Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Chris_Robb]

Hi everyone,

Can we please focus on the issue of Rocna anchors and avoid trying to guess who other users are? I don't think it's fair to focus on this when the discussion about Rocna is far more interesting.

Thanks

Laura, with all the deceipt so far from that side of the fence, they should not be posting under an alias but under a name with official rank and their position. Nothing less. I cannot see any credibility with out, just more lies

 

[Chris_Robb]

#54

I have had email from the UK distributors this morning.

They say that they have not seen or heard of any bent shanks on Rocna anchors in the UK.

Complacency, or still sticking your head in the sand

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Complacency, or still sticking your head in the sand

Is it?

Do they not mean that none of the anchors in the UK have bent?

I have been following the issue but I am not aware of anyone in the UK actually bending one.

 

[Conachair]

Have only just picked up this thread.

It's right rich of rocnaONE to write this. He has a proven record of deceit on this forum.

How can you know this of a member who has just 14 posts in the past few days?

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Complacency, or still sticking your head in the sand

Or no bent shanks?

Unless the designer in his recent press release is telling porkies ( and I would believe him more than any American inspired witch hunt) then my 8mm chain will break before the shank of my 15kg Rocna will bend.

 

[Chris_Robb]

As far as I understand the composition of the steels involved, none would be difficult to weld. The rules governing materials for anchors limit the carbon content to a level in which welding should not be a problem. If anything the Bisplate 80 might be rather more difficult but it is described by Bisalloy as having good weldability. I have read criticisms of the weld of a Chinese manufactured Rocna on a USA forum but this seemed to be directed more at its appearance than any cracks or defects.

Back in 08, Manson said to me that there were huge issues of. Quality control in welding bisalloy to cast steel fluke. They added that it was something they would not attempt in a production line. So is there still something else to come out of this?

 

[vyv_cox]

Back in 08, Manson said to me that there were huge issues of. Quality control in welding bisalloy to cast steel fluke. They added that it was something they would not attempt in a production line. So is there still something else to come out of this?

I suspect not. The massive wave of hysteria in USA forums over the shank issue has not raised a single comment about the welding, except as I said above, its appearance. Manson can hardly be classed as an impartial observer and although I agree that neither of the steels are ideal for DIY welding due to their carbon equivalents, a decent manufacturing facility should have no problem with it. There are far more difficult welds being made, in much more complex equipment than an anchor, on production lines throughout the world

 

[john_morris_uk]

Am I the only one who think that Rocna are being given a pretty raw deal from some of the posters on here.

I was not a fan of Craig's antics and Rocna's advertising and misinformation, but to be as vitriolic and as unforgiving as some people have been by the companys latest attempt to sort things out is a bit rich.

Judge them by their deeds - there might be all sorts of reasons why they wish to be anonymous on here (although I agree some openness would be better). At the moment RocnaOne is making all the right noises. Why not wait and see how things pan out before jumping on the band wagon of negative posts.

The internet is a wonderful place to hide behind for all parties in this ongoing saga.

 

[Chris_Robb]

How can you know this of a member who has just 14 posts in the past few days?

I don't. But I think they should come completly clean and post openly, as i do.....

 

[Coaster]

Am I the only one who think that Rocna are being given a pretty raw deal from some of the posters on here...

No. I think so too.

In post #54 I suggested that a mountain was being made out of a molehill. I also asked whether there were ANY examples of Rocna anchor shanks having been bent in the waters around the British Isles. It seems there are none.

The current Rocna representative seems to have the patience of a saint when dealing with some of the posters in this thread.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Laura, with all the deceipt so far from that side of the fence, they should not be posting under an alias but under a name with official rank and their position. Nothing less. I cannot see any credibility with out, just more lies

So what is your real name, official rank and position. What interests do you have in this area? Do you have a Rocna?

We demand to know all this ( and dont forget your inside leg measurement) before we take you seriously.

Personally I find it better in l;ife to trust people until proved wrong, and not the other way round.

 

[Shanty]

Does Rocna go back on my shortlist?

Currently looking for a replacement for my not so trusty CQR. Rocna dropped off my short list when the sub-standard steels issue was so poorly handled by Rocna NZ. I'm trying to decide whether the arrival of CMP justifies returning Rocna to the list. So far, I'm feeling reasonably positive.

However, I'm looking for clarification on a number of points. Possibly Rocnaone can help:

In his memorandum, John Mitchell says:

"...........Canada Metal enlisted the services of a very experienced marine engineer to supervise the transition of the quality control process to those professionals who are employed at ......... Ningbo Jia Da Specialty Metals Ltd....."

Does this mean production will continue at the Chinese facility used by Rocna NZ?

Is the "very experienced marine engineer" Steve Bambury?

Further:

What is the timescale on initiating the classification process with a specific classification society?

Will it be possible to differentiate a CMP Rocna from earlier versions (eg by lettering in the casting)?

When are CMP Rocnas likely to be available in UK chandleries?

At that point, will all non CMP Rocnas have been flushed out of the supply chain or positively identified as being to specification?

 

[Djbangi]

I like this new and refreshing attempt for explanation from RocnaOne but it does seem to have a tinge of Rocna and CMP advertorial about it. Links to company websites seem uncalled for.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of why use was made of Q620 and what recompense is being considered for the customers who paid hard earned pounds to buy a Q&T800/Bisplate80 shanked anchor and got a Q620 one instead. Equally these same people might have also bought on the reassurance of RINA certification - which did not apply to them. Q620 might be the best thing since sliced bread but its not Q&T800 and its not as good as Bisplate80, by a long measure, and to suggest contributors are being harsh (on RocnaONE or CMP) seems to forget that is what the customer paid for. But maybe 500 pounds to the Rocna symathisers is just loose change.

Frankly I'm puzzled - if Q620 is as good (as seems to be suggested) why on earth did they not say so. What were they trying hide, what were they ashamed of.

But

Returning to RINA

RocnaOne tells us, I think it was RocnaONE but it might have been Peter Smith's latest release, that the anchor used for proof testing was a Q620 shanked anchor made in Shanghai. Now RINA would only have tested an anchor whose shank they tested and RINA would have ensured the shank met the specifications on the drawing. So the drawings, passed by RINA in March 2010, how long to compile drawings, how long for RINA to check? (do not know) would surely only have been submitted if approved by the designer, Mr Smith. So Mr Smith knew from prior to March 2010 that the shanks were Q620D. One wonders why Mr Smith, the honest individual so portrayed at times, did not demand a change to the Rocna website and some of the rhetoric on the forums. What else did Mr Smith know, well he would have known about the RINA fraud - he is a self proclaimed expert on Classification testing, Q420?

And it is suggested we are harsh on RocnaONE, ever thought how harsh Rocna has been to people who spent cold hard cash on a product they did not expect?

 

[RocnaONE]

a quick reply pending Monday's arrival of more info.

Does this mean production will continue at the Chinese facility used by Rocna NZ?

I do not know just yet. Current contracts must be honoured or re-negotiated, as in any business. The CMP owned factory is fully ISO 9001 certified and has advanced metal working facilities and, of course, links to CMP's design and testing facilities in Canada.



Is the "very experienced marine engineer" Steve Bambury?

No. Definitely.




What is the timescale on initiating the classification process with a specific classification society?

It is under very active consideration, as indicated in the Memorandum



Will it be possible to differentiate a CMP Rocna from earlier versions (eg by lettering in the casting)?

I certainly hope so. I have suggested that every anchor MUST have a unique ID, to enable full tracking from bare metal to delivery to the customer. The technology is relatively simple and commonplace.


When are CMP Rocnas likely to be available in UK chandleries?

We are discussing the best arrangements with the existing distributor. Clearly with the London Boat Show and spring just around the corner, we need to have stocks of the full anchor range ready for display and sale. That is a priority for the production people.


At that point, will all non CMP Rocnas have been flushed out of the supply chain or positively identified as being to specification?

Yes, we have been very clear about that. This morning I have been working on a flow chart to identify, and replace reduced-spec anchors. We are very conscious that these must not be allowed to re-cycle into the secondhand market or boot sales, so a key point I have made is that a permanent unique ID is made to any anchor brought in for inspection or replacement.

 

[Shanty]

Re post #133

Thanks for that. I await Monday's further information with interest.

I note you mention the London Boat Show. Do you plan to exhibit?

 

[Chris_Robb]

RocnaONE has asked me to withdraw a previous post were I used the words deceipt. I am very happy to do this, but I am afraid I cannot do that if I dont know who he is. I accept that he is not Mr bumberry, how ever I have no assurances that he was not connected to the team which caused the trouble.

I would be happy to withdraw my comments fully if he says who he is and what his official position is.


It is in my view, totally unacceptable for someone to come this forum in these circumstances under AN alias.

I would never deal in business with someone whose identity was not known. You may disclose to me by PM, or get Laura to tell me. I would keep your confidence, but for the life of me, why the cloak and dagger?

Apologies for funnies as this HTC seems to have a mind of its own when trying to edit!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

..... Judge them by their deeds ......

As a consumer I have already done that and removed their offerings from my list of upgrades. I can obtain a modern anchor design that is technically as good as the Rocna from companies that don't have this history.

I am also of the opinion that rebuilding their reputation is not best served by communicating on forums such as these, which at the end of the day, they have almost zero control over the content. In fact it actually demonstrates a continuing naïvety as far as I am concerned because the same old issues keep getting embedded in the threads. It takes twice the effort to rebuild a damaged customer base than it does to create a new one from scratch. Hence, they are not helping themselves to efficiently improve their reputation by having old and new issues discussed on forums where Rocna contributes to.

A programme of work and press releases, in appropriate journals, detailing how perceived or actual failings have been addressed in their products would be a more controlled and professional approach, which of course they are also doing.

I wish them well and that their reputation is rebuilt and hope that the current damage does not see the demise of the brand.

 

[Conachair]

I am also of the opinion that rebuilding their reputation is not best served by communicating on forums such as these, which at the end of the day, they have almost zero control over the content.

I don't see they have much choice really. If they don't communicate then the rumours will spread with no control whatsoever. If it wasn't for forums like this one then holdfast would very likely kicking out substandard steel and the world would be none the wiser. CMP must surely realise that if they put too much of a foot wrong then they will be ripped to shreds around the virtual world. Very bad for business.
Wonder how much they paid? They've got a lot of work yet but seem to be doing OK so far.

 

[braehouse]

As an owner of an anchor that is probably affected (Purchased Sep 2010) I have been watching the board with interest and also the replies from RocnaOne that I find encouraging. However RocnaOne has so far not addressed the issue that the specification of anchor that I bought was based on RINA certification AND Bisplate...........not 620 and RINA.

RocnaOne you are very clear in how you are going to compensate owners for the 400 to 600 issue but for owners that bought the anchor based on the Bisplate and certification so far you appear to have ducked the issue. Please can you clarify your position here as well please.

For the record and so that we are clear I bought on the basis of the Bisplate quality regarding the shank, the holding power and also the RINA certification per the website and Craig Smith on these boards. As we are taking off next year on an extended cruise I wanted the best anchor available for my money regardless of cost. I do not believe now that what I have sitting on the front of my boat that I will need to trust in possibly poor conditions is up to the job or spec that I thought I was buying.

Thanks

Chris

 

[Rigger Mortice]

RocnaONE has asked me to withdraw a previous post were I used the words deceipt. I am very happy to do this, but I am afraid I cannot do that if I dont know who he is. I accept that he is not Mr bumberry, how ever I have no assurances that he was not connected to the team which caused the trouble.

I would be happy to withdraw my comments fully if he says who he is and what his official position is.


It is in my view, totally unacceptable for someone to come this forum in these circumstances under AN alias.

I would never deal in business with someone whose identity was not known. You may disclose to me by PM, or get Laura to tell me. I would keep your confidence, but for the life of me, why the cloak and dagger?

Apologies for funnies as this HTC seems to have a mind of its own when trying to edit!

I thought that you were factually incorrect to use the D word previously but, in the scheme of things, it was such a trivial error as to be irrelevant. If RocnaOne wants to throw a hissy fit over something as trivial as that whilst still being associated with the Rocna name then he is probably going to find his new job rather difficult. Your "insult" was aimed at an anonymous penname, not an individual.

You stick to your guns. In view of everything which has gone before this anonymity by a commercial spokesman is silly.

Personally I think that those associated with Rocna, Smiths and Bambury's included, should be making some abject apologies.