Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

"embittered"

I raised the removal of this word from the website with the tech site people some two days ago. I made it clear that this personalized approach is not acceptable, and understood that changes were to be made.

The transition between website managements has made changes slow to be implemented, and I apologize that the removal of this word does not seem to have been made a priority. I have just spoken with senior management in Canada, and they have emailed the website team to act upon it as soon as possible.

Again, it is worth recalling that Canada Metal bought the Rocna licence just over 10 days ago; they did not buy the Holdfast NZ company. Thus, assets and liabilities properly and legally belonging to Holdfast remain outwith the direct control of CM, though we have good ongoing relations with the Holdfast management.

Full access to factory records and intra-company (Holdfast) emails is something we are striving to achieve and complete at the earliest practical opportunity, but is dependent on resource availability. Canada Metal has prioritized the 5 Pillars strategy (the CEO's Memorandum issued last week) which support the new start and determination to re-establish confidence in the Rocna brand, and so all resources are focussing on those objectives.

The times, they are a-changing, but with over 55 workstreams in action, we are sometimes ahead in a few, and sometimes not. The change to the website is one we have got wrong. Again, our apologies.
 
Keen_Ed said:
What a mealy-mouthed attempt to pull the wool. Appalling.
"published commentary based primarily on input originating from embittered former Rocna employee Grant King and Rocna competitor Manson Marine" = Rocna still don't get it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. that one word "embittered" did it for me and coloured what I perceived to be backpedaling obfuscation. The one source of clear, unambiguous information that has not been disputed throughout this whole sorry saga, still seems to be the subject of a shabby attempt to discredit.
 
Sorry for the thread drift. When I saw the post about the "embittered former....." my first thought was, who shafted him bad enough for him to become embittered? In my experience it is normally people who have been badly treated that become embittered.
Allan
 
RocnaONE said:
Canada Metal has prioritized the 5 Pillars strategy.
Click to expand...

So let's have a look at that.

...as well as those suspect anchors being subjected to rigorous testing. The results
of the testing confirmed that these anchors, while not meeting the design specification,
did not pose any safety concerns, and still exceeded industry proof load strength
requirements.
Click to expand...

Who did this testing? Can we see all the results? If not, why not? Is this the meaningless straight line pull?

...will ensure that all Rocna products will meet the exacting design standards.
Click to expand...

But you've just admitted that steel that doesn't meet the designer's spec does "not pose any safety concerns"

Which is it? Either the Rocna is a carefully engineered product, which should be built to original specs (the view that has been forcibly thrust down our neck in the past), or it's something built with a bit of by guess and by golly in the engineering, where "that'll do" seems to be good enough. Not exactly "exacting design standards". If this is the CM new dawn, there's a bit of doublethink going on.

CM, IMHO, have 2 choices.

Either: a) Admit that the Rocna is a nice enough new gen anchor, but that it has no particular engineering claim to being a premium product. The designer says that 620 is perfectly strong enough (despite all previous claims to the contrary by his spokesman/son). And CM can then provide lots of evidence that 620 is good enough. But as a nice enough new gen anchor, it has to be priced in line with other new gen anchors.

or b) Say that the Rocna is a premium product, and as such needs to be built to original specs - Bisplate 80 (as we were repeatedly told). Nothing else will do, and all anchors manufactured with lower specification steel will be replaced. Massive, rigorous, and far, far, far above industry norms for quality control will be followed to ensure that this standard is maintained.

To try and claim that the Rocna deserves premium pricing, but that the quality of the steel required in its design can be pretty much anything that the Smiths/CM say it can is not a valid option.
 
Last edited:
RocnaONE said:
I raised the removal of this word from the website with the tech site people some two days ago. I made it clear that this personalized approach is not acceptable, and understood that changes were to be made.

The transition between website managements has made changes slow to be implemented, and I apologize that the removal of this word does not seem to have been made a priority. I have just spoken with senior management in Canada, and they have emailed the website team to act upon it as soon as possible.

Again, it is worth recalling that Canada Metal bought the Rocna licence just over 10 days ago; they did not buy the Holdfast NZ company. Thus, assets and liabilities properly and legally belonging to Holdfast remain outwith the direct control of CM, though we have good ongoing relations with the Holdfast management.

Full access to factory records and intra-company (Holdfast) emails is something we are striving to achieve and complete at the earliest practical opportunity, but is dependent on resource availability. Canada Metal has prioritized the 5 Pillars strategy (the CEO's Memorandum issued last week) which support the new start and determination to re-establish confidence in the Rocna brand, and so all resources are focussing on those objectives.

The times, they are a-changing, but with over 55 workstreams in action, we are sometimes ahead in a few, and sometimes not. The change to the website is one we have got wrong. Again, our apologies.
Click to expand...

I must admit this seems in general to be one of the worst handled take overs from the marketing point of view. A pretty poor situation for the Rocna brand seems to be sinkingfast as the new team keep digging.

I can understand why you crave anonimity
 
Delfin said:
The only ax I have to grind is an objection to manufacturers engaging in systematic deception in order to sell product to those who trust they are not lying. I would presume CPM to be ethical where the Bamburys were not and hope they can recover the integrity of the brand. However, it is not a good sign that they appear to be promoting the silly straight pull testing done by Bambury and touting that as having relevance to the question of whether the shanks on their anchors will bend in a side load.

As far as the grade of steel used in Chinese made anchors, I'll defer to Grant King who has the data. If I'm incorrect that all of these anchors contains steel less than 690 mpa yield, he can correct me since he knows. Do you?
Regarding 620 mpa steel being "close" to 690 steel that isn't going to be much comfort to purchasers of the product since the designer indicated that "close" was inadequate given the design of the anchor. While we're clearing smoke out of the room, the specification was for the use of 800 mpa uts steel, which has a minimum yield of 690 mpa and a typical yield of 750 mpa. In safety equipment, I'm not sure what the concept of "close enough" means when the designer has clearly stated what the minimum standard is. The fact that they may be tap dancing and pretending Peter Smith never said what he said doesn't change the necessity of 800 mpa steel being used in his product.

http://www.bisalloy.com.au/files/Techman/Range of Grades.pdf
Click to expand...

You are totally correct:eek:
 
pugwash said:
I bought a Rocna Model 10 (10kg) from Pitlers in Poole in spring last year. How do I find out about the metal it's made of?
Click to expand...

1. Get sn independant test, or
2. Ask them

If you are not happy with the above, you may well find that they will simply offer to change your anchor. They offered that to me.
 
Time for side test

Rocna can put this to bed quickly performing a side pull test. Manson should do it too for that mater. Baring any spec on side pulld I can think of this:

It appears to me that there are a few important parameters for a side pull test.
---
The shank of an anchor should be able to withstand without permanent deformation a side pull equal to the expected force exerted by an anchor embedded in hard pack sand.

This represents "typical" resetting loads and is in my mind too low of a standard for shank strength.
---
The shank of an anchor should be able to withstand without permanent deformation a side pull equal to the SWL of the recommended size anchor chain (G40 chain).

This represents a "system" that balances anchor chain, shackle and shank strength. To me it would be the minimum shank strength desired.
---
The shank of an anchor should be able to withstand without permanent deformation a side pull equal to the breaking strength of the recommended size anchor chain (G40 chain).

This is overkill and represents a max for shank strength.
---

Just need to get the anchor makers testing for side pull. Let the engineers quibble over testing procedures. As was shown in the "stick the shank inthe car tire and stand on it" video some of the anchors do not even withstand a hundred or so Kg side load.

Doing this test would help me come to accept 620 Mpa shank steel assuming that the side load test gives a number greater than SWL of the chain.

Regards, ethan

(PS I got pulled off to do something else in the middle of writing this so If it is disjointed you know why)
 
Allan said:
Sorry for the thread drift. When I saw the post about the "embittered former....." my first thought was, who shafted him bad enough for him to become embittered? In my experience it is normally people who have been badly treated that become embittered.
Allan
Click to expand...
Those of us who have followed this sorry saga since its beginning have observed certain things:

1. Craig Smith trashing competitors on the basis that they manufacture substandard products that don't compare to the Rocna.
2. Tests being done on Rocnas demonstrating empirically that it is in fact the Rocna that is substandard.
3. Rocna distorting independent testing results to puff their product and trash the competition.
4. Rocna accusing anyone who notices or comments on the fact that their product is substandard of being dishonest.
5. Rocna falsifying claims about whether their product is, or is not appropriately independently certified.
6. Rocna redefining what acceptable strength in an anchor is, directly refuting their prior definition.

Under the circumstances, if Grant King weren't "embittered", I'd really have to question his moral values. Embittered, in this case, is a badge of honor, IMHO.
 
Allan said:
Sorry for the thread drift. When I saw the post about the "embittered former....." my first thought was, who shafted him bad enough for him to become embittered? In my experience it is normally people who have been badly treated that become embittered.
Allan
Click to expand...

Who shafted me?....an expert father and son team.

Embittered?....no , not quite the right word but certainly p***ed off now with the very same c**p being once again pointed at me.

However once again we shall see where the truth leads us.
 
GrantKing said:
Who shafted me?....an expert father and son team.

Embittered?....no , not quite the right word but certainly p***ed off now with the very same c**p being once again pointed at me.

However once again we shall see where the truth leads us.
Click to expand...
I hope your life has improved now that you are no longer associated with Rocna. It seems to me that the truth has, so far, led some of us to decide not to do business with Rocna or any other company associated with the Smiths. Good luck in the future.
Allan
 
Looks like RocnaOne has realised this relaunch is sinking like an anchor and has therefore done a runner himself. You would really have thought that they would have had some sensible plan for this relaunch, it could well end up as a text bookexample of how to screw up good news in marketing.
 
Rumours of my demise are, as usual, greatly exaggerated.

I have been working on the distributorships and some technical stuff for a day or so.


If you have a real question about something that has not already been answered, rather than a comment, please go ahead.
 
I bought a Rocna anchor 15Kg in France at the beginning of 2011.I emailed Cmp who tell me the anchor is 620 and not 420.I reply I have choosen a Rocna advertised 800 and so the anchor delivered is not conform to the promised specifications and ask for a refund .I get no reply.There distributors in France had never reply to my email...
 
I have a question RocnaOne. If I purchased my Roca in April 2009 in the UK, what material is the shaft made out of?

Thanks.
 
RocnaONE said:
Rumours of my demise are, as usual, greatly exaggerated.


If you have a real question about something that has not already been answered, rather than a comment, please go ahead.
Click to expand...

Ok, Having read back from Page 20 up to now, I see three seperate posters who have asked you direct questions which you haven't given any answer to at all, which is why I think there are a few confidence doubters posting at the moment...maybe have a look back and answer them and you might avoid such rumours....

But i'd like to put forward a question, genuinely and without bias for you to answer:

Given that the original Rocna product was termed, marketed and given a lot of bias and hype by Rocna representatives all over forums and so forth as the best of the best premium product at a premium price and MUST live up to a certain manufacturing design which I assume justified that price, and now that CMP have agreed with the previous owner that "lesser" materials are acceptable where those deemed to have "copied" the design are still using the higher grade of material at a lower price, will the consumer see a dramatic drop in price of the Rocna product to reflect the now "not so premium" manufactured product, and is there any indication of how lower that price will be?
 
Youen
Vidal Marine were asked to reply to you directly last Friday, after I emailed you in person .

I will remind them of the need for action.

Can you remember when you ordered the anchor from them please ?

Apologies for the delay, we are working out new communication procedures with the distributors, and the project is not complete yet.

thank you.


EDIT 16:19 UTC I have just phoned them. The manager is on the water, and we have agreed to speak tomorrow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top