youen
Member
The anchor was delivered on 12_2010.But i get no reply from VDM.
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
youen
Member
Rocna
The anchor was delivered on 12 2010.Get no reply from your french agent.
The anchor was delivered on 12 2010.Get no reply from your french agent.
RocnaONE
New member
Mixmaster
Some anchors were supplied to Boyd Boats when Holdfast first set up a UK distributorship. When BB closed, the stock was taken over by the existing distributors, Marine Factors, with whom we are working very closely.
Where did you buy the anchor from in the UK please, and importantly what size is it ? This will enable us to track it by batch of delivery. Some weights were never built using 420.
The steel will be either 420 or 620(and for a few anchors 690. If it 420 you get a warranty replacement. As you know the designer considers that the 620 steel is within his original design parameters. The technical details are on Peter Smith's website. The URL has been posted before but I am on a phone with a small screen and cannot find it. I will post it later.
Some anchors were supplied to Boyd Boats when Holdfast first set up a UK distributorship. When BB closed, the stock was taken over by the existing distributors, Marine Factors, with whom we are working very closely.
Where did you buy the anchor from in the UK please, and importantly what size is it ? This will enable us to track it by batch of delivery. Some weights were never built using 420.
The steel will be either 420 or 620(and for a few anchors 690. If it 420 you get a warranty replacement. As you know the designer considers that the 620 steel is within his original design parameters. The technical details are on Peter Smith's website. The URL has been posted before but I am on a phone with a small screen and cannot find it. I will post it later.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I can't answer on what you did get, but I can tell you that what you were supposed to get was clearly shown in the Spec which was issued in January 09. Item 2.1a is pretty unequivocal
Rocna Anchors Specifications (Jan 1, 2009)
(For anchor produced by casting process)
1.0 ANCHOR SIZE
1.1 Anchors should be chosen on size, i.e. blade area. Designated weights are a guide only and are not contractual.
1.2 Overall dimensions and profile cutting should be generally within +/- 1mm of dimension shown in the drawings.
2.0 Component Specifics
2.1 Shank.
a. Materials:
Quenched and tempered (Q&T) Low Alloy High Tensile Steel class HT 70 to 80 with 0.2% yield strength of at least 690MPa and a suggested min. Charpy impact of 27 Joules at 0ºC. Steels such as Australian BISALLOY-80 or Japanese Sumiton SOS are suitable. Steels should meet standards as follows:
Australasia AS 3597
International ISO 4950/3
American ASTM A514/A514M
Japan KHT 70/80
Other high tensile steels such as Low Carbon High Tensile Manganese Steel can be considered if they meet the above minimum tensile standards. However, it is important that any steel selected retains the ability to absorb cyclical flexing loads without hardening, brittleness, or cracking and retain good mechanical properties at the welded neck joint over a range of temperatures from -20ºC to 50ºC.
b. Technical
Shank must be straight in both planes on assembly. Profile cutting heavier plates can sometimes causes the shanks to bend and need straightening.
The sheet plate steel as delivered may also have a manufacturing bend. The shanks must be nested on this plate in such a way that the bend is minimized.
Bends of more than 1mm per 500mm must be pressed straight.
2.2 Blade.
a. Materials:
A range of from between mild steel grade AS3678-250 to 2.1 as above is acceptable.
b. Technical
The blade and skid must be casted as a single unit with the provision of 2 openings to receive the roll bar.
The finished fluke must show the curve centre to be central and running out exactly at the tip (no off-centre run out).
The finished angle between the two planes must still finish at 145 degrees.
All finished edges must conform to radii as per Appendix A attached to this document.
2.3 Pipe Roll Bar.
a. Materials:
To be good quality „black steel‟ type pipe such as „boiler tube‟ or „steam tube‟ denoted “NB Heavy” type wall thickness / S&S BS1387 (e.g. 50mm OD pipe would have a minimum wall thickness of 6.3mm, 34mm OD pipe would be between 4 and 6.3mm, 16mm OD pipe would be between 2.5 and 3.5mm).
b. Technical
Pipe must be a one-piece unjoined length. Pipe can elongate in rolling – elongation of up to 10% of diameter is acceptable.
A 4mm diameter (maximum) breather hole to be drilled to ensure complete internal galvanizing and draining of the roll bar. The position of this depends on the anchor‟s orientation in the galvanising bath. The hole to be on front face of roll bar if anchor is lifted by upper attachment point in crown of shank or on back face if anchor is lifted by rode attachment point.
3.0 PRODUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
3.1 CASTING
Preferably so a “Lost Wax” casting process should be used for the casting of the blade.
The casting of the blade must follow and comply with standard good practices of the casting process used.
The resultant casting must be free of honey combs, cavities, impurities or unevenness.
Both the wax mould and casting must be symmetrical and uniform in shape.
The allowable tolerance for cast blade shall be as follow:
a. external dimensions shall be +-3mm and
b. thickness is+-1mm for thickness
3.2 DRESSING
All sharp edges to be dressed or killed with flexible disc sander/grinder and all weld splatter removed suitable for galvanizing. It is recommended that anti-spatter release agent be used during welding.
Dress, chamfer, or radii all sharp exposed edges in accordance to the attached Appendix A.
Chamfer 0.5mm to 1mm for all unspecified edges and holes
De-burr the inside of the roll-bar ends.
Remove major mill-scale and cutting-scale or dust with flex-pad grinders or similar so as to be suitable for successful galvanizing in both adhesion and appearance.
The galvanizing pre-prep pickling bath process should remove undesirable by-products from earlier production runs; if they are excessive and galvanizing adhesion may be compromised.
3.3 WELDING
To be in accordance with AS/NZS 1554.4 (or national equivalent) and steel manufacturers specifications, together with good engineering practices, paying particular attention to wire/rod type and compatibility, preheating of larger anchors (40 +) and throat depth of weld at the shank to blade joint.
Larger anchors (33 +) may require multiple passes to attain required throat depth. 25mm plate and above needs weld-prep.
The toe to heel butt joint to be welded under and over. This can have a slight weld bump on top but must be fair or ground fair.
The skids can be positioned corner to corner with a 1mm lap. To be welded full length under and over. The front end is welded vertically to the toe plate. All welds to look neat and ground fair.
Porosity or pin-holing is unacceptable. This is often exposed in the pickling bath during galvanizing and leads to patches of no zinc adhesion and unsightly rusty bleeding. Pin holes in the shank/fluke weld can penetrate to the root of shank/fluke joint cavity, which fills with pickling acid and damage as above. Pin-holes must be weld filled. Disguising final symptoms with zinc paint is unacceptable.
3.4 PRESTRESSING OR INDUCED BENDING- BLADE JOINT (TOE TO HEEL)
Welding tends to pull the heel out of alignment (plane) with the toe. The planes of the heel and toe need to be parallel, or slightly concave (turn upwards away from the horizontal). This plane should be 180 degrees +0 / -2 as measured from the top.
The allowable concave upwards bend can be measured by the projecting the flatness at the bottom of the blade against the base of the heel or the toe. The allowable difference is as per the tabulation in Appendix B.
4.0 SURFACE FINISH - GALVANIZING (HOT-DIP)
To be in accordance with best industry practice and the appropriate national standards such as:
Australasian AS/NZS4680
British BS/EN/ISO 1461/ 1999
American ASTM/A385
and other standards as appropriate.
Major runs and sharp points from galvanizing to be dressed off and anchors made suitable for display in retail showrooms. Care must be taken not to expose raw steel with the chipping of edges through rough handling, transport, or filing. Minor damage (10cm square or less) can be zinc-sprayed with bright zinc. Damage to the toe tip is unacceptable.
The galvanized plant must be advised as to the correct lifting point for the right attitude for dipping. This is often ignored, but as no guarantee can be given that the roll-bar is not completely galvanized internally if the bleed-hole and dipping attitude do not match. Anchors not dipped correctly must be rejected and re-dipped.
5.0 LABELLING
Two labels (either supplied or produced as specified separately) to be attached as shown on reference photos and below to each side of shank of all anchors. Model number to match anchor size as appropriate.
Placement notes: Upper edge of label parallel to and ½ of label width from the upper edge of shank middle section. Position a little forward of centre of shank section (space of section behind label should be approximately twice that of space ahead). Labels on each side to match each other in position.
Cleaning with Scotch-Brite and water, and thoroughly dry, is recommended before application. Adhesive on labels is pressure-sensitive, and labels should be pressed on firmly, starting from one end to expel all air.
6.0 PACKAGING
Anchors are to be bubble wrapped before it’s placed in wooden crates.
To facilitate shipment by container and LCL cargo, all wooden crates shall be of the following sizes:
a. 1150x1080x850mm
b. 2250x1050x850mm
6.1 USER’S GUIDES
Attached to each and every anchor.
4
7.0 COMPLETION CHECKLIST
1. Toe bevel detail as per plan drawing, reproduced below:
Particularly:
- Sharp upper edge just killed for galvanizing
- Bevel length from tip to very end = half the length of toe
- Bevel is at least 45 degrees to top face
- Actual tip bevelled back to 30 degrees with radius end (chisel tip) as on plans
- Bevel end is a smooth curve to form a soft exit
2. Galvanizing breather hole drilled in roll-bar as per above
3. Skids and roll-bar welded in correct position as shown in cross-sections A-A and C-C:
4. Plane of roll-bar to blade: 110 degrees, tolerance +3 / -0.
5. Steel is chamfered, de-slugged, and mill-scale including cutting-scale has been removed.
6. Check shank is inline and vertical over toe and 32 degree throat angle (tolerance +2 / -0) is correct.
(For anchor produced by casting process)
1.0 ANCHOR SIZE
1.1 Anchors should be chosen on size, i.e. blade area. Designated weights are a guide only and are not contractual.
1.2 Overall dimensions and profile cutting should be generally within +/- 1mm of dimension shown in the drawings.
2.0 Component Specifics
2.1 Shank.
a. Materials:
Quenched and tempered (Q&T) Low Alloy High Tensile Steel class HT 70 to 80 with 0.2% yield strength of at least 690MPa and a suggested min. Charpy impact of 27 Joules at 0ºC. Steels such as Australian BISALLOY-80 or Japanese Sumiton SOS are suitable. Steels should meet standards as follows:
Australasia AS 3597
International ISO 4950/3
American ASTM A514/A514M
Japan KHT 70/80
Other high tensile steels such as Low Carbon High Tensile Manganese Steel can be considered if they meet the above minimum tensile standards. However, it is important that any steel selected retains the ability to absorb cyclical flexing loads without hardening, brittleness, or cracking and retain good mechanical properties at the welded neck joint over a range of temperatures from -20ºC to 50ºC.
b. Technical
Shank must be straight in both planes on assembly. Profile cutting heavier plates can sometimes causes the shanks to bend and need straightening.
The sheet plate steel as delivered may also have a manufacturing bend. The shanks must be nested on this plate in such a way that the bend is minimized.
Bends of more than 1mm per 500mm must be pressed straight.
2.2 Blade.
a. Materials:
A range of from between mild steel grade AS3678-250 to 2.1 as above is acceptable.
b. Technical
The blade and skid must be casted as a single unit with the provision of 2 openings to receive the roll bar.
The finished fluke must show the curve centre to be central and running out exactly at the tip (no off-centre run out).
The finished angle between the two planes must still finish at 145 degrees.
All finished edges must conform to radii as per Appendix A attached to this document.
2.3 Pipe Roll Bar.
a. Materials:
To be good quality „black steel‟ type pipe such as „boiler tube‟ or „steam tube‟ denoted “NB Heavy” type wall thickness / S&S BS1387 (e.g. 50mm OD pipe would have a minimum wall thickness of 6.3mm, 34mm OD pipe would be between 4 and 6.3mm, 16mm OD pipe would be between 2.5 and 3.5mm).
b. Technical
Pipe must be a one-piece unjoined length. Pipe can elongate in rolling – elongation of up to 10% of diameter is acceptable.
A 4mm diameter (maximum) breather hole to be drilled to ensure complete internal galvanizing and draining of the roll bar. The position of this depends on the anchor‟s orientation in the galvanising bath. The hole to be on front face of roll bar if anchor is lifted by upper attachment point in crown of shank or on back face if anchor is lifted by rode attachment point.
3.0 PRODUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
3.1 CASTING
Preferably so a “Lost Wax” casting process should be used for the casting of the blade.
The casting of the blade must follow and comply with standard good practices of the casting process used.
The resultant casting must be free of honey combs, cavities, impurities or unevenness.
Both the wax mould and casting must be symmetrical and uniform in shape.
The allowable tolerance for cast blade shall be as follow:
a. external dimensions shall be +-3mm and
b. thickness is+-1mm for thickness
3.2 DRESSING
All sharp edges to be dressed or killed with flexible disc sander/grinder and all weld splatter removed suitable for galvanizing. It is recommended that anti-spatter release agent be used during welding.
Dress, chamfer, or radii all sharp exposed edges in accordance to the attached Appendix A.
Chamfer 0.5mm to 1mm for all unspecified edges and holes
De-burr the inside of the roll-bar ends.
Remove major mill-scale and cutting-scale or dust with flex-pad grinders or similar so as to be suitable for successful galvanizing in both adhesion and appearance.
The galvanizing pre-prep pickling bath process should remove undesirable by-products from earlier production runs; if they are excessive and galvanizing adhesion may be compromised.
3.3 WELDING
To be in accordance with AS/NZS 1554.4 (or national equivalent) and steel manufacturers specifications, together with good engineering practices, paying particular attention to wire/rod type and compatibility, preheating of larger anchors (40 +) and throat depth of weld at the shank to blade joint.
Larger anchors (33 +) may require multiple passes to attain required throat depth. 25mm plate and above needs weld-prep.
The toe to heel butt joint to be welded under and over. This can have a slight weld bump on top but must be fair or ground fair.
The skids can be positioned corner to corner with a 1mm lap. To be welded full length under and over. The front end is welded vertically to the toe plate. All welds to look neat and ground fair.
Porosity or pin-holing is unacceptable. This is often exposed in the pickling bath during galvanizing and leads to patches of no zinc adhesion and unsightly rusty bleeding. Pin holes in the shank/fluke weld can penetrate to the root of shank/fluke joint cavity, which fills with pickling acid and damage as above. Pin-holes must be weld filled. Disguising final symptoms with zinc paint is unacceptable.
3.4 PRESTRESSING OR INDUCED BENDING- BLADE JOINT (TOE TO HEEL)
Welding tends to pull the heel out of alignment (plane) with the toe. The planes of the heel and toe need to be parallel, or slightly concave (turn upwards away from the horizontal). This plane should be 180 degrees +0 / -2 as measured from the top.
The allowable concave upwards bend can be measured by the projecting the flatness at the bottom of the blade against the base of the heel or the toe. The allowable difference is as per the tabulation in Appendix B.
4.0 SURFACE FINISH - GALVANIZING (HOT-DIP)
To be in accordance with best industry practice and the appropriate national standards such as:
Australasian AS/NZS4680
British BS/EN/ISO 1461/ 1999
American ASTM/A385
and other standards as appropriate.
Major runs and sharp points from galvanizing to be dressed off and anchors made suitable for display in retail showrooms. Care must be taken not to expose raw steel with the chipping of edges through rough handling, transport, or filing. Minor damage (10cm square or less) can be zinc-sprayed with bright zinc. Damage to the toe tip is unacceptable.
The galvanized plant must be advised as to the correct lifting point for the right attitude for dipping. This is often ignored, but as no guarantee can be given that the roll-bar is not completely galvanized internally if the bleed-hole and dipping attitude do not match. Anchors not dipped correctly must be rejected and re-dipped.
5.0 LABELLING
Two labels (either supplied or produced as specified separately) to be attached as shown on reference photos and below to each side of shank of all anchors. Model number to match anchor size as appropriate.
Placement notes: Upper edge of label parallel to and ½ of label width from the upper edge of shank middle section. Position a little forward of centre of shank section (space of section behind label should be approximately twice that of space ahead). Labels on each side to match each other in position.
Cleaning with Scotch-Brite and water, and thoroughly dry, is recommended before application. Adhesive on labels is pressure-sensitive, and labels should be pressed on firmly, starting from one end to expel all air.
6.0 PACKAGING
Anchors are to be bubble wrapped before it’s placed in wooden crates.
To facilitate shipment by container and LCL cargo, all wooden crates shall be of the following sizes:
a. 1150x1080x850mm
b. 2250x1050x850mm
6.1 USER’S GUIDES
Attached to each and every anchor.
4
7.0 COMPLETION CHECKLIST
1. Toe bevel detail as per plan drawing, reproduced below:
Particularly:
- Sharp upper edge just killed for galvanizing
- Bevel length from tip to very end = half the length of toe
- Bevel is at least 45 degrees to top face
- Actual tip bevelled back to 30 degrees with radius end (chisel tip) as on plans
- Bevel end is a smooth curve to form a soft exit
2. Galvanizing breather hole drilled in roll-bar as per above
3. Skids and roll-bar welded in correct position as shown in cross-sections A-A and C-C:
4. Plane of roll-bar to blade: 110 degrees, tolerance +3 / -0.
5. Steel is chamfered, de-slugged, and mill-scale including cutting-scale has been removed.
6. Check shank is inline and vertical over toe and 32 degree throat angle (tolerance +2 / -0) is correct.
dfass
New member
I have a direct question for RacnaOne. As advised in John Mitchell's memo to Rocna Customers, I emailed support@rocna.com asking if the shank of my 20kg Rocna, purchased in the UK in July 2010 was made with 420 or 620 steel, but I have had no reply. Can you please provide the required information?
RocnaONE
New member
dfass.
I need to know the (approximate) date of purchase and from whom you bought the anchor please.
I need to know the (approximate) date of purchase and from whom you bought the anchor please.
Last edited:
cliff
Active member
+1
mixmaster
New member
RocaOne,
I bought my rocna from arthurs chandlery in gosport. It's the 25kg one. It was purchased around April '09. It has the name embossed in the fluke.
Thanks.
I bought my rocna from arthurs chandlery in gosport. It's the 25kg one. It was purchased around April '09. It has the name embossed in the fluke.
Thanks.
Delfin
New member
For reasons unknown to me, I received an unsolicited copy of an email sent from Peter Smith to a Rocna purchaser, attached below. The buyer had concerns about his anchor, and the attached is Mr. Smith's response. Not wanting to sandbag Mr. Smith, I advised him that I had been copied on this communication and asked him to respond or comment so that his perspective was taken into consideration before I posted it. Specifically, I asked 4 questions as follows, but did not receive a response:
1. You did not copy anyone from CMP on this. Are they not involved in resolving this issue with former purchasers?
2. You did copy Craig and Pocock. Does this mean they are both actively involved in dealing with this issue with you?
3. You stated that ones chain will bend before a Q620 shaft will bend. Based on your recommended chain sizes and their breaking strengths, is this a correct statement?
4. You stated that a Manson testing at 866 mpa shank strength is not as good as a defective 450 mpa Rocna. Could you give reasons why you believe this to be true?
My intent in asking the first question was to understand why the current owner of CMP would not be included in a customer service response. I frankly don't know what is going on here, and assume that CMP has delegated questions like this to Smith. However, it is puzzling that the owner of the company is having customer service handled by someone not belonging to the company.
Regarding the second question, it has frequently been stated that Craig Smith has no role at Rocna. Perhaps, but it is odd that he is copied on a customer service response. It also appears that the owner of Suncoast, the current (based on their web site) distributor of Rocna is also involved in this communication. To the extent that there are misstatements in this email, it is not unfair to say that they own them as well as Peter Smith.
The third question gets to a statement by Mr. Smith that defies physics and calls into question the degree to which he has been directly involved in some of the misstatements of fact that many have come to expect from Rocna. The breaking load of 1/4" G4 chain, recommended by Rocna on their website as appropriate for a Rocna 20, is 11,700#. The shank bending strength of the Rocna 20 anchor I tested is less than #1,550 pounds, so setting aside common sense, the statement made by Smith that the shank with "normal usage will still not bend before your chain breaks" is empirically false, so why would he make this statement except as a deliberate attempt to deceive the customer?
The final question goes directly to one of the aspect's of past Rocna promotion that many have found odious, and that is the tendency to puff their own product by trashing others. I understand brand loyalty, but I do not understand how a reasonable person would state that a defective Rocna with half the strength is better than a non-defective Manson at twice the strength.
Given that these statements come from the founder of the company and the designer of the product, and given that some are false on their face, I am not sure who if anyone at Rocna can ever be trusted to be accurate in their statements to customers.
This is not to cast the slightest aspersion on CPM. They bought this brand and are trying to rebuild it. It is hard to imagine that they would repeat the mistakes of the past, but it is equally hard to understand why they would let people who do not tell the truth continue to speak for that product.
I do not own either a Rocna or a Manson, nor do I have the slightest interest in the success or failure of these companies. I do care about ethics in business, and felt that the public service element of posting this information outweighed my unease at posting a private communication, even if dis-identified.
If any of the above is unfair or inaccurate, I would welcome the correction from any source.
1. You did not copy anyone from CMP on this. Are they not involved in resolving this issue with former purchasers?
2. You did copy Craig and Pocock. Does this mean they are both actively involved in dealing with this issue with you?
3. You stated that ones chain will bend before a Q620 shaft will bend. Based on your recommended chain sizes and their breaking strengths, is this a correct statement?
4. You stated that a Manson testing at 866 mpa shank strength is not as good as a defective 450 mpa Rocna. Could you give reasons why you believe this to be true?
My intent in asking the first question was to understand why the current owner of CMP would not be included in a customer service response. I frankly don't know what is going on here, and assume that CMP has delegated questions like this to Smith. However, it is puzzling that the owner of the company is having customer service handled by someone not belonging to the company.
Regarding the second question, it has frequently been stated that Craig Smith has no role at Rocna. Perhaps, but it is odd that he is copied on a customer service response. It also appears that the owner of Suncoast, the current (based on their web site) distributor of Rocna is also involved in this communication. To the extent that there are misstatements in this email, it is not unfair to say that they own them as well as Peter Smith.
The third question gets to a statement by Mr. Smith that defies physics and calls into question the degree to which he has been directly involved in some of the misstatements of fact that many have come to expect from Rocna. The breaking load of 1/4" G4 chain, recommended by Rocna on their website as appropriate for a Rocna 20, is 11,700#. The shank bending strength of the Rocna 20 anchor I tested is less than #1,550 pounds, so setting aside common sense, the statement made by Smith that the shank with "normal usage will still not bend before your chain breaks" is empirically false, so why would he make this statement except as a deliberate attempt to deceive the customer?
The final question goes directly to one of the aspect's of past Rocna promotion that many have found odious, and that is the tendency to puff their own product by trashing others. I understand brand loyalty, but I do not understand how a reasonable person would state that a defective Rocna with half the strength is better than a non-defective Manson at twice the strength.
Given that these statements come from the founder of the company and the designer of the product, and given that some are false on their face, I am not sure who if anyone at Rocna can ever be trusted to be accurate in their statements to customers.
This is not to cast the slightest aspersion on CPM. They bought this brand and are trying to rebuild it. It is hard to imagine that they would repeat the mistakes of the past, but it is equally hard to understand why they would let people who do not tell the truth continue to speak for that product.
I do not own either a Rocna or a Manson, nor do I have the slightest interest in the success or failure of these companies. I do care about ethics in business, and felt that the public service element of posting this information outweighed my unease at posting a private communication, even if dis-identified.
If any of the above is unfair or inaccurate, I would welcome the correction from any source.
Delfin
New member
Sorry, I guess the email was too big to attach as a pdf, so here it is in pieces. Hope this works.
GrantKing
New member
April '09...definitely a 400 or 420 if you are lucky.
GrantKing
New member
Delfin
New member
One more time....
Rigger Mortice
N/A
It's interesting that Smith Snr. is still knocking Manson and claiming that the Rocna shank will out perform Manson's.
Perhaps Rocna should now take up the Manson challenge to compare both shanks in a test rig? When Manson made the challenge several months ago Rocna ran a mile.
Perhaps Rocna should now take up the Manson challenge to compare both shanks in a test rig? When Manson made the challenge several months ago Rocna ran a mile.
BrianH
Active member
I feel genuinely sorry for CMP, which appears to be a reputable company, now shackled to the marketing fiasco that is the family Smith. It's like trying to run a three-legged race with a blind and totally inebriated partner.
snooks
Active member
The Email seems to be dated September 15th, about two weeks before the CMP purchase was announced. Probably why Peter didn't cc them into that Email....don't you think?
dfass
New member
My 20kg Rocna was purchased from Arthurs Chandlery, Gosport on 12/07/2010. I believe they were out of stock before that because I had to place an order.
GrantKing
New member
website
The only problem is that the petersmith.net website is owned by Smiths and penned by Craig, completely independant of anything to do with Rocna/Holdfast.
It still reads the same today so I doubt very much that they will change it despite your requests.
The only problem is that the petersmith.net website is owned by Smiths and penned by Craig, completely independant of anything to do with Rocna/Holdfast.
It still reads the same today so I doubt very much that they will change it despite your requests.
Djbangi
New member
An open message to Peter Smith,
Dear Peter,
Canada Pacific Metals appear to be an honest company with high moral integrity. They have an enviable reputation in the industry and considering they have been around for over a century have all evidence of being successful. CMP want to extract success from the jaws of oblivion with their purchase of the Rocna licence, please cut them a bit of slack. And if you cut CMP a bit of slack RocnaOne might not have nightmares as to what might happen next (hopefully he is being paid on a fright:£ (Stg) index)!
In case you have not noticed one reason the Holdast relationship did not work was the use of bile and ascerbity as part of the marketing psyche. Some people did not mind, they found it entertaining, others found it unprofessional and distasteful - you need to look back and consider which group was more successful. The people who were entertained were insufficient to keep the business running but the ones who were appalled? - you decide. But at the end of the day the problem was basic dishonesty (and the nastiness ensured that peolple were sucked in). It was all about misleading the public and being found out. Were you part of that dishonest cabal or simply a gullible but gifted engineer?
The last I read you were part of the CMP team but I wonder, after Delfin's post and looking at your website, what they might think now. Those Patagonian charter boats - a credit to your salesmanship that they use Rocnas. Are they the same Rocna anchors with the cast flukes most people buy, or the special ones for charter vessels under survey from the RINA approved factory. Do the Patagonian charter vessel operators know that the largest chandlery in the world and your saviours, CMP, have (effectively) ordered a world wide recall for some of the anchors. You might claim to have faith in a 420 shanked anchor - so swap you CNC Procut NZ made anchor, with the Bisplate 80 shank and plate fluke (the one RINA certified), for those categorised as being 420 shanked with the cast flukes and then go to Patagonia. Basically cut out the flannel, we have heard it before and some of us are not convinced.
Being part of any team means according to team norms, we like the extrovert - but within bounds. We enjoy a bit of banter, but not when its offensive. Do not chastise the opposition for copying - omitting to mention Peter Bruce was the first to patent the roll bar, Spade the detachable shank and Anchor Right the tripping slot. In fact the less charitable might say the Rocna fluke is simply an amalgam of the Spade and the Bruce - most do not care about copying, we simply want the best available. Don't chastise the opposition when they are Lloyds approved, because if you knock the opposition you knock Lloyds - and where is your approval? Kettles have been warned since time immemorial to not comment on the pot.
Do not champion your RINA SHHP seabed testing when your RINA certification has been found to be a complete fabrication - you simply are drawing attention to yourself. Currently your integrity, choices of past business partners, claims of Classification Society expertise, use of the internet etc etc are under some scrutiny. CMP seem to have been bending over backwards and one suspects spending a lot of money to try to re-build your brand and your credibility. Kicking people in the teeth might have immediate gratification, longer term you might think differently. CMP have patience - but how much?
It would be of immense value if you could show some humbleness, quietly ammend the website, cut out the Manson attacks, remove the 'embittered' parts show a bit of warmth - lots of people like the Supreme, the Excel, the Fortress antagonising them will not convert them to buying Rocnas and many people will not buy a Rocna (and buy a Manson instead) simply becuase they do not like the 'Smith' style. You judge where the balance lies, but making friends is usually better than making enemies. But turning people away from Rocna (and your saviour CMP) because you want to avenge some personal hurt - it used to be termed 'cutting off ones nose to spite ones face'.
Check back through the contributions, you will find a lot of support for CMP (it tends to be hidden), a lot of concern about Holdfast and some ambivalance about you. Your Website rants, coupled with Delfin's posting of the 'letter' might swing the balance. Maybe consider swallowing some pride.
Have a great weekend.
Not associated with any anchor maker, at all.
Dear Peter,
Canada Pacific Metals appear to be an honest company with high moral integrity. They have an enviable reputation in the industry and considering they have been around for over a century have all evidence of being successful. CMP want to extract success from the jaws of oblivion with their purchase of the Rocna licence, please cut them a bit of slack. And if you cut CMP a bit of slack RocnaOne might not have nightmares as to what might happen next (hopefully he is being paid on a fright:£ (Stg) index)!
In case you have not noticed one reason the Holdast relationship did not work was the use of bile and ascerbity as part of the marketing psyche. Some people did not mind, they found it entertaining, others found it unprofessional and distasteful - you need to look back and consider which group was more successful. The people who were entertained were insufficient to keep the business running but the ones who were appalled? - you decide. But at the end of the day the problem was basic dishonesty (and the nastiness ensured that peolple were sucked in). It was all about misleading the public and being found out. Were you part of that dishonest cabal or simply a gullible but gifted engineer?
The last I read you were part of the CMP team but I wonder, after Delfin's post and looking at your website, what they might think now. Those Patagonian charter boats - a credit to your salesmanship that they use Rocnas. Are they the same Rocna anchors with the cast flukes most people buy, or the special ones for charter vessels under survey from the RINA approved factory. Do the Patagonian charter vessel operators know that the largest chandlery in the world and your saviours, CMP, have (effectively) ordered a world wide recall for some of the anchors. You might claim to have faith in a 420 shanked anchor - so swap you CNC Procut NZ made anchor, with the Bisplate 80 shank and plate fluke (the one RINA certified), for those categorised as being 420 shanked with the cast flukes and then go to Patagonia. Basically cut out the flannel, we have heard it before and some of us are not convinced.
Being part of any team means according to team norms, we like the extrovert - but within bounds. We enjoy a bit of banter, but not when its offensive. Do not chastise the opposition for copying - omitting to mention Peter Bruce was the first to patent the roll bar, Spade the detachable shank and Anchor Right the tripping slot. In fact the less charitable might say the Rocna fluke is simply an amalgam of the Spade and the Bruce - most do not care about copying, we simply want the best available. Don't chastise the opposition when they are Lloyds approved, because if you knock the opposition you knock Lloyds - and where is your approval? Kettles have been warned since time immemorial to not comment on the pot.
Do not champion your RINA SHHP seabed testing when your RINA certification has been found to be a complete fabrication - you simply are drawing attention to yourself. Currently your integrity, choices of past business partners, claims of Classification Society expertise, use of the internet etc etc are under some scrutiny. CMP seem to have been bending over backwards and one suspects spending a lot of money to try to re-build your brand and your credibility. Kicking people in the teeth might have immediate gratification, longer term you might think differently. CMP have patience - but how much?
It would be of immense value if you could show some humbleness, quietly ammend the website, cut out the Manson attacks, remove the 'embittered' parts show a bit of warmth - lots of people like the Supreme, the Excel, the Fortress antagonising them will not convert them to buying Rocnas and many people will not buy a Rocna (and buy a Manson instead) simply becuase they do not like the 'Smith' style. You judge where the balance lies, but making friends is usually better than making enemies. But turning people away from Rocna (and your saviour CMP) because you want to avenge some personal hurt - it used to be termed 'cutting off ones nose to spite ones face'.
Check back through the contributions, you will find a lot of support for CMP (it tends to be hidden), a lot of concern about Holdfast and some ambivalance about you. Your Website rants, coupled with Delfin's posting of the 'letter' might swing the balance. Maybe consider swallowing some pride.
Have a great weekend.
Not associated with any anchor maker, at all.
Shanty
Member
Have a look at the Rocna.com website, which I understand is now under the control of CMP. Hidden away in the Knowledge Base, you will find a RINA Type Approval certificate - http://www.rocna.com/assets/Uploads/Rocna-RINA-Cert.pdf.
I'm not sure whether its still valid, for two reasons:
It was issued to Holdfast, rather than CMP.
The sea bed test was carried out in March 2008, so I'm not sure whether the anchor involved would have been made at the Shanghai Pangtong factory as indicated on the certificate.
These points may not matter. Presumably CMP are happy with the certificate, since it appears on their website. I wonder why they don't give it more prominence?
