Rocna Size

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by 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:
......................

Your post is a great contribution and clarify a lot of things here
I have one question: When did Rocna's CEO send you that letter? Can you clarify this?
Alec

[Alecadi]

[QUOTE=ActiveCaptain;685405]--------------- I'm happy to be a voice, the only voice if necessary to stand up and point out where something has been done unfairly.
-------------QUOTE]

In that case, it seems you were not alone. Others have made clear they didn't agree in any kind of mob lashing...

[Cormorant]

Defending Rocna in this case is surely a brave thing to do. . . . But it seems to me the true underdog in the anchor marketplace is the consumer.

I actually feel sorry for Rocna if one bad apple caused them all this trouble. But . . . when did they find out about the substandard steel, and why not recall that batch of anchors? The more answers we get, the more questions arise.

[estarzinger]

I have a simple question about the bent rocna photos - how many unique rocna's do we have photos of? Some of the photos are obviously of the same anchor from different angles or in different situations. It looks to me like there are four separate bent anchors - does anyone agree/disagree?

[Kettlewell]

A few comments:

1. Bending an anchor, any anchor, is certainly not an everyday occurrence, but it is not rare judging from the numbers of bent and even broken anchors I have seen on docks and boats.

2. It happens to the best of them. Fortress has shown us some pics of some of their anchors bent and broken that were replaced under warranty. I've seen pictures of drop-forged CQRs with twisted shanks.

3. I don't think the sideways loading situation is unusual, at least where I sail. All summer long we deal with thunderstorms that would give any anchor a good test. Anchor is very well dug in and the wind suddenly switches and the anchor is being pulled at 90 or 180 degrees with a lot of force. A well dug in anchor will be subjected to a lot of stress on the shank in that situation. As I've said elsewhere, I witnessed the retrieval of a Bruce knock off in the Keys that came up bent after the passage of an ordinary cold front. Bottom was pure sandy mud, not rocks. The anchor was not fouled. I was right next to the boat in this event and both of our boats were close in size and weight. My similar sized anchor of a different brand was totally undamaged. This was around a 45 pounder, so it is possible with the wrong design and/or materials in very ordinary circumstances even on fairly hefty anchors. Frankly, I was amazed that even a knock off anchor could bend so easily. Just looking at the thing you couldn't tell. It looked big and strong, except for the dramatic bend in the shank.

4. I have no idea if Delfin's test indicates a serious problem or just a minor concern in terms of real-world anchoring situations. I think even Delfin would agree to that. His main concern is that the anchor did not meet the specifications that the manufacturer said it would.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

A few comments:

1. Bending an anchor, any anchor, is certainly not an everyday occurrence, but it is not rare judging from the numbers of bent and even broken anchors I have seen on docks and boats. . . . .

4. I have no idea if Delfin's test indicates a serious problem or just a minor concern in terms of real-world anchoring situations. I think even Delfin would agree to that. His main concern is that the anchor did not meet the specifications that the manufacturer said it would.

Agreed, that's why I am trying to get a sense of the real number of bent ROCNA's. As I said, I think I see 4 unique bent anchors but interested if others agree or disagree.

4 is probably a higher rate than Manson (1?) but is still pretty small.

Just trying to get a gage of the actual occurrence of bending.

[Shawn67]

"But . . . when did they find out about the substandard steel, and why not recall that batch of anchors?"

According to the quote from Rocna CEO they didn't find out about the substandard steel till Manson performed the testing on the anchor. If that is true it certainly makes me wonder about their QA. Also interesting that they called Manson's testing 'fact'... IOW they aren't disagreeing with the results.

As far as a recall is there any sort of date/production coding on a Rocna?

The fact that they are trying to design a test to 'prove' that the lower quality steel is still OK IMO suggests there not being a recall in the future. Will be interesting to see how that alters warranty claims against the grade of steel used in the anchor.

Shawn

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I have a simple question about the bent rocna photos - how many unique rocna's do we have photos of? Some of the photos are obviously of the same anchor from different angles or in different situations. It looks to me like there are four separate bent anchors - does anyone agree/disagree?

Agreed. I see one rusty anchor and 4 bent anchors, one of them stainless.
Although I'm feeling burned that I spent so much for an anchor that may not be as advertised, I will await Rocna's response before I sharpen my pitchfork.

Mike

[boatman61]

I'm GLEEFUL.....
after the way CS slagged down my 30 odd year love of 'Bruce Anchors...'
Don't sell em... just use em..

[sabray]

Just because it's an anchor thread. My Bruce original 44 isn't bent and has never significantly dragged. Not really relevant. I have seen some good summaries from others. Rocna didn't in some cases not provide the product they say they provide
Apparently they know about their mistake and have not addressed it. Does not seem to controversial. I sort thought this thread was about the extra weight the new class anchors need to anchor well. One thought I'm weighing is switching from a 44 lb bruce to a 60 or 65 lb new gen so it anchors better even though I've never had a problem with the old 44 Bruce. Ugh sometimes if it works that's all that matters.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

A few comments:

(Delfin's) main concern is that the anchor did not meet the specifications that the manufacturer said it would.

I think that's fair. It just doesn't seem right to tout the superiority of your materials and manufacturing, trash the competition's quality, charge a premium and then cheat on the materials. Even if you squint your eyes, suspend disbelief and take their story at face value that bad steel just went into one batch over a year ago and it was all the fault of a rogue employee, it's still clear from Bambury's letter that on the alleged discovery they did nothing to make it right with those purchasing what they acknowledge was a defective product. Instead, the emphasis seems to be on proving that inadequate is adequate, which begs the question of what they heck they are doing posturing as a manufacturer of a premium product.

I find it hard to believe that this batch showed up in different parts of the world, with two of them being the Rocna purchased off the shelf by Manson and another the one I picked up in Anacortes Washington. Does that make sense to anybody?

[SailFastTri]

Maybe it needs to be said that the difference between 626 and 696 (reference Delphin's tests http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post684144 ) is not really that major. It's roughly within 10% of the spec.

I don't disagree that there is a principle involved nor trying to defend failure to meet the maker's own spec, but it should be kept in perspective.

[Ironhorse74]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

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.

Anyone who wants to know what happens when you take him up on his offer, feel free to message me.

Brad

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

Maybe it needs to be said that the difference between 626 and 696 (reference Delphin's tests http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post684144 ) is not really that major. It's roughly within 10% of the spec.

I don't disagree that there is a principle involved nor trying to defend failure to meet the maker's own spec, but it should be kept in perspective.

Respectfully, I think there is more to it than that. The Rocna spec varies, but has declined since Peter Smith posted on their web site that they used 800 MPa steel, which would have a minimum tensile strength of 750 MPa. Although not true, you can still find that value in multiple places on the Rocna web site.

At some point Rocna changed their spec to 690 MPa tensile strength. Perhaps they decided that there wasn't a need to use the same quality of steel as their competitors since their marketing positioning as a superior product was working well. A victory of illusion over substance.

By saying that the sample I tested was only 10% off of Rocna's new lower standard doesn't really tell the whole story. It doesn't take into account whether the new lower standard they set but didn't meet is adequate or not. Apparently Manson doesn't think so, since they use the steel Peter Smith originally said was essential to his design. So if you compare the steel in the Rocna I tested to Rocna's new low standard, it is weaker by 11%. If you compare it to the standard set by Peter Smith originally, it is weaker by 19%. If you compare it to the Manson test results, it is weaker by 29%. And finally if you take into account the extra steel the Manson has over the Rocna, it is weaker by 33%.

Is the weaker Rocna a threat to mankind? Probably not, but you can say that compared to a Fortress, Manson, Sarca and a number of other anchors it is one expensive piece of equipment that uses metal of lower quality than its peers, all the while criticizing its peers for poor quality. It's worked as a strategy so far, in fact it is still working with some even when the data shows it's a false proposition. Whether it will continue to work as a marketing ploy remains to be seen.

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by Cormorant

Defending Rocna in this case is surely a brave thing to do. . . . But it seems to me the true underdog in the anchor marketplace is the consumer.

I actually feel sorry for Rocna if one bad apple caused them all this trouble. But . . . when did they find out about the substandard steel, and why not recall that batch of anchors? The more answers we get, the more questions arise.

Around May 2009 with the Venice failure