Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[maxi77]

The Q620 *doesn't* meet the designer's minimum yield strength spec, though. Where I work, that wouldn't be acceptable.

I agree, where I used to work the spec was the minimum acceptable, even for non safety critical items. You could sometimes get a concession but you had to jump through a lot of hoops to show that it was allowable, and the customer had to approve

 

[Djbangi]

To clarify a point for Mr Smith

The reason '800' is quoted as the spec for the steel originally used in the shank is because that is what you and your son quoted. You called it Q&T800 (its on the old website), that was when you transferred to China and stopped using (and quoting) Bisplate 80 (and did not in fact, according to Grant King use Q&T800 either).

Another issue glossed over was the emphasis made, by you and your son, on the use of Quench and Tempered steel (hence Q&T800 and Bisplate 80). I recall Craig Smith chastising either Manson or Anchor Right, I forget which, for not cutting and/or welding Bisplate 80 correctly - which is a bit of a joke now as at the time you were using something only a bit better than mild steel (this was in the rather large thread that was eventually pulled and never replaced). Please would you confirm that Q620D is a Q&T steel, there are steel makers in the industry who would cast severe doubts (on Q620D being a Q&T steel).

So people are simply quoting the spec used by yourself '800' and are using the 620 because that is what the lower grade steel is also denoted as. If the steel companies use the numercial terms, we are hardly going to use something different. The fact that the 800 and the 620 refer to different properties might be unfortunate - but the situation would never have arisen if you had used what you said you were using.

Do not blame the people on this forum for quoting your words, or in this case figures.


If there was any attempt to confuse, maybe go back to your original use of Q&T800 and ask why did you mention it - if it was never used, and importantly - never intended to be used. This is one of the critical issues in this debate.


Finally there are continued negative comments being made about many of the people who post on this and other forum. Would the critics bear in mind that this thread, and similar threads on the Cruisers Forum, Anything Sailing, Trawler Forum etc, and articles in magazines would not exist if Rocna anchors had been made continuously, and as advertised on the Rocna website, from Quench and Tempered 800 steel, or Bisplate 80 or ASTM 514 (I think that is the spec) and fully certified by RINA. Equally if people who post on the forum, or magazines that publish articles, seem confused (they probably are not) but if you (the critics) think they are confused or misled then maybe your answers and comment do not have the simplicity and integrity required. Perk up your educational posts, make them look credible and then you would have less to complain about.

 

[Delfin]

Keen Ed

this is the latest page from Peter Smith:

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/steel-and-materials.php

with links.

It would be unusual for the full design and engineering specifications of a product to be made public, for reasons of competitive confidence. I do not know of any other anchor makers who release that information.

Is there a particular item in the spec that concerns you ?

R.

Unfortunately, it remains true that you have to parse what Peter Smith writes very carefully if you want to glean factual material from him, and I really do not know why CPM continues to reference him. By doing so, their own reputation for honesty is probably unjustly brought into question.

In the link above, Smith states:

"The steel for the Rocna shank was referenced in literature and elsewhere as a “grade 800” steel, which referred to a HSLA steel characterized by a tensile strength of at least 790 MPa and a yield strength of 690 MPa.

The Rocna in current production uses in its shank a steel called “Q620”. This numerical name refers to a grade with a minimum yield of 620 MPa. The average actual yield of all tested samples of this steel is 688 MPa."

The steel Smith stated his product was made of was not some general "grade 800" steel but specifically quenched and tempered Bisplate 80, which has published strength specifications. Here is the link to what what was on the Rocna website that presumably people believed was true:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070430...=0&PHPSESSID=a7702ae7a8383d137d0e0d17675e14bd

Bis 80 has a minimum yield of 750 MPa, not the 690 MPa he states in the link, so this is simply another lie. He knows this, and he knows people are now watching, so why take this course? Whatever the reason, it means to me that I can't take anything he says at face value, and makes me wonder if I can take CPM at their word either since they rely on Smith for their data.

Further, it may well be that QT620 steel with a minimum yield of 620 MPa would test at 688 MPa. After all, the yield of the Manson tested, which is made of Bis 80 didn't test at the minimum MPa of 750, but 866 MPa, so the proper comparison between the two products would be the difference in shank strength between 688 (Rocna) and 866 (Manson). His statement in this case may be true, but is also apparently intentionally misleading.

However, the anchor I had tested showed a yield of 626 MPa, so is the point here that I should be heartened that while mine would have been significantly substandard in terms of strength, others would not have been since the "average" yield was 688 MPa?

To your statement "I do not know of any other anchor makers who release that information", perhaps these will help clarify that other manufacturers do publish their specs:

Manson uses Bisalloy 80: http://manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/SupConstruction.htm

Sarca uses Bisalloy 80: http://www.anchorright.com.au/about-us/research-and-development

The main difference that I see between these manufacturers and Mr. Smith's approach is that you don't need a lawyer to decode what they are really saying when they make a statement.

Taken at face value, your post with Smith's comments referenced would make two main points to the casual reader. First, the Q620 steel is basically the same as what was used in the NZ made Rocnas. Second, Rocna is noble in doing what other manufacturers won't do and that is to publish the steel grades they use. Both statements are clearly and empirically false.

 

[Delfin]

Delfin

my use of the solidus "/" was not intended in any way to indicate that there was a problem with the 420 AND the 620. Rather that it was "in relation" to the 620 on which Peter Smith has views, here:

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/steel-and-materials.php.

There's a new broad-ranging press statement coming out shortly which will, I believe, give more technical information and links to additional sources.

R.

Thank you. As noted above, the issue is the remaining disparity between the strength of Q620 steel shanks offered as replacements for shanks people thought were made of minimum 750 MPa steel. Tap-dancing around this issue isn't resolving it, but it appears that CPM's position is as follows, and if I have it wrong, please correct me:

1. All Rocnas will be made with shanks of Q620 steel which is not the grade of steel Peter Smith said was essential to the design.
2. Peter Smith has changed his mind and Q620 steel is now good enough for the purpose, and that is good enough for CPM.
3. Given 1 and 2, anyone who purchased a Rocna before all this came out that is made of 620 steel is out of luck if they want a Rocna of the strength they thought they were purchasing.

I recognize that retailers may take a different approach - as West Marine has - and honor the warranty of steel grade Rocna offered by giving a refund to anyone asking, but it doesn't appear CPM is prepared to back that refund. A simple "Yes, that is correct" or "No, you have it wrong and here is how" is really all I'm asking for.

 

[braehouse]

A simple "Yes, that is correct" or "No, you have it wrong and here is how" is really all I'm asking for.

Lets hope that the press release due out next week is according to RocnaONE "likely to address these issues"..............given the smoke screen to date I am not holding my breath!

As someone else commented earlier this whole saga is a mess and will be viewed in years to come by PR specialists as the way NOT to do things. RocnaONE has not brought back any confidence and IMO done a very poor job. CMP are now getting tarred with the Smith brush and therefore losing there credibility more each day............we can only hope that they dig deep and pleasantly surprise everyone who bought there Rocna in good faith with an announcement that recognises the original investment made by individuals and the fact that they are being offered a sub standard product to what they thought they were purchasing as a replacement.

Chris

 

[Delfin]

Lets hope that the press release due out next week is according to RocnaONE "likely to address these issues"..............given the smoke screen to date I am not holding my breath!

As someone else commented earlier this whole saga is a mess and will be viewed in years to come by PR specialists as the way NOT to do things. RocnaONE has not brought back any confidence and IMO done a very poor job. CMP are now getting tarred with the Smith brush and therefore losing there credibility more each day............we can only hope that they dig deep and pleasantly surprise everyone who bought there Rocna in good faith with an announcement that recognises the original investment made by individuals and the fact that they are being offered a sub standard product to what they thought they were purchasing as a replacement.

Chris

CPM really does have my sympathy, and I don't know if a way out of this pickle is going to present itself. Based on their reputation for making quality products, I doubt very much that CPM really spent the time necessary to figure out what taking on this product line was going to actually mean or else they wouldn't have managed the issues as they have up to this point. Although I don't know how you would structure such a transaction, perhaps they effectively excised responsibility for anchors not made to the spec advertised from them and has it resting with the Smiths. Since Smith probably isn't going to be able to refund a few thousand anchors, who can if that is required?

Based on hindsight and pure speculation, the best course may have been to bankrupt Rocna/Holdfast and get relief from warranty claims through that legal venue, buy the entity out of bankruptcy and then start making the product to the original specs that is also the spec used by their competitors. Not sure why they didn't do that, or perhaps that will be a future shoe to drop if they are unsuccessful in convincing people that what was not good enough quality before is just fine now. Forums like this aren't read by that many people, and as long as retailers are willing to sell Rocnas, some people will probably buy them whatever they are made of.

 

[Djbangi]

As Delfin underlines there is a lot of conflict in the information being promulgated by RocnaONE which is rapidly and badly tarnishing CMPs reputation.

RocnaONE has advised that anyone who feels they should have puchased a Q&T800 and RINA approved anchor should approach Holdfast (because one presumes CMP are not going to honour that piece of the spin) but the CEO of Holdfast now works for CMP.

We have CMP, through their consultant, telling us to look at Peter Smiths website if we want detail on the specification and reasoning behind the specification. The website detail is another example of spin and has been argued against by a number of people, see Delfin (above). Notably the same Peter Smith is also employed (directly or indirectly) by CMP.

We have chandlers from many locations all swearing that anchors made in China prior to the 'accidental batch of a 'few' anchors in the early part of 2010' are to specification. Yet Grant King who worked for Holdfast is stating clearly and repetitively that anchors made during 2009 were based on a Q420 shank. I cannot recall RocnaONE ever denying this (interesting?) but the chandlers must be basing their replies on information from 'them' (CMP, Holdfast, Smiths etc) Either Grant King is correct, in which case we are enjoying a bit more spin, or the 'them' are correct - and if its the latter why not come out and say so. If CMP are pushing the 'early 2010 story' then they are relying on 2 questionable sources, Bambury and Mssrs Smith, for their information.

It has been published that the RINA certificate does not cover Chinese Rocna anchors, or again CMP et al, have never refuted it. Yet the people who made the false claims, Mr Bambury and Mssrs Smith, are now gaining financial remuneration of CMP.

So we have CMP with an admirable reputation slowly sinking into the Rocna quicksands of deception by advising us directly or indirectly to rely on Mr Bambury and the Mssrs Smiths when the Bambury and Smiths have been shown to be at best, economical with the truth.

So CMP in the next public release and RocnaONE (R1, any time at your convenience):

Can we have a clear answer, 'yes' or 'no'

Are Chinese Rocna anchors covered by RINA certification and if so which ones are covered and which are excluded.

Were many anchors made in China prior to Dec 2009/Jan 2010 made with Q420 shanks.

Are you going to cover, directly or indirectly, the customers who bought on the basis of the advertised quality Q&T800/Bisplate 80 and/or RINA certification.

Three simple questions, 'Yes' or 'No'.

 

[ffiill]

What a fuss about some bits of steel plate welded together and hot dip galvanised.I would be far more bothered about shackles and chain than anchors and the quality of steel therein!
I would suggest its far harder to determine chain and shackle quality-a stamp means nothing-so a perfect anchor costing £300 is of little use if the chain breaks!
I was recently using a rated chain on a chain block to lift several tons of mooring block off my trailer.
Four foot off the ground and me close by-bangI jump out of way and two tons of concrete hits the earth!

 

[Djbangi]

Totally agree, about chain.

But an 8mm chain is rated to 4t (I think) and Q420 shanked anchors seem to bend at about 300kg.

There is a slight difference with a 4t chain (that breaks at 2t) and an anchor that bends at 300kg, both are failures. In the unlikely vent I had to choos I'd rather the 2t chain than the 300kg anchor.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Now that I've finally been able to see what Smith says about the grades of steel I can only say that it reminds me of watching Clinton say that he hadn't "had sexual relations with that woman".

Does Smith really think that people are gullible enough to believe anything he says?

 

[GrantKing]

?

Now that I've finally been able to see what Smith says about the grades of steel I can only say that it reminds me of watching Clinton say that he hadn't "had sexual relations with that woman".

Does Smith really think that people are gullible enough to believe anything he says?

dont you mean "swallow"

 

[Rigger Mortice]

dont you mean "swallow"

 

[GrantKing]

other misinformation

To clarify a point for Mr Smith

The reason '800' is quoted as the spec for the steel originally used in the shank is because that is what you and your son quoted. You called it Q&T800 (its on the old website), that was when you transferred to China and stopped using (and quoting) Bisplate 80 (and did not in fact, according to Grant King use Q&T800 either).

Another issue glossed over was the emphasis made, by you and your son, on the use of Quench and Tempered steel (hence Q&T800 and Bisplate 80). I recall Craig Smith chastising either Manson or Anchor Right, I forget which, for not cutting and/or welding Bisplate 80 correctly - which is a bit of a joke now as at the time you were using something only a bit better than mild steel (this was in the rather large thread that was eventually pulled and never replaced). Please would you confirm that Q620D is a Q&T steel, there are steel makers in the industry who would cast severe doubts (on Q620D being a Q&T steel).

So people are simply quoting the spec used by yourself '800' and are using the 620 because that is what the lower grade steel is also denoted as. If the steel companies use the numercial terms, we are hardly going to use something different. The fact that the 800 and the 620 refer to different properties might be unfortunate - but the situation would never have arisen if you had used what you said you were using.

Do not blame the people on this forum for quoting your words, or in this case figures.


If there was any attempt to confuse, maybe go back to your original use of Q&T800 and ask why did you mention it - if it was never used, and importantly - never intended to be used. This is one of the critical issues in this debate.


Finally there are continued negative comments being made about many of the people who post on this and other forum. Would the critics bear in mind that this thread, and similar threads on the Cruisers Forum, Anything Sailing, Trawler Forum etc, and articles in magazines would not exist if Rocna anchors had been made continuously, and as advertised on the Rocna website, from Quench and Tempered 800 steel, or Bisplate 80 or ASTM 514 (I think that is the spec) and fully certified by RINA. Equally if people who post on the forum, or magazines that publish articles, seem confused (they probably are not) but if you (the critics) think they are confused or misled then maybe your answers and comment do not have the simplicity and integrity required. Perk up your educational posts, make them look credible and then you would have less to complain about.

further misinformation :

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/rocna-size-59327-8.html posting #107 ( 12 May 2011)

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/rocna-size-59327-11.html posting #163(13 May 2011) and my comments to that http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/rocna-size-59327-16.html posting #230

http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna?p=114889#post114889 posting #443 (12 April 2011)

 

[GrantKing]

metal specs

The story is continuing to be put forth that the lower grade metal used in early 2010 was only discovered this year.

This is the time at which I increased the metal from the 420 to the 620.

During July 2009 I gave a Chinese Rocna to Clive Jennings of Metal Testing Laboratories in Auckland to test the galvanising thickness. They tested the metal first to see if the galvanising problems we had been having were anything to do with the letal itself rather than the process.

The reply was :

Good Afternoon Grant - The job was stopped by you and Procut before we proceeded to the galvanizing stage.
The piece cut off the Chinese product was analysed and hardness tested only. The steel was a low carbon steel with a small chromium addition, but the steel had not been quenched and tempered, so the hardness was only 6 Rockwell C, not 25 Rc as required for Bisalloy 80.
We trust this is helpful.
Regards - Clive

Now the point of note is that this anchor that was cut and tested was manufactured in March 2009 in China and taken from current stock.

 

[Spinnaker Head]

More of the same

OOOOOOH yea, what a can of worms, mesmerized hypnotized don’t know what it is but Rocna One is sounding very much like more of the same, just Google Craig Smiths take on bisplate shanks, look through dozens of his posts, P. Smith’s old web site, definitely no other than bisplate 80 will do in Rocna anchors.

Rocna One; please do not refer to other companies and what they do whilst you are ducking and diving, I am just soooo pleased I own a fabulous Sarca anchor, great product and a Company T’boot, the only bad reports Anchor Right ever had against them was Craig Smith, Peter Smith, and G Mack, but then again every anchor company had the same treatment from these guys during their rein of deception.

You know this Rocna thing is like a habit, getting hooked up with them is one thing, breaking the habit is another, for example G Mack is now the distributor for Sarca anchors in N.Z. and Grant King their production manager is now their worst enemy, there is light at the end of the tunnel for you Rocna one to break the habit. Produce the anchor in the steel properties it was designed for, don’t give us more Rocna ****!

What the Rocna clan has done to all of you is not forgivable, you have spent your hard earned money to fit what you were led to believe, the greatest anchor on earth with in all most indestructible steel properties, doesn’t matter how you put it, this is fraud, further more just Google Rocna anchors dragging, you could hardly call these the best anchors in the world.

There may be a best anchor in the world but there will never be the perfect one, the West Marines world’s biggest anchors test stated, if there was one anchor that came close to being the best all round anchor, Sarca came close and that test was the original old Sarca design that I have, not their new Super Sarca or new Excel design.

No I have no affiliation with Anchor Right but love their product, ever reliable and a great company, this is only my second post on a forum but read many, see more than enough of publicity given to the worst anchor company ever in

my books, to all of you whom are prepared to be screwed do yourself a favor, take a look at this link,

21 Sep 2009 - Quo Vadis Sits Out Force 10 on Anchor Right

The following state of events that was recorded by Peter Hutchinson, skipper of Quo Vadis drives home the need for good reliable ground tackle, equally as important when purchasing an anchor make sure that it is of an a approved and tested design. The Anchor Right anchor that Peter relied upon was a Sarca, (Sand and Reef Combination anchor).


Hi Rex,

When I built Quo Vadis, my own design upon the hull shape of a Roberts Mauritius 43, I looked very specifically for an anchoring system that would perform in an emergency. If the 20-ton boat had complete systems failure and was being blown on to a lee shore I wanted to know that I could use a strong hook to grab the sea bed. After careful consideration I opted for the Anchor Right system with 100m of chain, operated from my own custom-designed bow roller by a substantial windlass. There are very few places in the world that this would not stop a drifting disabled vessel in an emergency. In particular I was attracted by the Anchor Right self-correcting roll bar (and reverse-pull extraction for release if snagged) as an emergency anchoring wouldn't necessarily take account of bottom conditions.

On September 3rd 2009 I had occasion to test the Anchor Right in severe conditions when running from a storm latterly written up as Force 10 by the local media. Sea conditions in Liverpool Bay delayed my approach to the Mersey, and thus the tidal lock entrance to Liverpool Marina where I required to be by around midnight on the 2nd, leaving me looking for a suitable place to anchor and see out the forecast storm. Good navigational chart-plotting equipment allowed me to explore all the water off Liverpool at my leisure for suitable anchorages. Not a lot of choice. There are a couple of small craft moorings areas that are likely to be fouled with chains. The next location, other than out in the exposed Liverpool Bay, was off New Brighton where outside the shipping fairway there was an area of water with depth, clear sea bed and swinging room.

At 3am on Thursday 3rd September I dropped anchor at the identified location, between Brazil Light Float and Rock Gut. I had a charted depth of about 7m and enough sea room to swing well over 100m in any direction, still without risking obstructing the fairway. Importantly, also, the ground conditions suggested good bearing and no wrecks or underwater obstructions.

Barely had I got 40m of chain out and secured to the anchoring cleat on the bow when the storm struck. The rain whipped across with such force that exposure was painful. But by this point not only was Quo Vadis attached to the seabed, but also I had a waypoint on my chart-plotter showing exactly where my Anchor Right

had come in contact with the world. I put a second waypoint when QV reached the end of her 40m of anchor chain, and a 3rd when she had swung through a couple of arcs showing the extremity of the swing. For an hour I sat by the plotter monitor watching for any sign of drag as the storm's intensity had QV bucking about like a rodeo ride. Not an inch. We were hooked fast. After a cup of tea and still no sign of drag I went to my bed in the aft cabin. All the bounce was at the front and my cabin hardly moved.

At 11 the morning the wind still howled and the sea coming over Rock Gut was still boisterous. The bow rose an fell through quite an angle, but I could sit and work in the aft cabin with a cup of tea. Imagine my surprise when I looked out the porthole and saw a lifeboat man outside. The RNLI (British Lifeboats) had a Rib returning from helping kids endangered on a beach and they saw Quo Vadis looking like a fairground ride. They had no idea we'd been there all night. The Coastguard did know because I'd advised them when I anchored. From the perspective of the men in the Rib there was a danger my anchor wouldn't hold and I would be blown out of control into the fairway, or onto Rock Gut. Upon their advice I agreed to relocate to the marina as it now had water level suitable for the sea lock.

Agreeing to relocate is one thing. Taking a perfectly safe boat off a secure anchor in a major storm is another. I was all for sitting out the storm, so the RNLI offered a line onto their bigger lifeboat so I could safely raise my anchor. For this I was very grateful. My original plan had been to berth in the marina for 2 days anyway as I had friends to visit in Liverpool. With expert assistance from the RNLI the anchor was raised from the seabed and stowed in the bow roller, and Quo Vadis was escorted, still attached to the lifeboat as protection against high wind gusts until we got to the marina entrance, and tied up in the lock before a happy goodbye handshake.

Later, in the marina, I was visited by the coastguard. Of particular interest was the track on the chart plotter that showed Quo Vadis had sat out the storm at anchor, swinging entirely within the waypoints I had placed. This was proof that I had never been at risk, and that I had chosen my anchorage and ground tackle suitably.

All good stories have a twist. A local TV crew spotted the lifeboat and reported I had gone out in the storm against advice and needed rescue. I attach the apology from the BBC. The local newspaper, The Globe, also noted the incident. I took exception to Quo Vadis being described as stricken. As their report had emanated from the RNLI, though with no names, I asked the RNLI if they could help me also correct this. I pointed out to the RNLI that my Anchor Right ground tackle should be acknowledged.

When I get back to QV I will try to photograph the chart-plotter with the track if you wish. In the meantime I attach a link to the report in The Globe. This might help. (The blogs added by people who know me make amusing reading. The ballooning quip is aimed at my uncle who build a balloon to go round the world, but which sank in the sea off Japan.) http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/4...rescue_lone_sailor_stranded_in_Force_10_gale/ Also attached is a photograph of QV sailing.

Cheers. Peter Hutchison

BBC APOLOGY

Peter, thanks for your call. I can confirm that the story we ran on September 3rd was wrong in a number of respects. I have spoken to the Liverpool coastguard and they tell me that a) you were in no danger at any point.. b) you had not "ignored coastguards warnings and put out to sea" as was stated in our story. c) you were lying at anchor at the correct location.

d) the RNLI were on their way back from another incident when they saw your boat. They offered an escort back to the marina if you required it...

We are still investigating the reason for the errors and I might have some more info later but in the meantime I am really sorry if our inaccuracy on this story has caused you any embarrassment.

JIM CLARKE Newsgathering Editor BBC Northwest Tonight Manchester

Tell me, that is the few dis believers,if you had a dodgy Rocna, would you survive this, we all have a care of duty to whomever we take on our boats, if you want to use pathetic excuses for this Rocna group as in, my chain may break, I don’t intend to anchor in these conditions, then get real, get rid of the dodgy chain and get rid of the dodgy anchor or give up boating or you may live to regret it.

Rocna one you are slipping into a Rocna world of deceit, if you do not recall all of the dodgy Rocna’s it will be on CMP’s head, meaning with all the publicity some will be sure to make a claim even if it’s not the anchors fault, dodgy product will always come back and bite you.

The sooner a good Journo picks this story up and makes an example of it the
better for all

 

[Dockhead]

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.

Correct. I'd like to point out, also, that we have no idea what the deal is between Holdfast, the Smiths, and CM. Maybe CM assumed responsibility for cleaning up the mess as part of the deal. It's a shame to think that our chandlers might end up holding the bag for a bankrupt Holdfast, but ultimately it's none of our business, and that might not be the outcome.

To be clear - and I am a lawyer - anyone who bought an anchor sold as being Bisplate or Q&T800 which is in fact not that, has the right to return it to whomever he bought it from. There are three bases: (1) ordinary law of contract; (2) express warranty; (3) consumer protection laws. It matters not that the designer now says that 620 steel is "good enough" (contradicting his prior statements).

The Chandler or distributor then has a claim against their supplier to reimburse any losses resulting from this - That is, price refunded. If the supplier is out of business and the liabilities were not taken over by the new licensee, then the Chandler might be screwed. But that is actually none of our business.

I am amazed that CM are attacking Grant King and attempting to suppress information being disseminated by him. CM are not Holdfast and can't be blamed for Holdfast's misdeeds. So why do they put themselves into Holdfast's shoes, by attacking Grant? Seems bizarre. I would think that it is PR101 to, on the contrary, distance themselves from Holdfast's past misdeeds. They have nothing to lose by admitting them all and making a clean break.

Grant, by his own admission, is a disgruntled former employee of Holdfast, who has caused them a lot of embarassment and a lot of harm. Not very nice - but, no one has accused him of spreading false information. On the contrary, he has proven himself to be an extremely reliable witness, notwithstanding his grudge. The ugly truth is out now - tuned test anchors, substandard steel, false assertions of RINA certification - the only thing for it now is to admit all of it, be absolutely transparent, and move on to rebuild the reputation of what is fundamentally a perfectly good anchor. The approach of West Marine in the US ought to set a standard for everyone.

 

[Dockhead]

CPM really does have my sympathy, and I don't know if a way out of this pickle is going to present itself. Based on their reputation for making quality products, I doubt very much that CPM really spent the time necessary to figure out what taking on this product line was going to actually mean or else they wouldn't have managed the issues as they have up to this point. Although I don't know how you would structure such a transaction, perhaps they effectively excised responsibility for anchors not made to the spec advertised from them and has it resting with the Smiths. Since Smith probably isn't going to be able to refund a few thousand anchors, who can if that is required?

Based on hindsight and pure speculation, the best course may have been to bankrupt Rocna/Holdfast and get relief from warranty claims through that legal venue, buy the entity out of bankruptcy and then start making the product to the original specs that is also the spec used by their competitors. Not sure why they didn't do that, or perhaps that will be a future shoe to drop if they are unsuccessful in convincing people that what was not good enough quality before is just fine now. Forums like this aren't read by that many people, and as long as retailers are willing to sell Rocnas, some people will probably buy them whatever they are made of.

+1

There's nothing wrong with building an anchor with somewhat cheaper steel to save some money. If it is "good enough", then it means you can offer a better value than an anchor like a Manson which is made out of the real thing -- Bisplate -- with perhaps little loss of performance. Why, Spade themselves offer an economy variant to their own Spade anchor, which is made without the lead ballast.

The trouble begins when you build your anchor cheaply but then falsely advertise it as being the premium product, not only equal to, but allegedly superior to the more expensively built Manson, which you tireless slag off in every medium you can get access to, using sophisticated technical arguments.

You can't do that - it's just wrong -- and it's against the law, and that's why people are justifiably unhappy about it.

I am not a UK lawyer, so my legal comments should not be considered authoritative. My training and practice was in the US, which has a very similar but not identical legal system.

There are some cases where the purchaser of a trademark may have to be responsible for products sold under that trademark previous to the purchase. I have no idea whether that is the case here; I assume it is not, but I might be wrong.

The contract Rocna purchasers had was not with Holdfast, but with their chandlers. So we have legal relationships with our chandlers and not, in general, with Holdfast. So bankrupting Holdfast, as suggested by Delfin, is unlikely to solve anything. I would guess that Holdfast is probably insolvent already and is probably already undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. This is none of our business, and not our problem, unless we bought our anchors directly from Holdfast. I bought mine from Piplers.

Whether CM have anything to do with us now we have no idea -- the terms of the deal have not been revealed. Again, it's none of our business. Our direct relationship is with our chandlers. We might hope that our chandlers will be reimbursed by someone and will not be left holding the bag -- certainly I do -- Piplers is a great company and don't deserve to take the hit for this. But I have no where else to turn.

 

[Morven]

hi Grant, my sailing buddy has a 33kg, bought August '11 ex Piplers, any thoughts. I have been following this sorry tale for a while but holding off posting until things became a bit clearer. Good luck with your upcoming case, knock them dead!

 

[Jorma]

Price difference betwee Bisplate 80 and Q620D?

During last week I have read through this marvelous thread (and others on this topic).

I might have missed some postings, but I have not noticed any estimates from metallurgists (or others who know) of the actual price difference between Bisplate 80 and Q620D (or Q420D) - price per kg or per one shank for 15 kg anchor. Is it only few cents or 10-20 dollars or more?

This does not make any difference for the unhappy consumer, but would inform us whether the change was made for economic reasons or just plain, stupid decision for no substantial reason.

Jorma

 

[GrantKing]

33kg

hi Grant, my sailing buddy has a 33kg, bought August '11 ex Piplers, any thoughts. I have been following this sorry tale for a while but holding off posting until things became a bit clearer. Good luck with your upcoming case, knock them dead!

I would say that by that time all of the 420's would have been sold and it would be a 620. I can be accurate up to the end of 2010 but after that we can safely assume that they are all 620's.

My aim in introducing the 620 as a replacement for the 420 was to change over to that completely by the end of 2010 given the large numbers of 420 shanks still made and in stock at the end of 2009. The 33kg were still being delivered in 420 to the UK, shipping ex China on 13 May 2010.

Hope this helps.