Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Rigger Mortice]

NZ is co-ordinating the test of parts of some anchors. A number of tests are being undertaken in various parts of the world by independent test labs, I understand.

Well, I hope that NZ does better than it did the last time it published "results" of testing. The last time they did we were told this.......

I know there's been intense interest in seeing independent testing of our materials and we've just published test results over at Anything Sailing. Unfortunately I can't post the full report here as the PDF file size is too large, but I've posted the other pictures here. It looks like you don't need to log in / be a member over at Anything Sailing to see the full report, so follow the link above if you're curious.

--------------------

The design and manufacture specification of metals for the Rocna anchor is as follows:

For the fluke: G400 grade high strength low alloy steel. Rocna Anchors use equivalent grade Q235D.

Properties:
UTS (Ultimate Tensile Strength) – typically 370-500 MPA
2% yield – minimum 215 MPA
Elongation – typically 25%

For the shank: G800 grade high strength low alloy steel. Rocna Anchors use equivalent grade Q620D.

Properties:
UTS (Ultimate Tensile Strength) – typically 710-880 MPA
2% yield – minimum 600 MPA
Elongation – typically 15%

The test report posted at Anything Sailing is for the Q620D steel used to construct the shank, which has the greatest strength requirements. The test was completed in November of last year and illustrates that the materials used to make Rocna anchors are not inferior and are well within our design specification parameters.

For further insight into our quality assurance process, we’ve also included a few pictures taken by our team in China in January this year. We take random hardness tests of finished anchors to ensure that the material continues to meet specification. This is a simple test using a portable digital hardness test unit as seen in the photos. We measure the Brinell Hardness Number (BHN) which can be converted to UTS by 1 BHN = 3.44738 MPA. (Therefore the picture QA 1 shows a result equivalent to 910 MPA, and in QA 2, 948 MPA)

Hardness testing is performed either before galvanising, or as in these photos, random samples are taken aside at the final QA step before packaging, the galvanising removed and the metal sanded smooth so as to assure an accurate reading. Multiple readings are taken from each sample and averaged.

The picture QA 3 shows a photo that our quality assurance team took during one of their inspections, showing the Q620D steel in use on the factory floor, and QA 4 shows a whole bunch of anchors going through the QA process.

Steve

The pretty pictures are here;- http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2911762#post2911762

Remember, this is what we were being told in the face of the allegations of lower grade materials being used. It was rubbish then and it remains so.

 

[Shanty]

NZ is co-ordinating the test of parts of some anchors. A number of tests are being undertaken in various parts of the world by independent test labs, I understand. I don't have the full details, but was told yesterday that the results will be available within 48 hours.

OK, but who or what is "NZ" in this context?

 

[braehouse]

NZ is co-ordinating the test of parts of some anchors. A number of tests are being undertaken in various parts of the world by independent test labs, I understand. I don't have the full details, but was told yesterday that the results will be available within 48 hours.

Just curious what the testing is trying to prove and how this is linked to the replacement or refund policy being developed?

I bought an anchor in good faith to the published spec, it has been confirmed as a 420 I want an 800 which is what I paid for. The Chandlery are saying that they have no communication still on what is happening. Are Rocna going to manufacture to the original spec or not? If so when will my anchor be replaced? If not and I am to be offered a lower grade than what I thought I was purchasing are Rocna going to help alleviate the pain that the retailers are going to feel or leave them carrying the burden of Holdfast?

Thanks

Chris

 

[FishyInverness]

Chris,

From the information coming from the Rocna camp, the chances of you getting the originally advertised anchor are long gone. You'll get a Chinese 620as that's all the Chandler will be able to exchange for. RocnaOne has already mentioned that CMP are not going to be held responsible for HoldFast's actions, so that pretty much tells you their stance.

It's time to exercise your consumer rights and other rights as were stated on here not too long ago, and to echo what a lot of people have said here, it might be unfair on the Chandler, and you might feel guilty but that's not your problem. I'd feel guilty doing it, but i'd feel worse keeping something that I paid over the odds for on false advertising.

Take the anchor back, quote your consumer rights and insist on your refund as your anchor was never "as described", and then buy an anchor that you know is to spec and has never had these question marks placed above it. I suspect the retailer will then be able to exchange that anchor for a 620 from CMP and sell it - it might take them time, effort and be a bit of a headache, but unfortunately in retail that's life. Customers have rights and it causes the retailers headaches and that's part of the rich tapestry of being a retailer! especially when suppliers do something like this whole saga - At the end of the day you're not the one who is supposed to get the headache, you just want what you paid for!

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Take the anchor back, quote your consumer rights and insist on your refund as your anchor was never "as described", and then buy an anchor that you know is to spec and has never had these question marks placed above it. I suspect the retailer will then be able to exchange that anchor for a 620 from CMP and sell it - it might take them time, effort and be a bit of a headache, but unfortunately in retail that's life. Customers have rights and it causes the retailers headaches and that's part of the rich tapestry of being a retailer! especially when suppliers do something like this whole saga - At the end of the day you're not the one who is supposed to get the headache, you just want what you paid for!

That is a valid approach, but for many it many not be the most pragmatic.

I have come to the conclusion that for my requirements, the 620 is probably more than up to the job.

To change anchor would almost certainly require customisation to the bow roller and pin, as well as the probability of needing a new teak fitting to my deck for securing the shank. Potentially a lot more money and hassle. Certainly a lot more money than the "extra" I may be deemed to have paid for the "higher" spec.

I am going to take CMP's offer of a new 620 even though my existing anchor may well be 620. At least then I will be clear as to what I have, and from whom the warranty is offered.

 

[FishyInverness]

^
Also a valid point and well put.

 

[GrantKing]

photos

Can anyone see the photos I have loaded to my albums as it appears my photo albums are still locked by the moderators?

 

[Stork_III]

Can anyone see the photos I have loaded to my albums as it appears my photo albums are still locked by the moderators?

Your profile shows 2 albums, but no pictures in either one.

 

[snooks]

Photos sorted now...It's a "quirk" of the forum software. We get moderation alerts for new posts from new users, but we don't get them for images. Sorry

None were blocked, they just weren't approved, now they have been, is back to business as usual

 

[RichardS]

I am going to take CMP's offer of a new 620 even though my existing anchor may well be 620. At least then I will be clear as to what I have, and from whom the warranty is offered.

I'm with you on the SolentBoy but where is this offer stated and what are the terms?

My Chinese Rocna 25 was bought in July 2009 and, AFAIK, there has been no offer of replacement because Rocna/CMP/HF maintain that it is a Chinese-made 620.

I am waiting for either a replacement offer or an unequivocal statement that Grant King is wrong is his assertion that my anchor is a 420. So far, I have seen neither of these.

Richard

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

I'm with you on the SolentBoy but where is this offer stated and what are the terms?

My Chinese Rocna 25 was bought in July 2009 and, AFAIK, there has been no offer of replacement because Rocna/CMP/HF maintain that it is a Chinese-made 620.

I am waiting for either a replacement offer or an unequivocal statement that Grant King is wrong is his assertion that my anchor is a 420. So far, I have seen neither of these.

Richard

Sorry if I have mislead. The offer was made to me by the chandler I bought it from. They must have sorted things with CMP, as they are awaiting new inventory from them.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

My Chinese Rocna 25 was bought in July 2009 and, AFAIK, there has been no offer of replacement because Rocna/CMP/HF maintain that it is a Chinese-made 620.

I am waiting for either a replacement offer or an unequivocal statement that Grant King is wrong is his assertion that my anchor is a 420. So far, I have seen neither of these.

If they don't give you a satisfactory answer you may, of course, return the anchor on the grounds that it is not as described. Whether it is a 420 or a 620 is obviously debateable (though I would take Grant Kings word on it) but there is no doubt that it is not made to the advertised 800 grade.

A pain and inconvenience but, in the absence of reliable information from Rocna, it may be your only solution.

 

[youen]

Hello,today i have received an email from the French distributor and Rocna telling that all the anchor imported in France was Ok and that only the anchors made at the begining of 2010 and for West marine USA were bad...they join a certificate telling that my anchor was conform.I am waiting a certicate saying that it was made with Bisalloy as described on th Rocna site before I buy the anchor...

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Take the anchor back ............ and then buy an anchor that you know is to spec

Leaving aside the other slightly aggressive comments, which anchor would this be? I havent seen any steel specs for the spade, or ally specs for the fortress or indeed specs for almost all the other anchors. So how do I know they are "made to spec"?

Anybody know what a CQR is made of? Or a Danforth?

 

[Bosun Higgs]

To be practical about this rather than get on my high horse, I'm inclined to get a replacement Rocna made under CMP. Sure 620 is not 800 but I am happy that the difference of less than 10% in properties is a marginal one in real life. With decent weather forecasts, I simply dont anchor in exposed places in force 8.

I would have gone for a Manson but its shape makes it a no fit for my bow roller and I wasnt impressed by the standard of construction.. I might have considered a Fortress but I already have an ally Danforth type ( a Bulldog). I did consider a Spade but I dont like the high price - the Rocna was a daft enough price, the Spade is simply silly. And in any case I dont like the idea of it being bolted together.

So I have returned my old Rocna where I am not sure of the steel spec and will wait the arrival of a new Rocna from the Canadians.

 

[maxi77]

Leaving aside the other slightly aggressive comments, which anchor would this be? I havent seen any steel specs for the spade, or ally specs for the fortress or indeed specs for almost all the other anchors. So how do I know they are "made to spec"?

Anybody know what a CQR is made of? Or a Danforth?

No but equally they have not promoted themselves on the basis of very specific material standards, and the implication that as other designs did not follow their standards they were substandard. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. The whole point of having a Rocna was both the shape and material spec. Take away the material spec what are you really buying?

 

[youen]

The problem is only with Rocna who advertised on the website that their anchors were made in a specific steel alloy.And Mr Smith was very aggressif with others anchor makers

 

[Bosun Higgs]

The whole point of having a Rocna was both the shape and material spec. Take away the material spec what are you really buying?

The material spec is irrelevant for an anchor purchaser. What matters is how well it anchors you. Which is not to say that advertising a spec and then quietly changing it isnt stupid - of course it is. But what we havent seen in all this argument are examples of Rocnas failing in use in larger numbers than for any other anchor.

To put it another way, if the idiots had not advertised a spec in the first place, I and an awful lot of others would still be happy with our Rocnas just as Fortress guys are happy with theirs and Spade owners the same.

 

[youen]

Perhaps

 

[Hoolie]

The material spec is irrelevant for an anchor purchaser. ... ... ...

But both Manson Supreme and Rocna specified the material to justify the slim section of the shank. Thicken it up and any steel might do. However, it's all to do with weight distribution, like lead in the Spade.