Rocna Size

[Anders]

If I would have used the 10 kg Rocna that was tested and if that Rocna had been stuck so that all force applied sideways. How much force would it take to bend the shank?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Anders

If I would have used the 10 kg Rocna that was tested and if that Rocna had been stuck so that all force applied sideways. How much force would it take to bend the shank?

I have the exact numbers at home and am on my boat right now, but from memory it is around 450 - 500#.

[Silent Knight]

Originally Posted by Alecadi

And by the way I've been in Metallurgy Engineering (Hot dip Galvanized Lines) for 20 years of my life ..

You might be able to help then.

It's been mentioned on these various threads that some steels are harder to galvanize than others. Specifically it has been said that high tensile steels are more difficult than mild steels. As I understand it, not only is mild steel cheaper to buy, it is cheaper to cut to shape, to weld and, finally, to galvanize

Is that your experience? I'ld be genuinely interested in a professionals view.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

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.

I am not sure why you are so adamant that there were any sort of nefarious motives; everything I read by Delfin seems to indicate exactly the opposite.

Let me make an observation.

You have a product that appears to be incredibly useful to sailors, in the United States. It is relatively new.

I don't understand, from a marketing perspective, why you take a controversial subject, and then take an adamant stand on one side of it. Rocna's credibility is fragile at best as a result of this and other threads; why would you want to jeopardize or skew anyone's perspective of your own credibility and that of what may become a "must have" piece of software?

I understand you may have these feelings for your self, but, again, from a marketing perspective, is it not better to just give CF posters factual information, rather then questioning those that have as having some sort of motive?

Maybe I am wrong, but in the business world I operate and consult in, sometimes personal feelings are best kept within oneself.

JMHO.

[Dockhead]

Might I ask everyone to cool it a little before this gets out of hand? It would be a shame if this interesting and useful thread has to get moderated.

In my opinion everyone here has a legitimate point. I think actually there is a bit of a witch hunt atmosphere in here, and I see nothing wrong with politely commenting on it. On the other hand, the hunt might have turned up a real witch . I think the evidence is overwhelming that Rocna have been selling out of spec product. It will likely ruin them and it is probably not very nice to be so gleeful about it, even if they did bring it upon themselves.

Please keep it polite and respectful, ladies and gentlemen.

[Silent Knight]

Originally Posted by avb3

I am not sure why you are so adamant that there were any sort of nefarious motives; everything I read by Delfin seems to indicate exactly the opposite.

Let me make an observation.

You have a product that appears to be incredibly useful to sailors, in the United States. It is relatively new.

I don't understand, from a marketing perspective, why you take a controversial subject, and then take an adamant stand on one side of it. Rocna's credibility is fragile at best as a result of this and other threads; why would you want to jeopardize or skew anyone's perspective of your own credibility and that of what may become a "must have" piece of software?

I understand you may have these feelings for your self, but, again, from a marketing perspective, is it not better to just give CF posters factual information, rather then questioning those that have as having some sort of motive?

Maybe I am wrong, but in the business world I operate and consult in, sometimes personal feelings are best kept within oneself.

JMHO.

I also wondered about that.

When I write my PhD theses on the Rocna story I will describe that kind of activity as "Doing a Craig" or "shooting yourself in the foot"

[S/V Alchemy]

Gleeful? Not at all. Many here are, I would wager, oscillating being peeved and furious. It's not a drinks holder or a deluxe binoculars caddy...it is safety equipment of the first order, right up with PFDs, liftrafts and flares.

In the wider (beyond the U.S.) world of cruising, the SOLAS standard is generally considered preferable to the USCG requirement. Given the coastal nature of most boating, this is understandable, but if you buy a Pains-Wessex SOLAS-grade parachute flare instead of those nearly useless...but allowable...Orion-style shells, there is a reasonable expectation that the extra cost will yield greater reliability and performance. A SOLAS parachute flare that rose 15 feet, and then sputtered and went out...when you were trying to get the attention of a SAR plane 10 miles downrange, would be grounds for major complaint, assuming you even survived to tell the tale.

With anchors, so much of their performance is based on technique and basic seamanship. Knowing the ground, understanding scope, chafe, kellets, bridles, snubbers and simply when to reduce windage and when to haul anchor and reset or to leave to go to sea, all these are factors. You could cite so many variables so as to leave the actual anchor performance out of the mix entirely. But when you make extraordinary claims, you require extraordinary evidence. We have some, and it looks like the claims need revision. The Rocna may still be a great anchor, but it is neither as great as claimed nor would it seem to be as strong as would be expected for its claims of superiority to have validity.

I feel, as someone preparing to completely revise my ground tackle and to spend a lot of money in the process prior to distance cruising, like I've dodged a bullet.

A bullet made from cheap, other than high-tensile, Chinese steel. Pardon me if I seem less than polite and respectful when I picture my family and our home on some Patagonian rocks because a firm lied about the strength of their product.

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by Silent Knight

You might be able to help then.

It's been mentioned on these various threads that some steels are harder to galvanize than others. Specifically it has been said that high tensile steels are more difficult than mild steels. As I understand it, not only is mild steel cheaper to buy, it is cheaper to cut to shape, to weld and, finally, to galvanize

Is that your experience? I'ld be genuinely interested in a professionals view.

There are a lot of factors: depend not really of the steel but above all the type of galvanizing method, bath, temperature, alloy etc etc...
But not really getting the steel difficult to galvanize.
Quality of the surface will be different and the "longevity" of the galvanizing..

I don't see why it would be cheaper?

For what I understand the galvanizing is not in question here, and it has no effect on tensile, bending resistance etc..
No mechanical effect
Only protection against rust

[Silent Knight]

Thanks for that.

On one posting a while ago it was said that the higher tensile steels were harder to galvanize and that, if the shank bent, the galvanizing was likely to be damaged.....but please don't ask me to find the postings there's been so many

I agree that galvanizing is not the issue, but the inference was that lower grade materials had the secondary benefit of lower galvanizing costs. But I agree it is very much a side issue; I was just curious.

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by Silent Knight

Thanks for that.

On one posting a while ago it was said that the higher tensile steels were harder to galvanize and that, if the shank bent, the galvanizing was likely to be damaged.....but please don't ask me to find the postings there's been so many

I agree that galvanizing is not the issue, but the inference was that lower grade materials had the secondary benefit of lower galvanizing costs. But I agree it is very much a side issue; I was just curious.

The bending could affect and damage the small micro surface layer of Zn-Fe alloy, by craking it at the bend...But if the galvanizing is of quality then the small layer resist craking somehow

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by Silent Knight

Thanks for that.

......but the inference was that lower grade materials had the secondary benefit of lower galvanizing costs. But I agree it is very much a side issue; I was just curious.

In my opinion no.
The cost of galvanizing depends on the process you are using not on the quality of the steel, to the contrary bad steel will perhaps require a thickest galvanizing for a good adherence therefore more costly.
But there are so many factors

[CarlF]

It is simply astonishing to me that Rocna hasn't responded. While great care needs to be excercised to avoid libeling or slandering an individual, you can't libel an anchor. It is expected and important to question marketing claims and specs about a product. You can even do so if you are a competitor or otherwise self interested.

Almost every company these days has to manage a complex supply chain. Things go wrong even to the best and biggest companies. Usually the out of spec product is caught before it gets into the distribution channel - much less to a consumer. Until a rebuttal or explanation is offered, fraud remains a possibility.

This is also a particularly important topic for the cruising community. Not that long ago, most of the equipment on our boats was manufactured and sold from the same building. Craftsmanship skills and reputations were built over decades. Now much of that has been outsourced to distant places. The "reputation" has been reduced to legal terms in a contract and the sharp eyes of the quality assurance department.

Had the guy who machined your bronze sea cock been doing it for two days or twenty years?

There's no way to know.

That's a problem.

Carl

[impi]

I posted this on another thread. Im really concerned having bought my Rocna now.

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’, 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

[ActiveCaptain]

Originally Posted by avb3

I don't understand, from a marketing perspective, why you take a controversial subject, and then take an adamant stand on one side of it.

...why would you want to jeopardize or skew anyone's perspective of your own credibility and that of what may become a "must have" piece of software?

You're kidding, right?

You mean that people should decide to use or not use ActiveCaptain based on the fact that I feel Rocna and CS have been treated unfairly in this thread? Tell me, how far exactly does that go? Does every one of the 100,000 users on ActiveCaptain need to agree with 100% of my political, social, and philosophical ideas?

Heck, forget that - I'll challenge everyone to judge ActiveCaptain exactly by my actions here. This wasn't a fair debate. This was a lynching. Let it be said loud and clear that I'll side with the underdog - the one being picked on. I'm happy to be a voice, the only voice if necessary to stand up and point out where something has been done unfairly.

When a cruiser was treated unfairly by a homeowner last week at the Sunset Lake anchorage in Miami Beach, I'm the one who brought some attention to it - the only one who did so. When boaters were having the WiFi connections sniffed, I'm the one who brought attention to it, found solutions, and made them available at significant discounts (we make nothing on it). I'm honestly not trying to pat myself on the back - both issues also brought heat and conflict.

Craig Smith has given me great support as a customer. He's been responsive and available. If there's a problem with a product of his, I'm all for calmly pointing it out, perhaps getting an explanation, and helping the company produce a better product. That's not what was happening here.

It's easy to sit back and be part of a mob. The problem is, next time the mob might turn it's attention on you. So as stupid as it is to even suggest that my personal product should be judged based on my actions here, please, go ahead and do it. I'll gladly cancel anyone's ActiveCaptain account who can no longer stomach to be near something associated with me or my wife.

[sailorboy1]

Realloy now, this whole thing has become a fuel to fire back and forth battle, all one has to do to stop getting questioned is to stop responding because that just starts it again.

Lets get some new battles going! Nothing new is being "discussed" anymore and I've only been reading to see who is getting bent of out shape (get it)!