A Second Wind for Rocna

[Cheechako]

Let's hope it's a Second Wind... not Breaking Wind this go around!

[57guy]

Put an 100 lb pound Manson on my 54 Hatteras this week. Even if Rocna hadn't had the problems they had, don't see where they are worth that much more than an Manson.
If they are going to survive, need to adjust the price.

[Delfin]

For reasons unknown to me, I received an unsolicited copy of an email sent from Peter Smith to a Rocna purchaser, attached below. The buyer had concerns about his anchor, and the attached is Mr. Smith's response. Not wanting to sandbag Mr. Smith, I advised him that I had been copied on this communication and asked him to respond or comment so that his perspective was taken into consideration before I posted it. Specifically, I asked 4 questions as follows, but did not receive a response:

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

I do not own either a Rocna or a Manson, nor do I have the slightest interest in the success or failure of these companies. I do care about ethics in business, and felt that the public service element of posting this information outweighed my unease at posting a private communication, even if dis-identified.

If any of the above is unfair or inaccurate, I would welcome the correction from any source.

[Delfin]

The images did not post, so I will try again....

[Cormorant]

Incredible. Every time it seems this soap opera has run its course and is about to go off the air . . . there's a new plot twist.

A side note to all that, in Camet's press release they didn't explicitly say what grade of steel they'd be using for the shank. And they did sort of echo the old "fit for purpose" line when talking about the bad Rocnas. I think for everyone's confidence in the resurrected Rocna brand they need to be very specific about what they're using.

[Delfin]

One thing that has been pointed out to me that I missed is that the date of this is 2 weeks before CM announced their purchase, so that may be the answer to my first question. I personally doubt that 2 weeks before the purchase of a company closes the parties involved haven't already assigned responsibilities and roles in the public handling of the matter, but that could explain why CM was not on the distribution list along with Craig and Mr. Pocock. If I get a response from Mr. Smith, I will post it, as he has every right to provide a different perspective than the one I have presumed applies.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Cormorant

Incredible. Every time it seems this soap opera has run its course and is about to go off the air . . . there's a new plot twist.

A side note to all that, in Camet's press release they didn't explicitly say what grade of steel they'd be using for the shank. And they did sort of echo the old "fit for purpose" line when talking about the bad Rocnas. I think for everyone's confidence in the resurrected Rocna brand they need to be very specific about what they're using.

Based on his email, and regardless of what Smith said on how strong the steel needs to be in the past, it looks like they are committed to using 620 yield steel now. That would be what my anchor was made of, and could be compared to the 850 mpa yield steel used in the equivalent Manson.

http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SiteP...018Apr11VB.pdf

CM may change this approach, but it looks like the "620 is good enough" design may be the way they are going. All that means is that they will be producing an anchor that is a lesser strength product than similarly designed competitors, that may still be adequate for most circumstances.

Whether they continue to position the brand as 'premium' remains to be seen, but if so, they'll have a lot of 'splaining to do.

[LWatson]

Unfortunately I am not a metal expert as per Delfin, however a cusory search on the different metals reveals the following:
S620Q Break strength 700-890 mpa or 102,000-129,000 lbs
Yield 620 mpa or 89,900 lbs (no range given)
S690Q (Bis 80) Break 830 Mpa or 120,000 lbs (no range given)
Yield 750 MPA or 109,000lbs (no range given)
Now I may be stupid but I am not dumb, it appears to me that the difference is around 10% on the yield and I question is it significant since the chain will have long broken before the yield strength of either metal is reached.
Since Delfin states that the Rocna he tested bent at 1,550# I would therefore assume that the force needed to bend a Manson would be around 1,700#, using the information given on the metalurgical websites. Again is 150# significant, probably not, especially when you consider that both steels have their given yields falling within a range of values. In fact it is not inconcievable that the top end of the 620 would exceed the bottom end of the 690 by some margin. It is also worth noting that the higher the strength the steel is the more susceptable it is to breaking, catastrophic, as opposed to bending, bad but maybe not life threatening.
Further the hysteria over the bending of one shaft over another is probably a moot point as in almost all cases the anchor will swivel on the bottom and reorient itself in the direction of pull (hopefully). There have been a number of forged CQR's, with a substantial forged shank and I would bet as strong or stroger than either the Manson or Rocna, bending and I don't hear the same amount of squealing. According to what has been published there have been very few shanks on Rocnas bending vis a vis the number of anchors sold. No where have I been able to find the same statistics for the Manson Supreme, if it does in fact exist please be so kind as to post the statistics for all to see.
When Delfin quotes Smith saying that the shank of the 420 Rocna is as good as or better than the Supreme perhaps he would do well to put on his reading glasss. This is not what was said, what was said was that the efficiency of the Rocna, i.e. holding power, is better than that of the Manson. For an unbiased and somewhat scientific test please see the August Practical Boat Owner, where the Spade came out on top (barely) Rocna a very close second, and Manson a somewhat distant third although better that the also rans. I personally have yet to read that Smith or heaven forbid the Bambury's have said that the shank would sustain a sideways pull equal to or greater than the aformention chain. I would be very much suprised if any recreational anchor would be able to withstand such forces. It would be intructive to see a test done on a number of anchors using a sideways pull with the anchor blade fixed (no movement) and see the results. While sideways pull is one part of anchor strength it is not the over riding criteria on which an anchor should be tested, - setting, holding power and the ability to reset after coming unset, all these top the bending of the shank. I think we would all be a bit shocked on who would come out on top and very likely it could be an anchor who does not perform terrible well on the holding task. So does this one aspect make this a "good" anchor - won't hold bugger all but it is indestructable?
I personally do not have an ax to grind, I do have a Chinese, probably a 420 vesion Rocna that is going back to West (thank you very much) since it was bought in July 2010. One would think that I would be very unsupportive of Rocna, and I must admit I am more than a little upset however if we are going to vilify Rocna please let us be a bit more objective and get the facts right and present them in an unbiased manner. This would do a service to everyone who reads this forum, there are enough un and half truths out there without putting them on this site.

[sailorboy1]

Hard to beleive how much time some are spending in researching the metal issue.

I don't believe that I have read any stories of Rocna anchors failing (pulling apart) resulting in a boat drifting away.

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

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by LWatson

Unfortunately I am not a metal expert as per Delfin, however a cusory search on the different metals reveals the following:
S620Q Break strength 700-890 mpa or 102,000-129,000 lbs
Yield 620 mpa or 89,900 lbs (no range given)
S690Q (Bis 80) Break 830 Mpa or 120,000 lbs (no range given)
Yield 750 MPA or 109,000lbs (no range given)
Now I may be stupid but I am not dumb, it appears to me that the difference is around 10% on the yield and I question is it significant since the chain will have long broken before the yield strength of either metal is reached.
Since Delfin states that the Rocna he tested bent at 1,550# I would therefore assume that the force needed to bend a Manson would be around 1,700#, using the information given on the metalurgical websites. Again is 150# significant, probably not, especially when you consider that both steels have their given yields falling within a range of values.
I

Your analysis might well be correct IF the sections of both shanks were the same. However, I believe that the cross section of the Manson shank is substantially greater than that of an equivalent Rocna. This combined with the stronger metal appears to make the Manson more resistant to bending.

Cheers,

Jim

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by LWatson

One would think that I would be very unsupportive of Rocna, and I must admit I am more than a little upset however if we are going to vilify Rocna please let us be a bit more objective and get the facts right and present them in an unbiased manner. This would do a service to everyone who reads this forum, there are enough un and half truths out there without putting them on this site.

How about if Rocna had gotten the facts right before publicly lying about a RINA certification they DID NOT YET HAVE, or the grade of steel used, that THEY WERE NOT USING?

Unbiased? Someone has clearly missed the four+ years of completely biased, non factual attacks on other manufacturers by Craig Smith....

Rocna is only being dished what they served up..... I hope the new company can straighten out this mess but they brought Steve B. along for the ride so I am a bit skeptical.

And yes, I am a Rocna owner too, but one who dislikes being BLATANTLY lied to, over and over..

[impi]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I can't think what more any Rocna owner, or potential owner, could ask.
Good on ya, Canmet!

Yes - well done Canmet.
Still think Rocna is fantastic.
Heavy winds and seas here in South Africa and have not dragged anchor once!
No Other brand for me ....

[Mike OReilly]

Am following this with interest. We bought a Rocna 25 (55lb) for our Rafiki 37 and used it extensively for our month-long cruise in Lake Superior this past summer. It performed better than any anchor I've used, setting easy and fast, and never budging once dug in. We weathered two nasty blows while at anchor, including a sustained 50-knot storm that buffeted us for over an hour, heaving us in all directions. When it was over we were in exactly the same spot, with no damage (than I can see) to the anchor.

It is unacceptable and incredibly frustrating to be outright lied to by a supplier, but I gotta say, I really love this anchor so far.

[LWatson]

Bisalloy 80 is also shown also as S690Q with a yield strength of 109,000 lbs and an mPA OF 750, this is what is shown on the Manson site. See MatWeb - The Online Materials Information Resource Consequently the indicated yield strengths posted earlier are correct and the bending force is shown as 1752 lbs, oddly fairly close to the figure I had extrapolated, 1700 lbs. So it would appear that the Rocna that Delfin bent with a force of 1550 is S690Q or so the charts he so kindly supplied would indicate. So now I am even more confused since this is a Rocna and was meant to have been constructed of a steel having an Mpa of somewhere in the region of 450 which should have taken a figure of somewhere around 1070 lbs. , not 1550 lbs.

[LWatson]

By the way Manson's are not guaranteed against bending or deformation. This is from their website.
All Supreme anchors are "guaranteed for life against breakage".
**Damage by deformation or bending is not covered by this guarantee.


I believe that Rocna has replaced or offered replacements for those anchors that have bent.