Rocna Anchor Fail

[CSY Man]

I emailed a link to Rocna about this thread.
Here is the response.

Many thanks for bringing this to our attention.



We have recently been made aware of some of the threads on the forums
relating to Rocna Anchors and we are currently further investigating the
matters/ issues raised.



Kind regards,

Hopefully will do their own testing and offer recalls/replacements if indeed there is a quality problem

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

I emailed a link to Rocna about this thread.
Here is the response.



Hopefully will do their own testing and offer recalls/replacements if indeed there is a quality problem

Great now they wil get lawyers involved and it will become like the Tartan boat thing.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Great now they wil get lawyers involved and it will become like the Tartan boat thing.

Those weren't cracks. Those were "alternative boat exiting strategy features".

[Kettlewell]

T

hose weren't cracks. Those were "alternative boat exiting strategy features".

You mean like the breakaway anchor that will prevent damage to your rode?

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

T

You mean like the breakaway anchor that will prevent damage to your rode?

That's exactly it! Menthol makes cigarettes safer, too, and airbags means you can drive as fast as you want.

[Capitain Mike]

For those of you who have queries Regarding Anchors

Please note that the Vikings did not have this problem with their manufacturers.

Anchors were usually made from stone lashed into a wooden frame.


The anchor shown here is (from Denmark) and is made entirely of iron and is about 1.5m (5ft) in the long dimension. Some of the more elaborate anchors that have been found use an iron bound wooden shank and have iron rings to accommodate the cable.

The value of the anchor can be seen in an incident related in chapter 28 of Ljósvetninga saga.

After waiting a long time for favorable weather, a cold wind from the northwest finally sprung up, so Þorvarður had the anchor raised on his ship. But as his crew pulled, the cable broke. Þorvarður asked for a volunteer to make a repair.

Only Hallur stepped forward. Taking off his shirt, he dove into the cold water with the cable in his hand. He reattached it to the anchor so it could be raised. The anchor was too valuable to the ship for the skipper to allow it to be left behind.

And for my friend noelex 77 to whom the BBd would not allow me to send this message.
You and Mark, (1) Kalarotissia Bay/

You and Mark, (2) Kalarotissia Bay

If you look closely you might see yourself in your dinghy.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

That's exactly it! Menthol makes cigarettes safer,

Here in Portugal and Spain there's many a guy will disagree... they're convinced that Menthol reduces 'Tackle' weight considerably..
On second thoughts... did you mean safer for the ladies...??

[noelex 77]

Thanks for the photos Mike.
It was a wet, long and cold dingy trip.
The auto lifejacket even fired when I got back to the boat.

Just to keep the relevance to the thread its (an unbent ) Rocna holding the boat in the background.

[impi]

Guys excuse the lengthy response - but after having purchased my 33 Rocna and then reading this forum, I went back an challenged the supplier.
I take no responsibility for the contents of the letter that was sent to me but here below is what I recieved:

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information on current publicity regarding Rocna.
Background: Forum discussions regarding Rocna and the people speaking against us
There have been several discussions recently on various sailing forums regarding Rocna. They have been lengthy, heated, and ill informed. While it’s important to be aware of what’s happening, as some of our customers may also become aware, it is also important to consider the full context of these discussions.
There are a small number of people who are making the majority of posts on the forums, and it’s important to note that they are not Rocna customers. Rather, those making the most noise are the people who have the most to gain by discrediting Rocna.
This includes Grant King, who is a disaffected former contractor of Rocna Anchors whose contract with us was terminated after an investigation into his conduct uncovered serious instances of fraud and theft.
We are not at liberty to provide further details given there is an ongoing Police investigation, but as a result of his termination Mr King has an adverse position toward Rocna Anchors, and he has been posting both under his own name and under the pseudonym Adam Andrews (username ‘whaleboy&rsquo, pretending to be a dissatisfied Rocna customer.
Also commenting have been a number of people representing other anchor manufacturers who are taking advantage of these discussions in order to discredit Rocna and advertise their own anchors.
While this is obviously a concern, we’re encouraged to see that Rocna owners who are aware of the discussions still rate their anchors highly, and recognise that many of the forum discussions do not tell the full story and also do not necessarily reflect on the quality of Rocna anchors. In fact, there was a new discussion started as a result which specifically asked for information about real world experiences from people who actually own a Rocna.
The sample responses listed below show that people who own a Rocna continue to be delighted with our anchor. (These are direct quotes and as such contain original errors in spelling, etc)
“It's a very good anchor. It will be hard to find anyone using one who wouldn't agree. I spent 6 months up a river changing direction 4 times a day with a fierce ebb and didn't budge.”
“The ROCNA is very very good. We sold our CQR which was not up to our expectations and after much debate and questioning bought the ROCNA. This is our main anchor and has never dragged in two years use. We also have a fortress and a small danforth. You will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly the ROCNA sets.”
“I have a 40 kg Rocna - costs a lot but is worth every penny. I was amazed how quickly it sets and holds. A Great anchor.”
Shank materials
As a result of the discussions on the forums and speculation regarding the steel quality of Rocna anchors, Manson Anchors undertook testing comparing the strength of two Rocna anchors against their own anchors. This testing uncovered a discrepancy in the strength of the steel used in the Rocna compared to our own published specs.
This was naturally a great concern to us, as our recent material testing has shown no such discrepancies. On further investigation, we discovered that for a short period of time (during the first quarter of 2010) Grant King, who was Production Manager at the time, approved material from a different steel supplier on the basis that it was equivalent spec to that previously used.
Manson’s testing indicates that this is not the case, and that while still a high tensile steel, it is in fact of a somewhat lower specification to that previously used.
We are confident that although the high tensile steel used during this period was of lower specifications, anchors made with this material are still fit for purpose. We have not seen any increase in warranty claims that would indicate cause for concern.
To further verify this, we are currently designing comprehensive proof load testing that we will complete as soon as possible in order to prove to any customers who may be worried that their anchor is fit for purpose, even if it is one of the minority of anchors made with the alternative grade of steel.
We are currently working through the details of these tests at the moment. If you would like to be involved in this process, we would love your input. It’s important to us that whatever testing we do will assure both you and our customers that Rocna anchors are fit for purpose and that there is no need for concern.
In the meantime, we continue to stand behind our product, and ask that you work directly with us on any specific customer requests or concerns.
Important note: Of the many thousands of Rocna anchors we’ve sold, we’ve only had five cases in total of bent shanks. Two of these pre-date this issue and are for NZ made anchors and two others were undersized for the boat. As we know, any anchor will bend eventually in the right conditions, and some of the examples that we have seen were as a result of extreme conditions, including one that weathered a tsunami in Chile (the owner of the boat in that situation was absolutely delighted that his Rocna still held under these circumstances!)
Clarification of RINA status
One of the points discussed on the forums has been our RINA certification. Due to the complexity of certification and the special terminology involved, our RINA status has unfortunately been (and to some extent, continues to be) misunderstood, despite numerous clarifications on the forums.
Founded in Italy in 1861, RINA is a member of IACS (International Association of Classification Societies) and is popular in Europe and internationally. Other IACS members include Lloyds Register (United Kingdom), Bureau Veritas (France), American Bureau of Shipping (USA), Det Norske Veritas (Norway).
Our RINA process to date has involved:
• December 2008: Seabed testing to SHHP
• June 2009: Drawings approved to SHHP
• April 2010: RINA issued a statement confirming Rocna’s SHHP
• 2010/2011: Proof load testing, material testing and welding testing in order to certify our manufacturing facility that currently produces the bulk of our anchors continues. RINA advises that final factory certification will soon be issued.
On the basis of the successful seabed tests and drawings approval a press release on Rocna SHHP was released in November 2009.
Meanwhile, individual anchor certification for registered vessels or those customers requiring individual certification for a Rocna anchor has been available from an alternative fully certified RINA factory since November 2009.
We continue to stand behind Rocna anchors, and our growing customer base is enthusiastic in its support. We regret the negative press being generated by a few parties with an axe to grind, and we are pursuing all means at our disposal to deal with this. We are committed to keeping you informed as we move forward.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me for further clarification.
Kind regards,
Steve Bambury
CEO – Rocna Anchors

[s/v 'Faith']

impi,

Thanks for posting this. FWIW I was the one who started this thread. I have NO financial interest in any company anchor related or otherwise.

Having had great success with my Manson Supreme I DO have that bias, but then again my CQR that the Manson replaced worked great too.

Rocna has much explaining to do. I was always amazed in the past, when a thread mentioned Rocna before there would be a post by one of their staff in moments. The silence since the test results have come out has been deafening.

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by impi

Guys excuse the lengthy response - but after having purchased my 33 Rocna and then reading this forum, I went back an challenged the supplier.
I take no responsibility for the contents of the letter that was sent to me but here below is what I recieved:

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information on current publicity regarding Rocna.
Background: Forum discussions regarding Rocna and the people speaking against us
There have been several discussions recently on various sailing forums regarding Rocna. They have been lengthy, heated, and ill informed. While it’s important to be aware of what’s happening, as some of our customers may also become aware, it is also important to consider the full context of these discussions.
There are a small number of people who are making the majority of posts on the forums, and it’s important to note that they are not Rocna customers. Rather, those making the most noise are the people who have the most to gain by discrediting Rocna.
This includes Grant King, who is a disaffected former contractor of Rocna Anchors whose contract with us was terminated after an investigation into his conduct uncovered serious instances of fraud and theft.
We are not at liberty to provide further details given there is an ongoing Police investigation, but as a result of his termination Mr King has an adverse position toward Rocna Anchors, and he has been posting both under his own name and under the pseudonym Adam Andrews (username ‘whaleboy&rsquo, pretending to be a dissatisfied Rocna customer.
Also commenting have been a number of people representing other anchor manufacturers who are taking advantage of these discussions in order to discredit Rocna and advertise their own anchors.
While this is obviously a concern, we’re encouraged to see that Rocna owners who are aware of the discussions still rate their anchors highly, and recognise that many of the forum discussions do not tell the full story and also do not necessarily reflect on the quality of Rocna anchors. In fact, there was a new discussion started as a result which specifically asked for information about real world experiences from people who actually own a Rocna.
The sample responses listed below show that people who own a Rocna continue to be delighted with our anchor. (These are direct quotes and as such contain original errors in spelling, etc)
“It's a very good anchor. It will be hard to find anyone using one who wouldn't agree. I spent 6 months up a river changing direction 4 times a day with a fierce ebb and didn't budge.”
“The ROCNA is very very good. We sold our CQR which was not up to our expectations and after much debate and questioning bought the ROCNA. This is our main anchor and has never dragged in two years use. We also have a fortress and a small danforth. You will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly the ROCNA sets.”
“I have a 40 kg Rocna - costs a lot but is worth every penny. I was amazed how quickly it sets and holds. A Great anchor.”
Shank materials
As a result of the discussions on the forums and speculation regarding the steel quality of Rocna anchors, Manson Anchors undertook testing comparing the strength of two Rocna anchors against their own anchors. This testing uncovered a discrepancy in the strength of the steel used in the Rocna compared to our own published specs.
This was naturally a great concern to us, as our recent material testing has shown no such discrepancies. On further investigation, we discovered that for a short period of time (during the first quarter of 2010) Grant King, who was Production Manager at the time, approved material from a different steel supplier on the basis that it was equivalent spec to that previously used.
Manson’s testing indicates that this is not the case, and that while still a high tensile steel, it is in fact of a somewhat lower specification to that previously used.
We are confident that although the high tensile steel used during this period was of lower specifications, anchors made with this material are still fit for purpose. We have not seen any increase in warranty claims that would indicate cause for concern.
To further verify this, we are currently designing comprehensive proof load testing that we will complete as soon as possible in order to prove to any customers who may be worried that their anchor is fit for purpose, even if it is one of the minority of anchors made with the alternative grade of steel.
We are currently working through the details of these tests at the moment. If you would like to be involved in this process, we would love your input. It’s important to us that whatever testing we do will assure both you and our customers that Rocna anchors are fit for purpose and that there is no need for concern.
In the meantime, we continue to stand behind our product, and ask that you work directly with us on any specific customer requests or concerns.
Important note: Of the many thousands of Rocna anchors we’ve sold, we’ve only had five cases in total of bent shanks. Two of these pre-date this issue and are for NZ made anchors and two others were undersized for the boat. As we know, any anchor will bend eventually in the right conditions, and some of the examples that we have seen were as a result of extreme conditions, including one that weathered a tsunami in Chile (the owner of the boat in that situation was absolutely delighted that his Rocna still held under these circumstances!)
Clarification of RINA status
One of the points discussed on the forums has been our RINA certification. Due to the complexity of certification and the special terminology involved, our RINA status has unfortunately been (and to some extent, continues to be) misunderstood, despite numerous clarifications on the forums.
Founded in Italy in 1861, RINA is a member of IACS (International Association of Classification Societies) and is popular in Europe and internationally. Other IACS members include Lloyds Register (United Kingdom), Bureau Veritas (France), American Bureau of Shipping (USA), Det Norske Veritas (Norway).
Our RINA process to date has involved:
• December 2008: Seabed testing to SHHP
• June 2009: Drawings approved to SHHP
• April 2010: RINA issued a statement confirming Rocna’s SHHP
• 2010/2011: Proof load testing, material testing and welding testing in order to certify our manufacturing facility that currently produces the bulk of our anchors continues. RINA advises that final factory certification will soon be issued.
On the basis of the successful seabed tests and drawings approval a press release on Rocna SHHP was released in November 2009.
Meanwhile, individual anchor certification for registered vessels or those customers requiring individual certification for a Rocna anchor has been available from an alternative fully certified RINA factory since November 2009.
We continue to stand behind Rocna anchors, and our growing customer base is enthusiastic in its support. We regret the negative press being generated by a few parties with an axe to grind, and we are pursuing all means at our disposal to deal with this. We are committed to keeping you informed as we move forward.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me for further clarification.
Kind regards,
Steve Bambury
CEO – Rocna Anchors

Perhaps you should read this posted today:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...e-59327-6.html

posting #78 and decide who is telling the truth here and who is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

[dkall]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

I did the opposite:

After 10 years with a 55 lbs Delta, I replaced it with a 45 lbs Rocna.
The Rocna sets better and holds harder..

The boat came with a 35 lbs CQR but got too many sleep-less nights with that one: Drag, drag, drag...



Amen bro, that pretty much sums it up..

There does appear to be a major difference betwee the 35 and 45 CQR. Years ago I had a 35 and had problems similar to yours (I had a Westsail 32) then, I upped the anchor to a CQR 45 and the anchor was simply put; night and day better. Something about the 35 just never worked. Bottoms, weight, etc.

[s/v 'Faith']

Astounding.....

absolutely astounding... Spin from their site.

Corrections to Rocna website


We wanted to let you know that we've updated some parts of our website, as it was brought to our attention that content regarding materials used to build our anchors was no longer accurate.
We have corrected this information, which was mostly in the Knowledge Base section, and we sincerely apologise for this oversight.
While the materials used to make the Rocna have changed from time to time, our functional specification has remained the same throughout: All Rocna anchors are designed to meet or exceed the holding power required by RINA’s Super High Holding Power (SHHP) certification.
And more than this, the Rocna has always been significantly over-engineered to ensure it can withstand the most challenging conditions that might be faced on the sea.
This was confirmed recently with exceptional results from independent destruction testing undertaken by D.M.Standen Limited. A galvanized 55kg model held a massive 28.7 tonnes of load – 670% of RINA’s SHHP proof load, and well beyond the point at which the connected chain would fail in real life use.
While the materials used to make the Rocna have changed from time to time, our functional specification has remained the same throughout...

Rocna can not even spell apologize.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by marinextreme

Perhaps you should read this posted today:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...e-59327-6.html

posting #78 and decide who is telling the truth here and who is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Rocna now admits, sort of, that they had posted some incorrect things and now are "correcting them".

Read from post 407 onwards.

it is VERY disconcerting when one of their original and larger dealers asked, "So, what exactly is your steel specs now", he was told,"It's none of your business".

Wow... now THERE is a credible response!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

Astounding.....

absolutely astounding... Spin from their site.



Rocna can not even spell apologize.

Yeah, I took a screen shot of that page. One never knows if the comments now made may be denied in the future, right?