A Second Wind for Rocna

[roger.waite]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Hard to beleive how much time some are spending in researching the metal issue.

I don't believe that I have read any stories of Rocna anchors failing (pulling apart) resulting in a boat drifting away.

Since I own a Mason Surpreme I'm not really trying to defend Rocna, but the degree of the witch hunt is amazing.

x2 on this post, from another Supreme owner.

Seems to me a real issue is why buy any extravagantly priced 'performance' anchor (Spade or Rocna), when there are high-performing alternatives that may be priced better in your market (e.g. Supreme or for Europeans, from memory of ~2009 PBO data, Kobra 2).

To offend yet another set of firmly held anchor selection beliefs, all anchors above are well ahead of older, trusted designs (CQR / Bruce) in tests I have read. But in my market, if you worry about max holding power (big variation across tests) you can ~ double or quadruple the weight of a Supreme for the price of a Rocna or Spade respectively. Same can probably be said for Kobra 2, based on memory of results and prices for Europeans.

If you worry more about space vs. weight, you may need to avoid Rocna and Supreme.

All anchors bend when abused, but there is a lot more to buying an anchor than paper specifications, metalurgy and guarantees! IMHO.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

How about if Rocna had gotten the facts right before publicly lying about a RINA certification they DID NOT YET HAVE, or the grade of steel used, that THEY WERE NOT USING?

Unbiased? Someone has clearly missed the four+ years of completely biased, non factual attacks on other manufacturers by Craig Smith....

Rocna is only being dished what they served up..... I hope the new company can straighten out this mess but they brought Steve B. along for the ride so I am a bit skeptical.

And yes, I am a Rocna owner too, but one who dislikes being BLATANTLY lied to, over and over..

Yes, I also hope they don't just return to their trash talking misinformation approach. Just as a small side note - the comment about antarctic boats in Peter's e-mail is factually wrong, as we in fact sold our spare Manson Supreme to one of those boats when we left Chile - so we know for a fact that there is at least one Manson down there.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by LWatson

Bisalloy 80 is also shown also as S690Q with a yield strength of 109,000 lbs and an mPA OF 750, this is what is shown on the Manson site. See MatWeb - The Online Materials Information Resource Consequently the indicated yield strengths posted earlier are correct and the bending force is shown as 1752 lbs, oddly fairly close to the figure I had extrapolated, 1700 lbs. So it would appear that the Rocna that Delfin bent with a force of 1550 is S690Q or so the charts he so kindly supplied would indicate. So now I am even more confused since this is a Rocna and was meant to have been constructed of a steel having an Mpa of somewhere in the region of 450 which should have taken a figure of somewhere around 1070 lbs. , not 1550 lbs.

I don't believe that I said the steel was 450 mpa. I had the anchor tested and found its physical characteristics to be consistent with 690 mpa steel, which is not the steel I was told it was made of. Now, Rocna is telling people that their anchors are made of a lower grade steel than Smith originally said was essential and that their competitors are made of, which is why I took it back to the store for a refund. The justification now offered by Rocna for using this steel is that weaker is good enough, and that certainly seems to satisfy some people wishing to pay more for less. Any anchor will bend if subjected to side loading sufficient to do the job. As a matter of physics, the Rocna will bend before its competitors, which perhaps explains why if you email Manson, they will go on record that no one has ever returned a Supreme with a bent shank. I don't know if that is true, but presume since I have noted this in the past and no one has come forward with a bent Manson, perhaps it's true. What we do know is that some Rocnas have bent.

Does the weaker steel matter? Depends on the how the anchor is used, I guess. I frankly don't care since I don't own either a Manson Supreme or a Rocna. At some point, I will probably buy a Manson Ray for the same reasons Estarzinger prefers it.

In the meantime, my only interest in this topic is watching slack mouthed in wonder as Rocna/Bambury/Smith continue to assume that they can fabricate facts out of thin air and peddle them to the gullible as reality. Why not just start making the product you said you make, stop trashing the competition and lying about engineering, certification and testing and compete in the marketplace on the merits of your product? I dunno, but they don't. I would expect CPM to take another course, since by all accounts they are an ethical and responsible manufacturer of high quality products. Time will tell.

Incidentally, the charts I posted were removed by the moderator as they were the property of Rocna. I didn't think about that, but have no objection to that being done.

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Incidentally, the charts I posted were removed by the moderator as they were the property of Rocna. I didn't think about that, but have no objection to that being done.

Absolute confirmation that they were correct then?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by marinextreme

Absolute confirmation that they were correct then?

Well, I think the mod had a concern that since they were not my numbers, I didn't have the right to post them. The values in the table can be calculated independently based on the profile of the shank and the yield of the steel. What remains is that however you slice it, Mr. Smith's claim that anchor chain would break before his anchor shaft bent is absurd.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Incidentally, the charts I posted were removed by the moderator as they were the property of Rocna. I didn't think about that, but have no objection to that being done.

Seems the new company is still trying to squelch the TRUTH. That data made it VERY clear there is a difference in bending strength.. Tha fact that it was removed is sad and the first nail in the coffin for the "new improved" Rocna... Hide the truth that's the common theme these days....

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

Seems the new company is still trying to squelch the TRUTH. That data made it VERY clear there is a difference in bending strength.. Tha fact that it was removed is sad and the first nail in the coffin for the "new improved" Rocna... Hide the truth that's the common theme these days....

Perhaps you missed the point that it was CF who removed the tables and not any action by anyone associated with Rocna. Let us keep to the facts as that is what we are expecting of the new Rocna owners.

[LWatson]

One last kick before we depart.
Because of actions by Rocna I am unable to ascertain what the steel was in the anchors and first made. The best we can do at present is to defer to the tests done by Manson (suspect at best as they could be done on the "misspeced" anchor steel and not the current batch and Delfin which showed that S690Q was used and was "exactly" on spec with the calculations so kindly posted by him. Now on the Manson website they state that they use a 750 Mpa steel in their shanks, which is consistant with the specifications of S690Q. The fact that in the Manson tests show a yield Mpa of 866 only shows that there are inconsistancies in the steel they use and and in no way should be construed that this is the norm. In fact this falls so far outside the range of specifications of 690 steel that it makes one suspect of how exactly it got that high, and since Delfin has shown that Rocna use the same grade in their shanks, how Rocna's yield got so low. I suspect that the Rocna is from the defctive batch since Delfin has shown that the later batches use 690 steel.
For Delfin to say that he would rather have a 866 Manson rather than a Rocna flies in the face of reason since it appears that both shanks are made of the same steel.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

I would bet that all the Rocna trashing on forums has hardly made any difference in sales. Probably just has made a good marketing opportunity for the new owner to "turn it around"!

For some forums, it's about their only source of traffic. Hence the incentive for prolonged trashing.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by LWatson

For Delfin to say that he would rather have a 866 Manson rather than a Rocna flies in the face of reason since it appears that both shanks are made of the same steel.

There is greater amount of metal in the Manson's shank than in the Rocna, it is much wider even accounting for the slot cut. So if the shanks were made of the same grade of metal, the Manson shank should have higher bending strength than a similar Rocna. Delfin's point is well made.

Foggy

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by LWatson

One last kick before we depart.
Because of actions by Rocna I am unable to ascertain what the steel was in the anchors and first made. The best we can do at present is to defer to the tests done by Manson (suspect at best as they could be done on the "misspeced" anchor steel and not the current batch and Delfin which showed that S690Q was used and was "exactly" on spec with the calculations so kindly posted by him. Now on the Manson website they state that they use a 750 Mpa steel in their shanks, which is consistant with the specifications of S690Q. The fact that in the Manson tests show a yield Mpa of 866 only shows that there are inconsistancies in the steel they use and and in no way should be construed that this is the norm. In fact this falls so far outside the range of specifications of 690 steel that it makes one suspect of how exactly it got that high, and since Delfin has shown that Rocna use the same grade in their shanks, how Rocna's yield got so low. I suspect that the Rocna is from the defctive batch since Delfin has shown that the later batches use 690 steel.
For Delfin to say that he would rather have a 866 Manson rather than a Rocna flies in the face of reason since it appears that both shanks are made of the same steel.

You continue to be confused.

I referenced 690 steel for bending force, not because I have ever seen a Rocna anchor made of 690 steel, bought one, nor tested one made of 690 steel but because in the charts I had, the 620 steel used by Rocna isn't described, even though the charts came from Rocna. Ask them why, but it appears they were trying to determine the impact of jiggering their shank steel to make a few extra bucks from consumers who were unaware of the bait and switch.

Your confusion seems to relate to an inability to understand the difference between two mechanical properties:

1. Tensile strength. This is an indication of the resistance to breaking.
2. Yield strength. This is an indication of the resistance to bending.

Yield strength is what matters if you want to know how resistant an anchor shank will be to bending. Hopefully, this makes sense to you.

My anchor had a yield strength of 626 mpa, which contrary to what you say above is not 690 steel, which has a yield strength of 690 mpa. You can see the difference between 626 and 690, can you not?

The yield strength of the Manson tested was 866 mpa. If you have a calculator, you will see that this number is also greater than 626 mpa.

The profile of the Manson is greater than the equivalent Rocna that I tested therefore the Manson is proportionally stronger than the relationship between 866 and 626. Which part of paying less for an equally performing and stronger product than a more expensive and weaker alternative sold by liars do you think flies in the face of reason?

I would also point out that your contention that the Bisalloy steel's 866 mpa as tested by Manson rather than the minimum yield of 750 mpa Bisalloy assures is a mark of manufacturing inconsistencies indicates that you can't read the specs, know nothing of engineering standards or how to apply them, or work for the Rocna marketing department, who apparently have the same problem.

Finally, the issue here is not whether 866 mpa yield strength is stronger than 626 mpa yield strength steel. An idiot can make that calculation. The issue is that Rocna lied to thousands of boaters about what they were doing and based on the Smith email you sent me (again for reasons unknown) show that whatever the new owners will do, Peter Smith is still in the fabrication business, and I don't mean anchors.

[sarafina]

Just a gentle reminder... You can say almost anything, so long as you say it respectfully.

As heated as these topics get at times, please, before you post, read your post out loud and make sure if you were having this conversion over a cold beer you would say it in the same manner...

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Perhaps you missed the point that it was CF who removed the tables and not any action by anyone associated with Rocna. Let us keep to the facts as that is what we are expecting of the new Rocna owners.

Yes, I misread, sorry about that.

Still, one has to wonder, why did CF mods remove that data? Were they asked by Rocna?

There are literally thousands of links on CF to work, charts or graphs which are not the property of the owner and they let those stand, so why not let the data on bending loads for Rocna anchors stay? Why not at least let the data stay until proven phony, or genuine, and asked by Rocna to remove them?

Perhaps CF mods can shed some light on this..?

It just seems to me that the first bit of side load data for Rocna anchors we have seen was immediately yanked?

Why??

If it was phony data let Rocna say that publicly and condemn it.

If it was real let Rocna ask CF to remove it?

If phony, Rocna wins, if real I guess they'd lose for not being forthright with that data to begin with. Especially after being asked for it many times since this began and presenting only "straight line pull data" when it "appears" that had the bending load data all along??

Imagine for a moment that this was a company that made your rigging such as Hayn, Norseman or Sta-Loc who had done what Rocna has? Think about it? Imagine if they had lied about the grade of steel used in production or about a certification they did not yet have? I see an anchor as safety gear just as I do quality rigging.

This is the data everyone has been asking for for months and within an hour of it being posted it disappears.. Seems fishy to me... Just sayin'....

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by sarafina

Just a gentle reminder... You can say almost anything, so long as you say it respectfully.

As heated as these topics get at times, please, before you post, read your post out loud and make sure if you were having this conversion over a cold beer you would say it in the same manner...

Point well taken, Sara. I will try to do better in the future.

The frustration with this topic is that at the heart of it is the multi-year willingness on the part of a manufacturer to fill the room with smoke whenever the topic of their product comes up, presumably in order to make more money. The smoke is added to when basic data is distorted, intentionally or unintentionally, by folks with a point of view. They are entitled to their point of view, but they aren't entitled to their own facts nor to confuse others with misrepresentations of actual data, IMHO. (Well, maybe not so humble opinion...)

[LWatson]

Firstly I do not work or have any association with Rocna, full stop. Secondly I must hve misread Delfin's earlier post where I may have mistakenly thought he said that the anchor he tested bent at 1550#, which is consistant with the figures shown on the calculations, now removed, for 690 steel.

I am not confused about yield (bending) or tensile (breaking) strengths of the various steels, and I further understand that the rated yield strength is the minimum. Somewhere I had read that Rocna uses a 620 grade, which is of course a lesser grade in terms of both yield and tensile strength. Since according to the charts supplied earlier, the difference is approximately 10% in yield, which as correctly stated by Delfin, is what we should really be interested in, the only question I have is exactly how relevant is this reduction in strength? One can always say that stronger is always better and this could be very true but at some time you will reach a point of diminishing returns, so there is some sort of optimum when the trade off between strength, cost and weight (correctly applied to the sea bed) is reached.

There has been considerable hyperbole regarding the price differential between Rocna and Manson. This is no question that it may be difficult to justify the cost of the Rocna, but by the same reasoning I drive a BMW whereas a Chevrolet will perform adequately for type of driving I do.

I cannot condone the actions by the previous makers of the Rocna, it was a marketing disaster to say the least. Further the inventer has a vested interest in touting his design, and in point of fact, the published tests of anchor designs have clearly shown a marked superiority of the Rocna over the Manson. The latest PBO shows about a 50% increase in efficiency of the Rocna over the Manson, a point that should not be lost on those looking to buy an anchor. The only point of contention is the perceived relevance of the steel used in the current production of Rocna (620 Mpa) and the steel in the Manson (690 Mpa). I do not know what the pull of say a 37 ft sailboat in a 40 knot wind would be, or how much pull is generated by snatching on the anchor rode in those winds, however I suspect that it could well be greater than the yield strength of either of the steels in question.

We should quit flogging the dead horse named Holdfast, since it has been put to pasture and instead concentrate on exactly what the new regime is going to do, is it more of the same old, same old or are they indeed committed to building a quality product, there has never been any question on the efficiency of the design.