While I don't have the expertise to either endorse or challenge Delfin & others' metallurgy testing, and was certainly concerned to see the pic of the twisted-up Rocna, I'm not sure the dispositive question of whether it makes any practical difference (i.e. 99% of boaters, 99% of the time). If true, the claims of false advertising are no doubt troubling and I hope the co. responds in credible fashion. Given the exceptional reviews of these anchors generally, however, I'm not sure I'm inclined to run back to WM with my newly-purchased Rocna 33.
Exceptional Reviews are standard in magazines, articles etc that also profit from ROCNA's or anyone elses purchase of advertising space... you don't bite the hand that feeds...
__________________
You can't oppress a people for over 75 years and have them say.. "I Love You.. ".
"It is better to die standing proud, than to live a lifetime on ones knees.."
Self Defence is no excuse for Genocide...
While I'm not a Rocna fan, mainly because CS turned me off to the point that I got a Manson Surpreme instead:
But is there really a point to an anchor that is stronger that the chain and other gear it's attached to? Granted it appears claims were make that weren't true, but is there really a point other than that?
And from another site I get the impression that Rocna is working on cleaning up claims on their website and that CS doesn't really speak for the company at all (other than I geuss there are royalites involved).
I think that Rocna and Craig Smith are handling this entire thread perfectly from a "crisis management" perspective. This thread hasn't ever been about finding the truth.
I'd sort of expect Rocna to be collecting up everything for legal analysis. I'd bet the owners of Sailing Anarchy were surprised when a lawsuit was initiated against them over a similar witch-hunt thread.
I continue to be surprised by the outcomes discussed here. I wouldn't be surprised though to see the whole thread removed eventually.
As a Rocna owner I find anyone still defending them to be just as suspicious, including a fellow Mainer. I find their business ethics, defamation and mis-truths to be abhorrent and absolutely offensive and disgusting.
When you make comments like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Smith
Certainly nothing from Manson, the quality of their copies is abysmal. Their "Ray" Bruce copy is not even cast - they form what is supposed to be a fairly sophisticated solid geometry by welding together plate. To form bulk, they edge weld the steel plates together, then grind it all down to look like one piece. The geometry is never quite right, and it's not solid steel = massively compromised strength.
You better darn well be able to put your money where your mouth is..
and to make statements like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Smith
However there remains the "you get what you pay for" difference, and our USD recommended retail will still be "moderately priced", not "cheap"; we're not about making cheap rip-offs, we're not based in China, etc.
And then you move production to China and it does not meet spec on either side of the world, well it then becomes very hard to defend your large price "premium"..
As a Rocna CUSTOMER, OWNER and USER I am utterly horrified by the way this company has conducted its business. At this point I would be a heck of a lot more suspicious of anyone who is still in the Pro-Rocna camp and still trying to defend them..
Let's not forget that Craig Smith put them in this mess and brought the storm on Rocna all by himself. If he had not been so rude, defamatory and dishonest it is highly likely none of this would have ever happened. I suspect the Bambury brothers though are responsible for the low spec metallurgy and I am fairly certain Craig & Peter are pretty angry about it.
Still I will continue to use my BC built Rocna, it's a great anchor, but if I should lose it you can bet I will not be replacing it with another Chinese made unit and will instead buy a Manson Supreme.
Agreed, I would certainly like to see the comparison for Manson, although I don't recall that Delfin intended this to be a Rocna versus Manson comparison (I stand to be corrected on this).
The Manson specs are irrelevant in this case and only the STATED specs for the Rocna are what matter. The Rocna Delfin tested did not meet its own stated spec so who really cares what the Manson meets? It really does not matter unless the Rocna could meet its own stated specifications.
Unless of course you're Manson when the quality of your product has been called "abysmal" by Craig Smith for many years.
Rocna also warrants to its customers that their anchors meet the "specifications". I certainly hope there are not a lot more of these sub spec anchors out there or it could get very expensive for Rocna to honor all those warranties.
As a Rocna owner I just want to see a LITTLE honesty and integrity. Just a little. It's too bad really because it is an EXCELLENT design..
But is there really a point to an anchor that is stronger that the chain and other gear it's attached to? Granted it appears claims were make that weren't true, but is there really a point other than that?.
Yes there is a point. It's not necessarily about the anchor failing because it breaks, it's just as important that it doesn't fail by bending so much that it becomes unusable. If it bends to that extent, you may be lucky and haul it in before you head for the rocks. However, if it bends to the extent that it doesn't reset when the tide turns, then you may have problems.
There's also the simple fact that if you are paying for one thing and getting another then you've been screwed. Reading some of these postings makes me think that some people would be happy to pay for a three litre car only to shrug their shoulders and say, when they discover they've been fobbed off with a two litre, "it still gets me from A to B"
Let's not forget that Craig Smith put them in this mess and brought the storm on Rocna all by himself. If he had not been so rude, defamatory and dishonest it is highly likely none of this would have ever happened. I suspect the Bambury brothers though are responsible for the low spec metallurgy and I am fairly certain Craig & Peter are pretty angry about it.
That really does sum up the whole story so well.
When it all started people were just fed up with CS. Nobody had any idea that the whole story would escalate and sub-standard quality would then become an issue.
Despite the silly assertions that this thread has nothing to do with the truth, it has everything to do with people finding out an unexpected truth.
On the other comments to the effect that Rocna may have a case in law. They would be such mugs to try that; there are several competitors out there who would be happy to see them in court.
Lol..... Best anchor on the market... worth every cent and I will continue to buy them...... I in fact would buy them if they were made form tin foil and set / held and lasted as well as mine has during heavy use...... LOVE my Rocna!.. and no i don't work for them......Just my honest opinion of a FANTASTIC anchor!
Still I will continue to use my BC built Rocna, it's a great anchor, but if I should lose it you can bet I will not be replacing it with another Chinese made unit and will instead buy a Manson Supreme.
I'm in the same boat with my made-in-Canada Rocna. But I'm secretly hoping that someone with a bit more metallurgical knowledge than I have will give a Canadian Rocna the dimple test and report back here.
__________________ cruising is entirely about showing up--in boat shoes.
I'm in the same boat with my made-in-Canada Rocna. But I'm secretly hoping that someone with a bit more metallurgical knowledge than I have will give a Canadian Rocna the dimple test and report back here.
From everything which has come out of all this there is no need for you to worry if you've got a Canadian anchor.
If it were Chinese though, you could end up with one of these:
On some aspect Active Captain is right: to conduct a test you should do it properly.
Here the test has not been conducted as it should have been
among other points:
-Manson was not tested, if I'm not wrong only their specifications were reported.
No, the Manson was independently tested. I posted the link to that lab report above. It is also posted on Manson's web site, and it is that data that I used for my comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alecadi
-only one test was conducted on the Rocna concerning only one specs indications, this is not sufficient: normally several test on several Rocnas different sizes should have been conducted, and on different parts of the shank, and not in reference to the specs.
Any test on the shank of an anchor will tell you what the shank is made of. Multiple tests of the same shank would be pointless. I didn't set out to test the entire product line of Rocna, but when a manufacturer's credibility has the reached the point of Rocna's and you find insufficient steel in 3 separate anchors in two parts of the world and pictures of bent anchors from around the world, it doesn't seem a stretch to assume that my results on the one anchor are typical. But you are correct, all sizes and all anchors ever manufactured by them would have to be tested for the complete picture to be gained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alecadi
-Metal analysis should have been conducted
etc...
What was done is called metal analysis. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean molecular analysis, that would have told the story about the alloy composition, which is only relevant as it translates to Yield Tensile strength, which was tested.
__________________ https://delfin.talkspot.com I can picture in my head a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey
It's my opinion that the truth wasn't the objective of the analysis. There was a pre-determined desire to destroy the reputation of a particular company. It's my opinion - your's might differ.
My conclusion that Rocna has shipped products that don't meet their specifications came from independent testing in NZ and the US. And your opinion is based on what exactly?
__________________ https://delfin.talkspot.com I can picture in my head a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey
This thread hasn't ever been about finding the truth.
I'd sort of expect Rocna to be collecting up everything for legal analysis.
I continue to be surprised by the outcomes discussed here. I wouldn't be surprised though to see the whole thread removed eventually.
Interesting you use the term "witch hunt." The definition from Wikipedia is "The term "witch-hunt" since the 1930s has also been in use as a metaphor to refer to moral panics in general (frantic persecution of perceived enemies)."
You seem to perceive me (somewhat frantically, I might add) as an enemy of Rocna. I'm not. I just had one of their anchors tested. From my perspective, no one needs to panic over owning a Rocna; by all accounts a good design. However, since it appears that a number of them have failed from bent shanks, and testing confirms this, owners of Chinese Rocnas are well served to at least have this information, even if, like you, they decide to circle the wagons and offer a defense of the indefensible by impugning anyone engaged in honest examination of the issue.
The only issue for current Rocna owners, yourself included, is that you paid a premium price for an anchor made of premium materials.
__________________ https://delfin.talkspot.com I can picture in my head a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey
No, the Manson was independently tested. I posted the link to that lab report above. It is also posted on Manson's web site, and it is that data that I used for my comparison.
Any test on the shank of an anchor will tell you what the shank is made of. Multiple tests of the same shank would be pointless. I didn't set out to test the entire product line of Rocna, but when a manufacturer's credibility has the reached the point of Rocna's and you find insufficient steel in 3 separate anchors in two parts of the world and pictures of bent anchors from around the world, it doesn't seem a stretch to assume that my results on the one anchor are typical. But you are correct, all sizes and all anchors ever manufactured by them would have to be tested for the complete picture to be gained.
What was done is called metal analysis. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean molecular analysis, that would have told the story about the alloy composition, which is only relevant as it translates to Yield Tensile strength, which was tested.
A small precision, just in case you have some doubt: from the other day, I still don't work for them (Rocna) and neither for Manson
And I don't have a Rocna on my boat, and neither a Manson... (I cannot afford them...)
I have a CQR that I don't like much, and a Danforth that I'm very satisfied with...
And by the way I've been in Metallurgy Engineering (Hot dip Galvanized Lines) for 20 years of my life .. Not anymore , I'm in another field now, quite different...
And I'm very easy going, at least my friends are saying that about me...
Alec
__________________ People spend time putting little boats in bottles, me I put bottles in my little boat...
Re: Rocna Size
Linear Mode
Recent Discussions