Rocna anchor from Latvia

[Neeves]

Vic,

Without raking over old coals too much

I thought the Smiths abrogated their responsibilities and tried to fudge the issues. The documentation to which I gained access clearly stated the numbers of anchors made with out of specification steel, to who (worldwide) and when they were shipped. These anchors were in stock and I know of one individual who bought an early bendy model in Europe, sailed the Atlantic, bent it in the Caribbean, was replaced with another bendy one in America which he subsequently bent - and the second anchor could have been removed from the shelves - the documentation was there. If I gained access - so could they. Yet for months they were claiming the steel used was that specified. They may not have been party to the decision to change the steel but as the designer I would have thought as soon as the shanks started to bend they would smell a rat - and investigate. The original steel, Bis80, might have been over specified - and history shows none have been reported to bend, whether NZ made Rocna, Excel or Supremes - but there is nothing wrong with overspecifying (and Knox is made with a 900 MPa steel). But there is everything wrong with using an understrength steel - and then fudging the issue.

I cannot reward that kind of practice. I find it morally repugnant that I would accept that type of activity. These are my decisions but turning a blind eye might suggest such practice is acceptable.

No anchor is perfect and there are other anchors that offer, at least, as good performance as a Rocna, today it is nothing special. In maintaining my moral stance I am not denying anyone their own choice and there are alternatives, Spade, Fortress, Excel, Supreme, Knox and the yet to be named (and released) new Lewmar.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

nimbusgb,

Its late here (and I've been on the Clipper boats) but my brief and quick look seems good to me. They appear to be still fabricating and not casting - which was dropped when they moved from Shanghai. The flukes look very neat and that weld of the shank to fluke - nice and beefy. I have not had time to check relative dimensions - but the shank should be 12mm or a bit more (for a 15kg model) - but not less. The galvanising looks nice, even and shiny - they might be over spraying with sliver (aluminium) paint - its a common practice. The images materialised very quickly - almost reassuring

If the economics work for you.....

Let us know what you decide to do, as there are many without my hangups, and let us know if there are any issues.

Good luck

Jonathan

 

[zoidberg]

I've followed the 'anchor angst' on here, for some years, with something close to fascination.

Assimilating all the contrasting advice - kindly-meant, I'm sure - I have saved up my pennies and have now completed my collection of New Age High-Holding Power Anchors. I'm hoping my good friend Jon Neeves won't quibble about my choice of racing anchors......

and

I'm so pleased that I'll still be able to wrestle these around the foredeck on a dark and stormy night, and that I can match them with my 600' anchor rode of 3mm Dyneema SK99 for a good night's sleep in Cawsand.....

 

[lpdsn]

That's a new concept - an array of mini-anchors. Same principle as Velcro I guess.

 

[noelex]

I've followed the 'anchor angst' on here, for some years, with something close to fascination.

Assimilating all the contrasting advice - kindly-meant, I'm sure - I have saved up my pennies and have now completed my collection of New Age High-Holding Power Anchors. I'm hoping my good friend Jon Neeves won't quibble about my choice of racing anchors......

and

I'm so pleased that I'll still be able to wrestle these around the foredeck on a dark and stormy night, and that I can match them with my 600' anchor rode of 3mm Dyneema SK99 for a good night's sleep in Cawsand.....

That is a wonderful anchor collection Zoidberg. I have also decided to abandon the BIB approach. This is a photo of our new anchor:

No doubt there will be some who will claim it is too large for a 50 foot yacht .

 

[Mikedefieslife]

Can't speak for this product/seller, but I've been to Latvia and bought bought (online) some very good genuine kit from both Latvia and Lithuania. If there is only a 20-30% difference in price, I'd expect it to be geninue.

p.s I have a 25kg Rocna. Rocna is embossed on the front of the anchor.

 

[Neeves]

Can't speak for this product/seller, but I've been to Latvia and bought bought (online) some very good genuine kit from both Latvia and Lithuania. If there is only a 20-30% difference in price, I'd expect it to be geninue.

p.s I have a 25kg Rocna. Rocna is embossed on the front of the anchor.

I assume you mean it is embossed on the rear of the upturn of the heel. If its anywhere else its not a Rocna.

The originals, NZ, had no markings. There have never been any issues with the original models - except Bis80, or HT steel of the same spec, is difficult to galvanise - it takes the gal differently. The Shanghai models were embossed, it was in the casting unless it was bigger than 55kg (which were not cast). The latest generation made in the CMP factory are, welded and engraved.


Casting was part of the smoke and mirrors.

The Classification Society (CS) tests were conducted on NZ models, which were all fabricated, cut steel and welded. The fact the Shanghai models had cast flukes was not declared to RINA. The anchors were passed as SHHP. CS demand that all casting facilities are approved, its a fundamental. Once RINA found out that the smaller models, upto 55kg, were all cast they removed certification for the small models. RINA told me they expect people who are paying for certification to have integrity. If you change the steel of the shank from a HT to a mild steel - you are meant to tell the CS and have a new Proof Test.

Anyone who looks at CS modus operandi would know that casting facilities must be independently approved - there was some obfuscation and lack of integrity.

But now they have gone back to fabrication they could re-apply.

Sailabout - I hope you now understand my reticence, the people involved then, not CMP, are involved now.

Jonathan

 

[zoidberg]

That is a wonderful anchor collection Zoidberg. I have also decided to abandon the BIB approach. This is a photo of our new anchor:

No doubt there will be some who will claim it is too large for a 50 foot yacht .

I'm pleased to consider, 'noelex', that me 'n thee might just be at the forefoot of a New Anchor movement; the next development might be the prototyping of the SLWI ( Super Light Weight Inflatable ) anchor, high-frequency welded up from plated Hypalon, with the optional grey 'zinc' coating sprayed on from an aerosol can. Other colours and finishes are available, 'natch, such as super-shiny Mirror Polished Stainless Steel, Blingy Golden, Glossy Black, and Unmentionable Pink.

Given that rather more than a few who bang on here quite authoritatively have yet to spend even a night at anchor, these NA products are likely to get about as much usage.....

 

[Neeves]

I have always thought that 'unmentionable pink' might offer even better resolution for underwater photography - so I might want to place an advance order. I will need an oversized version as I then will have less scope for holding up the reasoning.

Jonathan

 

[nimbusgb]

nimbusgb,

Its late here (and I've been on the Clipper boats) but my brief and quick look seems good to me. They appear to be still fabricating and not casting - which was dropped when they moved from Shanghai. The flukes look very neat and that weld of the shank to fluke - nice and beefy. I have not had time to check relative dimensions - but the shank should be 12mm or a bit more (for a 15kg model) - but not less. The galvanising looks nice, even and shiny - they might be over spraying with sliver (aluminium) paint - its a common practice. The images materialised very quickly - almost reassuring

If the economics work for you.....

Let us know what you decide to do, as there are many without my hangups, and let us know if there are any issues.

Good luck

Jonathan

Those are pics of my anchor on my garage floor. The pics are hosted on my own site.

 

[Mikedefieslife]

Looks like this.

The company behind Rocna, contacted me to use some of my images of it after I wrote an article about it holding both my boat and a 15m mono that had turned beam on and impaled itself on my port-bow. The anchor held both boats in 30 knts in a busy anchorage.

 

[NormanS]

I assume you mean it is embossed on the rear of the upturn of the heel. If its anywhere else its not a Rocna.

The originals, NZ, had no markings. There have never been any issues with the original models - except Bis80, or HT steel of the same spec, is difficult to galvanise - it takes the gal differently. The Shanghai models were embossed, it was in the casting unless it was bigger than 55kg (which were not cast). The latest generation made in the CMP factory are, welded and engraved.


Casting was part of the smoke and mirrors.

The Classification Society (CS) tests were conducted on NZ models, which were all fabricated, cut steel and welded. The fact the Shanghai models had cast flukes was not declared to RINA. The anchors were passed as SHHP. CS demand that all casting facilities are approved, its a fundamental. Once RINA found out that the smaller models, upto 55kg, were all cast they removed certification for the small models. RINA told me they expect people who are paying for certification to have integrity. If you change the steel of the shank from a HT to a mild steel - you are meant to tell the CS and have a new Proof Test.

Anyone who looks at CS modus operandi would know that casting facilities must be independently approved - there was some obfuscation and lack of integrity.

But now they have gone back to fabrication they could re-apply.

Sailabout - I hope you now understand my reticence, the people involved then, not CMP, are involved now.

Jonathan

Interested to see that you confirm my belief that the original Rocnas from NZ had no permanent markings. Totally unscientific I know, but I've always believed that manufacturers who were unwilling to put permanent maker's names on their goods, weren't proud of their product and/or had little faith in them. I was brought up in the days of, for instance, CQR anchors emblazoned with, "CQR Made in Scotland". The first time I saw a Rocna, with a paper sticky label on it, I was immediately prejudiced against it. I could still be won over.

 

[Neeves]

Norman, I sympathise with the sentiment but might counter with Spade - they have no need to name the product - it is immediately and uniquely identified as being what it is. They have no need for the word Spade emblazoned on it. It has lasted, largely unaltered, for almost 30 years. It has never achieved mainstream status (except in France) - but that might be a marketing issue rather than anything to do with performance (for which they are highly respected). They now sit, prominently, on the bow of every Shannon Class lifeboat. But again - when Rocna was introduced it was a pretty unique concept, as long as you had some background - you knew exactly what it was. It was the use of casting that allowed fairly, actually - very, neat embossing with the 'R' and Kiwi logo to be incorporated.

One reason for not following CQRs lead was the change in production techniques from casting and drop forging, and then casting (CQR and Bruce) to fabricating from metal plate and welding. Engraving (or stamping) is almost the only way to permanently mark when you are working with metal plate -and that is an extra step (and cost, particularly as product was focussed in countries of origin) that does not contribute to performance. Anchor Right, I assume in common with most fabricators have the pieces laser cut - and then a brand can be cut out - which is part of AR's characteristic of design, to have a perforated fluke. No-one else has followed that practice.

Interestingly, I was on the Clipper yachts in Sydney (they are participating in the Sydney Hobart that starts on the 26th) and no-one I spoke to in the crews actually knew what brand of anchor they carried. They knew where they were and how to use them (but apart from one crew member had never used them in anger), they assumed they worked - but the type/design was of no interest at all. I did not speak about anchors to any of the skippers.

Fortress (and less pronounced, Guardian) and Anchor Right brand their product, Lewmar with their Delta, Manson with the Supreme and Spade do not. I'm not au fait with the Vulcan but Knox is not branded. So mixed messages from the suppliers.

Your Luddite, with no intended disrespect, tendencies might be advantageous, if you have been happy with your current anchor, as playing hard to get now leaves you with so much more choice than was available 5 or 10 years ago. And maybe prices, from the vague indication in this thread, are becoming more palatable. Furthermore there is a new Lewmar model sitting in the wings - the suggestion is they are tweaking design to ensure Classification Society SHHP approval prior to formal release. I'd look out for it at the next UK shows (if it is not already available).

If nothing else - we have some decent choice today. There must be lots of money in anchors!

Norman - Decision, decisions

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

Jonathan, I'm very happy with my choice of anchors, a B, and two different ones beginning with F.
Signed, Luddite.

 

[Neeves]

You did suggest you might be persuaded, I took you at your word.

And each of your anchors is marked, permanently and proudly, by the manufacturer - so you practice your beliefs. And if they and the technology they represent work for you (in the taxing places I know you frequent) - why change?

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

If you look at Nimbusgb pictures in Post 21, thought to be a new anchor, and compare with Mikedefieslife in Post 32, which looks like a first generation Chinese anchor made in Shanghai - maybe Mike can confirm when he bought - then you will note subtle differences.

In the new anchor there is now a flange from the end the roll bar, underneath the fluke, extending toward the heel. The old anchor omits this flange. This has probably been added to make the anchor 'more' roll stable. There have been other subtle changes during the life of the product, the locating of the shank has moved slightly and the angle of the upturn of the heel also seems to have changed (but that might be an optical illusion).

Many anchors evolve - the addition of the mud palms to the Fortress is one example. If you ever see an old Spade they are very different to the current version (though the changes I recall might reflect better ways to fabricate).

People who copy anchors have no idea why there are some design features in an anchor and miss them completely or make their own changes to make their copy look different. Designers only make changes to make the product better and small changes can have a profound difference (moving the shank being one example).

If you look at Rocna copies on Alibaba they commonly miss the double thickness of steel in the toe (and an anchor on the market today, Mantus, has a critical weld in the 'wrong' place, the reinforcing in the toe). But that double thickness in the toe is there for 'more than' strength - miss the double thickness and the anchor will not perform as well.

Don't buy a copy anchor!

Mike's post #32 seems to underline that a decent super high holding power anchor does not need to be oversized to hold the parent yacht (and another bigger one) - which seems to contradict the idea of the need for the bigger (and bigger) anchor. Unless you are planning to catch an errant yacht on your bow frequently.

And Mike - next time you are in a chandler - see if you can buy a decent rated shackle and swap it for the stainless one you are using (stainless appear to be strong enough - but bend more easily). I appreciate you might have had no problems but a rated bow shackle costs peanuts, I'd strongly suggest a G209a from Crosby, via Tecni, or a Green Pin from Van Beest - with a pin one size bigger than your chain. But glad to see you have no swivel!

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

In the new anchor there is now a flange from the end the roll bar, underneath the fluke, extending toward the heel. The old anchor omits this flange. This has probably been added to make the anchor 'more' roll stable.

I think the flange you are referring to is the so called "skid plates". These help the anchor attain the correct setting attitude. They have been present on all the Rocna anchors from the early days when they were manufactured in NZ.

This was one of the significant changes from the Bugel design, which helps the Rocna perform so well.

I agree the Latvia anchor does look slightly different from other Rocna models I have seen. These differences probably reflect minor manufacturing variations and perhaps some distortion from the camera lens, but it would be worth an email to Rocna to confirm it is genuine.

This is a photo of the underside of a reasonably recent model for comparison:

 

[Neeves]

Interesting you liken a Rocna to a Bugel, the latter I always think of as a welded interpretation of a danforth (and it is not the only example where the danforth might be the inspiration). I tend to think, possibly wrongly, of a Rocna as an interpretation of Spade. The shank is well forward, the profile (or plan) of the flukes are identical, they are both shallow concave and the Spade has had those skid plates, since the early 90s. The Vulcan carries the idea of Spade being the inspiration that little bit further, perhaps.

I had another look at an early version of the Shanghai Rocna with the cast fluke and as you say it too has skid plates, though the shape or profile seems to have changed, but it might be an optical illusion.

Jonathan

 

[BrianH]

I assume you mean it is embossed on the rear of the upturn of the heel. If its anywhere else its not a Rocna.

The originals, NZ, had no markings. There have never been any issues with the original models - except Bis80, or HT steel of the same spec, is difficult to galvanise - it takes the gal differently.

I've had my NZ manufactured, 15kg Rocna for close on ... must be ten years now, when there was only one European distributor - in Holland. As you mention, it had no markings but had metallised labels affixed both sides of the shank with what seemed to be contact adhesive (as shown in the image in message #38, peeling away) that I anticipated would not last for too many mud-burying sessions, so easily prised them off - they still reside on a shelf on-board.

After one year of use the galvanising was gone in a number of places that had, presumably, had some knocks against the bow-roller on retrieval. No response from NZ until I posted on Scuttlebutt, with this photo:

That elicited a response from the then production manager, Grant King. We quickly agreed that the logical course of action was that they would pay for local fresh galvanising - there was still no distributor in Italy for a new one, although the shipping cost from Holland had not been excessive. In the event, the cost of galvanising was a trivial €20, which, had I known, I wouldn't have bothered to make a fuss.

The good side to this, as you mention, is that the galvanising problem is indicative of Bis80 steel, so I am not complaining about the areas of rust now appearing after all the years of frequent use every summer in the Adriatic. Years of faithful service, of instant setting and solid holding - once in 2012 in a 60 knot bora gale while others were skidding past me frantically trying reset their anchors and deploy a second.

 

[Neeves]

The story I heard, totally anecdotal, was that the appearance of the anchor was a major cause for anguish as the fluke and roll bar 'accepted' galvanising differently, totally differently, to the Bis 80 shank. The shank gal looked thin and emaciated (and I think lost its gal and then corroded more quickly, see above). To overcome this issue, with the move to Shanghai, they changed the steel for the shank. This overcame the perceived issues with the quality of galvanising - but resulted in other problems (and gal quality become insignificant).

The issues have not gone away and to remove this piebald appearance they (anchors with steels of mixed strength) are now commonly spray painted with aluminium paint - but I believe it is also possible to get a better finish on HT steels - with a bit of effort.

My Knox anchor looks well galvanised - and it has a 900 MPa steel vs the 800 MPa of the then Rocna.

Oddly - the use of Bis 80 or 800 MPa steel was pioneered by Peter Smith - and all credit to him for making the step and for making that steel quality, 800 MPa, a household name/quality - at least in the leisure marine industry. It has become a 'sort of standard' a sort of 'mark of excellence' - Anchor Right followed suit, Mantus were force into it when their mild steel shanks started to bend and Knox went one step further. CMP or Peter Smith then backed away and now we don't know what they use (though its obviously good enough as there are no negative comments) - which seems sad given they made that moniker 'theirs'.

Jonathan