vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
His website http://www.petersmith.net.nz/ Peter seems to have been previously but don't think it looks like winter in the photos. Brilliant photos of each voyage.
I hate to do this...but
- Thread starter macd
- Start date
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
He is in Auckland currently.
Delfin
Well-Known Member
Less than 690 mPA on the shank.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
Sorry if the answer has been posted already, but it may have been too technical for me. Why do you say 690, apart from the test done by Manson?
My understanding was that the original design calcs done by Peter Smith show a YS of 780 MPa. The UTS of a material with this YS might be expected to be 820 MPa or similar.
The decision was made to use Bisplate 80, which according to Bisalloy's data booklet has a UTS of 790 - 930 MPa, typically 830 MPa. The typical hardness of this material is given as 255 HB (Brinell).
Rocna now use Q620 in China which is supposedly made to the same standards as Bis80.
Delfin
Well-Known Member
Q620 is not the same as Bis80. Q620 will have a UTS of 650-690 mPA and a YTS of around 500 mPA. The anchor I tested appeared to be more robust than the one tested of the same size by Manson, but still well below spec.
That's why I said you will probably find the shank on your Rocna testing at below 690 mPA.
However, Rocna's position now seems to be that they will use whatever steel they want as long as they decide it is 'fit for purpose.' So what you'll find is anyone's guess.
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
Who is responsible for this problem? Am I correct in thinking that the designer sold the business but gets a royalty for each anchor sold but has nothing to do with the production and quality thereof?
Why did they stop making the item in NZ/Canada I don't quite get it, Rocna are the most expensive anchor on the market so if their competitors can make outside of China and sell at lower prices what is the problem for Rocna?
Have any shafts bent in normal use or are they bending only in hurricane conditions. Clearly those of us that have bought Rocna anchors have done so because we are concerned about having a reliable anchor that is why we "bought the best". It seems we have not not bought what we thought we had bought but is it likely to be a problem in anything other than extreme conditions?
Until the spat Rocna were the most recommended anchors on these forums.
Why did they stop making the item in NZ/Canada I don't quite get it, Rocna are the most expensive anchor on the market so if their competitors can make outside of China and sell at lower prices what is the problem for Rocna?
Have any shafts bent in normal use or are they bending only in hurricane conditions. Clearly those of us that have bought Rocna anchors have done so because we are concerned about having a reliable anchor that is why we "bought the best". It seems we have not not bought what we thought we had bought but is it likely to be a problem in anything other than extreme conditions?
Until the spat Rocna were the most recommended anchors on these forums.
Last edited:
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Yes
It's cheaper to get them made in China and therefore more profitable.
The problem does not appear to be the Chinese manufacturer but what they are instructed to make by Rocna.
Some of the anchors have been bent in less than extreme conditions.
The original spec called for high performance materials so that the anchor would work properly. Changing to a lower grade simply produced a lower grade product. Rocna hoped to get away with it.
Cymrogwyllt
Well-Known Member
Getting the Chinese to manufacture for a company at a competitive price is all well and good but there is a high risk of them producing ,say, 1000 for the company and then another xooo for themselves to sell as a cheap 'own brand'.
Example; Bosch made a garden trimmer selling at £40 odd. A few months later an alternative label shows up, identical bar from the name priced at £18. No need to bother with nasty old R&D, add cheap labour...
Example; Bosch made a garden trimmer selling at £40 odd. A few months later an alternative label shows up, identical bar from the name priced at £18. No need to bother with nasty old R&D, add cheap labour...
Rigger Mortice
N/A
You may be right but there's no evidence that that has happened to date.
Personally, I think that if the Chinese did shaft Rocna like that then they will have got exactly what they deserved.......and we would get cheaper anchors.
Personally, I think that if the Chinese did shaft Rocna like that then they will have got exactly what they deserved.......and we would get cheaper anchors.
Cymrogwyllt
Well-Known Member
I have one of the £18 jobs and apart from the label it's identical to the Bosch one down to the smallest detail
Rigger Mortice
N/A
A serious question.....
Are you sure that your garden trimmer was a rip off from China?
It may have been that Bosch bought it in from China and simply put a hefty markup on it.
A few years ago I bought a Bosch power chisel for over £60. (Brilliant at removing antifoul). It eventually burnt out and I ended up getting a replacement from Lidl for around 40p.
Exactly the same.
I have often wondered if it was a rip off, or if Bosch had ripped me off.
Are you sure that your garden trimmer was a rip off from China?
It may have been that Bosch bought it in from China and simply put a hefty markup on it.
A few years ago I bought a Bosch power chisel for over £60. (Brilliant at removing antifoul). It eventually burnt out and I ended up getting a replacement from Lidl for around 40p.
Exactly the same.
I have often wondered if it was a rip off, or if Bosch had ripped me off.
Cymrogwyllt
Well-Known Member
Fair comment. Of coure the brands rip people off
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
Latest developments
In a further attempt to shut me up the idiots have had me arrested and charged with theft of $5k.
This comes 12 months after the supposed event and after being asked by the officer why I was conducting a smear and hate campaign against them in online forums and trying to destroy their business.
I welcome the chance to produce to the courts my evidence to refute their claims and to prove my innocence.
Their claim is that I took money that they claim was for one purpose during my last trip to Rina and kept it for myself, when in fact I had been instructed to use it for another purpose than what they are now saying.
This opens the path for my evidence ( previously classed as "confidential records" ) to be reported on and made public when presented to the courts.
They now choose to spread a new rumour by PM to many on the discussion boards that I am in jail and to inform others of this development in order to further discredit me.
To this I say why not just come out and say it instead of being underhanded and sneaky again?
Once again I repeat that I do not have a problem with the charge or the claims made by them, I welcome being able to expose them completely in the courts.
I have only ever presented FACTS in all of the forums I post in and that will not change.
In a further attempt to shut me up the idiots have had me arrested and charged with theft of $5k.
This comes 12 months after the supposed event and after being asked by the officer why I was conducting a smear and hate campaign against them in online forums and trying to destroy their business.
I welcome the chance to produce to the courts my evidence to refute their claims and to prove my innocence.
Their claim is that I took money that they claim was for one purpose during my last trip to Rina and kept it for myself, when in fact I had been instructed to use it for another purpose than what they are now saying.
This opens the path for my evidence ( previously classed as "confidential records" ) to be reported on and made public when presented to the courts.
They now choose to spread a new rumour by PM to many on the discussion boards that I am in jail and to inform others of this development in order to further discredit me.
To this I say why not just come out and say it instead of being underhanded and sneaky again?
Once again I repeat that I do not have a problem with the charge or the claims made by them, I welcome being able to expose them completely in the courts.
I have only ever presented FACTS in all of the forums I post in and that will not change.
Delfin
Well-Known Member
Thanks for all of your help in sorting this out, Grant. I think you deserve better and look forward to your getting your story out. Based on how the Bambury's have behaved, this comes as no surprise.
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
Thanks Carl, don't worry the facts will come out and this time they can't be denied as false.
I am happy with where I sit.
The question of course is what does this have to do with them changing metals in 2008, and continuing to do so?
[55354]
...
Solent boy
Good evening, just catching up.
My understanding is that the steel shank quailty used in China varied, possibly they simply used what was easily available. Quality was either a 420mpa steel or a 620mpa steel. Anchors with shanks based on these qualities were shipped to most distributors round the world. Most distributors received a mix, some anchors made from one quality some from another. Looking at the independent tests conducted by Manson and Delfin, Manson found the lower quality and Delfin the higher - higher is relative, the original spec was min 820mpa.
I have no idea the consistency of Chinese steel quality and it is possible their idea of a min 420mpa and ours might be different. If the reason for moving away from the Q&T800, 820mpa min, was financial it is possible Rocna used some steels nominally min 420mpa which might be below this - your guess would be as good as mine.
If you were to test your shank then you cannot prejudge, if its Chinese made it could have almost any steel quality in the shank, though loosely based round 420 or 620mpa.
I noted the comment that the Rocna was the most recommended anchor on the forums - who made that recommendation, not Rocna, or someone affilated by any chance? This shows the power of the internet - seems like misuse of power to me.
Another test if you own a Chinese Rocna
This needs to be verified - but my understanding is that a fit healthy individual can generate a load of about their own body weight, so you can pull and generate a load of about 80kg. Fix the fluke of your anchor, tie it down, fix it in a rock - get 5 healthy individuals (should give a load of about 400kg) and pull the shank at right angles, if it bends - take it back. If you want to test for 620mpa you need more people. Maybe one length of rope for each person all fixed to the same shackle might be the easiest way - and do it before you buy them all a couple of beers, coordination will be better. Most yacht clubs have load cells, do the same thing but use your car (you can check the load at which it bends).
According to previously quoted data a 25kg anchor with 420mpa shank will bend at about 300kg and a Q&T80 at about 600kg. Maybe Grant can re-confirm what might be expected.
The lifetime guarantee, not sure how much its worth, will ensure you get your money back.
Good evening, just catching up.
My understanding is that the steel shank quailty used in China varied, possibly they simply used what was easily available. Quality was either a 420mpa steel or a 620mpa steel. Anchors with shanks based on these qualities were shipped to most distributors round the world. Most distributors received a mix, some anchors made from one quality some from another. Looking at the independent tests conducted by Manson and Delfin, Manson found the lower quality and Delfin the higher - higher is relative, the original spec was min 820mpa.
I have no idea the consistency of Chinese steel quality and it is possible their idea of a min 420mpa and ours might be different. If the reason for moving away from the Q&T800, 820mpa min, was financial it is possible Rocna used some steels nominally min 420mpa which might be below this - your guess would be as good as mine.
If you were to test your shank then you cannot prejudge, if its Chinese made it could have almost any steel quality in the shank, though loosely based round 420 or 620mpa.
I noted the comment that the Rocna was the most recommended anchor on the forums - who made that recommendation, not Rocna, or someone affilated by any chance? This shows the power of the internet - seems like misuse of power to me.
Another test if you own a Chinese Rocna
This needs to be verified - but my understanding is that a fit healthy individual can generate a load of about their own body weight, so you can pull and generate a load of about 80kg. Fix the fluke of your anchor, tie it down, fix it in a rock - get 5 healthy individuals (should give a load of about 400kg) and pull the shank at right angles, if it bends - take it back. If you want to test for 620mpa you need more people. Maybe one length of rope for each person all fixed to the same shackle might be the easiest way - and do it before you buy them all a couple of beers, coordination will be better. Most yacht clubs have load cells, do the same thing but use your car (you can check the load at which it bends).
According to previously quoted data a 25kg anchor with 420mpa shank will bend at about 300kg and a Q&T80 at about 600kg. Maybe Grant can re-confirm what might be expected.
The lifetime guarantee, not sure how much its worth, will ensure you get your money back.
GrantKing
Well-Known Member
In a private email to me from Metal Test Laboratories in Auckland on 26 August 2009 I was told the following :
The piece cut off the Chinese product was analysed and hardness tested only. The steel was a low carbon steel with a small chromium addition, but the steel had not been quenched and tempered, so the hardness was only 6 Rockwell C, not 25 Rc as required for Bisalloy 80.
This was the result of cutting a shank of a Rocna anchor that had been submitted for a galvanising test only. The facility was testing a batch of NZ shanks for hardness at the time and they proceeded to test the Chinese one for hardness in order to compare with the NZ ones.
The details of this test were suppressed by Rocna when advised of the results. I was told to not investigate it further.
I will forward the relevant email to YBW mods for confirmation of fact if requested.
lwatson
New Member
Rocna certification
This forum is just too long for me to remember all of it but I found this in Rocna's knowledge base
"In addition, individually certified anchors are available for custom order. These anchors are currently produced in a RINA certified partnering facility"
So does this mean that the anchors NOT produced in the RINA facility, i.e. the one's you and I buy at West and others, are not even type certified? Are there two types of Rocnas?
It get more confusing every day.
This forum is just too long for me to remember all of it but I found this in Rocna's knowledge base
"In addition, individually certified anchors are available for custom order. These anchors are currently produced in a RINA certified partnering facility"
So does this mean that the anchors NOT produced in the RINA facility, i.e. the one's you and I buy at West and others, are not even type certified? Are there two types of Rocnas?
It get more confusing every day.
Delfin
Well-Known Member
Keeping it confusing seems to work best for Rocna, so join the club. With RINA claims and Rocna, based on past history you have to take them with a grain of salt. Your point is interesting though, as it does seem to be suggesting what you think it says. I suppose if someone wanted an individual anchor certified, it actually would have to be true to the type certified, which we know the Rocna has not been.
snooks
Well-Known Member
You might want to read page 11 of the October issue of Yachting Monthly, starting with the bottom two paragraphs of the left hand column.