Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Neeves]

Thanks Evans, its good to have an American viewpoint.

However I'm not convinced about the concerns over the dangers as being zero, an admiited 9 bent anchors (and we do not how many have not been admitted and/or not reported) looks to be 9 more than one would want and if a 420 shanked anchor has almost nil safety concerns why issue the recall notice at all (except to cover one's back) and why would Holdfast then increase the steel quality to 620? Finally why the insistance by Peter Smith that his design needed Bisplate 80, or its ASTM equivalent (ASTM 514). 420 falls a long way short of ASTM 514 It even falls a long way short of 620).

But these are all rhetorical and repetitively aired.

 

[temptress]

ITs also the design

...an admiited 9 bent anchors (and we do not how many have not been admitted and/or not reported) looks to be 9 more than one would want .....

I've been following this thread with interest as I still intend to buy a ROCNA in the spring before heading down to the South Atlantic.

As well as the specification of the metals the designed shape is important and for me having researched this extensively I will have a ROCNA as my main anchor.

I strikes me that number of bent anchors needs to be considered in relation to the total number of anchors out there. Speculation is just that speculation. I have bent a genuine CQR and a BRUCE - this happens. I would rather the anchor bent than broke!

 

[Neeves]

Temptress,

The issue is not with a Rocna manufactured with the correct steel nor is the issue one of design. Neither are in contention. One issue is that some Rocnas were manufactured with steel in the shank of a quality lower than that specified by the designer. These anchors will be prone to failure, as a result of the shank bending, more frequently than they would have been if they had been manufactured to specification.

If you buy a Rocna then your purchase in the spring should be of a product closer to the design specification than the anchors made with the Q420 steel. It might be speculation that these 420 shanked anchors might bend in service, but evidence suggests this to be the case, but its not a speculative risk that owners should be subjected to.

You are fortunate - the problem has be aired and unless you buy old stock you should be quite safe - but consider the people who have 420 shanked anchors on their bow rollers and simply do not know the, speculative, risks they might enjoy. Not everyone reads this forum nor YM (and basically that is the some total of the airing of the issue, unbless the recall section of West Marine's website is top of your reading list).

A question I might pose - if the anchor was still made from 420 steel would you still buy it? If your answer is 'no' then you are really supporting part of the motivation of this thread - to try to ensure all the owners of the substandard anchors have the same choice as you.

Jonathan

 

[macd]

I've been following this thread with interest as I still intend to buy a ROCNA in the spring before heading down to the South Atlantic.

As well as the specification of the metals the designed shape is important and for me having researched this extensively I will have a ROCNA as my main anchor.

Like you, and probably most readers of these Rocna threads, I have no doubt that the Rocna is an excellent design. And, equally, that far more than "the shape" makes it so: the Smiths have long banged on about the Rocna's weight distribution, which is precisely why the steel quality of the shank is so very crucial. Note that "bent anchor" is not an altogether useful description: put a 10 degree bend in the shank, and it will probably still work pretty adequately; put in a hairpin bend like the Venice anchor, and you may as well just use a lump of scrap steel on the bottom (which I suppose is exactly what you'd be doing )

Perhaps your extensive research has reached the right conclusions. But, just in passing, are you aware of the compelling evidence that anchors sent for comparative testing (by magazines etc) were specially selected and "tuned" by (Holdfast) Rocna; and that Holdfast has been extremely selective -- some would say downright dishonest -- in their promotional use of the resulting test data?

Unless you're privy to some pretty special information that's failed to appear on several thousand posts, here and elsewhere, I fear that any "research" that shows a 620 Rocna to be unequivocally the best smacks of wish-fulfillment. But I'd be happy to be shown otherwise. And it's your money.

 

[maxi77]

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).
.......

The big question really is whether you will be able to buy a Rocna manufactured as it was designed, even from West who I agree have always seemed to be an honourable organisation.

 

[Neeves]

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.

Kipper,

I think Temptress has given you some of the answer.

Jonathan

 

[Colvic Watson]

Kipper,

I think Temptress has given you some of the answer.

Jonathan

Bizare isn't it? If it was discovered that Ford had been deliberately not putting airbags in so as to save money, who would buy a Ford? We discover that Rocna have long been cheating their customers by claiming the anchors were one thing and yet making them out of bendy metal, but people still want to buy one? Nowt so queer as folk.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Bizare isn't it? If it was discovered that Ford had been deliberately not putting airbags in so as to save money, who would buy a Ford? We discover that Rocna have long been cheating their customers by claiming the anchors were one thing and yet making them out of bendy metal, but people still want to buy one? Nowt so queer as folk.

Totally Bizarre, especially as there is a ready to go alternative which would appear to be a no brainer, same fitting, same (if not better) holding power, and an honest management. Made of a known quality of materials.

It would serve Temptress right if he did have a problems with his Rocna, though I really would not wish that on any fellow yachtsman.

 

[Twister_Ken]

There's also the question of whether one should give one's money to people that have demonstrably cheated their customers.

 

[Elessar]

Bizare isn't it? If it was discovered that Ford had been deliberately not putting airbags in so as to save money, who would buy a Ford? We discover that Rocna have long been cheating their customers by claiming the anchors were one thing and yet making them out of bendy metal, but people still want to buy one? Nowt so queer as folk.

Interesting analogy. Remember the Pinto? The car that had a habit of blowing up in minor rear end accidents.

They did a cost of fixing it per life saved calculation and decided the deaths were worth it, and so covered it up.

Ford survived, unlike some of its customers.

 

[Neeves]

I can resist anything except temptation

I did wonder if Temptress had an association with the people at the crises control centre and was testing the temperature? Coincidentally, I do recall there was a promise of a new missive from Vancouver early this month. But maybe conspiracy theories are done to death.

I had tried to resist comment ('I can resist anything except temptation' - sadly I need attribute to Wilde) but I would have hoped fellow yachtsmen would not support and therefore encourage deceit and multiple deceit to boot - particularly for products that are safety items (but for any item really).

Jonathan

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Interesting analogy. Remember the Pinto? The car that had a habit of blowing up in minor rear end accidents.

They did a cost of fixing it per life saved calculation and decided the deaths were worth it, and so covered it up.

Ford survived, unlike some of its customers.

Holdfast didn't survive!

The real question is whether the Rocna brand will survive. Some people may decide to ignore all the evidence of lying and cheating. Some will decide that it's sensible to buy one of the many excellent alternative products.

Time will tell. Meanwhile CMP are clearly playing dumb.

 

[Chris_Robb]

There's also the question of whether one should give one's money to people that have demonstrably cheated their customers.

Ken, that is a very important point. I personally think it is disgraceful to give your money to people of such proven dishonesty. Temptress should be ashamed of himself.

 

[macd]

Interesting analogy. Remember the Pinto? The car that had a habit of blowing up in minor rear end accidents.

They did a cost of fixing it per life saved calculation and decided the deaths were worth it, and so covered it up.

Ford survived, unlike some of its customers.

The episode did more than anything else to herald the consumer movement (Raph Nader in particular: his book 'Unsafe at Any Speed' is well worth reading). Which kind of brings us full circle.

 

[snooks]

I've been following this thread with interest as I still intend to buy a ROCNA in the spring before heading down to the South Atlantic.

I really don't understand your thinking on this. I research everything I put on my yacht, if there is any doubt I'll research some more to find out whether my doubts are justified or find a better product.

You may feel the benefits outweigh the risk....what are the benefits exactly?

There are other anchors that do the same job, and some do it better.

When a rival anchor manufacturer's only negatives are that it's rival might not fit on a bow roller an its design makes it expensive to produce...then you know, they know it's a good anchor.

I'd leave a week earlier and buy a better anchor with the money I saved

 

[BrianH]

Holdfast didn't survive!

But its owner did, he's representing the product at international shows and in so doing totally discrediting the product's new torch-bearer.

I was sickened by someone who doesn't seem to care about corporate ethics and expresses an intention to buy something that has enough reputable alternatives. However, I was heartened by the opinions of others here that seem to share my contempt.

 

[maxi77]

Holdfast didn't survive!

.

I think there are differences between Ford's survival of the Pinto affair and Holdfast's demise after the Rocna episode. Ford did pay out the damages associated with their corporate failures over the Pinto, will Holdfast?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

I think there are differences between Ford's survival of the Pinto affair and Holdfast's demise after the Rocna episode. Ford did pay out the damages associated with their corporate failures over the Pinto, will Holdfast?

Fair point.
I think we can be confident that nobody associated with Holdfast, Bumbury or the Smiths, has the slightest intention of sorting the mess out.

FWIW it's beginning to look as if CMP are also back pedalling as much as they can. They've certainly been very silent on the differences between their figures and Grants with regards to the extent of the Bumbury con.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Ken, that is a very important point. I personally think it is disgraceful to give your money to people of such proven dishonesty. Temptress should be ashamed of himself.

He isn't. He is giving his money to a company that have a license to produce something.

The previous license holders caused the problem. CMP have not been dishonest. Misguided perhaps, but I think they should be given a reasonble chance to sort things out.

 

[Conachair]

There's also the question of whether one should give one's money to people that have demonstrably cheated their customers.

Have Canada Metal Pacific been cheating their customers?