Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Neeves]

Bosun has pointed out and I think correctly that traditionally anchors were made from steels, sometimes, possibly not even as good as Q420. I am pretty sure there are anchors sitting in chandlers today made simply from mild steel, these will all be cheap and unbranded. However many of these anchors will have very thick shanks, unlike modern anchors like the Supreme, Excel and Rocna. There is nothing inherently wrong with building anchors from a steel like 420. Unfortunately thick shanks contributes to poor perfomance (which is the reason there has been the move to thinner shanks). The problem arises when the design allowed the shank to be very thin, because the designer specified a high tensile steel, but the manufacturer uses a lower quality product. It is possible some of those cheap and cheerful unbranded anchors are safer with their thick shanks than the expensive 420 and thin shanked Rocna (though I would not use either).

I might also agree with Vyv Cox with regard to the centre punch test. I had never gone through the exercise before but Bis80 is basically impossible to mark, you scratch the gal but no more. With galvanised mild steel the centre punch can almost stand in its own indent. 420 comes somewhere in between. It might be more difficult to categorically tell 620 from Bis 80 (but that is not the issue) and I do not have a peice of 620. If the galvanising is an issue, file some of it off - its not difficult, then paint it (that's what Rocna did with gal blemishes, simply painted the offending marks).

As to how many Q420 shanked anchors were made and sold, Mr Bambury will know, he will also know to which markets they went and when they were sold. I recall he works for a company claiming high integrity with customer care and attention at the forefront of their strategy and a stated policy of indentifying, and possibly replacing?, all out of spec anchors. Statements and policies are cheap - action looks almost non-existent.

CMP must know that their continued inactivity is damaging them, their traditional brands and doing nothing for Rocna. Their employment of Mr Bambury looks questionable particularly as they have not used the employment to be open about the extent of the deceit. I for one would not buy chain from them - because I now, based on their activity since taking on the Rocna licence, simply do not trust them and there are many other sources.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

Two questionable assumptions. I had a hot dip plant under my control for several years and I wouldnt assume that there were no zinc build ups anywhere on the surface of the anchor. And the comments on this thread raise obvious questions of whether most posters are " reasonably proficient" in the sense of being able to do such a test. And what about the hardness of the punch? Consistency of force on the hammer?

I really do think this crude testing is a desperate last resort. If you arent sure about the shank steel hardness, send the anchor back. Its the retailers problem and sending it back is the only safe and sure way.

According to a news item in the latest PBO, Piplers state that only 50 anchors with low grade shanks arrived in UK, and these mostly in less popular sizes. AFAIR that is not what Grant has said in this thread. It is an extremely simple matter to compare the indent of a punch on the shank and fluke, which will tell you immediately whether they are similar. The hardness of the punch is immaterial, as is the weight of the hammer. As for the thickness of the galvanising, all the modern anchors I have seen have the bare minimum they can get away with, so a zinc build up seems most unlikely. If there is any doubt, do some repeat tests.

 

[Twister_Ken]

In defence of Piplers (tho' why I dunno), they only know what they have been told by Holdfast. And Holdfast has been demonstrated not to be the ancestral home of veracity.

Time, maybe, for Piplers to nip out to B&Q and buy a centre punch and a 2 lb hammer.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

In defence of Piplers (tho' why I dunno), they only know what they have been told by Holdfast. And Holdfast has been demonstrated not to be the ancestral home of veracity.

Time, maybe, for Piplers to nip out to B&Q and buy a centre punch and a 2 lb hammer.

I suggested that to them, but they have a better approach.

What they said to me is that they will change my anchor for a new Rocna from CMP, or any other make of my choice.

Great attitude to service IMHO.

 

[Neeves]

In Australia we have a 'yachting' company called Burke. They make lifejackets, harnesses, seaboots and distribute a whole host of yachting garments made by major brand names. Here they are a household name, reputable, respected, in the industry and they do have an international presence. 12/18 months ago they had a problem with, I recall, a bosuns chair. The manufacturer, who produced against a Burke design, had changed his supply of the stainless steel securing ring and the ring was found to be questionable. Burke made an immediate recall of all units and advertised the problem widely, taking out consecutive adverts of the recall in many (all?) of Australia's yachting press. I know 'of' Burke, a local business to my locale - there was no heart seaching, no ambiguity - the product was suspect, it was recalled, the product destroyed.

Recently I noted a recall by Selden of a mast fitting built to retain the forestay at the top of the mast. The particular fitting was installed in the masts of 30 different design of yacht, mostly of European supply, and around the 45' size. I note that the recall is detailed on the Selden website and is a thread on YBW. Refreshingly the recall is advertised in Australia's yacht press (so I assume also in other countries), even though only 3 of the, 30, yachts would have been sold here and not many at that, 45' has a limited market. Selden are offering, strongly recommend, replacement of the fitting - which to me looks an expensive exercise as replacing forestay fittings will not be cheap. (Its a 'T' fitting that sits inside the mast, the 'vertical' of the 'T' protruding through a slot so as to allow the forestay to fit.) The faulty components were installed in yachts built in 2004/8 and has obviously taken some time to identify the problem but the solution looks unequivical - contact Selden and they will cover the cost, which as I suggest is going to be expensive.

Holdfast intentionally change the raw material of the shank, a critical component in the anchor, with a steel of a quality far lower than that specified. They do not admit to the deceipt for 18 months until the public start putting 2 and 2 together. The 'best' that happened was a Specification Notice in the Recall section of West Marine's catalogue (and a tirade of complaint on a few forum and a few magazines). No worldwide recall. I wonder how many people, in Europe, read WM's catalogue and how many of them scroll to the the Recall section. How many of you would have done it had the product not been Rocna?

I might suggest that the rest of the World (excluding N America) has, basically, been abandoned by CMP. It is refreshing to note that other marine companies take their responsibilities seriously and hopefully CMP is an exception.

I do sympathise with CMP, its not their fault, its not their responsibility (to provide refurnds) but it would raise their status no end if they were to fully advertise the extent of the problem such that owners could make a decision. To perpetuate the nonsense such that Pilplers seem to provide of 'only' 50 anchors, is an insult. (I do not understand the bit about 'less popular' sizes - does that make it any different? Bizarre)

Its an issue of safety, the bosuns chair ring might not fail, the 'T' fitting might not fail, the anchors might not bend - but equally they might and morally owners should be given the fullest information.


On a more pleasant note. The weather here is gorgeous,
Have a Happy New Year, we are off to watch the fireworks.

 

[Neeves]

With time in hand prior to the fireworks

Galvanising was a huge issue for Holdfast in China, but I cannot quite work out why - maybe it was the fact the galvanizing bath was coal fired and (I believe) a batch process. Suncoast made at least 2 formal examinations of the 'finish' of Chinese Rocnas. One in Jan 2009, in Shanghai, and another about 12 months later in Canada. (This latter was when they received the defective shipment - but no check was made on steel used - it was a cosmetic examination). Complaints about galvanising were widespread from Holdfast of the Chinese production and some anchors were galvanised 3 times, and still did not meet requirement (and were painted to over come the defects). I have no idea what impact 3 gal dips have on gal thickness but I have one 'sample' from the early Chinese production period and the galvanising looks as if it has been applied with a trowel - its thick. In contrast my Excel and a sample I tested of a Supreme looks, as Vyv suggests, to be thin - though I understand galvanising Bisplate 80 has its own problems.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

To perpetuate the nonsense such that Pilplers seem to provide of 'only' 50 anchors, is an insult. (I do not understand the bit about 'less popular' sizes - does that make it any different? Bizarre)

The actual words in the news item are 'Only around 50 affected anchors were brought to the UK, in one batch, early in 2010 - and very few in the most popular sizes'.

You are quite a few hours ahead of us, but Happy New Year to you too. Hope the fireworks went well, unlikely there will be many where we live!

 

[BrianH]

With time in hand prior to the fireworks

Galvanising was a huge issue for Holdfast in China, but I cannot quite work out why - maybe it was the fact the galvanizing bath was coal fired and (I believe) a batch process.
.
.
.
I understand galvanising Bisplate 80 has its own problems.

My NZ produced 15Kg had the galvanising flaking away on every impact. Grant was the production manager at that time and I was sanctioned to get a re-galvanising at Holdfast's expense in Italy - 20 euros.

Grant did later confirm it was a NZ model and with a Bis 80 shank. That was in 2009 and I've had no problem since.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I might suggest that the rest of the World (excluding N America) has, basically, been abandoned by CMP. ............ I do sympathise with CMP, its not their fault, its not their responsibility (to provide refurnds) but it would raise their status no end if they were to fully advertise the extent of the problem such that owners could make a decision. .

We dont know what CMP know and what they believe. We hear the story from Grant and most people on here have been convinced by him. CMP hear the story from the other side, no doubt embellished by accusations against Grant. We dont know whether any documentation of past shipments has gone from Holdfast to CMP. But we do know that CMP is not liable for the anchors produced by Holdfast.

I suspect that CMP were initially positive about replacements based on the story of just a few faulty anchors but now that its becoming clear there are a lot, they are wondering what on earth they have got themselves into, and understandably keeping their heads down.

TBH I feel a bit sorry for CMP. They are now being tarred with the sins of another company and people here seem to expect them to pick up an unknown liability for someone else's problem. If anyone should be picking up a bill its the licensor ie Rocna / the Smiths on the basis that they should have been monitoring carefully the product quality produced by their licensee

 

[GrantKing]

We dont know what CMP know and what they believe. We hear the story from Grant and most people on here have been convinced by him. CMP hear the story from the other side, no doubt embellished by accusations against Grant. We dont know whether any documentation of past shipments has gone from Holdfast to CMP. But we do know that CMP is not liable for the anchors produced by Holdfast.

I suspect that CMP were initially positive about replacements based on the story of just a few faulty anchors but now that its becoming clear there are a lot, they are wondering what on earth they have got themselves into, and understandably keeping their heads down.

TBH I feel a bit sorry for CMP. They are now being tarred with the sins of another company and people here seem to expect them to pick up an unknown liability for someone else's problem. If anyone should be picking up a bill its the licensor ie Rocna / the Smiths on the basis that they should have been monitoring carefully the product quality produced by their licensee

Read my posting #903, it contains a copy of an email I sent to West Marine on 12 March 2011 informing them of the substandard shanks.

Posting #904 contains a copy of an email I sent to Peter Smith on 7 June 2011. After receiving this email he still went ahead and did the deal with CMP and he still works with Bambury next him at CMP.

How much was revealed to CMP we can only guess and how much is a concerted effort to cover up the truth ?

 

[Rum_Pirate]

I wonder how many more years this thread will run.

 

[maxi77]

We dont know what CMP know and what they believe. We hear the story from Grant and most people on here have been convinced by him. CMP hear the story from the other side, no doubt embellished by accusations against Grant. We dont know whether any documentation of past shipments has gone from Holdfast to CMP. But we do know that CMP is not liable for the anchors produced by Holdfast.

I suspect that CMP were initially positive about replacements based on the story of just a few faulty anchors but now that its becoming clear there are a lot, they are wondering what on earth they have got themselves into, and understandably keeping their heads down.

TBH I feel a bit sorry for CMP. They are now being tarred with the sins of another company and people here seem to expect them to pick up an unknown liability for someone else's problem. If anyone should be picking up a bill its the licensor ie Rocna / the Smiths on the basis that they should have been monitoring carefully the product quality produced by their licensee

What is most interesting is that there has been not attempt to silence Grant King despite the fact that at least the early part of this thread must have been reported to CMP via Rocna1. Yes I too have sympathy for CMP but to retain it they do need to try and resolve the confusion that exists.

 

[Colvic Watson]

I wonder how many more years this thread will run.

About as long as people keep posting on it




Personally I find it fascinating to see if Smith/Bambury/CMP get away with it, maybe you can shaft your customers and reemerge to carry on trading with an inferior product? CMP know exactly what's been done to thousands of customers in the past but refuse to issue a general recall.

 

[beserksail]

Maybe if we hound the retailers for a refund or replacement then they might think twice about stocking Rocna's.

 

[Neeves]

I can accept that CMP did not know and I can fully sympathise with the idea that as, maybe, only part of the truth was revealed they wanted to keep their heads down. However they openly employ the perpetrators of the deceit and are in the driving seat. They openly are using the same factory in Shanghai, openly claim to have 'China expertise'. If anyone is in a position to clarify the position it is them. They can ask Bambury, the Smiths, the factory. If Grant King has records, why are those same records not available to CMP (after all Bambury was CEO and sone of the owners), why not the factory records. If Grant's information is a pack of lies, a gross manipulation of the truth why have they not stood up and said so? This thread will run as long as there are conflicting stories. As it stands we are getting no nearer confirmation of the truth but the thread, as it festers, is eating away at CMP's cerdibility and integrity and sympathy for CMP will slowly disappear the longer they keep their heads down.

Most people who are posting accept that refunds are not CMP's legal responsibility, the buck stops with the chandler and or importer (if CMP want to support the chandler importer that is another story). But unknown bent anchors are surely a moral responsibility for CMP to clarify as they are the ones with all the aces.

There are sources of information independent of Grant, for example the factory, and if information, quantifying the deceit, is indentified by parties other than CMP then CMP will look as lacking in integrity as the perpetrators. The ball is in their court.

My advise to anyone would be, if you have a suspect anchor, take it back, not to hassle the chandler or CMP, but so that you and your crew can sleep safely at night.

Jonathan

 

[evm1024]

Brand is everything

Regardless of weather CMP has a legal obligation to replace substandard Rocna Anchors they do have a compelling business reason to do so.

Take the case of WM on one side of the coin and a small mom and pop Chandler on the other. If West Marine refuses to take back any suspect anchors - Well they can't as that would violate their return policy. But if they did how could they sell Rocna. It would be a marketing nightmare. If they took them back and CMP failed to replace them CMP would run the risk of WM saying we won't sell your anchors. Kiss North America goodby as far as Rocna sales goes. And again it would be a marketing nightmare (WM won't sell Rocna because CMP does not stand behind their anchors)

In the case of the small, non chain chandler if CMP does not support them and they have to eat the cost a even one Rocna return that chandler will not sell Rocna. The risk of returned Rocna is too great and due to the small size of the chandler the loss is too great.

So what does the Chandler do when someone comes in looking for a new anchor and says "How about a Rocna?". The chandler would steer them away from the rocna and to the anchors that they do carry. I would say to that prospective buyer: " We don't carry Rocna because there have been some problems with the steel used and CMP will not stand by their anchors. Here take a look at these photos of bent Rocnas and you will see what I mean. This Manson just as good as Rocna and it does use much stronger steel than Rocna. Plus Manson stands behind their anchors." Wham, another marketing nightmare. Times that by 100 chandlers.

Word in the boating community is growing. I would expect Rocna sales to be flat rather than growing. And, sooner or later someone will lose their boat or their life due to a failure (That may not even be the fault of the anchor) and then Rocna sales will drop significantly.

In the end I want to buy the rights to Rocna Anchors (If only I had the money). I would hit the press with "redesign", testing, side pull testing and more testing and sell them at a lower price than the competition. I would hire Grant as well to oversee production and make sure it was up to standards. Perhaps destructive testing of every 100th anchor as well. Do that at a few boat shows and plaster the videos all over U-tube.

If only....

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Regardless of weather CMP has a legal obligation to replace substandard Rocna Anchors they do have a compelling business reason to do so.

Take the case of WM on one side of the coin and a small mom and pop Chandler on the other. If West Marine refuses to take back any suspect anchors - Well they can't as that would violate their return policy. .

CMP do not have a legal obligation to replace anchors made by Holdfast, and they have a real business nightmare. When it was believed there were just a few duff anchors, it made business sense for CMP to replace them. But if there really are large numbers then CMP could be looking at a very large bill. For a start, I guess most people would send their anchor back as I have done just to be sure. There would be a proportion who would not accept another Rocna and would have to be repaid at full retail. There would be demands from the retailers for compensation. There would be carriage and packing costs. The bill could be well into the millions and CMP could easily be loss making as a result. In short, would the future profit they might make from Rocna justify the huge costs of picking up someone else's bill? I very much doubt it.

West have no alternative. We all know how excessive US product liability law suits can be. Easy to imagine some US sailor being awarded 10 million $ just for the stress suffered whilst anchoring with a Rocna he wasnt sure of.

The best thing CMP can do is to drop Rocna altogether and bring out a clone made in Canada out of 800. They should even call it the 800.

 

[vyv_cox]

Word in the boating community is growing. I would expect Rocna sales to be flat rather than growing. And, sooner or later someone will lose their boat or their life due to a failure (That may not even be the fault of the anchor) and then Rocna sales will drop significantly.

I read some time ago that the West Marine offer to replace any Rocna anchor had largely been ignored. At the time the statement was made that Rocna returns ranked well below average. WM continue to sell them, despite adverse reviews like these.

 

[Neeves]

I'm obviously a cynic but if WM have a policy to continue selling a product, despite adverse publicity, then the last thing they will want to admit is that people are returning the product. It supports your policy if you can suggest the whole thing is a storm in a tea cup.

One might almost think that people at the top of WM are good friends with people at Rocna (which would also explain why a virtually unknown anchor (not commercially available anywhere except NZ) was included in the WM anchor tests back in 2006).

Maintaining my theme of cynicism - if any anchor maker offered to replace one of their anchors, no questions asked, after it had been used for a couple of years it would seem illogical for people not take the opportunity to have a freshly galvanised version (rather than the one they have been using).

 

[estarzinger]

I'm obviously a cynic but if WM have a policy to continue selling a product, despite adverse publicity, then the last thing they will want to admit is that people are returning the product. It supports your policy if you can suggest the whole thing is a storm in a tea cup. WM has seen very few failures, and have offered the return program because they know there was false and misleading advertising (about both the Steel quality and RINA) but they honestly believe the real safety concern is almost nil. If they had a safety concern they would absolutely force an aggressive recall. The WM senior management are good people and well intentionned.

One might almost think that people at the top of WM are good friends with people at Rocna One would be wrong to think that. There is no love lost after ROCNA's marketing dishonesty, but WM believe it is a good anchor design (they believe it is the equal of the manson supreme).

.......