Anchors. I hate to do this but...

[Scotty_Tradewind]

I've just sent a PM to Rocna hoping that a reply may be quickly forthcoming.

I am a very happy user of a 10kg Rocna and having just sold one boat and purchased another......... I've ordered a 15kg Rocna from Piplars of Poole, U.K..

See below recently posted on ybw.com forum
Please tell me that certification is now all received and immediatly put that information into the public domain,i.e. onto the forum, as I wish to have total confidence when sleeping at anchor .
many thanks
Scotty_Twister........(Personal contact details given)
.................................................. ..........................................
As appearing on ybw.com Forum.
To summarize: Maine Sail wisely pointed out that Rocna just recently posted this:

"We’ve now completed all of the seabed testing, proof load testing, welding testing and material testing required to obtain certification of the design of the Rocna itself and the manufacturing facility. It’s now a matter of all the reports being processed by RINA for final certification. We will of course be publishing the certificates as soon as they become available."


But Rocna has posted this on their web site:

"The Rocna anchor range has RINA type approval and SHHP classification. Its facilities are RINA approved and individual anchor certification can be provided on request."

More lies......does it ever end?

 

[GrantKing]

Time to tell the truth Steve

Hi Rigger. The Smiths own the domain names, which is why they maintain the right to use Rocna email addresses, but the websites are in our control. We've already committed to reviewing the website content, but we're going to need some time to do that.

I'm not saying that at all. I commit to reviewing the website content, but what I can't do is change an agreement that's already in place that entitles Craig to use a Rocna email address. I do, however, acknowledge that it's still an issue, and so I will be seeing what we can do.



We answered your comments on this over at Anything Sailing but we'll repeat it here. It's odd to us too that RINA wouldn't issue the SHHP certificate independent of the facility certification, but that's what we've been told and that's why the SHHP statement was issued.

Regarding the length of the process, we could have sped it up if we engaged a company like SGS to take us through the whole process, but that would have added another $200,000 to the price tag. We've already invested over $50,000 to pursue certification, and that’s a lot for a relatively small business like us. As a result, the process has taken a little longer than initially planned.

We do have a lot of paperwork relating to the testing we've done since the seabed tests, and the only reason that we haven’t published this is that it includes proprietary and confidential information which may otherwise compromise our contractual relationships with both our manufacturers and designer, Peter Smith. We are going through it though and will post what we can.

Guys, we've also answered more questions over at the Anything Sailing thread (see post 713 for the link to the thread if you need it).

Steve

Time to stop the lies Steve and come clean.
Despite daily requests from board users I have resisted posting details of emails and memos from you about this very topic.
Tell the truth now or I start posting.

Accuse me of lying or falsifying details if you like, repeat your slanderous claims that you have made to others locally who have been in touch with me over the last week, it will make no difference.

Do I have an axe to grind....MOST DEFINITELY...and it is a big one.
Do I have a problem with you and Rocna....MOST DEFINITELY....
Am I biased...MOST DEFINITELY...

What could I possibly have to say...ONLY FACT BACKED UP WITH DOCUMENTATION...
You have 24hrs to tell the truth.

 

[CONGO]

Hi Rigger,

Our field testing was carried out over approx. eight months, this due to weather conditions, having so many anchors to test, and working in with time tables as we do have a business to run, you could probably say in real down time approx. 6 to 9 days’, one should remember these anchor testing procedures were new, Re method of field anchor testing, Tidal Anchor Test Skid.

So everything that was done was scrutinized, basically we were the Guiney pigs as Australia had never tested for S/H/H/Power before, the (N.M.S.C) the National Marine Safety Committee had confirmed new rules they had set in line with Lloyds tests, so yes with all of this going on took longer.

The proof load test went extremely fast, I think we had proof loaded in one day 6 anchors, as these anchors were processed we were issued the S/H/H/Power certificates within three days of testing each batch of anchors, even today we are about to have a 185 K.G. Super Sarca tested and a 120 Excel Super duty anchor for the commercial industry, again upon meeting the requirements from date of proof loading we will have those certs within approx. three days.

I don’t understand $50, 000.00 for a RINA test, Lloyds would cost you less,
Like I said if you design an anchor with high tensile steels, you have to stick with high tensile steel, mild steel is heavier and will upset the balance of the design unless you redesign to cater for the heavier steel, you cannot go from a thin high tensile steel and then replace that same shank with a mild steel of the same thickness, the anchor will be severely weekend, even if its good quality mild steel.

The dilemma then, is if you are proof testing and increase the thickness of the mild steel shank to with stand the load of the high tensile shank, you are probably increasing the anchor shanks weight by 3 times that of its original high tensile one, so now you have passed the proof test, you will now have to re field test to make sure the anchor with the thicker, heavier shank works the same, and guess what, it won’t. So, if this was my case proof testing certs would take forever

Regards Rex. Affiliated with Anchor Right Australia.

 

[Djbangi]

Purchase of a new Rocna

Scotty Twister,

Scotty,

You are a brave man to have bought a new Rocna with the doubts regarding quailty floating about. Seems a risk to me. I wonder whether legally, your knowing the quailty is in doubt, allows you to later demand replacement or money back. Morally you might have a case but anyone wittingly buying a product of known doubtful quaility must take much of the responsibility upon themselves.

Anyone wanting a concave, roll bar anchor does not need to buy a Rocna, there is a choice - you could always have bought that copy (or so we are told) The Supreme - which does have Lloyds certification. If you had wanted an Anchor Right product you could have joined the consortium buying a pallet load and Fortress are freely available. Buying a Rocna with your eyes wide open seems to show supreme optimism.

Just out of interest is it a Chinese model, details in the casting of the fluke, or a NZ model with the paper label?

Good luck

 

[idpnd]

Anyone wanting a concave, roll bar anchor does not need to buy a Rocna, there is a choice - you could always have bought that copy (or so we are told) The Supreme - which does have Lloyds certification

Bit cheeky selling an anchor from non-certified Chinese facilities for premium prices innit?

Time to stop the lies Steve and come clean

Uh oh.. facts and fiction.. rarely a clever combination

 

[Delfin]

Time to stop the lies Steve and come clean.
Despite daily requests from board users I have resisted posting details of emails and memos from you about this very topic.
Tell the truth now or I start posting.

Accuse me of lying or falsifying details if you like, repeat your slanderous claims that you have made to others locally who have been in touch with me over the last week, it will make no difference.

Do I have an axe to grind....MOST DEFINITELY...and it is a big one.
Do I have a problem with you and Rocna....MOST DEFINITELY....
Am I biased...MOST DEFINITELY...

What could I possibly have to say...ONLY FACT BACKED UP WITH DOCUMENTATION...
You have 24hrs to tell the truth.

Thank you Grant. It's not headline news that companies can have problems with products and be less than truthful about the problems, or what impact it may have on customers, but Rocna has carried dishonesty to a level that would be deeply offensive if their product was say, absorbent towels. But they make ANCHORS for heavens sake, a device people's lives may depend on, and building their company on lies and fabrications, the flaming of competitors and distortion of data goes beyond the inexcusable and ventures into the criminal. It's high time for them to stop, and Grant your efforts to bring that about are very much appreciated by everyone.

To Mr. B. of Rocna: This is one of those 'crossroads' moments that define the future of companies. Think Johnson & Johnson with the Tylenol tampering and their reaction. Now think about your response to the growing feeling amongst members of this and every other forum Craig has been active in that your company is without morals with a product to match. I guess it's time to pick your path.

 

[GMac]

Time to stop the lies Steve and come clean.
Despite daily requests from board users I have resisted posting details of emails and memos from you about this very topic.
Tell the truth now or I start posting.

Accuse me of lying or falsifying details if you like, repeat your slanderous claims that you have made to others locally who have been in touch with me over the last week, it will make no difference.

Do I have an axe to grind....MOST DEFINITELY...and it is a big one.
Do I have a problem with you and Rocna....MOST DEFINITELY....
Am I biased...MOST DEFINITELY...

What could I possibly have to say...ONLY FACT BACKED UP WITH DOCUMENTATION...
You have 24hrs to tell the truth.

You go hard fella.

I knew it was only a matter of time before one of us who knows more than they have said publicly, gets pushed too far. It's not like they haven't been told exactly that and told again very very recently......in what now appears a wasted attempt to help Rocna.

Oh well, you reap what you sow I suppose.

I do feel some sadness with all of this. The design is a good one as is the designer himself. For them both to be so tarnished by something not of their own doing just doesn't seem right.

 

[GrantKing]

You go hard fella.

I knew it was only a matter of time before one of us who knows more than they have said publicly, gets pushed too far. It's not like they haven't been told exactly that and told again very very recently......in what now appears a wasted attempt to help Rocna.

Oh well, you reap what you sow I suppose.

I do feel some sadness with all of this. The design is a good one as is the designer himself. For them both to be so tarnished by something not of their own doing just doesn't seem right.

You have that right.
The anchor is still the best I have used.
The Chinese manufacturer is one of the best I have ever had to deal with, they bend over backwards to please and do exactly what they are instructed to do.
The brand will survive the tsunami.

 

[RichardS]

My viewpoint:

Rocna anchors have been tested in several studies against other next gen anchors and have performed well, however you interpret the data, as have Manson Supreme, Fortress, Sarca etc.

No design performs best in every substrate so there is always a degree of compromise if you have one anchor, or you can decide to carry several anchors.

Different anchors have different physical design constraints which make some designs more or less suitable for some bow designs which might rule out some anchor designs for some boats.

Several anchor designs have appeared in one or two photographs as being bent or damaged. However, without a proper provenance for any photo, it is of limited relevance and might even be fake.

Reports from users of any "reputable" anchors being bent or broken in use seem to be very few and far between. Thousands of such anchors have been used in real-life in every possible permutation of seabeds and anchoring conditions and any consistent failure of any particular anchor would have come to light by now.

Taking into account all the above, I can see no reason for concern whichever brand of next gen anchor you have chosen providing it is suitable for your boat and works well for you in the seabed conditions in which you use it.

Richard

 

[Rocna]

Regarding 'whaleboy' / Grant King

As most of you have seen, ‘whaleboy’, a user on the Anything Sailing forum, claimed to have tested his Rocna anchor and made some serious allegations as to the steel quality.

We had our suspicions about whaleboy’s identity for some time now and in the past 24 hours we have been presented information that finally allows us to share what we previously couldn’t. So here goes:

[removed by Admin]

Grant King was a former contractor to Rocna in the capacity of Production Manager. In this role he travelled frequently to our manufacturing facilities.

[removed by Admin]
[removed by Admin]
[removed by Admin]
[removed by Admin]

[removed by Admin]

I welcome the opportunity to talk directly with anyone over this matter but I have no intention of discussing Grant further in the open format of internet forums.

Steve Bambury
CEO

 

[noelex]

Several anchor designs have appeared in one or two photographs as being bent or damaged. However, without a proper provenance for any photo, it is of limited relevance and might even be fake.

The photo of the bent and rusty Manson supreme that has been posted by many people on different websites, was taken by myself.
I am happy to provide details or originals to anyone who wants to examine them. It was not a fake.

 

[CONGO]

If we are taking bets on this Ill back grant Kings findings as I believe what he has found ,why, mild steel galvanizes extremely well, high tnsile steels galvanize ok but not like mild steel.

Funny how markeing tools that were used on me all those years ago, bent anchor,didn't want a refund,didn't want it replaced, wanted it off the market as it was dangerous. Mr. C full marks for passing on your marketing skills,I hope you lot kick the stuffing out of one another. your ways have now thrust the sword right back you ,oh and congraulations for passing on your skills.

Regards
Rex.

Affiliated with anchor Right Australia.

 

[CONGO]

Oh I forgot to mention rickety camp, great job on changing the focus but lets see another independant test on those rickety anchors,you guys are unbelievable, what a buisness, what a scam, I recon we need to have the lot of you quaranteened and an independant investigation and test carried out on the lot of you. Yes Iam angry again.

Regards.
Rex.

Anchor Right Australia.

 

[Tradewinds]

Congo

Rex.

Anchor Right Australia.

Rex,
Sent you a PM about an hour ago - did you get it?

+ an email to your rex@ address.

Cheers,
Nigel

 

[Twister_Ken]

As most of you have seen, ‘whaleboy’, a user on the Anything Sailing forum, claimed to have tested his Rocna anchor and made some serious allegations as to the steel quality.

We had our suspicions about whaleboy’s identity for some time now and in the past 24 hours we have been presented information that finally allows us to share what we previously couldn’t. So here goes:
[removed by Admin]

Grant King was a former contractor to Rocna in the capacity of Production Manager. In this role he travelled frequently to our manufacturing facilities.
[removed by Admin]

[removed by Admin]
[removed by Admin]

[removed by Admin]

[removed by Admin]

[removed by Admin]

I welcome the opportunity to talk directly with anyone over this matter but I have no intention of discussing Grant further in the open format of internet forums.

Steve Bambury
CEO

Shooting the messenger again.

What about the message?

If we can find some Rocnas in use, are you happy that we test them for metal type and strength?

Would you replace/refund if they were found to be not-to-spec?

Or would you just try and character-assasinate us too?

 

[CONGO]

Hi Nigel,

Thanks ,replied to your email.

Regards Rex.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Steve,

A valiant effort at raising a smoke screen but, as you are so keen to wash your dirty linen in public, I would like to ask for you comments on the Linux press release about Rocna.

My computer skills aren't as great as yours so this rough transcript of the thumbnail may help........Basically, Linux were saying that you went to them to get introductions into China. You then went behind their back and shafted them. They are planning to sue.

I'm sure that you are familiar with the story........

PS If anyone knows how to get a large PDF onto this forum please let me know. It's beyond me!!!

 

[Djbangi]

Integrity

RichardS

I could not agree with you more Richard. In many tests, whatever the credibility, Rocna anchors come out as being as good, or as bad, as many other anchors. At the end of the day it would possibly have been price, availability, whether it fitted that determined which modern anchor a yacht owner purchased. Some might have been moving on from a Bruce 'type' design and might choose a newer Supreme or Rocna and some moving on from a plough type might hanker after a SARCA or SARCA Excel. And those having used a sand anchor might invest in a Fortress. I have no problem with any of this - though I might suggest keeping the old model, buying a new model with a different concept - and then you have a better anchor wardrobe.

But that actually has not been the issue. Possibly the message has been a bit muddied (is that a sensible word?)

The problem is that some of us do not like the idea that a 'corporate' body can promote its existance based on lies, deceit, libel and insult. You might find the idea that a manufacturer can claim to have a Classification Society certificate on its website, but deny its existance on a forum. You might casually push aside the published suggestion they use one steel quality and might be found to use another. You might not find they damn all competitors, most journalists and many contributors to this forum. In fact you might find that a supposedly professional company on which lives might depend is a good piecve of entertainment. If this is the sort of behaviour you want to be an example to your children or grandchildren then it would be a waste of my time to try to convince you that you might be wrong. I find it difficult to believe you would support such a practice from your wife, your local restaurant (buy beef but receive sauteed dog etc) or your own employer. But if the Rocna, Holdfast, Peter and Craig Smith example is allowed to achieve success? - do you want the same dishonesty with your lifejacket - because if they succeed - that is where we might go.

So Richard, and those of your ilk, give me one good reason why I should buy a Rocna, at all - when there are perfectly good comparablr products who supply those products in a more honest and acceptable manner.

Have a great weekend

 

[idpnd]

Grant King was a former contractor to Rocna in the capacity of Production Manager. In this role he travelled frequently to our manufacturing facilities.

That should yield some interesting info when his ultimatum expires. Your response seems rather panicky.

 

[Djbangi]

Cerificates

For those of you interested in Classification Societies and anchor certification - specifically Rocna then Peter Smiths contribution might be interesting


http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/classification-certificate.php

If I have not posted the link correctly go to Peter's website, www.petersmith.net.nz and follow the links - and if you go a bit further and look at his yacht you will find that a Delta brought him and Craig Smith safely to NZ - amazing, one would never have thought it possible.


Peter tells us that RINA are known worldwide but that Lloyds is really just recognised in Commonwealth countries and that ABS is, well - boringly, American. Neither a patch on the well known RINA. So certainly no jingoisitc bias there - so good to see balance. Peter has a dig at Manson and Anchor Right but this is not new.

What you might want to look at is the snippet of a copy of a RINA SHHP certificate awarded to Rocna, seems pretty genuine to me (but presumably that is the idea). But Steve Bambury tells us it does not exist? Most odd.

Why does Peter have a copy and not Steve. And given that Peter has an interest in the success of the Rocna brand why has he not given a copy to Steve and posted the full document. All very odd.

However - the we only see part of the certificate but Steve has told us that the work on certification has been conducted on NZ anchors, so why does the certificate have China printed, look at the bottom right of the document.

I am puzzled, either there is no document, as Steve tells us - in which case this is a forgery - and the other options do not make sense either.

I'll post it all to RINA and see if they can shed any light, as its unlikely Steve or Peter will help.

And as you are considering all this - Peter, being slightly derogatory toward ABS and Lloyds (the list gets longer and longer) and continuing the abuse of Manson and Anchor Right is the same honest and cuddly Peter that someone suggested we should all love and embrace.