Morven
New member
Should provide some reassurance, otherwise he is quite happy, good luck!
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
GrantKing
New member
Djbangi
...
Deception
If it was simple economics then the idea that the 'recall' of the 'few' anchors was a result of accidental use of a steel of lower quality than intended was more smoke and mirrors. Not only did it commence in 2008 but it was intended to deceive the customer.
If it was simple economics then the idea that the 'recall' of the 'few' anchors was a result of accidental use of a steel of lower quality than intended was more smoke and mirrors. Not only did it commence in 2008 but it was intended to deceive the customer.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
Nor will you get any reliable estimates since steel prices depend more on where you buy than the precise spec you buy. It could well be that Bisalloy ( which is a tradename) would not be available to the manufacturer in China or they may prefer to use an equivalent specification from their established Chinese supplier - China is not a free country open to imports in the way we are. The Communist government controls such things absolutely.
That said the reason for the transfer would have been economics in every area- materials, manufacturing , galvanising. Why else do it?
Interestingly, I had a chance to compare my Rocna side by side with a Manson whilst trying to decide at the weekend whether or not to send the Rocna back. Leaving aside steel specification, the quality of welds and galvanising and metal forming on the Rocna was in my view superior to that of the Manson, and I say that as someone who for more than 5 years ran a big metal fabrication plant with an attached large galvanising plant. I dont want to imply that the Manson welds might fail ( you cannot tell that from surface inspection) but the galvanising on the almost unused example I saw was poor.
Last thing I should add is that when we supplied fabrications to a steel specification they always met the minimum spec and always had a certificate of conformity with them. The yield strength difference in the Rocna case is about 10% and probably irrelevant in use. But it is out of the original specification and as such would be rejected.
The stupidity of Rocna's original management was in supplying both to a material specification and also to a design criteria. That gave them almost no flexibility. They should have just supplied an anchor design not mentioning material specs as happens with your CQR, Bruce etc. That way they could have made adjustments / updates to materails without generating all this bad blood.
Delfin
New member
Just curious, but how is the minimum yield strength of Q620 steel, which is 620 MPa, 10% less than the minimum yield strength of Bisalloy 80 steel, which is 750 MPa?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I certainly agree with that but what was particularly stupid was that they also bragged and boasted about the use of high grade steels. Then they knocked the competition and, as if that wasn't enough, they announced that they wouldn't compromise on their superior specification.
Roaring Girl
New member
Hi, we bought mt 25kg Rocna from Arthurs Chandlery in Gosport UK, in August 2008 (and have slept soundly while using it many, many times since).
Arthurs tell us: From the information we have been given by Rocna your anchor would have been manufactured in New Zealand and the only anchors with any doubt were a batch supplied in June 2010.
Therefore there should be nothing to be concerned about. Is there any reasons to disagree with this statement?
I have read through the thread but cannot claim to have fully followed every nuance of the arguments about metal quality. I tend to agree with the poster who said (some pages back) that if you bought the anchor based on its performance as reported by other sailors (which we did), and can be satisfied about its quality then one would be a happy anchorer. If you bought it on the basis on precise metals, certification etc, then you might be disappointed - even if the precise arguments about misdescription are correct.
Arthurs tell us: From the information we have been given by Rocna your anchor would have been manufactured in New Zealand and the only anchors with any doubt were a batch supplied in June 2010.
Therefore there should be nothing to be concerned about. Is there any reasons to disagree with this statement?
I have read through the thread but cannot claim to have fully followed every nuance of the arguments about metal quality. I tend to agree with the poster who said (some pages back) that if you bought the anchor based on its performance as reported by other sailors (which we did), and can be satisfied about its quality then one would be a happy anchorer. If you bought it on the basis on precise metals, certification etc, then you might be disappointed - even if the precise arguments about misdescription are correct.
misterg
Active member
'Tisn't 750 MPa minimum - 'tis 690 MPa minimum, 750 MPa 'typical'
http://www.bisalloy.com.au/files/Bisplate_Pdfs/Bisplate_80.pdf
Yield stress of Q620 was quoted as 688 MPa typical a few posts back - 8% less than the Bisalloy 80 'typical'
Andy.
Andy
GrantKing
New member
Djbangi
...
Bisalloy, the company, have a joint venture with Jinan Steel (part of Shandong Steel) and make Bisplate 80. capacity is 150,000t (about twice that of the Australian facility). As with Australian Bisplate each sheet is tested and certificated. Jinan is 'about' halfway between Shanghai and Beijing. The JV was announced only this year but manufacture actually started earlier (JVs in China take an age to develop), I think as early as 2009, maybe earlier.
To imply that if Bisplate was not available, or prohibitively expensive, in China is not an excuse. It was the advertising of one quality and use of something, Q420, not even comparable and the constant slagging off of the competition that aroused the ire of many - if they had dropped both the constant attacks and removed the spec from the website - then I suspect no-one would have noticed (until yachts started turning up on beaches with bent anchors).
There is a constant comparison of Q620 with Bisplate 80 - Q420 was used from 2008 and till mid 2010. Comparisons should be made with Q420, Q620 and Bisplate 80.
To imply that if Bisplate was not available, or prohibitively expensive, in China is not an excuse. It was the advertising of one quality and use of something, Q420, not even comparable and the constant slagging off of the competition that aroused the ire of many - if they had dropped both the constant attacks and removed the spec from the website - then I suspect no-one would have noticed (until yachts started turning up on beaches with bent anchors).
There is a constant comparison of Q620 with Bisplate 80 - Q420 was used from 2008 and till mid 2010. Comparisons should be made with Q420, Q620 and Bisplate 80.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
Interesting info. How come you know this? Are you involved with another anchor maker? This is not the sort of info anyone outside the steel using world would have.
Never good practice to knock the competition though I have read somewhere the allegation that Manson manufactured the very first Rocna anchors and when they lost the contract they then copied the basic idea. I dont know if this allegation is correct but if it is I can understand bad blood.
Last edited:
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I'm not sure why the question about being involved with other anchor manufacturers keeps coming up.....Djbangi has already answered it.
Just a few seconds of googling comes up with this; http://www.bisalloy.com.au/files/Media-Release_Bisalloy-Jigang_final.pdf With the greatest of respect to Djbangi it's hardly specialist knowledge!
Smith said that he approached Manson early on but a deal was never done. If he had not taken out proper patent and design protection then he was foolish, unless of course there was nothing to protect. The Rocna is, after all, no more than an amalgam of several other earlier designs.
However, that begs the question of why Rocna has managed to create bad blood with just about every other anchor manufacturer around the world. Their aggressive self promotion and eagerness to attack everyone was well known and probably led, in part, to the current situation.
Djbangi
...
Sadly Bosun I had done exactly what Rigger suggested. If you were whiling away a moment or two and checking the spec of Bisplate 80 you must need go to the Bisalloy site and the information is there for anyone on this forum to see. its not a secret, been there for a good few weeks or even months.
And again I have no interest, at all, (direct or indirect) in any anchor maker (nor steel maker).
What is interesting is that on transfer of Rocna from NZ to China even Q620 does not seem to have been used and did not figure until early 2010 (and then only until the 420 stock of shanks had been used up).
And again I have no interest, at all, (direct or indirect) in any anchor maker (nor steel maker).
What is interesting is that on transfer of Rocna from NZ to China even Q620 does not seem to have been used and did not figure until early 2010 (and then only until the 420 stock of shanks had been used up).
GrantKing
New member
rocna/manson
The rocna and the manson supreme were developed at the same time in two different locations in NZ.
The patent registered by Smith is a Design Patent only and applies to the way it looks, not the function or any "unique" factor of the anchor.
I undertook an extensive and expensive investigation for Bambury to find a way for them to either sue Mansons or overturn their patents and prove breach of Rocna IP and reached the ultimate conclusion that it was not possible and the claims that Manson "ripped off" the rocna would stand up in court.
It was also admitted to me in emails from Smiths that the rocna IP would not stand up to a court test should Manson decide to test it in court.
My investigation involved Patent experts and lawyers, funded by myself and with my family contacts, and has still not been paid for by Bambury as is typical of their manner of operation towards much of the other expensive work and studies undertaken by myself.
After studying the files and other data of Manson's recently I can declare that they developed their own version independantly and any other crying of "foul behaviour" from Smiths and from Bambury is another misguided claim to go with the others.
The rocna and the manson supreme were developed at the same time in two different locations in NZ.
The patent registered by Smith is a Design Patent only and applies to the way it looks, not the function or any "unique" factor of the anchor.
I undertook an extensive and expensive investigation for Bambury to find a way for them to either sue Mansons or overturn their patents and prove breach of Rocna IP and reached the ultimate conclusion that it was not possible and the claims that Manson "ripped off" the rocna would stand up in court.
It was also admitted to me in emails from Smiths that the rocna IP would not stand up to a court test should Manson decide to test it in court.
My investigation involved Patent experts and lawyers, funded by myself and with my family contacts, and has still not been paid for by Bambury as is typical of their manner of operation towards much of the other expensive work and studies undertaken by myself.
After studying the files and other data of Manson's recently I can declare that they developed their own version independantly and any other crying of "foul behaviour" from Smiths and from Bambury is another misguided claim to go with the others.
GrantKing
New member
bis80
Correct, Bis80 was available in 2008 in China but was rejected because it was so much more expensive than the 420 being used already. It was also much more expensive than the 620 in 2010.
It is still available now.
Correct, Bis80 was available in 2008 in China but was rejected because it was so much more expensive than the 420 being used already. It was also much more expensive than the 620 in 2010.
It is still available now.
Dockhead
Active member
What's the cost difference per kilo between Bisplate, 620, and 420?
GrantKing
New member
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Without quoting $$$$$$$$ the difference between buying Bis80 and both 620 and 420 is around 50%.
Without quoting $$$$$$$$ the difference between buying Bis80 and both 620 and 420 is around 50%.
Hoolie
Well-known member
But of course that doesn't really help unless we know the contribution of raw material cost to the price at the point of sale.
GrantKing
New member
cost
Probably not but I am not going to be drawn into revealing component costs, markups or any other financial information in this respect.
Its also not fair play to be asked to do so, its not critical to the subject discussion is it?
That information is also now the property of CMP and as they are still using the very same manufacturer in China to make the very same anchor then they will be enjoying the very same costings, savings and if the retail price remains the same then they will be enjoying much the same markups as the previous owners were.
What the costs to manufacture have been since June 2010 (when my information access stopped) is anyone's guess and only open to speculation.
With the move to China that started in early 2008 there was a huge reduction in manufactured cost compared to the cost of manufacturing in either Canada or NZ.
The fact that there was only a slight reduction in price does not reflect the savings made by Bambury. The product was being promoted as a premium product and so commanded a premium price.
Probably not but I am not going to be drawn into revealing component costs, markups or any other financial information in this respect.
Its also not fair play to be asked to do so, its not critical to the subject discussion is it?
That information is also now the property of CMP and as they are still using the very same manufacturer in China to make the very same anchor then they will be enjoying the very same costings, savings and if the retail price remains the same then they will be enjoying much the same markups as the previous owners were.
What the costs to manufacture have been since June 2010 (when my information access stopped) is anyone's guess and only open to speculation.
With the move to China that started in early 2008 there was a huge reduction in manufactured cost compared to the cost of manufacturing in either Canada or NZ.
The fact that there was only a slight reduction in price does not reflect the savings made by Bambury. The product was being promoted as a premium product and so commanded a premium price.
Hoolie
Well-known member
Agreed. I wasn't asking for or expecting actual figures, but I think it helps us understand the issues and whether CMP could/should go back to the original spec without a big impact on the price.