Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[blenkinsop]

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.

Thank you for that information. It appears that our anchor fits the description and timing of those with 420 shanks.
I have sent a further email to CMP who have stated an intention to 'find and replace any suspect product'
A complication for us is that we bought the anchor in Sydney and are now in Spain. It is not therefore practical to consult the retailer.

 

[macd]

A complication for us is that we bought the anchor in Sydney and are now in Spain. It is not therefore practical to consult the retailer.

I imagine you'll be by no means the only one in that sort of position. Be interesting to see how CMP address this.

 

[GrantKing]

warranty

Thank you for that information. It appears that our anchor fits the description and timing of those with 420 shanks.
I have sent a further email to CMP who have stated an intention to 'find and replace any suspect product'
A complication for us is that we bought the anchor in Sydney and are now in Spain. It is not therefore practical to consult the retailer.

This is the Rocna Lifetime Warranty as previously published and advertised on the Rocna website.

Lifetime Manufacturer’s Warranty:
Good for the lifetime of the original purchaser and non-transferable.
In plain English: The lifetime warranty applies only to the original purchaser. This is because the history of the anchor becomes difficult to determine once it is second or third hand, and it may have been damaged and repaired at some point, so becoming weakened.
Coverage:
Rocna warrants that the product will conform to its specifications and will be free from material defects in and failure of material and workmanship from the date you purchase the product.
In plain English: This means the warranty covers standard things like the grade of steel and welding quality, and will not fail when used as intended.
Exclusions:
Coverage does not include:
(a) faults and damage caused by using the anchor outside of the Product Specifications and/or the User Guide;
(b) faults and damage resulting from general wear-and-tear;
(c) faults and damage caused by your poor handling of the anchor;
(d) damage to the anchor after risk of loss passes;
(e) faults and damage where changes have been undertaken by any third party not authorised by us;
(f) faults and damage caused by failure of any accessory not approved by us;
(g) faults and damage caused by product maintenance and repair services by any third party not authorised by us;
(h) faults and the repair of damage to property (including the anchor), and personal injury arising from the act, error, fault, neglect, misuse or omission of any user of the anchor;
(i) repair of damage to property (including the anchor), and personal injury due to external causes, including accident, abuse, misuse, failure to perform preventative maintenance and/or repairs;
(j) repair of damage to property (including the anchor), and personal injury caused by the operation of the anchor other than in accordance with recommended operating procedures as set out in the User Guide or otherwise than in accordance with the directions or recommendations of the manufacturer.
In plain English: If you damage the anchor by way of misuse you cannot expect a replacement or your money back. Wear-and-tear and/or corrosion of the sacrificial zinc coating is not covered. You should read and understand all of the exclusions as they are important.
Honouring the Guarantee:
Where the anchors are faulty or damaged the reseller will at your option either:
(a) replace the product if available; or
(b) give you a full refund of the purchase price on your Nominated Payment Authority.
Returns Procedure:
If you wish to return a product to the reseller, please wrap the product securely and send it to the reseller, together with the invoice which accompanied the anchor and the return slip to the reseller from whom you purchased the product. The return slip to be used can be found on the Rocna website www.rocna.com.

Disclaimer.
Your use of the products must be strictly in accordance with the User Guide so that the anchor is not used for any purpose for which it is not suitable. You shall solely be responsible for using all necessary skill and care in handling, storing, maintaining and using the anchor. You acknowledge that we make no specific representation nor do we hold any liability to you as to the effectiveness of the anchor in climactic or inclement weather conditions or in specific tidal situations. Any information about the anchor supplied by Rocna is provided for guidance only and nothing contained herein should be construed as a recommendation to use any particular product in the range of products. You shall make your own determination as to its fitness or suitability for your purposes prior to use. The user Guide can be found on Rocna’s website www.rocna.com.

Liability.
Except as expressly provided for in this Warranty, Rocna’s liability to you whether in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury arising directly or indirectly from any defect in or non-compliance of the products or from any other breach of Rocna’s obligations under this Warranty shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the price invoiced by the reseller for the faulty products or the products giving rise to the claim. Rocna shall not be liable for any indirect or consequential injury or specific damage or loss of any kind whatsoever.

It does not say return to the original reseller and in past cases the closest reseller or distributor to the customer making a claim always handled the return and replacement or refund.

Take it to either the distributor or the closest reseller to where you are now and male your claim.

It clearly states that if you require a refund or a replacement it will be done.

Either 420 or 620 do not meet the specs as published at the time you made your purchase. The warranty is perfectly clear.

 

[GrantKing]

warranty

Well somebody is now being smart and the warranty on the website no longer states anything about conforming to specs...metal etc.

here: http://www.rocna.com/product-range/warranty-information/

 

[macd]

Well somebody is now being smart and the warranty on the website no longer states anything about conforming to specs...metal etc.

In the UK, at least, such warranties are obliged to include a qualifier to the effect that "This warranty does not affect your statutory rights". So as our friend from Inverness has made clear, the metal spec would still be a telling issue.

 

[Djbangi]

I wonder - we have a pretty international family here - how many chandlers worldwide have issued any formal notice to cusotmers on the Rocna issue.

Over in America that bastion of honesty and integrity, West Marine, who issued the original Specification Notice seem to have forgiven 'Rocna'. The new team of Rocna, Pocock of Suncoast and Smith (of CMP?) had pride of place on recent boat shows in America. All is forgiven - and WM are ignoring the fact they sold out of spec Rocnas from early 2009. Seems a bit contradictory and maybe inflamatory.

There now seems to be a wealth of information showing that Rocna sold 420 shanked anchors as soon as they moved production to China in 2008 and this quality of shank was used until the first part of 2010. Moreover the replacement shank, as being 620 - did not meet the advertised quality (of Q&T800 or Bisplate 80). In addition Holdfast/Rocna advertised their anchors as meeting RINA certification from mid 2009. In the event there is no confirmation that any anchors from China have met the RINA certificate.

Interestingly - this information has been published in a number of 'vehicles' - it has not been denied.

We appear to have a pretty significant American enterprise who seems to say - its all OK if you screw the customer base, supply a safety item with disregard for quality, and make false and misleading statements. In fact not only is it all right but we'll give you a nice stand in our enclosure (just to show you are part of the family and we trust you) when we visit the US boat shows.

Makes you wonder what slips through the cracks that the forums have not yet picked up on.

And there are still people out there who think the chandlers are whiter that white and Rocna/Holdfast much maligned.

Not associated, at all, with any anchor maker.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

I wonder - we have a pretty international family here - how many chandlers worldwide have issued any formal notice to cusotmers on the Rocna issue.

Over in America that bastion of honesty and integrity, West Marine, who issued the original Specification Notice seem to have forgiven 'Rocna'. The new team of Rocna, Pocock of Suncoast and Smith (of CMP?) had pride of place on recent boat shows in America. All is forgiven - and WM are ignoring the fact they sold out of spec Rocnas from early 2009. Seems a bit contradictory and maybe inflamatory.

There now seems to be a wealth of information showing that Rocna sold 420 shanked anchors as soon as they moved production to China in 2008 and this quality of shank was used until the first part of 2010. Moreover the replacement shank, as being 620 - did not meet the advertised quality (of Q&T800 or Bisplate 80). In addition Holdfast/Rocna advertised their anchors as meeting RINA certification from mid 2009. In the event there is no confirmation that any anchors from China have met the RINA certificate.

Interestingly - this information has been published in a number of 'vehicles' - it has not been denied.

We appear to have a pretty significant American enterprise who seems to say - its all OK if you screw the customer base, supply a safety item with disregard for quality, and make false and misleading statements. In fact not only is it all right but we'll give you a nice stand in our enclosure (just to show you are part of the family and we trust you) when we visit the US boat shows.

Makes you wonder what slips through the cracks that the forums have not yet picked up on.

And there are still people out there who think the chandlers are whiter that white and Rocna/Holdfast much maligned.

Not associated, at all, with any anchor maker.

Am I the only one who id slightly astounded at how long this has dragged on?
The issues have been debated so many times.

Yes, Rocna were naughty, and you can choose to buy from them or not in the future. That is your choice.

For those of us who actually have one of these anchors (and I suspect that is a very small proportion of those with an opinion on the topic), CMP are now offering a replacement with an anchor shank with a UTS of around 790Mpa, as opposed to the original spec of around 800Mpa. Surely this is close enough to stop fussing about?

I have accepted their offer of replacement. Time to move on.

 

[youen]

Solent boy please can you tell me when and where did you buy your anchor.Was your retailer who propose you a change or directly CMP.I

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Solent boy please can you tell me when and where did you buy your anchor.Was your retailer who propose you a change or directly CMP.I

Uk retailer purchased early last year. They offered me a refund, exchange or alternative anchor, actually prior to the CMP thing. They have since reconfirmed this offer and are waiting for new inventory from CMP.

 

[Djbangi]

Solent Boy,

Are you telling us that CMP have made a full public statement and are offering to replace every anchor made in China since 2008?


My understanding was they were just covering a 'few' anchors sold in the early part of 2010.


But it does not matter - all the chandlers, where consumer protection laws are in place will need to replace all anchors. Whether made from 420 steel or 620 steel. The advertisments said Q&T800/Bisplate 80 and a RINA certificate (from mid 2009). If CMP do not cover it - consumer protection laws do.

 

[Djbangi]

Solent Boy,

One of the problems is we have a situation like this

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290868&goto=newpost

The distributors says 'none of the anchors I have sold are suspect' yet we have a reliable source suggesting that not only has he sold unreliable anchors he has known about it for some time.

Sadly no-one has refuted the statement '420 shanked anchors were the sole quality of anchor produced from the transfer of production to China in late 2008 and until the first part of 2010' and no-on has denied that they were not to RINA certification.

If 420 shanked anchors were so good - why did they upgrade to the still offspec 620.


[Removed by admin]. You might find this all very boring, just hope none of your kids goes sailing to anchor overnight with friends who do not know about the problem.

Sleep well

 

[youen]

Solent boy can you tell me if the offer come from you local retailer or from the UK distributor or even from CMP.I shall check this afternoon if my retailer has got some news from VDM the French distributor

 

[GrantKing]

reviews

some interesting reviews and responses on the West Marine website

http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wc...toreNum=10105&subdeptNum=10372&classNum=11181

 

[GrantKing]

refunds

The critical test for CMP will come with how they handle the refund or exchange program from now on.

It certainly appears, reading between the lines of all they have published and posted so far, that the attitude that is being taken is that only the 420 shanked units shipped in late 2009/ early to mid 2010 that can be identified from one of the production delivery schedules will be offered for replacement.

I assume this is because of the following:

1. They do not think that there is any proof that has come from Bambury that there are any more that can be proven.

2. Smith has now announced in retrospect that the 620 is good enough so therefor they dont have to exchange any orf those.

3. They consider they are showing tremendous goodwill in exchanging any at all as they are not legally obliged to.

4. Any other claim issues are the responsibility of Bambury and Holdfast in NZ.

The fact that buyers were mislead by Bambury and Smith with false promotion of the metal quality seems to be forgotten in the process.

The fact that many of those buyers want refunds or replacement with the standard of what they believed they were purchasing is also ignored.

I personally applaud CMP for even trying to right the wrongs, however they are still to realise the complete truth and the extent of the lower grade problem.

 

[snooks]

In this month's Yachting Monthly (pg 6 Nov 2011) Dick Durham spoke to the CEO of CMP, who said CMP would "find and replace any defective product"

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Solent Boy,

One of the problems is we have a situation like this

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290868&goto=newpost

The distributors says 'none of the anchors I have sold are suspect' yet we have a reliable source suggesting that not only has he sold unreliable anchors he has known about it for some time.

Sadly no-one has refuted the statement '420 shanked anchors were the sole quality of anchor produced from the transfer of production to China in late 2008 and until the first part of 2010' and no-on has denied that they were not to RINA certification.

If 420 shanked anchors were so good - why did they upgrade to the still offspec 620.


So one reason this and similar threads have life is the simple fact that Rocna, Holdfast, the distributors, chandlers etc etc all seem more than happy they screwed their customers by selling them anchors that are not reliable. You might find this all very boring, just hope none of your kids goes sailing to anchor overnight with friends who do not know about the problem.

Sleep well

My simple point is that I am not sure the problem is as widespread as you seem to make out.

You say "the distributors, chandlers etc etc all seem more than happy they screwed their customers by selling them anchors that are not reliable"......... but in the UK the distributors and chandlers are offering exchanges or refunds!

You say "The distributors says 'none of the anchors I have sold are suspect' "........ but in the UK they are offering replacements.

I think the debate, if it were to continue, should focus more on specific cases. There are consumer laws in a lot of places that make this whole thing very easy to solve.

If there is anyone out there who:-
1. Is not happy with their Rocna., and
2. Has been refused a replacement by their distributor or chandlers, and
3. Has not been offered a replacement by CMP

then there would be something worthwhile pursuing.

The campaign has been good in that it has brought about general knowledge of a problem, and facilitated a solution, but constant banging on about generalities and complaints about Rocna no longer serve any purpose.

If there is anyone that can answer yes to all 3 of the points above, I would be interested to hear from them instead of people who "are not connected with any anchor manufacturer" and also who do not have a Rocna either!

 

[Tex]

My simple point is that I am not sure the problem is as widespread as you seem to make out.

You say "the distributors, chandlers etc etc all seem more than happy they screwed their customers by selling them anchors that are not reliable"......... but in the UK the distributors and chandlers are offering exchanges or refunds!

You say "The distributors says 'none of the anchors I have sold are suspect' "........ but in the UK they are offering replacements.

I think the debate, if it were to continue, should focus more on specific cases. There are consumer laws in a lot of places that make this whole thing very easy to solve.

If there is anyone out there who:-
1. Is not happy with their Rocna., and
2. Has been refused a replacement by their distributor or chandlers, and
3. Has not been offered a replacement by CMP

then there would be something worthwhile pursuing.

The campaign has been good in that it has brought about general knowledge of a problem, and facilitated a solution, but constant banging on about generalities and complaints about Rocna no longer serve any purpose.

If there is anyone that can answer yes to all 3 of the points above, I would be interested to hear from them instead of people who "are not connected with any anchor manufacturer" and also who do not have a Rocna either!

+1
I have been offered a refund/replacement if desired and currently await details as to how this will be handled. So, at this stage, I am happy with feedback from UK distributor & retailer.

 

[youen]

I hope it will be the same in France

 

[maxi77]

In this month's Yachting Monthly (pg 6 Nov 2011) Dick Durham spoke to the CEO of CMP, who said CMP would "find and replace any defective product"

Did he however define what he considers to be a defective anchor, that is the big big question.

I can now see why RocnaOne wants to remain unidentified, it would seem that helping CMP restore the value of the Rocna brand may not be a good thing to have on your CV

 

[Delfin]

Am I the only one who id slightly astounded at how long this has dragged on?
The issues have been debated so many times.

Perhaps one of the reasons it drags on is because mis-information continues to be peddled on Rocna's behalf.

CMP are now offering a replacement with an anchor shank with a UTS of around 790Mpa, as opposed to the original spec of around 800Mpa. Surely this is close enough to stop fussing about?

While I am sure it is inadvertent, the above statement remains as misleading now as it was when Rocnaone wrote it first in an earlier post. The issue is anchor shanks, and the strength of the steel in the shank that is relevant is its resistance to bending, measured as its Yield strength. I'm sure you can find about 20 posts from Craig Smith making the same point over and over again, and it was assurances from the Smiths of the superior metallurgy of their anchor that was the basis for many folks buying the thing in the first place.

Sorry to repeat myself, but what CMP is offering is a replacement Rocna that is a minimum of 20% weaker than the original specification, and a minimum of 40% weaker than an equivalent Manson.

The Q620 offered by CMP has a minimum Yield strength of 620 MPa
The Bisalloy 80 steel specified by Smith has a minimumYield of 750 MPa
The Manson shank tested by Optimec had a Yield of 866 MPa

Whether 20% weaker is "close enough" or "good enough" for current owners of the product is up to them, but wouldn't it be nice if we all used real values when making quantitative statements so the uniformed can understand what one person's "close enough" actually means?

http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/file_...EN10025-04.pdf

http://www.matweb.com/search/datashe...de603bb76a1d1a

http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SiteP...018Apr11VB.pdf

I note that the CEO of CMP has agreed to "find and replace" every "defective" Rocna. That is fine, but based on endless sermonizing from the Smiths and the design specifications for Rocna, he intends to replace a defective Rocna with a defective Rocna (see qualifier below). Clearly that is satisfactory to some, just as replacing your kids toys with ones containing 20% less lead paint would be satisfactory to some. To others, not so much.

Edit: As noted, we can't know whether the are Rocnas available to customers made of the steel specified by Smith that CMP could use for replacement. Based on statements from Rocnaone, the intention to replace 420 MPa anchors with Q620 anchors appears to be the plan, but if this is not correct, perhaps Rocnaone can clarify. (Thank you Snooks...)