Well Done Rocna

[JonJo]

I happen to, effectively, only post on Rocna threads because like impi, I'm passionate about Rocnas. My passion is different, I dislike the idea that a company can make a safety product, lie about the specification to which its made. Bring in a new owner, same licensor as the old out of spec product - then allow 2,000 out of spec anchors to sit on bow rollers without making any serious attempts to get those out of spec anchors out of circulation.

I also happened to take the trouble to contact the people involved, RINA, Linox etc obtain details from the Chinese factory, test the out of spec products. I spoke to the steel makers who made the original steel, I checked on welding issues.

Thankfully nothing in the marine industry has come remotely close to the grubby way the key manufacturers in this saga have allowed it to develop. So my interest in Rocna is because it is the exception.

I'm passionate because I think the 2,000 purchasers deserve better, much better. If some of you think its fine to allow them to continue using ones made with a typically 355 mpA steel - I'd like to see your justification. Yachts might not have been lost, but yachts are lost through anchor failure - why do we need to wait for it to heppen. Prevention being better etc.

I would also query why the specification was downgraded froma typically 790 mpA yield but 655 mpA yield is now adequate. Its got nothing to do with availability - capacity for a Q&T800 steel is 130,000mt/yr in China from one factory, there may be others. They sell in small lots - perfect for an anchor maker. They make all the plate sizes etc etc. And no I do not work for an anchor maker nor steel makers, or anything to do with either.

I too will say well done Ro#cna, and good luck, when they make some real attempts to get those 2,000 anchors off bow rollers. Its not difficult, contact your distributors, get a small recall ad in every yachting mag, have the retialers contact their marinas and boat yards, notice in local boat club journals. Most people who bought will be known to the retailer anyway, credit card vouchers, delivery point - send them a letter. Other people do it.

Again if you can justify allowing a 355 mpA anchor to sit on another sailor's bow roller - justify it to others, before saying 'well done Rocna'.

[impi]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I happen to, effectively, only post on Rocna threads because like impi, I'm passionate about Rocnas. My passion is different, I dislike the idea that a company can make a safety product, lie about the specification to which its made. Bring in a new owner, same licensor as the old out of spec product - then allow 2,000 out of spec anchors to sit on bow rollers without making any serious attempts to get those out of spec anchors out of circulation.

I also happened to take the trouble to contact the people involved, RINA, Linox etc obtain details from the Chinese factory, test the out of spec products. I spoke to the steel makers who made the original steel, I checked on welding issues.

Thankfully nothing in the marine industry has come remotely close to the grubby way the key manufacturers in this saga have allowed it to develop. So my interest in Rocna is because it is the exception.

I'm passionate because I think the 2,000 purchasers deserve better, much better. If some of you think its fine to allow them to continue using ones made with a typically 355 mpA steel - I'd like to see your justification. Yachts might not have been lost, but yachts are lost through anchor failure - why do we need to wait for it to heppen. Prevention being better etc.

I would also query why the specification was downgraded froma typically 790 mpA yield but 655 mpA yield is now adequate. Its got nothing to do with availability - capacity for a Q&T800 steel is 130,000mt/yr in China from one factory, there may be others. They sell in small lots - perfect for an anchor maker. They make all the plate sizes etc etc. And no I do not work for an anchor maker nor steel makers, or anything to do with either.

I too will say well done Ro#cna, and good luck, when they make some real attempts to get those 2,000 anchors off bow rollers. Its not difficult, contact your distributors, get a small recall ad in every yachting mag, have the retialers contact their marinas and boat yards, notice in local boat club journals. Most people who bought will be known to the retailer anyway, credit card vouchers, delivery point - send them a letter. Other people do it.

Again if you can justify allowing a 355 mpA anchor to sit on another sailor's bow roller - justify it to others, before saying 'well done Rocna'.

now you got my respect for coming clean !

Of course the person who started the thread started it on a positive ... Well Done Rocna note.

Some have just have to come in and 'pull it apart' ... that I cannot respect!

ANyway ... I've probably said enough on this score and I just trust sailors with Rocna's can 'rest easy' ... as do we on ours!

[JonJo]

Impi, I am surprised that you either cannot justify leaving the anchors with 355 mpA shanks on bow rollers or suggest not doing anything is wrong. By backing out without further comment implies, to me, that you think it quite acceptable that 2,000 other yachts, with 2-4 people on each, can sail away and anchor with an anchor whose shank will bend far too easily.

Yes CMP are doing well by the people in the know but those who are unaware, and their crew, seem to be treated with complete disregard. And suggesting 'well done Rocna' looks a bit contradictory.

[impi]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Impi, I am surprised that you either cannot justify leaving the anchors with 355 mpA shanks on bow rollers or suggest not doing anything is wrong. By backing out without further comment implies, to me, that you think it quite acceptable that 2,000 other yachts, with 2-4 people on each, can sail away and anchor with an anchor whose shank will bend far too easily.

Yes CMP are doing well by the people in the know but those who are unaware, and their crew, seem to be treated with complete disregard. And suggesting 'well done Rocna' looks a bit contradictory.

No .. actually and to the contrary you don't want to hear my 'view' about the sizing issue. Clearly you have learnt the meaning of Troll during this thread ...

I have mentioned on numerous occasions that my experience thus far has been one of success together with a number of other cruisers out here who live on them every single day.

I cant argue the steel quality and strength ... you could blow smoke in my eyes and up my A## on that one, but I can tell you I have a superb anchor on my boat which my insurance company has no problem with either.

I just don't want to expend negative energy here ... what started as a positive post has been hijacked for a negative .... I'm sorry to admit that in trying to defend what I have found to be a good product, in seeing what the new owners are trying to achieve with it, I have in a manner contributed to the negative aspect of this thread.

You made your passion about Rocna quite clear ... your intention to be on CF clear ... All the best to ya

[JonJo]

No problems Impi, its a good thing we are all different. Its good that people, like you, doubt and question - keeps the rest on the straight and narrow.

Good luck, and when you sail may all your winds be on the beam (or thereabouts) around 20 knots with blue skies.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by impi

Did you ever work for Rocna?

The question is so irrelevant it deserves no answer.

[impi]

Originally Posted by JonJo

No problems Impi, its a good thing we are all different. Its good that people, like you, doubt and question - keeps the rest on the straight and narrow.

Good luck, and when you sail may all your winds be on the beam (or thereabouts) around 20 knots with blue skies.

Thank you JonJo ... appreciate that ... Perhaps I am naive ... I hope not

[impi]

Originally Posted by avb3

The question is so irrelevant it deserves no answer.

I think I already have the answer ...

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by videobear

JonJo,

Wikipedia is your friend! Find out all about "trolls" here: Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Thanks, we are never to old to learn - I'm constantly amazed that the older I am the less I know. I console myself thinking, maybe I'm not alone.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by impi

I think I already have the answer ...

I find it interesting that you sing the praises of Rocna, yet will not take the time answer real concerns.

Let me list them just in case I was not clear:

1. CMP has downgraded the steel used from what was originally speced by Peter Smith. Why?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. When will the RINA certification be cleared up as CMP said they would do?
5. 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.

These are all legitimate questions. Do you know the answer to any of them?

If not, are they not a concern to you? They should be. Any ethical company would ensure that the issues that had brought it or its products into disrepute are cleared up.

What confuses me is that CMP has a great track record with their chains. Why do they not address the issues with the anchors they now own and produce?

[bobconnie]

Ive bent a bunch of CQRs had a 90 pounder on our 42 Colvin, it was probly the worst anchor I ever used !! Ended up useing a 50 lb Danforth for years never bent it anywhere! sure sometimes she came loose an a tide change or wind shift ! and no way would I use one for a primary anchor these days!! but will always have some aboard!! my next anchor will be a manson! real soon now !! just my 2 cents

[conachair]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Rocna's history is long and there have been many voices. Some calm and some shrill. Rocna's reputation has taken a very well deserved beating. With time and a good track record they may recover. Time will tell if the current Rocna anchor spec it up to real world conditions.

But in any case it would be foolish to place blind trust in that anchor. Or any other anchor for that matter.

Attached is a photo to remind us where it started.

Regards

PS If Rocna were to start building anchors to the original NZ spec and steel I would buy one asap. They do fit my bow roller better than the Manson I replaced my Rocna with. (there were a number of problems with the Rocna I replaced, a 33 KG model)

Any anchor can bend.

[JonJo]

Any, or all, anchor will bend, apocryphal stories suggest some break. Any anchor maker who tells you his anchors will not bend (or break) should be discarded from your list of potential suppliers.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by conachair

Any anchor can bend.

So very true, and not the point at all.

Any anchor can bend. But some bend because the maker decided to reduce the steel strength....

Let's look at another way. Imagine some anchor maker designing an anchor and using high strength steel so as to be able to change the balance of the anchor. Imagine that quite by accident a bad batch of steel slips by QC and a bunch of anchors get made with it.

What would you call these anchors? I would call them defective or sub standard. Imagine that a few of these anchors start bending in cases where they should not. And thus you the maker find out that there is a problem with the steel.

What to do? Announce to the world that you have a bad batch of anchors and work hard to get these defective, substandard anchors out of circulation. Or do you ignore the problem, issue misleading statements about how many defective anchors were sold, cover up in general and then lower the steel strength spec to something lower than the exacting design calls for but higher than the out of spec anchors and pretend there is no problem.

So the point with Rocna is not that an anchor bends but rather that there are 2000+ defective / out-of-spec anchors out there and the way that Rocna as a company handled it.

The issue is the 2000+ substandard anchors and how they got there and stay there.

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 thing that angers so many is that the steel was not defective. Rocna willfully made defective/substandard anchors and then lied and covered-up when caught.

[Cheechako]

Just looking at the shank of those anchors makes it dubious if the designer knew what he was doing. Adding width to the shank in the bottom up direction adds minimal side load strength. If they had added thickness or cross-section, they would have been better served.