Rocna Anchors Situation

[Tom Keevil]

Apparently Manson paid for an independent testing lab to compare their anchors vs Rocna. Here are the results, which show Rocna fails at lower stress levels.

http://manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/Su ... ndards.htm

[Len]

Dean,
The safety of your boat and crew depends on the ability of your anchor to do what is expected of it. Debatting the engineering points is of no value to you if you are faced with the choice of getting a refund (and get a proven product) or possibly getting into trouble. I have no idea whether the Rancho is a good anchor, but we all know that sailors have been using Bruces, Danforths and CQRs for decades. My favorite is the Bruce which is currently my backup anchor for when my CQR with chain rode and my windless refuse to coperate with each other.
Never write something on the internet that you don't want repeated to wit I quote Dean
"Next time someone rags on Bruce anchors, you tell them that Bruce is a personal friend of mine, and what they ought to do is clam up and go buy one"

Lenny

[Sea Hunt Video]

Dean,
The safety of your boat and crew depends on the ability of your anchor to do what is expected of it. Debatting the engineering points is of no value to you if you are faced with the choice of getting a refund (and get a proven product) or possibly getting into trouble. I have no idea whether the Rancho is a good anchor, but we all know that sailors have been using Bruces, Danforths and CQRs for decades. My favorite is the Bruce which is currently my backup anchor for when my CQR with chain rode and my windless refuse to coperate with each other.
Never write something on the internet that you don't want repeated to wit I quote Dean
"Next time someone rags on Bruce anchors, you tell them that Bruce is a personal friend of mine, and what they ought to do is clam up and go buy one"

Lenny

FWLIW, I agree 100%. Why take the risk Dean, especially with something that is essential to safety at sea When you are next anchored for the night somewhere and a blow moves in are you and Margo going to be staying awake thinking about whether your Rocna will stay in one piece, bend or break, etc. If the answer is "yes" (and you KNOW that is the answer Dean) then why put yourself through that

In scuba diving I deal with "life supporting" equipment every day. If any open circuit regulator, closed circuit rebreather, tanks, etc. had any safety issue, I would immediately stop using it and return it to the mfg. I did that once with what are called "deco tanks" and would do it again in a heartbeat.

There may be a problem with some of the metals used in the Rocna anchors. There may not be a problem. Why take the chance - especially when WM is willing to take it back and give you a full refund

In my mind it is a significant action for a corp. as large as WM to send out a notice to all purchasers of Rocna anchors that WM will accept a return with a full refund. This is something they must have thought about a lot and was action taken probably after consultation with Rocna which I assume did not (and does not) like WM's action notice.

It would be interesting to know if Rocna has agreed to reimburse WM for all "returns". Since WM is still selling Rocna's (at least on the WM website) this may have been a condition of WM continuing to stock and sell Rocna anchors.

[Maine Sail]

I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion that "inferior steel" is the cause of the failures that have been reported. All steel will yield if you exceed the yield stress. Stress is force per unit area. These failures could well be caused by a design flaw; namely that the shaft could be too slender. It's very easy to poke shots at China, but they may not be the cause of the problem. The anchors that have failed may have experienced stress in a different axis than any of the test results modeled. An example MIGHT be that the chain had fouled around the shaft, pulling from a different direction. We really don't know.

I'm not saying there actually is a design flaw, because I don't have access to the facts. I just want people to consider the possibility before stating opinion as fact.

The original specification of the design by Peter Smith called for G80 steel or equivalent for the shank which has a UTS of about 800 and Peter Smith and his son Craig INSISTED, for many years, this was 100% necessary. Steve Bambury/Hold Fast CHANGED the spec to a less strong steel and this has been proven multiple times over in many independent tests.

In one test the UTS of the Rocna shanks was less that HALF that of a Manson Supreme. LESS THAN HALF!!! The NZ and Canadian built Rocna's are all made from Peter Smiths original specified steel and there has not been a single reported failure or bend of a NZ or BC built Rocna but a fair number of the Chinese made ones have show up looking like a pool noodle.

This has nothing to do with China and everything to do with the CEO of Rocna being a rather unethical, misleading and dishonest businessman who thinks he knows better than the designer how to build these anchors. It was Hold Fast & Bambury who changed the spec not the Chinese.

He has also lied and mislead current and past customers about the specified steel. As recently as April he was still claiming on the internet that the steel was the same as the original spec by Peter Smith and this was a bold faced lie. They have since removed the specifications from their web site saying insted the anchors are "fit for purpose" and the specs are "proprietary information"....

Kind of tough to have a written warranty written that says the anchor will meet the designed specs than claim the specs are proprietary information! Hmmmm the specs were not proprietary since the product launched then when it was found out they were cheating customers they all of a sudden became "top secret"....

If you own a Chinese made Rocna the choice is yours, I know what I'd do.... I did try and guide Dean into a Manson but it would not fit as well, IIRC..

The Rocna is a GREAT anchor and GREAT design but the execution has become rather suspect and the company has become rather shady.....

[Dean Abramson]

Lenny, you are a good friend, but you really don't need to go out of your way to make me feel better...

(In any event, I am touched that you saved my letters.)

Seriously, I may well take your (and others') advice, and switch to a Manson Supreme. I guess that will be a 35-pounder, which means yet another two lbs. I'll need to winch up with my manual windlass.

It is pretty ironic that this all started with my singing the praises of my 22 lb. Bruce. But I took folks' advice...

So when the Manson winds up on some $#*@-list a year from now, then what?

[Dean Abramson]

I have been thinking about the roller fitting and how that might mate with a Manson. I cut the pin in mine (it was bent and immobile) and lately, temporarily, I have been using a simple SS bolt and wingnut. I just remove the bolt when I want to move the rode from the roller to the chock. So far, I haven't dropped the parts overboard yet.

Now I am thinking maybe I ought to just go without a pin. I am guessing that the Manson would fit okay then.

What really would be the downside?

Matt, another thought I had was to get a SS bale (like for a boom vang) of the right size, and bolt that on, after removing the current pin. If the heads of the bolts were inside the fitting (as opposed to the nuts and excess threads), it would not take up too much room. The bale would arch up and, hopefully, clear a Manson. ??

My biggest question now is if the shank of the Manson will fit in the length I currently have between the roller and my chain-stopper. And, of course, I will have to make a new custom shank-securer.

I will need to take some measurements on the boat this weekend.

I am definitely leaning towards taking West Marine up on the offer. But it's all a bummer, because I really like the way things are set up now, and it took a bit of work to get it that way. And I kinda like the anchor... But I don't want to get stuck with a Corvair.

[tartansailor]

I swear by my 22# Delta holding my CD-25 firm in a 45 knot blow.
That was the storm that fused 1/2 of the anchor line diameter at it's chock.

Dick

[Joe CD MS 300]

Dean we are a little behind the curve on this topic on this board. It has been raging on for months on other boards with thousands of posts. I purchased a 33 lb Rocna in December 2009 and was disappointed at the time to find a "made in China" tag on the anchor. I started a thread on the topic on Sailner and I think also here. Io received a PM from Craig Smith who at the time I thought was connected with the company regarding the manufacturing facility in china and their quality control. I have since come to understand that Craigs connection with company is that he is the son of rhe inventor and receives some indirect financial benefit from anchor sales.

After reading many many posts from many many threads I have yet to see an account of an actual failure of a Rocna in use. My take on this is that the steel used at some point after production was less than what was speced on their website but still far more than adequate for IRS designed purpose. There is some element of am overreaction because of the many obnoxious posts by Craig Smith on many boards. Complicating my situation is that WM's announcement indiicated that issue arose in 2010 after I purchased my Rocna. I'm waiting on clarification from WM but for now I'm keeping the Rocna.

Joe

[Brian2]

I sail in Maine, between Quahog Bay and Lunt's Harbor, Frenchboro (so far). I use a 22# West Marine Danforth style. I have toyed with the idea of a different anchor, but where I anchor is mud (usually), I have 55 feet of chain, and 300 feet of 1/2" nylon rode.

I have seen many boats with different anchors drag. I saw a Bruce drag all over Harbor and Hall Island/Friendship anchorage. Most people that I watch anchor NEVER BOTHER TO SET the anchor. They just lower the anchor, swing to the wind, and go below. They don't back down and set the anchor. The aforementioned Bruce never set the anchor. I knew there was a storm predicted, and I rowed over and nonchalantly inquired about the Bruce, casually observed that he hadn't set it (trying not to be a know it all or offensive) and was informed that he had anchored all over the east coast and had never had a problem. Later in the day when the storm came up, he had a big problem.

Now, I try to anchor where even if it blows, there is little fetch for the seas to build, so that also helps. I have anchored in Buckle Harbor in 35 knots sustained for hours from the afternoon until morning, but the anchorage is/was protected from the direction of the wind. We had wind, but no large seas. Same in Maple Juice cove one day. The seas were larger due to the east/se wind that was blowing 35 knots. The anchored "worked" a little, but held good and fast overall. (Don't all anchors "work" a little?)

In a blow, I can really feel the jerk of the 55' of chain when the rode stretches out, and then bounces back. I know I have way more than recommend chain, and it is a pain to haul in sometimes, but my trusty Danforth has worked well, given my limited coastal area of bottom.

[Carl Thunberg]

Not to prolong this, but some of this stuff takes some time to figure out, and being an engineer, I'm a numbers guy. Let's assume for the moment that both anchors are designed to meet G80 specs. The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of G80 steel is 80,000 psi. The test results in the link provided by Tom are in N/mm^2. Converting into English units, you get the following:

Test No. 1 - Rocna UTS = 67,300 psi Manson UTS = 62,500 psi
Test No. 2 - Rocna UTS = 38,900 psi Manson UTS = 125,602 psi
Test No. 3 - Rocna UTS = 78,320 psi Manson UTS = 59,300 psi
Test No. 4 - Rocna UTS = 43,076 psi Manson UTS = 120,800 psi

Assuming both anchors are required to meet G80 materials specs., it would appear the Rocna had a 100% failure rate and Manson had a 50% failure rate.

[Klem]

Not to prolong this, but some of this stuff takes some time to figure out, and being an engineer, I'm a numbers guy. Let's assume for the moment that both anchors are designed to meet G80 specs. The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of G80 steel is 80,000 psi. The test results in the link provided by Tom are in N/mm^2. Converting into English units, you get the following:

Test No. 1 - Rocna UTS = 67,300 psi Manson UTS = 62,500 psi
Test No. 2 - Rocna UTS = 38,900 psi Manson UTS = 125,602 psi
Test No. 3 - Rocna UTS = 78,320 psi Manson UTS = 59,300 psi
Test No. 4 - Rocna UTS = 43,076 psi Manson UTS = 120,800 psi

Assuming both anchors are required to meet G80 materials specs., it would appear the Rocna had a 100% failure rate and Manson had a 50% failure rate.

Carl,

i believe that what you are seeing is the difference between the shank and the fluke. Only the shank is specified to be G80 steel, the fluke does not require as high a yield strength. It appears to me that Manson has a 100% pass rate.

My take on this whole thing is that while I am really disappointed and frustrated with how Rocna has handled the situation, in my own case the Rocna is still the best anchor. Comparing it to a CQR or Bruce, it is still a much better anchor overall despite the fact that the shank isn't up to the loads placed on it when veering in rough conditions with a really well set anchor. It has a much better holding power, setting ability and veering ability than any of the older gen anchors. For myself and many other people, the problem with a Manson is that it won't fit. In my case, not only would I have to change the anchor roller, I would have to modify my roller furler. If it were not for this, a Manson would be a better anchor in my case. The only other anchor that leaves is the spade which is really expensive.

So far, mine hasn't bent. If I see an older NZ or Canadian built one for sale, I will buy it, otherwise I will keep my inferior one. It is too bad that Bambury and Holdfast had to do this.

[Carl Thunberg]

You're probably right. I was really just concerned with getting things in a consistent set of units that everyone understands. I just don't have an intuitive sense of N/mm^2, which is also Megapascals which are equally non-intuitive to your average American.

I think I've probably said too much already on this topic. I'll be signing off now. At the end of the day, I really don't even have an opinion on what this all means, practically.

[Dean Abramson]

If you want to really marinate in this topic, go to the Anything Sailing forum. They are on Page 24 of this discussion!

I have decided to ask some questions over there, and you can see my post at:
http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthr ... post125355
The gist of it is: in everything I have read in many forums, I am yet to see evidence of a single case of a Rocna failing while in use on a boat.

If I were running West Marine, I too would say "bring it back if you like," just to keep customer relations good. But this is not a "recall" per se. It seems to me that if WM had actual evidence that there was a real-world problem with the anchors, then they would do a full-fledged recall. I applaud the customer service angle, but what I would really like is an honest opinion on the anchors. But the fact that this is not an actual recall actually seems to open WM up to liability later on IF the anchor is proven to be sub-par. Because then customers could say, hey, you knew something was up. It is very curious.

Anyway, I wish I could find out something about these vaguely-alluded-to failures (on other forums). So far, I am not seeing any proof of these alleged incidents.

Dean

[Maine Sail]

This is what the ROCNA web site USED TO SAY:


"Construction; A Rocna consists of three primary components, all cut from modern high strength alloy steels. The blade (the "foot" and the "toe") is shaped by brake pressing machines, folded rather than rolled to maximize strength even at the tip of the toe. The rollbar is pipe, hollow so weight can be allocated elsewhere. The shank is cut from high grade quenched and tempered 800 mPa high tensile steel, which is extremely resistant to the twisting and bending forces present when the anchor is under load.

Sizes: 4Kg 6Kg 10Kg 15Kg 20Kg 25Kg 33Kg 40Kg 55Kg 70Kg 110Kg and in American, 9lbs 13lbs 22lbs 33lbs 44lbs 55lbs 73lbs 88lbs 121lbs 154lbs 243lbs"


I guess those "twisting and bending forces" are no longer present... [/b]

[mahalocd36]

Personally, I would return the anchor to WM, get my money back, and run. They are trying to tell you something with their "recall", they just can't recall it without getting sued by Rocna probably. Not a lawyer, but I completely understand what WM did, and what they did is as close to saying "Bring the anchor back" as far as I can see. I also have a principle against giving my money to companies trying to cut corners and lying about it (Rocna, not WM).

I applaud WM for doing the right thing here.