Rocna revealed

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.

Why am I not surprised?

Rocna representatives have been very active on various boater forums to promote and defend their product as well as to put down other anchor types. Made me leery. ("He protesteth too much.")

Bambury posted metullurgy reports a short time ago that support their claims.* The problem is, since they have been caught out in making things up with regard to the RINA certification, the West Marine results and have behaved in a generally sleazy manner in their business dealings with competitors and vendors I'm afraid I'm not prepared to assume that what they say is fact in this case.* So I'll have to await for independant testing to settle whether Bambury is telling the truth, or his former employees, customers and vendors who contradict him.

I have a neighbor that lives on a 65 ft Pacific Marine that switched to a Rocna anchor.* They belong to a club that anchors out a lot.* I will give him this information.*

Wow! Assuming it's all true, this is going to make me reconsider.

Phil Fill wrote:
I have a neighbor that lives on a 65 ft Pacific Marine that switched to a Rocna anchor.* They belong to a club that anchors out a lot.* I will give him this information.*

Click to expand...

*If it was made in NZ, it may be fine.* If it wasn't, it may not.* If one has a sample of the Q620D steel Rocna claims they use for the shank, and tap the sample with a blunt punch, then tap with the same punch and the same force the shank of their Rocna and compare the indentations they might get a clue if there is an issue, although I have been told this might be so inexact as to be useless.* Or, if one can find a portable digital hardness meter you could get the actual answer.

*

GonzoF1 wrote:
Wow! Assuming it's all true, this is going to make me reconsider.

Click to expand...

*Yep.* The posting I was following on the Yachting and Boat World forum made War and Peace look like a Reader's Digest article - it went on for 750 posts and over 40,000 views.* Eventually it came down to Rocna posting an allegation of pedophilia and embezzlement against a former employee who was blowing the whistle, which is why it was pulled.* Unbelievably sleazy, but what fell out at the end for me is that no one should assume anything about Rocna until more facts are out.* And that you won't get any facts from Rocna that you can necessarily trust.* That's the problem with dishonest people - they tell the truth sometimes so you never know where you're at.

*

He used to own a machine shop that made air plane parts so I am sure he will do some testing.* He did go to BC Canada and anchored most of the time, but that was during the summer months*with good results.* I think he is planning on going to*Alaska this year.* Most of us PNW live aboard do not leave the dock from October to May.

*****

Phil Fill wrote:
He used to own a machine shop that made air plane parts so I am sure he will do some testing.* He did go to BC Canada and anchored most of the time, but that was during the summer months*with good results.* I think he is planning on going to*Alaska this year.* Most of us PNW live aboard do not leave the dock from October to May.

*****

Click to expand...

*That would be a great source of information.* This may be a case of much smoke and no fire, but some independant verification would be helpful.

*

Here is a link to a story on an anchor that has American Bureau of Shipping 'Superior Holding power' certification. Only problem is that I can't afford one! LOL

http://www.navagear.com/2011/04/07/...ded-abs-superior-holding-power-certification/

Well, as one someone who has just purchased a 33# Rocna (Chinese built) in February this is very interesting. We haven't used it yet, in fact haven't even actually seen it, so hopefully it won't crumble as we gaze wistfully at it while it sits on the bow. Should have paid extra for the stainless version so that at least we could have a trophy anchor I suppose.

Thanks for the info and let's hope we have a more postive outcome from all of this than seems to be the case.

Rumour is that they had to scrap several months of production about a year ago....


-- Edited by Singleprop on Tuesday 12th of April 2011 02:27:09 AM

Now you tell us. Oh well, will just have to see how it all plays out. I'm a duped one but it still did a heck of a lot better than my flat out too small Bruce.

Craig Smith's nemisis "The Alain" Poiraud, inventor of the Spade anchor, must be smiling up there! They had fantastic battles on some of the cruising forums.
Steve W.

Hey, Delfin, have you taken delivery of your new Sarcas yet.* It's ok, we are both smiling, right...?

Peter B wrote:
Hey, Delfin, have you taken delivery of your new Sarcas yet.* It's ok, we are both smiling, right...?

Click to expand...

*No, they were out of my size, so I hope to loop back and get one later this year.

By the way, on Alain Poiraud's passing, Craig Smith snaked Alain's URL and linked it to a propaganda page written by his Pa on how all anchors but the Rocna suck.* Very classy.

*

Interesting information.* The Rocna was never high on my list of must haves.

Leary of things that claim to be the Best.* JohnP

One more reason to buy a Manson.

bobofthenorth wrote:
One more reason to buy a Manson.

Click to expand...

I looked at the Rocna and the Manson at the Vancouver Boat Show in February, unaware of all of the turmoil surrounding the Rocna, and I have to say that visually the Rocna looked to be a better built product. And the pricing was very similar; in fact the Manson was a few dollars more as I recall.*

The fellow I was talking to about the Rocna intimated that Craig Smith was not doing the Rocna name much good.

*

*

*

For what it's worth, and coming from a contented Sarca owner of some 8 yrs, I do believe the original NZ made Rocna is a very good anchor. It may well claw up more ocean floor than one would like, but it works. The Dashews on Wind Horse love theirs, but they bought an NZ made one.
However, if now made in China, and of inferior metal specs, then that is one really good way to destroy the reputation of any product.* <a href="wind horse yacht - Google Search" target="_blank">wind horse yacht - Google Search
</a>


I bet they are wishing they could take that decision back...?

The Rocna people I mean, as far as I know the Dashews are still impressed with their anchor.


-- Edited by Peter B on Wednesday 13th of April 2011 05:59:33 AM

Peter B wrote:

Click to expand...

* * * * Man! That's one "wet" ride!

*

Wet ride for sure.

*It would seem to me that the bow should be about 6' Higher.

A nice and expensive boat. I wonder who designed a boat like that.

Looks like in any kind of sea she would bury the bow more often than not.

Is that suppose to be some sort of wave piercing hull?

SD

O.K. Did some more reading on the Wind Horse.

Huh???

*

SD

*


-- Edited by skipperdude on Wednesday 13th of April 2011 09:43:03 AM

skipperdude wrote:
Wet ride for sure.

*It would seem to me that the bow should be about 6' Higher.

A nice and expensive boat. I wonder who designed a boat like that.

Looks like in any kind of sea she would bury the bow more often than not.

Is that suppose to be some sort of wave piercing hull?

SD

O.K. Did some more reading on the Wind Horse.

Huh???

*

SD


-- Edited by skipperdude on Wednesday 13th of April 2011 09:43:03 AM

Click to expand...

*Skipper, I am one who would prefer to take an extra couple of days to get there in a full displacement hull than the alternative, but Dashew's designs do work.* The concept is light and fast, and Steve Dashew has some ridiculously huge number of blue water miles under his, and his wife's belt to prove he knows something about what he is talking about.* The bow issue isn't a problem, because he is usually surfing.* Setting aside the fact that his boats are about as buttugly as a vessel can be, they make passages, both sail and power, over very long distances successfully.

*

Delfin wrote:skipperdude wrote:
Wet ride for sure.

*It would seem to me that the bow should be about 6' Higher.

A nice and expensive boat. I wonder who designed a boat like that.

Looks like in any kind of sea she would bury the bow more often than not.

Is that suppose to be some sort of wave piercing hull?

SD

O.K. Did some more reading on the Wind Horse.

Huh???

*

SD


-- Edited by skipperdude on Wednesday 13th of April 2011 09:43:03 AM

Click to expand...

*Skipper, I am one who would prefer to take an extra couple of days to get there in a full displacement hull than the alternative, but Dashew's designs do work.* The concept is light and fast, and Steve Dashew has some ridiculously huge number of blue water miles under his, and his wife's belt to prove he knows something about what he is talking about.* The bow issue isn't a problem, because he is usually surfing.* Setting aside the fact that his boats are about as buttugly as a vessel can be, they make passages, both sail and power, over very long distances successfully.

*

*This boat was designed by an architect, looking to do something new. This was his first and perhaps last attempt at nautical architecture. I saw the boat in an early issue of Passagemaker. Having recently passed on my collection of Passagemakers, I can't say without doubt, but my memory says it was powered by a small (and I want to say Lehman) power plant. The engine was mounted very low in the keel, which was about three feet wide at the bottom center, with a huge flat shoe. The hull and house are aluminum. Except for the lack of flare at the bow, and the excess of exposed windows forward, I love that boat. I think she would be a great boat for the inside passage to alaska, with a few carefully timed crossings. As I remember, she has a very much sailboat like hull form, with a long, wide keel.



-- Edited by Carey on Wednesday 13th of April 2011 08:07:50 PM


-- Edited by Carey on Wednesday 13th of April 2011 08:09:18 PM

Wind Horse could use a lot more buoyancy toward the bow.

For you wannabe naval architects, I suggest you read Dahsew's website regarding the FPB design. There is about 8 years of design and 40,000 miles of blue water cruising under the Windhorse's keel. Fast, seaworthy*and economical; too good to be true - but it all works.

I saw*an FPB 64*in Anacortes last week. Serious boaters for sure. The owners recently delivered the vessel from NZ on its own bottom. Betcha won't see Nordhavn doing that!

Beauty is all in the eyes of the beholder. Mark, bow flare doesn't exist in blue water sailing vessels of today, why*should it exist in*a power boat? You will see no bow flare in North Sea pilot boat motor vessels either,*the genesis of the FPB design.

The year is 2011, fuel prices are above 4 bucks and Dashew's 64' vessels will*cruise comfortably all day in big waves at*9.5 -*10 knots and 3+ nmpg. This is an easy 75 nm more per day than a similar length Nordhavn and the speed needed to dodge the storms. For you with blue water experience, you know avoiding the storm track is the key to safety. With today's instant on board* weather knowledge, high relative *boat speed *and the use of a weather router, crossing the oceans is now so much safer.*

The FPB's efficiency and seaworthiness*is undoubtedly geared for the well heeled rare boater*having serious*marine*experience. I just wish I had one.

Click to expand...

*This boat was designed by an architect, looking to do something new. This was his first and perhaps last attempt at nautical architecture. I saw the boat in an early issue of Passagemaker. Having recently passed on my collection of Passagemakers, I can't say without doubt, but my memory says it was powered by a small (and I want to say Lehman) power plant. The engine was mounted very low in the keel, which was about three feet wide at the bottom center, with a huge flat shoe. The hull and house are aluminum. Except for the lack of flare at the bow, and the excess of exposed windows forward, I love that boat. I think she would be a great boat for the inside passage to alaska, with a few carefully timed crossings. As I remember, she has a very much sailboat like hull form, with a long, wide keel.



-- Edited by Carey on Wednesday 13th of April 2011 08:07:50 PM



-- Edited by Carey on Wednesday 13th of April 2011 08:09:18 PM

*This is the latest in a series of offshore designs from Steve Dashew who has been designing boats and having them built by others for 30+ years, although this is his first machine powered voyager.* Dashew started with the Sundeers, which have hundred of thousands of miles of bluewater experience.* In the 4 years since launching, Wind Horse has 45,000 offshore miles, or about twice around the world.* Seem to work pretty well, although as I said, not necessarily my idea of the ideal voyager but indisputably successful and very well designed.

*

This is the latest in a series of offshore designs from Steve Dashew who has been designing boats and having them built by others for 30+ years, although this is his first machine powered voyager.* Dashew started with the Sundeers, which have hundred of thousands of miles of bluewater experience.* In the 4 years since launching, Wind Horse has 45,000 offshore miles, or about twice around the world.* Seem to work pretty well, although as I said, not necessarily my idea of the ideal voyager but indisputably successful and very well designed.
*

Click to expand...

*As a previous convert.... power to sail ... then back to power I cannot argue with the fast passage times of the Dashew boats... I lusted for a sundeer during my sailing days.. They are smoking fast passagemakers... able to motor at 11kts too!. I understand Dashew's idea was that if you needed to go to weather ..or the speed dropped below 5kts it was time to start the engine.. and his boats didn't sail very well to weather. Regarding the Windhorse... it's hard to say too much agenst a boat that has voyaged that far in the short time she has been around... But that boat is SERIOUSLY UGLY... and the dinghy... I saw better looking dinghy's made out of corrugated roofing in the south pacific!.* The main issue I have is it is a very expensive boat... it's length / berth capacity has got to be the highest in the industry. That boat must cost a fortune to stay in a marina... and all for a couple. It was in Port Townsend a few weeks ago and I got a close look at it... it has some great qualities... but in person it's even worse that in the photos!. At least Dashew has gotten over calling it a UNSailboat..

HOLLYWOOD

*

Carey wrote:

*This boat was designed by an architect, looking to do something new. ...........I can't say without doubt, but my memory says it was powered by a small (and I want to say Lehman) power plant. The engine was mounted very low in the keel, which was about three feet wide at the bottom center, with a huge flat shoe.

Click to expand...

*Carey, I still have that article, and the boat is powered by twins.......so maybe that will contribute to the twins versus single discussion.* From memory they are quite low powered units, especially for a vessel of 83 feet.* John Deere 150 hp turbos I think.

*

Old Stone wrote:
*Guess I must be bipolar, huh?

Click to expand...

*not at all... and I do like the looks or YOUR boat.....

And for the record.... you don't need to get your shorts in a knot... of course it's MY opinion... Thank god not all boats look like that

HOLLYWOOD

*