Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by Delfin

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?

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.

Well at least I am a "useful" idiot. I appreciate the helpful comments. Since you don't want to "get me up to speed" (even though I have read all of these threads) I can just tell you why you can't . None of the anchors were recently built anchors and none were bent during anchoring and none dragged because of the bending. That is why you can't "get me up to speed".

I am not defending Rocna. I am not allowing someone to make a logical conclusion that is not there. The company has made considerable mistakes but not any that many other companies haven't made. Sony made exploding batteries, Toyota made runaway cars, etc. There is just a difference from making an anchor that bends easily because of poor quality control and making an anchor out of lesser steel then you and the guy who invented the anchor think is wise. The first is a mistake and it appears they made a very serious PR error in not coming clean immediately. The second is an opinion that will play out in time as the product fails to perform it's primary mission.

The first error is clear and Rocna is at fault. The second has not been made clear. Not one of the "tests" have shown that a current production anchor cannot hold a boat at anchor as well or better then the others on the market. (just because you say it is so doesn't make it so anymore then Rocna). I am just noting that Rocna (and by extension the founder) may have said a bunch of things in the past as it was trying to sell anchors that it no longer believes but judging how the anchor works now based on that past marketing hype is as silly as believing that marketing hype in the first place.

Jim

[Delfin]

@Hogan, I think Rocna got some legal advise on this issue, which is why they have taken down web site assurances and statements of the metallurgy used, as well as now stating that their anchors are "fit for purpose", which is a term designed to be meaningless. Fit for most situations? Probably. Fit for high wind shifts? Of course not. For that you need a Fortress, Manson or some other anchor. No, I think Rocna has themselves covered here pretty well, with the only defense for the average boater being information about what kind of company Rocna has become.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 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?

All good questions, and the fact that the "CN" is immediately above the "sunshinecoastmarine.ca" actually adds to the confusion, as I think the domain moniker ".ca" is fairly well known as being from Canada.

Whether that is on purpose or not one can only surmise.

Seeing both are made in China, it is VERY interesting that one sees two such vastly different looking anchors.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jkleins

The first error is clear and Rocna is at fault. The second has not been made clear. Not one of the "tests" have shown that a current production anchor cannot hold a boat at anchor as well or better then the others on the market.

This is where you lose me. The Rocna in my tests as well as those in Manson's tests were shown to be made of steel that is substandard to the steel specified by Smith and used by Manson, which also has more steel cross sectionally than does the Rocna. So, yes, in this universe with these laws of physics is has been proven that the Rocna will not "hold a boat at anchor as well or better than the others on the market." To paraphrase you, just because you say these laws of physics don't apply doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by jkleins

I am just noting that Rocna (and by extension the founder) may have said a bunch of things in the past as it was trying to sell anchors that it no longer believes but judging how the anchor works now based on that past marketing hype is as silly as believing that marketing hype in the first place.

Jim

In other words, because they were lying before we can assume they aren't lying now? Or lying then and now is ok? Wow.

Go buy another. You're the ideal Rocna customer.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by avb3

All good questions, and the fact that the "CN" is immediately above the "sunshinecoastmarine.ca" actually adds to the confusion, as I think the domain moniker ".ca" is fairly well known as being from Canada.

Whether that is on purpose or not one can only surmise.

Seeing both are made in China, it is VERY interesting that one sees two such vastly different looking anchors.

As I noted above, I believe Rocna has gone through a couple of yards in China. It would be interesting to know which of the two purchased by Hogan was most recently manufactured. Based on what we know of Rocna, the one that looks the cheapest is probably the most recent.

[marinextreme]

They are both Chinese made ones in the photos.

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by Delfin

This is where you lose me. The Rocna in my tests as well as those in Manson's tests were shown to be made of steel that is substandard to the steel specified by Smith and used by Manson, which also has more steel cross sectionally than does the Rocna. So, yes, in this universe with these laws of physics is has been proven that the Rocna will not "hold a boat at anchor as well or better than the others on the market." To paraphrase you, just because you say these laws of physics don't apply doesn't make it so. In other words, because they were lying before we can assume they aren't lying now? Or lying then and now is ok? Wow.

Go buy another. You're the ideal Rocna customer.

This is exactly where you lose me as well. You have determined that you can tell what will hold a boat at anchor by the metal involved. You have taken a fact, that the steel is less then specified by Manson and Smith, and turned it into "the anchor will not perform the function it is designed for" and I see no way that you can make that logical conclusion from the data you have.

Maybe Rocna decreased the margin of safety they designed into the anchor and Manson didn't? As long as the function of the anchor is still maintained and the margin in "real-world" use is still adequate you cannot equate the fact that one anchor is build with heavier steel with the fact that it will hold better. If that was the case it wouldn't be hard to make a better anchor - just use tougher steel. We all know that doesn't work. There is a lot more to it and you cheapen the conversation when you make logical jumps that are not supported.

I never condoned their not changing the website when they changed the grade of steel they were using. I am arguing that many companies say things in there marketing that are not true. Some will come back to haunt them as this is for Rocna. They deserve it. You still don't get to make claims against them using faulty logic without being challenged.

Yes, I am many company's ideal customer. Someone who thinks for himself and evaluates products for their intended use, not based on their marketing.

Jim

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by jkleins

This is exactly where you lose me as well. You have determined that you can tell what will hold a boat at anchor by the metal involved. You have taken a fact, that the steel is less then specified by Manson and Smith, and turned it into "the anchor will not perform the function it is designed for" and I see no way that you can make that logical conclusion from the data you have.

Maybe Rocna decreased the margin of safety they designed into the anchor and Manson didn't? As long as the function of the anchor is still maintained and the margin in "real-world" use is still adequate you cannot equate the fact that one anchor is build with heavier steel with the fact that it will hold better. If that was the case it wouldn't be hard to make a better anchor - just use tougher steel. We all know that doesn't work. There is a lot more to it and you cheapen the conversation when you make logical jumps that are not supported.

I never condoned their not changing the website when they changed the grade of steel they were using. I am arguing that many companies say things in there marketing that are not true. Some will come back to haunt them as this is for Rocna. They deserve it. You still don't get to make claims against them using faulty logic without being challenged.

Yes, I am many company's ideal customer. Someone who thinks for himself and evaluates products for their intended use, not based on their marketing.

Jim

Read this Jim:

Manson vs. Rocna

post #443

[avb3]

Originally Posted by marinextreme

Read this Jim:

Manson vs. Rocna

post #443

Grant, any comment why the vast difference in the two anchors the OP saw at WM?

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by avb3

Grant, any comment why the vast difference in the two anchors the OP saw at WM?

Yes, I seem to recall that Steve Bambury made a lot of noise about his independant QC staff that he employs in China to check every single anchor before it leaves.

quote:
To be absolutely sure that our standards have been met, our own staff in China individually inspect every single anchor before being allowed to leave the factory.

It can be found here: Rock Solid Technology » Rocna Anchors

But then it also says at the start of that page :
A Rocna anchor's advantage is in its design – and construction. With a design philosophy of maximum durability and reliability, in addition to ultimate performance, Rocna makes no compromises in any area.

Which we have all seen has now proven to be BS.

Look the simple facts are that there is always going to be differences in the finish quality of some anchors but it surprises me that the distributor accepted that one, that Wests accepted it and put it on the sales floor and even more so that Steve's so called QC team let it go as well.

The chinese QC team at the factory that I dealt with during my time would never have let it go as acceptable , but the way that Bambury went about replacing them with his own people was downright insulting to the chinese. They were very proud of the product that they made and they made a good product.

The Canadian distributor was always very critical of the quality and inspected every anchor that came in to his store before sending out to Wests. If it wasnt good enough for him then it was rejected so that it did not end up at Wests as an inferior product.

Moves were afoot to have shipments from China ready to go direct to Wests and cut down on the shipping and handling costs, hence the desire by the CEO to have "his" own people sign each lot off in China instead of having the Chinese self regulate themselves.

In other words, if it gets past Bamburys inspector then out it goes and who cares what it is made of and how it looks.

The other fact is that there has never been a broken weld on any Rocna that I have know about, some welds may look like crap at times but they will not break apart at the weld.

[Hogan]

Wow - these threads DO get heated!

Cool.

Anchoring is, for a cruiser, arguably the single most important system on the boat:

Dismasted? Whatever - jury rig something, hail a rescue or towing service, or motor home.

Engine quit? Sail to your destination.

Electronics quit? So what....Light that oil lamp, and navigate by DR - you'll reach land eventually if you keep heading east or west.

But lose your primary anchor - whether by dragging, failure to reset, chafe, or catastrophic structural failure, and your ship and life are IMMEDIATELY AT RISK.

In "Cape Horn, The Logical Route" Moitissier quotes an old seaman's adage: "it's not the sea that's so dangerous, it's the hard stuff around it's edges"

Moitissier lost 3 boats to those hard edges - and the final loss - Of his beloved "Joshua" a boat that he doubled all of the worlds great southern capes, including Cape Horn in, twice, was lost at the then sleepy port of Cabo San Lucas when hurricane Paul blew her off her anchor and ashore in 1982.

Twice around the world, via the southern ocean - and then some, only to loose his ship when it's ground tackle failed.

So you see - Anchoring is NOT a trivial matter. It is a critical one. It took me two years to become comfortable doing it here in the margianal, rolly, open ocean rock and kelp infested roadsteads around Santa Monica Bay and Catalina Island.

I still sleep a bit nervously when at anchor most nights - awakened instantly by any odd noises or motions.

I check bearings each time I awaken, and am usually on deck at least once in the wee hours, just to reassure myself I'm going to stay put.

The winds and swells here back and veer around nightly - and I've got GPS tracks that are perfect circles traced over and over again as Nomad circled her hook repeatedly to align herself with these shifts.

Almost all of the bay is a lee shore - especially near King Harbor and Marina Del Rey, and each afternoon, from May through September, the summer "Trades" blow from 10 to as much as 25 knots straight into it.

Several boats blow up on the beach each year - both sail and power, and are lost.

And I listen to the distress calls - and have made more than one while standing by some hapless skipper on his behalf - to the Coast Gaurd.

And the Coast Gaurd's response is always the same:

"This is the US Coast Gaurd: What is your emergency?"

"Are you in any immediate danger?"

"What is your position?"

"What type of vessel?"

"How many people are aboard?"

"have they put on life jackets?"

"Are you taking on water?"

And finally, when the panicked skipper has explained he is without power or sails, and is either aground or about to go aground, the Coast Gaurd asks one final question:

CAN YOU GET AN ANCHOR DOWN?

The only thing system that's on a par with ground tackle for criticality coupled to a lack of redundancy is the structural and watertight integrity of the hull and fittings below waterline, and your life jackets - and your ground tackle if properly designed, manufactured, maintained, and deployed is a system you can rely on to prevent both loss of hull integrity from the ocean's "hard edges" and the subsequent need for that last, marginal system anyone ever wants to have to rely on for survival - thier life jackets.

The water is cold here - so after a couple of hours, all the life jacket does is help SAR find and recover your body.

I'm now very glad I viewed Rockna's sizing recommendations with a jaundiced eye last spring, and opted for a Rockna 10, rather than the Rockna 6 that my 20 foot heavy displacement, high windage 3 ton cruiser gridded in at.

A "10" is supposedly good for boats nearly twice my size and triple her displacement, and she's attached to that 23lbs lbs of suspect steel with 225 feet of 1/4" G40, backed by two more anchors, and full sized chain and nylon rodes - and soon by a third (An enormous Fortess) that I'll stow in the bilge along with yet another carefully flaked chain and 1/2" brait rode.

I'll not lose my ship and my sanctuary for a lack of ground tackle - and you can bet I'll be eying the shaft of my bower VERY carefully for trueness each time it's hauled aboard.

What a shame.

[Sabbatical II]

For my new boat, I decided to buy the best anchor I could regardless of price. I did all my research and then bought a 25kg Rocna. As far as I know they were made in New Zealand or Canada. Of course when delivered, it was a "made in China" version. However, further research told me even Rocna admitted that the original "made in China" versions were substanded, they had corrected the faults. The old ones had a Rocna sticker on the shank but the newer improved ones had "Rocna" cast into the blade. Mine is one of the ones with the identification cast into the blade. Is there a difference? I am a mechanical tradesman, not an engineer and the welds on mine look very good?

Greg

[jackiepitts]

This is a somewhat confusing thread. It seems that some people have a personnel axe to grind with Rocna and that is fine as I have felt strongly about certain business practices of various companies in the past but it is confusing to those of us who just want information on whether or not there anchors are going to fail.
We personally own a 55kg that we purchased in mid 2009 (made in Canada). We used it exclusively while cruising Mexico for the past two years and found the anchor to be outstanding as compared to what other boats were using. We NEVER drug and spent many nights in high winds and big swells with no bending of the shaft....that is our experience with this anchor.
I would be interested in hearing from others with personnel experience or any information that does not focus around Rocna's bad marketing or perceived unethical behavior.
Regards,
Jackie

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jkleins

This is exactly where you lose me as well. You have determined that you can tell what will hold a boat at anchor by the metal involved.

No. What I have determined is that mPA 690 steel of a given cross section does not have the yield strength of mPA 800 of a larger cross section. The anchor made of mPA 800 is therefore stronger and more likely not to bend. Come to think it, that may be why I have seen a number of pictures of bent Rocnas but no bent Mansons.

Originally Posted by jkleins

You have taken a fact, that the steel is less then specified by Manson and Smith

No, I cut one of the darn things up and had it tested. That is the source of my information, now confirmed by Rocna and independent testing done by Manson.

Originally Posted by jkleins

and turned it into "the anchor will not perform the function it is designed for" and I see no way that you can make that logical conclusion from the data you have.

Seems to me that a reasonable definition of "performance to functional design" for an anchor is not bending in a blow, which the Rocna has been shown to do. Have you another you prefer that accommodates metallurgic failure?

Originally Posted by jkleins

Maybe Rocna decreased the margin of safety they designed into the anchor and Manson didn't?

We agree. Rocna decreased the margin of safety in their product and Manson didn't.

Originally Posted by jkleins

As long as the function of the anchor is still maintained and the margin in "real-world" use is still adequate you cannot equate the fact that one anchor is build with heavier steel with the fact that it will hold better.

I can't conclude that an anchor that bends with given real world loads is inferior when compared to one that doesn't? Really?

Originally Posted by jkleins

If that was the case it wouldn't be hard to make a better anchor - just use tougher steel.

We agree again. When manufacturing an anchor, making it out of stronger steel is preferable to making it out of weaker steel. Especially so, since in this case, the anchor made out of tougher steel costs less than the anchor made out of weaker steel and is the same design.

Originally Posted by jkleins

We all know that doesn't work.There is a lot more to it and you cheapen the conversation when you make logical jumps that are not supported.

Since Manson is doing precisely what you say "doesn't work" whatever point you are trying to make escapes me. Perhaps we should bar illogical jumps?

Originally Posted by jkleins

I never condoned their not changing the website when they changed the grade of steel they were using. I am arguing that many companies say things in there marketing that are not true. Some will come back to haunt them as this is for Rocna. They deserve it. You still don't get to make claims against them using faulty logic without being challenged.

There is a significant difference between making a marketing claim like "this is the best anchor ever" and stating a bold faced lie like "this anchor is made out of 800 mPA steel." I'm surprised you can't see the difference. The only logic I have used is noting that we have two analog products designed to a common specification, with only one them actually building the product to that specification, and suggesting that the stronger, cheaper product is better. That's my analysis, supported by empirical testing and admissions of the companies involved. On the other hand, you have stated that stronger isn't stronger, that it is impossible to build what is built, and that lying about what you have built is an insufficient reason for consumers to stay away. Are you sure I'm employing "faulty logic"?

Originally Posted by jkleins

Yes, I am many company's ideal customer. Someone who thinks for himself and evaluates products for their intended use, not based on their marketing.

Jim

Since an anchor is intended to be used to hold your boat without bending during wind shifts, the purpose you have for your anchor is clearly different than typical if you are happy with a Chinese made Rocna. There is a market for everything, I guess, including anchors that cost a lot, are made by people who lie, and that are weaker than their competition.

[GMac]

Rocna has RINA certification???

You sure about that as I've never seen a Cert with Rocna on it. I have seen one that refers to 'a anchor', a bit later it refers to 'Holdfast' so going on every other Cert I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot), RINA has given approval for a 'Holdfast Anchor', which is a wall anchor easily available at all hardware shops, it's not a marine one in any form. Every other HHP and SHHP Cert I've seen is very very specific in what it is Approving and names are extensively used.

Mind you it doesn't matter that much as next to know one uses RINA and some countries don't even recognise it. In NZ toilet paper has more official standing than a RINA Cert. Do they make RINA Certs in 3 ply, that would make them actually useful down here.

I know Manson gets checked very regularly by Lloyds to make sure their welders are up to speed (test welds have to be done and checked for each welder), the design hasn't changed, the material is still what they say it is and many other hoops. I'd expect Fortress and Anchor-Rite (Sarca and Excel) have to do the same to hold their SHHP Approvals. Just yesterday a testing outfit busted, or tried too, a few Anchor-Rite anchors in the name of Certification checks (which must have hurt their wallet, some were over 100kg)

And ya have to laugh at Banbury saying 'a number under 300 anchors were dodgy and shipped to Nth America only'. I wonder how the proven substandard steel Rocnas were found in NZ chandlers then?

There is a significant pile of very Rocna like (I'm told they can't use that name) anchors sitting in NZ at the place they were being manufactured, awaiting a Court decision due very shortly.

The Rocna is a good design and even with the dodgy steel/s I don't see them flying to pieces left right and centre. But they are over priced compared to the equally good or better performing reputably made Supreme, Excel and others. But how would you know the next lot arriving in the chandlers haven't been tweaked again to something totally dangerous, from what I can see you can't. That para applies to the chinese made one only, there has never been a question over the NZ or Canadian made ones.

Someone suggested to me last week Rocna is moving it's HQ to Area 51 and getting David Duchovny to front their marketing campaign using the slogan 'We want you to believe'. As much as I don't believe that, it would sort of fit the style we've seen of late.

Apologies to the X Files and all aliens worldwide, no slur intended so please don't beam me up just yet Scotty