Delfin
Grand Vizier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,850
I imagine that many of you may be aware of the drama unfolding on other boating sites regarding allegations made against Rocna, as well as discoveries of facts regarding their advertising claims that show some of the most critical ones to be false.* Since some of us were involved in an earlier thread on the relative merits of 3rd generation anchors I thought I might bring everyone up to date on what is known, and speculated.
First, contrary to what is posted on their web site, Rocna does not have RINA certification for their anchors.* This was acknowledged by Rocna CEO Steve Bambury in postings here:* http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna/page9 .* In other words, if you bought a Rocna believing what you were told by the manufacturer or by 'Craig Smith, affiliated with Rocna' that it had the certifcation claimed, you were duped.
Second, there appear to be serious questions with regard to the steel used in Rocna anchors.* While Craig Smith and the Rocna website say that their anchors are made of alloys for strength, that has not apparently proven to be the case with a Rocna purchased by a boater that bent so easily he had it tested.* The testing showed that a low grade of mild steel was used in the shank, not Bisalloy as has been stated by Craig Smith, nor other high tensile steels as other times stated are used in Rocnas by the same Craig Smith, son of the founder.* That conversation can also be found in the thread referenced above, although the test results have been temporarily removed pending verification by the site hosts - see post 290 in the above thread.* This defect has also been intimated at (some say confirmed) by former employees of Rocna who were posting on the Yachting and Boating World forum in the UK, but that thread has been closed down under threats of litigation.* Additionally, Rocna is currently being sued for non-payment by a key vendor in NZ, and included in the filings are similar allegations.* Regarding this last, I do not have direct confirmation of the veracity of the information, but I have no reason to think them false based on the source.* So, it may be that if you purchased a Rocna after the point in time when manufacturing was moved to China believing you had a state of art piece of safety equipment on board manufactured as described by the manufacturer, you may well be wrong.* See the attached image for an example of what hign tensile steel is not supposed to do.
Third, Rocna has for some time boasted that in the West Marine/Sail magazine tests that their anchor showed holding power "40% greater than the competition."* Those results turn out to be bogus, as they are based on a single pull where the presumption is that the Rocna snagged on a rock and held to 5,000# plus before releasing and not setting again.* It was an anamoly discarded by the testers that became the focus of a false claim by Rocna that their anchors were superior to others.* Sail magazine has commented that Rocna's claims are bogus, so this appears to be verified, and certainly is in the notes to the testing results.* So, if you bought a Rocna, paid a premium price for it based on its superior testing results, you were duped.
I bring all of this to the forum's attention not because I have any particular issue with Rocna, or any particular slant towards any other anchor manufacturer, but because it does appear that there are some serious reasons to carefully reconsider purchasing a Rocna anchor until all of this is sorted out, which it appears headed towards.
I doubt very much that if the allegations of false claims regarding metullurgy prove true that distributors will want to assume the liability of selling a product so blantantly not what it is represented to be, especially when that product is a critical piece of safety equipment on which a vessel's or crew's lives may depend.* For example, Fisheries Supply repeats the product specifications Rocna supplies that are now very much in question in their description of the anchor, for example:
"Rugged strength through superior engineering and heavy-duty quenched and tempered 800 mPa high tensile steel"
and
"RINA certified for Super High Holding Power (SHHP) for full range of anchors; 121 lbs, anchors can be individually certified by customer request"
We know the latter claim is false based on the CEO's own statements, and the evidence appears to support the claim that the former is bogus as well.
This is not going to end pretty, methinks.
First, contrary to what is posted on their web site, Rocna does not have RINA certification for their anchors.* This was acknowledged by Rocna CEO Steve Bambury in postings here:* http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna/page9 .* In other words, if you bought a Rocna believing what you were told by the manufacturer or by 'Craig Smith, affiliated with Rocna' that it had the certifcation claimed, you were duped.
Second, there appear to be serious questions with regard to the steel used in Rocna anchors.* While Craig Smith and the Rocna website say that their anchors are made of alloys for strength, that has not apparently proven to be the case with a Rocna purchased by a boater that bent so easily he had it tested.* The testing showed that a low grade of mild steel was used in the shank, not Bisalloy as has been stated by Craig Smith, nor other high tensile steels as other times stated are used in Rocnas by the same Craig Smith, son of the founder.* That conversation can also be found in the thread referenced above, although the test results have been temporarily removed pending verification by the site hosts - see post 290 in the above thread.* This defect has also been intimated at (some say confirmed) by former employees of Rocna who were posting on the Yachting and Boating World forum in the UK, but that thread has been closed down under threats of litigation.* Additionally, Rocna is currently being sued for non-payment by a key vendor in NZ, and included in the filings are similar allegations.* Regarding this last, I do not have direct confirmation of the veracity of the information, but I have no reason to think them false based on the source.* So, it may be that if you purchased a Rocna after the point in time when manufacturing was moved to China believing you had a state of art piece of safety equipment on board manufactured as described by the manufacturer, you may well be wrong.* See the attached image for an example of what hign tensile steel is not supposed to do.
Third, Rocna has for some time boasted that in the West Marine/Sail magazine tests that their anchor showed holding power "40% greater than the competition."* Those results turn out to be bogus, as they are based on a single pull where the presumption is that the Rocna snagged on a rock and held to 5,000# plus before releasing and not setting again.* It was an anamoly discarded by the testers that became the focus of a false claim by Rocna that their anchors were superior to others.* Sail magazine has commented that Rocna's claims are bogus, so this appears to be verified, and certainly is in the notes to the testing results.* So, if you bought a Rocna, paid a premium price for it based on its superior testing results, you were duped.
I bring all of this to the forum's attention not because I have any particular issue with Rocna, or any particular slant towards any other anchor manufacturer, but because it does appear that there are some serious reasons to carefully reconsider purchasing a Rocna anchor until all of this is sorted out, which it appears headed towards.
I doubt very much that if the allegations of false claims regarding metullurgy prove true that distributors will want to assume the liability of selling a product so blantantly not what it is represented to be, especially when that product is a critical piece of safety equipment on which a vessel's or crew's lives may depend.* For example, Fisheries Supply repeats the product specifications Rocna supplies that are now very much in question in their description of the anchor, for example:
"Rugged strength through superior engineering and heavy-duty quenched and tempered 800 mPa high tensile steel"
and
"RINA certified for Super High Holding Power (SHHP) for full range of anchors; 121 lbs, anchors can be individually certified by customer request"
We know the latter claim is false based on the CEO's own statements, and the evidence appears to support the claim that the former is bogus as well.
This is not going to end pretty, methinks.
