Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Twister_Ken]

In 2010 King was fired from Rocna Anchors after the company owners discovered he had withdrawn thousands of dollars from the company credit card here and overseas. Criminal charges were dropped after it was deemed to be a civil matter.

.

I recollect that GK reported here that Holdfast did bring a civil case in order to 'sub-judice' gag him, but that they dropped it before it went to court. If GK was telling the truth, my experience is that civil litigants don't usually drop cases if they are convinced they are right, unless any sums being claimed are irrelevant or unless an acceptable settlement is proposed.

 

[estarzinger]

6. Rocna claimed RINA certification to SHHP of the Rocna Original anchor, and did not quantify this as "type approval" for only a certain design of that anchor manufactured in a way that is no longer used in the case of the majority of anchors purchased off the shelf.

Yes agreed I forgot that one

Can we also add that stainless steel anchors were made of an inferior grade steel from the first off?

I did not add that because I have not seen any independent lab test nor any statement from Rocna about stainless.

We'd need to know if the testing authority expressly prohibited such a practice

The intent of all anchor testers I know is to test 'off the shelf standard production', not specially tuned and sharpened anchors that customers can not buy. I personally know that's explicitly the case with Practical Sailor.

other competing anchors the Rocna tested against were provably "un-tuned".

Manson and Fortress both say they provide 'standard production off the shelf anchors to tests'. Perhaps you think they are lying, but I would think not. The only company we KNOW is providing tuned anchors is Rocna.

Do we know which leaked emails are actually authentic as confirmed by Rocna? Or have we seen emails at least presented with header information to help confirm authenticity?

I was sent a rocna e-mail from an independent source, (not from GK) because I was mentioned in it, that has header information and which rocna has confirmed is 'real' (they tried to claim it was their copyrighted material). You can find it on other forums if you want to look. It confirms what I said in my summary above.

 

[smackdaddy]

I recollect that GK reported here that Holdfast did bring a civil case in order to 'sub-judice' gag him, but that they dropped it before it went to court. If GK was telling the truth, my experience is that civil litigants don't usually drop cases if they are convinced they are right, unless any sums being claimed are irrelevant or unless an acceptable settlement is proposed.

When I started looking into the RINA accusation, I corresponded with a very cool chick in the Ministry of Justice in Wellington about the case to see what information was publicly available. She told me that the case was handled in Waitakere District Court, Auckland - and that I'd need to petition the judge for copies of the documents.

However, about that time Grant pm'd me and said he'd start sharing the info regarding RINA, and I also found the Massimo Sanquerin letter, so I held off on the petition. And I was busy on another project anyway.

So, there are definitely differing stories floating around as to what really happened regarding the case. And it's up to the judge to share those details I suppose. I've just lost faith that there's anything useful there regarding the RINA issue (which is/was more interesting to me than the Rocna thing).

All that said, I think it's dangerous to start connecting dots regarding Banbury (et. al.) based on the case - or especially based on Grant's version of the story.

 

[smackdaddy]

Yes agreed I forgot that one



I did not add that because I have not seen any independent lab test nor any statement from Rocna about stainless.

Cool. Info coming from you is definitely good enough for me. Thanks for the summary.

 

[Pye_End]

'Criminal charges were dropped after it was deemed to be a civil matter.'

What circumstances would theft from a company not be a criminal matter? Perhaps there was insufficient proof?

 

[avb3]

.....

Therefore, as I said, I think the authenticity of any of these emails is critical at this point. Because if the above is all we really know, any conclusions drawn on Banbury are a bit of a stretch. And, therefore, any conclusions drawn on especially CMP or the Smiths are a huge stretch.

Good points, but the one thing that is clear, and nobody, including CMP or the Smiths are very forthcoming about is that Peter Smith for years claimed that it required the higher grade steel to be used in the shank, and now agrees with CMP that a lower grade is acceptable.

NZ and Canadian manufactured anchors where never a question, but once fabrication moved to China, it seems the poop hit the fan.

CMP is being very quiet, and I have trouble understanding why they have not been aggressive in correcting their image, starting with building shanks to the original specification.

Peter Smith's enunciation that the lower grade is fine just does not lend any credibility, does it?

 

[GrantKing]

http://www.bymnews.com/news/newsDetails.php?id=97683

 

[smackdaddy]

Grant, dude, you've got some bad mojo going on. Seems like you need to adjust your compass a bit, mate.

Good to see CMP making things right. Maybe the corner has been turned.

 

[avb3]

Grant, dude, you've got some bad mojo going on. Seems like you need to adjust your compass a bit, mate.

x2!

Good to see CMP making things right. Maybe the corner has been turned.

A good sign, but nothing talking about warranty I could find on either CMP or Rocna website.

 

[LittleSister]

I do think after all that side tracking, it would be useful to state what we know with independent confirmation. I will attempt a crisp summary:....

3. We know that Rocna was presenting misleading analysis of anchor tests....

We also know that Holdfast had reworked the results of the yacht magazines' anchor test to show the Rocna in a better light, and to eliminate the advantage of the lightweight anchor(s), but presented this as an extract from one of the yacht mags' reports rather than their own re-interpretation. They also included the load values of a brief apparent 'snagging' of their anchor, which the testers had excluded as a spurious reading, as representing the holding power of their anchor.

We also know that they refused the invite to submit their anchors to the independent comparatitive metallurgical testing offered by another anchor maker, and cast aspersions on the bona fides of many of those who began to question their product. This included, if I remember rightly, the chap (forgotten name) who put his hand in his pocket to get a destructive test to identify the strength of his Rocna - the first concrete proof I came across that Holdfast were definitely lying (and what precipitated their 'admission' that perhaps a limited number of anchors were below spec).

 

[Storyline]

Grant, dude, you've got some bad mojo going on. Seems like you need to adjust your compass a bit, mate.

He only posted a link to a cmp statement - what is wrong in that ?

Good to see CMP making things right. Maybe the corner has been turned

That is very simplistic - how can they make things right if you have a 420 anchor that bends and lets go in a remote spot on a wild night ?

It is just a very small step in the right direction

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Good points, but the one thing that is clear, and nobody, including CMP or the Smiths are very forthcoming about is that Peter Smith for years claimed that it required the higher grade steel to be used in the shank, and now agrees with CMP that a lower grade is acceptable.

NZ and Canadian manufactured anchors where never a question, but once fabrication moved to China, it seems the poop hit the fan.

CMP is being very quiet, and I have trouble understanding why they have not been aggressive in correcting their image, starting with building shanks to the original specification.

Peter Smith's enunciation that the lower grade is fine just does not lend any credibility, does it?

You are assuming that Peter Smith was strictly correct in technical terms rather than talking about Bis80 for marketing reasons. Personally I dont see how you can technically define a pass / fail criteria on an anchor so accurately as to be able to say Bis80 is good and the 620 is not. The fact that CMP after testing is quite happy to give a guarantee against bending supports this.

Lets be realistic here. An anchor is a crude gadget which is dug into a completely variable material and then subject to completely variable loads. The only realistic way of checking the material spec is to make a thousand anchors , use them over some years, and measure the rate of problems. Some Rocnas have bent but we all know that some examples of every anchor bend from CQR to Fortress even Manson.

As I said before, the real problem here is that Smith was daft enough to specify the steel he was supposed to be using. Had there been no published steel spec then there would be no Rocna saga since the few reported bending incidents are similar IMO to other anchors. But releasing the steel spec and then not sticking to it combined with a disgruntled ex employee and past aggression towards competitors has created a whirlwind of irrelevant comment.

 

[avb3]

You are assuming that Peter Smith was strictly correct in technical terms rather than talking about Bis80 for marketing reasons. Personally I dont see how you can technically define a pass / fail criteria on an anchor so accurately as to be able to say Bis80 is good and the 620 is not. The fact that CMP after testing is quite happy to give a guarantee against bending supports this.

I read the press release out of Barbados, and then went to the Rocna site. I do not see a reiteration of that in their warranty, nor is there any news release from Rocna which reiterates the Barbados one.

Lets be realistic here. An anchor is a crude gadget which is dug into a completely variable material and then subject to completely variable loads. The only realistic way of checking the material spec is to make a thousand anchors , use them over some years, and measure the rate of problems. Some Rocnas have bent but we all know that some examples of every anchor bend from CQR to Fortress even Manson.

I was not aware of any Mansons that have bent, but stand to be corrected if that is the case. Manson also publishes the steel they use, as Rocna did until they got caught cheating. Regardless, it is unethical to proclaim you are selling one thing, and then not providing that.

 

[Neeves]

Anchors Direct - Help requested

A name I have heard frequently, well once or twice, related to Rocna was a business called 'Anchors Direct'. I have heard of the name from a number of unrelated sources, though all related to the everlasting story. None of the people who mentioned it knew much about it - it was some time ago, no-one looked into it and then it 'disappeared'.

The activity was run by 'a' Bambury, not clear which, maybe both. This might have been done with, or without, the Smiths knowledge - do not know. It might have been established earlier but it was only really noticed in 2009 and 2010. As the name suggests it was an activity to sell Rocna anchors (and apparently they made swivels) direct to the public - mail order (but by sea?) from China. I have checked business registrations in the obvious places and found nothing. There was a website, I believe unimaginatively called 'anchorsdirect', but I lack the knowledge or skills to find it (but I recall someone here saying nothing hides on the internet so maybe someone with those skills can dig it out).

Why? - tax efficient? cream off some of the margin that was being soaked up by distributors? no idea. If anyone finds something, post it here, send me a pm (I prefer openness).

I'm really interested in whether it was only known of in Australia and New Zealand or whether it had a bigger impact. Maybe the website would shed light on what they were trying to do. Has anyone heard of it, did anyone check with a view to buying etc? Did anyone buy - if so what? when?

I suspect its not very significant - but I acknowledge it is dangerous to make any assumptions with this, and its related, threads! But if they were undercutting retail prices, looked and sounded genuine and based on the positive, and repetitive, comment people make on performance of the Rocna then it might have seemed attractive and found a niche customer base.

Jonathan

 

[avb3]

A name I have heard frequently, well once or twice, related to Rocna was a business called 'Anchors Direct'. I have heard of the name from a number of unrelated sources, though all related to the everlasting story. None of the people who mentioned it knew much about it - it was some time ago, no-one looked into it and then it 'disappeared'.

The activity was run by 'a' Bambury, not clear which, maybe both. This might have been done with, or without, the Smiths knowledge - do not know. It might have been established earlier but it was only really noticed in 2009 and 2010. As the name suggests it was an activity to sell Rocna anchors (and apparently they made swivels) direct to the public - mail order (but by sea?) from China. I have checked business registrations in the obvious places and found nothing. There was a website, I believe unimaginatively called 'anchorsdirect', but I lack the knowledge or skills to find it (but I recall someone here saying nothing hides on the internet so maybe someone with those skills can dig it out).

Why? - tax efficient? cream off some of the margin that was being soaked up by distributors? no idea. If anyone finds something, post it here, send me a pm (I prefer openness).

I'm really interested in whether it was only known of in Australia and New Zealand or whether it had a bigger impact. Maybe the website would shed light on what they were trying to do. Has anyone heard of it, did anyone check with a view to buying etc? Did anyone buy - if so what? when?

I suspect its not very significant - but I acknowledge it is dangerous to make any assumptions with this, and its related, threads! But if they were undercutting retail prices, looked and sounded genuine and based on the positive, and repetitive, comment people make on performance of the Rocna then it might have seemed attractive and found a niche customer base.

Jonathan

Are you aware of this post?

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3269198&postcount=977

Also take a look at this page:

http://www.hotfrog.co.nz/Products/Spade-Anchor

 

[Neeves]

avb3,

Thanks!

I had completely forgotten about Grant's post and I knew nothing about the other link. It suggests there is something in the story.

I'm amazed - how did you recall?

But is there more substance to the business or was it one of those things that was tried and never really got off the ground?

Jonathan

 

[avb3]

avb3,

Thanks!

I had completely forgotten about Grant's post and I knew nothing about the other link. It suggests there is something in the story.

I'm amazed - how did you recall?

But is there more substance to the business or was it one of those things that was tried and never really got off the ground?

Jonathan

The post came up in a search. I've been following this saga since Delfin did the metallurgical tests.

It bothers the hell out of me when a company tries to be deceptive in their marketing, and it really bothers me when I put credence in an individual who is of less, shall we say, then an outstanding character.

 

[Neeves]

avb3

I share your problems.

My interest is two fold, one to try to identify the extent of the issue such that owners of Rocna anchors have as much honest or accurate information as possible such that they can decide what reliance they can base on their, Rocna, anchor. The second issue, much longer term, is to ensure it cannot happen again (with anchors or anything else). YM have brought seacocks to the public's and safety authority's attention, maybe anchors will one day enjoy a similar focus.

For a current owner of a Rocna anchor they possibly want clarity - now! And that simply is not happening but clarity in this issue is like keeping your port lights clear - needs dogged determination! The fora might not be perfect but they are slowly forcing the release of information - though deciding on the truth of that information has become increasingly difficult.

People who read this thread and the other threads, Cruisers Forum, Anything Sailing forum probably have enough information to make a decision - an anchor costs £500, if you use it 500 times that's a £1 a night, its not difficult to buy a new anchor so that you sleep soundly (you can convert your Rocna into a sundial or get your money back - depends on your motivation). The big problem are the people, most, who do not read the forum and how did we (the boating public) manage to let it happen in the first place.

Jonathan

 

[Bosun Higgs]

The second issue, much longer term, is to ensure it cannot happen again (with anchors or anything else). YM have brought seacocks to the public's and safety authority's attention, maybe anchors will one day enjoy a similar focus.

Noble objective but do you really think that anything has changed with seacocks? That the AWB builders will use more than the minimum they have to?

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I was not aware of any Mansons that have bent, but stand to be corrected if that is the case. Manson also publishes the steel they use, as Rocna did until they got caught cheating. Regardless, it is unethical to proclaim you are selling one thing, and then not providing that.

Somewhere in this humungous thread is a reference to some Mansons bending but then thats inevitable. Everything bends if enough force is applied. The Empire State building bends in the wind. The Airbus wings bend up as it takes off.

The practgical questions are 1/ is the bend permanent? 2/ does the bend stop the item bending from doing its job? 3/ does the item take a permanent bend frequently or is bending a rare event under extreme circumstances? With the Rocna the answer to 1 is yes, the answer to 2 is " the designer implied it did but no evidence so far " and the answer to 3 is "we just dont know yet. With the airbus the answer to 1 is no to 2 is no and to 3 is no.

Nobody can argue with your last sentence. But there are two ways of approaching the Rocna issue. One is the legalistic. The other is the practical.