Rocna Size

[S/V Alchemy]

It's a good policy. Whatever one thinks of WM (and I think "overpriced boat trinkets"), they should not have to bear the cost of misrepresentation in terms of specifications, and I have always found their returns policy fair, correct and well-implemented.

Also, they are the only game in town for a great many boaters who want to hold things in their hands or who dislike ordering online, so it pays WM to keep those people happy and coming through their doors.

[Opie91]

Originally Posted by Shawn67

"Has anyone tried to return a "China" made anchor due to quality defects? It seems to me that is the way to find out if Rocna will stand behind their product."

I'm not sure that tells you if Rocna is standing behind the product or not.

For example in Delfin's return it was West Marine that accepted the return. The store manager made the call to accept the return, not Rocna. IOW, West Marine stood behind the product they sold. We don't know what will happen next when West Marine initiates the warranty claim with Rocna.

Shawn

I would not call Delfin's return a good test of their commitment to the product. It was basically brand new and he had evidence to prove it did not meet the design specification.

I read their warranty policy and agree that their warranty policy is a catch 22, but most are.

Earlier in this thread a center punch was used to performed as a poor mans hardness test. A Rockwell hardness tester such as the below link should be able to preform an accurate hardness test with no structural damage to the anchor.

Portable Hardness Tester with Printer

Some type of testing program sponsored by Rocna could put all these questions and speculation to rest. It would most certainly help their public relations.

[KnuckleDragger]

Bought my Rocna 20 exactly a month ago from West Marine. Did my due dilligence in selecting what I thought was the best performing anchor available. I too, like many here, was turned off by CS's spew and seriously considered the Manson "copy" for that reason. In the end a 20% off sale at WM on the Rocna enticed me to pull the trigger. Then the poo hit the fan on multiple forums. Mine was a Chinese version. "Dimple" testing was done and proved dissapointing. I waited for the results of Delfin's test results hoping for the best but expecting the inevitable.
To their credit, WM cheerfully offered a full refund no questions asked. However, I told them EXACTLY why I was returning it in pretty explicit detail. Rather than taking a refund I ordered the same size Manson Supreme and got a $81 gift card 'taboot.
I just want to be able to sleep at night while at anchor. I knew that I would never be comfortable lying on that anchor in any kind of a blow. Sad! Brilliant case study of a company shooting itself in the foot...

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by KnuckleDragger

Bought my Rocna 20 exactly a month ago from West Marine. Did my due dilligence in selecting what I thought was the best performing anchor available. I too, like many here, was turned off by CS's spew and seriously considered the Manson "copy" for that reason. In the end a 20% off sale at WM on the Rocna enticed me to pull the trigger. Then the poo hit the fan on multiple forums. Mine was a Chinese version. "Dimple" testing was done and proved dissapointing. I waited for the results of Delfin's test results hoping for the best but expecting the inevitable.
To their credit, WM cheerfully offered a full refund no questions asked. However, I told them EXACTLY why I was returning it in pretty explicit detail. Rather than taking a refund I ordered the same size Manson Supreme and got a $81 gift card 'taboot.
I just want to be able to sleep at night while at anchor. I knew that I would never be comfortable lying on that anchor in any kind of a blow. Sad! Brilliant case study of a company shooting itself in the foot...

Good choice. I have laid to my Manson Supreme through a hurricane... and it has never drug on me.

Glad you got your money back...

[marinextreme]

Quotes from posting by impi #163 p11 ( in red) and my comments in black:

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,

The first news of this was in the posting by Bambury that resulted in the original YBW thread being closed down. Now, 12 months after removing me, there is still no detail from Rocna regarding any of these claims and no response to my demand sfor payment of outstanding monies due. Total lies.

he has been posting both under his own name and under the pseudonym Adam Andrews (username ‘whaleboy’, pretending to be a dissatisfied Rocna customer.

Untrue, and while I have met and corresponded with Adam, and he has visited me in Auckland, I am not him and always post replies clearly identifying who I am.

many of the forum discussions do not tell the full story and also do not necessarily reflect on the quality of Rocna anchors

Correct, and now that is about to change.

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.

Correct, I signed off approval for new shank material, under instruction from Bambury's, on the basis that it WAS OF EQUIVALENT SPEC to previous.
The metal being used at the time was set by Steve Bambury prior to my starting with them ( started January 2009). He visited China and the factory and manufacturing plant in late 2008 and specified and approved everything at that time.
The shipment of anchors that went to Europe in February 2009 was manufactured in December 2008/Jan 2009 and it was this shipment that contained the "Venice" anchor along with 9 others of the same size. They were all revealed to be 400mpa or less and this had been approved by Bambury and those approvals passed on to Linox Australia who were dealing with China at the time for Bambury.
The bending was blamed on heating of the shanks to straighten them in the factory. This was pure fabrication and it was myself who sent that message to the Distributor in Italy to satisfy the customer. Replacement anchors were made and sent to Italy.

We have not seen any increase in warranty claims that would indicate cause for concern.

Untrue, I have evidence of much more.

our RINA status has unfortunately been (and to some extent, continues to be) misunderstood

True, it is misunderstood because the truth has been bent and massaged to read in a favourable light for them. I have no less than 32 emails from Bambury during my time with them attampting to find a way to put over the impression that they had FULL certification when in fact only partial certification had been satisfied.
Steve was notified in May 2010 by RINA when he attended the Sanctuary Cove boat show that full certification had not been issued. He then made further press releases stating that certification had been issued.
He continued to publish this on the Rocna website ( previous one) and the new website.


On the basis of the successful seabed tests and drawings approval a press release on Rocna SHHP was released in November 2009.

RINA were lied to by myself under instruction from Bambury when we were questioned as to the construction of the test anchors. They were NZ fabricated versions and not Chinese produced anchors. This meant that if the tested ones were different from the current and future models then seabed testing would have to be repeated, something they did definitely not want to repeat again with different anchors.
Drwaing approval was only granted after s[ecifications of the metal to be used was changed on the approval drawings.

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.

Rather a misleading statement when I only visited the alternative certified manufacturer in March 2010 and discussed with them an arrangement for them to work with the exsisting manufacturer to make any larger anchors that required certification using their inspectors to pass the anchors.

Several points to make:
I am biased, no secret about that, they owe my a very large amount and have alot to answer for in that regard and if revealing information makes this difficult to resolve then that is how it will be.
I only deliver fact that can be backed up with either written or recorded evidence.
Steve Bambury needs to learn more about what he is talking about when it comes to metals and specifications.
The change in metal occurred with the very first anchor made in China, and continued to this day.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by marinextreme

Correct, I signed off approval for new shank material, under instruction from Bambury's, on the basis that it WAS OF EQUIVALENT SPEC to previous.
The metal being used at the time was set by Steve Bambury prior to my starting with them ( started January 2009). He visited China and the factory and manufacturing plant in late 2008 and specified and approved everything at that time.
The shipment of anchors that went to Europe in February 2009 was manufactured in December 2008/Jan 2009 and it was this shipment that contained the "Venice" anchor along with 9 others of the same size. They were all revealed to be 400mpa or less and this had been approved by Bambury and those approvals passed on to Linox Australia who were dealing with China at the time for Bambury.
The bending was blamed on heating of the shanks to straighten them in the factory. This was pure fabrication and it was myself who sent that message to the Distributor in Italy to satisfy the customer. Replacement anchors were made and sent to Italy.

Grant,

Thank you for being clear and up front that you are in a difficult battle with your ex-employer and are biased. However, cold hard numbers are cold hard numbers. You could be outright lying, I suppose, but your statements seem to line up better with third party testing than the other side's statements.

I would like to ask for clarification of the above statements. Are you indicating that 400 MPa steel was specified for the shanks of the Chinese made Rocna anchors?

If this is the case, the Delfin and Manson tests actually indicate that the Chinese steel exceeds the minimum specified to the factory by Rocna, but is significantly less than the steel strength as originally specified by the designer, submitted to RINA, or claimed on Rocna's website.

Chris

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

Grant,

Thank you for being clear and up front that you are in a difficult battle with your ex-employer and are biased. However, cold hard numbers are cold hard numbers. You could be outright lying, I suppose, but your statements seem to line up better with third party testing than the other side's statements.

I would like to ask for clarification of the above statements. Are you indicating that 400 MPa steel was specified for the shanks of the Chinese made Rocna anchors?

If this is the case, the Delfin and Manson tests actually indicate that the Chinese steel exceeds the minimum specified to the factory by Rocna, but is significantly less than the steel strength as originally specified by the designer, submitted to RINA, or claimed on Rocna's website.

Chris

Correct Chris.

[CSY Man]

Glad I bought my Rocna in 2007 from Canada before this whole China thing started.

Seems to me that everbody who have bought Chinese Rocnas need either a full monetary refund, or a replacement anchor that meets advertised specs.

No middle ground or BS about "strenght being sufficient for intended use", this a Black/White problem, either the anchor meets the specs people are paying for, or it does not.

No doubt about the Rocna being a great design and no doubt the prices are high enough to manufacture the anchors from the advertised steel, it seems however that somebody got greedy, it backfired and now Rocna's name and reputation is taking a nosedive.

Go for a Manson Supreme, get the real steel and save a few $$.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by marinextreme

Correct Chris.

So you're saying that ALL of the Chinese Rocnas were built with shanks of material specified at 400mpa by the parent company in New Zealand? All of them of all sizes?

Why didn't you say this earlier - that information was highly relevant to the whole conversation from the very beginning.

[Cormorant]

Grant stated this on the YBW thread around April 30 or May 1. We're just running a bit behind here.

[Ziggy]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Seems to me that everbody who have bought Chinese Rocnas need either a full monetary refund, or a replacement anchor that meets advertised specs.

Seems to me that everybody who has bought Chinese Rocnas should be offered an option to get a full monetary refund or a replacement anchor that meets advertised specs.

Some people (see this post) may not care about the specs or certifications, and will continue to be quite happy with their Chinese Rocnas.

By the way, I don't think the problem of false advertising is limited to Rocna. Other vendors are just more careful to avoid lying outright in their advertising, but rely on suggestion and innuendo. Also, vendors offering safety critical products are often a bit more careful about making false claims to avoid exposing themselves to liability.

In absence of independent testing organizations we depend on the resourcefulness and civic-mindedness of people like Delfin to verify the vendors' claims, but that is all to rare.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So you're saying that ALL of the Chinese Rocnas were built with shanks of material specified at 400mpa by the parent company in New Zealand? All of them of all sizes?

Why didn't you say this earlier - that information was highly relevant to the whole conversation from the very beginning.

The northwest laboratories test results came out at 697MPa for the shank so something doesn't tally up there.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by conachair

The northwest laboratories test results came out at 697MPa for the shank so something doesn't tally up there.

Which is still short of the 810 MPa claimed by Rocna themselves in various places. So they are shorting the quality either somewhat, or a lot. The key word is, of course, "shorting".

I suppose the blameless in this is the Chinese factory that is making weaker-than-spec Rocnas exactly as they've been told to do. Perhaps that's what CS was blathering about when he implied Rocna's critics were "racist", a somewhat disingenuous stance in light of recent events.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Which is still short of the 810 MPa claimed by Rocna themselves in various places.

Indeed it is by a fair margin. Also a fair margin more than 400MPa. Not much reliable data in this whole thing. No one really knows much for sure other than it ain't good for Rocna.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

The northwest laboratories test results came out at 697MPa for the shank so something doesn't tally up there.

You're mis-reading the report, and the thread. The report says the anchor I tested had Ultimate Tensile strength of 696 MPa. Rocna says on their web site that the steel they use has an UTS of 800 MPa. The anchor I tested had a Yield strength of 626 MPa. Rocna's claim to those who ask for specs is that they use 690 MPa yield steel, which even if true wouldn't match the claim on their web site with regard to the grade of steel used in Rocnas, and which they use as a comparison to their competitors allegedly inferior products, although those turn out to be stronger than their own. Below is the specification for the grade of steel that Rocna says on their web site they use.

In no anchor that has been tested does this grade of steel show up, and IMO, no anchor with this grade of steel could be dimpled with a common center punch.