[C320-list] Reply to my inquiry from Rocna Anchors (fixed link)

[Chris Holt]

Thanks Jeff for taking the initiative of gathering up all the comments and 
posting them to Rocna.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Hare" <catalina at thehares.com>
To: <catalina at thehares.com>; "'C320-List'" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [C320-list] Reply to my inquiry from Rocna Anchors (fixed link)


> Hi folks,
>
> NOTE: Delete the previous version of this post, the link was busted, 
> sorry..
>
>    As I mentioned yesterday, I posed some of the questions raised about 
> the
> Rocna demo video to the company.
>
> They responded and I'll include those responses here.   Note that there is
> one still frame from the video they sent that won't come through the email
> which is interesting only to the extent that it shows that they really
> didn't "test" the Rocna in different conditions from the rest as we
> suspected.
>
>  _____
>
> From: Rocna Anchors
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:03 AM
> To: catalina at thehares.com
> Subject: RE:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thanks for your e-mail.
>
> Your comments (and those of your website visitors) are not the first we 
> have
> heard, although 99% of people are actually very impressed by the video and
> it is only the vocal minority which gets a bit pedantic. The first thing 
> to
> remember is that we have no pretensions of this video being a 
> comprehensive
> comparison test documentary, as 1) such a video would have to be much
> longer, well over an hour probably, and 2) we would have no credibility
> being a biased party anyway, so why bother.
>
> Rather, the principle motivation for the video is to demonstrate the
> failings of the "old generation" of anchors, namely plows (CQR) and claws
> (Bruce). Danforth we do not count as they are not a general purpose anchor
> and should not be used as a primary bower. And we then show how the "new
> generation" anchor, of course ours, works a little better.
>
> I will sound a little defensive but can address a few of your points:
>
> Type of seabed
> ==============
> In actual fact this beach consisted of sand mixed with broken shell for 
> the
> top several inches, but was quite hard clay underneath. Hence the reason 
> we
> were able to record such high holding forces for those anchors which did 
> in
> fact set (over a tonne for the 10Kg Rocna for example; you wouldn't get 
> that
> in soft mud). This means that the condition of the top layer was actually
> irrelevant, but consider the following anyway:
>
>
>
> http://www.catalina320.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=rocna_anchor
> &id=RocnaStillShot
>
> The above still from the video shows a more neutral shot and I have
> indicated the testing location of the Rocna relative to the drag patterns 
> of
> the others. You can see where the waterline is.
>
> In addition to this the "cameraman" made the mistake of filming the Rocna
> from different angles and then doing the others more consistantly (from
> right looking left in the context of that shot). This affects the lighting
> and reflections off moisture in the sand.
>
> So, the type of seabed was in fact practically the same for all anchors
> tested. Except there were a few shots in soft mud, such as the one showing
> the Bruce's hop-and-skip behavior, but that was not part of the
> "comparison".
>
> Speed of drag
> =============
>
> Using a vehicle is problematic, I agree. A winch would be better. However,
> our aim was to apply a constant force to the anchors, not a constant 
> speed -
> so as to simulate a boat, which once dragging does not move at a fixed 
> rate,
> but rather keeps accelerating (if the anchor does not hold).
>
> A Danforth will never out-set a Rocna. (Did you know Danforths were
> originally intended to be set by hand?!). In fact in the conditions of our
> video, it might have never set at all, since the layered substrate as
> described would present it with particular problems.
>
> -------------
>
> Most testing, even the neutral stuff done by magazines et al, is a waste 
> of
> time. It is never done properly. I am not going to claim that ours is any
> better because frankly it isn't, for the reasons I gave at the top, 
> although
> at least we did pull multiple times and record an average. So as you say, 
> it
> would be nice to have a more comprehensive test with different bottom 
> types
> etc, but the fact is it simply doesn't exist yet.
>
> It is possible that as we expand and become more successful the budget 
> will
> one day allow for a more in-depth production, but until then people are 
> left
> to depend on reviews and feedback as the most reliable source of info. For
> example for our own part we can point to Steve Dashew's recent endorsement
> after over a year of intense real-world testing, that from the Navy and
> Coastguard, etc - and the customer will have to consider this in addition 
> to
> all the theory and demonstrations we present on our website in order to 
> make
> up their own mind.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig Smith
> Rocna Anchors
> www.rocna.com
>
>  _____
>
> From: Jeffrey Hare [mailto:catalina at thehares.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 04:34
> To: enquiries at rocna.com
> Subject:
>
> Hello,
>
>    I'm the webmaster for the Catalina320 International Association.   I
> posted your article on our website for our members to read as requested.
>
> There have been some questions recently discussed regarding the testing of
> the anchor that I hope you could share with us.
>
>   Many members watched the video demo and observed that conditions filmed
> where the Bruce (claw) and possibly a Delta were dragged through sand, yet
> the Rocna appears in the video to be dragged over and set in different 
> types
> of ground, specifically what looks like sandy/mud flats vs. relatively dry
> beach sand for the others.
>
>   While we were intrigued, and have been discussing the merits of this
> anchor,  the demonstration video didn't appear to compare anchors in a way
> that is scientific enough to be believable and to draw any conclusions for
> comparison purposes.  This may have been a result of the video editing
> process where perhaps some useful clips didn't make it into the final cut,
> we can't tell for sure.
>
>   It would be great to see  true side by side comparisons, using a winch
> with a fixed hauling speed, and strain gauges, etc, rather than a vehicle.
> Some anchors seem to be pulled faster, whereas the Rocna is only shown 
> being
> pulled very slowly.
>
>   Also some members commented that relatively dry sand tests aren't
> indicative of how well an anchor holds in a seabed, but rather how much
> surface area the anchor exposes.  In these tests,  a danforth would 
> probably
> outset and maybe outhold the rocna,  whereas in a sandy seabed the rocna
> might burrow deeper and hold better than a danforth.
>
>   Tests of UNDERWATER grassy bottom, gravel bottom, hardpack, etc. are of
> particular interest, since very few of us sail in waters where we can
> actually see the bottom,  and carry more than one anchor, we'd like to see
> the relative comparison in different surfaces.   It would require a very
> scientific approach to show that a single anchor holds better than all the
> others in all bottom types.
>
>   The net result of this is that while lots of us are interested in this
> anchor and want to learn more, the video seemed to undermine your
> statistics.
>
> Could you comment?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Jeff Hare
> Webmaster @ catalina320.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>