Rocna Size

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Agreed, that's why I am trying to get a sense of the real number of bent ROCNA's. As I said, I think I see 4 unique bent anchors but interested if others agree or disagree.

4 is probably a higher rate than Manson (1?) but is still pretty small.

Just trying to get a gage of the actual occurrence of bending.

4 seen in those photos.
There are more unpublished photos

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by Shawn67

"But . . . when did they find out about the substandard steel, and why not recall that batch of anchors?"

According to the quote from Rocna CEO they didn't find out about the substandard steel till Manson performed the testing on the anchor. If that is true it certainly makes me wonder about their QA. Also interesting that they called Manson's testing 'fact'... IOW they aren't disagreeing with the results.

As far as a recall is there any sort of date/production coding on a Rocna?

The fact that they are trying to design a test to 'prove' that the lower quality steel is still OK IMO suggests there not being a recall in the future. Will be interesting to see how that alters warranty claims against the grade of steel used in the anchor.

Shawn

The Venice anchor was produced in December 2008

it was bent in May 2009 on it's first use.

[Alecadi]

Originally Posted by impi

------------ the letter that was sent to me but here below is what I received:

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information on current publicity regarding Rocna.
Background: Forum discussions regarding Rocna and the people speaking against us
-----------------------those making the most noise are the people who have the most to gain by discrediting Rocna.
This includes Grant King, who is a disaffected former contractor of Rocna Anchors whose contract with us was terminated after an investigation into his conduct uncovered serious instances of fraud and theft.
We are not at liberty to provide further details given there is an ongoing Police investigation, but as a result of his termination Mr King has an adverse position toward Rocna Anchors, and he has been posting both under his own name and under the pseudonym Adam Andrews (username "whaleboy" pretending to be a dissatisfied Rocna customer.

I don't know who is right but here we have the Mr King they are talking about in this letter (dated?) participating in this thread .
At least he is signing his proper name.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by marinextreme

4 seen in those photos.
There are more unpublished photos

So can you please tell us, how many actual bent Rocna's there have been that you know about?

ROCNA/Steve apparently says 5 in total, 4 of which we have photos of. Are you aware of more than 5? If so how many more?

[Silent Knight]

Originally Posted by marinextreme

The Venice anchor was produced in December 2008

it was bent in May 2009 on it's first use.

In their letter Rocna say that the faulty batch was produced in early 2010 so there must have been more than one batch of low grade material. Any idea how many, or was it simply that everything was made in below spec steel?

[Shawn67]

" or was it simply that everything was made in below spec steel?"

The Yachting and Boat World forum has a long (63+ page) thread on this. From reading this is sounds like some early China made anchors used shanks that were built in NZ and of the originally specified materials.

Once that supply was exhausted the shanks were built in China.

Yachting and Boating World Forums - View Single Post - I hate to do this...but

Shawn

[Silent Knight]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

Craig Smith has given me great support as a customer. He's been responsive and available. If there's a problem with a product of his, I'm all for calmly pointing it out, perhaps getting an explanation, and helping the company produce a better product. That's not what was happening here.

You're really not keeping up with what has been happening here.
The whole story moved on from CS long ago. Other than the fact that he is the inventors son and he may (it has not been made clear) receive some licence income from Rocna, he has no connection with Rocna. He is neither shareholder, employee, agent or subcontractor. Bambury has made it abundantly clear that there is no other connection betweeen CS and Rocna.

It is Rocna which is being taken to task. Whether CS is the sweetest, most charming Anchorsmith on the planet, or the devil incarnate is irrelevant.

[estarzinger]

WHile looking for something else, I stumbled across this May 25th 2010 press release from Hold Fast Anchors’ CEO Steve Bambury:

Hold Fast Anchors Confirms Full RINA Certification for Rocna anchors

“We’re delighted to be able to announce full RINA certification for Rocna anchors – and for our manufacturing plant,” says Hold Fast Anchors’ CEO Steve Bambury.

From what we know now it appears to be a plain and complete lie.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

You're kidding, right?

You mean that people should decide to use or not use ActiveCaptain based on the fact that I feel Rocna and CS have been treated unfairly in this thread? Tell me, how far exactly does that go? Does every one of the 100,000 users on ActiveCaptain need to agree with 100% of my political, social, and philosophical ideas?

Of course not, nor did I imply that at all.

My only point was that as I believe ActiveCaptain appears to be a very useful and powerful tool, why associate any controversy with it? From a marketing perspective, I just wondered about it, but you know what, it is only my opinion, freely given, and I guess the worth of that opinion is what you make of it. I truly do wish you well with the software program.

We probably will continue to disagree on motives of testing of Rocna anchors.

Heck, forget that - I'll challenge everyone to judge ActiveCaptain exactly by my actions here. This wasn't a fair debate. This was a lynching. Let it be said loud and clear that I'll side with the underdog - the one being picked on. I'm happy to be a voice, the only voice if necessary to stand up and point out where something has been done unfairly.

Many have said, on here and other forums, that it is interesting to say the least, that anchors found in Venice, NZ, and the U.S all, when tested, do not meet the specs Rocna said they are manufactured to.

Rocna itself acknowledged that there was a batch "in early 2010" that were not manufactured to specs. They further go on to say that it didn't matter, that those sub-standard speced anchors would still perform the job.

That is being very economical with the truth. Why no recall of those anchors?

No lynching, just facts. Disturbing facts, but facts nevertheless.

Craig Smith has given me great support as a customer. He's been responsive and available. If there's a problem with a product of his, I'm all for calmly pointing it out, perhaps getting an explanation, and helping the company produce a better product.

The problem is that Craig is not answering the issues brought up. Not only the test results, but issues surrounding RINA certification (Craig admits that it is not complete, but "very complex"). The Rocna website to this date still advises that Rocna anchors are RINA certified, and they are not. Is that straight dealing?

ActiveCaptain, I have no problem of anyone pointing out that I may be wrong on facts. No one else, including perhaps yourself and Rocna, should be concerned about that.

Perhaps I can ask one question, do you challenge the facts of the metal not being up to spec? OK, a second question. Do you agree that Rocna's verbiage on RINA certification is confusing at best, and very economical on a factual basis?


Continued good success with ActiveCaptain, as this post is not intended in any way as a slight towards you or your product.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

WHile looking for something else, I stumbled across this May 25th 2010 press release from Hold Fast Anchors’ CEO Steve Bambury:

Hold Fast Anchors Confirms Full RINA Certification for Rocna anchors

“We’re delighted to be able to announce full RINA certification for Rocna anchors – and for our manufacturing plant,” says Hold Fast Anchors’ CEO Steve Bambury.

From what we know now it appears to be a plain and complete lie.

Part of what makes this soap opera so interesting is the degree to which it appears that Rocna has built a reputation on the basis of different but repeated fabrications. The West Marine/Sail test results that had them touting that they were 45% stronger than any competitor was based on a single pull where the anchor clearly snagged on something. You're noted the RINA certification fib. Add to that Craig Smith's repeated mis-representation of other's products and their oft repeated claim that the Manson is a Rocna knock off, when in fact they are both knock offs of the Bugel and you scratch your head wondering what kind of people with a basically good product promote it the way they do? I guess the same kind of people that make their product out of below spec materials, then pretend it didn't happen, or if it did, it only happened once, but if it happened a lot, it was all Grant King's fault. Weird-o-rama.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by Delfin

Part of what makes this soap opera so interesting is the degree to which it appears that Rocna has built a reputation on the basis of different but repeated fabrications. The West Marine/Sail test results that had them touting that they were 45% stronger than any competitor was based on a single pull where the anchor clearly snagged on something. You're noted the RINA certification fib. Add to that Craig Smith's repeated mis-representation of other's products and their oft repeated claim that the Manson is a Rocna knock off, when in fact they are both knock offs of the Bugel and you scratch your head wondering what kind of people with a basically good product promote it the way they do? I guess the same kind of people that make their product out of below spec materials, then pretend it didn't happen, or if it did, it only happened once, but if it happened a lot, it was all Grant King's fault. Weird-o-rama.

Weird-o-rama indeed.

aka: What goes around comes around...

[ActiveCaptain]

Originally Posted by avb3

Perhaps I can ask one question, do you challenge the facts of the metal not being up to spec? OK, a second question. Do you agree that Rocna's verbiage on RINA certification is confusing at best, and very economical on a factual basis?

Question 1. No, I do not challenge the facts that a particular anchor of a particular size that was acquired at a particular time and store did not meet the specifications that were written for the anchor. There appears to be something incorrect about the specifications for that anchor.

Question 2. I honestly never read Rocna's verbiage on RINA certification prior to purchasing my anchor. I have no idea right now what RINA is or why it should matter to me. I know that a lot of people had great success with the Rocna and I was willing to try it with a 30 day return allowance from West Marine. I installed the anchor on my boat and used it hard for a couple of weeks. I was shocked how well it worked on a boat that I had been anchoring and knew pretty well for 7 years. It was unlike anything I had experienced before in areas of Maine where I had anchored dozens of times before.

Now with 2 full years of the anchor under my belt (bow?) living aboard as a 3/4 full-time transient and anchoring a fair amount, it works fantastically well. I'm happy. Actually, happy doesn't begin to describe how elated I am with this anchor. I should say that in the first 7 years with this boat, I dragged anchor once in the Bahamas - no damage, no problems, it just dragged. Once. I know very well how an anchor grabs my boat. The Rocna is different. The only complaint that I have with the anchor is that it takes too damn long to pull it in at 1:1 scope because it takes time to release when we power set it. I'm also noticing some scratching of the galvanizing which I expect to control as part of maintenance with any steel product.

So tensile strength, RINA, MPa values? I have no idea what they really mean and I don't honestly care just like 99% of all boaters. I feel pretty confident that my chain would break long before the anchor would.

Would I be pissed if it was determined that my anchor had a 690 MPa rating instead of an 800 MPa one? Possibly if I was only doing the analysis at a desk. Perhaps if there were more dropping of anchors in real situations and posting to CF as I'm doing at my helm right now, there's be less concern about the minutia of all these specs.

Originally Posted by avb3

Continued good success with ActiveCaptain, as this post is not intended in any way as a slight towards you or your product.

I know. I picked on your post a little. I've gotten too many private messages here challenging similar things. I do have a life outside ActiveCaptain. I have a lot of opinions about many things that, perhaps, users of our product wouldn't agree with (don't get me started about my desire to get to Cuba). But geez, ActiveCaptain isn't about me. It's a tool that gets its value from everyone who contributes. The whole concept would be nothing without everyone else. That power of multiple points of view is important and usually uncovers the truth...whether the subject is about a place to anchor or the quality of the anchor itself. Dismissing and shutting down alternate views usually only happens when there is too much emotion to really debate a subject. And that's what I think is really going on here. We're way beyond facts. This thread and the handful of other forums with identically started threads are all about emotion with a few specs and numbers thrown out to whip up the public into a state of frenzy.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

Question 1. No, I do not challenge the facts that a particular anchor of a particular size that was acquired at a particular time and store did not meet the specifications that were written for the anchor. There appears to be something incorrect about the specifications for that anchor.

Question 2. I honestly never read Rocna's verbiage on RINA certification prior to purchasing my anchor. I have no idea right now what RINA is or why it should matter to me ...

1. Your phraseology seems to suggest that you suspect that the failure of the tested anchor to meets ROCNA’s specifications may have been unique to that particular specimen. This is, at best, a specious and disingenuous statement, ignoring the obvious fact that anchors are not custom built, one at a time.

2. RINA - The Royal Institution of Naval Architects was founded in 1860 in London to "...advance the art and science of ship design... " today the Royal Institution of Naval Architects is a world renowned and highly respected international professional institution and learned society whose members are involved at all levels in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of all marine vessels and structures. RINA has members in over 90 countries, and is widely represented in industry, universities and colleges, and maritime organisations world-wide. RINA has operated as an international certification body since 1989.

Originally Posted by ActiveCaptain

... Could you explain where the money came from? Is anyone asking you to do this analysis? Is anyone paying you to do this analysis?
For someone who claims no bias, the text that I read show an incredible bias against Rocna that go beyond the steel analysis done.

Originally Posted by Hud3

Questioning Delfin's motives is a red herring. He's stated his motives, and I choose to believe him, but even if I thought he's a Manson operative bent on deceiving us (which I don't), it doesn't matter. The data is the data, based on tests performed and reported by an extremely reputable and competent testing organization. Denying it's veracity by seeking to discredit the messenger would seem to me to indicate bias on the part of the questioners.
Thanks, Delfin, for injecting facts into an emotional and opinionated debate. It seems Rocna has a lot to answer for.

As HUD notes, motivation is no answer to fact, which remains fact. It doesn't matter that Hud & I believe Delfin, only that we (collectively) believe the engineering test report he submitted.

[ActiveCaptain]

Originally Posted by GordMay

1. Your phraseology seems to suggest that you suspect that the failure of the tested anchor to meets ROCNA’s specifications may have been unique to that particular specimen.

If we're going to be exact on the data results, a specimen of 1 doesn't exactly prove that Rocna's entire product line has a problem. Maybe it has a problem - who knows? I agree that Rocna should tell the public what happened.

Is it not possible that they reduced the steel strength of the 10 kg model because it didn't need the same strength as the 55 kg one? I honestly don't know.

Originally Posted by GordMay

As HUD notes, motivation is no answer to fact, which remains fact. It doesn't matter that Hud & I believe Delfin, only that we (collectively) believe the engineering test report he submitted.

I never doubted the engineering reports. But come on...read the entire thread. The actual hard data is a small part of what's gone on here. This has been an emotional lynching of Rocna because there's a group of people upset with the representations and attitudes of one person representing the company. The postings and continual replies (hundreds) over multiple forums has been a full time job for a few people. Why would any normal person do that?

And besides, someone with all the facts rarely has a problem with cross-examination. There's a reason it's a staple of our legal system. Motivation is often responsible for providing a little less than all the facts. Remember "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" saying? I have a feeling we have seen the truth and nothing but the truth. The whole truth has been sorely missing though.

[Ziggy]

ActiveCaptain:
The issue here is that people have been paying a premium price for Rocna anchors based on the mistaken assumption that "you get what you pay for" (generally a meaningless cliche). Rocna has apparently been falsely advertising some comparative merits of their product in order to justify the price differential. That does not mean that Rocna anchor is significantly worse (or better) than, say, Manson, but now consumers can make a more informed decision whether it's worth more money. It's great that you are happy with your Rocna, and I'm sure many others are too. You may not care about the hardness of the shank or RINA certification, and you might see some other benefits to Rocna that justify the price premium, and that's OK. But others might feel cheated when they buy a more expensive product based on false advertising.