Rocna Size

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Is it possible that I am motivated by not having others buy a safety product that doesn't meet the standards set by the manufacturers, and decided to find out for myself whether the allegations made were true or false? You've questioned my motives for taking the time to provide objective and independent data on a product that may endanger people and their property and think its odd that anyone would care about the subject, but I would be curious to know what your motives would be in objecting to the publication of this information. Why would you want people considering a Rocna not to know it fails to meet the standard set as essential by the designer? Are you in the salvage business perhaps? A Rocna dealer? One of those sad types who make money selling pictures of other's mishaps?

The cost of this, other than my time which I spend as I wish, is about $150, since WM will be refunding the cost of an anchor that is defective in terms of the warranty on the anchor as well as on the basis of WM's own policies.

p.s., I don't think Santa Claus believes in you either.

Don't be ofended by my remarks.. Was not my intention I was just expressing my doubt, "nothing personal".
And yes I'm sure Santa Claus doesn't believe in me..

And I'm not in the salvage b'ness.. I'm just a grandfather (ready to be salvaged myself!!) , a year from retiring and preparing to start crusing with the Admiral...
But if you want to start testing all the marine devices , security or else, not exactly corresponding to what the vendors are stating, my Goodness you have still a long road in front of you..!!!! That's a real Crusade...
I'll follow all your post as I'll benefit from your testing.

And I'll be surprised (gladely surprised) if WM is reimbursing you: you have the anchor destroyed on puerpose, was not an accident at all...
I'll really be interested in that one and see what will come out of it. Keep us posted on that please.

[avb3]

Delfin, first of all, thank you from all for your efforts.

About 6 weeks ago I wrote Rocna on what their components were speced to and got the following:

Below I have listed the various standards that our steel has to meet:

2.1 Shank.
a. Materials:
Quenched and tempered (Q&T) Low Alloy High Tensile Steel class HT 70 to 80 with 0.2% yield strength of at least 690MPa and a suggested min. Charpy impact of 27 Joules at 0ºC. Steels such as Australian BISALLOY-80 or Japanese Sumiton SOS are suitable. Steels should meet standards as follows:
Australasia AS 3597
International ISO 4950/3
American ASTM A514/A514M
Japan KHT 70/80

2.2 Blade.
a. Materials:
A range of from between mild steel grade AS3678-250 to 2.1 as above is acceptable.

We maintain a very strict QC process at every level of production to maintain the same quality standards.

I have also included stainless steel specs below:

High tensile or duplex steel with a minimum 0.2% yield strength of 450MPa and minimum tensile strength of 650MPa, with good marine corrosion properties comparable with 316. For example SAF 2205 duplex.
Blade. Type 316L.
Pipe Roll Bar. Seamless 316L.


I hope this answers your queries. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

I believe this substantially agrees with your specifications.

Either you got a "mistake", or Rocna's quality control is not strong enough. Either way, it is important that Rocna answers these observations in a credible manner. Fluff won't do!

What will be interesting to see if they will. I can not believe that they are not aware of this thread.

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by Silent Knight

...........As far I can see you need to believe in Santa to believe anything that Rocna may say.

This explain that.. I don't believe in what they are saying..

[witzgall]

Delfin;

To be clear, I was not questioning your motives. I just wish that you would not have taken this on yourself, to invlove others, to lend the most credibility possible to the outcome. For instance, the two tests come from different labs, so submitted by different people. The shank thickness is measured on the Rocna, but published figures from Mason were used for their data ( do I have this last part right)?


Here is a thought. How about we take up a collection, buy the two anchors, and have them tested? I'll throw in my $20, it would not take many more to collect the funds needed.

Chris

[Silent Knight]

Originally Posted by Alecadi

And I'll be surprised (gladely surprised) if WM is reimbursing you: you have the anchor destroyed on puerpose, was not an accident at all...
I'll really be interested in that one and see what will come out of it. Keep us posted on that please.

I think we'll all be interested to see what WM say about that.

If they don't pay up then I'ld suggest that Delfin puts all his bits of metal up on E-bay together with test results and details of WM's response!

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by witzgall

Delfin;

To be clear, I was not questioning your motives. I just wish that you would not have taken this on yourself, to invlove others, to lend the most credibility possible to the outcome. For instance, the two tests come from different labs, so submitted by different people. The shank thickness is measured on the Rocna, but published figures from Mason were used for their data ( do I have this last part right)?


Here is a thought. How about we take up a collection, buy the two anchors, and have them tested? I'll throw in my $20, it would not take many more to collect the funds needed.

Chris

I second the motion !!
Alec

[boatman61]

And I'll keep the Bruce, CQR and the $20......

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

I think it is extremely odd that anyone would go to this level of expense to test something that isn't appropriate for their own boat in any way.

Our boat is worth a third of a million dollars. I have worked for years to obtain it, and am working for more years to outfit it for world travel. Do the math.

Nothing is guaranteed in this life, but $350 for peace of mind seems cheap. So does selling a safety product via false promises or misleading data.

By all means, be critical. Be skeptical. But physics, unlike marketing, doesn't lie.

[S/V Alchemy]

In addition, nothing said here about the design of the Rocna invalidates its use as a good and reliable anchor in most conditions.

It is important to note, however, that Rocna have made much in their marketing materials and stated claims to having a superior and measurably so type of high-tensile steel that, it has been suggested, is the cornerstone of why their anchor works better than the competition. I recall fairly clearly that C. Smith slagged Manson on this very point. I also recall talk along the lines that the Rocna price premium was due to the ultra-wonderful steel Rocna lovingly forged, while the competition, it was implied, made theirs from wadded-up gum foil wrappers or melted Hot Wheels. There was a clear inference that Rocna was superior due to design, construction and materials.

So when it turns out that Manson produces an anchor of the stated material, of known strength, and Rocna produces an anchor not of the stated material, and of known lesser strength, decisions on which anchor to use become very clear.

Cheers to Delfin, the Ralph Nader of recreational boat ground tackle.

[ActiveCaptain]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Nothing is guaranteed in this life, but $350 for peace of mind seems cheap. So does selling a safety product via false promises or misleading data.

Peace of mind? I can see nowhere that Delfin had the intention of purchasing a Rocna for use on his boat. The one he did purchase was way undersized and seemed solely done to destructively test it. You can't seriously think that you're going to dump a heap of metal onto a West Marine counter and expect to get your money back. That would shock me beyond belief.

My postings never said that Delfin was doing something wrong, illegal, or immoral. I just thought it was odd. I still think it's odd. I'm not questioning his motives. I'd just like to understand them and asking questions is the best way I know of uncovering them. I tried to ask questions that hadn't been asked on the thread previously. Given the general anonymity of forum postings, why isn't that acceptable? I make it fully visible exactly who I am and how to get in touch with me. That level of transparency wasn't immediately obvious to me with Delfin.

[Silent Knight]

It seems odd to me that some people seem to be more interested in their view of somebody's motives than they are in the hard evidence of wrong doing by an anchor manufacturer. Very odd.

[Delfin]

I returned my bucket of bits to West Marine in Anacortes, Washington, and as expected they not only returned by money, but did so cheerfully. Lenore, the store manager was interested in the test results, could see that they didn't match spec and just asked if I wanted another anchor or a refund. She rang the refund up as a 'defective' product, which of course, it is.

I wanted to take her picture smiling over the rubbish, but she hates having her picture taken. West Marine is to be commended for their customer service, and provide a good reason to shop there. Even better would be if they re-positioned their anchor line and perhaps led with product made by manufacturers not gaming their customers to make an extra buck, but perhaps that will come.

[ActiveCaptain]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I returned my bucket of bits to West Marine in Anacortes, Washington, and as expected they not only returned by money, but did so cheerfully.

I am seriously impressed. Well done, sir.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

You can't seriously think that you're going to dump a heap of metal onto a West Marine counter and expect to get your money back. That would shock me beyond belief.

I make it fully visible exactly who I am and how to get in touch with me. That level of transparency wasn't immediately obvious to me with Delfin.

Consider yourself shocked. Beyond belief perhaps.

I suppose one reason you want people to get in touch with you is so they will perhaps buy whatever product you're hawking. But if you would like to contact me, you can Google me as another poster did and find out what I do for a living, send me a PM, or go to my vessel's web site and send me an email through that channel. But why anyone go to the bother?

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

I am seriously impressed. Well done, sir.

Me too !! Speechless !!