youen
Member
It is already done,i am waiting for the certication copy of Rina for the anchor sold in 12 2010.
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
It is already done,i am waiting for the certication copy of Rina for the anchor sold in 12 2010.
Djbangi
...
To Stevepolgar, post 625
Sir,
The argument from the Bambury camp is that every anchor, apart from a few anchors made in 2010, were made with a grade of steel defined as Q620 (or Q620D). Contrary to Mr Bambury's assertions there is circumstantial evidence that suggests anchors were made witha Q420 shank (a steel with a tensile strength about 50% that of Bisplate 80.) It is possible that in the fullness of time this circumstantial evidence will be proved concrete.
The reality is that there may be thousands of Chinese made Rocnas produced during 2008 and 2009 that have shanks produced from a steel much lower in spec (viz Q420) than Bisplate 80 and lower in spec than the eventually substituted Q620. Anchors constructed with Q420 to a design demanding Bisplate 80 are accidents waiting to happen. If you have any evidence that Mr Bambury's assertions are incorrect I am sure there are one or two on this forum who would like a comment.
Sir,
The argument from the Bambury camp is that every anchor, apart from a few anchors made in 2010, were made with a grade of steel defined as Q620 (or Q620D). Contrary to Mr Bambury's assertions there is circumstantial evidence that suggests anchors were made witha Q420 shank (a steel with a tensile strength about 50% that of Bisplate 80.) It is possible that in the fullness of time this circumstantial evidence will be proved concrete.
The reality is that there may be thousands of Chinese made Rocnas produced during 2008 and 2009 that have shanks produced from a steel much lower in spec (viz Q420) than Bisplate 80 and lower in spec than the eventually substituted Q620. Anchors constructed with Q420 to a design demanding Bisplate 80 are accidents waiting to happen. If you have any evidence that Mr Bambury's assertions are incorrect I am sure there are one or two on this forum who would like a comment.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
The original website said 800 but it doesnt say that now. Does anyone know when that change occurred and the mention of Bisalloy 800 disappeared from the web site? After all, for you to maintain a claim that what tyou received wasnt what you were sold, you need to be able to say that Rocna told you it was 800 at the time you bought.
Keen_Ed
Active member
After May 23, 2010. Before July 15 this year.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090430....php?section=what&chapter=construction&page=0
http://web.archive.org/web/20090430....php?section=what&chapter=construction&page=0
FishyInverness
New member
I was actually going to mention that previously - I assume Grant or someone aware of the situation has documented and saved all false claims made by Rocna but if not, and you have a Rocna purchased under advertised standards that you may wish to return. **Obtain copies of the advertising claims**, if you had to go to small claims court to wrest your refund from a reclacitrant retailer you would need them. It does seem as if the new holders of the Smith's and Bambury's leads are applying a liberal dose of whitewash to everything they claimed before.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
48 hours must mean something else in Rocna-Land, or were the test results a little inconvenient?
Allan
Well-known member
Sir, with the greatest respect, you are obviously unable to understand Rocnish. The results may take 48 hours but, even for the experts, the art of spin will take as long as it takes. This is particularly true if the spinner is hoping for interest in the subject to wane.48 hours must mean something else in Rocna-Land, or were the test results a little inconvenient?
Allan
Last edited:
stevenpolgar
New member
ROCNA/HOLDFAST History
I have received several emails suggesting that i introduce myself.
My name is Steven Polgar , I was the Managing Director of a 100% Australian Company called Linox . We have several businesses in China and many relationships with Chinese casting companies. We cast approx 200 tons a year of stainless steel products . I was introduced to Brian Bambury and his family in early 2007 and was asked to setup casting of Rocna style anchors in stainless and galvinised steel. We initially started with up to the 55 kilo anchor range in Stainless and we received smallish orders on a regular basis. There was an obvious lack of funding in place for this development as we were continually owed a substainlly amount of money. The inital specifications provided were translated from fabricated plate anchors and there was a lot of modifications required to be able to cast the anchor. Rocna/Holdfast's lack of technical ability meant that many prototypes were done and certain steel requirements could never be met including the shank steel.
Our agreement was terminated by Holdfast in late 2009 with an outstanding account of nearly 50,000 euros which has never been paid.
Instead we have received several threating legal letters from Holdfast lawyers to try to shift any blame onto us and make sure we do not disclose any information.
The latest liquidation of Holdfast is simply 'divine retribution" and i am more than willing to pass on any information to those interested.
My private email address is stevenpolgar@gmail.com
Looking forward to the latest rounds in the forums.
I have received several emails suggesting that i introduce myself.
My name is Steven Polgar , I was the Managing Director of a 100% Australian Company called Linox . We have several businesses in China and many relationships with Chinese casting companies. We cast approx 200 tons a year of stainless steel products . I was introduced to Brian Bambury and his family in early 2007 and was asked to setup casting of Rocna style anchors in stainless and galvinised steel. We initially started with up to the 55 kilo anchor range in Stainless and we received smallish orders on a regular basis. There was an obvious lack of funding in place for this development as we were continually owed a substainlly amount of money. The inital specifications provided were translated from fabricated plate anchors and there was a lot of modifications required to be able to cast the anchor. Rocna/Holdfast's lack of technical ability meant that many prototypes were done and certain steel requirements could never be met including the shank steel.
Our agreement was terminated by Holdfast in late 2009 with an outstanding account of nearly 50,000 euros which has never been paid.
Instead we have received several threating legal letters from Holdfast lawyers to try to shift any blame onto us and make sure we do not disclose any information.
The latest liquidation of Holdfast is simply 'divine retribution" and i am more than willing to pass on any information to those interested.
My private email address is stevenpolgar@gmail.com
Looking forward to the latest rounds in the forums.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
You old cynic!
There I was assuming that the spin had already been worked out and they were just preparing the test results to slot in.
PS . I've just seen StevenPolgars latest intervention.....I don't think that interest in the subject is going to wane. Welcome aboard Steven!
Last edited:
GrantKing
New member
linox
What Steven has to say is entirely correct.
One of the most critical tasks I had to undertake during the early part of 2009 was to remove his company from the supply chain and deal direct with the manufacturer myself.
This was achieved and his company was served termination notices by Bambury only after all orders had been shipped out from China under the promise of being paid, however there was never any intention to settle any outstanding debt owed to them.
A great disservice was done to Steven and his company and I believed, at the time, all of the spin by Bambury that I was given to justify getting rid of them and not paying.
A short time later I realised that there was never any intention to settle by Bambury just the same as there was never any intention to settle CNC ( the NZ manufacturer) either who were left holding the baby for another 100K. ( but thats another whole story entirely)
During the termination process, and the following weeks, I had much communication with Steven and at times I was rude, abusive and did not believe what he had to say and for this I unreservedly apologise to him for my actions and behaviour at that time. Not much solace for his losses I know but he was never going to come out of it satisfied as long as Bambury held the cheque book.
As Steven has pointed out, the shank material specifications set down by Peter Smith in his printed specifications were not met and more importantly could not be met by the manufacturer when starting production in 2008. An alternative shank material was found and used and as the "Venice" anchor revealed they were made in 400, 420 steel ( not Q&T either). The change to 620 only came at the end of 2009 and was put in place by me and gradually changed from that point on with 420 still being used in mid 2010 for many sizes.
Steven and his team, the manufacturers, the chinese shipping agents and everyone else involved at that time were all made to jump through hoops that were impossible for any of them to meet given that the problems were all caused by Bambury cutting corners along the way and ,most importantly, not knowing what he was doing in any technical aspect and not being prepared to pay for the expertise required to make it right in the first place.
I am sure that Steven will contribute more valuable information that confirms what I have been saying all along, that being that the shanks were never Bis80 or anywhere approaching an 800mpa steel right from the very beginning.
What Steven has to say is entirely correct.
One of the most critical tasks I had to undertake during the early part of 2009 was to remove his company from the supply chain and deal direct with the manufacturer myself.
This was achieved and his company was served termination notices by Bambury only after all orders had been shipped out from China under the promise of being paid, however there was never any intention to settle any outstanding debt owed to them.
A great disservice was done to Steven and his company and I believed, at the time, all of the spin by Bambury that I was given to justify getting rid of them and not paying.
A short time later I realised that there was never any intention to settle by Bambury just the same as there was never any intention to settle CNC ( the NZ manufacturer) either who were left holding the baby for another 100K. ( but thats another whole story entirely)
During the termination process, and the following weeks, I had much communication with Steven and at times I was rude, abusive and did not believe what he had to say and for this I unreservedly apologise to him for my actions and behaviour at that time. Not much solace for his losses I know but he was never going to come out of it satisfied as long as Bambury held the cheque book.
As Steven has pointed out, the shank material specifications set down by Peter Smith in his printed specifications were not met and more importantly could not be met by the manufacturer when starting production in 2008. An alternative shank material was found and used and as the "Venice" anchor revealed they were made in 400, 420 steel ( not Q&T either). The change to 620 only came at the end of 2009 and was put in place by me and gradually changed from that point on with 420 still being used in mid 2010 for many sizes.
Steven and his team, the manufacturers, the chinese shipping agents and everyone else involved at that time were all made to jump through hoops that were impossible for any of them to meet given that the problems were all caused by Bambury cutting corners along the way and ,most importantly, not knowing what he was doing in any technical aspect and not being prepared to pay for the expertise required to make it right in the first place.
I am sure that Steven will contribute more valuable information that confirms what I have been saying all along, that being that the shanks were never Bis80 or anywhere approaching an 800mpa steel right from the very beginning.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Grant,
Just out of curiosity....
Why could the shank specifications not be met? Sourcing, cutting, welding, galvanising or something else?
GrantKing
New member
Price, sourcing and Bambury wanting to make them cheaper than NZ, after all , who would ever question them about it.
Djbangi
...
Bosun,
The website dropped Bisplate 80 around the end of 2008 early 2009. The replaced grade was Q&T800. Q&T800 was on the website till mid 2009. It is possible to confirm this from historic website details. I recall that Q&T800 was on the website till early this year - but I have no historic records (only memory), maybe other people do have, historic records.
It is my understanding that Q620D is considered a Hi Tensile steel (by RINA) but it is not Q&T, its tensile strength is derived other ways.
Craig was spouting on about Q&T800 or Bisplate 80 (I do not recall which) on the withdrawn thread early this year. He was chastising Manson or Anchor Right for not cutting or welding it properly. I never understood how he knew of their cutting or welding techniques (as he is the last person to be allowed anywhere near either). The point being he was underlining that they (Rocna) were experts in the field and used the steel every day etc.
They were claiming RINA certification from at least mid 2009, the certificae was dated May 2011. CMP are now admitting that any of the anchors with cast flukes are not covered by the certificate (at all).
This might not be much use but others might be able to add more detail, or give you links.
The website dropped Bisplate 80 around the end of 2008 early 2009. The replaced grade was Q&T800. Q&T800 was on the website till mid 2009. It is possible to confirm this from historic website details. I recall that Q&T800 was on the website till early this year - but I have no historic records (only memory), maybe other people do have, historic records.
It is my understanding that Q620D is considered a Hi Tensile steel (by RINA) but it is not Q&T, its tensile strength is derived other ways.
Craig was spouting on about Q&T800 or Bisplate 80 (I do not recall which) on the withdrawn thread early this year. He was chastising Manson or Anchor Right for not cutting or welding it properly. I never understood how he knew of their cutting or welding techniques (as he is the last person to be allowed anywhere near either). The point being he was underlining that they (Rocna) were experts in the field and used the steel every day etc.
They were claiming RINA certification from at least mid 2009, the certificae was dated May 2011. CMP are now admitting that any of the anchors with cast flukes are not covered by the certificate (at all).
This might not be much use but others might be able to add more detail, or give you links.
beserksail
New member
These anchors R a con.
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-known member
SHUG
Active member
Oh God, I can't possibly read 22pages of posts to make any sense of all this.
I'll wait until the book comes out!!!!!!
I'll wait until the book comes out!!!!!!
Delfin
New member
I'm waiting for the movie. I believe they already have Charlie Sheen lined up to play Craig Smith.
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
Anyone heard from Rocna One?
I sent a pm and there has been silence since.
I sent a pm and there has been silence since.
RocnaONE
New member
PM returned.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
And you've been reasonably supportive of them, so there's no hope of the rest of us getting answers. He's still posting under his Sarabande alter ego so he's still around.
Perhaps he's either acting (or should that be "not acting"?) under orders or has parted company from them?
Odd. So many promises to get back to us with answers. So very few answers actually materialise.
Last edited: