Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Twister_Ken]

More speculation, I'm afraid.

Holdfast got caught telling porkies, thought they could get away with it. Didn't. Went pop.

CMP is looking for an extension to their product range, sees the Rocna, sees that the manufacturer is belly up and thinks "OK, let's see if we can pick up the licence for a song". It can. It does. And decides - to boost the anchor back up the lists of the must-haves - to make a generous offer to replace any dodgy ones.

But it didn't do its due diligence diligently, or it was told porkies, or both. Suddenly it discovers it may not have committed to replace a few dodgy anchors, but hundreds or thousands, before it's even turned a buck by flogging new ones.

Its feet get very cold. It realises it has dug a hole for itself that it can't climb out of. CMP gets a nasty nauseous feeling in its belly, goes to bed and pulls the sheets over its head.

That's my guess.

 

[smackdaddy]

But to hound and bay for blood on the basis of statements that have no substantiation looks, I struggle for words, sensationalist. Quietly worry away and find some hard evidence, or not, fine - but I am of the belief people are innocent until proved guilty - but maybe that is out of fashion.

Shoot first, ask questions later?

Heh-heh. Isn't that how the whole Rocna thing got its start?

 

[GrantKing]

email sent to west marine may 12 2011

The following is a copy of an email I sent to Geoff Eisenberg at West marine on May 12 2011.

Dear Sir,

My name is Grant King and I was Production Manager for Rocna/Holdfast from the period January 2009-May 2010.

I am under no illusion that I have been portrayed as everything from a "disgrundled former employee" to a "fraudster and conman" by Steve Bambury both to your Company , West Marine, and on the various online marine discussion forums whenever the subject of Rocna Specifications and failures comes up.

I have no intention of spreading malicious rumour or false information, only fact and truth.

The position I embraced with Rocna required frequent travel to China to initially sort out manufacturing problems and improving the supply chain and quality of the product in order for customers to receive a better product from this facility than they previously enjoyed from manufacturing in both Canada by Mark Pocock and New Zealand from CNC.

The current speculation surrounding the substandard anchor shanks is one that has been present since I first joined the Company and one of my duties was to provide not only a plausable story for the failure , but to overcome any problems with failures occurring again for a similar reason.

The first production from China was undertaken by a Company based in Australia that had connections with the current manufacturing facility. They instructed the Chinese to use a lower grade of metal claiming that they received their instructions direct from their customer.

The first indication of this came after they were cut out of the supply chain by myself and I dealt directly with the Chinese and formed a strong association. It was revealed to us by the Chinese that the failed anchor that was bent in Venice, under very light usage , was manufactured with a lower grade of steel with the approval of Rocna.

The entire order of this size that was sent to Europe at the same time was replaced without the Distributor, Indemar, knowing the real reason for the failure.

Subsequent failures over the next year were kept quite and anchors replaced when they occured. Much time was spent to satisfy customers that the failures were highly unusal and to reassure them that the product was good and up to specification.

When the original designs were drawn up by Peter Smith he specified particular metals and standards that were required to handle the loads for the design. The prime concern was to ensure that a strong enough metal was used for the shanks due to the thinness of that shank.

The New Zealand and Canada produced items were all made of that high quality steel and there were no failures reported during my whole time from these production items.

There were problems, however, with galvanising of that metal from time to time due to the chemical composition of the steel and the special requirements for galvanising such metals. These problems were mainly overcome and these anchors will continue to give the excellent service to the many boat owners around the world who have them on their vessels.

There are currently 2 metal test reports that have been posted on the discussion forums. There can be no doubt as the authenticity of these tests and there are also a couple of other tests being undertaken that will be posted over the next 2 weeks. They will bear out similar results.

West Marine has a high profile and is held in regard worldwide as a reputable supplier and honest trader. That reputation is seriously under threat along with the potential for loss of life and vessel if this problem is ignored. The anchor is a critical safety item and as a reputable supplier of these items it is your reputation that many purchasers rely on when making their decision over what is best for them.

I am only too aware of the amount of time and effort and money that has gone into fostering the raising of the profile of Rocna within your organisation and in particular the excellent efforts put in by Mark Pocock who stands to loose enormously if the sales of Rocna are compromised. Mark is totally unaware of the extent of the substandard shanks that he has been supplied with, especially with his full on and pedantic approach to quality and meeting specifications.

I am under no illusion that anything I say directly to you will be communicated to Steve Bambury and he will disparage anything else I may say, however with now 2 independant reports being made public, and 2 more due shortly to be made public, you cannot ignore the problem.

With the USA being the "home of litigation" your Company is in serious risk of exposure.

More importantly there is risk to life.

While I may have an axe to grind with Bambury's I have started litigation myself to recover unpaid amounts owed to me by them amounting to some $80k and failure of their Company is not in my best interests, however the need for integrity, honesty and safety comes far above that.

I can be contacted for any further information should you require it and also assure you that I will treat any reply in confidence and not publish any email communication from you on internet forums.
regards
Grant King

 

[GrantKing]

copy of email to Peter Smith on June 7 2011

The following is a copy of my reply email to Peter Smith on Jun 7 2011 after he contacted me for information and evidence so that he could find reason totake the manufacturing license away from Bambury.

It very quickly became apparent after discussions the next day with Craig that they were both working with Bambury to find out just how much I knew.

It is also quite apparent now that he did not pass this information on to CMP during the due diligence process.

Hi Peter,

It is good to hear from you.

Brian and Steve started using lower grade shank material right from the very first anchor made in China.

The first indication of that came when I bumped Linox out of the circle in my second visit to China and they started posting on the forums about substandard metals. I managed to get those postings deleted and then started to question both Brian and Steve who both just played the "dumb stare" game and carried on regardless.

When the "Venice" bend occurred I really started to put pressure on with them and they found every way possible to prevent the truth being found.
The truth was revealed to me, in confidence, by Lee who was concerned over the compromising of our personal friendship and the resulting fallout from future fault claims as they were still behind the 8 ball financially in their dealings and expenses on the "anchor project" as they call it.

Now with the HF business being only a tiny drop in their income they were still concerned about integrity and as I developed my relationship with Lee it became apparent that honesty was very important to him.

I crossed swords with Steve and Brian many times during the last 12 months of working with them about metals and specs and yet they continued to carry on behind the scenes regardless.
They were using Q420, Q450 and a few others and I changed it to Q620 in the later stages to try to bring it up closer to meet specs.
Steve was still ordering, and Tanya was signing purchase orders for the Q420 when I left, or should I say got left.

The Rina certification drawings were redone with the lower grade shanks so that they could be approved. If Craig studies the drawings they have then he will see this quite clearly.

I was also sent to Rina in 2010 to pay bribe money to various parties to speed the drawing and approval process through. I have not made that public yet although I have told Steve by email I will do so as he has , and will not, address the issue of the huge amount they still owe me.

I know that there is little hope of me ever recovering any money from them either now or in the future.

I don't really give a **** about them or what ever reasons they gave you for getting rid of me as I know most of what bull**** they have been spreading around but the simple truth is that I was in Steve's way in his relentless pursuit of taking full control from Brian of the business. I was also asking too many questions and demanding too many answers from him about the various differences that were occuring and being revealed in the early part of 2010.

There are more test results about to hit the forums from 2 other parties that show a degrading of the specs and substandard metals being used. The metal tested has a chromium addition to make it harder and is not Q&T and tests out well below even the Manson test results.

The same goes for the stainless shanks, they were changed to 316 right at the start as well and they have never used 2205.

The actions of Brian and Steve are destroying the market and what is coming out lately is only the tip of the iceberg.

It is a pity that this is happening to probably the best anchor design ever produced and it is not too late to save it, but not in Bambury's hands.
I have never in my life come across such an unethical pair and it baffles me as to why they have not been revealed before through all the many decades of shady business practices.

As for my business, it is closed and I am being a solo father to my youngest daughter who I won sole custody of last November through the courts.( perhaps that tells you just how serious my past history must be)

I will contact Craig in the next couple of days and discuss things with him.

regards
Grant

 

[GrantKing]

copy of email to Rina on Jun 1 2011

This is a copy of an email sent to Rina on June 1 2011.

Dear Mr **,

Recently there has been much speculation and discussion worldwide regarding the Rocna certification and status of the Rocna claims to be certified.

During my time with Rocna I had many meetings with you and always found Rina to be a professional business to deal with and dedicated to ensuring that everything was to meet the conditions and specifications required for certification.

During one of my last meetings with you I was asked if the anchors that were used in the seabed tests in Auckland in December 2008 were of the same construction and material that was used in manufacture in China.

My answer to you , as I was instructed to tell you by Rocna, was that the material and construction was the same.

My answer to you was not truthful and I was instructed to tell you this so that you did not ask for seabed tests to be made again using the China constructed anchors.

This was because the tested anchors used were constructed of 800mpa steel for the shanks and the blade was welded using plate steel.

The China anchors , as you know, used a lower grade of steel for the shanks and the blade was a cast blade, not a fabricated welded blade.

You were also told that the metal was the same in New Zealand and China.
This was also not the truth as the China metal was not able to meet the specifications from the designer of the anchor.

My apologies again for giving you the wrong information in order for the certification process to move forward easier at the time, but I was under instructions from Mr Bambury to tell you this.

The current metal being used will not reach the same results as the anchors used in the seabed tests conducted in Auckland.

Mr Bambury has made public statements that the Certification is complete and the delay in them having a certificate to display is because your office is slow in compiling the information for issue of a certificate.

If I can be of further assistance or give you any more information please contact me again.

regards and thanks
Grant King

 

[evm1024]

Thanks Grant

I love the smell of Napalm in the morning....

 

[Rigger Mortice]

It very quickly became apparent after discussions the next day with Craig that they were both working with Bambury to find out just how much I knew.

It is also quite apparent now that he did not pass this information on to CMP during the due diligence process.

That's the bit that struck me most. In view of all their boasts about quality, the duplicity of the Smiths is astonishing. In the end it turned out to be nothing more than an interest in maximising their royalty payments. No wonder Craig, the young anchorsmith, has gone quiet.

It's equally astonishing that CMP continue to cosy up with Bambury and the Smiths. The terrible trio are doing CMP no good at all.

Grant,
I am wondering if you have anything to confirm the quantity of dud anchors that are out there? We've been told by the Rocna camp that it was just a few but you've made clear that it was, for a long time, all the production.

 

[evm1024]

In the end....

....I would expect West marine to issue a full product recall of Rocna anchors and thus the lid will be blown off the whole thing.

Regards

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Heh-heh. Isn't that how the whole Rocna thing got its start?

You've obviously not followed this through from the beginning. Not surprising as you've already made clear that you're not very interested in the Rocna story.

It all started because of Craig Smith attacking every anchor manufacturer like a demented Rotweiller. Any question about anchors, on any forum around the world; Craig was there snarling and ravaging the competiton.

Various people started taking him to task about his approach. Then Bambury got involved. Then Grant got involved. Holdfast/Rocna went belly up. CMP got involved.

The whole story has escalated far beyond the initial antagonism which was created by Craig. It was unexpected. It was not the result of supposition, theorising, speculation or amateur detective work. It was the result of facts slowly emerging which gradually built up a picture of a bent company selling bendy anchors.

 

[GrantKing]

numbers

That's the bit that struck me most. In view of all their boasts about quality, the duplicity of the Smiths is astonishing. In the end it turned out to be nothing more than an interest in maximising their royalty payments. No wonder Craig, the young anchorsmith, has gone quiet.

It's equally astonishing that CMP continue to cosy up with Bambury and the Smiths. The terrible trio are doing CMP no good at all.

Grant,
I am wondering if you have anything to confirm the quantity of dud anchors that are out there? We've been told by the Rocna camp that it was just a few but you've made clear that it was, for a long time, all the production.

In the region of 5000 units as I have previously stated months ago.

420 from day 1 in China 2008.
Still being used up to mid 2010 when shipments started to include 620 but still being advertised and promoted as 800mpa.

 

[jordanbasset]

Heh-heh. Isn't that how the whole Rocna thing got its start?

No, the Rocna issue started with doubts about the quality of their anchors following independent tests which showed they were not the 800mpa they advertised they were and that Peter Smith said was essential to the design of the anchor. Then Rocna admitted that the anchor specifications had been changed to 620, but did not tell the public.
Rocna then claim that unknown to them their Chinese manufacturers in fact produced the anchors in 420 steel.
The only point in doubt is that Grant King says Rocna knew about the 420's being produced and there were around 5000 units produced. Rocna says they did not know this and any way the numbers of 420 were much smaller. We are still waiting for them to say how many 420's were produced and in what time frame.
So to sum up Rocna did deliberately mislead their customers, the only question is the extent of this deception.

 

[RichardS]

I admit to a degree of embarrasment that I have defended Craig Smith in his postings over the last few years. I have not always agreed with him but I have publicly defended his right to post his views and have thanked him for some beautiful photos.

I believed Craig (and his Father) were, first and foremost, accomplished yachtsmen, and therefore worthy of the respect which we should accord anyone who demostrates skill in their chosen profession.

Craig, if I may quote from "Julius Caesar"

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

Despite what the lawyers and financiers might be advising, is now not finally the time to express your own view?

Richard

 

[smackdaddy]

You've obviously not followed this through from the beginning. Not surprising as you've already made clear that you're not very interested in the Rocna story.

Actually I've followed it on other forums off and on.

It all started because of Craig Smith attacking every anchor manufacturer like a demented Rotweiller. Any question about anchors, on any forum around the world; Craig was there snarling and ravaging the competiton..

Knew that. I've had a couple of exchanges with Craig on other forums.

Various people started taking him to task about his approach. Then Bambury got involved. Then Grant got involved. Holdfast/Rocna went belly up. CMP got involved.

Knew that. I had a couple of exchanges with Bambury (IIRC) on other forums...as well as the guy from Fortress anchors (Brian I think), etc.

The whole story has escalated far beyond the initial antagonism which was created by Craig. It was unexpected. It was not the result of supposition, theorising, speculation or amateur detective work. It was the result of facts slowly emerging which gradually built up a picture of a bent company selling bendy anchors.

Actually I thought is was "amateur detective work" that escalated the whole thing. Wasn't it the independent testing done by Delfin - with his own money, through a certified testing organization - that blew things up very quickly spurring the WM recall? I actually posted his pics on another forum when he finished the tests.

Delfin may in fact be a professional detective, I just don't remember him saying so.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Smackdaddy,

Thanks for your valuable contribution.

 

[Danny Jo]

At last I have a reason to be pleased that I am so idle. After switching to a Rocna from a (genuine) Bruce because I was sick of trawling up tons of weed and making multiple attempts to anchor in hard sand, I was too lazy to put the Bruce on eBay. It stands in the yard wondering how long it will be before it needs regalvanizing.

Now if my Rocna bends, I can simply go back to trawling up tons of weed and making multiple attempts to anchor in hard sand.

 

[Neeves]

If your Rocna bends you might have other, more serious, things to worry about.

 

[Conachair]

At last I have a reason to be pleased that I am so idle. After switching to a Rocna from a (genuine) Bruce because I was sick of trawling up tons of weed and making multiple attempts to anchor in hard sand, I was too lazy to put the Bruce on eBay. It stands in the yard wondering how long it will be before it needs regalvanizing.

Now if my Rocna bends, I can simply go back to trawling up tons of weed and making multiple attempts to anchor in hard sand.

From memory CMP said that the UK distributers had no bent one's returned and no one here could produce a piccy of a UK bent one - you could be the first!


... waiting to be proved wrong...

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Now if my Rocna bends, I can simply go back to trawling up tons of weed and making multiple attempts to anchor in hard sand.

If you haven't already checked; if you let Grant know what size it is, where and when you bought it, then he will be able to give you a fair idea of whether you've got a bendy one or not. Better to find out from the comfort of your PC monitor than when it is blowing a hoolie on a lee shore.

 

[evm1024]

Waiting for the next revelation.....

But while I wait I wonder when all of the 420 MPa shanks were used up and shipped to vendors. I know that there was a shortage and a shipment in Aug/Sept of 2011. Any guess as to if some of those anchors were 420 or were they all 6xx MPa?

How can "new" anchors be trusted to be at least 620?

Regards

 

[Twister_Ken]

How can "new" anchors be trusted to be at least 620?

Regards

Get out your centrepunch and hammer.