Well Done Rocna

[JonJo]

Not sure where you get the aft anchoring from? My explanation must have been a bit ropey.

We anchor 'normally', our chain and windlass is under the mast, the chain runs through a 'U' shaped Al beam, torsion beam (connects bridgedeck to forward cross beam). The 'U' beam contains the bow roller, just behind the crossbeam. The yacht comes with bridle points on the cross beam, but this is 'too' short to be a snubber (of any value). So we run snubbers from the stern cleats right up the side decks, round turning blocks on the bows and then to a common chain hook (actually it all one rope with a 'cow hitch', we'll cut it in half and use the other ends eventually). When conditions look to be such as to reducing sleep we might run a second anchor at approx 90 degrees to the first off one bow (does not matter which). We have found that if its not too rough deployment is quite feasible from a dinghy, this second anchor has 30m of chain and 40m 3 strand ropes, and alloy anchors are fine (as long as they are big enough - same size surface area as the primary) - the load will be in aligment with the shank, because the primary anchor stops the yacht yawing. An alloy shank will be easily strong enough if aligned in the direction of load. In addition to one or 2 anchors forward we have also run lines off the transoms, another bridle, then one common line to shore, if the shore were not close enough we could use a third anchor. But deployment of all these anchors and lines needs conditions to be such that winds will come from, primarily, one direction. If it seems like overkill, it is, but if you have the time, are going to be pinned down for a few days it encourages decent sleep and what else are you doing anyway. So I'm not one to say we have the best anchor in the world (it might be) and use it to the exclusion of anything else, we are very much belt and braces. The 90 degree alingment is chosen to reduce swinging, we tend to hang off one then the other. Tandem anchoring is fine, except you need to then handle two anchors simultaneously and you depend on one chain which allows a lot of swing room.

Anchoring stern into winds would not be sensible for most cruising cats, the cockpits are too much of a wind scoop, windage would be awful. But in hot climes the idea of anchoring stern into the wind has great appeal - what happens of course is we anchor normally and open up all and every hatch and contrive wind scoops.

[micah719]

Gotcha! Thanks for taking the time to explain, too.

Most boats seem to die on the rocks or at the dock, so belt & braces at anchor is not wasted effort, when you know you'll be there a while or if something nasty is coming. I'd feel reassured anchoring near that setup, especially to leeward.

Erm...'nuther dumb question....how come no bow cleats to suit your setup?

[JonJo]

We actually tie the turning blocks onto the bow cleats, it is/was the only secure place without drilling. They are tied on with 1 inch tape. We do not use the bow cleats, for the snubbers, becuase they do not give a long enough run. You need at least 10m. Nylon stetches about 25% at its limit. If you have 3m of nylon you are never going to load it to its limit but even if you did it hardly has any stretch. If you have 10m, or more, and you stretch it to 1/3 of its limit (possible) you are looking at 1/3 of 25% which is about 800mm. 800mm elasticty is, or should be, enough (or I cannot think what else would give more). The amount of elasticity depends on the diam of the nylon. I think 10mm has about a 2t limit - so its fairly elastic (at the loads likely for a smaller yacht). 20mm has a much higher limit, I'd guess maybe 8t, so it has no elesticity, or none smaller yacht onwers can use. If you have a 70' steel yacht - go for 20mm (you'd need to check the load limits)

You could use, say, 5mm which might have a load limit of, say, 750kg. You could then enjoy all of its 25% elesticity - but equally it might break. So you need to think of your yacht size or weight and balance the likely loads with the ultimate strength of the nylon you use.

Sorry but my comments are from a fading memory, but most rope manufacturers have tables of ultimate strength and elesticity.

But your choice will depend on what you have so its not going to be precise anyway. If you have an old 10mm halyard use that, do not go off and buy some new 12mm just becuase its 'right'.

The maximum load on an anchor chain for a, approx, 45' yacht, common or garden firberglass, is around 600kg-700kg assuming you have 7:1 scope and these laods will occur at 30/35 knots. much higher at higher windspeeds. The loads will occur when all the chain has been lifted (the chain is not that 'heavy' compared with the 650kg load). If I had a 45' yacht I'd be using 10mm or 12mm nylon, one length right down each sidedeck. One rope would take most of the load at any one time but the load would switch from one side to the other (as the yacht swings). You could use bigger nylon, and lose some elasticity and the rope will last longer - its a balance. If I had a 35' yacht I'd still use 10mm but only one rope and I'd try to feed it though the bow roller, so as to get it central - it needs a bit of thought, all yachts are different.

A 38' cat has the same, similar, windage as a 45' yacht (hence the compariison). We measured them both, and a 35' yacht about 1/3 less.

Quite happy to help where I can - ask away, but I'm off to help move a 50' yacht now (not mine) ready to slip tomorrow AM so I might not reply for a few hours or so. And tomorrow and rest of the week the joys of painting topsides, antifouling, replacing a couple of skin fittings, anodes - usual stuff.

[JonJo]

Micah, if you send me a PM with an email address I'll email a pdf, or 2, with more accurate info on 'this' and related topics.

[micah719]

Will do, and thanks a heap for all the great info!

Btw, I had a PM from mrm about this thread, I'll be so bold to post it here along with my reply:

Originally Posted by mrm

Hello Micah,

I have doubts that your idea to use springs as part of anchor rode snubbers will work as intended. The problem is, that good snubbers tend to dissipate energy when acting (for example: nylon rope will dissipate energy as heat, when it stretches) while springs are explicitly designed to _store_ energy and give it back.

I think that under a set of conditions a resonant circuit could develop, which would amplify motion and forces acting on the hull when anchored with this kind of setup.

Regards,
Marius

Originally Posted by micah719

Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps a different approach...the spring to absorb the energy, but a method of releasing it some other way than simply returning to its rest position and pulling the boat. How about a propellor attached to it that releases the energy into the water. Similar to how a push-pull ratchet screwdriver works. Or simply pumps water up into the air. Even a bladder with one-way valves..that could even fit into the spring. I'd love to be able to test all this out but right now it's difficult without a boat and water, especially rough water. Thanks for your input.

Not trying to reinvent the wheel or discount the experience of the folks that have been there and done it, just willing to try out stuff that might keep a boat safer, when things get nasty. And avoid stressing anchors of whatever build quality beyond what they can reasonably take...

[conachair]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Can we not all agree that if some (even 2000+) Rocna anchors were made of a bad batch of steel we would call them defective and expect the maker to actively recall them.

.

The maker got caught and no longer exists.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by conachair

The maker got caught and no longer exists.

Really?

You may want to tell them their website is still up.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by avb3

Really?

You may want to tell them their website is still up.

Exactly.

They are all complicit.

The Smith's, Bambury, CMP. King, the list goes on. At least Kinng blew the whistle for whatever reasons he has.

The least at fault are the Plant in China and Suncoast.

-E

[conachair]

Originally Posted by avb3

Really?

You may want to tell them their website is still up.

Yep, really.

Rocna re-licensing & historical steel quality issues

As of 20th September 2011, the Rocna® Anchors license – including all rights to the Rocna design and brand – was terminated and re-assigned to Canada Metal (Pacific) Ltd, a Canadian company with facilities in Vancouver and China.

The ethical argument as to how much responsibility a buyer has to the previous conduct of a purchased company is a different question.

CMP seem to be replacing anchors without any fuss, how actively they are searching for other low grade steel ones, if at all, isn't clear.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by conachair

Yep, really.

Rocna re-licensing & historical steel quality issues



The ethical argument as to how much responsibility a buyer has to the previous conduct of a purchased company is a different question.

CMP seem to be replacing anchors without any fuss, how actively they are searching for other low grade steel ones, if at all, isn't clear.

Peter Smith has been on stands at boatshows on behalf of CMP/Rocna. Admitedly he represents himself, as well as CMP, but he was part of the team prior to CMP's involvement. He was therefore part of the cabal that misled the public.

CMP, I assume, acquired the licence cheaply and knew of, at least some, if not all of the background. The reason the licence would have been cheap was because of the background - it was a fire sale. Part of the price is/was overcoming/resolving the background - its not ethical its good business sense to clear the air and start afresh.

They said they were to search out and replace defective anchors - there is no evidence AT ALL of this having been done, or nothing pro-active on their part. I challenge anyone to post evidence that CMP has proactively tried to advise customers of the problem, defining the risks etc. Returns are becuase of a few magazine articles, the content of which they, CMP and their distributors, have not publically accepted, and forum such as this. The only recall was a wimpish comment from WM and an acceptance by P Smith of some of the defective anchors, 700 from the 2,000 total. And Smiths comments down played the risks - even though anchors have bent. And who reads WM recall notices or Peter Smith's website?

Basically the owners of the anchors bought in 2009 and 2010 are being left exposed.

[bobconnie]

All I can say about this whole mess, is that the 2000 folks with these so called Bad anchors, Can get new ones by asking for them !! how much more can a company do ?? They know they almost blew it!! and are doing more to fix this mess then most companys have ! Some companys in the past just changed thier names and continued selling the same old junk !! Im sure gonna look at ALL the new anchors before I buy one !! and Rocna will be one of the ones we look at !! just saying it's about time to get off this dead horse !!

[sailorboy1]

while I decided to get a Manson Surpreme instead of a Rocna BEFORE all this stuff came to light (because Craig Smith's trash talk just pissed me off so much):

has there been any documented problems of the "bad" Rocnas not holding etc.

I think the anchors are fine and if all the trash talk hadn't been going on for so long it proably would never have been identified to start with

but glad they are doing the "right" thing

[avb3]

Originally Posted by bobconnie

All I can say about this whole mess, is that the 2000 folks with these so called Bad anchors, Can get new ones by asking for them !! how much more can a company do ?? They know they almost blew it!! and are doing more to fix this mess then most companys have ! Some companys in the past just changed thier names and continued selling the same old junk !! Im sure gonna look at ALL the new anchors before I buy one !! and Rocna will be one of the ones we look at !! just saying it's about time to get off this dead horse !!

If it came to issues surrounding sailing and sail boats, I will defer to your expertise every time. I will never have the capabilities you have in that area.

At the same time, I suspect I have significant more management experience than yourselves. I have consulted to numerous companies on different issues.

As such I am confused why CMP hasn't been more proactive. I've listed a number of issues I believe are relevant, and to save everyone looking those up, they are as follows:

• CMP has downgraded the steel used from what was originally speced by Peter Smith. Why?
• Peter Smith insisted that the only way Rocna anchors can perform is with the originally speced steel. In fact, he said anything less would not work. Now he has changed his tune. Why?
• CMP has not make a concerted effort to recall or at least inspect the approximately 2000 suspect anchors that are out there, even though they said they would in their Jan 2012 memo. Why?
• When will the RINA certification be cleared up as CMP said they would do?
• Why has CMP not updated and corrected the Rocna.com website. Much of the misleading information that existed prior to them taking over still exists on it.

Do you think any of the above are questions that are not fair or require an answer? I think they all should be answered, and many others on here and other forums do as well.

An ethical company not only acts ethically, it makes sure it appears to act ethically. These are all issues that can and should be addressed, right?

[bobconnie]

Thats a lot of great facts ! but it boiled down to " ya pays your money and and ya makes your choice !" your right Im sure! but whats your complaint?? do you have one that bent ?? or do you just have hard on for the anchor company ?? sounds like a major TROLL to me !! Just sayin whats up ???

[avb3]

Originally Posted by bobconnie

Thats a lot of great facts ! but it boiled down to " ya pays your money and and ya makes your choice !" your right Im sure! but whats your complaint?? do you have one that bent ?? or do you just have hard on for the anchor company ?? sounds like a major TROLL to me !! Just sayin whats up ???

Troll? I've been involved in this discussion since the beginning; you may have been out sailing somewhere and not aware of the circumstances.

A company claims in its statements and advertisement that it is selling one thing, and then when it is caught in selling something else, its first step was to deny, deny, deny.

Ethical? Not in my books.

Then the company gets sold to a reputable chain company. Hopes are high that a great design gets built to original specs, the ones that the designer consistently stressed needed to be followed for the anchor to work correctly.

All of a sudden, the specs are downgraded by the new company, and the original designer has not explained why that is now OK... remember, the original designer is contracted as an advisor to CMP.

Ethical? Edgy?

Then CMP accepts suspect anchors, hair on them, but makes no effort other then a small posting 9 months ago on the Rocna website that they will accept suspect anchors back.

When I contacted West Marine last year about the issue, they took about a month before they issued a recall on their own. They were constrained, no doubt, to a distribution agreement. I credit them to the utmost for doing the right thing.

Why can CMP not make the efforts West Marine did? WM acted correctly and ethically, and went above and beyond, but then as a company, they seemed to care.

Can you see the difference in ethics and customer relations?

No, not a troll, but someone who will not put up with shoddy dealings, and will do all I can to get companies to correct. So should everyone else.