I hate to do this...but

[Ubergeekian]

No it isn't. Anyone who wants Craig's opinion can ask him.

So why are you so against people asking for Craig's opinion?

I would be genuinely interested to have the designer's view here. It's going to be essential, because he punted the view that Rocnas have to be made of super-strong steel so long that any decision by the manufacturer to use a different specification will have to be backed by the designer to carry any credibility.

 

[Ubergeekian]

If they say on YBW their anchors are strong enough, their critics call them fools. If they say on YBW they're not strong enough and the press got hold of it they never sell an anchor again.

Better not to post anything on YBW and talk to customers through the numerous other channels.

With all due respect, you are missing the point. Neither Craig Smith nor his father have any customers here. The interests of the designer (IP holder) and manufacturer are not always aligned.

If it turns out that current Rocnas are not constructed to the designer's spec, the Smiths can salvage the situation - and their financial interest - by relicensing the design to a different manufacturer. If, however, they say nothing there is a real risk that the perceived message will be that "The Rocna anchor design is deficient" and not "One manufacturer's Rocna anchors are deficient." That will certainly kill the brand for good.

Alternatively if there isn't a problem, either because the material is strong enough (and frankly I wouldn't have thought that 690MPa vs 800Mpa would make much difference) or because there has just been a small rogue batch of bad anchors, reassurance from the designer would help enormously in preserving the reputation of both design and current production.

So, Craig. What's your opinion?

 

[vyv_cox]

With all due respect, you are missing the point. Neither Craig Smith nor his father have any customers here. The interests of the designer (IP holder) and manufacturer are not always aligned.

If it turns out that current Rocnas are not constructed to the designer's spec, the Smiths can salvage the situation - and their financial interest - be relicensing the design to a different manufacturer. If, however, they say nothing there is a real risk that the perceived message will be that "The Rocna anchor design is deficient" and not "One manufacturer's Rocna anchors are deficient." That will certainly kill the brand for good.

Alternatively if there isn't a problem, either because the material is strong enough (and frankly I wouldn't have thought that 690MPa vs 800Mpa would make much difference) or because there has just been a small rogue batch of bad anchors, reassurance from the designer would help enormously in preserving the reputation of both design and current production.

So, Craig. What's your opinion?

Well put. Any form of clarification from Rocna is desperately needed but there may be two (or more?) different versions.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Can you be specific then please?

I am happy to call them and say that my anchor is not up to standard. They are going to ask me why, and I will have to give them a reason. They will obviously use this reason to get a refund from. What document do I send to Piplers? I can hardly ask them to read this thread!

I'm sorry, but to be candid, if you really are asking seriously, then it is in your interests to extract all the relevant information from this and all the other threads together with the Rocna websites. I'm not here to do that for you.

Do let us know how you get on though.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

I'm sorry, but to be candid, if you really are asking seriously, then it is in your interests to extract all the relevant information form this and all the other threads together with the Rocna websites. I'm not here to do that for you.

Do let us know how you get on though.

Yes I am asking seriously, and I have read every message on this thread and the I also followed the suspended one.

I am just of the opinion that for someone to say there is overwhelming evidence that the anchors are wrong is sorely missing the point.

I was rather hoping that there was a proper report somewhere that I could show to Piplers. Clearly there isn't. What there is is a lot of opinion and some non scientific testing that may well be correct, but will surely be rejected by Rocna.

I for one am not going to embarrass myself by asking for a refund based on the opinions, even if they are correct, of a number of anonymous forumites.

 

[Ubergeekian]

I for one am not going to embarrass myself by asking for a refund based on the opinions, even if they are correct, of a number of anonymous forumites.

Indeed. You could, however, ask them

(a) whether, in the light of the test results published by Manson, they will undertake to test the anchor they sold you against the published specification or alternatively

(b) what test they would accept as confirming conformity (or otherwise) and

(c) what redress they are planning to offer if it is shown - by whatever acceptable means - that the anchor they sold you did not meet the published specification.

 

[Conachair]

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.

To add to the data, just measured midpoint fx16 against a rocna 20

FX16 (recommended for boat size 10m - 12m) 8.785square cm

Rocna 20Kg (recommended for boat size 9m - 14m) 12 square cm.


Your figures only had 1 dimension, thickness. Meaningless on it's own without the width of the shank as well. Incomplete data.

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.

Can you elaborate on that with some figures to back it up? I've never heard of removing material making a flat bar stronger. Might be the case but sounds unlikely.

 

[Delfin]

I was rather hoping that there was a proper report somewhere that I could show to Piplers. Clearly there isn't. What there is is a lot of opinion and some non scientific testing that may well be correct, but will surely be rejected by Rocna.

I for one am not going to embarrass myself by asking for a refund based on the opinions, even if they are correct, of a number of anonymous forumites.

I hope to drive my Rocna down for testing something this week, and would be happy to provide you with a copy of the report, good or bad.

If it proves to be made of the steel it certainly looks like it is made of, one simple approach would be to take the Manson report and the one I'll have prepared to Pipers with a center punch and your anchor. It really isn't an invasive test, and if you can make the same dimple in your anchor as the one I made in mine, then the test results on mine should be applicable to yours.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

I hope to drive my Rocna down for testing something this week, and would be happy to provide you with a copy of the report, good or bad.

If it proves to be made of the steel it certainly looks like it is made of, one simple approach would be to take the Manson report and the one I'll have prepared to Pipers with a center punch and your anchor. It really isn't an invasive test, and if you can make the same dimple in your anchor as the one I made in mine, then the test results on mine should be applicable to yours.

Thanks. I will try that. Of course, getting the 33kg anchor from a boat in Cornwall to a shop in Poole is not going to be easy. Neither will anchoring be without it!

Could you please save me going through it all again by pointing me to the Manson test? Thanks.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Thanks. I will try that. Of course, getting the 33kg anchor from a boat in Cornwall to a shop in Poole is not going to be easy. Neither will anchoring be without it!

Could you please save me going through it all again by pointing me to the Manson test? Thanks.

Yesterday you were talking about a CQR on your bow. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2936887#post2936887. Whether it is still there or not I don't know.

In March you said you had a Rocna and a Fortress which you had bought from another forum member. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2857936#post2857936

As any Rocna you may have is second hand you have no case against Piplers.
In any event you have alternative anchors to use so your first para is irrelevant.

Perhaps you should stop trolling but, if you do want to take it up with Piplers, feel free. I'm sure you are able to find the Manson tests all on your own.

 

[CONGO]

Difficult to sleep

We were having our anchors made in N.Z. and marketed from there at one stage, similar set of circumstances if not the same as Rickety and Co, by a surprise visit to the factory in N.Z. and then onto a boat show I was finding product, not all mind you, but there was far too many anchors under spec for my liking, within three weeks I had the factory shut down, this episode took ten years of my life, without going into it this decision cost me dearly, financially physically and mentally but I nipped it early in the bud, as the inventor designer of a product it is just second nature to be on the ball and spotting discrepancies to the designer of any product he has created stands out like dogs Balls.

I will never be convinced that not in a short time, but a very long time, Smith and Co never noticed and put a stop to it Like I did.

Had they have done so there would have been pain, but at least they would be able to sleep in, can you imagine all of these customers tapping their Rickety anchors with a center punch, the sound must be deafening, I cannot think of a worse alarm clock.Or you could say, a wake up call.

What does amaze me is I thought they would have had a bigger piece of the market share, we turn out an average in anchor numbers of three thousand plus a year, we only market in N.Z. Australia and some into south Africa, yes it is still early days for Rickety, too early for multiple bent shanks as G king has put it.

Rex.
Anchor Right Australia.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

To add to the data, just measured midpoint fx16 against a rocna 20

FX16 (recommended for boat size 10m - 12m) 8.785square cm
Rocna 20Kg (recommended for boat size 9m - 14m) 12 square cm.

Your figures only had 1 dimension, thickness. Meaningless on it's own without the width of the shank as well. Incomplete data.

Can you elaborate on that with some figures to back it up? I've never heard of removing material making a flat bar stronger. Might be the case but sounds unlikely.

Interesting that you are making a comparison in shank size between a Rocna model that is designed for boats up to 46' (14m) and a Fortress model for boats up to 38' (12m)....and the Rocna anchor out-weighs the Fortress by 4X (44lb vs 10lb).

But no matter. If you would like to test our shanks in a side load bending test vs. the Rocna models, then I would be glad to supply them. Isn't this where you are leading with this shank measurement discussion?

Below is an image of a 22lb/10kg model FX-37 with a bent shank after the Sailing Foundation Anchor Tests in Puget Sound. Notes on the FX-37 performance are below. Numbers provided are in lbs.:

Anchor initially set at 4100, then 90-degree at 4248 then 4001 at 180-degree. Shank bent during process so veer tests with this anchor not repeated. Underwater view of anchor shows it completely buried in sand initially, with about 4" of fluke out during veering tests.

The Sailing Foundation's test notes regarding the damage:

....most damage was sustained at strains in excess of 3,000 lbs. which was probably more tension than would be generated by a sailboat of less than 56 feet in winds of 63 knots. Boats that size should have bigger anchors.

If you look back to Grant King's notes on the circumstances of the Rocna anchor bending, I don't think that this much heavier Rocna anchor was under anywhere near as much side load strain as the Fortress....and you can certainly see the difference in damage.

Again, it is insulting to be compared with a company like Rocna which does not have a shred of honesty in their reporting of anchor tests, certifications, or steel materials.....and there are still those who will ignore all that, and even attempt to defend them.

But, being a fellow anchor manufacturer, I suspect that we are all going to be subject to greater scrutiny from this point forward, and so be it. We didn't achieve 20+ years in business by accident or fraud.

 

[vyv_cox]

I hope to drive my Rocna down for testing something this week, and would be happy to provide you with a copy of the report, good or bad.

No need to destroy a perfectly good anchor by cutting it up for tensile testing (if that's what you were thinking of). A Vickers or Brinell test is directly related to strength. A Rockwell isn't but there are plenty of conversions on line. Beauty of a hardness test is that it can be done all over the shank. Near the weld would be informative.

If it proves to be made of the steel it certainly looks like it is made of, one simple approach would be to take the Manson report and the one I'll have prepared to Pipers with a center punch and your anchor. It really isn't an invasive test, and if you can make the same dimple in your anchor as the one I made in mine, then the test results on mine should be applicable to yours.

I doubt that anyone would accept that two people miles apart, and who have never met, will apply the same force to a centre punch using different hammers. Your approach to engineering is frighteningly naive.

 

[masterboater]

I should think that the ones made to Rocna's specifications are no more likely to bend than any other anchor of similar design and construction. However, if the off the shelf Rocna tested by Manson is representative of what they are selling now, even if there aren't a lot reported to have bent because they aren't typically subjected to side loading, it is still a defective product on the basis of Rocna's own marketing representations and design specifications. Given the availability of similar designs and better performing anchors from manufacturers who don't lie, I'm not sure why one would entertain purchasing a known defective product, or defend a manufacturer who would knowingly produce such a product.

Good point . Though any manufacturer could make a mistake, Rocna already has and they have been exploited. They may make quality anchors, they may not, but there are other brands on the market that do not have this blemish, so why risk it. No brainer to me.

 

[CONGO]

Best eveidence yet

VyV

You are a a man with steel knowledge, then you would also know the bending properties of various steel grains and how their bending, flexing abilites react under load, take a look at Brians Fortress anchor, it is a significant bend at a precise location, high tensile steel properties and grain structure is the absoulute caractristics of this bend, now take a look at the Rickety, absolute licorish like bend, that of a mild steel grain, these are exactely the same results we had when dertermining steel strenght of 350 grade mild steel and bis 80.

That is a great and very telling photo Brian ,thank you.

Rex.

Anchor Right Australia

 

[Delfin]

Your approach to engineering is frighteningly naive.

And this from the engineer who does failure analysis by what he remembers shank thickness of comparatives anchors to be rather than actually measuring them. Very professional.

 

[Nostrodamus]

Now thats how civalised anchor manufactures should get on.
They may not always see eye to eye but have respect for each others product.
They are also willing to come on here and answer directly without trying to deflect the original question.
Group hugs for everyone.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Yesterday you were talking about a CQR on your bow. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2936887#post2936887. Whether it is still there or not I don't know.

In March you said you had a Rocna and a Fortress which you had bought from another forum member. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2857936#post2857936

As any Rocna you may have is second hand you have no case against Piplers.
In any event you have alternative anchors to use so your first para is irrelevant.

Perhaps you should stop trolling but, if you do want to take it up with Piplers, feel free. I'm sure you are able to find the Manson tests all on your own.

Steady on mate!

I have a Fortress that I bought a couple of months ago from another forumite as my kedge anchor. Brian at Fortress was very helpful with some spares for me.

I have a brand Rocna that I bought last month from Piplers to replace my Delta bower anchor.

The CQR was on my previous boat. The post you referred to actually said "several years ago"

There are pictures of both of my boats on the covers of Sailing Today, PBO, and Yachting World. If you would like pictures I will send them to you.

Your public apology for falsely accusing me of trolling is awaited

Can we get back to the point of the thread now.

And thanks to those who very kindly sent me the Manson report by pm! A slightly more civilised approach I would say.

 

[vyv_cox]

And this from the engineer who does failure analysis by what he remembers shank thickness of comparatives anchors to be rather than actually measuring them. Very professional.

You may like to refer to Conachair's post above. My memory agrees very well with his measurements, although my information acquired since suggests that the 12 cm sq is actually the Rocna 15 (100 x 12 mm), the Rocna 20 being 110 x 16 mm. As I said in my earlier post, I did not wish to take the issue further as it implied that I was criticising Fortress, which is far from the case.

I am unable to measure anything at present, being laid up with two broken feet. However, I have many photographs and quite a good memory for dimensions.

 

[Mark-1]

Sorry to reply to all but it's easier for me this way.

So why are you so against people asking for Craig's opinion?

I'm not.

I would be genuinely interested to have the designer's view here.

Yes, but every time he posts he gets flamed, perhaps rightly as you've previously said. Given that I doubt he's going to be inclined to satisfy your curiosity.

With all due respect, you are missing the point.

With slightly less respect you are making my point for me!

If Craig says 690MPa vs 800Mpa makes no difference you will have a pop at him for changing his stance and Rigger will call him a fool. Not a powerful incentive to post is it?

If it turns out that current Rocnas are not constructed to the designer's spec, the Smiths can salvage the situation - and their financial interest - by relicensing the design to a different manufacturer.

They don't need to post on YBW to do that.

we would like to hear his side.

Not enough to ring him. Or mail him. Or pm him. Or a Rocna dealer. Rocna and Craig are not popular on YBW. I don't blame them for ignoring the obvious bait and staying well away.

Don't you want to hear his side or do you know something we dont?

I know what Craig or anyone from Rocna will say. They will simply say that 690MPa is fine and all their anchors are strong enough. Like Ubergeekian, I suspect that's correct, but if they say that on YBW there will be much flaming. So they don't.

I wouldn't advise anyone to post, or not to post. That's up to them. However, I fully understand why Craig and Rocna don't want to walk back into the bear pit. I doubt that failure to post on YBW will harm their sales at all. If it does that their decision to make. Not anybody else's.