# Rocna crib notes



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I can't follow all the venom over Rocna and whoever Craig is. I've linked to threads that have over 400 posts on the subject. Geesh. I have a job, I can't read all that.

Can anyone explain, hopefully in 200 words or less, why, as a consumer, I care what is going on here?

It seems the Mason Supreme and Rocna are virtually the same product. They may have a problem with each other, but I'm asking about the consumer. I have read about the different construction methods, which are legit consumer issues. I'm asking why I should care about whatever else is going on. Could be a reason, I just don't know what it is.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

It's Manson - Good point though. Someone could help summarize the issue for those ofus that can't follow these long threads all the time.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

From what I get - a lot of people across a lot of forums don't like Craig Smith (the inventor's son). He's not really affiliated with Rocna, apart from a licensing agreement from what I gather, but he's really opinionated about how good his dad's design is. And he doesn't think much of competitors' products and is perfectly willing to say so...which is pretty much what competition is all about IMUSO.

So, lots of guys argue with Craig on a lot of forums and he argues back...about pointy chunks of metal. Everyone gets their feelings hurt and things go nuclear on every forum out there. It's kind of like an episode of "Dynasty".

Add to this the fact that the Rocna website has apparently had/has some information on it that was confusing and incomplete, and/or allegedly misleading...and the torches and pitchforks have come out by those who think Craig's a troll.

There are some out there who, as is their usual way, feel the need to try to take the company down...or at least try to broker the PR game and play it for hits. And this is, of course, extremely dangerous for anyone to get into in many respects. But if you want to fuel the fire at the stake - there are other forums out there that will hand you the petrol. Thankfully SN ain't one of them (though it looks like some are trying to change that).

At the end of the day, for me, it's a damn pointy chunk of metal just like a lot of other pointy chunks of metal. Some of them just happen to be pointier or shinier.

The conclusion as far as I'm concerned: buy what works for you.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

The Rocna anchor and the Manson Supreme anchor look a lot the same. Looking at Manson's complete product line of copies of CQR, Delta, Bruce, and other anchors it is a little hard to believe that they invented the Manson Supreme and Rocna copied it. Draw your own conclusions.

Since most of my career has involved being paid for creative work I tend to avoid products that seem to be a copy of someone else's work. Accordingly I don't buy Manson products. My choice. You make your own.

The only dog I have in this fight is that I've plunked down my own money for two good-sized Rocna anchors.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> From what I get - a lot of people across a lot of forums don't like Craig Smith (the inventor's son). He's not really affiliated with Rocna, apart from a licensing agreement from what I gather, but he's really opinionated about how good his dad's design is. And he doesn't think much of competitors' products and is perfectly willing to say so...which is pretty much what competition is all about IMUSO.
> 
> So, lots of guys argue with Craig on a lot of forums and he argues back...about pointy chunks of metal. Everyone gets their feelings hurt and things go nuclear on every forum out there. It's kind of like an episode of "Dynasty".
> 
> ...


+2 for Smack!
Succinct and, IMHO, accurate.

The only other difference that I can discern is that a the Manson Supreme 35lb, which compares to the Rocna 15, is $16 CHEAPER at West Marine. The prices do fluctuate. (I could have saved $75 on the Rocna 15 that I bought back in November '10 if I had waited.)


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> The Rocna anchor and the Manson Supreme anchor look a lot the same. Looking at Manson's complete product line of copies of CQR, Delta, Bruce, and other anchors it is a little hard to believe that they invented the Manson Supreme and Rocna copied it. Draw your own conclusions.
> 
> Since most of my career has involved being paid for creative work I tend to avoid products that seem to be a copy of someone else's work. Accordingly I don't buy Manson products. My choice. You make your own.
> 
> The only dog I have in this fight is that I've plunked down my own money for two good-sized Rocna anchors.


I don't think anybody ever claimed that Rocna copied Manson. The Rocna design seems heavily inspired by the Bugel (AFAIK the first anchor with a roll bar) and the Spade. But then, all anchors are some kind of variation of some other.

Personally, i believe that there are some quite serious concerns about the ethical conduct of the Rocna company. What may be more important for the customer (at least those that are not concerned with the ethics of the manufacturers; this is your decision) is that there are allegations that the new Rocnas (those which are manufactured in China while the earlier ones came from NZ/Canada) are of inferior quality than the original ones. Specifically, the quality of the steel has been doubted and there are some indications that these claims are supported by the former production manager of Rocna. At this time, the allegations are unproven, it is claimed that tests are on the way.

Of note is further that Manson has asked Rocna publicly that both anchors should be tested on certified testing equipment and Rocna has so far ignored this challenge, although it has been reminded of it several times by various posters.

Finally, I believe that the Manson anchors are certified to SHHP standards. Rocna has claimed for years on their webpage that this is also true for their anchors but it now turns out (according to Steve Banbury, the CEO of Rocna) that this is not the case. Mr. Banbury says that certification is well underway but for reasons that he says he does not understand has not yet come to completion (contradicting what the webpage claimed for several years).

OK, was this too long for a summary?

(I own neither a Rocna nor a Manson and surely have no commercial interest in either company, nor in any marine-related entity other than the condo-marina where I keep my boat)


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Yeah, I've read all that elsewhere. They'll get it sorted out. Until then, it's just allegations and hysteria. It's great to point out misstatements, etc.- but it's gone quite a bit beyond that and things are getting dangerous...which some people love, of course.

What anchor do you own Mast? And, more importantly, what/where do you sail? That's far more fun to talk about than the pros and cons of Chinese steel.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> It's Manson - Good point though. Someone could help summarize the issue for those ofus that can't follow these long threads all the time.


This is all from memory, but I think Rocna designed their
anchor and approached Manson with a licensing offer.
Manson declined and then shortly came out with the Manson
Supreme which, from pictures, is almost identical to
the Rocna design, the "slot" being about the only basic
difference. Looks like patent infringement to me?

Dabnis


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, I've read all that elsewhere. They'll get it sorted out. Until then, it's just allegations and hysteria. It's great to point out misstatements, etc.- but it's gone quite a bit beyond that and things are getting dangerous...which some people love, of course.
> 
> What anchor do you own Mast? And, more importantly, what/where do you sail? That's far more fun to talk about than the pros and cons of Chinese steel.


I agree, much of it is allegations (not all, though: I think by now it is established that Rocna claimed certification for years but the CEO confirmed that this is not correct).

And since when did YOU ever shy away from danger 

But you are right, it is much more fun to talk about sailing than internet squabbles. Let's see, my anchor inventory is as follows:

bower: 35# Delta
stern: Fortress (I believe FX-16)
spare: 35# Claw
storm: 65# CQR clone
dinghy: tiny Danforth

Plus a small grapnel.

I sail the Chessie.


----------



## PaulfromNWOnt (Aug 20, 2010)

Army intelligence
Honest Politician
Truth in advertising

Any surprises?

Some people thrive on drama, but I'm with Smacky: I'm going sailing (as soon as the ice clears  )

For the record, where I sail I could likely get away with a rock on a rope, but use an El-Cheapo Danforth knockoff, or just tie off to a tree. 

Full disclosure: I have no financial interest in rocks.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I agree, much of it is allegations (not all, though: I think by now it is established that Rocna claimed certification for years but the CEO confirmed that this is not correct).
> 
> And since when did YOU ever shy away from danger
> 
> ...


Heh-heh. Okay - yes, I love "danger" when it comes to general forum crap. But this is about people's lives and livelihoods. I don't mess with that.

On the anchors, you win. I have a 14# Danforth.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> I can't follow all the venom over Rocna and whoever Craig is. I've linked to threads that have over 400 posts on the subject. Geesh. I have a job, I can't read all that.


Hello. I am not Rocna, I am the son of it's designer and was involved in its original development.



Minnewaska said:


> Can anyone explain, hopefully in 200 words or less, why, as a consumer, I care what is going on here?


The most serious issue recently was an allegation made by an ex-employee of Rocna Ltd, who claimed that the Rocna anchors shanks were not the high tensile G800 steel that they are supposed to be and are advertised as.

Said ex-employee is in some apparently serious dispute with Rocna and apparently is ex for a reason, although I do not know about that situation and can't comment.

He created a fake account on another forum and kicked up a bit of a fuss pretending to be an aggrieved customer. Rocna eventually outted him by matching the two accounts' IP addresses and computer user agents.

He claims evidence w.r.t. the above claims but so far has not published anything.

Conversely, Rocna have already published some pictures of QA testing from the factory floor and sample testing documentation to reassure people that the shanks are correctly being built to spec.

They are also in the process of having individually tested & certified a sample anchor for further reassurance. This takes time to organize and conduct but is underway.

There is an additional issue regarding Rocna's RINA classification, a process which is nearly complete but not yet totally finalized. Several agendized parties have accused Rocna of misleading folk on this matter, but the accusations in my view boil down to an ignorance of the complexities of society approval regimes.

The kerfuffle online is primarily driven by several competitors to Rocna, and a few other parties with slightly suspect agendas who tend to be located in Australia, who have seized the opportunity to go on the attack.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay, so to keep this thread completely fair...

Craig, what kind of anchor(s) do you have? And what/where do you sail?

Heh-heh.


----------



## Melrna (Apr 6, 2004)

Craig Smith said:


> Hello. I am not Rocna, I am the son of it's designer and was involved in its original development.


Thank Craig for speaking up here. It is always good to hear from the source even though at times there seems to be an attack. There are many questions out there and there are many answers. The right answers may not come out fully for various reasons. 
I for one own a Ronca. While it is a good anchor it is not a perfect one for all bottom conditions. We sailors should know that but not all sailors are as educated on anchoring as we should be. 
I have many questions as well. 
1. Why so long on certification? The anchor has been around a long time. 
2. Did not your father patent the design? If so, than only a court can decide on a patent infringement. The rest is all conjecture. 
3. Why go Chinese? USA hates the crap that comes out of there. I like many, when it comes to metals don't have much faith in China's manufacturing of any metal products. It seems when West Marine started selling your product the company outsourced to the Chinese. Is this true? If so shame on you. 
Thanks


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Ah, with just a little research SD... 

Anchor complement - a bunch of you-know-what, four last time I looked: About "Kiwi Roa"

Sailing: Photo Journals - photo reports on selected trips


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Now THAT'S what I'M talkin' about!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

To all. Great recaps. Thank you.

Seems like a couple of questions will be cleaned up shortly and then the consumer questions are over.

As far as testing between the two, it almost seems silly. They are the same anchor, made differently, which is probably what the cost competitor wants to prove.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Melrna said:


> Thank Craig for speaking up here. It is always good to hear from the source even though at times there seems to be an
> attack.


Melrna I will try to address your Qs but it should be made clear I don't represent Rocna Ltd, and also that several of the topical issues are pending resolutions in ways that mean I am going to be reserved.



Melrna said:


> 1. Why so long on certification? The anchor has been around a long time.


Classification is required only for some larger anchors (~ 70 kg +). It's unlikely anyone here on SailNet for example would care. It's also very expensive. The process was only initiated when it was necessary, and it's time consuming. The elements of it that are of possible relevance to the small anchor sizes, i.e. those used by most everyone here, are already complete - SHHP classification & type approval.



Melrna said:


> 3. Why go Chinese? USA hates the crap that comes out of there. I like many, when it comes to metals don't have much faith in China's manufacturing of any metal products. It seems when West Marine started selling your product the company outsourced to the Chinese. Is this true? If so shame on you. Thanks


The reason why is simply lower cost and higher quality simultaneously. Rocna flukes on the sub 55 kg sizes are now cast, which gives significantly better quality, and this sort of casting is just not really feasible and economic in New Zealand. There are other improvements.

You don't have to worry about the Chinese; you have to worry about the importers and traders involved. If "USA hates the crap that comes out of there", you have only to blame the USA importers that are specifying, ordering, and buying "the crap". The Chinese like anyone else will produce whatever is demanded of them, be it good or poor.

In the case of Rocna, one benefit of society classification that extends beyond the need for it w.r.t. large anchors is the baseline quality assurance that it brings. Rocna have already posted steel testing certification - it originates from RINA certification processes.

In this case the issue of the OP relates to an alleged QA issue, but the location does not appear to be relevant. As I mentioned above Rocna have already posted a brief illustration of QA in China that contradicts the specific allegations made, and more stringent independently certified testing is underway for further reassurance.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Melrna said:


> Thank Craig for speaking up here. It is always good to hear from the source even though at times there seems to be an attack. There are many questions out there and there are many answers. The right answers may not come out fully for various reasons.
> I for one own a Ronca. While it is a good anchor it is not a perfect one for all bottom conditions. We sailors should know that but not all sailors are as educated on anchoring as we should be.
> I have many questions as well.
> 1. Why so long on certification? The anchor has been around a long time.
> ...


Mel,

Those are all good questions. However, I believe that this thread was created as a place for answer summaries, not questions. To put it differently, If we posted questions here, this thread would be another branch in the tree of Rocna vs Manson vs Fortress vs rocks...

Perhaps your query would be better placed here:http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/73565-delta-vs-mansion-supreme-anchor.html


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Craig Smith said:


> Hello. I am not Rocna, I am the son of it's designer and was involved in its original development.
> 
> The most serious issue recently was an allegation made by an ex-employee of Rocna Ltd, who claimed that the Rocna anchors shanks were not the high tensile G800 steel that they are supposed to be and are advertised as.
> 
> ...


Craig, Steve Bambury the Rocna CEO has changed the wording on the web site to try and fix this, so I guess he found it "misleading".

Here's what Steve wrote just last week:



rocna 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.
> 
> ...


Here's what YOUR OWN web site used to say...



Rocna said:


> *Rocna classification and certification *
> 
> *The Rocna anchor range has RINA type approval and SHHP classification*. *Its facilities are RINA approved and individual anchor certification can be provided on request.* RINA is a member of the IACS and the Rocna classification will be accepted by all other notable societies including Lloyd's, DNV, Bureau Veritas, ABS, and others as equivalent with their own rules.


So above Steve stated and admitted that you do not yet have the actual "certification" but your OWN web site said it "CAN BE PROVIDED".. I don't know how you provide a "certification" if you don't yet have it on the currently produced anchors?

Here's what the Rocna site says now:



Rocna said:


> * Rocna classification and certification *
> 
> The Rocna anchor range has RINA type approval and SHHP classification. *Its facilities are also currently going through the rigorous process of RINA certification which includes material testing, proof load testing and welding testing. *
> *In the meantime, individually certified anchors are available for custom order. These anchors are currently produced in a RINA certified partnering facility.*


Apparently I, as a Rocna customer, must be one of the *"ignorant"* who just don't understand the difference between the actual "certification" and "in the process". Sorry for that..

My only "motivation" here is that I no longer feel I can trust anything you say or have said and I recommended this anchor to many based on the information you presented. Much of which has now been shown to be a misrepresentation, like the RINA information..

And lastly this PM from Steve Bambury:



Steve Bambury CEO Rocna said:


> Hi Maine Sail,
> 
> I just wanted to send you a quick note to let you know that *we've corrected the section of our website that you pointed out regarding RINA certification as it was confusing and to thank you for bringing it to our attention.* (See http://www.rocna.com/kb/Classificati..._certification)
> 
> ...


BTW I would love to see the head to head between the Rocna and the Manson Supreme. When do you plan on taking them up on this? You've called their construction _*"abysmal"*_ so this should be an easy win for you. Let's see it!!

Again Craig please pardon me for being one of your *"ignorant"* Rocna customers who just wants to see some honest marketing of the product....


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

OP answered. Venom leaking in.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine_Sail, please adhere to this thread's decorum...

What kind of anchor(s) do you have? And what/where do you sail?


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> Maine_Sail, please adhere to this thread's decorum...
> 
> What kind of anchor(s) do you have? And what/where do you sail?


Oh yeah my bad, I own;

Rocna - primary/bower
Fortress - Stern
Spade Steel - Back up
Manson Supreme -On loan
Spade Aluminum
Genuine Bruce
CQR's (genuine)
Danforth
Supermax
and have owned a Delta..

I sail in the North East US.

And my bad for not answering the OP:



Minnewaska said:


> It seems the Mason Supreme and Rocna are virtually the same product. They may have a problem with each other, but I'm asking about the consumer. I have read about the different construction methods, which are legit consumer issues. I'm asking why I should care about whatever else is going on. Could be a reason, I just don't know what it is.


They are both excellent anchors, I own both. The only issues I have seen are the shank in the MS is tall due to the slot and does not always fit in "hooped" bow rollers. Both anchors can have trouble fitting in some rollers of under sprits.

If I were doing it again I would buy which ever anchor had the better price as I have seen zero performance difference in the NE between my MS and my Rocna. I now personally believe they are no clear winners in terms of construction quality, as I once used to. I see no clear justification of where there should be a pricing difference between the two. You really can't go wrong either way unless you over pay.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Cool.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I don't think anybody ever claimed that Rocna copied Manson.


Some of us have been following this drama for a long time. Manson did tell that story back in the day.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> ... there are allegations that the new Rocnas (those which are manufactured in China while the earlier ones came from NZ/Canada) are of inferior quality than the original ones. Specifically, the quality of the steel has been doubted and there are some indications that these claims are supported by the former production manager of Rocna.


Allegations aren't always true. I can't speak to them. I have no knowledge. My two Rocnas are made in Canada and New Zealand. I have had disgruntled employees before and so I don't necessarily believe everything someone crops up and yells about, particularly when they sign on to Internet boards posing as other than they are. There are two sides (or three or four) to every story and I'd like to hear everyone out.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Of note is further that Manson has asked Rocna publicly that both anchors should be tested on certified testing equipment and Rocna has so far ignored this challenge, although it has been reminded of it several times by various posters.


This one just makes me giggle. If a competitor stands up and says you should bring your product over to test in their facility with their gear and their staff why is anyone surprised that the "offer" is given a pass.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Rocna has claimed for years on their webpage that this [certification] is also true for their anchors but it now turns out (according to Steve Banbury, the CEO of Rocna) that this is not the case.


We've read different stuff. I remember Rocna saying (back when Peter and Craig were pretty much Rocna) that they weren't in a position to pay for certification. Just because one hasn't paid for the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval doesn't mean the product isn't worthy. It doesn't mean it is either of course. Certification processes are very expensive and all the cost goes to the vendor.

I own two Rocna anchors and have sailed and delivered many boats with new generation anchors including Spade and Manson Supreme. As anchors they are all good anchors.

Where ethics are concerned I think there are many more reasons to doubt Manson than Rocna. Maybe that makes Rocna "least bad" but it isn't clear that Rocna is guilty of more than ill-communicated passion.

You may come to your own conclusions.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> Some of us have been following this drama for a long time. Manson did tell that story back in the day.
> 
> Allegations aren't always true. I can't speak to them. I have no knowledge. My two Rocnas are made in Canada and New Zealand. I have had disgruntled employees before and so I don't necessarily believe everything someone crops up and yells about, particularly when they sign on to Internet boards posing as other than they are. There are two sides (or three or four) to every story and I'd like to hear everyone out.
> 
> ...


OK, I am learning something new here. I did not know that Manson claimed at some time that Rocna copied their design. I only heard the opposite claim about a million times. Live and learn...

And of course I absolutely agree with you that allegations aren't always true. Didn't I make that very clear in my post? Grant King, the former Rocna production manager, has promised to provide data and until he produces them, his claims are allegations and nothing more.

Re. the testing 'challenge,' my understanding is that Manson has certified testing equipment and invites Rocna to have both anchors undergo the same testing procedures, in their (Rocna's) presence. What's wrong with that? If Rocna has equivalent facilities (I suppose they must do their QA _somewhere_), they could reply to that by also doing tests on both anchors on their own testing equipment, again in the presence of representatives of both companies, and hopefully some neutral parties, too.

Or, perhaps they have some good reasons why this testing is a bad idea. Good, so let's hear them. Instead, complete silence.

Re. your last point, I don't know how much certification costs and whether it even makes sense for this type of anchor. If, way back, Peter and Craig felt that it was too expensive, fine, then don't do it. But DON'T LIE on your webpage, saying that the anchors are RINA certified!

Is that too much to ask?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> OK, I am learning something new here.


First let me thank you for a very level-headed response. I am a little fussy today *grin* and could have been more tactful in my choice of wording in a couple of places.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Grant King, the former Rocna production manager, has promised to provide data and until he produces them, his claims are allegations and nothing more.


I have found the posts Mr. King appears to have made as a customer, but can't locate the ones he made as himself (although I remember them). Any help?



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Re. the testing 'challenge,' my understanding is that Manson has certified testing equipment and invites Rocna to have both anchors undergo the same testing procedures, in their (Rocna's) presence.


I think it would be much more appropriate to suggest testing at an independent testing facility with both parties present. I know a good one in Chicago and would be happy to attend if Manson and Rocna covered my travel expenses. It would be great if they covered my day rate as well. *grin*



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Re. your last point, I don't know how much certification costs and whether it even makes sense for this type of anchor.


Certification costs lots -- hundreds of thousands of USD. I just looked through the new Rocna web site and I couldn't find anything about claimed certifications. Linky?

Thanks again, dave


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> Certification costs lots -- hundreds of thousands of USD. I just looked through the new Rocna web site and I couldn't find anything about claimed certifications. Linky?
> 
> Thanks again, dave


Dave,

See this post: Post #20

It has the link in it. Keep in mind though that this was only changed last week. The original wording is in post #20 though as well as the current & changed wording and a PM from Steve Bambury to myself outlining the changes he made.


----------



## Melrna (Apr 6, 2004)

This is a great discussion that many can learn from. This is what the forum is all about. Getting information that many can use. 
To Eherlihy - Sorry I haven't followed all the forums post here. Just look for info that I can use or learn when I do log in. Thought it was a good place for questions. 
To keep Smackdaddy happy: I have Ronca, Delta and Fortress on my boat. Use each for what they are made for depending on the sea bottom and sea state. 
To Craig - Thanks for answering my questions. It is much appreciated. 
Bottom line and summary, marketing is marketing, competition is competition. Like boys on the playground, "My toy is always better than yours!". Your mileage may vary.
I do believe that Practical Sailor and Bluewater ( or other sailing magazine) magazines have both done independent testing on the new generation anchors a few years back. Both the Ronca and Mason came out pretty even in all the independent testing that I have seen over the years.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> First let me thank you for a very level-headed response. I am a little fussy today *grin* and could have been more tactful in my choice of wording in a couple of places.
> 
> I have found the posts Mr. King appears to have made as a customer, but can't locate the ones he made as himself (although I remember them). Any help?
> 
> ...


Yes, the Mr. King/whaleboy story is admittedly a bit unclear. My understanding is that by some internet sleuthing, Rocna (as reported by its CEP) showed that whaleboy is Mr. King in disguise. Since whaleboy never disputed this, I assumed it to be true.

Your suggestion of having the testing done at some neutral facility is excellent, just the kind of response I would have loved to be made by Rocna. Then we could see how Manson reacts to it. But, unfortunately, Rocna never made such a suggestion.

Maine Sail answered your last question.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Maine Sail said:


> Dave,
> 
> See this post: Post #20


Thank you sir. I can find the bits where Rocna describes the limits of what they have been certified. What I can't track down is any indication other than forum posts that they claim certifications they didn't have. No links, nothing on archive.org, nothing on rocna.com that I can find.

There are posts that Rocna made inappropriate claims. I don't see the claims themselves. I'm just trying to keep on top of all this stuff.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Melrna said:


> To keep Smackdaddy happy: I have Ronca, Delta and Fortress on my boat. Use each for what they are made for depending on the sea bottom and sea state.


Whew! I was about to start using bold type and all caps.

Thanks for saving me from that.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

SVAuspicious said:


> Thank you sir. I can find the bits where Rocna describes the limits of what they have been certified. What I can't track down is any indication other than forum posts that they claim certifications they didn't have. No links, nothing on archive.org, nothing on rocna.com that I can find.
> 
> There are posts that Rocna made inappropriate claims. I don't see the claims themselves. I'm just trying to keep on top of all this stuff.


I believe they have recently made changes to their website as a result of these on-line discussions.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> Thank you sir. I can find the bits where Rocna describes the limits of what they have been certified. *What I can't track down is any indication other than forum posts that they claim certifications they didn't have. No links, nothing on archive.org, nothing on rocna.com that I can find. *
> 
> There are posts that Rocna made inappropriate claims. I don't see the claims themselves. I'm just trying to keep on top of all this stuff.


Rocna changed their web site last week. The original wording was copied and pasted by me from their web site.

_A quick search of SN reveals this quote by Craig:



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-m...tml#post574735

Click to expand...

RINA "obtained" does that not indicate that the anchor has completed or HAS a RINA certificate? Just one quick search finds that..

I guess if you wanted to order a RINA certified anchor you could special order one and they'd have it built special in a RINA facility but the current crop of Rocna anchors the certification is not yet completed, as the web site now correctly states.

Of course this has NOTHING to do with "certifications" and it has everything to do with deceptive marketing tactics which is where I take issue with them.
*



Rocna said:



Rocna classification and certification

Click to expand...

*


Rocna said:



*The Rocna anchor range has RINA type approval and SHHP classification*. *Its facilities are RINA approved and individual anchor certification can be provided on request.* RINA is a member of the IACS and the Rocna classification will be accepted by all other notable societies including Lloyd's, DNV, Bureau Veritas, ABS, and others as equivalent with their own rules.

Click to expand...

Kind of hard to provide "certifications" when you don't yet have them...

_


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> Thank you sir. I can find the bits where Rocna describes the limits of what they have been certified. What I can't track down is any indication other than forum posts that they claim certifications they didn't have. No links, nothing on archive.org, nothing on rocna.com that I can find.
> 
> There are posts that Rocna made inappropriate claims. I don't see the claims themselves. I'm just trying to keep on top of all this stuff.


It's right there in the post that Maine Sail referred you to. The Rocna website used to say (for years):

"Rocna classification and certification

The Rocna anchor range has RINA type approval and SHHP classification. Its facilities are RINA approved and individual anchor certification can be provided on request."

They have now changed the wording on the page since Steve Bambury had to publicly admit that it is a lie.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> I can't follow all the venom over Rocna and whoever Craig is. I've linked to threads that have over 400 posts on the subject. Geesh. I have a job, I can't read all that.
> 
> Can anyone explain, hopefully in 200 words or less, why, as a consumer, I care what is going on here?


For all intents and purposes you probably don't.



> ]It seems the Mason Supreme and Rocna are virtually the same product.


For all intents and purposes they probably are.



> They may have a problem with each other, but I'm asking about the consumer. I have read about the different construction methods, which are legit consumer issues. I'm asking why I should care about whatever else is going on. Could be a reason, I just don't know what it is.


For all intents and purposes you are just as confused as the rest of us.

Summary

Manson is probably slimey .. if only cos on the surface pretty much everything they do are blatant copies.

Rocna is probably slimey for apparently not disclosing/disclosing too much/disclosing that which they had no right to disclose.

Fortress are probably not so slimey.

All of the above are exceptionally good anchors. Morally Fortress probably have the high ground but wow they are expensive.

(in 95 words whats more)

Well 100 if you include "in 95 words .. oh never mind !!


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

*In summary.....*

I have been following and I have contributed posts to both the YBW thread, which at one point had reached 750 posts and 40,000 views, and the current Anything Sailing forum which is up to 517 posts and 13,750 views.

The following was revealed, and these are not allegations, they are facts, one of which have already been proven in this thread:

1. The Rocna anchor did not "win" the West Marine test, the results of which were reported in Sail, Yachting Monthly, and Power & MotorYacht magazines which Rocna has been falsely claiming since October 2006.

2. The Rocna anchor did not have "40% greater holding power than the next best anchor" in this test as they have falsely claimed since then as well.

3. Rocna falsely claimed that they possessed RINA certifications for their anchors which they clearly did not.

4. Craig Smith of Rocna purchased the domain name of a deceased competitor (Alain Poiraud) and this domain name is now pointed to a web site where this deceased competitor's product (Spade) is being denigrated.

Based on the above, and with these facts known, why anyone would consider purchasing the product of a company with so little integrity, or would even attempt to defend them, is incomprehensible.......no matter how great their product might be.

A very serious issue now has yet to be resolved, and that is the composition of the steel material that Rocna is using for their Chinese anchors. Despite Rocna's claims, which people have trouble believing for obvious reasons, there is a great concern that this Chinese steel material is inferior to the steel used previously with the NZ and Canadian made anchors.

Readers in both forums (a new YBW forum started up after the one referenced above was closed) are anxiously awaiting the posting of the independent test results, which are expected next week.

If anyone would like more details regarding the above, then I would be glad to provide them.

Regards,
Brian Sheehan
Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Staying on the consumer issues. Is the stainless Rocna also suspect in Chinese quality? Does Manson make a stainless model?


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Staying on the consumer issues. Is the stainless Rocna also suspect in Chinese quality? Does Manson make a stainless model?


The answer to the first is - no-one really knows - and if you ask for a "certified" Rocna anchor, it won't be made in China.

It seems Rocna haven't been able to produce any paperwork saying their Chinese manufacturing facilities have been QA audited (by RINA, SGS or anyone else) yet - they say it is still be finalised.

It's all very much a case of "watch this space"..


----------



## PaulfromNWOnt (Aug 20, 2010)

Seriously?

To me, the ad read that they posessed some sort of certified facility, and that if you wanted a certified anchor, they'd happily build you one. I didn't see where they claimed that all anchors had this certification (musta missed it). I also saw something about "type" for something else.

Chinese steel..... If these products were engineered to be within thousandths of an inch in tolerance, and spec'd to withstand torque to within an inch pound of their rating, then yes I could see the importance. This is a chunk of metal that you're going to throw over the side into one of the harsher environments on the planet, if there isn't some sort of margin for error built in, I'd expect the skipper to make a calculation/adjustment before purchase to be on the safe side.

You could take the engine block from a Chinese tractor, tie a chain to it and that would hold you. Hot dip galvanize the works, and it would last a while.

Design is what we're down to, and I could count on one hand the number of products that live up to their own hype. Salesmen have an agenda: Get you to buy their product so they can buy groceries. Period. Oh sure, they'll make all kinds of claims, and some of them might even be true.... did I mention I'm selling a PRIME piece of real estate in the Everglades?

I can't believe people are getting so twisted about this crap, and I've spent too much time typing this to delete it. 

Here it stands, and I'm sticking to my rock on a rope.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

PaulfromNWOnt said:


> Seriously?
> 
> To me, the ad read that they posessed some sort of certified facility, and that if you wanted a certified anchor, they'd happily build you one. I didn't see where they claimed that all anchors had this certification (musta missed it). I also saw something about "type" for something else.
> 
> ...


As I posted, if you wanted a certified anchor, they'll happily build you one - but it won't come from China, and may or may not be certified.

You're forgetting that Joe-Average-Yachtie *doesn't even need* a "certified anchor". It's commercial shipping, that spend wayyyy more $$$ on their anchors and require them to hold, that Manson, Rocna, Fortress et al are marketing to - not the crowd on Sailnet.

The arguments to date are all about "designing what you intend to build and testing what you actually make to see if it meets the performance you claim it does". It seems Rocna have some work to do there..

Go ahead, chuck your galvanised engine block over the side - but don't expect a supertanker to do the same, or the ExxonValdez won't be ancient history.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

Seems like a lot of venom over not much if you ask me. People have obviously sailed around the world with the "old school" anchors proving they work in a wide range of conditions if you use good anchor technique. The newer anchors MAY work in a slightly wider range of conditions and MIGHT be worth a slight premium over older designs, if you NEED a new anchor. Given that the two new designs being discussed are very similar, and the more expensive one is built in China, I know which one I'd buy if I were in the market. I have no faith in Chinese metallurgy.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Hartley18 said:


> As I posted, if you wanted a certified anchor, they'll happily build you one - but it won't come from China, and may or may not be certified.
> 
> You're forgetting that Joe-Average-Yachtie *doesn't even need* a "certified anchor". It's commercial shipping, that spend wayyyy more $$$ on their anchors and require them to hold, that Manson, Rocna, Fortress et al are marketing to - not the crowd on Sailnet.


Then why the hell is everyone getting so bent on this whole cert thing?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Then why the hell is everyone getting so bent on this whole cert thing?


As for me, this is easily answered: It is a question of ethics. Or honesty, if you want. I don't like to be lied to.

This whole cert thing may or may not be important for Joe Sailor (that would be me). But once someone lies to me, I have a hard time believing other things they are telling me.


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> As for me, this is easily answered: It is a question of ethics. Or honesty, if you want. I don't like to be lied to.
> 
> This whole cert thing may or may not be important for Joe Sailor (that would be me). But once someone lies to me, I have a hard time believing other things they are telling me.


Exactly, integrity, ethics and honesty down the drain.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Brian,
The fellow who has been claiming that Rocna use inferior steel. The one who claims to be having independent testing done. He who reckons he is nowt but a Rocna customer. 
Is it true he has been outed as a former and very digruntled Rocna employee ?

While I agree with you that Rocna's tactics have been pretty reprehensible and as such indefensible it is surely fair to say that not one shred of solid evidence to support the contention that they are using inferior grade steel has been presented. Certainly none that I have seen either here where this thread comes very late to the party, on A-S or YBW. 

Whalebone (sp) says a lot and claims a lot but thus far bugger all evidence to back up his claims. 

I'm repeating myself here but I still think the "Peter Smith" is walking over a dead man's grave" busines is overblown twaddle. 

Brian, thus far you have come out of this with your reputation enhanced. Hell, if I knew then what I know now and I had Alex's buying power I'd have put the bite on you for a deal on a Fortress instead of buying a Rocna ..  but I think you run some risk of overstating the case. (my opinion, nothing more)


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

denby said:


> Exactly, integrity, ethics and honesty down the drain.


Yeah, yeah, den. I've seen plenty of that in sailing forums.

Look, what do you guys want out of all this? Do you want some CEO to fall on his sword for your gratification? I understand from the above posts that errors in the website copy/data have been corrected, etc. What will it take for you to be satisfied? Seriously.

There seems to be this group of dudes trying to set traps across the whole internet to incite a big war between these companies - all in the false light of trying to "educate the public". But is that really the motive? It just seems like this group wants to burn a company to the ground purely because they don't like some dude. And we've all seen that before.

I just hope this crap doesn't happen here at SN too. Why? Because this kind of witch hunt is no less sleazy than what the hunters are accusing the witches of. If you want to talk ethics...be ethical. Forum fights are not that. It's that simple. Too many agendas, too much anonymity, no accountability.

Go sailing for crying out loud...and drop your favorite chunk of pointy metal over the side and drink some rum...and hope it sets.

PS - I agree with TD on the various manufacturers jumping on this. Any PR pro will tell you that you're playing with fire.


----------



## transmitterdan (Aug 22, 2010)

Hear Hear!


----------



## chrisncate (Jan 29, 2010)

I'm telling you, go with a heavy mushroom as your main ground tackle. 

Everyone at the marina will ask you about it, and having a 150# shroom hanging off the bow makes a Rocna AND a Manson look like piddly peanuts... trust me..


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

chrisncate said:


> I'm telling you, go with a heavy mushroom as your main ground tackle.
> 
> Everyone at the marina will ask you about it, and having a 150# shroom hanging off the bow makes a Rocna AND a Manson look like piddly peanuts... trust me..


150 pounds of shrooms will make you a lot of friends at the anchorage too.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

tdw said:


> While I agree with you that Rocna's tactics have been pretty reprehensible and as such indefensible it is surely fair to say that not one shred of solid evidence to support the contention that they are using inferior grade steel has been presented. Certainly none that I have seen either here where this thread comes very late to the party, on A-S or YBW.
> 
> Whalebone (sp) says a lot and claims a lot but thus far bugger all evidence to back up his claims.


Whilst you're quite right there, TD - unfortunately Mr Rocna hasn't been able to come up with any evidence to support his contention that they *aren't* using inferior-grade steel, etc. etc. - only that they're still waiting for the paperwork. Unfortunately, from what I've read, I'm not convinced that Mr Rocna even knows himself (yet!)..

So, yep, you have some claims and accusations out there on the one hand and on the other? Nothing, just some shuffling noises and then silence... With their competition seemingly quick to address whatever comes up, IMHO it's the silence that has people concerned.

What is it really that they have to hide? Maybe nothing at all, but does anyone really know?? It's a conspiracy theorist's tea and scones! ..and so out they come.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Hartley18 said:


> As I posted, if you wanted a certified anchor, they'll happily build you one - but it won't come from China, and may or may not be certified.


Hartley, that is untrue. Rocna use a fully RINA certified facility for such anchors which is located in China. If you wish to purchase for example a $20K 275 kg stainless steel Rocna and your naval architect requires society certification, you will find that is quite possible and Rocna happy to help.



Hartley18 said:


> Whilst you're quite right there, TD - unfortunately Mr Rocna hasn't been able to come up with any evidence to support his contention that they *aren't* using inferior-grade steel, etc.


Again, that is incorrect. Apart from the unreasonable standard of creating a controversy out of thin air then expecting a business to prove a negative, you appear to have missed the several responses to this allegation that Rocna have already made. In this very thread I outlined that Rocna have already published illustrations of their factory floor QA processes demonstrating steel meeting spec and independent steel sample certification, and that Rocna are in the process of having conducted additional independent testing just to address this issue.

~

The likes of Fortress' post above are entirely untrue on every point and well representative of the sort of attempts by competitors to conduct something of a smear campaign against Rocna. Because of the way the recent threads on other forums have quickly become dominated by agendized individuals, I am not going to engage in debates with those individuals until the principal current drama is resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

To clarify once again
1) Rocna are at worst responsible for a bit of poor writing on the RINA issue, now edited. They have not misrepresented the facts.
2) Rocna have already provided their own demonstration of correctly-spec'ed shanks, and independent testing is at the time of writing being organized/conducted.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Craig, my apologies for not following the entire conversation across various sites. I am aware from posts in other places that independent testing is being organized/conducted (and about time too) and, with others I'm sure, look forward to a successful outcome.



Craig Smith said:


> Hartley, that is untrue. Rocna use a fully RINA certified facility for such anchors which is located in China. If you wish to purchase for example a $20K 275 kg stainless steel Rocna and your naval architect requires society certification, you will find that is quite possible and Rocna happy to help.


Now here I am curious:

1. Can you point me to current copies of the Certificates (even just the Manufacturing one would be fine) for this "fully RINA certified facility"?? Unless I've missed it, no one else seems to be able to, to date, and I'm sure it must have come up in discussion somewhere...

2. Is this the same facility where the smaller anchors are made??

Thanks. 

BTW, although they might be first to ask, it isn't the Naval Architects that require society certification.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Hartley, you need to talk to Rocna. On your 2nd question, no, there is no requirement.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Craig,

You won't respond to the points in my message because you can't. They are factual and not open to debate. 

And now, finally after 5 years or so of you insulting competitive manufacturers and their customers, Rocna finally heard enough outrage about you that you can no longer write that you are "Affiliated with Rocna." You have become that much of an embarrassment to them.

As such, you have ZERO credibility in forums where people are familiar with you.

You are a young man and I hope you find success elsewhere, and this lesson about having proper respect for others serves you well.

Sincerely,
Brian


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Craig Smith said:


> Again, that is incorrect. Apart from the unreasonable standard of creating a controversy out of thin air then expecting a business to prove a negative, you appear to have missed the several responses to this allegation that Rocna have already made. In this very thread I outlined that Rocna have already published illustrations of their factory floor QA processes demonstrating steel meeting spec and independent steel sample certification, and that Rocna are in the process of having conducted additional independent testing just to address this issue.


While I do actually agree with you Criag that the metallurgy incident is a fabricated *farse* I still don't think it has been "proven" to the doubters through a couple of photos.

Where I disagree is that your anchor is "stronger" than the, and I quote you here, "abysmal" Manson Supreme.

After six years acting as the school yard bully by bashing the heads of your competition into the pavement it's time you man up and face Manson challenge head on. Put your money where your mouth is. To be fair an independent RINA and Lloyds representative should be present at the head to head destruction testing. We also WANT video proof of the winner. C'mon Craig after your years of spouting off about how much better built the Rocna is you owe it to us to now PROVE IT and based on your past confidence in your product this should be a no-brainer easy win for you...

*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.

Any time you would like to test your anchor we are here. Any time."*_

Below are but two of your many defaming statements about the Manson product. I don't see anyway you can simultaneously make unsupported claims, for 6+ years, then then run like a chicken from a challenge of an _"abysmal"_, your words not mine, product..



Craig Smith said:


> *Certainly nothing from Manson, the quality of their copies is abysmal.*
> 
> ***
> *it's often just edge-welded so the space between the sheets is effectively hollow. In addition to a ridiculous lack of strength, this has massive other implications.* For example the weld is usually ground off to make it look nice, and the laminate edges might not be properly chamfered before joining. Result: not much weld holding your fluke together. *Or, maybe the galvanizing blows it apart. Or, it doesn't, and the anchor rusts from the inside out.*


Oh and BTW here's Manson's response to Craig's statements/bashing regarding his "edge welded" theory..

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?"

*_

BTW that is a 0.015% failure rate of the Manson Supreme or a purportedly "abysmal" quality anchor.. Not bad by ANY manufacturing standards. How many Rocna's have been sold & how many bent?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

How about the stainless steal product. Concerns about that metallurgy too? I heard both side of the story over the galvanized product.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Its doesn't seem like Craig has any say, input or control over what Rocna decides to do with testing. I don't think I even care if he does or not. In fact, I'm not sure if it's pride over his Father's invention or a financial interest in the product's success that is motivating him to be involved at all. Again, from a consumer perspective, I don't think I care.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> How about the stainless steal product. Concerns about that metallurgy too? I heard both side of the story over the galvanized product.


To the best of my knowledge, its 316. I have heard that Rocna is claiming it is 2205, I don't know more. Sorry!


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Guys,

This is supposed to be the CRIB NOTES - aka summary.

The OP stated;


Minnewaska said:


> OP answered. Venom leaking in.


back in post 21... we're now at post 60!

Truth and justice are all very good, but the point of the thread has been met. 

May I suggest that you continue the crusade in one of the other threads?


----------



## PaulfromNWOnt (Aug 20, 2010)

Hartley18 said:


> As I posted, if you wanted a certified anchor, they'll happily build you one - but it won't come from China, and may or may not be certified.
> 
> You're forgetting that Joe-Average-Yachtie *doesn't even need* a "certified anchor". It's commercial shipping, that spend wayyyy more $$$ on their anchors and require them to hold, that Manson, Rocna, Fortress et al are marketing to - not the crowd on Sailnet.
> 
> ...


That's exactly my point.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

As EHIRLIHY quite rightly states, this a CRIB NOTES thread. If you want to start up a "Lets hang Craig up by the short and curlies" thread then please, be my guest but lets keep this one to the point. 

I'd also suggest that some care is taken over what you say in this or any other thread. Its not a matter of censorship its a matter of accepting that outright abuse will not be tolerated. 

Craig himself has been guilty of going way over the top at times and he has been cautioned by the mods on many occasions. Indeed we have sent him off on the odd holiday and if you try and reinsert that bloody commercial link into your sig file Craig, it will be a very long holiday.

Nonetheless, and annoying oik notwithstanding, outright libel cannot be condoned. Brian, I'd like you to have a look at the post in question and think about whether or not it should be modified. Meanwhile the mods are looking at it and will edit if we deem necessary.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> As for me, this is easily answered: It is a question of ethics. Or honesty, if you want. I don't like to be lied to.
> 
> This whole cert thing may or may not be important for Joe Sailor (that would be me). But once someone lies to me, I have a hard time believing other things they are telling me.


Let's see, "ethics"? From my earlier post:

"This is all from memory, but I think Rocna designed their
anchor and approached Manson with a licensing offer.
Manson declined and then shortly came out with the Manson
Supreme which, from pictures, is almost identical to
the Rocna design, the "slot" being about the only basic
difference. Looks like patent infringement to me?"

Looks like the ethic's thing can go both ways?

Dabnis


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Let's see, "ethics"? From my earlier post:
> 
> "This is all from memory, but I think Rocna designed their
> anchor and approached Manson with a licensing offer.
> ...


OK, what is the source of this quote (by which I mean, who made this claim), and is it an allegation or a fact?


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> OK, what is the source of this quote, and is it an allegation or a fact?


Seems to me it's more irrelevant slander than allegation and is something best worked out commercially between two companies.. but the Mod has spoken, so best ignore it:



tdw said:


> As EHIRLIHY quite rightly states, this a CRIB NOTES thread. If you want to start up a "Lets hang Craig up by the short and curlies" thread then please, be my guest but lets keep this one to the point.
> 
> I'd also suggest that some care is taken over what you say in this or any other thread. Its not a matter of censorship its a matter of accepting that outright abuse will not be tolerated.


I've made my points, which, unfortunately for what seems to be a good product, apparently still stand.

Unlike most here, not being the owner of anything other than a rusty CQR, my interest has been the Certification of anchors for commercial-size shipping following a passing query from one of our clients. Whilst I'll admit that there seems something slightly fishy about the Manson SHHP certification, at least it exists; Fortress comes up squeaky clean and although it is indeed happening and they are going through the right hoops-and-hurdles, Rocna don't have theirs yet - although until recently they've been happy to tell people it does... a bit like telling people you have a new house, at the stumps-and-frames stage.

If I was in the market for a new anchor, I'd be holding off for a while..


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> OK, what is the source of this quote (by which I mean, who made this claim), and is it an allegation or a fact?


Mast,

It is adult beverage time, I will see if I can find the
post.

Later, dabnis


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

tdw said:


> Nonetheless, and annoying oik notwithstanding, outright libel cannot be condoned. Brian, I'd like you to have a look at the post in question and think about whether or not it should be modified. Meanwhile the mods are looking at it and will edit if we deem necessary.


If possible, please let me know which post you are referring to in a PM or a follow up post so that I can be clear on what you have found to be objectionable.

I certainly respect your rules and if I have stepped over any boundaries then I apologize.

Regarding the independent steel testing, it is my understanding that a very detailed post with solid evidence of the results will be posted shortly.

Regards,
Brian


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Enough hot air in here to fuel a balloon race.

Those of you who are hell bent worry about ethics worry about something more improratnat like unelecting your Congressmen...now there is an example of real ethical violations...they are spending all of our money. Where you spend your money on your chunk of steel is your businesss

I for one beleive that both anchors are hard to differenciate the advantages of and will go with the original not the knockoff

I own two Rocnas...one Canadian and the other the NZ model,,,,and I have never slept better at anchor.

Dave


----------



## Joesaila (May 19, 2007)

*Oy!*

Love my Rocna! No connection to anyone and while it would be interesting to see an unbiased test of Manson vs Rocna...at this point of the debate it would have to be done by Martians to have remote credibility. It's pretty obvious Manson copied Rocna and produced a cheaper product to make a profit.

The guy from Fortress is creating the very malicious atmosphere he is complaining about and hurting sales. 

Maine, you are one of the most knowlegable people out there but the attacks on Craig are simply confusing....If some dud copies and profits on your work ...it's plagerism and this should hold true for Manson...

Sorry if I don't get it, but the picture that is around of the rusty and bent Manson speaks for itself....and unless someone has a picture of a similar Rocna, the horse is dead.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

All I know is that I was orginally going to get a Roca. But after reading everything I would not really find anything about it that made it better than the Manson Surpreme. other than hype! Add to that the 1/3 price difference between the Roca 55 lb and the MS 60 lb it became an easy choice.

I do remember reading the certifications on each site once and being confused because 1 said they were the "only" one to have such and I could see both making the claim.

Then there were all the years worth of Craig trash talk, which I know understand he is just related to the designer and not ev npart of the company. At one time even with the price difference I was going to buy the Roca because the price in the long run wasn't much, but the trash talk finally got to me. So in the end the price, research, and Craig's trash talk convinced me of the Manson Supreme.


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

This thread represents much of whats wrong with online forums...people cant just answer a poster question...they MUST elaborate! LMFAO! 

To the OP. Bought a Rocna at the beginning of last year, I am very pleased with it. I think the chain would break before the Rocna let go. All but one time it set on the first drop in the first year using it in the Chesapeake's muddy bottom, often grassy. Had a CQR, I didn't know what I was missing till we made the change. 

You cant go wrong with the Rocna, you decide...Manson, Fortress, Delta...all good.


----------



## bloodhunter (May 5, 2009)

*Plus ça change ...*

We left on a long cruise a few months back and have been off line until a couple of day ago. But this thread -- its like I never left. There's enough heat here for me to use it to power a steam engine but precious little light. I'm sure the OP has got his answer a long time ago so I very, very respectfully request that the mods shut this down and, if it were only possible, drive a stake through its heart 
uke :gunner


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Joesaila said:


> Maine, you are one of the most knowlegable people out there but the attacks on Craig are simply confusing....If some dud copies and profits on your work ...it's plagerism and this should hold true for Manson...
> 
> Sorry if I don't get it, but the picture that is around of the rusty and bent Manson speaks for itself....and unless someone has a picture of a similar Rocna, the horse is dead.


Sent you a PM to not clog this thread..

P.S. When did we disallow thread drift on Sail Net?

The OP's question* has* been answered. What is the issue, as nearly ALWAYS happens, in carrying on the dialect on an important topic after the OP has the answer? There are thousands of threads on SN with "drift"...


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Joesaila said:


> The guy from Fortress is creating the very malicious atmosphere he is complaining about and hurting sales.




I understand your viewpoint. Unless it has actually happened to you and your company, it is difficult to understand the outrage when your product & company have been put under attack by a dishonest new competitor.

As is oftentimes the case, those who wish to defend their companies and expose the fraud of unscrupulous competitors are seen in a negative light themselves, which I fully understand as well.

However, the discussion is about a manufacturer of safety equipment, and I believe that they should be held to a higher level of integrity. Falsifying test results and certifications should be brought to public view, and maybe boating forums are not the place to do it......but this is where they got their start!

Regards,
Brian


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

... Why ... won't ... thread .... die .... ?

AAaaaahhhhh....


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> ... Why ... won't ... thread .... die .... ?
> 
> AAaaaahhhhh....


Why -- are -- you -- still -- reading -- it???

ARGHHHH ---


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

because --- anchors --- threads are like -------- crack--------------- and you can not stop yourself


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Joesaila said:


> The guy from Fortress is creating the very malicious atmosphere he is complaining about and hurting sales.




For what its worth: As a moderator for Anything-Sailing where this topic is now nearing 600 posts and 15,500 views and, IMHO been much more heated than here, I have found Brian from Fortress to always be professional and respectful while at the same time firm in his efforts to discover the truth to us the general public.

(I have no affiliation with Fortress what so ever.)


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Why -- are -- you -- still -- reading -- it???
> 
> ARGHHHH ---


Agreed 100%. If you don't like a thread don't read it and don't respond. It will die a natural death when the interest dies.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> OK, what is the source of this quote (by which I mean, who made this claim), and is it an allegation or a fact?


Mast, & all,

My post below was based on my recollection of some posts
maybe about 2 or 3 years ago. Craig may have participated,
not sure? The post is my opinion on what I read, nothing more.
Note the words "I think" & "Looks like"
I think there was also some discussion of possible legal action
not being financially practical on Rocna's part? Perhaps if Craig
is watching all of this he can comment on it? In any event
after looking at Manson's product line pictures they sure remind
me of other manufacturers work, again, just my opinion.

Dabnis

"Let's see, "ethics"? From my earlier post:

"This is all from memory, but I think Rocna designed their
anchor and approached Manson with a licensing offer.
Manson declined and then shortly came out with the Manson
Supreme which, from pictures, is almost identical to
the Rocna design, the "slot" being about the only basic
difference. Looks like patent infringement to me?"

Looks like the ethic's thing can go both ways?"


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Mast & all,

Here is the post I was referring to:

About the Manson Supreme Anchor

And the original post:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/70512-kingston-anchors-any-experiences.html

Dabnis


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Mast & all,
> 
> Here is the post I was referring to:
> 
> ...


Can we classify the Rocna webpage in the category of 'unproven allegations?'


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Can we classify the Rocna webpage in the category of 'unproven allegations?'


I suppose one can classify it in any manner one choses. It
does appear that the Manson Supreme, a virtual copy of the
Rocna, in my opinion, hit the streets shortly after the Rocna
was introduced. Could have been a co-incidence but I doubt it.

Dabnis


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

dabnis said:


> I suppose one can classify it in any manner one choses. It
> does appear that the Manson Supreme, a virtual copy of the
> Rocna, in my opinion, hit the streets shortly after the Rocna
> was introduced. Could have been a co-incidence but I doubt it.
> ...


Some people say that both Manson and Rocna were working on the design at the same time and Rocna came out slighty earlier, e.g. in this thread on a random crusing site: ROCNA & (possible) clones - Page 2 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums . Also, in the same thread, in response to the usual Craig claim that Manson stole their idea, Manson (post #18) says:

"Craig, stop being an idiot. People are seeing through your childish approach. The Spade/Bugel/Power/Sarca anchors were all around before either the Rocna or the Supreme.
The Rocna is simply a Delta shank stuck onto a modified Spade fluke with a Bugel roll bar....its not brain surgery Craig. Your Father hasnt reinvented the wheel. You shoud pay Alain a LOT of credit for his Spade anchor, its what your father based the design off and you know it.

And while we are on the topic of knock-offs, I see Rocna has now come out with a rockslot/sandslot ala The Supreme. If thats not a direct copy of The Supreme, tell me what is."

This seems right to me. The Rocna looks suspiciously like a Spade with the rollbar from the Bugel welded on it. As does the Manson.

It is not that there was some stroke of genius that invented the One Anchor To Bind Them All. This is a continuing evolution and several people are trying out what works best with what is available at a given time. It is not a miracle, nor a proof of thievery, if they come up with similar solutions.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Mast,

Ok, very interesting. As my wife has politely reminded
me that my time is better spent running our small business
than "playing" on the internet I need to go. It has been
interesting chatting with you. Perhaps later on another
subject? I think we have pretty well beat this one into
ground, one way or the other.

Dabnis


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Wasi / Bugel Circa 1994 ish










Rocna 2004......


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

I've been anchoring for 40 years without losing a boat or causing damage (either to my boat or another) without using a Rocna or Manson. I see there's an angle here, but there's no magic. 

In the end you pays your money and takes your choice. It might help to look at more than the manufacturers' marketing, however. Check Practical Sailor (Dec '08) or other sources not connected with any manufacturer for an objective opinion.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Mast,
> 
> Ok, very interesting. As my wife has politely reminded
> me that my time is better spent running our small business
> ...


Yup, agree entirely. I should go back doing something productive, too (before MY wife catches me


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

fallard said:


> I've been anchoring for 40 years without losing a boat or causing damage (either to my boat or another) without using a Rocna or Manson. I see there's an angle here, but there's no magic.
> 
> In the end you pays your money and takes your choice. It might help to look at more than the manufacturers' marketing, however. Check Practical Sailor (Dec '08) or other sources not connected with any manufacturer for an objective opinion.


If there's a lesson in all of this...THIS IS IT!!!!!

That - and the fact that there are some seriously tender dudes on the interweb.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Ok, this thread has pretty much run its course. I'm going to lock it and start a new thread to try and get some straight answers. (oh ho I hear you scoff, fat chance you scruffy wee fuzz ball, but I am by nature marginally unpessimistic. )

If anyone wants to cut and paste stuff to the new thread, feel free, it is simply that this was "CribNotes" and some folk may feel that they are guilty of overt hijacking if they comment in this thread.


----------

