Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

macd said:
This is all getting a little off-topic, for which, apologies. But it does seem to have attracted some interest.
.
Click to expand...

thanks for your prompt reply... ' The bigger and more profitable the magazine, the more that applies'

seems to be where I would have thought IPC should be giving a great deal of their attentions if they mean both titles to survive.
My apologies too for taking the thread off topic.. but if Snooks could clarify when he says.............

'There are measures put in place, but these aren't at editorial level.' ............ it may make things clearer.

S.
 
Last edited:
Morven said:
Vyv,

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I have seen at least 3 bent. They were quite popular with the charter boats in the Marina I infest. I saw at least 3 bent over two seasons, always bending at the weld between the shank and the plough, never noticed a bent shank. most of those boats went to different types on anchor when they replaced. I think the yard manager here still has one in his workshop he is intending to straighten and reuse!
Click to expand...

Bending at the weld is a consequence of failure to heat treat post-weld. The shank material is about the same strength as the original Bisplate Rocnas.

There is an argument that straightening a bent one could strengthen it, due to work hardening. It's a process used industrially but the control is rather better than is likely in a marina workshop!
 
Scotty_Tradewind said:
' The bigger and more profitable the magazine, the more that applies'
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I rather overestimated the circulation figures. YM's ABC (Audit Bureau of Ciculation) figure for 2010 was just under 28,000; PBO's was a shade over 38,300.

These figures (and particularly anything under 30,000) suggest titles somewhat understaffed and generally under-resourced, plus freelance pay rates well below the norm (I hope Neeve gets an enhaced rate). Many publishing houses would regard YM as barely tenable. Compare with some of IPC's other titles, one of which sells over a million and nine of which sell over 250,000: http://www.ipcadvertising.com/resource/mieurfato3umidk5wjjrd4s.pdf

Incidentally, the book rate for a full page ad for YM/PBO is £3910 and £4106 respectively. The rate for IPC's best-selling title, 'What's on TV' is £21,260.

Personally I think the yachting press is a topic eminently worthy of discussion, but perhaps not here on the Rocna thread. Can I suggest that if we're to continue in this vein one of us starts a new one?
 
Scotty_Tradewind said:
'There are measures put in place, but these aren't at editorial level.' ............ it may make things clearer.

S.
Click to expand...

Things not at editorial level are usually at publisher or proprietor level. As IPC's proprietor is probably a venture fund located in the Caymans, I suspect the publisher(s) may talk from time to time. In fact, it might be the same person (don't have the magz on hand to check)/
 
I don't understand the problem .... Yes I've read alll 1200+ replies and it's all turned into goblebegook:

All anchors perforce are the ultimate resorts to survival;

All Anchors don't set;

All shanks ought to bend;

All anchors ought to reset;

etc

etc

etc

Mine's a luncheon hook (fisherman's of Nelson's ilk with sand sized flukes) that seems to work well in anything from mud through sand to shingle and pure rock ....

If the shank bends then at least it hasn't broke, and all will be well. If it has broke then letting out another 100m of chain will be a propos d'ather fart in a thunderstorm.... or more ...

Mark Walkers tests are delightful to appraise but ARE as much use as fly to the moon: Any/all mechanical tests must apply the same set of constancies as testing N Wales drinking waters against bacteria/virii/other buts etc ... His punch-holes in the ROCNA shank merely demonstate that the shank has a degree of flexure .... BUT has not been tested to failure.

I thought that Yachting Monthly's and Practical Goat Owner's alway stood for advancement in sailing. Knocking Rocna is not an advancement - NAME A BETTER ANCHOR

Nige ... waiting :) :) :)
 
Thanks Vyv, good to know, I shall let him know that when next I see him. He is a pretty good metal fabricator but I am not sure how much he knows about heat treatment.
 
Neeves said:
It would be nice, even refreshing, if we knew the material of all shanks of branded anchors.
Click to expand...

That's pointless, IMHO, because the design, geometry and behaviour of the anchor aren't taken into account. What you may want to know is the strength of the anchor for various failure modes (side loading of the shank is relevant here...). The Rocna has a long, slender shank, so needs high strength steel to achieve adequate bending resistance. What other anchors use is irrelevant - Smith's design requires high strength steel but it has been made and sold without.

GrantKing said:
Smith's calculation charts for shank bending forces contained the following comparisons between Rocna and delta using Bis80 with a yield strengthof 780mpa which is what the delta was using.
Click to expand...

Is "yield strength of 780mpa" correct? - Datasheet values are 690 minimum, 750 typical, so where has the 780 came from? Is it just a nominal figure he used?

Andy
 
Rockham said:
I don't understand the problem .... Yes I've read alll 1200+ replies and it's all turned into goblebegook:

All anchors perforce are the ultimate resorts to survival;

All Anchors don't set;

All shanks ought to bend;

All anchors ought to reset;

etc

etc

etc

Mine's a luncheon hook (fisherman's of Nelson's ilk with sand sized flukes) that seems to work well in anything from mud through sand to shingle and pure rock ....

If the shank bends then at least it hasn't broke, and all will be well. If it has broke then letting out another 100m of chain will be a propos d'ather fart in a thunderstorm.... or more ...

Mark Walkers tests are delightful to appraise but ARE as much use as fly to the moon: Any/all mechanical tests must apply the same set of constancies as testing N Wales drinking waters against bacteria/virii/other buts etc ... His punch-holes in the ROCNA shank merely demonstate that the shank has a degree of flexure .... BUT has not been tested to failure.

I thought that Yachting Monthly's and Practical Goat Owner's alway stood for advancement in sailing. Knocking Rocna is not an advancement - NAME A BETTER ANCHOR

Nige ... waiting :) :) :)
Click to expand...

TROLL
 
Rockham said:
I don't understand the problem .... Yes I've read alll 1200+ replies and it's all turned into goblebegook:

All anchors perforce are the ultimate resorts to survival;

All Anchors don't set;

All shanks ought to bend;

All anchors ought to reset;

etc

etc

etc

Mine's a luncheon hook (fisherman's of Nelson's ilk with sand sized flukes) that seems to work well in anything from mud through sand to shingle and pure rock ....

If the shank bends then at least it hasn't broke, and all will be well. If it has broke then letting out another 100m of chain will be a propos d'ather fart in a thunderstorm.... or more ...

Mark Walkers tests are delightful to appraise but ARE as much use as fly to the moon: Any/all mechanical tests must apply the same set of constancies as testing N Wales drinking waters against bacteria/virii/other buts etc ... His punch-holes in the ROCNA shank merely demonstate that the shank has a degree of flexure .... BUT has not been tested to failure.

I thought that Yachting Monthly's and Practical Goat Owner's alway stood for advancement in sailing. Knocking Rocna is not an advancement - NAME A BETTER ANCHOR

Nige ... waiting :) :) :)[/QUOTE



Your location suits you to a tee sir!
Click to expand...
 
Rockham said:
I don't understand the problem .... Yes I've read alll 1200+ replies and it's all turned into goblebegook:
.....

I thought that Yachting Monthly's and Practical Goat Owner's alway stood for advancement in sailing. Knocking Rocna is not an advancement - NAME A BETTER ANCHOR

Nige ... waiting :) :) :)
Click to expand...

Could this be NigeCh getting hooked ? It has been a long time .....
 
Virtually any of the new generation anchors would be better than a Rocna, including but not only, Spade, Kobra2, Manson, Fortress, Delta etc.
Reason being when you use an anchor as well as it being a good anchor you need to have confidence in it. The Rocna is discredited thanks to the misrepresentation over a period of years.
 
Rockham said:
I don't understand the problem .... Yes I've read alll 1200+ replies and it's all turned into goblebegook . . .

. . . Mark Walkers tests are delightful to appraise but ARE as much use as fly to the moon: Any/all mechanical tests must apply the same set of constancies as testing N Wales drinking waters against bacteria/virii/other buts etc ... His punch-holes in the ROCNA shank merely demonstate that the shank has a degree of flexure .... BUT has not been tested to failure.

I thought that Yachting Monthly's and Practical Goat Owner's alway stood for advancement in sailing. Knocking Rocna is not an advancement - NAME A BETTER ANCHOR

Nige ... waiting :) :) :)
Click to expand...
Thanks, Nige, I knew I could rely on you for an assessment refreshingly free of forum "group-think".

This raises the question: can there be such a thing as a satisfactory test for an anchor? Or rather, such a thing as a substitute for in-use testing on thousands of different boats anchoring in the full range of weather and sea-bed conditions that we expect anchors to operate?

As others have already pointed out in rather more words, Rocna is hoist by its own petard. The designer was well aware that an anchor that digs in as deeply and has as long and light a shank needs a strong shank. An anchor that copes with strong winds by burying itself deeply enough to hold securely is going to be exposed to greater bending forces when the wind shifts than one that drags. Can one say of any anchor that it won't bend when subject to a tranverse load when trapped in rock or coral? (I can't find the YM test report, but I seem to remember that there was a comment about the Fortress bending when a lateral force was applied in hard sand. Edit: in the tests published in the October 2006 issue of Sail magazine, it was a fluke that bent, not the shank.) Sadly, the manufacturer to whom Smith licensed his design evidently didn't share his insight - I guess he thought, yeah, yeah, I know you are proud of your top-knotch design, but you're just the designer, I'm the businessman, and I have to translate it into a product that sells.

All of which reminds me that I did not buy the Rocna to cope with extreme conditions - in going for the 15kg size, I chose not to follow the advice of the Smiths (which was that the 20kg was the right one for my boat).

And Chris_Robb, believe me, Nige doesn't do trolls. :)
 
Last edited:
snooks said:
+1

See the 2006 test in Yachting Monthly:D
Click to expand...
Is the YM version available online? Is it essentially the same set of tests that was published in Sail, October 2006? (Available through the Rocna website http://www.rocna.com/assets/Uploads/press0610wmsailtestingv2.pdf).


Here is a thread that attempt to compare the Rocna with the Spade by asking contributors who have actually used them to share their experiences:
http://www.morganscloud.com/2011/11/23/rocna-versus-spade-anchors/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top