Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[FishyInverness]

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

The very man who owned ROCNA and liquidated HOLDFAST who was responsible for a lot of the misinformation is now answering questions from customers such as Youen, apparently employed by CMP as "customer services", so CMP are very much still responsible for what is being said and whether it is true or not.

 

[Neeves]

Interestingly I have never seen an accurate cost comparison of Bis 80, Q620 and Q420 as components, based on Chinese pricing, of a Rocna nor what proportion these raw materials are of the price the customer pays. My suspicion is that the cost of the shank is an insignificant, almost irrelevant, part of the price in the chandlers

So if Bis80 is suggested to be 'expensive' it would be revealing to see some figures.

Jonathan

 

[Twister_Ken]

Who knows what CMP is responsible for? There's been deafening silence since November.

 

[FishyInverness]

2. It was a USP to look better than the competition, and possibly overkill.

If you take Manson as the competition, who use and always have used BIS80, and considering the fact that ROCNA in all it's bumf have always felt the need to call Manson a "Knock off" and put their anchors down in every way, you kind of have to concede that Manson are their prime competitors. Then it doesn't make ROCNA look any better

Manson anchors are cheaper to buy in the UK

So essentially the only logical reason that can be drawn for the downgrading in steel, is to make more profit from a premiunm priced product that is no longer premium.

In fact, it's almost the reverse of your point there, as they have downgraded the high quality steel, making Manson's use of Q&T800 a very real USP!

 

[Hoolie]

Interestingly I have never seen an accurate cost comparison of Bis 80, Q620 and Q420 as components, based on Chinese pricing, of a Rocna nor what proportion these raw materials are of the price the customer pays. My suspicion is that the cost of the shank is an insignificant, almost irrelevant, part of the price in the chandlers

So if Bis80 is suggested to be 'expensive' it would be revealing to see some figures.

Jonathan

Back in the days of double digit post numbers, Grant told me via PM that in his view CMP would suffer little difference to their margins by using the Chinese equivalent of Bis80. From a marketing point of view it's difficult to understand why they don't use it.

Neeves, if you need the details contact Grant: he has the figures.

 

[evm1024]

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.

Great info for those who are paying attention....

I ordered a Rocna based on the Steel (Bis80) and RINA. It turns out that I was deceived by Rocna/Holdfast. Ordered Steak and got Hamburger. I returned the Rocna and bought a Manson which does use Bis80 and is Type Certified by LLoyds.

Regards

 

[FishyInverness]

Great info for those who are paying attention....

I ordered a Rocna based on the Steel (Bis80) and RINA. It turns out that I was deceived by Rocna/Holdfast. Ordered Steak and got Hamburger. I returned the Rocna and bought a Manson which does use Bis80 and is Type Certified by LLoyds.

Regards

To be fair to ROCNA, whether they deserve it or not, the ROCNA original is RINA Type Certified - it's just that the certified type is not the type you or I would get if buying one for our boat. You'd get a chinese cast copy of that original design which has never been certified.

They certified the steak and sold the hamburger!

 

[Danny Jo]

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.

I showed my Chinese-made, cast-fluke Rocna to a man who knows about welding and suggested to him that the welding that was evident at the junction of the shank and the fluke was of a high quality. I had assumed it was butt welded, but he pointed out that you could feel a slightly raised area on the underside of the fluke immediately opposite the junction. He was of the opinion that it had been welded into a slot.

 

[Allan]

To be fair to ROCNA, whether they deserve it or not, the ROCNA original is RINA Type Certified - it's just that the certified type is not the type you or I would get if buying one for our boat. You'd get a chinese cast copy of that original design which has never been certified.

They certified the steak and sold the hamburger!

I may be mistaken but I think someone has said that the RINA certificate was only for the larger anchors.
Allan

 

[FishyInverness]

As I understand it, the China produced anchors are certified in the larger sizes only and the Rocna original has Rina Type certification for all sizes, but only when they were fabricated and welded as per the original NZ specification.

I could have misunderstood that though....

 

[Twister_Ken]

As I understand it, the China produced anchors are certified in the larger sizes only and the Rocna original has Rina Type certification for all sizes, but only when they were fabricated and welded as per the original NZ specification.

I could have misunderstood that though....

Think you may have done. As I interpret it, SHHP classification from RINA was awaited for ONE size (a biggy, NZ fabricated) but never received. Didn't stop Holdfast claiming RINA approval for the whole range, though.

Happy to be corrected if that is not the case.

 

[Neeves]

Vyv,

I think you say that butt welding is adequate, can you elaborate? I can see that a decent butt weld of mild steel to mild steel might be as strong, or stronger, than the mild steel. Surely if the welding is such that the tensile properties of the higher strength steel is retained then a weld on the underside and one on the topside doubles the size of the weld (without it looking ungainly) and carries the high tensile characteristics of the shank right through to the base. A simple butt weld relies simply on the tensile characteristics of the weld and thus the tensile strength of the steel would simply not be as relevant (at the joint where the loads will be greatest).

The casting for the Rocna fluke contain no slot. It is a simple butt weld. There might be a protruberance on the underside of the casting (in the sole of the fluke) - that is simply the casting. They did/do make a demountable version with a recess for the shank - but I have never seen one nor know how many they sold.

As Vyv points out having a slot aids assembly, as the shank should be positioned in the correct place.

The RINA certification currently excludes any anchors made with cast flukes. Fabricated flukes are used for sizes 55kg and larger and they are covered under the Type Approval. The Type Approval demands use of a min 690 mpa steel in the shank, which is apparently possible if you selectively hold the best of Q620. However whether this is done or not, I obviously have no idea. It would of course be easier to use a steel specified to have a min 690mpa in the first place, but that's slightly more expensive. Laminated shanks are covered by the Type Approval. It might be better to use solid shanks but that would be really expensive (as you need to buy thick plate for only occassional orders).

The advantage, or the reason for having Type Approval, is twofold, its a good piece of PR, when done correctly, but importantly it allows the manufacturer to sell anchors for vessels in survey. I am guessing there is more money in individually certified anchors (they tend to be big to start with and they are effectively made to order). I think they are numbered and the number specified on the certificate. Each anchor is individually proof tested and it must be demonstrated that the correct materials are used in construction. The anchors must also be made by approved welders. If the anchor contains cast components the casting facilities must also be approved. Interestingly if you needed an individually certified Rocna it would be made at a factory totally different to the one used for 'our', or the smaller, anchors. The current Rocna facility is simply not approved by RINA, the welders have not been certified and the current casting facilities have not been approved (when last I heard they, the casting facilities, had not even been visited by RINA). Conversely all Manson anchors are made on the one site by the same people. Consequently Manson's approval process is 'partially' imposed on leisure anchors - leisure anchors might be made by the apprentice but they are more likely to be made by an individual whose welding skills are certified by Lloyds and with materials that unquestionably meets the Lloyds Type Approval.

Jonathan

 

[maxi77]

Just an observation, but I can no longer find the ROCNA certification on the RINA site, does this mean that there is now no RINA certificate for ROCNA.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Just an observation, but I can no longer find the ROCNA certification on the RINA site, does this mean that there is now no RINA certificate for ROCNA.

I think there never was. There was some sort of letter of intent from RINA but I don't think a pukka certificate was ever issued,

 

[Neeves]

I never saw it on the RINA site but it is on the Rocna site (provided I'm posting the correct link!)

http://www.rocna.com/assets/Uploads/rocna-rina-cert-25-may-2011.pdf

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

Vyv,

I think you say that butt welding is adequate, can you elaborate? I can see that a decent butt weld of mild steel to mild steel might be as strong, or stronger, than the mild steel. Surely if the welding is such that the tensile properties of the higher strength steel is retained then a weld on the underside and one on the topside doubles the size of the weld (without it looking ungainly) and carries the high tensile characteristics of the shank right through to the base. A simple butt weld relies simply on the tensile characteristics of the weld and thus the tensile strength of the steel would simply not be as relevant (at the joint where the loads will be greatest).

A full penetration butt weld is always better mechanically than a fillet weld. I agree, the strength is dependent upon the strength of the filler metal. In the case of a 12 mm thick shank, and probably quite a lot thicker than that, any Q&T microstructure will be annealed throughout in the HAZ, so the strength of the metal is lost anyway.

Interestingly, a few days ago someone posted about bending of Delta shanks. I know very little about their metallurgy, other than that the shanks are slender like a Rocna's but very rarely bend. The poster had seen three bend, all at the weld.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I never saw it on the RINA site but it is on the Rocna site (provided I'm posting the correct link!)

http://www.rocna.com/assets/Uploads/rocna-rina-cert-25-may-2011.pdf

Jonathan

Thanks for that. The last sentence is interesting!

"Anchors covered by this type approval are to be subjected to execution of individual testing."

Wonder if that meant every one, or one of each weight?

 

[maxi77]

I think there never was. There was some sort of letter of intent from RINA but I don't think a pukka certificate was ever issued,

Found it, seems CMP were awarded the certificate in May 2011 before the aquired ROCNA. Interestingly the web based certificate is about to expire, unlike the CMP one.

http://www.service.rina.it/getec/ti...2FEE94771C125794B000AD7E5&action=openDocument

 

[Neeves]

Found it, seems CMP were awarded the certificate in May 2011 before the aquired ROCNA. Interestingly the web based certificate is about to expire, unlike the CMP one.

http://www.service.rina.it/getec/ti...2FEE94771C125794B000AD7E5&action=openDocument

The certificate was awarded on a specific date, really its simply a certificate approving a design (though the design is 'tested' with seabed and proof testing). It was initially assigned to Holdfast the fact that it was transferred to CMP does not change the date of the certificate. It presumably could be transferred again, and again - but the date would remain as May 2011. Type Approval Certificates last for a specific time period, this one seems to be 5 years (my idea that they lasted 10 years is obviosuly incorrect). At the end of the time period they can be renewed, presumably for payment of a fee.

An interesting feature: If you read the Rocna website somewhere it makes mention that individually certified anchors, those needed for certain vessels in survey, will be made at a RINA approved factory (where they have the certified welders etc). But the TA Certificate is designated to a specifc factory, Pangtong. I cannot reconcile the idea that Rocna offer individually certified anchors from a factory that does not hold the Type Approval certificate - but maybe I'm just being obtuse.

Jonathan

 

[maxi77]

The certificate was awarded on a specific date, really its simply a certificate approving a design (though the design is 'tested' with seabed and proof testing). It was initially assigned to Holdfast the fact that it was transferred to CMP does not change the date of the certificate. It presumably could be transferred again, and again - but the date would remain as May 2011. Type Approval Certificates last for a specific time period, this one seems to be 5 years (my idea that they lasted 10 years is obviosuly incorrect). At the end of the time period they can be renewed, presumably for payment of a fee.

An interesting feature: If you read the Rocna website somewhere it makes mention that individually certified anchors, those needed for certain vessels in survey, will be made at a RINA approved factory (where they have the certified welders etc). But the TA Certificate is designated to a specifc factory, Pangtong. I cannot reconcile the idea that Rocna offer individually certified anchors from a factory that does not hold the Type Approval certificate - but maybe I'm just being obtuse.

Jonathan

It is also worth noting the certificate is for fabricated blades, not cast which is what the factory produces, and does not seem to apply to stainless. It would also be interesting to see the drawings and see what material is specified for the shank.

Back when I dsigned and sold steering gear the designs had Lloyds type approval and they were then manufactured in approved facilities where appropriate using specified components. For example hydralic components had to be certified. Thus a certified anchor would use the Type Approved design and then manufactured by some one who could sign of the quality of manufacture. For the standard anchor one only has now CMPs word that it has been made according to specification, getting RINA's approval of the manufacture would be more costly. Mind you not as costly as getting USBS/USCG certification.