Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Djbangi]

420 Shanked 25kg Chinese anchors.

Lady C,

Was it not you that suggested I was the same as a yachting journalist contributing to YM, if you live in a glass house etc, strangely I went to the dentist yesterday, it was hardly a pleasure but I did not get bad tempered.

But to get back to Grant's post advising that all 25kg Rocna anchors made in China from 2008, upto the final shipment to Spain in May 2010, had 420 shanks. Presumably shipments subsequently were 620. However shipments from China to wherever would take time to sell and the 420 shanked 25kg anchors would really cover any Chinese anchors sold upto back end the year, 2010.

Grant can you define 'all' - so there is no ambiguity.

Does 'all' have its usual meaning or is there are different meaning, as in Rocna's use of 'few'? I'm not suggesting you have any association with Rocna but possibly New Zealanders have a different use of English to Americans or we Brits.


1 Does 'all' cover every 25kg anchor shipped to USA and UK, Italy and Hong Kong, Australia and Chile, Argentina, Peru and the Falkland Islands (so as not to forget any of those Patagonian charter boat operators of whom Peter Smith is so proud).

2 Hold Fast would have known of the extent of the use of 420 shanked anchors when they admitted to a few, accidentally, off spec anchors were shipped early in 2010. They would have known of the deception when the licence was transferred to CMP. Economical with the truth takes on a new meaning.

3 This would be my extrapolation - if the 'few' 420 shanked anchors merited a Specification Notice by West Marine then the 'all' 420 shanked anchors should enjoy the same treatment and under Trades Description legislation this would cover any chandler, worldwide. However as this is 'all' anchors - its really a world wide recall. One might hope the chandlers will react with slightly more urgency than has been seen in the past.

4 Finally we note that two forum members, one in Germany, one in France suggest that the problem is not widely advertised, though a sample of 2 from many is hardly statistically sound (but was sound when Rocna wanted to display holding power results). Will there be a better, more professional, attempt to contact owners, including (for example) Mr Smith's Patagonian Charter Boat operators?

Have a good evening

 

[Delfin]

Whatever the reasons and motivations, posting copies of emails and PMs, as has been done several times in this thread, without the author's consent on a public forum doesn't seem to me to be in the spirit or the rules of the YBW forums (this isn't Wikileaks).

So, if you take a position publicly that is disputed by your private communications, it is inappropriate to point out the discrepancy? Or in Grant King's case, if he is accused of theft, bribery and worse in public, he shouldn't use private communications to vindicate himself? Really?

I understand your position and respect it, and will apply it to myself in the future. In Mr. King's case, after what has been alleged about him and after the financial damage that has been caused to him by others, well, I disagree. He has used private emails to answer questions from Rocna purchasers about the safety of their equipment that they have been lied to about. That looks like a public service to me.

 

[misterg]

It is my view ...

So are you the same person as Sarabande?

FWIW, I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules, but hey-ho.

(Absolutely no links with anyone or any company involved!)

Andy

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Whatever the reasons and motivations, posting copies of emails and PMs, as has been done several times in this thread, without the author's consent on a public forum doesn't seem to me to be in the spirit or the rules of the YBW forums (this isn't Wikileaks).

I understand the point but I would point out that, if certain E mails had not been released by Grant, then we would never have been aware of what had been happening in Rocnaland. The Bambury's would simply have got away with the deception. The articles which recently appeared in Yachting Monthly (?) would never had been written. Even now we have people on this site who are querying the make up of their anchors and not getting straight answers from some quarters.
Whatever the spirit or rules may say, I think that the "investigative journalism" (for want of a better expression) aspect of everything which has gone into this saga has been for the good of the boating public.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Lady C,

Was it not you that suggested I was the same as Jonathan Neeves,

I'ld forgotten about that!
Pots, kettles, black,

Lady C,
When you make your complaint to IPC Towers may I assume that you are going to complain about your own postings too?

 

[youen]

This thread I think could be over ,if Rocnaone has said,ok we are able to offer to the misled buyers of Rocna anchor a refund or a new anchor made with the steel BS 800 asked by the designer and advertised on their website.But ...

 

[FishyInverness]

Youen, I doubt that is going to happen. I suspect RocnaOne is contracted by CMP to be a mouthpiece in the UK and provide advice and information on their disaster recovery - I don't think he can assure anyone of anything that CMP haven't decided themselves..

And LC, in addition to the facts already pointed out, that you have indeed raised a paradox where you take umbridge with comments made where you make the same sort of comments yourself, the 2nd point in your quote of the rules which you didn't highlight, forbids forum users from posting with relation to any business - which means RocnaOne shouldn't even be posting as he is posting to inform people what his employers, a business, intend.

Forum rules are, like a lot of rules, open to personal interpretation....if they were applied to the letter, everywhere in this forum, there would possibly be about 6 threads remaning, which would read like a late 1800 country gentleman's club with polite comments about the weather.

PM's are also open to contention, who says a PM sent to you, is the property of the sender? Surely you have read it, it's in your inbox, you now know something that you might disagree with, why can't you share your opinion about that? Seriously, you'd prefer a communist viewpoint where people can't rightly vent about something they see as an injustice without being censored? Where someone "official" can say "I'm not going to declare my interest or role in this, i'm just going to tell you how it is and you will roll over and accept it, because if you argue with me, my friends will get this thread pulled"

On the other hand, I hate the dentist so I feel for you today, hope it's not too unpleasant! (This comment should not be construed as annoyance or offensiveness to dentists, please IPC do not pay heed to any complaints from dentists, thankyou! )

 

[Mike_Alpha]

4 Finally we note that two forum members, one in Germany, one in France suggest that the problem is not widely advertised, though a sample of 2 from many is hardly statistically sound (but was sound when Rocna wanted to display holding power results). Will there be a better, more professional, attempt to contact owners, including (for example) Mr Smith's Patagonian Charter Boat operators?

Have a good evening

To be fair I have to say that the distributor contacted every buyer of an anchor that Rocna told them was from a suspect batch. Mine was not part of it. They assured me they would exchange mine as well if told so by Rocna or if I proved the shank was made of Q420. That's fair enough, I think.

Michael

 

[jordanbasset]

To be fair I have to say that the distributor contacted every buyer of an anchor that Rocna told them was from a suspect batch. Mine was not part of it. They assured me they would exchange mine as well if told so by Rocna or if I proved the shank was made of Q420. That's fair enough, I think.

Michael

Yes but this does not address the problem for many people, like Youen, who thought they were buying one anchor and were sold the lesser standard 620 anchor. They are quite rightly asking for a refund or the anchor they were told they were buying, not the 620. I think it could be sorted out quite quickly if Rocna/CMP made it clear they would give refunds to all who bought an anchor that was not to the specified standard.

 

[Colvic Watson]

To be fair I have to say that the distributor contacted every buyer of an anchor that Rocna told them was from a suspect batch. Mine was not part of it. They assured me they would exchange mine as well if told so by Rocna or if I proved the shank was made of Q420. That's fair enough, I think.

Michael

Out of interest, would you request a refund/replacement if it turned out not to be Bisalloy? It's fascinating watching the saga unfold, and interesting to see the Smiths who thrived on agressive criticism of others being hoisted on their own petard. Will customers put up with Q620 as it's perceived to be 'good enough' when the designer said that only Bisalloy was good enough?

I wish CMP well and hope they don't loose out through sorting this mess

.

 

[RocnaONE]

Canada Metal is not engaging in debate on the forums, but is publishing its information via its websites and press releases (the next one is due on or about the 1st November. )

Canada Metal notes with concern that there is some lack of clarity over its responsibilities as the new owner of Rocna for matters relating to the advertisements and website material previously issued by Holdfast.

Canada Metal has purchased the manufacturing and production licenses for Rocna; it has not bought the Holdfast company, which remains a completely separate corporate entity based in New Zealand.

Canada Metal is acting altruistically and with a sense of clear moral duty towards Rocna owners in replacing anchors from the suspect period made by Holdfast. Canada Metal has no responsibility for Holdfast actions concluded prior to transfer of the license on 20th September 2011 or thereafter.

Any concerned customers should contact Canada Metal directly via the contact information in the CEO's (John Mitchell) Memorandum: +1-604-229-2750, or e-mail support@rocna.com, or refer to the website.

 

[Mike_Alpha]

Out of interest, would you request a refund/replacement if it turned out not to be Bisalloy? It's fascinating watching the saga unfold, and interesting to see the Smiths who thrived on agressive criticism of others being hoisted on their own petard. Will customers put up with Q620 as it's perceived to be 'good enough' when the designer said that only Bisalloy was good enough?

I wish CMP well and hope they don't loose out through sorting this mess

.

IMO the difference between 620 and 690 mPa is not big enough to loose much sleep about (or take legal action against the German distributor). If 420, then it will be exchanged anyway.

Michael

 

[Djbangi]

Altruism

I have considerable respect for Canada Metals.

But for someone to suggest they are altruistic, unselfish, beggars belief. CMP are not a charity. CMP are doing what they are doing because it (is a legal requirement?) or - it makes good business sense. Being 'unselfish' does not come into it - and to suggest it - is almost insulting.

If CMP have suggested they are altruistic - they go down in my estimation. If CMP are refunding for good commercial reasons, then that is what I would expect from any normal, professional, organisation - to me its part of their investment. If you want to be, altruistic, unselfish - put your money into cancer research (or something similar).

Have a great day.

 

[RocnaONE]

620 800 "Yield" - "Ultimate tensile strength"

Please do not confuse the two terms, defined in simple terms as:

Yield point - the force needed to make the steel shank bend permanently.

UTS - the force needed to pull the steel shank apart.



"Q620" is the descriptor given to steel which has a Yield point of 620 Mpa, and a UTS of around 790Mpa.

Bisalloy and Q&T800 have a UTS of around 800Mpa, with a correspondingly lower yield point.


As production managers in many disciplines know, there can be small variations + or - in such figures, and contracts usually specify the acceptable range of variation, with documented samples of each batch being taken for QC processes.


There are many other detailed physical and chemical definitions. If it would help users' understanding of the technical terms and issues involved, I am quite happy to provide a small memorandum. In the meantime a longer note is available on Peter Smith's website.
www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/2011-oct-01-rocna-issues.php

 

[youen]

Can RocnaOne explain us which steel will be used by CMP for the next generation of anchor made under their name.And where they will be built.Can we have also the advice of Mr Smith about the steel that will be used.

 

[CONGO]

Fair go

Lady C.
I cannot believe your recent post ; Rigga, Delfin, DJbangi, Grant King, I take my hat off to these guys, can you not see what an asset these people have been in providing a service to all in the boating industry, their input has been unique.

From my prospective I am an inventor not an academic, for all of the years C Smith and Co have been in most forums if not all I kept out of it, my family continuously reminding me that I should be replying to his condemnation of Anchor Right and our anchor designs, did I suffer, what do you think? Look what happened to Alain Poiraud, the battles that he had always defending C. Smith’s remarks, there’s an old saying if you think you are ahead say nothing, well in my eyes I was ahead by saying nothing as academically Smith though I hate to admit it, had it over me.

The forums allowed this scoundrel to drag any competitors name through the mud, good people good product was his prime target, personal attack’s Lady C you say, don’t we have short memories, the forums supported C Smith’s actions and saw him as an asset to the marine industry delivering intelligent sound advice and offering the best product, long drawn out threads was the end result from the not so dumb trying to bring C. Smith undone whilst his followers argued his point, the forums and their moderators loved it. (a new era in marketing)

The good men above have bought this whole saga to a head and restored my belief that honesty will overcome, just when you think it’s over the beagle boys Holdfast, Smith and Co have been thrown another life line by CMP and as normal screwed them as well. CMP will have to either cut their losses and run or be educated by no other than Genius P. SMITH how to resell the concept of lesser steel strengths, such a good company taking an unbelievable gamble from someone with such a track record of what you might say selling it all except the truth.

Grant King; this man has made many accusations, but has produced evidence on every occasion to back it up, in contrast the forums allowed personal accusations and his private life blurted through the forums by Steve Bambury on hearsay,

Lady C surely you understand and accept that the Smiths marketing tactic’s has been very much a new era in marketing with the aid of forums, I believe you also understand that the name Rocna and its associates have taken advantage of all through this new internet technology, history will prove anchors have never been marketed this way in the past. Leave Djbangi, Rigga and Delfin alone to let history also record the end of this type of marketing by the beagle boys so as it does not happen again and leave your forums open for genuine discussions.

Now from what I read of your post’s I take it you have academic qualities so you should be able to sum me up pretty well, but if you are going to defame the men that are genuine, honest and have been a voice for all anchor manufacturers who have put so much of their effort into ridding the marine industry of such scoundrels, then I will be back to annoy you again.
CEO of
Anchor Right Australia.
Rex Francis.

 

[Djbangi]

Altruism and unselfish

I may have been slightly rash with my comment 'having a high regard, or whatever, for CMP' based on the original comment from RocnaONE.

I retain my high regard for CMP but there is something slightly incongruous when the public spokesman for CMP, namely RocnaONE, tells us they are altruistic (in refunding monies for out of spec anchors - out of the goodness of CMPs hearts) and that anyone else with a grievance should address Holdfast - when at the same time (and last I heard) CMP were employing the ex CEO of Holdfast. Moreover part of the team involved with this massive subterfuge, the designer, is also being retained by CMP.

Are we all meant to be stupid.

Part of enjoying the Rocna licence is retention of the distributor base. Based on current information the distributors are VERY exposed under whatever local consumer protection laws. If the distributors are left high and dry - CMP will need to rebuild the distributor base, and how many, new, distributors, are going to be enthusiastic when they see a hostile, all right questioning, customer base and previous distributors licking their wounds.

There is another issue - according to Grant there are a large number of 25kg anchors with 420 shanks waiting to bend (and if you are in Patagonia, Falkland Islands or Northern Norway its a long way to buy a new anchor). How many manufacturers would want to be associated with an accident waiting to happen, they might not be responsible - but its the same product, same name and they bought the brand knowingly. And so far we only know about the 25kg anchors, anyone out there bought a 20kg, 30kg, 50kg Rocna anchor in 2009?

Maybe in modern parlance this is called altruism, in my book - its good business sense (altruism does not come into it).

Treat us as being stupid and maybe we will return the compliment.

 

[Chris_Robb]

I'ld forgotten about that!
Pots, kettles, black,

Lady C,
When you make your complaint to IPC Towers may I assume that you are going to complain about your own postings too?

Remember that he could well be toothless by now

 

[FishyInverness]

I retain my high regard for CMP but there is something slightly incongruous when the public spokesman for CMP, namely RocnaONE, tells us they are altruistic (in refunding monies for out of spec anchors - out of the goodness of CMPs hearts) and that anyone else with a grievance should address Holdfast - when at the same time (and last I heard) CMP were employing the ex CEO of Holdfast. Moreover part of the team involved with this massive subterfuge, the designer, is also being retained by CMP.

.

I picked up on this as well. While this is an understandable route to take for a company wanting to shed responsibility for previous false descriptions issued by a previous company who used to hold the licence for the product which they now hold. It means that marine retailers could be screwed as they would have to honour a refund for a "not as described" item, but would have to join the legal queue, back through the distributor, if they want recompense for that item from - we are now told, Holdfast as CMP aren't to be held liable for all the flimsy and unsubstantiated claims made about a product which is now licensed to them, but was previously falsely advertised. Despite key members of personnel from Holdfast being onboard with CMP. Unfair? Perhaps, Illegal? No, Immoral? Yes, but that's what some people call business!

Incidentally, Congo - apparently LC and RocnaOne will now accuse you of being unable to post with a commercial interest as it's "against the rules", despite your post just being your personal opinion - The PM I received from Rocna One this morning over my toast, tells me that RocnaOne is allowed a special exception to do this because he asked, so if this thread is pulled as was requested by LC, or forum members banned due to this "infraction of the rules", I would suggest any people who feel that is also injust A) Ask IPC to go through every thread currently active on the boards and remove any, and remove the offending users, which reveal knowledge gained through commercial interest - they will need a new web team and a few thosand man hours I think! Also I don't think that's in the spirit of a public forum and would be unlikely to happen and B) To be full and frank about why one person can get permission to go outside of the forum rules. I doubt very much that LC's recommendations would result in forum censorship of that kind as it would be exposed as blatant hypocrisy (Incidentally, I, and many others it seems, have been incredibly offended and upset by the comments ('jokes') made about the sailor murdered in Nuku Hiva and yet IPC have not removed that thread..and I think that's much more relevant than a few people 'offending' a company and it's representatives about a product with huge question marks still around it.)

Oh, and in that PM I was told I should ask for special dispensation to post here on the forums because I announce in my signature that I work for GaelForce, a group of companies which involves a chandlery amongst other marine interests, but that my posts are not related to GaelForce unless I state otherwise. I found this offensive in the most (perhaps I should report it?) mainly because my boss told me that, given the nature of my work, If I wanted to register and post on the forums, I should put that there to differentiate the fact that my presence here is my own volition and to express my own opinion or find out more about an industry which I have chosen to work in. I'd like to make it very clear, publicly, that my postings on this thread are down to a personal feeling that consumer rights are there to stop all of us who buy stuff from getting the short end of the stick, and nothing more!

 

[snooks]

(Incidentally, I, and many others it seems, have been incredibly offended and upset by the comments ('jokes') made about the sailor murdered in Nuku Hiva and yet IPC have not removed that thread.

Just to clarify:
I removed the offending posts from the liveaboard forum 2 days ago. The thread remains but the "jokes" don't.