toad_oftoadhall
New member
Actually I think these threads *could* be shut down so thanks for the idea, like you I'm going to start keeping copies as and when I can be bothered. Facts are always good.
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
Actually I think these threads *could* be shut down so thanks for the idea, like you I'm going to start keeping copies as and when I can be bothered. Facts are always good.
snooks
Active member
We'll try to keep the thread open.....however occasionally it might get shut down until we can clarify what would need to be edited before it can go live again.
Ps nothing is deleted, it's just moved to another part of the forum
Neeves
Well-known member
Musings,
Manson, I believe have stated that they have not had a single return as a result of a bent, Bisplate 80, shank. There has been no hue and cry in Australia over Anchor Right's Excel being returned as a result of bent shanks, also Bisplate 80. In fact I have heard of no returns. Rocna, by their own admission, have had 9 returns of their Q420 shanks. People might be cynical over Rocna's figures (given their past history of misleading statements - but give them the benefit of the doubt). Grant King has suggested that the problem extends to 5,000 anchors (seems a bit high to me - but maybe data will be provided).
Based on the 9 failures and 5,000 anchors that seems to be a failure rate of !:500.
But another way of looking at this might be 5 failures a year and given that anchors, usually last forever, and the 9 failures cover a 2 year period then in the 10 years from when the Q420 shanked anchors were introduced we could expect 50 anchors to fail, that's 1:100. (particuarly as there is indication, from WM, that few have been returned).
A failure rate of 1:100 to me looks disastrous. There is possibly someone out there from the insurance industry - what would be their take on this sort of failure rate?
What remains odd is that given this failure rate, which might be higher if cynics are correct, CMP have not been more proactive about advising old Rocna customers of the dangers. They employ, or have secured the services of, the executives who were responsible for the 'cancer' - why have they been so reticent?
CMP have a reputation for their Martyr anodes, Octupus autopilot drives and chain. CMP by all accounts have bought the Rocna licence to add synergy to their chain sales - the question is would you buy chain from somone who has such a cavalier appraoch to safety?
And a final thought - how do senior CMP executives sleep at night knowing that one day the phone will ring advising them a Rocna anchor failed and a £50,000 or £500,000 lies wrecked on some isolated bit of coastline. I wonder where duty of care lies?
I might conclude by acknowledging that part of CMP's discussions at boat shows (and METS) claim I am part of a consipracy (completely untrue and completely without foundation) to denegrate Rocna - they seem to have ignored the fact that their key executives needed no help in destroying a good brand and character assassination is not a defense to ignoring safety issues. The Rocna story is primarily a safety issue, if complaining about safety is consparatorial - then I need to buy a new dictionary.
Jonathan
Manson, I believe have stated that they have not had a single return as a result of a bent, Bisplate 80, shank. There has been no hue and cry in Australia over Anchor Right's Excel being returned as a result of bent shanks, also Bisplate 80. In fact I have heard of no returns. Rocna, by their own admission, have had 9 returns of their Q420 shanks. People might be cynical over Rocna's figures (given their past history of misleading statements - but give them the benefit of the doubt). Grant King has suggested that the problem extends to 5,000 anchors (seems a bit high to me - but maybe data will be provided).
Based on the 9 failures and 5,000 anchors that seems to be a failure rate of !:500.
But another way of looking at this might be 5 failures a year and given that anchors, usually last forever, and the 9 failures cover a 2 year period then in the 10 years from when the Q420 shanked anchors were introduced we could expect 50 anchors to fail, that's 1:100. (particuarly as there is indication, from WM, that few have been returned).
A failure rate of 1:100 to me looks disastrous. There is possibly someone out there from the insurance industry - what would be their take on this sort of failure rate?
What remains odd is that given this failure rate, which might be higher if cynics are correct, CMP have not been more proactive about advising old Rocna customers of the dangers. They employ, or have secured the services of, the executives who were responsible for the 'cancer' - why have they been so reticent?
CMP have a reputation for their Martyr anodes, Octupus autopilot drives and chain. CMP by all accounts have bought the Rocna licence to add synergy to their chain sales - the question is would you buy chain from somone who has such a cavalier appraoch to safety?
And a final thought - how do senior CMP executives sleep at night knowing that one day the phone will ring advising them a Rocna anchor failed and a £50,000 or £500,000 lies wrecked on some isolated bit of coastline. I wonder where duty of care lies?
I might conclude by acknowledging that part of CMP's discussions at boat shows (and METS) claim I am part of a consipracy (completely untrue and completely without foundation) to denegrate Rocna - they seem to have ignored the fact that their key executives needed no help in destroying a good brand and character assassination is not a defense to ignoring safety issues. The Rocna story is primarily a safety issue, if complaining about safety is consparatorial - then I need to buy a new dictionary.
Jonathan
evm1024
New member
Page 100?
Or if we do have 50 failures which end up with a court settlement of $100000 each then there is $5 million to pay......
As for those with 420 shank Rocnas I should point out that the last time I jumped out of an airplane without a parachute 99.9% of the trip was successful.
It all worked fine till it failed......
Or if we do have 50 failures which end up with a court settlement of $100000 each then there is $5 million to pay......
As for those with 420 shank Rocnas I should point out that the last time I jumped out of an airplane without a parachute 99.9% of the trip was successful.
It all worked fine till it failed......
evm1024
New member
Of course a few wrongful death settlements could go higher. Given the data even these pages have in them the lawyers would not have much trouble...
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Sadly, CMP, Rocna, the Smiths and Bambury are all hiding behind a wall of silence and the excuse that the liability died with the bankruptcy of Bambury's company.
The only conspiracy is the conspiracy of silence from all the rogues who were involved with the deception from the very start. Even RocnaOne has been struck dumb. He never posts, never calls, never PM's. I sit by the phone but...nothing. I'm upset.
But they all still hope to make money out of this.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
The problem was caused by Bambury's company, Holdfast, which is no more. There's nothing left to sue unless they had Product Liability insurance which can be claimed against.
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
We'll try to keep the thread open.....however occasionally it might get shut down until we can clarify what would need to be edited before it can go live again.
Ps nothing is deleted, it's just moved to another part of the forum
Tough one for IPC. In this world of litigation it is very easy to take the stance that " we might be sued so let's not say anything " I for one appreciate that you are keeping this open. Almost 1000 posts so clearly in the public interest.
My view is that the Internet/ forums whatever are not corporate media and this is a great example of a platform for ideas and opinions to be broadcast.
If it wasnt for this forum I would probably be quite happy with my anchor.
evm1024
New member
Actually I thought I read that the Smiths OK'd the change which would bring them into the fold. A good lawyer of course will name everyone and anyone in the suit and let those with money pay. Of course if you are named in the suit you will have to pay your lawyers.....
evm1024
New member
Oh, CMP would be named in any suit and then they could ask the judge to drop them from the suit..... Still bad publicity and cost.
evm1024
New member
Lastly, when I sold my company I put a clause in the purchase agreement that the new owners would defend me from any suit that came about regardless of condition or merit.
Regards, Ethan
Regards, Ethan
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I don't recall reading that the Smiths had OK'd it and AFAIK they were not aware of the downgrade in the Spec. until well after the event. They have, however, been only too happy to endorse the lower grade now that CMP is involved and the campaign is underway to minimise warranty claims whilst repairing the shattered image of Rocna.
The question of who can sue who starts to get extremely complex and covers different jurisdictions around the world. Far too complicated for a boaty forum to properly address.
Last edited:
evm1024
New member
I think I racal Grant making a reference to the Smiths knowing of the 420 steel.
And there it this letter from Peter in 2009 where he indicates that they knew but did not like the out of spec anchors.
-------------------------------------
And this from November 2009:
Mr Brian Bambury,
Managing Director,
Holdfast Anchors Ltd.
Dear Brian, Grant, Steve and the Hold Fast crew,
Craig had the chance in early November to inspect a recent delivery of Chinese cast Rocnas at Absolute Marine on my behalf and forwarded a report backed up with some photos to illustrate points he made. I am disturbed by the report as a sample of only two anchors (a 4 and a 33) displayed numerous faults which would appear to be indicative of general poor quality and non-adherence to specifications across the range.
There has been a continuous dialog over quality and adherence to specification over the last year in particular with Grant as the Chinese anchors have come onto the market, with undertakings that the issues are in hand and that no further out of spec anchors would enter the market. It would appear from this brief report that this is not the case and as indicated from your Q3 09 royalty report, a substantial number of anchors have been returned for repair or refund from distributors indicating a problem of some sizeable proportion.
SNIP!
It was signed Peter Smith
And there it this letter from Peter in 2009 where he indicates that they knew but did not like the out of spec anchors.
-------------------------------------
And this from November 2009:
Mr Brian Bambury,
Managing Director,
Holdfast Anchors Ltd.
Dear Brian, Grant, Steve and the Hold Fast crew,
Craig had the chance in early November to inspect a recent delivery of Chinese cast Rocnas at Absolute Marine on my behalf and forwarded a report backed up with some photos to illustrate points he made. I am disturbed by the report as a sample of only two anchors (a 4 and a 33) displayed numerous faults which would appear to be indicative of general poor quality and non-adherence to specifications across the range.
There has been a continuous dialog over quality and adherence to specification over the last year in particular with Grant as the Chinese anchors have come onto the market, with undertakings that the issues are in hand and that no further out of spec anchors would enter the market. It would appear from this brief report that this is not the case and as indicated from your Q3 09 royalty report, a substantial number of anchors have been returned for repair or refund from distributors indicating a problem of some sizeable proportion.
SNIP!
It was signed Peter Smith
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I do remember that letter/ Email.
I'm the last person to be defending the Smiths but I think you are possibly reading too much into it. I read it as Smith simply keeping an eye on things and pressuring Bambury to keep things up to standard. There is little to indicate that he knew that below spec materials were being used; I think he was talking about welding, galvanizing, dimensional accuracy etc etc.
FWIW I was under the impression that Bambury actively kept the information about downgrading the material spec. from the Smiths.
However..........
It's interesting to be reminded that Smith was talking about a "substantial number of anchors have been returned for repair or refund". We've been told elsewhere that the returns issue was limited to just a few.
I'm the last person to be defending the Smiths but I think you are possibly reading too much into it. I read it as Smith simply keeping an eye on things and pressuring Bambury to keep things up to standard. There is little to indicate that he knew that below spec materials were being used; I think he was talking about welding, galvanizing, dimensional accuracy etc etc.
FWIW I was under the impression that Bambury actively kept the information about downgrading the material spec. from the Smiths.
However..........
It's interesting to be reminded that Smith was talking about a "substantial number of anchors have been returned for repair or refund". We've been told elsewhere that the returns issue was limited to just a few.
Neeves
Well-known member
There is every indication that a whole host of individuals, Holdfast as was, Rocna as is and CMP know, and I repeat the know, that there are numbers, Grant King says 5,000 (Steve Bambury said 'a few' of a shipment, or shipments, to America early in 2010, but CMP extended that to anywhere in the world, but left the time frame ambiguous), of anchors built from Q420 steel. Q420 steel has half the strength of the designers specified steel. These individuals, corporate bodies know where the anchors went, each importer and through them each chandler - its not rocket science. Rocna/Holdfast/CMP admit by example that they think the Q420 as inadequate - as they now use Q620.
(Use of Q620 (instead of Bisplate 80) and lying over RINA certification by people still actively involved are other issues.)
These people, cal them 'CMP' know exactly where every Q420 anchor was sold, and might actually know where individual customers reside.
The maths are simple, based on current evidence 1:100 will fail in the next 10 years and given the past history then admitted failures will be higher, than 50, and Steve Bambury's 'a few' defective anchors might be nearer Grant King's 5,000.
'CMP' know that of the historic customer base, based on Holdfasts own admissions, that a minimum of 50 will suffer an anchor failure over the next 10 years - Duty of Care?
If there is not a Duty of Care for this 'body' of people, 'CMP', to make real and conscious effort to advise customers of the possible danger to which they are exposed - then their is something wrong. A Specification Notice from West Marine, (with no disrespect) The Forum, and a couple of articles in the Yachting press is not enough - CMP, Holdfast, Rocna have made no effort to advertise the issue (unless you consider a notice on the CMP website sufficient).
I have an underlying fear that over and above this specific issue, unintentionally, an example might be being set testing the limits of marine consumer acceptance and that the Rocna example might then be considered acceptable, think masts, keels, liferafts?
Jonathan
(Use of Q620 (instead of Bisplate 80) and lying over RINA certification by people still actively involved are other issues.)
These people, cal them 'CMP' know exactly where every Q420 anchor was sold, and might actually know where individual customers reside.
The maths are simple, based on current evidence 1:100 will fail in the next 10 years and given the past history then admitted failures will be higher, than 50, and Steve Bambury's 'a few' defective anchors might be nearer Grant King's 5,000.
'CMP' know that of the historic customer base, based on Holdfasts own admissions, that a minimum of 50 will suffer an anchor failure over the next 10 years - Duty of Care?
If there is not a Duty of Care for this 'body' of people, 'CMP', to make real and conscious effort to advise customers of the possible danger to which they are exposed - then their is something wrong. A Specification Notice from West Marine, (with no disrespect) The Forum, and a couple of articles in the Yachting press is not enough - CMP, Holdfast, Rocna have made no effort to advertise the issue (unless you consider a notice on the CMP website sufficient).
I have an underlying fear that over and above this specific issue, unintentionally, an example might be being set testing the limits of marine consumer acceptance and that the Rocna example might then be considered acceptable, think masts, keels, liferafts?
Jonathan
GrantKing
New member
I will give an example:
Boyd Boats ( UK) order placed 26 Feb 2010 and shipped 13 may 2010
5x 4kg Q420
5x 6kg Q420
25x 10kg Q420
35x 15kg Q620
15x 20kg Q420
10x 25kg Q620
1x 33kg Q420
2x 40kg Q420
2x 55kg Q420
1x 70kg Q620
Suncoast Marine Canada order placed 1 March 2010 shipped 23 April 2010
20x 4kg Q420
40x 6kh Q420
70x 15kg Q620
60x 20kg Q420
70x 25kg Q620
20x 33kg Q420
25x 40kg Q620
12x 55kg Q420
4x 70kg Q420
2x 110kg Q420
1x 150kg Q420
Watertight Marine Spain order placed 29 Jan 2010 shipped 13 may 2010
2x 4kg Q420
8x 4kgRRR Q420
3x 6kg Q420
8x 6kgRRR Q420
6x 10kg Q420
6x 15kg Q620
6x 20kg Q420
10x 25kg Q420
8x 33kg Q420
7x 40kg Q420
5x 55kg Q420
3x 70kg Q420
6x 15kg stowable Q420
New Zealand order placed 22 Jan 2010 and 12 March 2010 shipped May 2010
10x 20kg Q420
24x 4kg Q420
24x 6kg Q420
24x 10kg Q420
20x 15kg Q620
6x 20kg Q420
12x 25kg Q620
6x 33kg Q420
4x 55kg Q620
10x 4kgRRR Q420
20x 6kgRRR Q420
order placed 22 March 2010 shipped 17 may 2010
6x 15kg stowable Q420
10x 4kgRRR Q420
20x 6kgRRR Q420
Neeves
Well-known member
So the 'few' anchors to which Mr Steve Bambury referred: 'accidentally' made from a steel of a specification below that required (half the strength of Bisplate 80) and shipped early in 2010 actually totals 700 anchors - strange use of the word 'few'. Equally strange that this information is obviously easily available but no-one from 'CMP' has had the courtesy to bother telling anyone.
deep denial
Member
Ahem, er I haven't read every single post on this subject, but am asking for a recap, namely, have CMP said what grade of steel will be used for the new anchors, and is this any worse/better than the grade used in Manson?
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
Manson are using the better grade steel, which was originally in the spec for both anchors. IMHO I think that one should trade with the manufacturers who have been honest in this process, and have a know quality. That is Manson.
The fact that CMP are still retaining the services of Bumberry - a serial fraudster, is enough to say steer clear of the Rocna product.
snooks
Active member
Going for the 1,000th post...no other reason