Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[evm1024]

I just fitted a new 33 KG Stone anchor (using HT Granite). Not in the least worried about it.

 

[jordanbasset]

Jonathan Neeves, the Author of one of the YM pieces aske me to post this on his behalf as he's off sailing......

"If these posts look ‘odd’, I apologise.

Josephine and I are at sea (Coral Sea), reliant on expensive, slow and intermittent satellite internet access. With IPC’s help we have managed to develop a cost effective way for me to post but I’m relying on memory and unpredictable interruptions! We should get back to Sydney mid April.
I assume everyone has gained access to the YM article, including Youen (with whom I sympathise – YM takes much longer to get to Oz!).
I note that the reaction to the April YM ‘Rocna’ article by the UK chandlers remains consistent, ‘the journalists are mis-informed’.

A little background. Linox’ skill is in ‘lost wax’ casting of 316 stainless and (in terms of Holdfast) in securing a partner in China to effect the same. Linox provided synergy for Holdfast as this allowed them an opening to low cost offshore manufacturing. Initial work with Linox was in parallel with Holdfast’s own attempts to develop a partner in India (one of their employees was Indian and had family there) but the Indian connection was never successful. The initial contacts, between Holdfast and Linox took months, in the end, even years to get anywhere. The productive relationship only lasted 6 months. The precipitate cancellation of the Linox/Holdfast relationship, by the latter, was no secret in the industry in Australia and New Zealand and Linox even made contribution to an early YBW/Rocna thread. Linox made no loss at termination but did miss out on future profit – the cost of pursuing Holdfast through a legal process was considered investing good money after bad and the whole episode was consigned to (bad) experience. Linox had no knowledge of anchors nor any knowledge of their use. Linox’ role was simply a facilitator (with ‘relevant’ Chinese industry) and an expert in lost wax casting.

In conversation I had with Linox over steels used in Rocna anchors it was repetitively mentioned that ‘everyone knew (at Rocna) that Q420 was used in the shanks’. Hearsay is one thing, evidence is better and here are a few examples:
At the end of October 2008 Holdfast sent an email to Linox and the gist of it was ‘now that we have agreed to change the steel quality used for the shanks (from Bisplate 80?) we had anticipated that production problems would be overcome’. What the problems were is not defined, neither is the steel to which they changed. The bullet point minutes produced by Pangtong as a result of a meeting between Linox and Pangtong in Shanghai on the 5th December 2008 clearly defines that ‘the outstanding order of 844 galvanised anchors will be made with Q420 steel in the shanks’. To reiterate – these minutes are produced by Pangtong (in both English and Chinese and the translation is accurate). The 844 anchors in the minutes correlate exactly with a spreadsheet of outstanding orders to Europe and New Zealand (totalling 844). Finally Linox sent an email to Holdfast in April 2009 (this is after the completion of shipment of the aforementioned 844 anchors), as part of a discussion on pricing, that they (Linox) had little room for manoeuvre on pricing as everyone was aware that utilisation of Q420 left little room for flexibility. This email is filed with an Excel pricing spreadsheet titled, ‘420 gal anchors’. It is not until August 2009 that there is any indication of concern over the use of Q420 as a steel quality for the shanks. The correspondence stalls at this point with the termination of the Linox/Holdfast relationship.

The 844 anchors were shipped (by air to NZ at the very end of Dec 200) by sea by March 2009), variously to Europe and New Zealand – though not exactly as originally envisaged as some of the anchors originally intended for New Zealand were re-directed to other destinations, Europe (36 Denmark), Middle East, HK (10) etc. Confirmation of these shipments, including the 300 to the UK, specifically England (even though the purchaser was Boyds) and 150 to Benelux, is included in shipping documents, packing lists, invoices, receipt of payments from HSBC etc.

The concerns in August 2009 over the use of Q420 have been said to have had little initial impact – primarily as there were large stocks of precut 420 shanks. Large stock holdings have always been a feature of Chinese industry. Historically supply of raw material was so unpredictable factories always held large stock, equally production processes were so large (for a large Chinese market) that our idea of large might be a trial run for the Chinese! In an August 2008 email, Holdfast to Linox, it was agreed to cast, 700 x 4kg flukes, 700 x 6kg flukes, 500 x 10kg flukes, 500 x 15kg flukes etc – based on documented sales these could relate to 3-4 year stock! If they cut and stocked the shanks the same way?

There is an Excel spreadsheet ‘available’ that defines Holdfast sales from China for the period around April 2009 to May 2010. The spreadsheet looks genuine – but there is no corroboration, it is simply a Holdfast spreadsheet and being single sourced cannot be published with any authority. It purports to define every shipment to every key importer and includes steel quality, payments, dates of shipments etc. Some corroboration is available as it includes approximately 50 x 420 shanked anchors shipped in May 2010 to the UK (admitted to by UK chandlers), 209 anchors to America (and the subject of the WM ‘Specification Notice’) and the total 2009 out of spec anchors agrees approximately with Peter Smith’s admission of 700 x 420 shanked anchors. Given that the 2010 data looks genuine, if Smith, WM and the UK chandlers provide corroboration, then is might not be a major step to consider the second half 2009 data is equally genuine (as it is all one document) – this latter includes another 100 x 420 units for the UK.

Taking the 844 anchors that Pangtong minuted as to be made from 420 steel and the ‘shipping document’ the total numbers of 420 shanked anchors is slightly less that 2,000 units, of which 450 came to the UK, slightly more than 200 to America. The biggest recipient was NZ (from memory near 500) with the balance (around 800 units) largely continental Europe.
Unfortunately Manson sampled 2 anchors in NZ that they bought in early 2011, both were 420 shanked (see Manson’s website). The chandler from where these anchors were purchased were the largest Rocna dealers in NZ and they either had appalling stock control or the use of 420 shanks continued well beyond mid 2010.

To put the 844 anchors into context. These are the batch from which the Venice anchor came. The Venice anchor was supplied by the Italian importer and came from their shipment of 79 anchors. The Venice anchor was not an isolated incident, other anchors from this batch also bent and an anchor from the 209 shipped to America in early 2010 have also been reported to have bent. Thanks to RocnaONE et al I have this nasty suspicion most bent anchor stories have been suppressed and the evidence removed.

If I had bought a Rocna anchor in the UK after February 2009, at least upto December 2010, and being a cynic anything bought prior to the new CMP production. I would be very suspicious of its quality. I would use Vyv’s test, in the YM article, and report the results here. The Chinese anchors would have a cast fluke but as the embossing might have been ground off, check for the weld line on the upper surface of the fluke, the weld between the thicker toe and thinner heel. If there is no weld – its cast.
Jonathan Neeves
March 19 2012."

The more details that come out about this the more damning the verdict appears to be. If correct it appears a deliberate policy decision to produce 420 quality anchors and not a mistake.
Particularly interesting is 300 came to the U.K. when I seem to remember we were earlier told none came to the U.K.
Perhaps a Rocna representative would like to comment on this.

 

[Chris_Robb]

The more details that come out about this the more damning the verdict appears to be. If correct it appears a deliberate policy decision to produce 420 quality anchors and not a mistake.
Particularly interesting is 300 came to the U.K. when I seem to remember we were earlier told none came to the U.K.
Perhaps a Rocna representative would like to comment on this.

And it seems that some people on this forum are still buying them despite the evidence staring them in the face.

 

[GrantKing]

The more details that come out about this the more damning the verdict appears to be. If correct it appears a deliberate policy decision to produce 420 quality anchors and not a mistake.
Particularly interesting is 300 came to the U.K. when I seem to remember we were earlier told none came to the U.K.
Perhaps a Rocna representative would like to comment on this.

I detailed some of these in post #996 on this thread but was then subjected to another attack in order to discredit what I had to say further.

The sooner everyone accepts the fact that 420 and 400 were used from the very first anchor to leave China and be sent worldwide , the better and everyone can then move on and decide what they want and expect in the future instead of this cat and mouse game of 'how much should we admit'.

The old Rocna management is gone, the company is gone, any legal right to refunds is gone as far as that company goes and the only ones left holding the baby are the resellers and the master distributors in each country.

Bambury is clear and gone, Smith has a new front for anchor (CMP) and life goes on, just in a different form from what the original conception of the Rocna was. It is now downgraded in everything but price. If buyers are happy to accept that, then it is their business and they can forgive Smith for lowering his standards. If they are not happy to accept that then buy another brand.

 

[Seven Spades]

Did they tell you it was Q620? The YM test on a recent anchor shows it to be neither Q420, 620 nor Bisplate 80.

Yes I read that in the YM article, but wasn't the conclusion that the steel that is actually being used now is slightly better than Q620? If so does that mean that the current versions are actually quite close to the original spec?

 

[snooks]

Again Neeves is still sailing.....

"In my earlier post definition was listed of the documents that support the statement, in YM’s April 2012 issue, that Q420 steel was used in all Rocna shanks from the commencement of shipments from China, December 2008, and continued through to at least shipments from China in May 2010. Some shanks may have been Q620, in the first half of 2010 (though Peter Smith’s assertions on his website seem to imply virtually all shipments in the first half of 2010 were 420 shanked), and Q620 might have become more widespread as the year progressed. Evidence, Danny Jo’s anchor, confirm that some shanks were made from a High Strength Low Alloy (HSLA) steel, either late 2010 or early 2011 (this use of ‘other’ steels may have implications for the current, very restricted, RINA certification). HSLA steel seems to have been used contemporaneously with Steve Bambury’s statement that Q620 was being used. In all at least almost 2,000 Q420 shanked Rocna anchors were shipped during the 2009/2010 period. Q420 has only 60% of the strength of Bisplate 80, the original specification for the steel for Rocna shanks.

Current comment from Rocna, via chandlers and distributors, deny the integrity of the above paragraph – even though the factory making the anchors defined that Q420 was used and this usage was well known and documented by all at ‘Rocna’.

In the summer of 2009 the owners of a 40’ French built catamaran bought a 25kg Chinese origin (cast fluke) Rocna from a French chandler. Subsequent to sailing the Atlantic and in the summer of 2010 having been anchored during a thunderstorm in the Caribbean the anchor was found to be bent (max gusts of 40 knots). The anchor was replaced with a Chinese made 33kg Rocna. On arriving in NZ the 33kg model was found to be bent, winds never greater than 30 knots. I arranged for both anchors to be tested by an independent laboratory and both anchors have been proven to be 420 shanked. The 33kg model was sourced from Suncoast and is assumed to be part of the shipment of 209 anchors that formed the basis of West Marine’s ‘Specification Notice’.
The very first shipment from China comprised, UK, 300; Italy, 79; Benelux, 150; Denmark, 30; HK, 10; NZ, 249. The 25kg model is assumed to be part of the 150 units shipped to Benelux (ex China, 6 March, 2009). The 150 anchors were part of the 844 anchors that the Chinese factory minuted, 5th December 2008, to be made from Q420 steel, the same 844 anchors from which the Venice Lagoon anchor was sourced and the same 844 anchors which formed the first shipment, of 300 anchors, from China to the UK, ex China 22 February, 2009.

Interestingly the owners of the 2 anchors knew little of the ‘Rocna furore’ – but sobered up once they had read the 2 x YM articles. Having sailed half the world they basically had no access to periodicals and ‘internet’ access offshore is prohibitively expensive, slow and intermittent (to which I can attest) and they limited internet use to correspondence.

Further tests are in progress on the 25kg model to better compare the steel with other Rocna anchors tested. It is hoped the results will be published in the fullness of time. Both the 25kg and 33kg anchors are fully documented, original invoices, images, certificates of analysis etc.

It might be considered bad luck to have had 2 x Rocna anchors with 420 shanks – except that for the period there was little else available. It is hoped that other Rocna owners with anchors from the same period will test their anchors, using the technique described by Vyv Cox in the YM April 2012 article, and post their results here (and I would welcome direct contact).
Jonathan Neeves
March 2012, Coral Sea"

 

[braehouse]

Replacent Rocna has arrived

Picked up my replacement 20kg anchor at the weekend. Anyone want to do some non destructive testing on it before I put it back on the boat??

C

 

[Chris_Robb]

Yes I read that in the YM article, but wasn't the conclusion that the steel that is actually being used now is slightly better than Q620? If so does that mean that the current versions are actually quite close to the original spec?

I am not sure about the Shank steel, but the Flukes are now cast steel. Whether this was "approved" by Smith - who knows....

 

[Allan]

I am not sure about the Shank steel, but the Flukes are now cast steel. Whether this was "approved" by Smith - who knows....

I seem to remember, many moons ago, Craig Smith defending the process of welding the cast flukes to the shanks. I think this implies that the Smiths approve of them.
Allan

 

[RichardS]

Also received my replacement 25kg Rocna yesterday. Excellent service from the UK importer.

Due to a slight mix-up over delivery dates I currently have both anchors. The fillet weld between the shank and fluke on the new Rocna is very different to that on the 2009 version. A much larger and smoother weld which extends along the top of the fluke by a couple of inches from both ends of the narrow section of the shank and forms a smooth taper in both directions.

They have obviously changed the process and it's very nicely done although I don't recall there being any problem with the old Rocna joint.

There was also a "QC" approval sticker on the anchor and a plastic shipping sticker which shows the weight of the anchor and whether it is "Galvanised" or "Original" or "Stainless". Mine is ticked "Galvanised" but I wonder what "Original" means?

Richard

 

[Delfin]

Also received my replacement 25kg Rocna yesterday. Excellent service from the UK importer.

Due to a slight mix-up over delivery dates I currently have both anchors. The fillet weld between the shank and fluke on the new Rocna is very different to that on the 2009 version. A much larger and smoother weld which extends along the top of the fluke by a couple of inches from both ends of the narrow section of the shank and forms a smooth taper in both directions.

They have obviously changed the process and it's very nicely done although I don't recall there being any problem with the old Rocna joint.

There was also a "QC" approval sticker on the anchor and a plastic shipping sticker which shows the weight of the anchor and whether it is "Galvanised" or "Original" or "Stainless". Mine is ticked "Galvanised" but I wonder what "Original" means?

Richard

The "Original" series anchors feature "Insta-bend" technology. Took years to develop.

 

[Morven]

Ahh.........Bottom specific adaptive technology, crafty!

 

[Neeves]

Very many thanks to Snooks who enabled me to post when at sea.

Interestingly the couple whose 2 anchors I tested knew virtually nothing about the furore over the Rocna scandal. They are blue water sialors with only very limited access to the internet. The story had simply passed them by and I suspect has also passed by other similar cruisers who bought a Rocna, thinking it to be 'Rock Solid'. I can certainly concur that trying to access a website, like YBW, is basically impossible using satellite unless you have a very large wallet!

But back to the thread

Someone mentioned that the HSLA steel is better than Q620, personally I do not see that, it might be better, easier, to process but its no better from a users point of view. However more important no-one has said that is what is being used now - in fact no-one, in common with most anchor makers, is saying what is being used now. When Steve Bambury posted about 12 months ago and clearly stated they were using Q620 (and posted as the same quality by Peter Smith) we now find that Danny Jo's anchor made at the same time as Bambury was confirming use of Q620 is actually made from something entirely different. What else they were using, we do not know - but then, neither did they.

It is interesting that now we know that 450 anchors with Q420 shanks came to the UK, and are sitting in anchor lockers or on bow rollers, the heat has left the debate. Given the 100% failure rate of the 2 anchors I tested - they are accidents waiting to happen.

Isn't it about time a recall was posted, or as has been stated in the past - money is more important than safety. And people still want to buy a Rocna and presumably people still want to buy CMP chain. I'd like to see a more professional view of safety (even if its not directly their responsibility) before I would endorse either product. I suspect Rocna are quite happy interest has flagged but the reality is with approx 2,000 anchors out there world wide the story is going to fester for months, undermining any hype they try - it might be initially painfull but fessing up now would negate much to be published in the future (and remove an income stream for me!, Fortunately the saga can spawn a whole range of issues, and I'll try to provide links in the future).

If I thought I had one of these bendy anchors I'd be doing Vyv's test and if I were concerned with the result I'd be contacting Vyv for a bit of a discusssion and then visiting my chandler for a replacement or refund. Bendy anchors does seem something of a contradiction. But if its yesterdays news?

Having had a bit more time to look at the test figures I find that the 33kg anchor is made from Q420 but the 25kg anchor is made from off'spec Q420 or a, call it, 400 quality. I cannot actually find a commercially available 'Q400' in China so am not sure exactly what it is, chemically it is similar to Q420, but with 5% lower physical properties.

Grant King has always said a 400 grade was used and so far everything he has claimed about the debacle has been proven true. The only issue I have been unable to confirm is that the change to Q420 was commercial - I'm not so sure. The apparent lack of knowledge of what was being used implies to me it was driven by the factory and Rocna knew less than they should have done, which does not bode too well for the future. There is nothing in the files about the use of a 400 grade, it was agreed to use a 420 grade, and it was claimed use of Q620 when we actually find a HSLA being used, lots of questions.

Have a great day

Thanks again to Snooks.

Jonathan

 

[Twister_Ken]

A thought...

...Given that Holdfast is belly up, there is - presumably - an insolvency practitioner who is/was involved in winding-up its affairs. That IP will have access to Holdfast's paperwork. Once the winding-up is complete, those records will probably go the shredder/incinerator. Is there a way they could be recovered by a party or parties interested in the bendy question? One such party would be the Smiths, another CMP. But maybe another with a legitimate interest could claim them - a Rocna Owners' Group - for eg.

 

[Neeves]

thoughts spring eternal

I was also pondering,

There have/has been the occasional post from owners who have returned their Rocna anchors and received replacements. Some of these posters have suggested that the chandler has stated that their anchors could not have been out of spec models (whatever that was meant to mean, not Bis80?, not Q640?, not RINA approved?, not the 'best' in the West Marine tests?, not 'Rock Solid'?,) as they were purchased 'outside', ie earlier, than the admitted shipment to the UK of 'only' 50 out of spec anchors May/June 2010 (and as somone stated - none were meant to come to the UK! - intersting how things change).

It would have taken the wind out of the sales of anyone taking a contrary view if these anchors had been tested and proven to be Bis 80, or even Q640. One wonders why it was not done? Its not rocket science.

Testing is not that expensive, the anchors could have been uniquely marked and agreed to by the owner when they were returned. The detail could have been posted on a whole variety of Forum, magazines. Why the secrecy.

But the idea of accessing the Holdfast files - with the Smiths and CMP working together the asking price might be quite high?

Jonathan

 

[Morven]

Assuming the relevant information has not already been redacted.

 

[Storyline]

Assuming the relevant information has not already been redacted.

Highly likely - I would not have thought that Holdfast would have handed over any damming evidence to the receiver.

IIRC Grant King said he had copies of all relevant emails from Holdfast and the factory detailing production specs and shipment details. Maybe he would hand copies of these over to a Rocna Owners Group ?

 

[Neeves]

Updated CMP message

This has just dropped onto my screen. Its a bit wordy, but worth the read.

I quote, verbatim.



Metal’s latest announcement, to warranty against bending, is designed to restore confidence in the Rocna name
A year ago, the highly polished image of the Rocna anchor brand was being tarnished in sailing chatrooms across multiple time zones. The patented design, popular among sailors around the world, had come in for a public drubbing by both consumers and competitors because of allegations that Rocna had used steel in the fabrication of the anchors shanks that did not meet the stated manufacturing specification. Photos showed up on the sailing websites of Rocna anchors with twisted shanks. Some were genuine pictures of warranty claims while others were of a more questionable origin.
Competitors also jumped into the fray, alleging Hold Fast Anchors, the New Zealand-based corporation that held the manufacturing rights to Rocna brand from January 2007 to September 2011, knew about the weaker grade of steel used in manufacturing after it moved production from New Zealand to China.
Rocna’s former production manager also alleged Hold Fast knew the anchors would not meet stated specifications for tensile strength posted on the Rocna website. It is estimated that up to 700 units could have been affected.
The controversy seemed to hit a fever pitch in August 2011, when US mega-retailer West Marine sent out a “product specification notice” to clients about 13 Rocna anchor sizes. “In West Marine’s view, it is a certainly a ‘bummer’ that Rocna produced anchors with steel of a lesser grade than that called for on their website and that had been previously published,” said the letter, referring its customers back to Rocna for technical questions. West Marine also offered a refund to owners who were concerned about Rocna anchors covered under the notice.
The product specification notice, incorrectly labeled a “recall” by the sailing chat rooms, did not help Rocna’s image. Many sailors praised West Marine for notifying customers, but were also suspicious of Rocna for selling a potentially life-saving piece of equipment that did not meet stated specifications.
“We've seen plenty of F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) laid out by the various vendor marketing teams who represent anchor manufacturers on this and other sites,” wrote “Shrew” on CruisersForum.com. “I'd like to see the same manufacturer stand up and stand behind their products now as they have done so vehemently when trying to market them to us.”
Canada Metal Pacific (CMP) knew it had to do exactly that, long before it acquired manufacturing rights to the Rocna brand. The Vancouver-based firm announced it would now be manufacturing and distributing Rocna anchors in late September 2011, about eight weeks after the West Marine letter went out. But CMP’s due diligence on Rocna had started months earlier, after CMP and Hold Fast had started talking about a potential acquisition.
“We were fully aware of the challenges that faced the Rocna brand before we completed the purchase,” says John Mitchell, president of CMP. “There was a lot of misinformation out there about what actually happened with Rocna. Our due diligence indicated that it wasn’t as clandestine as what appeared in the public domain.”
In February 2012, Mitchell told IBI that only nine warranty returns for bent shanks had been received. “There was a significant bending situation on an anchor in Venice,” he says. “It was a prototype anchor that was manufactured in China, and a lack of process control by the previous company allowed it to get through. But even with this faulty production run, there are still over 12,000 Rocna anchors in the field.”
CMP had acquired a public relations problem along with the Rocna line. Mitchell knew that going into the deal, but figured that the anchor’s assets were worth the effort it would take to rehabilitate the brand.
“We acquired it for several reasons,” says Mitchell. “First, it had a very loyal following. I was blown away by the loyalty to the product—sailors are quite vocal about the products they like. But beyond that, Rocna performed better than any anchor that we tested.”
The anchor also fit in well with CMP’s long-term strategy for its marine division, which includes Martyr Anodes, Octopus Autopilot Drive Systems, Intellisteer, and CMP-Titan brand marine chain. “We got into the chain business about four years ago due to the absence of a high quality alternative given that there is now only one North American based chain manufacturer left,” says Mitchell. “In most retail stores or chandleries, chain is located next to the anchors. We had a few customers who asked about sourcing other products from us, so we started looking at opportunities in the anchor category—by either developing our own or looking for acquisitions of companies that would meet our long term strategy.”
CMP, in fact, has been part of the marine industry for more than 25 years, having first manufactured aluminum anodes for Outboard Marine Corp, followed by other OEM clients like Volvo-Penta, Yamaha and Mercury Marine. That led to manufacturing Martyr replacement anodes for the aftermarket, and eventual worldwide distribution of its marine products.
CMP’s chain and anchor businesses will eventually lead to a single-system solution for anchoring that will include a new CMP anchor rode (combination rope/chain). “We’ve worked quite closely with Maxwell and Lewmar, the leaders in the industry, to test the rode,” says Mitchell. “They are concerned with quality. We are just as concerned, and wanted to make sure we get it right the first time.”
While creating a single-manufacturer anchoring system is part of its long-term strategy, CMP has been busy trying to repair the damage to the Rocna brand since last September.
Mitchell immediately instituted a policy of transparency after acquiring manufacturing rights from Rocna founder and owner, Peter Smith, who licenses the brand to outside companies. The Rocna website told owners CMP would “find and replace” all “suspect” products, add additional controls to the existing manufacturing process, restore confidence in the classification process, invest in inventory so product was plentiful, and set up “timely and accurate communications” about the brand.
Peter Smith also agreed to travel with the CMP team to meet OEMs and sailors at boat shows to explain why the new Rocna would be a reliable choice going forward. Smith, a guru of anchor designers who independently tested the suspect Chinese-made Rocnas, will also verify information on the Rocna website. “Canada Metal is a company with clear and high-quality standards and is an excellent choice for the future of Rocna,” Smith wrote on his own website, www.petersmith.net.nz.
The memos and transparency were designed to restore confidence in the brand. But CMP took another, more concrete step in January, announcing that Rocna’s lifetime warranty would now include “bending or deformation,” in addition to breakage. “We’re one of a few anchor companies that does that,” says Mitchell.
Mitchell said that the company tested the Rocna line during its due diligence phase, even hiring metallurgists. From a theoretical standpoint, we were confident that the anchors were safe and sound, but we had to clearly communicate our confidence to the marketplace,” he says.
After the acquisition, CMP moved manufacturing control of the anchor line to its wholly owned facility in Ningbo, China. While Hold Fast’s original move to China was the source of the brand’s problems, Mitchell says CMP’s facility in Ningbo has “advanced engineering” that monitors quality control. “In the five months we’ve been manufacturing the anchors, we’ve made significant changes and improvements to the process controls,” says Mitchell.
Mitchell says year-over-year sales of Rocna anchors are up, and the company has hired Derema Group to handle its distribution in the US market. “We met with our distributors at METS and, to a man, they are passionate about this product,” says Mitchell. “We’re also even stronger than ever before with West Marine. We’re now developing a focus on the powerboat market.”
Even with a rehabilitated brand, though, Mitchell does not see a significant recovery in the recreational marine market until 2013 or 2014. Until then, CMP’s strategy is to rebuild the Rocna brand and take market share from competitors.
“We’re trying to reposition the product by providing best value; by this I mean we will provide our customers with the world’s best performance at a reasonable cost,” says Mitchell. “You see guys at boat shows selling anchors in a sandbox, but they don’t have distribution or support. We have global distribution and will support all of our products with particular focus on the safety and security of the end user.”

end quote

The only anchors shipped from China to Italy, from which the Venice Lagoon anchor came, was part of the 844 anchors shipped in early 2009 and within which 300 came to the UK (and 150 went to Benelux, one of which is proven to be a '400' grade). The Venice anchor might be part of a 'trial' but so were 843 others. Given the sincerity of the above statement it is most odd that the, now admitted, 700 off spec anchors shipped in the first half of 2010 was not confirmed till December 2011 (real concern for the customer?) It is stated that CMP conducted 'due diligence' (and seem proud of their effort) - they never contacted Linox who 'ran' the manufacturing in China till mid 2009, equally they never contacted RINA causing CMP to admit in October that they would need to re-visit Classification Society Type Approval.

Methinks there is still an unhealthy ability to obfuscate.

The story still has way to run!

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Fiction authors

Venice Lagoon

Here is what Peter Smith said and says on his website about the Venice Lagoon incident:

Some of the public controversy has been prompted by pictures of Rocnas with bent shanks. Without doubt some of these are legitimate cases, while others appear to be new and unused anchors where the circumstances are unclear, with the bends located at strange points and at angles subtly different to those expected from real world failures. Detractors have referenced a supposed incident in Venice Lagoon where a Rocna shank was reportedly bent “in 20 knots of wind”. It was found that the anchor was in fact stuck and damaged during retrieval, as was the yacht’s bow roller assembly. Peter points out that the forces from 20 knots of wind could never have damaged the anchor, even in the hypothetical event it was built from mild steel, let alone Q420.


Here is what CMP now say

In February 2012, Mitchell told IBI that only nine warranty returns for bent shanks had been received. “There was a significant bending situation on an anchor in Venice,” he says. “It was a prototype anchor that was manufactured in China, and a lack of process control by the previous company allowed it to get through. But even with this faulty production run, there are still over 12,000 Rocna anchors in the field.”



Separately: CMP are well aware that a 25kg Rocna bought in France in the first half of 2009 and bent in the Bahamas in 2010 was built with a shank using a steel of lower quality than Q420. It looks to be a nominal '400' grade. This anchor was one of the 844 shipped in early 2009 and probably came from the 150 that were shipped to a Benelux importer or might have come from the 300 that were shipped to the UK (there was no French distributor at the time). 79 anchors were shipped, as part of that same 844, to Italy. According to factory minutes these were all meant to be Q420 shanked (so how there appears to be a '400' shanked model is something of a, new, unknown). However it does not seem to stretch credibility to think some UK anchors are also 400 shanked.

That 'recall' word looks to become quite apt and might be extended to geography other than America.

Jonathan

 

[GrantKing]

Venice Lagoon

Here is what Peter Smith said and says on his website about the Venice Lagoon incident:

Some of the public controversy has been prompted by pictures of Rocnas with bent shanks. Without doubt some of these are legitimate cases, while others appear to be new and unused anchors where the circumstances are unclear, with the bends located at strange points and at angles subtly different to those expected from real world failures. Detractors have referenced a supposed incident in Venice Lagoon where a Rocna shank was reportedly bent “in 20 knots of wind”. It was found that the anchor was in fact stuck and damaged during retrieval, as was the yacht’s bow roller assembly. Peter points out that the forces from 20 knots of wind could never have damaged the anchor, even in the hypothetical event it was built from mild steel, let alone Q420.


Here is what CMP now say

In February 2012, Mitchell told IBI that only nine warranty returns for bent shanks had been received. “There was a significant bending situation on an anchor in Venice,” he says. “It was a prototype anchor that was manufactured in China, and a lack of process control by the previous company allowed it to get through. But even with this faulty production run, there are still over 12,000 Rocna anchors in the field.”



Separately: CMP are well aware that a 25kg Rocna bought in France in the first half of 2009 and bent in the Bahamas in 2010 was built with a shank using a steel of lower quality than Q420. It looks to be a nominal '400' grade. This anchor was one of the 844 shipped in early 2009 and probably came from the 150 that were shipped to a Benelux importer or might have come from the 300 that were shipped to the UK (there was no French distributor at the time). 79 anchors were shipped, as part of that same 844, to Italy. According to factory minutes these were all meant to be Q420 shanked (so how there appears to be a '400' shanked model is something of a, new, unknown). However it does not seem to stretch credibility to think some UK anchors are also 400 shanked.

That 'recall' word looks to become quite apt and might be extended to geography other than America.

Jonathan

Received 18 June 2009 at 2.01am from Andrea Ponassi of Indemar who were the distributors of this anchor:
Direct copy of email
From: Andrea Ponassi [mailto:aponassi@indemar.com]
Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2009 2:01 a.m.
To: steve@rocna.com
Cc: Tanya @ Rocna
Subject: damaged anchor Rocna 25 kg
Few days ago our Customer purchased a ROCNA anchor 25 kg and installed it on BAVARIA 49 – L= 14,95m – displacement 11 tons.This boat was anchored about at 2 miles from the coast at a depth of 7.5m in a sandy seabed. Chain 35 m – 10 mm.During the day there was a wind of 17-20 knots.
When it was the moment to sail, with the bow placed vertically on the anchor, activating the windlass, a strength resistance was perceived from the Customer.
When the anchor was completely lifted, the Customer noticed that the anchor was bended as per the attached pictures.
Please look after this matter and please advise the cause of the damage.
We look forward to hearing from you soon
Thank you and kind regards
Andrea

I then replied with the following:
From: Grant [mailto:grant@rocna.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2009 10:03 a.m.
To: aponassi@indemar.com
Cc: 'Tanya @ Rocna'; 'Brian Bambury'; 'Steve @ Rocna Anchors'
Subject: RE: damaged anchor Rocna 25 kg

Dear Andrea,
The anchor is obviously a warranty claim and requires replacement.
Please supply a new anchor to the customer and we will include a replacement in your next shipment.
Please arrange to send the damaged anchor to me here in New Zealand as soon as possible.
There are a few more questions I have:

1. Do you have GPS co-ordinates for the location of this event?
2. Are you, or your customer, aware of any underwater cables located in the same area.
3. Please ask your customer for details of the windlass used.
4. When you say a ‘strength resistance’ was felt can you please ask your customer to detail more fully. ( the amount of resistance applied will have no bearing whatsoever on the warranty claim but will help me to assess how the damage occurred)

The anchor has obviously been trapped by something on the seabed and we will be able to make a better assessment after examining the damage seen in the photos.
Regards

Grant King Production Manager Rocna Anchors


The reply that followed was :
Da: Andrea Ponassi
Inviato: martedì 30 giugno 2009 11.13
A: 'Grant'
Cc: 'Tanya @ Rocna'; 'Brian Bambury'; 'Steve @ Rocna Anchors'; Paolo Gatti
Oggetto: R: damaged anchor Rocna 25 kg
Dear Grant
Thanks for your answer and sorry for the late reply, but we just received the information from the Customer today.
GPS Co-ordinates: 45° 23’ 800 N ; 12° 17’ 500 E
No underwater cables were present
Windlass Lofrans model Tigre 12V 1200W
The customer says that there was not resistance during the unanchoring – he does not see any reason of stranding.
As per your instructions we already provided to send the customer a new anchor under warranty.
Please send a new one foc replacement in the next order we will place to you.
Please give us instructions for the rejection (RGA no – your forwarder – delivery address)
We look forward to hearing from you soon
Thanks and kind regards,
Andrea

It was then revealed to me that the metal on the shanks was below spec and the true picture of the exposure risk became apparent. As the entire shipment had been made using a 400-420 grade steel it was important that the rest of the 25kg model units were withdrawn from the distributor and replaced with a higher spec steel. The following story was concocted and used to explain the bent shank:
Da: Grant King [mailto:Grant@rocna.co.nz]
Inviato: lunedì 16 novembre 2009 20.53
A: Andrea Ponassi
Cc: Brian Bambury; Steve Bambury; Tanya Le Fleming Burrow
Oggetto: RE: damaged anchor Rocna 25 kg
Dear Andrea,
We will be sending you 10 x 25kg anchors at no charge to replace the stock you received in this same shipment.
During the RINA testing and factory examination it was discovered that some of the shanks on the 25kg anchors had been heated to correct bends in the plate steel after they were cut on the CNC machine. This results in a weakened shank where excessive heat was applied by gas torch. Because we do not know if any more of these anchors will suffer bending damage if they come under strong sideways force while embedded in the seabed we are taking the precaution of sending replacements in order for you to be able to replace any faulty units that occur in the future. It is highly likely that no more damage happen to this size from your previous shipment but we must stand by our product and our warranty.
I will advise you when your order is ready.
Regards Grant King Production Manager Rocna Anchors
I had extended dialogue with the factory and Indemar over this and despite requesting that the anchors be shipped to NZ so I could test them further they were destroyed under instructions from Bambury so they could not undergo further testing.
Smith was not aware of the circumstances surrounding the bending of this anchor, nor was he privy to any other information about it except what I told him after I finished with Bambury and Smith requested help to regain the manufacturing license from them by providing any evidence he could use.
About time CMP came clean as well and admitted the extent of the problem now that they are surely more aware of what went on.
Jonathan has now provided more evidence from his own investigation and will shortly receive ALL of my files on disc to inspect and report on. The same files will also be going to another individual who is investigating the RINA subject. I have been holding off on sending these out until I felt there was some measure of understanding and belief in at least some of what I had already provided and could therefore be taken as holding some substance and not just manufactured by me.