I hate to do this...but

[Maine Sail]

Furthermore as much as I have my suspicions about the steel quality in C.S. anchors, I know what I would be doing if a competitor tested our anchors for steel quality, then used for a specific reasons and obvious market gains.

But it has been okay for CS to claim for years that the quality of the Manson Supreme was "abysmal" for marketing gains? How many people, MYSELF INCLUDED, bought a Rocna because they believed Craig's defamatory claims against the competition and bought a Rocna because it was the "better & stronger anchor"? My anchor may be stronger but I have STRONG doubts, what with all the misleading and dishonesty going on with CS and Holdfast.. I spent more money on a Rocna because it was a "better anchor" and now I am finding out that much of what I believed may not have even been close to true...?..?

Certainly nothing from Manson, the quality of their copies is abysmal.

***
it's often just edge-welded so the space between the sheets is effectively hollow. In addition to a ridiculous lack of strength, this has massive other implications.

So now who's anchors appear to be "abysmal"? We have been told by Craig that anything less than Rocna's "spec" is "abysmal" but now we find that the Rocna does not even meet its own "spec" so does that also make it "abysmal" with a "ridiculous lack of strength"??? I don't know Craig has harped on this for years so it must be so...?

Let's not forget that Manson Anchors apparently purchased these anchors from in stock inventory at a local chandlery and posted the receipt on-line for all to see.

Rocna Receipt / Smart Marine

They also apparently used an independent local lab for the testing and their company name and info are right on the test certification.

Rocna Test Certification (LINK)

who is to say ,Mansons anchors were of their normal production line, I hat to say it given it is directed at C.S. and Steve, it still has to be fair.

Who cares if Manson even tested their anchors. The real problem is that the Rocna tested is quite apparently NOT what it was stated to be. Furthermore Rocna is to damn chicken to put their money where their mouths are and take Manson up on their challenge. This lack of fortitude seems to back up this most recent data of Manson's and wreaks of a company who knows their defamatory claims made over the last six years are not going to hold water under head to head tests. PROVE THIS OTHERWISE STEVE!!!

As a Rocna owner & customer I am flat out disgusted at the utter lack of integrity of Holdfast & CS. Do I think my anchor will fail me? No! Is it a great performing anchor. Yes! But neither of these are the point. The point is I bought the anchor on a steaming pile of half or complete mis-truths and probably paid more than I should have because of this misleading & defamatory information, which I stupidly believed. That is what I call getting ripped off, swindled or taken advantage of..


Let me be the first in line to submit my anchor to an independent laboratory to have it tested at Rocna's expense!

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Well said Maine Sail,

....and still no comment from Rocna or the many-poster Craig.

Amazing to see that, after all their talk, they are lost for words.

 

[GrantKing]

Well said Maine Sail,

....and still no comment from Rocna or the many-poster Craig.

Amazing to see that, after all their talk, they are lost for words.

What do you expect , a miracle ???
They only happen in the bible.

But to be fair to Craig, he would not have been aware of the metal as he was always such a pain in the butt about keeping to Smith's rigid and contracted specifications.

I dare say he will also have plenty of questions for the house of Bambury.

 

[GrantKing]

But it has been okay for CS to claim for years that the quality of the Manson Supreme was "abysmal" for marketing gains? How many people, MYSELF INCLUDED, bought a Rocna because they believed Craig's defamatory claims against the competition and bought a Rocna because it was the "better & stronger anchor"? My anchor may be stronger but I have STRONG doubts, what with all the misleading and dishonesty going on with CS and Holdfast.. I spent more money on a Rocna because it was a "better anchor" and now I am finding out that much of what I believed may not have even been close to true...?..?



So now who's anchors appear to be "abysmal"? We have been told by Craig that anything less than Rocna's "spec" is "abysmal" but now we find that the Rocna does not even meet its own "spec" so does that also make it "abysmal" with a "ridiculous lack of strength"??? I don't know Craig has harped on this for years so it must be so...?

Let's not forget that Manson Anchors apparently purchased these anchors from in stock inventory at a local chandlery and posted the receipt on-line for all to see.

Rocna Receipt / Smart Marine

They also apparently used an independent local lab for the testing and their company name and info are right on the test certification.

Rocna Test Certification (LINK)







Who cares if Manson even tested their anchors. The real problem is that the Rocna tested is quite apparently NOT what it was stated to be. Furthermore Rocna is to damn chicken to put their money where their mouths are and take Manson up on their challenge. This lack of fortitude seems to back up this most recent data of Manson's and wreaks of a company who knows their defamatory claims made over the last six years are not going to hold water under head to head tests. PROVE THIS OTHERWISE STEVE!!!

As a Rocna owner & customer I am flat out disgusted at the utter lack of integrity of Holdfast & CS. Do I think my anchor will fail me? No! Is it a great performing anchor. Yes! But neither of these are the point. The point is I bought the anchor on a steaming pile of half or complete mis-truths and probably paid more than I should have because of this misleading & defamatory information, which I stupidly believed. That is what I call getting ripped off, swindled or taken advantage of..


Let me be the first in line to submit my anchor to an independent laboratory to have it tested at Rocna's expense!

You don't need to test yours if it is a NZ one, they came up clean and to spec when tested for CNC's court action.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Nothing, I suspect, from Craig, because he's been warned off by Holdfast.

 

[Maine Sail]

You don't need to test yours if it is a NZ one, they came up clean and to spec when tested for CNC's court action.

I think mine was BC built..?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

But to be fair to Craig, he would not have been aware of the metal as he was always such a pain in the butt about keeping to Smith's rigid and contracted specifications.

Whilst I admire your loyalty, I don't agree. Craig has spent the last 6 or 7 years relentlessly battering the competition and anyone who dared to question him.....so much so that much of the current controversy is a direct result of his over-vocal presence. Only recently he was boasting about the high quality of everything to do with his anchor.

If he had been less of a pain but a bit more effective then this would never have happened.

 

[Nostrodamus]

If the testing is a true representation then this must surely have ramification for the importers and retailers in the UK. Does it mean that the anchors can be returned due to as the information about them was misleading or wrong. Will the retailers suspend sales until this matter is resolved?
Will YBW continue to advertise them in the magazines?

 

[GrantKing]

Whilst I admire your loyalty, I don't agree. Craig has spent the last 6 or 7 years relentlessly battering the competition and anyone who dared to question him.....so much so that much of the current controversy is a direct result of his over-vocal presence. Only recently he was boasting about the high quality of everything to do with his anchor.

If he had been less of a pain but a bit more effective then this would never have happened.

Totally agree with you, I was just pointing out the fact that he was being misled as well.

No loyalty factor here.

 

[GrantKing]

I think mine was BC built..?

Then you would have nothing to worry about as all of those built by Suncoast would be well within tolerances. Mark was a good operator and very pedantic when it came to QC.

It will be interesting to see the reaction from West Marine now that Manson's evidence is open to the world.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Grant,

What's the problem then? Is this due to the Chinese cutting corners, or to Rocna lowering the spec. and trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?

We've had the results on the galvanized anchors, what will we see when the stainless anchors are tested?

 

[GrantKing]

Grant,

What's the problem then? Is this due to the Chinese cutting corners, or to Rocna lowering the spec. and trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?

We've had the results on the galvanized anchors, what will we see when the stainless anchors are tested?

The Chinese, as I have stated before, do what they are instructed to do.

Independant Stainless testing will tell its own story and I will comment only when those results are made public

 

[Rigger Mortice]

That's clear enough, and I'm glad to hear that the stainless is being checked as well.

 

[GrantKing]

If the testing is a true representation then this must surely have ramification for the importers and retailers in the UK. Does it mean that the anchors can be returned due to as the information about them was misleading or wrong. Will the retailers suspend sales until this matter is resolved?
Will YBW continue to advertise them in the magazines?

The Rocna website today:

http://www.rocna.com/our-story/features-of-a-rocna/

Quote:

The Rocna Original is classified by RINA (Registro Italiano Navale) to the highest level available: Super High Holding Power (SHHP).

Quote:

The heavy-duty construction of a Rocna is attained through clever design and the use of quenched and tempered 800 mPa high tensile steel steel.

http://www.rocna.com/our-story/rock-solid-technology/

Quote:

Hold Fast produce Rocna anchors to stringent specifications and standards, using the highest quality materials. Improvements to the casting process and changes to the composition of steel used in the anchor blade, both pioneered in Hold Fast's new Chinese factory, have resulted in a 200% gain in yield strength, reflected in SHHP Type Approval.

http://www.rocna.com/kb/Anchor_materials

Quote:

The shank on any anchor is a common failure point, normally bending when a high lateral load is applied (for instance, when the anchor fouls on a submarine obstacle and is jammed). For this reason, the shank on the Rocna is a high tensile quenched and tempered steel, with a grade of around 800 MPa. Its pure resistance to bending is around three times that of mild steel. This adds to the price of the anchor, but compromising this strength is not something we would entertain.

 

[GrantKing]

That's clear enough, and I'm glad to hear that the stainless is being checked as well.

Meanwhile on the Rocna website re stainless:

http://www.rocna.com/kb/Anchor_materials

Quote:

Stainless steel however is very expensive. Good quality raw material is much more costly than regular steel, and the finishing process required adds further to the price.

You should expect a stainless steel anchor to cost at least triple that of the galvanized version. If it is cheap, the "get what you pay for" factor will kick in. There are many very cheap cast stainless anchors, typically copies of more reputable brands, but the quality of the steel used in these anchors means they should be condemned in the strongest terms and avoided at all costs.

Stainless steels vary in grade just like regular steel. The high costs mean that manufacturers have all the more incentive to make use of the cheaper weak grades, and unfortunately this is commonplace, meaning that stainless anchors are generally weaker than their galvanized counterparts.

Many stainless steel anchors are built entirely of 316L stainless. This grade is "marine" stainless, and has good corrosion qualities for use in the marine environment. However, it does not have much tensile strength (measuring around 280 MPa depending on sheet thickness), a grade which means it is weaker than mild steel. A shank on a stainless anchor built from 316L is likely to be woefully under-strength and unacceptable against any reasonable design criteria - and certainly that of the Rocna.

All stainless steel Rocna anchors have a high tensile shank from 2205 grade stainless. This is extremely costly and occasionally difficult to procure. However, like the galvanized anchor, we refuse to compromise this important component of the anchor, and the strength is maintained similar to that of the galvanized version (roughly three times that of 316L).

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Meanwhile on the Rocna website re stainless:

http://www.rocna.com/kb/Anchor_materials

All stainless steel Rocna anchors have a high tensile shank from 2205 grade stainless. This is extremely costly and occasionally difficult to procure. However, like the galvanized anchor, we refuse to compromise this important component of the anchor, and the strength is maintained similar to that of the galvanized version (roughly three times that of 316L).

Will anyone take a side bet that the test results knock that one on the head?

I'll also wager that Rocna are spending more time on trying to get the Manson site closed down than they are in getting their own site corrected.

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't............

 

[Delfin]

Meanwhile on the Rocna website re stainless:

http://www.rocna.com/kb/Anchor_materials

Quote:

Many stainless steel anchors are built entirely of 316L stainless. This grade is "marine" stainless, and has good corrosion qualities for use in the marine environment. However, it does not have much tensile strength (measuring around 280 MPa depending on sheet thickness), a grade which means it is weaker than mild steel.

Craig Smith made the same comment on another forum, but anyone who wants to can come up with different data altogether regarding the comparison strength between mild steel and stainless. If you Google "MPa 316 stainless" you will find data sheets from manufacturers listing the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of both 316L and 316 at 570 MPa, while A36 mild steel comes in with a UTS at 500 MPa. The comparable figure for yield strength (another measure of tensile strength) is 290 MPa for 316 stainless and 250 MPa for mild steel. When I called Craig S. on this fact on the other forum, squid like he filled the room with ink and disappeared, not to be heard from again. This would appear to be an example of the type of intentional fabrication Rocna engages in to sell you an anchor, although I guess it depends on what Rocna means when they say "mild steel". The most charitable interpretation it that it is just be another example of them supplying part of the information needed to understand what they are saying, and tilting the presentation in a way that causes the customer to reach the wrong conclusion. However you slice it, I call it deceptive.

Incidentally, the ultimate yield strength of the anchor tested by Manson came in at 500 MPa, so we can assume that it was built of the kind of mild steel that Rocna poo-poos for anchor manufacture in their advertising. To use Craig Smith's words on another forum, mild steel is "unacceptable" for building anchors. What he forgot to mention is that is how Rocna builds them.

 

[Greenheart]

Given that this summer seems to have started early, and is predicted to end early, too...I'm not sure I can find the hours necessary to sit indoors and study this thread.

Is there a way by which we may only read the conclusion, or 'verdict', when it is reached? Or maybe there could be a minimalistic, 4000-word daily summary of business?

I wonder if any of the many entries above will advance our ground-tackle's useability? Or improve our anchoring techniques? Or, not?

I'd thought I was too young, to be so cynical.

 

[Delfin]

Is there a way by which we may only read the conclusion, or 'verdict', when it is reached? Or maybe there could be a minimalistic, 4000-word daily summary of business?

You can prepare an executive summary of this in a lot less than 4,000 words. Here's my stab, based on the evidence on hand:

Rocna makes a false claim that they make anchors to a standard they don't bother to attempt to achieve themselves.

Rocna makes a false claim that they have test results indicating superiority over other anchors that they don't actually have.

Rocna makes a false claim that they have independent certification for their product they don't actually have.

Rocna charges more for their anchors on the basis of these false representations, apparently believing in the P.T. Barnum maxim that 'there is a fool born every minute.'

There are alternative 3rd generation anchors made by reputable companies that do not engage in false claims.

See - pretty brief....

 

[[55354]]

Rocna/Holdfast specifications and quality - current status

Here is a slightly different summary - but same conclusion

Rocna/Holdfast have quoted their specification for the Rocna anchor, and I think this covers any anchors made anywhere, as

Fluke Steel grade G400 Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) 370/500MPa, 2% yield 215MPa, min

Shank Steel quaility G800 UTS 710/880 MPa 2% yield 600MPa, min (By my estimate this 2% yield spec looks low for a Q&T80 steel)

2 x Samples of Rocna anchors made in China have been purchased from a chandler, chosen at random, and have been tested by an independent testing agency and the results are, in summary

Shank A 2% yield 464MPa
Shank B 2% yield 540MPa
Fluke A 2% yield 297MPa
Fluke B 2% yield 268MPa

Evidently the shanks do not meet the specification defined by Holdfast/Rocna.

Anchors are a safety device if things go wrong your yacht and its crew might be at risk. If your new fridge does not meet specification its invconvenient, but nothing more.

Should you have bought a new fridge that does not meet specification, or an anchor that does not meet specification then you would be entitled in most first world countries to have your money refunded, without question.

The test results that have been published represent 2 randomly chosen anchors from the Holdfast Chinese production facility. It is likely there are many others on the market or worryingly on the bow rollers of yachts. If Holdfast have made the batch of anchors from which the samples were taken to a specification that does not meet their own standards there is an additional fear that other batches of anchors might have been made from product with an even lower specification. Equally if the specification for steel, set by Holdfast themselves, has not been adhered to there is the further fear that the quality of welding might also be questionable - this has not been tested.

There is no suggestion that Rocna anchors are 'dangerous' - but they will fail under loads lower than would be expected for a Rocna anchor made to the correct specification. As a safety device a used would expect the product he has bought to meet specification.

There is no suggestion that anchors made in locals other than China are at fault - but it is not clear if anchors to the old fully welded design (as opposed to the current cast fluke and G800 shank Chinese model) were ever made in China.

If Holdfast have increased the shank thickness to compensate for the lower strength shank material, thus giving the same strength, then the anchor will not meet its original design requirement will be unbalanced and may not set properly.

Owners of Chinese Rocna product have a 'duty of care' and to use a product wittingly knowing it does not meet specificaion would make them liable under law. Equally any distributor selling a Rocna product knowing that it does not meet specification would also be liable under law. Though a user of the product might not know the product he is using does not meet specification distributors would not be able to rely on 'lack of knowledge' - they would be expected to be abreast of any developments. Distributors should be contacting as many of their customers as possible to arrange a re-call.