melandnick
New member
Anchors. I hate to do this but...
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
- Status
kaymak
New member
OMG how did I get here? For days I have felt like I was swimming upstream, as the replies piled on -- and I have been wondering if I was swimming fast enough to get through the stream of replies that was pushing me back ;-)
(Yes it really is embarrassing to admit that I went through it all -- linearly. Why? Who knows? Because it was there, the Everest of threads.)
But I got here in the end . . . and (naively) am now thinking that the thread is nearly done.
As you can see from my post count, I am a newbie (to this forum though not to the internet or sailing or anchoring). I am a yachtsman, with no particular "affiliation" to any product -- except that we all sometimes feel proud (before a fall) that we have made the clever choice and bought the right product.
Let me share a few facts, and a few thoughts related to how I feel having scaled this summit (or is it just a "false peak").
Facts:
- bought a 55kg Rocna in late 2008
- did much "research" before buying (including Rocna site, various reviews)
- felt pain of modifying a stemhead to fit (knew what I was getting into)
- bought an aluminium A200 Spade as stern anchor in mid-2009
- might someday buy a Fortress or fisherman's depending on where I go
- have used Bruce/Fortress combinations on two previous boats
- have used CQR and American Danforth on others' boats
Thoughts (at the current summit of this thread -- downhill from here):
- the entire marine industry worldwide is a cottage industry
- few standards, many characters -- part of what makes it fun/interesting
- "purely rational" people make emotional decisions -- to some degree
- facts and "research" are useful in supporting (emotional) decisions
- I knew I was being marketed to when I read the Rocna website in 2006-08
- Marketing licence is as common and to be expected as poetic licence
- But I assumed a basic level of integrity in use of data presented by Rocna
- I now have no confidence that Rocna has any culture of integrity
- This is not about Craig -- my current view is based on the CEO's recent post
- I like to buy from companies with integrity (fine if they fight hard but fair)
- My experience of the Rocna anchor itself has (generally) been very good
- But ironically it is the only anchor that has ever dragged badly on me
- My sense is that the Spade is a better piece of innovative engineering
- My sense is that the Spade is the better product for general use
- I am not an engineer and have no scientific basis for my view
- I have no reason to doubt the integrity of Spade or its distributors
- For me the Rocna CEO's post was entirely unconvincing -- no integrity there
- Culture (good and bad) runs deep with most companies (that succeed)
Conclusion:
- There is no perfect anchor -- many variables
- I will keep using my anchors -- they are both pretty good general products
- I would have done it differently if I did it again today
- I will not buy a Rocna product again, unless something big changes there
Too bad no one came up with a good "April Fools" offering today of a new and radically innovative product, the Perfect Anchor (maybe next year).
Now if I can just get away to spend some time on the boat, sailing, and even anchoring ;-)
(Yes it really is embarrassing to admit that I went through it all -- linearly. Why? Who knows? Because it was there, the Everest of threads.)
But I got here in the end . . . and (naively) am now thinking that the thread is nearly done.
As you can see from my post count, I am a newbie (to this forum though not to the internet or sailing or anchoring). I am a yachtsman, with no particular "affiliation" to any product -- except that we all sometimes feel proud (before a fall) that we have made the clever choice and bought the right product.
Let me share a few facts, and a few thoughts related to how I feel having scaled this summit (or is it just a "false peak").
Facts:
- bought a 55kg Rocna in late 2008
- did much "research" before buying (including Rocna site, various reviews)
- felt pain of modifying a stemhead to fit (knew what I was getting into)
- bought an aluminium A200 Spade as stern anchor in mid-2009
- might someday buy a Fortress or fisherman's depending on where I go
- have used Bruce/Fortress combinations on two previous boats
- have used CQR and American Danforth on others' boats
Thoughts (at the current summit of this thread -- downhill from here):
- the entire marine industry worldwide is a cottage industry
- few standards, many characters -- part of what makes it fun/interesting
- "purely rational" people make emotional decisions -- to some degree
- facts and "research" are useful in supporting (emotional) decisions
- I knew I was being marketed to when I read the Rocna website in 2006-08
- Marketing licence is as common and to be expected as poetic licence
- But I assumed a basic level of integrity in use of data presented by Rocna
- I now have no confidence that Rocna has any culture of integrity
- This is not about Craig -- my current view is based on the CEO's recent post
- I like to buy from companies with integrity (fine if they fight hard but fair)
- My experience of the Rocna anchor itself has (generally) been very good
- But ironically it is the only anchor that has ever dragged badly on me
- My sense is that the Spade is a better piece of innovative engineering
- My sense is that the Spade is the better product for general use
- I am not an engineer and have no scientific basis for my view
- I have no reason to doubt the integrity of Spade or its distributors
- For me the Rocna CEO's post was entirely unconvincing -- no integrity there
- Culture (good and bad) runs deep with most companies (that succeed)
Conclusion:
- There is no perfect anchor -- many variables
- I will keep using my anchors -- they are both pretty good general products
- I would have done it differently if I did it again today
- I will not buy a Rocna product again, unless something big changes there
Too bad no one came up with a good "April Fools" offering today of a new and radically innovative product, the Perfect Anchor (maybe next year).
Now if I can just get away to spend some time on the boat, sailing, and even anchoring ;-)
Delfin
New member
Kaymak, let me be the first to express my admiration that you waded through this "Everest of threads". Either you are really interested in this subject, or you have a serious OCD issue.
I am like you in my conclusions and I thank you for your thoughtful post. I assume there is no perfect anchor. I have my preferences (Sarca Excel), but like you I would rather not do business with companies I experience as unethical. It is very, very hard not to conclude that Rocna has a culture that is deeply dishonest and aberrant. What is almost morbidly fascinating is that it looks like they make an ok product which could probably be successful without the bizarre rants, misinformation, distortions and fabrications of their minor minions. But that is not their style. And the sheer pathology of it all stimulates the debate and fascinates in the manner of the train wreck.
I, for one, welcome the input from manufacturers whose perspective helps educate and sort out the issues. However, when I hear anyone associated with Rocna speak up, I immediately assume that they are lying - a Pavlovian response to conditioned stimulus. Djbangi, Rigger Mortice and others have pretty much summed up the situation and I very much appreciate their observations. From my perspective, Rocna should fail as a commercial entity for the same reason all fundamentally dishonest companies should fail - scuzzy companies should not burden the marketplace with their presence when there are so many ethical companies to buy from.
Last edited:
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
Can you share with us the circumstances of the dragging, and why you think it happened?
Djbangi
New member
More reality?
Hi Kaymak
Expect to get the fifth degree, someone, somewhere will doubt. If you think some of them work in the Rocna camp, join the club - 'do you want to get Rocnad' But there are many who agree with everything you say - sadly there are an odd number who will tell you 'but Craig said.... and he was affiliated with Rocna...'
Vyv,
Bisalloy is a company - they are the only producer of Hi Tensile steels in Oz/Nz. If you look at www.bisalloy.com.au you will find everything you need to know about cutting, welding, bending and galvanising Hi tensile steels. In fact if you read the copious info you could become an apprentice anchorsmith. It also mentions carbon content.
It is quite possible, Rocna, when they manufactured in NZ, used a product from Bisalloy. They might have used it on the full production, or on one anchor. Pity you do not recall the quality. Bisalloy produce Bisplate - nos 60 and up. 60 is equivalent in tensile strength to 316 stainless (about 2.5 times the strength of mild steel) 80 is 4 times the strength. They make higher grades but higher grades, basically, cannot be galvanised. The top grades are used in nuclear submarines, armour plating for military vehicles and things for the mining industry (which, mining, is presumably Bisalloy's major market)
When I was searching Bisalloy in google I tripped over an antidumping case, a Chinese steel company was selling mild steel to export for less than the cost of iron ore. The A$ has risen about 30% in the last 2 years, iron ore and coal have shot through the roof. Import duties to China are horrendous and import permits hard to get. (And Bisalloy has no office in China - not a crime, but indicative possibly of where they think the market is.) If you shifted your production to China, had been (and will be) paying in A$, duty, permits etc what would you do? But nothing is impossible. But think of the real world.
If you were to speak to UK or European (not sure about USA) steel makers about selling to China - they would laugh their socks off, and then cry some.
But nothing is impossible.
The equivalent is ASTM A514, there does not seem to be a BS equivalent. Its the top of the range (if you want to galvanise). If I were a manufacturer I would be proud to claim I used Bisplate 80, or ASTM A514.
Oddly few anchor makers define steel quality, maybe that is the consumers fault? Check most anchor makers and sadly they seem to use mild steel. Would you buy a new yacht without knowing the resin and reinforcement - would you buy a sail without knowing the fabric construction?
To have a Classification Society approval costs thousands of dollars, it would make your eyes water. If I were an anchor maker and had a CS certificate, especially for Super High Holding Power, the first thing I would do is post it on my website, the second thing I would do is send it to my competitors (with some warmly worded caption - you can imagine the captions) but finally I would insure it was on this thread (as many times as possible, I recall seeing a contribution of 10 lines with Rocna mentioned 15 times - and that was from someone independent!?) - it would silence a few of my critics, or at least take the wind out of their sails.
But still we get contributions telling us 'Craig told me...', 'Craig clearly stated...'
There are a few people who might clarify all of this (and the growing list of other questions), and Holdfast must be at the top of the list, but maybe they are still too busy.
My view is that if no certificate is posted - it does not exist. If a company claims to use Hi tensile steel and cannot specify the quality, then assume it could be mild steel. And if they claim certification and use of Hi tensile steel and do not specify - then do not trust them, for anything else they might claim. But then I am a well known cynic.
For those who are too young for Def Leppard - I'll try to find something a bit more contemporary.
Hi Kaymak
Expect to get the fifth degree, someone, somewhere will doubt. If you think some of them work in the Rocna camp, join the club - 'do you want to get Rocnad' But there are many who agree with everything you say - sadly there are an odd number who will tell you 'but Craig said.... and he was affiliated with Rocna...'
Vyv,
Bisalloy is a company - they are the only producer of Hi Tensile steels in Oz/Nz. If you look at www.bisalloy.com.au you will find everything you need to know about cutting, welding, bending and galvanising Hi tensile steels. In fact if you read the copious info you could become an apprentice anchorsmith. It also mentions carbon content.
It is quite possible, Rocna, when they manufactured in NZ, used a product from Bisalloy. They might have used it on the full production, or on one anchor. Pity you do not recall the quality. Bisalloy produce Bisplate - nos 60 and up. 60 is equivalent in tensile strength to 316 stainless (about 2.5 times the strength of mild steel) 80 is 4 times the strength. They make higher grades but higher grades, basically, cannot be galvanised. The top grades are used in nuclear submarines, armour plating for military vehicles and things for the mining industry (which, mining, is presumably Bisalloy's major market)
When I was searching Bisalloy in google I tripped over an antidumping case, a Chinese steel company was selling mild steel to export for less than the cost of iron ore. The A$ has risen about 30% in the last 2 years, iron ore and coal have shot through the roof. Import duties to China are horrendous and import permits hard to get. (And Bisalloy has no office in China - not a crime, but indicative possibly of where they think the market is.) If you shifted your production to China, had been (and will be) paying in A$, duty, permits etc what would you do? But nothing is impossible. But think of the real world.
If you were to speak to UK or European (not sure about USA) steel makers about selling to China - they would laugh their socks off, and then cry some.
But nothing is impossible.
The equivalent is ASTM A514, there does not seem to be a BS equivalent. Its the top of the range (if you want to galvanise). If I were a manufacturer I would be proud to claim I used Bisplate 80, or ASTM A514.
Oddly few anchor makers define steel quality, maybe that is the consumers fault? Check most anchor makers and sadly they seem to use mild steel. Would you buy a new yacht without knowing the resin and reinforcement - would you buy a sail without knowing the fabric construction?
To have a Classification Society approval costs thousands of dollars, it would make your eyes water. If I were an anchor maker and had a CS certificate, especially for Super High Holding Power, the first thing I would do is post it on my website, the second thing I would do is send it to my competitors (with some warmly worded caption - you can imagine the captions) but finally I would insure it was on this thread (as many times as possible, I recall seeing a contribution of 10 lines with Rocna mentioned 15 times - and that was from someone independent!?) - it would silence a few of my critics, or at least take the wind out of their sails.
But still we get contributions telling us 'Craig told me...', 'Craig clearly stated...'
There are a few people who might clarify all of this (and the growing list of other questions), and Holdfast must be at the top of the list, but maybe they are still too busy.
My view is that if no certificate is posted - it does not exist. If a company claims to use Hi tensile steel and cannot specify the quality, then assume it could be mild steel. And if they claim certification and use of Hi tensile steel and do not specify - then do not trust them, for anything else they might claim. But then I am a well known cynic.
For those who are too young for Def Leppard - I'll try to find something a bit more contemporary.
Ubergeekian
Active member
Yes, in both cases, because I would trust the builder/sailmaker to use something suitable. That means, of course, that I'd only use a builder/sailmaker I could trust in the first place.
vyv_cox
Well-known member
Their NZ production used Bisplate 80. American. Canadian and Chinese-made versions use equivalents.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I don't know if this helps, but this is what the Anchorsmith said, in his usual charming manner, in October 09.
This was at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2271571#post2271571 if you want to check the reference.
Whether it still applies to the Chinese production or not, I have no idea but some months earlier, on 16/1/09 Rocna said (on Cruiser Forum)
This was at http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/bent-manson-supreme-22270-4.html
On the subject of certificates; many anchor manufacturers show theirs on their websites. Rocna's refusal to do so does lead me to be suspicious particularly in view of this, which appeared on the same Cruisers Forum thread on 26/3/11..........
Whilst the chronology is a little unclear, I am left wondering why we have been told all about RINA approved production for so long when, only recently, it is clear that the certificates had not been issued.
On a separate issue, I note that the Anchorsmith has still not removed his "affiliated" claim from his personal details.
Chris-Robb has seen the Australian steel brand Bisalloy and confused it with bismuth. The Rocna uses a [rather costly] high tensile 800 grade Q&T steel. It is needed to meet strength requirements. Such specs which are not visible or obvious to the shopper in a chandlery are the first to get compromised with the real cheapies.
Orbister you are a troll who is either deliberately obstinate or willfully ignorant. Go start an argument about seahorses.
Orbister you are a troll who is either deliberately obstinate or willfully ignorant. Go start an argument about seahorses.
This was at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2271571#post2271571 if you want to check the reference.
Whether it still applies to the Chinese production or not, I have no idea but some months earlier, on 16/1/09 Rocna said (on Cruiser Forum)
We have contracted highly skilled experts in quality control and production management and have sent them to the factory to work closely with the Chinese and have also engaged the services of RINA (Lloyds were too uncooperative – long story) to undertake quality control and be involved with process. The quality of steel used is to the same exacting specifications we have always used.
On the subject of certificates; many anchor manufacturers show theirs on their websites. Rocna's refusal to do so does lead me to be suspicious particularly in view of this, which appeared on the same Cruisers Forum thread on 26/3/11..........
Staffed by highly skilled, well-qualified engineers and workers, the Chinese facility is already ISO 9001 accredited. All the welders are certified and the factory has invested in the latest X-ray technology for random weld inspections as part of a rigorous quality control regime and we employ our own specialised NZ production and QC staff in China.
In addition, we have invested considerable time and effort training their Chinese production team to meet our high standards. Experts in quality control and production management worked closely with Chinese factory personnel and we also engaged the services of Italian based RINA [Registro Italiano Navale], an internationally recognised leader in certification and assessment of conformity, and have been working with RINA now for over 18 months.
RINA is now in the final stages of certifying the Chinese facilities. Only 5% of Chinese companies meet RINA’s standards and Rocna will be the first and only anchor manufacturer in the world to be certified to such a high level.
In addition, we have invested considerable time and effort training their Chinese production team to meet our high standards. Experts in quality control and production management worked closely with Chinese factory personnel and we also engaged the services of Italian based RINA [Registro Italiano Navale], an internationally recognised leader in certification and assessment of conformity, and have been working with RINA now for over 18 months.
RINA is now in the final stages of certifying the Chinese facilities. Only 5% of Chinese companies meet RINA’s standards and Rocna will be the first and only anchor manufacturer in the world to be certified to such a high level.
Whilst the chronology is a little unclear, I am left wondering why we have been told all about RINA approved production for so long when, only recently, it is clear that the certificates had not been issued.
On a separate issue, I note that the Anchorsmith has still not removed his "affiliated" claim from his personal details.
BrianH
Active member
An eloquent post that says it for me too.
Particularly the final point. Although the major reason is that my 15kg Rocna bought in 2008 was flawed, in that the galvanising chipped away like poorly-applied grey paint, with no steel-zinc bonding whatsoever. Coupled to that was the fact that my emails reporting the problem were ignored until I posted on this forum, with photos.
Yes, they did eventually pay the derisory cost to re-galvanise (€20) but I and a local friend had to make all the arrangements and transport to the factory. But at least the Rocna label, looking like an afterthought by being stuck on by a blob of gum, could be peeled off easily - I didn't bother to stick it back after the treatment.
For me it was an illuminating incident on the Rocna product processing, quality control and customer support.
Djbangi
New member
History
I was musing over the Rocna history and simultaneously thinking of Sunstone, no insult intended. If you speak to most people who sail the world they seldom anchor, difficult in the middle of an ocean, but after all the solitude they seem to quite like modern facilities on their stop-overs. Its also a problem of many famous sailors - great seamen, but seldom have need to anchor. But that's an aside.
My memory recalls that The Master and his Apprentice were in Europe and sailed home, presumably via Patagonia, hence the images. Once home they set to and designed the anchor which they released in 2006. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not sure how long it takes to develop an anchor but they must have been aware of the Bugel and Spade (popular in continental Europe) and SARCA, (both convex and concave versions) as they were made in NZ. Given they had access to these designs/ideas development might not have been that long and they had time to think of the design as they sailed home. But if the Apprentice is 28 now you can try to do the maths.
Interestingly the cruise home must have been the time when The Apprentice learnt his anchoring skills, because he does not seem to travel with The Master now as this would cramp the Apprentices forum activity (and The Master is not 'wired'). So anchor skills were learnt on that cruise and he obviously learnt well as his supporters keep telling me he has made some amazing contribtuions based on his own hard won experience - certainly a child protegy.
However that actually is not the point of these public thoughts - The Master and Apprentice arrived home safely. They set to to design the world beating product we have now and The Appretice disparages any and everything else, which I am assured by his supporters is what any normal person does when they want to sell a product. So what did they use to anchor with as they came home? Whatever it was got them through the wilds of S America - must have been quite good (or did they tie to trees and use fishermans wharves?). I suspect they used something that we would all recognise - which must have been adequate. Maybe some eagle eyed person who has access to the images can pick out what is on the bow roller.
And how does Vyv know that ASTM A514 is available in China? Amazing.
I was musing over the Rocna history and simultaneously thinking of Sunstone, no insult intended. If you speak to most people who sail the world they seldom anchor, difficult in the middle of an ocean, but after all the solitude they seem to quite like modern facilities on their stop-overs. Its also a problem of many famous sailors - great seamen, but seldom have need to anchor. But that's an aside.
My memory recalls that The Master and his Apprentice were in Europe and sailed home, presumably via Patagonia, hence the images. Once home they set to and designed the anchor which they released in 2006. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not sure how long it takes to develop an anchor but they must have been aware of the Bugel and Spade (popular in continental Europe) and SARCA, (both convex and concave versions) as they were made in NZ. Given they had access to these designs/ideas development might not have been that long and they had time to think of the design as they sailed home. But if the Apprentice is 28 now you can try to do the maths.
Interestingly the cruise home must have been the time when The Apprentice learnt his anchoring skills, because he does not seem to travel with The Master now as this would cramp the Apprentices forum activity (and The Master is not 'wired'). So anchor skills were learnt on that cruise and he obviously learnt well as his supporters keep telling me he has made some amazing contribtuions based on his own hard won experience - certainly a child protegy.
However that actually is not the point of these public thoughts - The Master and Apprentice arrived home safely. They set to to design the world beating product we have now and The Appretice disparages any and everything else, which I am assured by his supporters is what any normal person does when they want to sell a product. So what did they use to anchor with as they came home? Whatever it was got them through the wilds of S America - must have been quite good (or did they tie to trees and use fishermans wharves?). I suspect they used something that we would all recognise - which must have been adequate. Maybe some eagle eyed person who has access to the images can pick out what is on the bow roller.
And how does Vyv know that ASTM A514 is available in China? Amazing.
CONGO
Member
Hi Barnacle,
Rex from Sarca anchors, Galvanizing, didn’t think I would be defending the company you have quoted given the circumstances, yes Galvanizing is something that also needs strict quality control, the company we use are certified with Australia standards, it’s a bit like a Monday and a Friday and anywhere in between you get a good job .
The most frustrating part we find is the handling of them once galvanized, the job can be really good and you have to send some back as they have been badly chipped when dropped into a stillage, this really only happens with anchors from probably 16 K.G. and up, but yes you can get an anchor that looks fantastic, you send it out being quite confident the next thing you receive a photo showing poor a adhesion, if an anchor is well galvanized a chip is not drastic if the underlying gal is well impregnated, unfortunately you cannot check out this adhesion quality , so if you get a problem such as you had then by all means if they are local replace the anchor, if it is overseas then pay for the galvanized, admit tingly you should not be stressed by the companies lack of response.
Identifying the anchor size with stickers? You know with our certification here in Australia our testing is all in line of the Lloyds test, proof of this, you will find a Lloyds certificate on our test cert page confirming this, all of our anchors have to have our logo hard stamped to prevent copy, so as when a survey officer inspects a vessel he can see that the anchor is a genuine tested design, not only do we have to have our logo but have to hard stamp the type certification size and weight.
Rex.
Anchor Right Australia
Rex from Sarca anchors, Galvanizing, didn’t think I would be defending the company you have quoted given the circumstances, yes Galvanizing is something that also needs strict quality control, the company we use are certified with Australia standards, it’s a bit like a Monday and a Friday and anywhere in between you get a good job .
The most frustrating part we find is the handling of them once galvanized, the job can be really good and you have to send some back as they have been badly chipped when dropped into a stillage, this really only happens with anchors from probably 16 K.G. and up, but yes you can get an anchor that looks fantastic, you send it out being quite confident the next thing you receive a photo showing poor a adhesion, if an anchor is well galvanized a chip is not drastic if the underlying gal is well impregnated, unfortunately you cannot check out this adhesion quality , so if you get a problem such as you had then by all means if they are local replace the anchor, if it is overseas then pay for the galvanized, admit tingly you should not be stressed by the companies lack of response.
Identifying the anchor size with stickers? You know with our certification here in Australia our testing is all in line of the Lloyds test, proof of this, you will find a Lloyds certificate on our test cert page confirming this, all of our anchors have to have our logo hard stamped to prevent copy, so as when a survey officer inspects a vessel he can see that the anchor is a genuine tested design, not only do we have to have our logo but have to hard stamp the type certification size and weight.
Rex.
Anchor Right Australia
Djbangi
New member
Hi Vyv,
I'm fascinated (hence the second contribution so quickly), basically none of us can get a cheep (or is it a cheap) out of Holdfast that answers any technical query but within 40 minutes you were able to confirm unequivocally that they use ASTM A514 or equivalent, the eqivalents seem to be ISO, EN and JIS, in China. I have no doubt they, or the Smiths, used Bisplate 80 (aka Q&T 800) when they manufacturered in NZ and equivalents in Canada (confess I did not know they had(?) made in US). My understanding is the whole process has changed and I have seen nothing authorative, apart from your recent contribution, on raw materials in China. To me, whatever was said in the past, was in the past, and largely discredited anyway.
Maybe you also know why it was too difficult to get Lloyds to provide CS attestation, after all Lewmar, Manson, Wasi et al have not found it difficult (to gain Lloyds approval), and Holdfast had to go to RINA, (though obviously even RINA have not made it that easy). One wonders if the tests were on NZ or Chinese models, stainless and/or gal (maybe one can see this on the posted images of the RINA tests) The absence of the certificates - Embarassing is something of an understatement.
However I can confirm that there is copious production of Q&T 800 in China, though have no idea if there is lots of excess, not its consistency - its made by (and presumably for) the Chinese Military in one of their steel plants in Wuyang. (I'm an old 'China Trader').
To identify where your Rocna is made - the new ones with the cast fluke have the name, size and weight as part of the casting at the rear of the fluke plate, good idea - you see the same sort of thing on original Bruce and the more recent Kobra (names at least). The original NZ production simply had the stickers - other manufacturers use the same idea (stickers) which start to look a bit tacky and then wear off - removing the opportunity to advertise.
I'm fascinated (hence the second contribution so quickly), basically none of us can get a cheep (or is it a cheap) out of Holdfast that answers any technical query but within 40 minutes you were able to confirm unequivocally that they use ASTM A514 or equivalent, the eqivalents seem to be ISO, EN and JIS, in China. I have no doubt they, or the Smiths, used Bisplate 80 (aka Q&T 800) when they manufacturered in NZ and equivalents in Canada (confess I did not know they had(?) made in US). My understanding is the whole process has changed and I have seen nothing authorative, apart from your recent contribution, on raw materials in China. To me, whatever was said in the past, was in the past, and largely discredited anyway.
Maybe you also know why it was too difficult to get Lloyds to provide CS attestation, after all Lewmar, Manson, Wasi et al have not found it difficult (to gain Lloyds approval), and Holdfast had to go to RINA, (though obviously even RINA have not made it that easy). One wonders if the tests were on NZ or Chinese models, stainless and/or gal (maybe one can see this on the posted images of the RINA tests) The absence of the certificates - Embarassing is something of an understatement.
However I can confirm that there is copious production of Q&T 800 in China, though have no idea if there is lots of excess, not its consistency - its made by (and presumably for) the Chinese Military in one of their steel plants in Wuyang. (I'm an old 'China Trader').
To identify where your Rocna is made - the new ones with the cast fluke have the name, size and weight as part of the casting at the rear of the fluke plate, good idea - you see the same sort of thing on original Bruce and the more recent Kobra (names at least). The original NZ production simply had the stickers - other manufacturers use the same idea (stickers) which start to look a bit tacky and then wear off - removing the opportunity to advertise.
CONGO
Member
Djbangi, you make some valid points, further what I would like to know is, if M r C anchors are certified is it the standard Rocna, what about their RRR, all I can remember from M r C comments that the slotted shank weakened the anchor, didn’t work very well and would not entertain the idea themselves, low and behold twelve months later their RRR turns up, furthermore what about the stowable Rocna, the stainless Rocna, the Excel anchor stainless version had to be proof tested all over again to prove its strength, we had to go to a higher grade of stainless other than 316 to receive S/H/H/Power certification.
Even though we went to a higher grade of stainless in the excel shanks which is 50 percent stronger than 316 it will never be as strong as the bisalloy 80, we can sell to the public an Excel as a high holding power anchor, but you won’t get them on boats under survey as S/H/H/Power unless the range required have been proof tested to meet the tough criteria, at this stage we have certified as S/H/H/Power only one size stainless Excel, that is the 88 K.G. MODEL which were specifically proof tested for an outer reef yacht. Robertson’s make reference to this one off on their conformation letter of just what we have is proof tested for S/H//H Power. ( trans parity is what it’s all about)
If you go to a stainless grade to give you the strength of bisalloy 80 you will find the expenses will not justify the means, the working capabilities of this high grade stainless is also difficult, more so in the welding process.
My question to Holdfast is where are your test certs, what pacific models do they cover,from my experience you would have to proof test all models, that is our times the proof testing.
Rex.
Anchor right Australia.
Even though we went to a higher grade of stainless in the excel shanks which is 50 percent stronger than 316 it will never be as strong as the bisalloy 80, we can sell to the public an Excel as a high holding power anchor, but you won’t get them on boats under survey as S/H/H/Power unless the range required have been proof tested to meet the tough criteria, at this stage we have certified as S/H/H/Power only one size stainless Excel, that is the 88 K.G. MODEL which were specifically proof tested for an outer reef yacht. Robertson’s make reference to this one off on their conformation letter of just what we have is proof tested for S/H//H Power. ( trans parity is what it’s all about)
If you go to a stainless grade to give you the strength of bisalloy 80 you will find the expenses will not justify the means, the working capabilities of this high grade stainless is also difficult, more so in the welding process.
My question to Holdfast is where are your test certs, what pacific models do they cover,from my experience you would have to proof test all models, that is our times the proof testing.
Rex.
Anchor right Australia.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I've been asking that question for some time. No answer yet.
It's interesting to remind ourselves that Steve Bambury, in his famous "statement" said this......
It’s a valid concern when a product is manufactured in China, and we’re happy to address it – we have nothing to hide. In fact, we’ve done a huge amount of work in this area, and we’re incredibly proud of what we’ve achieved.
Come on Steve! Nothing to hide? Publish those certifcates. They do exist do they??????
Bajansailor
Well-known member
Twister Ken, I tip my lid to you with respect for starting the most excellent troll of the year so far!
All you said in your original post were these innocent words
"Anchors. I hate to do this but.........has anyone experience of the Manson?"
And look what has happened! Mine is post no. 676, and it looks like this thread still has a fair bit of life left in it, as we are now getting on to complicated technical discussions about classification society approval which is all way over my head.
I must admit that I never realised before I started reading the YBW Forum that anchoring was supposed to be so complex - in my naivety I have just been chucking out all sorts of anchors over the past 30 odd years, ranging from CQRs to Danforths to Bruces and Fortresses with even an odd Fisherman and home made anchor thrown in along the way, and I must say that they have all generally worked well.
Now we have new generation shovels, bugel horns, mansions, rockners, sarkars, even xyzees, all claiming to be 'better' than the old generation anchors - and no doubt they are 'better' in many ways.
(Apologies if I have left any other new gens out of this list)
But despite following (most of) the above thread, I regret to have to say that I shall not be investing in any 'new gen' anchors in a hurry, as my current CQR, Bruce, Danforth and Fortress (yes, 4 anchors for a 35' boat, spoilt for choice!) anchors are really more than adequate, and should hopefully hold us in a hurricane if need be when off cruising.
BTW, re hurricanes, I looked at our mooring after Hurricane Tomas visited us in October, and caught us somewhat by surprise.
It has three Danforth anchors on the bottom (simply because they were the only make available in the local chandlery of sorts) comprising a 45 lb plough and a 40 lb conventional Danforth (twin flukes with a hinged shank) in a bridle formation. The 40 lb also has a wee 12 lb conventional Danforth 'piggy-back' in series with it.
After Tomas the plough was laying on its side doing nothing (not even slightly buried), as it was to the north, and the winds (gusting to at least 80 knots) were from the east, veering round to the south later.
The 40 lb had somehow managed to get its chain wrapped around itself some time previously (not during Tomas, as I had seen it like this before, and meant to go diving on it to clear it) and was on its side not looking very happy or doing anything constructive - while the wee 12 lb anchor was completely buried in hard sand and appeared to be on a mission to visit its friends and relatives in China.
Not bad eh, for an 'old generation' 12 lb anchor to hold a 35' 6 tonne vessel in hurricane force gusts, over a period of about 4 or 5 hours. The sea initially was flat calm, as the wind was offshore, but later when the wind veered round to the south there was a significant swell (estimated about 2 m minimum height) coming up the coast and the poor boat was pitching horrendously in these conditions (as seen from shore).
I suppose I could now say that we have 7 anchors at our disposal.......
All you said in your original post were these innocent words
"Anchors. I hate to do this but.........has anyone experience of the Manson?"
And look what has happened! Mine is post no. 676, and it looks like this thread still has a fair bit of life left in it, as we are now getting on to complicated technical discussions about classification society approval which is all way over my head.
I must admit that I never realised before I started reading the YBW Forum that anchoring was supposed to be so complex - in my naivety I have just been chucking out all sorts of anchors over the past 30 odd years, ranging from CQRs to Danforths to Bruces and Fortresses with even an odd Fisherman and home made anchor thrown in along the way, and I must say that they have all generally worked well.
Now we have new generation shovels, bugel horns, mansions, rockners, sarkars, even xyzees, all claiming to be 'better' than the old generation anchors - and no doubt they are 'better' in many ways.
(Apologies if I have left any other new gens out of this list)
But despite following (most of) the above thread, I regret to have to say that I shall not be investing in any 'new gen' anchors in a hurry, as my current CQR, Bruce, Danforth and Fortress (yes, 4 anchors for a 35' boat, spoilt for choice!) anchors are really more than adequate, and should hopefully hold us in a hurricane if need be when off cruising.
BTW, re hurricanes, I looked at our mooring after Hurricane Tomas visited us in October, and caught us somewhat by surprise.
It has three Danforth anchors on the bottom (simply because they were the only make available in the local chandlery of sorts) comprising a 45 lb plough and a 40 lb conventional Danforth (twin flukes with a hinged shank) in a bridle formation. The 40 lb also has a wee 12 lb conventional Danforth 'piggy-back' in series with it.
After Tomas the plough was laying on its side doing nothing (not even slightly buried), as it was to the north, and the winds (gusting to at least 80 knots) were from the east, veering round to the south later.
The 40 lb had somehow managed to get its chain wrapped around itself some time previously (not during Tomas, as I had seen it like this before, and meant to go diving on it to clear it) and was on its side not looking very happy or doing anything constructive - while the wee 12 lb anchor was completely buried in hard sand and appeared to be on a mission to visit its friends and relatives in China.
Not bad eh, for an 'old generation' 12 lb anchor to hold a 35' 6 tonne vessel in hurricane force gusts, over a period of about 4 or 5 hours. The sea initially was flat calm, as the wind was offshore, but later when the wind veered round to the south there was a significant swell (estimated about 2 m minimum height) coming up the coast and the poor boat was pitching horrendously in these conditions (as seen from shore).
I suppose I could now say that we have 7 anchors at our disposal.......
Last edited:
Mark-1
Well-known member
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Bajansailer, Mark1
You may not realise it but what you need is one of these
Don't however, look at the RINA rules for SHHP anchors. You'll find that they apply to anchors from 180 kgs to over 40 tonnes and require extensive testing across the range. Not much relevance to your little tiddlers then.
Increasingly I am wondering what Steve Bambury's claimed RINA SHHP classification is all about.
Certificates?
What certificates?
You may not realise it but what you need is one of these
•For the best multi-purpose anchor that sets in all ocean floors.
•For RINA classification to Super High Holding Power.
•For vessels of all sizes, from small runabouts to superyachts.
•The Rocna Original is classified by RINA to the highest level available: Super High Holding Power (SHHP).
•For RINA classification to Super High Holding Power.
•For vessels of all sizes, from small runabouts to superyachts.
•The Rocna Original is classified by RINA to the highest level available: Super High Holding Power (SHHP).
Increasingly I am wondering what Steve Bambury's claimed RINA SHHP classification is all about.
Certificates?
What certificates?
Djbangi
New member
Carpe Diem
Rigger,
Let's get this straight, I cannot recall the actual wording but
The C(lassification) S(ociety) recommendation is that their approvals are for vessels waiting to enter port and discharge cargo - they are not intended as an over all blanket to cover adverse conditions. In fact they do not cover leisure vessels who might need, for lack of anywhere else, to sit tight and wait out some real weather.
And in any case who said any of us anchored in ocean floors, that's for oil rigs, not us - or hopefully not us. And Superyachts - how many Superyachts do you know that rely on a couple of people who need some sleep - the whole basis of owning a Superyacht is that you have crew who, when the chips are down - are there on watch, those of us in the real world actually want to go to sleep and cannot rely on paid hands. (No reflection on working crew - just we do not have them) And in any case if the focus is Superyachts - they use Stainless Steel, curl their lips at galvanised, and if my focus was the men with money - I'd not be testing cheap nast gal.
So the Rocna Original is classified to RINA standard, excluding the fact we do not have the certificate - what about the Rocna, not original, the one from China and the 15kg version with the slot etc. And CS approval SHHP covers a whole host of sins, just the design? just the holding power? and proof testing? and then approval of the factory? - what is actually being talked about? The impression is everything - but reality? -so far zilch.
So we have lots of statements telling us we have the best thing for anchors since sliced bread, which would solve any anchoring problem known to man and woman, but at the end of the day all we have are ephemeral statements - maybe the anchors are ephemeral too.
Steve, or is it Brian, Bambury, its odd but a few certificates, confirmation on use of Bisplate 80 (or equivalent), a bit of background on The Apprentice's anchoring background and his actual role in the oyster bed etc would make me, at least, look like a real ******** (is this word allowed?) -so why hold back? Now is the time. Carpe Diem!
Rigger,
Let's get this straight, I cannot recall the actual wording but
The C(lassification) S(ociety) recommendation is that their approvals are for vessels waiting to enter port and discharge cargo - they are not intended as an over all blanket to cover adverse conditions. In fact they do not cover leisure vessels who might need, for lack of anywhere else, to sit tight and wait out some real weather.
And in any case who said any of us anchored in ocean floors, that's for oil rigs, not us - or hopefully not us. And Superyachts - how many Superyachts do you know that rely on a couple of people who need some sleep - the whole basis of owning a Superyacht is that you have crew who, when the chips are down - are there on watch, those of us in the real world actually want to go to sleep and cannot rely on paid hands. (No reflection on working crew - just we do not have them) And in any case if the focus is Superyachts - they use Stainless Steel, curl their lips at galvanised, and if my focus was the men with money - I'd not be testing cheap nast gal.
So the Rocna Original is classified to RINA standard, excluding the fact we do not have the certificate - what about the Rocna, not original, the one from China and the 15kg version with the slot etc. And CS approval SHHP covers a whole host of sins, just the design? just the holding power? and proof testing? and then approval of the factory? - what is actually being talked about? The impression is everything - but reality? -so far zilch.
So we have lots of statements telling us we have the best thing for anchors since sliced bread, which would solve any anchoring problem known to man and woman, but at the end of the day all we have are ephemeral statements - maybe the anchors are ephemeral too.
Steve, or is it Brian, Bambury, its odd but a few certificates, confirmation on use of Bisplate 80 (or equivalent), a bit of background on The Apprentice's anchoring background and his actual role in the oyster bed etc would make me, at least, look like a real ******** (is this word allowed?) -so why hold back? Now is the time. Carpe Diem!
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I couldn't possibly comment, other than to say that that word obviously wasn't allowed.
The Anchorsmith was lurking on here earlier today. He's still "affiliated".
The Anchorsmith was lurking on here earlier today. He's still "affiliated".
- Status
Other threads that may be of interest
