# Congrats West Marine on Rocna recall!



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

We must all congratulate West Marine for their responsible recall notice on Rocna anchors due to Rocna using sub-standard steel.

Here is a link to West Marine's recall site.

WM refers a reader to the Rocna site for their explanation.

Suffice it to say that Rocna does not come across as credible.

West Marine does, which I have said before.

Keep this in mind when making purchasing decisions.


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

I wonder why WM says it will refund and Rocna says everything is over-built and plenty strong.

Do they have serial numbers??


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

This is a very interesting post. We sailboaters pay extremely high prices for the equipment we use ostensibly because marine applications require special materials and manufacturing processes. We suffer these high prices because we understand the high cost of equipment failure, especially critical components essential to vessel integrity and physical safety. Take a look at the list of recalls from West Marine. Bosun chairs that fail, anchors that don't meet load specifications, defective solenoids on LP gas systems, gas cans that are fire hazards, etc. etc. 

Over the past several years most manufacturers have closed their US plants and outsourced their products to Chinese manufacturers there-by enjoying cost reductions that have not been reflected in the prices we pay. I really became aware of the problem when I replaced clevis pins and cotter pins two years ago only to see Chinese made cotter pins rust and corrode to nothing while US made cotter pins only inches away remained in perfect condition. 

Now Rocna has fallen victim to substandard Chinese metalurgy, yet in their combative PR tradition maintain that everything is just fine, no problem. Yes kudos to West Marine for announcing this product deficiency, but then all retailers do the same as it is the manufacturers that bear the onus to recall and repair, replace or refund for deficient products. 

As the old addage goes, "you get what you pay for". Unfortunately, when it comes to Chinese products you also pay for what you don't get. I have reached the position that if it is made in China I will do with out before I give them any business.

Join me in a boycott of Chinese manufactured goods?
John


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

Thanks for the heads up, I will have to check my serial number.


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

ccriders said:


> Join me in a boycott of Chinese manufactured goods?
> John


That will preclude most of your electronics then.

China CAN produce good products, but it appears only if under strict supervision from global companies such as Apple, Nike etc.

A friend of mine gave up importing mobility scooters from China because of inconsistent quality, even though margins were good. The problem was the sub-contractors his factory was using.


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

> Join me in a boycott of Chinese manufactured goods?


I would, but I don't know if that's even possible anymore. I *will* try and make an extra effort to buy U.S. products as is reasonably practicable.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Well, it looks like it finally hit the fan. Good for WM.

I love this sentence from their notice:



> In West Marine's view, it is certainly a "bummer" that Rocna produced anchors with steel of a lesser grade than that
> called for on their website and that had been previously published


You gotta love casual language finally overtaking legalese. Bummer for Rocna.


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

cupper3 said:


> China CAN produce good products, but it appears only if under strict supervision from global companies such as Apple, Nike etc.


China can make good quality products if American businessmen insist them. If American businesses go to China insist on buying the cheapest product, that is what they get.

It will be nice if we should ban any imports for China. The trade between China and U.S. must be balanced. But the end result is fatal for us too. We can't produce anything any more. We have no manufactures. Without China's cheap products, our economy will collapse.

But don't blame China for our problems, blame the parents in this country for not raise their kids properly. They invent so many excuses for their kid being lazy and dumb, like:

1. Oh yeah, Tommy just doesn't apply himself.
2. Oh yeah.... High School is not for everyone. Tommy is just like that.

These people should not have kids. Dumb citizens hurt the country.


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

T37Chef said:


> Thanks for the heads up, I will have to check my serial number.


Where is it?

I guess it could not be too hard to find - not that much real estate to look at......

West doesn't specify any in particular - maybe all of the ones they got in thier pipeline??


----------



## HDChopper (Oct 17, 2010)

Ya gotta love a company that STILL has integrity ... WTG West Marine!


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

Lol, I'm more glad than ever I decided to go with a real (Belgium) Bruce, way oversized for my boat (44# for an Alberg 30).

Rocna's are the ultimate placebo anchor. It really does make you believe you're getting something special, when in reality your just over paying for a pointy plow with a roll bar.. _welded_, and made with crappy steel no less..

Haw haw haw..


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Guess it really depends; my 44# Rocna was made in 2009, in New Zealand, and has held our 33-foot boat, PLUS another unattended 38-foot boat that dragged down into us; for several hours in 30+ knots of wind. I'd heard about the switch to crappier steel from China, but based on my experiences the design of the anchor was fine; it was the materials that were the problem.


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

wingNwing said:


> Guess it really depends; my 44# Rocna was made in 2009, in New Zealand, and has held our 33-foot boat, PLUS another unattended 38-foot boat that dragged down into us; for several hours in 30+ knots of wind. I'd heard about the switch to crappier steel from China, but based on my experiences the design of the anchor was fine; it was the materials that were the problem.


Agreed, great design, but when the conscious decision was made to go to lower quality steel, the anchor became average at best.

Rocna's built in NZ or Canada do not have the quality problem.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chrisncate said:


> Lol, I'm more glad than ever I decided to go with a real (Belgium) Bruce, way oversized for my boat (44# for an Alberg 30).
> 
> Rocna's are the ultimate placebo anchor. It really does make you believe you're getting something special, when in reality your just over paying for a pointy plow with a roll bar.. _welded_, and made with crappy steel no less..
> 
> Haw haw haw..


So, I'm presuming you've never actually _used_ a Rocna, correct? I doubt you'd be referring to it as a "plow", if you've ever retrieved one from the bottom&#8230;

No question, your Bruce is a very good choice, and you're wise to go oversized with it&#8230; But an original Rocna, or a Manson Supreme, would have been even better, in my opinion&#8230;

The original Belgian Bruce was my choice for many years, and still remains on my bow as my secondary, and another sits on my stern, as well&#8230; But in my experience, these new generation of anchors really do represent a significant step forward in anchor design, and are noticeably superior as an all-around single anchor choice than anything else I've ever used&#8230;

Again, that's just based on my own experience, but it's an opinion shared by others with considerable experience&#8230; I believe our own resident expert Maine Sail would approximately agree&#8230; And, for a couple of decades and through a few circumnavigations, one of the most outspoken devotees of the Bruce was Steve Dashew&#8230;

Until he tried a NZ-made Rocna, that is&#8230; they made the switch, and have never looked back&#8230;


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Yeah,yeah, Steve is a FPBer - what would he know;-)

The Rocna is a superb anchor DESIGN, it's a "bummer" that their business practices are not on the same level as the design.

Thankfully mine is an NZ built one...


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

T37Chef said:


> Thanks for the heads up, I will have to check my serial number.


I did not see any serial numbers mentioned or listed in the West Marine announcement. They only list model numbers. I'm not even sure that the anchor has a serial number on it. The announcement on West Marine's site does mention that the use of a "different, weaker grade of steel" began in 2010.

I purchased my Rocna in early December 2009 so I'm not sure where that leaves me. It did have a "made in China" tag on it and I started a thread here regarding that fact.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/65720-rocna-anchor-m-made-china.html

Just emailed WM for clarification.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

This is a bad lesson for me. I was considering a change from our 75lb CQR this past winter and got all caught up in the Rocna v. Manson Supreme discussions. Even started a thread on the topic to try to better understand it Several times, I was about to buy the Rocna and the confusion kept me from pulling the trigger. Ultimately, I did nothing and have now learned that ignoring things on my to do list pays off!


----------



## klem (Oct 16, 2009)

LinekinBayCD said:


> I did not see any serial numbers mentioned or listed in the West Marine announcement. They only list model numbers. I'm not even sure that the anchor has a serial number on it. The announcement on West Marine's site does mention that the use of a "different, weaker grade of steel" began in 2010.
> 
> I purchased my Rocna in early December 2009 so I'm not sure where that leaves me. It did have a "made in China" tag on it and I started a thread here regarding that fact.
> 
> ...


I bought my anchor at the exact same time. The response that Grant King provided on a Cruiser's Forum when I asked him was that the problem applies to all of the Chinese built anchors which would include our anchors. I would be interested to hear WM's take on it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

WM is only going to repeat what Rocna says and offer their return guarantee, if you're not satisfied. They aren't going to offer advice and get in the liability chain. Unless, you consider "bummer" to be advice. . That was surprisingly unprofessional.

With complete lack of authority, I highly doubt a Chinese Rocna is ever going to fail as a lunch hook or in reasonable winds. I understood they don't meet published specs and, therefore, might be inferior to the competition, not that they are inherently dangerous. However, an anchor is a safety device and you may not know what winds you will be anchored in.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

jorgenl said:


> Yeah,yeah, Steve is a FPBer - what would he know;-)
> 
> The Rocna is a superb anchor DESIGN, it's a "bummer" that their business practices are not on the same level as the design.
> 
> Thankfully mine is an NZ built one...


Did they intentionally decide to lower the grade of steel, or was this another case of the Chinese manufacturer supplying something different than was in the specs? (melamine in your baby formula, anyone?)

Where are Rocna's being made now?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I know a guy whose company has scissors made in China. He says you have to watch everything, as they will try to rip you off at every turn. Someone senior at your plant will also quit and open a factory right across e street and start making your product in your package. There is little you can do.

Even after all of that, he says it still makes economic sense. A pair of scissors he says cost over a dollar to produce in the US, cost less than 10 cents to produce there. He can afford a lot of waste and fraud before he loses.

Sad state of affairs.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I know a guy whose company has scissors made in China. He says you have to watch everything, as they will try to rip you off at every turn. Someone senior at your plant will also quit and open a factory right across e street and start making your product in your package. There is little you can do.


I have one suggestion... avoid retailers that push their suppliers for ever-reduced costs. The biggest offender (both in size and severity) is Walmart. If you really want to see jobs stay in the US, if you want to see your neighborhood stores stay in business, if you would like to see an economic recovery, just don't shop at Walmart... ever... for any reason...

Unfortunately, those whose jobs are the most vulnerable are the same demographic that shops the most at Walmart.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

dhays said:


> I have one suggestion... avoid retailers that push their suppliers for ever-reduced costs. The biggest offender (both in size and severity) is Walmart. If you really want to see jobs stay in the US, if you want to see your neighborhood stores stay in business, if you would like to see an economic recovery, just don't shop at Walmart... ever... for any reason...
> 
> Unfortunately, those whose jobs are the most vulnerable are the same demographic that shops the most at Walmart.


That's only an option for the middle and upper classes. Further, if you pay more, but buy fewer products, that won't necessarily work either.

For example, today you buy a pair of shoes made in china and a hot dog from my stand on your way home. Tomorrow, you get patriotic and buy a more expensive pair of shoes made in the USA, but have to skip my hot dog stand because you're out of money. I like the patriotism, but it isn't necessarily doing more than trading a shoe maker job for a hot dog stand job.


----------



## theoceanaire (Sep 20, 2010)

From the website of ROCNA:
The exact materials used are part of the proprietary intellectual property involved in our production specifications. Rest assured, however, that the grades of steel are carefully chosen to ensure all Rocna anchors exceed the RINA Super High Holding Power (SHHP) requirements by a considerable margin.

Now, if you cut through the crap, what they are saying is that there is something other than steel being used, you can't find out what that is because it is "intellectual property", a not so clever dodge. It does say that the steel choosen is of a good grade, but it doesn't clear up what it is that they add to in their "intellectual property" recipe.
Great double speak. They should go after military contracts.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> So, I'm presuming you've never actually _used_ a Rocna, correct? I doubt you'd be referring to it as a "plow", if you've ever retrieved one from the bottom&#8230;
> 
> No question, your Bruce is a very good choice, and you're wise to go oversized with it&#8230; But an original Rocna, or a Manson Supreme, would have been even better, in my opinion&#8230;
> 
> ...


Why would you presume I have never set a Rocna? Because it's so good and had I ever set one, I'd never say what I said in my prior post?

Regarding the Rocna, in my opinion it's overrated in most categories (price, design, and materials used...). I stand by my opinion that the new generation of anchors, while great anchors to be sure, aren't that much better (if at all) than the older not so popular anchors (like the Bruce for example), and that they do generate a placebo effect among some of you out there.

Here is what I don't like about the Rocna specifically:

1- The weld. I don't trust welded anchors. Sue me.
2- The quality. I have seen so many variations in the welds on them (some much thicker and blobier than others), and I have also noted many slightly crooked shanks from bad quality control during production. Go in Bacons right now, and look at the store stock of Rocnas. One has _such_ a crooked shank it's unreal.
3- The hype. Yes, the Rocna sets good. But so does my Bruce, my Fortress, my cqr, and my fisherman when used where the bottom calls for them. What else are all the folks who ponied up for a Rocna gonna say? Of course _you_ think it's wonderful, you spent an arm and a leg on one (those who bought one I mean). 
4- The company. Specifically the guy who always pops up in anchor threads bs ing everyone about his product.
5- The price.

And lastly, the recall of course. It just reinforces what I already thought about Rocna, that being that they are over hyped and not built that well. Quality products don't get recalled, nor does a quality product require the manufacturer to argue how great the product is on internet forums.

Why I like the Bruce as my primary:

1- No weld, it's a solid hunk of high quality steel. I have never seen one fail, though I'm sure someone can post an example of one failing.
2- Re sets quickly if it pops out (I'm told, never had it happen yet to test the theory).
3- It likes short scope.
4- No hype, and a real one oversized can be had for a cup-o-la hundred bucks or less.
5- It's looks good. This doesn't matter to anyone but me, but it matters to me.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

theoceanaire said:


> From the website of ROCNA:
> The exact materials used are part of the proprietary intellectual property involved in our production specifications. Rest assured, however, that the grades of steel are carefully chosen to ensure all Rocna anchors exceed the RINA Super High Holding Power (SHHP) requirements by a considerable margin.
> 
> Now, if you cut through the crap, what they are saying is that there is something other than steel being used, you can't find out what that is because it is "intellectual property", a not so clever dodge. It does say that the steel choosen is of a good grade, but it doesn't clear up what it is that they add to in their "intellectual property" recipe.
> Great double speak. They should go after military contracts.


Steel, by definition, is iron alloy. There is no such thing as pure steel, it all has something added to the iron. Carbon is most common, then just about anything is possible with any steel.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

chrisncate said:


> I stand by my opinion that the new generation of anchors, while great anchors to be sure, aren't that much better (if at all) than the older not so popular anchors (like the Bruce for example), and that they do generate a placebo effect among some of you out there.


I don't understand how anyone who has actually used properly sized anchors of various pedigrees could come to that conclusion. I accept it is your opinion but I just don't get it.

Can you get a good set with a CQR? Of course. Can you get a better one with a Bruce or a Delta? Definitely. Are the new generation anchors (Spade, Rocna, Raya, et al) substantially better yet? Darn tooting.

So if your opinion is based on real experience allowing apples-to-apples comparison I don't understand at all how it can be so very different from mine.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

dhays said:


> just don't shop at Walmart... ever... for any reason...


Absolutely, this is gospel. We cannot afford this kind of retailing. It is destroying our manufacturing base and our economy.

Add to that: "Do without before buying Chinese". I mean Magellan didn't have any electronic gadgets. Heck he hardly had any charts. So how much junk do really need?
John


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

ccriders said:


> Absolutely, this is gospel. We cannot afford this kind of retailing. It is destroying our manufacturing base and our economy.
> 
> Add to that: "Do without before buying Chinese". I mean Magellan didn't have any electronic gadgets. Heck he hardly had any charts. So how much junk do really need?
> John


My wife and I are real bargain hunters - it is a very satisfying game - and we virtually never go in a Wal-Mart. When they came to town we checked them out carefully because of all the hoopla about them. We found that we can get the same or better prices on everything elsewhere.

A lot of their stuff is REAL crap - shoes especially. The one spot you can get a real bargain there is the end of the aisle racks - that's where they put their loss leaders. I saw an interview with an ex-Wal-Mart executive who let this slip. We checked it out numerous times and it seems to be true but elsewhere in the store the prices are nothing special. I guess in smaller towns they can be the only game in town but if you have a choice, you can do better.


----------



## LarryandSusanMacDonald (Apr 3, 2005)

Just learned about "Chinese Drywall" - google it. During the housing boom in Florida 6 or 8 years ago they couldn't get drywall fast enough. Lots of it was imported from China - it puts out fumes which are not only unhealthy, it eats copper - so these multi-hundred thousand dollar homes are on the market for 50 or 60 thousand because no one wants to tear out all of the drywall, all of the wiring, and any copper plumbing. The lawsuits are going after the importer! And I'm sure the Chinese manufacturer is laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> I don't understand how anyone who has actually used properly sized anchors of various pedigrees could come to that conclusion. I accept it is your opinion but I just don't get it.
> 
> Can you get a good set with a CQR? Of course. Can you get a better one with a Bruce or a Delta? Definitely. Are the new generation anchors (Spade, Rocna, Raya, et al) substantially better yet? Darn tooting.
> 
> So if your opinion is based on real experience allowing apples-to-apples comparison I don't understand at all how it can be so very different from mine.


I don't typically agree with official anchor sizing recommendations by manufacturers, they seem to skew to too small a hook imo (fwiw).

Also, I acknowledged that Rocnas do set well. Like I said though, my problem with them stems from inconsistent welds, bad quality control, poor materials (they _were_ recalled let's not forget), and the hype of how great they are overall. Imo _and_ experience so far, they don't live up to the hype when viewed objectively.

Again, imo.

To make it fair, I'd be happy to participate in a blind anchoring test here on the Chesapeake bay, video it and post it here on Sailnet - We could go out with a Rocna, a CQR, a Bruce, a Fortress and a spade, and the pro Rocna folks could see how many times they can accurately tell which hook they set after anchoring and pulling the hook 15 times in various locations, without knowing which hook they dropped beforhand.

I'd bet an amount of money that no one could tell which anchor they set or which one they are pulling out/off of the bottom on any given run. I'd even bet that the statistics would be about the same as simply guessing.

I could be wrong though... I certainly don't have the experience that many here have regarding sailboats and cruising.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

chrisncate;759341
To make it fair said:


> What a great idea. How exactly would you make it blind.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chrisncate said:


> Why would you presume I have never set a Rocna? Because it's so good and had I ever set one, I'd never say what I said in my prior post?


No, because as I've already stated, if you consider the new generation of anchors to classified as "plows", it does make one wonder how familiar you might be with them in practice&#8230;



chrisncate said:


> Regarding the Rocna, in my opinion it's overrated in most categories (price, design, and materials used...). I stand by my opinion that the new generation of anchors, while great anchors to be sure, aren't that much better (if at all) than the older not so popular anchors (like the Bruce for example), and that they do generate a placebo effect among some of you out there.


I'm still curious, on what sort of experience with these anchors do you base that opinion? Have you used them in a wide variety of situations beyond the Chesapeake? You do realize that in general, the Chesapeake probably offers some of the most benign anchoring conditions to be found anywhere, and by itself hardly affords much in the way of a definitive all-around test of any particular anchor, right?

You're right to be happy that you didn't spend your money on a Chinese-made Rocna, no doubt about that&#8230; But I'm still mystified how you can claim that those of us who have used these New Generation anchors - such as the Rocna, Manson Supreme, and perhaps the Spade and Bugel - over time, and in a wide variety of scenarios beyond the Chesapeake, have simply fallen victim to marketing hype, or whatever, in our belief that these anchors do represent a noticeable improvement over previously existing designs&#8230;


----------



## GaryHLucas (Mar 24, 2008)

I have to say that welding on anchors is an area of BIG concern, and tough for a company to control too. I used to build a product that used a hanger that we fabricated from hot rolled steel and welded. A customer notified me that some welds had broken. I pulled some parts from a bin of about 1000 pieces and tested them. The welds were really beautiful, and every one broke easily! I bought the over the guy who welded them to see. He said "It can't be my welds, I do excellent welding!" I then had him pick examples of that excellent welding, and we broke every one! Oh crap, we need to do a recall right away, and it is thousands and thousands of pieces. It cost us a bundle, and we figured out where the problem was.

We were welding 1/8" thick steel using 0.035" Mig welding wire. This is the most common wire size used by virtually everyone for general welding. What we saw was poor penetration of the base metal, and hot dip galvanizing in 800 degree zinc made the problem much worse. We switched to 0.045" welding wire with a much higher current setting. This made the welding more difficult, because you had to be careful or you'd burn right through. The welds didn't look as nice either. However, after the switch we were unable to break any welds. Another plus was that you were forced to weld faster, and our welding times went way down, saving a lot of money.

Now here is the kicker. When I tell this story welders always pop up and tell me I'm full of crap, THEIR welds never break! We sent some batches of parts out to welding shops when we were busy. Our drawings and our PO clearly stated that we would not accept any parts welded with 0.035" wire. They did it anyway! We then tested them and broke some easily, so we didn't pay for the parts, and back charged them for all of our parts that we had to scrap.

So weld quality really is a big concern that you shouldn't take lightly. The only way I've seen that it can be relied on is careful management of the welding process, and testing of parts to destruction on a regular basis. I'll be they get that in China!

Gary H. Lucas


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

A proper weld is as strong, if not stronger, then the original casted parts themselves. You are essentially recasting them together. An improper weld is just melting material onto the two parts. They are not visually discernible. That's a problem, if a company is suspected of having poor quality control in the first place.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

GaryHLucas said:


> and testing of parts to destruction on a regular basis.
> Gary H. Lucas


And more Gospel! 
This is absolutely the missing ingredient in most manufactured goods today. Once products go into production, you the unwary buyer become the "Quality Control Inspector". Yet we pay for quality materials, quality production, and quality assurance by buying "marine" specific products and don't get what we pay for.
John


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Not taking sides here one way or the other but have not seen any posts about Rocna anchors made in China failing or about poor customer service? After reading the West Marine "Recall" notice I don't think they said the anchors are defective but that they were made of a different grade of steel than originally described. They also did not urge anyone to return the anchor but stated that if you were not satisfied they would give you a refund. Maybe not quite a true "Recall" but more of an advisory notice? Just curious
about any actual failures.

Dabnis


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Back to what the issues with the Chinese made Rocna are;

Cast vs Forged anchor fluke (cheaper to manufacture)
Lower quality steel used in the anchor shank (cheaper to manufacture) There are several pictures elsewhere of Rocna anchors that have had the shank bent when subject to side loading. There is a post in another thread where Craig (sarcastically) pokes fun at at another manufacture's shank specifications HERE.
Perception of Rocna's value - Rocna was a highly regarded company, with a great design and a great product, until this issue arose (despite what many think of Craig Smith personally). (IIRC, When the public first learned that Rocna manufacturing moved to China, Craig posted that he PREFERRED the Rocnas made in China!) Prior to March, 2011, Rocna published details and specs for the metallurgy, and performance of their anchors on their website. After this issue was raised, the company seemed to discredit the critics rather than acknowledge, or address the criticism (look to other forums for that discussion). Rocna and Craig Smith have both clammed up since the issues were raised, and their website has been revised to remove the specifics.

Personally, I appreciated Craig's participation of the various forums, and while I took his claims with a grain of salt, I did not think that he, or Rocna, were being hypocritical. (Note that I believe that Craig still visits the forums - 10 hours ago as I type this - but his last post was 4-16-2010) Rocna's reaction to the controversy has made me reconsider this. I own a Chinese made Rocna 15. I plan to contact Rocna about the change in the performance specifications, and value of the anchor overall. If they don't make me happy with their answer, I plan to return it to WM.

KUDOS to WM for backing their "No Hassle Guarantee," and for being proactive about the concerns raised about the Rocna Anchors. Rocna could learn a valuable lesson from WM.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

> No, because as I've already stated, if you consider the new generation of anchors to classified as "plows", it does make one wonder how familiar you might be with them in practice&#8230;


Plow, spade... maybe you're right and I wasn't very precise in choice of words, so I will clarify what I meant by saying anchors that "plow" down and bury themselves like the Rocnas do. Is spade a better describer?



> I'm still curious, on what sort of experience with these anchors do you base that opinion? Have you used them in a wide variety of situations beyond the Chesapeake? You do realize that in general, the Chesapeake probably offers some of the most benign anchoring conditions to be found anywhere, and by itself hardly affords much in the way of a definitive all-around test of any particular anchor, right?


I have set a Rocna a couple of times in the Bay, in typical conditions (or put another way, with little variation in conditions). Not on my boat fwiw.



> You're right to be happy that you didn't spend your money on a Chinese-made Rocna, no doubt about that&#8230; But I'm still mystified how you can claim that those of us who have used these New Generation anchors - such as the Rocna, Manson Supreme, and perhaps the Spade and Bugel - over time, and in a wide variety of scenarios beyond the Chesapeake, have simply fallen victim to marketing hype, or whatever, in our belief that these anchors do represent a noticeable improvement over previously existing designs&#8230;


Honestly I was really only talking about the Rocna, as that was the op topic of this thread, and the only new gen anchor I know of with a history of issues (again, the manufacturer arguing with people on forums, the recall, etc). Also, as far as I have typically observed, the Rocna is (was?) the top of the new gen pack. Maybe the "lesser" new gen anchors are better, I really don't know about those so much. I will say I was considering a Manson at one point due to the lower price, but decided against in in favor of my Bruce.

Let me ask you: Are you saying in a blind test you could tell the difference in hooks you set/retrieved?

(a blind test being you can't see which hook someone dropped, you can only set it and retrieve it)


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

This is going to be another long one.

Thanks for all the parties on this thread for continuing to be civil to one another in the face of disagreement.



chrisncate said:


> I don't typically agree with official anchor sizing recommendations by manufacturers, they seem to skew to too small a hook imo (fwiw).


I grew up going two sizes up on CQR and Bruce anchors. Delta anchors I went up one size. Rocna I bought right off the factory sizing table. Somewhere buried--at least at one time--on Rocna's site was a definition of the conditions that drove their sizing table. Spade is one size up. I have no calculations to back these choices up, simply experience and judgment (which may just be another word for opinion *grin*).



chrisncate said:


> ... my problem with them stems from inconsistent welds, bad quality control, poor materials (they _were_ recalled let's not forget), and the hype of how great they are overall.





GaryHLucas said:


> I have to say that welding on anchors is an area of BIG concern, and tough for a company to control too.


I haven't seen any indication in the press of bad welds on Rocna anchors. Citation please? As Gary notes welding is a big concern and a tough practice to fully control. Similarly it isn't something a customer can evaluate with x-ray, magnaflux, or destructive testing. Pretty welds are not always good welds, and some darn good welds are not pretty. I spent a lot of times working on structural crack abatement on the USNS Observation Island and looked at a lot of visual and x-ray imagery of welds side by side.

I think we should differentiate between Rocnas built in NZ and Canada under the Smiths and those built in China under the Bamburys/Holdfast.

My NZ and Canada Rocna 25s may turn out to be a pretty good investment.



chrisncate said:


> To make it fair, I'd be happy to participate in a blind anchoring test here on the Chesapeake bay, video it and post it here on Sailnet - We could go out with a Rocna, a CQR, a Bruce, a Fortress and a spade, and the pro Rocna folks could see how many times they can accurately tell which hook they set after anchoring and pulling the hook 15 times in various locations, without knowing which hook they dropped beforhand.


Interesting. I'll play. I have two Rocna 25 anchors on my 28k# 41' monohull. I'll even agree to be the test boat if we can source appropriately sized anchors of the other types. It would be great to borrow a load cell as well. We could use a biggish dinghy to swap anchors around out of view of the driver -- I have a remote windlass control in the cockpit.



chrisncate said:


> I could be wrong though... I certainly don't have the experience that many here have regarding sailboats and cruising.


There is no substitute for real data to put one's mind at ease. I'm fully prepared to be wrong -- I'd be surprised but prepared. *grin*

I do believe that technique is as important as the hunk of metal at the end of the chain so we'd have to agree on a protocol for apples and apples comparisons.



chrisncate said:


> Plow, spade... maybe you're right and I wasn't very precise in choice of words, so I will clarify what I meant by saying anchors that "plow" down and bury themselves like the Rocnas do. Is spade a better describer?


In the literature "plow" is used to describe anchors like the CQR and Delta. "Scoop" is used to describe anchors like the Bruce. I haven't seen any real consistency in descriptors for Rocna, Manson Supreme, Spade, and Raya beyond "new generation." The literature for recreational anchors is pretty limited to that of Hinz (old), Poiraud, and to some extent Frasse.

Jon Eisberg is correct (again) in calling the Chesapeake Bay benign anchoring grounds but one does have to start somewhere.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

> Thanks for all the parties on this thread for continuing to be civil to one another in the face of disagreement.


Oh, I'll lash out soon enough, no worries. I _do_ have a rep to maintain after all.. 



> I grew up going two sizes up on CQR and Bruce anchors. Delta anchors I went up one size. Rocna I bought right off the factory sizing table. Somewhere buried--at least at one time--on Rocna's site was a definition of the conditions that drove their sizing table. Spade is one size up. I have no calculations to back these choices up, simply experience and judgment (which may just be another word for opinion *grin*).


It has always seemed to me that the manufactures seem to recommend the smallest size you can get away with. I suspect it's for the ease/convenience factor for the end user (you know, like roller furlers and chart plotters), but this is just a guess on my part.



> I haven't seen any indication in the press of bad welds on Rocna anchors. Citation please?


My only citation is simply what I wrote before - personal observation of the welds at various retailers over the last couple of years.

I do not trust welds to begin with in an application like this (my own personal hang up maybe, but I'm just being honest), and after seeing some Rocnas with huge blobs of weld material, and some with what appears to be somewhat carefully applied weld material, I can only draw the conclusion that the weld quality control stinks at Rocna. This doesn't even take into account the off center shanks I mentioned either.



> *As Gary notes welding is a big concern and a tough practice to fully control. Similarly it isn't something a customer can evaluate with x-ray, magnaflux, or destructive testing. Pretty welds are not always good welds, and some darn good welds are not pretty.* I spent a lot of times working on structural crack abatement on the USNS Observation Island and looked at a lot of visual and x-ray imagery of welds side by side.


Exactly why I don't trust my boat on a welded anchor, for better or worse.

Also, I do know that a weld doesn't take shearing stress better than the steel it's welded to does, and the way Rocna welds the shank to the scoop, you _could_ see the anchor getting fouled and breaking at the weld point in a shearing stress situation. It's not a hard visual to bring to mind, no?



> I think we should differentiate between Rocnas built in NZ and Canada under the Smiths and those built in China under the Bamburys/Holdfast.
> 
> My NZ and Canada Rocna 25s may turn out to be a pretty good investment.


Maybe, I dunno. How about posting some pics of your welds compared to the Chinese made Rocnas? Let's see a pic "dead on" on the shank as well, to verify it's straight as an arrow..



> Interesting. I'll play. I have two Rocna 25 anchors on my 28k# 41' monohull. I'll even agree to be the test boat if we can source appropriately sized anchors of the other types. It would be great to borrow a load cell as well. We could use a biggish dinghy to swap anchors around out of view of the driver -- I have a remote windlass control in the cockpit.


I don't like the caveat about going with manufacturer rated sizes (if that's what you're saying). My boat (30') calls for something ridiculous like a 22# Bruce (I think it was 22#, I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment but I remember laughing out loud when I read the manufacturers recommended size for my boat.

That aside though, if you're willing to make the claim that you can blindly tell which hook you have set and retrieved out of a selection of danforths/fortresses, cqr's, bruce's, spades and rocnas, I'd be willing to participate for sure. I honestly don't believe anyone could tell, but you may prove me wrong.

OR ...I might prove that my contention that rocnas are the over prescribed sugar pills of the anchoring world true... it'd be fun either way honestly, and I'm sure we could find a way to involve beer and food in the experiment as well..



> I do believe that technique is as important as the hunk of metal at the end of the chain so we'd have to agree on a protocol for apples and apples comparisons.


Agreed. I'd say each run ought to be done in this way:

1- Drop mystery hook with at least 60' of chain on the rode (if not all chain rode), pay out about 10 to 1, kill motor
2- Drop aft hook (same one on each run here, a danforth prolly), and lightly set it using a sheet winch, then crank in manually the front rode till at about 5 to 1
3- Crank aft rode on a sheet winch till the front hook is set and the aft hook rode is bar taut. Doing it this way might insure you "feel" what's going on when you set the hook. Wait 15 minutes watching the aft rode to make sure your set and not dragging (if the taut rode aft goes slack, you know you're not set)
4- Make your guess which hook you just set.
5- Drop back to 10 to 1, retrieve aft hook
6- Motor (or preferably, sail) off the hook, reaffirm OR change guess at this point.

Rinse, repeat.



> In the literature "plow" is used to describe anchors like the CQR and Delta. "Scoop" is used to describe anchors like the Bruce. I haven't seen any real consistency in descriptors for Rocna, Manson Supreme, Spade, and Raya beyond "new generation." The literature for recreational anchors is pretty limited to that of Hinz (old), Poiraud, and to some extent Frasse.


Well, whichever keeps the proper word usage harpies of my back, that's the one I meant to use.. 



> Jon Eisberg is correct (again) in calling the Chesapeake Bay benign anchoring grounds but one does have to start somewhere.


I never contended otherwise. Maybe Jon could chime in with where the Rocna shines best in his opinion..

?


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Mine seem to stay toghter 










gotta stop riding my bikes i guess its to risky


----------



## marinextreme (Jan 15, 2009)

therapy23 said:


> Where is it?
> 
> I guess it could not be too hard to find - not that much real estate to look at......
> 
> West doesn't specify any in particular - maybe all of the ones they got in thier pipeline??


There is no serial number on the Chinese Rocna


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

chrisncate said:


> I don't like the caveat about going with manufacturer rated sizes (if that's what you're saying). My boat (30') calls for something ridiculous like a 22# Bruce (I think it was 22#, I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment but I remember laughing out loud when I read the manufacturers recommended size for my boat.


What I intended was to provide suggested sizing (two up for CQR and Bruce, one up for Delta and Spade, factory reco for Rocna; open to suggestions for Fortress). Based on my perception of common cruising usage that seems most likely to be apples to apples. Fair?



chrisncate said:


> That aside though, if you're willing to make the claim that you can blindly tell which hook you have set and retrieved out of a selection of danforths/fortresses, cqr's, bruce's, spades and rocnas, I'd be willing to participate for sure. I honestly don't believe anyone could tell, but you may prove me wrong.


I don't think I could identify that clearly. I believe I could identify in groups: CQR/Bruce, Bruce/Delta, Spade/Rocna/Fortress. Yes I know I put Bruce in two categories. *grin*



chrisncate said:


> Agreed. I'd say each run ought to be done in this way: *snip*


Give me a few days to give your procedure some thought.


----------



## marinextreme (Jan 15, 2009)

There has also never been any question of the strength of the welding on the Chinese Rocnas, the shank will bend before the weld breaks.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> I don't understand how anyone who has actually used properly sized anchors of various pedigrees could come to that conclusion. I accept it is your opinion but I just don't get it.
> 
> Can you get a good set with a CQR? Of course. Can you get a better one with a Bruce or a Delta? Definitely. Are the new generation anchors (Spade, Rocna, Raya, et al) substantially better yet? Darn tooting.
> 
> So if your opinion is based on real experience allowing apples-to-apples comparison I don't understand at all how it can be so very different from mine. - SV Auspicious


I totally agree with this

While I am dismayed by the recall due to the steel quality of the Rocna, I am thankfull that m ine was a NZ made one.

Chrisncate...you have an obvious bias against the anchor..period. Your comments are no better than the one sided comments of the company owner.Not all of us are gulliable to the Rocna manufacturing Madison hype. Most of us do not like owner of the company who appears in the anchor threads from time to time....give us credit...we are not alll boating morons here. I didnt buy the company...or the owner...just the anchor

Here are my facts....and only mine. I have a 33lb ( 15 kg) Rocna and it is the best holding anchor I have ever had. It is also the quickest resetting anchor I have ever had. Consider this:
I have used and have Deltas, Bruces, Danforths, and a CQR. Not one of them was a "bad" anchor. Bottom conditions made anchor types better than another sometimes, but the Rocna has proved to me to more versitile. No need in discussing setting techniques....I use and have used the same technique on all I have owned. I prefer this anchor..did not mind paying what I did for it. I use it frequently, on the Chesapeake, Long Island Sound, New England in a variety of conditions. It is not a panacea and cure all anchor, just the best one I have ever used.

Funny that most people who own Rocnas..or their knockoff buddy Manson Supreme ( both "New Generation " anchors as you have refered to them) prefer them to all others they have previously used. Thats enough of a test for me. Use your Bruce...I will continue to use my Rocna.


----------



## CapnRon47 (Jul 29, 2007)

*Rocna Anchor notice*

I contacted the local WM as soon as I read this thread. They had not heard about the anchors being on their recall list, but soon found out about it. Their statement was that regardless of where the anchor is made the design (and its current materials) still have to pass a destructive test. And that the Rocna anchors (as their web site says) pass these tests with large margins.

I purchased my Rocna 15 last year, just before hurricane Earl, and added it to my collection of Bruce and Danforth anchors in case I needed to anchor out the storm up one of our creeks. I was concerned, after reading this tread, and contacted Rocna support. They wrote back;
_"Please note according to our records, no Rocna 15 Kg anchors were shipped into the USA/Canadian market with the reduced specification in the first quarter of 2010, so your anchor should be made from original materials."_

I just checked the anchor for indications of origin and the label clearly states "built in NZ"









Just to be sure I wrote back to Rocna support asking them to confirm the build origin of this anchor and whether the newer (reduced specification) anchors indicated their build location. I have not heard back on this from them.

for what it is worth (not much) here are shots of the shank and welds:


















I have not used the anchor in anything but muddy bottom and does bring up lots of mud. Even it will fail to set in bottoms that have lots of churn (favorite local anchor spots) without a couple of tries.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

marinextreme said:


> There has also never been any question of the strength of the welding on the Chinese Rocnas, the shank will bend before the weld breaks.


Yep and they also seem to fail well before the rode will. It is really a shame what a mockery Hold Fast, with the aid of the designers son, has made of a GREAT anchor design...

I love my BC built Rocna but will never again recommend one to customers or friends when the Manson Supreme is made with better materials and actually has Lloyds SHHP certifications, which they never lied or mislead customers about...


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

WM have done the right thing in offering the opportunity to return any faulty Rocna anchors but I'd hardly call this a product recall as such. Calling it that seems just another dollop of the overblown hype that has typified this whole debate. 

We had a Rocna (yes a Chinese one) on Raven and quite frankly zip complaints. There was one small imperfection in the galvanising but after a year or so and plenty of dunking in salt water it is no worse than it was. I still reckon this whole Rocna scandal business is as overblown as the dill Craig was. Just my opinion of course and I do have to add that I am on friendly terms with the Oz Rocna distributor. 

For what it is worth, the anchors on the new girl are a Bruce and a Spade. I have to plans to change either and I must say I am seriously impressed with the Bruce. Havn't used the Spade as yet. I said once before that if I was replacing an anchor now I'd go Manson rather than Rocna. As time has gone by I'm thinking I'd probably still go Rocna.


----------



## CapnRon47 (Jul 29, 2007)

*Second response from Rocna*

Apparently the 'time zone thingy' is working in my favor as I have heard back almost immediately from Rocna support on my second inquiry. The emphasis below is mine.

_"Rocna anchors have been manufactured in three different countries (New Zealand, Canada, and China). Following extensive evaluations and testing we moved our production to a Chinese manufacturing facility in 2009.We partnered with a well-respected manufacturer in Shanghai, who produce Rocna anchors in their ISO-9001 accredited facility. We also have our own in-country staff who work closely with the factory and provide independent audits as part of our comprehensive quality assurance program. In addition we have formed a long-term relationship with Italian based RINA (Registro Italiano Navale), an internationally recognized leader in certification and assessment of conformity, who have also been actively involved in our quality assurance program.
The exact materials used are part of the proprietary intellectual property involved in *our production specifications, and grades of steel are carefully chosen to ensure they exceed the RINA Super High Holding Power (SHHP) requirements by a considerable margin.* Our manufacturing material specifications have evolved over time, primarily to reflect the material locally available in the different countries where our anchors have been produced. *Rocna anchors are designed to meet or exceed the requirements of SHHP according to RINA and Lloyds rules*, and our relationship with RINA has resulted in Type Approval classification to SHHP . This involved extensive seabed tests, mechanical tests, and drawings approval, and our work with RINA continues.
Current production anchors were recently tested and found to withstand forces significantly in excess of the SHHP proof load requirements, and also exceeded the breaking strength of the recommended G40 chain by a considerable margin."_

At least they seem to be open to communication.

MaineSail, 
Can you remind me how that anchor was bent that way pulling on the rode?


----------



## CapnRon47 (Jul 29, 2007)

Never mind, thought about it and realized the anchor held set in one direction and the boat drifted in a different direction. 

Bummer!

Did they replace it?


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

CapnRon47 said:


> I contacted the local WM as soon as I read this thread. They had not heard about the anchors being on their recall list, but soon found out about it. Their statement was that regardless of where the anchor is made the design (and its current materials) still have to pass a destructive test. And that the Rocna anchors (as their web site says) pass these tests with large margins.


Those tests are frankly meaningless. I suspect any CQR type anchor could pass that mechanical pull test. It has nothing to do with side ward force... another example of Rocna's obfuscation. Arrrrggghhh.... they just don't quit.



> _"Please note according to our records, no Rocna 15 Kg anchors were shipped into the USA/Canadian market with the reduced specification in the first quarter of 2010, so your anchor should be made from original materials."_


Wow... I am amazed that Rocna actually would admit in writing that there is a *reduced* specification.



> Just to be sure I wrote back to Rocna support asking them to confirm the build origin of this anchor and whether the newer (reduced specification) anchors indicated their build location. I have not heard back on this from them.


Contact the North American distributor as shown on the label. He is pretty good at getting back to people.


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

tdw said:


> We had a Rocna (yes a Chinese one) on Raven and quite frankly zip complaints. There was one small imperfection in the galvanising but after a year or so and plenty of dunking in salt water it is no worse than it was. I still reckon this whole Rocna scandal business is as overblown as the dill Craig was.


Rocna is a good design.

The problem is they lied about what they built their anchors from for probably over 1 1/2 years, and when a private individual finally did the metallurgical tests, they had to 'fess up.

Craig probably didn't' help the matter with his demeanor, but he was not the decision maker.

There are many other manufacturers out there that do not misrepresent their product the way Rocna did.

In the end, all they said was,"Whoops, sorry, we should of updated our website. Oh, and BTW, our steel is now secret even though we bragged about it having to be 800 mpa."

That is not overblown, it is the way this company chose to act.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

CapnRon47 said:


> Apparently the 'time zone thingy' is working in my favor as I have heard back almost immediately from Rocna support on my second inquiry. The emphasis below is mine.
> 
> _"Rocna anchors have been manufactured in three different countries (New Zealand, Canada, and China). Following extensive evaluations and testing we moved our production to a Chinese manufacturing facility in 2009.We partnered with a well-respected manufacturer in Shanghai, who produce Rocna anchors in their ISO-9001 accredited facility. We also have our own in-country staff who work closely with the factory and provide independent audits as part of our comprehensive quality assurance program. In addition we have formed a long-term relationship with Italian based RINA (Registro Italiano Navale), an internationally recognized leader in certification and assessment of conformity, who have also been actively involved in our quality assurance program.
> The exact materials used are part of the proprietary intellectual property involved in *our production specifications, and grades of steel are carefully chosen to ensure they exceed the RINA Super High Holding Power (SHHP) requirements by a considerable margin.* Our manufacturing material specifications have evolved over time, primarily to reflect the material locally available in the different countries where our anchors have been produced. *Rocna anchors are designed to meet or exceed the requirements of SHHP according to RINA and Lloyds rules*, and our relationship with RINA has resulted in Type Approval classification to SHHP . This involved extensive seabed tests, mechanical tests, and drawings approval, and our work with RINA continues.
> ...


The AMAZING thing is that they are still misleading customers about their RINA certification. It has been over three years and they don't yet have it, unless things changed in the last few weeks, but they certainly make it sound as if they do. They mislead West Marine and even issued a press release in 2010 claiming RINA "certification".

Then in April of 2011 Steve Bambury Rocna CEO said the following:



Rocna Anchors/Steve Bambury said:


> It's nice to see someone who appreciates the depth of the certification process.
> 
> To date it's cost us over $50,000 to pursue certification, and that's a lot for a relatively small business like us. One of the things that could have sped up the process was if we engaged a company like SGS to take us through the whole process, but that would have added another $200,000 to the price tag (!) As a result, the process has taken a little longer than initially planned.
> 
> *We've now completed all of the seabed testing, proof load testing, welding testing and material testing required to obtain certification of the design of the Rocna itself and the manufacturing facility. It's now a matter of all the reports being processed by RINA for final certification. We will of course be publishing the certificates as soon as they become available.*


Their specifications used to be plastered all over their web site and the web site of Peter Smith. Craig Smith the designers son used this "specification" to bash other competitors ad nausea-um and this is really what seems to have put them in this mess..

Peter Smith, who designed this anchor, was 100% adamant that the shanks needed to be 800 Mpa steel. Hold Fast changed the spec, read weakened it, and now that information is "classified" and top secret... This company has a moral integrity issue not an anchor design problem. They have a great design but a real sleazy way of doing business...

Craig Smith was so viscious and relentless in his attacks on Manson anchors that last winter Manson anchors, who usually remain very, very quiet on web forums, posted this challenge to Craig Smith/Rocna.

*The Manson Challenge To Rocna

"If you would please bring down your anchor, we can test it on our calibrated and certified test jig. We have tested it against ours. We have videoed those tests. However in the interests of posting something that you will not say is made up, I welcome you to come here and we will video your face as we do the tests so the readers can see what eating your words after years of misinformation looks like.

Put up or shut up Craig. Any time you would like to test your anchor we are here. Any time."*

Craig for years had said the Manson Supreme was a cheap knock off and built to lesser standards. Manson, after many years of this BS, finally got sick and tired of the lies and mistruths and posted that challenge to which Rocna chickened out.

This is what kicked off the whole sub par steel issue and it has been all down hill from there.

It was statements like the one below that has lead to the demise..



Craig Smith said:


> The Rocna's shank is G80 high tensile steel and about as strong as it's possible to make it within reason.


Yes the original NZ and BC built anchors were G80 or 800 Mpa but none of the Chinese anchors apparently were. That statement was made in 2011 by Craig and he knew damn well the shanks were NOT G80 or equivalent..

This was posted by the Rocna CEO on 4/11/11 and is a flat out lie. These were Peter Smiths original specs and not what the anchors are being built to currently and multiple independent tests have confirmed this. Now their web sites says this "specification" information is "top secret" at a Tony The Tiger level...



Steve Bambury said:


> Material correctness
> The design and manufacture specification of metals for the Rocna anchor is as follows:
> 
> For the fluke: G400 grade high strength low alloy steel. Rocna Anchors use equivalent grade Q235D.
> ...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> This company has a moral integrity issue not an anchor design problem. They have a great design but a real sleazy way of doing business... Maine Sail


I totally agree with this. If I was to buy another new generation it would be a Manson...but I still like what I have.

Dave


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

How is the design better than a bruce or a delta (or any other like anchor for that matter)?

Also, I liked a lot the post in which I get accused of having an agenda against Rocna, therefore my opinions are pretty much useless. _As if_ I could "just have an opinion"... hmph...

Awesome


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> Give me a few days to give your procedure some thought.


You have 24 hours.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chrisncate said:


> Let me ask you: Are you saying in a blind test you could tell the difference in hooks you set/retrieved?
> 
> (a blind test being you can't see which hook someone dropped, you can only set it and retrieve it)


Nope&#8230;

All I'm saying is, that in my opinion based on my personal experience, the Manson Supreme on my own boat, and the Rocnas I have used on a couple of other boats, are thesingle finest all-purpose anchor design I have ever used&#8230;



chrisncate said:


> Maybe Jon could chime in with where the Rocna shines best in his opinion..


That's a bit hard to say, it's performed superbly pretty much everywhere I've used it so far&#8230; This pic is from the only place I haven't been able to get it to set so far:










Then again, as best I can tell, NO ONE gets their anchor to set reliably at Tobacco Range, Belize - the bottom is just a few inches of coral sand and grass over marl, or something else very, very hard&#8230;

The Bahamas and Western Caribbean can offer some fairly challenging anchoring situations&#8230; Lots of open roadsteads, lots of frontal passages during winter, lots of cuts with powerful reversing currents, hard scoured bottoms, no high ground to hide behind, and so on&#8230; In an open roadstead like Rum Cay, you're often lying to a bridle to keep the boat cocked into the swell, of course that will magnify the loads greatly&#8230; Lots of places I've ridden out fronts in the Bahamas - such as Fresh Creek, Andros, Fernandez Bay on Cat Island, or Alabaster Bay on Eleuthera, are extremely close quarters, with little margin for error after the wind shift&#8230; As best I can tell, my Manson has never budged&#8230;

I've always rated the anchorage well out beyond the mooring field in Nantucket to be a good test of an anchor&#8230; Lots of eel grass around, a strong reversing current, a strong breeze that can come up in the afternoon - there's good reason why most people happily pay the outrageous mooring fees in Nantucket&#8230; But I've always anchored there with confidence, for years with a Spade, and later with the Manson&#8230;

West Bay on Roatan is another tough spot, very grassy with relatively thin sand over coral&#8230; I hung out there for about a week, dove on the anchor every day, it never budged&#8230;

A narrow, deep channel called Mickle's Tickle near Isle aux Morts, Newfoundland, was another tricky spot&#8230; It felt a lot tighter in there than it looks, and it's where I became really convinced the Manson doesn't mind a short scope&#8230; I rode out a night of classic Newfie blow-me-downs whistling through that cut, with a great deal more confidence than I would have had with any other anchor&#8230;










Your blind taste test sounds like fun, but I doubt it would demonstrate anything very conclusive&#8230; IMHO, if anyone really wants to study or educate themselves about anchors and how they behave, head to a place like the Bahamas&#8230; I've always enjoyed snorkeling around an anchorage and observing how different anchors are lying&#8230; A couple of hours touring Elizabeth Harbor in a dinghy with a look bucket the day after a frontal passage, when a few hundred boats have swung on their hooks, it can be a revelation&#8230;. Pretty scary, the percentage of hooks that are still lying on their side, or have dragged considerable distances before starting to re-set&#8230;



chrisncate said:


> Exactly why I don't trust my boat on a welded anchor, for better or worse.
> 
> Also, I do know that a weld doesn't take shearing stress better than the steel it's welded to does, and the way Rocna welds the shank to the scoop, you _could_ see the anchor getting fouled and breaking at the weld point in a shearing stress situation. It's not a hard visual to bring to mind, no?


As others have mentioned, I'm not aware of any modern anchors documented to have failed at a weld&#8230;. Of all the popular anchors out there that might appear to be most susceptible to such a failure, I'd put the Delta at the top of the list&#8230; There have been thousands of them in use for many years now, many on larger powerboats where anchoring techniques can often be suspect, with no use of snubbers, etc&#8230;. And yet, while I've seen photos of mangled Delta shanks, I've never heard of one failing at the weld&#8230;

Finally, if your concern about welds on what you put in the water is that great, you might want to re-evaluate your use of chain, no?

Chain contains plenty of welds, after all - one for every link, or so I'm told&#8230; (grin)


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

chrisncate said:


> You have 24 hours.


-_laugh_- I thought us sailing guys had an expanded view of time, but obviously there are the exceptions that fit "a few days" into 24 hours 

I must say, of the Rocna anchor threads I've read, this one has been the most level-headed whilst still being informative. Appreciating that and (in case it needs to be mentioned) the above comment was said in jest


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

BentSailor said:


> -_laugh_- I thought us sailing guys had an expanded view of time, but obviously there are the exceptions that fit "a few days" into 24 hours
> 
> I must say, of the Rocna anchor threads I've read, this one has been the most level-headed whilst still being informative. Appreciating that and (in case it needs to be mentioned) the above comment was said in jest


I was hoping the deadpan delivery would translate well on screen...


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

> All I'm saying is, that in my opinion based on my personal experience, the Manson Supreme on my own boat, and the Rocnas I have used on a couple of other boats, are thesingle finest all-purpose anchor design I have ever used&#8230;


Do you typically use just the Manson in most places and situations?



> A couple of hours touring Elizabeth Harbor in a dinghy with a look bucket the day after a frontal passage, when a few hundred boats have swung on their hooks, it can be a revelation&#8230;. Pretty scary, the percentage of hooks that are still lying on their side, or have dragged considerable distances before starting to re-set&#8230;


What hooks were you seeing down there? All different ones, or mostly the same stuff?



> As others have mentioned, I'm not aware of any modern anchors documented to have failed at a weld&#8230;. Of all the popular anchors out there that might appear to be most susceptible to such a failure, I'd put the Delta at the top of the list&#8230; There have been thousands of them in use for many years now, many on larger powerboats where anchoring techniques can often be suspect, with no use of snubbers, etc&#8230;. And yet, while I've seen photos of mangled Delta shanks, I've never heard of one failing at the weld&#8230;


Welds can fail, this is just a reality. Anchors are no different than anything else made with welds.



> Finally, if your concern about welds on what you put in the water is that great, you might want to re-evaluate your use of chain, no?
> 
> Chain contains plenty of welds, after all - one for every link, or so I'm told&#8230; (grin)


I do inspect my chain, and the Acco G4 appears to have quality manufacturing. And if I'm not mistaken, the manufacturer tests every link on the G4, is that correct? (I could google it, but again, the laziness...)

It's not just the welds with the Rocnas btw, it's also the bad quality control (crappy inconsistent welds). If you're going to make a high end anchor, the welds need to be professionally scalloped with tight quality control, not blopped on by some nine year old who can't weld his way out of a paper bag over in China.

Just saying..


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chrisncate said:


> Do you typically use just the Manson in most places and situations?


Yes, I very rarely find the need to do anything more&#8230;

I might pull out the big Fortress I have if I'm expecting a blow when in a soft bottom, and not likely to have a big wind shift or current change. I'll also use it on the very rare occasions when I use a Bahamian moor, but I try to avoid doing so, it can be a real PITA&#8230;

Prior to switching to the Spade years ago, a Bruce was my primary anchor&#8230; But I also used a Northill-style quite frequently, and I still consider it to be an awesome anchor in certain situations&#8230; Sort of a "New Generation" fisherman (Donald Street called the Northill "the world's finest anchor", years ago), and for riding out the ultimate blow, or in a bottom that nothing else will penetrate, my Big Bertha would be my choice, I never venture too far from home without it&#8230;

Of course, it contains plenty of welds... But it is a magnificently engineered piece of gear, the closest thing to a work of art you'll ever see in an anchor:












chrisncate said:


> What hooks were you seeing down there? All different ones, or mostly the same stuff?


Usually seems like the typical spread reflected in a survey like the SSCA's equipment survey&#8230; CQRs, Bruces, Deltas, the occasional Danforth style, and the newer generation stuff&#8230;

Seems to me I'm seeing more and more Rocnas and Mansons on boats headed south each year, but that's just the general impression I get. I certainly don't have any numbers to back that up&#8230;



chrisncate said:


> Welds can fail, this is just a reality. Anchors are no different than anything else made with welds.


Sure, anything's possible&#8230; but in the recent months since this whole Manson/Rocna deal erupted, I've spent hours wading through all the threads on ybw and elsewhere, and I've yet to see a single example cited of _any _weld, on _any_ anchor, failing&#8230; If anyone here knows of such an instance, I'd be very interested to hear about it&#8230;

On a well constructed anchor, I would think that a failure of a shackle, or deck gear, or other component of a ground tackle system is far more likely to fail before a material failure of the anchor itself&#8230;. It's pretty amusing, the sort of hysteria this whole Rocna deal has generated, when you start looking around at other components of the typical ground tackle systems you see out there&#8230;. People using grossly undersized anchors to begin with, on boats that have had so much crap piled upon them that the windage has likely been tripled&#8230; Or, using swivels, for example, yet worried their anchor is gonna break in half&#8230; Bow rollers are typically the first point of failure, most of the rollers I see on production boats these days are a joke, far more pathetic and less up to the task than any weld you'll see on a Chinese Rocna&#8230;


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

chrisncate said:


> How is the design better than a bruce or a delta (or any other like anchor for that matter)?


A Delta is shaped like a plow. The Rocna, Spade, Raya, et al are shaped like scoops. On it's face (no pun intended) there is a benefit in holding.



chrisncate said:


> You have 24 hours.


I started working on a SNAME article a couple of years ago that had an anchoring protocol. Been a while since I picked it up but will find it today.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> Yep and they also seem to fail well before the rode will. It is really a shame what a mockery Hold Fast, with the aid of the designers son, has made of a GREAT anchor design...
> 
> I love my BC built Rocna but will never again recommend one to customers or friends when the Manson Supreme is made with better materials and actually has Lloyds SHHP certifications, which they never lied or mislead customers about...


I'm not going to come to the rescue of Rocna, as they have certainly proven to have a problem. However, do we know the story behind this bent anchor? What kind of a blow did it endure? Was it caught between rocks?

If I was inclined to spin this (and I'm not), that looks as much like it could be an anchor that actually held and didn't break off entirely. The desire would have been that it pull free and reset. The alternative would have been to have the shank tear off and the boat float way. I'm a little conflicted on how bad an outcome this was, not knowing the circumstances.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm not going to come to the rescue of Rocna, as they have certainly proven to have a problem. However, do we know the story behind this bent anchor? What kind of a blow did it endure? Was it caught between rocks?
> 
> If I was inclined to spin this (and I'm not), that looks as much like it could be an anchor that actually held and didn't break off entirely. The desire would have been that it pull free and reset. The alternative would have been to have the shank tear off and the boat float way. I'm a little conflicted on how bad an outcome this was, not knowing the circumstances.


Lets not forget that Rocna keeps claiming their anchors are "fit for purpose" and test stronger then the chain. There are also NO examples of the G80/800Mpa made in NZ or BC shanks beeing bent, none. If anyone knows of one please let us know..

Grant King, Rocna's ex factory manager, has quite a few more photos of bent Rocna's from the made in China generation. He has posted some others but is in a legal battle with Rocna and I suppose will post more of them when the case is settled and the images are technically public information.

Seeing as this one was brought back aboard with the chain, one has to wonder what kind of limp spaghetti noodle steel they used back in 2009 when that one bent??? Stronger than the chain?? Any anchor can bend but no pre-China Rocna's have, that I know of, and a bunch of post China Rocna's have. Peter Smith was ADAMANT about the use of G80 steel, Steve Bambury lied to us in April saying they were using G80, and now we know they were not.

This was NOT a case of China supplying sub par metals it was a ROCNA DECISION to use a lesser grade of steel than they had INSISTED the anchor absolutely needed.

Manson finally got so fed up with the lies put forth by Craig Smith that they purchased Rocna anchors at a local retailer and had them independently tested. All one needs to do is look at the UTS numbers on the Rocna shanks compared to the Manson Supreme to understand why that anchor looks like a pool noodle..

*
Manson Destructive Testing and Metallurgy Report*


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

It was comments like the ones below that got Rocna into the heap o crap they are in now. Note how Craig calls the Manson "abysmal". So who's got the "abysmal" steel and quality now..??

I collected these after Steve Bambury, the Rocna/Hold Fast CEO, claimed that a poster had "defamed" Rocna by sending his own anchor off for independent testing. I wanted Steve to see just who had been the "defamer" for the last few years.....



Rocna said:


> What has been up until now a heated discussion *just turned into a defamation case* thanks to whaleboy.
> 
> Steve Bambury
> CEO


Really? Defamation? Your "affilaite" has been the most prolific defamer of them all. Below is just 10 minutes on google searching Craig & Rocna. Craig has 239 postings on Sailnet alone and probably THOUSANDS of post on multiple forums many of which DEFAME your competition without ANY data to back it up.



Craig Smith said:


> Manson have a few other *reviews they like to pimp*, but they all suffer from the usual problems *with rather amateurish magazine testing*, singe unrepeatable trials and inconsistent conditions with inaccurate pulling, *and basically lack all credibility*.
> http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1998.html


So only the tests Rocna likes are not "amateurish"..? Rocna "pimps" never "published" & "extrapolated" data and that's better some how?



Craig Smith said:


> *Neither the Danforth nor CQR are particularly good on their own*. The CQR is the poorest performing of old style anchors, and the Danforth is a good secondary but no general purpose type.
> http://forum.ssca.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6299


And this of two anchors that have been used successfully, one since the 1930's, for millions of combined sea miles and anchorings. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of boaters have successfully anchored millions of combined times on both CQR's and Danforths but now the they are no longer "general purpose anchors"? Funny how that works..



Craig Smith said:


> *This is utter rubbish willy. Whose Kool Aid are you drinking, are you on the feed from Manson or Fortress or is there some vested interest?*
> http://www.trawlerforum.com/index.spark?aBID=115492&p=3&topicID=40747587&page=8&sort=oldestFirst


And this is how he speaks to a potential customer and current user of an anchor other than a Rocna..



Craig Smith said:


> *Small Bruces are pretty useless.* A lot of Bruce "fans" turn out to be on larger/heavier boats, and use very over-sized anchors. Inefficient at best.


Really? And the thousands & thousands of folks who had, and still have, decent performance from these "useless" anchors are all just dreaming this? I happen to own a genuine Bruce in 33 pound and have owned a 44 & 22 as well. They worked but I guess now that the Rocna is here all other anchors have become simply useless? There is a difference between an "improvement in technology" and making all others "useless"... Apparently Craig could not grasp that concept.



Craig Smith said:


> *Certainly nothing from Manson, the quality of their copies is abysmal.* Their "Ray" Bruce copy is not even cast - they form what is supposed to be a fairly sophisticated solid geometry by welding together plate. To form bulk, they edge weld the steel plates together, then grind it all down to look like one piece. *The geometry is never quite right, and it's not solid steel = massively compromised strength.*


The quality of your competitor is "abysmal"? Really? We have seen one bent fluke out of an admitted 20,000 Manson Supreme anchors and this is "abysmal"? Even Manson admits to just three bent noses. Craig's inflammatory rhetoric is purely offensive. I guess we can not forget the photo of the bent Rocna in this thread.. I guess that would be considered "abysmal" too?



Craig Smith said:


> They do the same with their Rocna copy, *the fluke is two thin plates edge welded together.* See the link above. *Totally unconscionable. Avoid copies folk.*


This "edge weld theory" has been shown to be a flat out lie by Manson on the YBW thread. You might want to read it as Craig has been claiming this made up construction technique for a while now..

Here's Manson Response to Craig:
_*"LIES

Craig, why do you continue to misinform about our product instead of selling your product on it's merits?

Firstly our fully laminated (not edge welded) nose is welded in form from two dissimilar radiused nose plates. The strength is in the form of the product. We didn't copy the Rocna's nose, the Plough has had a reinforced nose in this form for 40 years.

In over 20,000 Supremes sold, we have had three noses bend, (you have photos of one, how curious) and NONE delaminate, so why is that an issue for you?

In over 20,000 Supremes sold, we have had three noses bend, (you have photos of one, how curious) and NONE delaminate, so why is that an issue for you?"*_



Craig Smith said:


> *Danforths and Fortresses don't set particularly reliably*, one of the issues that make their tendency not to handle veers well so serious. It's easy to get them to skip along a hard bottom.


Try telling that to the thousands of boaters who love Danforth's and Fortresses in the Chessey mud.. More defamatory rhetoric that is unsupported by any credible data.



Craig Smith said:


> The US Coast Guard tests are now very out of date and consider none of the anchor types which the thread starter was requesting advice on, so are useless.


Even the USCG & their tests are "useless"...



Craig Smith said:


> *Furthermore any of us "modern anchor" designers/manufacturers would disagree that a plow is "good" in sandy or soft bottom - relatively speaking they are not at all.*
> http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?41290-Modern-Anchors


Of course not only the Rocna can handle it all & everything else is now pretty "useless"...



Craig Smith said:


> However there remains the "you get what you pay for" difference, and our USD recommended retail will still be "moderately priced", not "cheap"; *we're not about making cheap rip-offs, we're not based in China, etc.*


I love this one it speaks for itself .....



Craig Smith said:


> When a copier sits down to make his copy, he has two options. One is to copy the anchor identically but take manufacturing short-cuts to save money (the only way he'll sell his copy is by making the retail price cheaper). *Witness many Chinese made claws.* The other is to "improve" it, *but most "improvements" are done by idiots that don't fully understand the original product, certainly not like the original inventor did.* Witness any number of CQR and recent Delta copies that are not as good as the originals. Or any with gimmicks like slotted shanks, floatation bubbles, etc.


Oh yeah I forgot Chinese made products are "short cuts". Apparently all manufacturers who take ideas from others to "improve on them" are just "idiots". I guess then Peter Smith's own comments about how he got the idea of the fluke shape for the Rocna from the Spade is an idiotic move? Does that then make Peter and "idiot" for trying to "improve" the Spade?? Guess so cause Craig said it.....



Craig Smith said:


> There are certain things we refuse to compromise on. For example:
> 
> Since we don't have a three-dimensional tip (like a plow or the Spade, which have because of their lead inserts), we need to make sure the tip is very strong. We do this by creasing the blade, which is a more expensive process than rolling. The crease then runs the full length of the fluke and together with the solid steel provides as much strength as possible.
> 
> ...


So is the Manson laminated steel or edge welded? Which aspect did he choose to defame in that post..? Considering the photo of the bent Manson is not blown apart and the "laminated" or "edge welded" spoon survived I guess Craig had not shown any of that rant to be true at all..



Craig Smith said:


> *And we know a whole bunch of stuff that other, ahem, designers don't, so they make mistakes.*
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=82849


Of course you do your ROCNA the ALMIGHTY!:laugher This one is laughable at best...



Craig Smith said:


> Lloyd's of London is an insurance market so I suspect you have your wires crossed. *Possibly your understanding of what Lloyd's Register or any other classification actually means is at a similar level.*


Nice dig on what may have been a potential customer...



Craig Smith said:


> *Rocna for its part has RINA*, *obtained* by ironically using a Supreme as a benchmark which was known could be beaten. But for a 15 kg anchor it's all but irrelevent. The marketing slogans look good but it's only needed for large picks obeying certification standards.
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/62314-manson-supreme-25-35-a-4.html#post574735


What does "has RINA" mean when you don't technically have it? "Obtained" does that statement by definition not describe that you have a RINA certification? They don't.



Craig Smith said:


> *The recent Practical Sailor tests* (in fact they are done by Powerboat Reports, the sister magazine, and printed in both) *are anything but thorough and are a total waste of time.*


Of course the only magazine that can do a good test is Sail and even then you have to "extrapolate" the data and massage it to make it look better...?? Come on I mean who did Craig not insult or "defame"?? Practical Sailor, the USCG, Fortress, CQR, Danforth, Manson etc.. etc...



Craig Smith said:


> *Danforths are absolutely not to be used in this kind of scenario*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That *BOLDING* is Craig's not mine...



Craig Smith said:


> *No, tests are not the same thing as real life. In fact they're usually a total waste of time and completely misleading.*
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship/17299-anchroing-cqr-4.html#post69622


A "total waste of time" and "totally misleading", I guess then just like the Sail Magazine data Rocna "massaged" and took out of context.... Apparently, unless the Rocna comes out on top, or near enough to the top enough so to be "massaged" into position, the data is a "total waste of time" and "totally misleading"...??? Hmmm seems hypocritical to me but what do I know I'm just another "idiot" and clearly not at the level of intelligence of Craig Smith..



Craig Smith said:


> Like you so eloquently put it, *we also think slotted shanks are a terrible concept.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Never made an anchor with a slot? Terrible idea? Seems you did and do and the slot looks an awful lot like a Manson copy.. Steve this is just more of Craig's "rubbish"...

Image Property of Rocna & Linked To From Rocna:









Steve there's a LOT more out there so before you get all upset about folks "defaming" Rocna try reading some of Craig's disgusting rantings yourself...


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> That's only an option for the middle and upper classes. Further, if you pay more, but buy fewer products, that won't necessarily work either.
> 
> For example, today you buy a pair of shoes made in china and a hot dog from my stand on your way home. Tomorrow, you get patriotic and buy a more expensive pair of shoes made in the USA, but have to skip my hot dog stand because you're out of money. I like the patriotism, but it isn't necessarily doing more than trading a shoe maker job for a hot dog stand job.


But doen't that mean that sooner or later the only jobs in the USA are either selling Chinese goods or selling hot dogs?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

casey1999 said:


> But doen't that mean that sooner or later the only jobs in the USA are either selling Chinese goods or selling hot dogs?


Albeit contrived, it reaches an equilibrium because you can't sell hot dogs on the street from China.

We are becoming a service economy, not a producer. China's labor will eventually revolt, just like ours did. May not be in our lifetime.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MaineSail,

I get it. Well documented account of Rocna's subterfuge. Any info on how those anchors were bent?


----------



## landmineop (Sep 2, 2010)

Main Sail,

Your last post is the reason I sent an email to Rocna. IF they ever answer I will be more than anxious to share their responce. I don't think I'm on their Christmas card list any more. LOL


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

chrisncate said:


> It has always seemed to me that the manufactures seem to recommend the smallest size you can get away with. I suspect it's for the ease/convenience factor for the end user (you know, like roller furlers and chart plotters), but this is just a guess on my part.


I can't see this - it is in the best interests of the manufacturer to overspec their anchors - they make more money in the first place and they reduce the chance of any failures or performance issues.

What benefit is there to the manufacturer to recommend undersized anchors?

I think anchors have grown to be generally oversized due to people using offshore, storm standards for coastal cruising in sheltered water and a general "bigger is better" mindset. There are a lot of prematurely sprung backs and worn out windlasses to attest to this phenomenon. Dropping a 20 kilo Bruce off a 30 footer in a sheltered cove is just overkill - I've seen a Yamaha 30 that used a *2* kilo Bruce as a working anchor in the Gulf Islands - it was owned by the local Bruce rep back in the 70's. He'd twirl it over his head and toss it like he was lassoing a horse. Most people would see it as a dinghy anchor but he said it never caused him a moments worry.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Prior to switching to the Spade years ago, a Bruce was my primary anchor&#8230; But I also used a Northill-style quite frequently, and I still consider it to be an awesome anchor in certain situations&#8230; Sort of a "New Generation" fisherman (Donald Street called the Northill "the world's finest anchor", years ago), and for riding out the ultimate blow, or in a bottom that nothing else will penetrate, my Big Bertha would be my choice, I never venture too far from home without it&#8230;
> 
> Of course, it contains plenty of welds... But it is a magnificently engineered piece of gear, the closest thing to a work of art you'll ever see in an anchor:


I too like the Northill - a very unknown anchor these days in yachting circles.

If you walk the fishboat docks up here you will find them all over the place but very rarely in the marinas.

My first sailboat came with a Northill and it NEVER dragged on my then very inexperienced self. I think the only reason it is not much better known is that there were license, manufacturing and control issues back when it was patented. It was developed to anchor flying boats and they must exert more windage and pull as well as veering than a sailboat.

If you don't like welds (I don't) you can get forged versions - I currently have a 10 kilo one made by Danforth.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

landmineop said:


> Main Sail,
> 
> Your last post is the reason I sent an email to Rocna. IF they ever answer I will be more than anxious to share their responce. I don't think I'm on their Christmas card list any more. LOL


Don't get me wrong I still love my BC built Rocna I just wish they had handled their marketing and ethics end of the business as well as the design side...

If I knew then what I know now I would have simply bought another Manson Supreme as opposed to a Rocna. If one could find a used NZ or BC built Rocna you'd have a great anchor. I personally won't touch an anchor where the specs intended by the designer have been supplanted by a businessman bean counter.

Oh and why would I buy an anchor where they lie about the specifications, then when they are called on the carpet and the specs found to be untrue they are then all of a sudden "top secret"?

Top secret specifications simply means to me; "we will use what ever damn grade of steel the cheapest supplier can us sell is and it will always be fit or purpose because we say it is."


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

WHOAH!! I just received a USPS *postcard *from WM with the "Product Specifications Notice: Rocna Anchors" printed on it!

It seems that WM is *proactively reaching out* to customers that have purchased Rocna Anchors to ensure that they are satisfied. I am really impressed with the level of service that WM is providing for Rocna customers. This is costing them $$$. I will bet that WM is as pissed at Rocna as Maine_Sail appears to be...


----------



## DoubleEnder (Mar 8, 2011)

Just returned my Rocna to WM last night..........ordered my Manson Supreme today!

Hopefully no more DRAMA!


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

DoubleEnder said:


> Just returned my Rocna to WM last night..........ordered my Manson Supreme today!
> 
> Hopefully no more DRAMA!


I bought the Mason Supreme also, after reading all the drama, and it looks very well made. You can handle it bare handed without cutting you hands on sharp steel and jagged galvanizing like some of the other cheaper made anchors. When will companies figure out it is better to spend your time making a good product instead of wasting effort to try to scam somebody?


----------



## DoubleEnder (Mar 8, 2011)

Touche!


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Albeit contrived, it reaches an equilibrium because you can't sell hot dogs on the street from China.
> 
> We are becoming a service economy, not a producer. China's labor will eventually revolt, just like ours did. May not be in our lifetime.


A little off topic. I agree US is becoming a service economy, but are we servicing ourselves or the world? If only ourselves, when we run out of money (which maybe we have) we got a problem. If we are servicing the world, then maybe we are ok.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

Pretty good thread so far, thanks all.

I was in West Marine in Annapolis today, and they had no idea about the recall. There were a couple of Rocnas on the shelf and the video loop (of the Rocna comparison test) was playing.

If anyone here finds themselves in the Annapolis West Marine anytime soon, check out the two Rocna 25's and note the difference in the welds between the two. A perfect example of bad quality control. Oddly, there were no Mansons in stock.. I wonder if Manson has taken the title between the two yet of the superior hook... it can't be much longer, what with the internet and all...


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> We are becoming a service economy, not a producer. China's labor will eventually revolt, just like ours did. May not be in our lifetime.


A few years ago, it was to be an information economy, now a service economy. Well none of that works with China. 
If you have read recent news about China hacking information systems and mining secret government, NGO and industrial information then you understand that we won't be selling them our information economy. And given that foreigners are not allowed free movement around China and free and open communications with the Chinese people, we won't be profiting with our service economy. Meanwhile we have created international treaties and domestic tax law that encourages "American" coorporations to invest in manufacturing plants in China and to close domestic plants. 
Our trade balance with China is ridiculous and not a single politician is willing to address it as the source of our economic woes today. remember this whole free trade business is based on a free and open market, not this government controlled monster of China.
Our only solution at this time is to boycott products made in China. Which is a dubious course of action as Wall Mart and Bed, Bath and Beyond and others will use their significant resources to kill any such initiative.
And I wouldn't sit around and wait for a labor revolt in China. There are long lines of people waiting for those jobs that require family separation, dormitory living, long work shifts and $8 a day at most. And besides, the Red Army is right there to protect and defend their industrials. 
Alas,
John


----------



## wmjr (Mar 1, 2000)

On the other hand,

Sticker shock: 'Made in China' ranks as only 2.7 percent of U.S.*spending. As you say though, cc, a lot of that is services. Still, "The vast majority of goods and services sold in the United States is produced here."

Read more from this Tulsa World article at Sticker shock: 'Made in China' ranks as only 2.7 percent of U.S. spending | Tulsa World

Anyway, I had my heart (but not my wallet) set on buying a Rocna. Looks more like Manson now.

John 
Watermark, PSC 31


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

I am surprised (and a little pleased) to see complimentary posts concerning anything to do with West Marine. Usually, a mention of West Marine on this Board is a complaint about their prices and the stupidity of their local sales staffs (I think the server would crash if it tried to return the results of a "Worst Marine" search). I know that the upper management at WM recently changed, and they supposedly now are focussing more on the customer. I take it from the comments here that many think they are on the right track. 

I have had mixed experiences there: some terrific sales people, and some that knew absolutely nothing. Some managers and staff that bent over backwards to help me, and some that really didn't care at all. And prices that range from great values to outright ridiculous rip offs. Anyway, I would love to see the Home Depot of the US nautical market get better; for some, it is their only chandlery option. Regardless, this recall in the face of the manufacturer's denial is something that only a really large retailer would have the clout to do. One of the few instances I can remember where market power has been used for the benefit of the consumer on an issue other than price.


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

mstern said:


> I am surprised (and a little pleased) to see complimentary posts concerning anything to do with West Marine. Usually, a mention of West Marine on this Board is a complaint about their prices and the stupidity of their local sales staffs (I think the server would crash if it tried to return the results of a "Worst Marine" search). I know that the upper management at WM recently changed, and they supposedly now are focussing more on the customer. I take it from the comments here that many think they are on the right track.


I think this is common with larger specialty stores that have a] knowledgeable clients and b] multiple stores. Car dealers are find the same thing; consumers often know as much or more about a particular model compared to the sale person.

I have this same experiences with Cabela's. Some stores are fantastic, other ones, meh.... not so much.



> Regardless, this recall in the face of the manufacturer's denial is something that only a really large retailer would have the clout to do. One of the few instances I can remember where market power has been used for the benefit of the consumer on an issue other than price.


Great point! Noticeable is the lack of response from Rocna on any of the sailing forums.

Remember all the spouting off they used to do?


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

cupper3 said:


> I think this is common with larger specialty stores that have a] knowledgeable clients and b] multiple stores. Car dealers are find the same thing; consumers often know as much or more about a particular model compared to the sale person.
> 
> I have this same experiences with Cabela's. Some stores are fantastic, other ones, meh.... not so much.
> 
> ...


You want Craig back ? Sheesh. Steve Bambury has him shackled to the wall of the deepest dankest darkest cell in Castle Rocna and you want him let loose ? The world at large may not thank you for that.


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

I have always had great luck at the Annapolis W/M. I look up on my phone from the store - Jamestown, Defender, whatever, for the price match and they honor it with no questions asked. Pleasant, and moderately helpful staff as well.

The Glen Burnie West Marine is the complete opposite.


----------



## sailjunkie (Nov 4, 2009)

Once upon a time, I helped open the first WM in Canada. Although I left 7 years ago, I continued to feel that their service was superior to the local competition, for many years.

Sadly, that appears to be changing. My experience with them during this year's haul-out was actually pretty pathetic. I ended up getting most of what I needed at Steveston Marine. 

Ironically, Steveston's service used to be considered to be terrible. Based on this year's experience, while they may have a ways to go, they are trying hard.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

chrisncate said:


> I look up on my phone from the store - Jamestown, Defender, whatever, for the price match and they honor it with no questions asked.


Do they factor in the shipping costs too? If so, then they are not price matching in that taxes are paid at WM whereas Defender is not. I never did like the price match deal much anyway...it's just a gimmic to drive someone out of business and then ...guess what...good old WM prices will stay high.

As for all these kudos to WM for taking back the Rocna, I think they are late to the game. They should have taken the lead instead sitting back and waiting for months to finally take action. Are they not the ones who conducted those anchor tests years ago? Oh...I forgot those test just looked at holding power and didn't factor in the safety aspect or quality control issue. And they still to this day are not addressing that issue!


----------



## landmineop (Sep 2, 2010)

The WM recall of Rocna anchors states that it is because of a different, weaker grade of steel being used than was stated in the Rocna literature. The recall makes no mention of the anchor tests. I seems that WM is not late to the game but, in this instance, is leading. An explaination of the recall by WM can be found at their site. The address is given in the OP. Go there and read for yourself and make your own decision. I was not a fan of WM befor this because of their pricing and in store personel attitudes but since the change in upper management they seem to be much more customer oriented. The recall of Rocna anchors seems to be evidence of the shift. IMO.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

landmineop said:


> The WM recall of Rocna anchors states that it is because of a different, weaker grade of steel being used than was stated in the Rocna literature. The recall makes no mention of the anchor tests. I seems that WM is not late to the game but, in this instance, is leading.


I grant you that a weaker grade of steel is being used, but my answer is ..so what. My point is that WM is NOT taking a position concering the safety on a safety related product that it sells! All it does is to note that the product does not meet a previous spec without saying whether the current spec is adequate.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

WM can't take a position on whether the current spec is adequate, because that exact point has substantial debate surrounding it. The problem is that no one absolutely knows, including WM. They've offered to refund any purchase, so the consumer can decide whether all the confusion is too much for them. That's pretty good in my book.

As far as WM being an overall good store. We've all had good and bad experiences at huge retailers and WM is no exception. Their pricing model is clearly to mark items up and offer tons of tie in opportunities for customers to get them back to a competitive price. Discount clubs, cash back coupons, price matching, etc, etc. Then they really profit on anyone that pops in to just pick up something quickly and pays full price for that convenience. 

No, I don't like the model, but I also don't let it dig into my wallet. I take advantage of their programs and only pay a fair price in the end. It's a pain. If I'm ordering on-line, and I often do, I almost never use WM. Defender is typically better even with shipping (and I've ordered online from Sailnet too and found competitive pricing). However, there must be ten WM stores between me and the nearest Defender store, which is hours away. When I need to go grab something now, WM has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate and inventory to see that I can.

My biggest gripe with WM is they are often sold out of the item that I am looking for. Most recently, with an isle full of shaft zincs and panel circuit breakers, the bins that contained the specific one I needed were empty. If you have a business model that charges for convenience, it should be convenient and, therefore, in stock.


----------



## landmineop (Sep 2, 2010)

Selling a product that is made from a weaker material than is advertised by the manufacturer IS a safety issue. If the steel that Rocna anchors were designed for is substantialy reduced by the manufacturer without publicly notifiying potential buyers then THAT is a definite safety issue to me and to, I would think, any potential buyer. Go back and re-read some of the posts in this thread. Rocna is, IMO, acting in complete disregard to truth in advertising and putting peoples lives at risk just to make a few bucks by using cheap steel and cheap labor. In THIS case, WM acted in OUR best interests rather than in the interests of a supplier that, I would guess, makes them plenty of profit. This time I stand squarely behind WM. Not always but certainly this time.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

landmineop said:


> Selling a product that is made from a weaker material than is advertised by the manufacturer IS a safety issue.


I agree with that.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

lancelot9898 said:


> I grant you that a weaker grade of steel is being used, but my answer is ..so what. My point is that WM is NOT taking a position concering the safety on a safety related product that it sells! All it does is to note that the product does not meet a previous spec without saying whether the current spec is adequate.


I made a similar post earlier. Again, not taking sides but am wondering if any Rocnas have been broken apart, not just bent, which could probably happen to other anchors also with enough lateral force applied, or has anyone recieved poor customer service from Rocna?

Dabnis


----------



## DoubleEnder (Mar 8, 2011)

All I can say is I returned mine.

Fool me once ..shame on you! Fool me twice... shame on me. :hammer


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

I purchased a 33 lb Rocna at the end of 2009 from West Marine which is prior to the "began in 2010" period mentioned in WM's Rocna's statement. My original email to WM support asking whether my 2009 anchor has any "weaker grade of steel issues" is below the short response from WM which follows. I guess the next step is to contact Rocna.

*The affected anchors were in 2010 nothing is stated before then. You are welcome to contact the manufacture for more information at 604-781-8347.

Dear WM Support,

Your announcement regarding Rocna anchors indicates that the issue relating the use of a "different, weaker grade of steel compared to that published on the Rocna website" began in 2010. I purchased my 33 lb Rocna 15, WM model # 9261645 on 12/7/09, order number 7705481. Obviously it had to be manufactured before 2010. It was shipped 12/9/09. Does this mean the issues relating to the weaker grade of steel do not apply to the anchor I purchased? Can you gve me any information on the anchor I purchased?*


----------



## marinextreme (Jan 15, 2009)

LinekinBayCD said:


> I purchased a 33 lb Rocna at the end of 2009 from West Marine which is prior to the "began in 2010" period mentioned in WM's Rocna's statement. My original email to WM support asking whether my 2009 anchor has any "weaker grade of steel issues" is below the short response from WM which follows. I guess the next step is to contact Rocna.
> 
> *The affected anchors were in 2010 nothing is stated before then. You are welcome to contact the manufacture for more information at 604-781-8347.
> 
> ...


Definitely only 400mpa from that time if it has a cast blade.

If it has a solid welded blade and no brand name cast into the underside of the blade then you are lucky to have a NZ or Canadian one that will definitely be 800mpa or above.

Check it by inspecting the blade then decide for yourself what you do.


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

marinextreme said:


> Definitely only 400mpa from that time if it has a cast blade.
> 
> If it has a solid welded blade and no brand name cast into the underside of the blade then you are lucky to have a NZ or Canadian one that will definitely be 800mpa or above.
> 
> Check it by inspecting the blade then decide for yourself what you do.


What does "MPA" refer to and can 400mpa and 800 mpa be translated into something understandable like pounds per sq inch or something equivalent that a non-engineer could understand?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

LinekinBayCD said:


> What does "MPA" refer to and can 400mpa and 800 mpa be translated into something understandable like pounds per sq inch or something equivalent that a non-engineer could understand?


mpa (properly MPa) is a megaPascal and in most of the world is the understandable unit.

1 psi is about 7000 Pa, so 400 MPa = 400 x 10^6 / 6895 = 58 kpsi (ish).


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> mpa (properly MPa) is a megaPascal and in most of the world is the understandable unit.
> 
> 1 psi is about 7000 Pa, so 400 MPa = 400 x 10^6 / 6895 = 58 kpsi (ish).


Using your example, if I'm understanding correctly, a 100 sq in sheet of 58 psi steel would be able to resist 5,800 lbs.? (58 psi x 100 sq in = 5,800)


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

LinekinBayCD said:


> What does "MPA" refer to and can 400mpa and 800 mpa be translated into something understandable like pounds per sq inch or something equivalent that a non-engineer could understand?


In simple speak 400 is *HALF* of 800....... If your anchor has ROCNA embossed onto the fluke, like this









then it is quite possibly made from shank steel rated at HALF what the NZ and BC built anchors were, and it could potentially look like this.









This anchor bent just a little tooooooo easily. I bet this guy doesn't weight but 200 pounds. 
bent rocna - YouTube


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Is that U-tube video to suggest that no legit anchor of that size would fail that test? I'm not defending Rocna, but that leverage doesn't look like a proxy for a swinging anchor to me.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

LinekinBayCD said:


> Using your example, if I'm understanding correctly, a 100 sq in sheet of 58 psi steel would be able to resist 5,800 lbs.? (58 psi x 100 sq in = 5,800)


As long as the load is distributed evenly.


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> As long as the load is distributed evenly.


Thanks, thats much easier to conceptualize. An anchor with a blade of 1 sq ft using 400 MPa or 58 PSI steel would be able to resist 8,352 (144 x 58 = 8,352)pounds of force (assuming equal resistance over the surface).


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> As long as the load is distributed evenly.


It was making sense until it occured to me that I don't understand how the thickness of the steel plays into it. Is the MPa rating for a fixed thickness?


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

ccriders said:


> Absolutely, this is gospel. We cannot afford this kind of retailing. It is destroying our manufacturing base and our economy.
> 
> Add to that: "Do without before buying Chinese". I mean Magellan didn't have any electronic gadgets. Heck he hardly had any charts. So how much junk do really need?
> John


Not to defend the Chinese, but the ultimate fault lie with Rocna themselves, and the usual corporate greed. They only did what Rocna did themselves. Rocna looked for a cheaper alternative in search of higher profit, and so did the Chinese. Whose fault is it to let poor quality to pass onto the consumer....ROCNA

As far as Magellan goes. Hehad no electronic gizmos, but he did have available to him the latest technology availabe. We too search out the latest technology in our desire to survive. As far as charts. Guess where Magellan, and othesr got their charts. Yep from China, and if you read 1421 it will be a real eye opener.

I shop Wal-Mart, but it's mostly food, and unimportant things like socks, and such. I stay away from Chinese products as much as possible, but that's nearly impossible to do these days. I am going to buy some Johnsonville sausages at Wal-mart for $3.00 instead of Publix for $4.50 when it's the same packed food. The list goes on, and on with the food brands. It's a survival thing shopping Wal-Mart. If Publix fell in line with prices they would get the bulk of my money instead of Wal-Mart......*i2f*


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

LinekinBayCD said:


> Thanks, thats much easier to conceptualize. An anchor with a blade of 1 sq ft using 400 MPa or 58 PSI steel would be able to resist 8,352 (144 x 58 = 8,352)pounds of force (assuming equal resistance over the surface).


No, not even close.

1. Unless I am reading this wrong, the yield strength of the steel is 58,000 psi, not 58 psi. This is the point where it will bend; breaking would be ~ 3x higher.

2. The only time stress is distributed evenly is something like a cable that is in pure tension. In bending stress, about 50% of the member is in compression and the remaining portion has a roughly linear stress distribution. Expect the arm (shank) to bend at about 20% of the 58,000 psi area. However, it is not that simple; the length of the arm counts too.

3. For moderate size anchors, the calculated answer will be 500-2000 pounds, which indicates that...

Mainesail was most correct. Practical comparison is better for most of us. An analysis could be done for each anchor, but it is an engineering analysis far beyond the scope of a sailing forum. It also indicates that bending failure can occur if too little weak metal is used in a worst-case loading, which is what we see. Is it relevant? I'm not weighing in.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The Chinese manufacturing debate is full of irony. The American consumer will typically chose the low cost provider (ie Walmart) and then become outraged that the corporation that made the product did the same. 

The corps have no choice in the matter. If one decides to stay principled with Made In The USA and their direct competitor lowers their labor cost by 90% (literally), they go out of business. They are unable to price compete.

You would have to make it illegal to sell foreign made products or heavily tax the import to balance. However, expect China to do the same in return and to lose your job if you work for a company that exports to them. 

The rhetoric over them owning US debt is misstated in the media. It is not that they own us, they are as equally concerned about being repaid. The issue is that they could sell huge chunks, which means bond prices would have to decline to accommodate the excess supply and interest rates mathematically rise as the result Then you either have a slowing of the economy as a result of higher rates or you print more money to redeem them. The later is a death spiral. This, by the way, should be the lesson in why you don't want too much debt. It has nothing to so with dems and repubs. It's just like being hostage to foreign oil.

Didn't mean to get off on Econ 101, just making the point that Rocnas decision to manufacture there is not simply based upon greed, while I don't discount that factor either. To be globally competitive is not a single issue formula anymore.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Minnewaska said:


> The rhetoric over them owning US debt is misstated in the media. It is not that they own us, they are as equally concerned about being repaid.


Amen. As a very wise man once told me: "If you owe me $1000, that's your problem. If you owe me $1,000,000, that's my problem."


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> Didn't mean to get off on Econ 101, just making the point that Rocnas decision to manufacture there is not simply based upon greed, while I don't discount that factor either. To be globally competitive is not a single issue formula anymore.


BUT....The Manson Supreme is STILL made in NZ, NOT China, with SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER steel. The Manson STILL, as it always has, sells for less money even though it is still built in a country with high labor costs......?

So where did this 90% labor & material savings go to.....???

Oh and the Manson Supreme has had Lloyds SHHP for a loooong time and Rocna just got RINA SHHP in May of 2011 even thought they had been lying about it since late 2009 early 2010..

Also we should keep in mind that the anchors they got RINA SHHP on were NOT built in China. So once again this is even more deceptive BS from Rocna as the current anchors are not built to the same spec as the ones used during seabed testing.

For that Rocna / RINA SHHP certification to mean anything for me I'd want to see it done with the anchors they are actually currently selling not some anchor built to a significantly higher standard..

It's like a car company conducting an NHTSA crash tests with a 12Ga sub frame then changing the sub frame to 16Ga steel but riding on and marketing on the 12Ga sub frames crash test results.......

It's not China that is the issue here it is Holdfast and the Bambury's. I have no problem with China but I do have a problem with intentionally deceptive business owners.

Practical Sailor just had a good write up on the Rocna debacle this month...


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Maine Sail said:


> BUT....The Manson Supreme is STILL made in NZ, NOT China, with SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER steel. The Manson STILL, as it always has, sells for less money even though it is still built in a country with high labor costs......?
> 
> So where did this 90% labor & material savings go to.....???
> ...


I'm not looking to take sides here, but maybe I could point out how things often work in business.

As costs for materials and labor go up, sometimes a company lets margins erode. Often this is because of competitive pressures, where other companies are holding the line on prices, so a price increase is not possible in a competitive environment. Eventually (perhaps over a period of years) margins get so thin that the company has to make a decision to either discontinue the product or make a step change to reduce costs (such as offshore production).

So the direct answer to your question is that the suddenly increased savings to the company's bottom line. But it's rarely out of greed - just the desire to make a fair profit. And while you portray it as a huge increase, it may just be that margins had become so thin that they have just returned to a typically acceptable level.


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> You would have to make it illegal to sell foreign made products or heavily tax the import to balance. However, expect China to do the same in return and to lose your job if you work for a company that exports to them.
> 
> Didn't mean to get off on Econ 101,
> .


I ain't no 101 expert but that is what they do. And a lot more to boot. The shame is that our politicians let it happen.

But back on topic,

I took my Rocna to WM Yesterday and will have a Supreme in a week or so.


----------



## lwatson (Sep 5, 2011)

*rocna recall*

Qudos to WM! I am taking my Rocna 44 back, I do not want an anchor that MIGHT be OK, plus I personally have doubts that a company that is manufacturing the anchor has a claim to fame as a maker of display cases and fittings. Look at the RINA certificate and search the manufacturing company. Plus nowhere can I find on the manufacturers website that they are ISO9001 approved as stated by Rocna, more smoke and mirrors or just outright lies, you be the judge.


----------



## lwatson (Sep 5, 2011)

Rocna may be the victim of their own success. I bet they did not really expect people to swallow, hook line and sinker, their claims about superior holding and actually put it to the test. This claim probably got a lot of people who actually anchor to buy the product as opposed to people who just have a bit of jewelery hanging off the bow and rarely anchor. Now all of a sudden the product is actually used as intended and the modified specs cannot stand up to the abuse. It could be a decision on Rocna's part to put up with a few failures and the replacement costs rather than have the higher costs of producing a quality product. It could simply be a matter of having the failures and replacement costs factored in as a cost of doing business. If that is the case I seriously wonder why anyone would buy a Rocna (I did but that was before I learned of the metal problem, AND it is going back), after all this is not a toaster that you just take back for another, it could be your life on the line here. I do not think that there is a problem in the design, in fact it is good, but the metal used in manufacturing and Rocna's response has put me off. Good by Rocna and hello Manson.


----------

