Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Neeves]

Humungous, lovely word!

I too recall a reference to Manson's bending, and images, but not the shank. I recall bent toes - but I will possibly be accused of a selective memory. But any anchor will bend (under exteme usage), most are designed not to (bend) under normal usage. Maybe Rocna were working on built in failure to keep up the sales - it worked for some car makers for decades.

I like the idea of noble ambitions. If enough people mentioned concerns, repititively, about seacocks (and cheap, nasty anchors, or even expensive nasty anchors) as supplied on commissioning maybe the AWBs would recognise that for minimal £ they could lift their image. A bit like anchors - if people repetitively said no to cheap or expensive, nasty anchors - they, the cheap and expensive nasty anchors, would go away (particularly as you can substitute a 'cheap' and cheerful Kobra2 or a decent Spade or Supreme). Its not legalistic, could even be practical. It might even be noble and it might work.

Its 'our' choice. We will end up with the industry we support.

Jonathan

 

[Rigger Mortice]

A name I have heard frequently, well once or twice, related to Rocna was a business called 'Anchors Direct'.

I don't know if this helps or simply duplicates what you have already:
http://www.aboutus.org/AnchorsDirect.com

 

[Neeves]

Thanks Rigger,

How do you people keep tabs on all these little tricks, I have enough problems (but then I have 2 hulls) just keeping the boat up to scratch.

I'm hoping (well I'm not really) there is actually someone out there who contacted them, Anchors Direct, and had some correspondence.

It seems in character to set up a marketing organisation to import ones product (Rocna) in bulk and then undercut them by selling direct and more cheaply.

Jonathan

 

[taifun]

A gold mine for Internet digging is http://www.archive.org/web/web.php.
Unfortunately, if you try http://www.AnchorsDirect.com you only get a few snapshots from late 2004 and early 2005. It is clear from these snapshots that the web site was in a non active mode at that time frame.

For rocna.com there are however a lot of snapshots starting February 2005.

 

[Neeves]

TaiFun

Thanks, with a name like that:

Kung Hei fat Choi!

Jonathan

 

[Rigger Mortice]

In many ways it's an irrelevant side issue, but it looks as if our erstwhile friend Letterman/Steve Taylor has "form" for setting up websites to attack others.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10628448

Perhaps he needs counselling?

 

[Neeves]

Peter Smith has a new, or updated, page on his website. I provide the link below but apparently this link may be blocked for some individuals and I cut and paste part of the script, below:

My cut and paste is not some underhand 'editing' - if enough cannot access I'll cut and paste the whole thing - or someone else can do it for me.

quote:

Two anchors were found to have steel in their shanks that had tensile strengths below the advertised grade. This steel was called Q420, possessing a minimum yield strength that is up to 39% lower* than the 690 MPa indicated in literature. Preliminary investigation of manufacturing records discovered a number of anchors put onto the market in the first half of 2010 which suffered from this problem, affecting models from 4 kg to 110 kg. This issue is real, legitimate, and affects just under 700 units. No evidence has been found that calls into question units from before or since this period.
Peter has since investigated the issue independently. The following is not intended to defend the Q420 steel, but boaters unable to conveniently return anchors suspected to originate from the affected batches need not panic. These anchors, whilst below specification and certainly subject to replacement, do not represent a danger to the boat or boater and will not fail or be damaged in normal usage. Their shanks will bend at a lesser force if subjected to lateral (sideways) loading, but nonetheless remain stronger than much of the competition (the Q420 yield strength is about double that of mild steel) and these anchors remain generally fit for use. The shanks subjected to typical in-line or upward pulls in the course of anchoring will still endure greater loads without bending than the appropriately matched chain could sustain before breaking.

unquote


This is the full link

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/2011-oct-01-rocna-issues.php


Some observations:

The only two anchors of which I know that have been tested were purchased by Manson in Feby 2011 from the NZ chandler with the highest turnover of Rocna anchors in NZ. The script mentions that out of spec anchors were made in the first half of 2010 which implies the turnover in the chandler was slow, stock rotation was poor or Peter Smith's window of manufacture is suspect - take your pick. The details of the Manson tests are on their website.

Peter makes mention of a 690 MPa steel 'mentioned in the literature'. There has never been any evidence that a 690 MPa steel was ever used for manufacture of Rocna anchors in China and a random purchase and test by Delfin in America confirmed the steel to be less than a 690 MPa quality. Delfin's results were posted on YBW and other Forum some months ago. Steve Bambury admited, I think in April 2011 on YBW, that 620 MPa was the standard steel used - so I am not sure exactly what Peter is trying to say when he mentions 'in the literature'.

Peter rightly points out that 420 steel is twice as strong as 'mild steel' the raw material of choice for cheap anchors, omitting to mention that cheap anchors normally have chunky shanks, so they provide strength by the use of more steel. Peter also omits to mention that many of the quality anchors, Supreme and Excel, are still made from Bisplate 80.

In August 2011 West Marine published a Specification Notice for a 'few' anchors made, early in 2010, with a lower spec steel (presumably the 420 to which Peter refers). This Specification Notice was extended by CMP, after they acquired the Rocna manufacturing license, to a worldwide 'Notice' (the word recall was not used). Never was it suggested that the numbers amounted to the 700 units now being declared by Peter.

Grant King has implied that the numbers of off spec anchors shipped to America were 200-250 units (and Grant was declared as vindictive, unreliable and part of a conspiracy to denegrate Rocna). The suggestion was Grant was exaggerating. But taking Grant's information at face value - this means there are 500 off spec anchors somwhere else in the world (minus the 2 tested by Manson) and if Peter has made a detailed and independent survey of the off spec production allowing him to define the numbers at 700 units - why have the specific markets to which these anchors went not been defined? Numbers imported, numbers of each size and timing.

If you read Peter's script carefully he underlines the fact that if you pull an offspec anchor 'in line' with the shank then the chain will fail prior to the shank - I suspect your bow fittings will fail first. However hidden within the script Peter is admitting that the 420 shanks will be prone to bending and 'are certainly subject to replacement'. The question must be why is this information not being more widely disseminated. We have it being admitted there are 500 offspec anchors (outside N America) - and my reading of Peter's script is that these should be returned and replaced - but the only notice of this recommended recall (by the man who designed the anchor - so pretty authoratative) is on Peter's website - and the link is not available to all.

It has been reported, hearsay, that WM (and most other chandlers) have had few anchors returned. Based on Peter's recommendation, in the recent script, possibly WM's Specification Notice is too mild and/or did not reach the correct recipients. My personal thought is - if the designer of the anchor recommends replacement then he considers it necessary for a Recall. But possibly I focus too strongly on safety issues.

I introduced the topic with a reference to Manson's purchase and the implication the topic might be more widespread than Peter is acknowledging (Peter might simply not know). It has taken almost 12 months to get this far - what will the next 12 months reveal?

Jonathan

 

[Colvic Watson]

Thanks for that, it's a real step up up in confirming sources such as Grant King. I see Peter Smith has at least some honour is whispering quietly that he would like to see a recall - will the yachting mags publish that?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

700 anchors at fault?

CMP have certainly been downplaying that. I wonder whatever happened to their promise to identify and find all those anchors? Why no recall?

 

[Chris_Robb]

Jonathan - and Peter Smith still has a complete section on knocking Manson. I think he is just as culpable as the rest of the rotten pile of excrement.

 

[Neeves]

This is not new but if you google 'Steve Bambury' and 'RINA' and strip out the forum references you will find Mr Bambury claiming, amongst other questionable claims, RINA certification long before the RINA certificate was issued. (As someone said - nothing is hidden on the internet.)

So Mr Bambury is not a creditable source.

But Mr Bambury told us sometime back in April/May 2011 that the Smiths owned the Rocna website but that Holdfast (for whom the creditable(?) Mr Bambury, currently retained by CMP, was CEO) oversaw content.

The Rocna (Smith owned) website contained claims of RINA certification. Peter claims considerable knowledge of Classification Society certification and testing (he has pages on his website). Certainly the Smiths must have known about the false RINA claim.

Petards and lifting come to mind.

My interpretation is that Peter is suggesting a recall, one wonders what WM and Marine Factors UK (Piplers, Arthurs et al), Ocean Solutions (Australia), Watertight (Spain) etc etc are going to think. Maybe easy to suggest a recall if you do not need to provide compensation.

West Marine made statement, presumably on the basis of information from Mr Bambury. Since then Peter has taken at least 5 months to state his current position. Why did it take him so long? How credible is the WM statement - in the light of that by Peter? One statement contradicts the other.

The attack on Manson, its a joke! Peter accuses Manson of copying:

The roll bar was patented by Peter Bruce, the shape of the Rocna shank is identical (same angles, same proportion of length) to that of Gordon Lyall's Delta, the concave fluke is similar to Anchor Right's ROSCA (introduced to NZ in the early 90's) and discarded for the convex SARCA. And Manson use Bis 80 not 'something else'. (And Peter is another CMP hero). Why draw attention to yourself in such a way?

Rigger there seem to be an increasing number of people who need counselling!

Jonathan

 

[GrantKing]

This is not new but if you google 'Steve Bambury' and 'RINA' and strip out the forum references you will find Mr Bambury claiming, amongst other questionable claims, RINA certification long before the RINA certificate was issued. (As someone said - nothing is hidden on the internet.)

So Mr Bambury is not a creditable source.

But Mr Bambury told us sometime back in April/May 2011 that the Smiths owned the Rocna website but that Holdfast (for whom the creditable(?) Mr Bambury, currently retained by CMP, was CEO) oversaw content.

The Rocna (Smith owned) website contained claims of RINA certification. Peter claims considerable knowledge of Classification Society certification and testing (he has pages on his website). Certainly the Smiths must have known about the false RINA claim.

Petards and lifting come to mind.

My interpretation is that Peter is suggesting a recall, one wonders what WM and Marine Factors UK (Piplers, Arthurs et al), Ocean Solutions (Australia), Watertight (Spain) etc etc are going to think. Maybe easy to suggest a recall if you do not need to provide compensation.

West Marine made statement, presumably on the basis of information from Mr Bambury. Since then Peter has taken at least 5 months to state his current position. Why did it take him so long? How credible is the WM statement - in the light of that by Peter? One statement contradicts the other.

The attack on Manson, its a joke! Peter accuses Manson of copying:

The roll bar was patented by Peter Bruce, the shape of the Rocna shank is identical (same angles, same proportion of length) to that of Gordon Lyall's Delta, the concave fluke is similar to Anchor Right's ROSCA (introduced to NZ in the early 90's) and discarded for the convex SARCA. And Manson use Bis 80 not 'something else'. (And Peter is another CMP hero). Why draw attention to yourself in such a way?

Rigger there seem to be an increasing number of people who need counselling!

Jonathan

Jonathan, the page has been on Peter's website since October, I recall reading it when the announcement was made of CMP's takeover of the license.
There have been quite a few subtle changes to the website since then.

 

[avb3]

...
But Mr Bambury told us sometime back in April/May 2011 that the Smiths owned the Rocna website but that Holdfast (for whom the creditable(?) Mr Bambury, currently retained by CMP, was CEO) oversaw content.

The Rocna (Smith owned) website contained claims of RINA certification. Peter claims considerable knowledge of Classification Society certification and testing (he has pages on his website). Certainly the Smiths must have known about the false RINA claim.
....

Bambury actually was correct that the Rocna site was owned by the Smiths, or at least, they held the registration, as one can see by this screen shot (I include the link, but as eveyone knows, things can change).

[Image removed by admin - Please don't addresses. While the information is in the public domain there is no reason to repeat it in this thread...Thanks]

 

[Neeves]

Jonathan, the page has been on Peter's website since October, I recall reading it when the announcement was made of CMP's takeover of the license.
There have been quite a few subtle changes to the website since then.

I too saw the original. The subtle changes seems to include the numbers of anchors and the admittance that the anchors should actually be recalled. I have no idea when the 'subtle' changes were made - my inclination is recently otherwise they might have provoked more comment.

After complaint here on YBW about re-introduction of the false RINA claim about 4 weeks ago I note that in the intervening time this claim has been reworded more accurately (maybe the complete website was updated then).

Pity they did not take out the nasty attack on Manson. It seems like the ranting of a bitter and vindictive man, not someone working with a honourable, international first world company.

Jonathan

 

[Twister_Ken]

Pity they did not take out the nasty attack on Manson. It seems like the ranting of a bitter and vindictive man, not someone working with a honourable, international first world company.

Jonathan

Exactly. Rocna is not an honourable, etc...

 

[Twister_Ken]

Pity they did not take out the nasty attack on Manson. It seems like the ranting of a bitter and vindictive man, not someone working with a honourable, international first world company.

Jonathan

Exactly. Rocna is not an honourable, etc...

Re when changes were made, I believe there's a general archive of earlier webpages available - maybe someone who knows about these things can point you at it.

 

[GrantKing]

Exactly. Rocna is not an honourable, etc...

Re when changes were made, I believe there's a general archive of earlier webpages available - maybe someone who knows about these things can point you at it.

If you go for example to this page on the site headed Classification and certification http://www.rocna.com/kb/Classification_and_certification
and click at the top right where it says 'history" it will take you to this http://www.rocna.com/wiki/index.php?title=Classification_and_certification&action=history which then gives you all of the edits for that page.
On the left row of columns you can compare current page with previous pages including editing.

 

[Neeves]

Thanks Grant,

I checked, the Rocna website was falsely claiming complete RINA certification on the 23 Nov 2011 but had replaced the offending wording by 5 Dec 2011. I was unable to use the same technique to identify when Peter Smith first mentioned 700 units of 420 shanked anchors and a general recall of these same anchors. His page is dated October 2011 - but I think I would have remembered, correct me if I am wrong, if it had all been declared first off.

Anyone who knows how to dig into internet archives is very welcome to contribute.


I might have since answered the question myself:

viz

if I go to Peter's webpage

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/2011-oct-01-rocna-issues.php

'right click' and look at 'properties'

is the date provided, in this case 22nd January 2012, the date the webpage was updated? Or does that date refer to something else?

Sorry if I am showing myself to being internet illiterate

Jonathan

 

[Twister_Ken]

I'm sure this isn't new, but I've only just seen it for the first time. Maybe it's a route out for Rocnowners who don't wan't to upset their chandler of choice...

"Canada Metal and the future

The above addresses the facts directly. However, the handling by Hold Fast of the consequent public relations situation was very disappointing and many customers with legitimate concerns have not received adequate support. This is going to change.

Peter will be working with Canada Metal over the next few months in order to assist with transition of production management, assist with any problems, and will also be present in person at the 2011 Annapolis, Fort Lauderdale, and METS boat shows.

Rocna owners should understand that Peter and Canada Metal value their support, and are committed to retaining it. Anchors with question marks over their steel types will be replaced. Owners with concerns are encouraged to contact Rocna under the new Canada Metal management. North Americans may phone toll free 1-888-909-8839, international customers should phone Canada +1-604-229-2750 or New Zealand +64-9-447-1961, or e-mail support@rocna.com."

From here

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I'm sure this isn't new, but I've only just seen it for the first time. Maybe it's a route out for Rocnowners who don't wan't to upset their chandler of choice...

"Canada Metal and the future

The above addresses the facts directly. However, the handling by Hold Fast of the consequent public relations situation was very disappointing and many customers with legitimate concerns have not received adequate support. This is going to change.

Peter will be working with Canada Metal over the next few months in order to assist with transition of production management, assist with any problems, and will also be present in person at the 2011 Annapolis, Fort Lauderdale, and METS boat shows.

Rocna owners should understand that Peter and Canada Metal value their support, and are committed to retaining it. Anchors with question marks over their steel types will be replaced. Owners with concerns are encouraged to contact Rocna under the new Canada Metal management. North Americans may phone toll free 1-888-909-8839, international customers should phone Canada +1-604-229-2750 or New Zealand +64-9-447-1961, or e-mail support@rocna.com."

From here

Maybe I'm a bit credulous, but that press release sounds both reasonable and sensible to me. No doubt Rigger will discover some dirty work at the crossroads and will tear it to pieces so I will watch with interest.