Playing with Fire - Anchor Question

[Neeves]

Jonathan, apologies. I did not realise you would be so upset. That was not my intent.

In my defence, I would point out that you have frequently commented on your acrimony for the owners of Rocna anchors and there are more than a few posts on YBW to suggest you are not the best of friends.

CPM obviously as well as producing Titan shackles make Rocna anchors and presumably the owners receive some royalties. The Rocna knowledge base heavily features Titan shackles, as you might expect.

Perhaps you are more impartial to CMP, but you have mentioned on the forum that you are “off their Christmas list” so I assumed your relationship was also strained, hence my comment that this is not your favourite company. I thought this was a reasonbable comment in the circumstances, but once again appologies if you have taken offence.

You have mentioned Practical Sailor magazine that published the article. I think this is an excellent magazine, but like any publication the quality of the technical submissions does vary. I have no idea how magazines work, but I assume the technical editor is responsible for deciding what is published and deciding if it provides a balanced and fair viewpoint.

In this case personally I think there was some breakdown of that system. Crosby and Titan are direct rivals in the shackle business. Titan shackles are on the shelves of many chandleries in Australia and Europe. This is one of their main strengths. Sailors can buy rated high test shackles directly where they may otherwise be tempted to use a no-name unrated product, as I see on so many anchors.

So to announce that the Titan shackle failed without also pointing out that the Crosby shackle also failed was misleading and a mistake in my view, although to be fair the article is watered down compared to the impression from your forum posts. So perhaps the editor had some influence.

Apology accepted.

I only took offence at the idea you were doubting my (and PS') impartiality.

I can assure you I find it painful and galling to know that a company, not CMP, might skate on thin ice with one product but also produce something of great credit - which I must, and do, praise

Practical Sailor is primarily an American magazine focussed at a, primarily, American audience. The easy availability of product in Europe and, say, Australia is considered but until International readership increases the target audience is America. I don't feature product highly that are not available in America, unless they are of unusual interest, - which makes it difficult for me (for example I have to source my Crosby shackles from the UK)

The fact I have fallen off CMP's Xmas card list doe not mean any lack or respect on my part (nor do I suggest they are not respectful of my work (possibly underlined by their change of specification?) - it is they who do not send me cards. I know I am well known at CMP as the nephew of the CEO of CMP runs a CMP, marine, business almost within walking distance of where I type - and we do visit some of the same boat shows. It merits note that in conjunction with Vyv we wrote the basic expose on the Holdfast debacle in YM and I wrote a piece for PS, I don't think (at the time) CMP was a known player (I don't recall the timing) - but when they did join the party they had to accomodate the fallout from Holdfast and of course the Black Pin shackles simply added salt to any wound. I think the fact that CMP changed the specification is justification in itself - that the reasoning and conclusion were correct - and I stand by them. If you set your specs, cannot meet them, are found wanting and then change your specs you are not going to be placed top of the class. The absence of any QC data does not help their case - and I am not going to do their, nor that of anyone else, QC work for them - I cannot afford it!

Unfortunately because I have chosen to investigate an area that is 'contentious' and have found too many quality questions that have been swept under the carpet - I actually don't get many Xmas cards at all now It helps to have a thick skin. The absence of Xmas cards does indicate that notice has been taken.

The Editor does not alter the technical content - he may tone down the emotion. All of the technical data in my articles, the full detail, stress/strain curves, the way the product is tested etc is documented (often photographically). Most of the testing is at a commercial site - with independent witnesses (the employees at the test facility) who also record and retain all the data. Every sample tested is stored - any manufacturer who feels unfairly treated can have full access. There are no secrets, no slight of hand, no guesses. If I make a recommendation I have the full quantitative technical investigation to support what I say.

But enough thread drift, apologies to those in the wings who wonder what this is all about.

I checked, 1 Crosby shackle failed (marginally - the first one tested) out of 5, 6 out of 6 Black Pin shackles failed. The Crosby UTS was not hidden, it was documented. As you say, and you said it and I agree, one sample lacks statistical significance and was not underlined - 6 samples are significant sufficient to, possibly, have CMP lower their specification. For you to highlight on a Forum one piece of data - lacks statistical significance - yet you have now underlined it - contradiction?

Jonathan