Rocna Anchor Fail

[avb3]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

Astounding.....

absolutely astounding... Spin from their site.



Rocna can not even spell apologize.

Actually, they are spelling it correctly; it is the English version. Similarly "humor" and "humour" or "color" and "colour".

I have knocked Rocna for a lot of things, but as they are in New Zealand and Australia, in this case, they are correct.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by avb3

Actually, they are spelling it correctly; it is the English version. Similarly "humor" and "humour" or "color" and "colour".

I have knocked Rocna for a lot of things, but as they are in New Zealand and Australia, in this case, they are correct.

Yes, it is rather tongue in cheek attempt... (sorry attempt as it was) I might have expected the Chinese spelling to turn up.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

Yes, it is rather tongue in cheek attempt... (sorry attempt as it was) I might have expected the Chinese spelling to turn up.

Now THAT is funny! We need some humour injected into a sad situation.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by avb3

Now THAT is funny! We need some humour injected into a sad situation.

Is Rocna Chinese for "lunch hook"?

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

Astounding.....

absolutely astounding... Spin from their site.



Rocna can not even spell apologize.

Alas, per OED both are accepted spellings. Per some random English usage forum I found apologize is more used in the US and apologise is used more in the UK.

You have done a fine job of beating up ROCNA on substantive issues related to the anchor, trying to get them on spelling seems like beating a dead horse and is not germane to the topic.


EDIT: Opps, somebody beat me to this.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by Adelie

....EDIT: Opps, somebody beat me to this.

Um.. yea. Did you see post #92?

[Steve Pope]

Rocna is anchor spelt backwards without the H.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

Um.. yea. Did you see post #92?

As my edit implied, I saw 92 and posts leading up to it after my initial post.

[MechMan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pope

Rocna is anchor spelt backwards without the H.

<Grins> h.. for honest?

[waterman480]

I find this to be very amusing. How many anchors really fail? I think most anchors pull out due to improper setting, or due to tidal/wind changes.

For reliability of hardware, I recommend Fortress. After 20 years, I went to their manufacturing facility and they replaced a 20 year old bent shank, my fault, no charge. (Caught it on a piling.) Is it perfect - no, but then no anchor is for all conditions.

Most anchor failures I have seen are during veering winds and/or tidal current. Whether they reset, pull out, or fail (doubtful), all have to do with conditions. I love my (genuine) CQR, but I also love my Fortress - maybe even more because they truly stand behind their product.

Cheers,
Dave
Sjofn

[waterman480]

H - no H = no holding? OK just had to say it - please - tongue in cheek comment!

[birdseye]

Can someone please clarify the technical data facts for me.

As I understand it, the original Rocna knowledge base said " For this reason, the shank on the Rocna is a high tensile quenched and tempered steel, with a grade of around 800 MPa." Note that it says "around" and it does not say whether the 800MPa is the UTS or the yield point.

Rocna currently say that " We can confirm that the steel used for the shank of .......'s anchor is Q620D (equivalent grade to G800 high strength low alloy steel). This steel has an Ultimate Tensile Strength that typically falls within the range of 710-880mpa."

and the Manson test found the shank of my size of Rocna to be 540MPa yield point and 730MPa uts.

Now ( and excuse the text format which the software wont change back!) 730 is to my mind "around" 800 which suggests to me that the Rocna anchor material as tested by Manson does meet the original Rocna knowledge bas e comment.

P.S. For the suspicious of mind amongst you, I am a retired steel industry manager with no connection to any anchor maker and simply trying to decide on which basis if any I can take my Rocna back to the supplier.

[Capitain Mike]

Originally Posted by birdseye

Can someone please clarify the technical data facts for me.

As I understand it, the original Rocna knowledge base said " For this reason, the shank on the Rocna is a high tensile quenched and tempered steel, with a grade of around 800 MPa." Note that it says "around" and it does not say whether the 800MPa is the UTS or the yield point.

Rocna currently say that " We can confirm that the steel used for the shank of .......'s anchor is Q620D (equivalent grade to G800 high strength low alloy steel). This steel has an Ultimate Tensile Strength that typically falls within the range of 710-880mpa."

and the Manson test found the shank of my size of Rocna to be 540MPa yield point and 730MPa uts.

Now ( and excuse the text format which the software wont change back!) 730 is to my mind "around" 800 which suggests to me that the Rocna anchor material as tested by Manson does meet the original Rocna knowledge bas e comment.

P.S. For the suspicious of mind amongst you, I am a retired steel industry manager with no connection to any anchor maker and simply trying to decide on which basis if any I can take my Rocna back to the supplier.

Manson Independant Rocna Test.
Make your own mind up.

Manson Anchors: Supreme Anchor high standards

[birdseye]

I quoted the numbers from the Manson site as in "
and the Manson test found the shank of my size of Rocna to be 540MPa yield point and 730MPa uts" so I dont understand what you are saying.

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by birdseye

I quoted the numbers from the Manson site as in "
and the Manson test found the shank of my size of Rocna to be 540MPa yield point and 730MPa uts" so I dont understand what you are saying.

The designer specififcations called for a minimum yield strength of 690mpa

They now claim in their spin doctoring of the truth that this is "secret" and that the strength of current and past shanks are for them to know and you to guess.

However any google search will turn up the previous quoted values as well as the deleted old website pages that extoll the virtues of the high strength used and put down the competition as inferior.

There was never a unit manufactured in China that came remotely anywhere near this yield strength required.

Judge for yourself as to what you want to believe and who you want to believe but as you seem to be an intelligent person who can read and understand then I suggest you google search past statements and decide if you trust any of the BS thrown out there by a CEO who is a professional salesman who thinks he can continue to sell ice to the eskimos.

Published facts do not lie and nor do they go away no matter how much they try to "bend" them.

These people with their underhanded and evasive statements have seriously damaged the reputation of one of the best designed anchors in the world and unfortunately only a return to original specs will save the brand from further erosion.

But that will require a lessening of profits