Well Done Rocna

[JonJo]

Hi Impi,

There are some Rocna anchors made in China that are adequate. They might not meet the original specification, they will be lower, but they are adequate. The differences are well documented, if you are happy - fine.

But the last posted specification for Rocna's made in China was defined as a Q620 shank which has a yield stress of, typically, 650 mpA. A Rocna anchor made in China was tested, independently, with an actual yield stress of 355 mpA. The original and much vaunted specification was 750 mpA - and this was the specification under which they were sold until April 2011 (though actually they were made with a Q420 (2,000 units), maybe 355 mpA, and if you were lucky, Q620 spec steel.

Please defend the previous paragraph in one sentence (or as many as you like) and include 'well done Rocna' in the script.

Then if you have time you might want to consider why Rocna shouted from the cliff tops about using a steel with a typically 750 mpA yield stress steel - but has not said anything about the steel they used since +- April 2011. And why they shouted about RINA certification, humbly said it needed re-visited, and have since gone, very, quiet.

Well done Rocna indeed.

Keep it up Impi, as said - you simply allow sensible replies. There are people out there who do not know, but maybe you are doing what Rocna/CMP had not the courage to do - keep it in the public domain.

All power to you Impi!

I'm all right Jack.

[impi]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Hi Impi,

There are some Rocna anchors made in China that are adequate. They might not meet the original specification, they will be lower, but they are adequate. The differences are well documented, if you are happy - fine.

But the last posted specification for Rocna's made in China was defined as a Q620 shank which has a yield stress of, typically, 650 mpA. A Rocna anchor made in China was tested, independently, with an actual yield stress of 355 mpA. The original and much vaunted specification was 750 mpA - and this was the specification under which they were sold until April 2011 (though actually they were made with a Q420 (2,000 units), maybe 355 mpA, and if you were lucky, Q620 spec steel.

Please defend the previous paragraph in one sentence (or as many as you like) and include 'well done Rocna' in the script.

Then if you have time you might want to consider why Rocna shouted from the cliff tops about using a steel with a typically 750 mpA yield stress steel - but has not said anything about the steel they used since +- April 2011. And why they shouted about RINA certification, humbly said it needed re-visited, and have since gone, very, quiet.

Well done Rocna indeed.

Keep it up Impi, as said - you simply allow sensible replies. There are people out there who do not know, but maybe you are doing what Rocna/CMP had not the courage to do - keep it in the public domain.

All power to you Impi!

I'm all right Jack.

Seems we struck a sensitive chord ... one is never 'all right Jack' at sea and one can never be too careful, however you know full well that your argument had me 'running for the hills' ... I took some advice from you ... did some homework and truth be told I have been scrutinizing my anchor ever since. Also, wrote a letter to Rocna (After yours and my 'private discussion') ... got a satisfactory reply from them and once again ... this is all a 'storm in a tea cup'.

SO ... sailors out there with Rocna anchors are panic struck by people like you and some disgruntled ex employees on this forum and in this post ... what started out to be a positive post got seriously 'JACKED' yet again! Rather then, start your own Rocna post and put your views there ...

You fellas work in the marine industry ... we are cruising and hang off our anchor all over the world in various conditions every day and night (except for approaching hurricanes) yet you have all the answers as to why our anchors are dangerous!

The proof my friend is in the pudding ... show me a Rocna that has caused a boat to be wrecked ... I will hang easy on my Rocna and I bet many more will see what you are up to eventually and do like wise!

[JonJo]

Impi,

I have no argument with much of what you say. In the grand scheme of things seatbelts, in cars, are a waste of time. I've used mine for 40 years and never used them in anger. I've worn a lifejacket in a dinghy for years and it has never been used in anger. Equally I've gone up the mast lots of times with 2 halyards, and have never once had need to rely on the second one. (I confess I have gone up the mast on one halyard, and in a moment of reflection - wondered, but that was my choice).

We carry a liferaft, and have never used it (at all) nor in anger. We carry an EPIRB, but have never used it, at all.

And we crusie in places that are devoid of support, we anchor every night wehn we are not on passage.

But in general we carry these safety items because they meet certain specifications (with which I concur), we keep them upto date etc etc.

To publically advertise that a product, in this case an anchor, must be made with a shank based on a steel with a yield stress of 750 mpA and then sell that same designed anchor where some have a yield stress of 355 mpA stretches my credibility.

To advertise it is RINA certificated (when it is not) is abhorent - but that is a totally different issue - and we do not need to go there, unless you want to?

I have no argument with anchors made with the 750 mpA steel, I'm questioning of the use of a steel of 655 mpA (instead of the 750 mpA - when the 750 is available, the competitors use 750) but I can let that go (unless you want to go there?) - but 355 mpA, sorry. I need a lot of convincing that 355 mpA is adequate when 750 mpA was demanded.

I know there are only slightly more than 2,000 anchors with questionable steel, Q420 (typically 450 mpA and only some of these, do not know how many, are 355 mpA). I also know that no-one has died, no vessels have been lost.

But equally I'm not sure how many people have worn specification lifejackets in aircraft crashes, and survived, or used specifcation lift rafts in aircraft crashes and survived (but both are specified) - but I do know the Goldfish Club does have members.

So safety equipment is specified for the final catastrophe - it does not happen very often, but when it does we rely on whatever specific item is demanded, lifejacket, liferaft, anchor.

If you are happy that all debate ends today - and a vessel is lost later, or worse, then that is your decision.

I like to think products do what they are meant to do, in this case keep a vessel secure. There is evidence, too strong, that a 355 mpA shanked anchor to the Rocna design is flawed, I know they bend (owners statements, purchase invoices, independent testing). There is evidence, too strong, that a 420 mpA shanked anchor to the Rocna design is flawed, I know they bend (owners statements, independent testing).

Well done Rocna - yes for awakening the public to products deemed as a safety item -

that are not.

As suggested, make a post justiyfing leaving hundreds of out of specification Rocna anchors, with shanks of 355 mpA or 450 mpA steel shanks on bow rollers and include 'well done Rocna' in the script. No more, no less.

[JonJo]

[QUOTE=impi;1022566] Also, wrote a letter to Rocna (After yours and my 'private discussion') ... got a satisfactory reply from them and once again ... this is all a 'storm in a tea cup'.

Impi,

I can be a bit slow at times and not address the central issues that you raised

Storm in a teacup?

In October 2008 Brian Bambury (50% shareholder of Holdfast who had the Rocna manufacturing licence) sent an email stating that shank steel quality had been changed, for Rocna anchors. On 5th December 2008 the Chinese factory issued the minutes of a meeting confirming that the outstanding order of 844 Rocna anchors would be made with shanks made from Q420 steel (typically yield of 450 mpA). These anchors went primarily to Europe and NZ. A Chinese made Rocna was bought in France early in 2009 (it could only have been one of these 844), it bent in a thunderstorm in the Bahamas in 2010 and was independently tested and found to be a 355 mpA yield. The anchor was replaced, in 2010, from American stock (part of the 200 or so that formed the basis of the West Marine 'Specification Notice') it also bent and when independently tested found to be made from Q420 and had a 455 mpA yield. The infamous Venice Lagoon anchor was also part of the 844 sent to Europe.

I am interested as to what convinced you that this was all a 'storm in a teacup'

Anchors in normal usage - should not bend. Its pretty simple.

The owner of the original 'french' anchor had it replaced by Rocna, the (same) owner had the second anchor replaced by Rocna - yes, well done Rocna, by why did Rocna replace these anchors if they did not believe the story and if they believed the story why did they not take further positive action to identify others?

So 844 anchors, confirmed by the Chinese manufacturer to be 420 shanked (typical 450 mpA) - but one has been independently tested as 355 mpA (against a spec of 750 mpA) - and further anchors shipped to America, independently, tested to be 450 mpA shanked - some of which have bent under, arduous but not unusual, anchoring conditions

And this is a 'storm in a teacup'?

During the questionable shiment period over 2,000 anchors were shipped.

How on earth were you persuaded this was a 'storm in a teacup'.

Tell me the independent testing lab is crooked. Tell me the original invoice from France is forged. Tell me the shipping documents for the anchors (bank payment slips, insurance docs, BLs, packing lists) are a figment of my imagination, tell me the minutes of the meeting in Shanghai (In Chinese and English) are a fabrication, tell me the email from Brian Bambury is pure fiction, tell me the owners of the anchors had some ulterior motive, tell me the owners bent the anchors for malicious reasons.

So how did CMP/Rocna convince you it was a 'storm in a teacup'

Its all about safety. A 355 mpA shanked anchor bends, as does a 450 mpA shanked anchor, which is why the original spec was 750 mpA. As long as CMP/Rocna ignore the issue owners (aware or otherwise) are at risk. There is every evidence some owners are not aware - as long as this evidence exists I'm happy to contradict the idea 'its a storm in a teacup' and the further idea 'well done Rocna'.

I do not like the idea that safety issues can be ignored.

[micah719]

Well done Rocna for not simply pulling the "bankruptcy" ripcord and restarting as a new venture free from liability for past actions.

Well done Rocna for an anchor that, even made from not-so-good but still adequate steel, simply bends rather than cracking at the welds. There's worse things out there.

Well done Rocna and all the other anchor inventors for giving us a multitude of designs to copy and modify for personal use, or simply build to the inventor's original specs or better.

Well done to the Chinese for screwing up the Rocna quality reputation and furnishing ammo to other anchor-sellers looking for sales.

One or two more "WD's" missing: a tested fix for folks that might own a soft Rocna and want to cheaply modify it to overcome the bendy shank; and a revised sizing and load schedule either for those with smaller boats and pockets that might appreciate an oversize Rocna for a snapup price, or those stuck with softer rocnas and wanting to know the safe parameters for use.

[bobconnie]

Well ya know Ive seen anchors of almost every brand with bent shanks!! Even my old heavy weight Danforth!! bent one time !! it still worked !! and my understanding is even the ones that bent did not come loose !! I still say a Chniee Rocna is better than most any danforth, and sure better then any CQR!! and Ive used both ! and bent both !!LOL Im a little hard on anchors !! But I seldom drag and have never lost a boat do to anchoring !! I still say I would buy a Chinee Rocna from anybody, if it was 2 sizes larger then needed for my boat !! just sayin this is really a dead horse

[impi]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Impi,

I have no argument with much of what you say. In the grand scheme of things seatbelts, in cars, are a waste of time. I've used mine for 40 years and never used them in anger. I've worn a lifejacket in a dinghy for years and it has never been used in anger. Equally I've gone up the mast lots of times with 2 halyards, and have never once had need to rely on the second one. (I confess I have gone up the mast on one halyard, and in a moment of reflection - wondered, but that was my choice).

We carry a liferaft, and have never used it (at all) nor in anger. We carry an EPIRB, but have never used it, at all.

And we crusie in places that are devoid of support, we anchor every night wehn we are not on passage.

But in general we carry these safety items because they meet certain specifications (with which I concur), we keep them upto date etc etc.

To publically advertise that a product, in this case an anchor, must be made with a shank based on a steel with a yield stress of 750 mpA and then sell that same designed anchor where some have a yield stress of 355 mpA stretches my credibility.

To advertise it is RINA certificated (when it is not) is abhorent - but that is a totally different issue - and we do not need to go there, unless you want to?

I have no argument with anchors made with the 750 mpA steel, I'm questioning of the use of a steel of 655 mpA (instead of the 750 mpA - when the 750 is available, the competitors use 750) but I can let that go (unless you want to go there?) - but 355 mpA, sorry. I need a lot of convincing that 355 mpA is adequate when 750 mpA was demanded.

I know there are only slightly more than 2,000 anchors with questionable steel, Q420 (typically 450 mpA and only some of these, do not know how many, are 355 mpA). I also know that no-one has died, no vessels have been lost.

But equally I'm not sure how many people have worn specification lifejackets in aircraft crashes, and survived, or used specifcation lift rafts in aircraft crashes and survived (but both are specified) - but I do know the Goldfish Club does have members.

So safety equipment is specified for the final catastrophe - it does not happen very often, but when it does we rely on whatever specific item is demanded, lifejacket, liferaft, anchor.

If you are happy that all debate ends today - and a vessel is lost later, or worse, then that is your decision.

I like to think products do what they are meant to do, in this case keep a vessel secure. There is evidence, too strong, that a 355 mpA shanked anchor to the Rocna design is flawed, I know they bend (owners statements, purchase invoices, independent testing). There is evidence, too strong, that a 420 mpA shanked anchor to the Rocna design is flawed, I know they bend (owners statements, independent testing).

Well done Rocna - yes for awakening the public to products deemed as a safety item -

that are not.

As suggested, make a post justiyfing leaving hundreds of out of specification Rocna anchors, with shanks of 355 mpA or 450 mpA steel shanks on bow rollers and include 'well done Rocna' in the script. No more, no less.

I hear you ... for most of it. Your post is pretty long so I briefly scanned it and have just a few things to say:

You mention things like car seat belts, Epirbs and life jackets, going up masts etc. ... LOL ... I mean, do we PLACE IMPACT stress on our seatbelts daily? Do we end up in the dink with our life jackets daily? Do we dangle from mast tops daily? ... NO ... but we do hang from our Rocna daily and put all due stress on it and have put it through severe impact ... there lies the difference!

On the subject of false advertising ... YES 100% agree with you that this is NOT acceptable!

On the topic of Rocna being an anchor that is 'life threatening' (which is why you are putting this out there 'out of concern to other sailors) ... NONSENSE!

The proof is in the eating and too many of us dangle daily off these anchors without incidence. Yes ... one should go a size up ... NO, we should not panic by the words of people like you! You have your own agenda although you do have a point about differing metals to that which was advertised. The question is: Are our lives under threat because of these anchors ?

The answer is 'NO!'.

Perhaps there is some merit in going back to Rocna and saying 'you guys got it wrong! Up size my anchor for free'. (for those who have the 'really bad ones' of course

[evm1024]

Regarding the Avalanche analogy I made a few posts prior....


I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the results were 1 dead, 2 with significant broken bones and me in crutches for a few weeks.

The point being that positive feedback (no problem with this Rocna) can be a killer.

It appears to me that we have 3 needs here:

1) to alert Rocna owners to the fact that some anchors were substandard so that they can make an informed decision whether to keep or replace their anchor.

2) to keep manufactures honest

2) to counter mis-information from the vendor

[JonJo]

Rocna produced a spreadsheet comparing the force necessary to bend an anchor made from the original specification, Bis 80 (min of 690 mpA) buy typically 750 mpA and a steel with a 450 mpA. The calculation is a lever with the load at 90 degrees to the length of the lever. The comparison is based on the 690 figure - so a NZ or Canadian model would result in higher strengths (and I've recalculated for 750 mpA and put the figures in brackets). I've also calculated for a 355 mpA yield stress steel for the shank, Figures (mpA) are all yield stress.

We took a 10kg Chinese Rocna either made from a 450 or a 355 mpA steel (I cannot tell with the 'ball bearing' test the difference between the 2 steels) and actually bent it - the loads of 175/138 are about right.

Weight Bending force 690 (750) 450 355

10kg 269kg (292) 175kg 138kg
15kg 378kg (410) 246kg 194kg
20kg 703kg (764) 459kg 362kg
25kg 659kg (716) 430kg 339kg
33kg 628kg (682) 410kg 323kg
40kg 993kg (1079) 648kg 511kg

The 20, 25 and 33kg models are all built with the same thickness steel in the shank, 16mm. This is because the available thinner plate, 12mm, is too thin for the 20kg model and the available thicker plate (obviously thought) too thick, or too heavy, for the 33kg model. This restrictive availability of plate thicknesses is a common problem for all anchor makers - and others might solve it the same, or differently. The trick is to keep the balance right, not make the shank too big for bow rollers and maintain ultimate strength.

[JonJo]

Sorry, previous post - I could not have my tabulation changes accepted and I was not going to retype!

[micah719]

Wow, a big Well Done, JJ!

Could the flat bar design of shank be strengthened with another bar welded atop of it to make a T section, and still see the anchor fit on the rollers? If I were making my own anchor, I'd see about making a roller to fit it rather than the other way around.....

[JonJo]

Flat bar welded to the top would increase strength, but it would alter the balance, more weight 'off' the toe. The biggest issue is that the simple plate shank is used, now by virtually everyone, because its streamlined and allows the whole anchor to 'dive'. Put a 'T' section into the shank and you introduce resistance to diving, so it might be strong but it would not develop the holding capacity. (And if it does not have a high holding capacity it might not need the strong shank!)

Basically hi tensile shanks were used, lower weight in the shank, more in the toe. Hi strength, so that lever arm strength is high and the thin shank allows the shank to be streamlined which offers low resistance and the anchor dives, pulling the shank with it.

Rocna basically got it all right, just got it very wrong with the use of the lower strength steel in the shank.