Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[FishyInverness]

Grant did say it, yes, but he heard it second hand. It's hearsay. What's the credibility of that source?

I do give you that - but, as I believe Toad has said before, "he's been accurate with what he as said so far, I have no reason to doubt what he says about the issue" - I paraphrase too, but it was along those lines...

That's why the Sanquerin letter, and his subsequent transfer to Turkey from Shanghai was so interesting. But the bottom line is, we have no idea if any steps were actually taken by RINA - nor if there was even any admission of wrong-doing at all.

But nor did Holdfast get their RINA Certification for their cast Chinese Anchors.
so it becomes null...

 

[smackdaddy]

But nor did Holdfast get their RINA Certification for their cast Chinese Anchors.
so it becomes null...

This is where you're pretzelled. If a person is told by your Oxford official he has to pay a bribe to receive the certificate, and he pays that official the bribe money, who then goes back to his office and closes the door, and never gives him the certificate - it now becomes an additional act of corruption/fraud/malfeasance whatever you'd like to call it. The failure/refusal/inability to deliver a promised return for a bribe by no means dismisses or absolves the demand/act of bribery by that official. It actually makes matters worse.

Would you really want to defend that official in court with your line of reasoning? No corruption took place because he stiffed his mark? Good luck with that.

 

[Storyline]

.....

c) At least 700 dodgy anchors are out there, but there's no sign of a recall.

The more I think about this, the more I feel that Peter Smith has a real moral duty to ask the new licence holder to be proactive and trace those 700 dodgy anchors.

The way he has marketed the strength of the Rocna as being one of its key advantages and all the use of his experience of blue water cruising in challenging places to amplify his credentials means he has to take some kind of personal responsibility now he has admitted the truth. This marketing appealed to people who were looking for an anchor they could trust in difficult conditions.

I am not saying he personally should replace the anchors in question, just that he has a clear moral duty to warn his fellow seafarers that the anchor they are using and that he designed should not be relied upon and could be dangerous.

 

[Storyline]

Peter Smith

If you Google 'Peter Smith Rocna' the first result you get is this:

If you open this link you will find the following:

which shows a Manson amateurly photoshopped to look crude next to a nice (NZ built) Rocna

but also this total misrepresentation :

"The Manson Supreme blade is a 1-dimensional roll, rather than a 2-dimensional fold. This means the tip of the fluke is relatively flat, and does not feature the reinforcement of the full-length crease that the original employs."

Not only is the Rocna not folded out of bis80 any more but Peter Smith has the nerve to still say and I quote .....

"Normally there is a good reason for the cost of the original; copies take obvious construction short-cuts, such as cheaper methods of fabrication, which the original manufacturer elected not to. These compromises result in a more attractive retail price, but the axiom “you get what you pay for” has never been truer"

This is all on his own personal website. Surely after all this fuss he would have the decency to remove all the knocking copy.

How he can hold his head up with his peers escapes me - you just could not make it up.

 

[Neeves]

There might be a minor problem with Peter Smith being more definitive about the 700.

Grant has been posting shipment details for 2010 for months. The detail has never been refuted. The details 'look' right.

If Grant's information is correct then to admit so would be slightly embarassing. here is the man they have been treating as a pariah - and he was correct all along! Do you really think they are going to say: 'The 'Rocna' people CMP are employing are liars but Grant has been honest.'

Ironic really.

Also Grant has been saying this was intentional, not accidental. And if Grant's figures are admitted to be correct then they all knew all along but kept quiet. Its not getting any better is it? Suddenly the people, now employed by CMP, knew that Grant's figures were correct, they colluded to make the deceit possible and when found out they obfuscated - and 'implied' Grant had made the story up.

But worse, Grant has been saying this all started earlier. So it might be difficult for Peter Smith to show Grant's figures for 2010 are correct but his earlier figures are wrong, just a tiny, weeny, bit of a contradiction - and little bit difficult to explain.

Makes you wonder what possessed Peter Smith to publish the figure in the first place.

Jonathan

 

[bob234]

This is where you're pretzelled. If a person is told by your Oxford official he has to pay a bribe to receive the certificate, and he pays that official the bribe money, who then goes back to his office and closes the door, and never gives him the certificate - it now becomes an additional act of corruption/fraud/malfeasance whatever you'd like to call it. The failure/refusal/inability to deliver a promised return for a bribe by no means dismisses or absolves the demand/act of bribery by that official. It actually makes matters worse.

Would you really want to defend that official in court with your line of reasoning? No corruption took place because he stiffed his mark? Good luck with that.

Hi Smack,

The reason Grant raised the point about the 'bribe' was to highlight that he was taken to court accused of taking the very money he had been given to get things going again when the process had 'stalled' at someone's desk. Apparently he had kept the evidence of the request and the case was dismissed.

The issue as far as Grant was concerned was the court case against him about it and that it was dismissed. That was always the beginning and end of it. The court case made some things sub-judice and meant the deal with CMP could proceed without full disclosure.

Yes Grant used the word 'bribe' and you hooked on to that but the context within which the word was used was never so dramatic as the word itself.

You or Toad have said in the past something along the lines that 'Grant wouldn't have raised it if it wasn't an issue'. The fact is he didn't raise THAT (ie 'bribe' or 'corruption' at RINA) as an issue. What he raised as an issue was the legal action taken by people accusing him of doing something they had in fact asked him to do. Grant went on to say he hadn't raised the subject to make a point about RINA as he didn't feel there was one to make.

I felt I wanted to make one more attempt at explaining how most of us read this in the hope that you would understand where we are coming from - even if you don't agree with it!

Regards,

Bob

 

[bob234]

There might be a minor problem with Peter Smith being more definitive about the 700.

Grant has been posting shipment details for 2010 for months. The detail has never been refuted. The details 'look' right.

If Grant's information is correct then to admit so would be slightly embarassing. here is the man they have been treating as a pariah - and he was correct all along! Do you really think they are going to say: 'The 'Rocna' people CMP are employing are liars but Grant has been honest.'

Ironic really.

Also Grant has been saying this was intentional, not accidental. And if Grant's figures are admitted to be correct then they all knew all along but kept quiet. Its not getting any better is it? Suddenly the people, now employed by CMP, knew that Grant's figures were correct, they colluded to make the deceit possible and when found out they obfuscated - and 'implied' Grant had made the story up.

But worse, Grant has been saying this all started earlier. So it might be difficult for Peter Smith to show Grant's figures for 2010 are correct but his earlier figures are wrong, just a tiny, weeny, bit of a contradiction - and little bit difficult to explain.

Makes you wonder what possessed Peter Smith to publish the figure in the first place.

Jonathan

Yes. What remains a concern is that although Smith now acknowledges there are 700 sub standard Rona's out there he still says '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'.

So he admits to a greater number than previously but doesn't admit that it occurred outside of the first half of 2010. Surely that doesn't stack up?

Bob

 

[GrantKing]

Yes. What remains a concern is that although Smith now acknowledges there are 700 sub standard Rona's out there he still says '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'.

So he admits to a greater number than previously but doesn't admit that it occurred outside of the first half of 2010. Surely that doesn't stack up?

Bob

Its not hard to trace shipments and numbers
read post #996, it has details of sizes and numbers for some of the 2010 shipments

 

[Neeves]

Poisoned Chalice?

If you read post 996, try 997.

The arithmetic was a bit average.

But if you re-read Grant's post and add up only the 420 shanked anchors the total is actually something over 500. And note that Grant is saying these are only some of the shipments.

But interesting the conicidental figure of 700?

Equally interesting, posts 996 and 997 were put up on the 15th December and as mentioned (courtesy of someone else) Peter Smiths web page was possibly unpdated on December 20th 2011. I would not draw any damning conclusions on this evidence but?

Jonathan

 

[bob234]

Its not hard to trace shipments and numbers
read post #996, it has details of sizes and numbers for some of the 2010 shipments

I know that Grant. The point I was trying to make was that the claim that the period is limited to the first half of 2010 and the claim that 700 anchors are affected are inconsistent.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[bob234]

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.

Hi Toad,

Let's not forget that NO substandard Rocna's were admitted originally despite independent tests to the contrary.

- then it was 'it has been brought to our attention that...'

- then it was ' for a limited period'

- then '700 anchors are affected'

These admissions only came about because of independent tests, articles an Yachting Monthly and various forums. These admissions, and more, should have been made voluntarily.

Finally, please TRY to understand that this thread has always been about Rocna anchors - not the personal qualities of the whistle blower (despite the fact that the whistle blower's comments have all been consistent and, as time has gone on, even progressively admitted to by those associated with Rocna).

Regards,

Bob

 

[Neeves]

Sorry Bob,

I fully agree but you are too gentle:

these admissions should have been made voluntarily, long ago and not hidden from view for most of the public.

Jonathan

 

[Twister_Ken]

I do wonder, from time to time, whether the Smiths, Bumberry and CMP read threads like these, or whether they are in complete denial and have pulled the blankets over their heads.

 

[bob234]

This story was all over months ago. It really was.

The RINA story was over months ago (or never was).

The Rocna anchor story will not be over until:-

- The Smiths, Bambury, CMP (all or any of these) disclose fully and clearly what has been going on and over what period.

- Proper attempts are made to contact all affected owners, whether it is 250, 700, 4000 or whatever. At the very least there needs to be full disclosure to distributors and dealers and a clear request that they contact their affected customers (as far as we know, the dealers do not know there are as many as 700 affected anchors).

- There is a clear explanation why a lower grade steel than the Bisplate 80, previously the minimum requirement, is now acceptable.

- In addition to contacting owners with 400/420 shanks all owners who bought anchors to the new lower minimum spec at a time when Bisplate 80 was advertised as the ONLY acceptable shank steel are contacted to explain the position. They need to be offered either a partial refund in lieu of being charged for the more expensive steel they didn't get or a full refund if they want to return it.

- all Rocna anchor websites are cleaned up in relation to SHHP, RINA certification, anchor test results etc

- criticism of other anchor designs are removed from Rocna websites

- the website bought by the Smiths (or Smith junior) previously belonging to the designer of the Spade anchor is closed. Let's not forget that Craig Smith justified this action as merely buying a site with anchor traffic - despite the fact that those who expected to see information on the Spade were treated instead to information promoting the Rocna and criticising the Spade and other anchors.

Some of the actions above are perhaps not the legal responsibility of CMP but in my opinion the story will not be over until they act along these lines.


The Rocna story is very much alive amongst liveaboards. I know of people here in Portugal and also in the Caribbean who know there is 'something up with Chinese made Rocna's'. In some cases they think shafts are breaking rather than bending so they don't know the precise details but they know there is a problem.

Regards,

Bob

 

[bob234]

Sorry Bob,

I fully agree but you are too gentle:

these admissions should have been made voluntarily, long ago and not hidden from view for most of the public.

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

I fully agree (I did refer to the fact it should have been voluntary I think).

My point was in response to the poster whose view was that forums don't achieve anything (or words to that affect) when I think the few disclosures we have only came about because of forums, tests and articles (incl yours).

Cheers,

Bob

 

[Neeves]

Sorry Bob,

You did say voluntarily, I just wanted to add to your comment (with which I had fully agreed).

Oddly if they, CMP, Rocna, Holdfast, Smith, Bambury, had admitted first up to everything that they are now admitting they would have done themselves a world of good. Now, at best, they look 'grubby'.

Jonathan

 

[smackdaddy]

Hi Smack,

The reason Grant raised the point about the 'bribe' was to highlight that he was taken to court accused of taking the very money he had been given to get things going again when the process had 'stalled' at someone's desk. Apparently he had kept the evidence of the request and the case was dismissed.

The issue as far as Grant was concerned was the court case against him about it and that it was dismissed. That was always the beginning and end of it. The court case made some things sub-judice and meant the deal with CMP could proceed without full disclosure.

Yes Grant used the word 'bribe' and you hooked on to that but the context within which the word was used was never so dramatic as the word itself.

You or Toad have said in the past something along the lines that 'Grant wouldn't have raised it if it wasn't an issue'. The fact is he didn't raise THAT (ie 'bribe' or 'corruption' at RINA) as an issue. What he raised as an issue was the legal action taken by people accusing him of doing something they had in fact asked him to do. Grant went on to say he hadn't raised the subject to make a point about RINA as he didn't feel there was one to make.

I felt I wanted to make one more attempt at explaining how most of us read this in the hope that you would understand where we are coming from - even if you don't agree with it!

Regards,

Bob

I honestly appreciate the explanation. And I understand your view. But the bolded part above is where I think our perspectives will continue to diverge on this...at least for now.

It seems you guys feel that I'm using the RINA information in some way against Grant - or in support of Rocna. I'm not at all. The bottom line is that I don't really care about Grant's (or even Rocna's) culpability in this. I never have. What I care about is simply three things:

1. RINA personnel told Grant it would take bribes to move things along.
2. Those personnel accepted that bribe money.
3. Those personnel were apparently dismissed and punished in some way (though, importantly, we don't really know anything about the veracity of this since it came from a third source).

How this relates to Rocna and/or the case brought against Grant by Banbury is just a side show in my view. This is purely about RINA and its alleged actions.

 

[Twister_Ken]

How this relates to Rocna and/or the case brought against Grant by Banbury is just a side show in my view.

One man's sideshow is another man's main event.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

The Rocna anchor story will not be over until:-

- The Smiths, Bambury, CMP (all or any of these) disclose fully and clearly what has been going on and over what period.

- Proper attempts are made to contact all affected owners, whether it is 250, 700, 4000 or whatever. At the very least there needs to be full disclosure to distributors and dealers and a clear request that they contact their affected customers (as far as we know, the dealers do not know there are as many as 700 affected anchors).

- There is a clear explanation why a lower grade steel than the Bisplate 80, previously the minimum requirement, is now acceptable.

- In addition to contacting owners with 400/420 shanks all owners who bought anchors to the new lower minimum spec at a time when Bisplate 80 was advertised as the ONLY acceptable shank steel are contacted to explain the position. They need to be offered either a partial refund in lieu of being charged for the more expensive steel they didn't get or a full refund if they want to return it.

- all Rocna anchor websites are cleaned up in relation to SHHP, RINA certification, anchor test results etc

- criticism of other anchor designs are removed from Rocna websites

- the website bought by the Smiths (or Smith junior) previously belonging to the designer of the Spade anchor is closed. Let's not forget that Craig Smith justified this action as merely buying a site with anchor traffic - despite the fact that those who expected to see information on the Spade were treated instead to information promoting the Rocna and criticising the Spade and other anchors.

Some of the actions above are perhaps not the legal responsibility of CMP but in my opinion the story will not be over until they act along these lines.

Well said Bob, that's exactly what needs to happen.

One worry with all this is that there is a danger that people just concentrate on the 420 grade anchors and forget that everything was made below the advertised specification. It's not just 700 faulty anchors, but thousands.

 

[taifun]

The RINA story was over months ago (or never was).

The Rocna anchor story will not be over until:-

- The Smiths, Bambury, CMP (all or any of these) disclose fully and clearly what has been going on and over what period.

- Proper attempts are made to contact all affected owners, whether it is 250, 700, 4000 or whatever. At the very least there needs to be full disclosure to distributors and dealers and a clear request that they contact their affected customers (as far as we know, the dealers do not know there are as many as 700 affected anchors).

- There is a clear explanation why a lower grade steel than the Bisplate 80, previously the minimum requirement, is now acceptable.

- In addition to contacting owners with 400/420 shanks all owners who bought anchors to the new lower minimum spec at a time when Bisplate 80 was advertised as the ONLY acceptable shank steel are contacted to explain the position. They need to be offered either a partial refund in lieu of being charged for the more expensive steel they didn't get or a full refund if they want to return it.

- all Rocna anchor websites are cleaned up in relation to SHHP, RINA certification, anchor test results etc

- criticism of other anchor designs are removed from Rocna websites

- the website bought by the Smiths (or Smith junior) previously belonging to the designer of the Spade anchor is closed. Let's not forget that Craig Smith justified this action as merely buying a site with anchor traffic - despite the fact that those who expected to see information on the Spade were treated instead to information promoting the Rocna and criticising the Spade and other anchors.

Some of the actions above are perhaps not the legal responsibility of CMP but in my opinion the story will not be over until they act along these lines.


The Rocna story is very much alive amongst liveaboards. I know of people here in Portugal and also in the Caribbean who know there is 'something up with Chinese made Rocna's'. In some cases they think shafts are breaking rather than bending so they don't know the precise details but they know there is a problem.

Regards,

Bob

Sounds good to me, but it was not a Spade site that CS took over.
It was the site of the Raya Anchor http://www.ancoralatina.com, that looked promising, but lacked independent tests, in my mind.

Info about the Raya here, http://www.myboatsgear.com/mbg/product.asp?prodID=1470, and many other sites.
Some of the original site is available here http://web.archive.org/web/20090216133114/http://ancoralatina.com/acolhimento/ingles/Home%20page.html

As far as I can remember it was never confirmed that Alain Poiraud was involved in Raya, but CS thought so.