Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[FishyInverness]

Edit : [Majority of message removed by poster, no real relevance.]

Snooks : Thanks, I think that issue was fast becoming upsetting to the vast majority.

 

[youen]

Do you think CMP can be considered as guilty for previous bad manners done but Holdfast.Is that included in the deals when they purchased the rights to make Rocna from Smiths.Is Holdfast still in business.

 

[GrantKing]

clarify

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.
It does not need defining surely, I always speak plainly so that my words can be understood. All means ALL, not just a few, not some but ALL produced from 2008 until the shipment to Spain on 13 May 2010 were made using either Q420 or the even lower 400mpa. No need to twist or analyse words, it is very simple.
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.
Of course they did, they ordered it in the first place, sanctioned it, enjoyed huge profits from it, Smith enjoyed royalties from it and was very aware of the lower grade metal having been used after I told him and Craig early this year. They then set about to find a way to cancel the license with Bambury and find another unknowing sucker to take it on.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

my comments in red

 

[GrantKing]

correct

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.

It is about time that CMP make a definite stand on their responsibilities and I can only say I applaud this notice for their sake.

You are correct in saying that CMP have no responsibility for anything Holdfast or Bambury did, said, published, covered up, changed or any other action.

You must surely , if you have the level of intellegence you seem to have, now know that the wool has definitely been over your eyes with regards the metal used prior to mid 2010. Bambury was aware of it, Smith was certainly aware of it as I informed him in early 2011 and he asked for help and proof in order to remove Bambury and Holdfast. Do you want the emails between us at that time because that will show the level of misinformation you have obviously been given. Smith has them, I have them so I guess you need them as well.

The retailers that are responsible for refunds under the law of each country will miss out as Holdfast will no doubt be wound up soon and there will be no money left in the coffers you can be sure of that.

Any consideration of a moral obligation rests in the hands of CMP alone who must decide if the risk exposure is great enough to warrant replacing what could be a massive number of below spec anchors.

Your call.

 

[youen]

IT is incredible .Thank you Grant.It is as you buy a speed car as a Porsche or Ferrari sell with carbon brakes and after an accident you discover it is not carbon brakes but ordinary one.I am completly disgusted...

 

[GrantKing]

numbers

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

Guess it is time to publish a full list of all shipments of 420 and when and where they went to and cut through all this BS.

Will work on it over the next couple of days and post.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

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

As I mentioned to you before, I am unable to get onto that site....all I get is a silly error message. Obviously young Craig has put a block on me.

I can only assume that he decided to throw the toys out of his pram when I took the wee wee out of him sometime ago on various websites.

Frankly, his churlish response is the source of some merriment to me. However, if you must post links to the sites of your colleagues, may I suggest that you ask those colleagues to be a little more mature in their approach to business and remove those blocks. Either that, or post the damn stuff on this site. It matters little to me which way you do it.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

. 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.

Just to repeat the point which has been made by others.

If you have an anchor which is not of the correct, advertised grade you should contact the chandler from whom you bought it. It is their responsibility to refund or replace it. This is not altruism, it is a legal obligation.

The fact that the Rocna distribution network will not take kindly to CMP/Smiths unwillingness to replace those faulty anchors is irrelevant. The fact that this may result in some disenchanted chandlers is also irrelevant. This is, of course, the reason for CMP's so called altruism; they need to protect their distribution network. It is profit motivated pragmatism.

 

[Delfin]

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.

I'm sorry, but that is a very misleading post. Was it intentionally so? When you say Bisalloy 80 has "a correspondingly lower yield point" without noting what that yield is, an uninformed reader might make the reasonable conclusion that if Q620 has a UTS of 790 and Bisallow a UTS of 800, then the yield of the 800 must be "correspondingly lower" in a ratio of about 790 to 800. In other words the yield differences would not be worth mentioning.

However, the UTS of Q620 is a range value from 700 to 890. The anchor I had tested independently had a yield of 626 MPa, with a UTS of 696 - close to the minimum UTS range for the class of steel it presumably was made of.

The "correspondingly lower" yield of Bisalloy 80 is a minimum of 750 MPa, which means it is a minimum of 20% stronger than the Q620 steel. Perhaps that is why Mr. Smith insisted it was the minimum standard, what with being so much stronger and all.

However, the Bisalloy 80 Manson shank tested by Manson had a yield of 866 MPa, which would be at the high end of Yield for the grade of steel, making it 40% stronger than the current Rocnas.

So just to clear some smoke out of the room, here are the facts:

Q620 yield as specified: 620 MPa
Rocna yield (Q620 presumed) as tested by NW Labs:626 MPa
Bis 80 yield as specified: 750 MPa
Manson yield (Bis 80) as tested by Optimec: 866 MPa

http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/file...oducts/Sections/Steel standard EN10025-04.pdf

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=12913faa414448b3b5de603bb76a1d1a

http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/Site...ds/11-037 Tensile Manson Anchor 18Apr11VB.pdf

The relevance of all of this is not to pick on CPM, for whom I have sympathy. However, if CPM, through a spokesperson, provides information that could be construed as being misleading, then they are starting down the same path the Smiths and Bamburys seem to have so thoroughly pioneered of trying to fool people to sell a few more anchors for a premium price. It really has to stop.

 

[braehouse]

I'm sorry, but that is a very misleading post.
So just to clear some smoke out of the room, here are the facts:

Q620 yield as specified: 620 MPa
Rocna yield (Q620 presumed) as tested by NW Labs:626 MPa
Bis 80 yield as specified: 750 MPa
Manson yield (Bis 80) as tested by Optimec: 866 MPa

.

Delfin..............Thank you very much for this as I had read the post from RocnaONE and then came to the conclusion that I may as well replace my known 420 20Kg anchor with the 620 that had been offered as reading that post there was not much difference.

I find this kind of post from RocnaONE misleading and frankly as a representative for CMP and as their spokesman I now find myself doubting their intentions. We had the big "I am here to sort this out" and then nothing but corporate bullsh_t and weasel words.

RocnaONE still has not answered my questions on replacement of my anchor for one that I thought I was buying in Bisalloy despite several requests from me and others to make this clear. When they had the chance they blew it with yet more yapping and avoiding the question.

I for one am now probably voting with my feet, the anchor is likely to be returned to the Chandlery next week as I do not trust one word or promise from these guys any more. It is unlikely that CMP will also no longer be getting any of my business as ultimately they are the ones who are through their spokesperson RocnaONE having another huge PR disaster and rather than building trust in the community and products their spokesperson has blown it for them big time.

 

[FishyInverness]

I find this kind of post from RocnaONE misleading and frankly as a representative for CMP and as their spokesman I now find myself doubting their intentions. We had the big "I am here to sort this out" and then nothing but corporate bullsh_t and weasel words.

Ok, on this note, and seeing as i'm still a little lacking of gruntle from the patronising tone and inference of the PM I received this morning from RocnaOne which advised me to go look at #15, i'm very glad I did, because:

In post #15 RocnaOne clearly marks out CMP's area of concentration - one of which is "joining in the relentless forum debates on anchors, with dignity and useful data"

In post #431 this morning, RocnaOne then tells us that CMP wont be getting involved in online debates in forums such as this one.

Why the turnaround?

 

[Colvic Watson]

Kudos to IPC for putting a thread back up

 

[RichardS]

Whoa - like Lazarus, it has returned from the dead!

Has anything been deleted (but don't repeat it if it has!)

Richard

 

[snooks]

As Natalie said, it was taken down while it was reviewed by the company lawyers.

It's been reviewed, and it's back.

Not that it ever went away from YBW, it was always here, just hidden away from public view

 

[photodog]

You couldnt let it lie...... Sometimes a thread needs to be taken out and put out of its misery.

 

[Sniper]

Ok, on this note, and seeing as i'm still a little lacking of gruntle from the patronising tone and inference of the PM I received this morning from RocnaOne which advised me to go look at #15, i'm very glad I did, because:

In post #15 RocnaOne clearly marks out CMP's area of concentration - one of which is "joining in the relentless forum debates on anchors, with dignity and useful data"

In post #431 this morning, RocnaOne then tells us that CMP wont be getting involved in online debates in forums such as this one.

Why the turnaround?

I'm glad you raised this issue; I noticed that as well and wondered how it could be squared.

 

[Elessar]

Kudos to IPC for putting a thread back up

Totally agree. Didn't think it would happen. Delighted to be wrong.

 

[blenkinsop]

anchor identity?

A response on another thread suggests posing the question here as to how we can identify whether our Rocna is one of those of questionable provenance as others may have a similar interest.

It is a 20kg galvanized version bought in Sydney early in 2010.

Since then it has performed admirably as we have made our way from oz to the Med. We can only recall one occasion when there was a suggestion of dragging, and that could have been due to our lack of care in laying it.

I have asked the same question to the Rocna email address but have had no repsonse.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Blenkinsopp,

If you PM Grant King he'll tell you, though I fail to understand why Rocna won't reply or RocnaOne doesn't jump in and give you the answer you need.

 

[GrantKing]

shank

A response on another thread suggests posing the question here as to how we can identify whether our Rocna is one of those of questionable provenance as others may have a similar interest.

It is a 20kg galvanized version bought in Sydney early in 2010.

Since then it has performed admirably as we have made our way from oz to the Med. We can only recall one occasion when there was a suggestion of dragging, and that could have been due to our lack of care in laying it.

I have asked the same question to the Rocna email address but have had no repsonse.

The first of the 620 shanked 20kg's that went to Australia only shipped from China on 26 April 2010 by sea ( approx 3-4 weeks transit and clearance time).

Prior to that they were all 420's.

You must first identify it as either a China one or a NZ one.
Embossing of the rocna logo and size on the rear of the blade indicates a China model.

Smooth welded plate blades with no embossing are NZ ones.