Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Seven Spades]

Looks like the only solution to this problem is to manufacture to the original NZ standard. Yes it will cost more but these augments would be at an end, simple.

If there is a Lloyds certification for anchors would't it be better to just drop RINA and go for Lloyds to make a clear break with the past?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Post 201 would indicate that CM are not liable, and that any 'damage limitation' is limited to Holdfast. If the Craig's did not rubber stamp certain lower grade materials then cannot imagine there being any reason why they should not tell it like it is.

Yes, I saw #201 too, but I suspect that all this is more to do with commercial reality than the niceties of the legalities of it all. Possibly CM could legally turn their back on what has happened in the past, but the commercial repurcusions on the brand would probably be devastating.

My understanding is that the Smiths did not know about the changed spec. but it is in their interest to support a lower spec if it increases their royalties from the licence.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I dont see how the certification can be awarded to the size of anchor that most of us use. In the specification here the minimum anchor weight is 50kg. So how could my 15kg Rocna be certified SHHP?

 

[Djbangi]

Bisplate 80

Bisplate 80 is freely available in China. It is made under license by Jinan Steel (just inland from Qingdao). It was available in 2009, it might have been available earlier. The official release, of 150,000t capacity, was mid this year. Each sheet or plate is individually tested to meet Bisalloys specs, Each plate or sheet comes with its own individual spec certificate. Bisalloy have a high reputation in the industry for their Hi Tensile steels, most have higher strength than Bis80, sales are primarily mining and defense (both are hard task masters and unlikely to accept below specification product). Bisalloy will be comfortable that the controls in place will ensure product is always to quality.

Bisplate 80 requires care to cut, care to weld, care to process prior to galvanising and care in galvanising. All of these add cost. But it cannot be impossible, other people do it - the same people that Mr Smith likes to denigrate on his website. When you are trying to rebuild an image trying to tarnish the image of a competitor does not seem to add any gloss to oneself (especially when they successfully doing what you cannot).

There is a story in NZ that when manufacturing was transferred from NZ to China that manufacturing costs fell to 18% of NZ costs. But this is only a story, no substantiation. I assume, if there is any truth in it, anyone who bought enjoyed those savings - now they know why.

Peter Smith has set himself up as a Classification Society expert. He knew claims that Rocna had RINA certification posted on the Rocna website from at least mid 2009 were untrue. Recall also, Craig developed the website until mid 2011. Given that the sale of anchors was part of his and Craig's income stream you might have though that when replacement anchors were sent winging round the world it might have rasied a few questions. Auckland is hardly big place and one might have thought rumours, later substantiated, from Grant might have raised a few questions, when the furore started to develop real steam on the forums early this year you would have thought it would raise a few questions, when the fraud was exposed you might have thought it would raise a few questions. Do any of you recall the Smith's sticking their hands up, they had access to more information than anyone here - what would you have done? Do licensors normally sign off, walk away and simply drown in a sea of dollars, or do they watch quietly from the wings and possibly protect their investment (licence).

So the question is - at what point would you have stepped in and what would you have done? To me that determines the point, for you, when the Smiths became guilty - you decide when it was.

However CPM have only owned the license for days, maybe just over 2 weeks now. They need to be given time to find out what is actually happening now,what has happened in the past and what to do in the future. I suspect Holdfast are not releasing any information that is damning, of Holdfast, and given this CMP might not know what past liabilities are yet to be exposed. We think we know, I'd not be putting anything in place based on forum threads - I'd want to get out on the ground and check myself (and its a long way from Vancouver to Shanghai - new people to meet, new people to leanr how to trust). They also need to consider the implications of Q620vsBis80 and maybe cast vs plate flukes - who knows. Cut CMP some slack. I am sure they are doing all they can to resolve outstanding issues as best they can. The history is different - customers were screwed, they have every right to be upset. But recall the customers were not screwed by the Chinese, they were scrwed by New Zealanders.

 

[Djbangi]

Bosun Higgs, classification

Hi Bosun,

This is from memory but scaling is allowed in the seabed testing. If you are to supply 9t anchors you do not need to test a 9t model. I think the scalling is 1 to 10. So for 9t anchors you seabed test a 900kg model, and for 100kg anchors a 10kg model. It is well accepted that weight is proportionate to performance, though there are doubts as to whether this is totally valid, small Bruce might not work at all in some seabeds but bigger ones fantastic. Recall also the rules are developed for large anchors, CS testing is for big ships - the rules for big ships are simply being applied, word for word, to leisure vessels. Also if you think of big ships, none of them use anchors with fixed shanks, like most of ours. There might be reason for the CS to think this through - if they want to take money from the leisure market maybe they should ammend the rules to reflect differences in design and use.

So for seabed testing to test a 20kg model and a 55kg model, which is what was done with the Rocna is quite valid. Proof testing is different, but I think the 55kg model covered smaller, as well as larger - whan made to the designs defined in the drawings (which excluded the cast fluke models (not in the drawings and not tested). And for those quoting Rocna tested by Prof Knox in PBO, his was a NZ model - and I'm not sure how many Chinese Rocnas with a cast fluke have ever been tested in seabed tests.

 

[youen]

Last year i swap my 45 Lb CQR for a Rocna 15 Kg.After reading all the posts I feel as being victim of false advertising (In France publicité mensongère et abus de confiance).In France on sailing forum nobody seems to know the problems about Rocna,i email to the French distibutor but get no reply.I think I am going to put the anchor ashore but which one do you recommend to buy to replace the Rocna.

 

[GrantKing]

Hi Bosun,

This is from memory but scaling is allowed in the seabed testing. If you are to supply 9t anchors you do not need to test a 9t model. I think the scalling is 1 to 10. So for 9t anchors you seabed test a 900kg model, and for 100kg anchors a 10kg model. It is well accepted that weight is proportionate to performance, though there are doubts as to whether this is totally valid, small Bruce might not work at all in some seabeds but bigger ones fantastic. Recall also the rules are developed for large anchors, CS testing is for big ships - the rules for big ships are simply being applied, word for word, to leisure vessels. Also if you think of big ships, none of them use anchors with fixed shanks, like most of ours. There might be reason for the CS to think this through - if they want to take money from the leisure market maybe they should ammend the rules to reflect differences in design and use.

So for seabed testing to test a 20kg model and a 55kg model, which is what was done with the Rocna is quite valid. Proof testing is different, but I think the 55kg model covered smaller, as well as larger - whan made to the designs defined in the drawings (which excluded the cast fluke models (not in the drawings and not tested). And for those quoting Rocna tested by Prof Knox in PBO, his was a NZ model - and I'm not sure how many Chinese Rocnas with a cast fluke have ever been tested in seabed tests.

None.

There has been much debate over the importance of geometric perfection in the design in order for it to work. The email below from the designer to me in May 2009 points out this importance. So, if the shank bends even slightly, will it still work?

Dear Grant,

I have received photos from Craig of the cast Rocna 20 fluke which you requested comments on. In brief, the distortion is still the issue I see, the rest looks much better. Pity the skid radius has to be ground, not moulded, as this is never as fair and introduces the human element again. I also noticed grinding down the longitudinal crease and across the heel kick.

Regarding the previous batch which I understand to have been shipped to Europe as well as NZ: How many anchors have shanks welded off-center, or possess the uneven blade distortion which will affect performance. The photo I saw showed the shank off-center, but also not in-line with the blade. This will cause the anchor to start to veer sideways as it penetrates and as load is applied will roll out. The anchor is not symmetrical and there for not roll-stable. Roll-stability is an essential part of a good anchor, and one of the reasons Rocna has proved so successful. Imagine an embedded anchor turned 90 degrees or more. If the heel is not completely symmetrical, e.g. one side concave and the other convex, it will disengage one way and probably work superbly the other. If dragged in a straight line beyond yield, the type of distortion I have seen including in the sample raw blade just received will produce a corkscrew action and result in disengagement.

There is also the issue of fluke strength, and I am highly disturbed that Craig tells me that the factory has stockpiled anchors, not to mention the orders continuing to be shipped, and we still do not have the results of any destruction testing! What happens if the destruction tests are not satisfactory? You will recall I believe that 350-450 grade medium tensile steel should be used for the blade, but I have been waiting for feedback as requested. (You may be interested to know my original drawings for the plate anchors specified 350-450 grade steel, and mild steel was accepted in deference to cost against my better judgment). Apparently your destruction testing was to take place last week - what were the results, and how did the cast flukes compare to the fabricated mild steel? What about the shank plate-to-cast weld?

Bear in mind that broken castings look much worse in the public eye than bent plate. The latter draws impressed reactions - "look how much force that anchor has endured, enough to bend steel". Broken castings, even if the failure occurred at a higher strain, do not enjoy the same perception - "look at that cheap Chinese ****".

Imagine if one of the magazines or a competitor, or even an enthusiast like Starzinger or another online armchair warrior, gets hold of one of these. Look at the travesty Practical Sailor did in the soft mud at that marina in Florida. If they got a bad cast anchor as a test sample we would be looking very sick. Mark Pocock would be livered. The geometric problems are identified in a matter of seconds with a straight-edge, not to mention any consequent performance problems. And heaven forbid Manson, MacDuff, or Poiraud gets a whiff and decide to investigate. They would have the material to destroy the brand and Hold Fast's investment along with it.

Manson tested some random Rocnas several years ago and found one with a 450 Mpa shank, not the claimed Bisplate-80. They threatened us with all sorts of ****, and later published on a web forum the accusation that all Rocna anchors were like this and were being falsely advertised. Although removed by the forum operators within a day for fear of libel liabilities, it reached enough cynics and brand-loyal Manson customers who believed it, and it continues to be raised every now and again. (Nufab Engineering had produced three units with the wrong steel in the shanks - a factory error - but this emphasizes the seriousness of this situation). The marine game is a very small world and not much goes unnoticed.

I was always so careful not to let a bad anchor get on to the market. The only way to be confident is to work with the factory on the issues until any distortion is at least concave and symmetrical.

If HF are committed to anchors at the factory which are of similar quality then maybe you should consider inspecting each anchor by a specially trained local agent before acceptance until this stock is used and the situation is resolved.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Chris_Robb]

Grants last post clearly raises the issue of other serious faults. Its not just the bendy shanks. Apparently distortion in the fluke, which will make the anchor unstable and therefore dangerous.

How should owners measure any distortion from the design?

 

[GrantKing]

Grants last post clearly raises the issue of other serious faults. Its not just the bendy shanks. Apparently distortion in the fluke, which will make the anchor unstable and therefore dangerous.

How should owners measure any distortion from the design?

The issue of the flukes was never a major concern soon after this email and after a QC workshop I held in the foundry there was never another one that was considered a reject.

 

[vyv_cox]

Vyv,

Am I right in my understanding that, as well as making savings in material costs, a lower grade material is also going to be easier and cheaper to machine, weld and galvanise? i.e. a darn sight more profitable for licensee and licensor

The only issue I can see is that the carbon equivalent of Q420 is marginally lower than that of Bisplate 80. The lower figure would indicate better weldability but I doubt if it is significant. I believe all shanks are cut by water jet. I cannot find any information about the galvanizing of these steels but the process is likely to be the same in each case.

 

[Delfin]

Last year i swap my 45 Lb CQR for a Rocna 15 Kg.After reading all the posts I feel as being victim of false advertising (In France publicité mensongère et abus de confiance).In France on sailing forum nobody seems to know the problems about Rocna,i email to the French distibutor but get no reply.I think I am going to put the anchor ashore but which one do you recommend to buy to replace the Rocna.

Hello, if the Rocna fit well on your boat, the Manson Supreme should as well. It tests like the Rocna and is made of the proper steel, so you should be happy with it. I have not heard of anyone with a Manson who is not pleased with it.

 

[Lady Campanula]

Hello, if the Rocna fit well on your boat, the Manson Supreme should as well. It tests like the Rocna and is made of the proper steel, so you should be happy with it. I have not heard of anyone with a Manson who is not pleased with it.

I'm quite pleased with mine....

Mind you, the welds are a little suspect and I'm inclined to be cautious regarding its holding power in wind-over-tide chop. It is, however, much easier to recover and stow than my 45lb CQR...

 

[Colvic Watson]

What a mug! How much does that hold? How can you even lift it to drink from????

 

[Rigger Mortice]

The only issue I can see is that the carbon equivalent of Q420 is marginally lower than that of Bisplate 80. The lower figure would indicate better weldability but I doubt if it is significant. I believe all shanks are cut by water jet. I cannot find any information about the galvanizing of these steels but the process is likely to be the same in each case.

Thanks for that Vyv.

If the savings are not that great it makes me wonder why on earth they don't simply use the original spec. Having pushed the case for the high spec for so long it seems silly, in view of everything which has happened, to not do so. Perhaps RocnaOne can explain?

 

[Chi34]

Spare a thought for the distributors, who are stuck in the middle of this mess.
If an end purchaser doesn't accept a replacement to the new spec, a refund is due.

 

[GrantKing]

savings

Thanks for that Vyv.

If the savings are not that great it makes me wonder why on earth they don't simply use the original spec. Having pushed the case for the high spec for so long it seems silly, in view of everything which has happened, to not do so. Perhaps RocnaOne can explain?

The savings were huge in the cost, that was the only, and deciding, factor.

 

[Chris_Robb]

I'm quite pleased with mine....

Mind you, the welds are a little suspect and I'm inclined to be cautious regarding its holding power in wind-over-tide chop. It is, however, much easier to recover and stow than my 45lb CQR...

I also have a Manson, but the whole thing is much better finished than the one in the photo. For a start, you cannot see the 2 laminated sheets of the fluke, it is one continuous weld. What happened to the label - Mines still on after 4 years of almost daily use.......

 

[Djbangi]

Lady Camp's anchor - its a wind up. To me it looks like one of those models made by competitors to confuse the public in those sand bed tests at boat shows.

Have a look at the image properties. Surely its not an image from Craig - its just that ....Roc.jpg makes one wonder.


Not associated with any anchor maker, at all!

 

[Lady Campanula]

Dear Mister 'DJ',

You really seem to be a humourless fellow today. One wonders what your agenda is. FWIW, the pic is mine own, taken by my own fair hand and Canon Powershot A640. Oh, and so's the coffee mug.

Here's another, taken at Fowey last Autumn. There are others...

I make no claims - good, bad, indifferent. It just is.​

 

[Djbangi]

Lady C

Sincere aplogies, I confess to have never been renowned for my humour, so true to character. Agenda's, gave them up when I was younger, never liked them since - too much reponsibility.

Have a good day