Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Nice article, congrats to YM
I hate to do this...but
- Thread starter macd
- Start date
Nice article, congrats to YM
[55354]
...
RINA Approval
Rocna use 2 factories, one the Shanghai factory which is where, virtually, all the anchors have been made in the past since moving to China. Hopefully you and I are not buying, at all, from this factory - if you are buying, gullibility knows no bounds. The Shanghai factory is not approved by RINA - for Type Approval the manufacturing facility does not need to be inspected. The TA is simply a certificate saying ' based on our limited tests and assuming the product is made to the specifications in the design drawings then this anchor should work'. In addition to it not being necessary to approve the factory there is no check on what anchors are actually made - it is assumed by RINA that the anchor maker has integrity. If the concept of integrity is found to be lacking then RINA, and any other Classification Society member if it were to happen to them, will make moves to resolve whatever issues have developed. This is in progress, between RINA and Rocna.
RINA have factories in China they have approved, these factilities would need approval to supply anchors for large commercial vessels, or vessels in survey. All Rocna is saying is that if you need an anchor individually certified they would use one of these, and I think one specific, approved facility. It would be interesting to know the cost differential between the Shanghai factory and the RINA approved factory. There is no evidence that Rocna actually make anchors at the RINA approved facility - they might have done and if so one might expect it to be trumpeted from the rooftops.
There is nothing special about the procedures. Lewmar sell Type Approved anchors, and one assumes they are made to the spec in the TA. They need not be made in approved facilities, though they might be. If you want an individually certified anchor then Lewmar would make the necessary arrangments. Manson's factory is approved and all the anchors they produce in that facility should be made with the same care as anchors that are individually certified. Mention has been made in the past of the RNLI use of Deltas - one reason might be they were then one of the few anchors that could be supplied individually certified.
Individually certified anchors must be made by approved welders, they, the welders, must meet certain standards, all the producion process must meet standards, for example if there is any heat treatment or special cutting. The anchors are individually proof tested etc. I believe Manson, to meet Lloyds approval of the factory, must keep apecific documentation of where they buy their steel with the certification for each steel purchase, where that steel is used etc. It is quite possible some welders at Manson's factory have not yet been approved by Lloyds, apprentices have to be trained and put to work productively (we need to have an air of realism) but the fact their factory enjoys scrutiny, and I think Fortress falls into this camp, is considerably better than the Rocna example.
Rocna use 2 factories, one the Shanghai factory which is where, virtually, all the anchors have been made in the past since moving to China. Hopefully you and I are not buying, at all, from this factory - if you are buying, gullibility knows no bounds. The Shanghai factory is not approved by RINA - for Type Approval the manufacturing facility does not need to be inspected. The TA is simply a certificate saying ' based on our limited tests and assuming the product is made to the specifications in the design drawings then this anchor should work'. In addition to it not being necessary to approve the factory there is no check on what anchors are actually made - it is assumed by RINA that the anchor maker has integrity. If the concept of integrity is found to be lacking then RINA, and any other Classification Society member if it were to happen to them, will make moves to resolve whatever issues have developed. This is in progress, between RINA and Rocna.
RINA have factories in China they have approved, these factilities would need approval to supply anchors for large commercial vessels, or vessels in survey. All Rocna is saying is that if you need an anchor individually certified they would use one of these, and I think one specific, approved facility. It would be interesting to know the cost differential between the Shanghai factory and the RINA approved factory. There is no evidence that Rocna actually make anchors at the RINA approved facility - they might have done and if so one might expect it to be trumpeted from the rooftops.
There is nothing special about the procedures. Lewmar sell Type Approved anchors, and one assumes they are made to the spec in the TA. They need not be made in approved facilities, though they might be. If you want an individually certified anchor then Lewmar would make the necessary arrangments. Manson's factory is approved and all the anchors they produce in that facility should be made with the same care as anchors that are individually certified. Mention has been made in the past of the RNLI use of Deltas - one reason might be they were then one of the few anchors that could be supplied individually certified.
Individually certified anchors must be made by approved welders, they, the welders, must meet certain standards, all the producion process must meet standards, for example if there is any heat treatment or special cutting. The anchors are individually proof tested etc. I believe Manson, to meet Lloyds approval of the factory, must keep apecific documentation of where they buy their steel with the certification for each steel purchase, where that steel is used etc. It is quite possible some welders at Manson's factory have not yet been approved by Lloyds, apprentices have to be trained and put to work productively (we need to have an air of realism) but the fact their factory enjoys scrutiny, and I think Fortress falls into this camp, is considerably better than the Rocna example.
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
A point to note - the society called RINA referred to above is the Italian ship classification society (similar to Lloyds Register in Britain, Germanischer Lloyd in Germany, Det Norske Veritas in Norway, Bureau Veritas in France etc).
They have no connection (in this context) with the 'other' RINA, who are the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, whose headquarters are in London.
I wonder why Rocna chose (just) RINA?
And re Lloyds Register, they have no connection with Lloyds of London, who are the insurance folk (and I doubt there is any connection either with Lloyds TSB bank).
They have no connection (in this context) with the 'other' RINA, who are the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, whose headquarters are in London.
I wonder why Rocna chose (just) RINA?
And re Lloyds Register, they have no connection with Lloyds of London, who are the insurance folk (and I doubt there is any connection either with Lloyds TSB bank).
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
Cheaper and easier, simple.
[55354]
...
Classification Society
It would be wrong to condemn Rocna for choosing RINA, a Classification Society like Lloyds or ABS, simply because RINA was cheaper. All the CS are meant to have similar standards (and you will not, ever, find one CS member suggesting another member has lower standards). So to choose one that is cheaper looks sensible, after all - guess who pays for the cost of CS approval? The idea that RINA was easier, that might need a bit of elaboration - but Rocna are coming under a lot of scrutiny now. No CS is going to allow decades, centuries in many cases, of reputation to be tarnished by a client. RINA might not have, nor want, a public forum like YBW or Anything Sailing to vent their frustrations but they do have other powers - equally persuasive.
All interesting stuff.
It would be wrong to condemn Rocna for choosing RINA, a Classification Society like Lloyds or ABS, simply because RINA was cheaper. All the CS are meant to have similar standards (and you will not, ever, find one CS member suggesting another member has lower standards). So to choose one that is cheaper looks sensible, after all - guess who pays for the cost of CS approval? The idea that RINA was easier, that might need a bit of elaboration - but Rocna are coming under a lot of scrutiny now. No CS is going to allow decades, centuries in many cases, of reputation to be tarnished by a client. RINA might not have, nor want, a public forum like YBW or Anything Sailing to vent their frustrations but they do have other powers - equally persuasive.
All interesting stuff.
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
Apologies for a digression...
Hard to believe that until Tuesday, almost three months had passed since the Rocna topic had been touched on.
Similarly, the thread about the Granville fishing boat, flattened by the high-speed Condor ferry, which killed a crewman, has been silent since April. Does anyone know if the inquiry is any closer to a conclusion?
Hard to believe that until Tuesday, almost three months had passed since the Rocna topic had been touched on.
Similarly, the thread about the Granville fishing boat, flattened by the high-speed Condor ferry, which killed a crewman, has been silent since April. Does anyone know if the inquiry is any closer to a conclusion?
Stork_III
Well-Known Member
Bump, whilst the latest thread is pulled. Enjoy
Conachair
Guest
Neeves
Well-Known Member
More to the point who really was Letterman?
avb3
Member
With all due respect, he gave links to his personal web site, as well as the story in the NZ Herald.
As a journalist, I am surprised that escaped you.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
I became puzzled
As to why Letterman, who suggested he wanted to educate us about Grant, joined 2 forum and within 24 hours of his first post the threads were cut. Cruisers Forum has always been very sensitive to 'misuse' of their forum, YBW has been a bit more relaxed - so for YBW to pull a thread they need pretty strong reasons.
It all seemed slightly contradictory, on Letterman's part, to me.
But maybe it was purely coincidental that the two threads were pulled within hours of Letterman joining.
Jonathan
As to why Letterman, who suggested he wanted to educate us about Grant, joined 2 forum and within 24 hours of his first post the threads were cut. Cruisers Forum has always been very sensitive to 'misuse' of their forum, YBW has been a bit more relaxed - so for YBW to pull a thread they need pretty strong reasons.
It all seemed slightly contradictory, on Letterman's part, to me.
But maybe it was purely coincidental that the two threads were pulled within hours of Letterman joining.
Jonathan
FishyInverness
Well-Known Member
Are you serious? I could say I was David Cameron, give you links to "my" personal website and link you a story in the news about David Cameron, that Doesn't make me David Cameron...come on, you must be more aware than that!
snooks
Well-Known Member
It all went off on a tangent, I saw Grant's address was posted and didn't have time to go through the remaining posts because I was trying to get my 2 week old to settle.
I've asked Laura and Nat to have a look at the thread, and I've pm'd letterman letting them know their post will be moderated, which they are 'happy' with.
I realise letterman has issues with Grant, but I don't think this forum is the best place for those issues to be discussed, but the issue does need highlighting as it has some relevance.
I've asked Laura and Nat to have a look at the thread, and I've pm'd letterman letting them know their post will be moderated, which they are 'happy' with.
I realise letterman has issues with Grant, but I don't think this forum is the best place for those issues to be discussed, but the issue does need highlighting as it has some relevance.
aitchem
Well-Known Member
Should anyone get bored with the Rocna debate, they should join boatdesign.net.
There they will find debates about McGregor floating driftwood.
There they will find debates about McGregor floating driftwood.