Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
evm1024
New member
....
Perhaps I should have said:
Given that there was a number of 420 PMa shanks that were not melted down but were made into anchors (after the cat was let out of the bag) how can a person who has decided that a 620 PMa shank would be fine be assured that CMP will ship an anchor with 620 PMa steel.
How can we trust CMP is the question. Testing is for when the horse is already out of the barn.
Regards
Perhaps I should have said:
Given that there was a number of 420 PMa shanks that were not melted down but were made into anchors (after the cat was let out of the bag) how can a person who has decided that a 620 PMa shank would be fine be assured that CMP will ship an anchor with 620 PMa steel.
How can we trust CMP is the question. Testing is for when the horse is already out of the barn.
Regards
Last edited:
evm1024
New member
as of 7 dec 11
West Marine is still accepting any Rocna anchor back without questions for a full refund or exchange for another brand anchor. It is not too late to return it if you have doubts about your anchor. Gotta hand it to them.
Regards
West Marine is still accepting any Rocna anchor back without questions for a full refund or exchange for another brand anchor. It is not too late to return it if you have doubts about your anchor. Gotta hand it to them.
Regards
Last edited:
smackdaddy
New member
Has CMP done anything "wrong" to this point?
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
It started out by blowing its trumpet very loudly. Then it went back to bed and pulled the blankets over its head.
bigwow
Well-known member
Official statement of intent would be a start.
evm1024
New member
There are very few facts
There are a number of actions taken by CMP that were "Not Right". Hiring Bambury, not addressing Grants assertion that there are 5000+ anchors with 420 MPa steel in the supply chain (I'm sure that he has paperwork to prove it, but that is not the point), not addressing how those anchors will be removed and replaced before someone gets hurt. And a few more.
But that is not my point as well. Let me put another way:
You decide to go on a cruise to Baja where you know there can be significant wind shifts with strong winds (pick your own problem place around the UK if you like).
You decide that your ground tackle needs upgrading. Off to the chandlers you go.
There sitting on the shelf is a 33 kg Rocna just in and an 80 pound (36 kg) Manson Supreme. They cost $750 and $790 (actual US discount prices).
The Rocna is advertized as having a shank fit for purpose and the Manson is advertized as having an 800 MPa shank. You know that they both will fit on your bow roller equally as well.
Which do you buy?
Oh did I say that you left your center punch at home?
Regards, Ethan
There are a number of actions taken by CMP that were "Not Right". Hiring Bambury, not addressing Grants assertion that there are 5000+ anchors with 420 MPa steel in the supply chain (I'm sure that he has paperwork to prove it, but that is not the point), not addressing how those anchors will be removed and replaced before someone gets hurt. And a few more.
But that is not my point as well. Let me put another way:
You decide to go on a cruise to Baja where you know there can be significant wind shifts with strong winds (pick your own problem place around the UK if you like).
You decide that your ground tackle needs upgrading. Off to the chandlers you go.
There sitting on the shelf is a 33 kg Rocna just in and an 80 pound (36 kg) Manson Supreme. They cost $750 and $790 (actual US discount prices).
The Rocna is advertized as having a shank fit for purpose and the Manson is advertized as having an 800 MPa shank. You know that they both will fit on your bow roller equally as well.
Which do you buy?
Oh did I say that you left your center punch at home?
Regards, Ethan
FishyInverness
New member
Just to compound the conundrum for this side of the pond Ethan, The Manson can be purchased for considerably LESS in the UK!
smackdaddy
New member
There is no doubt that I'd personally buy the Manson Supreme. But I guess that's the point of my question.
Let's say CMP did everything on your list, would you guys then start buying Rocnas?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
No.
Morven
New member
After all the revelations and tales of dirty deeds at the crossroads they could reassure me until the end of the world and I still would not buy one.
evm1024
New member
I think the question is what have they done right.....
I personally think that the Rocna design is more pleasing to the eye than the Manson and bought one based on that as well as the steel spec and RINA cert (which turned out to be false).
But to answer your question:
Let's say CMP announces that all current stock is recalled for replacement, All new stock is made of 800 MPa steel and each anchor is individually tested to meet RINA spec in an independent, certified testing lab.
That might start their recovery of trust.
That is the point is it not? That the perception is that Rocna, Bambury, CMP are not to be trusted. That loss of trust has created a bit of anger in some persons. A sense of betrayal if you will. Very hard to recover from.
Regards
PS Thanks for the honest what would your buy answer.
smackdaddy
New member
No worries on the honest answer.
And in that vein, I'll say this: if the Rocna was cheaper than the Manson, and had an equivalent spec, even in spite of all the hubbub, I'd buy the Rocna...purely because it's still a good design and I'd save money.
evm1024
New member
I would too but that is the rub. We know that they do not have equivalent specs. Part of the mistrust is on just how bad the steel is on any specific anchor. FUD
I had a 33 Kg Rocna which likely had 420 MPa steel shank and problems with the galvanizing. I returned it and then became more aware of the problems thanks to the net.
With CMP taking control I delayed returning the replacement in hopes that they would have done the right thing....
Regards
Last edited:
RichardS
N/A
I'm happy with CMP's decision to swop my Rocna for a 620 version. I considered the Supreme originally but the fit on my bow roller is not as good and, having used the Rocna for 2 years I have been pleased with its performance.
Richard
Danny Jo
Active member
On the only occasion when I have anchored (and dragged) in a hoolie, the pull has been dead in line with the shank. Of course a hoolie can veer or back, but in those circumstances I might well decide to reset, not only to avoid putting a lateral bending strain on the shank, but also to make enough room for all the scope that is necessary.
Edit: A comment by Grant on an earlier post of mine suggests that he believes my Rocna has a 420 shank. A communication from Rocna support states that "our records show that the UK were not sent any affected anchors in the 15kg size." So I don't think I have evidence that would stand up in a small claims court that my anchor is not fit for purpose. (I haven't tried the centre punch test yet because I severely blunted my punch recently by trying to wack a dimple into a Record chuck key, in an abortive attempt to drill a hole for a lanyard.)
I should have added that I replaced a 15 kg Bruce with a 15 kg Rocna because, although perhaps a little undersized for Danny Jo, I cannot get a bigger one into my anchor locker, and even if I enlarged the anchor locker I am not strong enough to manoeuvre it out of the locker and over the bow roller. (I have not given serious thought to leaving an anchor in the bow roller, because Danny Jo's genoa furler is also located in the anchor locker and the genoa tack comes very close to the deck.)
My decision to buy the Rocna was based on its suitability as a day-to-day bower suitable for the sort of places I sail. If I am ever forced to anchor in extreme conditions on a lee shore, I would set the much larger, but considerably lighter, Fortress, and as much of the 190 odd metres of rode as there is sea room for.
Last edited:
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Fine, if you are happy with it. However, you wouldn't need to prove it wasn't "fit for purpose" in a small claims court. If it is 420 or 620 then it is not the 800 as advertised and that would be enough to win.
If you buy a BMW which is claimed to do 0-60 MPH in 5 seconds, but it does it in 12 seconds the car may well be "fit for purpose" but it certainly isn't as advertised.
smackdaddy
New member
On the issue of "not-as-advertised" versus "unsafe" - I've seen the many pics of the bent shanks on the Rocnas. So I totally understand and agree with the "not-as-advertised" complaint.
But to me that's not necessarily a safety issue. If the shanks/welds are breaking - then crying foul on safety is perfectly valid. But if they're bending, while still keeping the boat off the rocks, then that just seems like a lousy product with great holding power. In other words, it's still performing its basic function. So does bendiness alone really equate to an immediate safety concern across the board?
But to me that's not necessarily a safety issue. If the shanks/welds are breaking - then crying foul on safety is perfectly valid. But if they're bending, while still keeping the boat off the rocks, then that just seems like a lousy product with great holding power. In other words, it's still performing its basic function. So does bendiness alone really equate to an immediate safety concern across the board?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
You can add "if" and "buts" to your hearts content, but if the product isn't what you were told it was then you may return it.
Of course "bendiness" raises a safety concern; it's at the limit that performance has been jeopardised. If the thing should remain intact in a force 9, then it should do so in a force 9. It should not bend in a force 8, or a force 7 or.........
Of course "bendiness" raises a safety concern; it's at the limit that performance has been jeopardised. If the thing should remain intact in a force 9, then it should do so in a force 9. It should not bend in a force 8, or a force 7 or.........
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
I think the point here is that when a shank bends, the geometry of the anchor changes and it will no longer set. So given the scenario of a change in wind direction, the anchor bends under stress of the twisting, and does not reset to the new find directions - so you are on the rocks perhaps.