Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-17-2011, 08:54 AM   #41
Guru
 
bobofthenorth's Avatar
 
City: Cowichan Bay, BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Gray Hawk
Vessel Model: Defever 43 Offshore Cruiser
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 570
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Peter B wrote:Ok, well I don't want to flog a dead horse here, but as this is certainly not my experience, and I seem to be one of the few on this forum with actual experience of using a slotted shanked anchor, I am forced to conclude this failing, if it is a true failing, is unique to the Manson version, as I have google slotted anchors tripping out and hundreds of testimonials about both the Sarca and Manson Supreme until my eyes were watering and have not encountered one mention of a personally reported real instance of it happening and the consequences, although some referred to it as a theoretical risk "they had heard of somewhere".
Quote:
-- Edited by Peter B on Thursday 17th of November 2011 07:57:02 AM
*I have done the same.* With the same lack of success in finding the supposedly many complainants.* I find it unlikely (impossible??) that the shackle will slide down the slot in use.* I'm not 100% convinced that I could force the shackle to slide down the slot in order to unstick the anchor but anyone who has actually used a slotted anchor will understand that it is not likely that the shackle will slide accidentally.* I sleep soundly on my Sarca, with my anchor alarm about 3 feet from my head.* And I likely would have slept equally soundly on a sub-spec-steel Rocna except that I didn't want to give my money to a bunch of liars.
__________________
Advertisement

bobofthenorth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 10:41 AM   #42
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
RE: Free Enterprise works

If one anchored w a 15mph wind from the north and during the night a 15mph wind came up from the south what would prevent the shackle from sliding up the slot to the other end? OK lets say the shank was completely buried but given enough pull (from more wind) I fail to see how the shackle could stay at the other end. But very few boaters (in my opinion) bury their anchors. And since both anchors in question set very consistently one would have no idea if the shackle slid up the slot or not. But the real reason boaters set their anchor is just to give them an increased sense of security. I like to feel secure and set my anchor(s) well but in all my cruising in my 20s was done without setting the anchor. I just lowered it down and when I hit bottom I ran out a bunch more line and got into my sleeping bag. Another thing to consider is the fact that the best way to set an anchor is to do it as slowly as possible and that would come to pass if you did'nt set the anchor. When I first heard about "setting" anchors I thought it was stupid. Why do that when the obvious will happen. I clearly led a charmed life when I was young and it's been charmed a few times since but it looks like the real reason we set our anchors is to test the bottom. We need or would like to know if the bottom will allow an anchor (our anchor) to set. In the PNW at night there's usually basically no wind at all so dumping the ground tackle over the side is really all that's needed. It's my opinion that thinking a bit out of the box will lead us to see how a slotted anchor would work very well in all conditions. You just need to realize it's just being pulled out and resetting itself when needed. I know of no instance where a Sarca or Rocna failed to set in any of the anchor tests I've seen and I have 4 or 5 bookmarked. And if one has a slotless anchor in a 180 degree wind change most anchors will break out and reset just like the slotted anchors. I think Manson agrees in that they provide no optional hole to attach the rode like they did/so on the Supreme.*
__________________

Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 12:00 PM   #43
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Peter B wrote:
Marin if you could post a few links to some of those reports it would be really interesting to see them.
Unfortunately we did our research into a Bruce replacement a number of years ago and a good bit of the comments about the experienced problems with the Manson slot were on T&T.* They have an archives but it's very user-unfriendly.

The reviews and user-testimonies were on various boating magazine and marine hardware sites or found by searching things like "anchor reviews" and so on.

All had to do with the Manson Supreme.* I had never heard of the Sarca until reading about it, probably in your posts, here on TF years later.* And I don't want to i imply that there were tons of these complaints about the slot.* Most comments and reviews were favorable about the Manson.* But it certainly wasn't an isolated incident experienced by one person.* There were enough negative comments to give credibility to the potential problem.* That coupled with reviews that talked about the design differences (other than the slot) between the Manson and the Rocna convinced us to remove the Manson from our consideration.


-- Edited by Marin on Thursday 17th of November 2011 01:03:14 PM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 01:53 PM   #44
Member
 
grantking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Marin wrote:Delfin wrote:
*Negativo. *The RINA certificate pertains to a type certificate that presumes the anchor was made of the material Rocna said it was, which it wasn't. *The RINA certficate is also a fraud.

I would be very surprised if Rocna or Holdfast and particularly Canada Metals which is very large international corporation with resident lawyers (CM is the owner of Rocna as of September, 2011) would be stupid enough to put a fraudulent certificate from an international certification organization on a public website where RINA is undoubtedly well aware of its existence.* That would be opening themselves up to legal action that would make the Chinese metals screw up look like a birthday party.

Here is the RINA certificate they supposedly don't have.* The earlier date I had recalled seeing is the date of the seabed test done in New Zealand in 2008.



-- Edited by Marin on Thursday 17th of November 2011 03:39:06 AM

*Then be prepared to be surprised Marin.

The seabed testing was passed using a NZ made plate fabricated anchor in December 2008.

When Rina asked in 2009 if the current production was the same and did the test anchors come from the Shanghai factory they were lied to and told yes they were the same.

The 1st drawing approval certificate was obtained with drawings stating the shank material to be used as Bis80 ( 800mpa). This was for sizes from 4.1kg-110kg. This material was never used in China.

The subsequent drawing approval lists a lower grade of metal for the larger sizes.

I notified Rina this year that they had been lied to regarding the seabed test anchors and that they did not come from China and were made in NZ.

They were also advised that all China production for the sizes 4.1kg-40kg used cast blades and not plate fabricated blades.

The approvals granted by Rina apply only to fabricated blades and the cast blades have never been submitted for testing and drawings for cast blades were never submitted for approval.

The manner in which various approvals were issued in mid 2010 is currently the subject of a court case in New Zealand and relevant evidence will be able to be reported and published shortly. I can then reveal all that I know about the whole sorry affair.

What this all means is that the claim to certification differs far from what is portrayed to the customer. The PR spin placed on it by Bambury is deliberately confusing and misleading and CMP will need to undertake all of the certification process again if they wish to promote the product as being fully certified by Rina.
grantking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 01:57 PM   #45
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Free Enterprise works

Thanks for the clarification. You aren't by chance the "disguntled, dismissed employee" who is said to be the source for so much of the anti-Rocna campaign are you?* Just curious...... :-) :-)


-- Edited by Marin on Thursday 17th of November 2011 03:00:02 PM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 02:04 PM   #46
Member
 
grantking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Marin wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. You aren't by chance the "disguntled, dismissed employee" who is said to be the source for so much of the anti-Rocna campaign are you? :-) :-)
*Their words, not mine, but yes I am and to clarify, I was not the source of the anti-Rocna campaign, it was already in full swing before I was even aware of it and since then have supplied relevant and detailed proof when asked.

I will continue to do so.

It was not in my interest for them to fold as they owe me $90k that I have no prospect of ever recovering now and I just join the long list of others that are seriously out of pocket.
grantking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 02:17 PM   #47
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
grantking wrote:Marin wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. You aren't by chance the "disguntled, dismissed employee" who is said to be the source for so much of the anti-Rocna campaign are you? :-) :-)
*Their words, not mine, but yes I am

So an axe to grind.* So be it.* But I am curious why, then, if RINA has been defrauded as you claim, they still allow their certificate to be used on the Rocna website.* On the occasions I am aware of when my own company (Boeing) has been the subject of misrepresentation our legal department has come down on the offenders like a ton of bricks on a Right Now basis.* For example they have on numerous occasions gotten unauthorized, misrepresentative, or illegally posted videos removed from YouTube, usually on an overnight basis.* Is RINA that dumb to let their reputation be sullied by the use of a fraudulent certificate for so long?* If so, it doesn't say much for them in terms of the credibility of their certification does it.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 02:29 PM   #48
Member
 
grantking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Marin wrote:grantking wrote:Marin wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. You aren't by chance the "disguntled, dismissed employee" who is said to be the source for so much of the anti-Rocna campaign are you? :-) :-)
*Their words, not mine, but yes I am

So an axe to grind.* So be it.* But I am curious why, then, if RINA has been defrauded as you claim, they still allow their certificate to be used on the Rocna website.* On the occasions I am aware of when my own company (Boeing) has been the subject of misrepresentation our legal department has come down on the offenders like a ton of bricks on a Right Now basis.* For example they have on numerous occasions gotten unauthorized, misrepresentative, or illegally posted videos removed from YouTube, usually on an overnight basis.* Is RINA that dumb to let their reputation be sullied by the use of a fraudulent certificate for so long?* If so, it doesn't say much for them in terms of the credibility of their certification does it.

*The first thing you have to do is understand exactly what the certificate says:

(1) it states that "drawing approval" has been given.

(2) it states that seabed testing was passed

(3) it states that a mechanical test on a metal sample was passed.

*

It does not state:

(1) that the anchors are made to the specs and design contained in those approved drawings

(2) that the anchors sold to the public and made in China are the same as those that passed the seabed test.

(3) that the metal used in the manufacture of the anchors is the same as what was presented for mechanical testing, nor is it the same as detailed in (1) above.

So in essence the certificate is correct and was issued as stated but the product sold and promoted under the certification was not as specified.

To take an example if you order a ford car from the dealer and he gives you a chev with ford badges on it is it then a ford?

*

Hope I am making myself clear.
grantking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 05:14 PM   #49
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Free Enterprise works

It's a clear explanation, thank you. The discrepancy I see is that the mechanical test that was performed and passed was in the Shanghai facility in China in January 2011. So one would think that the anchor(s) or metal stock that was tested in the manufacturing facility in China was the same as what was used in the anchors made in that same facility in China.

I'm not trying to exhonorate the Rocna organization or the Chinese fabrication facility here.* It's just that every time one turns around on this topic there are conflicting stories and documents and everybody involved has extraneous reasons for pushing their own point of view that may or may not reflect reality. You're pissed at Rocna because you were let go and they owe you money, Brian what's-his-face at Holdfast was trying to cover up apparent negligent manufacturing--- deliberate or accidental--- at the Shanghai facility, Peter Smith is trying to protect the reputation of his design, Peter's son was shooting his mouth of with apparently no regard for the effect of his statements*on the product's or company's reputation,*etc. etc. etc.

Lost in the middle of all this are the facts of what actually happened.* Everyone who's been commenting on it from any sort of position of connection with the company has reasons for slanting or fabricating*the facts in their own direction.

The only person I've seen in all this*who is clear of all*this muck is Carl (Delfin) who so far as I know has no connection with Rocna or any of the players and simply conducted independent tests that showed that the Chinese anchor he tested was not made of what the manufacturer said it was made of.* While he and I had some heated disagreements on his subsequent handling of his findings, the fact remains that he heard of a potential discrepancy, tested to see if there was any truth to it, found that there was, and said so.* No axe to grind there.

Was the less-than-spec metal used in Shanghai used*deliberately, or by mistake, or by mistake and then everyone tried to cover it up?* Unfortunately those of us not connected with the company will probably never know because everyone who's in a position to tell us has credibility that is iffy at best and out the window at worst.

Manufacturing mistakes happen.* They happen to us here at Boeing.* Sometimes we ourselvs*make them, to say nothing of our suppliers and partners. And--- at least in my observation--- there is generally a logical and reasonable explantion for why they occurred.* Doesn't make it okay but at least you can see what happened and then not do it*again.* This well may be the case with Rocna and the Shanghai facility.* Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anyone who can say so with any credibility (anymore).* Well, maybe Canada Metals can if they choose to do so.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Thursday 17th of November 2011 06:40:25 PM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 05:25 PM   #50
Member
 
grantking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Marin wrote:
It's a clear explanation, thank you. The discrepancy I see is that the mechanical test that was performed and passed was in the Shanghai facility in China in 2011. So one would think that the anchor(s) or metal stock that was tested in the manufacturing facility in China was the same as what was used in the anchors made in that same facility in China.

I'm not trying to exhonorate the Rocna organization or the Chinese fabrication facility here. It's just that every time one turns around on this topic there are conflicting stories and documents and everybody involved has extraneous reasons for pushing their own point of view that may or may not reflect reality. You're pissed at Rocna because you were let go and they owe you money, Brian what's-his-face at Holdfast was trying to cover up apparent negligent manufacturing--- deliberate or accidental--- at the Shanghai facility, Peter Smith is trying to protect the reputation of his design, son Brian Smith was shooting his mouth of with apparently no regard for the effect of what he was saying, etc. etc. etc.
*Thats a fair point on all counts but what we have been talking about is what happened prior to 2011 as far as metal and certification goes.

The mechanical test is for the 620 and that metal was introduced by me in early 2010 to replace the 420 that had been used from day 1 in China.

Peter Smith has declared that he is satisfied now with 620 and that is the future benchmark. However that does not excuse the previous behaviour of all involved

I only post facts and have not been either challenged or proven wrong with anything I have posted and I will keep it that way.

If you tell the truth then you will not be caught in the web of lies. If the truth hurts then so be it.

So far the only attempt to refute facts has been to call me names and make personal attacks, something I will not engage in returning to them.
grantking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 06:04 PM   #51
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,487
Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Marin wrote:

I'm not trying to exhonorate the Rocna organization or the Chinese fabrication facility here.* It's just that every time one turns around on this topic there are conflicting stories and documents and everybody involved has extraneous reasons for pushing their own point of view that may or may not reflect reality. You're pissed at Rocna because you were let go and they owe you money, Brian what's-his-face at Holdfast was trying to cover up apparent negligent manufacturing--- deliberate or accidental--- at the Shanghai facility, Peter Smith is trying to protect the reputation of his design, Peter's son was shooting his mouth of with apparently no regard for the effect of his statements*on the product's or company's reputation,*etc. etc. etc.

Lost in the middle of all this are the facts of what actually happened. *

*

The facts are of record. *

1. *Rocna, through Craig Smith stated repeatedly that all anchor designs other than theirs were substandard because only theirs contained proper steel.

2. *During this time, Holdfast was manufacturing anchors of grossly inferior steel to the specification stipulated by the designer. *Emails verifying that Peter Smith and Craig Smith knew of this activity have been posted elsewhere, source Grant King, former production manager. *None of the information contained in these emails has been contradicted by the Smiths, so is as true as Mr. King says they are.

3. *RINA certification that didn't exist was alleged to exist by Rocna. *Existing certification applies to anchors no longer manufactured, although it is posted as if it applied to existing product.

4. *Once the sub standard steel was discovered through failures and independent testing, the Smith's and Holdfast decided to upgrade from 420 to 620 steel and change the definition of what the minimum specification for shank steel is to what they decided to use. *

5. *Exposed to mounting warranty claims by people who were duped into believing the product they bought conformed to the standards they were promised but denied, Holdfast has declared bankruptcy, and CPM has purchased the license to make the product.

6. *Most of the people involved in bringing this deceit to the public have zero bias for or against Rocna. * True, Manson, a competitor was the first to post independent test results that the Rocna they tested was made of butter steel, but the tests were independent. *True, Grant King is a former employee who is understandably as ticked off as the manufacturers in New Zealand Holdfast screwed, or the first Chinese manufacturer Holdfast also screwed. *However, facts are facts, whatever the source. *The Smiths or the Bamburys are entitled to dispute any of King's statements, but they don't. *They just accuse him of being the sole culprit in manufacturing defective product even though that practice has continued long after his departure.

Marin, each time in the past somone has taken the position that things can't be as bad as they have been presented they have been proven wrong. *Honestly, you cannot overestimate the dishonesty of the Smiths, the Bamburys, or Suncoast, all of whom knew exactly what they were doing, and lied about it. *I feel badly for CPM, up to a point. *They still employ Steve Bambury, and while they are slowly correcting Peter Smith's website, they have been pretty slow at it. *They seem like a good company, but based on the people they associate with, I would steer clear of them, and their products. *Perhaps Rocna can position itself as a lower grade Manson that costs more, designed for people who can't tell, or don't care about the difference.
-- Edited by Delfin on Thursday 17th of November 2011 07:10:23 PM
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 09:01 PM   #52
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Delfin wrote:
...you cannot overestimate the dishonesty of the Smiths, the Bamburys, or Suncoast, all of whom knew exactly what they were doing, and lied about it.

I'm not sure it's right to include Suncoast in that allegation.* Mark Pocock originally began fabricating Rocna anchors in his facility in Vancouver, BC.* When we bought ours, you had to order it at which point he would then*make it and then either ship it to you or you could drive up to Vancouver and pick it up, which is what we did.* He was not making anchors "on spec" but was making them only to order.* For example the day we picked ours up at his shipper's the other anchor waiting for pickup was a monster Rocna that weighed some 300 pounds that the shipper told me had been ordered for some big yacht.

I believe Suncoast stopped fabricating Rocnas when Holdfast moved Rocna production to China.* I don't know exactly when that was but at that point*Suncoast's role became one of distributing the anchor for either all of North America or the westen half, I don't remember which.* But I don't believe they had any role in the decisions about what went on in China.* I think they simply distributed what they were sent to outlets like West Marine, etc.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 09:19 PM   #53
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,487
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Marin wrote:Delfin wrote:
...you cannot overestimate the dishonesty of the Smiths, the Bamburys, or Suncoast, all of whom knew exactly what they were doing, and lied about it.

I'm not sure it's right to include Suncoast in that allegation.* Mark Pocock originally began fabricating Rocna anchors in his facility in Vancouver, BC.* When we bought ours, you had to order it at which point he would then*make it and then either ship it to you or you could drive up to Vancouver and pick it up, which is what we did.* He was not making anchors "on spec" but was making them only to order.* For example the day we picked ours up at his shipper's the other anchor waiting for pickup was a monster Rocna that weighed some 300 pounds that the shipper told me had been ordered for some big yacht.

I believe Suncoast stopped fabricating Rocnas when Holdfast moved Rocna production to China.* I don't know exactly when that was but at that point*Suncoast's role became one of distributing the anchor for either all of North America or the westen half, I don't remember which.* But I don't believe they had any role in the decisions about what went on in China.* I think they simply distributed what they were sent to outlets like West Marine, etc.

Perhaps. *However for quite a few years, Suncoast distributed anchors that were substandard, based on the specs set by the designer. The best you can say about them is that they failed to verify that the product they were delivering to customers was to spec, after production was moved to China, and were negligent in that regard. *Does that vindicate them? You decide, but I have heard nothing from Suncoast by way of acknowledging the reality that they were party to the scamming of every customer they sold an anchor to, nor did they respond to me when I emailed them with my test results indicating that the Rocna I had purchased did not conform to their advertised specs and asking for their comment. That anchor had a Suncoast Marine stamp on it, and in my book, that means they own the problem as much as Rocna.
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 09:51 PM   #54
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Delfin wrote:The best you can say about them is that they failed to verify that the product they were delivering to customers was to spec, after production was moved to China, and were negligent in that regard. *Does that vindicate them?
Impossible to say without getting the actual story of events from Mark. If he was led to believe in a way that convinced him that the anchors he was distributing were up to snuff, there would be no reason to test them independently.* After all, we're talking about anchors here, not jet engines or artifical hearts.* We don't test every item*our suppliers send us for the type of metal or other specs.* Once the specs have been set and we are satisfied the supplier is sending us what we require, we tend to take them at their word from then on.

Not saying that Mark was unaware of what was going on, but I can see how he could have been given his role as distributor.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 10:01 PM   #55
Guru
 
Conrad's Avatar
 
City: Calgary
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blue Sky
Vessel Model: Nordic Tugs 42 Hull #001
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,553
RE: Free Enterprise works

I cruised this past summer with a friend of Mark's who had very high praise for his technical knowledge and integrity. He did not think that Mark would knowingly be involved in anything as underhanded as what has apparently been happening.
Conrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2011, 07:54 AM   #56
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,487
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Conrad wrote:
I cruised this past summer with a friend of Mark's who had very high praise for his technical knowledge and integrity. He did not think that Mark would knowingly be involved in anything as underhanded as what has apparently been happening.
*Fair enough. *I don't know the man, or his company. The only contact I had with them was an email I sent to them enquiring about the steel used in their product, which went unanswered. *That seemed a bit odd, but perhaps it was lost along the way. *However, since most all defective Rocnas passed through Suncoast Marine on their way to duped customers, their total silence (as far as I know) on the issue doesn't speak highly of any concern for customer safety or fair dealing. *

If a company I controlled was selling a defective product for years and making money at it, on discovery I'd have something to say to my customers, but maybe that's just me.
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2011, 03:21 PM   #57
Guru
 
Tom.B's Avatar
 
City: Cary, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Skinny Dippin'
Vessel Model: Navigator 4200 Classic
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,152
RE: Free Enterprise works

In the meantime, people like me, who could be in the market for an anchor in the not-to-distant future, don't know what to believe, don't understand the problem, and will never buy one no matter what claims are made. Pity. We almost bought one about 2 years ago too.
Tom.B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2011, 03:40 PM   #58
Guru
 
Moonstruck's Avatar
 
City: Hailing Port: Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Moonstruck
Vessel Model: Sabre 42 Hardtop Express
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,848
RE: Free Enterprise works

It is easy to blame a disgruntled exemployee for a company's problems.* It should also be easy to discredit that employee by publishing facts and even have an independent testing laboratory verify those facts.

This apparently has not been done, and the employee sounds creditable.* I think the company's lawyers would be all over that employee if they could prove his statements incorrect.

Sounds to me like a case of obfuscation.
Moonstruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2011, 07:39 PM   #59
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Free Enterprise works

Quote:
Moonstruck wrote:
I think the company's lawyers would be all over that employee if they could prove his statements incorrect.
That would probably be the case if the parent company was stable.* But it isn't.* It started out as Rocna, then it became Holdfast, and most recently as of a few months ago it became part of Canada Metals (in addition to all sorts of chain and stuff CM makes the Martyr Divers Dream line of zinc anodes.* CM is a large company with a big international business).

It's my understanding that the disguntled employee in this case was let go before the acquisition*by CM.* It would be easy to imagine that CM is still trying to figure out what it's got hold of here*and how to resolve the issues surrounding the product.* The conduct of an employee of an earlier company may not be a concern right now.* Who knows?
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2011, 07:50 PM   #60
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Free Enterprise works

Quote:
GonzoF1 wrote:
In the meantime, people like me, who could be in the market for an anchor in the not-to-distant future, don't know what to believe...
That's the dilema facing Canada Metals right now.* How to rebuild the reputation of the product?* I personally remain convinced that*Peter Smith's anchor design is superior on an all-round basis to everything else that's out there right now.

But were we in the market for an anchor today I would be very*hesitant about buying a Rocna, at least one out of the current stock of anchors that are in stores.

If I could be convinced beyond a doubt that a Rocna I might buy was made of the higher grade metal they are supposedly using now, I would proabably be inclined to get one.* It would be a tossup between that and a Sarca which I have the ability to get now.* But there is no anchor currently in production that I think equals these two in terms of the overall*effectiveness of their designs.

Of course I suppose one might be able to have a Rocna custom made to order.* Mark Pocock used to do this:* that in essence is what ours is.* *I don't know if he retains the ability to do so or not.* And the cost would most likely be pretty impressive.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Friday 18th of November 2011 08:52:12 PM
__________________

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Passagemaker Magazines - Free Chrisjs Classifieds 8 07-13-2012 02:34 PM
Back button no longer works? jleonard How To Use The Forum, Site News & Account Concerns 5 03-12-2011 05:36 AM
generator works with victron multiplus hidetoshi Electrical and Electronics & Navigation 12 11-20-2010 09:52 AM
Vinette Boat Works? prosimedia General Discussion 11 04-20-2010 04:11 PM
Free Dock Rent Summertime How To Use The Forum, Site News & Account Concerns 2 06-16-2008 09:08 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012