youen
Well-Known Member
I am waiting a reply from CMP,I ask them in which steel their 35 lb anchors are made and if they are approved by Rina .It seems they are closed at the moment.
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
Rigger Mortice
N/A
In some ways I agree, but they've already had several months to get to grips with this and very little seems to have happened other than their initial edicts from on high.
We've seen a lot of information from Grant which contradicts what CMP have said about the numbers of below spec. anchors which have been sold. We've seen them mastermind, via the Smiths, the lowering of the specification. Beyond that they've gone into silent mode.
Even RocnaOne is ignoring us!
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I admire your persistence with this. They really are giving you the runaround aren't they?
BrianH
Well-Known Member
For each Rocna anchor sold, part of the proceeds will go to Bambury as a consultant or employee, whose deceit and greed caused the original problem, and part will go to Smith as franchise-giver, who covered up the deceit and changed the previously irrevocable specifications to fit the latest change.
misterg
Well-Known Member
I have no axe to grind, but have my doubts as to that statement - the shank alignment has been said to be critical to performance. The manufacturing tolerance seems to have been +/-2 degrees alignment & 1mm / 500mm out of plane (from the Rocna spec - now removed from their website- posted earlier on this thread).
The fact that specially 'tuned' Rocnas were needed to achieve the published test results implies that people will already be experiencing less than optimal performance with typical production tolerances. The anchor is so efficient at digging that with a slight misalignment, it is easy to see that it will happily dig itself out again corkscrew fashion. (Peter Smith is quoted as saying as much http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3170403&postcount=323 )
IMHO there is cause for concern with even "slight" bends in the highly tuned rocna design.
Of course there's nothing to say that the shank can't bend during any storm, rendering the anchor useless from that point on.
YMMV.
Andy
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
How do you know this?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
CMP have already gone on record as "retaining" Bambury. The Smiths have gone on record as receiving royalty payments. The Smiths downgrade of the specification is a matter of record.
Of course it's correct.
BrianH
Well-Known Member
Bambury was in Amsterdam at METS working for CMP - not for free, certainly. Grant has confirmed he is working for them and he has yet to be doubted.
Smith has always received royalties on the sale of anchors since he passed the rights to HoldFast anchors. I can't believe the pattern has changed since moving to CMP.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
My point, perhaps badly made, is that just because Banbury and Smith are considered to have lied and cheated does not necessarily mean it is wrong to buy from CMP because they have some sort of financial arrangement with them.
Whilst we may speculate what that arrangement is, it is not in the public domain. We do not know, for example if either Banbury or Smith have given any warranties which would be normal for this sort of transaction.
We do not know the terms of Banburys contract, or how long it goes on for.
We do not know how much they pay to Smith and whether he has any liability to them.
We do not know whether their payments were deferred and contingent on anything.
We also do not know if they are pursuing them in separate legal actions, now that they have more information.
Whilst all the speculation is of interest, I doubt whether anything concrete will be known for months.
Meanwhile, let's see if we can get this thread to 2000 posts.
Last edited:
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
How do you know?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
He was. It has been reported by people who were there.
BrianH
Well-Known Member
You make a fair point ... However, my personal perception is that the product is tainted. “by their friends you shall know them” and all that.
Why bother? There are alternatives.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
Yes, there are alternatives and they probably work just as well. I guess for someone buying a new anchor it is a consideration, and CMP will have to live with that. It is their problem to deal with, or ignore and accept any demand loss tht occurs.
For the Rocna users out there who are not aware of the issue, and I actually think there will be less than has been suggested, (there are so many armchair sailors walking round harbours who will happily tell you "oh, you have one of those problem Rocnas I see") I suspect that within a few months they will all know.
For those, like me, who already have one, we will have to decide whether the potential downside of what we have is outweighed by the not insignificant hassle of changing.
I like my Rocna and will probably change it for a new CMP one of known provenance. If it then bends, there will be no doubt whose fault it is.
macd
Well-Known Member
(i.e. about a Rocna with a 10 degree shank bend still working "pretty adequately").
Oh come on. You seem keen to analyse anchor geometry in terms of degrees and mm; is your calibration of adverbs exactly as precise?
Clearly a bent Rocna (or Manson or most others) will not work as well as a straight one. That's why I qualified its effectiveness as I did. But it would undoubtedly be better than the hook in Rigger's signature photo. You might quibble at the use of the word "adequately", but you'd have to be pretty obtuse to imagine I was suggesting it would work anything like as well as Peter Smith intended. Had I intended to convey the impression that the holding power of a bent Rocna was undiminished, I might instead have used an adjective like "good" or even "excellent".
I believe similar reasoning is probably behind Rocna's disinclination to advertise its products as "adequate".
(Who'll be the first wag to suggest "That's because some of them aren't"?)
snooks
Well-Known Member
No "probably" about it, the Fortress and the Spade performed better than Rocna in the 2006 YM/WM test.
That's a fact.
It's already been mentioned by Grant in this thread that the anchor sent over for that test was hand picked and "tuned".
So maybe there are other designs which are better off-the-shelf?
Last edited:
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
Yes, but as you have said yourself, anchor tests aren't really up to much. I should dig out the quote, but I am too lazy.
Who is to say that the pull, bottom conditions etc were even for every anchor? What bottom conditios was it tesed in? What weight do you test? Why angle was the pull? How fast was the pull? Straight pull or angled pull? Flip over capability? Reset, and at what speed? Was whatever what was used the same as the target boat? Does tuning actually make any difference? We're the anchors compared actually like for like comparisons?
Every anchor test I have seen makes assumptions in lots of areas and I have yet to see one that doesn't seem to be fundamentally flawed.
Chris_Robb
Well-Known Member
But we do know that they are liers and cheats and CMP has a relationship with them of some sort. That is sufficient reason for me to boycott every product of that company.
misterg
Well-Known Member
OK, but part of the point I was trying to make is that under conditions where a rocna bends, it is likely one will be relying on good/excellent performance, rather than 'pretty adequate' - One has no control over the transition between the two.
As I understand it, the rocna is designed to move in the sea-bed to match changes in load direction, etc. As designed, this movement digs the anchor in deeper. By the same mechanism, a bent rocna will gradually work its way out of the sea bed - it will spiral to the left or right rather than digging down (and I'm not talking about the 90 degree bend ones, either). So I don't think it is a case of weathering a storm and sorting out the bent anchor later, more a case of if a rocna bends during a storm, you become un-anchored and no longer have a functional anchor (unless you have a spare).
Andy
Rigger Mortice
N/A
+1 Hear Hear!
There are plenty of reputable suppliers out there so why on earth anyone wants to deal with a company which engages known rogues is beyond me. I suppose it's their perogative though.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
People who were there said he was being paid? How did they know? Doesn't that seem odd to you?