Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[braehouse]

Rocna

Just had an email from Marine Factors to say that my replacement 620 20KG has arrived and they are ready to swap out the existing 20KG 420 unit that I have.

Chris

 

[Twister_Ken]

Just had an email from Marine Factors to say that my replacement 620 20KG has arrived and they are ready to swap out the existing 20KG 420 unit that I have.

Chris

So now wouldn't be a good time to ask if they wouldn't mind awfully swapping it for a Spade instead?

 

[vyv_cox]

Just had an email from Marine Factors to say that my replacement 620 20KG has arrived and they are ready to swap out the existing 20KG 420 unit that I have.

Chris

Did they tell you it was Q620? The YM test on a recent anchor shows it to be neither Q420, 620 nor Bisplate 80.

 

[braehouse]

Did they tell you it was Q620? The YM test on a recent anchor shows it to be neither Q420, 620 nor Bisplate 80.

Actually no they have not said what metal. I assumed it would be 620. Will ask the question.

Chris

 

[mixmaster]

Just got the following reply from Marine Factors, the UK Rocna distributor:


Based on the time you purchased your anchor we can confirm that it is not affected by the issue in question (I appreciate that some inaccurate media coverage may have led you to believe that it was – you are not the only one). Only one batch of faulty anchors, totalling 55, was delivered to the uk and this was in May of 2010 – well after you purchased your anchor from Arthurs.
*
I hope this serves to reassure your confidence in what we believe to be the best anchor available on the market today.
*
Kind regards,


Is that correct or should I still be worried?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

I thought that we had been told that no faulty anchors came to UK?

 

[GrantKing]

Just got the following reply from Marine Factors, the UK Rocna distributor:


Based on the time you purchased your anchor we can confirm that it is not affected by the issue in question (I appreciate that some inaccurate media coverage may have led you to believe that it was – you are not the only one). Only one batch of faulty anchors, totalling 55, was delivered to the uk and this was in May of 2010 – well after you purchased your anchor from Arthurs.
*
I hope this serves to reassure your confidence in what we believe to be the best anchor available on the market today.
*
Kind regards,


Is that correct or should I still be worried?

A Chinese 25kg purchased in April 09 would only be a 420 or even a 400 shank, no way around it, thats all that produced during that time. It has been detailed many times over on this and other forums.

It is beside the point anyway as at that time you were sold a Bis80 ( 800) shanked anchor. That is how they were extensively advertised and promoted worldwide both online, in print, and instore.

Doesnt matter how much spin is put on it, you did not get what you paid for.

 

[GrantKing]

I thought that we had been told that no faulty anchors came to UK?

+1

 

[Chris_Robb]

Just got the following reply from Marine Factors, the UK Rocna distributor:


Based on the time you purchased your anchor we can confirm that it is not affected by the issue in question (I appreciate that some inaccurate media coverage may have led you to believe that it was – you are not the only one). Only one batch of faulty anchors, totalling 55, was delivered to the uk and this was in May of 2010 – well after you purchased your anchor from Arthurs.
*
I hope this serves to reassure your confidence in what we believe to be the best anchor available on the market today.
*
Kind regards,


Is that correct or should I still be worried?

I would still be worried. The lies that have come from this bunch are legendary. As Grant says - they were certainly not made from the stated materials so ask for your money back.

Also you might try Vyvs punch test, where if the mettle is not Bisally 80, there will be a substantial mark left in the shank when you whack it (technical term). PM Vyv for details if you cannot find it on this enormous thread.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Also you might try Vyvs punch test, where if the mettle is not Bisally 80, there will be a substantial mark left in the shank when you whack it (technical term). PM Vyv for details if you cannot find it on this enormous thread.

Vyv detailed a much more reproducible test in YM. Basically sandwich a steel ball bearing between a stainless bolt head and the anchor shank. Crush the sandwich in a vice. If the bb leaves a bigger dent in the shank than in the bolt head, you ain't got what you paid for.

 

[vyv_cox]

Vyv detailed a much more reproducible test in YM. Basically sandwich a steel ball bearing between a stainless bolt head and the anchor shank. Crush the sandwich in a vice. If the bb leaves a bigger dent in the shank than in the bolt head, you ain't got what you paid for.

The bolt should be an 8.8, which is a heat-treated steel. Bolts of this standard are in general use, available everywhere. The 8.8 is marked on the head. I don't claim ownership of this standard, as it was suggested first in this thread.

Any small ball bearing will do, e.g. bike shop. The hardness of these is considerably higher than that of an anchor shank, even a Bisplate 80 one!

The comparative test method described by Ken has been in use for well over 100 years, although the load is normally applied with a hammer in a special little tool. I simply substituted a vice, which is available to most people.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

grade 8.8 stainless steel bolts are not heat treated ( austenitics cannot be heat treated in the normal sense of that phrase) but made from wire stock that has been cold drawn with the required strength coming partly from that and partly from the thread rolling. For that reason I would be surprised if the hardness across the head were consistent. Much better to use an ordinary carbon steel high tensile bots which will have been heat treated.

 

[vyv_cox]

grade 8.8 stainless steel bolts are not heat treated ( austenitics cannot be heat treated in the normal sense of that phrase) but made from wire stock that has been cold drawn with the required strength coming partly from that and partly from the thread rolling. For that reason I would be surprised if the hardness across the head were consistent. Much better to use an ordinary carbon steel high tensile bots which will have been heat treated.

I didn't mention stainless. Can austenitic stainless steel be hardened to 8.8? I would have expected a bolt to this spec to be a 400 series but I have no experience in this area.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I didn't mention stainless. Can austenitic stainless steel be hardened to 8.8? I would have expected a bolt to this spec to be a 400 series but I have no experience in this area.

Sorry guys, it was me (metallurgical dummkopf) who mentioned stainless. Red herring.

 

[Danny Jo]

Postscript re Spade

So now wouldn't be a good time to ask if they wouldn't mind awfully swapping it for a Spade instead?

Other owners of Rocnas intending to eliminate any nagging doubt about the reliability of their anchor by swapping to a Spade might be interested in my experience: you might find that elimination of doubt is impossible (even supposing it is a worthy goal).

My nagging doubt about the strength of the Rocna shank has been replaced by a nagging doubt about the wisdom of the Spade design, in which the galvanized steel shank is held in its slot in the galvanized steel fluke with a rather flimsy-looking stainless bolt (M8 at a guess), threaded over its entire length, and of course a nylock nut. Yes, I know that the design is such that there is no load on the bolt when the anchor is under design load, and yes, I know that the only report of a Spade anchor coming apart on Yachting and Boating World forums is of dubious provenance, but nagging doubts tend to resist rational analysis.

The 15 kg Rocna is the biggest that would fit into Danny Jo's anchor locker, but it was smaller than the one recommended by Craig Smith for Danny Jo. In the entirely imaginary scenario that (a) I had the space and (b) I hadn't already spent the money I received for sacrificing my 15 kg version, I would opt for a 20 kg Rocna in preference to a 20 kg Spade on the grounds that (a) it just "looks" simpler, better made, and more robust; (b) there is some, admittedly limited evidence, that it sets quicker; and (c) it has a large fluke surface area.

Against these, the Spade, in having no roll bar and a shorter shank: (a) will fit into a smaller space; (b) is easier to pass through the pulpit; (c) may be less prone to bending (on design grounds, at least, although I think the evidence that this actually occurs less frequently in practice is at best contentious).

 

[vyv_cox]

I didn't mention stainless. Can austenitic stainless steel be hardened to 8.8? I would have expected a bolt to this spec to be a 400 series but I have no experience in this area.

I looked it up to satisfy my curiosity, and maybe someone else's. All of these designations are marked on the bolt head.

8.8 refers specifically to a carbon, i.e. not stainless, steel. Stainless steel bolts are referred to by the designations we are familiar with, A2, A4, etc. The only austenitic stainless steel that just about makes the strength of an 8.8 carbon steel bolt is A5, which is a special 316Ti that I confess I didn't know existed in bolt form until now.

The 400 series stainless steels are either C1, C3, C4 for martensitic, or F1 for ferritic. All are heat treated and therefore quite strong, the martensitic being the stronger. 400 series are quite corrosion resistant but not as much so as the 300 series.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Vyv
I'm sure there is a stainless specification bolt that is high tensile but I cannot remember the din designation of it and I cannot find it on the net where they seem to expect you to pay for standards! Outrageous.

I have to admit that its 30 years or so since I was involved in the manufacture of stainless steel wire for sale to the nut and bolt makers. So long ago that GKN were still making them and no one had heard of the Koreans or Japs. So things might well have changed. But we were then the big boys on the block and we supplied little in the way of 400 series for that application ( more for rivets) and virtually all of the bolt material was 304 or 316 ( often with copper added to improve forgeability)or more exotic nickel alloys. Tensile was adjusted by the degree of final cold working both in a light final draw and in thread rolling.

And thats about as much as I can still remember.

 

[Plevier]

A bit of Fred Drift but in relation to the question of grades, I have some stainless M10 hex head machine screws that say on the head "A4 8.0". I don't know what that means! 8.0 doesn't make sense in the normal marking code.

 

[snooks]

From neeves......

Jonathan Neeves, the Author of one of the YM pieces aske me to post this on his behalf as he's off sailing......

"If these posts look ‘odd’, I apologise.

Josephine and I are at sea (Coral Sea), reliant on expensive, slow and intermittent satellite internet access. With IPC’s help we have managed to develop a cost effective way for me to post but I’m relying on memory and unpredictable interruptions! We should get back to Sydney mid April.
I assume everyone has gained access to the YM article, including Youen (with whom I sympathise – YM takes much longer to get to Oz!).
I note that the reaction to the April YM ‘Rocna’ article by the UK chandlers remains consistent, ‘the journalists are mis-informed’.

A little background. Linox’ skill is in ‘lost wax’ casting of 316 stainless and (in terms of Holdfast) in securing a partner in China to effect the same. Linox provided synergy for Holdfast as this allowed them an opening to low cost offshore manufacturing. Initial work with Linox was in parallel with Holdfast’s own attempts to develop a partner in India (one of their employees was Indian and had family there) but the Indian connection was never successful. The initial contacts, between Holdfast and Linox took months, in the end, even years to get anywhere. The productive relationship only lasted 6 months. The precipitate cancellation of the Linox/Holdfast relationship, by the latter, was no secret in the industry in Australia and New Zealand and Linox even made contribution to an early YBW/Rocna thread. Linox made no loss at termination but did miss out on future profit – the cost of pursuing Holdfast through a legal process was considered investing good money after bad and the whole episode was consigned to (bad) experience. Linox had no knowledge of anchors nor any knowledge of their use. Linox’ role was simply a facilitator (with ‘relevant’ Chinese industry) and an expert in lost wax casting.

In conversation I had with Linox over steels used in Rocna anchors it was repetitively mentioned that ‘everyone knew (at Rocna) that Q420 was used in the shanks’. Hearsay is one thing, evidence is better and here are a few examples:
At the end of October 2008 Holdfast sent an email to Linox and the gist of it was ‘now that we have agreed to change the steel quality used for the shanks (from Bisplate 80?) we had anticipated that production problems would be overcome’. What the problems were is not defined, neither is the steel to which they changed. The bullet point minutes produced by Pangtong as a result of a meeting between Linox and Pangtong in Shanghai on the 5th December 2008 clearly defines that ‘the outstanding order of 844 galvanised anchors will be made with Q420 steel in the shanks’. To reiterate – these minutes are produced by Pangtong (in both English and Chinese and the translation is accurate). The 844 anchors in the minutes correlate exactly with a spreadsheet of outstanding orders to Europe and New Zealand (totalling 844). Finally Linox sent an email to Holdfast in April 2009 (this is after the completion of shipment of the aforementioned 844 anchors), as part of a discussion on pricing, that they (Linox) had little room for manoeuvre on pricing as everyone was aware that utilisation of Q420 left little room for flexibility. This email is filed with an Excel pricing spreadsheet titled, ‘420 gal anchors’. It is not until August 2009 that there is any indication of concern over the use of Q420 as a steel quality for the shanks. The correspondence stalls at this point with the termination of the Linox/Holdfast relationship.

The 844 anchors were shipped (by air to NZ at the very end of Dec 200) by sea by March 2009), variously to Europe and New Zealand – though not exactly as originally envisaged as some of the anchors originally intended for New Zealand were re-directed to other destinations, Europe (36 Denmark), Middle East, HK (10) etc. Confirmation of these shipments, including the 300 to the UK, specifically England (even though the purchaser was Boyds) and 150 to Benelux, is included in shipping documents, packing lists, invoices, receipt of payments from HSBC etc.

The concerns in August 2009 over the use of Q420 have been said to have had little initial impact – primarily as there were large stocks of precut 420 shanks. Large stock holdings have always been a feature of Chinese industry. Historically supply of raw material was so unpredictable factories always held large stock, equally production processes were so large (for a large Chinese market) that our idea of large might be a trial run for the Chinese! In an August 2008 email, Holdfast to Linox, it was agreed to cast, 700 x 4kg flukes, 700 x 6kg flukes, 500 x 10kg flukes, 500 x 15kg flukes etc – based on documented sales these could relate to 3-4 year stock! If they cut and stocked the shanks the same way?

There is an Excel spreadsheet ‘available’ that defines Holdfast sales from China for the period around April 2009 to May 2010. The spreadsheet looks genuine – but there is no corroboration, it is simply a Holdfast spreadsheet and being single sourced cannot be published with any authority. It purports to define every shipment to every key importer and includes steel quality, payments, dates of shipments etc. Some corroboration is available as it includes approximately 50 x 420 shanked anchors shipped in May 2010 to the UK (admitted to by UK chandlers), 209 anchors to America (and the subject of the WM ‘Specification Notice’) and the total 2009 out of spec anchors agrees approximately with Peter Smith’s admission of 700 x 420 shanked anchors. Given that the 2010 data looks genuine, if Smith, WM and the UK chandlers provide corroboration, then is might not be a major step to consider the second half 2009 data is equally genuine (as it is all one document) – this latter includes another 100 x 420 units for the UK.

Taking the 844 anchors that Pangtong minuted as to be made from 420 steel and the ‘shipping document’ the total numbers of 420 shanked anchors is slightly less that 2,000 units, of which 450 came to the UK, slightly more than 200 to America. The biggest recipient was NZ (from memory near 500) with the balance (around 800 units) largely continental Europe.
Unfortunately Manson sampled 2 anchors in NZ that they bought in early 2011, both were 420 shanked (see Manson’s website). The chandler from where these anchors were purchased were the largest Rocna dealers in NZ and they either had appalling stock control or the use of 420 shanks continued well beyond mid 2010.

To put the 844 anchors into context. These are the batch from which the Venice anchor came. The Venice anchor was supplied by the Italian importer and came from their shipment of 79 anchors. The Venice anchor was not an isolated incident, other anchors from this batch also bent and an anchor from the 209 shipped to America in early 2010 have also been reported to have bent. Thanks to RocnaONE et al I have this nasty suspicion most bent anchor stories have been suppressed and the evidence removed.

If I had bought a Rocna anchor in the UK after February 2009, at least upto December 2010, and being a cynic anything bought prior to the new CMP production. I would be very suspicious of its quality. I would use Vyv’s test, in the YM article, and report the results here. The Chinese anchors would have a cast fluke but as the embossing might have been ground off, check for the weld line on the upper surface of the fluke, the weld between the thicker toe and thinner heel. If there is no weld – its cast.
Jonathan Neeves
March 19 2012."

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

I have just fitted a new CMP 33 kg Rocna. I am not in the least worried about it.