Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Dockhead]

I feel that in all fairness we need to allow CMP to sort themselves out and come out with information of how they will "fix" things and also for them to consider that they have not been told the complete facts yet.

All Rocna anchors were sold with both express lifetime warranties that they met their advertised specifications, as well as statutory warranties. So anyone who bought one in the UK which was not made from the advertised steel has every right to turn it in for a refund. That's what I intend to do.

I do wish the new owners well. They seem like a good operation and looks like just what is needed.

Besides being made of below-spec steel, my Rocna does not actually work as well as I expected, despite being oversized at a whopping 55kg or 121 pounds. It has never dragged on me, even in some challenging conditions, but it is quite often hard to set. It does not seem to bite as aggressively as the Spade on my previous boat. The Spade is inherently more expensive with its cast-in lead ballast and so forth, but looks to me like a better design. And better made (my Rocna is a fairly crude piece of kit). So I've decided to cough up.

 

[Djbangi]

RocnaWon - CustomerLose

If it was identified that some UK Rocnas had Q420 shanks - why has it taken so long to be admitted and action taken? Is this situation going to be more widely publicised in the UK, and how. Not everyone reads the forums, nor (sadly) YM. On the basis that the use of Q420 was not limited to America and the UK is this notice of specification to be advised in countries where English might not be the native tongue (and where they do not read YBW or YM), like Germany, Portugal, Australia, Spain etc.

I reiterate the anchors were sold, until April this year I think, as being made from Bisplate 80 or Q&T800 - basically anyone having bought a Chinese Rocna, whether Q420 or Q620D has a legal right to a refund of all monies, this certainly covers the UK, and I'm guessing the EU.

It is difficult to feel sorry for executives or a company who have this type of (self imposed) problem - its been aired for months, we are only now being given a very grudging acceptance that what has been said by some members of the public is in fact correct.

A question for RocnaWon - CustomerLoses. We have been told that it is difficult to identify a Rocna with a shank made from Q420. So do we now have trained metallurgists at Chandlers who are able to tell which is which, maybe microscopes in the back room, mass spectrometers under the counter. After all if they get it wrong you seem to be passing the buck to the chandlers. If its that easy (why did Vyv Cox not come up with your simple answer) why did it take so long? Seems to me a bit like the old smoke and mirrors.

 

[Maine Sail]

#54

I believe that there have been 9 bent shanks reported worldwide, and I do not know of any UK ones. I shall check with the distributor tomorrow.

This is good keep up with these sorts of answers.

One other major anchor maker reported on this forum that they have a return rate of about 0.5%.

This is poor form. If you don't want to go down the same path as Craig then leave the competitors ,and how they run their business, off the table. Focus on Rocna and how YOU can rebuild the trust of the boating community.

A little birdy told me there has been a PR firm hired to help sort this mess out. If you are part of that venture then you're going to need to read Craig's rantings and make a CONSCIOUS decision to NOT go down that path. You've already begun doing so...

Sometimes anchors do get stuck, and boats steam around in circles trying to dislodge them. To design an anchor to resist these kinds of lateral stresses would mean that the shank would have to be so heavy that it would compromise the penetration function of the tip.

No one I know has ever doubted this. All anchors CAN bend. The problem was the dishonesty of the company management and refusal to be honest with the boating community.

BTW. Peter Smith is back from a trip to Patagonia, Falklands and S Georgia. He is working on his own website to include some stunning, really stunning photographs. I will let you know when he is ready to go live with the pics. (They may even show you a yacht or two lying to Force 9 in the South Atlantic - using a Rocna, of course )

Enough with the sales pitch. You need to rebuild this brand again before you can sell it, baby steps. It is frustrating to see you sounding more like Craig every minute. Please talk about how YOU and CMP are going to rebuild the brand and SHOW US though actions not competitor bashing or jumping right into the sales pitch.

I love my Rocna (BC Built) and really want the brand to succeed. Please be careful what you type and think before hitting send. If you have not figured it out yet you will be held to a higher standard due to past behavior associated with the brand. Right, wrong or indifferent that's the reality. Just my .02 from a guy who does not want to see a great anchor go down in flames.....

 

[Maine Sail]

A question for RocnaWon -

Sad that we're stooping to this level already.. Poor taste.

 

[Djbangi]

RocnaWon - CustomersLose

It might be poor taste, but it seems to summarise the current position.

No acceptance that, (all, much?) product was made outside specification published on the website and no acceptance that the reference to the RINA certificate was a misrepresentation. In fact the suggestion is - 'we (might?) have made a mistake using Q420. Its difficult to tell which anchors are Q420 but we will have our distributors check (and you need to trust us that the distributor gets it right) and if they say its OK then we are in the clear'.

No suggestion that if you bought on the basis of Q&T800 or the RINA cert that you get your money back.

This suggests Rocna will walk away from much of the deception, so Rocna win (and there still appear people who think this is acceptable).

Does not seem the customer is getting too much protection or much redress, customers lose.

But maybe there is a silver lining I am missing?

 

[Seven Spades]

I think you need to give these chaps a chance to sort out this mess. We all now know that the specs were lowered without the designers consent or knowledge. Imagine if you were the designer you would not say a thing in public until you had got to the bottom of the problem. I am sure that the designer (looking at the collapse of his income stream) will have been in touch with his lawyers to go over the small print to resolve the problem.

It looks like he has done precisely that and appointed a new licence holder. The new licence holder has no legal responsibility to put things right in respect of the previous licence holders failure to adhere to the specifications. He could just fix the problem and have the "New" anchors stamped "Rocna CMP" and endorsed by the designer. However for the sake of PR they are going to take on the considerable responsibility of replacing defective anchors.

This looks like a good outcome, the substandard anchors are going to be taken out of circulation. If Peter Smith is endorsing the Q620 specifications then there is no reason no to believe him. The Rocna design is a very good design along with some other brands, they are widely used and I have not seen any dissatisfaction with their performance other than the post earlier in this thread.

CMP are obviously making a huge investment in this product (picking up the tab) with a view to future sales and profits and they should be applauded for their approach. I bough a Rocna earlier in the year from Piplers and I believe it is one of those affected but I did not immediately ask for a replacement although one was offered as I didn't want to lumber Piplers with the losses. I will now contact them for a replacement.

 

[RocnaONE]

Bent shanks - UK

#54

I have had email from the UK distributors this morning.

They say that they have not seen or heard of any bent shanks on Rocna anchors in the UK.

 

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Djbangi

A question for RocnaWon -

Sad that we're stooping to this level already.. Poor taste.

+1

Give the guy a break. I wouldn't want his job, nor would you, methinks.

 

[RichardS]

+1

Give the guy a break. I wouldn't want his job, nor would you, methinks.

+2

Please let's give the new owners time to sort themselves out and take remedial action before we start kicking them.

I'm sure they are fully aware that many of the forum community are hard taskmasters and will be merciless if this proves to be another "groundhog day"!

Richard

 

[Conachair]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RocnaONE View Post
One other major anchor maker reported on this forum that they have a return rate of about 0.5%.


This is poor form. If you don't want to go down the same path as Craig then leave the competitors ,and how they run their business, off the table. Focus on Rocna and how YOU can rebuild the trust of the boating community.

Not poor form at all. If anyone is to get a handle on what any data means in the real world then it's important to see what happens to other designs.

Zooming out a bit I think it is great that such an excellent design has been given what seems to be a second lease of life.

 

[Georgio]

Zooming out a bit I think it is great that such an excellent design has been given what seems to be a second lease of life.

Agreed, very pleased with my chinese made Rocna, yet to decide if it is worth the effort of returning/swaping so am watching this space with interest.

 

[vyv_cox]

A question for RocnaWon - CustomerLoses. We have been told that it is difficult to identify a Rocna with a shank made from Q420. So do we now have trained metallurgists at Chandlers who are able to tell which is which, maybe microscopes in the back room, mass spectrometers under the counter. After all if they get it wrong you seem to be passing the buck to the chandlers. If its that easy (why did Vyv Cox not come up with your simple answer) why did it take so long? Seems to me a bit like the old smoke and mirrors.

I'm not quite sure where I fit into this particular argument but I am intrigued as to why RocnaOne stated earlier that a Brinell test cannot determine the difference between a Q420, Q620 and a Q&T 800 steel. It was established months ago that a simple centre punch could clearly show the difference between the three and a Brinell will most definitely do the same. Without removing the galvanising, which I appreciate would be preferred, the value will not be exact but will certainly be sufficiently different in each case. One indent from a small ball would not be sufficiently intrusive to constitute a 'destructive test' and would readily allay the fears of owners.

Test blocks of the various hardnesses are readily and cheaply available and the indenter need only be a simple punch.

 

[Djbangi]

I have been chastised.

I am humbled.

To me its pretty simple. We will enjoy the marine industry we support. It is up to us. A boat builder cutting corners, 600gm glass fabric instead of 750 gm frabric, a sailmaker reducing the quality of Dacron. If you, the majority think this is acceptable - then I will retire and become a maritime hermit and lick my self inflicted wounds.

But if the designer of an anchor, something that is designated as a safety item, goes out of his way to underline the need for use of the steel he specifies and suddenly (when the company changes hands) changes his mind - excuse me if I am less than credulous. And excuse me if I am less than charitable. Moreover I recall the son of the, same, designer commenting negatively on the way competitors treated that same steel (wrong cutting technology?) - and now it turns out they were not using that steel (and now admit it was unnecessary anyway).

Get real

The man representing RocnaONE is being paid to get it right, That is his job. He volunteered to be in that industry - he is paid, presumably on results. He is not actually at anchor with his grandchildren down in the aft cabin - to him its just a job.

The guy out on the water does not have this luxury - he pays for what he believes in. And he has believed and paid good money for Q&T800 and a RINA cert. I would like to think that what he believes in is honestly presented by people with integrity. If the majority want to cut a bit of slack to those without integrity,

How far do you want to go?

Maybe I am an idealist but - like governmets we get what we vote for.

 

[RocnaONE]

The concern from CMP is that we need to differentiate between 420 and 620 steel in a quick, practical and easy way.

We have looked at a number of possible analytical solutions, some of which are being tested on rigs at present.

There are several portable testing systems on the market, and we will be in touch with the poster shortly for advice.

To make it clear, CMP will seek to identify unequivocally any anchor which an owner believes to be out-of-spec. We will provide all the information we have on the steels used in the original China factory, and also the testing data from audited test labs in NZ and Canada, along with videos showing test-to-destruction sequences, where the shanks fail at between 2.5 and 6.6 times the breaking strain of the appropriate G40 chain in a straight pull along the designed, normal use, axis.

If an owner is not happy that this provides a sufficient practical safety margin, CMP will apply the terms of the warranty to refund or replace the anchor.

A full formal Memorandum with details will be published shortly. I shall release it as soon as I can, and a copy will be made available here and through the YBW news desk.

 

[Twister_Ken]

The concern from CMP is that we need to differentiate between 420 and 620 steel in a quick, practical and easy way.

We have looked at a number of possible analytical solutions, some of which are being tested on rigs at present.

There are several portable testing systems on the market, and we will be in touch with the poster shortly for advice.

I rather thought you'd be trying to differentiate between 420 and 620 as unacceptable and 800 (as spec'ed by the designer and vaunted on the website) as acceptable. Or are you now telling us that 620 is good enough, after all?

To make it clear, CMP will seek to identify unequivocally any anchor which an owner believes to be out-of-spec. We will provide all the information we have on the steels used in the original China factory, and also the testing data from audited test labs in NZ and Canada, along with videos showing test-to-destruction sequences, where the shanks fail at between 2.5 and 6.6 times the breaking strain of the appropriate G40 chain in a straight pull along the designed, normal use, axis.

I'm sure not many are concerned about the things breaking, it's bending that's the concern.

If an owner is not happy that this provides a sufficient practical safety margin, CMP will apply the terms of the warranty to refund or replace the anchor.

A full formal Memorandum with details will be published shortly. I shall release it as soon as I can, and a copy will be made available here and through the YBW news desk.

,

 

[Djbangi]

I know I am under sufferance by those who want to cut RocnaONE some slack but

RocnaONE is now suggesting they do not have a decent test programme in place - but some owners have already had their anchors tested and approved.

Excuse me if I am confused.

How much slack do you want to approve?

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

QUOTE.......TWISTER KEN

"I'm sure not many are concerned about the things breaking, it's bending that's the concern."

Not for me......I'd rather an anchor bent than broke.
I'm very much more concerned that there should be no breakage in a weld, far more than a bend, where the anchor holds firm yet 'gives' a little.

What hasn't been made clear publicly is that the weld between 620 and the fluke material is as good as between the Bis'80 and the flukes designed and certified characteristics.

 

[Twister_Ken]

QUOTE.......TWISTER KEN


Not for me......I'd rather an anchor bent than broke.

Either way, you're left with an anchor you can't use again. No great concern up Fareham Creek, but a bit of nuisance if you're somewhere remote.

 

[Colvic Watson]

A full formal Memorandum with details will be published shortly. I shall release it as soon as I can, and a copy will be made available here and through the YBW news desk.

At which point do we get to find out who you are?

Frankly this whole business of issuing authoritative sounding statements whilst not saying who you actually are appears somewhere between childish and duplicitous behaviour. Everyone else who posts here representing a company declares their identity - from the chap who is a senior exec at Icom to Jonic the yacht broker. The rest of us don't formally represent anyone whilst on these forums so we don't declare our identity. Your behaviour gives the clear impression that you have something to hide, even if that is a mistaken impression.

And seeing as we will all discover who you are when you release your formal statement (unless you were planning to sign it RocnaONE ) why bother hiding now?

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Either way, you're left with an anchor you can't use again. No great concern up Fareham Creek, but a bit of nuisance if you're somewhere remote.

And that could apply to the shank of any anchor.

In fact I really bent the shank of a plough anchor some 4 years ago and it was just as bad as before