Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Rigger Mortice]

Of course there is now the fact that he appears to have dropped his original standards, this is not good enough for me! I have been trying to get a refund but so far the Chandlery are asking for me to wait until the situation becomes clearer. As I enjoy doing business with the Chandlery I will wait for a while but I am clear that I expect a refund. CMP are apparently still not making it clear to the retailers exactly what is going to happen for customers like me who will not accept a 620 as a replacement. I know my statutory rights and will exercise them if needs be but the Chandlery have expressed their concerns that it could possibly put them out of business.

FWIW I think that is exactly the right approach. Your chandlers probably had no part to play in all this mess and it hardly seems fair for them to have to pick up the tab. However, it's not fair for you to have to pick it up either. A 620 grade is not what you were promised.

 

[Delfin]

We have made many changes to the Rocna website, and to Peter Smith's own one. The changes reflect work that Canada Metal has carried out in the last few weeks since the takeover, on the Q420/620 problem, classification, getting production and delivery organised ready to provide national distributors with replacement stock.

We hope to start making replacement exchanges shortly, using Canada Metal's sophisticated and efficient logistics network, but the lag between production and delivery to (e.g.) UK is currently running at about three weeks because of shipping schedules As soon as there is a date available, I shall post it.

Canada Metal remains resolute that everything possible will be done to restore confidence in the range of anchors, and is committed to using its extensive facilities in design, production and delivery to achieve this objective.

Thanks for that, R1, but I have a question. Above you seem to indicate that there is a problem with "Q420/620" anchors. Does that mean that you feel that the Q620 anchor is a problem relative to what people were promised when they bought their Rocnas, and if so, with what will you replace these anchors?

 

[braehouse]

Thanks to the mods, back again to receive questions and try and answer them.

There will be a similar operating environment: individual points from posters will get a PM; more general questions, an answer on the forum.

.

GOOD NEWS.........so please clearly and concisely can you state what will happen to anchors made from 420 that are not up to the designers ORIGINAL specification where the owner of this anchor will not accept a 620 as a replacement?

I am also keen to know what this will mean for the retail outfit where the anchor was bought from? Will CMP reimburse them for the sale of an anchor that they thought was correct or are CMP going to hide behind the "Nothing to do with Holdfast" statement?

Please do not PM me but keep all responses on the forum as this is a question continually being asked that you CONTINUALLY ignore or choose not to respond to.

Thanks

Chris

 

[Keen_Ed]

There will be a similar operating environment: individual points from posters will get a PM; more general questions, an answer on the forum.

Sill waiting for an answer from my questions in post 205. So I'll ask again. Can we see the engineering calculation which say that 620 is "good enough"?

 

[RocnaONE]

Keen Ed


this is the latest page from Peter Smith:

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/steel-and-materials.php

with links.


It would be unusual for the full design and engineering specifications of a product to be made public, for reasons of competitive confidence. I do not know of any other anchor makers who release that information.


Is there a particular item in the spec that concerns you ?

R.

 

[RocnaONE]

Braehouse

I know these matters are being addressed at the moment after consultation with and feedback from distributors. It is likely there will be reference to this in the forthcoming Memorandum #2, due out shortly.

R.

 

[RichardS]

My apologies, RocnaONE, for implying that you had abandoned your inbox. Natalie has now clarified that situation.

It seems that there are two main issues which need resolution:

A) Will those who have either 420 or 620 anchors be able to receive a refund on the basis that these steels were not as advertised, and

B) The group I am in who are prepared to accept that 620 steel is a satisfactory replacement for 420 and want to swap our 420 Rocnas for 620s. The problem for this group is that Grant King is adamant that

"Production started in China in late 2008 with the first shipments going to UK , Europe and NZ. Right from the start 420 or even 400 in some cases was used for the shanks. During mid to late 2009 we went about finding a higher spec metal than the 420 to use. We found the 620 and started to order stock from November 2009 with these shanks."

This means that most of the Chinese Rocna owners on this forum, including me, must have 420 shank anchors according to Grant King, despite our chandlers/Rocna telling us that we have 620 anchors.

CMP/Rocna need to definitively state that Grant King is mistaken and, to settle the argument once and for all, publish online the relevant production schedules with any confidential commercial information redacted.

We can then finally move on!

Richard

I now see your reply to Braehouse concerning a statement about issue A). That just leaves issue B)

 

[RocnaONE]

Delfin

my use of the solidus "/" was not intended in any way to indicate that there was a problem with the 420 AND the 620. Rather that it was "in relation" to the 620 on which Peter Smith has views, here:

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/steel-and-materials.php.

There's a new broad-ranging press statement coming out shortly which will, I believe, give more technical information and links to additional sources.

R.

 

[Keen_Ed]

It would be unusual for the full design and engineering specifications of a product to be made public, for reasons of competitive confidence. I do not know of any other anchor makers who release that information.


Is there a particular item in the spec that concerns you ?

R.

Other anchor companies don't have the history of lying to their customers that Rocna have.

 

[RocnaONE]

Please get this straight, KE. Canada Metal has not lied to you.


What additional 'engineering' information are you looking for ?

 

[braehouse]

Braehouse

I know these matters are being addressed at the moment after consultation with and feedback from distributors. It is likely there will be reference to this in the forthcoming Memorandum #2, due out shortly.

R.

Thankyou.........finally a response. I await the next communication with interest.

Thanks

chris

 

[Keen_Ed]

Please get this straight, KE. Canada Metal has not lied to you.


What additional 'engineering' information are you looking for ?

Where did I say they had? I said that Rocna had lied to us - i.e PS, CS, Holdfast.

I am looking for justification that 620 is "good enough", rather than the 80 that we were told (repeatedly) was essential.

"Because we say so" will not do.

 

[Danny Jo]

But according to the designer the "performance" (And as an owner of a Rocna the performance on "set" and "hold" is very good) was linked to the quality of the material used and where this was not up to his original specification he clearly has expressed in the emails that Grant has provided his concerns of the Chinese metals.

Of course there is now the fact that he appears to have dropped his original standards, this is not good enough for me! I have been trying to get a refund but so far the Chandlery are asking for me to wait until the situation becomes clearer. As I enjoy doing business with the Chandlery I will wait for a while but I am clear that I expect a refund. CMP are apparently still not making it clear to the retailers exactly what is going to happen for customers like me who will not accept a 620 as a replacement. I know my statutory rights and will exercise them if needs be but the Chandlery have expressed their concerns that it could possibly put them out of business.

Chris

OK, I get the point.

The Sep 2009 email posted by Grant King certainly suggests that the Rocna's designer was firmly of the belief that performance was critically dependent not just on the quality of the steel but also on a high standard of workmanship. I hazard a guess that he eventually realised that he was being shafted by the licensee (?) or whoever was responsible for commissioning the Chinese manufacturing and was desperate to remedy the problem with Rocna's reputation intact. But any sympathy one might feel for him is somewhat blunted by what would appear to be an, er, cavalier attitude to the punters.

 

[maxi77]

Please get this straight, KE. Canada Metal has not lied to you.


What additional 'engineering' information are you looking for ?

To be fair he did refer to the brand, not CMP and there does seem to have been just a little terminalogical inexactitude in the past associated with the brand. Something that some at least seem to think is not being fully addressed.

I must admit that this does seem to be one of the worst planned product relaunch I have seen.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

this is the latest page from Peter Smith:

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/steel-and-materials.php

with links..

Once more I have to tell you that I am blocked from that site. Would you either get the block removed or post the information here?

 

[Lucky Duck]

With compliments

Once more I have to tell you that I am blocked from that site. Would you either get the block removed or post the information here?

Steel Grades & Qualities For Anchors
A comment from the designer of the Rocna anchor
The shanks on all galvanized Rocna anchors use a type of plate formed from high strength low alloy (HSLA) steel.

There has been much confusion resulting from discussion of the precise steel grades used. A problem for customers has been a conflation, in much of the online and printed discourse, of the two primary properties that define a steel’s strength:

1.yield strength, and
2.ultimate tensile strength.
Both properties are measured in terms of pressure. The former defines the points at which a material will begin to deform plastically, and is always less than the tensile strength. In calculations of bending moments, “bending strength” is directly proportional to the yield figure.

The steel for the Rocna shank was referenced in literature and elsewhere as a “grade 800” steel, which referred to a HSLA steel characterized by a tensile strength of at least 790 MPa and a yield strength of 690 MPa.

The Rocna in current production uses in its shank a steel called “Q620”. This numerical name refers to a grade with a minimum yield of 620 MPa. The average actual yield of all tested samples of this steel is 688 MPa.

In some online sources, as well as printed articles, there have been misleading or erroneous statements comparing the yield of Rocna shank steel to the “grade 800” tensile strength of the advertised steel or other anchors. For example, it has been common to see deliberate attempts to confuse readers with comments talking about “620 vs 800”. This is an entirely invalid comparison. The average tensile strength of all tested samples of steel used in current Rocna production has actually been 788 MPa.

For context, the reader should consider that “mild” or low carbon steel features a yield strength of about 250 MPa

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Steel Grades & Qualities For Anchors
A comment from the designer of the Rocna anchor
The shanks on all galvanized Rocna anchors use a type of plate formed from high strength low alloy (HSLA) steel.

Thanks for that and thanks to those who have PM'd it to me so quickly. It's great that forumites are able to pass this stuff on so much quicker than Rocna seems able or willing to do.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Sill waiting for an answer from my questions in post 205. So I'll ask again. Can we see the engineering calculation which say that 620 is "good enough"?

I don't know if this will help but the original Specification was given in #224
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3162667#post3162667

At least it's a starting point for you?

 

[evm1024]

I don't play an Engineer on TV....

...I am an engineer (just not a steel engineer). I don't do designs based on typical. I do designs based on worst case.

Who is being misleading? When I read about Q620 vs Bisplate and then see a quote of tenseil strength I ask again who is being misleading?

-------
In some online sources, as well as printed articles, there have been misleading or erroneous statements comparing the yield of Rocna shank steel to the “grade 800” tensile strength of the advertised steel or other anchors. For example, it has been common to see deliberate attempts to confuse readers with comments talking about “620 vs 800”. This is an entirely invalid comparison. The average tensile strength of all tested samples of steel used in current Rocna production has actually been 788 MPa.
------

Of course this implies that the yield strength will be greater in kind. But why not state the yield strength rather than the tensile strength. People will quite naturally think 788 is close to 800. The average tested was 688 for Q620 and the typical for Bisplate 80 is 750 (minimum of 690).

Lets keep it apples to apples.

 

[misterg]

I don't know if this will help but the original Specification was given in #224
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3162667#post3162667

At least it's a starting point for you?

The specification for the "BISALLOY-80" cited is here: pdf - the "0.2% proof stress" figure is the "yield stress" being discussed here.

An English version of the Chinese GB T 16270 standard for the Q620 used is here: pdf (I should point out that this is an old version of the standard).

You can see that Bisalloy Bisplate-80 is only about 10% stronger than the Q620 (both on minimum spec, and the typical values quoted here)

The Q620 *doesn't* meet the designer's minimum yield strength spec, though. Where I work, that wouldn't be acceptable.

For the design spec to be downgraded, I would expect to see a detailed, logical argument with appropriate verification. If the change is no big deal, then that exercise should be simple and quick to carry out. (If people struggle to justify a change like that simply and quickly, they usually don't understand what they're dealing with in my experience!)

In a parallel universe, a boating forum is discussing the great deal on Rocna anchors now that the manufacturer has knocked $100 off the price since through their policy of continual improvement they have found a way to get the "same great performance" with cheaper raw materials. In this universe, my next anchor will be a Delta.

I don't play an engineer or a materials scientist on TV.

Andy

Edit - in response to a PM from Rocna1, I should clarify that the $100 reduction and the whole parallel universe are figments of my imagination. Sincere apologies to anyone I misled.