A Second Wind for Rocna

[smackdaddy]

Delf,

I've been following this whole thing for a while across several of the forums...and, rest assured, I'm not at all an apologist for Rocna. They screwed up on the PR/marketing front in every way conceivable. But I am one that thinks this thing has also been way overblown on the forums for less than altruistic reasons.

Yes, it seems that it was your testing that provided proof to the public that Holdfast/Rocna were not delivering what they promised. You definitely busted them in this regard. And that is undoubtedly a good thing. However, I'd say that you too need to be more careful about your assumptions, statements and conclusions as this thing plays out.

It seems to me you're stretching the facts a bit regarding this email...and/or you're offering assumptions that may or may not be true, but do serve to cast further suspicion on Smith's/Rocna's actions without much substantiation. This can be dangerous.

For example...

Originally Posted by Delfin

1. You did not copy anyone from CMP on this. Are they not involved in resolving this issue with former purchasers?

My intent in asking the first question was to understand why the current owner of CMP would not be included in a customer service response. I frankly don't know what is going on here, and assume that CMP has delegated questions like this to Smith. However, it is puzzling that the owner of the company is having customer service handled by someone not belonging to the company.

2. You did copy Craig and Pocock. Does this mean they are both actively involved in dealing with this issue with you?

Regarding the second question, it has frequently been stated that Craig Smith has no role at Rocna. Perhaps, but it is odd that he is copied on a customer service response. It also appears that the owner of Suncoast, the current (based on their web site) distributor of Rocna is also involved in this communication. To the extent that there are misstatements in this email, it is not unfair to say that they own them as well as Peter Smith.

There are all kinds of reasonable business scenarios I can imagine that would lead to this approach to those copied on the email. For example, a business deal and subsequent re-structuring typically takes a while to finalize. And in any case, Peter is the bottom line at Rocna in terms of design and specification. Also Suncoast is the distributor for NA. So why is it surprising that he copies who he copies? You'll notice in the release from CMP that the customer support email goes to Rocna...not CMP.

Granted, I don't know what "own" means in terms of CMP's relationship to Rocna and the license...in other words, I obviously don't know the details of the deal. But it doesn't surprise me at all that Peter is the spokesman for issues regarding design and spec...and even manufacturing at this point.

Originally Posted by Delfin

3. You stated that ones chain will bend before a Q620 shaft will bend. Based on your recommended chain sizes and their breaking strengths, is this a correct statement?

The third question gets to a statement by Mr. Smith that defies physics and calls into question the degree to which he has been directly involved in some of the misstatements of fact that many have come to expect from Rocna. The breaking load of 1/4" G4 chain, recommended by Rocna on their website as appropriate for a Rocna 20, is 11,700#. The shank bending strength of the Rocna 20 anchor I tested is less than #1,550 pounds, so setting aside common sense, the statement made by Smith that the shank with "normal usage will still not bend before your chain breaks" is empirically false, so why would he make this statement except as a deliberate attempt to deceive the customer?.

Again, we public followers of this debacle are not metallurgists. So any terminology and numbers that are put out as an example of Rocna "deliberate[ly] attempt[ing] to deceive the customer" had better be flawlessly accurate and empirically correct. LWatson's numbers here...

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post791864

...cast some doubt on your terminology/numbers/conclusions above. Furthermore, Peter's complaint in the email is that the "Anti-Rocna" camp (mostly due to that camp's dislike of Craig from what I've seen) has continually, and intentionally, conflated the terminology. It seems he may have a point.

Originally Posted by Delfin

4. You stated that a Manson testing at 866 mpa shank strength is not as good as a defective 450 mpa Rocna. Could you give reasons why you believe this to be true?

The final question goes directly to one of the aspect's of past Rocna promotion that many have found odious, and that is the tendency to puff their own product by trashing others. I understand brand loyalty, but I do not understand how a reasonable person would state that a defective Rocna with half the strength is better than a non-defective Manson at twice the strength.

Given that these statements come from the founder of the company and the designer of the product, and given that some are false on their face, I am not sure who if anyone at Rocna can ever be trusted to be accurate in their statements to customers.

This is not to cast the slightest aspersion on CPM. They bought this brand and are trying to rebuild it. It is hard to imagine that they would repeat the mistakes of the past, but it is equally hard to understand why they would let people who do not tell the truth continue to speak for that product.

The numbers and terminology issue pointed out above notwithstanding, you're still putting words in Peter's mouth. You're holding him to a specific argument he never made in that email. Furthermore, you're doing so in a public forum - with an email that was specifically intended, and requested, to be a private correspondence for this very reason (i.e. - these kinds of threads on the forums).

Again, I'm no apologist for Rocna. But I do expect any detractors to be objective and reasonable...and able to back up their accusations with facts, not hyperbole.

All this said, your final paragraphs above, which appears to be your conclusion regarding Peter Smith and his part in this email response seems, in this instance, at best hyperbolic, and at worst leaning toward libelous.

An altruistic intent for exposing inaccuracies in marketing by relatively anonymous forum posters can very quickly become a witch-hunt that can create a lot of liability for a lot of very real people.

Just sayin' be careful not to bend your shank here.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

Yes, I misread, sorry about that.

Still, one has to wonder, why did CF mods remove that data? Were they asked by Rocna?

There are literally thousands of links on CF to work, charts or graphs which are not the property of the owner and they let those stand, so why not let the data on bending loads for Rocna anchors stay? Why not at least let the data stay until proven phony, or genuine, and asked by Rocna to remove them?

Perhaps CF mods can shed some light on this..?

It just seems to me that the first bit of side load data for Rocna anchors we have seen was immediately yanked?

Why??

If it was phony data let Rocna say that publicly and condemn it.

If it was real let Rocna ask CF to remove it?

If phony, Rocna wins, if real I guess they'd lose for not being forthright with that data to begin with. Especially after being asked for it many times since this began and presenting only "straight line pull data" when it "appears" that had the bending load data all along??

Imagine for a moment that this was a company that made your rigging such as Hayn, Norseman or Sta-Loc who had done what Rocna has? Think about it? Imagine if they had lied about the grade of steel used in production or about a certification they did not yet have? I see an anchor as safety gear just as I do quality rigging.

This is the data everyone has been asking for for months and within an hour of it being posted it disappears.. Seems fishy to me... Just sayin'....

Just to provide some context....

The charts I posted that were removed because they were the property of Rocna were forwarded to me by a former employee of Rocna. Since I personally saw them and will acknowledge that they may be complete forgeries, I hope I will be allowed to summarize what they said with the caveat that they may be completely bogus.

The charts showed the shank bending strength of the Rocna product range for 3 grades of structural steel: 480 yield, 690 yield and 780 yield. Note that Rocna doesn't claim (correct me if I'm wrong) to make an anchor out of 690 yield steel. I believe the claim now is the 620 yield is "good enough." The 780 steel figures would correspond to an average minimum yield for Bisalloy 80, and that data is labeled "Bisplate 80", which is the grade Rocna said they used. The 480 steel would be the same grade as the one they said sneaked through the cracks in one quarter of production. There are two reports for 480 steel - one labeled "same shanks" and one for "thicker shanks". The steel is identified as "450 Bluescope".

If authentic, which I should stress can't be independently verified, the format of the testing would seem to indicate that the shanks made of 480 mpa steel were not some weird fluke and failure in a Q.C. program, but part of a production run everyone knew about, at least within Rocna.

These same numbers can be determined from independent calculations of bending force by a structural engineer who knows the profile of the steel and the yield of the steel, so they could have been purely theoretical calculations not relating to what had actually been made at all. Only Rocna could tell us that.

By way of reference, the respective shank bending force for a Rocna 20 with yield strength for the different grades of steel in the charts shown are as follows:

780 mpa yield steel: 1,752#
690 mpa yield steel: 1,550#
480 mpa yield steel, "thicker shanks": 1,078#
480 mpa yield steel, "same shanks": 1,078#

I have no idea why the "same shanks" had the same bending force as the "thicker shanks", which should have been greater.

I'm a little out of date on what has been said by CPM, but prior to the announcement of their purchase, I recall Holdfast saying that they wouldn't tell you what steel they were using because it was a "trade secret". Perhaps they had plans to forge their own steel to a special recipe? Who knows, but do we know what CPM has to say on steel grages? Again, I think its 620, which is not shown in these charts, but would have a bending strength of around 1,390#, or approximately 20% weaker than the steel Peter Smith said was essential to the Rocna's superior performance.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The issue is that Rocna lied to thousands of boaters about what they were doing and based on the Smith email you sent me (again for reasons unknown) show that whatever the new owners will do, Peter Smith is still in the fabrication business, and I don't mean anchors.

Wait, are you saying LWatson sent you that email?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by LWatson

The only point of contention is the perceived relevance of the steel used in the current production of Rocna (620 Mpa) and the steel in the Manson (690 Mpa).

Manson doesn't use 690 steel. The minimum yield of the steel they use is 750 mpa. Please stick to the facts.

One source of confusion is that the Chinese are now using the EU standard for naming steels. The number in the spec for the steel is the yield strength. That is different from the Aussies and the New Zealanders whose number references the the nominal minimum ultimate tensile strength. Since you want to know the minimum standard when designing something, minimum specs are always the ones that count. Here are the minimum specs for Manson's Bisplate 80:

Tensile: Minimum 830 mpa
Yield: Minimum 750 mpa

What Manson tested showed 866 yield and I believe around 890 tensile.

Here are the minimum specs for S620Q steel used (we presume) by Rocna:

Tensile: Minimum 700 mpa
Yield: Minimum 620 mpa

If the steel used by Rocna is S620Q, it's shank bending force is 17% less than the Manson, if they are the same profile of steel. My measurements indicated that the Manson was thicker by around 10% or so, and that would have to be factored in. Does it matter? Not to you. To others? Maybe.

I think we can all agree that Rocna shouldn't have lied about what they produced. I think we can also agree that the laws of physics are not changed by our opinions.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Delf,


The numbers and terminology issue pointed out above notwithstanding, you're still putting words in Peter's mouth. You're holding him to a specific argument he never made in that email. Furthermore, you're doing so in a public forum - with an email that was specifically intended, and requested, to be a private correspondence for this very reason (i.e. - these kinds of threads on the forums).

Again, I'm no apologist for Rocna. But I do expect any detractors to be objective and reasonable...and able to back up their accusations with facts, not hyperbole.

All this said, your final paragraphs above, which appears to be your conclusion regarding Peter Smith and his part in this email response seems, in this instance, at best hyperbolic, and at worst leaning toward libelous.

An altruistic intent for exposing inaccuracies in marketing by relatively anonymous forum posters can very quickly become a witch-hunt that can create a lot of liability for a lot of very real people.

Just sayin' be careful not to bend your shank here.

Peter Smith made a declarative statement in his email that a 'suspect' Rocna would not bend before the chain broke. If the bending strength of a suspect Rocna 20 is around 1,400# (I'm interpolating this from the bending force of 780 and 690 mpa steel), and if the chain recommended by Rocna for this size anchor has a breaking strength of 11,700#, can you tell me how Mr. Smith's statement is true? It would be true if the only forces on an anchor were a straight pull, which incidentally is the only force ever put on anchor chain, but which is not the issue with the anchor itself. Those are routinely subjected to side loading, and the Rocnas that have been bent have been bent under those conditions. It would also be true if you used 1/16" chain. Do you think that's what he meant?

Regarding Mr. Watson's numbers, the way in which they are incorrect is explained above, and I can't add anything to them other than to refer you to the same spec sheets for these steels that are readily available.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by LWatson

I am not confused about yield (bending) or tensile (breaking) strengths of the various steels, and I further understand that the rated yield strength is the minimum.

Your vocabulary indicates that you are confused. The words you use are not those of an engineer with education and experience with materials strength.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Peter Smith made a declarative statement in his email that a 'suspect' Rocna would not bend before the chain broke. If the bending strength of a suspect Rocna 20 is around 1,400# (I'm interpolating this from the bending force of 780 and 690 mpa steel), and if the chain recommended by Rocna for this size anchor has a breaking strength of 11,700#, can you tell me how Mr. Smith's statement is true? It would be true if the only forces on an anchor were a straight pull, which incidentally is the only force ever put on anchor chain, but which is not the issue with the anchor itself. Those are routinely subjected to side loading, and the Rocnas that have been bent have been bent under those conditions. It would also be true if you used 1/16" chain. Do you think that's what he meant?

I don't know what he meant. Did he accidentally type "bend" instead of "break"? I don't know. Did he mean what he said based on numbers he has that you don't? I don't know. Is there some qualifying language in there that you might be misinterpreting? I don't know. But that's the point - I'm not willing to put words into his mouth as you are doing.

Granted, this was the most questionable of all his statements in that email in my opinion - but your conclusions go beyond what is actually there. Here is the actual quote from the email (I typed it so it might contain a typo):

And, not to defend the problem but rather provide some reassurance if possible, even if your current anchor is one of the problem units, it is not at all dangerous. It will not break, but can bend about 1/3 more easily under sideways loading but in normal usage will still not bend before your chain breaks. You can safely continue to use it until you can take it back to WM for a replacement should you decide to.

Granted, he does make the declarative statement that it "can bend about 1/3 more easily under sideways loading". But...

How does his qualifier "in normal usage" affect his definition of bending force in regards to your numbers above? Does "normal usage" include 11,700# of sideways force? Can the Manson Supreme take 11,700#+ of sideways force and not bend (if we are continually comparing claims)? Does "normal usage" even include any significant sideways force? If not, would the chain break before either of these anchors bent (not the shank per-se, but "the anchor") in "normal usage"?

See? We don't know. If you begin to parse words, you have to be careful.

Regardless, this was only one of your 4 points above..the sum of which you presented along the path to the conclusion that Rocna/Smith continues to "willfully mislead" the public.

That's a big accusation on what I see as pretty shaky evidence.

Originally Posted by Delfin

Regarding Mr. Watson's numbers, the way in which they are incorrect is explained above, and I can't add anything to them other than to refer you to the same spec sheets for these steels that are readily available.

True. But if you're going to personally present a case against Rocna in public, and you are going to be convinced of your conclusions between Rocna/Manson - based on your distrust of Rocna's marketing (rightly so as it turns out) and personal testing of only the Rocna, weighed against your trust in the marketing/specs of Manson, without personal side-by-side testing - wouldn't you say that's not quite a scientific method from which to reach absolute conclusions? I would.

For example, you saw the blurb above that said Manson's warranty doesn't cover bent shanks. Would this lead one to conclude that bent shanks on a Manson are in fact possible and, according to your numbers, in the overall scheme of things, wouldn't require "all that much" more force to do so? And, furthermore, could the reason they may have had none returned is that they are not covered for such? Why would someone return it if it's not covered? Or even that bent Rocna's, again when compared to the bending forces of the Manson (a 200# difference in force?), must have been used in "non-normal" circumstances if the Manson has never suffered a bent shank?

Again, I don't know. It's all possible. Information can be twisted and turned in all kinds of ways. My point is, this is all way more complicated than you're trying to lay out...especially when it comes down to calling someone a liar.

Personally, I think the best possible outcome of all this would be for an independent party (a sailing magazine, CF, etc.) to fully test the Rocna against the Manson Supreme side-by-side; at the point CMP/Smith deem the Rocna back up-to-spec, and states it's price. It would be a test that would obviously be followed by a lot of people and would put a lot of the current hyperbole to bed.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I don't know what he meant. Did he accidentally type "bend" instead of "break"? I don't know. Did he mean what he said based on numbers he has that you don't? I don't know. Is there some qualifying language in there that you might be misinterpreting? I don't know. But that's the point - I'm not willing to put words into his mouth as you are doing.

Granted, this was the most questionable of all his statements in that email in my opinion - but your conclusions go beyond what is actually there. Here is the actual quote from the email (I typed it so it might contain a typo):



Granted, he does make the declarative statement that it "can bend about 1/3 more easily under sideways loading". But...

How does his qualifier "in normal usage" affect his definition of bending force in regards to your numbers above? Does "normal usage" include 11,700# of sideways force? Can the Manson Supreme take 11,700#+ of sideways force and not bend (if we are continually comparing claims)? Does "normal usage" even include any significant sideways force? If not, would the chain break before either of these anchors bent (not the shank per-se, but "the anchor") in "normal usage"?

See? We don't know. If you begin to parse words, you have to be careful.

Regardless, this was only one of your 4 points above..the sum of which you presented along the path to the conclusion that Rocna/Smith continues to "willfully mislead" the public.

That's a big accusation on what I see as pretty shaky evidence.



True. But if you're going to personally present a case against Rocna in public, and you are going to be convinced of your conclusions between Rocna/Manson - based on your distrust of Rocna's marketing (rightly so as it turns out) and personal testing of only the Rocna, weighed against your trust in the marketing/specs of Manson, without personal side-by-side testing - wouldn't you say that's not quite a scientific method from which to reach absolute conclusions? I would.

For example, you saw the blurb above that said Manson's warranty doesn't cover bent shanks. Would this lead one to conclude that bent shanks on a Manson are in fact possible and, according to your numbers, in the overall scheme of things, wouldn't require "all that much" more force to do so? And, furthermore, could the reason they may have had none returned is that they are not covered for such? Why would someone return it if it's not covered? Or even that bent Rocna's, again when compared to the bending forces of the Manson (a 200# difference in force?), must have been used in "non-normal" circumstances if the Manson has never suffered a bent shank?

Again, I don't know. It's all possible. Information can be twisted and turned in all kinds of ways. My point is, this is all way more complicated than you're trying to lay out...especially when it comes down to calling someone a liar.

Personally, I think the best possible outcome of all this would be for an independent party (a sailing magazine, CF, etc.) to fully test the Rocna against the Manson Supreme side-by-side; at the point CMP/Smith deem the Rocna back up-to-spec, and states it's price. It would be a test that would obviously be followed by a lot of people and would put a lot of the current hyperbole to bed.

You are free to imagine that Smith meant something he didn't write. Lacking that skill, I'm stuck with what the man wrote. Just as I am stuck with his website's statements on RINA certification. Maybe he meant they didn't have it, and saying they did was just a typo. Maybe when Rocna said their anchor was proven to have superior holding power to all others tested by Sail magazine they just forgot to qualify that by adding "when ours gets hung up on a rock." Beats me, and you're right. Anything is possible. Does all of this stuff about pretend RINA certification, test results, metallurgy, and whether 11,700# breaking strength chain break at 1,300# and so on mean that Rocna lied and willfully mislead the public? Well no, not if it was all just typos and honest mistakes.

The independent tests you ask for have been done and are freely available.

Regarding Manson shanks bending, Ned Wood at Manson says they have never had one reported as bending. Maybe he meant to say they have but it was a typo. Email him yourself and ask. He seems pretty responsive.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Maybe when Rocna said their anchor was proven to have superior holding power to all others tested by Sail magazine they just forgot to qualify that by adding "when ours gets hung up on a rock."

I'm just saying things are more complicated than you're laying out Delf. I think I was the one that posted your testing results over at SN when they came out. If it is accurate and objective info...I'm all over it. I have no allegiance to either side.

But look at your quote above as just one example of what I mean. Where is the statement from the independent testers that the above "rock hang" was actually the case? Where do you get this "fact"?

Maybe such an official statement was released. I just haven't seen it. And if it were released, I'd assume that Sail mag would have thrown out the results - or at least printed a retraction. Did either of these happen?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I'm just saying things are more complicated than you're laying out Delf. I think I was the one that posted your testing results over at SN when they came out. If it is accurate and objective info...I'm all over it. I have no allegiance to either side.

But look at your quote above as just one example of what I mean. Where is the statement from the independent testers that the above "rock hang" was actually the case? Where do you get this "fact"?

Maybe such an official statement was released. I just haven't seen it. And if it were released, I'd assume that Sail mag would have thrown out the results - or at least printed a retraction. Did either of these happen?

Yes it did happen.

A table was originally published by Sail that includes this anomalous data, who subsequently republished without it because it was, well, misleading. In addition, Motorboats Monthly and Power & Motoryacht published the correct data without the 'hang pull.' Notwithstanding that, Peter Smith still includes the old data in the information he and Suncoast hand out at trade shows, or so says someone I am in correspondence with who attended the US Sail show in Florida this last weekend and received the false data on a chart prepared by Rocna.

The WM test notes including the anomaly are attached.

Since I have no particular interest in how this turns out, I'll respectfully bow out of the conversation. The metallurgical data is available for everyone who wants to access them. Rocna's statements and their variance with fact are also freely available, and I frankly don't have the time nor the interest to make this case over and over again. All I can say is, I don't think that companies should lie about their products, or the products of their competitors. Honesty in business should count for something, although I certainly understand why people who own a particular product feel the desire to defend their purchase decision.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

But look at your quote above as just one example of what I mean. Where is the statement from the independent testers that the above "rock hang" was actually the case? Where do you get this "fact"?

I have the entire set of "behind the scenes" test data including the notes sections from the West Marine / Sail tests. That is probably where Delfin's data comes from too.

A better summary can be seen here where I pose the long winded question one of the testers who was present at that testing.

Feel free to scroll down to the post directly below April 7 @ 12:24.

Bill Springer's Sailboat Stories: Which Anchor Holds Best? 14 Anchors Are Put To The Test

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Delfin

All I can say is, I don't think that companies should lie about their products, or the products of their competitors. Honesty in business should count for something, although I certainly understand why people who own a particular product feel the desire to defend their purchase decision.

This I can unequivocally agree with.

Like I said, in light of all the information/mis-information that has surrounded this anchor, intentional or otherwise, on the part of the designers, owners, and even testers...I think the sailing world would definitely benefit from a side-by-side test of the Rocna and Manson Supreme by an independent party.

It would provide a good reset for the debate...which will then go for another 5 years on the origins and merits of the rock slot.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

. . . in light of all the information/mis-information that has surrounded this anchor, intentional or otherwise, on the part of the designers, owners, and even testers...I think the sailing world would definitely benefit from a side-by-side test of the Rocna and Manson Supreme by an independent party.

The most read sailing journal in the UK -- Practical Boat Owner, just did a big anchor test in their August edition. A very careful test with well-designed methodology.

Rocna performed significantly better than Manson -- the difference was more than any margin of error. A big difference.

And the Spade performed better than the Rocna by about the same margin.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The most read sailing journal in the UK -- Practical Boat Owner, just did a big anchor test in their August edition. A very careful test with well-designed methodology.

Rocna performed significantly better than Manson -- the difference was more than any margin of error. A big difference.

And the Spade performed better than the Rocna by about the same margin.

This is NOT going to go over well with the Anti-Rocna Torchbearers. Now they're going to all have to buy Spades.

Oh the humanity.

(PS - Is that report online anywhere...linky?)

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Since I own a Mason Surpreme I'm not really trying to defend Rocna, but the degree of the witch hunt is amazing.

I don't think it's as much the result of a witch hunt as it represents resentment at having been lied to.

Much of this discussion began when many of us asked why this otherwise-fabulous anchor cost so much. We were told that it was a matter of materials and workmanship. That reply was given in highly technical terms where the materials were specified. We looked this over and agreed that the argument made sense, and proceeded to purchase the anchor in droves. Then, to our horror, we discovered the big lie.

And now the people who purchased Rocna are angry. The people who bought Manson ancors, probably for considerably less, do not seem as angry. This is understandable. But it should be equally understandable, for those Manson patrons, why the Rocna owners feel that they've been swindled, and that while it has nothing to do with witches, it has everything to do with crooks.