Rocna Anchors Situation

[M. R. Bober]

I wrote to Rocna asking for an explanation of the current situation--in light of my choice--of their product. In light of their response, I will continue to use the Rocna, as my primary anchor. It stows well, sets quickly, holds well, and will--alas--always serve as a topic of conversation with other sailors, especially those with strong opinions.

Here is Rocna's reply:
...Rocna anchors have been manufactured in three different countries (New Zealand, Canada, and China). Following extensive evaluations and testing we moved our production to a Chinese manufacturing facility in 2009. We partnered with a well-respected manufacturer in Shanghai, who produce Rocna anchors in their ISO-9001 accredited facility. We also have our own in-country staff who work closely with the factory and provide independent audits as part of our comprehensive quality assurance program.

In addition we have formed a long-term relationship with Italian based RINA (Registro Italiano Navale), an internationally recognized leader in certification and assessment of conformity, who have also been actively involved in our quality assurance program.

The exact materials used and grades of steel are carefully chosen to ensure they exceed the RINA Super High Holding Power (SHHP) requirements by a considerable margin, as mentioned above. Our manufacturing material specifications have evolved over time, primarily to reflect the material locally available in the different countries where our anchors have been produced. Rocna anchors are designed to meet or exceed the requirements of SHHP according to RINA and Lloyds rules, and our relationship with RINA has resulted in Type Approval classification to SHHP (currently Rocna Original sizes 4kg-110kg only – you can see our certificate http://www.rocna.com/assets/Uploads/Rocna-RINA-Cert.pdf ). This involved extensive seabed tests, mechanical tests, and drawings approval, and our work with RINA continues (2008 – Today).

Current production anchors were recently tested again and found to withstand forces significantly in excess of the SHHP proof load requirements, and also exceeded the breaking strength of the recommended G40 chain by a considerable margin.

For a period of time during the first quarter of 2010, the shanks of some galvanised Rocna anchors were manufactured with steel sourced from a different supplier than usual. While this steel had been approved on the understanding that it was of the same specification as that used previously, we recently discovered that this was not the case and that some anchors were produced using shank steel with a reduced specification.

With this in mind we engaged a number of professional independent organizations to undertake extensive evaluations and testing. This has been a comprehensive and time-consuming process that is now complete.

The results are:

• Our current production anchors were independently load tested using the RINA Super High Holding Power (SHHP) Type Approval test methodology. SHHP is the highest anchor rating available.

• Due to the unavailability of any of the limited number of anchors produced with the alternate material, we engaged a highly reputable marine engineering consulting company to calculate the maximum load capability of these anchors.

• The model developed predicted the load capability of the current production anchors within 1% of the demonstrated value, validating the accuracy of the model.

• The model then calculated a load capability for the alternate specification anchors of 471% of the RINA SHHP Proof Load requirements.

• This load capability exceeds the breaking point of the recommended G40 chain rode by a considerable margin.

These results confirm that all Rocna anchors, including those produced with alternate material, exceed RINA’s proof load requirements by a significant margin, clearly demonstrating the significant factor of safety in our design.

We hope this answers your questions but should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us anytime.

Kind regards,

Martina

Rocna Anchors

t:+64 9 4471961/f: +64 9 480 9576

www.rocna.com/www.rocna.com/kb





Mitchell Bober
Sunny Lancaster, (Where I always keep a weather eye on the ultracrepidarians.) VA

[Maine Sail]

It's nice they sent you the same rubbish filled form letter they have been sending just about everyone..

Here's why the letter above from Rocna is pure rubbish. This was posted by Grant King Rocna's ex general manager. Grank King knows the real story...

Rocna is worse than a lying politician at this point. Read carefully and you'll see they are talking about BREAKING the anchor not bending it like a pool noodle. When Peter Smith or Craig used to talk it was never about just meeting a BARE MINIMUM of SHHP but reinventing the wheel so to speak. Now they seem to be satisfied meeting the bare minimum spec required to meet a straight line pull.....

The fact still remains that the designer, Peter Smith, INSISTED for MANY YEARS, as did his son Craig Smith, that the shank needed to be made to the exacting SPECIFICATIONS. They are no longer built to this specification. Also this "problem" began before well before 2010 as Grant King alludes to below....

G40 might fail before the anchor breaks but clearly NOT before it bends, as we have photographic evidence of such...

In a private email to me from Metal Test Laboratories in Auckland on 26 August 2009 I was told the following :

The piece cut off the Chinese product was analysed and hardness tested only. The steel was a low carbon steel with a small chromium addition, but the steel had not been quenched and tempered, so the hardness was only 6 Rockwell C, not 25 Rc as required for Bisalloy 80.

This was the result of cutting a shank of a Rocna anchor that had been submitted for a galvanising test only. The facility was testing a batch of NZ shanks for hardness at the time and they proceeded to test the Chinese one for hardness in order to compare with the NZ ones.

The details of this test were suppressed by Rocna when advised of the results. I was told to not investigate it further.

I will forward the relevant email to YBW mods for confirmation of fact if requested.

And let's not forget this quote of Steve Bambury posted on April 11, 2011:

Material correctness
The design and manufacture specification of metals for the Rocna anchor is as follows:

For the fluke: G400 grade high strength low alloy steel. Rocna Anchors use equivalent grade Q235D.

Properties:
UTS (Ultimate Tensile Strength) – typically 370-500 MPA
2% yield – minimum 215 MPA
Elongation – typically 25%

For the shank: G800 grade high strength low alloy steel. Rocna Anchors use equivalent grade Q620D.

Properties:
UTS (Ultimate Tensile Strength) – typically 710-880 MPA
2% yield – minimum 600 MPA
Elongation – typically 15%

As I have said before EXCELLENT anchor design, one of if not the best, but HORRIBLE business ETHICS and poor execution.....

BTW no one in my family, nor myself, has purchased a GM vehicle since the diesel engine debacle of the early 80's when GM refused to make good and lied about the "issues". If I lost my BC built Rocna tomorrow it would be replaced with a Manson Supreme without so much as a bat of a eye lash and I will never touch any product associated with Craig Smith or Steve Bambury ever again.....

I love the Rocna and they stuck it up my a$$ as well because I recommended MANY of these anchors to a lot of customers and friends and now I feel responsible even though it's not my company or anchor and I was just a very satisfied user..

[Joe CD MS 300]

G40 might fail before the anchor breaks but clearly NOT before it bends, as we have photographic evidence of such...


BTW no one in my family, nor myself, has purchased a GM vehicle since the diesel engine debacle of the early 80's when GM refused to make good and lied about the "issues". If I lost my BC built Rocna tomorrow it would be replaced with a Manson Supreme without so much as a bat of a eye lash and I will never touch any product associated with Craig Smith or Steve Bambury ever again.....

I love the Rocna and they stuck it up my a$$ as well because I recommended MANY of these anchors to a lot of customers and friends and now I feel responsible even though it's not my company or anchor and I was just a very satisfied user..

Maine Sail I could not find that picture of the bent Rocna in this thread. Can you point me in the right direction? Is there any information on where it happened, what were the conditions, size of the boat, size of the anchor, etc?

I tend not to get too fired up about being lied to by companies. Not that I like it or expect it but take it all with a grain of salt knowing that it is more common than it should be. In this case I'm not sure that it is any more than fudging on some engineering specs that I don't fully grasp and only affect the far extremes of the performance range. With the type of coastal cruising I do, I can not ever see the circumstances where I would need to push those limits. If I was going on a world cruise, I'd have a different perspective and would likely take West Marine up on their offer. But I don't have any absolutes, just trying to digest all the facts, allegations, posts in this saga.

Rocna, did a lot of things wrong here. On of the first was in not distancing themselves from the obnoxious behavior of Craig Smith on a lot of different forums. The backlash against Rocna is likely worse than it would have been if not for Craig Smith's antics. I'm probably discounting everything negative I have read about Rocna in some small degree because of that. The other fact that somewhat makes me less inclined to return my Rocna is the fact that West Marine is still selling them. I can't reconcile in my own mind that they would still be selling them if there were real serious issues with the anchors. I'm still mulling it over and not in any rush as I don't believe there is any time deadline for returning the anchor to West Maine. I'm kind of with Dean here. I really like my Rocna, how it sets and deploys.

Joe

[Sea Hunt Video]

Maine Sail I could not find that picture of the bent Rocna in this thread. Can you point me in the right direction? Is there any information on where it happened, what were the conditions, size of the boat, size of the anchor, etc?

Joe:

I think the picture(s) you and/or Maine Sail were referencing may be on this website. You need to scroll down just a little to see what looks like a bent Rocna anchor.

http://www.ssca.org/forum/phpBB3/viewto ... =4&t=12360

From my very limited research I think this picture (or one very similar) appears on several other websites including Cruiser Form, etc.

[Dean Abramson]

In my gut, I think that it was probably unnecessary. But I decided to play it safe(r), and returned the Rocna to WM today and bought a Manson Supreme 35 pounder, which I have now installed on the boat.

I have to not use the pin in the bow roller fitting in order for the Manson to clear. (I had actually been using a simple SS bolt with a wingnut.) My method of securing the shank right now is a little ad hoc, but it works; plus there is a chain stopper, and for now, I am also tying a line from the anchor's hoop to the bow pulpit. I will have to ditch the doolie I made for securing the Rocna shank, and make another one for this anchor. Probably after the season is done.

I am not trying to sway anyone else. I did this mainly because it seemed like the simplest way to get past thinking about this. I still basically agree with Joe; I think that if the anchors were significantly defective, WM would not keep selling them, and open themselves up to liability. I also think that a huge part of this is that so many people would love to see fail anything that has to do with Craig Smith. (He must be a real charmer.) And I still have not seen one documented case of a real-world anchor failure.

Anyway, I now have 2 more lbs. of anchor weight. I had gotten the Rocna on sale, so I did not get much of a bonus on the transaction, maybe $20.

That's that.

Dean

[Joe CD MS 300]

West Marine's statement regarding Rocna anchors indicated that the use of sub-spec steel tool place early in 2010. As I purchased my 33 lb / 15 kg in December 2009 I tried to get confirmation from both West Marine and Rocna that my 2009 purchased anchor did not have issues. West Marine basicly indicated that the problem occured in early 2010. Below is the pertenient part of the response I got fom Rocna. I knew at the time of delivery that it was manufactured in China.

Hi Joe



Since your anchor has an embossed fluke/blade, it means it is a Chinese made anchor.

For a period of time during the first quarter of 2010, the shanks of some galvanised Rocna anchors were manufactured with steel sourced from a different supplier than usual. While this steel had been approved on the understanding that it was of the same specification as that used previously, we recently discovered that this was not the case and that some anchors were produced using shank steel with a reduced specification.

We stress that only a limited number of anchors were affected, and no 15kg Rocna’s were part of this batch and shipped to the North America market, and apologise for any concern this may have created. Since discovering this discrepancy, our primary concern has been to ensure that these particular anchors are undeniably fit for purpose and pose no safety risk.

[Maine Sail]

West Marine's statement regarding Rocna anchors indicated that the use of sub-spec steel tool place early in 2010. As I purchased my 33 lb / 15 kg in December 2009 I tried to get confirmation from both West Marine and Rocna that my 2009 purchased anchor did not have issues. West Marine basicly indicated that the problem occured in early 2010. Below is the pertenient part of the response I got fom Rocna. I knew at the time of delivery that it was manufactured in China.

Hi Joe



Since your anchor has an embossed fluke/blade, it means it is a Chinese made anchor.

For a period of time during the first quarter of 2010, the shanks of some galvanised Rocna anchors were manufactured with steel sourced from a different supplier than usual. While this steel had been approved on the understanding that it was of the same specification as that used previously, we recently discovered that this was not the case and that some anchors were produced using shank steel with a reduced specification.

We stress that only a limited number of anchors were affected, and no 15kg Rocna’s were part of this batch and shipped to the North America market, and apologise for any concern this may have created. Since discovering this discrepancy, our primary concern has been to ensure that these particular anchors are undeniably fit for purpose and pose no safety risk.

This anchor was manufactured in late 2008, in CHINA, and bent in 2009.... Sadly the rubbish they sent you is just that, rubbish. That anchor bent in the lagoon in Venice in 2009 and was, according to Rocna's GM at the time..

[Steve Laume]

Is it the design or the steel that causes this problem?

The shank appears to be little more than a flat bar. This is very strong if the load is in line with the shank. With a heavy side load it seems like it could bend not matter what kind of steel it was made of. Who am I to doubt the design, but if I were building the thing, I would have added a T or I section to the shank. That's asking a lot of a piece of flat bar.

The picture certainly is a testament to the holding power of the flukes, Steve.

[Maine Sail]

Is it the design or the steel that causes this problem?

The shank appears to be little more than a flat bar. This is very strong if the load is in line with the shank. With a heavy side load it seems like it could bend not matter what kind of steel it was made of. Who am I to doubt the design, but if I were building the thing, I would have added a T or I section to the shank. That's asking a lot of a piece of flat bar.

The picture certainly is a testament to the holding power of the flukes, Steve.

The shank is flat bar..

[Maine Sail]

Is it the design or the steel that causes this problem?

The shank appears to be little more than a flat bar. This is very strong if the load is in line with the shank. With a heavy side load it seems like it could bend not matter what kind of steel it was made of. Who am I to doubt the design, but if I were building the thing, I would have added a T or I section to the shank. That's asking a lot of a piece of flat bar.

The picture certainly is a testament to the holding power of the flukes, Steve.

Considering that there is not a single report that I have been able to find of a first generation NZ or BC built Rocna with a bent shank, where they used 800Mpa steel, I would have to guess that when you use steel at half the rating it could likely be attributed to that.

Any anchor can bend or break but when Rocna keeps claiming the anchor is "stronger than the rode" and we see pictures of a spaghetti shaped Rocna that was clearly hauled in via a RODE, one does begin to question the validity of their claims. This especially when the anchors designer insisted that the anchor be built to his very stringent specifications and that the shank be made from 800Mpa steel.

One also has to wonder why these specifications, the ones Peter Smith INSISTED upon, were very clearly spelled out by Steve Bambury as late as 4/11/11 on Anything Sailing claiming they were the current specs. Then, when called to the carpet by Manson and a few other independent tests of the steel in their shanks, the "specifications" on the Ronca and Peter Smith site all of a sudden disappeared and were replaced with "our specifications are proprietary information and the anchors are fit for purpose"....?? Sleazy at best.

In the Manson tests the Rocna's had shanks below 400Mpa and they were designed to be 800Mpa. For years Craig Smith called Manson's construction "abysmal" when in fact the Manson shanks are double the grade of shank steel. Looks like it is the Chinese made ROcna's that are the "abysmal" ones...

Apparently Steve Bambury of Holdfast made the decision to chop the specification of the shank steel that Peter Smith insisted was necessary. I think I'll trust the designer over a number crunching, dishonest businessman who's not an engineer...

[Joe CD MS 300]

Do we know what size anchor is in the picture? What size/displacement boat that it was attached to and what the conditions/wind etc. were when it was bent? I can't take the picture as fact any more than I take Rocna at their word without any confirming evidence.

Wish I had more time to delve into this but some things in the picture strike me as odd. It's pretty hard to tell from one angle in one picture but it only appears that there is bending in the thicker part of the shank. I'm not anything close to an engineer but wouldn't you expect to see at least a little rounding in the narrower part of the shank. The narrower end looks to be perfectly straight.

I'm also thinking (again not as an engineer but hopefully with a touch of common sense) the lateral resistance of an anchor stuck in mud or sand is going to be pretty small with the blade part of the anchor more or less rotating on a plane or somewhat inclined plane. In any case I'd expect it to be a significantly smaller amount of resistance than when the force is exerted directly against the blade. That thought got me thinking that maybe the anchor was wedged in some coral or rocks. However, looking at the blade for some type of damage or warping, I didn't see any.

It would be nice to hear from some CSI type engineer on this.

[Maine Sail]

Do we know what size anchor is in the picture? What size/displacement boat that it was attached to and what the conditions/wind etc. were when it was bent? I can't take the picture as fact any more than I take Rocna at their word without any confirming evidence.

Wish I had more time to delve into this but some things in the picture strike me as odd. It's pretty hard to tell from one angle in one picture but it only appears that there is bending in the thicker part of the shank. I'm not anything close to an engineer but wouldn't you expect to see at least a little rounding in the narrower part of the shank. The narrower end looks to be perfectly straight.

I'm also thinking (again not as an engineer but hopefully with a touch of common sense) the lateral resistance of an anchor stuck in mud or sand is going to be pretty small with the blade part of the anchor more or less rotating on a plane or somewhat inclined plane. In any case I'd expect it to be a significantly smaller amount of resistance than when the force is exerted directly against the blade. That thought got me thinking that maybe the anchor was wedged in some coral or rocks. However, looking at the blade for some type of damage or warping, I didn't see any.

It would be nice to hear from some CSI type engineer on this.

Specifics:

1- Customer had only owned anchor a short time and it was purchased in Italy.
2- Boat was a Bavaria 49 / 11 Ton Displacement
3- Anchor was Rocna 25kg manufactured in December 2008 (China)
4- Boat was anchored approx 2 miles from coast in 7.5m of water
5- Bottom was sandy seabed
6- 35 meters of 10mm chain
7- Winds were 17-20 knots
8- GPS Co-ordinates: 45° 23’ 800 N ; 12° 17’ 500 E
9- No underwater cables or coral were present
10- Windlass was Lofrans model Tigres 12V 1200W
11- No unusual resistance was noted by the owner when anchor was raised.

Are those good specifics? I also know the customers name but will not post that on the net...

I have serious doubts that Holdfast/Rocna will even be around in a few months. Inside scoop is that the NZ Commerce Commission is apparently building a case against them for product misrepresentation, which in NZ is not take lightly..


here's a few more:






Chinese Stainless..?

[Maine Sail]

And here's an owner posing with a pic of his bent Rocna.

http://cdn.cruisersforum.com/forums/att ... 1306044280

He talks about it here:http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f11 ... post691449

[tmsc]

Just my quick two cents worth, I have been using Delta Fast Sets since the early 90s and have never seen but one bent shank. That was on a 41 Morgan Out Island that was caught in a nasty nasty storm that I was also in. The anchor held but the shank did bend slightly. I have considered both the Rocna and Manson, but after looking at them in person, I felt that the shanks were under constructed compared to the Delta size for size especially the Manson. I have been happy with the mouse trap so I will stick with it.

[Joe CD MS 300]

Do we know what size anchor is in the picture? What size/displacement boat that it was attached to and what the conditions/wind etc. were when it was bent? I can't take the picture as fact any more than I take Rocna at their word without any confirming evidence.

Wish I had more time to delve into this but some things in the picture strike me as odd. It's pretty hard to tell from one angle in one picture but it only appears that there is bending in the thicker part of the shank. I'm not anything close to an engineer but wouldn't you expect to see at least a little rounding in the narrower part of the shank. The narrower end looks to be perfectly straight.

I'm also thinking (again not as an engineer but hopefully with a touch of common sense) the lateral resistance of an anchor stuck in mud or sand is going to be pretty small with the blade part of the anchor more or less rotating on a plane or somewhat inclined plane. In any case I'd expect it to be a significantly smaller amount of resistance than when the force is exerted directly against the blade. That thought got me thinking that maybe the anchor was wedged in some coral or rocks. However, looking at the blade for some type of damage or warping, I didn't see any.

It would be nice to hear from some CSI type engineer on this.

Specifics:

1- Customer had only owned anchor a short time and it was purchased in Italy.
2- Boat was a Bavaria 49 / 11 Ton Displacement
3- Anchor was Rocna 25kg manufactured in December 2008 (China)
4- Boat was anchored approx 2 miles from coast in 7.5m of water
5- Bottom was sandy seabed
6- 35 meters of 10mm chain
7- Winds were 17-20 knots
8- GPS Co-ordinates: 45° 23’ 800 N ; 12° 17’ 500 E
9- No underwater cables or coral were present
10- Windlass was Lofrans model Tigres 12V 1200W
11- No unusual resistance was noted by the owner when anchor was raised.

Are those good specifics? I also know the customers name but will not post that on the net...

That is pretty specific. Don't take any of my comments as support for Rocna or their actions it is just after spending my entire professional life either conducting or evaluating financial investigations and disputes my radar picks up what seems to be inconsistencies (in my mind) even when it might be based on an incorrect assumption on my part, like I could be doing with some engineering aspects here. I also assume that both sides in a dispute are at least being somewhat untruthful or slanting te "facts" in their favor. Nothing is personal to me since getting lied to is what I half expect, it is just the way it is.

The specifics relating to the picture anchor don't help a lot as I was expecting to hear that the anchor was set in rock or coral. If the blade was being held in a fixed position it would seem more likely to me that the shank could be bent as it was. As it was set in sand I'm wondering why the anchor just didn't rotate on the plane of the blade. Again not being an engineer, this might be my incorrect assumption although I did find a post by a marine engineer who raised the same question.

http://coxengineering.co.uk/default.aspx

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283084

Something else I notice in the pictures you posted that had not occurred to me before is that the thickness and width of the shanks for the larger anchors does not appear (at least in the pictures) to have been increased proportionally from the smaller Rocnas. I don't know if these specs are on the Rocna website. I'm wondering if there could be a design issue also in addition to the materials used. With longer shanks there is going to be more leverage possibly making it more likely for the shanks to bend? When I get a chance I'm going to email West Marine to see if they will tell me how many Rocna's have been returned damaged.