A Second Wind for Rocna

[Jim Cate]

With respect to the above posts from Evans and Grant: Holy ****, Batman... that is disgusting! I thought that I was pretty inured to corporate mendacity, but that is truly over the top. I wasn't a fan of Rocna before, but I'm now really in the enemy category.

Thanks to those who have done the digging and made these e-mails available to us.

Cheers,

Jim

[Maine Sail]

Evans,

Wow it was WAY worse than any of us imagined... Dishonest barely begins to define this crew...

I suspect the mods here will pull that post as soon as they can but have no fear I have copied it and saved it. I know a forum where it CAN be posted and will not get deleted..

Absolutely freaking DISGUSTING.....

Anyone want to buy a genuine BC built Rocna 15kg. I am DONE advertising this product on my bow!!! Now who wants to sell me a Manson Supreme or Sarca....?

I see NO WAY CMP can pull this off without getting rid of the cancer, but the cancer IS Rocna... Very frustrating...

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

Evans,

Wow it was WAY worse than any of us imagined... Dishonest barely begins to define this crew...

I suspect the mods here will pull that post as soon as they can but have no fear I have copied it and saved it. I know a forum where it CAN be posted and will not get deleted..

Absolutely freaking DISGUSTING.....

Anyone want to buy a genuine BC built Rocna 15kg. I am DONE advertising this product on my bow!!! Now who wants to sell me a Manson Supreme or Sarca....?

I see NO WAY CMP can pull this off without getting rid of the cancer, but the cancer IS Rocna... Very frustrating...

your PM mailbox needs emptying as it will not accept any more messages

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by marinextreme

your PM mailbox needs emptying as it will not accept any more messages

Cleaned some out of there....

[Delfin]

@Estarzinger,

Bravo for stepping forward with this post. Similar information has been posted at the Yachting and Boating World forum site, but removed, apparently due to pressure from interested parties.

There is no apparent question that the Rocna has been made from substandard materials not matching the promise since the first anchor was shipped from China, and this was done with the full knowledge of Holdfast and the Smiths. Having tried to pin all blame on a former employee rather than acknowledging the error and correcting it, they lose all sympathy and become a legitimate object of scorn.

Whether CPM is able to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all parties looks like quite a task. I wish them the best, but they are off to a rocky start.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

Evans,

Wow it was WAY worse than any of us imagined... Dishonest barely begins to define this crew...

I suspect the mods here will pull that post as soon as they can but have no fear I have copied it and saved it. I know a forum where it CAN be posted and will not get deleted..

Absolutely freaking DISGUSTING.....

Anyone want to buy a genuine BC built Rocna 15kg. I am DONE advertising this product on my bow!!! Now who wants to sell me a Manson Supreme or Sarca....?

I see NO WAY CMP can pull this off without getting rid of the cancer, but the cancer IS Rocna... Very frustrating...

Sure! I'll give you $1.00! PM me and I'll give you the shipping details.

Seriously, that's an extremely incriminating email. I've really been trying hard to stay objective about all this - not having seen any hard evidence.

That objectivity just got a lot harder to maintain. Wow.

[JonJo]

Its interesting that YBW pulled a thread that was focussed at an issue of public safety (and customers that had been screwed). It might be the thread was pulled because some postings broke forum rules - one might have hoped the issues of public safety would have been considered more important and the thread edited, rather than pulled.

It has also been requested by YBW that no further Rocna threads be stated until whatever issues they, YBW, have are clarified. The UK Rocna owners are now left with no local source of information.

Hopefully CF will have a more robust and professional attitude and will support safety issues and the unveiling of discreditable commercial activity. The fact that the information slowly being re-vealed might be expensive to rectify is an issue that CMP must have factored into their acquisition but better the cost of this than some unwitting yachtsmen with an anchor with a bent shank (and a wrecked yacht).

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Its interesting that YBW pulled a thread that was focussed at an issue of public safety (and customers that had been screwed). It might be the thread was pulled because some postings broke forum rules - one might have hoped the issues of public safety would have been considered more important and the thread edited, rather than pulled.

It has also been requested by YBW that no further Rocna threads be stated until whatever issues they, YBW, have are clarified. The UK Rocna owners are now left with no local source of information.

Hopefully CF will have a more robust and professional attitude and will support safety issues and the unveiling of discreditable commercial activity. The fact that the information slowly being re-vealed might be expensive to rectify is an issue that CMP must have factored into their acquisition but better the cost of this than some unwitting yachtsmen with an anchor with a bent shank (and a wrecked yacht).

+1, thank you for that.

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Its interesting that YBW pulled a thread that was focussed at an issue of public safety (and customers that had been screwed). It might be the thread was pulled because some postings broke forum rules - one might have hoped the issues of public safety would have been considered more important and the thread edited, rather than pulled.

It has also been requested by YBW that no further Rocna threads be stated until whatever issues they, YBW, have are clarified. The UK Rocna owners are now left with no local source of information.

Hopefully CF will have a more robust and professional attitude and will support safety issues and the unveiling of discreditable commercial activity. The fact that the information slowly being re-vealed might be expensive to rectify is an issue that CMP must have factored into their acquisition but better the cost of this than some unwitting yachtsmen with an anchor with a bent shank (and a wrecked yacht).

They were obviously not told of the full extent of the use of 420 shanks prior to what bambury and Smith have subsequently referred to as ' a small number that were produced in early 2010".

Production sheets indicate exactly what sizes and where they went to however it seems that these sheets and order forms were not revealed to CMP during the due diligence period.

At the request of "RocnaOne" on the YBW forum I sent him some of the information which he was to follow up on and report back to me after having requested a few days to consult with CMP on the ramifications of this evidence. I waited , and waited, but no further contact with him , on ly silence from the "spin doctor/spokesman" officially appopinted by them.

Last night and early this morning I revealed on YBW that all of the production from Decemeber 2008 until late 2009 was in 420 shanks and details of the continued use of 420 for the period september 2009- May 2010 for almost all sizes with a gradual shift to the newer 620 that I had introduced despite huge resistance from Bambury to bring the metal up in spec even though it still fell short of the contracted high grade stipulated by Smith.

I revealed that the last of the 420 shank 25kg units went to Spain in May 2010 and went on to say that I would release today full details of the material used and sizes of all anchors up to June 2010.

2 hours later, in the early hours of this morning, the thread was pulled.

I had already received some 90 odd requests by PM through that forum to identify anchors from the 2008-2010 period which I had done by return PM. It was not a pretty summary and is being replicated throughout the world as concerned purchasers become aware of the shortcomings of their purchase.

Hopefully sanity will prevail and safety will become the number 1 issue, not the spin doctoring of the brand.

[JonJo]

One has to hope that the safety of thousands of Rocna anchor owners who bought 2009 built anchors, with the 420 shanks, will take precedence over commercial pressure. This forum seems to be the last public space to which Rocna owners can turn for information.

If this information is not valid it would be better for CMP, Holdfast or Rocna (who ever it is) to refute the information with sufficient evidence to stand up than to simply try to sweep it under the carpet.

Truth will never hurt the teller, (Browning, Robert 1812-1889)

[Target9000]

I'm shocked by everyone that is shocked.

Grant, Delfin, and plenty others had been telling us what was up for a long time. Maybe not so specifically, but the writing was on the wall. I was shocked at how many people tried to defend Rocna in the older threads.

[JonJo]

MarineExtreme

My personal view is that the information that has been revealed demands some clarification, given the information that has been provided previously by Rocna/Holdfast/CMP/Smiths.

The previous information was that a 'few' anchors were produced, accidentally, with out of spec shanks, namely Q420 steel and that this covered a period in the early part of 2010. This admission resulted in a 'Specification Notice' by WM which CMP then extended to worldwide coverage. Basically if you had concerns you could take your anchor back and if found to be made from under specified steel you could have a full refund or a new, compliant, anchor.

I was never entirely comfortable with this - the paocher and gamekeeper seemed to eb the same person - but that is another issue.

MarineExtreme - you now seem to be saying that ALL (no exceptions) anchors made, since production was transferred to China, but say ALL anchors sold in 2009 and many sold in, at least, the first half of 2010 have shanks with 420 steel. USA, UK, NZ, Australia, Spain - wherever, they all have 420 steel for the shanks.

Can you re-confirm, please.

This suggests that the pretence of checking the steel of shanks, or however the chandlers were meant to do it, is completely unnecessary - anything bought over that period is out of specification and should, as a matter of public or personal safety, be returned and trashed.

Secondly there should be some form of worldwide safety notice, magazines forums, yacht clubs, marinas - or whatever to advise customers who bought Rocnas covered by the period that their anchors are substandard.

[marinextreme]

Originally Posted by JonJo

MarineExtreme

My personal view is that the information that has been revealed demands some clarification, given the information that has been provided previously by Rocna/Holdfast/CMP/Smiths.

The previous information was that a 'few' anchors were produced, accidentally, with out of spec shanks, namely Q420 steel and that this covered a period in the early part of 2010. This admission resulted in a 'Specification Notice' by WM which CMP then extended to worldwide coverage. Basically if you had concerns you could take your anchor back and if found to be made from under specified steel you could have a full refund or a new, compliant, anchor.

I was never entirely comfortable with this - the paocher and gamekeeper seemed to eb the same person - but that is another issue.

MarineExtreme - you now seem to be saying that ALL (no exceptions) anchors made, since production was transferred to China, but say ALL anchors sold in 2009 and many sold in, at least, the first half of 2010 have shanks with 420 steel. USA, UK, NZ, Australia, Spain - wherever, they all have 420 steel for the shanks.

Can you re-confirm, please.

This suggests that the pretence of checking the steel of shanks, or however the chandlers were meant to do it, is completely unnecessary - anything bought over that period is out of specification and should, as a matter of public or personal safety, be returned and trashed.

Secondly there should be some form of worldwide safety notice, magazines forums, yacht clubs, marinas - or whatever to advise customers who bought Rocnas covered by the period that their anchors are substandard.

Production started in China in late 2008 with the first shipments going to UK , Europe and NZ.
Right from the start 420 or even 400 in some cases was used for the shanks.
Steve Bambury had visited China in 2008 along with representatives of Linox Technology of Australia who were the contracted manufacturers for China.
I began with Rocna in early 2009 as production manager and was required to travel regularly to China to sort not only production problems but also certification with Rina.
My other main task at the time was to bypass Linox and remove them from the flow and deal direct with the factory owner for supply at a reduced rate than previous.
That mission was achieved very easily during my second trip to China.
The specifications given to Rina in 2008 included very detailed and specific instructions for the metal to be used and the strength required due to the design of the Rocna.
When the "Venice" anchor was discovered and I notified the factory of the failure I was informed that 420mpa steel had been agreed on as the standard for production in 2008 and that is why it bent.
The priority then became to minimise publicity enter damage control mode.
Linox then published on a forum that the metal used in rocna's was below spec, including the stainless steel models. I countered that by having the posts removed at the time.
During mid to late 2009 we went about finding a higher spec metal than the 420 to use. We found the 620 started to order stock from november 2009 with these shanks.
The problem then occurred of what to do with the 100's of 420 shanks that were precut and waiting assembly in China. The Chinese wanted them paid for if they were not going to be used and Bambury would not pay for them if they were to be scrapped.
The 620 shanks were a slightly higher price so it was agreed that the 620 would replace the 420 as the 420's ran out. All invoices from then on specified either 420 or 620 at the differing prices and this was listed on the production schedules.
After a visit to NZ by the principle owner of the China factory he agreed to lower the price of the620 and slightly lift the 420 price so that they were the same price.
All invoices from 12 May 2010 no longer carried the shank spec notation despite some still being 420 and some being 620.
Herin lies the "proof" documentation widely expounded by bambury and now by Smith.
The final shipment of almost complete 420 units is documented as having gone to Spain on May 13 2010, arriving instore for sale some 8 weeks later.
None of the details I released on YBW were ever questioned by Rocna or CMP or even RocnaOne.
They now all know that documented evidence exists to prove the extent of use not only through production sheets but through invoices and digitally signed proforma invoices as required by the Chinese.
Almost every purchase of these below spec anchors can be traced by each and every reseller as they are high cost purchases usually purchased with credit cards, cheques or on account and very rarely with a handful of cash.
Not all of the information was revealed to CMP during their due diligence process and has only become clear afterwards.
Does that confirm and clarify it enough for you JonJo?

[JonJo]

What a sorry story,

You mention the 'Venice Lagoon' incident, aired repetitively on a whole variety of forum with wonderful images of a bent Rocna. Peter Smith has adequately answered this 'fabrication' (or that is how he portrays it) on his website.

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/2011-oct-01-rocna-issues.php

I'm not sure why there are 2 sides to every story, but what is the other side?


There is another aspect to your post:

You mention that Linox posted on a Forum that 'Rocna' were using steels outside 'specification' or advertised qualities - and this information was pulled (in fact you had it pulled). The implication is that a Forum was aware that a product deemed as a safety item by virtually every maritime authority was being made, or might have been made, using inferior quality steel and as a result of pressure, commercial (legal?) had that statement removed - leaving us where we are now?

It is easy in hindisight - and this forum has been exemplary in protecting the individual but moderators have moral responsibilities and surely this might be seen as a lapse in judgement - when we see where we are now.

But never bite the hand that feeds you?

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by marinextreme

Smith's assertations as to his take on this anchor are the only fabrication on the subject. It bent because it was soft metal the same as everything else since 2008 from China.

Strange because I supplied all of the proof of this to Smith in May this year for him to use as evidence to get rid of Bambury, but I guess he forgot to give the info to CMP.

Clearly the whole lot of them, Peter, Steve & Craig have been entirely untruthful about most everything we've been told. Worse though is that they have actively squelched the truth and had relevant safety information apparently removed from the net.

-Lied about RINA certifications

-Lied about use of steel in shanks and continue to do so to this day

-Sent "specially tuned" anchors not representative of a real world anchor for "independent tests"..

-Publicly trashed the competition for years calling their quality into question when the only anchor with the quality issue was the Rocna.



So how exactly do I get one of those "specially tuned", extra sharp, extra straight anchors built only for anchor tests?????