Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Scotty_Tradewind]

A long time since I posted.... reading most of the posts on the way I do regret buying my Rocna.
I've been advised by Grant and Piplars that a 15kg Rocna bought after the 2011 London show is almost certainly having a 620 shank. Nevertheless, I'm now not proud to have it hanging off my bow roller and have lost a lot of confidence since using my old 10kg Rocna (without the 'R' name cast on it) on my last boat. It sure was a good anchor when I used it.

I've not used my 15kg and do feel sorry for the small chandlers/agents that have been caught up in this farce if they have to replace or refund customers and cannot get their money back.
So, where do I go from here? Do I keep the 15kg 620?
Do I contact Piplars and ask for a refund?

Please remind me, what steel are the main competitors using in their shanks?


I may have missed something, but I'm also curious as to how a hammer and punch can tell you much without the different steels being 'punched' alongside each other for a comparison.

 

[beserksail]

Just to keep things straight (ha ha!) the relevant figures for Bisplate 80 are 690MPa Min / 720MPa typical. The '800' relates to UTS which isn't the issue here.

So you paid for 690, not 620.

I fully understand the sentiment, though!

Andy

Just to keep things straight (ha ha ) I bought my anchor after watching the Rocna videos and reading the specs ( impressed by special metals ie Bisplate 80 essential to strength and balance of anchor ). If I thought inferior metals were being used I would not have bought, also I assumed these anchors were made in NZ, had I known they were made in China I would not have bought it.
Just feel I have been deceived all along the way.

 

[misterg]

...
Just feel I have been deceived all along the way.

FWIW: I think you have every right to feel aggrieved

Andy

 

[Neeves]

The debate on the use of 620, 690 and 800.

Bisalloy call their product Bisplate 80. This was quoted on the Rocna website as the steel used in their shank. Rocna later ammended the Website and called the steel used in the shank Q&T800 (this, one assumes, was meant to be a catch all term for steels of the same spec as Bisplate 80, ASTM 514). Steve Bambury admitted earlier this year that they were actually using Q620D, though it turned out they had been using Q420 and sometimes another quality '400' (and using the 420 and 620 when still promoting the Rocna anchors as having been made from Bisplate 80 or Q&T800). As far as I can ascertain no commercial quantities of Rocna anchors were ever made in China using a Bisplate 80 (or its equivalent) shank.

Bisplate 80, Q620D (and Q620), and Q420 are all the names by which these qualities are known by their respective manufacturers and are the same names used by Rocna. Talking with Bisalloy - the term Q&T800 is not common, in fact it might only be limited in use to Holdfast, but to use '800' simply repeats what Rocna used.

Manson and Anchor Right make no secret that they use Bisplate 80 for the shanks of their Supreme and The Boss (Manson) and Excel (Anchor Right)

Consequently to use the terms looks applicable. The fact that the numbers, as misterg points out, actually refer to different technical perameters should not matter - but should not be ignored nor used out of context. I believe there might be a product from China called Q690 - so to use '690' without qualification might, really, confuse.

Jonathan

 

[GrantKing]

The debate on the use of 620, 690 and 800.

Bisalloy call their product Bisplate 80. This was quoted on the Rocna website as the steel used in their shank. Rocna later ammended the Website and called the steel used in the shank Q&T800 (this, one assumes, was meant to be a catch all term for steels of the same spec as Bisplate 80, ASTM 514). Steve Bambury admitted earlier this year that they were actually using Q620D, though it turned out they had been using Q420 and sometimes another quality '400' (and using the 420 and 620 when still promoting the Rocna anchors as having been made from Bisplate 80 or Q&T800). As far as I can ascertain no commercial quantities of Rocna anchors were ever made in China using a Bisplate 80 (or its equivalent) shank.

Bisplate 80, Q620D (and Q620), and Q420 are all the names by which these qualities are known by their respective manufacturers and are the same names used by Rocna. Talking with Bisalloy - the term Q&T800 is not common, in fact it might only be limited in use to Holdfast, but to use '800' simply repeats what Rocna used.

Manson and Anchor Right make no secret that they use Bisplate 80 for the shanks of their Supreme and The Boss (Manson) and Excel (Anchor Right)

Consequently to use the terms looks applicable. The fact that the numbers, as misterg points out, actually refer to different technical perameters should not matter - but should not be ignored nor used out of context. I believe there might be a product from China called Q690 - so to use '690' without qualification might, really, confuse.

Jonathan

Q690 was rejected by Rina in November 2009 and never made it to the production line. The drawings sent to rina for approval carried a spec of Bis80 for the shanks and matched the seabed test anchors.

.ref: email from rina to me Nov 2009:

Sent: Friday, 6 November 2009 4:04 a.m.
To: Grant King
Cc: msa@rina.org; mrn@rina.org
Subject: Re: FW: Q690 test report on 4th,Nov,2009

Dear Mr. King,

With reference to your e-mail below, kindly be advised as follow:
We are now checking the raw material by mechanical test. Since there are no Class certificate, we take the samply & witness the mechanical test to verify. According to the drawing & relevant Rules as attached, you can find that the "Elongation" does not meet the requirement. (Request is min.18%, result is less). Several type/thickness plates are in same condition.
The material used according to the drawing is a very-high-strength type material after we check the Rule. I don't know which kind of material you used for fabrication the module anchor for sea-bed test. If they are same, we have to follow this material.


Best Regards

XXXXXXXXXX
Material Testing Team Leader
RINA SpA - Shanghai Office
Tel +86xxxxxxxx
Fax +86 xxxxxxxx
Mobile +86 xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Storyline]

Q690 was rejected by Rina in November 2009 and never made it to the production line .....

Grant, does Q690 have a yield strength higher than Q620 ?

 

[GrantKing]

Grant, does Q690 have a yield strength higher than Q620 ?

yes it did but the elongation % was not high enough and the yield and ultimate numbers were too close so it would snap before bending

 

[Chris_Robb]

As I understand it, this is the case. I believe its also far from clear that the licence holder ( ie Rocna themselves) knew about the quality shortcut so the problem of duff anchors is down to Holdfast who I believe have gone bust.

The CMP recall is a good will / PR thing.

I would imaging that if there was a death resulting from the anchor, then there would be a case for Criminal Negligence against all parties - but not CMP - unless they can be proved to be covering up a problem that they new about.

Lets hope there is no such event - but they deserve to be prosecuted - including Smith who frankly was in it up to his neck.

 

[Storyline]

It will be interesting to see if CMP goes for RINA classification with the cast flukes and Q620 shanks.

 

[vyv_cox]

I may have missed something, but I'm also curious as to how a hammer and punch can tell you much without the different steels being 'punched' alongside each other for a comparison.

Very roughly speaking, the indent produced on a 420 MPa shank would be similar to that produced on the cast fluke. A Bisalloy 80 shank will not indent at all with a 2lb hammer, other than a slight mark on the galvanising. A 620 MPa shank will indent to about half the diameter that the fluke will, also with a 2 lb hammer.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

A long time since I posted.... reading most of the posts on the way I do regret buying my Rocna.
I've been advised by Grant and Piplars that a 15kg Rocna bought after the 2011 London show is almost certainly having a 620 shank. Nevertheless, I'm now not proud to have it hanging off my bow roller and have lost a lot of confidence since using my old 10kg Rocna (without the 'R' name cast on it) on my last boat. It sure was a good anchor when I used it.

I've not used my 15kg and do feel sorry for the small chandlers/agents that have been caught up in this farce if they have to replace or refund customers and cannot get their money back.
So, where do I go from here? Do I keep the 15kg 620?
Do I contact Piplars and ask for a refund?

Please remind me, what steel are the main competitors using in their shanks?


I may have missed something, but I'm also curious as to how a hammer and punch can tell you much without the different steels being 'punched' alongside each other for a comparison.

I cannot advise you what you should do. For myself I had a Rocna delivered early 2010 and got two different stories as to whether it was 420 or 620 from Grant and in writing from Rocna. Since I couldnt be sure, I sent the anchor back to Piplers who replaced it with a Manson of the same size. Had I been sure that the anchor was 620 I would have kept it since the envelope of conditions in which the small difference in steel properties between 620 and 800 would have mattered is very unlikely in real life. Both because I chose to anchor in sheltered spots, and because I would use a second anchor if I was worried. maybe if I was going blue water it would be different.

Bear in mind that the traditional anchors you have been using before now are most likely to have been mild steel and un heat treated so way weaker than 620 or even 420.

Despite a career dealing with Brinel testing and its results, I would hesitate to rely on a lump hammer and a punch as a way of testing an anchor. And ( in theory at least ) I know what I am doing with that sort of hardness test. Much riskier for a layman. The problem is coating thickness not to mention impact variation..

 

[Chris_Robb]

The 620 would not bother me because I know that no one could ever say that in real life use the lower spec would frequently fail and the higher spec never would. The reality is that the chances of a lower spec failing when the higher spec would not are remote because the difference is small and the circumstances that would cause one to fail but not the other are in a very narrow envelope..

Or to put it another way, you could easily specify an anchor far stronger than the higher spec one advertised by Rocna and thats without doing something about the poor shank design to achieve greater bend resistance. Where do you stop?

I've swapped my Rocna for a Manson because I could not be sure that it was 620 as opposed to 400 ( which is a big difference) and because the furore about Rocna makes the Manson a better resale proposition if I ever want to sell it. What would a second hand Rocna be worth? Not much I would have thought.

Glad you bought a Manson. We have now had 3 years of anchoring every night and lunch time during the summer, and its great. A few heavy nights as well in weed.......

What I don't understand is why people even look at Rocna given their tradition of lies and deceit - and I most certainly would not buy from a company that employed Mr S Bumbery!

 

[Delfin]

Glad you bought a Manson. We have now had 3 years of anchoring every night and lunch time during the summer, and its great. A few heavy nights as well in weed.......

What I don't understand is why people even look at Rocna given their tradition of lies and deceit - and I most certainly would not buy from a company that employed Mr S Bumbery!

My sentiments exactly. Given what is now known, why anyone would purchase a Rocna from anybody when there are equally performing alternatives from reputable companies is a mystery to me. I can understand people defending their purchase, even when their defense makes no sense. But to actually go out and buy a new one? Go figger....

 

[vyv_cox]

Despite a career dealing with Brinel testing and its results, I would hesitate to rely on a lump hammer and a punch as a way of testing an anchor. And ( in theory at least ) I know what I am doing with that sort of hardness test. Much riskier for a layman. The problem is coating thickness not to mention impact variation..

Sorry, I must disagree. The difference between the indents produced in 420 MPa and 700 MPa steels, using a hammer and punch, are completely unmistakeable. The galvanising is microns thick and makes almost no difference, unlike with a scleroscope low energy type of tester.

This photo shows the indent in the flukes of my anchor, made with a 2 lb lump hammer striking a centre punch with the point ground to a small flat.

The hardness is around 120 HB, stress about 420 MPa. Using the same equipment and impact force the tool failed to mark the shank of my NZ production shank, stress about 700 MPa, about 210 HB. Any reasonably proficient person could achieve the same results.

A 620 MPa shank would have a hardness of around 180 HB. Using my punch it could be expected to barely mark the shank. If using a sharp punch, as in my earlier post, the 620 MPa steel would make an indent about half the diameter of the 420 MPa. Whilst I agree that this is hardly an accurate measurement method it is perfectly acceptable as a go/no go test.

 

[Colvic Watson]

My sentiments exactly. Given what is now known, why anyone would purchase a Rocna from anybody when there are equally performing alternatives from reputable companies is a mystery to me. I can understand people defending their purchase, even when their defense makes no sense. But to actually go out and buy a new one? Go figger....

Is thre any way of telling how many 420 anchors are still in the sales system with chandlers or distributors?

 

[evm1024]

My sentiments exactly. Given what is now known, why anyone would purchase a Rocna from anybody when there are equally performing alternatives from reputable companies is a mystery to me. I can understand people defending their purchase, even when their defense makes no sense. But to actually go out and buy a new one? Go figger....

You might drop off a photo or 2 of bent Rocna's and the link to this thread at a few chandlers you use. Then we can have an informed public and they can decide which anchor to buy.

Regards

 

[Bosun Higgs]

The galvanising is microns thick

Any reasonably proficient person could achieve the same results.

Two questionable assumptions. I had a hot dip plant under my control for several years and I wouldnt assume that there were no zinc build ups anywhere on the surface of the anchor. And the comments on this thread raise obvious questions of whether most posters are " reasonably proficient" in the sense of being able to do such a test. And what about the hardness of the punch? Consistency of force on the hammer?

I really do think this crude testing is a desperate last resort. If you arent sure about the shank steel hardness, send the anchor back. Its the retailers problem and sending it back is the only safe and sure way.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

If you arent sure about the shank steel hardness, send the anchor back. Its the retailers problem and sending it back is the only safe and sure way.

The problem with that is that, if the chandler says the anchor is OK, you can't make him take it back simply on the grounds that it might not be right. Despite the hundreds of postings on various websites, you've still got to persuade the chandler that what you have is not as advertised otherwise it's just your word against his.

Wrong, I know, but that's the problem which Rocna has created.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Is it? As far as I am aware even Rocna are saying that the anchors are 620 not 800 in which case they are not as advertised.

One of the main UK Rocna dealers told me they had adopted a policy of replacing any they had sold where the buyer asks for replacement - certainly they swapped mine over to Manson even after Rocna told them mine was a 620 ( Grant disagreed). They might have changed since I was told that, but they certainly gained a long term customer in me by their very reasonable and non confrontational approach to the issue.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Is it? As far as I am aware even Rocna are saying that the anchors are 620 not 800 in which case they are not as advertised.

One of the main UK Rocna dealers told me they had adopted a policy of replacing any they had sold where the buyer asks for replacement - certainly they swapped mine over to Manson even after Rocna told them mine was a 620 ( Grant disagreed). They might have changed since I was told that, but they certainly gained a long term customer in me by their very reasonable and non confrontational approach to the issue.

I understand what you are saying and it's good to hear that your chandler adopted a refreshingly sensible attitude to it. I hope that others do so as well, though it seems a bit tough on the smaller operator who could well end up with several hundred £'s worth of scrap metal on his hands.