Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Rigger Mortice]

Futher the thickness of the shaft material on both the Rocna 20 and the Manson 44 is 5/8" unless my Made in China digital caliper is wrong.

I'm not sure what point you are making.
I would have thought that the real point is that the Manson is made from Bisalloy 80, the Rocna is made from lower grade materials (despite past claims about using Bisalloy 80). If they are the same thickness the Manson will be stronger.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Bur Rocna has brought a whole new meaning to Due Diligence. I bet CMP never asked Grant King and he is the only one left with any credibility.

I'm not sure that we can accuse CMP of anything yet. They may not have been particularly diligent over their due diligence but the need for urgency when there is a deal to be signed usually does mean that some things are glossed over. However, I've seen nothing to suggest anything other then a decent company which appears to be OK.

Their problem is that they have the Bambury's and the Smiths on board. Bambury is probably only there for the short term. The Smiths are there for the long haul. At the very time that they are trying to dismiss Grant as a disgruntled employee they are taking advice and information from his erstwhile disgruntled employers.

They are proving the old adage of "rubbish in, rubbish out".

 

[Seven Spades]

This story seems to bring forth more and more skeletons it looks as though this is a huge scandal.

I feel a little sorry for CMP because they have identified a good product with a damaged reputation and have tried to resolve the situation by picking up the liabilities for the Q420 products.

However given the original posts by Peter Smith and his subsequent retractions regarding the suitability of anything less than Bisplate 800. It now poses two questions.

Q.Was he exaggerating before to demonstrate that his product was of the highest quality when he said it was essential to use Bisplate 800?

If not then that was a lie, if that was a lie how do we know he is not lying now?

A. We don't

If we don't know the truth how can we buy the product because I really don't know if Q620 is good enough as I only have Peter Smiths word on it and he has already told us that Q620 isn't good enough :confused

So my message to CMP is that I think you have to revert to Bisplate 800 whatever it costs or cut your losses and run. I think you are going to pick up a tab for the Q420 products without any payback if you stick with Q620.

 

[lwatson]

Rocna

The only reason I posted the thickness is that someone had put on the site that the thicnkess of the shaft metal in the Manson was thicker and I thought so myself until I measured similar weight anchors.
As far as the steel being a problem and returns from what West in Seattle and here in San Diego say they are not seeing the returns that one would elxpect from a product which may have been made incorrectly. One would think there would be a rush to change.

 

[Delfin]

The only reason I posted the thickness is that someone had put on the site that the thicnkess of the shaft metal in the Manson was thicker and I thought so myself until I measured similar weight anchors.
As far as the steel being a problem and returns from what West in Seattle and here in San Diego say they are not seeing the returns that one would elxpect from a product which may have been made incorrectly. One would think there would be a rush to change.

The thickness of the shank is one measurement, but completely useless without the total depth of the steel at a common point of measurement. Based on the measurements of the anchor I tested and the dimensional drawing sent to me by Manson for reference, the Manson had about 13% more metal in in, which equates to 13% greater strength if the two products were made of the same metal, which they are not. Factoring in the minimum MPa yield of Bisalloy 80 compared to the Q620 steel used by Rocna as "good enough", the Manson is a minimum of 27% stronger than the Rocna. Using the tested yield of the Manson instead of the minimum yield per spec of Bisalloy 80, and the tested yield of my anchor, the Manson as tested was 32% stronger than the Rocna as tested. Put another way, the Manson is overbuilt based on Rocna's new standards, so everyone is free to choose an overbuilt anchor that is stronger but seems to generally cost less than an anchor that is "good enough" and costs more.

The fact that there isn't a run on the bank in your area to return Rocnas is not too surprising. Who wants to change an anchor, even if you were lied to when you bought it? As you have proven, many people are quite satisfied with their purchase whatever the facts are, and have difficulty understanding those facts in the first place, and that's just fine. There's a product for everyone, it seems.

 

[Hoolie]

Well, in a table posted briefly on cruisersforum and now taken down, the shank thickness of the Rocna 20, 25 and 30 are all 16mm.
With the perhaps surprising effect that the 20 can stand more bending stress than its heavier brothers because it is physically smaller

 

[Delfin]

Well, in a table posted briefly on cruisersforum and now taken down, the shank thickness of the Rocna 20, 25 and 30 are all 16mm.
With the perhaps surprising effect that the 20 can stand more bending stress than its heavier brothers because it is physically smaller

As noted, you need to know the depth of the shank to make comparisons. Assuming two anchors have the same shank length and are made of the same steel, the profile (breadth times depth) will determine the strength. In the Rocna table, they also list is the 'lever arm' of the 20, 25 and 33, that is the shaft length. Both have the same thickness, but the 25 is 5 mm deeper than the 20, and the 33 is 10 mm deeper than the 20. The 20 is the strongest, because its lever arm is the shortest, and this apparently overwhelms the profile of the steel. Put a side load on a longer lever, and it bends easier. I think that is the explanation of the data, but perhaps an engineer can comment.

 

[Delfin]

Hoolie, you raise an interesting point. It's beyond me to figure out the impact of the angle of the shank weld to the flukes and the lever arm on strength, but the Manson measurements I have all show shorter shanks per size anchor than the Rocna. Again, an engineer's comments on this would be helpful, but it is clear from the Rocna chart that the longer the lever arm the less force is required to bend the shank. If all of that is true, then the Manson's strength would be greater than simply the result of using stronger steel in combination with slightly more steel at a common point of measurement.

 

[Lady Campanula]

I became interested in the 'Delfin' trawler yacht and and took the invitation to wade through the poster's website. It's a rather interesting vessel....

Contributor Carl Loeb has had a relevant article printed in 'Passage Maker' magazine, and one notes the choice of ground tackle....

"The primary anchor is a 170# Bruce with 1/2" G4 chain, and the system handles it just fine."

"At the bow is a 176lb. Horizon claw anchor with 400ft.of ½ inch chain. A 125lb Fortress serves as a backup, and Delfin carries a 35lb CQR anchor aft"

'Loaded for bear', as they say in the Pacific North-West.....

 

[Delfin]

I became interested in the 'Delfin' trawler yacht and and took the invitation to wade through the poster's website. It's a rather interesting vessel....

'Loaded for bear', as they say in the Pacific North-West.....

Good proofreading, Lady. I have asked that the errors be corrected and the Chinese orphans responsible for maintaining the site sleep for another month without blankets as a deterrent against future mistakes.

 

[Lady Campanula]

? Mistakes ?

Well, sir, you seem to know what you're about. I note you expect to head off for another Pacific Circuit at some point. Let me wish you well to enjoy it, and that we hear of some of Delrin's adventures....

 

[Delfin]

? Mistakes ?

Well, sir, you seem to know what you're about. I note you expect to head off for another Pacific Circuit at some point. Let me wish you well to enjoy it, and that we hear of some of Delrin's adventures....

Thank you Lady! Re: mistakes, all we have is a single 176# Claw, and it isn't a 125# Fortress for backup, but a model 125 Guardian made by Fortress. I have never used the latter in anger, but have a lot of confidence in the Fortress product. I discount the idea that they don't reset in wind shifts, but others certainly have more experience than I do. We have a lot of tidal action here in the NW, so if the Fortress anchors posed a problem with resetting, the Coast Guard wouldn't use them. Anchor watch or no, those guys usually have the best equipment the taxpayer can buy.

 

[Hoolie]

Hoolie, you raise an interesting point. It's beyond me to figure out the impact of the angle of the shank weld to the flukes and the lever arm on strength, but the Manson measurements I have all show shorter shanks per size anchor than the Rocna. Again, an engineer's comments on this would be helpful, but it is clear from the Rocna chart that the longer the lever arm the less force is required to bend the shank. If all of that is true, then the Manson's strength would be greater than simply the result of using stronger steel in combination with slightly more steel at a common point of measurement.

Agreed. But we're getting into the details of anchor design and a shorter shank may affect some other attributes, like setting ability. In tests the Manson Supreme hasn't quite shown the performance of the Rocna.
I'm by no means an anchor designer; but the superior strength of the Manson must be reassuring to those that use them

 

[Djbangi]

Rocna vs The Rest

If you add up the numbers of tests conducted on a Rocna anchor, vs (say) a Supreme - what you might find is that a Supreme (a Spade or Fortress) has enjoyed much wider testing than a Rocna. Grant King might throw some light on this but many tests - for whatever reason - never included a Rocna.

Grant might be wallowing in the euphoria of The All Blacks resounding defeat of their rivals over the Tasman - responses might never be forthcoming!!

Most single tests are statistically questionable - but Supremes, Spades and Fortress have been widely tested by a fairly substantial cross section of 'people'. The sheer quantity of consistent results are reassuring. Rocna famously quoted one result, one pull, from one test to show their anchor was significantly better than anything else - the gullible might have been impressed but a statistician would have laughed his socks off.

The (limited) results on the Rocna are enticing - and these limitations might merit some elaboration - why was the Rocna not more widely tested?

If ones critieria were 'holding capacity' - then the Fortress is hard to beat (and is advantageously lightweight). If the criteria is 'holding capacity' in a large range of tests (which implies a decent cross section of seabeds) - then the Spade is hard to beat (and if you hanker after light weight - go for their alloy model). If the criteria is 'holding capacity' in a wide range of tests plus financial acceptability then the Supreme wins hands down and has the added advantage of unquestionable shank strength.

Finally when Rocna drew up its battle lines it chose to attack, Fortress, Spade, Supreme (and Excel) apparently ignoring the fact, that at the time (apart from the well established and reputable Fortress) the other anchors had minimal market share - so oddly ignoring the bulk of the market (Lewmar, Navimo et al).

So - in my very humble opinion, Rocna based its strategy on limited (focussed?) testing and attacked a very limited (excepting Fortress) market base. Why did they not focus on Lewmar and Navimo? why were not more tests conducted to provide decent statistical significance?

 

[youen]

Is there somebody here unhappy with his unconformed Rocna who get a refund from CMP.I shall be very happy to know because, I think CMP is making a lot of noise on this forum but I am not sure they are really very efficient ,at the moment I have no news from there agent in France where nobody seems to know the problems with some Rocna anchors

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Youen,

I can't see why they don't know about the problems. Maybe something has been lost in translation?
It's not very good is it?

Youen
Vidal Marine were asked to reply to you directly last Friday, after I emailed you in person .

I will remind them of the need for action.

Can you remember when you ordered the anchor from them please ?

Apologies for the delay, we are working out new communication procedures with the distributors, and the project is not complete yet.

thank you.


EDIT 16:19 UTC I have just phoned them. The manager is on the water, and we have agreed to speak tomorrow

 

[braehouse]

Is there somebody here unhappy with his unconformed Rocna who get a refund from CMP.I shall be very happy to know because, I think CMP is making a lot of noise on this forum but I am not sure they are really very efficient ,at the moment I have no news from there agent in France where nobody seems to know the problems with some Rocna anchors

I have spoken to the Chandlery where I bought my Rocna from, and told them that I am not happy with the specification and want to return it under the sale of goods act, they asked that I allow them to talk with the UK distributors to see what was happening. From what I can gather as well there is a lot of noise but not much happening. The Chandlery have promised to ring me next week as meetings were / are happening this week.

RocnaOne has stated that they will exchange all faulty Rocnas with a replacement in 620 steel, frankly for me that is not good enough I bought on the basis of Bisalloy not 620. Statements from the designer now dropping his specification give me little comfort at the moment.

Chris

 

[FishyInverness]

What is important to stick to, regardless of what Rocna says they are going to replace it with, are your basic consumer rights, applicable in all situations.

Goods must be of : Satisfactory Quality (Chinese Rocna - check), As described (Chinese Rocna - Fail), Fir for purpose (Chinese Rocna - Check) and last a reasonable amount of time (Chinese Rocna - not known as yet, but assume check)

So it fails consumer rights, because the anchor you purchased was described as being certified for Super high Holding Power, and it wasn't, and that it was described as being constrructed of Bisalloy Q&T800, which it wasn't.

You relationship (in the UK) is WITH THE RETAILER, never with the manufacturer or distributor, though it is their responsibility to deal with their incorrect claims for a product, that is between them and the retailer, not between you and them.

Technically, when your consumer rights aren't met, you are entitled to a refund, repair or replacement - and it is up to the retailer to deal with that in a reasonable amount of time - they can't replace it with a 620 anchor as that is not what you were told you were getting, so essentially it's a genuine NZ spec anchor or your money back...stick to your guns, write letters of complaint if your chandler is making noise but not complying, they know you have these rights even if they stall with the distributor/manufacturer.

As for Youen, I really don't know French consumer rights, but I would suspect there is something, take a look online...the uk version can be found here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governm...merrightswhenbuyinggoodsandservices/DG_182935

 

[RocnaONE]

I have checked this morning with the French Distributor, Vidal Marine, speaking personally with one of the directors.

He confirms that I have been in email and phone contact with his company for more than two weeks, and that he has tried to find the details of M Youen on their system. M Youen has bought the anchor from a dealer, and so his contact details are with the dealer, and not with the main distributor.

I have asked M Youen again for his contact details this morning, and the details of when and where he bought his anchor. It seems that M Youen has not yet made contact with his dealer, as that information would arrive swiftly at Vidal Marine.

I understand that no 420 anchors were supplied to France, but there exists the possibility that the anchor has been supplied from, or bought in England.


There has been no difficulty in "translation". My commercial French, and the director's command of business English, are more than adequate to discuss this issue in detail.

 

[GrantKing]

magazine tests

If you add up the numbers of tests conducted on a Rocna anchor, vs (say) a Supreme - what you might find is that a Supreme (a Spade or Fortress) has enjoyed much wider testing than a Rocna. Grant King might throw some light on this but many tests - for whatever reason - never included a Rocna.

Grant might be wallowing in the euphoria of The All Blacks resounding defeat of their rivals over the Tasman - responses might never be forthcoming!!

................ why were not more tests conducted to provide decent statistical significance?

Perhaps this might explain a bit, an email from Peter Smith re testing in magazine articles:

Firstly once again I reiterate that we were always paranoid about testing, and distributors which were our contacts (Rosch, Boyd, Denrex, SCM) years ago were told not to supply anchors upon request unless with our approval. This is just part of normal relations with the all-important distributors, who are entirely responsible for marketing the product (especially in foreign language regions) in their area. However they are not the experts, and your instructions to them should be no more complex than “don’t provide anchors for tests without our approval”.





A boat’s anchor and the crews opinion of it is a very emotive subject. Usually a love or hate relationship. As most of us grow older we become less open to change and become entrenched in our opinions as to what is good or bad, what works and doesn’t. Very much so with anchors. “It’s worked for 50 yrs, why should I change now?” Some of these diehard’s don't even bother to read magazines espousing the latest technology toys, let alone the anchor test his subscription churns out every two years or so.



Reviewing the rubbish that is published in the disguise of so called “controlled tests” it is no wonder. The diehard is safer with his head in the sand and his old anchor. His information is coming from his own testing in the real world and he is only going to be persuaded by his mate who is even older, but who loves the new Rocna he was given as a centurion birthday present by the great grandson.



However in this modern information age the experience that is accumulated over many years is available at the push of a computer button. The younger generations and Grey power combined jump the “experience time gap” by researching the internet for the facts and information they want. They may have seen a magazine ad, seen a interesting product in a boat show or down at the marina, or spoken to a mate about it, picked up a thread on an internet forum or typed “anchors” in his search box. He will also research the published results of various “tests” carried out by various authorities, both spurious and authentic and of course the thousands of words spewed out every year by the magazines under the guise of educating or informing their readers and in the process providing a vehicle for their advertising clients.



And here is the nub that the younger generations must grapple with. Sorting the facts from the fiction, the genuine from the bull****. And there is plenty of it. In amongst the hundreds of tests published over the last two decades, only a handful could be considered informative with somewhat accurate results. Firstly it's too time consuming and expensive and boring to actually do all of this, which is why most (all?) magazine anchor testing is as poor as it is. They don’t spend days out there with a team of men and equipment and a powerful tug. You can only try to get as close to it as possible.



Some manufacturers e.g. “Sarca” are even jumping on the bandwagon by advertising a “special” dedicated anchor testing tool so that all are equal, with Sarca more equal than others. In the interests of client education of course.



I am not aware of any one test by its self that tells the whole story, and some of these tests by such as by US Coast Guard or classification societies are now some 20 years out of date and what was considered a good base line is now irrelevant.



For the average sailor the practical tests carried out by West Marine for a consortium of boating magazines over the past few years, although not perfect, would have to be the best information available in recent years. They appear to run these tests every two or three years and are commercially motivated beyond the value of a six page article in a magazine.



I also like the tests run by John Knox of Edinburgh for Practical Boat Owner. He tests in a very precise scientific manner using pulley stands for scope and a power winch through strain gauges for precise controlled pull in tidal pools near his home so he can duplicate exactly each test pull and view and monitor each anchor. He applies a engineering mind to his analysis and normalises his findings to a common weight so all anchors are equal. He discusses the ratios of weight to blade area with his results, and tests for roll stability beyond yield and when under 90 and 180 veer stress. Unfortunately last we heard Knox was developing his own anchor design so now probably cannot be considered independent.



Combine Knox and West’s approach and you might start to get some meaningful results.



If HF have any say in a magazine running a test program/article, insist on seeing the test design and their methodology. Also examine previous tests if available. Nb. this isn’t always the entire picture; the German test doesn’t actually explain details of their methodology. If they won't cooperate, tell them to you are not interested and refuse permission to feature the Rocna. It’s just not worth it.



They are often receptive to some input and advice to create and report a level playing field, just don't know how to.






continued in next posting as it will not fit in one.