snooks
Active member
You can't be sure of that
Unless you have knowledge and proof of that all the replacements will be Q620 or less than the original spec, might I suggest you retract or edit your post for the time being?
Last edited:
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
You can't be sure of that
Unless you have knowledge and proof of that all the replacements will be Q620 or less than the original spec, might I suggest you retract or edit your post for the time being?
RichardS
N/A
Tried to contact RocnaONE with the response from the chandlers where I bought my Rocna 25 in July 2009 but "RocnaONE has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space."
This doesn't look very encouraging!
Richard
PS By the way, who are "Lawrence and Cate" and how are they involved in this issue?
This doesn't look very encouraging!
Richard
PS By the way, who are "Lawrence and Cate" and how are they involved in this issue?
Last edited:
youen
Member
Richards,what says your chandler?,I get no reply from mine in France,neither from CMP
Danny Jo
Active member
Well done, Arthur's Chandlery!
[Edited this morning on the grounds that I was in ramble mode last night]
This being my first season as the proud owner of a Rocna, I read the first couple of hundred posts. Concerns about the quality of my new anchor were gradually replaced by a suspicion that I wasn't learning anything new. As I had bought mine in May from Arthur's Chandlery in Gosport, I sent them an email at 1935 local time, asking whether they had any information on the quality of the anchor they had sold me. I received a reply later the same evening (posted at 2100 local time) which led me to the view that I had got what I wanted. My thanks to Mike at Arthur's for a helpful and very prompt response.
After 484 posts we can confidently conclude that Rocna has some satisfied customers and some dissatisfied customers. I am one of the former. The dissatisfaction felt by others is apparently caused not by any defect in performance or appearance, but by a material specification that, it emerges, falls in some measure below expectations raised by the sales pitch. I suspect that those who ignored the sales pitch and relied instead on independent assessments of the Rocna's performance are more likely to be satisfied with their purchase.
I will own up to being influenced by Craig Smith's arguments. Two or three years or so ago he made a big song and dance about how unfair it was to compare the performance of a Rocna rated for a 35-footer (or some such) with a Fortress rated for a larger boat (albeit lighter owing to its aluminium alloy construction). This argument persuaded me to buy an oversize Fortress (plus 130 metres of nylon rode to add to my chain) as an emergency back-up to cover the unlikely event that I might need to anchor in a storm. I continued to use my Bruce as the main anchor, and continued to rail at the Bruce's unwillingness to penetrate sand and weed. I knew I would have to bite the bullet and get a decent bower anchor one day, but it was Yachting Monthly's independent comparison of the performance several anchors, including the Rocna, that tipped the balance.
I feel a bit sorry for those whose expectations have not been met. You can still see CQRs for sale, which suggests that their vendors feel that it would be difficult to prove that they are not fit for purpose. By that criterion, Rocnas are on very safe ground.
[Edited this morning on the grounds that I was in ramble mode last night]
This being my first season as the proud owner of a Rocna, I read the first couple of hundred posts. Concerns about the quality of my new anchor were gradually replaced by a suspicion that I wasn't learning anything new. As I had bought mine in May from Arthur's Chandlery in Gosport, I sent them an email at 1935 local time, asking whether they had any information on the quality of the anchor they had sold me. I received a reply later the same evening (posted at 2100 local time) which led me to the view that I had got what I wanted. My thanks to Mike at Arthur's for a helpful and very prompt response.
After 484 posts we can confidently conclude that Rocna has some satisfied customers and some dissatisfied customers. I am one of the former. The dissatisfaction felt by others is apparently caused not by any defect in performance or appearance, but by a material specification that, it emerges, falls in some measure below expectations raised by the sales pitch. I suspect that those who ignored the sales pitch and relied instead on independent assessments of the Rocna's performance are more likely to be satisfied with their purchase.
I will own up to being influenced by Craig Smith's arguments. Two or three years or so ago he made a big song and dance about how unfair it was to compare the performance of a Rocna rated for a 35-footer (or some such) with a Fortress rated for a larger boat (albeit lighter owing to its aluminium alloy construction). This argument persuaded me to buy an oversize Fortress (plus 130 metres of nylon rode to add to my chain) as an emergency back-up to cover the unlikely event that I might need to anchor in a storm. I continued to use my Bruce as the main anchor, and continued to rail at the Bruce's unwillingness to penetrate sand and weed. I knew I would have to bite the bullet and get a decent bower anchor one day, but it was Yachting Monthly's independent comparison of the performance several anchors, including the Rocna, that tipped the balance.
I feel a bit sorry for those whose expectations have not been met. You can still see CQRs for sale, which suggests that their vendors feel that it would be difficult to prove that they are not fit for purpose. By that criterion, Rocnas are on very safe ground.
Last edited:
snooks
Active member
If you haven't had the "joy"
of reading the 480 post previous to yours, (and I don't blame you if you lost the will to live after the first couple of hundred ) I'd just like to highlight something 100 posts earlier....The test was independent, that's correct, however following Grant's posting of Peter Smith's email in post #381 where he says:
"If you know a test is to be run it is best to provide the anchor (sponsor). This way you can provide a tuned anchor you know is correct in every aspect, especially the correct tip shape and sharpness which is critical for immediate good test results. A number of tuned 10s and 15s, as well as Stowables, should be kept in stock for these occasions."
It raises the question whether a tuned anchor was provided for that test, where Fortress came first, Spade came second and Rocna came third. It was air freighted out from NZ but was it tuned? We don't know.
There was no date on this Email, but the test had taken place in 2006 before manufacture was moved to China, so regardless of the "tuning" that may or may not have been carried out, the anchor that was tested was not the same as the anchors coming out of china with the cast flukes.
Last edited:
RichardS
N/A
Also Arthur's Chandlery as referred to above by Danny Jo.
I still cannot contact RocnaONE. I believe that he is an honourable gentleman and I suspect that he has given up the battle to convince CMP that they must obtain and publish the full facts from Holdfast/The Smiths.
CMP may well have the full facts by now but may have taken the view that so many returns would be required that it is better to hold the line as it is and "ride out the storm". From a cost perspective they may be right - only time will tell - but I suspect that RocnaONE will have advised them that this is not the ethical approach.
I have no complaint against Arthur's. Their response when I sent them Grant King's analysis of the Chinese manufacturing history was that they have been assured by Rocna that no 15 or 25 kilo anchors of lower grade steel were imported into the UK and that only one batch of anchors of lower grade steel ever came into the UK and this was in June 2010 and that my anchor, purchased in July 2009, was therefore correctly manufactured.
I, for one, will be most unhappy if it ultimately transpires that Rocna are still trying to fudge this issue. In that event, it is likely that I will be demanding a full refund plus postage costs back to Gosport rather than being prepared to drive 200miles at my expense to collect a replacement Rocna.
Richard
Danny Jo
Active member
Thanks for this Snooks.If you haven't had the "joy"
The test was independent, that's correct, however following Grant's posting of Peter Smith's email in post #381 where he says:
"If you know a test is to be run it is best to provide the anchor (sponsor). This way you can provide a tuned anchor you know is correct in every aspect, especially the correct tip shape and sharpness which is critical for immediate good test results. A number of tuned 10s and 15s, as well as Stowables, should be kept in stock for these occasions."
It raises the question whether a tuned anchor was provided for that test, where Fortress came first, Spade came second and Rocna came third. It was air freighted out from NZ but was it tuned? We don't know.
There was no date on this Email, but the test had taken place in 2006 before manufacture was moved to China, so regardless of the "tuning" that may or may not have been carried out, the anchor that was tested was not the same as the anchors coming out of china with the cast flukes.
Regarding the question of whether a tuned anchor was provided for the test, I would assume the answer "yes", not just for Rocna, but also for all the other anchors tested, for this reason: if Yachting Monthly and Sail Magazine's collaborative test group had done as a good consumer test organization should have done (purchase the anchors in the same way as an ordinary customer) they would have said so in their report. That they did not suggests that they simply contacted the manufacturers and asked for free samples to test. What manufacturer would not take great care in these circumstances that the anchor supplied for the test was spot on?
Assuming that the email you quote (first posted on this forum by Grant King) is genuine, it must have been written after production moved to China and therefore presumably after the YM/ST tests were carried out, because near the bottom of the same email that you quote is this statement: "However, we have told you repeatedly that the Chinese anchors that you are shipping are NOT to spec, and we have yet to see one that is acceptable. I assume the anchor that the Germans tested suffers from the same problems. It should not have been provided; rather, send them a tuned sample ex CNC."
Frankly I am not particularly bothered by this fuss. I chose Rocna over Manson because I couldn't fathom the reasoning behind the slotted shank. (If it is capable of tripping a fouled anchor, what's to stop it tripping an anchor when the tide turns in the night?) I was a little concerned at first about the anchor's dependence on the integrity of the weld between the shank and the fluke, but having seen it survive a test to destruction (the shank twisted), I am much happier, and I am not aware that anyone is suggesting that Rocna's welds aren't up to spec. Mighty though Danny Jo may be, the drag on her hull and rig is ultimately transmitted to the rode via fastenings through wood. In spite of the care I lavish on the deck, cleats and windlass, it is the top end of the rode I now worry about most. I suspect that I would worry at least as much with many modern GRP constructions.
Last edited:
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Unless you've said elsewhere, you haven't mentioned when you bought your anchor but the fuss has been about low grade materials being used for the shanks.....resulting in an increased likelihood of bending....which is exactly what you are reporting. Are you sure you don't have a substandard Rocna?
The welding has not been called into question.
N
Natalie Davies
Guest
RocnaOne messages
In answer to those trying to message RocnaOne...
RocnaONE was initially set up for a 4 week period, in which to deal with the unique circumstances that threads on this forum have brought about.
This 4 week period ended on Monday and so RocnaONE has been unable to respond to any personal messages.
Obviously IPC would not normally allow a commercial user to use the forums but I felt that this would give our members a direct line of communication with a representative from Rocna.
As the issue is clearly still very much active I have decided to reinstate the account with the purpose of dealing forum members' questions.
In answer to those trying to message RocnaOne...
RocnaONE was initially set up for a 4 week period, in which to deal with the unique circumstances that threads on this forum have brought about.
This 4 week period ended on Monday and so RocnaONE has been unable to respond to any personal messages.
Obviously IPC would not normally allow a commercial user to use the forums but I felt that this would give our members a direct line of communication with a representative from Rocna.
As the issue is clearly still very much active I have decided to reinstate the account with the purpose of dealing forum members' questions.
Danny Jo
Active member
Yes, sorry. I bought a 15kg Rocna in May and have been reassured by the statement from Mike at Arthur's Chandlery that "information we have from Rocna is that no 15 Kilo Rocnas made of lower grade steel were imported into the UK". I recognize the possibility that Arthur's may have been misinformed but there seems to be consensus that the worst case scenario is that the anchor was made with the 420 stuff. If I'm a mug to be happy with that, what do call those who are happy with stainless?
Colvic Watson
Well-known member
Rich?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
That's born out by what I have seen elsewhere. It looks like you've got the 620.
Dunno about the stainless ones....It's all gone quiet!
jordanbasset
Well-known member
Perhaps I am being stupid here but I thought all Rocna anchors during this period were made of lower grade steel, whether 420 or 620. That is the issue people like Youen want to be resolved. I think it is admirable that despite paying a lot of money for what was advertised as a top quality product made to a very high specification, you are not concerned that this turned out to be false. However I can understand how others are not so forgiving.
GrantKing
New member
stainless
Lets just repeat it one more time:
All of the Chinese Rocna anchors were made during the 2008-2010 years ( 2011 unknown) with 316 shanks not with 2205 as advertised and promoted.
Is that clear enough?
That's born out by what I have seen elsewhere. It looks like you've got the 620.
Dunno about the stainless ones....It's all gone quiet!
Lets just repeat it one more time:
All of the Chinese Rocna anchors were made during the 2008-2010 years ( 2011 unknown) with 316 shanks not with 2205 as advertised and promoted.
Is that clear enough?
GrantKing
New member
misinformed?
Misinformed ? You certainly have got that correct.
Q: What do call those who are happy with stainless?
A: Hopefully well insured.
Misinformed ? You certainly have got that correct.
Q: What do call those who are happy with stainless?
A: Hopefully well insured.
GrantKing
New member
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Lets just repeat it one more time:
All of the Chinese Rocna anchors were made during the 2008-2010 years ( 2011 unknown) with 316 shanks not with 2205 as advertised and promoted.
Is that clear enough?
Grant,
Perfectly clear. My point was that we were promised some feedback from CPM a while ago. It is they who have been quiet.
Danny Jo
Active member
Many years ago I bought a new pair of jeans from a specialist retailer. (I still buy jeans, but only second hand pairs from charity shops.) Finding what looked like a good quality pair that fitted, priced at around £20, I asked the retailer what extra I would get for my money if I bought a pair of 601s, priced at over £50.
"A very expensive advertising campaign" came the reply, without a moment's hesitation.
This might to some extent be true of the Rocna, but it was nonetheless priced quite a bit lower than the Spade and Fortress and only a little more than the Manson. Like the Fortress, Spade and Manson, it was a rational design that had been tested (albeit constructed of a different grade of steel) not only in formal "independent" trials, but also by many purchasers. My point is that it is the performance, not the "advertised as a top quality product", that swings it for me.
braehouse
Member
But according to the designer the "performance" (And as an owner of a Rocna the performance on "set" and "hold" is very good) was linked to the quality of the material used and where this was not up to his original specification he clearly has expressed in the emails that Grant has provided his concerns of the Chinese metals.
Of course there is now the fact that he appears to have dropped his original standards, this is not good enough for me! I have been trying to get a refund but so far the Chandlery are asking for me to wait until the situation becomes clearer. As I enjoy doing business with the Chandlery I will wait for a while but I am clear that I expect a refund. CMP are apparently still not making it clear to the retailers exactly what is going to happen for customers like me who will not accept a 620 as a replacement. I know my statutory rights and will exercise them if needs be but the Chandlery have expressed their concerns that it could possibly put them out of business.
Chris
RocnaONE
New member
Thanks to the mods, back again to receive questions and try and answer them.
There will be a similar operating environment: individual points from posters will get a PM; more general questions, an answer on the forum.
For the original conditions under which YBW set up the thread, please see #15 and read it. There is no duplicity in setting up this second ID; it is solely a means to catch general questions, identify specific issues from Rocna customers and owners, and give feedback.
What's happened in the last few days ?
Rocna is at the Fort Lauderdale show in the USA, on the West Marine stand, with new sales literature.
We have made many changes to the Rocna website, and to Peter Smith's own one. The changes reflect work that Canada Metal has carried out in the last few weeks since the takeover, on the Q420/620 problem, classification, getting production and delivery organised ready to provide national distributors with replacement stock.
We have been speaking with distributors and customers around the world, identifying a straightforward process to receive and exchange anchors where owners wish to replace them.
What's happening in the near future ?
Yachting Monthly has a short interview with John Mitchell, CEO of Canada Metal, in the next issue. It covers some of the historical background to and reasons for the takeover, and JM's views on the future.
We are also working closely with yachting magazines in other countries to ensure that information they publish is up to date, and where technical errors are discovered, they are corrected.
Canada Metal will be issuing Memorandum #2 within the next few days. It should cover more details of
Rocna will be represented strongly at METS in Amsterdam from the 15th to 17th November. This is the world's largest trade exhibition of equipment, materials and systems for the international marine leisure industry. (If anyone is intending to be there, please PM me.)
We hope to start making replacement exchanges shortly, using Canada Metal's sophisticated and efficient logistics network, but the lag between production and delivery to (e.g.) UK is currently running at about three weeks because of shipping schedules As soon as there is a date available, I shall post it.
Canada Metal remains resolute that everything possible will be done to restore confidence in the range of anchors, and is committed to using its extensive facilities in design, production and delivery to achieve this objective.
There will be a similar operating environment: individual points from posters will get a PM; more general questions, an answer on the forum.
For the original conditions under which YBW set up the thread, please see #15 and read it. There is no duplicity in setting up this second ID; it is solely a means to catch general questions, identify specific issues from Rocna customers and owners, and give feedback.
What's happened in the last few days ?
Rocna is at the Fort Lauderdale show in the USA, on the West Marine stand, with new sales literature.
We have made many changes to the Rocna website, and to Peter Smith's own one. The changes reflect work that Canada Metal has carried out in the last few weeks since the takeover, on the Q420/620 problem, classification, getting production and delivery organised ready to provide national distributors with replacement stock.
We have been speaking with distributors and customers around the world, identifying a straightforward process to receive and exchange anchors where owners wish to replace them.
What's happening in the near future ?
Yachting Monthly has a short interview with John Mitchell, CEO of Canada Metal, in the next issue. It covers some of the historical background to and reasons for the takeover, and JM's views on the future.
We are also working closely with yachting magazines in other countries to ensure that information they publish is up to date, and where technical errors are discovered, they are corrected.
Canada Metal will be issuing Memorandum #2 within the next few days. It should cover more details of
- the replacement procedure
- progress on classification
- advances in production quality control
- plans for initiating the downstream supply chain to distributors and thence to dealers.
Rocna will be represented strongly at METS in Amsterdam from the 15th to 17th November. This is the world's largest trade exhibition of equipment, materials and systems for the international marine leisure industry. (If anyone is intending to be there, please PM me.)
We hope to start making replacement exchanges shortly, using Canada Metal's sophisticated and efficient logistics network, but the lag between production and delivery to (e.g.) UK is currently running at about three weeks because of shipping schedules As soon as there is a date available, I shall post it.
Canada Metal remains resolute that everything possible will be done to restore confidence in the range of anchors, and is committed to using its extensive facilities in design, production and delivery to achieve this objective.