Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[macd]

There is another explanation. Maybe CMP have been....

That's a very charitable suggestion.

And if true it would seem to me a misjudgement of the issue on CMP's part: no amount of certification is any use if the product doesn't conform to it. The issue for CMP is surely one of trust, not certification that most anchor-users (except Italians, who can't anchor anyway ) have never heard of.

 

[Twister_Ken]

That's a very charitable suggestion.

And if true it would seem to me a misjudgement of the issue on CMP's part: no amount of certification is any use if the product doesn't conform to it. The issue for CMP is surely one of trust, not certification that most anchor-users (except Italians, who can't anchor anyway ) have never heard of.

The italians can anchor. I've seen three of their boats hanging off one anchor. They were only going downwind very slowly.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

The italians can anchor. I've seen three of their boats hanging off one anchor. They were only going downwind very slowly.

Was that in Venice lagoon using the anchor in my avatar?

 

[Neeves]

I too gave CMP the benefit of the doubts, which is why I checked.

My correspondence with RINA of yesterday, so its up to date, clearly states no new tests have been done (for anyone) since the certificate was issued in May 2011. CMP might have plans for addressing the certification issue but they have nothing to do with Rocna's website claims as pointed out by Rigger. The website claims are based on the original certificate which is as misleading, deceitful?, then as it is now.

I also read 'Original' to mean the standard design as opposed to the 'RRR' or 'Fishermans'. But yes the NZ manufactured anchors, that last were made in the first half of 2009 would have met the certificate, though I'm not sure these certificates are retrospective.

If anyone is checking it will be interesting to see when, if, the website is altered.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Lamination

Apparently laminated shanks are quite common though possibly only for larger anchors. It is a recognised process and apparently quite acceptable (must be if the Classification Societies do not mind). I guess one needs to make sure the welds are good, in the same way the welds need be good to join fluke to shank.

The problem arises if you need to make a big anchor, with say a 40mm shank. No-one would normally carry 40mm plate for one or two anchors a year, its too heavy to handle, too expensive to sit in stock. The sensible solution is to weld 2 x 20mm plates (which you do have in stock as it used on say 40kg anchors of which you make lots).

Jonathan

 

[GrantKing]

I too gave CMP the benefit of the doubts, which is why I checked.

My correspondence with RINA of yesterday, so its up to date, clearly states no new tests have been done (for anyone) since the certificate was issued in May 2011. CMP might have plans for addressing the certification issue but they have nothing to do with Rocna's website claims as pointed out by Rigger. The website claims are based on the original certificate which is as misleading, deceitful?, then as it is now.

I also read 'Original' to mean the standard design as opposed to the 'RRR' or 'Fishermans'. But yes the NZ manufactured anchors, that last were made in the first half of 2009 would have met the certificate, though I'm not sure these certificates are retrospective.

If anyone is checking it will be interesting to see when, if, the website is altered.

Jonathan

The certificate on the Rocna website here : http://www.rocna.com/assets/Uploads/rocna-rina-cert-25-may-2011.pdf
now says under applicant CMP and not Holdfast but is still dated 25 may 2011 and stamped the same as previous.

It also says for 'rolled steel plate fluke"

 

[GrantKing]

Rocna warranty

This is the warranty that was in force prior to the exposure last year of the substituting of metals and Bambury's attempts to cover it up.

This warranty covered all Rocna anchors manufactured and sold through to the end of 2010.

It read:

SATISFACTION ASSURED
NO QUESTIONS ASKED
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
LIFETIME MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY
AGAINST DEFECTS


Money Back Guarantee – Change of Mind:
Subject to the following exclusions and conditions, you may return the anchor where nothing is wrong with the anchor and you have simply chosen to return it because you have changed your mind. In this situation you have:
(a) for a used product 30 days; or
(b) for an unused product (still in its original condition and undamaged) 60 days;
from the date of your sales invoice to return the product back to the original place of purchase (“no questions asked”).
Return Freight:
Please understand that freight and handling are considered separate, so the original retailer (the “seller”) from whom you purchased the product would refund only the invoiced sale price of the product itself, and the buyer will be responsible for returning the anchor safely to the seller. Appropriate measures (e.g. insurance) should be taken by you against risk of loss, theft, or damage.
In plain English: Freight and handling is the purchaser’s responsibility. This discourages people “borrowing” anchors, and returning them at the seller’s loss when they are no longer required. Risk of loss or damage is with you until the reseller receives the product at it place of business – so you should insure the product while in transit.
Damaged Product:
The reseller is under no liability to either accept a returned used anchor or compensate a buyer if the used anchor has been damaged beyond fair wear and tear following purchase. In plain English: The purchaser may be held responsible for any damage caused beyond fair wear and tear on the used anchor. This also helps discourage people “borrowing” anchors.
Faulty Product:
If the anchor is defective or fails to conform to its specifications then those situations are covered under the separate terms of our Lifetime Warranty. In either case this Money Back Guarantee is not applicable.
In plain English: The Money Back Guarantee does not apply to faulty product. If your anchor has a defect or fails to conform to its specifications, refer to the Lifetime Warranty.
Returns Procedure:
If you wish to return a product to the reseller, please wrap the product securely and send it back to the seller, together with the invoice which accompanied the anchor and the return slip to the seller from whom you purchased the product. The return slip to be used can be found on the Rocna website www.rocna.com.
Refund Payment Method:
The seller may at its option, credit your Nominated Payment Authority with an amount equal to the cost of the product (excluding handling, freight and any applicable deduction). The seller will refund your money via the most cost effective method feasible. Please note that the reseller is not responsible for variations in exchange rates (with regard to international orders). No refund will be given without the receipt of the returned products.
In plain English: The seller will refund you the sale price of the product in the currency of purchase less any costs as indicated elsewhere, as applicable.

Lifetime Manufacturer’s Warranty:
Good for the lifetime of the original purchaser and non-transferable.
In plain English: The lifetime warranty applies only to the original purchaser. This is because the history of the anchor becomes difficult to determine once it is second or third hand, and it may have been damaged and repaired at some point, so becoming weakened.
Coverage:
Rocna warrants that the product will conform to its specifications and will be free from material defects in and failure of material and workmanship from the date you purchase the product.
In plain English: This means the warranty covers standard things like the grade of steel and welding quality, and will not fail when used as intended.
Exclusions:
Coverage does not include:
(a) faults and damage caused by using the anchor outside of the Product Specifications and/or the User Guide;
(b) faults and damage resulting from general wear-and-tear;
(c) faults and damage caused by your poor handling of the anchor;
(d) damage to the anchor after risk of loss passes;
(e) faults and damage where changes have been undertaken by any third party not authorised by us;
(f) faults and damage caused by failure of any accessory not approved by us;
(g) faults and damage caused by product maintenance and repair services by any third party not authorised by us;
(h) faults and the repair of damage to property (including the anchor), and personal injury arising from the act, error, fault, neglect, misuse or omission of any user of the anchor;
(i) repair of damage to property (including the anchor), and personal injury due to external causes, including accident, abuse, misuse, failure to perform preventative maintenance and/or repairs;
(j) repair of damage to property (including the anchor), and personal injury caused by the operation of the anchor other than in accordance with recommended operating procedures as set out in the User Guide or otherwise than in accordance with the directions or recommendations of the manufacturer.
In plain English: If you damage the anchor by way of misuse you cannot expect a replacement or your money back. Wear-and-tear and/or corrosion of the sacrificial zinc coating is not covered. You should read and understand all of the exclusions as they are important.
Honouring the Guarantee:
Where the anchors are faulty or damaged the reseller will at your option either:
(a) replace the product if available; or
(b) give you a full refund of the purchase price on your Nominated Payment Authority.
Returns Procedure:
If you wish to return a product to the reseller, please wrap the product securely and send it to the reseller, together with the invoice which accompanied the anchor and the return slip to the reseller from whom you purchased the product. The return slip to be used can be found on the Rocna website www.rocna.com.

Disclaimer.
Your use of the products must be strictly in accordance with the User Guide so that the anchor is not used for any purpose for which it is not suitable. You shall solely be responsible for using all necessary skill and care in handling, storing, maintaining and using the anchor. You acknowledge that we make no specific representation nor do we hold any liability to you as to the effectiveness of the anchor in climactic or inclement weather conditions or in specific tidal situations. Any information about the anchor supplied by Rocna is provided for guidance only and nothing contained herein should be construed as a recommendation to use any particular product in the range of products. You shall make your own determination as to its fitness or suitability for your purposes prior to use. The user Guide can be found on Rocna’s website www.rocna.com.

Liability.
Except as expressly provided for in this Warranty, Rocna’s liability to you whether in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury arising directly or indirectly from any defect in or non-compliance of the products or from any other breach of Rocna’s obligations under this Warranty shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the price invoiced by the reseller for the faulty products or the products giving rise to the claim. Rocna shall not be liable for any indirect or consequential injury or specific damage or loss of any kind whatsoever.

 

[GrantKing]

current warranty

The new warranty can be found here: http://www.rocna.com/product-range/warranty-information/

What is the point of having a warranty when it does not cover anything?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

What is the point of having a warranty when it does not cover anything?

There's no point at all, though why anybody would even contemplate buying an anchor from these people is beyond me.

Peeps have given CMP the opportunity to sort things out. CMP have failed to do that and are simply playing the same old games.

 

[Storyline]

The certificate on the Rocna website here : http://www.rocna.com/assets/Uploads/rocna-rina-cert-25-may-2011.pdf
now says under applicant CMP and not Holdfast but is still dated 25 may 2011 and stamped the same as previous.

It also says for 'rolled steel plate fluke"

It would appear that this is the first proof that CMP are colluding with the deception - surely they know that the anchor that RINA tested and approved is very much different to those being produced now.

 

[youen]

Is there anybody here who received recently a reply from Rocna Cmp.I try to get some precisions about the RINA certificate,asking which anchors are concerned, rolled steel or cast steel flukes old or new anchors?But they stay silent...

 

[Twister_Ken]

But they stay silent...

Well, there's a surprise!

 

[Neeves]

Youen,

I think the question you raise is larger or more complicated than the RINA certificate.

Historically we had Rocna/Holdfast who were demonstrably, I will be charitable, misleading about their early promotional tactics. This included the supply of 'perfect' anchors for testing and the manipulation of test results in their favour. Additionally the testing of Rocna anchors was limited - yet the few results produced (from the tuned anchors) were championed incessantly as if they had statistical significance. This was underpinned by an incessant campaign against anyone who questioned anything that Rocna/Holdfast stated. Later these tactics deteriorated and became, as we have found, blatantly dishonest with claims of RINA certification and use of a sub-standard steel when advertising something else. There were other examples.

For whatever reasons the edifice, of Rocna/Holdfast, fell over allowing CMP to acquire the rights to production. To rectify a tarnished reputation CMP made statements implying they would make all effort to clean up the disastrous image left by their predecessors. They also implied they were in the driving seat.

There were changes, the recall (initiated by West Marine, before CMP took over, and covering America and 'a few' of spec anchors made/sold in early 2010) was extended, by CMP, to a worldwide offer of replacement/recall. The Rocna website and that of Peter Smith was cleaned up, claims that RINA certification also meant Lloyds approval were removed (possibly as a result of representation from LLoyds), attacks on competitors were toned down (but still remain is some forms) and RINA certification was initially removed.

More recently we have seen a change. On the Rocna website we have seen the RINA certification claim restated (which has lead to RINA querying CMP and requesting a clarification or removal of the claim - as it is invalid). We have seen the perpetrators of the deceits paraded at international trade fairs, METS is a good example, as if heroes instead of the pariahs as they are seen by many of the public. Though it is difficult to quantify there are indications the deceit of the use of a low quality steel in the shank extends to much more than 'a few' and to a period much earlier than 'early 2010' - but confirmation is difficult and CMP unwilling (for whatever reason) to provide any confirmation. By and large owners of these, possibly, off spec anchors remain unaware and at risk.

It is impossible to know what is happening but the recent re-statement (on the Rocna website) of the RINA certification awarding SHHP status to Rocna anchors from 4kg to 110kg is so blatantly dishonest that it is almost as if CMP have lost control. The certificate clearly states that it refers only to anchors with fabricated flukes (made from folded and welded steel plate) yet if you walk into any chandlers these anchors simply do not exist - the only anchors have cast flukes. The certificate might apply to anchors of 55kg and over, but these tend not to be in stock in chandlers and form a minimal part of historic Rocna sales. Maybe purchasers are meant to know the difference, but RINA does not think so and most people on this and other forum do not think so.

Sadly there continue to appear individuals who remain misled as to the performance of Rocna anchors, who are unaware of the use of tuned anchors in testing, unaware of the few tests actually conducted and unaware of the systemic dishonesty - and it is this customer base that CMP will need to tap. It is little wonder that CMP has developed a low profile.

The sad conclusion is that the historic style of ambiguity, misrepresentation and deceit are being introduced to guage public reaction and possibly acquiescence. Based on CMP's historic reputation this cannot be with their approval - but the longer the RINA claim remains on the website the more doubts will grow.

CMP promised a new statement early in January. Possibly the statment will provide clarification.



But in answer to your specific query:

The RINA SHHP certificate only covers anchors made with fabricated flukes (made from folded, welded steel plate) and with a Hi-Tensile Quench and Tempered shank. This is what the certifcate states and what RINA have confirmed in correspondence (there is no ambiguity). The certiifcate excludes all anchors made in China with cast flukes (anything smaller then 55kg). The certificate excludes all anchors made with stainless steel. The certificate excludes any anchors with slots and any anchors with removable shanks. In the future this might change - but that is the status today. As far as I am aware, and I stand to be corrected, the certificate only covers anchors made after the certificate was issued, 25th May 2011.

There might be a question mark as to the steel used in shanks of anchors of 55kg and over made in China, about which I could not comment - but potential buyers could/should obtain their own assurances and treat those assurances with consideration.

Jonathan

 

[youen]

Is refusal to answer an admission?

 

[Chris_Robb]

Is refusal to answer an admission?

Yes, but it is also very bad manners as well.

 

[Neeves]

RINA and the use of 620

The RINA certificate is a Type Approval. It is a certifcate for a design, not a product. The certificate effectively says that if the anchors is made as defined by the designs then it meets requirement, in this case an SHHP anchor. The certificate is issued on the basis of the seabed tests, proof testing and the design drawings. The design drawings define the steel to be used, the proof testing confirms that the design has the strength required, the shank of the anchor that is proof tested is checked to confirm it meets the design perameters and the batch analysis on the steel used is also checked, good belt and braces stuff. The sample Proof Tested is meant to reflect the design and has no relationship to what is made (they should be the same - but this is not a requirement).

Sadly that is all a Type Certificate is - its is not certification of a manufacturing process nor is it a certificate of products made. It is a design certificate only and whether the products made and sold meet, or do not meet, the Certificate is not the responsibility of the Classification Societies - though the CS members will try to ensure the Certificates are used with integrity (if made aware of abuses).

Its value lies in the fact that the anchor now has sufficient credibility to be used for vessels in survey though these anchors, if actually used, would then need individual certification and individual proof testing. Because anchors for vessels in survey need this additional certification and because they are large they can be more profitable, one motivation for the exercise. Additionally having ones anchors on Superyachts (owned by famous people) and the Type Certificate itself is good marketing.

Rocna abused the system by linking their certificate (which is perfectly valid) to their anchors with cast flukes. The Rocna certifcation process, including the drawings, only used anchors with flukes made from folded and welded steel plate and the Type Certificate is limited to these products, in Rocnas case - for anchors of 55kg and larger. RINA have drawn and are drawing Rocna's Holdfast's and now CMP's attention to the ambiguity developing as a result of the use of the RINA certificate on the Rocna website (which includes anchors made with cast flukes) and are asking that the position be clarified/rectified.

I am not privy to detail of which steel is specified in the shanks, this information is on the drawings and for RINA to openly declare the specification is a breach of confidentiality. This confidentiality exists between all Classification Society member and their clients. Reading between the lines the Rocna drawings specify something close to ASTM 514 or Bis 80 - but the steel is defined by upper and lower limits (the actual brand used is irrelevant - as long as the quality is within the limits). Apparently Q620 steel can be Quench and Tempered, as well as having other finishing processes (I'm not clear on why Q620 covers an apparently large range - but that is how it is). Equally it is quite possible, apparently, to have batches of Q620 (or a Q&T steel that typically does not meet ASTM 514) at the upper limits of its own spec that overlap the lower limits of ASTM514/Bis80 specs - I confess I have not checked this for 620 (but I understand the principal). Consequently as long as the batch analysis of the steel used, for the shanks, falls within the permaters defined on the drawings (even if it is right at the lower limits) and as long as the anchor itself passes Proof Testing and any random samples taken from the shank meet the batch analysis and the design specifications then the 'brand' of steel is irrelvant and the product having jumped all the hurdles obtains a Type Approval certificate.

Consequently in order to gain Type Approval for a Rocna it is possible to use a commercial steel quality that typically does not meet ASTM 514 but if one is selective and cherry picks a batch from the upper limits of the range these upper limits might fall within the lower limits defined by ASTM514. This might apply to Q620. It is only a short step from there for Rocna to say that Q620 is adequate and use it all the time. With regular use of Q620 one can then again cherry pick the batches retaining the good 620 for future use when manufacturing anchors for vessels in survey. Equally it would be quite possible to use Bis80 in the sample for Proof Testing - it is only a design Certificate, even though another steel is to be used for full production runs.


A personal comment:

To me this seems an abuse of the process and fraught with problems, especially in the hands of the dishonest. RINA made the comment many weeks ago that they expect their clients to have integrity, this was found wanting in Holdfast (but they left the scene before RINA had to address the issue) the jury is out on CMP.

I will try to highlight continued misuse of the Rocna Type Approval certification process in the next few days to issustrate the problems further.

Jonathan

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Jonathan,

Thanks for that helpful summary but may I ask you one question?

My understanding is that Type Approval certificate was not issued until May 2011 and that, prior to that date, Holdfast were wrongly claiming they had the certificate. They did not; all they had was a couple of statements from RINA which were effectively indications of work in progress.
In other words Holdfast were lying.
Is that correct?

 

[Neeves]

Rigger,

In answer to your question, Holdfast were lying.

The certificate is dated May 2011, any statement by Holdfast prior to that time that the anchor, design (or whatever) had been approved by RINA as being Type Approved to SHHP was a complete deceit.

However the deceit was greater as the implication (of the false Holdfast claims) was that what was available in the chandlers was the product that was being claimed as approved. Approval, when it came in May 2011 was for a product that basically did not exist in chandlers - ever - it still does not exist in chandlers (unless your chandler carries Rocna of 55kg or larger).

The deceit was bigger than this - the Rocna website, under admission by Steve Bambury, was owned and managed by the Smiths. The website claimed RINA approval prior to May 2011 - which to me, at least, provides complicity of the Smiths (who are/were separate to the Bambury's). The website also claimed, I forget the exact wording, that RINA certification meant that Rocna anchors would meet LLoyds Register approval. Soon after Lloyds Register were made aware of this claim - the wording was removed.

Finally when RINA became aware that Holdfast were claiming SHHP Type Approval certification for their complete range of anchors, including those with cast flukes that RINA had not known existed, they (RINA) made representations and the certification was removed. (Claims of certification have now be re-introduced - watch that space).

I apologise for the length and possible lack of clarity of my previous post - it was difficult to both condense and remain clear.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

I thought I might add to my previous post

In the mid year of 2009 I received a press release from Holdfast, this thus came from the Bamburys not the Smiths.

The thrust of the press release was:

1 Holdfast were commencing shipments of stainless anchors from their new production facility in Shanghai

2 Galvanised anchor production had not yet been transferred to China. (The implication was NZ and Canada production were in full swing)

3 The Shanghai production facility was RINA approved.


I confess that having received the press release I did not question its veracity (after all who, apart from Holdfast, could I ask) and questioning the information was hardly front page news - in fact there was no reason to question it.


Looking back, hindsight gets so much better, with even more hindsight!

The Press release was possibly only sent to America and Australia as:

1 At the time of the Press Release Holdfast had already made shipments of significant numbers of galvanised anchors to Europe: UK, Holland, Italy (the infamous Venice lagoon batch) and NZ. The first shipment went to NZ in Dec 2008 and the balance of shipments were completed by March 2009. There were also some later shipment, first half 2009, to Denmark and Spain. I think that all European and NZ shipments of galvanised anchors originated from China commencing Dec '08/Jan '09. Australian shipments commenced middle or second half 2009 and American shipment back end 2009 or early 2010.

2 As far as I can ascertain RINA never 'formally' visited the Shanghai factory, let alone examined it with a view to approval. They might have visited as a venue for meetings, but nothing more. Their first formal visit was after they became aware of the manufacture of Rocna anchors with cast flukes 3rd quarter 2011 (I suspect they were checking the accuracy of the information they had received).


Basically the Press Release was almost a complete figment of Holdfast's fertile imagination. The part about stainless steel production being transferred to China might have been correct but RINA approval, a lie, gal production to be commenced later, a lie.

The Press Release set the tone for what was to come later.

Jonathan

 

[Bosun Higgs]

The RINA certificate is a Type Approval. It is a certifcate for a design, not a product. The certificate effectively says that if the anchors is made as defined by the designs then it meets requirement, in this case an SHHP anchor.

Having several times googled SHHP and read the technical requirements, it seems to me that you cannot have a 15kg SHHP anchor since it is below the minimum size that SHHP applies to.