Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Ardfern Marine is one of six Rocna dealers in the UK.
Last edited:
I hate to do this...but
- Thread starter macd
- Start date
Ardfern Marine is one of six Rocna dealers in the UK.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
And I did!
The supplier in the UK has offered me a full refund, or exchange for something like a Manson instead.
I have to say in am very pleased and impressed with their attitude.
On the other hand, I really would like to stay with my existing anchor, I would just like to know exactly what spec it does meet.
Who is to say that changing to a Manson will actually make things better. Maybe the steel in my anchor is OK? Maybe a Manson wont fit? Maybe I should get a Spade.
Footnote:- Does anyone know if Manson do a fitting template that compares to a Rocna. (Rocna had one on their website that compared to a Delta).
Delfin
Well-Known Member
If your anchor was made in China, with stampings on the bottom, it is very likely and perhaps certain that it is not made of the steel originally specified. Whether that matters or not will depend on side loading. The Manson is certainly a stronger anchor based on the steel they use, and it is less expensive. I think you can get a template from them. When I was trying to do the calculations to see how much stronger a Manson was, I got a very detailed drawing from them of their anchor from which I could have made a template if need be.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I may look into that. Not sure about the price thing. Who do you say that? From what I can see on the Internet a 33kg is actually less £ than a 36 kg Manson, which is the closest alternative.
Delfin
Well-Known Member
Maybe it is just a U.S. thing. A Manson 25# costs $249.00 and a Rocna 22# costs $349.00 at West Marine here. It looks like the larger sizes are closer in price though. About the only dimensional difference I would expect you'd find between the two is the shank height of the Manson is a little bigger at any given point by the width of the slot and the 1/2" or so of steel above the slot.
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
The 55kg in the test is also fabricated from plate and does not have a cast blade.
All of the failures in the public arena so far revealed have been in the 25kg-40kg range. ( thinner shanks and cast blades ).
Nostrodamus
Well-Known Member
I looked at both the Manson and the Roncna initially and the Manson was a lot cheaper. They also replied very quickly to any e mails I sent and were very helpful when I wanted to drillahole for the anchor pin in my bow roller. (It took an hour to drill).
I used the Manson or the first time in anger last week when we cast off from a trot and the engine would not engage in gear. It dug in held the boat strait away on almost no scope whilst I sorted the problem out.
I chose the Manson because of this thread and having seen the latest update I am glad I did.
If it were not for this forum and several members who have persisted in following this up would Rocna have got away with it for far longer?
I think this shows that a forum can have some real power.
There are lots of people that helped push this issue but I think Delphin put his money where his mouth was and helped the cause no end and Grant who continully helped point things in the right direction should recieve real praise.
They may well have saved life by doing what they have.
The story will continue no doubt but I am sure it will be closley monitored by this forum.
I used the Manson or the first time in anger last week when we cast off from a trot and the engine would not engage in gear. It dug in held the boat strait away on almost no scope whilst I sorted the problem out.
I chose the Manson because of this thread and having seen the latest update I am glad I did.
If it were not for this forum and several members who have persisted in following this up would Rocna have got away with it for far longer?
I think this shows that a forum can have some real power.
There are lots of people that helped push this issue but I think Delphin put his money where his mouth was and helped the cause no end and Grant who continully helped point things in the right direction should recieve real praise.
They may well have saved life by doing what they have.
The story will continue no doubt but I am sure it will be closley monitored by this forum.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
I am not sure we actually have any real answers yet.
Smaller Mansons are cheaper, but bigger ones are more expensive.
I bought a Rocna and had great service from them and their distributor.
My Rocna has never let me down.
There has been a test on a big Rocna that showed it performed well. It may, or may not be the same construction method and steel composition as other of their products. It proves nothing.
They have said that some information on their website was wrong so they have changed it. This means nothing. It still doesn't tell us anything about the majority of their products.
This forum covers a very few people in global terms and my personal opinion is it will not significantly make any difference to their worldwide revenues.
Delfin
Well-Known Member
If Rocna telling you that they use steel other than what is specified coupled with a number of pictures of bent shanks doesn't tell you anything, you are immune to knowledge.
Incorrect. Smaller Mansons are 1/3 cheaper, larger are slightly less expensive.
Only a fraction of Pintos burst into flame, but I doubt many Pinto owners would have said that since theirs hadn't yet they were happy with their car.
If you're referring to the test in their news, that tested performance not in question - a straight pull - that any anchor of any design at any cost would similarly pass. They did not test the effect of lower quality steel on side load bending, undoubtedly because the anchor wouldn't pass that test. Otherwise, they would have broadcast that on the evening news.
Except that Rocna didn't say that they only changed the spec of steel used on smaller anchors and not bigger ones. Were that the case, they would have proved it with a test but they didn't because all steel quality has clearly been twiddled with.
They changed their website because it contained the same fraudulent information
they were telling distributors, media and customers, all of which they knew to be false. In an earlier statement, they blamed everything on Grant King. In their news release, Grant King is nowhere to be found, and they simply acknowledge that they did it, and go on to fill the room with smoke by showing a picture of a test that is irrelevant.
SB, you are either the fool P.T. Barnum noted so many of, or Craig Smith in drag. If the former, you prove that Rocna will always be able to sell an anchor to some folks. If the latter, get a life.
tudorsailor
Well-Known Member
Should I worry?
I have a 1 year old 40Kg Rocna. I bought this via the Spanish distributor as I was then in Mallorca
The Rocna is cast with the word and size on the blade so presumably is one of the substandard ones.
I have a 20 ton 49ft yacht and the anchor is probably a little oversized.
Should I worry? If the anchor fails will it bend or break?
Tudorsailor
I have a 1 year old 40Kg Rocna. I bought this via the Spanish distributor as I was then in Mallorca
The Rocna is cast with the word and size on the blade so presumably is one of the substandard ones.
I have a 20 ton 49ft yacht and the anchor is probably a little oversized.
Should I worry? If the anchor fails will it bend or break?
Tudorsailor
[55354]
...
Hi Tudorsailor
I am sorry to have fallen by the wayside recently, I've been sailing, 6 weeks, the Indian Ocean where internet access is both expensive and slow.
However I would not worry about buying a Rocna anchor made since late 2008 - one with a cast fluke. I would make paper copies of relevant postings, I would take my anchor off the bow roller and take it back to the place from which it was originally purchased, and if this is inconvenient/expensive I would do it all by internet (a medium that Rocna adopted as its own). I would claim my money back. No discussions, no heart searching, get on and do it.
But I would not use the anchor, at all.
What to replace it with - worry about that later, do not be concerned you will receive lots of advice.
The Rocna might work, but give it a side load - and all you have could be a bent anchor and in the worst case a 20t yacht on a beach. But that's your decision.
If you have a problem in getting a refund - post it on this forum. There are a few people who think selling safety gear that isn't is scandalous, there are a few people who think continued sale of safety gear that isn't shows a lack of integrity (and wonder where this might lead).
The Rocna problem has been evident - without question - now for 10 (?) weeks - list me the distributors/chandlers who have made public recalls, list me the distributors who have stopped supply of Rocna. List me the manufacturer who has made defective anchors and has made no fully public recall - would you want to buy an anchor from them now or in the future? Seems to make a mockery of something - us, the consumer, in particular. And chandlers try to defend their high prices - looks a bit weak to me - looks like profit at any cost.
But - let us know how you progress.
The last thing any or us wants is the ability of a manufacturer to be shown wanting - and get away with it.
I am sorry to have fallen by the wayside recently, I've been sailing, 6 weeks, the Indian Ocean where internet access is both expensive and slow.
However I would not worry about buying a Rocna anchor made since late 2008 - one with a cast fluke. I would make paper copies of relevant postings, I would take my anchor off the bow roller and take it back to the place from which it was originally purchased, and if this is inconvenient/expensive I would do it all by internet (a medium that Rocna adopted as its own). I would claim my money back. No discussions, no heart searching, get on and do it.
But I would not use the anchor, at all.
What to replace it with - worry about that later, do not be concerned you will receive lots of advice.
The Rocna might work, but give it a side load - and all you have could be a bent anchor and in the worst case a 20t yacht on a beach. But that's your decision.
If you have a problem in getting a refund - post it on this forum. There are a few people who think selling safety gear that isn't is scandalous, there are a few people who think continued sale of safety gear that isn't shows a lack of integrity (and wonder where this might lead).
The Rocna problem has been evident - without question - now for 10 (?) weeks - list me the distributors/chandlers who have made public recalls, list me the distributors who have stopped supply of Rocna. List me the manufacturer who has made defective anchors and has made no fully public recall - would you want to buy an anchor from them now or in the future? Seems to make a mockery of something - us, the consumer, in particular. And chandlers try to defend their high prices - looks a bit weak to me - looks like profit at any cost.
But - let us know how you progress.
The last thing any or us wants is the ability of a manufacturer to be shown wanting - and get away with it.
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
In that case , given the date of purchase and the time of shipment to Spain, your anchor shank is made from Q420 ( yield strength is 400mpa and ultimate tensile strength is 520-680 with elongation of 19% )
It won't break but the possibility for bending is a lot higher than if it was a higher strength metal.
However with the new spin on 'fit for purpose" it is your call.
Delfin
Well-Known Member
I suppose I would take it back on the basis that you were lied to when you bought it. That is a simple fact that Rocna has now acknowledged. My problem with Rocna is not the design itself - which is a good one - but the fact that it is made by people who have an inability to tell the truth. They lie every time, all of the time it seems.
Just as a recent example, look at their 'news' announcement. They say:
A galvanised 55kg model held up to a massive 28.7 tonnes of load – this equates to 670% of RINA’s SHHP proof load, and well beyond the point at which the connected chain would fail in real life use.
How is this a lie? Well, it implies that their bench test results which subjected an anchor of unknown provenance to a straight pull has the slightest thing to do with RINA's SHHP classification. Of course this is nonsense because the Super High Holding Power designation is not bestowed on the basis of static machine pulls, but actually anchoring. By Rocna's use of the term, a 6' long piece of I-Beam could be RINA certified for SHHP. They can't help themselves, I suppose, and that would make me very leery of trusting my boat to people who are incapable of honest dealing.
[55354]
...
Trust me
Back in early 2009 Rocna sent out a press release advising that the manufacture of their stainless models had been transferred to their new RINA aprroved factory in Shanghai. Simultaneously we were being told that the shanks of the Rocna were built from Q and T 800 steel. I even recall Manson and Anchor Right, who use the same quality steel for thier shank, being told by Rocna that they were neither cutting nor welding the steel correctly and thus looseing its hi strength properties. Do you all recall the 'wow' of the Rocna release of images on their website telling us they had achieved SHHP, under RINA, for their anchors.
Smoke and mirrors did not come into it - they had no RINA approval of the factory, the SHHP tests were on the old NZ production (not the new Chinese production) and they were using 2 different steels, one 600mpa and another 400mpa (vs the 800mpa of the claimed Q and T steel).
We are now being told, guess who is telling us, that 400mpa steel is 'fit for purpose'
And it appears people still trust them. (Maybe I should go into Snake Oil production - there are a lot of gullible people out there)
A few weeks ago Manson were reported as saying they had sold 12,000 Supremes with that Q&T 800 steel shank and not one had been returned as a result of a bent shank. I'm a bit of a cynic and though there might be some stretching of the truth here. But maybe I should keep my cynicism under control. No-one has come out and posted a Supreme image with a bent shank on this forum - yet we have seen a whole raft of bent shanked Rocnas built from that 'fit for purpose' steel. So who do you trust - manson and Anchor Right or the bastion of honesty - Rocna.
Finally a Mediterranean distributor, kept anonymous to protect the innocent, was advised that on no account were they to submit a Rocna anchor for media testing - unless the test method was approved by Rocna (the method was not defined in the correspondence), Rocna were in attendance at the tests and that the sample submitted should be checked for as near perfect balance as possible and that all attempts should be made to ensure it had a sharpened toe. You might have wondered at the paucity of Rocna tests after the West Marine test, wonder no more. Whatever tests are or were conducted are made on samples that are not available in the average chandlery.
Look to the future, 400mpa is fit for purpose (it must be - Rocna tell us), ever wondered about 350mpa, 300mpa? Who is going to check?
Have a great day.
Back in early 2009 Rocna sent out a press release advising that the manufacture of their stainless models had been transferred to their new RINA aprroved factory in Shanghai. Simultaneously we were being told that the shanks of the Rocna were built from Q and T 800 steel. I even recall Manson and Anchor Right, who use the same quality steel for thier shank, being told by Rocna that they were neither cutting nor welding the steel correctly and thus looseing its hi strength properties. Do you all recall the 'wow' of the Rocna release of images on their website telling us they had achieved SHHP, under RINA, for their anchors.
Smoke and mirrors did not come into it - they had no RINA approval of the factory, the SHHP tests were on the old NZ production (not the new Chinese production) and they were using 2 different steels, one 600mpa and another 400mpa (vs the 800mpa of the claimed Q and T steel).
We are now being told, guess who is telling us, that 400mpa steel is 'fit for purpose'
And it appears people still trust them. (Maybe I should go into Snake Oil production - there are a lot of gullible people out there)
A few weeks ago Manson were reported as saying they had sold 12,000 Supremes with that Q&T 800 steel shank and not one had been returned as a result of a bent shank. I'm a bit of a cynic and though there might be some stretching of the truth here. But maybe I should keep my cynicism under control. No-one has come out and posted a Supreme image with a bent shank on this forum - yet we have seen a whole raft of bent shanked Rocnas built from that 'fit for purpose' steel. So who do you trust - manson and Anchor Right or the bastion of honesty - Rocna.
Finally a Mediterranean distributor, kept anonymous to protect the innocent, was advised that on no account were they to submit a Rocna anchor for media testing - unless the test method was approved by Rocna (the method was not defined in the correspondence), Rocna were in attendance at the tests and that the sample submitted should be checked for as near perfect balance as possible and that all attempts should be made to ensure it had a sharpened toe. You might have wondered at the paucity of Rocna tests after the West Marine test, wonder no more. Whatever tests are or were conducted are made on samples that are not available in the average chandlery.
Look to the future, 400mpa is fit for purpose (it must be - Rocna tell us), ever wondered about 350mpa, 300mpa? Who is going to check?
Have a great day.
Delfin
Well-Known Member
Given that Rocna's current owners have proven themselves to be pathological liars who appear to literally be incapable of a truthful statement, the idea of them using 300 mPA steel is not hyperbole. What is to keep them from doing it? Ethics? Not likely.
snooks
Well-Known Member
It was the website's fault....it even confused the CEO after all he wrote post 70 on this very thread
Oh hang on, that was the results for the anchors they had tested.....how strange
Not on the website at all
Oh hang on, that was the results for the anchors they had tested.....how strange
Not on the website at all
silver-fox
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that if the impetus behind this thread is not to become "yesterday's news" then some thought needs to be given to "what next".
Considerable effort has been devoted to proving beyond all reasonable doubt that Rocna have been using substandard materials. Delfin, Grant, and Manson have had a huge part to play in this by providing independent information and test results.
Rocna's response has been to redefine the material to a lower standard and claim the new standard is adequate. It appears they are also tightly controlling the samples they submit to the yachting press for testing. They are clearly thinking that the whole thing will blow over and it will soon be "business as normal" and hoping that relatively few of us will be putting loads on our anchor that lead to failure. They are clearly hoping that this will avoid the outcomes that would be disastrous for Rocna for example: -
1. Queues of disgruntled customers asking for their money back
2. Widespread publicity showing what we on this thread already know
3. Some sort of class action in the courts
I have two Rocna's of NZ construction and so I am little affected directly by the issue. I am however very antagonised by being lied to, seeing competitors belittled unjustly, and question exactly what I paid my premium for when I bought my anchors. I am further antagonised by the seemingly total lack of care being shown by Rocna. I would expect them to they made a product recall and (and forgive them if they did) but this does not seem to be on their agenda.
So to return to my original question of "what next? What is the appropriate action to take? Do you think a letter to all Rocna distributors would be a good start?
Considerable effort has been devoted to proving beyond all reasonable doubt that Rocna have been using substandard materials. Delfin, Grant, and Manson have had a huge part to play in this by providing independent information and test results.
Rocna's response has been to redefine the material to a lower standard and claim the new standard is adequate. It appears they are also tightly controlling the samples they submit to the yachting press for testing. They are clearly thinking that the whole thing will blow over and it will soon be "business as normal" and hoping that relatively few of us will be putting loads on our anchor that lead to failure. They are clearly hoping that this will avoid the outcomes that would be disastrous for Rocna for example: -
1. Queues of disgruntled customers asking for their money back
2. Widespread publicity showing what we on this thread already know
3. Some sort of class action in the courts
I have two Rocna's of NZ construction and so I am little affected directly by the issue. I am however very antagonised by being lied to, seeing competitors belittled unjustly, and question exactly what I paid my premium for when I bought my anchors. I am further antagonised by the seemingly total lack of care being shown by Rocna. I would expect them to they made a product recall and (and forgive them if they did) but this does not seem to be on their agenda.
So to return to my original question of "what next? What is the appropriate action to take? Do you think a letter to all Rocna distributors would be a good start?
Nostrodamus
Well-Known Member
You are so right.
Uncovering the truth behind the wall of misinformation is not enough.
Something more needs to be done.
Not only is it Rocnas responsibility but also that of the distributors. By now they know the facts but continue to sell the product.
Uncovering the truth behind the wall of misinformation is not enough.
Something more needs to be done.
Not only is it Rocnas responsibility but also that of the distributors. By now they know the facts but continue to sell the product.
[55354]
...
The Distributors
It is difficult to beleive the distributors do not know of the full detail of the various forum.
But maybe they are too busy counting profits.
Rocna's dsitributors are well defined - they all have email addresses, send them an email with your comment. If enough people do it - maybe they might think longevity might be better than short term gain.
If no-one does it - we only have ourselves to blame.
I tried, the largest of Rocna's distributors told me they were trying to make sense of the volume of information, or misinformation, they were receiving - then they stopped communicating/ And its difficult to communicate with a brick wall (but how brick walls count money beats me)
I am back in the saddle and ready for another attempt
But post your achievements, or lack of them - its taken months to get this far....
It is difficult to beleive the distributors do not know of the full detail of the various forum.
But maybe they are too busy counting profits.
Rocna's dsitributors are well defined - they all have email addresses, send them an email with your comment. If enough people do it - maybe they might think longevity might be better than short term gain.
If no-one does it - we only have ourselves to blame.
I tried, the largest of Rocna's distributors told me they were trying to make sense of the volume of information, or misinformation, they were receiving - then they stopped communicating/ And its difficult to communicate with a brick wall (but how brick walls count money beats me)
I am back in the saddle and ready for another attempt
But post your achievements, or lack of them - its taken months to get this far....
bluedragon
Well-Known Member
I've only recently begun reading this thread (from back to front) and I'm quite shocked by what is apparently going on here. What next? Well I'd like to see YM or PBO take up this story in in their mags. I'm sure their legal dept. will have kittens, but if the evidence does really show sub-standard steel being used and shanks bending as easily they appear to be, then I guess they are covered. Perhaps they can sponsor some independent tests to be done in the UK?