Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on Cruisers Forums. Advertise Here
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-09-2011, 08:32   #106
Registered User
 
avb3's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida/Alberta
Boat: Lippincott 30
Posts: 9,905
Images: 1
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canda Quality Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMPRTR View Post
I wanted to pipe in that my Rocna is made in China and does NOT have any apparant manufacturing defects or quality issues. The welds look good and the zinc is smooth.

It is possible that the poor quality version is counterfit or perhaps was made by a different company who does not net have sufficent quality control.
And on display at West Marine?

Not a chance.

All the North American Rocna anchors are sold by the same distributor, Suncoast Marine; in fact, that distributor used to manufacturer them in Canada.
__________________
If your attitude resembles the south end of a bull heading north, it's time to turn around.
avb3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 08:32   #107
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cherbourg - France
Boat: Le Guen Hémidy, Lévrier de mer, 16 m / 53 ft, "AZAWAKH"
Posts: 145
Send a message via Skype™ to Eric50
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

Hi everybody,

Anchor subjects seems not to be quiet ones obviously...just kidding.

Talking about weld quality, quality definition and level, i would say followings:

The quality and its level has to be define by standards, specification and criteria, not assumptions.

At a contractual stage it is agreed between the customer and the supplier / manufacturer.

The level of strength has to be evaluated at design stage, as well as the material, the dimensions...

In particular, for welding, numerous and very well known standards worldwide are available and the weld quality should only been assess as per the APPLICABLE one.

In the case of this anchor, which one is it?

To really asses the weld quality, not only you have to perform a visual inspection after welding, but you have much more steps to follow (before and after welding), to ensure that the weld quality remains the same from one anchor to the next one, over and over again.

A manufacturer can sware god that he tooks all the measures to ensure quality (and he'll be right) on his product, just forgotting to mention that he did that only on the prototype or on 2% only of its production...

In some industries (nuclear, aviation...) all the material are checked SEVERAL times by all parts, including third part laboratories, to ensure that the material (steel and welding consumables, gases in our case) are the ones ordered and delivered...but certainly not in this kind of manufacturing.

I am not defending Rocna or China, but it sounds that a lot of people are asking to have a simple anchor for leisure being manufactured and inspected as it would be a nuclear reactor vessel...of course it is not the case, unless you are ready to pay 100 time more money for it.

Let's see what is usually done to have a proper welding quality in industry, at high level of inspection:

Both parent metal and welding consumables are ordered with mill certificate, even the level of "quality" (or accuracy / insurance if you prefer...) of these certificate is covered by some standard and can be detailed at the order stage (for example a 3.1 as per EN 10204...).

Already at this stage you have several levels of quality in the certificates / certification: on steel, for example, there are certs that are about the heat that was the origin of your steel, but they are generic as many products could then have been manufactured from this heat (plates, beams, pipes...), so it is only a garantee about the steel that was use to manufacture the plate...which is not exactly the same than the plate quality itself, as your plate could have had some other treatment that change its characteristics...

And, unless you were present when they sampled the heat at the high furnace, you are already not 100% sure that this was the heat mentionned that was actually sampled...

Then you can have an individual certificate for the very plate used to make your anchor, in which was sampled some ...samples that were then sent to a laboratory to perform some mechanical and chemical tests.
Of course this is ideal because the tests will reveal the real nature of your product...well normally, because to be sure that this tests are valid you need to see the sampling yourself 8from the plate), then follow the samples up to the laboratory (or dye stamp them to ensure they will not be "swapped" or "confused with other, not to say "better" ones...), make sure all the testing equipement is duly calibrated, certified, that the proper procedures are applied for the testing, etc, etc...

That is exactly what is done for nuclear or aviation, at least on the most sensitive components, and, I can tell you, by experience, even by doing so you are never 100% sure that you have fully assess what you are inspecting.

And we have not yet started to weld !

OK let's say that we have checked all of our material, we got the proper consumables and gases.

How are we going to weld?

Will it be as per a WPS (welding procedure specification...issued generally by a welding engineer) ?

If so, has this WPS being qualified ? (WPQR...).

Is the welder himself qualified to apply this WPS ?

Provide everything is OK, how the fit up is checked?

Were the parameters (amps, travel speed...), during welding, checked ?

Was it the same person that welded and inspected ?

Was there only visual...or NDT?

Etc, etc...

After welding, we the have the galvanisation...how the compatibility
Between the steel and the galvanisation was ensured (the silicium content in the steel can be detrimental to the process)?

How the whole galvanisation process and zinc material was controlled ?

Has the thickness of the zinc deposit been checked...in what extent (100% of the anchor or 1% of the whole production..?).

Was the zinc composition itself checked ?

In Final, was there a dimensionnal inspection performed ?

Come on guys, do you really think that all of this should apply to our anchors manufacturing ?

Certainly not at the price level we use to pay our gear.

So what?

Back on the example given by Hogan, it is fully true that one of the anchor is "looking" much "nicer" than the other one, but I would not personnaly make a statement on the overal quality of the product just based on this "visual feeling".

Sometimes "nice" does not means "best", if you consider for example that a brigth looking galvanisation is normally of a poorer quality than a non brighting one...

Based on the pictures displayed, the 2 things that I do not like are the unequal capping of the weld at some location and some spatter that was left after welding...but this does not mean that this anchor is weaker than the "almost perfect looking" one.

If the manufacturer is a serious one, I would think that at design stage they took safety factor to dimension each parts, may be also made some mechanical test on a prototype to assess their design and welding technique were OK.

Then just start manufacturing without anymore inspection (or some random one) than a simple visual and dimensionnal (based on templates and gauges for example) on a % of the whole production.

Which is way enough for such product, although we have our beloved boat and lives depending on the anchor and it may sounds dramatic someway, the stresses involved are not to a point where industrial / nuclear / aeronautic inspection and quality control should be the rule.

And if you want to have more confidence...take the size above !

Of course this does not mean that you can use any kind of crap that is available as well.
__________________
Fair winds
Eric - S/Y Azawakh www.syazawakh.blogspot.com
Eric50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 13:11   #108
Registered User

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Boat: 40' Silverton Aftcabin with twin Crusaders
Posts: 1,785
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric50 View Post
Hi everybody,


How the whole galvanisation process and zinc material was controlled ?

Has the thickness of the zinc deposit been checked...in what extent (100% of the anchor or 1% of the whole production..?).

Was the zinc composition itself checked ?

In Final, was there a dimensionnal inspection performed ?

Come on guys, do you really think that all of this should apply to our anchors manufacturing ?

Certainly not at the price level we use to pay our gear.



Of course this does not mean that you can use any kind of crap that is available as well.

Most reliable manufacturers, especially those who claim to be making quality products have in house quality control testing. Sure, not at the nuclear level, but at some predetermined acceptable sample failure levels as plotted on gaussian curves. Obviously 100% testing leads to the fewest failures while 0 testing leads to the highest failures. Extremes on both ends are normally avoided.

Back to "Come on guys, do you really think that all of this should apply to our anchors manufacturing ?"

No, 100% testing would be gross overkill BUT SOME TESTING such as batch sampling is something I would expect if I was about to purchase an anchor that is substantially more expensive than a competitor's anchor that displays similar performance. If not, why the price difference???? Rocna anchors are not inexpensive!!!

Foggy
foggysail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 15:49   #109
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Allberta
Boat: Condor 37
Posts: 24
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

All this hoopla, just accept the fact that Rocna are NOT anchor manufacturers but merely a marketing agency and then you begin to understand the whole process. If they really had an investment in plant and equipment -i.e. something to lose - then there would be no jiggery pokery with the steel and if there was a defective batch it would be fixed fast. As it stands I would rather buy my anchor from a REAL manufacturer and not a bunch of quick buck boys.
LWatson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 16:30   #110
Registered User
 
Vasco's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto
Boat: CS36Merlin, "La Belle Aurore"
Posts: 7,546
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

__________________
Rick I
Toronto in summer, Bahamas in winter.
Vasco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 20:45   #111
Registered User
 
S/V Alchemy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nova Scotia until Spring 2021
Boat: Custom 41' Steel Pilothouse Cutter
Posts: 4,973
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

Quick buck buoys are in Aisle 3 at West Marine, beside the chains of causality and the tender fenders.
S/V Alchemy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 22:05   #112
Registered User
 
ADMPRTR's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada
Boat: CS36 Traditional
Posts: 551
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by foggysail View Post
No, 100% testing would be gross overkill BUT SOME TESTING such as batch sampling is something I would expect if I was about to purchase an anchor that is substantially more expensive than a competitor's anchor that displays similar performance. If not, why the price difference???? Rocna anchors are not inexpensive!!!
I would like to challenge the assertion that Rocnas are prohibitively and unjustifiably more expensive than other anchors.

First off, we can't compare them to cheap knockoffs of Bruces, CQR and Delta style anchors. Therefore, the only fair comparsion is another brand name. As Manson Supreme are not available in Canada I have to compare to another brand.

I bought my Rocna 20 for $CND729. In the same store, a Lewmar Delta 44 was selling for $CDN399. The Rocna is a more complex and newer design and is still under copyright. Both anchors reportedly have hi-tensile steel.

The bottom line though is that the Rocna is claimed to have better setting and holding power than the Delta. For me, that justifies the 83% premium I paid and based on my limited experience, I am satisfied with the improvement over the CQR that I replaced.

Yes, Rocna should not make claims that are untrue, if that is what they are doing but to pay more for a better product is a reasonable position. How much is too much more to pay? Well that is what the market will bare. In my case, 83% was not too much more if it helps me sleep better at night.

Too expensive compared to what? We are sailors, everything is too expensive.
ADMPRTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 23:20   #113
cruiser

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pittwater, Sydney
Boat: Lightwave, Catamaran, 11.5m (38')
Posts: 1,000
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

I might be guilty of saying that Rocnas are expensive. The idea of moving production offshore is usually to save costs. Where was the benefit for the consumer if the NZ or Canadian Rocna price are not dissimilar to the Chinese Rocna price. However that is not all that relevant, if a manufacturer has a good product and can make more money by moving offshore good luck to them. The issue here is that Rocna are charging a premium price for a product made from low grade steel (rather than the high grade steel that might justify the premium price) and making false claims about RINA certification. No-one has ever said the design is not good, as good as many others. The complaint is about quality and misrepresentation (and quality vs price - if you like).
JonJo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2011, 02:45   #114
Registered User
 
alan_za's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Boat: Tanzer 7.5 sailboat | Current Designs Solstice GTS kayak
Posts: 89
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJo View Post
Where was the benefit for the consumer if the NZ or Canadian Rocna price are not dissimilar to the Chinese Rocna price.
Well China has the highest quality manufacturing facilities of any country in the world, so it makes sense from that perspective, don't you think?

In any case this thread has nothing to do with CA vs CN quality, since both anchors were made in CN.

Quote:
No-one has ever said the design is not good, as good as many others.
Yes Rocna is top or close to it in just about every holding test I've seen. Exactly the reason why it's competitors are mostly spreading the "ooh China is bad" FUD, playing on a belief amongst some older (and most probably xenophobic) people that China still only manufactures the cheap plastic trinkets that they did in the 60's.
alan_za is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2011, 03:17   #115
cruiser

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pittwater, Sydney
Boat: Lightwave, Catamaran, 11.5m (38')
Posts: 1,000
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

If you look at the tests, considering that Rocnas were meant to be so good - it is interesting that they were tested so seldom. There are a whole host of tests where Rocnas are missing (or did not meet the bravado). Equally interesting is the fact that the only test that Rocna ever quoted (and I stand to be corrected on the 'ever') is the West Marine test (where Rocna were claiming to be 40% better than anyone else - and if you check this was one pull out of over 100 pulls made in the series of tests). The WM test was 2006, why no quote on other tests. I always found it odd that the 40% claim was never repeated by anyone else testing anchors - and Rocna never quoted other tests. But maybe I read the wrong magazines. I'm not suggesting that Rocna is not a good anchor - but its excellence is based on anecdotal infomation and one pull in one test - not that conclusive. We now find of course that straight line pulls are only part of the story, pull at 90 degrees and you could have a banana. On the other hand Supremes are tested many times, check their website I think they feature a dozen tests, Fortress have been tested since the mid 1990's and have consistently good results, Spades come top on a whole host of tests and checking Anchor Rights website they do more tests than Rocna have false claims (and that is saying something).

I have never heard it suggested that the Rocna anchors described as 'Made in Canada' were anything other than - 'Made in Canada'. However there might be doubts as to when 'Made in Canada' changed to 'Made in China' and if you are sitting out a 35knot wind shift this would be a bit of a worry.

Actually I do not identify that any of the competitors are spreading the 'China is bad' concept. This is being put about (and not by anchor manufacturers) as a result of other problems, possibly people buying cheap product and selling it as expensive (therefore high quality). Even Rocna have never suggested that their inadequacies are as a result of a failure of their Chinese sub contractor (and if its not the sub contractor at fault, guess whose fault it is).
JonJo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2011, 04:43   #116
cruiser

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 267
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

Hi all,
Rex from here, I should make it clear that this post is not commercially motivated as we only sell anchors in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, some of you are clearly looking for answers as to what is the purpose of proof testing in relation to side loads, I hope to be of some help.
Click image for larger version

Name:	robertsons <a title=work.jpg Views: 189 Size: 142.4 KB ID: 31357" style="margin: 2px" />
We start off with a recognized testing Authority Robertson’s a NATA testing station that have thirteen facilities Australia wide.
Like Lloyd’s, or ABS, Robertson’s are NATA approved for Super High Holding Power certification the (NMSC) National Marine Safety Committee of Australia authorized Roberson’s to perform the field and proof testing on our complete range of anchors. This testing is in line with Lloyds and the USL Code for S/H/H/Power and the latest regulations for commercial vessels design and construction of anchors.
Click image for larger version

Name:	photo1.jpg
Views:	177
Size:	111.1 KB
ID:	31358
Robertson’s is a third party to an independent test, notice the three guys to the right, this is a fourth witness and report party that consist of three marine Survey officers from Transport Safety Victoria, they are there to make sure the testing is correctly performed in line with Lloyds and the USL Code.
Field testing is no different; all certification tests are accompanied by not just survey officers but quite a number from within the Australian Marine industry..
Click image for larger version

Name:	photo2.jpg
Views:	240
Size:	168.8 KB
ID:	31359Click image for larger version

Name:	photo3.jpg
Views:	193
Size:	151.8 KB
ID:	31360
The proof test:- the anchors are anchored to a concrete block and coupled to a hydraulic ram that tries to basically tear the shank from its fluke, a given load is applied as per the Lloyds specifications on S/H/H/Power, this load is carefully applied at two thirds distance from where the anchor shank is fixed to the fluke.
This commercial Super Sarca anchor weighs 185 K.G. and has to with stand a load of ten ton, you may still not understand this in relation to a side pull. These loads that are applied in the vertical are deemed, proved by the USL code and Lloyds to be way above loads recorded in the straight pulls from a vessel, these loads take into account side pull loads, this method still doesn’t give us a simple way of understanding how, but it works, it is a tried and proven bench mark of an anchors strength.
If the classification societies are happy, it is difficult to argue with. A side load pull test might be easier to understand, but Lloyd’s does not ask and testing anchors are expensive, guess who pays, so we try to limit testing to the realistic.
Understand we have been selling anchors now for 16 years, SARCA and more recently Excel, CQR that is the original and Bruce certified anchors rarely bend shanks. Anchor Right sell approx. five and a half thousand anchors a year, I am sure there are more but have only been enlightened by customers of four bent shanks, so does proof testing work, you betcha, it eliminates the use of poor quality steel and gives you construction design improvements resulting in a quality product.
If you look at the Rocna record in the short time they have been on the market I think you have all of your answers, so yes it is possible to bend shanks, but at that rate?
If the work has been done then throw it up on the forum as I have done, give your customers some sort of assurance that they are indeed getting what they have paid for, when you purchase an anchor most would buy on marketing and feedback, that’s fine but don’t just rely on hearsay.
You have the right to ask for proof of what they are pedaling. Make no mistake your life could one day depend on a well-built anchor or a Gerry built one.

Click image for larger version

Name:	photo4.jpg
Views:	159
Size:	173.4 KB
ID:	31361Click image for larger version

Name:	photo5.jpg
Views:	192
Size:	185.7 KB
ID:	31362
This time it’s the Sarca Excel, this anchor weighs in at 105 K.G. this anchor is loaded to five ton, in this shot we have had the load doubled to ten ton, I will try and insert a test certificate to show that we have in some cases had four times the load required with still no permanent set, this reduces once again the chance again of bending the shank in a sideways pull.
We have just re least the Super duty Excel, this anchor we believe will be the strongest anchor design on the market
Being able to load our anchors to four times required is another good point, something to look for in extra strength for side loads, Pete Smith said himself that his anchor was only designed for high strength steel construction, sure we have been told loads of six plus have been applied to Rocna anchors but we have been told a lot of other things by Holdfast to, if this six times plus is the case there should not be any bent shanks, at least a lot less than we have seen for such a short time on the market even if it was crap steel given that margin.
Rocna shanks are very thin and I don’t believe based on our experience they would stand the higher quoted load margins, if so show us some proof, surely they would have done similar testing if not the same as we have, Peter Smith has stated,(“ my design demands quality high strength steels that of Bis plate or similar”).
So if you stray just a little from the material required to make a Rocna, as often as it rains you will have bent shanks. As a matter of interest, the excel anchor from 16 K.G. and up all have Bis plate 80 shanks, Super Sarca all sizes have grade 350 mild steel shanks. Mild steel you say? Yes because the Super Sarca design allows for thicker heavier shanks that more than accommodate the same strength as a thinner Bis Plate shank.

Name:   photo6.jpg
Views: 905
Size:  21.0 KB
This photo on the left is definitely not Bis plate, it’s more like liquorish allsorts, one should understand that Pete Smith was using Bis plate in the N.Z. Rocna’s, Bis plate has great flexing properties as we use this material in our Excel, the steels from China, even if they were using high strength steels would not have the recoil or unique flexing properties of Bis Plate. These properties reduce impact from a sideways pull. Peter should have said, our design demands high quality steel with the same strength and recoil or flexing properties of Bis plate
Proof testing has many advantages, if you are designing anchors proof testing is the only way you are going to find their weaknesses, we test not just for accreditation but to destruction, this is an enormous help when we develop larger anchors to hold these commercial vessels. See how long you would last in the industry if these fellows bent shanks.
Click image for larger version

Name:	photo7.jpg
Views:	334
Size:	121.4 KB
ID:	31364
We have been in anchor design and manufacturing for many years now and have carried out hundreds of hours of research, if someone was interested to test the Rocna shank in the above bendy photo you will find it has very similar strength values of 316 stainless, just the formation of its bend indicates that to me, Quality steel will bend further up the shank, soft steel will twist, I have given you this information to help in your quest for answers, it will always come across somewhat cynical but it is not meant that way.
Yes we make anchors out of stainless steel, the fluke plates are of 316 and the shank of a grade 50 percent stronger, but how about some real truths here so that you the customer has a clear understanding of the down sides of stainless, stainless has absolu
Anchor Right Australitely no flexing properties and will yield relatively easy on impact. If a customer wants one, we will always try and talk them into a steel version but if they insist we explain the downside to stainless. Another point, bend the shank on a stainless anchor and you can bin it, bend the shank on a steel anchor you can straighten it.
Keep in mind, proof testing only relates to anchors from 50 K.G. and up, anchors under can still be approved as super high holding power if the field test proves the requirement’s, this is another area one should be aware of, this range of anchors under 50 kilo even though certified could have anything in the design with no one held accountable. The company may have S/H/H/Power certification but all of their anchors under fifty kilo may have inferior steels to that of the larger.
When purchasing a Stainless steel anchor of any design you are definitely getting an inferior product to that of Bis plate, furthermore stainless steel anchors are not covered under S/H/H/Power certification of steel anchors, we know this from proof testing, so certification for stainless means testing all over again with stainless for anchors over 50 K.G. at this stage we only have certification for one anchor size in stainless, the 88 K.G. Excel.
You can be sure of one thing that has many times been proven, don’t make any Rocna regardless of size unless it is of a Bis plate or proven similar properties, thickness and weight of the steel components are just as important as they will upset the balance, its design doesn’t allow to stray from original spec’s. Very odd, P Smith has insisted all along that the Rocna can only be constructed out of Bis plate or equivalent yet has recently signed off on lower grade steel according to the West Marine article?
One of the major downsides to doing a venture with any marketing company is they are only interested the dollar value not the Quality value, the biggest down side is the anchor design then never gets developed any further, to compound it even more is a marketing company has no idea of the consequences of altering, changing or using cheaper material to increase profits, anchors aren’t rocket science but short cuts will render them unreliable and dangerous.
All of our field testing was carried out against a Manson Supreme, why?, because it has Lloyd’s approval that was stipulated to Robertson’s by the N.M.S.C. as a bench mark for testing Super High Holding Power Certification. Who is the N.M.S.C. you can Google them, shortly their role will be taken over by AMSA. If you wonder who AMSA are, again Google, but they are the guys who will rescue you if you come a cropper in the Great Southern Ocean. They also decide if large commercial vessels are correctly certified to enter Australian waters. They have the Authority to query any classification Society Certificate, so they know their stuff.
We at Anchor Right Australia are more than happy to share our info on anchor design construction testing and so on. If you would like info on the field testing or have any questions on TATS or research and development or if you would like a copy of a Robertson’s field test certificate or any document please email me.
Finally; why all anchor manufacturers can’t be honest, transparent with their testing methods, steel types beats me, why should any of this be confidential, I am proud to show of the extent we go to with our anchor designs, if I was a customer I am sure I would want to know. More importantly pay for what is other than what it isn’t.

Rex Francis.
congo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2011, 05:23   #117
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Allberta
Boat: Condor 37
Posts: 24
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

Wow, Rex of Anchor Right has hit the nail on the head. This further strenthens my belief that I want my anchor sold by the manufacturer and not some glorified marketing agency like Holdfast. Everytime I say "aw shucks the Chinese Rocna is probably alright" along comes another compelling reason to take it back. It is too bad that there isn't some way anyone thinking about a new anchor cannot be made aware of the various wesites discussing anchors, just maybe it would help to separate the wheat from the chaff and they can make a better informed decision.
LWatson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2011, 05:48   #118
cruiser

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 267
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

Hi l Watson
Thank you for your comment, not much good when it comes to forum entries, my eara is of on buttons trebble and base I find all of this modern technolodgy difficult.

Yes it is unfortunate that you the boaters have been subject to a very long and drawn out saga, but one thing with modern technoldgy if you are pedaling something that isn't sooner or later thes dicussion forums will suss you out and the games over.

There is nothing wrong with performance of the Rocna anchor, there is only a problem with the rickety one.
congo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2011, 06:11   #119
Registered User
 
careka's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Egersund,Norway
Boat: Lagoon380 Comfort#637
Posts: 714
Images: 2
Send a message via Skype™ to careka
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

Congo
very nice info.
careka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2011, 06:21   #120
Registered User
 
colemj's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Presently on US East Coast
Boat: Manta 40 "Reach"
Posts: 10,104
Images: 12
Re: Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

I keep hearing of all these bent Rocnas, but have only seen a single picture of one claimed to have bent while in use. That single picture keeps showing up everywhere, but no other examples. The other couple of pictures of bent rocnas were ones of someone intentionally bending the anchor. Have I missed the other examples?

I'm not defending the company or the anchor, just wanting to understand the extent. I have pictures of bent spades, supremes, deltas, fortress, cqr's and broken bruces, so it happens to all of them.

Everyone talks about the huge number of rocnas bending, but I haven't seen any actual quantitation of this problem.

Mark
__________________
www.svreach.com

You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
colemj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
Canada, China, recall, rocna

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rocna Size Captain Randy Anchoring & Mooring 601 22-09-2011 19:48
New West Marine Recall on Rocna Anchors webejammin Anchoring & Mooring 116 05-09-2011 11:17

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:21.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.