West Marine Rocna recall notice

[Seven Spades]

YM are going to do their own independent test on the Rocnas. I hope that they will be able to clear the air one way or another.

People who have bought these anchors did so because they were not happy with their previous anchor. Clearly the 5000 are not what they ought to be but we need to know if they are bad enough to be unsafe.

Either the Chinese made Rocnas are good enough and therefore they are justified to continue making them at the lower spec or not. If YM conclude that the anchors are not fit for purpose then Rocna will have to recall them and modify the specifications, if they do not no one will buy their product again.

Personally, I think the original product was good but it is now produced by a discredited company. There needs to be a change of ownership/management one possible solution would be to license the design to a reputable company like Lewmar.

 

[Blueboatman]

Agreed. A fundamentally great idea ( who wouldn't want the very best holding anchor that they could afford/justify, if it really checks out.
Go YM go for it!
I happened to be awake and on here at 0630 this morning, I think there were exactly 6 registered users. One of those was a mr Craig Smith, so it us just possible that someone is taking this on board.
Sort the issues and I will buy ( eventually)!

 

[newWave]

I have been following the anchor discussion closely, if you really want to know all about it read the following threads :

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269500
http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna
http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3571

The company in question (don't want to add additionall google preference to the product) did fight back in the original thread on ybw, but later it all proved that they had been lying quite a bit.

The bottom line IMHO was that the designer required high tensile steel for the anchor to be working propperly, this "warranted" the premium pricetag.
All tests performed where on the original anchors, not the Chinese versions.
They never got RINA classified on the original anchor, at least they never posted any proof, which indicates that it is unlikely the new version is neither.

The new version has the anchor name embossed on it, the original does not.
When using a counter punch on the new version a dimple will be visible.

I hope this answers a lot of the questions for the anyone that did not follow the threads.

 

[misterg]

...
As to anyone stupid enough to assign manufacture to the other side of the planet without real and continuous supervision, well indeed it is human and business nature to cut corners,save pennies, isn't this what lies exactly at the root of this thread? Hmm?

Having followed this saga for months, it appears that this thread is rooted in corner-cutting and dishonesty by Rocna, not some faceless Chinese subcontractor.

Let me try to precis:

In order to get the optimum weight distribution for performance, the designer (Mr. Smith senior) made the shank of the anchor very thin and light.

In order to maintain sufficient strength in such a thin section, he specified a high grade of steel.

Welding this high grade steel is not easy, and requires additional processes. This, added to the higher material costs of the high grade steel makes it an expensive anchor to manufacture.

On moving production to China, Rocna took several steps to reduce manufacturing costs, including specifying a lower grade of steel for the shank which is easier to weld, but not as strong. This is without any reported consultation with the designer. These become known as 'Chinese made' anchors. There is no suggestion that the Chinese factory did anything less than what was asked of them.

Bent anchors start to show up.

Rocna then proceed to lie and mislead us about this (as is well documented in this and other forums).

A disgruntled ex Rocna employee shows up and blows the whistle. Vicious personal assaults ensue.

Some member of Joe Public actually bought a 'Chinese made' Rocna and cut it up to make metallurgical tests and proved the the steel that Rocna have specified and used is about half as strong as the steel that the designer specified.

I'm sure it is a good anchor design when properly executed, but I don't know how anyone could now trust Rocna to make anything, let alone pay them for it. YMMV.

Try a centre-punch on the shank of any anchor you're worried about. It should pretty much bounce off the correct material. (Compare to mild steel, if necessary).

As I said, that's my precis of what must now run to over 1000 posts across several forums.

Andy

(Edit: NewWave got there first!)

 

[GrantKing]

My Rocna was delivered to me on the 13 Jan 2010. Does anyone know when the change to cheaper steel actually happened? Its mentioned as 2010 but when in 2010? And is there any way of checking an individual anchor since mine likely would have been manufactured end 2009.

The change was made in late 2008

 

[Conachair]

In order to get the optimum weight distribution for performance, the designer (Mr. Smith senior) made the shank of the anchor very thin and light.


Bent anchors start to show up.

The shank on mine isn't thin and light.

There isn't any data about bent anchors. Other than from rocna themselves, no one really believes much what they say anymore.

Maybe it's just an averagly strong shanked anchor now, instead of a really strong anchor. Who knows. Ignoring the many major issues of dishonesty, pricing etc there isn't any data available to know what difference the change in steel has had.

This isn't meant to let rocna off , but a slight rant against coming to conclusions with no data to back it up.

But then again it's the internet, why should this thread be any different.

 

[Twister_Ken]

The shank on mine isn't thin and light.

There isn't any data about bent anchors. Other than from rocna themselves, no one really believes much what they say anymore.

Maybe it's just an averagly strong shanked anchor now, instead of a really strong anchor. Who knows. Ignoring the many major issues of dishonesty, pricing etc there isn't any data available to know what difference the change in steel has had.

This isn't meant to let rocna off , but a slight rant against coming to conclusions with no data to back it up.

But then again it's the internet, why should this thread be any different.

There are data, from independent testing labs, in the other threads linked above. It's there, if you have the time to trawl.

 

[Conachair]

There are data, from independent testing labs, in the other threads linked above. It's there, if you have the time to trawl.

I've seen some proviing the steel was a lower grade to what they said, but nothing comparing shanks from different brands. And nothing reliabale about the number of bent anchors.

Maybe it is a bendy noodle, point is no one is really bothered enough to check, but get carried away in the emotion of ranting instead.

Still, tis even the way on t'net.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Maybe it's just an averagly strong shanked anchor now, instead of a really strong anchor.

There is some test data on the yanky thread which suggests mild steel being used for the shanks on the Rocna as opposed to a higher tensile steel being used on the Manson. How significant this is I do not know.

Certainly I have a CQR with a bent shaft and a pal has a well bent Fortress. All anchors will bend under load - question is how much load before you have to get the hammer out and bash it back straight. And indeed, how sensitive is the design to mis-alignment.

I am slightly re-assured that Rocna continue to sell the anchor with the softer shank and as a high holding power item. They would have to be complete idiots to do this knowing that the anchor was sub standard and I dont believe they are idiots.

There are enough Rocna owners on here - has anyone bent one yet?

 

[misterg]

The shank on mine isn't thin and light.

Your Rocna? It is, that's the design, but all things are relative.

...there isn't any data available to know what difference the change in steel has had.

This isn't meant to let rocna off , but a slight rant against coming to conclusions with no data to back it up.

As it's my post you're quoting, I'd just point out that there *is* data, from independent testing, and also information relating to the original design - have a look through some of the threads - a good place to start is the one on "Anything sailing", but that is nearly 1000 posts in itself:

http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna

As to interpreting the data, I'm satisifed that I'm equipped to do that.

Physician heal thyself

Andy

 

[maxi77]

I am slightly re-assured that Rocna continue to sell the anchor with the softer shank and as a high holding power item. They would have to be complete idiots to do this knowing that the anchor was sub standard and I dont believe they are idiots.

Well I am not they advertise one standard and use another reportedly poorer on. They publish no data to prove the new one is as good as the original, just say trust me I make anchors.

As for knowingly selling substandard products, cross border litigation is notoriously difficult and judgements made elsewhere I suspect are not worth the paper they are written on in NZ.

I am afraid I would not place any trust in a company that secretly changes the specs on their product, has the spec today changed again to an even lower quality material?

 

[Twister_Ken]

I am slightly re-assured that Rocna continue to sell the anchor with the softer shank and as a high holding power item.

Read the threads. Whilst Rocna claims it is a high holding power anchor, it has never been able to produce certification society tests that verify that. But that hasn't stopped Rocna implying that the anchor has been tested and passed with flying colours.