killed a fish
12:00...worlds worst neighbor! Also, I'm really concerned about my Rocna anchor now for my sailboat...and can't see myself modifying it like you did. hmmm, perhaps I should go back to my Bruce?