Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Chris_Robb]

PBO February report

PBO has a very misleading report on Page 6 about the Rocna situation. Given all the information published here, IPC should have noted that the facts on the number of anchors delivered to the UK was hotly disputed.

Also it implied that it was the Chinese that caused the problem - a gross distortion of the Truth - IPC WTF are you doing?

 

[FishyInverness]

Just read that Chris, thanks for posting it here.

Appears to sum up as : "we spoke to a UK retailer of the product in question, they told us the company line, as told to them by Rocna/Holdfast/CMP, we have printed this version of the actual situation despite information to the contrary being on our company group forums which has been more carefully explained and demonstrated than that company line itself, here it is published."

Surely a line to say "This information appears to be remain in dispute according to information put into the public domain by Grant King, who was production manager for Rocna/Holdfast at the time the 'faulty' Rocna anchors were shipped to the UK" would have been considered fair reporting!

Perhaps someone should submit to PBO a news story about how the RINA certification spiel has gone back up on the Rocna website, despite it not being in effect on the actual product - to give a balanced piece of journalism.

 

[macd]

Surely a line to say "This information appears to be remain in dispute according to information put into the public domain by Grant King, who was production manager for Rocna/Holdfast at the time the 'faulty' Rocna anchors were shipped to the UK" would have been considered fair reporting!

...not to mention Neeve's contributions based on shipping mainifests.

 

[Colvic Watson]

PBO has a very misleading report on Page 6 about the Rocna situation. Given all the information published here, IPC should have noted that the facts on the number of anchors delivered to the UK was hotly disputed.

Also it implied that it was the Chinese that caused the problem - a gross distortion of the Truth - IPC WTF are you doing?

Unbelievable, do they not employ ANY actual journalists? Is the whole thing an advertisers puff periodical? Sorry, realised I've answered my own question there.

How soon before the ROCNA adverts start appearing in the pages of PBO

 

[Chris_Robb]

Unbelievable, do they not employ ANY actual journalists? Is the whole thing an advertisers puff periodical? Sorry, realised I've answered my own question there.

How soon before the ROCNA adverts start appearing in the pages of PBO

If I had a subscription to PBO I would cancel it right now. I suggest others do the same in protest at the **** journalism in PBO. Perhaps we should all write to the editor as well. IPC- if your readings this - this is worse than the News of the Screws!

 

[FishyInverness]

Perhaps we should all write to the editor as well.

Well, the content area is PBO Logbook, edited by Elizabeth Paine and it does say go to page 4 on how to contact them regarding the news stories... viewed that page and so that would be via : pbo@ipcmedia.com , if anyone feels strongly enough to let them know!

 

[bigwow]

Well, the content area is PBO Logbook, edited by Elizabeth Paine and it does say go to page 4 on how to contact them regarding the news stories... viewed that page and so that would be via : pbo@ipcmedia.com , if anyone feels strongly enough to let them know!

Anyone think this thread is about to get pulled again?

 

[Chris_Robb]

Anyone think this thread is about to get pulled again?

No, provided we are reasonable. IPC should be able to take criticism

 

[Chris_Robb]

Well, the content area is PBO Logbook, edited by Elizabeth Paine and it does say go to page 4 on how to contact them regarding the news stories... viewed that page and so that would be via : pbo@ipcmedia.com , if anyone feels strongly enough to let them know!

Right you lot, you know the email address, the name etc now get writing.

 

[Danny Jo]

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

Thanks Misterg and Vyv.

Being an inveterate hoarder, I found that I have 8.8 bolts from as many as five different manufacturers (3 x M8 and one each in M10 and M12), an unmarked M8 and a 4.6 M10). I don't have any in M16, so I made the assumption that the resistance to the punch would be similar whatever the size of the bolt. Each bolt was clamped in the centre of an engineers vice (see first photo, but note that the bolt had been moved to the side of the vice for the photo) and struck with what I estimated to be the same force as I had hit the anchors. The assistant shown in the photo played no part in the actual tests, except to the extent that she complicated the photography by rubbing against the calipers and upsetting them.

The second photo shows the indentations made in the four M8 bolts. The indentation on the extreme left, which can be seen to be small and irregular, was the result of a miss-hit. This sent the punch flying across the workshop and left a small bruise over the proximal phalanx of my right thumb (Edited on 12 Jan - sorry, LEFT thumb - it's lucky I didn't take up surgery, eh?). (Naturally, my assistant got blamed for this.) The diameters of the indentations shown are in millimetres (2.2 - discounted), 2.6, 2.8, 3.3, 3.0, 2.3, 2.4.

Looking at these results suggests that my tests could distinguish the soft bolt (indentations of 3mm or more) from the 8.8 bolts (indentations all less than 3mm). I then tested my hypothesis that a 3mm cutoff could distinguish between the two larger 8.8s and the M10 4.6. It couldn't. The indentations in the larger 8.8s were 3.0 and 3.1mm and that in the 4.6 was 3.6mm. I then estimated the reliability of my measuring by repeating all the measurements, and found that consecutive measurements of the same indentation could differ by as much as 0.2mm (all measurements being taken to the nearest 0.1mm). Even so, the average of all measurements of dents in 8.8 was 2.8mm compared with 3.4mm for the softer metal. This 2.8mm average is remarkably similar to the figures I got for the Rocna shank (2.7 and 2.8 mm) and the 3.4mm average for softer metal is likewise similar to the figures I got for the Rocna fluke (3.5 and 3.6mm).

My conclusions are as follows:
1. The test procedure I used is, as Bosun Higgs suggests, not very robust (unlike the Halfords own brand punch, which after all this wacking has only a trace of a burr).
2. There is a however a fairly consistent difference in the sizes of the indentations produced in 8.8 bolt heads and in the heads of softer bolts.
3. The differences referred to in (2) are reflected in the difference in size of indentations produced in the shank and the fluke of my Rocna, suggesting that the shank is harder than the fluke, and comparable in hardness to the heads of 8.8 bolts.
4. My tests have failed to establish that my Rocna shank is not Q620. Before proceeding any further with a claim for a replacement anchor, I need to get an accredited tester to establish whether or not my shank is not up to spec.

 

[snooks]

proceeding any further with a claim for a replacement anchor, I need to get an accredited tester to establish whether or not my shank is not up to spec.

No you don't! .

If your anchor came out of china and has a cast fluke, then your anchor was not "as described" so you can take it back as long as it is within 6 years or a reasonable time period.

Your anchor was not "as described" you would have seen all sorts of stuff about the shank being made by bis 80 on their website

Sale of Goods Act. Linked on my previous post.

You don't need to test any more. The company have admitted the information on their website was incorrect. Therefore your anchor was not as described.

The fact it may or may not be 620 is tough poo for the retailer. I like Arthur's, they get the lions share of my Gosport business, but it is not your fault you were mis sold an anchor, and it is not their fault they mis sold an anchor to you. It's the manufacturer's fault.

It's your money, you deserve the anchor you paid for and you thought you were getting.

In other matters....
IPC is the company that own PBO, Yachting Monthly, Decanter, Hair, Nuts, Woman's Own, Angler's Mail etc, don't blame them, blame PBO. If you want to blame IPC, you might as well blame Time Warner because they own IPC. Yachting Monthly have published various articles about this, so it's nout to do with IPC

 

[Chris_Robb]

In other matters....
IPC is the company that own PBO, Yachting Monthly, Decanter, Hair, Nuts, Woman's Own, Angler's Mail etc, don't blame them, blame PBO. If you want to blame IPC, you might as well blame Time Warner because they own IPC. Yachting Monthly have published various articles about this, so it's nout to do with IPC

Snooks, I presume you are referring to my post re the Rocna article in February. How come they published such rubbish? OK so God owns the lot!

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Despite some of the articles in PBO and YM being a little 'off the mark' occasionally regarding accuracy, I think that overall they are both much improved in the last months.

It must be difficult to come up with new items to interest those long term readers and those with a great deal of experience. However, as I'm in the process of stripping out the better articles from my piles of old mag's and 'binning' the rest, I realise the worst thing they seem to do is to cover the same topic within a month or two of each other and not always from a different angle.
Why Time Warner / IPC / both editorial teams think this good I can't imagine.

 

[youen]

What he have seen in Yachting Monthly about Rocna in last August would never happen in a French sailing magazine.I thank one more time YM to let us know all this mess about Rocna.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

What he have seen in Yachting Monthly about Rocna in last August would never happen in a French sailing magazine.I thank one more time YM to let us know all this mess about Rocna.

Accuracy of the article is in question though! ??

 

[snooks]

YM and PBO have completely seperate editorial teams - YM is in London, PBO in Poole - I, or anyone else on the YM editorial team, don't know what PBO are doing any more than you do....Actually not strictly true, I submitted an article to them a few months ago because I won the CA photographic log competition. But you know what I mean.

They are run as separate magazines...maybe Neeves should have written it for them?

 

[Neeves]

I did offer to write something for PBO toward the end of your last summer (I assume you had a summer last year). PBO said they had made a conscious editorial decsion then not to cover the Rocna story as it was receiving sufficient coverage from other magazines (not specifically YM). YM then picked up on the RINA part of the story. I did not hound PBO. Publications from the UK take 6-8 weeks to get down here, so I have no idea what was published but I do know Elizabeth and she has been a good editor in the past.

Another magazine said 'they would not touch the Rocna story with a barge pole' - possibly the 'french ssyndrome', as expressed by Youen. This answer is fairly common - yachting magazines do not like to be seen as controversial, they think it upsets advertisers.

I would like to cover the issue for PBO but YM have been supportive and its not too acceptable to write the same story, different words, for 2 magazines circulated in the same country - as they have overlapping readership (and the same owners). In this instance I'm not entirely supportive of this view as the wider the circulation the more chance the safety issue of the story will be known. I'm not so interested in finger pointing nor refunds, the forums do that much better than I can. But I do not like the idea that deceit, particularly a safety issue, can be swept under the carpet nor the perpetrators benefit from that same dishonesty.

Someone published a few days ago correspondence, on the PBO part of YBW, they had from Arthurs on Rocna which is the first 'official' airing I have seen of the CMP position. This seems to reflect the view that has been consistently expressed for some months and is at complete variance to evidence from a variety of sources. However looking at Arthur's statement there is an implication the 'out of spec' shipment to which they refer is not one I or Grant King knew about (maybe it was after Grant left Holdfast). I would love to sit down at a table with CMP and Grant King with all the information laid out!

Jonathan

 

[Colvic Watson]

YM and PBO have completely seperate editorial teams - YM is in London, PBO in Poole - I, or anyone else on the YM editorial team, don't know what PBO are doing any more than you do....Actually not strictly true, I submitted an article to them a few months ago because I won the CA photographic log competition. But you know what I mean.

They are run as separate magazines...maybe Neeves should have written it for them?

From: Simon <xxxxxxx@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:52:08 +0000
To: ipc timeinc <pbo@ipcmedia.com>
Subject: Rocna

Dear Editor,

I am surprised to hear that your magazine stated in this months' issue that a very few of the Rocna anchors sold in this country are made from out-of-spec steel. It is extraordinary that Rocna's scandalous treatment of its customers and Yachting Monthly's excellent investigative journalism, should be ignored my your magazine and that you should print Rocna's PR without any qualification of their message,



Dear Simon

Thank you for emailing your comments, which will be passed to the Editor later this week when she's back in the office from the London Boat Show.

With kind regards
Roz Jones
Editor's PA


.

 

[Chris_Robb]

From: Simon <xxxxxxx@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:52:08 +0000
To: ipc timeinc <pbo@ipcmedia.com>
Subject: Rocna

Dear Editor,

I am surprised to hear that your magazine stated in this months' issue that a very few of the Rocna anchors sold in this country are made from out-of-spec steel. It is extraordinary that Rocna's scandalous treatment of its customers and Yachting Monthly's excellent investigative journalism, should be ignored my your magazine and that you should print Rocna's PR without any qualification of their message,



Dear Simon

Thank you for emailing your comments, which will be passed to the Editor later this week when she's back in the office from the London Boat Show.

With kind regards
Roz Jones
Editor's PA


.

No reply yet to my email of complaint.

 

[vyv_cox]

Accuracy of the article is in question though! ??

Accuracy of the articles and news items in YM is spot on. All contributors have been totally up to speed with this and other forum threads and correspondents on PMs arising from them. PBO seem to have taken up the story very late on without the input of the foremost parties in the discussions.