Rocna Fail!

[s/v Faith]

The 'new generation' anchors are great, but have done nothing to quell the long standing debate over which one is best.

 The truth is anchoring has more to do with proper seamanship then the bit of metal at the end of the rode.

I bought my Manson Supreme in 2006 (IIRC) and have had outstanding service from it.... it has never dragged.... even through a hurricane.

When I bought my Manson, I also looked at the Rocna.  Both were then made in New Zealand and were very similar in appearance.  I do not doubt that either would have been a good choice (at the time) but the Rocna was more expensive.... and the Manson had Loyds certification so I went with the Manson Supreme.

Over the years, I have followed the discussion and frankly some of the marketing was ugly... it was more mud slinging then fact, and Rocna seemed to be the most active in the slinging...   I grew less and less pleased with the marketing.

A while back Rocna moved their production to China, I was skeptical (I know China has produced many questionable products, and would not recommend using Chinese steel in such an important component as my ground tackle.

Some photos surfaced of rusty Rocnas (with apparent galvanization issues) and others of Rocna's with bent shanks (after Rocna reps slammed Manson for much less significant bending).

A third party (excellent poster known as Main Sail) challenged Rocna to test their anchor;s construction... the declined to participate so an off the shelf Rocna was tested against an off the shelf Manson Supreme and....

Well Manson just paid for some independent testing, to see if Rocna could live up to their claims of being superior.

The Manson Challenge To Rocna

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

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

   Last edited by Maine Sail; 3 Weeks Ago at 09:50 AM.

The tests results are here.

I have long not been a fan of Rocna, but would absolutely not feel comfortable recommending one based on the this and the discussions that have taken place here. (warning, 17 pages long!)

[Auspicious]

Since Craig has copied his post to every sailing forum I'm a member of but started here, I thought I'd put my response originally on L&A here and declare done.

I guess I'm just old and cranky. I've anchored on just about everything at one time or another, including a cinder block with a rope, which is as close to a rock with a hole in it as I want to get.

CQR anchors do work. They are fine. Getting them to set takes some minor skill but you can. Bruce anchors are better and Delta better yet. I haven't been able to tell the difference between a Spade, a Rocna, a Raya, and a Manson Supreme in setting and holding. Unfortunately Spade has gotten very expensive and hard to get in the US and Raya went out of business.

Now I've made my living on creativity and value-added so I have some IP-issues with Manson. If you look at their line of recreational anchors (http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/stainless.htm) you'll see copies of a Bruce, a CQR, a steel Danforth/Fortress, and an aluminum Danforth/Fortress. I remember a Delta copy as well but it isn't shown anymore. The superyacht line is similarly based on the creative work of others.

There is certainly a history of discussion on "who came first" between Rocna and Manson on the Rocna and Supreme anchors but given the rest of the Manson line-up I tend to believe Rocna did the creative work. I think inventors deserve recompense for their work.

It certainly appears that the Supreme is stronger than the Rocna (which begs the question of how strong is strong enough without addressing some of Craig Smith's tactics of the years). What is the tensile strength of Acco or Campbell BBB or HT chain of appropriate size for those anchors?

I certainly don't know the composition of my two Rocna anchors (one from Canada and one from New Zealand). I've been through a small hurricane on one of them (the Canadian anchor) without any distortion. I hope Rocna provides some transparency on their specifications and QA in their Chinese plant since it would be a shame for such a good product to lose out to implementation issues.

I'm not sure what I would/will do if a new anchor is required. If (and it is an if) Rocna fabrication is deficient and given my philosophical issues with Manson I may have to sail back to Europe to get a good price on a Spade.

Oh - I kedge with my 55# Rocna 25. *grin*

[marujo_sortudo]

I'll stick with my three yachtman's and the Northill until the smoke clears...  :P

[CharlieJ]

Need I say more?

[s/v Faith]

As I said in the OP, much of the success in anchoring is the result of using common sense.   A well set bruce, CQR, or cinder block will hold a boat. 

Rocna has marketed their anchor through mud slinging, and the chickens have come home to roost....  ::)

I have no doubt that an (original production) Rocna was fine... I personally do not use Chinese hardware to hold my boat, but even a Chinese Rocna is probably even an improvement over a rock on a stick.    ;)

They cried about being copied.. but their design was arguably a copy of the spade..

They whined about the Masons slotted shank.. and then pictures turned up where they tried to copy it.

They whined and touted a picture of a slightly bent Manson.. and then the picture I posted above turned up.

They whined when people raised questions because they moved production to China... (accused folks of being racist)
and they whined about others and implied their steel was superior... and now the data shows that is not the case.


After all the mud slinging they did they get no sympathy from me...

[Captain Smollett]

To those that have not been following this, this is NOT a debate over which anchor is better or which one someone should buy.  It's completely about the morality and marketing practice of one company (Rocna), though Dave asked similar ethical questions about Manson.  That one will have to be for another day.

To save our readers having to hash over 17 or so pages on another web site, here is my understanding of the situation as it currently exists.  Again, everyone please note, I am NOT saying one is better than the other, blah blah blah.  I'm merely "reporting" the essence of the debate for anyone interested in knowing what the fuss is about.

There are three central points that have caused Rocna to drop in "mindshare" over the past week or so.

(1) Metallurgy and strength of the anchor itself.  Presumably, this was not an issue with the Rocna's before production moved to China.

(2) Seabed holding test results (conducted by West Marine in California and reported by SAIL magazine and others)

(3) Industry certification of the anchor design AND production (that is, actually putting the design into practice)

Dave, the question you begged is the important question to ask in regard to the quality of one vs the other...until it can be shown that the breaking strength of the anchor itself is limiting in a given holding situation, one being stronger is mostly of marketing significance.

Which, I fear, is precisely the point here.  Rocna has claimed for a couple of years that their product was 40% stronger and that metallurgy in the Manson (and others) was demonstrably inferior.  At least insofar as the newer, Chinese produced anchors, this appears at best to be inconsistent and at worst, a lie.

Manson issued a challenge to Rocna a while back and claimed to have already done the tests...they knew the results and wanted Rocna reps to show up for a repeat so they (Manson) could video tape their (Rocna's) reactions live as the failure tests were done.  This suggests that it was not just this most recent one Rocna that was measurably weaker than the Manson.

Again, not an issue in practice if the anchor is 'strong enough.'  But this brings the credibility of the company (Rocna) into question, and for some consumers, that's a BIG deal.  They "lied" about the relative strengths of the two anchors (Manson and Rocna), they failed to meet Manson's "challenge" to go head-to-head in side-by-side failure testing to prove their (Rocna's) words, and now that the test results have been made public (several days ago),

(1) Rocna has issue NO public statement that I've seen, and

(2) Their web site STILL contains incorrect marketing claims.

So what?

Well, in additional to the metallurgical strength claims that Rocna has made for years, they have also made the claim of superior holding in pull tests.  "Maine Sail" has obtained the raw data for those tests, and cannot reproduce Rocna's conclusions from the numbers...no matter how he tried.

"Maine Sail" is well known in the Internet sailing community, and at the time this most recent controversy (Rocna hijacking the old Ancora Latina website after the death of the owner of that company), he was a satisfied customer of Rocna and was recommending Rocna anchors to his clients.

He has, over the past week or so, changed his position and will not recommend Rocna products to his customers.  As a professional in the industry, he has his reputation to protect, and he seems to not want to be sullied by the same soil that is currently staining the Rocna company reputation.

Which leaves us with certification.

Rocna again has claimed RINO Certification for several years on the basic design of their product, but they have NEVER been given complete certification on the production of that anchor.  Furthermore, the cert that they DO have is for pre-China 'designs,' so if the metallurgy has changed, the 'design' has changed and that cert is out of date.

The whole certification issue may again be a red herring (like breaking strength and seabed holding "lab numbers, if it is "good enough"), except for the misrepresentation of certification to potential customers.  SOME people like to know that they are buying a "certified" product, and in some circles, certification means some standards of performance and/or manufacturing have been met.

So, Rocna has basically committed the sin of lying, blatantly lying and sticking with the lie in the face of contrary evidence, on three key points:

(1) Their anchors are SIGNIFICANTLY and measurably stronger than those of their competitor, Manson
(2) Their anchors HOLD better than that of their competitor (this may not be a lie, but the raw data in the West Marine test does not support it...who knows?)
(3) Their anchors have received a high level of industry certification, but that's not quite true...the basic design, as used via an OLD manufacturer got certified, but neither the new product nor the new manufacturing process has been issued certification.

In the world of "let me buy safety" and "let me blame someone else if my safety gear fails," these are BIG deals.  To those that accept their own responsibility, it probably matters a whole heap less.

STILL, we are left with the question "is the Rocna anchor good enough?"  It would seem so; quite a few people use them and report excellent setting and holding in a variety of anchoring conditions.

But, is it BETTER?

The company has claimed so for a number of years...just like just about any other marketing campaign for any other product.  However, and this is the BIGGIE, it now seems that the company has LIED about their product in the face of KNOWING they were deceiving their customers, at least in terms of the certification and seabed holding test results, and maybe the metallurgy analysis as well.

This is a big no-no with customers, and many seem to be PO'd about it.  Many also don't care...


Whew.

What a mess.

In the meantime, sail far.

--JR

[Auspicious]

Hi John,

I don't mean to come across as an unthinking advocate for Rocna. That is not my intent. I do think there are some minor tweaks appropriate to your summary. You can take as given that anything you posted that I don't comment on I agree with.

(1) Metallurgy and strength of the anchor itself.  Presumably, this was not an issue with the Rocna's before production moved to China.

(2) Seabed holding test results (conducted by West Marine in California and reported by SAIL magazine and others)

(3) Industry certification of the anchor design AND production (that is, actually putting the design into practice)

I think this all boils to increasingly strong indications that there is a gap between what Rocna has said or implied and currently observable fact.

There are two issues that haven't been given adequate attention:

1. Peter and Craig Smith no longer control Rocna. There is a complex hand-off of ownership to the Brambury's (another father-son team) in which Peter and Craig continue to have some say over some things, none of which are publicly defined.

2. Under the new ownership manufacturing was moved from New Zealand and Canada to China. No one has compared the metallurgy of the previous manufacture to the current. By the way, no one is going to cut up MY anchors. *grin*

Dave, the question you begged is the important question to ask in regard to the quality of one vs the other...until it can be shown that the breaking strength of the anchor itself is limiting in a given holding situation, one being stronger is mostly of marketing significance.

Kind of. As a consumer, my question is the most relevant. As an observer and--I hope--a moral and ethical person, the issue of truth versus marketing is the issue in hand.

Well, in additional to the metallurgical strength claims that Rocna has made for years, they have also made the claim of superior holding in pull tests.  "Maine Sail" has obtained the raw data for those tests, and cannot reproduce Rocna's conclusions from the numbers...no matter how he tried.

I'll speak to Maine Sail on the subject. I did a sanity check (quick calculations without writing anything down when the modified results were first posted and they passed the sniff test. I do think there were some methodological flaws but heck there were flaws in the testing too. Maybe Maine Sail and I can come up with something together.

Rocna again has claimed RINO Certification ...

Not to pick nits, but it is RINA certification. To make things interesting there are TWO RINA organizations: the Royal Institute of Naval Architects in the UK and Registro Italiano Navale in Italy (analogous to ABS, DnV, and Lloyds); it is the latter body whose certification Rocna has been pursuing.

Rocna hijacking the old Ancora Latina website after the death of the owner of that company

I do take issue with your choice of words. The domain for AL expired a year or more after the company suddenly dropped off the market. When it expired, Peter Smith (or more likely Craig, but that's just me guessing) picked it up. It redirects to Peter's general web site. I don't see a hijack there at all, and I don't recall anything unpleasant said about the Raya anchor - certainly not on the main pages.

The whole thing is made more complex by the unclear relationship between Alain Pouissard and AL. Alain maintained he had only a social relationship with Jo?o Nodari of Anchora Latina. Some people believe that Alain WAS Jo?o Nodari building anchors without violating the terms of sale of his Spade and Sword anchor business to Sea Tech and Fun.

Aren't anchors a hoot?

I too am put off by the difference between fact and marketing on behalf of Rocna. I am even more put off by what I perceive as the theft of intellectual property by Manson. Despite direct contact with the Sea Tech and Fun people in Florida I can't source a Spade. Raya is out of business. To my mind that leaves the anchor buyer between a rock and a hard place. Not to overstate the issue too badly, how does one choose between buying from a liar, a thief, vapor-ware, or a dead person?

[Captain Smollett]

Hi John,

I don't mean to come across as an unthinking advocate for Rocna. That is not my intent.

Nor did I think you were.  I hope neither my post nor this one implies that I think that.

There are two issues that haven't been given adequate attention:

1. Peter and Craig Smith no longer control Rocna. There is a complex hand-off of ownership to the Brambury's (another father-son team) in which Peter and Craig continue to have some say over some things, none of which are publicly defined.

Steve Brambury is the CURRENT CEO of Rocna, and he has continued to make the same claims (though admittedly in a less inflammatory way) that C. Smith did, and the current Rocna web site contains the same old marketing copy.

Brambury has tried to clarify the Smith's role in the company, but for whatever reason, his responses just muddied the waters further (in some minds at least).

2. Under the new ownership manufacturing was moved from New Zealand and Canada to China. No one has compared the metallurgy of the previous manufacture to the current. By the way, no one is going to cut up MY anchors. *grin*

Exactly.  NONE of the metallurgy arguments apply to the old anchors, at least as far as anyone can tell.  

But the problem remains that the claims of "40% stronger" and high QA standards being met in the China production (by both Smith and Brambury) are now falsified in regard to the anchors currently being produced.

Rocna again has claimed RINO Certification ...

Not to pick nits, but it is RINA certification. To make things interesting there are TWO RINA organizations: the Royal Institute of Naval Architects in the UK and Registro Italiano Navale in Italy (analogous to ABS, DnV, and Lloyds); it is the latter body whose certification Rocna has been pursuing.

Ah yes...a typo (what I get for trying to type in a hurry).  Mea Culpa, and thanks for the correction.

Rocna hijacking the old Ancora Latina website after the death of the owner of that company

I do take issue with your choice of words. The domain for AL expired a year or more after the company suddenly dropped off the market. When it expired, Peter Smith (or more likely Craig, but that's just me guessing) picked it up. It redirects to Peter's general web site. I don't see a hijack there at all, and I don't recall anything unpleasant said about the Raya anchor - certainly not on the main pages.

True, it's not a hijack in the "cracked the DNS and then redirected" sense, so maybe we have a bit of a semantic issue.

But, I do personally consider it a hijack looking at it from the perspective of a potential Ancora Latina customer.  An unknowing customer that intends to visit the Ancora Latina site will instead get a Rocna marketing site.  Yeah, he legally bought the expired domain, but it's what he did with it that bugs me.

We are talking about ethical practice, right?

In my mind, the 'proper' thing to do would be redirect to a page that announces the change.  A simple header or something being up front about who is running the site pointed to by that domain would be sufficient to satisfy ME.

As it stands, that unsuspecting customer thinks that marketing info is the 'official face' of Ancora Latina - the company, which is not the case...it's the opinion of a Rocna rep or former employee or whatever...

I too am put off by the difference between fact and marketing on behalf of Rocna. I am even more put off by what I perceive as the theft of intellectual property by Manson. Despite direct contact with the Sea Tech and Fun people in Florida I can't source a Spade. Raya is out of business. To my mind that leaves the anchor buyer between a rock and a hard place. Not to overstate the issue tooquote badly, how does one choose between buying from a liar, a thief, vapor-ware, or a dead person?

Just out of curiosity, and not to drift too far OT, has anyone filed patent claims against Manson?

[Jim_ME]

Craig, Looking at that photo you posted of that anchor made me think that maybe this was a special model for anchoring around corners...?  ;)

Also that maybe CQR has a good feature in the hinged-shank design?


On anchors in general...I recently picked up a 20KG (44 lb) genuine Bruce anchor that was in great shape and for sale very reasonably in the local CraigsList. Although seriously oversized for a 26-foot sailboat, thought that if I ever needed a large storm anchor or an anchor to leave the boat on unattended for some period of time (as some wrote about in another thread), that it could be useful... Like a mini-mooring...

With bottom chain and some mud on it, I doubt that I'll want to haul it up by hand very often...

There is also a 10KG (22 lb) Bruce available locally that I've been considering as a more reasonable main anchor. [Although I'm looking at CJ's photo and that looks like a fairly large Bruce anchor...]

[s/v Faith]

Jim,

  That would make a pretty good mooring for your boat too.  ;D

[Jim_ME]

I wouldn't have bought a new one in that size, but it was so reasonable and in such good shape that I decided to get it--and then sell/trade down later if it was more trouble to stow than it was useful. The previous owner had used it on his Grand Banks 42 Trawler...which I'm sure had a windlass.

About a year ago, I saw an 80KG Bruce anchor in the Connecticut CraigsList, for something like $175...I was tempted to drive down and get it, but it was a bit far. That one could definitely have been a mooring.  ;D

[CharlieJ]

There is also a 10KG (22 lb) Bruce available locally that I've been considering as a more reasonable main anchor. [Although I'm looking at CJ's photo and that looks like a fairly large Bruce anchor...]

That's a 22 # Claw, with 80 feet of 1/4 inch G4 chain on it in front of 250 feet of 1/2 nylon.

We also carry a 12 # Hi Tensile Danforth and a 16 # folding Northill, with rodes for both

I'd LOVE a 22 pound true Bruce. Not made anymore though. But the Claw has served us well.

Here's a different pic- the first had a good bit of foreshortening in it. That's why the anchor looks so large.

[Jim_ME]

Charlie, Thanks for the information on your anchor (and chain/rode). I was curious about the size and whether the camera view might have made it look even larger than it is.

That 10KG Bruce available locally is a used one, but appears to be in good shape and reasonably priced. I'm tempted to get it... seems like a good size for my 26-footer.

A Danforth type anchor came with the boat (I think it's a 22-lb)

[Captain Smollett]

Another set of independent tests have been completed.

[geneWj]

For First Born I have a 22#Plow and a 18# deepset danforth plus a 14# stern danforth.
My first choice would be a 25# Bulwagga.  If I cannot find one I'm going to have one made.
ole salts view
geneWj

[s/v Faith]

Just in case anyone has not been following this, there have now been other tests conducted by private individuals.  It looks like Rocna was using sub standard steel.

West Marine has been accepting Rocna's back for refund (IAW their guarantee).

There web site is down right now, no word on why....

[Captain Smollett]

I was in our local West Marine the other day, and checked the Rocnas on the shelf.  Of course, they were all China versions.

I asked the dude at the counter if he had heard of the 'controversy' about those anchors currently going on.  He had not.

I told him that WM were honoring returns on them due to the 'below spec' issue, and that I'd be very surprised if he did not hear something from corporate on it soon.

He seemed very blaise about the whole thing..."corporate has not said anything, so as far as I'm concerned, there is no problem." 

Other than that, he did say that if there WAS a problem they were very good about 'doing the right thing.'

I got a whole "it does not effect me" vibe, with a side of "when it does, we'll deal with it."  Not a negative response, per se, just more of a "hadn't heard" think.

[s/v Faith]

Astounding.....

absolutely astounding...  Spin from their site.

Corrections to Rocna website

We wanted to let you know that we've updated some parts of our website, as it was brought to our attention that content regarding materials used to build our anchors was no longer accurate.

We have corrected this information, which was mostly in the Knowledge Base section, and we sincerely apologise for this oversight.
While the materials used to make the Rocna have changed from time to time, our functional specification has remained the same throughout: All Rocna anchors are designed to meet or exceed the holding power required by RINA?s Super High Holding Power (SHHP) certification.
And more than this, the Rocna has always been significantly over-engineered to ensure it can withstand the most challenging conditions that might be faced on the sea.
This was confirmed recently with exceptional results from independent destruction testing undertaken by D.M.Standen Limited. A galvanized 55kg model held a massive 28.7 tonnes of load ? 670% of RINA?s SHHP proof load, and well beyond the point at which the connected chain would fail in real life use.

While the materials used to make the Rocna have changed from time to time, our functional specification has remained the same throughout...

Rocna can not even spell apologize... (at least the right way).  ;)

[CharlieJ]

 ;D  ;D

[CharlieJ]

Is this REALLY the last post in almost 48 hours???or is something going on with the site?