misterg
Active member
... In fact viewed slightly cynically, it could be an orchestrated move to insulate the perpetrators from what they *know* to be a huge liability problem.
Andy
Andy
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
Bosun Higgs
N/A
I doubt it in this case, but what you suggest is a routine business approach. I once lived next door to a small town accountant who routinely put his concrete business into voluntary liquidation since it was cheaper than taking out long term insurance on the products he made. He was an upstanding member of the local church and community - saw nothing wrong with what he did.
Storyline
New member
I would like to know if have the Banburys have ever anchored overnight in a worrying situation ?
Have they ever had the experience of being at anchor in a full gale, knowing that your chain and anchor is all that is keeping you safe ?
Even in benign situations, have they ever turned on the riding light and gone below in comfort, knowing that all will be well in the morning ?
If the answer is 'yes' to any of those things then they should be ashamed of themselves and I really do not know how they can sleep at night.
If they were just ignorant businessmen who thought there was a buck to be made from selling anchors than you can just about believe that someone would stoop so low.
How CMP has not got the message by now I really cannot understand. If they continue to employ the very people who alledgedly lied to the 'Venice' anchor distributor then they have to be barking mad ..... or all the allegations that have been made that they knew that 400 and 420 was used in the new China production are all untrue.
Last edited:
jordanbasset
Well-known member
Interesting, did he sell insurance policies telling people they would receive money if 'A' happened, then fail to pay out when 'A' happened. Did he then start with a different company and deny the extent of his lies at the previous company.
If he did it is a very good comparison, but I would not want to buy my insurance from him.
estarzinger
New member
Grant has said they knew, at the least from 2009 onwards.
There is a 2009 e-mail chain that was posted sometime back:
From: Tanya Le Fleming Burrow [mailto:Tanya@rocna.com]
Sent: Thursday, 20 August 2009 13:20
To: craig@rocna.co.uk; kiwiroasmith@rocna.co.uk
Cc: Steve @ Rocna Anchors
Subject: FW: Problems with Rocna?
Importance: High
Dear Craig and Peter,
Thanks for your response to my earlier email in reference to the poor performance of the Rocna in the recent German testing. . . . Unfortunately it's not the first poor showing for Rocna in recent times . . . We have received several complaints/concerns from customers lately that are having difficulties with the performance of Rocna in weedy conditions . . .
and in reply . . .
From: Craig Smith
Sent: Sunday, 20 September 2009 9:00 PM
To: Tanya Le Fleming Burrow; Steve Bambury
Cc: Grant King; kiwiroasmith@rocna.com
Subject: RE: Problems with Rocna?
". . . . However, we have told you repeatedly that the Chinese anchors that you are shipping are NOT to spec, and we have yet to see one that is acceptable. .. . .I assume the anchor that the Germans tested suffers from the same problems. It should not have been provided; rather, send them a tuned sample. "
Danny Jo
Active member
As DaveS has correctly guessed, I haven't as much experience of anchoring as he has.
But the experience I have persuades me to leave swivel connectors where they belong - on the chandlery shelf.
Last edited:
Danny Jo
Active member
For the owner of a 15kg Rocna bought in Gosport in May 2011, the above is interesting, because it is compatible with Rocna's statement that ". . . our records show that the UK were not sent any affected anchors in the 15kg size." (This owner is happy enough with one made in Q620 steel.)
Last edited:
GrantKing
New member
Except for the fact that they were lying because all 15kg shipped before the may 2010 shipment were 420 shanks.
It amazes me that a downgraded spec is accepted as good enough when no compromise in strength was ever entertained by Smith before, but now is only because of the huge number of returns that would follow.
It also amazes me that people are prepared to accept that they were lied to about what they were purchasing but are more than happy to hide their heads in the sand.
Even more amazing is the fact that CMP continue to employ the very person , Steve Bambury , that tried to lie his way out of the fact that they were caught out misleading the world, who did everything he could to continue the charade against the most damning evidence being presented and delivered the worse case of spin doctoring ever documented.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
The 620 would not bother me because I know that no one could ever say that in real life use the lower spec would frequently fail and the higher spec never would. The reality is that the chances of a lower spec failing when the higher spec would not are remote because the difference is small and the circumstances that would cause one to fail but not the other are in a very narrow envelope..
Or to put it another way, you could easily specify an anchor far stronger than the higher spec one advertised by Rocna and thats without doing something about the poor shank design to achieve greater bend resistance. Where do you stop?
I've swapped my Rocna for a Manson because I could not be sure that it was 620 as opposed to 400 ( which is a big difference) and because the furore about Rocna makes the Manson a better resale proposition if I ever want to sell it. What would a second hand Rocna be worth? Not much I would have thought.
Last edited:
beserksail
New member
We all paid over the odds for an anchor which we thought was a higher spec, would it not be easier for Rocna to give say a 50% refund to customers instead of replacement. Or the option of replacement or refund, logistically it might make more sense. At 50% refund this anchor would be more sensibly priced.
Neeves
Well-known member
Grant,
it might have been before your time but on the 19th January 2009 50 x 15kg 420 shanked anchors were shipped to the UK as part of the first shipment of 300 anchors to the UK (not Ireland) from China. The statement that no 15kg anchors with 420 shanks were shipped to the UK is not correct.
I must admit that Grant's revelation that some anchors used 400 shanks might mean some of the 300 anchors were 400 shanked - but records indicate that these first shipments, of which the UK's were simply part, were all said to be 420.
Interestingly the Specification Notice from West Marine issued after much research and presumably much input from Holdfast covered 207 anchors with 420shanks. Imports, of 420 shanked anchors, to the UK by my reckoning from Feb 2009 through to June 2010 were 469 units - given the numbers does anyone recall a formal warning focussed at the UK, maybe UK yachtsmen do not matter.
I agree with Grant - it is odd the complacency with which the deceit seems to be viewed (by both CMP and the public) and it is odd that CMP wish to be perceived as having integrity yet they employ the people who perpetrated the deceit.
The implication seems to me that the boundaries of honesty have been stretched and we have not yet reached the limit.
it might have been before your time but on the 19th January 2009 50 x 15kg 420 shanked anchors were shipped to the UK as part of the first shipment of 300 anchors to the UK (not Ireland) from China. The statement that no 15kg anchors with 420 shanks were shipped to the UK is not correct.
I must admit that Grant's revelation that some anchors used 400 shanks might mean some of the 300 anchors were 400 shanked - but records indicate that these first shipments, of which the UK's were simply part, were all said to be 420.
Interestingly the Specification Notice from West Marine issued after much research and presumably much input from Holdfast covered 207 anchors with 420shanks. Imports, of 420 shanked anchors, to the UK by my reckoning from Feb 2009 through to June 2010 were 469 units - given the numbers does anyone recall a formal warning focussed at the UK, maybe UK yachtsmen do not matter.
I agree with Grant - it is odd the complacency with which the deceit seems to be viewed (by both CMP and the public) and it is odd that CMP wish to be perceived as having integrity yet they employ the people who perpetrated the deceit.
The implication seems to me that the boundaries of honesty have been stretched and we have not yet reached the limit.
DaveS
Well-known member
Gosh, this response is to a comment I made over 100 posts ago! (Fast moving thread, this.)
Danny, if you want to discuss swivel connectors, then I suggest you start a new thread unless your experience directly relates to the Rocna shenanigans. All swivel connectors are not equal: Vyv Cox has already gone into this in some detail, but if you wish to give the benefit of your experiences (presumably bad) I'm sure many here would be interested. As I mentioned, they have a known susceptibility to being damaged when directly connected to an anchor with a chain under heavy load making a horizontal angle to the shank, and a fairly simple cure for this. But I do urge you to start a new thread.
Colvic Watson
Well-known member
You can get a full refund from the Chandlery who sold a "not as per spec" anchor, they in turn will claim from the distributors. They could then claim from Bambury's company but guess what, he went into liquidation. CMP are desperate for owners not to go and get refunds as this would poison ROCNA in the eyes of the distributors, the myth must be propagated that just a very few anchors are affected and having a substandard anchor is probably OK - designer said 800 was critical to the design but hey, let's settle for 620
beserksail
New member
You can get a full refund from the Chandlery who sold a "not as per spec" anchor, they in turn will claim from the distributors. They could then claim from Bambury's company but guess what, he went into liquidation. CMP are desperate for owners not to go and get refunds as this would poison ROCNA in the eyes of the distributors, the myth must be propagated that just a very few anchors are affected and having a substandard anchor is probably OK - designer said 800 was critical to the design but hey, let's settle for 620
Sorry but I paid for 800, not 620.
Neeves
Well-known member
To put in context the cost:
A 15kg anchor (420 shank) shipped from China to the UK early 2009 was worth, to Holdfast, Euros 53.35 freight collect. If it had been made from Q620D or Bisplate 80 it would have cost more (but I suspect not that much), maybe Grant can comment. For CMP to replace would be cheap (guess why that option was offered?) but to refund, eye watering.
A 15kg anchor (420 shank) shipped from China to the UK early 2009 was worth, to Holdfast, Euros 53.35 freight collect. If it had been made from Q620D or Bisplate 80 it would have cost more (but I suspect not that much), maybe Grant can comment. For CMP to replace would be cheap (guess why that option was offered?) but to refund, eye watering.
beserksail
New member
Paid 377 euros for 15 kg in Spain May 2010, some profit margin.
uxb
New member
This is really sad. I read Peter Smith's trip report in the Antarctic and really enjoyed it, was impressed by the holding of his Rocna but thought 'Bet it was a Kiwi made one, not some Chinese knock-off...'
Then I thought his trip was probably financed by the sale of his anchor design and the sale of his employees jobs to China...
I won't be buying a Rocna.
Then I thought his trip was probably financed by the sale of his anchor design and the sale of his employees jobs to China...
I won't be buying a Rocna.
Neeves
Well-known member
Beserksail,
Spain received 2 shipments of Rocnas, 44 units, all 420, shipped in June 2009 (of which 14 were 15kg) and 46 units of 420 shipped in May 2010. This second shipment had Q620Ds as well and I think the 15kg models were 620 (but virtually every other model was 420). - but would have arrived too late for your purchase. (1 month transit + handling and distribution time in Spain).
My assessment is that not only did you support someone with a high profit margin but you also are the owner of a 420 shanked anchor. I'd check with Grant, but it would be useful if you can place the outcome on the forum. I also guess you are in the UK and the anchor in Spain - so the centre punch test will not be much use.
Spain received 2 shipments of Rocnas, 44 units, all 420, shipped in June 2009 (of which 14 were 15kg) and 46 units of 420 shipped in May 2010. This second shipment had Q620Ds as well and I think the 15kg models were 620 (but virtually every other model was 420). - but would have arrived too late for your purchase. (1 month transit + handling and distribution time in Spain).
My assessment is that not only did you support someone with a high profit margin but you also are the owner of a 420 shanked anchor. I'd check with Grant, but it would be useful if you can place the outcome on the forum. I also guess you are in the UK and the anchor in Spain - so the centre punch test will not be much use.
Neeves
Well-known member
Beserksail,
Sorry, I might have worried you unduly - they might also have received, prior May 2010, shipments of genuine Bisplate 80 shanked anchors direct from NZ. I do not have access to that information. Genuine NZ anchors could still have been in stock when you purchased.
apologies
Sorry, I might have worried you unduly - they might also have received, prior May 2010, shipments of genuine Bisplate 80 shanked anchors direct from NZ. I do not have access to that information. Genuine NZ anchors could still have been in stock when you purchased.
apologies
beserksail
New member
Grant informed me that mine is proberbly 620 but it is still not the 800 I paid for. Will do the punch test next week when we return to Spain. Thanks.
P.S Chinese anchor as Rocna is embossed on fluke.
Last edited: