Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Scotty_Tradewind]

I'm curious. What are the correct steel specifications for an anchor? What spec is used in ( say) a Bruce, or a CQR? And whilst one or two of us on here would know what a steel spec says, and what is meant by yield point and UTS and quenching and tempering, I suspect the very large majority havent got a clue. Nor do many know what difference the steel spec change on a Rocna has made to the force necessary to bend the shank - is it down by 10% 20% or 30% or more? Any idea? And how does this compare with the bending resistance of the shank of a Manson?

What I'm getting at is that we have here a situation where a company has done something stupid and with the help of a lot of Yanks on another forum ( if there is one thing the Americans are really world class at, it's complaining) , a panic has been whipped up. An American style conspiracy theory. A bit of a feeding frenzy and not totally disinterested either since some of the posters are Rocna's competitors and one is an ex employee.

But leaving aside the legalities ( you are undoubtedly entitled to send the anchor back) does the change in steel spec really matter? And lets not have MaineSails nonsense about a few bent shanks - I 've seen loads of bent CQRs and more than one Fortress. Anchors, like anything else in this world, will bend if enough force is applied.

So is a panic being whipped up here? Sure you can insist on your legal rights and send the anchor back but do you know that what you buy will be any better in real life use?

I suspect from what you say we're thinking along the same lines. After talking to Piplars and having now had 3PM's from R1, I am less concerned about my own anchor, it being one of the later 620 ones. I have been reassured that there is no weld problem and i will wait to find out more as to the qualities of the 620 steel when designer and 'Canada' release a statement.
I'm likely to be wanting to sleep on the anchor when cruising in the near future so I do need to be reassured

 

[RocnaONE]

The President of Canada Metal has issued a formal Memorandum to Rocna customers and other parties, concerning brand confidence.

http://rocna.com/news/cmp-memo-to-rocna-customers-re-brand-confidence


Also, Peter Smith, Rocna designer/licensor, has published on his own website a statement concerning the facts about this issue, as well as a brief introduction to Canada Metal, intended to clarify technical matters and the history.

www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/2011-oct-01-rocna-issues.php


These are the fullest statements we have been able to release to date, and are the start in CMP Rocna's new open approach to working with customers.

The important point to repeat is that CMP Rocna will replace any anchor made from reduced spec steel if the customer wishes. We are working closely with our distributors to put in place for customers a clear and open process of identification, information, and discussion about replacement.

The main contact details are all in the links above, or PM me if you want additional information.


Thank you all for your patience over the last few days.

 

[Blue5]

Having forked out not an insignificant sum on a Rocna I have been following this thread with interest. Unlike many I think CMP and Pete Smith are doing there best to identify and replace any anchors that have been manufactured below the advertised specification.

Having RocnaONE as a point of contact on these fora who is prepared to post answers to questions raised can only bode well for the organisation in the future, time will tell if any long term damage has been done.

On a personal note the experience we have had to date using the Rocna have all been positive with good holding (although no extreme conditions) and I hope they get this mess sorted and move on.

 

[calemonlaw]

Sounds like positive news. Despite being a Canadian company, is there any way to know if production returns to Canada or stays in China?

 

[RichardS]

Whilst not wishing to criticise the overall direction of travel on this issue, I do not think that it is very constructive to call Grant King "embittered" as this suggests that he has not been telling the truth. If he has not been telling the truth, we have not been provided with any evidence to show that he has not.

Unless GK has been lying, it could surely be argued that he has provided a valuable service to Peter Smith in helping to expose this problem and calling him embittered is counter-productive.

Contrary to the statement by Canada Metal, I suspect that GK will state that the lower grade steel was being used in shanks manufactured before 2010. If this is indeed GK's assertion, Rocna need to be prepared to release production or test data to show that GK is mistaken otherwise I fear that they will have shot themselves in the foot once again.

Richard

 

[Dockhead]

I'm curious. What are the correct steel specifications for an anchor? What spec is used in ( say) a Bruce, or a CQR? And whilst one or two of us on here would know what a steel spec says, and what is meant by yield point and UTS and quenching and tempering, I suspect the very large majority havent got a clue. Nor do many know what difference the steel spec change on a Rocna has made to the force necessary to bend the shank - is it down by 10% 20% or 30% or more? Any idea? And how does this compare with the bending resistance of the shank of a Manson?

What I'm getting at is that we have here a situation where a company has done something stupid and with the help of a lot of Yanks on another forum ( if there is one thing the Americans are really world class at, it's complaining) , a panic has been whipped up. An American style conspiracy theory. A bit of a feeding frenzy and not totally disinterested either since some of the posters are Rocna's competitors and one is an ex employee.

But leaving aside the legalities ( you are undoubtedly entitled to send the anchor back) does the change in steel spec really matter? And lets not have MaineSails nonsense about a few bent shanks - I 've seen loads of bent CQRs and more than one Fortress. Anchors, like anything else in this world, will bend if enough force is applied.

So is a panic being whipped up here? Sure you can insist on your legal rights and send the anchor back but do you know that what you buy will be any better in real life use?

Well, everyone who bought one of the substandard Rocnas is entitled to his own position on the thing. My position is based on the following logic:

1. The Rocna has a very thin shank -- as a result of the designer's struggle to maintain weight distribution in the absence of the lead ballast of the Spade. The designer, Peter Smith, wrote voluminously about how critical is the particular grade of high grade steel is. The reason, according to the anchor's own designer, is that a slight deformation of the shank can make the anchor release. So the grade of steel of the shank is much more important on a Rocna than on a Bruce, etc. The CQR, by the way, is made of extremely expensive drop-forged steel, by the way, if I recall correctly.

2. One's anchor is a crucial item of safety gear. At least for some people. For those who mainly sail from marina to marina and anchor out only on the odd calm night, then not. But for those sailors like me who anchor most of the time, who might need the anchor to keep me off a lee shore, who anchor out not only in good weather -- it's a different story.

3. My Rocna was sold to me as one thing -- made out of Bisalloy steel meeting the designer's specifications. That is what I paid for, and what the sellers warranted. What was delivered to me was different.


In view of all of the foregoing, I have decided not to take any chances and turn mine in. No panic. Just reasonable logical thought.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

The CQR, by the way, is made of extremely expensive drop-forged steel, by the way, if I recall correctly.

Dont confuse the process with the material. Drop forging is simply a way of shaping a material using a hammer and closed dies. You can drop forge anything from mild steel to titanium.

I worked in a drop forging plant in Sheffield at one time. We made things like the landing gear for fighter aircraft - TSR2 if you go that far back. In titanium which goes a very pretty pink colour when heated and then cooled. Memories - not the slightest relevance to anchors.

I find myself re-assured by the designers comments and in particular by

" Hold Fast, the former Rocna licensees, had completed an independent and certified SHHP proof** and destruction test on a sample Rocna 55 (121 lb) in May 2011. This unit was a Chinese sample the shank of which is formed from Q620 steel (its yield was subsequently independently certified at 658 MPa) and is near the lowest yield of all Chinese built Rocna anchors with the exception of the Q420 units as above. In the test, the shank finally bent at a figure which is more than 6.5 times the proof requirement for SHHP classification, and more than 3 times the nominal breaking strength of 12 mm (~1/2″) G40 (high test) chain. This means that the appropriate chain for the anchor will fail completely before the shank is even close to starting to bend. These figures are compatible with the standards of Peter’s design and engineering of the Rocna anchor, and lateral (sideways bending) strength is similarly considered perfectly acceptable."

The weakest link in any chain is the key issue. The above suggests it is the anchor chain though I suspect that in many cases it will be the deck hardware. Either way, and unless there are lies or deliberate attempts to mislead in the above, the weak point wont be the anchor.

 

[Dockhead]

Dont confuse the process with the material. Drop forging is simply a way of shaping a material using a hammer and closed dies. You can drop forge anything from mild steel to titanium.

I worked in a drop forging plant in Sheffield at one time. We made things like the landing gear for fighter aircraft - TSR2 if you go that far back. In titanium which goes a very pretty pink colour when heated and then cooled. Memories - not the slightest relevance to anchors.

I find myself re-assured by the designers comments and in particular by

" Hold Fast, the former Rocna licensees, had completed an independent and certified SHHP proof** and destruction test on a sample Rocna 55 (121 lb) in May 2011. This unit was a Chinese sample the shank of which is formed from Q620 steel (its yield was subsequently independently certified at 658 MPa) and is near the lowest yield of all Chinese built Rocna anchors with the exception of the Q420 units as above. In the test, the shank finally bent at a figure which is more than 6.5 times the proof requirement for SHHP classification, and more than 3 times the nominal breaking strength of 12 mm (~1/2″) G40 (high test) chain. This means that the appropriate chain for the anchor will fail completely before the shank is even close to starting to bend. These figures are compatible with the standards of Peter’s design and engineering of the Rocna anchor, and lateral (sideways bending) strength is similarly considered perfectly acceptable."

The weakest link in any chain is the key issue. The above suggests it is the anchor chain though I suspect that in many cases it will be the deck hardware. Either way, and unless there are lies or deliberate attempts to mislead in the above, the weak point wont be the anchor.

The problem is not the breaking strength of the anchor. This is a red herring. You could probably cast the anchor out of zinc and it would more or less fulfill this standard.

The problem is the geometry of the anchor -- the alignment of the shank with the fluke. If it's not exactly straight -- the anchor will twist out of the seabed -- according to the Rocna's own designer Peter Smith! So the shank material is crucial to safety - Peter Smith said it, and I have no reason to doubt him.

So passing or failing the SSHP test is entirely irrelevant to this issue.

 

[RocnaONE]

I must admit to being unhappy about the use of inflammatory adjectives. I have asked the website to review it - when they wake up tomorrow.

Other points made are being consolidated for consideration as soon as I can speak with Canada this evening.

Please PM me if you have questions or comments, and I will pickup later today.

 

[Djbangi]

The message from CMP shows what appears to be an honest and genuine desire to treat previous customers with some honesty, openness and integrity and one assumes they base their statement on the best advise possible. One hopes their advise was provided from a cross section of sources. They cannot have been unaware of the forum and if they chose to ignore something because they were told it was sourced from someone with a grudge and did not investigate that source - then do not feel sorry for them if that source turns out to be correct, they are big boys, they had exactly, well more, information and much better resource than you and I.

I note that the website has dropped reference to RINA certification - or maybe they moved it, but I did not find it. Everything appears to be moving in the right directions. As has been noted, the release does not really address the misrepresentation regarding use on the website to promote a Bisplate80/Q&T800 shanked anchors, and use something inferior - but legally that does not matter, if you are unhappy, take you anchor back - because its the chandler who sold it to you and it is he who has the requirement to refund.

The chandlers have known of the problem for months - they enjoy the benefits and downsides of their decisions.

I would welcome a view from an indpendent individual with a background in metallurgy on Peter Smith's statements that Q420 is OK and Q620 more than adequate - given this contradicts Peter Smiths earlier comments (on the necessary use of Bisplate 80). Mr Smith has financial interests in the success of Rocna (and maybe use of Q620) so it would be in the interests of CMP to have his statements independently endorsed.

If this reiterates RichardS comments, I'm sorry.

I would also caution sending copious PMs to RocnaONE, by all means send a PM -but these threads have shown one thing - a public voice can be advantageous and if you limit your fears to PMs you might enjoy spin, and nothing more, and your voice might then be smothered. So its a great concept, to hide dissent, but not one, in the grand scheme of things, that has been shown to be very useful.

Enjoy the day

 

[maxi77]

At last we now have the statements from the designer and the new licencee, both of which are quite clear and should put any Rocna owners mind at rest. Mind you I an still surprised the announcement was so badly handled, these statements should have been available then which would have avoided much of the unhelpful speculation which has somewhat soured this relaunch.

 

[RocnaONE]

To make it clear to posters who take a contrary view, I am not burying dissent in PMs. I use PMs to address details useful to one individual. Thread posts are used - as this - to explain policy or general information.

At present we have reports from two independent lab testing companies which have already been made public. A series of extensive tests are in process at the moment (one of the assets of Canada Metal is that they have extensive design, engineering, test and measurement facilities in house.) Verifiable results from another independent test house in Canada are also being sought, and will be made available as early as we can.

I continue to strive to be open about progress and developments, and to pass on information as soon as I can to the forum, to our distributors and retailers, and to individuals who wish to have their concerns addressed privately.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Whilst not wishing to criticise the overall direction of travel on this issue, I do not think that it is very constructive to call Grant King "embittered" as this suggests that he has not been telling the truth. If he has not been telling the truth, we have not been provided with any evidence to show that he has not.

Unless GK has been lying, it could surely be argued that he has provided a valuable service to Peter Smith in helping to expose this problem and calling him embittered is counter-productive.

Contrary to the statement by Canada Metal, I suspect that GK will state that the lower grade steel was being used in shanks manufactured before 2010. If this is indeed GK's assertion, Rocna need to be prepared to release production or test data to show that GK is mistaken otherwise I fear that they will have shot themselves in the foot once again.

Richard

Good point, well made.

AFAIK everything which GK has said has been shown to be correct and he should be applauded for being prepared to speak out despite some unpleasant tactics from the previous license holders.

 

[jordanbasset]

Dbanji was right when he wrote

"I reiterate the anchors were sold, until April this year I think, as being made from Bisplate 80 or Q&T800 - basically anyone having bought a Chinese Rocna, whether Q420 or Q620D has a legal right to a refund of all monies, this certainly covers the UK, and I'm guessing the EU."

It is irrelevant is Q620D is good enough, people paid a premium price for a premium product, good enough will not do. If I paid for a BMW I would not expect a Ford Focus, no matter the latter could get me around without any problems.

A simple question is Q620 a lower quality than 800, if so all should be due refund.

 

[vyv_cox]

A simple question is Q620 a lower quality than 800, if so all should be due refund.

Bisalloy's technical manual quotes the 0.2% proof stress (equivalent to yield strength) of Bisplate 80 as 690 MPa minimum, typically 750 MPa.

I assume that the minimum yield strength of Q620 is 620 MPa. I have had some difficulty in finding specifications for this material.

 

[RocnaONE]

#112, #113, #108

These matters are under review. There are some technical, accidental, misunderstandings in the terms for the steel used in some posts, and I shall post definitive clarification as soon as I have the correct info from source.

It is also the weekend in NZ and Canada, so it may be a day or so. Apologies.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

The problem is not the breaking strength of the anchor. This is a red herring. You could probably cast the anchor out of zinc and it would more or less fulfill this standard.

The problem is the geometry of the anchor -- the alignment of the shank with the fluke. If it's not exactly straight -- the anchor will twist out of the seabed -- according to the Rocna's own designer Peter Smith! So the shank material is crucial to safety - Peter Smith said it, and I have no reason to doubt him.

So passing or failing the SSHP test is entirely irrelevant to this issue.

The comments I copied in italics come from the designer's press release as quoted by Rocnaone, and say that the correct sized chain will break before the shank bends on all but the anchors with the 420 spec materials.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Dbanji was right when he wrote

"I reiterate the anchors were sold, until April this year I think, as being made from Bisplate 80 or Q&T800 - basically anyone having bought a Chinese Rocna, whether Q420 or Q620D has a legal right to a refund of all monies, this certainly covers the UK, and I'm guessing the EU."

It is irrelevant is Q620D is good enough, people paid a premium price for a premium product, good enough will not do. If I paid for a BMW I would not expect a Ford Focus, no matter the latter could get me around without any problems.

A black and white approach to life ( were you once police / trading standards / HMRC or similar?) but quite correct. Nobody is arguing that point.

A simple question is Q620 a lower quality than 800, if so all should be due refund.

Taking an equally legalistic view - no. Its a different specification but steel quality is all about product tolerances, inclusion counts, compliance with specification etc.

The core issue here is that the designer was naive in the way he sold the anchors. You either sell something to a design / material specification ( ie its made of Bisalloy) or you sell to a performance specification ( ie its HHP etc) . If you are daft enough to do both then you are trussing yourself up like a chicken unnecessarily. When you buy your BMW car, you arent told what the steel in the body panels is. Or what the plastic in the steering wheel is.

 

[RocnaONE]

Bosun is right; it is a balancing act between engineering and administration when you try to achieve classification.


We are reviewing the classification process at present with the intention of putting a range of the current production through testing for approval again.

Just as a sample of the complex paperwork, here's a doc

http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/Publications/Unified_requirements/PDF/UR_A_pdf148.PDF

which looks at the definitions used for HHP and SHHP anchors. Understandably the main Classification Societies are primarily concerned with anchors for commercial shipping, as the consequences of failure for a VLCC are somewhat serious.

The ISO 9001 process (which has been commented on in other YBW threads in the past) is in full and active operation in the Canada Metals own factory in China. Their website is here:-
http://www.ningbojiada.com/content/en/about.html

 

[Chris_Robb]

Just a bit of background for everyone.

Under contract, I am helping Rocna via the new owners CMP, with some practical advice on restoring the brand's reputation - which has been under a bit of cloud recently.

I knew the press release might stir up a debate again, so some time ago I approached the YBW web manager for permission to enter the lists if needed. This permission, under certain pragmatic conditions, was granted, and the opportunity is much appreciated.

Some ground rules first;
CMP is a company with a strong ethical background with a passion for high standards. Have a look at the website page, for a flavour.

http://www.canmet.com/content/aboutus/quality.htm

As part of that approach CMP will not be engaging in rough housing, name-calling, or astroturfing. We are concentrating on

• sorting out the Q420 reduced spec steel problem
• identifying and replacing when requested any 420 anchor
• building up the quality controls which Rocna had properly implemented in the production factory early last year
• strengthening the supply chain management
• rebuilding the website, and ensuring that it is always accurate and timely
• working with our distributors and sales points to provide full technical information to customers
• providing a source of clear and accurate information to the yachting press
• joining in the relentless forum debates on anchors, with dignity and useful data

We have been actively engaged in providing backup information to Laura, and to the various IPC yachting mag editors, and this will continue apace over the next few days.

There will Technical Bulletins on the steel issue, with information to clear up confusions about bending, ultimate tensile strength, deformation, breaking strain, etc. We hope these will enable owners and prospective purchasers to understand that the strength of Rocna anchors is not only from the steel used, but also from the advanced and effective design, proven by many deep sea cruising sailors all over the world - and for example in the recent hurricane in Vlikho, where a Rocna 33 held a 52 ft heavy steel ketch firm, in recorded winds of 91 knots.

The steel issue is being dealt with. We are looking at a testing process using various advanced systems to see if any anchor presented is a 420 steel one, or the 'standard' Q620. By the way, Q is an acronym in Chinese for Yield Point. (There's a nice little question for the next yacht club quiz night ).


So there we have it.

What went wrong:
We should have sorted production issues out earlier and more proactively.
Article authors could have approached Rocna directly for information, but didn't.
We should have picked up on wrong or tendentious information being put out on social media



What we are doing:-
We are working very very hard to put everything right as quickly as possible.
We will update the website as soon as we can.
We will work with our customers, and the design and technical teams, and our distributors, to identify any anchors which do not meet spec.
We will offer to replace them if owners are not happy to continue using them when they see the results of the lab tests (due out this weekend).
We will build Rocnas with the best and most appropriate materials we can find.
We will answer questions as fast as we can (bearing in mind that Rocna is now working in three different times zones round the world, and even techies have to sleep sometimes !)


OK, that's all for now from me, folks. Go ahead and post; I'll join in as and when I think it necessary. And thanks again to YBW for the opportunity to do so.

R1

Have only just picked up this thread.

It's right rich of rocnaONE to write this. He has a proven record of deceit on this forum.