Canada Metals on Rocna: Doublespeak?

[hellosailor]

Given the costs of shipping, liability, etc? If the anchors are going back to the local dealers, they're probably being told to "destroy" them, i.e. make sure they are marked, then sold as scrap. I'm sure they could be donated to "Sea Scouts" or something but melting them down is probably what has to happen, economically. (Even an honorary Scotsman can understand that.)

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Given the costs of shipping, liability, etc? If the anchors are going back to the local dealers, they're probably being told to "destroy" them, i.e. make sure they are marked, then sold as scrap. I'm sure they could be donated to "Sea Scouts" or something but melting them down is probably what has to happen, economically. (Even an honorary Scotsman can understand that.)

I can see how that Sea Scouts idea could end badly .

Probably a temptation to re-sell the returns (whether re-branded or not)......but IMO Rocna would be class A idiots if they simply didn't suck it up and sell 'em for scrap (I would even go so far as to cut them up to save them being "recycled" back onto the market).

[Dkdoyle]

Well I understand all those arguments and they make perfect sense but now I am curious so will ask the local west marine owner that is z member of our club. I am sure the must be destroying them though.

[Shoalcove]

I understand some of the pricing issues but find it difficult to pay the same price as always for a premium product that perhaps isn't so premium anymore. Afterall, they have substituted inferior materials undoubtably to save money. Sure it may still be good enough, but good enough ain't premium in my books!

[hellosailor]

" Afterall, they have substituted inferior materials "
I think you are confusing "they"s here. From what's been said, a Chinese contractor for the previous manufacturer made the substitution on their own--cheating the Rocna company. No one has said that either Rocna (the old company or Canada metal) has substituted anything.

It is sadly common that Chinese contract manufacturers pull many cheats if they are n0ot supervised properly and closely, from substitute materials to running a second or third shift at night--off the books completely--with the equipment owned by the folks they contract to. Sometimes making counterfeit goods on the actual "real" equipment.

Once in a while the Chinese government makes an example of someone doing that, either by imprisoning them or shooting them. Usually, enforcement is lax and compliance has been a key complaint with companies that have contracted with Chinese vendors--and sometimes pulled their work back out of China after one stunt too many.

Not that businessmen don't pull off cheats in other places (Enron? The US banking industry and mortgage bundles?) but China keeps making the news that way.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

" Afterall, they have substituted inferior materials "
I think you are confusing "they"s here. From what's been said, a Chinese contractor for the previous manufacturer made the substitution on their own--cheating the Rocna company. No one has said that either Rocna (the old company or Canada metal) has substituted anything.

Umm, actually, not. It was asserted with a great deal of detail by a former Rocna employee -- Grant King -- that the former Rocna company specifically ordered the anchors to be made out of low-grade steel, namely, 420 mild steel, when production was first moved to China. Later, the steel was changed to higher grade (but still not the specified 800) 620 steel. This version of the events has not been disputed by anyone. No one has accused the Chinese contractor of any hanky-panky, in fact, the contractor was described as being quite good.

[Shoalcove]

Perhaps I am but my understanding was that originally they were spec'd with 800 Mpa shanks and now come with @620 with the manufacturers blessing. Some of the Chinese ones were around 400 which is what lead to this whole issue.
If I'm incorrect I appreciate being corrected and will be suitably abashed. After all there has been a lot of numbers bounced around.
Merry Christmas!

[Shoalcove]

Dockhead clearly types faster than me!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by avb3

They will continue to be produced in China, apparently at their existing plant. If I recall, they were a bit fuzzy on the metal component, but I seem to remember that it would not be the original specs Peter required.

It would be nice if they actually responded to some of the questions on this or other forums; I am sure they are aware of them.

I think that they have said that CM will move production to their own facility in China. And I think that they have said that they will not use the originally specified 800 Bisplate steel; rather the 620 steel used in the later Chinese Rocnas will continue to be used.

Peter Smith has said that the 620 is good enough, but, it must be said, his original specification was higher.

In my opinion, if they are now taking back any sub-standard Chinese Rocna from the old regime, whether it is 420 or 620, in cases where the buyer has concerns, as they have said they will, this is a perfectly adequate response to the problem. Whether or not we accept that 620 is "good enough", or not, is up to everyone to decide for himself. Probably it's ok -- I am not aware of any problems having been reported.

I returned my 620 steel Rocna myself, but I can understand why people wouldn't bother. If it ain't broke . . .

As to their participation in forums -- I think I can sympathize with them for declining to participate further. Craig so poisoned the well for them that they encountered only hostility when they appeared. I think the facts of the whole story are entirely clear now so I doubt if there is much to add. If they faithfully honor their new policy then I think that there's not much more for us to discuss with them anyway.

[hellosailor]

So the old Rocna specified 800 but ordered 420 contrary to their own spec ?? The upgraded to 620, still contrary to their own spec??

A poisoned well indeed.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

So the old Rocna specified 800 but ordered 420 contrary to their own spec ?? The upgraded to 620, still contrary to their own spec??

A poisoned well indeed.

The whole soap opera is in the archives.

[Dodger]

I am thinking of a new anchor and have been following the Rocna/Supreme/Spade sagas. I need some help in understanding just why an anchor shank would bend. My chain is 3/8 G4 which Acco says has a designed working load of 5,800 lbs, the shackle is probably less. The steel used in the Manson is rated at a yield strength of 750 mpa as per their web site or just over 108,000 lbs, far in excess of the chain, however even the bad Rocna with a 420 mpa yield would require nearly 61,000 lbs, maybe I am wrong but the chain would fail long before the anchor should bend. I have seen the photos of the bent Rocnas on the net and wonder just what kind of chain they were using to be able to sustain that sort of stress. Whatever it is I want some of it, does anyone know what chain was used? I have not been able to find out what kind of steel is used in the Spade but because of the price it is out of the running, for me anyway. The Manson seems interesting especially because it is less expensive but it may not fit on my stem head because of height restrictions.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Dodger

I am thinking of a new anchor and have been following the Rocna/Supreme/Spade sagas. I need some help in understanding just why an anchor shank would bend. My chain is 3/8 G4 which Acco says has a designed working load of 5,800 lbs, the shackle is probably less. The steel used in the Manson is rated at a yield strength of 750 mpa as per their web site or just over 108,000 lbs, far in excess of the chain, however even the bad Rocna with a 420 mpa yield would require nearly 61,000 lbs, maybe I am wrong but the chain would fail long before the anchor should bend. I have seen the photos of the bent Rocnas on the net and wonder just what kind of chain they were using to be able to sustain that sort of stress. Whatever it is I want some of it, does anyone know what chain was used? I have not been able to find out what kind of steel is used in the Spade but because of the price it is out of the running, for me anyway. The Manson seems interesting especially because it is less expensive but it may not fit on my stem head because of height restrictions.

Ehrm... The pull from the chain gets multiplied by the length of the arm (=shank) ? Your 5,800 pound chain can easily put a much higher load like 70,000 pounds on something when helped by things like arms or block & tackle etc.

cheers,
Nick.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No one has accused the Chinese contractor of any hanky-panky, in fact, the contractor was described as being quite good.

Which is often the case.

Chinese companies can produce fantastic product if that's what is requested.
They also produce some crap, if that is what is requested by price.
The same can be said for any country, including America and other western nations.

Of course people would prefer to generalise and portray china as the poor quality boogeyman as it easier to beat them up and smear their reputation from afar than admit to their own countries pricing and labour inefficiencies.

[evm1024]

The breaking strength if G40 3/8" is over 16,000 pounds. Add in a force multiplier and you can easily put over 100,000 pounds on the fulcrum point of the shank.

REgards