Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Chris_Robb]

Peter Smith - perhaps we should be sorry for him

If you Google 'Peter Smith Rocna' the first result you get is this:

If you open this link you will find the following:

which shows a Manson amateurly photoshopped to look crude next to a nice (NZ built) Rocna

but also this total misrepresentation :

"The Manson Supreme blade is a 1-dimensional roll, rather than a 2-dimensional fold. This means the tip of the fluke is relatively flat, and does not feature the reinforcement of the full-length crease that the original employs."

Not only is the Rocna not folded out of bis80 any more but Peter Smith has the nerve to still say and I quote .....

"Normally there is a good reason for the cost of the original; copies take obvious construction short-cuts, such as cheaper methods of fabrication, which the original manufacturer elected not to. These compromises result in a more attractive retail price, but the axiom “you get what you pay for” has never been truer"

This is all on his own personal website. Surely after all this fuss he would have the decency to remove all the knocking copy.

How he can hold his head up with his peers escapes me - you just could not make it up.

Apparently, his wife has left him and his boat is broken down in South America...... boo hoooooo

 

[smackdaddy]

One man's sideshow is another man's main event.

+1...

 

[Twister_Ken]

Rocna - 2/3rds of a page in current PBO. Reads like it might be written by Neeves, but edited to remove some of the more contentious stuff. Shame it's not available online

 

[Neeves]

What's all this about me being contentious?

The PBO is nothing to do with me, or I did not write it (and certainly did not get paid!) - but maybe its simply a summary of the YM article.

I'd guess its not on line as PBO want to sell hard copy? But when someone finds the digital version I'd welcome a copy, PBO takes a long time to get here.

Jonathan

 

[youen]

At the begining of january i have contacted one more time Rocna support, usely it was Tina who replied this time it was S Bambury, telling that almost everything written on the forum was false ,but if I was not happy with my 2010 rocna anchor deilvered in France by VDM I shall be refund one month later no more news.Business as usual...

 

[FishyInverness]

almost everything written on the forum was false

Well that is partly true, almost everything written by Craig Smith at least...

 

[Chris_Robb]

Rocna - 2/3rds of a page in current PBO. Reads like it might be written by Neeves, but edited to remove some of the more contentious stuff. Shame it's not available online

Yes - as a result of a complaint I made (and probably others) re last months rubbish.

 

[Seven Spades]

I have not been keeping up with this thread so please excuse the question. but what it the 700 figure referring to?

As I understood it Original NZ anchors we as per specs. Chinese anchors were and still are mainly 600mpa and a small batch were made at 410mpa. I am also told that none of the 410mpa came to the UK.

Is the above correct or not?

I understand that both CMP and Perter Smith are both now saying that 600mpa is perfectly adequate. Is there now some evidence of problems with the 600mpa anchors?

I think that is all I need to know.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I have not been keeping up with this thread so please excuse the question. but what it the 700 figure referring to?

As I understood it Original NZ anchors we as per specs. Chinese anchors were and still are mainly 600mpa and a small batch were made at 410mpa. I am also told that none of the 410mpa came to the UK.

Is the above correct or not?

I understand that both CMP and Perter Smith are both now saying that 600mpa is perfectly adequate. Is there now some evidence of problems with the 600mpa anchors?

I think that is all I need to know.

700 dodgy anchors (700 is the number of anchors, not the yield strength of the tin) comes from Peter Smith's own website. Here. Third paragraph

 

[Seven Spades]

Thanks for the link. I can see I have some confused terms, but it does sound as though anything that is not Q420 is perfectly ok.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Thanks for the link. I can see I have some confused terms, but it does sound as though anything that is not Q420 is perfectly ok.

No, there are also possible issues on the welding of high tensile steel to cast flukes, which is regarded as a very big quality control problem especially in China. It is normally regarded as a No-No in welding circles. Hence the main reason why they used the lesser steel as it is easier to weld.

The design of the Chinese Rocna only allows for a butt weld, which seems a little odd as for example the Anchor Rights Excel has a slot so it is welded from both sides.

It would seem that the design is subject to worries that the metal specs have been reduces, and there may be welding issue (which have not come to light as yet)

 

[Twister_Ken]

but it does sound as though anything that is not Q420 is perfectly ok.

To quote, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he."

 

[Seven Spades]

Well his explanation seems coherent he says that the differences in the steel used in NZ and China are very small. Is this the case or not.

Have there been any reports of Weald failure, this is a red hearing isn't it?

 

[FishyInverness]

Well his explanation seems coherent he says that the differences in the steel used in NZ and China are very small. Is this the case or not.

Have there been any reports of Weald failure, this is a red hearing isn't it?

No reports of Weld failure. But this is also the same man that "explained" that, due to the unique design with a thinner shank, NOTHING LESS THAN BISPLATE 80 WILL DO...

That was coherent at the time. It really does depend on which coherent explanation, both of which are mutually exclusive, you want to believe....

 

[vyv_cox]

I am also told that none of the 410mpa came to the UK.

That is almost certainly not true. Rocna seem to be admitting to a few, maybe 50 (Q420, not 410 although there may even be some at 400) Rocna have told us many things in the past, very little of which turned out to be true. So is it none, 50, 500?

 

[vyv_cox]

Hence the main reason why they used the lesser steel as it is easier to weld.

Not true. The carbon equivalents of Q420 and Q620 are significantly higher than that of Bisplate 80. So the Bisplate is easier to weld.

The design of the Chinese Rocna only allows for a butt weld, which seems a little odd as for example the Anchor Rights Excel has a slot so it is welded from both sides.

A good butt weld is always preferable to a good fillet weld for strength and durability. A fillet weld is preferable for the manufacturer as it is far easier to set up and perform.

It would seem .........there may be welding issue (which have not come to light as yet)

If there was a welding issue it would surely have been seen by now? The only likely issue is cracks, which would presumably lead to fracture very early in the life of the anchor. If people are loading them up sufficiently to bend them then they would surely have broken the odd cracked weld in the past three years? Ignoring the fact that cracks are easily detected by the inspectors immediately after manufacture.

 

[Seven Spades]

..... But this is also the same man that "explained" that, due to the unique design with a thinner shank, NOTHING LESS THAN BISPLATE 80 WILL DO...

That was coherent at the time. It really does depend on which coherent explanation, both of which are mutually exclusive, you want to believe....

Well I have read that and you can look at it two ways.
1. It is necessary and they every new anchor is a hazard
2. It was a USP to look better than the competition, and possibly overkill.

I don't know the answer to this but I suspect the latter is nearer the truth, and it has subsequently proved to be a very expensive component that is simply not required. Undoubtedly the stronger something is the better it is but there comes a point when it won't make any difference because either the chain or the deck or the windlass will give way first.

I am not defending anything that has been done or said, clearly they have made some huge mistakes in both promoting their product and with the Q420 products. However, this is looking like a witch hunt now.

CMP are not responsible for previous errors. They must be satisfied that what Peter Smith is telling them is the real truth and I am inclined to believe that the current process is both good enough for the job and safe. As far as I know no one has produced any bent or broken or otherwise dysfunctional Q620 versions...

 

[Hoolie]

I know it's a bit of a bind, but you really should read through this long thread before posting on it. All these points have been more than adequately addressed.

 

[Neeves]

Well I have read that and you can look at it two ways.
1. It is necessary and they every new anchor is a hazard
2. It was a USP to look better than the competition, and possibly overkill.

I don't know the answer to this but I suspect the latter is nearer the truth, and it has subsequently proved to be a very expensive component that is simply not required. Undoubtedly the stronger something is the better it is but there comes a point when it won't make any difference because either the chain or the deck or the windlass will give way first.

I am not defending anything that has been done or said, clearly they have made some huge mistakes in both promoting their product and with the Q420 products. However, this is looking like a witch hunt now.

CMP are not responsible for previous errors. They must be satisfied that what Peter Smith is telling them is the real truth and I am inclined to believe that the current process is both good enough for the job and safe. As far as I know no one has produced any bent or broken or otherwise dysfunctional Q620 versions...

If trying to define how many 420 shanked anchors are sitting on a bow roller is a witch hunt - then yes its a witch hunt.

First it was none (they were all Bis 80) then maybe they were 620 shanked, then it turned out a few were 420 shanked, now its 700 are 420 shanked, tomorrow, who knows? And all along they were RINA certified, well except for the majority actually sold.

CMP might not be responsible for the sins of the past, but they employ the perpetrators and they, if anyone, are in the best position to define the numbers and the country of sale.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

I don't know the answer to this but I suspect the latter is nearer the truth, and it has subsequently proved to be a very expensive component that is simply not required.

Several of us have copies of the original design calculations that show very clearly that Bis80 is required. Materials similar to those that have been used in China were considered to be insufficiently strong in bending even when their thickness was increased.