Rocna Size

[Exile]

Delfin -- given your local WM's recognition of the Rocna as defective and therefore eligible for a refund, perhaps the most effective way to get the co. to respond would be to alert WM's upper management. You gotta figure that WM must be one of Rocna's largest distributors.

[downunder]

Thanks for your effort Delfin.

Active Captain seriously what's the big deal on spending $350 testing a product for a good cause if someone can affort it and others are benefiting from the information generated. Now if it was BOAT perhaps. Money well spent.

[mikereed100]

It's a shame this conversation on Rocna quality is buried in a thread entitled "Rocna size". It has all the elements of a good anchor thread; wierd science, suspense, accusations and innuendo, all simmered in a stew of confirmation bias.

From the above letter from Rocna it sounds like it may be a suboptimal batch of steel, since resolved? It will be interesting to see how Rocna responds. FWIW a poster in another forum complained about what appeared to be shoddy galvanizing on his new Rocna. Craig immediately responded on the thread, agreed that the galvanizing was not up to standards and arranged for a replacement. Excellent customer service in that case.

I'm a little pissed as I paid a premium for my gucci Rocna 33 and would be dissappointed to learn that the steel is not as it should be. Even so, I admit that as I wait for Rocna's response I sleep soundly on my 33. Even if the steel is not up the spec my chain will fail long before my anchor.

Mike

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Exile

Delfin -- given your local WM's recognition of the Rocna as defective and therefore eligible for a refund, perhaps the most effective way to get the co. to respond would be to alert WM's upper management. You gotta figure that WM must be one of Rocna's largest distributors.

I thought I would send a compliment to their CEO for excellent customer service, a copy of the test results, as well as a simple question of whether they might not want to review their product positioning. The Rocna design is loved by many of its users, and while I don't think I want one for my boat, I understand why others like them. My issue, and it should be WM's, is whether they should sell a product as 'premium' when it is no such thing and is falsely advertised, and there are stronger better alternatives available. Seems unfair to their customers, and not in the spirit of how I think WM wants to deal with them.

[KnuckleDragger]

I've been waiting to see how all of this panned out as I have a brand new Rocna sitting unused on my bow roller. Bought from WM about a month ago before this current sh#t storm surfaced. Flunked the "dimple test". Didn't have a center punch aboard so I just used a 16 penny nail!
I'll be returning it to WM and getting a Manson Supreme (and some cash back).
My question is this. Do I need to cut it up first???

[Delfin]

LOL, no, the cutting will not be necessary. A 16 penny nail is pretty mild steel. If you can dent the Rocna with that, it isn't up to snuff. You might print off a copy of the test report posted above, and by all means ask the manager to refer this to the buyer.

Rocna has a lifetime warranty against their product not meeting specifications. If you Google Rocna warranty, you'll find the appropriate language, but WM shouldn't give you any grief. Let us know if there is a problem.

[S/V Alchemy]

Someday we'll all laugh about this. But not today.

[avb3]

Interestingly enough, no response from Craig (Rocna).

Not even a, "We are looking into suppler issues".

Apparently $Rocna is not very well versed in crisis management.

[ActiveCaptain]

Originally Posted by avb3

Apparently $Rocna is not very well versed in crisis management.

I think that Rocna and Craig Smith are handling this entire thread perfectly from a "crisis management" perspective. This thread hasn't ever been about finding the truth.

I'd sort of expect Rocna to be collecting up everything for legal analysis. I'd bet the owners of Sailing Anarchy were surprised when a lawsuit was initiated against them over a similar witch-hunt thread.

I continue to be surprised by the outcomes discussed here. I wouldn't be surprised though to see the whole thread removed eventually.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

I think that Rocna and Craig Smith are handling this entire thread perfectly from a "crisis management" perspective. This thread hasn't ever been about finding the truth.

Wow... considering the empirical data that was posted by Delfin, what parts of the truth do you suggest are not there?

It appears to me that Delfin was very careful in just releasing the facts.

Others suggested he had ulterior motives.

If a supplier makes claims about his product, and those claims are challenged by facts, how is that not the truth????

[four winds]

Mr. Smith has not posted on this forum since April 11th, approximately one month ago.

He is the son of the designer of the Rocna Anchor, Peter Smith. I wasn't aware of this until just now looking at his profile. I think that helps to explain his vigorous defense of the anchor.


Mr. Seigel, what was the subject of the thread to which you refer on Sailing Anarchy, if I may ask?

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by avb3

Wow... considering the empirical data that was posted by Delfin, what parts of the truth do you suggest are not there?

It appears to me that Delfin was very careful in just releasing the facts.

Others suggested he had ulterior motives.

If a supplier makes claims about his product, and those claims are challenged by facts, how is that not the truth????

On some aspect Active Captain is right: to conduct a test you should do it properly.
Here the test has not been conducted as it should have been
among other points:
-Manson was not tested, if I'm not wrong only their specifications were reported.
-only one test was conducted on the Rocna concerning only one specs indications, this is not sufficient: normally several test on several Rocnas different sizes should have been conducted, and on different parts of the shank, and not in reference to the specs.
-Metal analysis should have been conducted
etc...

But for the object of a "courageous" individual, who wanted to prove something by himself I suppose that the way tests have been conducted is sufficient.
But not to have the weight some would like against the manufacturer.

Alec

[Exile]

While I don't have the expertise to either endorse or challenge Delfin & others' metallurgy testing, and was certainly concerned to see the pic of the twisted-up Rocna, I'm not sure the dispositive question of whether it makes any practical difference (i.e. 99% of boaters, 99% of the time). If true, the claims of false advertising are no doubt troubling and I hope the co. responds in credible fashion. Given the exceptional reviews of these anchors generally, however, I'm not sure I'm inclined to run back to WM with my newly-purchased Rocna 33.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Alecadi

-Manson was not tested, if I'm not wrong only their specifications were reported.

Agreed, I would certainly like to see the comparison for Manson, although I don't recall that Delfin intended this to be a Rocna versus Manson comparison (I stand to be corrected on this).

-only one test was conducted on the Rocna concerning only one specs indications, this is not sufficient: normally several test on several Rocnas different sizes should have been conducted, and on different parts of the shank, and not in reference to the specs.

Agreed that testing one is only indicative, and not statistically relevant. Regardless, it does indicate that there is an issue with quality control. The batch of steel used to make the tested one made others, and that IS a concern.

If it was the only one that had the poorer quality steel, then one wonders how Rocna is testing their anchors? Do they do a representative sampling? That is a legitimate way to do so, if they do batch processing. Normally, that is done in higher production manufacturing, and Rocna (or any other anchor manufacturer) hardly qualify as that.

It is my opinion each unit should be quality controlled to avoid this type of product to slip through.

Further, it is a REAL concern that Rocna does not respond to this at all. I have no doubt they know about the results.

I would welcome a similar random and independent test being done on any other anchor that claims to use a certain specification.

Trouble is, I can't afford it.

[ActiveCaptain]

It's my opinion that the truth wasn't the objective of the analysis. There was a pre-determined desire to destroy the reputation of a particular company. It's my opinion - your's might differ.

Originally Posted by four winds

...what was the subject of the thread to which you refer on Sailing Anarchy, if I may ask?

Geez, just go to their site and look for the thread with a few thousand postings. The lawsuit, discoveries, motions, etc have been going on for about a year. I can't imagine how much the website owners have had to pay in legal defense over it. The suit is about the things said against a single individual.

Posters on forums like this are often anonymous. The website owners aren't. Free speech is guaranteed against the government. You're totally responsible for what you say against an individual or corporation. "Sticks and stones" isn't a valid defense in US courts. While it's fine to present test results, it might be crossing a dangerous chasm in extrapolating that data, trying to damage relationships with major suppliers, and attempting to damage the reputation of an individual or company.