Rocna Size

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

That's what I conclude from the independent public data we have available.

I think the only thing I would add is that purchasers of a Rocna, as well as retailers of the product should be aware that the value proposition of the Rocna compared to the alternatives is very poor indeed. For less money one can purchase a better anchor. Hopefully this discussion will prompt the retailers of the Rocna to re-position the product line to what it is - a lower grade 3rd generation anchor manufactured under highly flexible specifications by a manufacturer whose statements about most everything related to their product cannot be taken at face value.

If they don't do that, whether intentional or not, they are misleading their customers. The vast majority of boaters will have no clue about this discussion, or its meaning. It is up to the retailers to do what is appropriate even for those boaters who aren't paying attention to the topic.

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by impi

Hi Alec
The letter was actually sent to me by the supplier in Cape Town who emailed the manufacturer as I was concerned after reading all the bad news about the anchor I had just purchased - this was attached to the reply email.
I hope this whole negativity about Rocna turns out to be a storm in a tea cup, but I must admit I am being cautious.

I would like to know when.. if you don't mind?
WHEN did you received that?
This week, last month, last year?

I'm just curious and want to put that letter in perspective.
Alec

[Maine Sail]

Evans,

Great post. As both a Rocna and Manson Supreme owner I can personally confirm that these anchors have performed identically for me and I have never found or said otherwise. These two anchors have been the best performing anchors I have ever used and I own MANY anchors including other "new gens" like the Spade.

I will continue to use my Rocna only because my Rocna is a 15kg and my Manson is a 10kg. If my Manson Supreme was a 15Kg my Rocna would have already been at an independent lab or put up for experimentation though I suspect it is built to the spec Peter wanted being a BC built model.

The DESIGN is exemplary for my cruising waters and these anchors have opened up gunk holes we passed over for many years due to "poor holding"...

All that being said what Rocna has done makes me sick to my stomach and I have personally sold perhaps hundreds of Rocna's for them either directly, to my own friends or customers, and indirectly through my various postings and videos of the performance and setting characteristics.

I now have people emailing me wanting to know if they should return their anchor to Rocna and my gut at this point is to say yes, if it was Chinese made.

I have now been copied on some of these email replies from Rocna and they are STILL, as of two weeks ago, CLAIMING they have RINA "CERTIFICATION"!!! The misleading activities have not stopped and they are not doing the right thing despite having a great opportunity to recalibrate, own up to mistakes, and become a NEW and more honest anchor company.

They have a tremendous product design but like many companies the upper management team prefers to take the low road not the high road.

If I owned a Manson Supreme 15Kg it would be on my bow right now just so I could distance myself from such an unethical company. Anchors on bows serve as advertisements and I no longer want to advertise for Rocna, not because of lack of performance, but because of an utter lack of integrity..

The bold faced lie claiming they had RINA CERTIFICATION, after all this came out in the open, to a guy I convinced to buy one, was my final straw.

This was the response to that customer from just two weeks ago:

Originally Posted by Rocna Anchors

"Many thanks for your inquiry and comments.

We are sorry you feel this way as our anchors are RINA certified to SHHP and we receive positive feedback from customers all over the world Rocna feedback (Rocna Knowledge Base)

XXXXXXXXXXX (Edited to protect privacy of customer)

Should you require anything further or if we can help in any other way please let us know.

Kind regards,

Tanya XXXXXXXX (last name, phone extensions etc. edited out for privacy of employee)
Rocna Anchors"

Here's what Steve Bambury said over four weeks ago:

Originally Posted by Steve Bambury

It’s nice to see someone who appreciates the depth of the certification process.

To date it’s cost us over $50,000 to pursue certification, and that’s a lot for a relatively small business like us. One of the things that could have sped up the process was if we engaged a company like SGS to take us through the whole process, but that would have added another $200,000 to the price tag (!) As a result, the process has taken a little longer than initially planned.

Originally Posted by Steve Bambury

We’ve now completed all of the seabed testing, proof load testing, welding testing and material testing required to obtain certification of the design of the Rocna itself and the manufacturing facility. It’s now a matter of all the reports being processed by RINA for final certification. We will of course be publishing the certificates as soon as they become available.

Simply put that means they do not and are not RINA certified...YET...BUT they have been and are still CLAIMING they are "CERTIFIED".. Of course us mere mortals (read: paying customers) are apparently too stupid to understand the "complexities" of RINA.
The big problem is they had been claiming "certification" since about 2009 and it is now 2011 and they still don't officially have RINA certification and Steve Bambury ADMITTED THIS PUBLICLY on 4/08/2011.

The seabed testing was done in 3/2008 according to the letter that shows the tests were "conducted" so one really must question why it has taken over 3 years to get this actual RINA certificate???


This is how I read this letter:


#1 "At the REQUEST of ROCNA ANCHORS."

This means Rocna was trying to get something, anything, to show their customers even though they KNEW they did not yet have an actual "certification". The letter was issued almost TWO years after the sea bed testing but STILL no CERTIFICATION. Remember the letter was "at the request of Rocna Anchors" not a voluntary letter from RINA.

#2 "It is hereby "stated" that for anchors from 4.1kg to 275kg"

This is nothing more than a statement of the range of Rocna anchors they tested on 3/12/2008.

#3 "The sea bed test has been carried out on 3/12/2008."

So put it all together; Rocna asked us to send a statement saying we have conducted testing of anchors from 4.1 to 275 kg.

#4 "The test result was witnessed by a surveyor and the result is in "compliance" with RINA rules."

As I read it; The "result" of the testing was in "compliance" for the way SHHP testing is done meaning they did not cheat the system and the test was done according to RINA rules and guidelines for SHHP tests and the surveyor was there to monitor the testing and to make sure it was in "compliance" with the RINA "rules". It DOES NOT state what the "result" was, or IF the anchors passed, nor does it say they have SHHP "certification", but we already know that because Steve admitted it publicly. The word "compliance" simply means the testing was carried out in the manner it is supposed to be and the "results" of the test were in"compliance" with the testing guidelines.

While I have no doubt it can perform to SHHP why do we not yet, after three years, have confirmation in the form of OFFICIAL RINA certification?

We will NOT officially know the "results", I guess, until RINA offers Ronca an actual "certification" or in College/University terms a "degree"......

This is how I see Rocna playing this RINA deal:

"I went to college." "Did you graduate?", "I went to college.", "Did you graduate?", "I went to college."........... "Where's your DEGREE?"...... "I went to college and have an admissions letter."

So on 4/8/2011 Steve Bambury publicly admitted they DO NOT have any RINA certification but two weeks ago Rocna anchors sent a letter to a customer stating that they DO have RINA SHHP "Certification".. It's unbelievable that even under this much public scrutiny they continue to TWIST the truth..

Hey I still look on the bright side in that CS is no longer posting his defamatory rants..

[starchaser 2011]

I purchased a rocna 25 in Dec 2010. Felt quite smug though the winter with my superior anchor sitting in my garage. This spring I spent 200.00 and two days of my time modifying my bow roller to accept the Rocna. After following this thread for the past week I had had enough and went to visit west marine. In the local store here in Buffalo NY there had been no complaints and the manager was unaware of all the negative sentiment online. He did not hesitate to offer a refund. Not surprised. West stands behind what they sell. After more discussion he gave me the phone number of the West purchaser of anchors and other related gear. I left a message today (Sunday) And look forward posting the results of our conversation.

[Khagan1227]

It would appear that Ronca Anchors is getting their public relations advice from the same company that Toyota got theirs from last year.

[Auspicious]

I have two Rocna 25 anchors, a 2006 Canadian one and a 2008 NZ one. I'm happy to have them tested NON-DESTRUCTIVELY if someone can point to a independent lab that can generate meaningful results somewhere close to Annapolis MD.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

I have two Rocna 25 anchors, a 2006 Canadian one and a 2008 NZ one. I'm happy to have them tested NON-DESTRUCTIVELY if someone can point to a independent lab that can generate meaningful results somewhere close to Annapolis MD.

The Canadian and NZ anchors are probably made to spec, or at least there isn't any information I am aware of that would indicate they aren't. The easy and cheap test is a hardness test, which should show the shank to be Rockwell 63 or Brinell 255 hardness if it is 800 MPa steel. This just involves pressing a dimple into the metal. Not sure where to get it done in Maryland, but there would likely be someplace close since this is a pretty common test.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The Canadian and NZ anchors are probably made to spec, or at least there isn't any information I am aware of that would indicate they aren't. The easy and cheap test is a hardness test, which should show the shank to be Rockwell 63 or Brinell 255 hardness if it is 800 MPa steel. This just involves pressing a dimple into the metal. Not sure where to get it done in Maryland, but there would likely be someplace close since this is a pretty common test.

I would assume the galvanizing would need to be removed in the very small area of the test to get a good result.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

I would assume the galvanizing would need to be removed in the very small area of the test to get a good result.

As part of the test, they do grind off the galvanizing, but it can be a very small area since the dimple is about 1 mm across.

[Exile]

Tried to access the Rocna website today. Getting "server error". Anybody else try?

The plot thickens . . .

[Alecadi]

Same here at 1:14 pm East.
Not possible to get their website.

[SA/USA]

I was able to get on to the website today at 3:40 pm Eastern time.

[S/V Alchemy]

Perhaps they were hit by a tornado of bad PR?

[marinextreme]

It is running again now and I note they have removed reference to 800mpa from the features of a rocna page but it is still there elsewhere in the site along with the certification claims.

[Silent Knight]

Several weeks ago they said that they would be updating the site. Since then very little has changed.

They are clearly trying to avoid doing what they promised and intend to change the absolute minimum. They will simply be hoping to make as many wild claims as ever.

It looks now that they will prefer to reduce the specification of their anchor rather than improve the accuracy of the marketing.

An astonishing bunch of charlatans.