Limp Rocna and The Fabrication Ultimatum
That is an amazing photo. Also a very weird awkward anchor roller.
When I was on the hype trail, discovered both anchor makers made statements that they used essentially the same steel alloy for their shanks.
To see the Rocna shank bent like a noodle we miught suspect mild steel was used. This is just as revealing as the actual mechanical face off test. Don't believe the T-1 steel that Manson says their shank is made from can be bent like that (T-1 is used to make backhoe buckets).
It probably takes an idiot on a windlass and the anchor caught in something immovable on the bottom to make it happen.
But it seems from the face-off metal testing that the conclusion is that Rocna is plainly NOT constructed with equal materials to the Manson Supreme. I accept that.
From the tension photos of the broken anchors it does look like shanks were not subjected to sideways bend tests. That would be interesting and more conclusive.
SHANK TO FLUKE CONNECTION.
Focused my personal fears on the shank-to-fluke WELD on both anchors. The Rocna (IF THE SHANK IS ACTUALLY WELDED AND WHAT WE SEE IN THE PHOTO IS NOT A SINGLE CASTING) has a beautiful weld bead along the seam between shank and fluke. And that looks like that weld survived, didn't crack, from whatever SIDE force was used to pretzel the shank.
My off-the-shelf Manson Supreme - along the same BUTT WELDED seam - has a series of three beads welded on top of one another on each side. One side of the shank looks very pretty. The other side doesn't - it's sort of flat and might even be missing a bead....so I'll always wonder about the consequences when hooked off a lee shore in hurricane Harriet.
It seems that the machine test is merely a kind of stretch test, often done with metals. I'd like to see how it was set up in the machine.
Bending tests are obviously just as important if not more important. And definitely I'd want to see high stress put on that shank to fluke weld. That would get my attention. Call it the Fabrication Ultimatum.
I like to see a test that tries to puill the shank off the fluke to test that weld!
There needs to be an accompaning VIDEO of the demonstration. Pix of broken anchors are not good enough.
As far as it goes,
MANSON DID NOT GO ALL THE WAY
with the Rocna challenge testing. As a stand alone comparrison it is merely a gimmick.
Nothing has been proven.
Imco has always been that the shank should be brought thru a forged mortise in the fluke (The Spade does this on their take apart) and WELDED TOP AND BOTTOM to the blade.
THAT will convince me that the weld would never let the shank separate from the fluke!!!
Even if one or the other, or both, got twisted.
Somewhere on the Rocna.com site you'll find the WMupdate.
Cape Dory Boats - View topic - Rocna Anchors Situation
That's a google.
At the moment the furor over the Rocna anchor deception is being aired only on forums and discussion sites.
With the laudable exception of West Marine who have sent postcards to customers about the situation and
the exception of Practical Sailor who have gone into the deception in some revealing depth and detail.
Reported in their Sept 2011 issue.
The Cape Dory site has a lead into the www.rocna.com/WMupdate on the Rocna Anchor home site.
It is titled by the writer as "UPDATE FOR WEST MARINE CUSTOMERS."
(Visited a few other vendors, including Azure, none make mention of the compromised anchors.)
IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT
Roncna says, quote: "the notification you received from West Marine is not a product recall. Neither Rocna nor West Marine have issued a product recall on any Rocna anchors."
Rocna goes on to say, "our manufacturing specifications have evolved over time, primarily to reflect material locally available...
"We have since updated this website content and we sincerely apologize...."
"The exact materials used are part of the proprietary intellectual property in our production specifications. Rest assured...."
"While the materials used to make the Rocna have evolved, our functional specification has remained the same throughout."
Rocnas "meet or exceed RINA's Super High Holding Power (SHHP) classification requirements."
This last bit has since been proven to be a lie in the Manson Destruction Challenge. Unanswered by Rocna.
There are NO tests, independantly conducted or otherwise, that can be said to prove the strength of an anchor if that anchor was supplied by the manufacturer for the test.
What anchor was it that was used in the D.M.Standen Ltd destruction test mentioned at the end of the Update piece?
Upshot, what Rocna is saying is that
ROCNA INTENDS TO CONTINUE MAKING ANCHORS AND DOING BUSINESS AS THEY HAVE BEEN -
with no intention of making any changes whatsoever.
That leads us to understand, I would think, that the anchors will "evolve" steadily into worse and worser Bambury Rocna's.
Watch it!
That mealy-mouthed garbage quoted above
matches exactly the mealy "locally available" material they used to make the Rocna on the end of your warp.
OK, Suppose you got your chain from an outfit that published chain specs like that unconscionable trash above:
'WE MANUFACTURE CHAIN WITH EVOLVED MATERIAL THAT'S AVAILABLE LOCALLY - G-20, G-WHIZZ, WHATEVER.....
IT'S OUR SECRET PROPRIETARY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
REST ASSURED, YOU DON'T HAVE NO STINKING RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT ALLOY OUR CHAIN IS MADE WITH.
TRUST US,
YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO COMPREHEND THE SPECS ANYWAY.
Golly, Miss Molly, gotta get me one of them rockin NEW DEGENERATE ANCHORS !
Rest assured "Rock Solid" Rocna is sinking like a rock.
Thurs. 29 Sept 2011 - Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
Probably better you go if interested to sailnet
google> Rocna Anchors Has Been Sold !!!
where the boys in the club there already have four pages of posts going.
CMP is/was primarily a contract die-casting manufactury of non-ferrous products - like marine anodes.
They also sell the ususal selection of "Engineered in Canada" (but not made in Canada) marine chain* that is aimed at the pleasure boating industry.
There is no indication that that chain is not made in China. Wherever.
Because the chain product range is limited to the recreation boat industry imco that is the case.
(Primarily anode makers under the rubric 'Martyr', they are new to the chain business -2010 - the CMP chain is unsupported by any literature. And new to the anchor business 2011. In 2004 they opened an anode factory in Nangbo China - unknown if they closed their home base in Canada.)
CMP says that Rocna recreation anchors will continue to be made in China.
In fact this Vancouver company may just be the same old China rice-straw man with a different ID badge.
Peter Smith evidently is back on board - if ever he wasn't.
This gives me zero confidence.
Bambury is out? But even that is not evident.
No statements. It's all subterfuge and cover up.
Everything about this drama is suspicious - even if I want to believe in good news and positive developments, it is probably a lie.
As far as I FEEL about this, nothing has changed. It's nearly always has been about BAD ATTITUDE this company produced together with its product.
The Rocna name is beyond redemption.
[Later EDIT 9/30/11]
ybw.com
Rocna Anchors Acquired by Canada Metal Pacific [go to Forums, find 'Scuttlebut', scroll to title.]
for ten pages more (and counting) on this subject from the Brit perspective. Where major players appear in disquise (and thereby continue to promote Rocna's bad breath) like CMP has a spokesposter on the forum - also other spokespersons for the company who swear they are not CraigSmith. Much maligned Grant King (in the role of whistle blower) is present. Lively - but cons (negative on Rocna and its methods) still outweigh the pros considerably.
Appears to me that all along the company never has changed hands at all. There never has been a clear statement by any entity. And if there are what appear to be credible statements, as on the ybm.com forum, the talkers masquerade and peek-a-boo. Same players up to the same tricks, looks like to me. Why use a forum to clear Rocna's name? And do that pretending to be something you're not?
It is as if every effort is made to show that Ronco chinese anchors really are something they are not. Down graded anchors disquised to look like and marketed as real ones.
I'll bet you that
Steve Bambury CEO is merely a Rocna employee who screwed up
(to my knowledge he hasn't been keelhauled yet)
when too many bent shanks showed up and pissed West Marine off
- and Rocna wouldn't own up to their trying to keep from public record bad specification changes that Peter Smith (one poster says) supposedly went along with. Or deliberately signed off on. Who the hell knows???
[CMP is not, will not be, the manufacturer of the Rocna - nor is CMP imco the manufacturer of the chain they sell.*
They contract with a third party, usually secret, supplier whose business is to produce name brand products. Walmart, Sears, Trader Joes, they all do this these days.
As does the current cosmetic Rocna.
If that factory is in China you have NO control over the content of the product.
No accountability, No codes or standards need apply. Just read Rocna's statements of intent.
Brand name china products have a long history of some turning out dangerous, contaminated, badly made, and imco are produced without regard for employees or the environment. If Rocna had remained in New Zealand they would be 'thriving on excellence and innovation.' Not foundering on the brink of oblivion.]
This statement I have bracketed in this later EDIT was said without understanding who or what CMP Global is. There is, however, no way of my knowing how or what products are made by CMP in China. Company literature and announcements are full of pumped up language and half truths and omissions that put on a best and least controversial mask.
If I was a Kiwi in need of a decent anchor, I would on principle alone NOT own a china Rocna.
pfftoo!
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________
*stick with Peerless and Campbell.
I do not know that this is a fact. It is just my feeling given the climate of present Rocna decision making that they are committed to this self-destructive route.
EDIT (10/1/11): Practical Sailor Oct 2011 arrived with no followthru on the West Marine non-recall of Rocna anchors, investigated and published in their Sept. issue.
Canada Metal Memo on Brand Confidence & Statement From the Rocna Anchor Designer
http://www.canmet.com/content/resour...CNA%20MEMO.pdf
In my considered opinion:
latest from CMP on the subject. [blue line doesn't compute - try google> Canada Metal]
try> Canada Metal Memo to Rocna Customers re Brand Confidence
(CMP mentions in this 'memo' that they have cleaned up and rearranged the furniture in the RocnaAnchor website. Haven't checked, I get Rocna Reflux whenever I go there. ebb has had it with this sordid subject - and unless something spectacular happens will drop it completely.......):Dyea!
ahhh yes, one more little twist:
Here also is a clarification from PeterSmith blaming it all on us and the mags:
google> Rocna re-licensing & historical steel quality issues - Peter Smith.net.nz<
[another blue line that won't work: www.petersmith.net.nz>Anchors & Anchoring]
At the end of the statement in which 'Peter' says "Some of the public controversy has been prompted by pictures of Rocnas with bent shanks....some of these are legitimate cases...." he talks of the steel grade changes, including those of HoldFast's: "...the appropriate chain for the anchor will fail completely before the shank is even close to starting to bend. These figures are compatible with the standards of Peter's design and engineering of the Rocna anchor, and lateral (sidewise bending) strength is similarly considered perfectly acceptable."
There is a HoldFast era U-tube video also on site showing a 55# "off the shelf" China anchor being tested in a chain pull cabinet in the China facility. The anchor tip is clamped and led 180degrees in the opposite direction from three types of unseen/hidden test chain connected to the shank in 3 separate pulls, indicated with a prominent digital counter. Not entirely clear what is happening but near the end, at some way-over-tonnage of a normal test pull, the anchor inside the chamber suddenly burps:
The lid is lifted revealing the shank which is now radically twisted. NOT bent, but twisted in line with the pull!
This is a straight-pull procedure that seems not only to be testing chain but also the shank to fluke connection. This doesn't seem to have been the point of the demo. BUT it does prove that bending or twisting of the shank can happen BEFORE THE CHAIN FAILS.
and WITHOUT LATERAL BENDING.
In this case with what for all intents is an inhouse non-authenticated anchor. So NOTHING is being proved. It shows THIS PARTICULAR 55# ANCHOR, has a fluke to shank connection that is phenomenol - if indeed it really is!!!
Peter evidently has included this video to show "that lateral strength [of the Bambury HoldFast] is similarly considered perfectly acceptable." (But that didn't happen.)
This demo shows that, even without sidewise chain pulling the shank twisted and bent, and no chain broke. Perfectly Acceptable? looking into the torture chamber through the camera's eye it did look like the anchor was still in one piece, so it must be Peter's opinion that its STRENGTH is acceptable.
BUT he is in denial about the bending - which is what the international hullabaloo is all about!
He intimates, almost accuses, that some photos of bent Rocnas wouldn't naturally bend as shown and were deliberately mangled to embarrass him, "the Rocna Anchor Designer."
Wonder where Peter gets his bent anchor expertise from?
That's amazing: bent shanks 'perfectly acceptable.'? Yes, the author IS talking about the tested strength of the metal. But since bent shanks ARE turning up with nasty photos on the forums then we must conclude it's the engineering that's at fault.
Since the engineering is faultless,
then obviously the users are doing something wrong when bending the perfectly acceptable shank, in most cases they're probably doing it "illegitimate"ly.
Since we have to assume yachts' chain did not break while bending the Rocna shanks - then the chain must have been oversized or somehow inappropriate for the anchor - which is just not fair.
Must be ACCO chain that bent those Rocna shanks, not CMP chain, which complements the CMP Rocna product. They are 'in the fold together!'
Rest assured, a folded Rocna is still a safe anchor. Without a boat attached to it.
This "re-licensing and historical steel... STATEMENT" site contains blue line links that take you directlty to PeterSmith's historical scathing putdowns of the MansonSupreme, and Sarca. Hell of an attitude, man!
He and his alter ego forum ghost no doubt are still in the mix.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
garbage is still garbage. ebb said that
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
Its a shame
Its a shame
I always seem to reach you out of time
Its a shame
I always meet you when it's just goodbye........baby it's a shame.
last verse of a song by another Peter Smith (Danish singer)
Yachting and Boat World forums Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebutt
(OK, I promised....
How darkly spectacular is it that Rocna finagled the specs on all their galvanized anchors BUT also all their ritzy stainless anchors.)
Take a look:
Under the title: Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
The thread has grown to 40 pages!
Most interesting and even more important is the revelation that Rocna stainless steel anchors
were also (if proven true) deceptively downgraded when fabricated in China.
Grant King ("no longer associated with Rocna") a contributor in the Yachting Monthly forum, has to me, really a very casual observor, emerged as the
Daniel Ellsberg of the Rocna Deception.
He is, like the Pentagon Papers guy, uniquely placed in this deception because he HAS ALL THE PAPER supporting the fraud. Dates, personel, sales receipts...
Venture that like the famous whistle blower there is a moral aspect to this drama.
In bits and pieces you might wonder what all the bruhaha is about.
'Peter' is previously quoted saying there's nothing wrong with his downgrade anchors.
To me the extent and depth of the fraud, like the Pentgon Papers, surpasses the denials and carefull words of the perpetraitors.
Every anchor made, INCLUDING STAINLESS STEEL, all downgraded in materials used and, as I have just read (10/19/11) including downgraded fabrication
PeterSmith's opening salvo putting the MansonSupreme down was the use of 'laminated' metal.
That means sandwiching plates together and welding the edges - a techinique that Smith says is cheap, unprofessional engineering.
The fabricating expertise of the chinese workers when laminating shank plates together is so good that when finished the welded lamination is erased/hiddof the shanks. And not mentioned to the buyer. That's what's being said.
Well, there it is, folks. The Smith engine makes and markets anchors that are despised by the 'designer of the Rocna anchor'.
This stainless Rocna revelation shows how contrived the PeterSmith "1st October 2011 Statement" really is. Contrived, because his attempt to downplay his downgrading of the anchor is only within what has been revealed SO FAR in the 'recalls' and the forums. A complete Statement might have included the stainless steel anchors, but did not. Why? Because that little bit of deception had not been revealed yet. Right? Hopefully an individual stainless steel Rocna anchor customer wouldn't find out that his significant purchase secretely had had a grade change.
Same come back from 'Peter' will appear...that the anchors are far above RINA standards for the purpose of the anchor, etc.
I don't believe Rocna has authentic RINA approval.
Despise the attitude that makes this deception possible. In fact, it is so treacherous it is unbelievable to me. Maybe the changes aren't all that bad, BUT, you don't adhoc change anything if you claim to have approval from an acency that approves anchors. Or flog standards that are superior than your compeditors. The way it is done by Rocna: is fraud, it's lying, it's deception perpetrated upon the public. A very special fraternity of 'public'.
Are you really OK with this???
The entire Rocna product line made to standards below (how far below remains to be revealed) standards advertised./guaranteed.
Why would Canada Metals Pacific want to deal with this?
That is why I believe this CMP buy out is just another LIE by the Smiths.
'I designed this anchor and I can do with it whatever I please - whenever I want!'
Attitude played a huge part, imco.
My opinion is: The Rocna should be terminated.
If anything it's Nothing but bad news.
Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebut and how forums can be Dangerous
[Sorry to interrupt more important and mundane boat business - especially since the discussion here has been, shall we say, rather slow.]
There isn't anything of greater importance to the safety of the boat than good anchors.
www.ybw.com/forums/index
yachtingandboatworldforums
[sorry, blue line doesn't compute]
click on Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebutt
scroll to Rocna anchor.......
If you are patient and at all curious, by reading and scanning this amazing 42pg discussion
you will have a frontrow seat of the King Rocna event (altho he never shows up) that almost compares with King Lear. A Brit comedy.
Not as bloody, not written by a master, and not as good with metaphor -
but the pathos, the human drama is superb: passion, short-comings, treachery...
If you have read any of my comments above here you have then a prelude into a twisted
and misleading mystery of subterfuge, hypocrisy, errors in judgement. Just about everything
you'd never expect to find in the crumbling of a small and unique commercial enterprise.
Many characters appear,
some suddenly, some go off stage left never to be heard from again. Why did they take part?
One of the main characters from the beginning is RocnaOne who throughout the story never identifies herself.
She has an important role (imco the dsguised character is really female, or in drag, and there are very few of those in this testosteroyal morality play) because she appears to be the voice of the new acquiring owner, CMP (big on anodes), she is expected to reveal details how the unfolding take over of the empire is greased, yet never seems to develop the cajones to talk with conviction. But...but.....but read more of the babble, you'll see!
Clowns appear, and idiots come on stage attempting to sabotoge things.
Some will come on stage holding an anchor (if it was Shakespeare, it would be a rubber sword) asking the audience, what do I do with this?
Others praise the absent and desparate Rocna, others put him down. He is condemned and saved by the Rocna's fool, his wisest councellor, who is also called King.
Ahhhh hh, but this king's fool, will he be the one to bring the kingdom down?
Although the story probably continues to a just end,
poor judgement and the insanity of the main performers
(who all the while other actors are busy on stage are actually writhing in the backdrop wrapped in chains
too spooked to appear front and center) will prevail. They will prevail, but as mere ghosts of what they once were.
CMP (big on anodes) is left holding the bag... as the stage lights dim and the play comes to a close......or doesn't.
Imco we haven't ever witnessed anything quite like this.
In the world of business what has happened/happening is truly amazing. Do we have some power after all?
[last edit 10/21/11]
Main stand out actors on the Scuttlebut stage:
Grant King (post 255) (breathtaking posts at 357, 358.)
wise Djbangi &
Delfin, trawlerman:D
(audience applause)
YBW Rocna thread censored
"21-10-11/17:12
Natalie Davies - Administrator
sticky Rocna thread pulled
I have suspended the thread entitled
'Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific'
while we consult our legal advisor on the implications of some of the posts.
While we are investigating this issue please refrain from
starting any new threads on Rocna Anchors.
Thanks
Natalie Davies
YBW Editor"
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
That is a quote from the Brit Yachting Monthly site.
(and this is my opinion)
Imco opinions by posters who use anchors on their boats have every right to post those opinions, whether they be anonymous or business owners who are not advertisng their services on the public thread.
For the most part nearly all of the negative comments by individuals are intelligent, thoughtful, honest and not subjectively inflamatory. They are however commenting on and revealing what appears to be a shocking on-going long-term deception by a commercial anchor maker. And they shake their verbal fingers. So what's legal here?
The guy with the goods, the guy who says he has all the paper proof from day one for the Mocna deception,
warned forum readers that these revelations would become more surprising than we could imagine.
I would guess that any legal concerns by the magazine rests on this.
But imco since all the posts are in fact opinion, then what we have here is the marine industry stepping in to control a situation that to them has gotten out of hand.
I would guess some Yachting Monthly advertisers are having a big problem with Mocna's public freefall.
It could happen to them.
And in the public arena they have no control.
Good god we could have a revolution here!!!
NO gathering in the streets - OR in pubs - OR the marinas!
I'm guessing that The YBW as a private commercial enterprise that hosts a forum for subscribers have gotten a bunch of emails and phone calls from concerned advertisers.
We can guess who.
It'll be instructive how they handle this from here on in. But the thread is censored/gone.
They also have a public image to uphold with their subscribers, let alone their advertisers.
And it could be worse than I, as an observor, can imagine.
There is a lot at stake here.
The people in charge no doubt want desparately to put the fire out.
They want to put the situation into their own words. For that they want control. Smoke and mirrors.
Anyone can understand that.
But censorship on the www is a very sharp double-edged sword.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
EDIT. Sometimes revolutions become one liners - check out:
Anchors away then (4 pages)
same address.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________
Another refrain titled:
Open note to RocnaOne (4 pages)
After some bickering, on the last page, one entry by Grant King announcing he is taking Rocna to court in NZ next month! Not sure who or what kind of suit? Like HECATE, goddess of the crossroads, it's a three-headed monster. One bent body, 3 heads.
[[later EDIT] on page 5 above, GKing has a newer post where it is evident that he was accused of wrong doing concerning money by BamburyHoldFast, so he's taking him/them to court to clear his name. In that process maybe a timeline will appear that will reveal the truth about who knew what, and did what, and when. The why always turns out to be greed.] From the nature of the lawsuit it may turnout that spec changes to the Rocna are not illegal. But certainly UNETHICAL.
Interesting,
believe I read that SteveBambury/HoldFast was hired on as an ADVISOR at CMP ! ! ! Could not possibly be true?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________
Ethics vs Morality.
Used morality/morals here myself interchangably with ethics, because morality is more commonly used everyday.
Ethics are universal long standing principles concerning right and wrong.
Morals/morality are short term subjective values that support good and bad/evil.
Personal, simplistic short version of this is that ethics is what business wrestles with in public
and morality is what religion requires subjects to support. The borders separating the two are overlapping and blurred.
The Rocna drama is absolutely in the realm of right vs wrong. There is no sin in being wrong.
There is no equivocation in wrong. There is nothing personal or subjective in being wrong.
The squirming of the main characters in this drama and their reps is because they want us to see their wrong doing in a subjective light where it can be heated up and argued about and disintegrated into name calling and so forth. By contrast most of the posters are aware of the distinction and are quick to point out that the main characters seem unable to restrain themselves.
ROCNA DID WRONG. The record is emerging. This is about how business is conducted.
"Rocna Anchor acquired by CMP" back again!
ybw.com
Rocna Anchor acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebut
The censoring began at around page 45 - the thread is back again! Lawyer approval???
and has burgeoned to 54 pgs at present, 10/31/11. I'm totally surprised and gratified. Relieved. So the drama continues:
Big guns still posting: Rigger, Delfin, Djbangi, Fishy Inverness, Grant Smith and even Rex Francis (whose SARCA shanks are now Bisplate 80!)
What a convention! Reasonable, intelligent writing. Great reading, like a mystery story: surprises, turns, revelations.
New people, there's a US lawyer now posted with tips on who's actually responsible for the counterfeit china anchors.
More stink on the Peter and Craig Smith black hole - and some beginning ruminations on whether CMP is really going to pull it off. Their secret spokeperson seems to have lost it.
I'm a great fan of Brit mystery shows on TV.
This is the real thing. Real bad guys. Who did it? Who's to blame?
There is nothing better than this currently.
If you have the time, post your opinion here!
Haven't read much of the new stuff, gotta go.
new generation american anchors
Mr Paul,
Can't think of any, but I'm not in the know on that,
there may be somebody making new gen anchors here in the U S of A.
We seem to lack the moxie - or the venture capital.
They'd be imported from China anyway.
Then, there would be no gaurantee we'd have a complementary cast of sleazy bad guys,
Nor an entertaining forum of savvy head hunters to pin them barstids to the wall!:D