Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[FishyInverness]

Frankly this whole business of issuing authoritative sounding statements whilst not saying who you actually are appears somewhere between childish and duplicitous behaviour.
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?

COMPLETELY AGREE +1
From a company whose historic personnel have a habit of being incredibly duplicitous (and that's putting it nicely) on public forums, I would expect to see an over-transparent approach from "someone" who has been appointed to pour oil over troubled waters. Instead while Rocna One is saying positive things, they're all very nicely veiled and then the only evidence of their role in that company is, in their profile:

"UK administrative contact for CMP and Rocna NZ"

An administrative contact can cover anything from the receptionist, to the company administrator, to a third party contracted to write some letters on their behalf...I'm sure that a customer base who, based on the evidence of sailing forums worldwide, feel they have been misled about the quality of a company's product.. would appreciate knowing who the latest mouthpiece for that company is, what level of experience and knowledge they have in that product and the company and then, and only then, start applying scissors to the slack!

 

[vyv_cox]

I'm very much concerned that there ishouls 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.

As far as I understand the composition of the steels involved, none would be difficult to weld. The rules governing materials for anchors limit the carbon content to a level in which welding should not be a problem. If anything the Bisplate 80 might be rather more difficult but it is described by Bisalloy as having good weldability. I have read criticisms of the weld of a Chinese manufactured Rocna on a USA forum but this seemed to be directed more at its appearance than any cracks or defects.

 

[snooks]

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.

Sorry, please correct me if I'm wrong, but these videos, something doesn't tend to bend if it's pulled in line with the X axis, it's only when it not pulled along the X axis and pulled on the Y axis that a bending forces is exerted. So how would this video reassure a Rocna owner?

No one is doubting the strength in a pull in line with the shank, what was in doubt is a pull 90º from the direction of the shank, think veering, 90 degree wind shift, change of tide etc.

Pulling along the designed axis is only testing the shank in tension. Think carbon fibre rod here, extremely strong in tension, but try to bend it and it shatters.

 

[maxi77]

.

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.

I would have thought that a company that has completed due diligence, particularly when aware of particular problems, and then completed the transaction would know what the situation is and have a plan for the future.

 

[aluijten]

Pulling along the designed axis is only testing the shank in tension. Think carbon fibre rod here, extremely strong in tension, but try to bend it and it shatters.

If anything, this made it clear to me why Spade is using such a complicated construction of the shank. Spade uses a triangular (hollow-ish) shank for all but the smallest versions .

I'm saving for a Spade.

 

[snooks]

If anything, this made it clear to me why Spade is using such a complicated construction of the shank. Spade uses a triangular (hollow-ish) shank for all but the smallest versions .

I'm saving for a Spade.

I know, I have one. The Spade is a good anchor.

For me it was a toss up between the Spade, Manson and Rocna.

All the tests I saw showed the Spade was a top performer all the time, we were going on a three month cruise around Scotland so we were going to be using our anchor more than most Solent sailors. It never let us down.

Another reason for choosing the Spade was that a roll bar would have fouled our pulpit.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Same Old Boring AnchorYanker Talk

What a load of ballocks this thread has turned out to be: same old shi t, just simmering under the surface by the same old players; it's boring and I thought it would be a refreshing change. If they offered Rocna anchors for free I would not take one. So many other anchor choices.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

What a load of ballocks this thread has turned out to be: same old shi t, just simmering under the surface by the same old players; it's boring and I thought it would be a refreshing change. If they offered Rocna anchors for free I would not take one. So many other anchor choices.

an eloquent contribution!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

an eloquent contribution!

Of course its not eloquent and neither is it a contribution to the discussion. YBW come on here and makes some mumbo jumbo comment about soon to be announced news to do with Rocna and it turns into the same old sanctimonious clap trap. Isn't it funny that you don't get this amount of hysteria around other anchors that offer the same technical benefits of a Rocna .

A Rocna discussion always degenerates into a sanctimonious slagging match and as such, as a consumer, I would not be interested in their products.

 

[evm1024]

Hi everyone,

Can we please focus on the issue of Rocna anchors and avoid trying to guess who other users are? I don't think it's fair to focus on this when the discussion about Rocna is far more interesting.

Thanks

Laura,

Peoples desire to remain anonymous is easily understood. Typical reasons are well known. Often to protect the speaker....

Rocna One is the spokesman for CMP/Rocna and their desire to remain protected behind a mask degrades the accessed quality of the information they present.

So, the fact that they desire not to be held accountable for the statements they make leads me to think that the information they will present is not something they can stand tall and proudly speak. And thus is directly related to the Rocna discussion.

Food for thought.....

Regards, Ethan

 

[Coaster]

There seem to be some rather sour posters here. I welcome the comments made by an apparently new Rocna representative.

He (or she?) appears to be responding remarkably quickly to some of the posts in this thread. I know there is a current mania for news and everything else to be instant but surely it's only reasonable to allow the new owners at least a few weeks to start to resolve problems.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

There seem to be some rather sour posters here. I welcome the comments made by an apparently new Rocna representative.

He (or she?) appears to be responding remarkably quickly to some of the posts in this thread. I know there is a current mania for news and everything else to be instant but surely it's only reasonable to allow the new owners at least a few weeks to start to resolve problems.

+1

 

[maxi77]

There seem to be some rather sour posters here. I welcome the comments made by an apparently new Rocna representative.

He (or she?) appears to be responding remarkably quickly to some of the posts in this thread. I know there is a current mania for news and everything else to be instant but surely it's only reasonable to allow the new owners at least a few weeks to start to resolve problems.

I would have thought though that having carried out due diligence as Rocnaone has informed us they would actually know what they have bought into, that is the whole purpose of carrying out due diligence. Equally having decided to complete the transaction one would have thought the company had some sort of plan to justify the expenditure and risk to their shareholders.

I would have thought that by this stage there would be some form of company statement of intent as to how to deal with the past, and where they were going

 

[GrantKing]

I would have thought though that having carried out due diligence as Rocnaone has informed us they would actually know what they have bought into, that is the whole purpose of carrying out due diligence. Equally having decided to complete the transaction one would have thought the company had some sort of plan to justify the expenditure and risk to their shareholders.

I would have thought that by this stage there would be some form of company statement of intent as to how to deal with the past, and where they were going

Do you honestly think that the CEO and management of HF would tell them the truth before the ink was dried?

 

[GrantKing]

Sorry, please correct me if I'm wrong, but these videos, something doesn't tend to bend if it's pulled in line with the X axis, it's only when it not pulled along the X axis and pulled on the Y axis that a bending forces is exerted. So how would this video reassure a Rocna owner?

No one is doubting the strength in a pull in line with the shank, what was in doubt is a pull 90º from the direction of the shank, think veering, 90 degree wind shift, change of tide etc.

Pulling along the designed axis is only testing the shank in tension. Think carbon fibre rod here, extremely strong in tension, but try to bend it and it shatters.

Correct!!!!

They will not break at the weld, never have.
They will not break in the shank, never have.
They will bend under side load,,,,they have.

You can pull it in a straight line till the cows come home and have no problem.

But that is not the problem.

The new owners only have to make to spec and prove the problems of the past have been overcome, present a solution for all of the previous units sold, and they will ride the next crest of the Rocna wave.

CMP definitely seems to have the ability to this, the Chinese manufacturer has the ability to do this ( if told what to use ), the previous management do not, so with them removed and changes put in place we can only wait and see.

 

[maxi77]

Do you honestly think that the CEO and management of HF would tell them the truth before the ink was dried?

Having been bought and sold a few times in my working life the due diligence lads can be pretty frightening and there have been enough potmesses sold on for very few to buy a business without due diligence these days

 

[Malo37]

My Sarca Excel No5 has been brilliant so far -

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I shall be phoning retailers Piplars of Poole wishing to change my Rocna 15kg to an anchor having correct steel specifiactions today. I'll report back.

I'm curious. What are the correct steel specifications for an anchor? What spec is used in ( say) a Bruce, or a CQR? And whilst one or two of us on here would know what a steel spec says, and what is meant by yield point and UTS and quenching and tempering, I suspect the very large majority havent got a clue. Nor do many know what difference the steel spec change on a Rocna has made to the force necessary to bend the shank - is it down by 10% 20% or 30% or more? Any idea? And how does this compare with the bending resistance of the shank of a Manson?

What I'm getting at is that we have here a situation where a company has done something stupid and with the help of a lot of Yanks on another forum ( if there is one thing the Americans are really world class at, it's complaining) , a panic has been whipped up. An American style conspiracy theory. A bit of a feeding frenzy and not totally disinterested either since some of the posters are Rocna's competitors and one is an ex employee.

But leaving aside the legalities ( you are undoubtedly entitled to send the anchor back) does the change in steel spec really matter? And lets not have MaineSails nonsense about a few bent shanks - I 've seen loads of bent CQRs and more than one Fortress. Anchors, like anything else in this world, will bend if enough force is applied.

So is a panic being whipped up here? Sure you can insist on your legal rights and send the anchor back but do you know that what you buy will be any better in real life use?

 

[LittleSister]

But leaving aside the legalities ( you are undoubtedly entitled to send the anchor back) does the change in steel spec really matter?

It did according to the designer. As quoted on the Rocna website.

The design depends on a thin shank to achieve the weight balance said to be necessary for its readiness to first set. The designer said it need hi-spec steel to give that thin shank the strength that one needed to make it dependable.

I have no relevant business interests. I do not have a new generation anchor of any type, and am unlikely to be in the market for a new anchor in the foreseeable future, so I have no axe to grind. I just find this whole sorry saga fascinating. Better than a soap!

 

[Coaster]

...I just find this whole sorry saga fascinating...

I reckon that sums up the average interest in the subject. Many people do love a good moan. But, as the good Bosun suggests, it's mostly a storm in a teacup.