Dockhead
Well-Known Member
In the size I needed it was special order only, 2 - 3 months lead time, about double the cost of the Rocna.
Spade was my first choice as I had been happily using one for years on previous boat. Great anchor.
I hate to do this...but
- Thread starter macd
- Start date
In the size I needed it was special order only, 2 - 3 months lead time, about double the cost of the Rocna.
Spade was my first choice as I had been happily using one for years on previous boat. Great anchor.
Conachair
Guest
20 knots of wind with a at least a 2 mile fetch???? Benign??
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
It was a 25kg anchor, vessel displacement 11tons
GPS Co-ordinates: 45° 23’ 800 N ; 12° 17’ 500 E
Look it up on google earth
BrianH
Well-Known Member
That's about where the "V" is in "LAGUNA DI VENEZIA" in the chart section below.
The entire lagoon is protected and could never be referred as "offshore". Passing traffic in the channels makes more waves than 20 knots of wind could. However, anchoring is not normally permitted in the channels and there is insufficient water elsewhere other than a couple of designated areas.
Conachair
Guest
i did.
Not a 49' bavaria in sight on google earth!!
Obviously the whole thing is a fabrication
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Obviously the whole thing is a fabrication
Mmmm - which anchor manufacturer does that remind you of?
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
fabricated bavaria's ???
Too much to deal with.
Must start a new thread immediately to solve this development
[55354]
...
Benign and offshore
Sorry, a bit of an error there.
If I was anchored in 20knots of wind, I'd have at least a scope of 7:1 (no point in carting it all around if you do not use it) and once we get to 30 knots I'd be working on 10:1. On the short scope quoted it might not be benign - but we do not get twitchy until we are getting sustained winds of 30 knots and then our twitchiness meter depends on the seabed not the wind (but then we have a reliable anchor).
And offshore - linguistically incorrect, the owner reported being 2nm from the shore, so offshore was something of a misnomer, or it can be interpreted 2 ways.
Now that I have been corrected and I find the anchor was 25kg not 20kg then the steel of the shank must be even worse than Manson's identified. But a Bav 49 weighs in at 11t dry, no-one sails these things empty and with fuel, water, dinghy, outboard, electronics, extra batteries, gen set, books etc - if they are under 13t they were not enjoying themselves. And of course you cannot see it on google earth, its in a marina, too scared to anchor any more.
Whatever - the anchor if made correctly should not have bent. If there are others, similar quality Rocnas, out there Venice Lagoon will soon be forgotten for the rash, or is it rush, of real problems.
And we are still waiting for a professional response, actually any response, from Holdfast/Rocna. Maybe they have retired to 'life on Mars'
Sorry, a bit of an error there.
If I was anchored in 20knots of wind, I'd have at least a scope of 7:1 (no point in carting it all around if you do not use it) and once we get to 30 knots I'd be working on 10:1. On the short scope quoted it might not be benign - but we do not get twitchy until we are getting sustained winds of 30 knots and then our twitchiness meter depends on the seabed not the wind (but then we have a reliable anchor).
And offshore - linguistically incorrect, the owner reported being 2nm from the shore, so offshore was something of a misnomer, or it can be interpreted 2 ways.
Now that I have been corrected and I find the anchor was 25kg not 20kg then the steel of the shank must be even worse than Manson's identified. But a Bav 49 weighs in at 11t dry, no-one sails these things empty and with fuel, water, dinghy, outboard, electronics, extra batteries, gen set, books etc - if they are under 13t they were not enjoying themselves. And of course you cannot see it on google earth, its in a marina, too scared to anchor any more.
Whatever - the anchor if made correctly should not have bent. If there are others, similar quality Rocnas, out there Venice Lagoon will soon be forgotten for the rash, or is it rush, of real problems.
And we are still waiting for a professional response, actually any response, from Holdfast/Rocna. Maybe they have retired to 'life on Mars'
Conachair
Guest
So an anchor with a 90 deg side load won't bend??
Brian@Fortress
Well-Known Member
As you may already know, our anchors disassemble and we offer a Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty, so we have seen and replaced a few bent shanks over the past 20 years or so that we have been in business.
Quite simply, it is possible bend a shank if the flukes are not able to turn with the anchor due to the fact that the flukes are stuck in rocks, or the anchor is buried so deeply that the flukes can't move, etc.
Bob Taylor, a former US Navy soil mechanics and anchor design expert, told me that he once pulled up a 10 ton stockless anchor with a bent shank, which he was shocked to see, so bending a shank is certainly possible with almost any anchor.
The issue at hand here is the fact that a manufacturer of a very important piece of safety equipment made a bold claim as to the strength of their product's material, and they were caught cutting corners by providing an inferior material which is more likely to fail under a lesser load.
A public outcry over this discovery is certainly warranted, just as it would be if a chain, rope, shackle, flare, lifeboat, etc. manufacturer was found to be doing the same.
A retailer of this product now has a decision to make as to whether to recall the product and return it to the manufacturer, or continue to sell it and hope that it never fails and they get called on the carpet for selling a product which they knew did not live up to it's stated quality.
Happy Easter and be safe.
Brian Sheehan
Fortress Marine Anchors
Quite simply, it is possible bend a shank if the flukes are not able to turn with the anchor due to the fact that the flukes are stuck in rocks, or the anchor is buried so deeply that the flukes can't move, etc.
Bob Taylor, a former US Navy soil mechanics and anchor design expert, told me that he once pulled up a 10 ton stockless anchor with a bent shank, which he was shocked to see, so bending a shank is certainly possible with almost any anchor.
The issue at hand here is the fact that a manufacturer of a very important piece of safety equipment made a bold claim as to the strength of their product's material, and they were caught cutting corners by providing an inferior material which is more likely to fail under a lesser load.
A public outcry over this discovery is certainly warranted, just as it would be if a chain, rope, shackle, flare, lifeboat, etc. manufacturer was found to be doing the same.
A retailer of this product now has a decision to make as to whether to recall the product and return it to the manufacturer, or continue to sell it and hope that it never fails and they get called on the carpet for selling a product which they knew did not live up to it's stated quality.
Happy Easter and be safe.
Brian Sheehan
Fortress Marine Anchors
Delfin
Well-Known Member
Any anchor can bend. The issue with the Rocna is that it has a fairly thin shank to keep the weight as low as possible. Because the shank is thin, they insist on the use of 800 MPa "triple quenched" high tensile steel, otherwise their product would be a potential danger to their customers.
Well, maybe they don't actually use 800 MPa steel for the shank, maybe it's only 500 MPa, but that should be good enough as long as you never, ever, put a side load on the anchor, what with the shank being so thin.
Perhaps this is just an example that no anchor is perfect. The Bruce is fine for many conditions, the Fortress for many others, and perhaps the Rocna is ideal for those for whom money is no object and only anchor where there are no wind shifts, tidal action or rocks. When on the hard for example.
Conachair
Guest
Absolute complete and utter b*llsh*t.
Go to any cruising crossroads and ask there. Rocnas have a huge positive reputation for being a fantastic anchor. As have the other new gens.
From people who anchor all the time.
To say that it is unsuitable for windshifts or tide shifts indicates that you have had no experience using a rocna or any other new gen.
Rant all you want against the company, you can't rant against it being a good anchor.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Perhaps you haven't been following everything which has been going on.
Recent tests have shown that there are Ronca's on the market which have been built with steel which is well below specification, and are therefore liable to bend. Paradoxically, this is potentially more of a problem to the very people you are talking about than to those boaters who tend to head for shelter when conditions look bad.
Details are all here http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/Supreme_Anchor_high_standards.htm
Delfin
Well-Known Member
As Rigger suggest, perhaps you've not been paying attention.
Feel free to buy a Chinese Rocna. In fact buy two. If they're all made out of the steel they appear to be, you'll be needing that spare.
RichardS
N/A
Of the hundreds / thousands of Rocnas which have been purchased, one has apparently bent under normal use.
Even if this photo is genuine (and there is surely much scope for disbelief here), I'm hardly quaking in my boots!
Richard
Even if this photo is genuine (and there is surely much scope for disbelief here), I'm hardly quaking in my boots!
Richard
Delfin
Well-Known Member
I should think that the ones made to Rocna's specifications are no more likely to bend than any other anchor of similar design and construction. However, if the off the shelf Rocna tested by Manson is representative of what they are selling now, even if there aren't a lot reported to have bent because they aren't typically subjected to side loading, it is still a defective product on the basis of Rocna's own marketing representations and design specifications. Given the availability of similar designs and better performing anchors from manufacturers who don't lie, I'm not sure why one would entertain purchasing a known defective product, or defend a manufacturer who would knowingly produce such a product.Of the hundreds / thousands of Rocnas which have been purchased, one has apparently bent under normal use.
Even if this photo is genuine (and there is surely much scope for disbelief here), I'm hardly quaking in my boots!
Richard
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Of the hundreds / thousands of Rocnas which have been purchased, one has apparently bent under normal use.
Even if this photo is genuine (and there is surely much scope for disbelief here), I'm hardly quaking in my boots!
Richard,
Not even Rocna have claimed that the photo of the Venice Lagoon anchor was a fake. They were well aware of it and, when the photo was first shown on a forum recently, it was obvious from their/Craigs response that they knew all about it......though they elected to give no more background information.
However, the Venice "incident" was about two years ago. The recent tests on the metal were conducted on anchors taken from stock about two weeks ago.
Nobody is asking you to quake in your boots. Just be aware that a product is being sold which is made from a steel substantially below the manufactureres own specification. If that doesn't give you cause for concern then fine; it's your decision. For me, I'ld rather have something which I can have more confidence in. There's plenty of other products to choose from.
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
Of the hundreds / thousands of Rocnas which have been purchased, one has apparently bent under normal use.
Even if this photo is genuine (and there is surely much scope for disbelief here), I'm hardly quaking in my boots!
Richard
It is real, and not the only one.
[55354]
...
Venice Lagoon
It is uplifting to see that the debate moved on from criticism of semantics and onto something bit more serious.
There does not seem any doubt that the Venice Lagood incident was not posed. Even Rocna have admitted as such and I guess they quietly replaced the anchor. GrantKing is telling us there are others. Manson seem to have 'quantified' the problem by testing two anchors chosen at random.
My take is that there are a number, possibly lots, of weak Rocna anchors out there and as most people cannot be bothered with the forum they are totally unaware of the risks they might be taking.
But surely this is part of a larger problem.
We have a company that has tried to mislead its public into believing it has RINA SHHP certification. This claim was shown to be false. It now emerges that the basis of the claim was made for NZ approved anchors and all the tests already conducted and those outstanding need be conducted on Chinese made product.
Secondly we have a company that makes claims as to the specification of steels it uses and then does not adhere to those specifications. Its is not that standards slipped slightly and occassionally. We seem to have had a weak anchor, Venice Lagoon, and 2 weeks anchors a few weeks ago - suggesting this has been going on for some considerable time.
Basically we have a company that lacks cerdibility and does not merit our trust.
Anchors are used as safety devices. Do you want a near neighbour in an anchorage under slightly arduous conditions using one of these anchors, because I certainly do not. Would you use one of these anchors with your children or grandchildren on board, I certainly would not. They are an accident waiting to happen.
If the Venice Lagoon incident had been described as 'tough', stronger wind, big seas, sudden windshifts - then I would have been less surprised. But the conditions described are 'normal' for many people. Possibly we should ask the designer Peter Smith if he would use one when he is down in Antarctica - guess what his answer would be.
For the future - if Holdfast weather this without recalling the questionable product, what next, save on the weld, cut back a bit further on the shank, claim they are used by the NZ Navy! And for the rest of the anchor makers - if they see Rocna weather this - what are they meant to think. Its, anchors, are an unpoliced industry - we, the public, seem to be the only authority to bring this sort of practice to a close. You can stand on the sidelines and take it all as a joke, and see Rocna thumb their noses at us (put the money in their pockets), possibly claim we all should have known of the limitations of their anchors when our yachts end up on a beach. I prefer the higher moral ground.
As mentioned - virtually everyone in the industry knows of this problem and any dealer selling a Rocna anchor today, and in the future, and not advising the customer of the problem leaves him or herself open to a variety of misdemeanors, too many to mention.
No-one has said the basic design is at fault. There is no suggestion the NZ or Canadian anchors are not made to specification. The suggestion based on very strong evidence is that the Chinese anchors, possibly all of them, are grossly substandard. For many people this does not matter, they seldom anchor, only do so for lunch etc. But what about the ones (that do not read the forums and are not members of yachts clubs etc) that do use the anchor as its was designed. Do they need suffer because people would not stand up and be counted. Do they need to be part of the joke and just another piece of entertainment.
Is it not time we all grew up and took some responsibility?
It is uplifting to see that the debate moved on from criticism of semantics and onto something bit more serious.
There does not seem any doubt that the Venice Lagood incident was not posed. Even Rocna have admitted as such and I guess they quietly replaced the anchor. GrantKing is telling us there are others. Manson seem to have 'quantified' the problem by testing two anchors chosen at random.
My take is that there are a number, possibly lots, of weak Rocna anchors out there and as most people cannot be bothered with the forum they are totally unaware of the risks they might be taking.
But surely this is part of a larger problem.
We have a company that has tried to mislead its public into believing it has RINA SHHP certification. This claim was shown to be false. It now emerges that the basis of the claim was made for NZ approved anchors and all the tests already conducted and those outstanding need be conducted on Chinese made product.
Secondly we have a company that makes claims as to the specification of steels it uses and then does not adhere to those specifications. Its is not that standards slipped slightly and occassionally. We seem to have had a weak anchor, Venice Lagoon, and 2 weeks anchors a few weeks ago - suggesting this has been going on for some considerable time.
Basically we have a company that lacks cerdibility and does not merit our trust.
Anchors are used as safety devices. Do you want a near neighbour in an anchorage under slightly arduous conditions using one of these anchors, because I certainly do not. Would you use one of these anchors with your children or grandchildren on board, I certainly would not. They are an accident waiting to happen.
If the Venice Lagoon incident had been described as 'tough', stronger wind, big seas, sudden windshifts - then I would have been less surprised. But the conditions described are 'normal' for many people. Possibly we should ask the designer Peter Smith if he would use one when he is down in Antarctica - guess what his answer would be.
For the future - if Holdfast weather this without recalling the questionable product, what next, save on the weld, cut back a bit further on the shank, claim they are used by the NZ Navy! And for the rest of the anchor makers - if they see Rocna weather this - what are they meant to think. Its, anchors, are an unpoliced industry - we, the public, seem to be the only authority to bring this sort of practice to a close. You can stand on the sidelines and take it all as a joke, and see Rocna thumb their noses at us (put the money in their pockets), possibly claim we all should have known of the limitations of their anchors when our yachts end up on a beach. I prefer the higher moral ground.
As mentioned - virtually everyone in the industry knows of this problem and any dealer selling a Rocna anchor today, and in the future, and not advising the customer of the problem leaves him or herself open to a variety of misdemeanors, too many to mention.
No-one has said the basic design is at fault. There is no suggestion the NZ or Canadian anchors are not made to specification. The suggestion based on very strong evidence is that the Chinese anchors, possibly all of them, are grossly substandard. For many people this does not matter, they seldom anchor, only do so for lunch etc. But what about the ones (that do not read the forums and are not members of yachts clubs etc) that do use the anchor as its was designed. Do they need suffer because people would not stand up and be counted. Do they need to be part of the joke and just another piece of entertainment.
Is it not time we all grew up and took some responsibility?
Nostrodamus
Well-Known Member
What suggestions do you have for bringing some kind of conclusion to this?
I would think that one of the sailing magazines could get a pretty good story from this if they were prepared to take an owners anchor or even several different makes of owners anchors for independent tests. I do not doubt the integrity of Manson but they are a rival to Rocna which makes any tests in their favour worth printing. We have all seen how partial tests can be used on websites so we need definitive independent testing.
I also think the importer/ retailer has a responsibility to get some answers before selling a safety product that is not as it is advertised. It would be interesting to hear their point of view if they were told the facts to date.
Any other suggestions?
I would think that one of the sailing magazines could get a pretty good story from this if they were prepared to take an owners anchor or even several different makes of owners anchors for independent tests. I do not doubt the integrity of Manson but they are a rival to Rocna which makes any tests in their favour worth printing. We have all seen how partial tests can be used on websites so we need definitive independent testing.
I also think the importer/ retailer has a responsibility to get some answers before selling a safety product that is not as it is advertised. It would be interesting to hear their point of view if they were told the facts to date.
Any other suggestions?