Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Neeves]

Coaster

If you have an oversized anchor, and 20kg looks generous for a 34' yacht (and might strain your windlass, or your back, on retrieval - especially if its full of mud) then if you were to take any refund offered you might be in the position to buy a correctly sized, proven, anchor that you might originally have considered too expensive.

Hidden in Snooks' post number 1155 is his recommendation and if my interpretation is correct - he knows what he is talking about! You could always send him a PM.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Accidental out of spec anchors

The original statement of out of spec anchors was limited to the early part of 2010. There does not seem to have been any official deviation from that statement - correct me if I am wrong.

The records to which I have been given access do not detail any shipments to the UK in 2010 with anchors made from anything but 620. According to Grant other destinations did receive 420 shanked anchors, but not the UK.

If Piplers are admitting that 50 units of 420 shanked anchors came to the UK one would assume this statement is on the basis of information they have received from CMP (if it came from Holdfast why wait 6 months to tell us?). Personally I think Piplers are understating the position (but one might assume they are simply repeating what they have been told).

If CMP are confirming that 50 out of spec units arrived in the UK then either:

There are shipments of which Grant is unaware (so the problem is bigger than Grant has been indicating)

Or there is an indirect admission that 420 shanked anchors were made and shipped outside that 'early part of 2010' window.

If it is being admitted that 50 units of 420 shanked anchors came to the UK one wonders what active steps are being taken to warn the owners?

Jonathan

 

[Coaster]

Rigger and Neeves, thanks for your very helpful responses. I'm fairly sure that our Rocna does not have a cast stock.

I believe that for a cruising boat it's hard for an anchor to be too large unless the handling and storage becomes difficult. We've always felt very secure when anchored with the Rocna. I expect a Manson would be similar.

The difference between retrieving a 10kg and a 20kg anchor seems to be slight, with an appropriate electric windlass, especially when taking into account the weight of the chain. If we're well dug in to mud I simply haul in chain until it's 'up-and-down', if necessary use the engine to keep us in position, and then wait for the pitching motion of the boat to break the anchor out.

 

[Conachair]

I believe that for a cruising boat it's hard for an anchor to be too large unless the handling and storage becomes difficult. We've always felt very secure when anchored with the Rocna. I expect a Manson would be similar.

The difference between retrieving a 10kg and a 20kg anchor seems to be slight, with an appropriate electric windlass, especially when taking into account the weight of the chain. If we're well dug in to mud I simply haul in chain until it's 'up-and-down', if necessary use the engine to keep us in position, and then wait for the pitching motion of the boat to break the anchor out.

+1

20kg isn't that big. I'm lucky enough to have a 20kg NZ on a 33'er (and they were much cheaper a while ago ) After spending long periods living on the the hook I would seriously go for the throat of anyone who tried to take it off the boat.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Rigger and Neeves, thanks for your very helpful responses. I'm fairly sure that our Rocna does not have a cast stock.

Coaster - to be absolutely clear, you are not looking for a CAST STOCK, but a CAST FLUKE. This will have the name ROCNA cast into it, which the fabricated NZ version did not have. If you have the name in the fluke casting take it back for a full refund and then get a Manson, where there will be no issues on quality - and it works just as well.

 

[Neeves]

Sometimes I think the thread develops odd twists that I would not anticipate.

One of the ideas of a Super High Holding Power (SHHP) anchor has been that its use would enable boat owners the opportunity to use lighter anchors than an anchor that was only a High Holding Power (HHP) anchor. The concept is formally accepted, use a SHHP anchor on a vessel under survey and I think one can reduce the anchor weight by 30%, cf a HHP anchor. This concept has considerable advantage. One can use a lighter anchor (and have the same holding power). The savings in weight might mean the, electric, windlass would last longer (or the spine of the foredeck hand remain supple longer). The weight savings mean lower weight in the ends (or the front end at least). There might also be a saving in investment, lighter anchor, smaller electric winch (though these savings only become siginificantly apparent as the vessel gets larger).

The observation has been made on other threads, and not by me (I lack the perspecuity) that when people upgrade they buy 'new' design anchors and they buy bigger. Unsurprisingly these people are happy with their decisions (they have doubled the holding capacity compared with the same weight older design and they have gone up a notch increasing the holding even further). Its a bit like buying a Dyneema halyard and increasing the halyard size from 12mm, of the original double braid, to 16mm The reality ought to be - buy 'new' design and take advantage of the new design and buy smaller.

Lazy Kipper - you are more than astute

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

This came From estanzinger, post number 1140

'WM has seen very few failures, and have offered the return program because they know there was false and misleading advertising (about both the Steel quality and RINA) but they honestly believe the real safety concern is almost nil. If they had a safety concern they would absolutely force an aggressive recall. The WM senior management are good people and well intentionned.'

I do not know Evans but he has an extemelly high reputation particularly in the field of anchors and anchor testing and also more widespread in yachting

The post was from a few days ago.

And I am not picking a fight with Evans as I assume his statement is his observation of WM (or Americans) and is not necessarily his view.

It is interesting in that it suggests that Americans, or commercial bodies in America, view the Rocna story in a different light to that expressed over the last 36(?) hours on YBW. The suggestion is that though WM KNEW there was false (forget the misleading) advertising they are prepared to accept and forgive. Management might be good and well intentioned at WM but condoning deceit looks like a recipe for disaster for the rest of us.

Jonathan

 

[maxi77]

I should hope CMP carried out due diligence before taking on the Rocna licence. If not, innocents abroad/sucker born every minute...

Well Rocna1 did claim they did due diligence, but there does seem to be two stories that from G King, and that from Smith/Bambury, which is nearer the truth?

Oh to be a fly on the wall in the CMP boardroom

 

[snooks]

I think Rocna (amongst many other manufacturers/designs) publish a chart and I can remember that some of them state there is no reason to size up, because they have done that part of the calculations for you.

"Many Rocna customers, in improving their anchor type by switching to a Rocna from an older anchor which they have learned to be unreliable, make doubly sure about their upgrade by also increasing the weight of their anchor. We see this tendency a lot, and try to discourage it. As above, our official sizing is very conservative, and in many cases it's a case of "don't over-size – we already did that for you!" "

from:
http://www.rocna.com/kb/Rocna_sizing_recommendations

 

[estarzinger]

I think the below post deserves to be repeated at least once each page in this thread. The deceit about the steel has been rehashed 1000 times, but the deceit about anchor performance, testing and test results has not been brought up much. They provided specially tuned anchors to anchor testers (rather than what you yourself can buy off-the-shelf), they knew the Chinese anchor were having performance problems (And failing tests) because the anchors were not to spec (not just steel but alignment), they mangled the test results in their own marketing to make their anchor looked better than the tester's themselves thought the results showed, and CS shouted down anyone who might have tried to point out any of these things (I have never been sure why the various forums allowed him to behave the way he did).

The plain fact is that the anchor is perfectly acceptable, and better than a CQR, but certainly not the best thing since sliced bread and really just the equal of about a half dozen other anchors (perhaps better in some bottoms and worse in others).

No "probably" about it, the Fortress and the Spade performed better the Rocna in the 2006 YM/WM test.

That's a fact.

It's already been mentioned by Grant in this thread that the anchor sent over for that test was hand picked and "tuned".

So maybe there are other designs which are better off-the-shelf? (comment there are surely ones that are as good)

 

[estarzinger]

And I am not picking a fight with Evans as I assume his statement is his observation of WM (or Americans) and is not necessarily his view.

Good, I am not into Internet fights

Yes, a couple of WM Sr. management are friends and I was simply stating (my impression of) their attitude/approach - which I can summarize as "Rocna was clearly guilty of intentional false and misleading marketing and because of that any customer who wants it is due a full exchange/refund, but we have many customers who still like and want their anchors and we still believe it is 'fit for purpose' so long as customers want them we will continue to still sell them to best serve those customers".

My own impression is that the customers who still want them are misinformed and still suffering miss-impressions from the false and deceptive marketing - if you know the truth why would you want to buy from deceitful people (who still own the brand) who sell an inferior product (less good steel and performance no better and perhaps inferior to other designs rather than false test results marketed) for a premium price?

You can argue whether it is WM's job to educate customers that ROCNA is not such a good buy - I have not talked about this with them but suspect they think it is primarily the competitors job to make the case that they are better.

 

[macd]

[COLOR="blue"
You can argue whether it is WM's job to educate customers that ROCNA is not such a good buy - I have not talked about this with them but suspect they think it is primarily the competitors job to make the case that they are better.
[/COLOR]

I must say that one of the heartening things about this debacle is that Rocna's competitors have not fallen over themselves, on forums at least, to belittle Rocna's products. OK, they may be quietly smug about the furore, and they may feel that we've been doing all the belittling required. But it contrasts emphatically with the past behavour of one C Smith. Imagine what he'd have had to say if the culprit were a competitor.

 

[snooks]

I think the below post deserves to be repeated at least once each page in this thread.

"Fortress and Spade performed better than Rocna in the 2006 YM/WM test.

If it is repeated, can you correct my dodgy fingers?

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

I must say that one of the heartening things about this debacle is that Rocna's competitors have not fallen over themselves, on forums at least, to belittle Rocna's products.

Is that true?

I thought half of the anonymous responses to this thread were from competitors.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I must say that one of the heartening things about this debacle is that Rocna's competitors have not fallen over themselves, on forums at least, to belittle Rocna's products. OK, they may be quietly smug about the furore, and they may feel that we've been doing all the belittling required. But it contrasts emphatically with the past behavour of one C Smith. Imagine what he'd have had to say if the culprit were a competitor.

Earlier on (this thread or the one that got canned?) we had Brian from Fortress and an Aussie from Excel contributing reasonably rationally. Maybe someone from Manson as well?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Maybe someone from Manson as well?

Manson challenged Craig Smith, who had been boasting about the strength of the Rocna, to put one of his anchors in a test rig alongside a Manson anchor.

We now know why Smith wasn't willing to take up that challenge

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Remind me....who appeared first on the market, the Rocna or Manson Supreme?

 

[Conachair]

Remind me....who appeared first on the market, the Rocna or Manson Supreme?

Bugel, wasn't it?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Remind me....who appeared first on the market, the Rocna or Manson Supreme?

Rocna.
Why?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Bugel, wasn't it?

It was: