Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Dockhead]

This is getting more than a little ridiculous, if not downright vindictive.

People will have bought anchors from chandlers' retail outlets - from a guy in a store somewhere. If memory serves, that's where the contractual relationship exists. That retail purchase will have been made in good faith. The guy selling it, acting for his employers, will have made it in good faith, too.

There seems to be some sort of programme of 'recall and exchange' being organised between the new licence owners, the distributors, and bona fide customers. That's also IMHO a slice of good faith. I can't see much wrong with that.

So where does the notion of a 'lie' come in?

It rather seems to me that most of those doing the 'huffing and puffing' aren't bone fide customers at all, but agents provocateur with other, commercial/competitive, agendas.

I don't think anyone has anything against the retailers at all -- on the contrary, there has been nothing but praise for West Marine in the US and Piplers in the UK. I bought my Rocna from Piplers; they have always been excellent to deal with, and I have no doubt that they sold me my anchor in perfect good faith.

The lies which people are talking about -- and I do not think that "lies" is too strong a word -- came from Holdfast. Not Piplers, and not CanMet -- nobody is accusing them of anything. Unfortunately for Piplers, they are obligated to take back anchors sold as being made of Bisplate, which were actually made of something else (whether or not the designer says, after the fact, that this "something else" is good enough). It's not a question of Piplers' good faith -- and it's not a question of whether or not the anchors made with the wrong material are arguably fit for purpose -- it's a simple question of something different having being delivered, than was contracted for. No one who bought and paid for an anchor made of Bisplate is obligated to keep an anchor which was delivered in a different material, whether it is 420 or 620 steel. The legal question is exceedingly simple.

As far as I know, Piplers are fulfilling their obligations graciously, and I would not expect anything different -- they are a first-rate operation. We shall see, and I shall report here my own experience -- I will be returning my 55kg Rocna as soon as I can secure a replacement.

 

[RichardS]

One question. For those who purchased a Rocna on the basis of statements on the Rocna web site that it was make of 800 mpa steel but find out that it is 620 mpa steel, will you make good on a refund since what they were told they were buying turned out to be incorrect? Or more directly stated, what they were told was a lie?

Speaking personally, if Canada Metal and the designer say that 420 is not good enough but 620 is, then I am happy to accept that.

I am not totally convinced by discussions on side loads on the shank. I always check that my anchor is firmly buried by pulling back using both engines. By definition, the seabed must therefore have enough give to allow the flukes to rotate if the direction of pull along the shank changes.

I therefore cannot see how a large side load can realistically build up on the shank unless the flukes are rigidly jammed. In theory, this might occasionally happen because of patches of surface rocky ground in Croatia but, if the anchor does not bury, I lift it and start again.

The chances that the fluke will bury itself under the seabed but subsequently become jammed in an obstacle or rock which is not visible, (a situation which would be replicated by the side-load pull test) and then coincidentally be subject to very high loads from wind or tide, seems rather unlikely. This is presumably why there is such a low overall percentage of bent Rocnas.

It also appears that, in the unlikely event that the above should happen, the shank will bend rather than break so the boat certainly isn't going anywhere!

Richard

 

[Dockhead]

Speaking personally, if Canada Metal and the designer say that 420 is not good enough but 620 is, then I am happy to accept that.

I am not totally convinced by discussions on side loads on the shank. I always check that my anchor is firmly buried by pulling back using both engines. By definition, the seabed must therefore have enough give to allow the flukes to rotate if the direction of pull along the shank changes.

I therefore cannot see how a large side load can realistically build up on the shank unless the flukes are rigidly jammed. In theory, this might occasionally happen because of patches of surface rocky ground in Croatia but, if the anchor does not bury, I lift it and start again.

The chances that the fluke will bury itself under the seabed but subsequently become jammed in an obstacle or rock which is not visible, (a situation which would be replicated by the side-load pull test) and then coincidentally be subject to very high loads from wind or tide, seems rather unlikely. This is presumably why there is such a low overall percentage of bent Rocnas.

It also appears that, in the unlikely event that the above should happen, the shank will bend rather than break so the boat certainly isn't going anywhere!

Richard

The problem is that the alignment of the shank to the fluke is very important to the anchor's holding -- according to Peter Smith, the Rocna designer. If there is a small error of alignment, the anchor may not hold.

The whole idea of the Rocna is to avoid the expense of the lead ballast used in the Spade by using a thin shank -- a cheaper way to get the weight distribution you need for the anchor to orient itself properly for good setting. Thin shank, plus the roll bar, which is supposed to help the anchor orient itself.

High tensile steel is needed in the shank to make up for the thin dimension of it. This is supposed to be a positive tradeoff, because high strength steel is cheaper than the lead used in the Spade.

That was all explained in detail in various postings of Peter Smith, which I think have now been pulled from the Rocna site. He said emphatically that the Bisplate 800 steel is absolutely critical to the design.

Maybe 620 steel is good enough. Maybe. If Peter Smith says it is, then maybe it is so, notwithstanding his earlier emphatic statements to the contrary. On the other hand, there is so much economic pressure on him to say so -- since otherwise the entire Rocna production of the last few years would be unusable -- that I take such statements with a whole box of salt.

In any case, the whole fiasco has convinced me to just skip it -- and stump up for a Spade, and not take any chances with what may -- or may very well not -- be adequte steel. The Spade is more expensive but not that much more expensive, considering the extraordinary lengths the Rocna people went to to cheapen their product -- which in my opinion has not been reflected in the price.

And that is another issue. Not only is the steel cheapened, compared to the advertised specification, but my Rocna is also not very well made -- the welding and fabrication is very crude, much worse than either Spade or Delta (to name two anchors I have owned in the past), and the galvanizing is already wearing out after only a year of use. All in all -- not value for the money, in my humble opinion.

 

[Keen_Ed]

That was all explained in detail in various postings of Peter Smith, which I think have now been pulled from the Rocna site. He said emphatically that the Bisplate 800 steel is absolutely critical to the design.

Nothing is ever really "deleted" on the internet. http://web.archive.org/web/20090430....php?section=what&chapter=construction&page=0

Maybe 620 steel is good enough. Maybe. If Peter Smith says it is, then maybe it is so, notwithstanding his earlier emphatic statements to the contrary. On the other hand, there is so much economic pressure on him to say so -- since otherwise the entire Rocna production of the last few years would be unusable -- that I take such statements with a whole box of salt.

Absolutely.

 

[Garold]

The problem is that the alignment of the shank to the fluke is very important to the anchor's holding -- according to Peter Smith, the Rocna designer. If there is a small error of alignment, the anchor may not hold.

The whole idea of the Rocna is to avoid the expense of the lead ballast used in the Spade by using a thin shank -- a cheaper way to get the weight distribution you need for the anchor to orient itself properly for good setting. Thin shank, plus the roll bar, which is supposed to help the anchor orient itself.

High tensile steel is needed in the shank to make up for the thin dimension of it. This is supposed to be a positive tradeoff, because high strength steel is cheaper than the lead used in the Spade.

That was all explained in detail in various postings of Peter Smith, which I think have now been pulled from the Rocna site. He said emphatically that the Bisplate 800 steel is absolutely critical to the design.

Maybe 620 steel is good enough. Maybe. If Peter Smith says it is, then maybe it is so, notwithstanding his earlier emphatic statements to the contrary. On the other hand, there is so much economic pressure on him to say so -- since otherwise the entire Rocna production of the last few years would be unusable -- that I take such statements with a whole box of salt.

In any case, the whole fiasco has convinced me to just skip it -- and stump up for a Spade, and not take any chances with what may -- or may very well not -- be adequte steel. The Spade is more expensive but not that much more expensive, considering the extraordinary lengths the Rocna people went to to cheapen their product -- which in my opinion has not been reflected in the price.

And that is another issue. Not only is the steel cheapened, compared to the advertised specification, but my Rocna is also not very well made -- the welding and fabrication is very crude, much worse than either Spade or Delta (to name two anchors I have owned in the past), and the galvanizing is already wearing out after only a year of use. All in all -- not value for the money, in my humble opinion.

+1 on most of this.

And the Spade doesn't seem to have the free extra of 'controversy and doubt' in the packaging. Must be a better proposition than the Rocna at the current time.

Cheers

Garold

 

[BrianH]

And that is another issue. Not only is the steel cheapened, compared to the advertised specification, but my Rocna is also not very well made -- the welding and fabrication is very crude, much worse than either Spade or Delta (to name two anchors I have owned in the past), and the galvanizing is already wearing out after only a year of use. All in all -- not value for the money, in my humble opinion.

This is a point lost in the strident chatter of controversy and scandal. I too was unimpressed by the general finish of my 15kg Rocna despite NZ manufacture - the labels on either side stuck on with a white mastic compound that held the label unevenly proud of the shank's surface, which I doubt could have withstood for long the ravage of a rough seabed. In the event I had to peel them off (easily) before submitting for re-galvanising due to poor (or no) steel-zinc bonding during its first year.

No doubt the future Chinese production under new management will be different; but I'd never buy another.

 

[Delfin]

Speaking personally, if Canada Metal and the designer say that 420 is not good enough but 620 is, then I am happy to accept that.

I am not totally convinced by discussions on side loads on the shank. I always check that my anchor is firmly buried by pulling back using both engines. By definition, the seabed must therefore have enough give to allow the flukes to rotate if the direction of pull along the shank changes.

I therefore cannot see how a large side load can realistically build up on the shank unless the flukes are rigidly jammed. In theory, this might occasionally happen because of patches of surface rocky ground in Croatia but, if the anchor does not bury, I lift it and start again.

The chances that the fluke will bury itself under the seabed but subsequently become jammed in an obstacle or rock which is not visible, (a situation which would be replicated by the side-load pull test) and then coincidentally be subject to very high loads from wind or tide, seems rather unlikely. This is presumably why there is such a low overall percentage of bent Rocnas.

It also appears that, in the unlikely event that the above should happen, the shank will bend rather than break so the boat certainly isn't going anywhere!

Richard

With respect, you're confusing two issues here. One is whether the grade of steel Peter Smith said was essential for his product to work as designed is correct, or his current statement that it is not is correct. That is the kind of question asked on TV courtroom dramas - "are you lying now, or were you lying then"? Clearly you were told something that wasn't true, but if you're ok with it, wonderful.

The other issue that goes to my unanswered question to Rocnaone is what did people think they were buying based on company representations when they bought a Rocna? If they were told it was made of 800 mpa steel and it was actually made of 450 or 620, then my question to CPM remains. Do they intend to refund those anchors on the basis that the product was other than advertised? The analogy would be if you bought a car advertising 120 miles per liter (or bushel, or however you all measure liquids....) and it turned out to be only 90, telling the customer that 90 "was good enough" would hardly suffice.

I have sympathy for CPM. They didn't start this mess or mislead anyone and I am very supportive of their efforts to do the right thing. I wonder if they knew how big the cowpie they were stepping into actual was when they did the deal. My question relates to what they think the right thing to do is and whether it extends to refunding the purchase price of a Rocna bought during the period of time when Holdfast was falsely advertising product quality.

 

[youen]

+ 1 on all of this

 

[maxi77]

I have sympathy for CPM. They didn't start this mess or mislead anyone and I am very supportive of their efforts to do the right thing. I wonder if they knew how big the cowpie they were stepping into actual was when they did the deal. My question relates to what they think the right thing to do is and whether it extends to refunding the purchase price of a Rocna bought during the period of time when Holdfast was falsely advertising product quality.

I am not sure I have sympathy for they they ought to have gone into this with their eyes wide open especially as it is said the carried out due diligence.

I get a feeling that policy is being made on the hoof here and feel perhaps the initial announcement on here was perhaps a trifle premature.

Not only are Rocna owners having to ask questions when they should have been told the information up front by the new team but there still seems to be basic questions on the suitability of materials used which do not seem to be fully resolved.

If you also add to that the opportunity this has given to some of the anti Rocna brigade I am not sure Rocna is yet moving wholly in the right direction to recover the brand image.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

I can't add anything to what has been said by those who are concerned about the downgrading of the Rocna specification. I'll just leave it to Peter Smith......

"The shank on any anchor is a common failure point, normally bending when a high lateral load is applied (for instance, when the anchor fouls on a submarine obstacle and is jammed).

For this reason, the shank on the Rocna is a high tensile quenched and tempered steel, with a grade of around 800 MPa. Its pure resistance to bending is around three times that of mild steel. This adds to the price of the anchor, but compromising this strength is not something we would entertain."

Obviously some people are prepared to accept a compromise on strength. Peter Smith and I are not.

 

[Hoolie]

... ... ... Obviously some people are prepared to accept a compromise on strength. Peter Smith and I are not.

I think CMP's only chance now with the Rocna is to go back to 800mpa for the shank and reduce the price to match or beat the Manson Supreme.

 

[Delfin]

I think CMP's only chance now with the Rocna is to go back to 800mpa for the shank and reduce the price to match or beat the Manson Supreme.

There is demand for a premium product, so I'm with you. The solution seems so simple, why not just build a good product and sell it on its merits?

 

[Dockhead]

I think CMP's only chance now with the Rocna is to go back to 800mpa for the shank and reduce the price to match or beat the Manson Supreme.

The UK price is already competitive with Manson. That's why I bought it in the first place. For some reason, it is more expensive than Manson in the U.S. But here, at least when I was shopping, the prices were about the same or even better than Manson. And they are significantly cheaper than Spade.

The Rocna is fundamentally a good anchor. CanMet should leave the prices -- just bring the quality and spec up to snuff as a premium product. 800mpa steel in the shank (how expensive can that be?!), and good quality welding, careful finishing, and high quality galvanizing. I think it's not at all too late to return to market dominance! I do wish them well.

 

[snooks]

I think it's not at all too late to return to market dominance!

That would imply, at some point, they had "market dominance"

While I'm sure they wish they did have it, I'm not sure they ever did

 

[Deleted member 36384]

800 MPa is the proper expression. Using "m" denotes "milli". I don't think Rocna's reputation would be enhanced at 800 mPa yield strength.

 

[Chris_Robb]

I think CMP's only chance now with the Rocna is to go back to 800mpa for the shank and reduce the price to match or beat the Manson Supreme.

Which is made of the correct grade of steel, works equally as well, so why bother with Rocna at all?

 

[FishyInverness]

The UK price is already competitive with Manson. That's why I bought it in the first place. For some reason, it is more expensive than Manson in the U.S. But here, at least when I was shopping, the prices were about the same or even better than Manson. And they are significantly cheaper than Spade.

Not wanting to be contentious with your opinion, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The Rocna from Piplers at, eg 10kg has a price of £274.99 for a product which still has question marks about the value for money.

If you search for the Manson anchor of the same weight (Ok, 11kg) you'll find retailers selling that at approximately 2/3rds the price of the equivalent Rocna.

 

[Keen_Ed]

And now this post: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=127053&view=findpost&p=3433220
is suggesting that Rocna were being economical with the actualite about the steel in their stainless anchors as well. Any truth in that one?

 

[Delfin]

And now this post: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=127053&view=findpost&p=3433220
is suggesting that Rocna were being economical with the actualite about the steel in their stainless anchors as well. Any truth in that one?

I haven't heard that accusation. The only hard data I have is the shank bending force tables prepared by Rocna that were forwarded to me, and that Rocna doesn't want published because it would appear they were testing 480 MPa mild steel for the shanks on their galvanized anchors, bringing their statement that it was only a fluke that a bad "batch" of 480 anchors found their way into the marketplace. On these charts, they show the bending forces for the stainless line, and the steel is indicated to be 450 MPa, which is consistent with 2205 steel. 316 would be less than half that. An anchor with a 316 stainless shank the thickness of the Rocna would be a real noodle and would bend if you looked at it crossly. That's probably why the Ultra is made of a boxed section to provide the necessary strength.

 

[GrantKing]

stainless steel

And now this post: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=127053&view=findpost&p=3433220
is suggesting that Rocna were being economical with the actualite about the steel in their stainless anchors as well. Any truth in that one?

Make no mistake, all those that were made in China were all 316 SS for the shanks and blades. Not one single anchor was made with 2205 or anything like it.

I have the figures, the orders, the works orders and copies of the invoices detailing 316 only.