Chris_Robb
Well-known member
And Chris_Robb, believe me, Nige doesn't do trolls - he believes passionately in every word he writes at the time of, er, writing.
Didn't really understand what he was saying....!
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
Didn't really understand what he was saying....!
Danny Jo
Active member
Perhaps the statement that is likely to have caused the most difficulty is:
This would be clearer if he or she had added "before they break".
Other comments on this thread along the lines "You have got to have confidence in your anchor in order to sleep well at night" suggest that there is some reliance on an element of faith. Nige, I guess, isn't into faith. Even the best anchors that a yacht can carry will fail in some conditions. The design should be such that it drags or bends before it breaks.
This is a reference to Danny Jo's previous incarnation in public health. Rockham is however wrong to attribute my attempt at an objective test of the Rocna to my professional background - it has much more to do with the influence of my current hero, Richard P Feynman, a theoretical physicist who recognised that an untestable theory is useless.
Neeves
Well-known member
I might be misunderstanding part of the current flow but if I were to lift my anchor and it was bent like the one in Rigger's image I would conclude it had failed. The fact it had not broken, into pieces, is not relevant. The load necessary is too large for me to bend it straight on the foredeck, on the assumption I had no other anchor (which would be false) but on that assumption I would be anchor less until I found someone able to impose the load necessary to bend it 'straightish' and if I found someone capable of doing that I suspect I would be back nearer the real world and I would buy a new anchor.
If the anchor bent on my trying to retreive it from rock (and I also damaged my bow roller or whatever) I might wish I had simply cut the thing off. Similarly if it had no brand name and cost me peanuts I would only have myself to blame. If it had bent simply because its shank was too weak, and the fluke too powerful, I would be complaining to the anchor maker. Similarly if it bent 'overnight' without intervention from me I would be complaining to the anchor maker. If either of the latter two scenarios occurred and the anchor had cost a fortune and was claimed to be 'Rock Solid' and the 'Best in the world' I might still have myself to blame, having read these threads, but I would still want my money back.
Finally - if I owned a Rocna with a cast fluke I simply would not bother with the centre punch test - I'd take it back. The risks are simply too great. There is simply too much uncertainty. In fact, with no disrespect, I simply do not understand why people persist in trying to identify if they have an out of spec 420 shanked anchor, without RINA certification or an out of spec 620 shanked anchor, without RINA certification. For any cast fluked anchor they have the right to a refund which they can invest in, Supreme, Spade, Kobra2, Fortress (and in Oz) SARCA and SARCA Excel - why the debate?
Jonathan
If the anchor bent on my trying to retreive it from rock (and I also damaged my bow roller or whatever) I might wish I had simply cut the thing off. Similarly if it had no brand name and cost me peanuts I would only have myself to blame. If it had bent simply because its shank was too weak, and the fluke too powerful, I would be complaining to the anchor maker. Similarly if it bent 'overnight' without intervention from me I would be complaining to the anchor maker. If either of the latter two scenarios occurred and the anchor had cost a fortune and was claimed to be 'Rock Solid' and the 'Best in the world' I might still have myself to blame, having read these threads, but I would still want my money back.
Finally - if I owned a Rocna with a cast fluke I simply would not bother with the centre punch test - I'd take it back. The risks are simply too great. There is simply too much uncertainty. In fact, with no disrespect, I simply do not understand why people persist in trying to identify if they have an out of spec 420 shanked anchor, without RINA certification or an out of spec 620 shanked anchor, without RINA certification. For any cast fluked anchor they have the right to a refund which they can invest in, Supreme, Spade, Kobra2, Fortress (and in Oz) SARCA and SARCA Excel - why the debate?
Jonathan
Last edited:
Neeves
Well-known member
Danny Jo has said:
'This is a reference to Danny Jo's previous incarnation in public health. Rockham is however wrong to attribute my attempt at an objective test of the Rocna to my professional background - it has much more to do with the influence of my current hero, Richard P Feynman, a theoretical physicist who recognised that an untestable theory is useless.'
Try this one for size:
'In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.'
I cannot claim 'ownership' but equally I cannot tell where it came from.
Jonathan
'This is a reference to Danny Jo's previous incarnation in public health. Rockham is however wrong to attribute my attempt at an objective test of the Rocna to my professional background - it has much more to do with the influence of my current hero, Richard P Feynman, a theoretical physicist who recognised that an untestable theory is useless.'
Try this one for size:
'In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.'
I cannot claim 'ownership' but equally I cannot tell where it came from.
Jonathan
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
I have been way from this thread for a while.
Is this the twilight zone?
Are we still discussing anchors?
Neeves
Well-known member
Long after twilight, nearer mid-night.
In any event the thread is still about an anchor but surely you appreciate:
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Jonathan
In any event the thread is still about an anchor but surely you appreciate:
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Jonathan
bigwow
Well-known member
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
Amen to that. How about we all agree to do nothing until CMP make an announcement?
On the other hand, maybe that will ensure they never do!
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Just looked at what I think is CMP's website, and under 'marine products' Rotna is not listed. Has CMP thrown in the towel, or is it marketing Rotna as a separate exercise?
http://www.canmet.com/content/products_services/marine-products/default.htm
http://www.canmet.com/content/products_services/marine-products/default.htm
FishyInverness
New member
They're still announcing their ownership loud and clear on their front page though.
jordanbasset
Well-known member
In their previous press release they were supposed to be making a further update around the 15/1, so should be soon
macd
Active member
If you go to CMP's home page, you'll find this:
"In September 2011, Canada Metal acquired New Zealand-based Rocna® Anchors, a line of anchors and anchoring products that complement our CMP™ anchor chain."
it includes a link to http://www.rocna.com/
Odd, I agree, that the same link isn't on CMP's 'Marine Products' page. Presumably an oversight.
Apparently they're "rock solid". Personally I prefer steel.
"In September 2011, Canada Metal acquired New Zealand-based Rocna® Anchors, a line of anchors and anchoring products that complement our CMP™ anchor chain."
it includes a link to http://www.rocna.com/
Odd, I agree, that the same link isn't on CMP's 'Marine Products' page. Presumably an oversight.
Apparently they're "rock solid". Personally I prefer steel.
Last edited:
Allan
Well-known member
The only mentions I can find are:
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
In September 2011, Canada Metal acquired New Zealand-based Rocna® Anchors, a line of anchors and anchoring products that complement our CMP™ anchor chain.
To learn about our new Corrosion Protection products & services, Visit Seaguard International.
All of us at Canada Metal (Pacific) Limited are dedicated to customer service and committed to product quality.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
There is, of course, still the "holding announcement" which was posted in November last year. It seems they may have decided to sit back and see what happens. Which, I think, is understandable. Lots of senior people in companies take a very optimistic view of things and, in this case, may think it will all blow over. They could also be working on a new, downgraded, strategy to market their new product. This may include ensuring the Smiths etc. "come to the party" as far as clearing up the mess CMP have bought into. Obviously the lack of marketing must be affecting the incomes of all involved.
Ever since this mess first started I have wondered why CMP didn't just employ someone to design a new anchor. The development would soon be paid for by not having to pay for licencing.
Allan
macd
Active member
Presumably what they bought, or thought they did, was Rocna's good reputation and established place in the market.
Allan
Well-known member
Yes, I agree entirely, shame whoever did their due diligence didn't read some of the antagonistic posts by Craig Smith on here. The Rocna reputation was dragged down to rock bottom many months or even years ago to people like me. They also missed the, then, ongoing legal proceedings with Grant which may have rung some alarm bells.
In some ways you have to take your hat off to Rocna/Holdfast.
Allan
macd
Active member
Know what you mean but I'd rather eat worms.
Allan
Well-known member
So would I. My point was that the people involved had offloaded a brand which is severely tainted at best, despite the due diligence process. I admire nothing else about anyone now involved with Rocna/CMP.
Allan
Neeves
Well-known member
Rocna's historic marketing was very powerful, and most of that marketing was Craig Smith. So whatever our views on young Smith he was incredibly successful. His position might have been dishonest, it might have been nasty and virtiolic - but many people do not care. Holdfast themselves were dishonest - but many people simply do not care
To support this view:
There are still people posting on this website, despite all the negative comments posted (many of which I would agree with), suggesting that even though they have an anchor not as advertised they are not going to change it. The thought that returning it might send a message, does not occur to them neither are they willing to return a replace with an anchor made honestly.
People keep posting that the Rocna came out top in tests, even though it turns out this was one or maybe two tests of at least 14 tests of which I am aware, and despite the fact that Rocna was supplying for tests only perfectly balanced and tuned anchors.
It stinks but it supports the contention - there is no such thing as bad advertising.
And interestingly there is no vehicle or mechanism to stop it happening again.
Jonathan
To support this view:
There are still people posting on this website, despite all the negative comments posted (many of which I would agree with), suggesting that even though they have an anchor not as advertised they are not going to change it. The thought that returning it might send a message, does not occur to them neither are they willing to return a replace with an anchor made honestly.
People keep posting that the Rocna came out top in tests, even though it turns out this was one or maybe two tests of at least 14 tests of which I am aware, and despite the fact that Rocna was supplying for tests only perfectly balanced and tuned anchors.
It stinks but it supports the contention - there is no such thing as bad advertising.
And interestingly there is no vehicle or mechanism to stop it happening again.
Jonathan
macd
Active member
That must be reassuring to Toyota shareholders
And there is such a thing as a free lunch.
Neeves
Well-known member
But to qualify,
I'm not suggesting at all that CMP will repeat the errors of their new employees. I am suggesting that as the Rocna brand is getting away with it then it might send the wrong messages and maybe wet weather gear advertised as Gore-tex, that isn't, deck shoes made from leather that are synthetic, hull fittings advertised as one thing but are another, chains, swivels.
Jonathan
I'm not suggesting at all that CMP will repeat the errors of their new employees. I am suggesting that as the Rocna brand is getting away with it then it might send the wrong messages and maybe wet weather gear advertised as Gore-tex, that isn't, deck shoes made from leather that are synthetic, hull fittings advertised as one thing but are another, chains, swivels.
Jonathan