I hate to do this...but

[vyv_cox]

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

Rex,

I agree about the Rocna bend. There is something very strange about it. Unlike you I don't believe it is simply a matter of steel properties, but perhaps something to do with the restraint applied to the flukes. I just don't know.

Vyv

 

[Ubergeekian]

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.

I don't think I can remember ever seeing Craig flamed here.

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?

I'd be grateful if you wouldn't tell me how I would respond, and in particular if you wouldn't tell me that "I'd have a pop" at someone. If the designer of Rocna is happy to say that 690MPa vs 800MPa makes no significant difference then I would be very happy to accept that - though I might want to check that it was consistent with previous statements.

 

[Nostrodamus]

So why does the deception continue?
Why has the web site not been changed to reflect the different steel used?
Why is it the same in respect of the certification?
Why has Craig not posted a full update to his website over what has happened before and since?

 

[Delfin]

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.

The thickness of the shank of the FX-11 is 11/16" and that of the Rocna 10 is 3/8". The width, which I neglected to note in my post was 2" on both anchors. Your memory may not be what you, er, remember it to be. As shown in Brian's post, the Rocna bends like butter steel, which is what it is apparently made of. The Fortress exhibits remarkable strength, bending slightly under more pressure than you would likely be able to put an anchor under. I'll let you explain the physics of that phenomenon to Conachair, since you're the engineer.

 

[Mark-1]

I'd be grateful if you wouldn't tell me how I would respond

I might want to check that it was consistent with previous statements.

he punted the view that Rocnas have to be made of super-strong steel

'

 

[Conachair]

Interesting t

Apologies, Brian. The post was not meant to be anti fortress. i have one and it's a thing of great beauty. The post was in reply to another which had a dig about incomplete data and then went on the do exactly the same thing. I don't think anyone here doubt's that the fortress is an excellent piece of equipment.

 

[vyv_cox]

The thickness of the shank of the FX-11 is 11/16" and that of the Rocna 10 is 3/8". The width, which I neglected to note in my post was 2" on both anchors. Your memory may not be what you, er, remember it to be. As shown in Brian's post, the Rocna bends like butter steel, which is what it is apparently made of. The Fortress exhibits remarkable strength, bending slightly under more pressure than you would likely be able to put an anchor under. I'll let you explain the physics of that phenomenon to Conachair, since you're the engineer.

The only person discussing a Rocna 10 is you. The dimensions of the shank of a Rocna 10, since you have raised the subject, is 90 x 10 mm, with a lever arm of 531 mm.

3/8 inch is 9.525 mm. 2 inches is 50.8 mm. I suggest your ruler needs calibration.

As I said before, even assuming both shanks to be identical in shape and dimensions, the Rocna strength measured by Manson is 500 MPa. The Fortress strength, measured by Fortress, is 385 MPa. So which do you think is the stronger?

 

[vyv_cox]

Apologies, Brian. The post was not meant to be anti fortress. i have one and it's a thing of great beauty. The post was in reply to another which had a dig about incomplete data and then went on the do exactly the same thing. I don't think anyone here doubt's that the fortress is an excellent piece of equipment.

Absolutely correct. I have tried to resist using Fortress as a comparison but have been drawn back into it by others. No criticism of Fortress by me, as I have now said on numerous occasions.

 

[Nostrodamus]

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




I'm not.



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 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?



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



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.



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.

Do you have a connection with Craig Smith or Rocna as you say you know what both he and Rocna would say?

I previously asked you why whenever somebody asks Craig to come on here and say what has been happening you post strait away saying he would be a fool to do so. This has happened time and time and time again.

Craig does not have to answer questions if he does not wish to do so but he could put out a statement over what has happened and what his position is.

 

[Mark-1]

Do you have a connection with Craig Smith or Rocna as you say you know what both he and Rocna would say?

No connection, but I do know that if asked they will say their anchors are strong enough. Call it intuition!

I previously asked you why whenever somebody asks Craig to come on here and say what has been happening you post strait away saying he would be a fool to do so.

That is my opinion. Why do you think Craig isn't posting if not for the reasons I've suggested?

 

[Delfin]

As I said before, even assuming both shanks to be identical in shape and dimensions.... So which do you think is the stronger?

This is like nailing jello to the wall. The Fortress and the Rocna do not have identical shapes nor are they made of the same materials, nor do they have the same dimensions, which I provided to you for two anchors the manufacturers say are for the same size boat. Your armchair analysis is worth what we're paying for it.

Are you serious about asking which anchor is stronger, or just being argumentative? If you're serious, I'm sure you can do the research on the Fortress to answer the question yourself.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

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.

Dead right, I will.

I'm not sure where your 690MPa comes from but, both he and Racno have made a song and dance about their QA systems, the strength of their 800MPa shank and the need for that particular grade. The product is priced on that grade, the websites claim it, their multiple postings claim it. You may be happy to be fobbed off with something else. Many aren't; they are fully entitled to expect to get exactly what they have been promised.

Further than that, the Manson tests showed that it was 500Mpa, not 690Mpa. What next? 400MPa, 300Mpa?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Your public apology for falsely accusing me of trolling is awaited.

Solent Boy,

PM sent in response to yours. I'm sure we can sort this out.

On the subject of your Rocna, there is absolutely no need for you to be embarassed about taking it back to Piplers. You do not need evidence, facts, photo's or anything else. It's been posted before, but the Rocna warranty makes it clear that you may take a Racno back within 60 days for whatever reason you wish.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Solent Boy,

PM sent in response to yours. I'm sure we can sort this out.

On the subject of your Rocna, there is absolutely no need for you to be embarassed about taking it back to Piplers. You do not need evidence, facts, photo's or anything else. It's been posted before, but the Rocna warranty makes it clear that you may take a Racno back within 60 days for whatever reason you wish.

PM replied to. No worries.

You are right about the warranty, but it only applies if the anchor has not been used. I fitted mine last week and used it for a trip to the Scillies.

It worked very well!

 

[Mark-1]

Dead right, I will.

Another reason not to post. Simples.

I'm not sure where your 690MPa comes from

Ubergeekian's post.

You may be happy to be fobbed off with something else. Many aren't; they are fully entitled to expect to get exactly what they have been promised.

All the more reason why Rocna and Craig won't wish to post acknowledging the suggested measured MPA number as fact.

 

[ColdFusion]

There's a (much shorter) thread about Rocna here where again Craig Smith and Rocna don't fair too well, to put it mildly.

Rocna are aware of the negative publicity because they were emailed to try to get them to contribute to the above thread.

Rocna did not reply to the email, although their UK distributor replied saying they did "not wish to get involved with or fuel what is a very contentious online issue."

 

[vyv_cox]

Are you serious about asking which anchor is stronger, or just being argumentative? If you're serious, I'm sure you can do the research on the Fortress to answer the question yourself.

Ignore your preconceptions for a moment. It makes no difference what the material is and I didn't make the numbers up. It's a fact - 500 MPa is stronger than 385 MPa.

I have consistently used the Rocna 15 for my comparison. It is the one recommended for my 35 ft boat. I have given you the dimensions of its shank. The dimensions you provided for a Fortress FX16, an anchor I own, have been shown by someone else to be incorrect. The Rocna shank has a cross-sectional area that is larger than that of the Fortress.

You introduced the Rocna 10 for reasons I do not know.

 

[Delfin]

Ignore your preconceptions for a moment. It makes no difference what the material is and I didn't make the numbers up. It's a fact - 500 MPa is stronger than 385 MPa.

I have consistently used the Rocna 15 for my comparison. It is the one recommended for my 35 ft boat. I have given you the dimensions of its shank. The dimensions you provided for a Fortress FX16, an anchor I own, have been shown by someone else to be incorrect. The Rocna shank has a cross-sectional area that is larger than that of the Fortress.

You introduced the Rocna 10 for reasons I do not know.

Now I understand why you are so confused. You don't read what is written. Here is what I wrote:

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 compared these two anchors, which have the same shank width by the way at the mid point, because those were the anchors I had available to compare as I clearly stated.. The cross section of this Rocna is not greater than that of this Fortress, and they are recommended for the same size boat. This is irrelevant in any case because the engineering of the Fortress has produced an anchor that tests as extraordinarily strong, as opposed to the current crop of Rocnas which bend like noodles.

I guess the answer to my question is that yes, you are simply being argumentative, since this is a pointless conversation going nowhere.

 

[Twister_Ken]

this is a pointless conversation going nowhere...

... yup. And of no relevance in the matter of dodgy Rocnas.

 

[noelex]

Fortress has produced an anchor that tests as extraordinarily strong, as opposed to the current crop of Rocnas which bend like noodles.

There have been a few Fortress anchors bent, including some during anchor tests.
Fortress have always been excellent at replacing these anchors.
It’s a great anchor, but in extreme conditions there is some risk of deformation.