GrantKing
New member
Carol, you have nothing whatsoever to worry about with your anchor from that date of manufacture, it will be a New Zealand one made from Bis80 as specified by the designer.
Sleep peacefully.
Grant
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
Carol, you have nothing whatsoever to worry about with your anchor from that date of manufacture, it will be a New Zealand one made from Bis80 as specified by the designer.
Sleep peacefully.
Grant
Neeves
Well-known member
Chris Robb,
Chris,
Recalls of anything marine is a real nightmare. Basically actual customers might not read forum and many do not read the magazine in which a recall notice is issued (though in the Rocna case that is not the issue as they are not issuing a recall notice, yet). However my guess is that most people buy with credit card and though it would still be something of a nightmare individual chandlers might be able to trace owners that way - so its not impossible. Someone said that as the season warms up anyone with a Rocna on their bow will have someelse pass and make comment - but that's hardly reliable.
So far there has been no recall, a Product Specification notice tucked away on West Marine's recall section (how many normally read that, even in America?) and a piece tucked away on Peter Smith's website (and how many read that?) Basically CMP appear to have gone out of their way to hide the issue, equally they never contacted Linox, I do not think they have asked grant King for his documentation and they have never asked YM for any of the documentation that supports the articles (and which was available to IPC's legal team). Ostriches come to mind.
One thing I do find odd is that I tour marina's wherever I am, so I've been to Japan's biggest, in Yokohama,, I've traipsed round most of Sydney's and I've done all and any in Plymouth, N Wales and Lancs I ask correspondents to cover places I do not go, like the med Marinas. I simply do not see the numbers, 12,000, that CMP claim. In a 500 yacht marina that has a Rocna dealer nearby I'm lucky to see 8, in many I see none So where they all go I have no idea. Maybe there are lots in NZ, they certainly took a lot of 420 shanked Chinese models (slightly more than the UK). Most yachts carry a plough, either CQR or Delta (or variants) Danforths (or variants) and then there are local clusters, like Bruce in the UK and SARCA/Excels in Oz. - so there is a hiuge market to address!
Hopefully we will see a 'round up' article which will define the possible extent of the problem, in terms of numbers of anchors, and maybe this will crystallise the minds of owners, chandlers and CMP.
I'm not alarmist in suggesting that lives are at risk, though there is the outside chance, but leave your yacht at anchor overnight and there is a real chance that with a wind shift it could be on the beach when you get back
As long as owners and chandlers are unaware of the extent of the issue, to me 450 anchors is a lot, in the UK, on bow rollers with shanks of 420 and some of 400 is a lot, then the issue will be a continuous bone of contention - and CMP will always be on the defensive. Really the ball is in their court if they want market support.
Jonathan
Chris,
Recalls of anything marine is a real nightmare. Basically actual customers might not read forum and many do not read the magazine in which a recall notice is issued (though in the Rocna case that is not the issue as they are not issuing a recall notice, yet). However my guess is that most people buy with credit card and though it would still be something of a nightmare individual chandlers might be able to trace owners that way - so its not impossible. Someone said that as the season warms up anyone with a Rocna on their bow will have someelse pass and make comment - but that's hardly reliable.
So far there has been no recall, a Product Specification notice tucked away on West Marine's recall section (how many normally read that, even in America?) and a piece tucked away on Peter Smith's website (and how many read that?) Basically CMP appear to have gone out of their way to hide the issue, equally they never contacted Linox, I do not think they have asked grant King for his documentation and they have never asked YM for any of the documentation that supports the articles (and which was available to IPC's legal team). Ostriches come to mind.
One thing I do find odd is that I tour marina's wherever I am, so I've been to Japan's biggest, in Yokohama,, I've traipsed round most of Sydney's and I've done all and any in Plymouth, N Wales and Lancs I ask correspondents to cover places I do not go, like the med Marinas. I simply do not see the numbers, 12,000, that CMP claim. In a 500 yacht marina that has a Rocna dealer nearby I'm lucky to see 8, in many I see none So where they all go I have no idea. Maybe there are lots in NZ, they certainly took a lot of 420 shanked Chinese models (slightly more than the UK). Most yachts carry a plough, either CQR or Delta (or variants) Danforths (or variants) and then there are local clusters, like Bruce in the UK and SARCA/Excels in Oz. - so there is a hiuge market to address!
Hopefully we will see a 'round up' article which will define the possible extent of the problem, in terms of numbers of anchors, and maybe this will crystallise the minds of owners, chandlers and CMP.
I'm not alarmist in suggesting that lives are at risk, though there is the outside chance, but leave your yacht at anchor overnight and there is a real chance that with a wind shift it could be on the beach when you get back
As long as owners and chandlers are unaware of the extent of the issue, to me 450 anchors is a lot, in the UK, on bow rollers with shanks of 420 and some of 400 is a lot, then the issue will be a continuous bone of contention - and CMP will always be on the defensive. Really the ball is in their court if they want market support.
Jonathan
Last edited:
GrantKing
New member
Mid 2010 the sales were only at 5000 and the downturn from there murdered their sales. The figure of 12,000 includes 6000 bottle openers and I dont see them planning on replacing those because they work just fine.
One of the major disagreements between Bambury and Smith was the inclusion by Bambury of the bottle opener sales in the royalty reports in order to make up the numbers under the manufacturing license. Bambury argued that they were to be included and therefor the minimum sales were reached as per agreement whereas Smith would not accept that as a valid arguement and demanded payment of the shortfall under the agreement. That was in mid 2010 and the dialogue regarding this is included in the files going to Neeves.
The inflated figures ( including the bottle openers) were always used by Bambury as a sales pitch.
Neeves
Well-known member
12,000 or 5,000 units
]As a sales pitch the 12,000 units has definitely worked, hook, line and sinker. CMP believe it, which just goes to show the value of due diligence. Oddly Peter Smith who also seems to know the true figure and is part of the team at CMP has obviously been reluctant to spill the beans to his new lincensee - so everyone is staying in character and predictable. One might also have thought Steve Pocock would have raised his eyebrows at 12,000 units - my guess might be the actual sales (the 5,000 units since 2005 till recent) is now just another part of the heartache for John Mitchell (but that's presumably what he is paid for.
What it must be to have trustworthy staff and an exciting new product ah! the stuff of dreams.
As for 5,000 units - it looks more reasonable given the numbers that one sees in marinas - but it does mean the 2,000 out of spec units represents 40% of sales (and a much greater proportion of sales since Dec 2008 when the first shipment went to NZ). It would be interesting to have a breakdown of sales over time but if I were to guess I'd be thinking a lot of the 2,000 (420 and 400 shanked units) were sold to consumers in 2009 and early 2010 but also late in 2010 and some in early 2011 - which is at least partially confirmed by the 420 shanked unit bought in Auckland in Feb 2011 and the fact that Rocna are to replace a unit bought (April 2011) in the Algarve.
Obviously some units bought in 2011 were shanked with a 'reasonable' steel, either Q620 or the HSLA (identified by YM - but one does wonder if Rocna knew anytthing about this) as this was what Delfin, YM (Danny Jo) and one Feb 2011 NZ anchor seem to be made from. But its still all a bit iffy!
Have a good day
Jonathan
]As a sales pitch the 12,000 units has definitely worked, hook, line and sinker. CMP believe it, which just goes to show the value of due diligence. Oddly Peter Smith who also seems to know the true figure and is part of the team at CMP has obviously been reluctant to spill the beans to his new lincensee - so everyone is staying in character and predictable. One might also have thought Steve Pocock would have raised his eyebrows at 12,000 units - my guess might be the actual sales (the 5,000 units since 2005 till recent) is now just another part of the heartache for John Mitchell (but that's presumably what he is paid for.
What it must be to have trustworthy staff and an exciting new product ah! the stuff of dreams.
As for 5,000 units - it looks more reasonable given the numbers that one sees in marinas - but it does mean the 2,000 out of spec units represents 40% of sales (and a much greater proportion of sales since Dec 2008 when the first shipment went to NZ). It would be interesting to have a breakdown of sales over time but if I were to guess I'd be thinking a lot of the 2,000 (420 and 400 shanked units) were sold to consumers in 2009 and early 2010 but also late in 2010 and some in early 2011 - which is at least partially confirmed by the 420 shanked unit bought in Auckland in Feb 2011 and the fact that Rocna are to replace a unit bought (April 2011) in the Algarve.
Obviously some units bought in 2011 were shanked with a 'reasonable' steel, either Q620 or the HSLA (identified by YM - but one does wonder if Rocna knew anytthing about this) as this was what Delfin, YM (Danny Jo) and one Feb 2011 NZ anchor seem to be made from. But its still all a bit iffy!
Have a good day
Jonathan
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I wouldn't want to use a Rocna....even to open a bottle! 
newWave
Member
Anny pictures of bend bottle openers?
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
Not alarmist????
There may be some bent anchors out there, but I am not aware of a single incidence of a Rocna anchor actually letting go of the sea bed. Are you, or is this just a theory?
Neeves
Well-known member
Ex-Solent Boy
Do not blame me! But it was Peter Smith who spouted off about how perfectly balanced anchors needed to be to work. I really do not recall but I think he was suggesting Rocnas were high technology, perfectly balanced and everything designed to precise angles, weights, ratios and of course strength - etc.
However I have done some work on setting anchors fully, then loading them at 90 degrees - to see how they re-set. Setting again properly and seeing what happened when they are loaded at 180 degrees. So no its not theory. The work was done on a Rocna, Supreme Excel, SARCA, Delta, CQR, Fishermans, 2 x Bruce types, Spade and Ultra. We did multiple runs for 90 degrees and 180 degrees. It took 7 people and about a weeks worth of field days. (but the Rocna was a NZ model) What happens with a CQR is that basically it does not re-set, whwereas most other anchors will reset (though some take longer than others). And the CQR is the only anchor whose fluke can be at an angle to the shank. So the shank can sit flat on the seabed and the toe simply is unable to engage, bend a Rocna and try to reset with the toe pointing up - its not rocket science!
I have not yet bent my 420 shanked Rocna (yes I have two, they are real and not a figment of the publication industry imagination), but its part of the programme (to see what actual load they bend at). As you have prompted me I'll then set the anchor with the bent shank (I'll go for 10 degrees off true for the shank) but set the fluke by hand and properly, then see what happens when I load it at 90 degrees and 180 degrees. To see if it resets. It should then become part of the article I have to write on shank strengths that should be on the shelves in the near future (so thanks for prompting me to extend the work!)
Do not expect me to respond too quickly, as I have committments that pay the bills (but I'll let you know when its published, it will be done (even if CMP will offer no thanks nor income!)
Jonathan
Do not blame me! But it was Peter Smith who spouted off about how perfectly balanced anchors needed to be to work. I really do not recall but I think he was suggesting Rocnas were high technology, perfectly balanced and everything designed to precise angles, weights, ratios and of course strength - etc.
However I have done some work on setting anchors fully, then loading them at 90 degrees - to see how they re-set. Setting again properly and seeing what happened when they are loaded at 180 degrees. So no its not theory. The work was done on a Rocna, Supreme Excel, SARCA, Delta, CQR, Fishermans, 2 x Bruce types, Spade and Ultra. We did multiple runs for 90 degrees and 180 degrees. It took 7 people and about a weeks worth of field days. (but the Rocna was a NZ model) What happens with a CQR is that basically it does not re-set, whwereas most other anchors will reset (though some take longer than others). And the CQR is the only anchor whose fluke can be at an angle to the shank. So the shank can sit flat on the seabed and the toe simply is unable to engage, bend a Rocna and try to reset with the toe pointing up - its not rocket science!
I have not yet bent my 420 shanked Rocna (yes I have two, they are real and not a figment of the publication industry imagination), but its part of the programme (to see what actual load they bend at). As you have prompted me I'll then set the anchor with the bent shank (I'll go for 10 degrees off true for the shank) but set the fluke by hand and properly, then see what happens when I load it at 90 degrees and 180 degrees. To see if it resets. It should then become part of the article I have to write on shank strengths that should be on the shelves in the near future (so thanks for prompting me to extend the work!)
Do not expect me to respond too quickly, as I have committments that pay the bills (but I'll let you know when its published, it will be done (even if CMP will offer no thanks nor income!)
Jonathan
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
I wouldn't want to use a Rocna....even to open a bottle!
Do the bottle openers bend? What a larf!
GrantKing
New member
bottle opener
I designed and implemented the bottle opener into production myself. In my previous work as a jeweller and patternmaker I had made untold other promotional bottleopeners for other customers.
This one presented the challenge of keeping the visual appearance of the original item and being able to work as well.
They were cast using the lost wax process from 202 stainless, sandblasted and acid dipped.
And no they do not bend.
Anny pictures of bend bottle openers?
I designed and implemented the bottle opener into production myself. In my previous work as a jeweller and patternmaker I had made untold other promotional bottleopeners for other customers.
This one presented the challenge of keeping the visual appearance of the original item and being able to work as well.
They were cast using the lost wax process from 202 stainless, sandblasted and acid dipped.
And no they do not bend.
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
I designed and implemented the bottle opener into production myself. In my previous work as a jeweller and patternmaker I had made untold other promotional bottleopeners for other customers.
This one presented the challenge of keeping the visual appearance of the original item and being able to work as well.
They were cast using the lost wax process from 202 stainless, sandblasted and acid dipped.
And no they do not bend.
How do I get one???
Please!!!!!
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-known member
Just to confirm....
what would my Rocna 15kg, supplied spring 2011 - ordered at boatshow be made from?
S.
what would my Rocna 15kg, supplied spring 2011 - ordered at boatshow be made from?
S.
Morven
New member
But is it SHHP certified (for pond yachts) and what grade stinless is it made from, the Internet demands to know the answers!!!
BTW, I googled, someone in NZ was selling them for $10 NZ, guess the s&h would easily double that.
Neeves
Well-known member
Scotty, it should be 620 or Danny Jo's HSLA but it could equally be 420 (I guess less likely to be 400).
I have conducted Vyv's ball bearing tests - its pretty easy. I got my ball bearing from the local service station who does our car. He gave me 5 ball bearings 11mm diam from a wheel bearing that fell apart from an old Subaru.
I used a Class 8.8 hi tensile bolt and a Class 5.6 hi tensile bolt (forget the nuts). I bought the bolts (and nuts) in blister packs (about Stg3 for 5 bolts) from my local steel merchant (you might get them in your DIY superstore). I've done Bis80, 420 and mild steel.
My vice is a medium sized metal working bench vice with 100mm jaws.
You need to grind off the gal from the shank, I'd work on the edge of the shank near the fluke (that's where you have the most metal so you are not going to alter the strength if everything turns out OK. If you have a part where the gal is already worn, use that part. You only need to remove about 10mm x 10mm of gal. Polish up with 80 grit. The reason for working at the edge is - if you need to take images you can get the edge and the bolt on the same image and a comparison of indents is easy and clear. Check that the place you grind allows you to get everything into the vice and still allows you to hold the ball and bolt in place when you tighten up.
The biggest problem is balancing the anchor, which is relatively big and heavy, and the tiny ball bearing and the bolt - best with 2 people. Really lean on the vice. Mark your indent and then repeat, if you have it, with another bolt of different value. If the indent is like the indent on the Class 5.6 bolt - its, 420. But you really need the 2 bolts so as you can see the difference. I found it surprisng reproducible. I produced the same sized indents for each metal, but I leant as hard as possible each time.
Bis 80 is very difficult to mark, you get a shallow indent, 420 is a stand out, quite deep and much larger indent. I'm guessing 620 is very similar to Bis 80.
I'd take images, close up, send to Vyv, or me (or both).
Its really pretty simple.
Once you are finished and find you have a 620 shank, paint with a gal paint and sleep fairly soundly.
Just out of interest - how big, long and weight, is your yacht and name?
Good Luck
Jonathan
I have conducted Vyv's ball bearing tests - its pretty easy. I got my ball bearing from the local service station who does our car. He gave me 5 ball bearings 11mm diam from a wheel bearing that fell apart from an old Subaru.
I used a Class 8.8 hi tensile bolt and a Class 5.6 hi tensile bolt (forget the nuts). I bought the bolts (and nuts) in blister packs (about Stg3 for 5 bolts) from my local steel merchant (you might get them in your DIY superstore). I've done Bis80, 420 and mild steel.
My vice is a medium sized metal working bench vice with 100mm jaws.
You need to grind off the gal from the shank, I'd work on the edge of the shank near the fluke (that's where you have the most metal so you are not going to alter the strength if everything turns out OK. If you have a part where the gal is already worn, use that part. You only need to remove about 10mm x 10mm of gal. Polish up with 80 grit. The reason for working at the edge is - if you need to take images you can get the edge and the bolt on the same image and a comparison of indents is easy and clear. Check that the place you grind allows you to get everything into the vice and still allows you to hold the ball and bolt in place when you tighten up.
The biggest problem is balancing the anchor, which is relatively big and heavy, and the tiny ball bearing and the bolt - best with 2 people. Really lean on the vice. Mark your indent and then repeat, if you have it, with another bolt of different value. If the indent is like the indent on the Class 5.6 bolt - its, 420. But you really need the 2 bolts so as you can see the difference. I found it surprisng reproducible. I produced the same sized indents for each metal, but I leant as hard as possible each time.
Bis 80 is very difficult to mark, you get a shallow indent, 420 is a stand out, quite deep and much larger indent. I'm guessing 620 is very similar to Bis 80.
I'd take images, close up, send to Vyv, or me (or both).
Its really pretty simple.
Once you are finished and find you have a 620 shank, paint with a gal paint and sleep fairly soundly.
Just out of interest - how big, long and weight, is your yacht and name?
Good Luck
Jonathan
GrantKing
New member
Sorry Scotty but I have no records for that period of time as mine only go up to mid 2010.
From what has been promoted by others within Holdfast it will likely be 620 shanked, which is in line with the situation in mid 2010 when the 15kg was the first sized shank to run out of the 420 shanks that were in stock.
It is not known if there was a reverting to 420 after I left in mid 2010 or if they were all made in 620 from that date.
If in doubt simply get it tested , however it was sold to you as a Bis80 when you purchased it so what you choose to do is up to you.
vyv_cox
Well-known member
11mm is rather larger than ideal, although it will still work. Interpretation would be easier with a smaller ball - mine was 6 mm and from memory the real Brinell ball is about half that. By using a smaller ball you will not have to lean so hard and could perhaps use a mole wrench or G-cramp, avoiding the support problem that Jonathan mentions.
When setting up the YM article I tried to arrange for the same hardness measurement method used by Holdfast and shown in photos somewhere up this thread. I was told in no uncertain terms that (a) this is not a serious instrument and (b) that it is only fairly repeatable if the sample being tested is at least one inch in thickness. The laboratory I used did not have one and could not locate one elsewhere in their organisation.
When setting up the YM article I tried to arrange for the same hardness measurement method used by Holdfast and shown in photos somewhere up this thread. I was told in no uncertain terms that (a) this is not a serious instrument and (b) that it is only fairly repeatable if the sample being tested is at least one inch in thickness. The laboratory I used did not have one and could not locate one elsewhere in their organisation.
bob234
Member
I agree a recall would be all but impossible.
Ex Solent Boy is right that CMP have no legal obligation to resolve this and that moral obligation doesn't come into it. However CMP have gone on record as saying they will refund/change anchors for customers who are concerned about their original purchase. Plus, the Rocna website told owners CMP would “find and replace” all “suspect” products. These statements are to their (CMP's) credit. However their actions (or rather lack of them) don't appear to be in line with these statements.
The issue for me here is that in the absence of a recall CMP, pursuant to their own statements, should at least be advising their stockists of the size of the potential problem. This doesn't seem to be happening, witness :-
- the UK chandler who is still reporting that they have been reassured there are only 50 affected anchors in the UK
- CMP apparently haven't taken steps to contact other parties (YM, Grant King and others) to verify the potential problem
- other dealers to my knowledge, including one here on the Algarve, claim not to have been advised by anyone further up the supply chain that there is, or has been, any known problem with Rocna anchors. There is a shiny Rocna sitting on the chandlers floor which is clearly Chinese made and which they say was bought around late 2008 early 2009 which has to be substandard. They have NO awareness that this is potentially below spec and haven't been asked to check supply dates.
What, if anything, are CMP doing to establish the extent of the potential problem? What are they doing to 'find and replace all suspect products' - at least by contacting their stockists even if contacting end customers isn't practical?
Bob
Hoolie
Well-known member
Nothing?
Neeves
Well-known member
Bob234
If its Chinese, cast fluke (with or without the embossing) its from 2009. The first direct shipments to Spain were in June 2009 (think arrival a month later). However it is entirely feasible they could have had stock from one of the earlier European shipments (early 2009), 150 to Benelux, 79 to Italy, 300 to UK, (it seems unlikely to have come from NZ, too expensive, 258 units).
Some, 100, of the 258 NZ were airfreights to NZ in Dec 2008 (this was the very first shipment) and there are no records nor mention of any earlier shipments from China. Its not that they did not ship - they had not, could not make any till they had agreed to the 420 shanks. These 100 units were part of Rocna stock intended for re-export (not for local distribution) - this is a real guess, many came to Australia?. The numbers quoted are most of the 844 declared as being made from Q420 (though the one recently tested was actually '400'!).
Jonathan
If its Chinese, cast fluke (with or without the embossing) its from 2009. The first direct shipments to Spain were in June 2009 (think arrival a month later). However it is entirely feasible they could have had stock from one of the earlier European shipments (early 2009), 150 to Benelux, 79 to Italy, 300 to UK, (it seems unlikely to have come from NZ, too expensive, 258 units).
Some, 100, of the 258 NZ were airfreights to NZ in Dec 2008 (this was the very first shipment) and there are no records nor mention of any earlier shipments from China. Its not that they did not ship - they had not, could not make any till they had agreed to the 420 shanks. These 100 units were part of Rocna stock intended for re-export (not for local distribution) - this is a real guess, many came to Australia?. The numbers quoted are most of the 844 declared as being made from Q420 (though the one recently tested was actually '400'!).
Jonathan
Neeves
Well-known member
Ball bearings
I used a 11mm ball bearing - because that's what I could get for free! and easily. Comparing mild steel, Q420 and Bis80 the width of the indent varied considerably. With a 6mm ball, or smaller you are presumably going to get a deeper indent in the softer metals and its going to be depth of indent as well as width that will vary.
I do confess I ramped up the pressure on the vice as much as I could so as to maximise the width of the indent.
I took images with the bolt indent and the shank indent side by side, its easy to compare on an image.
I used M12 and 7/16th bolts, they are easier to handle than small ones. I bought the shortest I could 30mm and 1 inch, they were cheaper.
Vyv, I can assure you trying to balance a 10kg anchor, whose test area might not be at the centre of gravity, an (even) 11mm ball and a 1 inch bolt in a vice requires skill! (The ball has a mind of its own! and smaller balls might have bigger minds!) 2 people make it so much easier!
But the technique works, it seems to be fool proof, it comes up with recognisable differences (though I'm not sure you can tell Q620 from Bis80), its cheap, its quick - any chandler could do it!
Great idea!
Jonathan
I used a 11mm ball bearing - because that's what I could get for free! and easily. Comparing mild steel, Q420 and Bis80 the width of the indent varied considerably. With a 6mm ball, or smaller you are presumably going to get a deeper indent in the softer metals and its going to be depth of indent as well as width that will vary.
I do confess I ramped up the pressure on the vice as much as I could so as to maximise the width of the indent.
I took images with the bolt indent and the shank indent side by side, its easy to compare on an image.
I used M12 and 7/16th bolts, they are easier to handle than small ones. I bought the shortest I could 30mm and 1 inch, they were cheaper.
Vyv, I can assure you trying to balance a 10kg anchor, whose test area might not be at the centre of gravity, an (even) 11mm ball and a 1 inch bolt in a vice requires skill! (The ball has a mind of its own! and smaller balls might have bigger minds!) 2 people make it so much easier!
But the technique works, it seems to be fool proof, it comes up with recognisable differences (though I'm not sure you can tell Q620 from Bis80), its cheap, its quick - any chandler could do it!
Great idea!
Jonathan