Conachair
Guest
I'm with hoolie as well, if you've just bought a messed up company and seem to be trying to do something about it, it's a bit daft demanding for the new owners to state what the old ones got up to. Will they even know for sure?
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
I'm with hoolie as well, if you've just bought a messed up company and seem to be trying to do something about it, it's a bit daft demanding for the new owners to state what the old ones got up to. Will they even know for sure?
Garold
Well-known member
I agree. (So long as you aren't sniping at me as a relatively new forum member.)
I thought that as a satisfied-with-the-product but unnerved-by-the-debate owner who may have a substandard Rocna product, I may add a bit of realism to the debate.
I don't really care about the bun fight. I just want to have the best anchor on my bow that'll do the job. I really wish that I had bought the Manson now because their products don't seem to be involved in any controversy.
Cheers
Garold
Garold
Well-known member
Thanks Conchair. Unfortunately that's the press release.
The reality is that if you phone your supplier, they will tell you that there is a reassuring statement on the Rocna website (which you are directed to) but there is no process or plan in place to actually do what Rocna have promised either to identify the sub-spec anchors, or to replace them.
I'm feeling more confident that something will happen sometime, but since we are discussing an issue that has arisen allegedly from deceptive information and press releases, pardon my doubting at the moment.
Following a period of time during which the reduced specification was not admitted, I have observed a recent effort by Rocna to convince customers that though they were sold something that wasn't as described, it's probably good enough to do the job anyway, so don't worry. It hasn't worked so now there is a different policy. Which suits me just fine.
However, Rocna now need to prove that they are transparent and honest, by their actions. And ideally they won't make it too difficult for their owners to access the solution.
Just by the by, even though the supplier had all my contact details it was me that's chased them up looking for a solution, not the other way round. Seems like Rocna aren't up to speed contacting owners at the current time.
Cheers
Garold
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Another aspect. There are, undoubtedly, Rocna owners out there cruising who are not reading the mags or the threads, and may be sailing around with the bendy version. How are they ever going to be tracked down?
Conachair
Guest
Absolutely, that's what i meant, they've really got their work cut out. But they've only just bought the company, don't you think they should be cut just a little slack? Putting systems like that into place can't happen overnight.
Good luck to them anyway. I wonder what outher skeletons they've found in Holdfasts cupboard
Tex
Member
Garold
Well-known member
Absolutely, that's what i meant, they've really got their work cut out. But they've only just bought the company, don't you think they should be cut just a little slack? Putting systems like that into place can't happen overnight.
Good luck to them anyway. I wonder what outher skeletons they've found in Holdfasts cupboard
Good luck to Rocna owners first though!
Unfortunately, I think that the acknowledgement of the misleading Rocna sales info, and the possiblity of replacement of sub-spec anchors has only come about through public pressure in forums, magazines etc.
'Cutting Rocna a bit of slack' isn't something that seems to get customers anywhere. Rocna only seem to react to insightful and invasive investigative reporting, public condemnation, and some 'hysterical' comments from bystanders who enjoy bare-knuckle-Rocna-bashing. Maybe as a Rocna owner I should say thanks to the 'hysterical' spectators for pushing this along?
If the Canadian licence owners behave properly, we'll all be happy bunnies. I for one believe that it is, after all, a great product.
In the meantime however, it's currently just the next containment strategy for those responsible for Rocna reputation management. It's action that will make the difference to customers and owners, not press releases.
Cheers
Garold
NC16
New member
+1
I bought a new Rocna early in 2010. I sailed the boat from the UK to the Med this year and probably spent about 50 nights at anchor this summer. It never dragged or bent. I did not experience extreme conditions but on a couple of occasions the anchor held fast where boats around me were dragging.
I should therefore be extremely satisfied with my purchase. There is, however, the doubt in my mind that my anchor is not as good as it should be for all the reasons discussed ad nauseam on this forum. That doubt is not conducive to a good nights sleep whilst at anchor!
I would ask that the new owners come up with a workable scheme whereby existing owners can, within a reasonable period, have their anchors checked and replaced if necessary. This will have to take into account the fact that many yachts will not be in the same port or even country as the original supplier of their anchor.
I think that we should definitely give the new owners a chance to prove themselves. They seem to have started very well. In my opinion, there are too many people on this forum who seem to think that a post without an insult is a wasted opportunity.
Djbangi
New member
I'm with someone posting earlier. Anonymity does not matter as long as the results are satisfactory.
Currently we have a situation where CMP bought Rocna with their eyes wide open and presumably pulled them from the scrap heap. They knew there would be other costs later. Part of their purchase decision involves employing people who mislead the customer base, which seems an odd decision - but one they made in full knowledge. I'm not critical, they run a succesful business - if they think it good policy, fine by me.
They accept that a 'few' shipments were made 'early in 2010' which 'accidentally' contained below spec steel in the shanks, namely Q420 and they also, by advising they are going to re-do the Classification Society certification, seem to suggest (but are unwilling to confirm - real honesty and integrity showing here) that the RINA cert was invalid.
We have articles and a whole string of forum contributions suggesting that Q420 shanks were used more widespread (and much earlier than the 2010 time frame) and the use was known by the Holdfast team. Interestingly this has never been denied.
The implication is the probelm is much more widespread than a few anchors in the early part of 2010. This implication might be wrong - but the doubts are there - and CMP will look very silly if something is published that they obviously knew, or should have known, about.
If people have concerns about their anchors bought in the early part of 2010, they seem to be covered - but the others appear to be excluded and their recourse currently is misrepresentaion - invalid RINA cert and not Bis80/Q&T800 - unless CMP do the honourable thing and offer to check all Chinese anchors.
Anyone paying stg500 for an anchor that might be suspect and is not being offered any recourse ought rightly be aggrieved - and the flock who think championing their cause is simply stirring, well we all have different views.
The individuals who do not read the forum or the magazines - well they are on their own. But better attempts could be put in hand to advise them.
Now Vyv Cox has suggested there are fairly simple tests to sort the good from the bad, the cost of the equipment is not high and the tests hardly onerous. If CMP are so confident then why not do a total recall, for checking, it will be cheap, quick and simple - and because they are so confident all the anchors, outside that 2010 window, are perfect - will basically only cost them, minimal, labour and an enormous boost to their PR. They do not to publish any acceptance of liability - they simply need to say
'in view of the concerns of our customer base we are willing to test any Chinese made anchor at any of our chandlers/distributors and we will replace any anchor we think is suspect. We are confident 95%, or whatever, are more than adequate etc etc'.
Simple statement, kills the forum talk, removes any lingering doubt with the historic customer base and gives them immense PR - better than all the aggro they will continue to receive by ignoring sensible simple questions.
Not associated with any anchor maker, and not keen to be a lamb for the slaughter.
Currently we have a situation where CMP bought Rocna with their eyes wide open and presumably pulled them from the scrap heap. They knew there would be other costs later. Part of their purchase decision involves employing people who mislead the customer base, which seems an odd decision - but one they made in full knowledge. I'm not critical, they run a succesful business - if they think it good policy, fine by me.
They accept that a 'few' shipments were made 'early in 2010' which 'accidentally' contained below spec steel in the shanks, namely Q420 and they also, by advising they are going to re-do the Classification Society certification, seem to suggest (but are unwilling to confirm - real honesty and integrity showing here) that the RINA cert was invalid.
We have articles and a whole string of forum contributions suggesting that Q420 shanks were used more widespread (and much earlier than the 2010 time frame) and the use was known by the Holdfast team. Interestingly this has never been denied.
The implication is the probelm is much more widespread than a few anchors in the early part of 2010. This implication might be wrong - but the doubts are there - and CMP will look very silly if something is published that they obviously knew, or should have known, about.
If people have concerns about their anchors bought in the early part of 2010, they seem to be covered - but the others appear to be excluded and their recourse currently is misrepresentaion - invalid RINA cert and not Bis80/Q&T800 - unless CMP do the honourable thing and offer to check all Chinese anchors.
Anyone paying stg500 for an anchor that might be suspect and is not being offered any recourse ought rightly be aggrieved - and the flock who think championing their cause is simply stirring, well we all have different views.
The individuals who do not read the forum or the magazines - well they are on their own. But better attempts could be put in hand to advise them.
Now Vyv Cox has suggested there are fairly simple tests to sort the good from the bad, the cost of the equipment is not high and the tests hardly onerous. If CMP are so confident then why not do a total recall, for checking, it will be cheap, quick and simple - and because they are so confident all the anchors, outside that 2010 window, are perfect - will basically only cost them, minimal, labour and an enormous boost to their PR. They do not to publish any acceptance of liability - they simply need to say
'in view of the concerns of our customer base we are willing to test any Chinese made anchor at any of our chandlers/distributors and we will replace any anchor we think is suspect. We are confident 95%, or whatever, are more than adequate etc etc'.
Simple statement, kills the forum talk, removes any lingering doubt with the historic customer base and gives them immense PR - better than all the aggro they will continue to receive by ignoring sensible simple questions.
Not associated with any anchor maker, and not keen to be a lamb for the slaughter.
Blue5
New member
Its really not that difficult, presumably you have an invoice from your purchase.
Write or e-mail the supplier and ask the question. Contrary to the vendetta going on here I have been impressed by the responses from both Rocna and Piplers who supplied my anchor. I now have a written statement confirming my anchor was not one of the bad batch. Short of independent testing or polygraph tests I am satisfied with the responses.
evm1024
New member
vendetta? not likely
Ages ago when I was doing a lot of climbing (both 8000 meter peaks and high level rock climbing) there was a batch of bad carabiners (snap-links) sold. The manufacturer issued a recall and replaced all of them that you brought in. Including those that you were worried about but not in the suspected lots. This recall was due to a very few deformations found in the field and testing to find out what was happening (some were not strengthened properly). In climbing we try to never have a single point of total failure.... Must have replaces upwards of 50,000 units at $5 each in '80s dollars.
I was expecting Rocna to go bankrupt and be bought up after a few high profile boats were lost due to shank bends. Hopefully without any loss of life. Looks like CMP may be able to avert that.
As that your anchor is a single point of total failure (in most anchoring) a known defect is not something to be taken lightly.
Regards
PS My Rocna 33 rusted before ever going into the water. This was a galvanizing defect that QA inspections did not find. It has been replaced since. I did pay for a bisplate anchor and did not get one. This and the presumed RINA cert is what caused me to purchase a Rocna.
Ages ago when I was doing a lot of climbing (both 8000 meter peaks and high level rock climbing) there was a batch of bad carabiners (snap-links) sold. The manufacturer issued a recall and replaced all of them that you brought in. Including those that you were worried about but not in the suspected lots. This recall was due to a very few deformations found in the field and testing to find out what was happening (some were not strengthened properly). In climbing we try to never have a single point of total failure.... Must have replaces upwards of 50,000 units at $5 each in '80s dollars.
I was expecting Rocna to go bankrupt and be bought up after a few high profile boats were lost due to shank bends. Hopefully without any loss of life. Looks like CMP may be able to avert that.
As that your anchor is a single point of total failure (in most anchoring) a known defect is not something to be taken lightly.
Regards
PS My Rocna 33 rusted before ever going into the water. This was a galvanizing defect that QA inspections did not find. It has been replaced since. I did pay for a bisplate anchor and did not get one. This and the presumed RINA cert is what caused me to purchase a Rocna.
Last edited:
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I'm glad that you're pleased with the response that you've had so far but I think it's a little unfair to talk about a "vendetta" going on here.
It's quite clear that Rocna was caught out with it's trousers down. That was only done because a number of boaters, on a handful of websites, had the the tenacity to follow up a number of queries which had been raised as a result of some aggressive promoting of the Rocna brand on those websites. A few years ago that would never have happened but now, with the internet, it was not swept under the carpet.....peeps persisted and eventually the truth came out.
I sincerely hope that the new licensees are able to make a go of it and, in the main, they appear to be making the right noises. However, I think it would be a mistake for people to simply roll over and say "New owners, everything is fine now". We need to keep the pressure on them and make it clear that they will be held to account.....and there are still some outstanding questions which are perfectly fair to expect answers on.
In my view it's no vendetta. It is a healthy, cautious desire to make sure that we are not fobbed off with anything but a full and truthfull answer to various questions.
In the past it's always been "buyer beware". In this case it's an example of "seller beware"
All IMHO!
It's quite clear that Rocna was caught out with it's trousers down. That was only done because a number of boaters, on a handful of websites, had the the tenacity to follow up a number of queries which had been raised as a result of some aggressive promoting of the Rocna brand on those websites. A few years ago that would never have happened but now, with the internet, it was not swept under the carpet.....peeps persisted and eventually the truth came out.
I sincerely hope that the new licensees are able to make a go of it and, in the main, they appear to be making the right noises. However, I think it would be a mistake for people to simply roll over and say "New owners, everything is fine now". We need to keep the pressure on them and make it clear that they will be held to account.....and there are still some outstanding questions which are perfectly fair to expect answers on.
In my view it's no vendetta. It is a healthy, cautious desire to make sure that we are not fobbed off with anything but a full and truthfull answer to various questions.
In the past it's always been "buyer beware". In this case it's an example of "seller beware"
All IMHO!
braehouse
Member
So is your anchor to the 600 type specification or Bisplate? Most people on here I think bought like I did to a Bisplate specification with RINA certification. In all correspondence both on and off the board this point has consistently been ignored by RocnaONE despite the question being asked several times by various posters and myself.
Chris
beserksail
New member
Today I called in to my supplier at Almerimar and asked about my Rocna which was bought in May 2010 and was told that none of the inferior batch was sold in Europe and that 90% of this batch was supplied to West Marine in US. Any thoughts.
maxi77
Active member
I must admit that the launch of the new owner for Rocna has been a considerable marketing disaster. They seem to have gone off half cocked making the announcement without a plan to go with it and whilst they did come out with some good releases later these have been lost in the mire of conspiracy theory, counter marketing and general distrust after the previous mob sold product that failed to meet the advertised spec.
I reckon this one could be good texbook stuff for marketing courses.
ps At present it seems Rocnaone is going down for the third time
I reckon this one could be good texbook stuff for marketing courses.
ps At present it seems Rocnaone is going down for the third time
Delfin
New member
Based on the data I have seen, 100% of Rocnas made in China are made of lower grade steel than specified. Rocna has not denied this, just suggested that bad is "good enough". That steel may serve you just fine as long as the shank isn't subjected to side loading, but be that as it may, it won't be of the steel you thought is was.
Rocna1 is a paid PR flack hired by CPM to deal with a situation that is far worse than they thought it was. He's trying, but tap dancing will only get you so far. It does not appear that CPM intends to use the grade of steel the design requires, but I'm a little out of date with their communications, so correct me if I am wrong. If they believe that lower grade steel with pass muster, they will be crushed by more ethical suppliers who build their product to the design specification. Unless and until Rocna begins to build anchors to Peter Smith's oft repeated minimum standard, and provides appropriate certification that they are doing so, this product has to be considered a must miss and an immediate return if you can get a refund.
Delfin
New member
Snooks, that is perhaps what concerns me the most about CPMs approach to this communication. The straight pull test shopped by the previous owners was intentionally deceptive since as you point out, any anchor is going to pass a straight pull test. As I have said before, a piece of 2" pipe would pass the straight pull test but not be a particularly good anchor. So, if CPM is going to continue to pretend this is relevant to the topic at hand, it calls into question how serious we should take them when they make other statements they want us to believe.
The most charitable interpretation is that the hired PR person who is Rocna1 is not up to speed on what is going on here. If he really wants to be helpful to his client, perhaps a good place to start is by recognizing that he is not communicating with people who know as little about this topic as he seems to.
GrantKing
New member
Where and when did you but it and what size is it?
I can then tell you what it most likely is.
Carmel2
New member
We bought ours in Barcelona in February 2011 from Watertight Marine it's a 20KG one........should I be worried?
GrantKing
New member
Check your PM's
