# Manson Supreme



## Julie303 (May 19, 2007)

Does anyone have any experience with the Manson Supreme anchor? I'm looking for a good all-purpose anchor to use in Florida - sand and mud bottoms, reversing tides/currents.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*I have one..*

I own a Manson Supreme and until I bought my ROCNA it was my primary anchor. When you put the two (Manson & Rocna) side by side there is no doubt that the Rocna is a slightly better built anchor. Over all my Manson is a great performer, far better than my CQR, Delta or Bruce, but the Rocna is all that too.

I currently own two CQR's, two Spades (one aluminum and one steel), one Bruce, two Fortress's, one Delta, one Manson Supreme and one Rocna. I'm not slamming my other anchors but they are like comparing a Yugo to a Lexus. They all get you from point A to point B but the Lexus does it better, much better, the Spade steel, Manson Supreme and Rocna are all Lexus level anchors...

The Rocna should be considered a mooring it's that good...

My personal ranking of the anchors I own:
#1 Rocna
#2 Manson Supreme
#3 Steel Spade
#4 Fortress (for directional pulls only)
#5 Aluminum Spade
#6 Delta
#7 Bruce
#8 CQR

The picture below is strictly for surface area comparison. The CQR on the left is a 25Lb. the Manson is a 24Lb. and the Spade is a 35Lb.. As you can see a 24Lb. Rocna type anchor has far more surface area per pound of weight. The 35Lb. Rocna I own is approx 33% larger in surface area than my 35Lb. CQR....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd second the Rocna over the Manson. Manson anchors are usually knock-offs and as such have some limitations that the originals that they are copied from do not have. The primary anchor on my boat is a 15 kg Rocna.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Been real happy with our 45# MS. Much better than the Delta that came with the boat. Sets quicker and holds better, and I sleep better.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Just in case it wasn't already clear, I'm going to flog the dead horse and point you to this page on the Manson Supreme.


----------



## Brezzin (Dec 4, 2006)

Craig Smith said:


> Just in case it wasn't already clear, I'm going to flog the dead horse and point you to this page on the Manson Supreme.


Craig-

I just put a Rocna 40 on my boat. I figured it would be big but I had no idea.
I was afraid that it wouldn't fit the bow roller but fortunatly it did. However the thing looks like a sheild Add the spinniker pole and I'm good for some sailboat jousting. 

Everyone one on the dock asked what that was and commented they never heard of Rocna. You need better marketing in the US


----------



## AlainPOIRAUD (Jun 18, 2005)

Craig Smith said:


> Just in case it wasn't already clear, I'm going to flog the dead horse and point you to this page on the *Manson Supreme*


Again and again and ALWAYS again!..

When your are not complaining about the Poiraud's anti-competition campain...

.. you are floging your dead horse against the *MANSON SUPREME*.

What is your personal problem Craig??

*THE MANSON SUPREME IS NOT A COPY OF THE ROCNA Knock off!..*

1° - The shape of the fluke of the two anchors is different: 
- ROCNA : *CONCAVE *shape - a *DIRECT COPY of the SPADE anchor* 
- The MANSON SUPREME - *Cylindrical shape *- most likely like the curve of the Bruce anchor

2° - The "Roll Bar'" at the back of the fluke: 
- Both are copying the design of the Bügel anchor - which was not an original design, already patented by Peter BRUCE 30 years ago!

3° - The shape of the Shank: 
- ROCNA shank is very similar to the one of the DELTA anchor. 
- The sloted shank of the Manson anchor is completely different

The ONLY similarity between both anchors is that they both are made in New Zealand

After testing both models, WEST Marine choose to represent.. the MANSON SUPREME anchor! 
_Is it because the Supreme is acheiving short-cuts during construction and poorly understood variations to the design. ?? _

Personally I don't believe that

(_I do not have any commercial or financial relation with the Manson company_)


----------



## AlainPOIRAUD (Jun 18, 2005)

THE *ROCNA KNOCK-OFF* IS COPYING THE *MANSON SUPREME..<O</O*
<O
Our indiscreet camera , came unexpectedly upon this new version of the Rocna anchor..
<O
As you can obviously see, this Rocna anchor is now copying the sloted shank of the Manson Supreme anchor!..<O</O
<O









<O</O
Copying would seem ethically wrong. . If a manufacturer can only copy the developments of others, what else is he not capable of? Building a knock-off anchor is not like copying a music CD; there are subtle but very important aspects to the original anchor which are critical but may be ignored by the copier.
<O</O
From my own point of view, the slot is a fundamental problem that apart from being a bad idea in the first place, creates all sorts of complications including:<O</O

reducing the weight-on-tip of the anchor because extra steel needs to be added to reinforce the shank <O
adding an extra two lengthy profile cuts to the shank, which is bad because the heat of the gas profile cutter can destroy the tensile strength of the metal. <O
increases the height of the shank which creates problems on bow-rollers; if it comes up upside down or sideways, it may not right itself, balancing on the side of the shank, and so jamming, or if it does right itself it does so violently. If you look at the older popular anchors like the CQR and Bruce, you'll see they have relatively shallow profile shanks - for a reason.
Rocna themselves even admit the slot is less than useful, but now, after copying from the Supreme the fixation of the roll bar on the side of the fluke, they also adopt the sloted shank!&#8230;<O</O
<OWhere will they stop their copying process and how long before the Rocna will be a genuine&#8230; copy of the Supreme??  <O</O


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I'm lost now....who copied who???


----------



## Hawkeye25 (Jun 2, 2005)

Both the manson supreme and the rocna will fail to bury deeply in firm sand because they have A BIG STUPID HOOP THAT DOES NOT WANT TO PENETRATE THE BOTTOM. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the HUGE resistance element that silly-ass rocker rod represents, but you do have to have tunnel vision to completely ignore it's presense and negative effect.

Haliekia, or whatever, has a brand spanking new spade that has never seen water, never mind the bottom of an anchorage, yet he feels perfectly competent to rank it with the other anchors. He's just got that old 'anchor love' and buys them all.

I think all you guys are so sold on the salesmans rhetoric that you don't have a clue what anchors work and what don't. You just like the song they sing and follow that 'girl band' for a while. Except Guilietta. By the way, smoking hot boat Guilietta. That horse will race.

I can take eight of the most popular anchors to a variety of locations and construct testing regimins that will produce winning results for each and every anchor. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't anchored enough and knows very little indeed about product marketing. And spare me the insipid protestations about your favorite company's sterling moral code that would prohibit them from tilting the playing field in their favor - the very purpose of the test is to tilt the field and produce sales and nothing else.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Hey Hawkeye,
Could you take that post and tack it on the end of every anchor thread on sailnet? After that, if you're feeling really inspired, could you come up with a similar thread closer for the "Solar World" thread? (g) Compensation negotiable.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

AlainPOIRAUD said:


> Our indiscreet camera , came unexpectedly upon this new version of the Rocna anchor..


A brief refutation.

This post is completely false and clearly intended to disparage the Rocna product and defame the people associated with it. Rather than expressing the valid opinion of the author, it makes use of false accusations and fraudulent material.

As Poiraud is the designer of a product which competes with the Rocna, it is assumed that motive and intent is obvious and easily demonstrable. It is regrettable that a competitor would need to resort to fabricating stories in order to pursue their agenda, rather than providing valid and honest arguments -

Actually scratch all that, we may as well admit it. Poiraud, in his full-time quest for dirt on us, has managed to dig up the designs for our prototype "Rocna Supreme". In order to avoid lowering the tensile strength of the shank by profile cutting a slot, we intend to just use wood, instead of steel. Hey, if it was good enough for the ancient Romans&#8230; In the pursuit of finding a novel and hence patentable design, we will also be using glass for the fluke (just try copying us now Manson!). Beta testers for this prototype are invited to submit requests!

Of course, as the roll-bar is clearly a terrible idea, and now proven not to work at all by numerous independent tests by reputable publications the world over, the NZ Navy, and Coastguard (not to mention all the complaints from everyone who's bought one), we will also be replacing this with a tip insert as outlined in the Spade patent.


----------



## Sitaram (Apr 17, 2007)

So it looks as it is true that Ronca is a copy,and it costs more to boot then the Manson? 

I just bought the Manson and have not tried it yet, but it looks very well made, I also bought the Spade a140 (aluminum) last year- im not happy with it because it does not set well in hard sand, something I did not know until I used it $900 later, I use it as a second


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Sitaram said:


> So it looks as it is true that Ronca is a copy,and it costs more to boot then the Manson?
> 
> I just bought the Manson and have not tried it yet, but it looks very well made, I also bought the Spade a140 (aluminum) last year- im not happy with it because it does not set well in hard sand, something I did not know until I used it $900 later, I use it as a second


Actually, you've got it a bit backwards... the Manson Supreme came along after the Rocna did, and is probably loosely based on the design of the Rocna-not the other way around.

I have a 15 KG Ronca on my boat as my primary, and my only major complaint with it is that every time I've brought it back aboard, I have 20+ pounds of mud, sand, seaweed to clean off of it. It has never come back up clean.


----------



## AlainPOIRAUD (Jun 18, 2005)

Craig Smith said:


> A brief refutation.


This photo has been taken yesterday at a big show about an hour south of Auckland (in a town called Hamilton (Mystery Creek Showgrounds), it's an agricultural/farming/boating show. It is called Fieldays.

It was a brand new anchor on a brand new boat. From the looks of this it was made by Rocna too as it was all professionally lasercut.

If following your refutation, it is not made by ROCNA, I will suggest you, Craig, to have a rapid look at it and to take all necessary measures to stop a new anchor manufacturer from New Zealand to make knock-off copies of your anchor!


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Ah well that speaks volumes, why didn't you say?

Anyway, Alain, really we can be friends. Like you so eloquently put it, we also think slotted shanks are a terrible concept.  We have never made a Rocna with a slot, and suspect the owner of this anchor has. Or was it Mr Photoshop?



AlainPOIRAUD said:


> (_I do not have any commercial or financial relation with the Manson company_)


A pity that didn't work out, isn't it? Well I suppose we should be pleased they instead chose another type to copy, perhaps it says something about the product...

Now we know there's no commercial or financial relation, but as to a personal relationship with people who have a nice little history of apparently fabricating their own version of the truth, perhaps you should check your sources more thoroughly?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Craig Smith said:


> Or was it Mr Photoshop?


Hey...leave me out of this.......I did nothing...

(but check Ianhlnd or SimonV, they do photoshoping too, but theirs is really very very poor).


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Soz Giu  but you know you really don't want to associate with that guy Mr Photoshop, he gets into a lot of bad news these days...


----------



## AlainPOIRAUD (Jun 18, 2005)

Well Craig, 
<O</O
Instead of making as usual personal attacks, against *Mr Photoshop* - why do not publish an (_plausible)_ explanation explaining the origin of this anchor in the Fieldays agricultural/farming/boating show??. <O</O
<O</O

Perhaps this anchor has been made by the same guy who has "*modified*" the test holding curves published by both Sail and Yachting Monthly??<O</O
<O</O


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I think you guys should go on Jerry Springer....

The name of the show:

My anchor designer slept with the other anchor designer and now we have little anchor twins.....who's the real father of my ancjor??

Crowd: Jerry...Jerry.....Jerry...Jerry....

Then......Oprah can make 54 shows dedicated to anchors, and distribute free anchors thru the black neighborhoods, and Doctor **** Phil, will take 2 white trash trailer park white couples, and teach them the disadvantages of using a 1981 Camaro on stands in the front yard as an anchor. He will also explain that mullets and shirst with no sleeves are no longer cool.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Well you're forgetting the third anchor manufacturer who's participating in this, lurking behind the scenes... perhaps Jerry will bring him out as a surprise finale?


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Just to put all of this to bed... The Helix anchoring system is the best. 
Just one tiny detail; You need a special rig to drill it into the seabed. But it is great for mooring buoys.

So as you go sailing you have the barge with the drill rig following along behind you, to plant the Helix anchoring system when you want to anchor.

As long as man has an imagination, we will be inventing newer and better anchors every boating season. 

Did like the article about the tandem vises kellet. The only item it didn't cover was reversing currents/winds. Like there is in many tidal basins of the NW Pacific coast of the N. American Continent


----------



## Hawkeye25 (Jun 2, 2005)

Guilietta . . . . . shirts with no sleeves aren't cool? I'm, . . . I'm, . . . speechless . . . .

(Heading for my closet of cool shirts, head hanging)


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Giu...if you're gonna start giving fashion advice you're gonna have to get rid of your pink tutu!! (G)


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Ahhhh Cam......I just remembered....Episode IV can come out if you want (G)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

WOW... this has been entertaining.........
I really do want a ROCNA, but I think I'm "forced" to buy a Manson Supreme ONLY because it costs HALF as much.........
and I can't seem to find any complelling evidence from reviews or from actual owners that would convince me that the ROCNA is worth TWICE the cost ??? ..... anybody?.... anybody???
I'm trying to be bi-partisan here because I have no personal interest with either one, I'm just looking for a good anchor to use in South Florida that won't cost me an "arm-and-a-leg".


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Dan... Florida is easy anchoring. The Manson will work fine there. I would prefer a Rocna or Spade for cruising far and wide...but sometimes good enough...is good enough!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Here are a couple of photos of my Rocna 33lb. next to my Spade A-80 (which is 35lb in steel and the same physical size as the A-80). The Manson has a similar surface area to weight advantage.

As you can see the Rocna is HUGE comparatively speaking and has volumes more surface (read holding) area than the Spade at 2lbs more..


























In this last photo I included my well worn genuine CQR 35...










So the Rocna or a similarly sized Manson is 2 lb's lighter than a Spade S-80 and a CQR 35 yet has VOLUMES more surface area for holding. It's tip profile also allows it to dig in where my Spade's and CQR's never could.

Here's one of the Rocna, Spade and CQR tips:









Lastly here's my Manson Supreme 25lb next to my actual Spade S-80 35lbs. (not my A-80 as above but same physical dimensions) and my CQR 25lb.









I love my Rocna and my Manson but again the Rocna is the ever so slightly better built anchor. Both, in my own use and experience, will still out perform any of the older anchors like the CQR..


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd have to agree with Halekai, and have a 15 KG Rocna as my primary. When backing the boat down to set it... it literally stops the boat dead when it sets—with a jolt. Third or fourth time I did that with a crew up at the bow, he wasn't paying attention or holding on and he nearly went overboard... he said that he never saw an anchor that set that hard or quickly.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Totally agree..*

SD I totally agree it's "abrupt" !! Reminds me of those old 5mph bumper crash tests! You know when a Rocna is set....!!


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

We have a forty-sumthin pound Manson Supreme. We don't worry about setting any more, now we worry about "unsetting it" (getting it back on the boat) as we've found that it can be a bear to break it out of the mud almost everytime we have set it.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

That seems to be an issue with most of the next generation anchor designs, like the Manson Supreme and the Rocna. I usually have 30 lbs. of bottom on my anchor when I bring it up... I usually let it hang in the water, about 6' down for a while to wash the sand and mud off. 

The amount of crap it comes up with was a big reason for me installing a windlass.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Ditto*

I find I need to motor out of an anchorage at 1 knot or so while ragging the anchor about three feet below the surface of the water until it's clear of mud & muck. I can see from the bow when it's clean and then I pull her up..


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

halekai36 said:


> I find I need to motor out of an anchorage at 1 knot or so while ragging the anchor about three feet below the surface of the water until it's clear of mud & muck. I can see from the bow when it's clean and then I pull her up..


...be thankful you don't have one of these "new" plumb-bowed boats.... You'd need to install a pressure washer up forward!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Good Point*



Faster said:


> ...be thankful you don't have one of these "new" plumb-bowed boats.... You'd need to install a pressure washer up forward!


Or one of those "old" Nonsuchs'.. With this anchor I'd have chain scratches all over my bow.. !!

With the amount of bottom this anchor brings up a fire hose would be more in order...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

My boat is relatively plumb-bowed... but the anchor roller is slightly offset... and the hull is very narrow at the bow... so I can get away with it. 


Faster said:


> ...be thankful you don't have one of these "new" plumb-bowed boats.... You'd need to install a pressure washer up forward!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

camaraderie said:


> Dan... Florida is easy anchoring. The Manson will work fine there. I would prefer a Rocna or Spade for cruising far and wide...but sometimes good enough...is good enough!


CAM.. I appreciate that....... how will the SUPREME be in the BAHAMAS ?
and thx to halekai36 for those great PICS!

I just ordered the MANSON SUPREME from PORT SUPPLY........ they told me they're selling the Hell out of these things and they're "back-ordered" expecting a shipment in on Jan 8....... seems to me if the price of the ROCNA and the MANSON SUPREME were a little closer it would be a little more competitive and I would buy a ROCNA.
I'm not against spending good money, but I can't justify TWICE the price for the ROCNA. 
Having said that, if I need more anchor I can always use my CQR... I had two CQR's on the double roller but one of 'em got rusty, just didn't look attractive...... I'm hoping this SUPREME will sit next to the CQR with no problem...... I'll let ya'll know how it goes.


----------



## LJD (Oct 2, 2008)

*December 2008 Practical Sailer reviews*

I just received the current Practical Sailor and was surprised that the current anchor review was not all that favorable regarding the Manson Supreme or the Rocna. In fact, one of their critics came out and said they did not care for the Manson Supreme at all as it consistently had trouble setting.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The article in question is pretty much BS.... They were using very heavy anchors (about 100 lbs) and lousy methodology IIRC. They only tested three anchors-The Manson Claw, the Manson Supreme and the Rocna.



LJD said:


> I just received the current Practical Sailor and was surprised that the current anchor review was not all that favorable regarding the Manson Supreme or the Rocna. In fact, one of their critics came out and said they did not care for the Manson Supreme at all as it consistently had trouble setting.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

bfdtpkt said:


> CAM.. I appreciate that....... how will the SUPREME be in the BAHAMAS ?


I've been using a 45# Manson Supreme in the Bahamas for three seasons now. Best anchor I've ever had. Used to use a 44# Bruce knockoff but it was bad in grass and I'd have to fall back on a CQR. Sold the CQR and now have the Bruce as a secondary.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Dan...I think Vasco has answered better than I could! 

LJD...I agree with Dawg. The test was terribly biased and run under short scope rather than recommended scopes. Virtually worthless IMHO unless you are looking for a short scope anchor that can hold in unusual bottom condition.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The other problem with the recent PS test was that it really did nothing to show how good the next gen anchors are. In the PS test, the 100 lb. Rocna was breaking out with about 1100 lbs. of force IIRC. In the Sail magazine test the 33 lb. Rocna was consistently holding with over 4500 lbs. of force. Based on my experience with a 33 lb. Rocna in real world conditions, I'm pretty sure the 100 lb. Rocna should hold a bit better than that...


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Rick, do you belong to a Toronto YC and how big is your boat?


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

A video worth watching....


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

we bought the 45 lb MANSON SUPREME this past summer. We did have several nights with 40k winds and a 4:1 scope. we didn't budge. So far so VERY good with our MANSON SUPREME!

42' & 26,000 lbs of boat with 10mm chain.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Valiente said:


> Rick, do you belong to a Toronto YC and how big is your boat?


I'm at ABYC and I have a CS36Merlin there. I took it south eight times but the trip home got to be a drag so now I've also got a B393 which has never been north of Charleston. Makes life a lot easier, no three month trip to get to the Bahamas. Here's my twenty year old Merlin.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Nice. I'm at National YC with a 41" steel cutter. All chain (3/8") isn't an issue for me, and I'm debating whether the Manson or the Rocna 20 Kg/44 lb (or close equivalent) would suffice for me.

I have an advantage in that I have a 1/2" steel "tab" at the waterline from which I can run a snubber, plus two feet of superstrong bowsprit, plus two heavy bollards from which I can run a bridle.

"Real life" recommendations from sailors out there in heavy conditions mean more to me than any "promotional literature".


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Valiente-

While I haven't used the Manson Supreme, I do have the Rocna... not quite as big as you'd need though. There are four things I don't like Manson Supreme, and were the reason I spent the extra money on the Rocna. 

First, the Rock Slot they have doesn't make any sense. How is the anchor supposed to know that the rode's movement is because you wanted to retrieve the anchor and not due to a tide or wind shift? It doesn't... so the rock slot is basically useless and weakening the stock for no good purpose that I can see. Using it could easily end up with your boat dragging because of wind or tide shift—not exactly a great idea IMHO.

Second—the anchor's stock is welded to only the top layer of the laminated section of the anchor blade. That means that it is pulling on just the top section, without transferring forces to the lower layer of the laminated blade section. Not an ideal design IMHO.

Third—the blade of the Manson Supreme is made up of two pieces of steel laminated via edge welding. The edge weld is ground down in the finishing/shaping process leaving fairly little metal behind holding the two plates together. Then the anchor is galvanized. That means the area between the two welds is not galvanized in the hot-dip process that coats the finished anchor. If the welded seam is breached, the interior surfaces between the layers of steel will corrode, and the anchor will break apart as the steel corrodes, due to the 10% expansion of the rust.

Fourth—the tip and forward edge of the Manson Supreme seems to depend on a very sharp edge for penetrating the bottom. I know that the galvanization on a very sharp edge will wear away rather quickly, letting the underlying metal corrode—ruining the edge. If it relies on the sharp edge to help it set... how will it perform without the sharp edge being present???

Overall, that gives the Rocna a serious edge in durability and longevity IMHO. That makes it worth spending the extra bucks IMHO.

BTW, Maine Sail has the Manson Supreme and the Rocna... and he prefers the Rocna IIRC... That says something about the difference between the two anchors as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

dog
didn't rocna add the rock slot to their design?


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Valiente,

I'd get a Manson Supreme based strictly on price. I like good ground tackle so I got a 45# Supreme and my boat's around 20,000 pounds including all the crap I carry. On your boat I'd even go bigger. The Rocna may be a bit better constructed but I don't think there's a significant difference between the two. Having the tab at the waterline for a snubber is a great advantage, don't have to worry about chafe. The rock slot is a gimmick and I don't know anyone who would use it. After three seasons, that's 18 months at anchor, the Manson still looks pretty good. When I first got it, about the second or third time I anchored it was blowing over 20 knots. The damn hook dug in so quick I nearly stripped the windlass. I was just letting the boat drift back a bit and wham, she was stuck right in. I had to signal my wife to motor forward fast to take the weight off! By the way, I noticed a lot more Supremes out there last season. This anchor seem to be really getting popular. 

What kind of boat do you have? Is it a Goderich?


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

xort said:


> dog
> didn't rocna add the rock slot to their design?


ROCNA ROCK & REEF - Directly copied from the Manson Supreme:


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I wouldn't buy a Rocna with a rock slot either...  Think the rock slot is about the dumbest idea you can have on an anchor.


xort said:


> dog
> didn't rocna add the rock slot to their design?


----------



## scottbr (Aug 14, 2007)

*Anchor ????*

Valiente, seriously, what do you guys in Toronto need an anchor for. Don't you pull out of the marina turn left for a while, turn right, turn right and head back to the marina???   and for excitement go in and moon the people in the bar at Edelweiss at Ontario Place ??

I have 2 seasons and 60 nights anchored out on my Rocna and have seen 35 knots and gusts to 52 knots and not budged. From what I've seen both are a good anchor and it comes down to personal choice with lots of support on both sides. Doubt you'll go wrong with either.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> Overall, that gives the Rocna a serious edge in durability and longevity IMHO. That makes it worth spending the extra bucks IMHO.
> 
> BTW, Maine Sail has the Manson Supreme and the Rocna... and he prefers the Rocna IIRC... That says something about the difference between the two anchors as far as I'm concerned.


Thanks, SD, those are all compelling reasons. To be honest, I can and will carry a variety of anchors and rodes...I subscribe to the Hal Roth school of "cruisers can't have too many", but I wouldn't mind improving my MAIN anchor and cycling back the CQR, Bruce and big Danforth to spare, stern and lunch hook duties, for instance.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Vasco said:


> What kind of boat do you have? Is it a Goderich?


No, but I know a guy with one of the four Goderich 40s semi-customs built around 1980. Mine a 1988 custom design pilothouse cutter in steel. 41' LOA and 29,500 lbs. with empty water and full diesel, which is actually only middle-weight for steel of that size.

I am rebuilding the interior, and didn't stick the mast in this summer, but this picture shows the bowsprit and anchor "platform" and that tab. Plus my Portabote!


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

scottbr said:


> Valiente, seriously, what do you guys in Toronto need an anchor for. Don't you pull out of the marina turn left for a while, turn right, turn right and head back to the marina???   and for excitement go in and moon the people in the bar at Edelweiss at Ontario Place ??


I am taking the above boat around the world, and possibly to the fjords of Patagonia. My _other _boat is a 33 foot C&C and it has a 20 lb. Danforth I've used exactly once.

The above boat isn't your usual Lake Ontario vessel, I think.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Valiente,

Was that built by Tom at Arigosa?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

My secondary anchor is a 22 lb. Delta. I'll probably exchange this for the next size up Delta this winter.  I've got a Danforth for use as a stern anchor.


Valiente said:


> Thanks, SD, those are all compelling reasons. To be honest, I can and will carry a variety of anchors and rodes...I subscribe to the Hal Roth school of "cruisers can't have too many", but I wouldn't mind improving my MAIN anchor and cycling back the CQR, Bruce and big Danforth to spare, stern and lunch hook duties, for instance.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Vasco said:


> Valiente,
> 
> Was that built by Tom at Arigosa?


No, it was built by Hartmut Geisenhause in 1988 in Kingston to a design commissioned from Phil Friedman, N.A., who now runs Port Royal Group Yachts in Florida. "Officially", it's a Kodiak 41, Hull No. 1, and Friedman made Hull No. 2 for himself, only that one has a canoe stern.

Here's a low-res side view that shows her lines to advantage:


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Very nice. Looks pretty bullet-proof. I like the the round pipe bulwark cap, a lot better than teak.


----------



## scottbr (Aug 14, 2007)

Valiente said:


> I am taking the above boat around the world, and possibly to the fjords of Patagonia. My _other _boat is a 33 foot C&C and it has a 20 lb. Danforth I've used exactly once.
> 
> The above boat isn't your usual Lake Ontario vessel, I think.


I'm just playing with you.

No its definitely not a typical Lake Ontario boat. Nice looking boat, when are planning on leaving. It does look similar to aquaintences of ours that just returned from the Mediterranean this past summer and are now in our marina. theres is around 40 ft. steel hull, but don't remember the make.

We're actually closer to Lake Ontario than Georgian Bay and I did a lot of sailing out of Mimico with friends. ( club races) We chose Georgain Bay for the overnight anchoring and scenery rather than the Ontario left, right, right thing. Although, I do miss the weekday evening sails.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Vasco said:


> Very nice. Looks pretty bullet-proof. I like the the round pipe bulwark cap, a lot better than teak.


Thanks. Bullet-, or rather reef-proof, was high on our list, as well as tankage suitable for range and shore-independence.

For all that, I sail her easily single-handed, and she's more nimble and faster than she looks. We intend to sail, not motor, around the world, and the motor is only 52 HP, and so she's more "sailer motor" than "motor sailer". There's enough stays on her that I can keep more sail up longer than I would on a lighter, and more lightly built, boat.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

scottbr said:


> It does look similar to aquaintences of ours that just returned from the Mediterranean this past summer and are now in our marina. theres is around 40 ft. steel hull, but don't remember the make.


I'm always interested in speaking with other steel boat owners. All materials have compromises, but metal boat owners tend to have a lot of ways in which they can address problems.

If you are interested, I have a "circ prep blog" at The World Encompassed . I post every six weeks or so.


----------



## Skipaway (Jun 2, 2008)

Thanks for sharing the blog link, Valiente. Great info there, even for those of us not so venturesome.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

The only things I'm venturing so far is my capacity to learn half a dozen trades without sawing a finger off and my credit rating...

But thanks for the nice words. I expect some progress and a fresh post or two before Christmas.


----------



## Joesaila (May 19, 2007)

*Buy the best one you can afford*

A wise man once said to buy the best of whatever you need. Because in time the so called 'good deal' will fail. Then you buy the better one and you've ended up wasting the intitial money. 
While I don't drive a Rolls, I had to settle for a Toyota...If I could afford it, I'd get the Rolls. I had to skimp in other areas but I got the Rocna and real peace of mind at anchor.
Mom said it best..."you get what you pay for."


----------



## TxLnghrn (Apr 22, 2008)

ANCORALATINA said:


> ROCNA ROCK & REEF - Directly copied from the Manson Supreme:


Funny Ancoralatina,
I cannot find any other links to this "rocna copy of the Manson" than in this post.  Would you mind posting your link to the Rocna site that describes this new anchor?

Michael

_Still using a Danforth while deciding on my next anchor. _


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

*Rocna Rrr*



TxLnghrn said:


> Funny Ancoralatina,
> Would you mind posting your link to the Rocna site that describes this new anchor?
> Michael


Hi Michael
It's also a part of my job to be well informed about the competition. as the competition should be well informed about our products too!
Here below is the complete info


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I find that interesting because Rocna's website doesn't mention it at all.


----------



## TxLnghrn (Apr 22, 2008)

I found this at:
Rocna RRR : SHOP :: Chains, Ropes & Anchors :: The Maritime Bondage Specialists

Rocna 4 RRR
$265.00

larger image Rocna 4 RRR 
4 kilos

A variation of the original Rocna.

Same great holding

Same great setting performance

But with the added bonus of the Rock and Reef RetrievableTM System.

The new Rock &am

$265.00
Add to Cart:

Model: ANROC004RRR 
Shipping Weight: 5kg 
1 Units in Stock 
*Manufactured by: Rocna - China*

Interesting I didn't think Rocna had a China branch. I wonder when Craig will be along on this discussion.

Michael


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Rocna-China? Is it made from melted down computer towers?


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

*Mason Supreme*

Many of the points made about the construction of the supreme appear at first glance to be well taken, but a Lloyd's certification that the Supreme has is more than a selling gemmick IMHO. I did buy a 45 lb Supreme this past spring having debated between it and the Rocna. As I get more experience with it under storm conditions, I'm liking it more and more. A couple of months ago spent a couple of nights on the hook under a full gale with gusts to 50 knots. The anchor did fine. I had only a 6 to 1 scope out, 80 ft of 3/8 inch BBB chain spliced to 3 strand 5/8 inch line and then a bridle tied to the rode. The boat is a Tayana 37 (about 16 ton displacement fully loaded).

My secondary anchor now is the 35 lb CQR which used to be my primary anchor. In fact it held the boat under hurricane conditions(only a Cat 1) some years ago. Never will stay aboard the boat again during a hurricane. The problem that I saw was not so much about the anchor dragging, but rather the chafe on the 5/8 inch line. That 5/8 inch line looked like a banjo string druing those conditions.

I'm now trying to figure out how to stop the boat from swinging back and forth so much. The bridle does help and a riding sail may be the next step, but now sure how much wind such a set up can take.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

lance 
do you use 2 lines for the bridle, one from each cleat?


----------



## betodas (Oct 3, 2008)

I recently saw one at WM and loved it's look. Though I have to be honest, the hoop looks a little weird. The finish of the anchor looks good. I have a Spade and I like the look without the hoop. Due to price though, my next anchor will surely be a Supreme or Raya (I like to support fellow Brazillians).


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

*bridle*



xort said:


> lance
> do you use 2 lines for the bridle, one from each cleat?


Yes, two 1/2 inch braded lines tied with a climbers knot to the 5/8 inch rode. I forget the name of the climber's knot that I'm using but a google search of knots will bring it up. The 1/2 inch may be a bit small, but that knot works best when tying a smaller diameter line to a larger diameter rode. I also keep the bridle very short which seems to limit the swing and the rudder locked on certerline.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 28, 2012)

Valiente said:


> No, it was built by Hartmut Geisenhause in 1988 in Kingston to a design commissioned from Phil Friedman, N.A., who now runs Port Royal Group Yachts in Florida. "Officially", it's a Kodiak 41, Hull No. 1, and Friedman made Hull No. 2 for himself, only that one has a canoe stern.
> 
> Here's a low-res side view that shows her lines to advantage:


Actually to clarify the information which is remarkable close to fact after all these years...the vessel design was originally called the "Kodiak Cruiser 41", and was a custom design for an Ontario couple who hired Helmut to build her in steel. I believe that she is one of the handsomest sailing cruisers that I ever designed, and represents the cruising ethos that predominated from the 1950s (bolstered by the writings of Eric Hiscock) through the 1980s, but which now seems to have waned significantly.

Anyway, her the 41's hull form is double chine, with the lower chine immersed, and the upper chine mostly above DWL. This form was selected to more closely approximate the look of a round-bottom form, while still retaining the ability to be built using sheet material without pre-forming her skin plates. I used a form of conic development that I refined to result in the chines fading out in to an almost continuous above-DWL surface in the forward 25% or so of the topsides. Displacement is moderate; and it is no surprise to me that she sails better than one might aniticpate, notwithstanding the fact that her original owner opted for a rig that was shorter than I recommended. I sold several sets of plans for the 41, and I would be pleased to hear if anyone knows of a 41 built in aluminum.

My personal boat was not hull #2 of the 41, but rather was a Kodiak Cruiser 37, which I designed as a tribute to Jack Hanna's "Little Bear". The 37 was double-ended, with short overhangs, long waterline, and a heavy displacement at 36,000 lbs. at half-load. She was flush decked, with a foredeck well, and had a mid-ship wheelhouse, with a second helm at the after end of that house. I sailed and lived aboard her for more than seven years, and sold her in 1990.

The other member of the series was the Kodiak Cruiser 33, also a double-ender, but with a mid-ship doghouse style fixed shelter open at it's aft end and placed over a self-draining cockpit well. Several of these were built in various places around the world, and one that I know of made a successful full circumnavigation of the Pacific rim.

Thank you all for bringing back some fond memories. I'd be pleased to receive any information, and especially any photos you may have of Kodiak Cruisers. You can reach me at [email protected]. If you do, I'll be happy to send you a free copy of my latest e-book, "Ten Golden Rules for Successful Yacht Build Projects."

Cheers and thanks to all.

Phil Friedman


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Holy thread resurrection! but of a good cause. Nice to hear from yacht designers. I am sure Val has lots of photos to share of his 41. It is being well outfitted for a long cruse.


----------



## Ispedbyu (Dec 24, 2008)

We had several anchors in the bay/delta area, none of which would be reliable for our 24000 lb boat. I finally went ashore on a sandy beach, set a delta/plow swivel in the sand and literally drug it right off the beach and under water.
I bought a 55 lb Manson Supreme. The FIRST test was an instant set, I have not had anything but an intstant sets the very first time - so far everytime.


----------



## Patient (Jan 7, 2009)

Valiente said:


> Rocna-China? Is it made from melted down computer towers?


*snort* I woke the neighbors with that one, hehe.


----------

