idpnd
Member
I for one am really pleased with this latest twist in the saga.. Can't wait to hear more about the steel testing
Anchors. I hate to do this but...
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
- Status
Ubergeekian
Active member
Delfin
New member
It would be inconvenient but feasible to have any Rocna anchor tested for Rockwell hardness without damaging the anchor at all. If I had bought a Rocna and my boat depended on it I would go to the hassle for the same reason I pay for insurance. Knowing that I had purchased a product from a company with a long history of deceit, mud-slinging, obfuscation and sleaze, I would reasonably assume that I had been lied to and would want to know the truth before depending on their product.
Like the police inspector in Casablanca, I am shocked, shocked to find out that a Chinese factory could produce a sub standard product that puts people's lives at risk. Shocked I tell you.
My suggestion to the Rocna CEO - let's cut to the chase and suggest that he modify his posting signature to "Rocna - affiliated with Craig Smith." A little truth in advertising would do them good.
Like the police inspector in Casablanca, I am shocked, shocked to find out that a Chinese factory could produce a sub standard product that puts people's lives at risk. Shocked I tell you.
My suggestion to the Rocna CEO - let's cut to the chase and suggest that he modify his posting signature to "Rocna - affiliated with Craig Smith." A little truth in advertising would do them good.
Ubergeekian
Active member
That would only get you the surface hardness, which might not be the whole story.
Delfin
New member
Likely true.
Brian@Fortress
New member
Well Delfin, they could also start by retracting the 5 year old false claim about the West Marine/Sail anchor test. This today from Bill Springer, the Sail magazine author, about the test on his blog:
I've not heard Rocna's claims directly, but I can say that neither the data, nor the report, says that the Rocna had "40% greater holding power than the next best anchor tested."
http://billspringer.blogspot.com/2011/03/which-anchor-holds-best-14-anchors-are.html
Delfin
New member
When astronomers make measurements of distant objects, they will routinely toss out anomalous data that is outside the norm. They do this because they don't want to have their data criticized by people saying it is distorted by outliers. What Rocna has done is take the one piece of anomalous data and built a commercial company around it. It is false, it is misleading, it remains prominent on their web site. Until they acknowledge this, everything else they say is just smoke.
My basic beef with Rocna has nothing to do with what a pain Craig Smith is, but is based on the belief that dishonest companies shouldn't prosper, especially when manufacturing safety equipment. Their CEO could have come out and made something up about being out of the loop, but by golly, now that he's informed it's all going to get fixed now. But he hasn't even done that.
However, his task now appears to have gone beyond fixing a public relations problem with a bit of shucking and jiving, since it now looks that Rocna may be lying to their customers about critical elements of the product they want us to trust our boats and possibly lives to. If this is correct, then everyone who buys one of their products needs to get a "Sucker" hand stamp when they walk out the door with a Rocna.
I'm not sure why companies like West Marine, or Defender, or Fisheries Supply would want to sell a product that may be a fraud until someone gets to the bottom of this issue. Perhaps they should be asked.
What I would like to see is a reputable boating magazine do a little bit of investigative reporting. Serious charges have been made. The company against whom the charges have been made appear to be stonewalling. Be nice to bring it all out into the open someplace other than an Internet forum, although I suspect it will soon enough.
My basic beef with Rocna has nothing to do with what a pain Craig Smith is, but is based on the belief that dishonest companies shouldn't prosper, especially when manufacturing safety equipment. Their CEO could have come out and made something up about being out of the loop, but by golly, now that he's informed it's all going to get fixed now. But he hasn't even done that.
However, his task now appears to have gone beyond fixing a public relations problem with a bit of shucking and jiving, since it now looks that Rocna may be lying to their customers about critical elements of the product they want us to trust our boats and possibly lives to. If this is correct, then everyone who buys one of their products needs to get a "Sucker" hand stamp when they walk out the door with a Rocna.
I'm not sure why companies like West Marine, or Defender, or Fisheries Supply would want to sell a product that may be a fraud until someone gets to the bottom of this issue. Perhaps they should be asked.
What I would like to see is a reputable boating magazine do a little bit of investigative reporting. Serious charges have been made. The company against whom the charges have been made appear to be stonewalling. Be nice to bring it all out into the open someplace other than an Internet forum, although I suspect it will soon enough.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Vyv Cox of this parish is hot on metallurgy. He's also a consultant contributor to YM. Vyv?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Hi Steve,
I'm glad that you've come back but it won't surprise you to hear that I have a few questions.
That's good but I'm not sure that you can do much without Craigs co-operation. Both your .com and .co.nz domain names are registered in the Smiths name so I am left asking who owns the sites? If you are genuinely wishing to change the site, as I've said before, you could cut out some of the content overnight.
Forgive me for saying it, but it sounds as if you are saying that you are going to act but that nothing will be done! I simply do not understand what you are saying.
I wish you would clarify it!
As Djbangi alluded to above, the "statement" which you have posted shows tests conducted nearly two and a half years ago, using anchors produced in NZ (?), under a different manufacturing process. Since then you have changed metals, changed the manufacturing process, changed the drawings and changed suppliers.
Whilst you say that the process is drawn out, my experience of testing houses (BSI, different industry) is that they may not be quick but more than two years???. I doubt that we are getting the full story; it may be something simple like a bill not being paid, but whatever it is something ain't right.
I also have real difficulty in accepting the link between different certificates. You talk about the seabed tests and the manufacturing approval. In my experience the tests and approvals would be completely independent of one another. I would expect one certificate for the seabed test and another, separate, certificate for the manufacturing processes.
So, once again, why no test certificates? Alternatively why don't you publish the detailed test results in the entirety?
I'm glad that you've come back but it won't surprise you to hear that I have a few questions.
That's good but I'm not sure that you can do much without Craigs co-operation. Both your .com and .co.nz domain names are registered in the Smiths name so I am left asking who owns the sites? If you are genuinely wishing to change the site, as I've said before, you could cut out some of the content overnight.
Forgive me for saying it, but it sounds as if you are saying that you are going to act but that nothing will be done! I simply do not understand what you are saying.
I wish you would clarify it!
As Djbangi alluded to above, the "statement" which you have posted shows tests conducted nearly two and a half years ago, using anchors produced in NZ (?), under a different manufacturing process. Since then you have changed metals, changed the manufacturing process, changed the drawings and changed suppliers.
Whilst you say that the process is drawn out, my experience of testing houses (BSI, different industry) is that they may not be quick but more than two years???. I doubt that we are getting the full story; it may be something simple like a bill not being paid, but whatever it is something ain't right.
I also have real difficulty in accepting the link between different certificates. You talk about the seabed tests and the manufacturing approval. In my experience the tests and approvals would be completely independent of one another. I would expect one certificate for the seabed test and another, separate, certificate for the manufacturing processes.
So, once again, why no test certificates? Alternatively why don't you publish the detailed test results in the entirety?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Steve,
Mmmmm! Standard Rocna practice of character assasination then?
Someone posts some test results but nowhere do I see you talking about checking their veracity, Have you checked that batch, do you have product traceability in place? Have you asked where and when he got it? Have you asked for details of the tests?
No, no, no and no!
Instead you go into an attack on his integrity. You question if he is a "genuine" customer...whatever that may mean. You question his credibilty as he has only been posting since 19th March.....when you have only been posting since 28th March
...... You try to make out that you were all charm and reasonableness when you dealt with him before, but the evidence of your response contradicts that.You are probably right on one thing though. It may well have turned into a defamation case. The question is, is it you that have defamed him or vice versa?
Steve, I've said before that Rocna now needs to be open, honest and sincere. After everything that has gone on a bit of humility may also be in order. You haven't got off to a good start.
Djbangi
New member
Defamation
Hi Steve,
it is a real pleasure noticing that you are reading the forums avidly and keeping up to date. Its a pity you did not do it earlier, it might have slowed the rate of growth of the fire.
I am interested that you think you have a case of defamation with Whaleboy. If he beleives that the information he is publishing is correct and true, your case immediately falls over. Frankly it is difficult to understand why he would make it up. However you will be well aware of defamation as your colleague Mr Smith, who at the time was affilaiated with you and presumably working under your authority, has given in this thread a number of examples of defamation. Fabricating a story that a journalist only wrote nice things about a product becuase it was given free, suggesting that an independent and reuptable firm testing anchors was not independent, suggesting NATA were incompetent - the leist goes on. Now Mr Smith's actions were defamatory - no free anchors were given, the test authority is independent and NATA do their task properly - these were all fabrications.
I understand you might have a bevy of legal advisers for other matters, as one does, possibly one of them has strengths in defamation. I might suggest a few NZ$ invested their could save you a fortune in the future.
Now why might Whaleboy publish his findings and not take compensation from you - well maybe he is another who has taken the higher moral ground. If the inforamtion he is providing is shown to be correct and incontrovertible thyen there are numbers of similar anchors. Maybe he has a concern for other people who have bought your product. I, for one share his concern. I am biased - I have noted the, libel, inuendo, misrepresentation emanating from the Rocna cess pit for months now and frankly it is difficult to beleive anything said in the past nor being said by you today.
You tell us you have a RINA certificate - so why not put it on the web, what is the secret, or maybe you do not have a certificate. You tell us SGS have tested your product, persumably there are certificates, why not publish them - what is the secret. Young Mr Smith has told us you use Q&T 800, he might have been more specific at times nad said, Bisplate 80. He made the Q&T statement when he was affiliated with you - do you categorically stand by that statement. To me silence on these issues suggests they were a fabrication, a misrepresentation (I'd talk to your legal advisers about misrep as well).
If you wonder at the calcophony of noise against you, think that you and young Mr Smith are you own worst enemies. You are being treated considerably more fairly than you have treated others and as far as I am aware no-oone has lied to you. You sell a safety product and you have both a legal and moral responsibility to ensure it meets standards you have set.
Hi Steve,
it is a real pleasure noticing that you are reading the forums avidly and keeping up to date. Its a pity you did not do it earlier, it might have slowed the rate of growth of the fire.
I am interested that you think you have a case of defamation with Whaleboy. If he beleives that the information he is publishing is correct and true, your case immediately falls over. Frankly it is difficult to understand why he would make it up. However you will be well aware of defamation as your colleague Mr Smith, who at the time was affilaiated with you and presumably working under your authority, has given in this thread a number of examples of defamation. Fabricating a story that a journalist only wrote nice things about a product becuase it was given free, suggesting that an independent and reuptable firm testing anchors was not independent, suggesting NATA were incompetent - the leist goes on. Now Mr Smith's actions were defamatory - no free anchors were given, the test authority is independent and NATA do their task properly - these were all fabrications.
I understand you might have a bevy of legal advisers for other matters, as one does, possibly one of them has strengths in defamation. I might suggest a few NZ$ invested their could save you a fortune in the future.
Now why might Whaleboy publish his findings and not take compensation from you - well maybe he is another who has taken the higher moral ground. If the inforamtion he is providing is shown to be correct and incontrovertible thyen there are numbers of similar anchors. Maybe he has a concern for other people who have bought your product. I, for one share his concern. I am biased - I have noted the, libel, inuendo, misrepresentation emanating from the Rocna cess pit for months now and frankly it is difficult to beleive anything said in the past nor being said by you today.
You tell us you have a RINA certificate - so why not put it on the web, what is the secret, or maybe you do not have a certificate. You tell us SGS have tested your product, persumably there are certificates, why not publish them - what is the secret. Young Mr Smith has told us you use Q&T 800, he might have been more specific at times nad said, Bisplate 80. He made the Q&T statement when he was affiliated with you - do you categorically stand by that statement. To me silence on these issues suggests they were a fabrication, a misrepresentation (I'd talk to your legal advisers about misrep as well).
If you wonder at the calcophony of noise against you, think that you and young Mr Smith are you own worst enemies. You are being treated considerably more fairly than you have treated others and as far as I am aware no-oone has lied to you. You sell a safety product and you have both a legal and moral responsibility to ensure it meets standards you have set.
Delfin
New member
Good point, Ken. Vyv Cox, is there is a simple way that a person who has purchased a Chinese made anchor from Rocna could conduct a test with a punch and hammer to determine whether or not the anchor they bought under the assumption it had a certain Rockwell hardness was in fact made of mild steel? It wouldn't be definitive, but I wonder if one could get a sense of whether further investigation is warranted. There's a very big difference between Rockwell 6 and Rockwell 25, and there should be some way to get a ballpark sense of what they are looking at.
Normally, one would just ask the manufacturer, but given who Rocna is showing themselves to be, that isn't a sensible option.
CONGO
Member
Steel testing
Steel testing.
There really should not be a problem with analyzing steel quality, what type it is what it is made up of and carbon content.
Quality control for large orders of steel coming into Australia that may be used for structural such as beams bridges so &so the list is long, how they do a test on this steel, they simply linish of a small section, hold a probe to it and there you have it, a complete print out of the steel quality, it doesn’t matter if it is stainless the principle is quick and accurate.
Who does this I do not know, if you have the time try Googling steel id testing equipment something like that. As far as anchors go it doesn’t matter what grade of steel your anchor is made of, as at the end of the day strength testing, that’s the big one, this is not achieved through field testing, proof loading seems to be what’s missing. it can be constructed out of lead, who cares providing it meets the stringent proof load test, the very challenge that has been thrown up to rickety by Manson, why they don’t take it up, and the absent of a proof load certificate has a pungent smell to me, basically it took one day for their field testing? I was put through 150 pulls with our anchors over a period of months.
Yes we failed in some proof testing for Super High Holding Power, so we went back to the drawing board, then retested. Could be close to the truth of this entertainment as some would call it?
Furthermore when redeveloping we over engineered our anchor range so as we produced far higher loads than what was required, proof load testing is expensive, over engineering is a fast track to success, you have a better quality anchor and you not rapidly throwing money to testing for the wrong reason, that is to save money, I truly believe these are now the consequences of clickerty rickety.
Further more proof load testing is compulsory on anchors over fifty kilo only, you can test smaller anchors if you wish but the loads are minimal compared to anchors over fifty kilo.
So you see there is also another angle, why not use inferior steel types in these anchors, under fifty five kilo they are not proof tested but do comply with actual holding power in field for certification whatever it may be, now that’s fine but if you are quoting that the steel used in the larger anchors is the same that as in the anchors under fifty Kilo to rise above the competition then tighten your own noose.
Interestingly, you should test a rickety anchor for steel quality under fifty kilo, then test a rickety anchor over sixty Kilo, you may get some interesting results and finally be able to dot the eyes.
Regards Rex
Affiliated with Anchor Right Australia
Steel testing.
There really should not be a problem with analyzing steel quality, what type it is what it is made up of and carbon content.
Quality control for large orders of steel coming into Australia that may be used for structural such as beams bridges so &so the list is long, how they do a test on this steel, they simply linish of a small section, hold a probe to it and there you have it, a complete print out of the steel quality, it doesn’t matter if it is stainless the principle is quick and accurate.
Who does this I do not know, if you have the time try Googling steel id testing equipment something like that. As far as anchors go it doesn’t matter what grade of steel your anchor is made of, as at the end of the day strength testing, that’s the big one, this is not achieved through field testing, proof loading seems to be what’s missing. it can be constructed out of lead, who cares providing it meets the stringent proof load test, the very challenge that has been thrown up to rickety by Manson, why they don’t take it up, and the absent of a proof load certificate has a pungent smell to me, basically it took one day for their field testing? I was put through 150 pulls with our anchors over a period of months.
Yes we failed in some proof testing for Super High Holding Power, so we went back to the drawing board, then retested. Could be close to the truth of this entertainment as some would call it?
Furthermore when redeveloping we over engineered our anchor range so as we produced far higher loads than what was required, proof load testing is expensive, over engineering is a fast track to success, you have a better quality anchor and you not rapidly throwing money to testing for the wrong reason, that is to save money, I truly believe these are now the consequences of clickerty rickety.
Further more proof load testing is compulsory on anchors over fifty kilo only, you can test smaller anchors if you wish but the loads are minimal compared to anchors over fifty kilo.
So you see there is also another angle, why not use inferior steel types in these anchors, under fifty five kilo they are not proof tested but do comply with actual holding power in field for certification whatever it may be, now that’s fine but if you are quoting that the steel used in the larger anchors is the same that as in the anchors under fifty Kilo to rise above the competition then tighten your own noose.
Interestingly, you should test a rickety anchor for steel quality under fifty kilo, then test a rickety anchor over sixty Kilo, you may get some interesting results and finally be able to dot the eyes.
Regards Rex
Affiliated with Anchor Right Australia
CONGO
Member
Dilema when adding unresearched weight
Further to my last post I should clarify a few things, we have had our complete anchor range tested, field and proof load, we had to increase shank thickness to achieve Super High Holding Power, I am talking Super Sarca, the point I would like to make is when you design an anchor with bisplate the steel is lighter than mild steel, now for that design to work, anything heavier in the shank will impair its setting ability.
If you look at our dvd introducing the excel, you will see one of the N.Z. designs struggling to orientate its toe In the gravel, it is a balance problem, so if you want to change from bisplate to mild steel, you would Have to go a lot thicker in material for strength. It will then probably never engage in most substrates.
End result would be the anchor will now lay on its side ,so if the rickety camp decided to go mild steel and didn’t increase the thickness to make up for strength then they would not even achieve the low proof loads required for S/H/H/Power, dilemma, if they increase the thickness of a lower grade steel to make up for bisplte strength or somewhere about they two would have an anchor that prefers to roll the toe out as the shank weight is to heavy, if you increase the shank weight in scoop designs, make them heavier, than what that design was intended for then you have to counter that weight by making the fluke heavier.
If you design an anchor it is all around weight balance, the combination of steels to achieve the best outcome for that design cannot be changed on the run without dia consequences.
Regards Rex
Affiliated with Anchor Right Australia.
Further to my last post I should clarify a few things, we have had our complete anchor range tested, field and proof load, we had to increase shank thickness to achieve Super High Holding Power, I am talking Super Sarca, the point I would like to make is when you design an anchor with bisplate the steel is lighter than mild steel, now for that design to work, anything heavier in the shank will impair its setting ability.
If you look at our dvd introducing the excel, you will see one of the N.Z. designs struggling to orientate its toe In the gravel, it is a balance problem, so if you want to change from bisplate to mild steel, you would Have to go a lot thicker in material for strength. It will then probably never engage in most substrates.
End result would be the anchor will now lay on its side ,so if the rickety camp decided to go mild steel and didn’t increase the thickness to make up for strength then they would not even achieve the low proof loads required for S/H/H/Power, dilemma, if they increase the thickness of a lower grade steel to make up for bisplte strength or somewhere about they two would have an anchor that prefers to roll the toe out as the shank weight is to heavy, if you increase the shank weight in scoop designs, make them heavier, than what that design was intended for then you have to counter that weight by making the fluke heavier.
If you design an anchor it is all around weight balance, the combination of steels to achieve the best outcome for that design cannot be changed on the run without dia consequences.
Regards Rex
Affiliated with Anchor Right Australia.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Rex,
How long did testing take you from start to receiving the certificates?
In Racno's case we see a "statement" about some undefined tests carried out in 2008 then, well, just nothing. It seems to be a drawn out process.
In your experience what would happen if you changed the product halfway through the testing process? Like changing from a fabricated blade to a cast blade, or changing the steel?
How long did testing take you from start to receiving the certificates?
In Racno's case we see a "statement" about some undefined tests carried out in 2008 then, well, just nothing. It seems to be a drawn out process.
In your experience what would happen if you changed the product halfway through the testing process? Like changing from a fabricated blade to a cast blade, or changing the steel?
Rocna
New member
Hi Rigger. The Smiths own the domain names, which is why they maintain the right to use Rocna email addresses, but the websites are in our control. We've already committed to reviewing the website content, but we're going to need some time to do that.
I'm not saying that at all. I commit to reviewing the website content, but what I can't do is change an agreement that's already in place that entitles Craig to use a Rocna email address. I do, however, acknowledge that it's still an issue, and so I will be seeing what we can do.
We answered your comments on this over at Anything Sailing but we'll repeat it here. It's odd to us too that RINA wouldn't issue the SHHP certificate independent of the facility certification, but that's what we've been told and that's why the SHHP statement was issued.
Regarding the length of the process, we could have sped it up if we engaged a company like SGS to take us through the whole process, but that would have added another $200,000 to the price tag. We've already invested over $50,000 to pursue certification, and that’s a lot for a relatively small business like us. As a result, the process has taken a little longer than initially planned.
We do have a lot of paperwork relating to the testing we've done since the seabed tests, and the only reason that we haven’t published this is that it includes proprietary and confidential information which may otherwise compromise our contractual relationships with both our manufacturers and designer, Peter Smith. We are going through it though and will post what we can.
Guys, we've also answered more questions over at the Anything Sailing thread (see post 713 for the link to the thread if you need it).
Steve
Djbangi
New member
YBW, Anything Sailing, Trawler Forum etc etc
Sorry Steve,
I am sorry but it is an affront to suggest I need to wander about forums looking for your answers. If I read YBW, Trawler Forum, Anything Sailing - or an Alaskan Fishing forum - I expect the answers to comment on the forum I inhabit. It seems, Steve, you are slow to learn. You condoned Craig's activity when you stupidly thought it was the road to riches, and Craig infested every forum where the word 'anchor' was posted. It was you Steve that sat back in your padded Business Class seat going to METS, Italy, USA and shaking the hands of your distributors (spouting the massaged Sail data) - when the money you saved using cheap steel was buying your airfare - comfortable with the idea that Craig was keeping the proleteriat at bay. Sadly you continue to insult us - if you have a message detail on each forum and do not suggest we need to trawl forums to find your answers.
Because we do not trawl forums - if your answers do not appear we will continue in blind ignorance to assault you. Its not our business to build anchors, we are just little people, normally squashed underfoot by the likes of you and your affiliates. These worms have turned - and there seem to be a lot of us.
Instead of swanning about the world drumming up new distributors, who look like to not pay bills for out of spec product - think positive, PR? (this means public relations) update the website, start a new website - do anything! - but do not make more and more excuses. Good website designers will do you a pretty cheap deal, get a new brand name, publish on the forums - my son in law (did the website for a Formula 1 driver - secrecy agreement denies more info) - says 1 week. But sorry, you are black listed as a future client, my son in law needs payment, or in your case money up front.
We are customers, unlikely to be future customers, treat us with a little respect and then maybe we will develop some respect for you. Treat us as fodder for your money machine and we will treat you with the contempt you, and your affiliates, deserve.
You have a major issue over specifications on steel quality (and if this is proven you will be wiped out), a major issue over certification (and this looks dodgy), a history of misrepresentation, libel and insult (and this is obvious), I suspect numbers of customers wanting refunds on questionable product and you want us to surf the forums to find your excuses. Please join the real world.
Have a great weekend as the future looks unsettled and the longer term future pretty catastrophic - but maybe the message will get through. Treat us as you expect to be treated yourself.
Sorry Steve,
I am sorry but it is an affront to suggest I need to wander about forums looking for your answers. If I read YBW, Trawler Forum, Anything Sailing - or an Alaskan Fishing forum - I expect the answers to comment on the forum I inhabit. It seems, Steve, you are slow to learn. You condoned Craig's activity when you stupidly thought it was the road to riches, and Craig infested every forum where the word 'anchor' was posted. It was you Steve that sat back in your padded Business Class seat going to METS, Italy, USA and shaking the hands of your distributors (spouting the massaged Sail data) - when the money you saved using cheap steel was buying your airfare - comfortable with the idea that Craig was keeping the proleteriat at bay. Sadly you continue to insult us - if you have a message detail on each forum and do not suggest we need to trawl forums to find your answers.
Because we do not trawl forums - if your answers do not appear we will continue in blind ignorance to assault you. Its not our business to build anchors, we are just little people, normally squashed underfoot by the likes of you and your affiliates. These worms have turned - and there seem to be a lot of us.
Instead of swanning about the world drumming up new distributors, who look like to not pay bills for out of spec product - think positive, PR? (this means public relations) update the website, start a new website - do anything! - but do not make more and more excuses. Good website designers will do you a pretty cheap deal, get a new brand name, publish on the forums - my son in law (did the website for a Formula 1 driver - secrecy agreement denies more info) - says 1 week. But sorry, you are black listed as a future client, my son in law needs payment, or in your case money up front.
We are customers, unlikely to be future customers, treat us with a little respect and then maybe we will develop some respect for you. Treat us as fodder for your money machine and we will treat you with the contempt you, and your affiliates, deserve.
You have a major issue over specifications on steel quality (and if this is proven you will be wiped out), a major issue over certification (and this looks dodgy), a history of misrepresentation, libel and insult (and this is obvious), I suspect numbers of customers wanting refunds on questionable product and you want us to surf the forums to find your excuses. Please join the real world.
Have a great weekend as the future looks unsettled and the longer term future pretty catastrophic - but maybe the message will get through. Treat us as you expect to be treated yourself.
Djbangi
New member
RINA and SGS
Hi Steve,
I do not like to belabour the point but I'm just a simply yachtie and a neophyte in the Rocna macinations.
I understand that you had an initial involvement witb Lloyds Registar over approval of you anchors - would you care to describe to us what went wrong. Most of us have respect for LR - what happened? For you this might be water under the bridge, but there must be a few questionable invoices floating about.
But put that aside, it does not involve us, except we do respect LR -
My understanding is you appoint RINA to act as an independent body to oversee their approval of your anchors. You effectively pay the bills, well actually you are the client. You can drop them at any time if you think their conduct is not fair, or inexplicable. (Its odd that the posting of the bent Rocna came from Venice (Steve - that's in Italy) and there was that lovely article where the Ultra came out much better than the Rocna (Italian magazine) - wrong decision Steve?).
Yet you tell us you do not understand why they are delaying their release of certification - if you want us to believe this you must be very, very stupid.
If I had evidence, and you have that - your anchors are 40% better than anyone elses - that RINA are not acting professionally you (and I, if I were in your position) would take them to the cleaners - you have tried to do it with everyone else, why not RINA? - maybe you are learning!
But there are RINA certificates, back in the past they were on display - why do you not post them now?
Now in post 706 you tell us that SGS have conducted tests on behalf of RINA but you tell us in your most recent post that you could not employ SGS becuase they were too expensive. If you do not mind me saying so - this seems to be contradictory - you pay RINA and they use SGS (and it costs $50,000) but if you use SGS? (it costs $200,000).
Simple and confused.
Hi Steve,
I do not like to belabour the point but I'm just a simply yachtie and a neophyte in the Rocna macinations.
I understand that you had an initial involvement witb Lloyds Registar over approval of you anchors - would you care to describe to us what went wrong. Most of us have respect for LR - what happened? For you this might be water under the bridge, but there must be a few questionable invoices floating about.
But put that aside, it does not involve us, except we do respect LR -
My understanding is you appoint RINA to act as an independent body to oversee their approval of your anchors. You effectively pay the bills, well actually you are the client. You can drop them at any time if you think their conduct is not fair, or inexplicable. (Its odd that the posting of the bent Rocna came from Venice (Steve - that's in Italy) and there was that lovely article where the Ultra came out much better than the Rocna (Italian magazine) - wrong decision Steve?).
Yet you tell us you do not understand why they are delaying their release of certification - if you want us to believe this you must be very, very stupid.
If I had evidence, and you have that - your anchors are 40% better than anyone elses - that RINA are not acting professionally you (and I, if I were in your position) would take them to the cleaners - you have tried to do it with everyone else, why not RINA? - maybe you are learning!
But there are RINA certificates, back in the past they were on display - why do you not post them now?
Now in post 706 you tell us that SGS have conducted tests on behalf of RINA but you tell us in your most recent post that you could not employ SGS becuase they were too expensive. If you do not mind me saying so - this seems to be contradictory - you pay RINA and they use SGS (and it costs $50,000) but if you use SGS? (it costs $200,000).
Simple and confused.
vyv_cox
Well-known member
The specification for ASTM 514, which I assume is what we are talking about, has a minimum strength requirement of 110 ksi (Sorry it's American!) There is a direct relationship between tensile strength and hardness, hence the Rockwell values can be read off more or less directly as strength. The minimum hardness specified is 20 Rockwell C, or 238 HV in units I am far more familiar with. 4 or 6 Rockwell C are 173 and 180 HV. The latter are rather high for a mild steel which would typically be 150 HV, and I suspect the material tested had at least some alloying content.
It would be quite difficult to compare these values without hardness measurement: there is just not sufficient difference between them. Filing is sometimes a good guide but hardness would need to be approaching 400 HV before this became markedly difficult. The original Brinell test is ideal, this compares the indent of a round ball with that produced in a standard hardness material. I can't think of a way that an accurate comparison could be made without having another sample with the correct hardness. Maybe a Manson?
Brian@Fortress
New member
Rocna & RINA - Maine Sail's posting on Anything Sailing
Further to Djbanji's point, Maine Sail eloquently addresses the Rocna RINA certification in the Anything Sailing forum on the web page below in post 353:
http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna/page9
To summarize: Maine Sail wisely pointed out that Rocna just recently posted this:
"We’ve now completed all of the seabed testing, proof load testing, welding testing and material testing required to obtain certification of the design of the Rocna itself and the manufacturing facility. It’s now a matter of all the reports being processed by RINA for final certification. We will of course be publishing the certificates as soon as they become available."
But Rocna has posted this on their web site:
"The Rocna anchor range has RINA type approval and SHHP classification. Its facilities are RINA approved and individual anchor certification can be provided on request."
More lies......does it ever end?
Further to Djbanji's point, Maine Sail eloquently addresses the Rocna RINA certification in the Anything Sailing forum on the web page below in post 353:
http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna/page9
To summarize: Maine Sail wisely pointed out that Rocna just recently posted this:
"We’ve now completed all of the seabed testing, proof load testing, welding testing and material testing required to obtain certification of the design of the Rocna itself and the manufacturing facility. It’s now a matter of all the reports being processed by RINA for final certification. We will of course be publishing the certificates as soon as they become available."
But Rocna has posted this on their web site:
"The Rocna anchor range has RINA type approval and SHHP classification. Its facilities are RINA approved and individual anchor certification can be provided on request."
More lies......does it ever end?
- Status
Other threads that may be of interest
