Coaster
Active member
Thanks. As far as I can remember the fluke and stock both appear to be cut from thick sheet steel and welded together. So It looks like I can be satisfied with our Rocna.
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
Thanks. As far as I can remember the fluke and stock both appear to be cut from thick sheet steel and welded together. So It looks like I can be satisfied with our Rocna.
macd
Active member
...and re Twister_Ken's post: yes, they've been on here (or a previous related thread). But I wouldn't characterise their contribution as "falling over themselves to belittle..." From my recollection it was fairly measured stuff.
GrantKing
New member
Bosun Higgs
N/A
I'm not sure I would accept the test comparison of the Fortress anchor with the others. Holding power once dug in must relate to fluke area rather than weight and whilst Fortress recommend lighter anchors than their steel competitors, they are usually recommending anchors with more fluke area.
IMO Weight really isnt a sensible way to specify an anchor, certainly not as the only reference point. That said I happily use an ally danforth as a lunchtime hook and appreciate its lack of weight
IMO Weight really isnt a sensible way to specify an anchor, certainly not as the only reference point. That said I happily use an ally danforth as a lunchtime hook and appreciate its lack of weight
Sybarite
Well-known member
There is a new Manson anchor "Boss" featuring in "Voile" (Jan) which has vertical ailerons at the edge of its flukes. Like a plane's wingtips. They claim that it improves the bedding-in process. As well as their traditional finishes, they are offering an "All Black" version.
There is also a Turkish Boyut "Ultra" anchor like other new generation ones but which has a downward curving point which faciltates penetration. Only available in SS in France at €867 for 15kg.
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-known member
Just curious as to who had the first idea of the shape and then who copied who in the first place.
So did Smiths copy Bugel who were copied by manson or what?
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
I think you'd have to say while Smith may have been inspired by Bugel, he did make some geometry changes one of which was a slimmer shank, with the attachment point moved towards the tip to increase the weight bias towards the tip. The thinner shank was - of course - made possible by specifying 800 mpa steel. And so the circle recommences...
Rigger Mortice
N/A
It's been argued that all Smith did was to take features from other anchors (mainly the roll bar from the Bugel and the concave fluke from the Spade but also other features from other anchors) and put them together. Despite his boast that his anchor was unique he never got a patent on it.....he was either not prepared to spend the money or he was advised that it was not patentable as it wasn't unique.
The chronology was Bugel/Spade....Rocna....Manson.
Last edited:
Rigger Mortice
N/A
and another thing...
I've just noticed that Rocna are claiming RINA SHHP classification here http://www.rocna.com/product-range/anchor/1
Is that correct?...I thought that claim had been debunked.
I've just noticed that Rocna are claiming RINA SHHP classification here http://www.rocna.com/product-range/anchor/1
Is that correct?...I thought that claim had been debunked.
Neeves
Well-known member
The first mention I know of a roll bar anchor was a patent by Peter Bruce, 1970. He obviously found he did not need the roll bar, hence the Bruce as we know it. Bugel simply lifted the idea from Bruce.
Jonathan
Jonathan
Neeves
Well-known member
Rocna and RINA.
CMP said they were going to re-visit the certification process. Riggers post might be the result, but I would not believe it until I saw a new certificate. I am suspicious as, given the furore, one would have expected there to be easy access to a new certificate. Interestingly the original certificate did not cover stainless anchors.
But in RINA's defence, Rocna built to the original design, galvanised steel, fabricated fluke, hi-tensile steel shank did meet the original certifcation. This certificate did not cover any anchor with a cast fluke, ie anything under 55kg, nor stainless steel anchors.
Jonathan
CMP said they were going to re-visit the certification process. Riggers post might be the result, but I would not believe it until I saw a new certificate. I am suspicious as, given the furore, one would have expected there to be easy access to a new certificate. Interestingly the original certificate did not cover stainless anchors.
But in RINA's defence, Rocna built to the original design, galvanised steel, fabricated fluke, hi-tensile steel shank did meet the original certifcation. This certificate did not cover any anchor with a cast fluke, ie anything under 55kg, nor stainless steel anchors.
Jonathan
estarzinger
New member
the certificate (issued May 25 2011 to CMP) applies only to anchors with fabricated flukes, not the production cast flukes, and "anchors covered by this approval are to be subjected to individual testing" . . . . Net net, that certificate only covers custom hand-made ROCNA's and does NOT cover the anchors you buy off the shelf.
It's a disappointing piece of carefully stated misinformation under CMP control.
Neeves
Well-known member
The turned down toe was used on Anchor Right's SARCA, which was introduced sometime in the 1990's, and has since been used on their SARCA Excel. The Excel which was introduced around 2007/8 has always had turned down winglets at the rear of the sole of the fluke to encourage alingment. But I recall that Spade also has these, or similar, winglets and I think it was introduced in the late 1990's. All of these ideas might have been aired and used earlier - I do not know.
As someone has already said most modern anchors incorporate ideas from previous designs, like Peter Bruce's roll bar and Gordon Lyall's self righting shank on the Delta (usually forgetting to attribute the idea to the original designer). But most anchors are a compromise and the purchaser needs decide which of these compromises best suits his requirements.
Morality and integrity are new issues!
Jonathan
As someone has already said most modern anchors incorporate ideas from previous designs, like Peter Bruce's roll bar and Gordon Lyall's self righting shank on the Delta (usually forgetting to attribute the idea to the original designer). But most anchors are a compromise and the purchaser needs decide which of these compromises best suits his requirements.
Morality and integrity are new issues!
Jonathan
Rigger Mortice
N/A
So, if you or I go into Piplers and buy an anchor it won't be SHHP, despite what the Rocna website says?
In other words, it's just more bollucks.
Will these people never learn?
Neeves
Well-known member
RINA Certification
In the past some individual's posts have maligned RINA's certification of Rocna. As far as I can ascertain RINA's activities have been fair, honest and within the rules of IACS. Holdfast, or Rocna, or CMP might have taken advantage but RINA has always acted in good faith. The tests they have conducted are fair, complete and meet the rules defined by the IACS.
There has been a recent indication of a problem, Rigger's posting earlier where he identifies that on the Rocna website they are, again, claiming RINA certification. As has been pointed out this posting is under CMP's watch - see below but nothing seems to have changed, it is a misrepresentation, it is simple deceit. And it unfairly pulls RINA into a sordid story in which they have acted correctly.
Rigger was correct with his posting, it brought to light something that some, or many (including myself), would not have seen. I had noted that CMP had professed they were re-visiting Classification Society certification, so I reserved judgement - I checked with RINA.
The official word is (words in brackets are mine):
The original Type Approval remains as was, with minor changes to wording. No new tests have been conducted. (I assume this actually means the certificate has been re-assinged from Holdfast to CMP, there might be something that clearly indicates the certificate only covers fabricated flukes - do not know.)
The RINA type approval certificate covers anchors made with a folded fluke welded to a Q 690 (or Bis 80) shank. The certificate would cover any anchors made with laminated shanks (lamination was apparently used on larger Rocna anchors, do not know, maybe the 110kg versions).
The Rocna design forsees (I assume this means that this is what is on the drawings) the use of Q&T steel. Q 620 can be Q&T. (There is some conflict here that I will try to resolve - ie does Q&T 620 fall within the bracketed quality, please do not get uptight yet!)
My understanding is:
The Type Approval certificate is the same as previous. Everything I have seen from RINA suggest the tests they conducted were correct, fair and within the rules of anchor testing. No favours were given. The TA covers anchors with a fabricated fluke, folded and welded. The shank of the anchor tested conformed with the drawings submitted and approved and was made from Q&T steel, either Q690 or Bis 80 (which are possibly indistingushable). Both the anchor tested in NZ for seabed trials and the anchor tested for 'proof testing' met these requirements. (earlier correspondence with RINA advised that the anchor used for proof testing, was checked, and met these demands). Cross referencing is also made with certification of the steel from the steel supplier.
RINA will be contacting the 'new' Rocna representative to request clarification and rectification (of the Rocna website?). I provided RINA with copy of the Rocna website link and the YBW post links - again thanks to Rigger's sharp eyes!
Basically: as 'Rigger' and 'estanzinger' have suggested the statement on the Rocna website is a total abuse of the certification process. The Certificate covers only galvanised anchors of 55kg and larger that have a Q&T shank. It does not cover stainless anchors, at all. it does not cover anchors smaller than 55kg with a cast fluke (the sort that are commonly available in chandlers, for those of us with little yachts, to buy).
Any deceit or irregularity is that of Rocna (whover Rocna is?) or CMP.
The deceitful claim of RINA certification is not limited to the Rocna website and if anyone cares to check they will find the same claims on some distributor's website - feel free to send them these links, starting with Rigger's post No (I think) 1148.
Jonathan
In the past some individual's posts have maligned RINA's certification of Rocna. As far as I can ascertain RINA's activities have been fair, honest and within the rules of IACS. Holdfast, or Rocna, or CMP might have taken advantage but RINA has always acted in good faith. The tests they have conducted are fair, complete and meet the rules defined by the IACS.
There has been a recent indication of a problem, Rigger's posting earlier where he identifies that on the Rocna website they are, again, claiming RINA certification. As has been pointed out this posting is under CMP's watch - see below but nothing seems to have changed, it is a misrepresentation, it is simple deceit. And it unfairly pulls RINA into a sordid story in which they have acted correctly.
Rigger was correct with his posting, it brought to light something that some, or many (including myself), would not have seen. I had noted that CMP had professed they were re-visiting Classification Society certification, so I reserved judgement - I checked with RINA.
The official word is (words in brackets are mine):
The original Type Approval remains as was, with minor changes to wording. No new tests have been conducted. (I assume this actually means the certificate has been re-assinged from Holdfast to CMP, there might be something that clearly indicates the certificate only covers fabricated flukes - do not know.)
The RINA type approval certificate covers anchors made with a folded fluke welded to a Q 690 (or Bis 80) shank. The certificate would cover any anchors made with laminated shanks (lamination was apparently used on larger Rocna anchors, do not know, maybe the 110kg versions).
The Rocna design forsees (I assume this means that this is what is on the drawings) the use of Q&T steel. Q 620 can be Q&T. (There is some conflict here that I will try to resolve - ie does Q&T 620 fall within the bracketed quality, please do not get uptight yet!)
My understanding is:
The Type Approval certificate is the same as previous. Everything I have seen from RINA suggest the tests they conducted were correct, fair and within the rules of anchor testing. No favours were given. The TA covers anchors with a fabricated fluke, folded and welded. The shank of the anchor tested conformed with the drawings submitted and approved and was made from Q&T steel, either Q690 or Bis 80 (which are possibly indistingushable). Both the anchor tested in NZ for seabed trials and the anchor tested for 'proof testing' met these requirements. (earlier correspondence with RINA advised that the anchor used for proof testing, was checked, and met these demands). Cross referencing is also made with certification of the steel from the steel supplier.
RINA will be contacting the 'new' Rocna representative to request clarification and rectification (of the Rocna website?). I provided RINA with copy of the Rocna website link and the YBW post links - again thanks to Rigger's sharp eyes!
Basically: as 'Rigger' and 'estanzinger' have suggested the statement on the Rocna website is a total abuse of the certification process. The Certificate covers only galvanised anchors of 55kg and larger that have a Q&T shank. It does not cover stainless anchors, at all. it does not cover anchors smaller than 55kg with a cast fluke (the sort that are commonly available in chandlers, for those of us with little yachts, to buy).
Any deceit or irregularity is that of Rocna (whover Rocna is?) or CMP.
The deceitful claim of RINA certification is not limited to the Rocna website and if anyone cares to check they will find the same claims on some distributor's website - feel free to send them these links, starting with Rigger's post No (I think) 1148.
Jonathan
Last edited:
macd
Active member
Amazing. Would this -- lamination -- be the same process of which Craig Smith was so scathing in Manson anchors before all this stuff blew up? Every day, it seems, there's new evidence of hypocracy from that and other quarters.
As to the false claims of certification, perhaps it's not suprising if Bumbury has a hands-on role with CMP/Rocna. Presumably that we just do not know.
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
At last correct name is in use!
Storyline
New member
They do say in their claim that it it refers to 'Original galvanised sizes'
"For RINA classification to the highest level available: Super High Holding Power (currently on Original galvanized sizes 4-110kg only)."
'Original' presumably means the original rolled Q&T Bis80 NZ manufactured ones.
It could be called misleading or even deceiving but it would appear to be true.
FishyInverness
New member
Nope, "Original" in this case refers to the model of Rocna anchor, the 'Rocna Original' as oppose to the fisherman model.
It is very underhand!
Storyline
New member
Yes, I see what you mean. In light of the recent scandal one would have thought CMP, as main agents, would have had their 'people' scour the Rocna web site for errors and misrepresentation with a fine toothed comb. It just beggars belief that they can continue to claim RINA SHHP classification if it is not true.
At best it is incompetence, at worst it is downright deceit.
There is another explanation. Maybe CMP have been quietly working away and have recently obtained RINA classification and are waiting to announce it to the world. That might explain why they have remained so strangely silent whilst all this damage to the Rocna brand has been going on, some of which might be starting to rub off onto CMP themselves.