Rocna Recall - China vs Canada Quality Comparison

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by anjou

China is a third world country. I dont care how much money they might have, its still third world because of their lack of ethics, morals, integrity, sense of right and wrong, lack of quality (...)

Relevant?

True?

You are a sinologist? Spent much life in China?

Let's stick to the welds, OK?

b.

[Hogan]

Yea, my post was not meant to bash China, though clearly labor practices thier are quite a bit different than in the "first world".

This is yet another topic - how first world economic hegemony and imperialism have traditionally enslaved the third world.

The irony of China being supposedly communist and yet its leaders gladly supporting such rabid capitalist exploitation yet another topic.

All in the name of "development" "growth" "civilization" and "progress".

Looks like "regression" to this observer - on both sides. Greed takes over at certain point in most of us, and we lose sight of what's truly important.

When is enough enough?

[boatsmith]

Originally Posted by Delfin

As noted, there are quite a few on the different threads on this, but here is one sent to me recently. I have no clue what the provenance of this anchor is, but if Grant King is correct that many Rocnas were shipped with 400 mPA steel, bending the shank like this would be pretty easy to do.

Thanks. I would have to guess that this anchor had to be set pretty well to bend a shank like this. I also gusee that the welds were good enough. Don't have much expertise in metalurgy but have done a fair bit if fabricating. I woud think that this anchor was not in sand or mud. Not defending aybody just commenting on what I can see. How much wind and waves did it take to do this? Should one be happy that the anchor held or angry that it bent?

[estarzinger]

Just some observations aside from the China issue:

We were cruising up in Newfoundland this summer, giving a NZ built 55kg ROCNA some testing. A few comments from that experience:

1. In a penetrating bottom (like deep hard mud or soft sand) the anchor performs (sets and holds) very well . . . but so do all the other anchors we carry (a Ray, fortress and danforth).

2. We found two bottoms where the ROCNA did not perform well. We had a gale in Burgo which has an anchorage called 'long reach'. When you picked a rocna up off this bottom it came up loaded with nice hard mud. The locals tell me that the bottom has 9-12" of mud over a granite subsurface. We had a gale and the Rocna's (there were two other boats with them anchored there) had trouble holding, slowly pulling thru the mud, probably with the tip skating over the granite. We put the Ray down and it immediately set and held. There was another small anchorage up one of the fjords with quite heavy kelp. The kelp seemed to catch and trap on the roll bar and prevent the anchor from setting deeply.

3. This rocna seems to be rusting faster and more than any other anchor I have used. I don't know much about galvanizing but the NZ factory job is not lasting very well.

My impression after our use is that the ROCNA is a perfectly adequate anchor, and surely better than a CQR, but certainly not the best thing since sliced bread.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Delfin

As noted, there are quite a few on the different threads on this, but here is one sent to me recently. I have no clue what the provenance of this anchor is, but if Grant King is correct that many Rocnas were shipped with 400 mPA steel, bending the shank like this would be pretty easy to do.

G'Day Delfin,

Interesting photo. I'm struck by the appearance of the anchor... it looks brand new, not like an anchor that had been stuck so well into a seabed that it could be bent so badly. Not a scratch nor a blemish to be seen in the surface. Seems odd because my anchors have always looked "used" very quickly in their lives.

Do you have any of the details about how that anchor came to its photographed state?

Cheers,

Jim

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

(...)

3. This rocna seems to be rusting faster and more than any other anchor I have used. I don't know much about galvanizing but the NZ factory job is not lasting very well.

(...)

Doh. Surprise and a bummer in one. We have a 10 y.o. Bruce (copy) that was used and abused. The only place where there is any sign of rust is the very tip that digs into the bottom.

Since Rocna is roughly 6 times more expensive than our cheapo, I would expect at least adequate galvanizing!

b.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

G'Day Delfin,

Interesting photo. I'm struck by the appearance of the anchor... it looks brand new, not like an anchor that had been stuck so well into a seabed that it could be bent so badly. Not a scratch nor a blemish to be seen in the surface. Seems odd because my anchors have always looked "used" very quickly in their lives.

Do you have any of the details about how that anchor came to its photographed state?

Cheers,

Jim

Jim, as I noted, I don't know the provenance of this anchor. I have seen photos of 6 or 7 other Rocnas that clearly had been used that were bent. Some the same as this, some just tweaked enough that you could not rely on them to hold the boat anymore. If this is one of the 400 - 450 mPA steel anchors, bending would be expected because that is just butter steel.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

3. This rocna seems to be rusting faster and more than any other anchor I have used. I don't know much about galvanizing but the NZ factory job is not lasting very well.

Interesting. Our Canadian made Rocna is 4 years old and has been used every day throughout East coast US, Bahamas, Eastern Carib to Western Carib and the only rust on it is the first 1" of the tip. For comparison, the ACCO chain we bought with it rusted within 6 months and was unusable at 18 months.

Mark

[marinextreme]

Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger
3. This rocna seems to be rusting faster and more than any other anchor I have used. I don't know much about galvanizing but the NZ factory job is not lasting very well.

Originally Posted by estarzinger
3. This rocna seems to be rusting faster and more than any other anchor I have used. I don't know much about galvanizing but the NZ factory job is not lasting very well.




Read the warranty, the galvanising is NOT covered by the warranty, now you know why.

[careka]

Originally Posted by colemj

Interesting. Our Canadian made Rocna is 4 years old and has been used every day throughout East coast US, Bahamas, Eastern Carib to Western Carib and the only rust on it is the first 1" of the tip. For comparison, the ACCO chain we bought with it rusted within 6 months and was unusable at 18 months.

Mark

High grade steel rust faster then low grade steel.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Delfin

If this is one of the 400 - 450 mPA steel anchors, bending would be expected because that is just butter steel.

Reminds me of the savings made on the Titantic - when cheaper / lower quality Rivets were used. All is well, until it's not..........

.....nothing new in business when it comes to squeezing a few more dollars out of a deal, nor is shortsighted stupidity / greed a new thing


I can't really see how "Chinese Rocna" can get over this - without a complete revamp of the company and product line.

I would go back to Canadian manufacturing, with the high spec steel originally promised (and priced accordingly as a genuinely Premium Product - with made in Canada moulded on) - but the price will prevent the anchor ever being mass market (as Rocna probably discovered - hence the cost / build changes).....but would be a useful marketing tool.........."The Rocna Offshore Anchor" or similar.

In addition, I would design a cheaper version , even if the differences are only relatively minor, but compatible with lower spec steel (not down to bendy steel ) in the same way as other Manufacturers do (my understanding is that Manson does not have a fundamental problem with steel less than Rocna's original spec - they just don't make wild claims or claim perfection). I would also make the new Anchor have a clear visual difference to the original, even if that serves no actual purpose ..........the idea being that Rocna can then claim it is not a cheapened version of the original product.....as they own the Patents (presumably?) to the Rocna Anchor, should not be a legal problem in coming up with a very similar version.

The trick is not to overmarket the new Anchor , fundamentally I think Rocna have a design as good as a Manson, or at least as close as the difference is down to conditions / technique......if folk want an anchor that will never bend, the only thing that really cures that is going up in size - about 5 sizes

[colemj]

Originally Posted by careka

High grade steel rust faster then low grade steel.

That may be true for unprotected steel, but the question is the quality of the galvanizing. The Canadian built Rocnas were using the higher quality steel with good galvanizing (at least on mine). ACCO galvanizing is very substandard, even though their steel may be high quality.

Mark

[barnakiel]

So, they say no-one knows which anchors were affected and how to tell them bad ones apart? And that an anchor with bent shank is OK because ´the chain will break first' (?) Well, maybe it will, unless it is made by Rocna too ;-))))))))

BUHAHAHA!

b.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

In addition, I would design a cheaper version , even if the differences are only relatively minor, but compatible with lower spec steel (not down to bendy steel ) in the same way as other Manufacturers do (my understanding is that Manson does not have a fundamental problem with steel less than Rocna's original spec - they just don't make wild claims or claim perfection).

FYI, Manson does use 800 mPA steel, which is quite a bit stronger than whatever steel Rocna is currently using (trade secret, don't you know.) You can see that for yourself from the Manson test results done by an independent lab, as well as what they publish they use. Here are the comparative results between the Manson Supreme and the Rocna:

http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SiteP...018Apr11VB.pdf

http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SiteP...207Apr11VA.pdf

Also, when I tested a Rocna I had purchased I also measured it. I got the design drawings from Manson for the same size Supreme and found that the cross sectional area of the Manson at the mid point of the shank was also greater than the Rocna, magnifying the impact of using stronger steel.

You're right about Manson avoiding making the kind of claims of superiority that Craig Smith used to make regarding the Rocna, until of course they were shown to be complete errant nonsense. I guess Manson just assumes that if they make the product they say they are making, boaters will notice and they don't need to try to trash the competition to make their point.

[sarafina]

September Practical Sailor is out today and has it's Rocna article.