Rocna Size

[Kettlewell]

There are tons of "harbors" in the Caribbean that those of us from further north in the Atlantic wouldn't even consider a day stop. They're just beaches blocking the wind from the east with nothing behind you except the rest of the Caribbean. Just about every winter somebody goes for a long dinghy trip downwind for a few hundred miles when their motor dies, and some of them don't make it back. That happened to Robert Bazell the medical correspondent for NBC news a few years ago, but he managed to swim back to shore. In any case, the point is that anchoring in many places in the Caribbean you only have to worry about the wind coming from one direction at a pretty good clip.

[CFR]

just my 0,2 $ ... we are importning steel ands stainlessteel parts from China to europe for industrial purpose and we exeperioneced the same problems ROCNA might had.
1) never trust any supplied material from subsuppliers in China, we now make a lab test by third parties for each steel plate which are entering our subcontractor workshop. 20-30 % of the steel with correct certificate are wrong and are rejected
2) welding / casting etc will be only done under daily supervison of a european QA manager .
3) now we have the same and sometimes better quality compared with european supplier..... but after a hard way to learn and ofcourse the costbenefit is now much smaller than we calculated 2 years ago.
4) just buying something based on a spec and some certficates is a gamble

[Kapena]

Gmac...can you post a link to the tests that you describe?

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by CFR

just my 0,2 $ ... we are importning steel ands stainlessteel parts from China to europe for industrial purpose and we exeperioneced the same problems ROCNA might had.
1) never trust any supplied material from subsuppliers in China, we now make a lab test by third parties for each steel plate which are entering our subcontractor workshop. 20-30 % of the steel with correct certificate are wrong and are rejected
2) welding / casting etc will be only done under daily supervison of a european QA manager .
3) now we have the same and sometimes better quality compared with european supplier..... but after a hard way to learn and ofcourse the costbenefit is now much smaller than we calculated 2 years ago.
4) just buying something based on a spec and some certficates is a gamble

A very interesting report from a non-involved source. Thanks for it.

So, to me it seems that the only thing that a customer has to go on is the integrity of the vendor, who, of course, is tending to all the QA necessary to assure us of a good product. That's why I would not buy from Rocna at this time.

Cheers,

Jim

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

A very interesting report from a non-involved source. Thanks for it.

So, to me it seems that the only thing that a customer has to go on is the integrity of the vendor, who, of course, is tending to all the QA necessary to assure us of a good product. That's why I would not buy from Rocna at this time.

Cheers,

Jim

This is a fairly typical experience, although from what has been posted by Grant King, the problem is not QA from the Chinese, but a conscious decision on the part of Rocna to cheapen their product without acknowledging it. Until caught that is. Now, their attitude is pretty much "we'll use whatever steel we want to use in our anchors, so there!" Not a big confidence builder, that.

[Opie91]

I was just noticing that the thread count is approaching the Rocna advertised minimum shank mpa....

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by Delfin

This is a fairly typical experience, although from what has been posted by Grant King, the problem is not QA from the Chinese, but a conscious decision on the part of Rocna to cheapen their product without acknowledging it. Until caught that is. Now, their attitude is pretty much "we'll use whatever steel we want to use in our anchors, so there!" Not a big confidence builder, that.

They were using the below standard shanks from the very start in 2008.

Nothing accidental about it, deliberate, planned, covered, exposed.

[GMac]

Originally Posted by Kapena

Gmac...can you post a link to the tests that you describe?

Oh gawd, there's a fair few but think you mean this one or at least these are the results of a series done in response to the Aussie Maritime Govt Dept change of the rules over/down there.
http://www.anchorright.com.au/certif...rTestChart.pdf

Done by Robertsons, a large nationwide outfit that does all sorts of testing services. Used the TATS machine I believe, so a lot of the variables seen in most tests are negated.

Interesting to see the huge performance difference that has widely been promoted by R against the S isn't confirmed in these tests either. The CQR got slaughtered.

I'm off to watch Robertsons do another series in 3 weeks, this time bigger sizes. I'll see if I can get the print outs from the other bottom types while I'm there. That link has the soft sand one only (page 2, after the aggregate chart). Also some video, I know we all like a good bit of anchor porn

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by Opie91

I was just noticing that the thread count is approaching the Rocna advertised minimum shank mpa....

Guess that must mean that this thread is "FIT FOR PURPOSE"

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by GMac

Oh gawd, there's a fair few but think you mean this one or at least these are the results of a series done in response to the Aussie Maritime Govt Dept change of the rules over/down there.
http://www.anchorright.com.au/certif...rTestChart.pdf

Done by Robertsons, a large nationwide outfit that does all sorts of testing services. Used the TATS machine I believe, so a lot of the variables seen in most tests are negated.

Interesting to see the huge performance difference that has widely been promoted by R against the S isn't confirmed in these tests either. The CQR got slaughtered.

I'm off to watch Robertsons do another series in 3 weeks, this time bigger sizes. I'll see if I can get the print outs from the other bottom types while I'm there. That link has the soft sand one only (page 2, after the aggregate chart). Also some video, I know we all like a good bit of anchor porn

I really like the TATS rig for honest testing of anchors. Multiple tests in different ground should really give a definitive result.

And please, more anchor porn. Pant, pant.....

[GMac]

Yes the TATS is good. I have been critical of it in the past but after chatting with sexy Rexy and seeing it in action it does take a huge amount of the variables out of the equation so the data outwards is mostly all anchor only related. Also they do seen to take a lot of effort to find a good sized patch of the same sort of ground to throw the anchors into to ensure each one is given a even chance. I'd like to see it sat on a locked solid barge and used for a series of real short scope pulls. Maybe if I talk real real nice to Rex, one day......

At the moment I'd have to say the results it puts out are about as good as we can get, or at least as even as we can get.

Real definitive result is a big call to a point though D. Yes it's damn good when doing tests head to head but it still doesn't allow for the most variable variable an anchor will face during it's lifetime.... you the bloody boat drivers who use them, some of you are pretty damn spooky to the point some anchors must quiver in fear when being loaded onto a bow

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by GMac

Yes the TATS is good. I have been critical of it in the past but after chatting with sexy Rexy and seeing it in action it does take a huge amount of the variables out of the equation so the data outwards is mostly all anchor only related. Also they do seen to take a lot of effort to find a good sized patch of the same sort of ground to throw the anchors into to ensure each one is given a even chance. I'd like to see it sat on a locked solid barge and used for a series of real short scope pulls. Maybe if I talk real real nice to Rex, one day......

At the moment I'd have to say the results it puts out are about as good as we can get, or at least as even as we can get.

Real definitive result is a big call to a point though D. Yes it's damn good when doing tests head to head but it still doesn't allow for the most variable variable an anchor will face during it's lifetime.... you the bloody boat drivers who use them, some of you are pretty damn spooky to the point some anchors must quiver in fear when being loaded onto a bow

Hey, I resemble that remark! So watch it....

[GMac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Hey, I resemble that remark! So watch it....

You're far from alone, it is a rather large club

[CSY Man]

Just about every winter somebody goes for a long dinghy trip downwind for a few hundred miles when their motor dies, and some of them don't make it back.

Never heard of anybody going for a dinghy ride a few hundred miles.
At 10 knots and 200 miles, that would be 20 hours riding your dink, running out of fuel 5 times.

They were using the below standard shanks from the very start in 2008.

Glad I got mine in 2007.

1000s of anchors manufactured and sold below specs.
"Class Action Lawsuit" next.

[Talbot]

Originally Posted by GMac

Oh gawd, there's a fair few but think you mean this one or at least these are the results of a series done in response to the Aussie Maritime Govt Dept change of the rules over/down there.
http://www.anchorright.com.au/certif...rTestChart.pdf

It would be interesting to select a specific anchor (like the manson supreme 45 lb) and than have a series of tests to show the equivalent weight of other anchors to achieve the same test results.