Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[FishyInverness]

So, here's a question...

If Rocna drops 25% below the cost of a Manson - do things change?

My vote is yes.

Signed,

From the Land of Walmart

(PS - If Rocna does drop the price, they owe USD $25K for PR strategy services.)

You know what? I would say they did...

The anchor would then be priced for what it is, a cheaper knock off of it's former self - they'd have to stop claiming it to be the world's best anchor of course, and cease all the ridiculously misleading claims of RINA certification, but I would then say they're finally being fair to the consumer.

 

[Neeves]

Interesting thread over on SailNet - with a summary of one persons views on the saga.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...6-cast-characters-rocna-plot-continues-6.html

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Self fulfilling prophecies?

You know what? I would say they did...

The anchor would then be priced for what it is, a cheaper knock off of it's former self - they'd have to stop claiming it to be the world's best anchor of course, and cease all the ridiculously misleading claims of RINA certification, but I would then say they're finally being fair to the consumer.

Interesting things happening in America.

CMP appear to have secured a new customer in America for their Rocna, Defender, a cut price marine distributor. This has upset West Marine who reputedly used to represent 50% of Holdfast's worldwide sales. Their concerns might also be inflamed as American forum posts suggest any Rocna's returned (and there seem to be surprising numbers) under WM's August 2011 Specification Notice were funded purely by WM (without any support from Holdfast (and possibly no support from CMP)).

Defender seem to have been actively selling Rocnas for a number of months now and were undercutting WM by between 15% and 20%. WM compete head on with such activity with a broad policy of normally meeting any competitor's retail price. The latest moves are huge discounts by WM, for the popular sizes, 10, 15 and 25kg, by around 26% and for the 20kg model by a whopping 40%. The 20kg version can now be bought from WM for $420 (I have no idea how that compares with the UK). WM's original price for the 20kg model was $700 and Defender's $600. Pity any customer who was sufficiently uninformed to have bought, at all, but at the old prices.

It will be interesting to see if Smackdaddy's, earlier, predictions work out (that low prices will over-ride consumer's scruples) but I think his chance of earning that consultancy fee is non-existant, do not give up the day job.

The other development is that the Rocna range seems to have been increased to include a 150, 200 and 275kg model - interesting in that these are obviously sized for pretty large yachts, which one might think have paid crew, would thus be in survey and need Classification Society certification for their anchors. Look out for new certification (otherwise they will be unsaleable as they are completely outside the current RINA Type Approval certificate which only covers the 55, 70 and 110kg models).

It cannot be long before a Business School is able to base a complete course simply devoted to the Rocna story.

Jonathan

 

[Hoolie]

Interesting things happening in America.

... ... ... The 20kg version can now be bought from WM for $420 (I have no idea how that compares with the UK). WM's original price for the 20kg model was $700 and Defender's $600. Pity any customer who was sufficiently uninformed to have bought, at all, but at the old prices.

... ... ...

The Rocna 20kg in UK is still £490 ($775). A lot of money - especially as you can get a superior quality 20kg Manson Supreme for £350 ($554).

 

[LittleSister]

Summary of the story so far

Maine Sail's post on the Sailnet thread Neeves posted to seems to me to be a fair and clear summary of the story so far, and all the more credible for coming from someone who used to be a champion of Rocna anchors -​

"*Rocna lied to us about certifications well before they had RINA certification as SHHP

*Rocna mislead and heavily massaged the Sail magazine anchor test data and claimed a 40% better performance than their next competitor. This claim has "vanished" but they ran with it for a long while. Rumor is they were forced to remove that data because they super imposed the Sail logo on their "extrapolation" of the data.

*Rocna made "special test anchors" only for submitting to testing authorities

*Rocna stuck West Marine footing the bill with the recall after the metalurgy debacle. Rocna has NOT reimbursed WM for any of the anchors taken back despite the Rocna "written warranty" that guaranteed the anchors met and were built to the "specifications".

*Rocna lied about the metalurgy of their product and only admitted they "changed" the metalurgy after public PROOF came to light.

*Rocna publicly bashed Chinese manufacturing then went and started building anchors in China of a sub standard steel to what the designer himself specified and insisted on.

*Peter Smith INSISTED that 800mpa steel be used in the shanks, now a lesser steel is all of a sudden okay?

*Rocna publicly bashed the Rock Slot as a "stupid" idea and then went and STOLE it and used it on a Rocna making them now the "knock off"...


Disclaimer: I am a Rocna owner and user (BC [Canada] built) and it is a GREAT design! I can not however bring my self to swallow any more of the Smith/Bambury rubbish & lies. I will no longer sell or recommend a Rocna to ANYONE until the Smiths and Bambury's are 100% removed from the company or anything to do with the Rocna. This won't likely happen... I have nothing against the new company other than the fact that they should have bought only the product and not the baggage that came with it....

I do plan to place my Rocna in "storage" and replace it with a Manson because I am that disgusted with this whole mess.I feel that strongly about NOT advertising for Rocna by placing it on my bow that I am willing to use a "knock off". All last summer I hid the Rocna in my anchor locker unless it was in use.......

I feel bad for the new owners of the comapny, and do hope they can turn it around, but the only saving grace for THIS ROCNA OWNER would be a complete separation between the Smiths, Bambury's and CMP. "

 

[Maine Sail]

Maine Sail's post on the Sailnet thread Neeves posted to seems to me to be a fair and clear summary of the story so far, and all the more credible for coming from someone who used to be a champion of Rocna anchors -​

"*Rocna lied to us about certifications well before they had RINA certification as SHHP

*Rocna mislead and heavily massaged the Sail magazine anchor test data and claimed a 40% better performance than their next competitor. This claim has "vanished" but they ran with it for a long while. Rumor is they were forced to remove that data because they super imposed the Sail logo on their "extrapolation" of the data.

*Rocna made "special test anchors" only for submitting to testing authorities

*Rocna stuck West Marine footing the bill with the recall after the metalurgy debacle. Rocna has NOT reimbursed WM for any of the anchors taken back despite the Rocna "written warranty" that guaranteed the anchors met and were built to the "specifications".

*Rocna lied about the metalurgy of their product and only admitted they "changed" the metalurgy after public PROOF came to light.

*Rocna publicly bashed Chinese manufacturing then went and started building anchors in China of a sub standard steel to what the designer himself specified and insisted on.

*Peter Smith INSISTED that 800mpa steel be used in the shanks, now a lesser steel is all of a sudden okay?

*Rocna publicly bashed the Rock Slot as a "stupid" idea and then went and STOLE it and used it on a Rocna making them now the "knock off"...


Disclaimer: I am a Rocna owner and user (BC [Canada] built) and it is a GREAT design! I can not however bring my self to swallow any more of the Smith/Bambury rubbish & lies. I will no longer sell or recommend a Rocna to ANYONE until the Smiths and Bambury's are 100% removed from the company or anything to do with the Rocna. This won't likely happen... I have nothing against the new company other than the fact that they should have bought only the product and not the baggage that came with it....

I do plan to place my Rocna in "storage" and replace it with a Manson because I am that disgusted with this whole mess.I feel that strongly about NOT advertising for Rocna by placing it on my bow that I am willing to use a "knock off". All last summer I hid the Rocna in my anchor locker unless it was in use.......

I feel bad for the new owners of the comapny, and do hope they can turn it around, but the only saving grace for THIS ROCNA OWNER would be a complete separation between the Smiths, Bambury's and CMP. "

I actually spoke with Mark P. of Rocna just yesterday after the poor folks in their marketing department sent me an email asking for permission to use one of the videos I made comparing the Rocna to a CQR. I politely declined and made the video private.

Mark did confirm that at least the Bamburry's are no longer in the picture! This is a good start IMHO.

I really do hope CMP can save this anchor because, despite all the BS, I still feel the design is great. For me, the only thing that may even start warming me up again is a FULL PUBLIC WRITTEN APOLOGY from Peter Smith acknowledging everything that they did wrong, EVERYTHING. This would be followed by a full reimbursement to West Marine for every single anchor they took back out of Peter's pocket, not CMP's.. The anchor was guaranteed to meet "specifications", it do not, West Marine stood up for its customers and took back the sub spec anchors. Good for West Marine, shame on Rocna....

I feel badly for the folks at CMP in the marketing department, that's a tough job, and for good people like Mark P. who got stuck in the middle of this. Get rid of Peter Smith bring the steel back to what Peter INSISTED it MUST BE and they just might rebound. I could care less if it is made in China but after all Peter Smiths ranting and raving, about how the anchor must be built, I think they at least owe that to the boating public...

 

[evm1024]

I actually spoke with Mark P. of Rocna just yesterday after the poor folks in their marketing department sent me an email asking for permission to use one of the videos I made comparing the Rocna to a CQR. I politely declined and made the video private.

Mark did confirm that at least the Bamburry's are no longer in the picture! This is a good start IMHO.

I really do hope CMP can save this anchor because, despite all the BS, I still feel the design is great. For me, the only thing that may even start warming me up again is a FULL PUBLIC WRITTEN APOLOGY from Peter Smith acknowledging everything that they did wrong, EVERYTHING. This would be followed by a full reimbursement to West Marine for every single anchor they took back out of Peter's pocket, not CMP's.. The anchor was guaranteed to meet "specifications", it do not, West Marine stood up for its customers and took back the sub spec anchors. Good for West Marine, shame on Rocna....

I feel badly for the folks at CMP in the marketing department, that's a tough job, and for good people like Mark P. who got stuck in the middle of this. Get rid of Peter Smith bring the steel back to what Peter INSISTED it MUST BE and they just might rebound. I could care less if it is made in China but after all Peter Smiths ranting and raving, about how the anchor must be built, I think they at least owe that to the boating public...

If this is the Mark from Suncoast it is not the first time that he has been left holding the bag for Rocna, sadly as that he has been good to me....

REgards

 

[Maine Sail]

If this is the Mark from Suncoast it is not the first time that he has been left holding the bag for Rocna, sadly as that he has been good to me....

REgards

Yes, Mark from Suncoast. He was also very good to me, and honest and forthright, and I feel badly he's left to deal with this mess.

 

[Danny Jo]

Thank you, Paul Gelder and IPC

Thanks to Paul Gelder, Vyv Cox and IPC for agreeing to buy, collecting and reimbursing me the full cost of my Rocna. The cheque arrived today.


As a gesture of appreciation, here's a free plug: don't miss the blow by blow account of the destruction of Danny Jo's Rocna in the April issue of Yachting Monthly. It has an interesting twist in the tail - have we all been barking up the wrong trees?

I guess lots of forumites have been avoiding this thread on the grounds that it has got too long to take in at a sitting. I wish I hadn't got stuck into the thread myself, because if I hadn't, I would still have a perfectly good Rocna.

 

[Seven Spades]

I have read the article and seen the twist at the end. My Rocna was bought in April last year from a new batch. Piplers insist it is made of Q620 and I don't really want to change it because it holds so much better than the Sou'wester it has replaced.

I am torn by this whole affair, I would like to believe I am one of the lucky ones but there is a nagging doubt.

 

[Danny Jo]

I have read the article and seen the twist at the end. My Rocna was bought in April last year from a new batch. Piplers insist it is made of Q620 and I don't really want to change it because it holds so much better than the Sou'wester it has replaced.

I am torn by this whole affair, I would like to believe I am one of the lucky ones but there is a nagging doubt.

If you have a nagging doubt, think of that army of sailors who have no such doubt about an anchor that every objective test has shown to be only a little better than useless - the CQR.

They have no such doubt.

 

[Poignard]

If you have a nagging doubt, think of that army of sailors who have no such doubt about an anchor that every objective test has shown to be only a little better than useless - the CQR.

They have no such doubt.

Yep - and the world's shorelines are littered with the remains of their boats.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Yep - and the world's shorelines are littered with the remains of their boats.

(+1)

 

[Colvic Watson]

If you have a nagging doubt, think of that army of sailors who have no such doubt about an anchor that every objective test has shown to be only a little better than useless - the CQR.

They have no such doubt.

And Oyster fit them as standard on their new yachts - maybe they just want the repeat business from insurance claims

 

[youen]

Can you give us the results of the last about the 15kg Rocna in YM.YM is not available for the moment in France

 

[snooks]

Can you give us the results of the last about the 15kg Rocna in YM.YM is not available for the moment in France

YM is available everywhere in the world with an internet connection via Zinio

The anchor we tested wasn't Q420

 

[youen]

Bought it by Zinio as Snook suggest.I had some trouble to understand the conclusions about which alloy was now used.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Bought it by Zinio as Snook suggest.I had some trouble to understand the conclusions about which alloy was now used.

'trouble to understand' being one way of putting the Rocna debacle!

 

[vyv_cox]

Bought it by Zinio as Snook suggest.I had some trouble to understand the conclusions about which alloy was now used.

It appears to be a High Strength, Low Alloy (HSLA) type. This is a modern way of achieving high strength without high carbon and/or alloying element content. Its beauty is that because the carbon content is low it poses no welding problems and galvanising is usually effective. Widely used for structural items like bridges, buildings, vessels but also for car bodies.

 

[Maine Sail]

Maine Sail's post on the Sailnet thread Neeves posted to seems to me to be a fair and clear summary of the story so far, and all the more credible for coming from someone who used to be a champion of Rocna anchors -​

*Rocna stuck West Marine footing the bill with the recall after the metalurgy debacle. Rocna has NOT reimbursed WM for any of the anchors taken back despite the Rocna "written warranty" that guaranteed the anchors met and were built to the "specifications".

Just want to make a clarification on this point. Canada Metals Pacific has Stepped up to the plate with West Marine where Hold Fast had not...