Rocna Anchors Situation

Maine Sail · Post by **Maine Sail** » Aug 14th, '11, 20:10

mahalocd36 wrote: I applaud WM for doing the right thing here.

Me too!

Maine Sail · Post by **Maine Sail** » Aug 14th, '11, 20:15

mahalocd36 wrote: I applaud WM for doing the right thing here.

For as much crap as WM gets over their pricing they have done the right thing here..

The really, really sad part of all this is that Steve Bambury & Holdfast have ruined the reputation of a GREAT anchor. I still strongly believe it is perhaps the best designed anchor out there but I would not give you .02 for a new Rocna until Peter Smith is back in-charge. I would take a current Manson Supreme over a Holdfast Chinese Rocna any day of the week.. Despite all that Craig Smith did it is Bambury who I feel has caused the real damage by being so misleading and dishonest..

S/V Necessity · Post by **S/V Necessity** » Aug 14th, '11, 21:28

Looks to me like Craig Smith set the precedent of how the anchor could be marketed, and what sort of behavior was considered acceptable by Rocna. If the company had ever possessed any sort of integrity it would have put an end to Craig Smith's antics. It's my guess that Brambury just got caught participating in the same sort of antics that the company collectively finds acceptable.

Dean Abramson · Post by **Dean Abramson** » Aug 15th, '11, 06:11

How can you tell if the anchor was made in China? I assume that since mine was bought this past spring, it is Chinese. But there is nothing on the anchor that says China. On the label, there is a logo that says NZ Marine; but that looks to me like probably just some marketing trade group.

Maine Sail · Post by **Maine Sail** » Aug 15th, '11, 07:00

Dean Abramson wrote:How can you tell if the anchor was made in China? I assume that since mine was bought this past spring, it is Chinese. But there is nothing on the anchor that says China. On the label, there is a logo that says NZ Marine; but that looks to me like probably just some marketing trade group.

Dean,

They have been making anchors in Chine since at least 2009.
Most of the Chinese Rocnas have Rocna embossed on the fluke. Some early Chinese ones may not have, and bigger sizes do not, but the 10, 15 & 25kg anchors should be embossed. This is because the flukes on the Chinese Rocna's are cast and the embossing is in the cast..

[img]http://sunflowercruising.com/10%2006%20 ... 9Rocna.jpg[/img]

Dean Abramson · Post by **Dean Abramson** » Aug 15th, '11, 09:58

Probably I will come to the conclusion that I should take the anchor back, although I am not there yet. Yes, West Marine may be trying to tell us something that they cannot say outright.

The consensus in most forums is that the best option is to switch to a comparaby-sized Manson Supreme. The chief argument against the Rocna seems to be that Peter Smith specified some things, which are now not being followed.

Peter Smith's opinions seem to matter a lot to folks, which makes sense, since he invented the anchor. But what are we to make, then, of his currently still-online article,
http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-ancho ... anchor.php
in which he totally trashes the Manson Supreme?

Dean

Solmar · Post by **Solmar** » Aug 15th, '11, 10:21

Dean, we purchased the Manson just for the reasons stated above. In the past 8 weeks I have only been on a mooring 5 times, the rest of the time I have been swinging on our Manson.

I am in complete agreement with the others, take it back!

Solmar

MFC · Post by **MFC** » Aug 15th, '11, 11:11

Solmar wrote:Dean, we purchased the Manson just for the reasons stated above. In the past 8 weeks I have only been on a mooring 5 times, the rest of the time I have been swinging on our Manson.

I am in complete agreement with the others, take it back!

Solmar

Solomar -

What size Manson? Any / what mods to the bow roller?
Thanks.

Matt

mahalocd36 · Post by **mahalocd36** » Aug 15th, '11, 19:58

Matt, our manson is 45lbs... no mods to the bow roller on a CD36.

M. R. Bober · Post by **M. R. Bober** » Aug 16th, '11, 05:59

I have written to Ronca seeking their direct input. I will share their response when it arrives.

Mitchell Bober
Sunny Lancaster, (Where it's always good to know.) VA

Solmar · Post by **Solmar** » Aug 16th, '11, 07:58

Matt, we have the same setup as Mahalo

Joe CD MS 300 · Post by **Joe CD MS 300** » Aug 16th, '11, 15:45

mahalocd36 wrote: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.

I do not believe that West Marine is concerned about being sued by Rocna. West Marine has to be a far, far larger company than Rocna and all of Rocna's wounds have largely been self inflicted. I am actually a fan of West Marine's customer service but I think they trying to walk a fine line here between disclosure and not causing a "run on the bank" with Rocna returns. Without knowing anything about Rocna;s financial condition, if WM had to refund every Rocna purchase it might be difficult to recover their losses from Rocna as it could put them under.

My guess at reading WM's corporate mind is that they do not really believe that this is a safety issue. Not that there may not be one, but I have never come across a first hand account of a Rocna failure in real world use. Now if they really believed or had information that there was a real safety issue, then that would be bad if they did not actually recall the anchors.

Joe

Dean Abramson · Post by **Dean Abramson** » Aug 16th, '11, 20:42

Joe, that is also my thinking re West Marine.

My 1/2" nylon has a breaking strength of 7500 lbs. (Even if I went to 5/8", more than recommended for my boat size, the breaking strength would only be 12000 lbs.) My 5/16" HT chain has a breaking strength of around 12000 lbs. The shackles are probably weaker. Who knows about the breaking strength of the cleat and its bolts and backing plate? Not to mention the foredeck.

Even if I went to bigger nylon, isn't something else going to break before LONG before the Rocna does?

So, except for having to live with knowing that my anchor is not considered to be "the best" (and I really don't care) what is the real-world downside of keeping it? Other than, perhaps, re-sale value, which I also don't care about in the grand scheme of things.

It seems to be a very good anchor, it sets like a mud magnet, and fits very nicely on my sprit. And after my rode has parted and the poor boat is on the beach, I think the anchor is going to be sitting down there unscathed.

I know that no one really cares, but now I am leaning the other way...

Dean

Sea Hunt Video · Post by **Sea Hunt Video** » Aug 16th, '11, 21:30

Dean Abramson wrote:I know that no one really cares, but now I am leaning the other way...

Dean

Well, Dean, you are a friend and I care and I know a whole lot of folks on this board care.

I have continued to read as much as I can about this subject - mostly for my own GED education and because weather has been lousy for sailing or diving.

I will NEVER have the in depth knowledge of Maine Sail and others on this issue but it just seems wrong to keep using something that may not function the way it is supposed to function and is, at least in my mind, a "safety at sea" item. Yes, your rode or chain may brake before the Rocna bends or falls apart but why attach the "second love of your life" (Margo being #1) to something that has so much criticism and so many complaints

Maine Sail · Post by **Maine Sail** » Aug 17th, '11, 06:31

Dean Abramson wrote: Even if I went to bigger nylon, isn't something else going to break before LONG before the Rocna does?

Dean the question has never been about "breaking", though Rocna keeps trying to take the conversation there.

Where are their tests that show how much of a side load the shank will support in a re-set situation? I have NEVER seen them and if they did do them you can bet the conversation would be about BENDING, as it has ALWAYS been, not "breaking". Once again Rocna posts information to intentionally mislead their customers.

Ned Wood of Manson Anchors HAS done this to a Rocna and has also PUBLICLY challenged Rocna to a head to head duel of anchor shank bending and breaking. Rocna has declined and it's no wonder why. This despite years and years of Rocna BASHING the "ABYSMAL" quality, Craig Smiths words not mine, of the Manson Supreme.

The anchor pictured earlier in this thread BENT well before either the chain or rode failed. How do you think that anchor will set after the bend? Remember it did not "break" so by Steve Bambury's definition the anchor did not fail. Also their warranty specifically precludes bending but does cover it for meeting "specifications". Seeing as your anchor was NOT made to the specifications that Steve Bambury himself claimed they were on 4/11/11 then I think you'd be crazy to not take WM up on their offer.

I own both a Manson Supreme and a Rocna. The Manson Supreme is EVERYTHING the Rocna is, only stronger than current Rocna's..

I have a very strong dislike for companies who will stoop to the lowest levels to LIE to their customers especially when the product is a safety device with the responsibility of protecting your LIFE... Even though I own one, an original built to Peter Smith's specs, I will NEVER again recommend a Rocna to anyone.

Rocna has LIED about many thing but most importantly:

Shank Specifications - Fact is the shanks are NOT what the CEO claimed them to be as late as 4/11/11. Shortly there after the site was changed to "fit for purpose".

RINA Certifications (which they finally got in May 2011 but were claiming as early as 2009)

The Cape Dory Board

Rocna Anchors Situation

Re: Take it back.

Re: Take it back.

How do you know?

Re: How do you know?

Then there's this

Ancho

Re: Ancho

Me too

Re: Me too

Re: Me too