Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[toad_oftoadhall]

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.

Me too. I fear Rocna can do no right in the eyes of their critics.



It's all over as far as I can see. For ages there have been an assumption of 4000 anchors floating around which Rocna never admitted to and that Rocna actually bribed Rina.

Now it's looking like the 700 is spot on & the bribery claim has been debunked (or as debunked as it ever can be).

On their Facebook page I see Rocna have extended their warranty to include bent anchors.

Apparently West Marine say Rocna warranty returns are almost non-existant, and say they get less returns from Rocna than the other anchor firms.

All is rosy in the garden.

Maybe something else will turn up in the marine press but I doubt it. In the meantime I can't imagine anyone taking the negative gossip on forums seriously, given that those people have concealed pretty critical information about the "whistle blower" for months.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

It's remarkable how some people think that, now that we have finally got an admission that 700 anchors have been put on the market with 420 grade steel, that that is all OK. They then choose to ignore the fact that other anchors were also made with a grade of steel which was lower than advertised. They then ignore the fact that no general recall has been issued and, astonishingly claim that everything is rosy in the garden.

Then we get the weird vague allegation that "those people" have concealed information. Yet another oddball conspiracy theory.

Very strange.
Still everything is fine. It's good that an anchor manufacturer has been duping the boating public.

 

[Colvic Watson]

All is rosy in the garden.

Maybe something else will turn up in the marine press but I doubt it. In the meantime I can't imagine anyone taking the negative gossip on forums seriously, given that those people have concealed pretty critical information about the "whistle blower" for months.

I love it! A post criticising those with blinkered vision but claiming that everything's perfect, rosy even

Tip to Toad: to be taken seriously it's best to suggest that everything is not completely dreadful or completely wonderful. Otherwise you look like someone with a closed mind. Or someone with a simple one, or someone who can't handle complex issues like the paradox of a designer who insisted his anchors must be made to one spec whilst secretly making them to another - and then gets found out and exposed by someone who has a bit of history to hide himself. Fascinating stuff, but not simple stuff.

 

[Neeves]

Grant freely admitted to having been convicted of paedophilia. I cannot recall what prompted his admission. It was openly aired on a number of forum. People expressed and aired their, justifiable, outrage. Words, correctly in my view, like 'heinous', were used. Grant also pointed out that subsequently, and after considerable investigation by whichever relevant authorities in NZ, he was given custody of his 14 year old daughter.

He was employed by Holdfast after these events.

People who had read the thread, or threads, could make their own judgements.

Jonathan

 

[Twister_Ken]

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.

It's not a press release. It's buried on a obscure page in Peter Smith's own website. It could be better hidden, but not much!

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Grant freely admitted to having been convicted of paedophilia.

I wasn't going to post again on this topic but...

The Peaedophilia conviction isn't the one I'm suggesting was concealed. I did know about that because I saw the post before the thread was pulled and thought it was irrelevant and a nasty tactic to smear King by the Rocna people. [1]

I'm talking about the rest of Grant's history. [2] That's what was concealed by King's chums and it was 100pc relevant and shows him to be exactly the kind of person to lie about this kind of stuff. Money went missing from Holdfast and King says it was 'given to him to pay a bribe'. Given King's record does that really seem likely?

I cannot recall what prompted his admission.

Rocna posted about it. Not that that it was relevant IMHO.






[1] I never thought that was relevent and never mentioned it myself even though I knew. I didn't really see it was relevant. For all we know King was 18 and the girl was 15 at the time the offence was committed and there was a relationship which was technically illegal but most of us could forgive. Even if he is a peado in the 'true' sense of the word, it doesn't follow he'd lie about anchors or financial matters.

[2] A lifetime story of deceit so shocking to our mods that when I posted a link to a newspaper article about it, the link had to be removed!!!

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

someone who can't handle complex issues like the paradox of a designer who insisted his anchors must be made to one spec whilst secretly making them to another

Or did they just forget to change the spec on a web site? As a wise man once said. Never attribute to conspiracy what you can attribute to cock-up.


For ages there has been an assumption of 4000 anchors floating around which Rocna never admitted to and that Rocna actually bribed Rina.

Now it's looking like the 700 is spot on & the bribery claim has been debunked (or as debunked as it ever can be).

On their Facebook page I see Rocna have extended their warranty to include bent anchors.

Apparently West Marine say Rocna warranty returns are almost non-existant, and say they get less returns from Rocna than the other anchor firms.

All is rosy in the garden.

Maybe something else will turn up in the marine press but I doubt it. In the meantime I can't imagine anyone taking the negative gossip on forums seriously, given that those people have concealed pretty critical information about the "whistle blower" for months.

 

[FishyInverness]

For ages there has been an assumption of 4000 anchors floating around which Rocna never admitted to and that Rocna actually bribed Rina.

Now it's looking like the 700 is spot on & the bribery claim has been debunked (or as debunked as it ever can be).

Leaving aside that you ignore proof that has been published on this thread about the number of anchors, and that you persist in wanting to believe a company employing people who have been *proven* to have said one falsehood, then another, then another as facts have come out...indeed the designer has decided to change the goalposts in order to make a falsehood true.

It was ONLY YOU AND SMACKDADDY who made a claim of ROCNA's bribery of RINA. The majority of contributors to this thread saw the statement from Grant as it was: Supporting information that there were a lot of smoke and mirrors involved in the operation of Holdfast, and took it no further than that.

Grant said that he had been given money in order to bribe RINA and was then accused of stealing that money (which was later dismissed in court - a fact which Mr Letterman decided not to reveal in the linked news article - he kept in the accusation, but failed to note that it got thrown out of the civil court!), I can't recall anywhere where he said how that money was used or that he bribed anyone in authority in RINA - the rest you inflated and created a thread that died on it's feet because it was a non-story.

Out of the 180 odd posts on your RINA thread, the majority are posters trying to point out what i've said above, and posts from you and smackdaddy really wanting to read more into it in response.

Please don't attribute that, frankly laughable, conspiracy theory to anyone else on here. I seem to recall you were very active in scoffing at the same people on here because they wouldn't join you in talking-up Rina bribery, you can't have it both ways!

FWIW : I like the quiet approach of CMP in not knee-jerk reacting overtly and giving a more open returns policy, and fair play for going that far - but they are burying their heads in the sand somewhat. They only reference questionable steel quality, not falseley claimed certification, and only propose to replace that questionable steel, uncertified anchor, with another uncertified anchor which i'm sure is great and will perform to the ends of the earth for you - but WAS STILL NOT AS ADVERTISED when the user bought it, is not certified to SHHP and the fact that a Rocna has always cost more than a Certified SHHP Manson, which has never had questions about it's manufacturing quality or integrity means that you're sitting on a downgraded, overpriced anchor that you can't even exchange for one as advertised originally...

I don't really call that progress...

 

[Neeves]

I really do not like the idea that if I had a Rocna I would need to bend it to enjoy their generous returns policy.

Peter Smith has quantified 700 out of spec anchors.

Please define where those anchors went and when. Define which anchors, weights and numbers, went to each distributor. Disseminate this information widely.

And then, maybe, those 700 owners (minus the 2 Manson tested) could anchor in safety.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

It's not a press release. It's buried on a obscure page in Peter Smith's own website. It could be better hidden, but not much!

Can I point out that it is dated 1 October 2011. There appears to have been very little action since then, and a deafening silence on the forums.

 

[Neeves]

It might be dated 1st October, and I do recall reading the 'base' message but it strongly appears to have been updated.

Current information from someone on YBW who took the time (a lot) and has the skills might place an update for this specific webpage as 20th December 2011. This date might benefit from confirmation - but I lack the ability.

I do not recall the figure 700 being quoted originally and I do not recall any wording that suggested a total recall. I would like to think if they had been mentioned I would have noticed. Equally I would have thought that someone else would have noticed confirmation (or mention) of the '700' and the suggestion of a 'recall' - so my suspicion is that the update has been slipped in quietly, maybe to salve a few or many consciences.

To me the 700 is not relevant - where they went etc is. More relevant is that the designer, now (and suddenly but quietly), seems to think a total recall is necessary.

As has been stated:

It could have been better hidden - but not by much.

And if the designer now thinks these anchors should be recalled - why the reticence. CMP now seem to be assocated with an engineer, whom they hold in high regard (roughly their words), but whose recommendations they are not accepting.

It does not get any better!

Jonathan

 

[Colvic Watson]

Leaving aside that you ignore proof that has been published on this thread about the number of anchors, and that you persist in wanting to believe a company employing people who have been *proven* to have said one falsehood, then another, then another as facts have come out...indeed the designer has decided to change the goalposts in order to make a falsehood true.

Spot on post Fishy - but Toad wants a fight and he'll change his position as and when necessary and make his views seem as extreme as possible in order to get the squabble he wants. He's like a young boy trying to pick a fight in a playground. Hence the juvenile language and "come and get me" stuff like "everything in the garden is rosy". He may not be getting attention elsewhere but he is here.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Spot on post Fishy - but Toad wants a fight and he'll change his position as and when necessary and make his views seem as extreme as possible in order to get the squabble he wants. He's like a young boy trying to pick a fight in a playground. Hence the juvenile language and "come and get me" stuff like "everything in the garden is rosy". He may not be getting attention elsewhere but he is here.

Toot Toot ha haaarrrrrr Reminds me of that wonderful cartoon

 

[FishyInverness]

I am starting to agree with Toad on one thing though, that it's pretty much all over, in that:

CMP will make the 620 Rocna anchor with a cast fluke - it'll be a good anchor. They'll replace what is termed a "suspect" anchor in terms of 420 steel. They will remain silent about claims and advertising made previously that were false. They will not respond to queries about how some people have information of a higher number of false anchors than they first mentioned, and then second mentioned! They will not respond to queries about RINA certification claims. (Except possibly direct answers queries, 1-2-1, out of the public eye, where they can tell the querant the company line without question!)

What rankles me is that they seem to want to be insinuating something about certification to SHHP, to make potential customers think this anchor is the best. Holdfast and, to some extent, CMP have both dined out on this falsehood and seem to want to keep mentioning it, perhaps they feel it would justify the higher price tag - The Rocna is not certified by RINA, LLOYDS or any official body to SHHP and consumers should not be misled otherwise.

But I'm guessing Toady is right that it is nearly all over - a lesser anchor than the original NZ Fabricated Q&T 800 forged Rocna will be produced, the lesser than less anchors will be replaced with the lesser anchor, and CMP will make the Rocna, a good anchor design, and probably profit from it.

Those "in the know" and wanting a new anchor would probably opt for a Manson, it's cheaper (in the uk at least), it's certified by LLOYDS to SHHP, the people that make it are certified and are prepared to back up those certificates and any other claims they make, it's forged and not cast, it's made and has always been made with Q&T800 steel - that's a no-brainer really.

 

[maxi77]

Or did they just forget to change the spec on a web site? As a wise man once said. Never attribute to conspiracy what you can attribute to cock-up.


For ages there has been an assumption of 4000 anchors floating around which Rocna never admitted to and that Rocna actually bribed Rina.

Now it's looking like the 700 is spot on & the bribery claim has been debunked (or as debunked as it ever can be).

On their Facebook page I see Rocna have extended their warranty to include bent anchors.

Apparently West Marine say Rocna warranty returns are almost non-existant, and say they get less returns from Rocna than the other anchor firms.

All is rosy in the garden.

Maybe something else will turn up in the marine press but I doubt it. In the meantime I can't imagine anyone taking the negative gossip on forums seriously, given that those people have concealed pretty critical information about the "whistle blower" for months.

Mind you not a garden I would enjoy being in. When this all started there were 10s of dodgy anchors admitted to, now it is hundreds, next month or whenever will it be thousands.

West are not saying how many new sales they are getting, that will perhaps determine whether the brand lasts.

Yes there is negative gossip, but also equally negative fact, for whatever reason lower grade steel got into the production line and it was both covered up, and then we are told it doesn't matter despite the earlier hype on steel quality and design.

Then there is the certification that is not all that it seems to be.

I would not consider Rocna if I was in the market unless the standard of manufacture was certified and the current materials certified as fit for purpose by independant engineers.

There are other choices out there for less money and with a clearer pedigree.

 

[Chris_Robb]

I am starting to agree with Toad on one thing though, that it's pretty much all over, in that:

CMP will make the 620 Rocna anchor with a cast fluke - it'll be a good anchor. They'll replace what is termed a "suspect" anchor in terms of 420 steel. They will remain silent about claims and advertising made previously that were false. They will not respond to queries about how some people have information of a higher number of false anchors than they first mentioned, and then second mentioned! They will not respond to queries about RINA certification claims. (Except possibly direct answers queries, 1-2-1, out of the public eye, where they can tell the querant the company line without question!)

What rankles me is that they seem to want to be insinuating something about certification to SHHP, to make potential customers think this anchor is the best. Holdfast and, to some extent, CMP have both dined out on this falsehood and seem to want to keep mentioning it, perhaps they feel it would justify the higher price tag - The Rocna is not certified by RINA, LLOYDS or any official body to SHHP and consumers should not be misled otherwise.

But I'm guessing Toady is right that it is nearly all over - a lesser anchor than the original NZ Fabricated Q&T 800 forged Rocna will be produced, the lesser than less anchors will be replaced with the lesser anchor, and CMP will make the Rocna, a good anchor design, and probably profit from it.

Those "in the know" and wanting a new anchor would probably opt for a Manson, it's cheaper (in the uk at least), it's certified by LLOYDS to SHHP, the people that make it are certified and are prepared to back up those certificates and any other claims they make, it's forged and not cast, it's made and has always been made with Q&T800 steel - that's a no-brainer really.

I am not sure that it is. I have just done a couple of quick searches and came up with this description on the web where its advertised as the shank being 800mPa Steel

Rugged strength The heavy-duty construction of a Rocna is attained through clever design and the use of quenched and tempered 800 mPa high tensile steel steel. A Rocna is rock solid with no moving parts, eliminating complex adjustment systems and potentially dangerous failure points

http://www.marinechandlery.com/prod...-anchor-genuinely-the-worlds-best-anchor.aspx

Then the Rocna web site is still showing the following:

The Rocna is an SHHP (Super High Holding Power) type anchor. During seabed testing for classification, Rocna anchors exhibited the highest holding power of any anchor that classification society RINA had ever certified. And when tested to destruction, Rocna anchors exhibit strengths in excess of six times the SHHP proof load requirements.

Currently sizes 55 kg (121 lb) to 110kg (243 lb) (galvanized models only) are fully type approved and classified by RINA. We are currently in the process of updating the Rocna SHHP classification for the full Rocna Original galvanized product range. Please check back soon for updates. To see Rocna’s current RINA certificate, please click here. For more on RINA, check out the Rocna Knowledge Base article on certification and classification – click here.

Then the test certificate shows all the anchor weights covered the complete weight range. As the description of the anchor show only solid steel for the fluke, the average mortal would not know that their anchor was not covered. ie that it was fabricated.

The fluke (also referred to as the blade) is solid steel. A folded shape is used (rather than rolled) to form its essential and unique concave shape, and features a sharp, aggressive chisel tip. The fold reinforces the fluke all the way to the end of the toe for maximum resistance to bending.

http://www.rocna.com/assets/Uploads/rocna-rina-cert-25-may-2011.pdf


Perhaps this should be referred to Advertising Standards, but I don't know if they cover web based adverts.

 

[FishyInverness]

Well that's Marine Chandlery opening themselves up to consumer claims of "not as described"! Does someone want to tell them?!

 

[Neeves]

Well that's Marine Chandlery opening themselves up to consumer claims of "not as described"! Does someone want to tell them?!

There is a larger, or different, question - if a chandler does not know, about the questions, doubts and deceit over Rocna anchors, then how many of the boating public also do not know? My guess is - most.

Jonathan

 

[Morven]

Perhaps an analogy:

You buy yourself a Lamborgatti Fasterossa, great car, 0-60 in 3 seconds flat, described by the manufacturer as having bodywork made of the finest aircraft grade aluminium.
After a slight dent in a car park your garage informs you that the body is actualy made of resin impegnated cellulose. (That is the stuff they made aircraft drop tanks out of in WW11 to deny the enemy the use of alluminium.) How happy would you then be?
Answers on a postcard please.

 

[FishyInverness]

Perhaps an analogy:

You buy yourself a Lamborgatti Fasterossa, great car, 0-60 in 3 seconds flat, described by the manufacturer as having bodywork made of the finest aircraft grade aluminium.
After a slight dent in a car park your garage informs you that the body is actualy made of resin impegnated cellulose. (That is the stuff they made aircraft drop tanks out of in WW11 to deny the enemy the use of alluminium.) How happy would you then be?
Answers on a postcard please.

To be the devils small green fruit - My happiness would depend on the situation it left me in

Would resin impregnated cellulose have the same properties as aluminium in strength, cost to repair in case of the knock, etc? If it did, i'd be fine with that...if not, i'd be very unhappy indeed.

But if I found out that the cellulose stuff cost the company 1/2 the price of the aluminium, but that I paid the price for aluminium, i'd be straight back for a refund!