8mm Anchor chain?
- Thread starter Niander
- Start date
Johnathon,
I certainly liked this, may just buy one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj_dPrjteGg and this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDqa8HKEFac
I certainly liked this, may just buy one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj_dPrjteGg and this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDqa8HKEFac
charles_reed
Well-Known Member
Look here before you spend your money.... http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/photos-of-anchors-setting-126073.html
Excellent factual info....
The mantus seemed to do best, or at least as good, looks a good buy.
A moderator said of this thread 'great guy etc etc, but he sold his soul to an anchor maker'. The thread was eventually jumped on and the final comments show balance that are missing from most of the thread. The unacceptable face of anchor threads reared its head again. It also bears note the star in question is a 60kg anchor on a 42'(?) yacht and is never shown completely buried (probably because its too big).
How many of you with 42' -45' yachts have 60 kg anchors?
Great design, questionable engineering.
Jonathan
sighmoon
Well-Known Member
This was our first year on the west coast, and an issue we had was anchoring in kelp.
Having All the chain on the bottom seemed to make enough difference to make a slippery anchorage viable. Fwiw We carry 45m of chain and 40m of rope. With that, some anchorages were too deep (20m plus) for us to feel secure in.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
Get yourself a fishfinder. That'll show you where the kelp is. More importantly, it will show you where the good clear areas are. Anchoring in kelp or tangle is never a good idea, because even if you do get a grip, when you come to lift it, you'll probably find a haystack of weed on the anchor.
Kelp grows on rock and will defeat most anchors, avoid like the plague - unless you carry an old fashioned fisherman's and to be useful it will be so heavy as to be unmanageable by a small crew. As NormanS suggests get a fish finder or in shallower clear water look and anchor in the sand patches.
20m anchoring depths are basically outside the safe anchoring depth for most small to medium yachts - we cannot carry sufficient rode for anything but a lunch time stop and then we, personally, would not leave the yacht. 20m implies having a 100m rode to get anywhere near a 5:1 scope and often 20m means isolation and exposure to swell. An alternative is to moor to shore in a cleft in the shoreline but this needs a very good forward looking depth sounder (or clear water), good coordination between deck and shore and a 'user friendly' cleft. Carrying short lengths of chain, 3m, ensures there is no chafe, chain round rocks and shackle.
We have done it but find its too much like hard work, physical and mental, and avoid 20m anchorages completely now this might be a sign of maturity or increasingly becoming more wimpish.
Jonathan
20m anchoring depths are basically outside the safe anchoring depth for most small to medium yachts - we cannot carry sufficient rode for anything but a lunch time stop and then we, personally, would not leave the yacht. 20m implies having a 100m rode to get anywhere near a 5:1 scope and often 20m means isolation and exposure to swell. An alternative is to moor to shore in a cleft in the shoreline but this needs a very good forward looking depth sounder (or clear water), good coordination between deck and shore and a 'user friendly' cleft. Carrying short lengths of chain, 3m, ensures there is no chafe, chain round rocks and shackle.
We have done it but find its too much like hard work, physical and mental, and avoid 20m anchorages completely now this might be a sign of maturity or increasingly becoming more wimpish.
Jonathan
charles_reed
Well-Known Member
Jonathan is a lovely contributor who makes many good points.
What really came out of the "Pictures if Anchors Setting" thread, for me, was that the anchor type is reasonably irrelevant - the most important factor is the nature of the bottom followed by the competence of the anchorer.
Yes, I'd agree that noelex's anchor was at least two sizes larger than needed for his boat, a fact he readily admits.
The great flaw in the thread is that, by necessity, it's confined to one type of bottom - a sandy Mediterranean one, which most will agree is the easiest in which to anchor.
How the Rocna, Mantus or Spade will work in other bottoms is not fully evaluated, though the Fortress tests in Chesapeake Bay mud did much to correct the adulation accorded to new-age anchors.
As one who for the last 8 years and about 960 days at anchor on a CQR will testify, if you put your mind to it you needn't drag.
PS As the CQR is now worn out - I've bought a Mantus, because I think there's nothing to choose between New Age anchors except weight/price - I of necessity am in the diametrically opposite camp to noelex77. The Mantus @ $245 was lighter and cheaper than anything else I could get, within spec.
PSS I will confess to a great respect for Alain Poiraud with whom I had a long and, frequently tetchy, e-mail correspondence on anchors (which doesn't make me an authority).
What really came out of the "Pictures if Anchors Setting" thread, for me, was that the anchor type is reasonably irrelevant - the most important factor is the nature of the bottom followed by the competence of the anchorer.
Yes, I'd agree that noelex's anchor was at least two sizes larger than needed for his boat, a fact he readily admits.
The great flaw in the thread is that, by necessity, it's confined to one type of bottom - a sandy Mediterranean one, which most will agree is the easiest in which to anchor.
How the Rocna, Mantus or Spade will work in other bottoms is not fully evaluated, though the Fortress tests in Chesapeake Bay mud did much to correct the adulation accorded to new-age anchors.
As one who for the last 8 years and about 960 days at anchor on a CQR will testify, if you put your mind to it you needn't drag.
PS As the CQR is now worn out - I've bought a Mantus, because I think there's nothing to choose between New Age anchors except weight/price - I of necessity am in the diametrically opposite camp to noelex77. The Mantus @ $245 was lighter and cheaper than anything else I could get, within spec.
PSS I will confess to a great respect for Alain Poiraud with whom I had a long and, frequently tetchy, e-mail correspondence on anchors (which doesn't make me an authority).
To extend charles_reed comment:
The much maligned CQR has now been around for 80 years (though early sales were poor). Its been used by 10s of thousands and is still used by 10s of thousands. If the anchor, the CQR (or Delta), had a greater propensity for delivering yachts to beaches than any other anchor then insurance companies would have latched onto the fact with fervour - they simply have no love of anything more dangerous than another. I specifically talked about this very issue with Panteneous this last Saturday - and its not an issue.
I agree with Charles - its about technique and if you are prepared to accept the massaging of your anchor to enjoy security then some of the older designs are perfectly adequate - if it works for you - why change, especially if the new model costs an arm and a leg. We found that our copy (brand name) articulated plough dragged sufficiently frequently (but we were never on a beach - good anchor alarm and a 6th sense when dragging) that we thought the investment to a new anchor merited the monies - but do not get anxious about the scare mongers - CQRs have been used for more circumnavigations than - choose what you like
But extolling the benefits with boring repetition and superiority of an oversize model in one seabed type (occasionally lightened by images of topless female divers, but maybe they have been edited out) and knocking every other brand - looked questionable.
As I said - Mantus: its a great design, great concept and its cheap, crud QC, poor engineering.
Charles, I'll be interested to hear how you get on - I might drop my shrill comments about poor QC and engineering with a few sensible independent analysis
Jonathan
The much maligned CQR has now been around for 80 years (though early sales were poor). Its been used by 10s of thousands and is still used by 10s of thousands. If the anchor, the CQR (or Delta), had a greater propensity for delivering yachts to beaches than any other anchor then insurance companies would have latched onto the fact with fervour - they simply have no love of anything more dangerous than another. I specifically talked about this very issue with Panteneous this last Saturday - and its not an issue.
I agree with Charles - its about technique and if you are prepared to accept the massaging of your anchor to enjoy security then some of the older designs are perfectly adequate - if it works for you - why change, especially if the new model costs an arm and a leg. We found that our copy (brand name) articulated plough dragged sufficiently frequently (but we were never on a beach - good anchor alarm and a 6th sense when dragging) that we thought the investment to a new anchor merited the monies - but do not get anxious about the scare mongers - CQRs have been used for more circumnavigations than - choose what you like
But extolling the benefits with boring repetition and superiority of an oversize model in one seabed type (occasionally lightened by images of topless female divers, but maybe they have been edited out) and knocking every other brand - looked questionable.
As I said - Mantus: its a great design, great concept and its cheap, crud QC, poor engineering.
Charles, I'll be interested to hear how you get on - I might drop my shrill comments about poor QC and engineering with a few sensible independent analysis
Jonathan
Had similar experience with my CQR, but very impressed with what I have seen so far of the Mantus in sand, what size did you purchase.
Jonathon
Agree with just about all of that, developing a technique whatever anchor you use is important, as in many other areas of what we do. I have never seen a Mantus 'live' so to speak, but as an engineer it looks good from photographs. If it is the bolts you are concerned about then you do not need to be, those four will be every bit as strong as welding IMO, high tensile bolts are good engineering practice, and probably more expensive than welding methods, I feel sure they will have been tested well beyond anything we can do to them.
Agree with just about all of that, developing a technique whatever anchor you use is important, as in many other areas of what we do. I have never seen a Mantus 'live' so to speak, but as an engineer it looks good from photographs. If it is the bolts you are concerned about then you do not need to be, those four will be every bit as strong as welding IMO, high tensile bolts are good engineering practice, and probably more expensive than welding methods, I feel sure they will have been tested well beyond anything we can do to them.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I bought 30m of 8mm chain for my 26-footer, based on the Clyde. It has been enough, but in retrospect I wish I'd bought 50m - though when I measured it for marks last year I discovered that I had actually received 36m.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
It always used to be 3:1 for chain, but there seems to have been some inflation overt the years - perhaps something to do with new generation anchors. Even so, 10:1 seems rather excessive, and well into nervous motorboater territory.
lw395
Well-Known Member
3:1 works for ships with heavy chain, given a certain depth of water.
A 6ft rode does not work when anchoring just off the beach.
In deep water you can add much less than 3ft of rope or chain for every additional foot of water....
The ratio might need to be 5:1 in shallow water and 1.5:1 in deep water, when there is a catenary.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Catenary is a myth. See Vyv's posts above.
G12
Well-Known Member
It's interesting. I've had some deep (ish) water anchoring experience and we found that we didn't need the 3:1 ratio. We were anchoring in 30 metres of water with 60m of chain... and a CQR. We did use the 3:1 for the 1st week and found it a right ball ache to recover all the gear (small manual windlass), then an old salt suggested we needed much less scope which we duly tried with great success.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
In Vyv's mind.
Catenary with rope rodes is well documented.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
I doubt if there is any catenary with a "rope rode".
