I hate to do this...but

[[55354]]

Country of origin

I re-read Richard S reply and if I interpret correctly he has a Chinese Rocna, it has a cast fluke. So why does it have a label saying, made in NZ?

Grant is also advising that some Chinese Rocnas have cast flukes and some, seems to be the bigger ones, welded flukes. At what weight do the Chinese welded flukes start and is there any way an owner of a larger welded fluke anchor can tell if its made in China or NZ/Canada? - as it seems the sticky labels might be misleading.

 

[GrantKing]

I re-read Richard S reply and if I interpret correctly he has a Chinese Rocna, it has a cast fluke. So why does it have a label saying, made in NZ?

Grant is also advising that some Chinese Rocnas have cast flukes and some, seems to be the bigger ones, welded flukes. At what weight do the Chinese welded flukes start and is there any way an owner of a larger welded fluke anchor can tell if its made in China or NZ/Canada? - as it seems the sticky labels might be misleading.

The chinese shanks are radiused on the edges into a smooth round as this image shows:

The NZ shanks are edge ground on an angle with a grinder and look like this:

It is very easy to tell the difference between them.
The welded blades are from 55kg and up.

 

[Dockhead]

The chinese shanks are radiused on the edges into a smooth round as this image shows:

The NZ shanks are edge ground on an angle with a grinder and look like this:

It is very easy to tell the difference between them.
The welded blades are from 55kg and up.

Your images aren't there. Please repost; this will be very useful. My one year old 55kg Rocna ought to be Chinese, but it has sharp shank edges, not radiuses. Next will be the centre punch test but later in the week (presently 2000 miles from the boat).

 

[Nostrodamus]

Come on Rocna/ Holdfast.
You have a moral duty here to tell your customers what is going on rather than them taking a nail and hammer to your anchors.
I have no doubt that this thread is being closely monitored as you have been very vocal in the past and you can see the concern your customers are showing.
It is time to admit or deny the findings published by Manson and say what has happened for people’s peace of mind. It is totally wrong to stay quiet when your customer’s lives may be at risk.
You are very good at publishing page after page about your anchors on your website but when an allegation is made that concerns your customers lives you say nothing.
Now is the time to speak!

 

[GrantKing]

Your images aren't there. Please repost; this will be very useful. My one year old 55kg Rocna ought to be Chinese, but it has sharp shank edges, not radiuses. Next will be the centre punch test but later in the week (presently 2000 miles from the boat).

It seems the images are awaiting approval from the moderators.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Greed. Pure greed.

Thanks. Do you think that all of the Chinese Rocnas are affected by the low strength shanks? And what do you think happened? Were they screwed by their suppliers? It seems inconceivable that they could have knowingly allowed mild steel to be used for their shanks.

One word. Greed.

Move to a lower grade steel and the material cost savings are considerable. Add to that the savings in labour costs as the cheaper material is easier to cut, to weld and to galvanise and the savings to be made are very attractive.

Add to that a view that your customers are mugs and greed very quickly takes over.

No doubt they will try to blame the Chinese, but Grant has told us on more than one occasion how good the Chinese are. We've also heard from Racno about their teams of people ("Global Quality Assurance Team"!!!! was one description), we've been told that QA is top priority, and we've been reassured about the specifications. We've also been told about their "rigorous QA regime". A while ago they also promised to publish copies of test results which they had commissioned, but have gone strangely silent.

All smoke and mirrors.

The only test result which they have published earlier this month was a test from early November last year of a lump of metal which we are led to assume had something to do with one of their anchors. They seriously think that they can convince people about their integrity by using a test which is 5 months old!!! A "rigorous QA system" which only churns out one set of test results in 5 months?????????

Laughable, if it wasn't so blatant.

Greed. Pure greed.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Come on Rocna/ Holdfast.
You have a moral duty here to tell your customers what is going on rather than them taking a nail and hammer to your anchors.
I have no doubt that this thread is being closely monitored as you have been very vocal in the past and you can see the concern your customers are showing.
It is time to admit or deny the findings published by Manson and say what has happened for people’s peace of mind. It is totally wrong to stay quiet when your customer’s lives may be at risk.
You are very good at publishing page after page about your anchors on your website but when an allegation is made that concerns your customers lives you say nothing.
Now is the time to speak!

Craig is watching this thread as I write.
I wonder if he will respond???

 

[Rigger Mortice]

No! He's gone now.
The man who posted hundreds of times about his anchor has now been struck dumb.

 

[Ubergeekian]

No! He's gone now.
The man who posted hundreds of times about his anchor has now been struck dumb.

To be fair, if there are any issues they are the responsibility of the makers and not of the designer (or his son).

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you.

On this occasion though, I can't help but think that he has been so vocal in the past, so quick to knock any competition etc etc that he hasn't a leg to stand on now. He was also actively encouraged, if only by Racno's silence, to continue his rampage through boaty forums around the world. Indeed, until recently he clearly was the voice of Rocna.

If he now had the grace to apologise and admit that he was wrong, I would have a little more sympathy. But.........nothing. A noisy silence.

I do understand your point though.

 

[vyv_cox]

One word. Greed.

Move to a lower grade steel and the material cost savings are considerable. Add to that the savings in labour costs as the cheaper material is easier to cut, to weld and to galvanise and the savings to be made are very attractive.

Add to that a view that your customers are mugs and greed very quickly takes over.

No doubt they will try to blame the Chinese, but Grant has told us on more than one occasion how good the Chinese are. We've also heard from Racno about their teams of people ("Global Quality Assurance Team"!!!! was one description), we've been told that QA is top priority, and we've been reassured about the specifications. We've also been told about their "rigorous QA regime". A while ago they also promised to publish copies of test results which they had commissioned, but have gone strangely silent.

All smoke and mirrors.

The only test result which they have published earlier this month was a test from early November last year of a lump of metal which we are led to assume had something to do with one of their anchors. They seriously think that they can convince people about their integrity by using a test which is 5 months old!!! A "rigorous QA system" which only churns out one set of test results in 5 months?????????

Laughable, if it wasn't so blatant.

Greed. Pure greed.

You are making considerable assumptions there, although I agree that the silence from Rocna raises many suspicions.

In a lifetime of failure diagnosis I have come across incorrect materials of manufacture many times, but have yet to hear of one due to deviousness on the part of the manufacturer. What would Rocna have to gain by it? Materials costs are never a major part of overall item costs (20%?) and substituting a lower grade of steel for a higher one would represent almost no appreciable saving (2%?). Incorrect materials turn up for a whole variety of reasons, some complex and some plain stupid. Would anybody risk the name of their product for a 2% saving in production costs?

 

[RichardS]

I re-read Richard S reply and if I interpret correctly he has a Chinese Rocna, it has a cast fluke. So why does it have a label saying, made in NZ?

Just to be clear, the part of the label on my Rocna that says "Made in NZ" was covered over by a very small plain black label which I had to pick off.

Once, I had seen that "Made in NZ" had been covered over, it was clear to me that my Rocna was made in China.

Take note that if you buy a Rocna on eBay and the label says "Made in NZ", it is just as likely to be a made in China model with a picked-off label! It might be the case in future that NZ-made Rocnas command a higher resale price than Chinese-made Rocnas but the label may well be meaningless!

Caveat emptor!

Richard

 

[vyv_cox]

Hi Grant

I tried hitting the anchor with a centre punch but it's not precise enough. The anchor makes a loud ringing sound (don't know if that's relevant) and a small indent is left but it seems to be an ident in the galvanising as, even if I hit the same spot several times, the indent does not get any worse.

But who knows - perhaps I'm not hitting it hard enough?

A better "home" test might be one where the shank is held parallel to the ground by the fluke an one end and a brick at the other and then a number of bricks or weights balanced in the middle of the shank and the downwards bending of the shank in the middle measured in mm with a ruler. I don't know if this is measuring the right parameter of the steel or even whether a reasonable number of standard housebricks would be enough to cause a measureable deformation?

As I said, I'm not actually worried as the anchor has always performed perfectly in the real world but it's an interesting subject.

Richard

No, your test is not going to tell you anything.

A simple Brinell test used by many manufacturers of engineering equipment compares the indent of a ball in a known material with the same on the test specimen. You don't have access to the comparative test equipment but you can get quite close. You could use the ball of a small ball-pein hammer, or the nail that has been suggested, although this might damage the galvanising more than you would like, so the end of a bolt might be better. Place the stock of your anchor on a solid base, concrete would be good. Hit it with reasonable force with your hammer. Now repeat with a piece of low carbon steel of about the same thickness, a wrought iron gate, piece of RSJ, angle, boat trailer or something similar. Most low grade welded products would do. Compare the indents. Your shank indent should be considerably smaller.

 

[[55354]]

Greed

Vyv,

I do not like arguing with you, you seem honest, straight forward and completely lacking in deviousness and know your stuff.

But you wonder why anyone would make a saving on raw material costs - that surely its not worth the aggro.

I'm guessing but surely one moves production to China because its saves money. Now steel is based on iron ore, from Australia (or Brasil) and coal, from Australia, or wherever, and Australian iron ore and coal costs the same to everyone - so maybe there are some small savings to buy raw materials in China but the big hit is labour. In fact in China raw material costs must be much the same as in, say NZ. But if your labour costs are lower (that's why you moved there, then the big saving would be to cut back raw material costs (they are a much higher proprotion of factory gate prices).

And as Rigger has pointed out - using cheap steel, savings in raw material, savings in cutting, savings in welding, less rejects in galvanising - and possibly important, a better guarantee of supply.

Equally important if sales are on the rise and you judge the customer base as a set of idiots - no-one will notice. After all, look at the huge support they received - despite almost everything. Its changed slightly now that some buyers feel aggrieved - but previously everyone thought it a big joke - so why not.

Do not judge based on honest, straightforward thinking of an Anglo-Saxon with integrity.

There are other reasons to move offshore, offshore income, less tax (no tax?), reduce the payments to the inventor and his son etc etc. Could not guess - but savings in raw materials must be high on the list.

QED?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

You are making considerable assumptions there, although I agree that the silence from Rocna raises many suspicions.

In a lifetime of failure diagnosis I have come across incorrect materials of manufacture many times, but have yet to hear of one due to deviousness on the part of the manufacturer. What would Rocna have to gain by it? Materials costs are never a major part of overall item costs (20%?) and substituting a lower grade of steel for a higher one would represent almost no appreciable saving (2%?). Incorrect materials turn up for a whole variety of reasons, some complex and some plain stupid. Would anybody risk the name of their product for a 2% saving in production costs?

Vyv,

You may be right though I would ask if the extra labour savings, due to the metal being easier to work, might not substantially increase the savings on material?

I'm also concious of the fact that they talked about their high tensile materials and boasted that, though they "increased costs significantly", quality was paramount. A "significant increase" becomes a "significant decrease" when you revert to a lower spec'd material?

And finally, M'lud, I call an expert witness.........our very own Anchorsmith http://www.anything-sailing.com/sho...hor-(Craig-want-to-help-)?p=103521#post103521 #107

If you end up with a poor quality product from China the fault lies not with the Chinese, corrupt/lazy/fraudulent as you may imagine them all to be; but with the Western importer who's spec'ed low quality product priced to the absolute thinnest margin, and sold it to you with a straight face​

No further questions, M'lud.

Despite all that, hopefully Grant will come along to explain what has really been going on.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Place the stock of your anchor on a solid base, concrete would be good. Hit it with reasonable force with your hammer. Now repeat with a piece of low carbon steel of about the same thickness, a wrought iron gate, piece of RSJ, angle, boat trailer or something similar. Most low grade welded products would do. Compare the indents. Your shank indent should be considerably smaller.

What about doing it with an automatic centre punch, to give reasonable standardisation of the blow?

 

[silver-fox]

You are making considerable assumptions there, although I agree that the silence from Rocna raises many suspicions.

In a lifetime of failure diagnosis I have come across incorrect materials of manufacture many times, but have yet to hear of one due to deviousness on the part of the manufacturer. What would Rocna have to gain by it? Materials costs are never a major part of overall item costs (20%?) and substituting a lower grade of steel for a higher one would represent almost no appreciable saving (2%?). Incorrect materials turn up for a whole variety of reasons, some complex and some plain stupid. Would anybody risk the name of their product for a 2% saving in production costs?

My business experience supports cock up over conspiracy every time too. As you say the savings are just not worth the risk.

Their problem is that they spent years justifying a price premium on the grounds of superior design, performance, certification and quality whilst being severely critical of competitors.

This hardly breeds a climate of tolerance and there is no shortage of people waiting to get their own back!

 

[[55354]]

Cock up?

Frankly I remain amazed at gullability

Here we have a company that insulted everyone they could find, and probably a few they could not find. Denigrated every competitor and every magazine that did not publish their beliefs. They then claimed to have SHHP -and even when it was demonstrated they did not have SHHP holding power tried to wriggle out. And when it was shown their attempts at SHHP was for a product they no longer made....?

And yet there are still people suggesting they did not know they were using the wrong steel.

They sign purchase orders, they authorise payment for raw materials. They test the finished product. They should be testing the raw materials - the list goes on. There must be 20, 40 reasons checks and counter checks - it is impossible to accept 450 steel as 800 steel and not notice.

Get real! Join the real world - stop making excuses for a set of charlatans!

 

[Rigger Mortice]

It's a pity that no tests appear to have been carried out on a stainless Racno. If one of those were shown to be 316, rather than the higher grade, that would pretty much confirm the "deliberate" theory. If it were the higher grade then the "cock up" theory may be vindicated.

As Rocna are also contracted by their licence to keep to the original specifications they aren't going to admit to any deviation. If, however, they then thought they could get away with it, (and the CEO is neither engineer, nor technician),..............

Personally, I believe the "deliberate" theory, but I can understand the advocates of the "cock up". Time will tell.

 

[Nostrodamus]

It i difficult to say this was a cock up.
If it was then they hould have come out strait away and said so and asked all retailers to stop selling their anchors until the problem was rectified.
They are fully aware of the allegations and have said nothing. Not even Max Clifford could help them with this one now. They have kept quiet far to long.
If it was just one batch affected they would have said so but they realise there are a lot of their anchor owners out there who could get them tested and proove it was just not one batch.
To keep selling them knowingly is a crime and not saying anything publicly is also a crime.
I don't know how much Craig Smith knew about what was happening. Grant has often said he wanted the original specs and was stringent about it. If he didn't know what was happening he should be livid and say so. What was originally a very good anchor has been questioned as to its "fit for purpose" status and someone from the company needs to answer.