YM and Jimmy Green Settle their differences...

[vyv_cox]

I am not going to say too much about this, under the circumstances. The reality is that I phoned JG and explained exactly what I was going to do and asked for a 1.5 metre length of their product. They sent it to me FOC, with a test certificate. On either the day it arrived or the one after I had a serious accident that kept me in hospital for two weeks and in bed for three months. A long time later I was finally ready to carry out the destructive tests, upon which I found that the certificate accompanying the sample clearly stated that it was Grade 30.

I cannot say more.

 

[prv]

Credit where credit is due they have lowered the prices considerably since I last looked and it is a good price

Bugger

Pete

 

[Zagato]

Pete I was pointed in the direction of JM this time last year for anchor chain but found Force4 to be much cheaper (about a third) JM may have dropped their prices since then though...

 

[Neeves]

To my mind, comparative tests should be of current, rather than historic products. That seems obvious to me but I'll try to spell it out: JG swapped from Vigouroux to Grade 40 chain by Maggi Catene. Imagine one of the other firms in the test have since swapped the other way... YM's test would have completely missed that.

Clearly the lead time of the Mag (2-3 Months?) means that sometimes they will end up reviewing discontinued product but comparing stuff from two years ago seems a bit beyond the pale.

Again if reviews of the state of the Market for a product in 2010 are useful then YM could just say in the title: "Comparative test of Chain available in 2010." Ideal for YM readers with a time machine and a credit card from 2 years back!

Essentially I'm saying reviews of product from 2010 in current mags are less useful than current product. If historic reviews are deemed useful, then the review could state clearly the date they are relevant to.

Toad, I agree, in part.

Testing electronics is fraught with the problems you outline, test something a couple of months after it is released, wait for it to be accepted and edited and by the time it hits the news stands - its history. Not the reviewers fault - but that's how it happens. And the reviewer does not get paid. To test electronics you need to have access to the equipment as soon as its released (preferably prior), you need to test immediately (difficult if its something that is released in December but needs tested offshore - I think you still have winter in the UK?), there need be no delays (so maybe some reviews are skimped - do you really want me to quote you?), written. edited, published - and for some kit - you might still be out of date.

I spent days, probably 10, on an electronics product, the UK mag dragged its heels - its still current, but yesterday's hero, I do not get paid. Why so long - the equipment did not meet the hype, so we retested with a new bit of kit, we had software updates - I gave the supplier every bit of opportunity to meet the hype - by the time we had finished it was old news. I did the review properly, made sure it was not me, made sure it was not the equipment - and because I did it properly, I did not get paid. The penalty of being freelance (maybe too meticulous, for which I get no credit).


Anchor chain, or a review on a yacht is different. They are enduring. Chain lasts a long time, our chain is now 12 years old - someone ( the public) bought the chain that Vyv tested, JG sold it (no-one issued a recall) Do you want it swept under the carpet? Do you want the idea that someone is happy to sell an offspec product (that they seem to admit they knew about)? The chain might not fail - but that is not the point, it was out of spec.

It might be messy, but Vyv seems to have identified something that makes me uncomfortable. Remove people with enquiring minds, like Vyv (and if you like, YM), who are you to rely on, Holdfast? The work might have been serendipity but it is, to my mind, valuable.

I would like to think that if a supplier finds they have an off spec product they 'engineer' a recall. I do not mind how they do it. Phone all their customers quietly, or publish in the press. I do not like to find out later, when the rubbish has been offloaded onto the, unsuspecting, customer. If the industry met my thoughts, Vyv would not find dirty washing.

Jonathan

 

[basil421]

I am not going to say too much about this, under the circumstances. The reality is that I phoned JG and explained exactly what I was going to do and asked for a 1.5 metre length of their product. They sent it to me FOC, with a test certificate. On either the day it arrived or the one after I had a serious accident that kept me in hospital for two weeks and in bed for three months. A long time later I was finally ready to carry out the destructive tests, upon which I found that the certificate accompanying the sample clearly stated that it was Grade 30.

This being the case did not the sample pass the test?

JG state that they were unhappy because of certification issues. Clearly it did not meet the Grade 40 quality which JG advertise. But the the sample tested seems to have matched the spec'n as stated on the certificate supplied with it. Why would you recall the sample?

We don't know if any of this batch was supplied to the public as Grade 40.

 

[nimbusgb]

Can you point me to where? Earlier this evening I nearly clicked "Buy" on 50m of grade 40 calibrated 8mm for £280.50 (inc vat, exc delivery) from Jimmy Green. If you know where I can find the same (note, grade 40, calibrated) for £140 I'd be delighted.

Cheers,

Pete

http://www.bradneychain.com/

 

[prv]

http://www.bradneychain.com/

I looked there, but despite promising "ex works price lists" on the right hand side of the page, I can't actually find any prices.

Do you know what their prices are, or is this just a general recommendation of them as a supplier?

Pete

 

[geoid96]

It's not easy to find:
http://www.bradneychain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/012ii-Calibrated-Chain-March-2012.pdf

 

[prv]

It's not easy to find:
http://www.bradneychain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/012ii-Calibrated-Chain-March-2012.pdf

Thanks!

Not quite the half price I was tempted with , but not at all bad especially since delivery is included, and Bradney is a respected make (albeit I'm not sure they actually make the smaller sizes themselves any more). Think this is going to be the one I go with, just need to make up my mind whether to take Snooks's advice on length (in my other thread)

Cheers,

Pete

 

[jdc]

A pox on the industry

I'm wholeheartedly with Vyv on this!

The industry behaves as the worst of the old british dinosaurs and does neither itself nor us its customers any favours. My experiences buying chain for my current boat are illustrative:

First chain supplied by the (British) builder. 60m of 9.5mm short link. No idea if Grade 30 or 40, no CofC, manufacturer and country of origin unknown (even to the boat builder). Galvanising lasted 3 seasons.

Bought replacement chain. Bradney often recommended so contacted them, but they only work by 'phone and took ages to give me the email quote I wanted. Checked with Jimmy Green but their salesman couldn't say if it was 30 or 40 chain, nor where it came from. Local (Mylor) chandlery quoted less than the Bradney quote to me for my specific order of grade 40 and of european manufacture with CofC. No complaint so far, but did I get a CofC? Like heck I did, and as for proof that it was tested or grade 40 not 30 I can go whistle.

Recently bought new riser assembly from GaelForce. Extremely helpful people and doubtless it's all to excellent quality. But again, no CofC until pushed and reminded, and none at all for the chain itself. No spec supplied except dimensions, some confusion as to the factor of min break strength / WLL (is it 4 or 5?) I guess the specs from William Hackett's web site, but have no idea if it came from there originally.

So at no point were any the chains supplied by anyone accompanied by the information I'd have hoped for:
- Grade
- WLL
- Min Break Load
- Galvanising spec (eg Zinc thickness or any other outgoing QC factor)
- Original manufacturing company (required for traceability)
- Country of origin.

It's pretty poor really, so good on YM to start to champion this.

 

[nimbusgb]

My quote for 80m of 10mm is about 100 cheaper than that pdf sheet. Worth ringing them!

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

This being the case did not the sample pass the test? Why would you recall the sample? We don't know if any of this batch was supplied to the public as Grade 40.

+1. I was more interested in the standard of Journalism but since we've drifted, I can't reconcile this statement:

the certificate accompanying the sample clearly stated that it was Grade 30.

With this one:

Do you want the idea that someone is happy to sell an offspec product (that they seem to admit they knew about)?

Essentially I'm saying reviews of product from 2010 in current mags are less useful than current product. If historic reviews are deemed useful, then the review could state clearly the date they are relevant to.

Toad, I agree, in part.

Which part of what I wrote do you not agree with?

Sight thread drift but I have not read of grade 30 chain snapping. I would expect the deck fittings to give way before the chain. Am I mistaken?

An interesting digression though. I've found this on Cruisers Forum, no idea of it's veracity:

g30 is basically a grade of steel, lower in carbon content than g40, it has a recommended working safe load half of g40, though a breaking strain only 30% less.
Regalvanising weakens higher carbon content steels, g40 less so than g70 which is severely reduced. g30 weakens very little due to galvanising as it is not tempered (ie heat treated like g40/g70 are) so in the longer term g40 will be almost as weak as g30 once it has been galvanised, so the performance gain is only useful for the first few years of life.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/grade-30-vs-grade-40-chain-75288.html

and this:

May be true of G30 chain, which is generally what your chandler sells, although some authorities are telling me that galvanizing three times is enough. For any heat-treated steel, i.e. G40 and upwards, there will be a reduction in strength due to tempering by the galv process, and possibly some intergranular penetration by the pickling acid and zinc, which would be catastrophic.

 

[vyv_cox]

g30 is basically a grade of steel, lower in carbon content than g40, it has a recommended working safe load half of g40, though a breaking strain only 30% less.
Regalvanising weakens higher carbon content steels, g40 less so than g70 which is severely reduced. g30 weakens very little due to galvanising as it is not tempered (ie heat treated like g40/g70 are) so in the longer term g40 will be almost as weak as g30 once it has been galvanised, so the performance gain is only useful for the first few years of life.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/grade-30-vs-grade-40-chain-75288.html

Never believe anything you read on the Internet! This statement is wrong in almost every respect. The UTS (breaking force) of Grade 30 is 30 kN and of Grade 40 it is 40 kN, both minimum values. The SWL is a quarter of these figures reflecting a safety factor of 4:1.

The carbon content of 40 is higher, although it is not allowed to be higher than 0.23%, which by most definitions still makes it mild steel. The critical addition is manganese, which increases its strength. Galvanising has absolutely no effect on its strength. It is not heat treated.

Grade 70 has the same composition as grade 40 but it is heat treated. Again, galvanising does not affect its strength but the pickling involved prior to re-galvanising may possibly lead to hydrogen embrittlement, but not if it is done correctly.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Never believe anything you read on the Internet!

Indeed:

The carbon content of 40 is higher, although it is not allowed to be higher than 0.23%, which by most definitions still makes it mild steel. The critical addition is manganese, which increases its strength. Galvanising has absolutely no effect on its strength. It is not heat treated.

May be true of G30 chain, which is generally what your chandler sells, although some authorities are telling me that galvanizing three times is enough. For any heat-treated steel, i.e. G40 and upwards, there will be a reduction in strength due to tempering by the galv process, and possibly some intergranular penetration by the pickling acid and zinc, which would be catastrophic.

 

[vyv_cox]

Very true. I'm not sure when I wrote the last paragraph but I have learned a lot about chain since then. Or, maybe I wrote 40 when I meant 70, not unknown

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Very true. I'm not sure when I wrote the last paragraph but I have learned a lot about chain since then. Or, maybe I wrote 40 when I meant 70, not unknown

Totally understand. Well, I've learned something about chain from this thread, which I wasn't really expecting at the outset. Fair winds.

 

[wotayottie]

vyv - I always tell my wife that consistency is the sign of a small mind.

I left the industry when we still talked tonnes tensile so I am not sure what a KN is in real units. But if 30kn translates into 20tt as I suspect then you are right - it would be the mildest of mild steel and un heat treated as indeed would be the 40kn spec. If the manufacture was from arc steel rather than BOS its likely that the 30kn would be exceeded by some margin, possibly to above the 40kn minimum. But these days my brain is more rusty than my anchor chain so dont rely on my comments.

 

[ParaHandy]

Some time ago, IPC were successfully sued by the wing-sail builder and, as I recall, their (IPC's) failure to ask wing-sail for an explanation for the perceived shortcomings of the design prior to printing the article in one of their yachting mags, contributed greatly to the judgement against them. For that reason, I'm surprised by what I'm reading.

It's entirely possible that Jimmy Green had doubts about their supplier's management, timeousness whatever; enough to make them doubt their supplier and, perhaps without the competence to prove or disprove the quality, decided the risk wasn't worth it and changed their supplier.

 

[Neeves]

Toad,

I disagreed with the idea that testing chain that was 2 years old was wrong. Because chain lasts a long time I would guess 2 year old chain, or older, is quite normal - its still current (on some yachts 2 year chain is still new). It is still on the bow roller of boats On the basis it is still current I think it merits inclusion. The sample was provided from stock, as standard chain (or to the standard Vyv wanted).

I thought JG in their comment suggested they were unhappy, or concerned about this batch, or this supplier (which resulted in the them changing their supplier). They sent Vyv a sample free of charge, Vyv says he told them why he wanted it - they did not contact Vyv with their fears (whatever those fears were) and update him. But maybe JG give free samples to a whole host of people and YM are simply not important? When I test samples the manufacturers are all over me, they do not forget that I am testing one of their products and the result of the test will appear in print - its not me needing to phone (or email) them, they do it. Maybe Vyv was an exception and they either dumped all the batch, Vyv being the only one to have a piece or they contacted individual buyers and recalled the lot (and none of the buyers mentioned the recall?). But it was JG who made the statement they were unhappy with the supply, sufficient to cause them to change supplier (but they do seem to have kept that change under wraps (certainly for the batch that Vyv had the sample from). They might have changed their website etc to reflect the change (but down played the reasons). I would not have though one would change suppliers for one batch (which I think is one big oil drums worth) but you might for a series of drums - were there other drums, what happened to them?

One might question aspects of the article - but do not become sidetracked into forgetting that there appears to have been sale of chain outside the specification advertised. Semantics, style etc are not top priority to the readers, integrity of suppliers is, I think, more important.

I cannot fault the basis of the test, its a pity we do not see more tests on uncertificated items (anchors, rigging wire(?), cordage, shackles, for example?).

Jonathan

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Essentially I'm saying reviews of product from 2010 in current mags are less useful than current product. If historic reviews are deemed useful, then the review could state clearly the date they are relevant to.

Toad, I agree, in part.

Which part of what I wrote do you not agree with?

I disagreed with the idea that testing chain that was 2 years old was wrong.

As you can see, that's not what I said, nor did anyone else.

A Journalist failing to check his facts on a thread about Journos failing to check their facts. You couldn't make it up.