Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[maxi77]

Having several times googled SHHP and read the technical requirements, it seems to me that you cannot have a 15kg SHHP anchor since it is below the minimum size that SHHP applies to.

Mind you I found the certificate on the RINA site and it does cover the full range, but it expired yesterday

http://www.service.rina.it/getec/ti...2B99FA507C12579020010F7B5&action=openDocument

It only refers to fabricated shanks and flukes and 3 specific drawings

 

[Stork_III]

Mind you I found the certificate on the RINA site and it does cover the full range, but it expired yesterday

http://www.service.rina.it/getec/ti...2B99FA507C12579020010F7B5&action=openDocument

It only refers to fabricated shanks and flukes and 3 specific drawings

Does not cover cast fluke anchors, and each anchor is required to be individually tested. Wonder why certificate was only valid for 6 months, until 6 JAN 2012, IE NOW ELAPSED.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

. Wonder why certificate was only valid for 6 months, until 6 JAN 2012, IE NOW ELAPSED.

It's probably simply to stop people from printing certificates off from their site. Odds are that that tomorrow you find that it has todays date on it....i.e. it always gives the previous day's date.

The Rocna site gives the true dates on the copy which they have there.

It still doesn't mean that the certificate is relevant for current production.

 

[Neeves]

If you need to buy a certified anchor it needs to be individually proof tested, but to answer Bosun's question - anchors smaller than 50kg? do not need to be proof tested but there is a facility to extrapolate from the data provided. It is possible to test the integrity of the design theoretically, hence (I assume) the drawings. The drawings, which will contain the raw material detail, is part of that confidential data not made available to customers without approval of the anchor maker.

Anchors are not very complicated when reduced to a drawing, I think there are 13 sizes of Rocna and it would not seem unreasonable to think you could get drawings of all 13 sizes on three different master drawings, but it could be scaling is allowed. After all scaling is allowed for seabed and proof testing when applying for a Type Approval certificate. For Rocna's certificate only one anchor was proof tested and only one seabed tested. Because Manson (and Anchor Right, Fortress, Lewmar) sell their anchors for vessels in survey they have a wealth of proof testing data - this is not yet evident for Rocna. As far as I know only one anchor has been proof tested (but I stand to be corrected).

In order to have anchors individually approved, needed for certain vessels in survey, requirements are considerably more difficult and (presumably) expensive. Audits are conducted on quality control, casting (if used) facilities need to be approved, each welder needs to be certificated etc. Somewhere on the Rocna website it did say (it might omit the info now) that indivually tested anchors would be made at a partner facility. This does not mean that the factory Rocna uses is not producing good quality product (or not) just it has not been approved.

This is where Manson have an undisclosed strength. Their factory is fully Lloyds approved. So the facility that makes your 25kg Supreme is the same one (and might be made by the same people) that makes the 200kg model to be installed on that Superyacht. Obviously Manson need apprentices but it is more comforting to know that Manson are approved (but that Rocna need to go somewhere else to have their approved models made). I think individually approved anchors are made in Fortress' only production facility and I'm guessing the same applied to Tie Down for their Danforths and Wasi for their Bugel etc


Finally Manson have gone through the same exercise for the Supreme as have Rocna for their anchors. Manson have gone to the next step and had the complete production facility approved (they also pass some pretty stringent environmental controls). Manson will thus have the same shank specification paramters etc. as anyone needing Type Approval. However Manson have gone one step further. Not only have they defined on the drawings the specification they have also made a marketing policy of declaring the actual steel they use. This to me seems quite powerful. They are not saying as Rocna seem to do - this is the spec, though we'll keep it a secret, (and we might work to the lowest limits of that spec). Not so Manson (and Anchor Right). They tell you the steel used, you can look up the spec, you can check the typical values. If you want you can work out the load under which that shank would bend. Seems pretty honest and transparent to me.

 

[Storyline]

..... However Manson have gone one step further. Not only have they defined on the drawings the specification they have also made a marketing policy of declaring the actual steel they use. This to me seems quite powerful. .....

Rocna, until very recently, also declared the steel they used in China (Q+T) - the only problem was that they did not use it.

 

[Chris_Robb]

London Boatshow

I presume they are exhibiting there. Should we make life difficult for them?

 

[Neeves]

For those of us a bit too far to visit the London Boat Show we might be interested in who and how they are presenting themselves. Equally given that this forum has been provided information at variance to the CMP story then their justifcation of the differences might merit posting here.

Jonathan

 

[Stork_III]

I presume they are exhibiting there. Should we make life difficult for them?

Rocna and CMP don't appear on the exhibitors listing on LIBS website. Pipler's of Poole do.

 

[Danny Jo]

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.

Here's my attempt to add some tangible evidence to this debate.
Background I have a 15kg Rocna bought new from a chandler in Gosport in May 2011. I have had an email from Rocna (CMP) assuring me that my anchor is not made from the lower grade steel (which I take to mean the Q420 steel).
Method I used a new centre punch (from Halfords punch and chisel set, heat treated chrome vanadium), a 1kg lump hammer and a caliper rule with a vernier scale (see illustrations below). Using a short firm swing of the hammer (edit: just one strike per indentation), indentations were made on either side of the shank near the anchor attachment point and on the upper an lower surface of the fluke (in the order: fluke lower, shank left, fluke upper, shank right). Blows to the shank were against the top of the anchor windlass, while those to the fluke were with the anchor placed on a pillow over the anchor locker bulkhead. A further control was a Bruce anchor (edit: presumed to be cast steel) struck in a similar manner but on a gravel surface. The nature of the metal around the rim of the indentations was investigated poking it with the edge of the caliper gauge, and loose galvanizing was brushed off. The diameter of the indentations were estimated using the caliper gauge. Photographs were taken in daylight using a mobile phone (Sony Ericsson, 2010).
Results Indentations were noted to have raised rims consisting partly of loose zinc. When this was brushed off, the remaining rim was steel hard. The diameter of the indentations were as follows:
Rocna fluke lower - 3.6mm
Rocna fluke upper - 3.5mm
Rocna shank left - 2.7mm
Rocna shank right - 2.8mm
Bruce fluke lower - 3.7mm
Bruce fluke upper - 2.8mm
Bruce shank left - 2.8mm
Bruce shank right - 2.7mm
Discussion Indentations in the Rocna shank were consistently smaller than those in the Rocna fluke, which is made of cast steel, and approximately the same size as those in the Bruce, which appears also to be cast steel. However the study suffers from this weakness - while the force applied was fairly consistent, the reaction to that force differed considerably, and might account for the differences observed. Note, for example the greater size of the indentation underneath the Bruce fluke; I noticed at the time of the test that striking the Bruce in this position was like striking an anvil. (See illustrations)
Conclusion The shank of my Rocna is at least as hard as caste iron. If it is harder, it is not much harder.

Um, does this get me any further than I was before I undertook the test? In particular, does this constitute evidence that I do not have a Q620 shank?

Tools used

Punch after the Rocna arm of the test

Test anchor

Control anchor

Rocna shank indentations

Rocna fluke indentations

Bruce shank indentation

Bruce fluke indentation

 

[Chris_Robb]

Danny Jo - actually reading from Vyvs notes on this, he says that if you are able to make a sizeable dent of any sort, it is not the proper stuff. From the dents it does not look much harder than cast STEEL, in which case you probably have the real rubbish one in your possession. The proper stuff would have left no mark at all - and you should accept nothing less than Bisalloy 80 which was in their specification at the time you bought it.

You must not feel sorry for the Chandlers Arthurs - who are a good set up. Get your money back and buy a Manson from them

I feel sorry for the chandlers as they have been told utter fabrications. Read the reports from Grant King, and see what he says. I think Vys Center punch test looks pretty conclusive in your case. I tried it on my Manson - no visible sign AT ALL.

Don't give in - get copies of the spec at that time of purchase from this forum, and persue this - Don't accept a substandard replacement, which the supposed new ones are, based upon the designers own words....

If necessary get trading standards involved - as this is a Safety issue as much as anything else.

 

[vyv_cox]

Conclusion The shank of my Rocna is at least as hard as caste iron. If it is harder, it is not much harder.

Um, does this get me any further than I was before I undertook the test? In particular, does this constitute evidence that I do not have a Q620 shank?

The flukes of a Rocna are cast steel, not cast iron. I believe a genuine Bruce is also cast steel but many copies are cast iron.

The punch I used on my Rocna shank was deliberately ground to a small flat and I used a 2 lb hammer.

This equipment was unable to make any discernable mark on my NZ made Rocna shank. The indent in the fabricated fluke was about 2 mm in diameter. I posted the results of my test in post #306.

 

[Danny Jo]

The flukes of a Rocna are cast steel, not cast iron. I believe a genuine Bruce is also cast steel but many copies are cast iron.

The punch I used on my Rocna shank was deliberately ground to a small flat and I used a 2 lb hammer.

This equipment was unable to make any discernable mark on my NZ made Rocna shank. The indent in the fabricated fluke was about 2 mm in diameter. I posted the results of my test in post #306.

Thanks Vyv (and Chris). My cast Bruce seems to be a bit harder than the cast steel of the Rocna fluke - it rings beautifully and would make an excellent bell - but I imagine that it must be cast steel. My experience of cast iron is that it shatters rather more easily than it dents. I'll edit my previous post.

Vyv - your post #306 states that you used a 1kg lump hammer, which is what I used - but a 2lb hammer is only a little lighter at a touch over 900g. My punch appears to have a flat of approximately 0.8mm diameter, and must have either come with it or developed it on the first strike, because it can be seen at the bottom of the first dent. Is it really necessary to repeat the test using punch with a 2mm flat?

I was not a little surprised when I saw the size of the indentations made by my punch in the shank - I routinely use a centre punch when drilling metal, and cannot remember encountering steel much softer than this.

The irony is that I chose the Rocna in preference to the Manson because I suspected that the slot in the Manson's shank would render it more liable to bend (and I could not understand the rationale for the slot - after all, if it allows you to trip the anchor when you want to trip it, what's to stop it tripping when you don't want to trip it?)

There are an awful lot of posts on this thread - can anyone point me to the one with the Rocna spec as it was early last year, please?

 

[misterg]

Rocna shank indentations

Sorry Danny Jo, but that doesn't look like a 600+ MPa steel

Here's a 'control' you can try:

Find a '8.8' high tensile bolt :

Note the 8.8 on the head - they're routinely used in structural steelwork, so aren't that hard to find (I can give you some if you're passing along the A55, but they really are everywhere).

The strength of the steel used is consistent and closely controlled. The yield strength of a M16 or above 8.8 bolt should be 660 MPa minimum (640 MPa for <M16).

I would be grateful if Vyv, or someone could confirm this from somewhere more authoratative than the internet.

The strength will not be drastically higher than this because the steels start to lose toughness, and this is also a bad thing.

For comparison, a 5.8 bolt will have a yield strength of 420 MPa minimum (these are also common).

If you can find one of each, then you have reference standards for your punch test.

Andy

 

[Neeves]

Danny Jo,

As scientific tests go the centre punch test is unusually unscientific. I have checked a confirmed 420 shanked Rocna and both a Bis 80 shanked Supreme and and Bis 80 shanked Excel. The Bis 80 is basically impossible to mark, everything bounces off it. I suspect if you hit it really hard it will mark, but equally you might destroy your punch. The 420 marks, really in the same way as you have found. Grant is indicating that at least 2 steels were used, he has quoted 400 and 420 and there will be variations in the 420 - but the fact you marked it at all suggests its is not 620 or better. With this test I doubt you could tell 620 of Bis 80 apart.

But as has been said - its not Bis 80.


You now have an interesting dilemma - what to do next.

(Your) evidence suggests you have a 420 shanked anchor but you advise that CMP have sent documentation advising you it is 620. It would be interesting if you could arrange with someone independent and preferably free to have a look (maybe ask Vyv for advise). But if CMP are advising you its 620 and its actually and, independently, confirmed to be 420, there are a few more questions raised and a new can of worms opened.

If you have been told your anchor is 620 (and its not) I might guess there are a lot of people in the same position as you. From a simple safety point of view there is surely every reason to re-check.

I am surprised that CMP would categorically confirm that your anchor is 620 without checking it. The UK received many 420 shanked anchors - how on earth did CMP know yours was not from that stock? Anchors usually do not age and there is no great reason for stock rotation - so how do they know your anchor was not old stock?

Finally let us know what you intend to do and when you are doing it - other people with Rocna anchors can then react accordingly.

Jonathan

 

[Danny Jo]

Danny Jo,

As scientific tests go the centre punch test is unusually unscientific. I have checked a confirmed 420 shanked Rocna and both a Bis 80 shanked Supreme and and Bis 80 shanked Excel. The Bis 80 is basically impossible to mark, everything bounces off it. I suspect if you hit it really hard it will mark, but equally you might destroy your punch. The 420 marks, really in the same way as you have found. Grant is indicating that at least 2 steels were used, he has quoted 400 and 420 and there will be variations in the 420 - but the fact you marked it at all suggests its is not 620 or better. With this test I doubt you could tell 620 of Bis 80 apart.

But as has been said - its not Bis 80.

My reason for doing the test was to prove that I had not got anything less than Q620. In the light of postings by you and Vyv (and possibly others that I cannot remember) the results suggest that it is unlikely that the shank on my anchor is as hard as Q620.

I am surprised that CMP would categorically confirm that your anchor is 620 without checking it. The UK received many 420 shanked anchors - how on earth did CMP know yours was not from that stock? Anchors usually do not age and there is no great reason for stock rotation - so how do they know your anchor was not old stock?

CMP did not confirm that it is 620, although they implied as much in this email from "Tina Kittelty, Rocna Anchors" dated 17 November 2011.

Many thanks for your email, and I apologise for the delay in responding.

Your chandler is correct. We know where and when the affected anchors were sent, and our records show that the UK were not sent any affected anchors in the 15kg size.

Further, the incorrect steel alloy was used during a period of time in 2010 only. Canada Metal has reviewed material certificates for the steel used in anchors since that time plus independent lab tests of random sample anchors off retail shelves and found no issue. Based on the date you purchased your anchor, we would not have expected your anchor to have been affected even if were another size.

In the light of evidence that my anchor is not up to spec, I intend to approach the chandler and ask for a replacement anchor, but I have not yet decided which of three options to go for. (1) Throw more money at it, and get a 20kg Spade (probably a stronger anchor but with the same fluke surface area as the 15kg Rocna); (2) a 20kg Manson Supreme for about the same money (and a bit shorter than the equivalent Rocna, so will fit in my anchor locker and will probably give my everyday bower more holding power in difficult conditions); (3) a 15kg Rocna made in Q620 steel (for the considerations that made me choose the Rocna in the first place, rather too long-winded for this post).

 

[Twister_Ken]

(1) Throw more money at it, and get a 20kg Spade (probably a stronger anchor but with the same fluke surface area as the 15kg Rocna); (2) a 20kg Manson Supreme for about the same money (and a bit shorter than the equivalent Rocna, so will fit in my anchor locker and will probably give my everyday bower more holding power in difficult conditions); (3) a 15kg Rocna made in Q620 steel (for the considerations that made me choose the Rocna in the first place, rather too long-winded for this post).

Bear in mind that your last choice is still not with the grade of steel that the designer used to insist was essential if it were to perform to expectation.

 

[Neeves]

Danny Jo,

I think Tina is Steve Bambury's live in partner (Grant might confirm this - but I think he mentioned it weeks ago, do not recall when) and previously worked for Holdfast. I have no idea what sort of corporate identity CMP has set up for 'the business' in NZ now but it might consist of Steve Bambury and Tina. You can decide on the veracity of information given.

I do not think having your questionable anchor re-tested independently need negate your subsequently taking the anchor back to wherever you bought it. In fact tests by 'another' will make your return easier - and might raise question marks in the minds of others in the same position as you as long as you post the results. There has been too much obfuscation (by Rocna) - it would be nice to see a bit more openness and clarification.

You question the slot in the Supreme. The slot is an option, there is a dedicated hole for the shackle and you only need employ/use the slot if/when you think it necessary. If you cost the price of the anchor over a number of nights of relaxed sleep the Spade will work out at excellent value. If you were to cast around for an opinion - Snoocks might help.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

Sorry Danny Jo, but that doesn't look like a 600+ MPa steel

Here's a 'control' you can try:

Find a '8.8' high tensile bolt :

Note the 8.8 on the head - they're routinely used in structural steelwork, so aren't that hard to find (I can give you some if you're passing along the A55, but they really are everywhere).

The strength of the steel used is consistent and closely controlled. The yield strength of a M16 or above 8.8 bolt should be 660 MPa minimum (640 MPa for <M16).

I would be grateful if Vyv, or someone could confirm this from somewhere more authoratative than the internet.

The strength will not be drastically higher than this because the steels start to lose toughness, and this is also a bad thing.

For comparison, a 5.8 bolt will have a yield strength of 420 MPa minimum (these are also common).

If you can find one of each, then you have reference standards for your punch test.

Andy

Andy, that's perfect. I have been wracking my brains trying to think of suitable standards for hardness testing but bolts never occurred to me. Sad, because they were one of the topics I used to present!

I agree with the other posters. I doubt very much whether the shank of the anchor tested comes anywhere near high tensile.

If I posted previously that I used a 1lb hammer then I was in error. It's in Greece but I'm pretty sure it is 2lb. For the punch test it makes little difference if all indents are made with the same one.

 

[snooks]

DJo

If your anchor has the name cast into the flukes, my understanding is that this is not manufactured from Bis 80 [clarification required]

Therefore it is "not as described" and no further testing or discussion should be required.

You are covered by the Sale Of Goods Act 1979 with amendments

See their example

 

[FishyInverness]

And if you want to get really an*l about it, it would also have been advertised as having certification that it didn't, which also falls foul of your consumer rights...