I hate to do this...but

Delfin said:
If the shank can bend like that simply shifting around on the seabed, then they have a bigger problem than I thought.

Setting aside the technical aspects of the metallurgy, I wonder if a purchaser of an anchor with a 'high tensile' shank would expect this to happen? How would the anchor look any different if the shank were made of low grade steel? Again, I think the honesty and integrity of the manufacturer has to be something one can rely on when deciding what kind and design of safety equipment to trust one's boat to.
Click to expand...

Irrespective of the manufacturer of the anchor, I wonder what anyone would do, as a supplier, just shown a photo like that one.

Anyone can take bit of metal, bend it, stick it back on a boat and then photograph it.

Before drawing any conclusions it would be good to know several things.

Who took the photograph?
What were the circumstances that caused the bending?
Has the supplier been given an opportunity to respond?
What was their response?

In the past I have known cases of "misinformation" in competitive situations and before I judged the suppliers I would want to assure myself of the circumstances.
 
We know from one of the other forums that the picture was a genuine complaint. The picture was taken in the lagoon at Venice. No more information has been made available so far.

The response from the manufacturer was along the lines of "The anchor is fine. Anything will bend if enough force is applied.". Whether that was an excuse or the result of proper analysis is not known. AFAIK no proper testing of the metal was carried out and whether or not a proper analysis of production records took place is not known.

Please don't ask me which forum, I can't remember.
 
Hi Tensile Steels

Vyv, you did not really answer the question and it must have been simple coincidence that Congo/aka/Rex Francis (strongly affiliated with Anchor Right) had submitted the previous piece - in which he mentioned High Tensile Steel.

A conclusion I would come to is that Vyv cox - you are in a minority,

Manson use the term, Lewmar use the term, Anchor Right use the term, Holdfast and Craig Smith use the term, Bisalloy use the term and mulling over the error of my ways - Tie Down even have a Danforth called a Hi Tensile Danforth. I assume vyv you are going to advise all of the manufacturers, not only Anchor Right to whom your comment seemed addressed, that you think their use of High (or Hi) Tensile is a miisrepresentation.

This is a quote from Manson 'Strengthened Shank: High tensile steel shank, Made from 800mpa steel (no mention 690mpa here - my comment), The Supreme's backbone is the strongest available of all anchors' - so Vyv, do not single out Anchor Right, not only do Manson use the wrong words they also use, according to you, the wrong data. Fortress use the same wording for their anchors - 'These anchors are made from the same corrossion resistant high-tensile aluminium' - you need to correct Brian@Fortress as well

But going back to Bisplate 80, Bisalloy quote a 2% yield point of 690MPa - you'll be surprised what we were not told, but 316 Stainless has a yield point of 205MPa. There is another grade of 316, called 316L - not sure what the difference is - but it has a 2% Yield strength of 170MPa Vyv you said Bisplate and ASTM 514a were similar in tensile strength to the stainless we use for our fittings - get real - or tell the rest of us where to get that 690MPa stainless!

And I have checked the tensile strength of Bisplate 80 from their full spec sheets and find that the 0.2% Proof stress is 690MPa (min) typical 750MPa and tensile strength 790-930MPa, typical 830MPa and this is equivalent to ASTM A514 or ISO 4950-3 Grade E690. ASTM A514 demands a min yield strength of 690mpa cf 316 Stainless at 205MPa, do not know if this latter figure is min or typ).

But I know what I would rather use as the shank on my anchor and its not mild steel.
 
Scotty_Twister said:
So if all the manufacturers of anchors have seen one of their anchors either bend or break under certain extreme conditions, are they all lacking honesty or integrity. Of course not. Perhaps you are one of those with intentions that are dishonourable or perhaps you have an ulterior motive other than discovering the truth?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think all manufacturers who have had an anchor shank bend are dishonest, just those who act dishonestly. That would include all those who assert they have RINA certification of their product when they don't, as well as those whose former employees are accusing the anchor maker of using steel other than advertised, and those whose customers have their anchors tested and find they are not manufactured as advertised, those manipulating and distorting test results, as well as those allowing someone like CS to run amok for years on forums making things up about anchor technology, themselves, and the quality of their competitors products.

Since this all appears to apply to Rocna, and to no one else, I don't think it's dishonest of me to notice. Do you?
 
Gee Scotty Twister,you seem to have a double sided sword here, I think Defins remarks are largely due to claims made by the company in question, most of what they say, and have said, has been proven to be BS, I get one and only recommendation from one of your own countrymen based on a real life story that resulted in a bent shank, so as per our policy and the surrounding circumstances of where that anchor was produced I gave him a replacement, Scotty you didn’t see it that way,you judged and remarked that we admit to making dud anchors.

I see no grounds for you remark or evidence of Delfin tilting at all. Really Scotty, which way are you leaning and why.

Rex.
Anchor Right Australia.
 
SolentBoy said:
Irrespective of the manufacturer of the anchor, I wonder what anyone would do, as a supplier, just shown a photo like that one.
Click to expand...
I suppose the response would depend on a number of factors. If they were advertising one grade of steel, but actually using another, I should think they would obfuscate, tap dance and do whatever was necessary to avoid dealing with the consequences of their false representations. If they were an honest designer, they would want to know answers to all of the questions asked, determine if this was an outlier data point, and do what they needed to do to take care of an individual customer while considering whether to make design changes. Again, it all depends on the honesty of the manufacturer.

Based on what is becoming known about Rocna, how do you think they would respond?
 
Is it possible than someone can bring this thread down to earth a little bit for those of us without degrees in metallurgy.
A summary of what has been going on would help us on a lower plane of existence follow the thread.
From what I as a mere mortal can understand
Rocna has allegedly been selling anchors made from a lower grade steel other than it is advertising.
It has allegedly been putting false or misleading information on its website such as its anchors are certified when they are not.
Other manufactures have allegedly also been describing their products as hi tensile steel when they are not.
Is this true or not and probably more importantly how much does this affect the safety of an anchor.
I have seen the photo of the bent anchor and have to say that I would rather have an anchor that held and bent rather than one that broke completely.
Of all the boats anchoring in various conditions around the world something is bound to go wrong somewhere but how many of the various anchors have totally failed. They must be getting something right?
 
Delfin said:
If they were an honest designer,
Click to expand...
Don't bring the designer into it, I very much doubt he even knows all of this is going on and I know if he did he would be a very unhappy chappy. The manufacturer will only be doing exactly what they are told to do.

You want to be talking about the marketing company selling them.
 
Hi Tensile Steel

Nostrodamus,

Vyv Cox is suggesting that ASTM 514, manufactured under the brand name Biplate 80 in Australia, should not be called 'Hi Tensile Steel'. ASTM 514 is also called Q&T 800. This is his opinion but this opinion is not shared by Tie Down Engineering (Danforth), Manson (The Supreme), Anchor Right (SARCA Excel), Lewmar (Delta) and even Holdfast Rocna. All say they use high tensile steel and this is the steel with the highest tensile strength that can be used for anchors as a tensile strength above Q&T 800 cannot be galvanised. Manson and Anchor Right advise they use Bisplate 80. Bisalloy the manufacturer of Bisplate claim to be a specialist manfacturer of Hi Tensile steels (and as far as I am aware make nothing else). Both The Supreme and SARCA Excel have been proof tested and there is no suggestion that they do not use ASTN 514. Equally Lewmar have had the Delta tested, and again there is no suggestion they are not using High Tensile Steel - but the grade is not specified. Tie Down have been making a Hi Tensile Danforth for years and given the American love of the legal system I am sure if they were not using Hi Tensile steel someone would have noticed by now. This specific Danforth might have been proof tested, I have not checked - but I am sure it is of a high quality - American manufacturers do not survive making rubbish. There may be other anchor makers using High Tensile Steel (and claiming such but I am unaware - and have not made an exhaustive check).

Vyv cox has asserted that ASTM 514 is not much better than stainless (or the steel used in an RSJ) and thus does not merit the title Hi Tensile Steel - but as 316 Stainless has a yield strength of 205MPa (and this is higher than mild steel from which most cheap and some expensive) anchors are made and ASTM 514 has a minimum yield strength of 690MPa I frankly cannot follow Vyv cox logic.

Possibly there is a technical definition of 'High Tensile Steel' of which, the definition, is not known by Bisalloy, Manson, Lewmar, Anchor Right and Tie Down - but if this is the case this has not be made clear by vyv cox.

The omission from the list of confirmed use of Hi Tensile Steel is Rocna/Holdfast. Craig Smith and Steve Bambury have confirmed that they are using a Q&T 800 grade and is the quality used for the Rocna anchor. However some hardness (and hardness is apparently directly related to tensile or yield/proof strength) tests were conducted on Rocna anchors and published on the 'deleted' thread and from memory the results suggested, strongly, that the anchors were made from a grade (or grades) of steel much lower than ASTM 514. Furthermore the deformed anchor that has recently been portayed by Delfin seems to have bent in a manner that would not be the expected result of one made from Hi Tensile Steel.

There is no suggestion that any anchor maker, other than Holdfast, has claimed to use Hi Tensile Steel and been found wanting and there is no conclusive evidence yet that Holdfast is not using Hi Tensile steel - but of the latter there are grounds for suspicion.

This part of the debate was simply sparked because vyv cox suggested that ASTM 514/Bisalloy 80/Q&T 800 does not in his opinion merit the title High Tensile and secondly Vyv cox is suggesting these Q&T 800 steel qualities are little better, in terms of tensile strength, than the stainless steel we use for our deck fittings. I disagreed with both statements particularly as vyv cox is used as a technical consultant for YM and some of this consulting has a metallurgical focus and thus suggests veracity.

I apologise if I allowed my script to cause some confusion and hope this clarifies where I think this part of the debate lies.

Have a great day.
 
Djbangi,
Thank you for the explanation which made things lot clearer but to cut to the chase is any of the steel being used or allegedly used in these anchors unsuitable?
Just out of intrest do you know what steel is used in the manufacture of anchor chain and should we be worried about this as well?
 
steel quality

Nostrodamus.

There are basically three grades of mild steel, the highest grade is what is normally used in many anchor designs, the subject of matter is bisalloy or steels equivalent. Apparently High tensile is not the correct terminology for bisalloy so forget high tensile, if you want to play it safe without getting into precise variation’s our testing is simple, take a length of mild steel that is of the highest grade, same piece in bisalloy, thickness, length the same.

Apply pressure through a press hooked up to a load cell and you will get around 4 times strength of that of the mild steel, these are not text book figures but our findings.

Mild steel doesn’t need pre heating to weld, bisalloy does, if you don’t pre heat when using bisalloy the welded section will become brittle, not wanting to flex and snap off, most times above the weld. Bisalloy has great flexing properties as to mild steel, it is not only stronger but the flexing or yield strength if you want, makes it more difficult to bend and marginally reduces impact, therefore further resists bending.

Now there will be plenty that will differ with my brief explanation as I am being conservative with the stregth of bisaloy.

I simply used the word high tensile as so not to confuse you, further more CS has been sprook ing the same for many years as bisalloy, in his words is High tensile steel.

That in itself is nothing odd as most manufacturers will tell you the same, it may not be high tensile but very close and many engineers will still differ to argue, bisalloy is high tensile, any way it is an easy way to differentiate quality as to mild steel.

Chain quality and steel grades are no different to proof loading anchors, they have to be of high quality to with stand such loads, and you can get barrels of chain very cheap that has failed proof testing.

Same as anchors if you want quality chain ask to see the certification. But make sure the paper it’s written on is genuine.

The big question is what Rickety anchors are using? My main worry now is the cat could be out of the bag, if you have notice someone is coming for tea, you will normally clean up, so don’t expect any test results produced by the company in question anything other than what they say their steel grades are.

May be we will never know what was in the suspect Chinese production anchors.
Has anyone got an eplanation for the absense of RINA Proof load certification.

Rex.
Anchor Right Australia.
 
Vyv has the benefit of being a metallurgist, which I don't.

I, however, have a life time of experience of using words to sell things, and if there is no commonly understood definition of an advantageous word or term, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. Think 'luxury' in car and hotel marketing. Think 'refreshing' in soda pop terms. Think 'leading edge' in selling anything vaguely technical.

Walk up to the man on the pontoon, and ask him what high tensile steel is, and the most likely answer would be "Duh." Tell him, therefore, that his anchor is made from high tensile steel and not mild steel and his probable reaction is "Oh, jolly good."

Ask him if he would be prepared to pay more for a sophisticated anchor made from the very best high tensile steel, or would he prefer a cheap and agricultural lump of mild steel to protect the lives of his nearest and dearest and you'll have 90% of boat owners reaching for their credit cards.

Thus, there are two uses of the term 'high tensile', one by metallurgists, one by marketeers. There is unlikely to be a single definition both of them would endorse.
 
Can I not knowing too much about the history look at this from a different perspective.
As sailors rather than businessmen we look at various items and often think we could make them better.
I decided that I could make a better anchor than was currently available and for the sake of argument I called it Condor
People found this anchor was extremely good and other manufactures also saw its potential so they started making very similar anchors.
I had put a lot of work and money into this anchor but as I was not a businessman I needed help as to what to do next. I was pointed in the direction of John Doe who said to me, “don’t worry, I will sort it out for a small percentage”. He suggested a website which he set up, and moving the manufacturing to China which would be more “cost effective”.
All I knew was that my pride and joy was reaching and helping others and I was getting money so I could go out sailing.
What I didn’t know was what was on the website, or what materials the anchors were being made of. I just presumed they were as I designed them.
Later my anchor was questioned, not for its design which was good but for the questionable things that were on the website and the way they were made.
I ask around and everybody denies involvement or blames someone else that has recently been sacked (the scapegoat)
I as an honest person would want to clarify everything and be open an honest about what has gone on but I am told if I do we may have to replace all the anchors we have sold, it would harm the company and most likely go out of business.
The other anchor manufactures are rubbing their hands at the though and push the questioning and doubts along.
What would you do?
 
Nostrodamus said:
Can I not knowing too much about the history look at this from a different perspective.
As sailors rather than businessmen we look at various items and often think we could make them better.
I decided that I could make a better anchor than was currently available and for the sake of argument I called it Condor
People found this anchor was extremely good and other manufactures also saw its potential so they started making very similar anchors.
I had put a lot of work and money into this anchor but as I was not a businessman I needed help as to what to do next. I was pointed in the direction of John Doe who said to me, “don’t worry, I will sort it out for a small percentage”. He suggested a website which he set up, and moving the manufacturing to China which would be more “cost effective”.
All I knew was that my pride and joy was reaching and helping others and I was getting money so I could go out sailing.
What I didn’t know was what was on the website, or what materials the anchors were being made of. I just presumed they were as I designed them.
Later my anchor was questioned, not for its design which was good but for the questionable things that were on the website and the way they were made.
I ask around and everybody denies involvement or blames someone else that has recently been sacked (the scapegoat)
I as an honest person would want to clarify everything and be open an honest about what has gone on but I am told if I do we may have to replace all the anchors we have sold, it would harm the company and most likely go out of business.
The other anchor manufactures are rubbing their hands at the though and push the questioning and doubts along.
What would you do?
Click to expand...

The specifications laid down by Peter Smith for his design were strict, precise and painstakingly documented from metal specifications to finishing, make no mistake about that.

He then sold the package to Bambury.

Craig has always been painstakingly pedantic in trying to police the specifications to preserve the integrity of the design and the continuation of their royalties.

Then along came Steve.
 
Last edited:
Twister_Ken said:
Vyv has the benefit of being a metallurgist, which I don't.

I, however, have a life time of experience of using words to sell things, and if there is no commonly understood definition of an advantageous word or term, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. Think 'luxury' in car and hotel marketing. Think 'refreshing' in soda pop terms. Think 'leading edge' in selling anything vaguely technical.

Walk up to the man on the pontoon, and ask him what high tensile steel is, and the most likely answer would be "Duh." Tell him, therefore, that his anchor is made from high tensile steel and not mild steel and his probable reaction is "Oh, jolly good."

Ask him if he would be prepared to pay more for a sophisticated anchor made from the very best high tensile steel, or would he prefer a cheap and agricultural lump of mild steel to protect the lives of his nearest and dearest and you'll have 90% of boat owners reaching for their credit cards.

Thus, there are two uses of the term 'high tensile', one by metallurgists, one by marketeers. There is unlikely to be a single definition both of them would endorse.
Click to expand...

Quite right. How many anchor manufacturers are going to advertise that their products are made from 'low-tensile steel'. Or even 'medium-tensile steel.'

Unfortunately there is a good deal of confusion amongst non-metallurgists in this thread, where technical terms are being bandied about and discussed with no knowledge of their meaning. Here's a simple explanation.

In the 'good old days' before the confusion that SI units has brought to everyday units we used to measure steel strength in tons/sq.in, or just 'tons' for short. For clarification we are talking about the UTS here, not yield or any other property. Everyone in the business knew the meaning of a 30 ton steel, or a 100 ton steel. A 30 ton steel is a low-carbon, mild steel whereas a 100 ton steel is a true high-tensile steel, the sort of stuff that cylinder head bolts are made from.

The material that as far as I know is being discussed is Bisplate 80. The 46 page trade document 'Bisalloy Technical Manual' states on page 12 that its UTS is 690 - 830 MPa. The equivalent value to 690 MPa, which minimum value is the one that has to be taken for the purpose, is 44 tons/sq.in. In steelmaking terms there is no way that this could be termed a high-tensile steel.

The UTS of 316 stainless steel is listed in many sources as 84,000 psi, which equates to 37 tons. 316L is the low carbon version of this alloy, selected where fabrication by welding is employed. Its UTS is unlikely to be significantly different from that of 316.
 
Hi Tensile Steel

Hi Vyv,

You are, I am sure, correct about non-metallurgists bandying about terms they do not understand - I made mention that my steelmaking days ended in the '70's (and made no excuses).

However I did leave imperialist units at the same time and thought that SI units would be understood, sorry for my mistake. But I will work on the basis that metric units are understood and will not resort to the 1970's.

Having declared my complete ignorance of steel nomenclature I used Atlas Steel and Bisalloy steels specifications and reference charts as my background. They might be a bit old hat but as they make or had made the steels in question one would have thought they knew what they were talking about.

Now I did not mention yield or proof test, someone else introduced that - I limited myself to Tensile Strength but I did declare both the Tensile Strength of ASTM 415 at 790-930MPa and 316 Stainless (actually Atlas quote 515MPa) in the one posting.

Now Atlas state, and they might be wrong, they are after all only a speciality steel maker quote a

Yield Strength of 316 Stainless at 205MPa

And Bisalloy state, and they might be wrong, they only make and sell the stuff - for Bisplate 80 (ASTM 514A)

Yield Strength of 690MPa

Now it was not me that mentioned yield strength, nor that 316 was not much different in strength to ASTM A514 - but to me there is a small difference between 205MPa and 690MPa, I know to many its not critical (or even important) but to me it seems, well, quite large. But then I'm not a metallurgist and maybe a metallurgist can explain why they are almost the same. We need to bear in mind that mild steel has a yield strength less that Stainless.

Now, repetitive this, I am not a metallurgist, and they (Atlas and Bisalloy) are - so if you think Bisplate 80 (ASTM 514A) is not much different to 316 Stainless, in terms of tensile or yield strength, then please take up your complaints with experts, from who the data is abstracted. I am quite happy to be shown as complete idiot and buffoon in my transcribing of data - please take the opportunity and explain in simple English, use Imperial units if you must, the error of my ways.

Equally if you do not like anchor makers claiming they use 'High Tensile Steels' then please send you complaints to Lewmar, Tie Down, Manson, Anchor Right, Holdfast et al and probably a whole lot of speciality steel makers. They have been claiming to use High Tensile steels for decades and I am sure they will welcome constructive crticism. I am repeating what publically listed and respected private companies have been saying in their literature for years. Do not blame me if I am beguiled by publicly quoted data - that is partially what this thread has been all about - one difference being I am relying on a number of respected companies - too many to argue with, but be my guest (and please post you comments to them).

The real problem is that the thread is about one company standing outside the norm. The company has claimed to use a steel the subjective analysis of which raises questions - this side issue (of the definiton of Hi Tensile Steel and whether Stainless is equal to ASTM 514A) detracts from the main issue. As I said I am happy to be shown to be naive and at gross error - but do not let my stupidity detract from the central them.

Have an even better day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top