Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[misterg]

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.

Interesting - I would have expected a more noticeable difference, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating...

Hopefully this is good news for you - please accept my apologies for alarming you unnecessarily.

Andy

 

[Neeves]

I concur with Vyv on this.

The articles I have had published by YM on Rocna were supported by documentary evidence from RINA, historic copies of the Rocna website etc. I believe YM took legal advise prior to publication. Articles, by independents, might also be checked where relevant by people like Vyv (do not know). Basically the story has been checked and double checked which sometimes means it takes time to hit the shelves. If I provide quantitative information on the forum or in an article it is always sourced independently and if it is single sourced from an individual whose integrity might be questioned (ie not confirmed by anyone else) I, or the article, will say so.

I try to ensure any opinions on the forum are obviously known to be mine.

I might add having to justify for YM every sentence and every piece of data is onerous as it means providing reams of attachments each of which needs to be titled and explained.

Despite all this there will be mistakes - but every effort is taken to ensure we all get it right! This is important to me - if I get it wrong I will fall off the list of contributors!

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

My Rocna is in Greece and I am not, so carrying out further DIY tests on it is not an option. However, I did check my Delta, whose shank is not dissimilar in dimensions to that of the Rocna. Using a pointed punch similar to Danny Jo's produced very similar results to his on the 8.8 steels. It would seem that, thanks to his excellent tests and conclusions, that there is a strong likelihood that the shanks of his Rocna and my Delta are made from steels that are better than mild but not as strong as Bisalloy 80. The 620 grade seems the most likely for his Rocna. The Delta is made from a manganese steel as far as I know, but I have found no further information. I never heard of one that bent, though.

My comment on the accuracy of the tests is that Brinells have been carried out for centuries using a hammer and punch, although the tip of the latter is round. I suggest that this reduces the spread of indent diameters noted. This method is still in everyday use in engineering manufacturing throughout the world, but it does take some experience to be repeatable.

 

[Neeves]

A Delta has half the holding capacity of a Rocna, one is HHP the other SHHP (this 2:1 performance is largely found, or confirmed, in a comparison of most yachting magazine tests). Thus under the conditions that might bend a shank the Delta would rotate (or simply pull out) long prior a Rocna - and then re-set (no-one has ever queried the setting ability of a Delta). If a Delta 'auto-releases' one would expect less bent shanks?

Shank thicknesses are greater at very small sizes for the Delta but comparable once you get over around 10kg. In general Delta shanks are shorter than Rocnas, weight for weight - further reducing opportunity for shank bending. I have this very vague idea that Delta shanks are based on a steel with a tensile strength higher than Q620 steel - but do not know where this idea came from (so pretty useless) - maybe a belief in Scottish engineering?

It would be nice, even refreshing, if we knew the material of all shanks of branded anchors.

Jonathan

 

[macd]

It would be nice, even refreshing, if we knew the material of all shanks of branded anchors.

...and, as I've said before, if all came with a unique or batch identifier (stamped in or on paper accompanying the anchor). That way all the uncertaintly about which Rocnas are grossly sub-standard (as opposed to merely sub-standard) could have been removed. For a £500 hook, is that too much to ask?

 

[Morven]

Vyv,

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I have seen at least 3 bent. They were quite popular with the charter boats in the Marina I infest. I saw at least 3 bent over two seasons, always bending at the weld between the shank and the plough, never noticed a bent shank. most of those boats went to different types on anchor when they replaced. I think the yard manager here still has one in his workshop he is intending to straighten and reuse!

 

[Neeves]

Macd,

It was and remains a good idea.

Its actually not difficult to stamp each anchor with a unique number, especially if they cost stg500, or even $500. It might even help justify the cost. The number could be referenced to steel quality, date etc. The number would provide a degree of security against theft.

I'm not sure all the anchor makers are going to be too supportive (numbers might provide information on market share. Too much hassle etc). But like the other campaigns on issues of safety it needs public pressure. I might suggest you look for support from employees of the major marine magazines - hopefully you know one or two. If you can get some anchor makers on board (the number demands full disclosure of spec!) it might shame the others into acting. It seems to have the potential of being a good marketing ploy to me. I might not be too ambitious to start with, exclude smaller anchors?

But if the subject of this thread is anything to go by you will need a lot of support, and a lot of patience.

Jonathan

 

[GrantKing]

A Delta has half the holding capacity of a Rocna, one is HHP the other SHHP (this 2:1 performance is largely found, or confirmed, in a comparison of most yachting magazine tests). Thus under the conditions that might bend a shank the Delta would rotate (or simply pull out) long prior a Rocna - and then re-set (no-one has ever queried the setting ability of a Delta). If a Delta 'auto-releases' one would expect less bent shanks?

Shank thicknesses are greater at very small sizes for the Delta but comparable once you get over around 10kg. In general Delta shanks are shorter than Rocnas, weight for weight - further reducing opportunity for shank bending. I have this very vague idea that Delta shanks are based on a steel with a tensile strength higher than Q620 steel - but do not know where this idea came from (so pretty useless) - maybe a belief in Scottish engineering?

It would be nice, even refreshing, if we knew the material of all shanks of branded anchors.

Jonathan

Smith's calculation charts for shank bending forces contained the following comparisons between Rocna and delta using Bis80 with a yield strength of 780mpa which is what the delta was using.

Rocna...............................Delta
size / bending force.............size / bending force
4kg/106kg.........................4kg/199kg
6kg/177kg.........................6kg/303kg
10kg/269kg.......................10kg/506kg
15kg/378kg.......................16kg/515kg
20kg/703kg.......................20kg/769kg
25kg/659kg.......................25kg/778kg
33kg/628kg
40kg/993kg.......................40kg/1180kg
55kg/1134kg.....................50kg/1310kg

 

[GrantKing]

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. (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.

Danny Jo,

What were you sold?

You were sold a RINA certified SHHP Rocna anchor with a shank of Bis80 ( or 800mpa) shank material. That is what it was promoted as both in the material supplied to the chandler, the rocna website, Peter smith's website and every forum thread that Craig Smith could post it on again and again.

What did you get?
NOT what you purchased.

How much simpler does it have to be?

And on a lighter note, your black and white assistant definitely looks a bit suspect, is he certified for the position of overseer?

 

[Morven]

You mean that is NOT Danny Jo !!?? Next you will be saying that the bald guy underneath Fishy is making all those posts.

 

[macd]

You mean that is NOT Danny Jo !!?? Next you will be saying that the bald guy underneath Fishy is making all those posts.

 

[GrantKing]

You mean that is NOT Danny Jo !!?? Next you will be saying that the bald guy underneath Fishy is making all those posts.

SSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
dont blow his cover

 

[FishyInverness]

Damn, the cat's actually RocnaOne, you've found out at last...

(Disclaimer : The above statement may contain elements of untruth!)

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

I or anyone else on the YM editorial team, don't know what PBO are doing any more than you do

They are run as separate magazines...

How more stupid could this be?

For magazines owned by the same people who could be attracting some of the same customers it seems bizarre!

After writing to IPC last year I was assured things were being put in place to prevent duplication of articles.

 

[Twister_Ken]

After writing to IPC last year I was assured things were being put in place to prevent duplication of articles.

That's right, PBO certainly didn't duplicate the YM article.

 

[snooks]

After writing to IPC last year I was assured things were being put in place to prevent duplication of articles.

There are measures put in place, but these aren't at editorial level.

 

[FishyInverness]

That's right, PBO certainly didn't duplicate the YM article.

+1, it certainly was a very different article to anything YM published - Hardly really an article at all to be fair, more suitable to the letters page, from a retailer of those anchors telling everyone that it's all ok, because Rocna say so.

I still stand by the opinion that to have been a proper article there should have been a factual balanced contribution by the editor to state that there are currently questions being raised about the facts asserted by the retailer.

 

[macd]

How more stupid could this be?

For magazines owned by the same people who could be attracting some of the same customers it seems bizarre!

In my experience that's the norm, and far from being stupid it encourages competition (and thus, one hopes, resourcefulness). It also encourages magazines speaking with different voices. When I was editing magazines within the same publishing group (sometimes in the same building) as competitors, content was jealously guarded.

To some degree the validity of this depends on the amount of cross-readership. In my field (motorcycling, which since the early 70s has generally been more strident and less 'establishment' than the yottie press), cross-readership was comparitively rare. Most readers had a favourite (which presumably spoke with something like their voice) and stuck with it.

To my mind the boating press could do with being more diverse, not less.

I might also add that never, ever did advertising considerations influence any decision I made as to whether to run a story or how to pitch that story. This didn't always make the ad manager a happy bunny.

P.S. UK boat mags aren't exactly wall-to-wall out here, so I've no way of knowing first-hand what PBO, YM or anyone else has written about the Rocna saga. What I do know, and posted some months ago in admonition of someone from the boat press who seemed to think the matter insignificant, was that if I were still working I'd be falling over myself to write about it. No worries: Neeves seems comprehensively on the case....probably far beyond the call of duty on the basis of what he's likely being paid.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

In my experience that's the norm, and far from being stupid it encourages competition (and thus, one hopes, resourcefulness). It also encourages magazines speaking with different voices. When I was editing magazines within the same publishing group (sometimes in the same building) as competitors, content was jealously guarded.

To some degree the validity of this depends on the amount of cross-readership. In my field (motorcycling, which since the early 70s has generally been more strident and less 'establishment' than the yottie press), cross-readership was comparitively rare. Most readers had a favourite (which presumably spoke with something like their voice) and stuck with it.

To my mind the boating press could do with being more diverse, not less.

I might also add that never, ever did advertising considerations influence any decision I made as to whether to run a story or how to pitch that story. This didn't always make the ad manager a happy bunny.

.

Hi macd, interesting to read what someone such as yourself with experience in the magazine editorial field has to say.
Your comments about the magazines you previously worked on, sound like you also needed someone above controlling/guiding.

I still wonder how two magazines that may be trying to be attracted to the same public to pay a subscription, can really justify jealously guarding content?
Do those magazines wish to thrive or last in this modern media world?

It seems to me that to ensure the competition and interest for the two magazines exists, they should be quite different as one could possibly make them when the same topic/subject is being covered, therefore attracting 'cross-readership'.
It's sometimes easy to alter subject matter so that it's approached in a different way.

Therefore why there isn't a senior editor overseeingPBO / YM to ensure that any subject matter that is duplicated is covered very differently by them both, still baffles me.

Perhaps as far as 'Rocnagate' is concerned, they are more concerned about litigation as much as anything and who can blame them. To quote from what has been said on a forum could be a very dangerous business i guess.
S.

 

[macd]

This is all getting a little off-topic, for which, apologies. But it does seem to have attracted some interest.

Hi macd, interesting to read what someone such as yourself with experience in the magazine editorial field has to say. Your comments about the magazines you previously worked on, sound like you also needed someone above controlling/guiding.

Yes, like a hole in the head. The best I usually hoped for was the person above (the publisher…ever heard of the Peter Principle? It’s on Wiki) keeping his hands off unless requested. But that was 20 years ago. Many magazines are different now, guided by focus groups, consumer surveys and all the other modern b*llsh*t. The bigger and more profitable the magazine, the more that applies…which probably leaves the IPC boating titles somewhere in the middle ground.

I still wonder how two magazines that may be trying to be attracted to the same public to pay a subscription, can really justify jealously guarding content? Do those magazines wish to thrive or last in this modern media world?

Of course they wish to thrive, but it’s not as simple as you imagine. IPC’s main concern, of course, is the bottom line. But the editorial staff of individual magazines care only about their title and have a belief (one hopes) that they’ll cover Topic X better than a rival, and therefore prosper more in terms of circulation. Then there’s natural human behaviour: if you’d found a story or an angle on a story, would you pass it on just ‘cos some memo said so? And, if you did, how hard would you look for the next story? Then there’s the dynamic that pretty well all hobbyist titles share: the editorial staff are usually enthusiasts first and journalists second. Most are passionate about their subject, often at the cost of a degree of amateurishness. On the whole that probably works for the best.

It seems to me that to ensure the competition and interest for the two magazines exists, they should be quite different as one could possibly make them when the same topic/subject is being covered, therefore attracting 'cross-readership'.

I don’t know whether that would encourage cross-readership, and as I’ve explained above the staff of any one magazine care little about that, anyway. But certainly at editor level and above, they’re all seeking that ephemeral thing USP…Unique Selling Point. They’re brands, just like Coca-Cola. They will have meetings (ad nauseam) to consider how best to establish that USP. But it's not as easy as you might think.

That’s not to say that editorial staff regard profit as their primary goal (I know, I had to sign off their expenses…); I suspect that most still don’t. They want a magazine they can take some pride in. Seriously.

Therefore why there isn't a senior editor overseeingPBO / YM to ensure that any subject matter that is duplicated is covered very differently by them both, still baffles me.

There will be ‘senior editors’ (or ‘publishers’). But they probably have little to do with the detail of editorial content, more to do with the overall direction of the title and its promotion. As editor, I’d have resisted that sort of input, anyway – not least because it would imply that I was too dumb to see the point. In the motorcycle mags, there was never much of a need to refine coverage in the way you suggest: we all had different angles, anyway. In the boat press, it may be a little different.

Perhaps as far as 'Rocnagate' is concerned, they are more concerned about litigation as much as anything and who can blame them. To quote from what has been said on a forum could be a very dangerous business i guess.

There will be that element, but they have access to lawyers (don’t know if in-house at IPC: it may be costly). The more telling truth may be that there isn’t much history or tradition of investigative work in the boating press. Some of that, of course, will be to do with their perception of their market: not everyone’s as bolshy and suspicious as many on these forums. Bland readers prefer bland comics.