Rocna Size

[avb3]

Originally Posted by chris smith

Posted on 14 June 2011
Corrections to Rocna website

We wanted to let you know that we've updated some parts of our website, as it was brought to our attention that content regarding materials used to build our anchors was no longer accurate.

We have corrected this information, which was mostly in the Knowledge Base section, and we sincerely apologise for this oversight.

Finally... it only took them over 3 months after the facts were presented publically to admit that they were not telling the facts.

While the materials used to make the Rocna have changed from time to time, our functional specification has remained the same throughout: All Rocna anchors are designed to meet or exceed the holding power required by RINA’s Super High Holding Power (SHHP) certification.

That's nice. Ronca was claiming RINA cerification when it did not exist. In fact the certificates issued to the Shanghai facility are dated the end of May, just before the "correction" was made to the Rocna website. Credible... nope.

And more than this, the Rocna has always been significantly over-engineered to ensure it can withstand the most challenging conditions that might be faced on the sea. This was confirmed recently with exceptional results from independent destruction testing undertaken by D.M.Standen Limited. A galvanized 55kg model held a massive 28.7 tonnes of load – 670% of RINA’s SHHP proof load, and well beyond the point at which the connected chain would fail in real life use.

So how exactly does this statement address the quality of steel that is being used - the specs that Peter Smith insisted was *required* to set Rocna anchors apart from the rest. Was he mistaken in his original specs, you know, the same ones that the NZ and Canadian manufacturers adhered to?

Chris, if you climb in the saddle, be ready for the ride. Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and look stupid than open it and prove it. Some family traditions just are not worth carrying on.

[Shawn67]

"Fact they marketed an item that had really good steel"

For example.....

Posted April 11 by CEO of Rocna on YBW..

"The design and manufacture specification of metals for the Rocna anchor is as follows:

For the fluke: G400 grade high strength low alloy steel. Rocna Anchors use equivalent grade Q235D.

Properties:
UTS (Ultimate Tensile Strength) – typically 370-500 MPA
2% yield – minimum 215 MPA
Elongation – typically 25%

For the shank: G800 grade high strength low alloy steel. Rocna Anchors use equivalent grade Q620D.

Properties:
UTS (Ultimate Tensile Strength) – typically 710-880 MPA
2% yield – minimum 600 MPA
Elongation – typically 15%"

[GMac]

Originally Posted by chris smith

I am a realist and I know people have the best intentions but sadly , gone are the days of ethics and pride.

Holy *****. He just gets more bizarre each post.

I think you'll find you are in a very very very tiny minority. Even Osama Bin Laden, Hitler and Pol Pot, amongst other despots, had ethics, maybe not the same ones many others have but at least they had some.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by chris smith

Give me Facts. How many have bent and under what circumstances. How many have failed and stop bleating

I'm with you on this one. Its looks that the company has been and probably is dodgy to the core but the "how can you put your kids and your boat in such danger" sensationalist posts are just not backed up at all with any data. This is not to let them off the hook (oops, bad pun) but more a rant against people shooting from the hip without looking at what actually happens back in the real world. I have one, made in nz and would fight anyone who tried to take it off the boat. If i was buying new now then unless it was V cheap I'd probably be looking at one of the other new gens, doutful that in th real world anyone could tell the difference blindfolded.
If it was V cheap then that would be ok, spend the saved money on some othert part of the anchoring system, in years of anchoring in various continents both sides of the equator I've never met anyone with a bent anchor and never heard of an anchor failing, other elements of the system yes, but an anchor never.

Again, this isn't to condone rocna management behaviour in any way but a rant against the "your kids will die" sensationalist rubbish.

[Cormorant]

We're looking at only two years or so of production, and there are decades of use ahead of these anchors. So the question of "how many have bent?" is pertinent. . . . But more pertinent is "How many more will bend, and under what conditions?"

The downgrading of the steel pretty much guarantees that the answer is "More than would have otherwise."

And it's correct to say that so far no anchors have completely fallen apart. . . . But what do you do the day after, the week after, your Rocna shank bends? And you're far from any chandlery? Of course you have a backup anchor or two, but your options diminish.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Cormorant

. But more pertinent is "How many more will bend, and under what conditions?"

That was sort of the point of the rant. No one is bothering to try to find that out. To be honest it wasn't even a rant for or against rocna, but against the internet doom-mongers who predict death and destruction without even looking at the real world to see what happens.

It's just another forum, I really should know better

[Overlord]

One of the reasons this country is in its particular state of affairs is because of the the like on this forum. Nit picking and litigators ! On a mission to prove otherwise.Spending hours and hours building up this gigantic thread on a one sided issue over properties of steel.There has been no recall or failures so far...sure time will tell.In a big blow , an inferior anchor will fail.We have and are having big blows all over the world as we speak....i am not seeing any failures or reports of any.Most of these critics seem to be arm chair or ICW sailors on tiny boats that have mushroom anchors and the like. Others cant afford Rocna's and therefore feel obliged to justify why they wont own one.My comparison of the anchor with a piece of intricate machinery has been misconstrued.An anchor is one piece of steel. I can pick it up , dive on it , hold it on my deck and inspect it every time i raise it . Any failure , crack or bend can be easily identified. Give it up guys and get on with sailing. All you ranters dont even own a Rocna...so either cough up and pay the price tag or shut up
Ps. I am no relation to them..just have a common surname.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by conachair

That was sort of the point of the rant. No one is bothering to try to find that out. To be honest it wasn't even a rant for or against rocna, but against the internet doom-mongers who predict death and destruction without even looking at the real world to see what happens.

It's just another forum, I really should know better

You make a great point and perhaps the real cause of why some people are vocal. The point being that IMO a reputable company when see those photos would go and do its best to locate the bent anchors and do some testing to find out the cause and conditions.

The engineers would want to test and understand, the marketing types would want to have answers so as to protect the company's reputation.

It is not up to the consumer to locate failures and do engineering - it is the consumers job to vote with their money.

[Target9000]

Originally Posted by chris smith

Moderators have removed my post ! One of the reasons this country is in its particular state of affairs is because of the the like on this forum. Nit picking and litigators ! On a mission to prove otherwise.Spending hours and hours building up this gigantic thread on a one sided issue over properties of steel.There has been no recall or failures so far...sure time will tell.In a big blow , an inferior anchor will fail.We have and are having big blows all over the world as we speak....i am not seeing any failures or reports of any.Most of these critics seem to be arm chair or ICW sailors on tiny boats that have mushroom anchors and the like. Others cant afford Rocna's and therefore feel obliged to justify why they wont own one.My comparison of the anchor with a piece of intricate machinery has been misconstrued.An anchor is one piece of steel. I can pick it up , dive on it , hold it on my deck and inspect it every time i raise it . Any failure , crack or bend can be easily identified. Give it up guys and get on with sailing. All you ranters dont even own a Rocna...so either cough up and pay the price tag or shut up
Ps. I am no relation to them..just have a common surname.

Didn't you say you were first cousins?

I don't agree with you if you feel the whole thread is about people challenging the anchor directly. Sure that has happened. But a huge portion of all this is pulling apart how Rocna handles PR and how they handle being found in a lie. That is just as important to people like me as the product they make.

I'll buy from a competitor to avoid putting money in the pocket of someone I don't like. And I have to say, I don't like you, your family, or the company they have built. You're all smoke and mirrors. Nothing adds up. And every time you get caught in a new lie you just spin straw man arguments and make more stuff up to divert the train wreck.

Also, you're wrong. This whole argument isn't one sided. Stop trying to pretend to be the poor little downtrodden poor man who poorly got attacked by mean ole evil people. Poor poor little Smith clan, just beaten up by the mean ole internet when they did something wrong....

[Delfin]

The issue is really very simple. The Manson Supreme or Fortress have equivalent or better holding power. The Manson costs less and is up front on how they manufacture their product and do so ethically.

Rocna lied for quite a long time on how they were making their more expensive product, and once caught, rather than fixing the problem and going back to the specs the designer said were essential, simply gave the boating public a big middle finger and started claiming that whatever steel they use is now top secret, not to be shared with the likes of their customers.

So the issue is not that anyone expects the Rocna to fall apart the instant the wind blows, but that it is made by dishonest people who sell to fools who want to pay more for less. Fortunately for Rocna, there will never be a shortage of fools.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The Manson costs less and is up front on how they manufacture their product and do so ethically.

Nope. Sorry. Wrong. Manson has a long history of copying the innovation of others. I'm not happy about Rocna since Holdfast bought them out but that doesn't mean Manson is ethically pristine. Look at their product line and tell me there is anything in the entire line that wasn't taken from someone else. Their manufacturing may be more above board but their IP approach is poor.

[Pete7]

Folks, I have just edited a couple of posts. Please remember the forums ethos of "be nice". You don't have to agree with anything posted and you may challenge it, but please do so nicely. Leave the underhand comments and name calling to the manufacturers.

Pete

Moderator

[avb3]

Originally Posted by chris smith

.....By the way ,Craig is my first cousin

Originally Posted by chris smith

....
Ps. I am no relation to them..just have a common surname.

Chris, me boy, ye suffers from some credibility gaps here - sorta like Rocna's many contradictory statements

*You* typed both of these posts.

One obviously is not a fact.

[tsmwebb]

Originally Posted by conachair

...in years of anchoring in various continents both sides of the equator I've never met anyone with a bent anchor and never heard of an anchor failing, other elements of the system yes, but an anchor never. ...

Oddly enough "in years of anchoring in various continents both sides of the equator" not only have I seen a number of bent anchors I've bent a couple myself. Not to say that my experience is more statistically significant than yours but anchors do bend in the real world. I do not know if the new Rocna is more likely to bend than the general population of anchors. There is not a good general data set on anchor failure and one hopes that these events are rare and isolated. So, to a large extent, I depend on the word of the manufacturers that their engineering and QA are good enough. The problem I have with Rocna at this point is not that I think their anchors are exceptionally dangerous (I don't have enough data to know either way) but rather is that I have no trust in the company.

Tom.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by chris smith

Spending hours and hours building up this gigantic thread on a one sided issue over properties of steel.

If you ever cared to study the history of this you'd see that the issue WAS one sided and that it was Craig Smith, the designers son, "nit picking" the Manson Supreme for over four years claiming their product was inferior and used inferior steel compared to the Rocna's 800Mpa shank steel.

The Manson Supreme DOES use 800Mpa steel. The current Rocna's do not. One sided? Yeah, for over four years!!!

Peter Smith, the designer, also INSISTED this grade of steel was absolutely necessary to the design and now all of a sudden they have deleted every reference to an 800Mpa shank and the anchors are simply "fit for purpose", I guess, until they bend like a pool noodle..??

I guess that is why we are seeing some Chinese made versions that look al dente pasta rather than any of the Canadian or NZ built ones.


Before they deleted it this is what the Rocna web site said.

"For this reason, the shank on the Rocna is a high tensile quenched and tempered steel, with a grade of around 800 MPa. Its pure resistance to bending is around three times that of mild steel. This adds to the price of the anchor, but compromising this strength is not something we would entertain"


"But compromising this strength is not something we would entertain."

.......???????? Really?????

Originally Posted by chris smith

There has been no recall or failures so far...sure time will tell.In a big blow , an inferior anchor will fail.We have and are having big blows all over the world as we speak....i am not seeing any failures or reports of any.

You mean like the one pictured above... The designer considered anything below 800Mpa "inferior", and it added to the cost, so we Rocna owners all paid for it, I did, yet those who got Chinese made versions got hosed out of this grade of steel, and STILL paid for it. Why pay for a highly important feature that the designer insisted upon and not get it? Seems a tad dishonest to me?

Originally Posted by chris smith

All you ranters dont even own a Rocna...so either cough up and pay the price tag or shut up.

And once again you're 100% incorrect. I do own a Rocna, as do many in this and other threads that have been critical of Rocna's ethics on this situation. As an owner I have also been highly critical of their underhanded and offensive tactics. I still use my BC built Rocna but if I had to buy one today it would be a Manson Supreme. I already own one and it is everything the Rocna is in performance it's just one size to small for our current boat.

This is a safety issue and the anchors sole designer has insisted that the shank needs to be 800Mpa or equivalent, yet it is not. Until we hear from Peter Smith explaining in detail why he has decided significantly less strong grades of steel are acceptable then I can not and will never recommend a Rocna to anyone. For years they were on the bully pulpit bashing Manson for being an "inferior" product and now the tables have turned and the truth has come out. I helped to sell many of their anchors and stopped this spring.

This is a matter of safety and ethics and if Peter Smith INSISTED the shanks needed to be 800Mpa then that's is what I feel they should be. We never saw any pool noodles that were made in NZ or CN, only China, so there must be something to it....?

Originally Posted by chris smith

I am happy with my 40 kg chinese rocna.I could easily get a refund from WM and buy a Manson ..but that would be taking a step back.

You come here telling us that we need to provide you with "facts" ,which we have many times over, then you state, rather factually, that the Manson Supreme is a "step back"? Interesting approach..

When you own both a Rocna and a Manson Supreme, as I do, and have compared both anchors extensively in all types of bottoms, then I guess you'd be qualified to make that statement. I personally don't feel that you are qualified to make that type of a statement without the direct experience that would make it more credible. I can assure you the Manson Supreme is not a "step back" and when compared to a Chinese built Rocna we do know that the Manson Supreme is built with stronger steel so as an owner of both I am having a real tough time figuring out where this "step back" actually comes from...