I hate to do this...but

vyv_cox said:
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.
Click to expand...
I had the opportunity to stop by West Marine and measure an FX-11 Fortress weighing 7 pounds and compared it to a 22# Rocna. The shank thickness of the Fortress at the mid point of the shank measured 11/16", while that of the Rocna 3/8", or about half that of the Fortress.

I also note that the Fortress shank is hexagonal giving six angles to transfer lateral loading and representing a stronger cross section vs. 4 for the rectangular, and thinner Rocna shank.

If you start with incorrect or incomplete data, the conclusion will not be worth much, even when an engineer makes the conclusion.

While at the WM store, I decided that I would go ahead and purchase the 22# Rocna, shown in the first picture, since I need an easily handled stern anchor and one that isn't too out-sized for the tender. I figured that I could give the Rocna the punch test, and if it looked like it was made of mild steel, I'd decide what to do next. The pictures are below.

I used a standard steel center punch, brand new, and a ball peen hammer. I tapped the underside of the flukes, which is supposed to be made of mild steel and made the dimple shown in the second picture. I then applied the same force to the shank, making the dimple shown in the third picture. I then took one of my Japanese wood chisels as a control, because I can look up in the catalog for these tools that they have a Rockwell hardness of 63, which is the equivalent of a Brinell hardness of 255, which is the same hardness as Bisalloy 80, which has tensile strength of 800 MPa. This is the material Rocna says they make their shanks out of because as Peter Smith has noted, you wouldn't want to compromise on materials in something of as advanced design as the Rocna anchor.

My initial concern was that I try to replicate the exact same force I used on the shank and fluke of the Rocna so the test would be accurate. I needn't have worried, because the 800 MPa metal showed no visible indentation although it did scuff off some smudge, but the center punch is ruined. The chisel is shown in the fourth picture and the now flattened center punch in the fifth.

At this point, I guess I could take this anchor back to WM and get a refund, since it is clearly defective by Rocna's definition. However, I think I will go ahead and pay a few bucks to find out what this unit is made of. When I get those results, I'll let you know.

p.s. I have added a couple more pictures I forgot. The sixth below is the dimple made in a piece of A36 channel I had lying around, also shown in the seventh picture. This provides a reference for the Rocna and the chisel. Based on this, if I had to choose a type of steel for the Rocna shank, it looks like it would be mild, A36.
 
Last edited:
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?

4) Did Peter and Craig Smith know about this?
Click to expand...

GrantKing said:
Briefly:


4) No they definetely did not know, they believed all along that their specs were being met.
.
Click to expand...
With respect Grant, I find this highly implausible. An anchor is not a complex piece of machinery but a piece of metal. If a yahoo like me can, with a $5.00 center punch demonstrate that the steel in the Rocna I just purchased behaves suspiciously like A36 mild steel, couldn't someone like Craig Smith, who camps out on forums to hawk his product do the same thing? He would have a vested interest to know what was going on, and I think you said he was very insistent on the use of the specified steel. Unless he only posts about Rocnas, and hasn't seen one for 3 years, the idea that the Smiths are in the dark on something so easily detected strains belief.
 
Delfin

Very interesting test results and very much in line with Grant's predictions for the punch test.

Will you be able to display an audit trail like Manson, showing purchase details and photos of the test? (I am guessing you already have this in mind).
 
silver-fox said:
Delfin

Very interesting test results and very much in line with Grant's predictions for the punch test.

Will you be able to display an audit trail like Manson, showing purchase details and photos of the test? (I am guessing you already have this in mind).
Click to expand...
Yes. Below is the receipt. The anchor was purchased off the shelf from the Anacortes, Washington store. If I have a lab destructively test the anchor, I'll post their report.
 
Last edited:
Delfin, thank you for taking the time to do this independant test.
The evidnce now seems to be overwhelming.
If these steel shanks on steel Rocnas are questionable one would also presume that the same may have happened with the stainless steel versions.
If I has paid the kind of money they are asking i would be angry and very worried.
If the "good" stainless steel anchors are a lot weaker than a normal steel anchor what would a substandard stainless steel anchor be like?
Just how weak would this be?
 
Rocna shank

There is a suggestion that if you use a Chinese made Rocna with a shank of lower than specified steels then this shank will only fail under arduous conditions. Sadly this is incorrect.

Earlier someone quaoted the load necessary to bend both a shank made from 800MPa steel (the actual Rocna specification) and one made from 400MPa steel (the specification found by Manson of the Chinese made Rocna). The loads in the test are applied at 90 degrees to the shank. The lower quality steel shank fails at about half the load, mid 300kgs I recalll, compared to the correct shank.

With a decent engine, say 40hp, a decent 3 or 4 bladed prop generating 400kg from running your engine alone is quite sufficient to product a 400kg load necessary. These modern anchors set exceptionally well. In fact if they have a downside it is that when you want to lift the anchor, after it has been well set, you cannot do it in a hurry. You need to sit on top of the anchor chain vertical and allow the anchior to release slowly, this takes time minutes rather than seconds.

If you approach your anchor side on and a big swell passes, passing motor baot etc, you will stress that anchor from the side, and 400kg is not much from a bobbing yacht. Equally you might over rev the engine - producing that 400kg load, a 10t yacht has a lot of momentum. You can do bend your anchor at a lunch time stop, where you are more likely to have that passing rogue motor boat, or St Kilda where you might have that big and unanticipated swell.

It depends on your definition - maybe it has not failed, but it sure is useless and if your next anchorage does not have a chandlery in between you will now find yourself in an unenviable position - forced to make a passage to your nearest chandlery and your nearest chandlery might only stock cheap nasty Chinese copy anchors, a bit like the Rocna you have just bent. Equally you might have lifted the anchor so that you could move to a more sheltered location in view of an incoming front, now you have a bent anchor and weather you are trying to shelter from. The bend might not have occured in arduous conditions but its going to be arduous now until the weather passes. What say 'the it will be all right brigade' now?

The conditions were not arduous and you cannot anticipate a larger than expected swell.

If I had one of these Chinese Rocna's I would not take the risk nor any assurance it is going to be 'all right'. Many chandlers know less about anchoring than my granddaughters. Forget a 6 month gurantee from Rocna, its worthless - if they cannot keep to promises of specification do you honestly beleive they are going to meet promises on getting your money back - please join the real world. The chandler will give you the money back - they cannot prove your anchor is not in spec and everything that has been written and tested suggests you have been decieved.

I'd ask for my money back. And if you have a problem, post it here - you will be overwhelmed with support and advise.
 
Delfin's centre punch test

I confess to not having Delfin's flushness of funds but I did a similar test - on other anchors and can confirm some of his findings. I have a Manson Supreme and an Anchor Right SARCA Excel. Both have 800MPa shanks and mild steel flukes, though Anchor Right say the toe of their Excel is also 800MPa.

I took a centre punch, which I specally sharpened and an ordinary claw hammer. Hitting the underside of each fluke, away from any area of weld, and I developed exactly the same indent that Delfin shows in his images. You do not need to hit the steel very hard to make the indent. The centre punch embeds so well it almost impales itself (if a 1mm indent is an impale). Hit the shanks and all you do it chip the galvanising - basically the centre punch bounces off.

If you have a Chinese Rocna this test takes 2 minutes.

Thanks Delfin - but why are the distributors dragging their heels - they are going to look less than honourable if your results come out with results that now look inevitable. It is not up to 'Jo public' or public spirited people like Delfin to do this type of test or were Rocna distributors chosen for their malleable integrity.

Come on West Marine et al show some moral courage - tell us what you have found and tell us why you have not pulled product.
 
Djbangi said:
There is a suggestion that if you use a Chinese made Rocna with a shank of lower than specified steels then this shank will only fail under arduous conditions. Sadly this is incorrect.
Click to expand...
This is an important point. The Rocna has a very thin shank for a reason, I presume, and that would be to shift the balance of the weight towards the business end - the tip. Smith's original design would have allowed you to get away with that thin cross section of the shank by building it out of extremely strong steel, which is why he makes such a big deal on the Rocna website about 800 MPa steel for the shank.

However, if you build it out of mild steel, or something only slightly better, normal loading will cause the anchor to bend. Some have posted that they don't think a bent anchor represents a 'failure', and I suppose as long as there are customers out there with that attitude, Rocna will retain a market. For the rest of us, if Rocna wants to stay in this business then they need to redesign their product to work with the materials they are using, or start using the materials that fit the design.
 
Rocna Holdfast brief history

The story is that Peter Smith identified the merits of the Spade anchor during the time he was having his yacht built in the UK. On his return to NZ he decided there must be a cheaper way of building the Spade (and he had the SARCA's as another successful anchor to consider). By 2005 or early 2006 he had developed the Rocna which he then tried to interest Manson in making, presumably under licence. Manson turned down the offer and around this time, 2006, Peter became involved with Holdfast (owned by the Bambury family) (though the involvement might have been earlier, Holdfast has been around since 1999).

The big coup was getting the Rocna into the West Marine tests, mid 2006 - the sample was couriered and one assumes, perfect in every way. Production was then based in NZ and by the end of the NZ production period was subcontracted to CNC Procut. Earlier production might have been with another subcontractor.

By mid, third quarter, 2008 news leaked that Rocna was looking for overseas manufacturing but they were vehemenlty denying the move. By Feb 2009 they made a public press release stating stainless steel Rocna anchors were to be made in their new RINA approved factory in China, Shanghai. I do not know when gal anchors started production in China.

Looking back it seems the Smiths sold their 'technology' to the Bambury's in 2006 and were paid a lump sum and royalties on future anchors sold. Young Craig was 'kept on' possibly only as web master but he also got well entrenched into his forum promotional campaign, after all he and Dad were getting royalties.

Ignoring Craig's antics the first known (documented) problem is the Venice Lagoon incident, put at '2 years ago'. For the anchor to have bent 2 years ago it must have been one of the very first of the Chinese production - or even something made in NZ, not necessarily by CNC Procut. All evidence points to the Venice anchor as having been made from a steel of a quality lower than 800MPa. To bend 800MPa to this extent would require restraining the fluke firmly, and there is no sign of damage to the fluke, and 800MPa when galvanised and stressed allows the gal to flake. There is no sign of flaking.

We have been told that the Veniuce anchor was replaced.

2 factors, we have a new production facility - initially in such a venture quality control is watched with fervour and secondly if there is a failure and your income, the Smiths, is vulnerable you will want to know why and you will subsequently check. Equally the Bamburys would have checked. We know its easy to check, just look at a sample every month and hit with punch and hammer. The suggestion was they knew and thought they could live with occassional failures.

The suggestion must be that the Bambury's and the Smiths knew of the weaknes of the shank from early 2009 - and if this was an aberration, bad luck, dishonest employees they would have installed extra checks and balances to ensure it did not happen again.

We were of course told about the QC, the sampling to check quality etc - bull****!

But it did happen again - and probably was happening all the time. Manson made random checks of stock in NZ about 4-6 weeks ago and more recently Delfin is doing the same. Manson has shown categorically the product they tested as 400MPa shank steel and Delfin's initial tests, from a sample in N America shows the same. Hardly worldwide statistical sampling but pretty damning.

There appears to have been a witting and systemic attempt at deception of the buying public as all through this period anyone who asked and all of those who did not were told the shank material was 800MPa.

Running parallel with the deception on the shanks there was another deception, again this must have been known by both the Smiths and the Bamburys that they had RINA certification of the manufacturing facility and of the product. It turned out the tests on the product were only on the NZ produced anchor and the factory had never been tested.

We have 2 deceptions, one the shank material, which commenced at least as early as 2009 and the RINA certification, again early 2009. These deceptions were maintained until the last 4-6 weeks when it became obvious that a deception of the public appeared to have been committed and no longer able to be concealed.

The obvious explanations - false claims of RINA certification would bolster sales (until uncovered) less strong steel would increase profits. Everyone was interested as everyone benefitted. It is notable that Grant King, who was production manager upto May 2010 obviously knew of the frauds, and exposed the frauds, but they continued - as the stock from which Manson and Delfin tested is 12 months after he left - again underlining the fact the Bamburys were complicit and probably the instigators of the apparent misleading of the public.


There are 2 strange things, other than the above being bizarre. Despite this deception there are still people out there being supportive of the Smiths and the brand - even though the brand is probably unsafe. Secondly the importers, distributors and retailers who are ultimately going to provide any financial re-imbursement to customers have simply sat on their hands. (If anyone thinks the Bamburys are going to do the honourable thing they need read this again.) It was inevitable someone like Delfin would further expose the deception shown by Manson. It is also inevitable that the media are going to take an interest at some point - and anyone found lacking in integrity, Smiths, Bamburys, Distributors etc are going to be hauled through the muck.

Where are we now - apparently we have hundreds of anchors on bow rollers, in stock and perhaps some on the ocean heading for distributors - no recall, no advise to customers. The N Americans are renowned for the resort to the law - personally I hope they take someone to the cleaners as an example to all.

I'm guessing the Bambury's and Smiths hope they ride out the deception and will be making to specification now - but for how long, where else will they try to deceive us. Supporting them now is supporting another deception in the future.

I might have some of the timing wrong - I am happy to be corrected.
 
Last edited:
Djbangi - Using the word 'fraud' without qualification may well be the trigger to getting this thread pulled too. Maybe you should do a quick edit.

All - much comment asking why Piplers and WM have not withdrawn the product from sale but has anyone actually told R's retailers about the alleged specification problems?
 
Ken,

Hopefully I nipped that one in the bud - come back if it is not enough! My error, slip shod spelling is excusable, well almost - incorrect English, must take more care.

Thanks
 
According to Grant there could be approximately FIVE THOUSAND Rocna anchors out there which may have been made at the Chinese manufacturing facility and therefor may be defective. I don't know how many there are but it is a lot.
I would guess that the vast majority of Rocna Anchors to date have been made in China and on the evidence so far (and no word from Rocna/Holdfast) re calling all these anchors and replacing them would I suggest put the company in a dire financial position.
I don’t know New Zealand law but would imagine that an admission that the anchors had been deliberately changed to a lower grade steal on a safety item thereby knowingly compromising it and then selling it as something else could possibly result in court action.
These points may be reason enough for Rocna/Holdfast not to say anything.
What that does leave us with are numerous people who are unaware and still using the anchor as well as anchors around the world still being sold.
Rocna/Holfast and the distributors still I believe have a MORAL obligation on the facts presented to inform the users of any possible potential dangers. If they do not and there is a serious accident, loss or worse will they be criminally negligent?
Those who read these forums can make their own mind up on what evidence is known but how do you inform those who are not aware of this thread?
 
Those planning to buy a new generation anchor are likely to do some webchecking before making a decision and are thus very likely to run into this thread (google loves ybw). As to past buyers my guess is that retailers will have details of most but I can imagine that they're unlikely to want to make the effort and maybe foot the bill for replacement without a very bug stick being waved or assurance
 
I have several friends with Rocna anchors.
They are concerned about the allegations although they think the Rocna anchor is fantastic.
Like a lot of people they are not engineers or Metallurgist’s and what has been said to date needs simplifying.
Are these anchors dangerous to use, is there a likelihood of them failing and should they still use them or return them to the distributors?
How do we get a definitive answer from a good authority?
 
Refund of funds, contacting Rocna owners

Based on my experiance of UK chandlers, I bought a small Kobra around 12 months ago - the chandler simply takes your money. He might have a credit card number, but nothing more. Some manufacturers have a guarantee registration process but most owners, do not bother. Consequently most Rocna owners will be blissfully unaware of the problems, as they have no reason to check. And despite what we, and IPC, might think - the forum occupies only a very few of the yachting public.

I spoke to a major Hanse dealer this morning, I had to return an Ultra anchor I had had on loan - they knew absolutely nothing about the unfolding saga. And who recommends the anchors on Hanse, Moody etc etc, well the dealer of course.

The recall process would be a nightmare - but basically would necessitate adverts in magazines and if they were keen, contacting yacht clubs and yachting authorities. I guess hundreds of owners would slip through the net.

As Nostrodamus has pointed out a recall of 5,000 anchors would close Rocna down, they would need to recall every anchor sold since, Jan 2009, 2 and a half years worth of sales. It is unrealistic to think Rocna will do this. Their social concience has been lacking for months and years there is no reason to think anything will change.

There is no indication that the dealers know what to do - they too are presumably hoping it will all go away. They have already sat immobile for weeks and every further day makes them look as lacking in moral courage and integrity as their supplier. Its a big problem for them, unsold stock for which they have paid, refunding for any anchors sold and liability for any they cannot trace - and the dealers, chandlers are the people who will carry the cost. This latter has some benefit - no-one in the marine will risk doing business with the perpetrators again.

All in all its a really sordid story - and if it was a work of fiction we would marvel at the characters, the twists and turns - no-one would ever think it could be real.
 
Owners of Rocnas

If the brand name is cast, embossed, into the rear of the fluke, take a centre punch and hit it sharply with a hammer into the shank. If it makes an indent, take it back to the chandler and demand their money back.

Its a safety item on a yacht and in my experiance if something can go wrong - it will. If they cannot understand that they are potentially placing their yacht and its occupants at risk then it will be very difficult to convince them otherwise.

The Venice Lagoon anchor caused no harm,other than the owner could not anchor again until he was sent a replacement. If your friends want to take that sort of risk then????

It is not rocket science.

For those with NZ or Canadian made anchors and/or those bought prior to about the ned of 2008 - there should be no risks, but no-one, except Rocna can offer the reassuanrces necessary.
 
Djbangi said:
If the brand name is cast, embossed, into the rear of the fluke, take a centre punch and hit it sharply with a hammer into the shank. If it makes an indent, take it back to the chandler and demand their money back.

Its a safety item on a yacht and in my experiance if something can go wrong - it will. If they cannot understand that they are potentially placing their yacht and its occupants at risk then it will be very difficult to convince them otherwise.

The Venice Lagoon anchor caused no harm,other than the owner could not anchor again until he was sent a replacement. If your friends want to take that sort of risk then????

It is not rocket science.

For those with NZ or Canadian made anchors and/or those bought prior to about the ned of 2008 - there should be no risks, but no-one, except Rocna can offer the reassuanrces necessary.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea, but I can't see it working.

If I call Piplers and tell them my anchor is defective because a few blokes on a forum said to hit it with a hole punch they are going to sell me to sod off and I would be inclined to agree with them.

Any distributor is going to want some reasonable expert opinion or evidence before they give you there money back as without it the are not going to be able to reclaim the money from the original supplier.

I can see Rocna really fighting this, so there is little point beating up some local supplier without a well founded case surely?
 
You guys have been busy overnight haven't you? :)

Delfin, well done with those tests. They show that, as most suspected, that the problem really is worldwide rather than a one off in NZ. I wonder if the doubting thomas's will now accept it or will they be demanding yet more tests ?

I also think that Djbangi's summary of everything which has been going on is exactly right, but I would like to make a prediction.

Does anyone want to take a small side bet? That Rocna will eventually put their hands up and say that, yes, there's been a problem with low grade materials. But here's the rub; they will then blame an ex-employee, who has now been dismissed, who was not doing his job properly.

Or to put it another way, they'll try to make out that it's all Grant's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top