I hate to do this...but

Grant,
I think most of us on here thank you for lifting the lid but you must realise you will be their number one target and they will no doubt try to divert blame onto you to rubbish what you are saying.
have they contacted you in anyway?
 
Delfin said:
Key facts? Having established that no one knows what the force applied to the Venice anchor was, vyv cox then goes on to conclude that this unknown force would certainly have been enough to bend (or worse) a Fortress, even though the designs and materials are completely different. Agnostic and open minded in the former, omniscient in the latter. Must be useful to be an engineer with such powers, but if lacking those powers, perhaps not so unvested, interest-wise, after all.

What is pertinent here is not the absolute tensile strength of materials in the abstract, but whether those materials are engineered and used in such a way that the end product performs as advertised. If Rocna is, as it appears, using steel they themselves claim is inadequate for anchor manufacturing, in a design they insist requires a higher grade of materials then they are scam artists. I don't need to be an engineer to know that to try to equate such a scam product to those made honestly to a particular design standard is dishonest and mis-leading. Shame on you, Mr. Cox.
Click to expand...

Delfin, if you could, in future, advance your own opinions and criticise other posts without attacking individuals, I, for one, would be very grateful.

This is supposed to be a forum for those that sail to exchange thoughts, ideas and experiences on a hobby we all share and enjoy.
 
Nostrodamus said:
Grant,
I think most of us on here thank you for lifting the lid but you must realise you will be their number one target and they will no doubt try to divert blame onto you to rubbish what you are saying.
have they contacted you in anyway?
Click to expand...

On April 17 I sent the following email to Steve Bambury:



Steven,

You posted the following notice on the YBW forum site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(copied was the posting from Bambury that resulted in the previous thread being locked and closed)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is now almost 12 months since you chose to dismiss me.

You have not replied to any of my previous emails requesting reasons as to why you chose to dismiss me in the manner that you did.

You have made similar statements to 3 other parties in the last 3 months that have contacted me with similar information to that which you posted.

I demand to be informed as to your claims I was misusing company funds?

I demand to know how I misrepresented myself to others?

I demand to know what serious theft and fraud matters I am under investigation for?

You chose in your typical underhanded and sneaky way to remove me from my position in order to forge ahead with your own misguided plans for the company.
You sent your "associates" to seize my vehicle and you have refused to pay me what is due to me for unpaid work and my vehicle.

The time has now come for you to justify your actions and settle the debt owed.

If you wish to settle the matter in the courts then I am more than prepared to do so.

With your posting and attempt to publicly humiliate me you have taken your stance into the gutter, well I do not mind fighting there.

I have complete copies of all correspondence, emails, memos and letters, recording of vital phone calls and recording of all skype conversations made during the time I was working with both you and Brian. You may wonder why, but I was warned early on in my association with you that you both were not to be trusted and so I took the steps needed to protect myself. All records are safely stored at an independant location so do not bother to send your "associates" to visit me again, they will be politely told to **** off.

You have 24 hours to provide satisfactory answers to my questions.

This is the last time I will bother to contact you requesting answers, this is not a threat or attempt to coerce you or blackmail, I will simply reveal truths that can be backed by documentation and records.

regards
Grant King

The reply I received from Steve stated he would only meet me in the presence of the police to discuss matters.

This is the first and only contact I have had from them since June 2010, they refused to reply to me previously when I sent demands for the 87K they owe me.

They can try to divert blame on to me if they like, however as I said previously , I can back up everything I say, I will not publish any of their "secret" documentation that could lead to charges in the NZ court system, but I have well and truely covered myself with copies of emails and recordings of conversations and phone calls.

Does that answer your question?
 
silver-fox said:
Delfin, if you could, in future, advance your own opinions and criticise other posts without attacking individuals, I, for one, would be very grateful.

This is supposed to be a forum for those that sail to exchange thoughts, ideas and experiences on a hobby we all share and enjoy.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. This thread is about various specific allegations that an anchor manufacturer has used materials that it vocally asserts are inadequate for the safe production of an anchor when discussing competitor's products. When the discussion is at its best, it focuses on what people say who are in a position to know something about the subject (Grant King, for example), or where specific data is presented to shed light on the question. The different anchor manufacturers engaged here help with that, and everyone is entitled to view their opinions and perspectives as naturally biased towards their own products. Presenting themselves as manufacturers, we can assume they know something about manufacturing anchors and learn accordingly.

If one presents themselves as an engineer, others reasonably look to that person for a factual and objective representation of data relating to engineering. When that happens, light is cast on the subject. When it doesn't, the issue is further clouded. Like you, I would prefer the discussion focus on facts and well argued opinions. Leaps of logic equating anchor designs and manufacturing techniques doesn't fall into that category, which I why I objected.

I apologize to Mr. Cox if my criticism was over the top, while still scratching my head over the rational basis for the conclusions he presented in his post.
 
Grant,
Thank you for your full and frank reply which sheds a bit more light on this murky subject.
To clarify a lot of the posts today can I ask some direct questions you may or may not wish to answer?

1) Who decided to alter the specifications of the Rocna’s to a lower grade steel.?
2) Why were the manufacturing specifications changed?
3) How much quality control is there on the anchors?
4) Did Peter and Craig Smith know about this?
5) When did the production of these anchors begin?
6) As an estimate how many of these anchors have been produced.
7) How many anchors are you aware of that have deformed or failed as a result of the changes in specifications.
 
Nostrodamus said:
Grant,
Thank you for your full and frank reply which sheds a bit more light on this murky subject.
To clarify a lot of the posts today can I ask some direct questions you may or may not wish to answer?

1) Who decided to alter the specifications of the Rocna’s to a lower grade steel.?
2) Why were the manufacturing specifications changed?
3) How much quality control is there on the anchors?
4) Did Peter and Craig Smith know about this?
5) When did the production of these anchors begin?
6) As an estimate how many of these anchors have been produced.
7) How many anchors are you aware of that have deformed or failed as a result of the changes in specifications.
Click to expand...

Briefly:

1) The decision pre-dated my start with Bambury ( Jan 2009). Prior to this date Bambury met with Linox in Australia and then with them again at the factory in China. ( 2008)
2) Easier to scource lower grade and cheaper.
3) Since my departure in late May 2010 I do not know the extent of QC suffice to say that Bambury was pushing during my last few months with them to outsource that area to one of the many QC contractors based in China.
4) No they definetely did not know, they believed all along that their specs were being met.
5) Late 2008 and then all production went to China in mid 2009 after pulling NZ production from CNC.
6) To date in excess of 5000 units (approx) have been made in China.
7) Not prepared to state yet.
 
in an idle moment, one wonders if the original agreement between the designer and the manufacturer included a clause about the standards and quality of the product. If it could be shown that the management deliberately reduced the spec, are they breaking the terms of the licence / contract ?


If the original designer could get the production back under guaranteed control, are we then back to measuring anchors purely on functional design / performance, rather than construction ?
 
sarabande said:
in an idle moment, one wonders if the original agreement between the designer and the manufacturer included a clause about the standards and quality of the product. If it could be shown that the management deliberately reduced the spec, are they breaking the terms of the licence / contract ?
Click to expand...

We've already been told that a clause to that effect was included.


sarabande said:
If the original designer could get the production back under guaranteed control, are we then back to measuring anchors purely on functional design / performance, rather than construction ?
Click to expand...

Yes, subject to the questions about the dubious promotional tactics of the Smiths. However, that is an entirely different question from that of the integrity of the present manufacturer.
 
Certification debunked

The Rocna certification as explained on their own website:

On this page
http://www.rocna.com/our-story/features-of-a-rocna/
we find the following statement
“The Rocna Original is classified by RINA (Registro Italiano Navale) to the highest level available: Super High Holding Power (SHHP).”
And:
“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. A Rocna is rock solid with no moving parts, eliminating complex adjustment systems and potentially dangerous failure points.”

So then we go to this page:
http://www.rocna.com/our-story/rock-solid-technology/
we find:
A Rocna anchor's advantage is in its design – and construction. With a design philosophy of maximum durability and reliability, in addition to ultimate performance, Rocna makes no compromises in any area.
And:
The Rocna design is type-approved, not just by its designer, the highly experienced professional boat-builder and boater Peter Smith, but also by RINA (Registro Italiano Navale), an internationally recognised leader in certification and assessment of conformity responsible for ensuring the 'suitability for purpose' of critical equipment on yachts and ships worldwide.
RINA recently awarded Rocna anchors with Super High Holding Power (SHHP) certification.
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.
And:

(For more on RINA, check out the Rocna Knowledge Base article on certification and classification – click here »).
And:
For more, check out the Rocna Knowledge Base article on construction and anchor materials.
Click here »

So we click on the first link and we arrive at;
http://www.rocna.com/kb/Classification_and_certification
On this page we find this very interesting take on “Type approval”
“Type approval is an abstract endorsement by the society of the anchor's design, or "type". The drawings and production plans of the anchor are examined by the society's experts, who either approve or return designs with comments and requests. Type approval may apply to an entire range of anchor sizes, even if only the larger models are specifically certified and tested. It implies recognition of the anchor's proof of concept, but has no basis in testing and does not speak to the performance of the design nor the quality of the product. “

Then under the heading “Anchor certification” we find:
Certification itself is the overarching standard imposed by the society. For anchors to be "certified", they must be individually inspected and proof tested. This is only done with larger anchors (about 70 kg / 150 lb or more, depending on the particular society or office). The type approval and classification status is inherited from initial examination and testing.
There are basic process standards, plus minimal engineering specifications which relate to heat treatment of castings, quality of welding, and so on. Anchors can be drop-tested, and strength can be proof tested by applying specific minimum loads to the shank while the flukes are held in a special rig.

Are you confused yet?
Then go back to the top of the page and click on the link for the supplement:
http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/classification.php

Here we have:
International classification societies offer classification of marine anchors, which in turn tends to be advertised by anchor manufacturers. Phrases such as “HHP”, “SHHP”, and “type approval” are in common usage. Informative summaries of what these classifications actually mean tend to be in short supply.

Manufacturers may imply these standards mean much more than they actually do. Advertising the apparent endorsement of a well known and respected organization can be of considerable value, particularly to a market which is not familiar with the precise regulations. But too much focus on this is very misleading.

Type approval is an abstract endorsement by the society of the anchor’s design, or “type”. The society inspects the manufacturer’s production drawings, then either approve the design or request modifications. This stage of the inspection makes no comment with regard to the actual effectiveness of the anchor.

Society rules and regulations supply very little information on the criteria and technical requirements for any given type. It is assumed on the basis of the society’s reputation that their inspecting engineers are capable and professional.

Type approval is therefore a nice stamp of approval on the anchor’s design, but it generally means little in practice. Any anchor that would fail this process would not last long in the face of independent testing and feedback from demanding boaters.

Seabed Testing: HHP and SHHP
Neither HHP nor SHHP is an exceedingly high standard. A “standard stockless anchor” is extraordinarily inefficient when compared to other types on a weight-for-weight basis, and independent tests show a number of modern anchors capable of exceeding even SHHP. That said, SHHP does distinguish older designs such as the CQR (articulated plough) and Bruce (claw) from newer more efficient anchors.
Anchors can also be tested against others with the desired standard; should they hold at least the same load, this meets the requirement.

Anchors incapable of attaining SHHP classification should probably be avoided by boaters in light of the far superior designs which do carry the standard. However, because the SHHP standard in turn does not represent a particularly high bar, this classification is really of little assistance in selecting a type. Look instead to independent testing and feedback from experienced users.

Take care to investigate claims by anchor manufacturers with regard to “HHP” or “SHHP” classification if it is not accompanied by reference to society certification. At least one Australian manufacturer for example claims SHHP status for their anchors which on investigation is found to be simply “certification” from a local testing company. Such a claim is disingenious at best.

Summary
Classification generally is of small importance, particularly for small anchors. Type approval is of some benefit, but it is unlikely that any anchor brand would last long if it did not meet this standard in any case. HHP and even SHHP are not very high performance standards, easily exceeded by a number of anchors on the market today regardless of whether they have classification or not.

General certification does mandate a baseline level of production standards, providing some reassurance to the customer concerned about construction quality. Individual certification applies only to larger anchors, and then usually for legal requirements.

Classification and certification is generally obtained by a manufacturer because they find it necessary for their larger anchors. It has a secondary benefit of providing useful marketing tools which can be applied to their smaller range also. It certainly does not hurt, but neither is it any panacea for boaters using anchors below about 70 kg / 150 lb.

CONFUSED NOW?

Now click on the second link regarding materials and end up here:
http://www.rocna.com/kb/Anchor_materials

There we find:
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.

and:
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).


Try to work it out now.
 
Brian@Fortress said:
That was a totally false statement about our product. Thickness and proper machining of the metal will enable it to handle loads more efficiently.

Proof of this was evidenced by the extensive US Navy tests that were conducted several years ago. All of the steel Danforth anchors were completely destroyed in the test, and there was some surprise to this result, as it was noted in the report that the high grade of steel used in the Danforth anchors was stronger than the aluminum alloy used by Fortress, which was cause for this analysis in the test report:

"The fact that the Fortress anchors incurred no significant structural damage at such high holding ratios suggest that the anchors have been extensively engineered from both the hydrodynamic and structural standpoints."

I find a comparison of our product with Rocna to be, quite frankly, insulting as I cannot comprehend manufacturing and advertising a safety product to be made of a superior material, and then making it at a lower grade and with a higher possibility of failure. Absolutely unconscionable.

Brian
Fortress Marine Anchors
Click to expand...

Brian, (and I will take this oportunity to reply to Delfin)

I am in no way criticising your product, which as you well know I use and am perfectly happy with. I am quoting tensile strength figures measured by yourselves and the independent tester emplyed by Manson.

The strength of the material used by yourselves, extracted from your website, is 385 MPa. The strength measured on the Rocna anchors by the Manson tester is about 500 MPa, to take a mean value. Anybody can see that the Rocna figure is higher than yours, which means that its strength is higher.

That isn't the whole story of course, as the strength needs to be applied to the cross-sectional area. As I have said in a previous post, if we assumed the shanks of Rocna and Fortress anchors specified for my 35 ft boat to be the same, that makes the Rocna something like 4/3 times stronger. My memory says that my 15 kg Rocna has a shank significantly larger in CSA than my FX16 Fortress, so I think the margin is actually larger than 4/3.

There are additional factors, such as the length of the lever arm, maybe the shape of the shank, perhaps the tendency of the flukes to adhere in the bottom, but I do not believe these to be major. If you disagree perhaps you would like to explain.

As I have now said on numerous posts, I cannot support Rocna in producing a product that clearly is below the standard that they claim to have set, but the figures demonstrate that the anchor remains far from dangerous.

The strength of any grade of stainless steel, whether duplex or austenitic, and any grade of aluminium is less than the Rocna measured figure. You are welcome to check these figures, they are widely available, here for example. A shank of the same, or similar cross-sectional area in these materials will be considerably weaker than the eqivalent steel version. Unless manufacturers of anchors in these materials increase the shank dimensions proportionate to their strength they will inevitably be weaker than the 'sub-standard' Rocna. I'm stating a fact, not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.
 
SHHP Australia

Grant,

I take minor issue with one part of you excellent post.

Anchor Right Australia has been awarded SHHP by the National Marine Safety Committee which is part of AMSA (Australian Maritime Safety Authority), the highest marine safety authority in Australia and the same people who manage Australia's GMDSS responsibilities. If you are rescued in the Southern Ocean, thank AMSA, if you are building an oil support vessel for the NW Shelf you need AMSA approval for all safety equipment, if you are building an ocean going fisheries protection vessel chasing Patangonian toothfish poachers in the Southern Ocean you need AMSA approval. If you are building a naval assault catamaran for the US Navy you need AMSA approval for all safety equipment (including its anchors) The local testing agency is a completely independent authority, in this case paid by Anchor Right - in the same way Rocna paid RINA; Manson, Lloyds and Lewmar, Lloyds - no-one does it for free. The local independent testing authority is NATA approved, the same people who test for independence of Lloyda and RINA et al. The difference being Lloyds have an international presence, the local company does not - but they meet identical approval standards.

AMSA set up the system after consultation with Lloyds and ABS et al as a mechanism to allow local anchor makers (and other local manufacturers of safety equipment) to gain type approval without the cost of involving the expense of Lloyds etc. The test procedures are identical to those used by the Classification Societies - and if you know otherwise I suggest you post those comments. The test procedures involve the same dragging tests, the same proof loading and if you wish to check - speak to NMSC or the local testing agency. It is my understanding that in fact because there is some scepticism the test procedure is more rigorous that might be employed by Lloyds - but that is a personal assessment.

The approval by AMSA allows local manufactures to meet international standards and allows them thus to supply for vessels under survey in Australia. There is a rigorous check on claims made by local manufacturers and if false claims are made severe penalties result - its seems other authuroties do not take misuse of their reputation and certification seriously.

AMSA is internationally recognised and, as I say, if you have a complaint about their levels of competancy and their ability to lay down criteria for safety in Australia and for Australian marine regulations I suggest you take it up with them. Anchor Right are simply following Australian Government requirements. Part of these regulations allow any manufacturer anywhere in the world to pass the same criteria in their local country and have their product certified for use in Australia, without the expense of Lloyds et al. So if you are a developing manufacturer in, say, the UK and you can prove to AMSA your products have been tested by an approved agency to the correct standards you can sell that product in Australia - the opposite is also true if you do not have certification, say RINA, you cannot sell to vessels under survey.

I reiterate if you think Anchor Right does not enjoy SHHP status for both its Super SARCA and SARCA Excel I suggest you take it up with AMSA which is the correct place for such claims and not an internet forum.

How do I know this, I spent hours with each of Lloyds (HK and London offices), NMSC, AMSA, (and half an hour with RINA), more recently ABS and the local Australian testing agency. I did my homework and I work for none of the aforementioned nor do I generate any income from anchor makers - I'm just interested - but I do my homework.
 
SHHP Certificatiom

Grant has made the comment that Classification Society testing lacks applicability as certification is for anchors over 70kg. This has an element of truth, except in Australia (and many other juirisdictions its 50kg). For Fortress, Manson or Anchor Right to supply a vessel under survey with an anchor over 50kgs, and most vessels demanding anchors that sizes are in survey, then each anchor must have an individaul certificate. Both Manson and Anchor Right are building 200kg anchors, of the same design that you and I can buy, and each of these anchors in indiviually certificated. They are individually tested. Fortress supply to the US Navy will be certificated. Basically an anchor maker supplying to vessels under survey has the right design and knows how to construct anchors - and are certificated as such. The certificate does not apply each and every one of the anchors we use, because we are not prepared to apy for indivual certification. Its not a guarantee - but it is reassuring and better than an anchor anchor who makes false claims of certification and then false claims over quality.

Smaller anchors are not individually tested, but can be if you are prepared to pay (and Lewmar make the same offer). Equally Fortress supplied anchors that meet the same standards and those, equivalent to a 50kg anchor will be individually certificated. I understand that Ultra (Turkey) have recently gained ABS approval - same story (but this needs confirmation as I have never asked for sight of a test certificate).

However companies do test smaller anchors, they certainly do it for holding capacity, we have been overwhelmed by the test results in every yachting magazine. Equally anchor makers proof test smaller anchors (test to destruction) - for their own peace of mind if not ours. And for Fortress to supply to the US Navy their anchors will have been tested for strength - commensurate with their claimed holding capacity. So we can rest assured that all of these certificated anchor makers have a reputation to defend and they are not going to destroy the ability to suppluy large commercail vessels by have a set of failures in the vocal laisure market.

And I am sure Fortress, Anchor Right and Manson will, or can, make their own comments - or you can ask them directly.
 
Unbeleivable, UNFORTUNATELY TRUE

DujbangI

I think Grant was Quoting P.S private rendition of his thoughts, ‘’ not facts” on what type approval and S/H/H/Power means , what a load of tripe, for instance no one, Lloyds, RINA, Robertson’s, AMSA will ever make comment on construction, holding power, how the anchor is put together and will never praise its design, this is just absolute marketing garbage, all they are interested in is the anchors holding power and then the stringent proof loads, incidentally the holding power for S/H/H/Power is 12 times that of a standard anchor P.S. simply doesn’t have a clue, this is all imaginary stuff to confuse customers and praise his endless knowledge of which in this case is none.

All boats under survey must use certified anchors, whether they are deploying a 10 K.G. anchor or a 120 K.G. anchor they must be certified. If you go to our web site www.anchorright.com.au you will see one of our earlier anchor tests fully witnessed by Lloyds and stamped for their type approval and the method of Robertson’s testing complies with the Lloyds test, Fact not fiction.

This is for you Peter S. Why do you write so much B.S. I as a fellow inventor just cannot get my head around your motivation and stupid quotes surly you dont think the public are not that stupid. I say to you the readers, instead of taking my slope on this as being over the top Google the National Marine Safety Committee, do a search for National Standard for Commercial Vessels.

Then search for Section 7 Equipment, subsection7D Anchoring Systems. You can compare the info P.S. IS SPEWING.

If you want to deploy a standard anchor design that is an approved design for a work boat, your survey officer will quote the weight of the anchor needed for that vessel, if you want to go lighter he will specify a H/H/Power anchor, if you want to go lighter again, he will then specify a S/H/H/Power anchor, so basically that is what certification is all about.

S/H/H/Power to a boat under survey gives the skipper assurance that the anchor he is deploying is likely to give him the safest ground tackle available, why because it has been proven this anchors concept is providing him with holding power and strength that will survive far more rigorous conditions with a huge margin of safety over a standard anchor and a considerable margin over a H/H/Power anchor.

VYV and a hell of a lot less chance of bending a shank, don’t care how much knowledge you have with steel, that is fact and why it has cost me a small fortune to supply my customers with only proven certified S/H/H/Power anchors, wouldn’t you want to enjoy the same safety a skipper does with S/H/H/Power, no excuses, Rickety advertise here in Australia by depicting a boat with kids bedding down safely in their parents yacht for the night, with a large slogan, you can rest easy with Rickety.

That in itself is dangerous as no skipper should be encouraged to rest easy with kids on his boat, especially in unfavorable conditions as no anchor is a hundred percent let alone an anchor that has been found to have major inconsistencies in strength.

You know someone said P.S. is a good bloke, really? Even lulling family’s into false security, aaaaa Sorry Mr Moderator but I have just read on your forum more of what I have been copping for years, I have the right of reply, those of you that have read G.K.’s last post and still want to defend the Rickety camp, I will just say, there is no problem with the Rickety anchor until there is an accident to say otherwise, just hope it is not you.

Rex.

Anchor Right Australia.
 
Last edited:
OK having read most of this thread and having recently bought a 10kg Rocna for my 31ft yacht my question is

Is it safe to use this anchor ( will rarely be used in very arduous conditions ) or is it just not as good as Rocna state.

Have I the right to ask the supplier Piplers to exchange for another type of anchor if the above answer is no.
 
tidclacy said:
OK having read most of this thread and having recently bought a 10kg Rocna for my 31ft yacht my question is

Is it safe to use this anchor ( will rarely be used in very arduous conditions ) or is it just not as good as Rocna state.

Have I the right to ask the supplier Piplers to exchange for another type of anchor if the above answer is no.
Click to expand...

If it is NZ/Canadian built it should be OK. If it is Chinese made (the product name will be cast into the fluke) it is questionable.

If it is only going to rarely be used in arduous conditions it will be Ok most of the time. However, you need to decide if, when you do use it in those conditions, you want to find out at that stage that there is a problem. (and you have bought an anchor at the lower end of the recommended size for your boat so there is less margin to play with)

Under the Racno guarantee you have 60 days in which you may return it and get a refund for any reason http://www.rocna.com/product-range/warranty-information/
 
Last edited:
tidclacy said:
OK having read most of this thread and having recently bought a 10kg Rocna for my 31ft yacht my question is

Is it safe to use this anchor ( will rarely be used in very arduous conditions ) or is it just not as good as Rocna state.

Have I the right to ask the supplier Piplers to exchange for another type of anchor if the above answer is no.
Click to expand...

Here's my take on it...

The Rocna design is an extremely good one and will perform very well. If the material used to make the shank is as the Manson tests suggest rather than as the Rocna specifications suggest, there is a small chance that in extreme conditions you may bend the shank.

I would not, myself, buy a Rocna until the materials question has been resolved and if I had a new one waiting to be fitted I would be contacting Pipler's with the tests and the specs and asking what they propose to do about it.

(I've just arranged to buy a "new" CQR for my boat.)
 
It shouldn't be.

Tidclacy

Look mate ther is no way I can state that the anchor you have is faulty,this is all wrong none of you should be in this predicement but if you have any doubts then I would demand your money back, or another anchor design that doesent have this huge cloud hanging over its head, you know if you ring up Ricketys complaint department chances are they will echo what they have been saying, don't worry your anchor is certified with S/H/H/Power, true this is what hapenned just recently on the any thing sailing forum.

Even though we all no different.

Regards Rex.

Anchor Right Australia.
 
re:certification

Guys, if you read my posting correctly and follow the links you will see that what is quoted in my posting is what is printed and stated on the Rocna website, the Rocna knowledge base and Peter Smith's website.

None of the disparaging comments are mine.

Read it again and follow the links.
 
Grant,

I'm not sure what your point is. We've been through all this stuff many times before. We know that there's a load of balloney, missrepresentation and knocking on their sites. What's new?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top