Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Djbangi]

Thanks Shanty,

I confess I had looked and did not find it - but my concentration levels are not that high - they certainly moved it from prominance. CMP have said, somewhere, that they are do again the Classifcation Society certification, read into that what you will. My understanding was, from a very reputable source YM?, that the RINA cert was for anchors made to the original specification, which exlcuded any with a cast fluke (and maybe anything made in Shanghai). Its a good thing there are a few observant people around.

 

[RocnaONE]

certification

Shanty

a detailed PM was sent you on this subject yesterday at 07:51. Have you read it ?



Djabangi

FYI the certifcate is dated May 2011, for a seabed test carried out in 2008. Some other websites refer to certificates and tests carried out as far back as 1999. You need to do some homework and read about the IACS classification process. It is basically a process which approves methods, and not individual anchors, in the same way that your car has an EU chitty approving the manufacturing process, and not the individual car.

http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/explained/Class_WhatWhy&How.PDF

 

[Shanty]

Shanty

a detailed PM was sent you on this subject yesterday at 07:51. Have you read it ?

Yes thanks. You were going to find out whether the certificate was still valid. Do you have an answer yet?

Since there may be others interested in your replies, it might be more productive to continue our discussion on the forum, rather that by PMs.

 

[snooks]

It is basically a process which approves methods, and not individual anchors, in the same way that your car has an EU chitty approving the manufacturing process, and not the individual car.

But is the EU chitty still valid if the car is built in a different way out of different materials using a different manufacturing process?

 

[RocnaONE]

Certificate

I understand (as yesterday evening) that the RINA certificate is in course of being re-issued to CM. It is not a process in which I have been involved.


The paradigm on which RINA assesses the grounds for issuing the certificate are probably an internal process. They do however refer to technical drawings of the anchors, and examine the manufacturing line, e.g welders' certificates, and perform tests on finished articles, as well as a practical test.


Snooks

What different way, and what different manufacturing process ? If a lateral bend test is not part of the classification procedure, then you need to take that up with RINA. Don't forget that RINA and other IACS are principally concerned with big ships, where the consequences of failure of a component of VLCC, LPG, or cruise liner are higher than for a yacht. Perhaps there is a need to look critically at the services of IACS in relation to certification of small anchors and see if changes need to be made. That is properly a matter for IACS.

 

[Djbangi]

RINA Certification

The RINA cert covers anchors made to the original specification. It does not cover anchors made with cast flukes. When RINA issued the certificate RINA had no idea, at all, that castings were used in the fluke. They tested a NZ anchor, Bisplate 80 shank/welded plate fluke for seabed testing, 20kg and 55kg and a 55kg anchor, not sure where made but they do not have cast flukes if made in Shanghai, for proof testing. CS rules clearly state cast items demand special attention.

RocnaONE, please do not get sucked into obfuscation. If you want to contact the RINA Shanghai office I am sure CMP has the email address.

If the certificate is still valid why has public comment been made by CMP about new certification? I'm just an ignorant bystander but it would seem a waste of money to me - and guess who pays in the end?

 

[Djbangi]

Sorry to labour this:

The RINA certificate is totally valid and I am sure the certificate can easily be transferred from Holdfast to Canada Pacific Metals. However the validity is for anchors made to the original spec (it is not clear if this is restricted to Bisplate 80 (and similar) or also includes Q620D (this latter is confidential between RINA and their client). There is an implication the certificate is restrictive. However the RINA certificate whilst remaining valid does not (or did not) include anchors made with a cast fluke. CMP might offer new drawings, which include cast flukes, but this would then necessitate approval of casting facilities (and maybe new seabed and proof tests (do not know) and the certificate would then cover the Pangdong production.

Until a new certificate is issued no anchor less than 55kg meets the RINA certificate.

 

[RocnaONE]

so it is now flukes that concern you ? Not shanks ? Any evidence of fluke failure ?


Yes, CM is looking at improving certification. Why not ? It is the nature of any new owner to bring its existing skills and knowledge in, to improve quality and effective delivery to customers.


"Until a new certificate is issued no anchor less than 55kg meets the RINA certificate." Explain please.

 

[Djbangi]

RINA Cert

All anchors less than 55kg have cast flukes.

The RINA certifcate does not cover anchors with cast flukes.

There is no concern at all over flukes, no-one has expressed any concern, except you, now.

However the Certificate is a document with integrity and should be treated as such. If it says one thing you do not use to it promote another - that would be called dishonesty (in my book).

Using your example - if you bought a car and the specification said it had an aluminium block, guess what you would ex[pect under the bonnet. It it had a cast steel block - it might perform exactly the same way as the one with the aluminium block but you would, rightly, complain - you might even ask for your money back!

 

[snooks]

Snooks

What different way, and what different manufacturing process ?

In the case of the anchors, changing from the certified welded flukes to cast flukes, and the change of material from 800 Bisplate to Q620

 

[Delfin]

The Email seems to be dated September 15th, about two weeks before the CMP purchase was announced. Probably why Peter didn't cc them into that Email....don't you think?

Having done transactions like this before, two weeks before announcement is not likely to have been two weeks before everyone knew what was going on and had their roles assigned, but that is a plausible reason why CPM was not included in the conversation. However, if everything was as it had been because CPM didn't own it yet, why weren't the owners - The Bambury's - involved? But that may be the answer to my first question, Snooks, thank you.

 

[Dockhead]

If it 420 you get a warranty replacement. As you know the designer considers that the 620 steel is within his original design parameters.

The right to warranty replacement would not be affected by the original designer's opinion about whether a substituted material is suitable or not.

The fact is that the anchors were sold as being made with shanks made from Bisalloy 800. That creates what is called an "express warranty" that the anchors so sold are made from this exact material. Besides that, there is a lifetime warranty from Holdfast that the anchors are made of the advertised material.

So it doesn't matter whether the shank material is 420 or 620 -- if a customer demands replacment, he is entitled to it. As far as I know that is what you are offering anyway, but I wanted for the matter to be clear. The statement above seems to contradict earlier statements by CM.

 

[snooks]

But that may be the answer to my first question, Snooks, thank you.

BTW just for clarity I wasn't asking if you actually "think" It was rhetorical, but having just read the quote I hope you didn't take it the wrong way, I was just pointing the date out

 

[Delfin]

BTW just for clarity I wasn't asking if you actually "think" It was rhetorical, but having just read the quote I hope you didn't take it the wrong way, I was just pointing the date out

No, I think it's a relevant observation, and I should have noticed it as well, so thank you for pointing it out. It is critical that in this discussion everyone be as fair and factual as they can. I asked Mr. Smith to comment and he hasn't, so we have to interpret this for ourselves. If he or Rocna1 want to weigh in later, what they say should be listened to. If they don't we can draw our own conclusions.

 

[GrantKing]

RINA Cert

All anchors less than 55kg have cast flukes.

The RINA certifcate does not cover anchors with cast flukes.

There is no concern at all over flukes, no-one has expressed any concern, except you, now.

However the Certificate is a document with integrity and should be treated as such. If it says one thing you do not use to it promote another - that would be called dishonesty (in my book).

Using your example - if you bought a car and the specification said it had an aluminium block, guess what you would ex[pect under the bonnet. It it had a cast steel block - it might perform exactly the same way as the one with the aluminium block but you would, rightly, complain - you might even ask for your money back!

The question was asked by Rina to confirm that the seabed test anchors used in Auckland in December 2008 were the same as the current manufactured units in 2009/2010. Were they the same material and constructed the same, and were they made in China by the current manufacturers?

They were told, yes they were exactly the same. They were told verbally, confirmed in emails by myself, these emails copied to Bambury, confirmed by Bambury, replied to by Rina and accepted by Rina.

They were told that the seabed test anchors, made in China, were shipped to NZ for the tests.

This negated the requirement for the seabed tests to be repeated with China units.

All drawings submitted for drawing approval were for fabricated blades and , initially Bis80 shanks, with replacement drawings being submitted with lower spec shanks across the range, due to the use of lower metals instead of Bis80 and the worry that when the shanks were finally tested they would not pass the metal tests because they were ower grade steel.

IF CMP examine the drawings stamped for approval by Rina they will see the lower spec metal listed on the shank drawing page.

I notified Rina by email earlier this year that they had been lied to and within a week of sending that email Bambury pressured the police into charging me with theft and then publicly announced to the word that I was public enemy #1.

All of my documented proof of evidence of their dishonesty, including "confidential" documents and emails, are contained in my defence evidence before the courts. These can then be reported on in the next hearing and until then there is limited documentation that I can release publicly.

The only course of action CMP can undertake now is to conduct the whole certification process again and gain respect and confirmation that the anchors are "fit for purpose" and that they do meet the standards claimed.

 

[Shanty]

The question was asked by Rina to confirm that the seabed test anchors used in Auckland in December 2008 were the same as the current manufactured units in 2009/2010. Were they the same material and constructed the same, and were they made in China by the current manufacturers?

They were told, yes they were exactly the same. They were told verbally, confirmed in emails by myself, these emails copied to Bambury, confirmed by Bambury, replied to by Rina and accepted by Rina.

They were told that the seabed test anchors, made in China, were shipped to NZ for the tests.

This negated the requirement for the seabed tests to be repeated with China units.

All drawings submitted for drawing approval were for fabricated blades and , initially Bis80 shanks, with replacement drawings being submitted with lower spec shanks across the range, due to the use of lower metals instead of Bis80 and the worry that when the shanks were finally tested they would not pass the metal tests because they were ower grade steel.

IF CMP examine the drawings stamped for approval by Rina they will see the lower spec metal listed on the shank drawing page.

I notified Rina by email earlier this year that they had been lied to and within a week of sending that email Bambury pressured the police into charging me with theft and then publicly announced to the word that I was public enemy #1.

All of my documented proof of evidence of their dishonesty, including "confidential" documents and emails, are contained in my defence evidence before the courts. These can then be reported on in the next hearing and until then there is limited documentation that I can release publicly.

The only course of action CMP can undertake now is to conduct the whole certification process again and gain respect and confirmation that the anchors are "fit for purpose" and that they do meet the standards claimed.

This would suggest that the RINA Mechanical Test was carried out on Shanghai Pangtong anchors declared as alternative spec steel (Q620?). This would be consistent with Peter Smith accepting this as an alternative to Bisalloy 80.

The "lie" presumably then refers to the source of the Sea Bed Test anchors. If it transpires that these were in fact fabricated in NZ, then I think CMP will need to revisit the classification issue for the short term.

 

[Djbangi]

RINA Certification

RocnaONE, you need all the help and support you can get. If the RINA certificate does not apply to anchors commonly for sale in chandlers round the world the quicker you arrange for its removal from the Rocna website, or arrange a clear and unequivical cautionary note tied to the certificate, the better. To leave the RINA certificate on display is simply to provide provocation and furthermore casts doubt on the new sincerity. If nothing else it seems to suggest business as usual which I suspect is very unfair on CMP's instruction and reputation. Maybe you should seek more advise from Vancouver and less from NZ, after all the latter are simply protecting themselves and seem to be the same lot who caused much of the mess in the first place.

I may of course be totally wrong and I would welcome your, clear, clarification.

 

[RocnaONE]

let's go over this one more time.

The present classification is assigned to Holdfast.

Canada Metal, as part of a strategic review of the Rocna business model, is looking carefully and in depth at all the business processes and functions. The strategy is outlined in the Memorandum of 30 Sep.

http://www.canmet.com/content/resources/documents/ROCNA MEMO.pdf


One workstream is classification. It is a slow, detailed process, overseen by IACS which has 12 member societies world wide.

http://www.iacs.org.uk/


Canada Metal is actively involved in work to confirm that the present range of anchors meets the SHHP Classification standard.

 

[GrantKing]

RWC

And just to digress for a moment, just watched Wales beat Ireland 22-10 in the Rugby World Cup quarter final in Wellington .

Next up in 45mins England face France in another quarter final.

 

[misterg]

......The strategy is outlined in the Memorandum of 30 Sep.

http://www.canmet.com/content/resources/documents/ROCNA MEMO.pdf
.....

In that memo, it states that:

"...suspect anchors being subjected to rigorous testing. The results
of the testing confirmed that these anchors, while not meeting the design specification,
did not pose any safety concerns, and still exceeded industry proof load strength requirements....

What was this "rigorous testing"?
Where are the results?
What are the "industry proof load strength requirements"?

Also:

"...This transition will be complete within the next couple of weeks and will ensure that all
Rocna products will meet the exacting design standards."

Which "exacting design standards"? the Bisalloy800 (690 MPa yield) or the "new" "maybe meets 620 MPa" standard? Cast flukes or welded?

To be honest, I'm not even intersted in the answers - I don't have a Rocna, and have no interest in any company involved - However I find it irksome that we (as potential customers) are being patronised by yet another half baked attempt to paint over the cracks in a very sorry situation.

You need to start being honest with people before you can recover this situation IMHO.

Andy