Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

[rebel heart]

Craig, and the Rocna company in general is one of my more disliked aspects of the recreational maritime world. But this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. The metal that I have seen fail is because of voids. It doesn't really matter what it looks like out on the outside if there's a massive series of cavities in the interior.

And not to knock your skills as an architect, but are you really qualified to examine weld patterns as they pertain to strength and corrosion resistance? My degree is in computer science but ask me to fix your printer I wouldn't even know where to start.

[rebel heart]

I'm really not trying to be insulting to anyone here, but just rather asking if you guys feel that you're really in a position to properly judge these differences and that your beliefs would be replicated by actual performance testing? That seems like a big leap.

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by Delfin

If you look at the testing done and currently touted on the Rocna website, the strength noted as exceeding SHHP standards is in a straight pull on a bench where the flukes have been immobilized. On this basis a 2" rod of mild steel 4" long would also exceed SHHP strengths, but would you want to anchor your boat with it? The question has never been the strength of mild steel in a straight pull, but the proven tendency of the Rocna shank to bend once the steel was cheapened. You seem to have completely missed the point, which of course was Rocna's purpose in publishing this latest bit of squid ink.

It was Peter Smith, the designer, who stated that 800 mPA steel was needed to give the correct strength given the thickness of the shank that was required for the right balance between shank and flukes. While I have not heard Peter Smith disavow his prior assertions of the need for higher quality, I have heard Rocna make different claims, which they support with their misleading bench pull test.

Again, I will rely on Peter Smith. He stated that anchors made out of the steel the Rocna is currently made out of were deficient. We have a meaningless straight pull bench test offered by Rocna to prove that their anchors are "fit for purpose". Perhaps you should suggest that Rocna have an independent agency test side loading strength of their product vs. competitors? That would settle it, and actually provide meaningful information for boaters, since few of us first affix our anchors to a 12 ton bench apparatus and then lower it over the side.

So you are basically saying the the RINA's SHHP certification process is so flawed as to be worthless?

I don't think I was missing the point. The point I was making is that the current anchors are certified to a standard that most would consider adequate. Nothing you have said has altered that.

Relying on the original designers claims may make sense unless looked at in the light of marketing hype. It may well have been in Rocna's interest in the early days of selling a new anchor to try to differentiate themselves from their competitors by making claims that "only an anchor made like ours can be as good as ours". That doesn't change the fact that they are now claiming that the quality of steel they are using is, in fact, adequate to make the kind of anchor that they are selling and obtain the certifications and testing results they require.

Nobody has really disproved the claim that the current anchor meets the certification requirements that they say they meet and since we have no real life failures of the anchor to perform according to those certifications I am just saying that some of the conclusions drawn from this episode may be overblown.

Jim

[CarlF]

The point that is missed by many and that makes the recent Rocna pull test so disingenuous is that the the shank breaking is not the concern. Rather a slight bend (a matter of a few degrees) in the shank can make the anchor not set (or reset). Instead, it will skip along the bottom on whichever edge is angled forward as the tip slews to the side. This was Peter's Smith's argument for use of strong steel and he was right.

The great advantage of the Rocna (and Spade, and Ultra, and Supreme...) is their uncanny ability to set in a matter of inches in most bottoms and then reset just as quickly after the wind changes (at 2AM, of course). The scariest scenario is that an anchor is well dug in a major blow. The wind then changes and puts tremendous side force on the dug in shank. Eventually the anchor pulls free and reorients to the new wind direction. If the shank bent during that side pull, it may not reset.

That's how boats are lost.

Carl

[rolandgilbert99]

Originally Posted by nylajo

I once bought an anchor swivel on ebay that was made in China. I have never seen such disgusting workmanship. I would not use it to tie up my dog let alone sleep through a blow. That scared me off China made junk forever.

Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten.

You should not fly aircrafts, many parts are made in China. Soon half of an commercial aircraft will be build in China and then assembled in North America, Europe or Canada. Most dinghys today are build in China, Zodiacs are built in the same factories than other brands such as Seamax, Aquamarine, etc. We should change to regard chinese factories as crap producers, they have greatly improved over the years.

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by CarlF

The point that is missed by many and that makes the recent Rocna pull test so disingenuous is that the the shank breaking is not the concern. Rather a slight bend (a matter of a few degrees) in the shank can make the anchor not set (or reset). Instead, it will skip along the bottom on whichever edge is angled forward as the tip slews to the side. This was Peter's Smith's argument for use of strong steel and he was right.

The great advantage of the Rocna (and Spade, and Ultra, and Supreme...) is their uncanny ability to set in a matter of inches in most bottoms and then reset just as quickly after the wind changes (at 2AM, of course). The scariest scenario is that an anchor is well dug in a major blow. The wind then changes and puts tremendous side force on the dug in shank. Eventually the anchor pulls free and reorients to the new wind direction. If the shank bent during that side pull, it may not reset.

That's how boats are lost.

Carl

And you have the name of these boats that have dragged due to bending of the shank?

I don't doubt that you are theoretically on top of this but when we get into theory we just have a "what is the best anchor" thread. The question I am addressing is "is the Rocna as built adequate for anchoring at the specs the company gives, etc". I don't see any evidence that it is not. The certification organizations are depended on to test the material strength of anchors of all types and I don't hear anyone complaining that they are wrong in other certifications. They certify the current Rocna to meet the specs the company gives it.

If you don't think that the specs that the company is currently using make the Rocna a good anchor then you are entitled to your opinion just as if you think the Bruce is better then the CQR but that is not what is being said on this thread and others. The current of this thread is that Rocna knows the anchor it is currently making is inadequate and continues to make it and that is what I take issue with.

Jim

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by avb3

Actually, on second thought, both of those anchors are make in China. The international two letter contraction for Canada is "CA" and China is "CN".

The UPC correctly identifies the country of origin as "CN" or China.

Correct. "Made in CA" would be on the sticker. "CDN" stands for Canadian, and one sometimes finds "CDN made" or "CDN mfg."

However...

If they are BOTH made in China, that's even worse in some respects, because it indicates a pretty selective use of QC if both those anchors came from the same factory...jeez...

Confucius say do not buy an anchor made on a Monday, perhaps?

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

I'm really not trying to be insulting to anyone here, but just rather asking if you guys feel that you're really in a position to properly judge these differences and that your beliefs would be replicated by actual performance testing? That seems like a big leap.

You're right. I am not in a position to evaluate whether the lowering of the steel spec and the roughness of the welds in some (but apparently not all) Chinese-made Rocnas makes the current Rocna less effective than the Rocna made to the designer's specification.

I am in a position, however (former marketer and ad writer), to judge the level of weasel-like thinking that cuts quality alleged to be at the heart of a design's effectiveness for something cheaper and then to claim it is "just as good".

You can take classes on this sort of thing: "The Big Three in Detroit, 1960-85: Why People Started Driving Hondas, Nissans and Toyotas". Eventually, crappy, wasteful, half-assed manufacturing trumped even patriotism and the strenuous efforts of the American car industry to slag the Japanese, who were building, and for the most part continue to build, efficient, reliable vehicles at a good price.

Rocna is like circa-1980 Chrysler, selling style with apparently a little less substance than the guy who invented the thing specified.

God, Chryslers were dire.

[CarlF]

Jim,

There's plenty we don't know. For example, does RNAA apply a bending test to the shank? Do they do onsite inspections? Do they do in-water testing?

As to performing to "spec", I don't think that Rocna is currently willing to publish a spec beyond weight, steel (type unspecified), galvanized, and "made in China".

Rocna used to specify a spec of the shank steel with an informative explanation as to why that spec was important to the design's excellent performance. The company now builds to a unspecified shank spec that appears to be substantially less resistant to bending.

Does that mean that the anchor will fail? No. But a thorough testing of the potential failure mode (not setting because of a more easily bent shank) would seem to be in order. Instead they offer a straight pull test that is at best useless and at worst leaves the stink of fraud in the air.

Carl

[NeptunesTrident]

Originally Posted by Hogan

I purchased a Rockna 10 in spring 2011 as my primary anchor, and after spending almost a month hanging off it during various sea trials in preparation for extended voyaging, was appalled - absolutely appalled - to learn about substandard steel being substituted after it's manufacture was outsourced to China from Canada.

After research and verification that Rockna had changed ownership, and that the new owners had become lax with their standards, I became concerned, and stopped by my local West Marine to investigate, and possibly return my anchor, and begin the process of finding a suitable replacement.

To my surprise, both a Chinese sourced and a Canadian sourced Rockna 10 were on the floor:



I'm not even going to tell you which one is which.

Just look at the photo, and it's OBVIOUS that one of these anchors is of very poor quality and craftsmanship.

I'm a retired Architect.

It was my job to make sure this sort of thing NEVER happened to the buildings I was responsible for. If a contractor did sloppy work or substituted ANYTHING without my approval, I made him fix it, or he didn't get paid.

I wasn't very popular with contractors, but my clients were happy, and my buildings don't leak or fall down.

The lack of quality is obvious in the above photos, even from a distance, and further, it serves as a good way to identify the outsourced anchors - just look at the welds.

This is an outrage, and in my opinion, Rockna needs to stop making excuses and immediately apologize for this - or they deserve to go bankrupt.

If anyone is ever hurt because of this, Rockna's management and owners should be held criminally negligent - as I would be as an Architect if deliberate negligence on my part injured or killed anyone.

They should be held civilly liable if anyone loses property because of this, again, just like a US Architect.

Anchors a critical system - life, limb, and property are on the line. All Rockna had to do was LOOK at what was coming out of thier contractor's factory, and they would have know - so it was either blind negligence or deliberate maleficence on their part to allow this to happen. Their attempt to cover it up is beyond the pale, and argues strongly for the latter.

Detailed photos to follow. Right now I'm returning my anchor -West Marine is holding the Canadian one for me, and has removed the China Anchor from the floor. It's very unfortunate, because my anchor always set quickly, held solidly, and never dragged. It's an excellent design.

I was confident in it until I examined the welds this afternoon, and sure enough - they are no where near the quality of the known Canadian anchor in the photo above, though not as bad as the ones in the other anchor.

I have a feeling the old Canadian Rocknas will become collector's items after they go out of business over this - just like the original Bruce I own.

I looked at the pictures. Nice looking welds on the Canadian anchor. China looks like they ran a large flux cored wire. Or sub arc maybe. Ugg...

[avb3]

Originally Posted by NeptunesTrident

I looked at the pictures. Nice looking welds on the Canadian anchor. China looks like they ran a large flux cored wire. Or sub arc maybe. Ugg...

Both of those anchors are made in China. The "Made in CN" means China, not Canada. Canada would say either "CA" or CDN".

Which begs the question how Rocna defines quality control.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jkleins

And you have the name of these boats that have dragged due to bending of the shank?

I don't doubt that you are theoretically on top of this but when we get into theory we just have a "what is the best anchor" thread. The question I am addressing is "is the Rocna as built adequate for anchoring at the specs the company gives, etc". I don't see any evidence that it is not. The certification organizations are depended on to test the material strength of anchors of all types and I don't hear anyone complaining that they are wrong in other certifications. They certify the current Rocna to meet the specs the company gives it.

If you don't think that the specs that the company is currently using make the Rocna a good anchor then you are entitled to your opinion just as if you think the Bruce is better then the CQR but that is not what is being said on this thread and others.

Jim

I doubt anyone is going to take the time to bring you up to speed on this issue, as the posts are there showing bent Rocnas, if you chose to look at them.

The question about whether Rocna's claims regarding RINA certification means anything in this context should be easy for you to answer for yourself. Do you believe that anchors are certified as to "holding power" as in Super High Holding Power by attaching the anchor to a test bed and pulling on it? Or do you think they measure the holding power of an anchor by ACTUALLY ANCHORING with it? If the former, then my example of a 2" rod 4" long would qualify for RINA certification as a SHHP anchor. Does that really make sense to you?

Originally Posted by jkleins

The current of this thread is that Rocna knows the anchor it is currently making is inadequate and continues to make it and that is what I take issue with.

I guess my reference to what Peter Smith, the designer of the Rocna said about what makes a safe anchor didn't sink in, so I'll quote him directly from the Rocna website of a few month's ago - since removed by current management for obvious reasons:

"The shank on any anchor is a common failure point, normally bending when a high lateral load is applied (for instance, when the anchor fouls on a submarine obstacle and is jammed). For this reason, the shank on the Rocna is a high tensile quenched and tempered steel, with a grade of around 800 MPa. Its pure resistance to bending is around three times that of mild steel. This adds to the price of the anchor, but compromising this strength is not something we would entertain."


Smith outlines the problem pretty well here and explains why the current Rocna is substandard. Is it your opinion that Smith doesn't know enough about anchor manufacturing to make that judgment?

It is lateral loading force that demands the use of steel Rocna no longer bothers to use, and it is lateral loading that was untested by Rocna in their current promotion for obvious reasons. Clearly, what Mr. Smith would no longer "entertain" as suitable steel is not only entertained by Rocna now, but was snuck in by them without notifying anyone of the change, denying it happened until caught, and now pretend that it doesn't matter.

The sales of Rocnas are now based almost entirely on the fact that most people don't keep up with threads like this so are ignorant that equivalently performing anchors of better materials are available for less money. Of course, a certain number of useful idiots who are aware of the facts yet still defend this company doesn't hurt them either.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The sales of Rocnas are now based almost entirely on the fact that most people don't keep up with threads like this so are ignorant that equivalently performing anchors of better materials are available for less money. Of course, a certain number of useful idiots who are aware of the facts yet still defend this company doesn't hurt them either.

I suspect when the report from Practical Sailor is published this month, Rocna sales will dissapte even further.

Have people noticed that Manson has taken the high road and not jumped all over Rocna's deception in forums? They published results of their own tests on their website, but that is it as far as I can tell.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by avb3

I suspect when the report from Practical Sailor is published this month, Rocna sales will dissapte even further.

Have people noticed that Manson has taken the high road and not jumped all over Rocna's deception in forums? They published results of their own tests on their website, but that is it as far as I can tell.

I think Manson is following that age old bit of good advice from politics - when your opponent is making a fool of themselves, keep quiet and let them continue. And that bench test is about the most foolish thing Rocna has done in this whole debate.

[Hogan]

The plot indeed thickens!

"CN" is an abbreviation for "China"?

Well, ok - but how do you explain the obvious weld and galvanizing quality differences between the CN and China anchors?

Extremely lax QC at Rockna?

A hand welded prototype found its way into the supply chain?

Rockna switched to different China plant?

Suncoast contracted "China" to "CN" on the "good" anchor to hide it's origin?

Guess I'll need a metallurgist to find out for sure.

As far my expertise in welding - yes - I'm an expert, responsible as an Architect for designing things like the structural welds that keep things like skyscrapers up in hurricanes and earthquakes - or jet strikes for that matter.

I'm also legally responsible for specifying the correct grade of steel and making sure it's used on those welds and structural members. Yes, I hire a structural engineer to advise me in such matters, but at the end of the day (and contractually and legally) I'm responsible if there are any structural failures due to improper specifications or substandard design, engineering, or inspection of said structure.

I'm responsible in fact for the whole damned building, from footings to parapets, but that's another topic.

I've also studied welding, and have done both gas and arc weldinging. The welds on the anchors look like MIG welds - wire fed, and shielded with inert gas - probably a mix of argon and CO2, due to the ferritic nature of steel.

Hmmmm the current owner of Rockna was arrested for selling what to children? Poisonous candy? Let me guess - he used lead (no doubt substandard at that) as a sweetener in the same China factory that's now slapping these anchors together....

As far as criminal negligence - yes - if someone is killed because of a structural failure on a properly sized anchor under the extreme conditions they claim the anchor was designed for on thier website as a result of Rockna executives arbitrarily substituting low grade steel and poor workmanship and subsequently lying about it -

Then that's manslaughter in my book.

It would be like Ford executives deciding that properly torquing the lug nuts on a Focus was to expensive, and only tightening them to 80%.

You might be fine for a while, but eventually, a wheel is going to come off and kill someone -

Who thinks the executives should be held blameless?

And as far as a third world lack of ethics - I've seen just as much evil in Los Angeles as I've ever seen in any third world country, so watch it.

Trouble is, the rats here are well camouflaged and polite while they devour you. At least third world rats are easier to identify and avoid.