Anchor Choice

[AndrewB]

Regarding Delta.

I experimented briefly with a 15kg Delta a little while back. They seem the natural successor to a CQR.

While it had excellent holding power once dug in, it was a b*gger to set on firm sand, and I got nowhere on pebbles. I worried about using it in a tideway, where it might need to reset itself on the change of tide.

So I went back to a CQR, which I find sets reasonably easily. (The best setting anchor by far is a fisherman's, but that offers limited holding power).

What is your experience?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Regarding Fisherman.

>The best setting anchor by far is a fisherman's, but that offers limited holding power<

Which begs the question of why someone is not building a fisherman pattern anchor, but with increased fluke area.

 

[Jacket]

Re: Regarding Fisherman.

Possibly the reason that a fisherman digs in easily is because the low fluke area means that there's little resistance to penetrating the bottom?

 

[snowleopard]

Re: Regarding Delta.

interesting that you had trouble getting the delta to set in sand. throughout the caribbean we anchored in sand and i soon discovered that to drop the hook and engage reverse just resulted in a fast drag. in the end i would have a rum punch first, by which time the wind had laid out the cable on the bottom and started to set the hook so i could then do a power set. after that nothing would shift us.

 

[AndrewB]

Re: Regarding Delta.

That's it then, needs to be eased in. Every anchor has a technique.

Sand in the Caribbean is often light and fine, and I've found that is one surface where a CQR isn't at all good, specially in places where its just a thin layer over rock (e.g. around Marie Gallante). Our Bruce worked better.

But the sand I tested the Delta on was the hard, silty stuff off Margate, above the low water mark.

 

[ean_p]

Re: Regarding Delta.

mmmm...and you forgot the rum punch as well......must get those prioritys right....

 

[AndrewB]

Re: Regarding Delta.

Forget? Did I!

10 attempts to get a decent hold in Grand-Bourg, and the only place to be is out my skull.

 

[charles_reed]

Despite innumerable "tests" which often prove contradictory, there is no such thing as a best anchor - they all have advantages and disadvantages. You have to choose with an eye to the type of anchoring you'll be doing and the bottoms in which you'll be anchoring.
From study of many of the tests and the warblings of the pundits, here's my summary:

Your anchor types can be divided into 4 main families - the difference in holding power is similar for all the anchors in a family despite the competing claims of the individual makers.

I PLOUGH ANCHORS - use in deep, soft, sand, mud. Poor in thin sand on rock, nearly useless in rock, middling holding power.
1.1. CQR - the first research-based design, good digging/holding power, can capsize, frequently won't reset when it breaks out. Difficult to stow, needs regular sharpening and re-galvanising, almost useless in thick weed, prone to bend its shank unless it's forged. Lots of imitations some of which are nearly useless.
1.2. DELTA - fabricated development of the CQR, less likely to capsize, sets more quickly, easier to stow, resets better when it breaks out, but less likely to dig as deep as the CQR under continuous pressure. Claims for greater holding power apocryphal but setting/resetting ability allows lower weight than CQR. Self-launching and self-stows better than nearly any other anchor.
1.3. BRUCE - probably the lowest holding power of all the ploughs, but sets/resets best of all, will bite in rock, sand/on rock and coral, midway between Delta and CQR for ease of stowage.

II. STOCKLESS ANCHORS - excellent holding power under ideal conditions, soft sand or mud/clay bottoms.
2.1 Danforth - the best-known of all of them, great when it gets something int which it can dig, but then hell to get up, easy to foul and difficult to trip, easily damaged especially in bending its shank. Easy to stow. The high tensile danforth is an attempt to get round this problem of fragility and its increased angle of penetration makes it a theoretically better holder.
2.2. Navy - the first patent anchor, doesn't scale down well for small boat use.
2.3. Fortress - a high tensile aluminium version of the Danforth, undeniably the greatest holding power/for weight of any anchor, if you can ever get it to the bottom to dig in because it emulates a manta if there is any current around.

III SPADE ANCHORS - lots of versions, extremely good holding, highly inconsistent setting, good in sand/mud, some will cut thro' weed. Very good for use as mooring anchors.

IV STOCKED ANCHORS - the traditional anchor, lowest holding power/weight of any anchor, but the only one good in rock, reasonable in weed. Hell to stow, even when the stock dismounts, but probably the least fragile of all.

With a 35kg CQR, you've obviously got a power anchor winch, the anchor weight is dictated as much by windage as yacht weight. If you intend to anchor in earnest I'd fit a second fairlead with either a 30kg Bruce or a 25kg Delta - for use in UK and N Europe the plough anchors are probably the best all-round performers - though N Brittany, Scotland and the Irish coast would indicate a heavy (say 50kg) folding fisherman.
I'd also suggest painting the top of the anchor flukes white - in reasonably clear water you can observe its penetration and attitude.
In places where fouling is likely fit a trip line, beware a buoyed line being merrily picked up by a (frequently French) new arrival in happy anticipation of a mooring. Some lead their trip line back onto the anchor chain to reduce this chance with sufficient bight to prevent lifting.
The chances of fouling are 1-2% of anchoring.
Scuba gear, in the final analysis, is the only way of recovering a truly fouled anchor.

On my 6600(probably nearer 7200)lb, 31'er I've got a 25lb CQR on 65m 8mm chain and 100m of 18mm Octoplait rode, a 6kg Delta on 50m of 7mm chain and a 10lb danforth on 20m of 1/4" chain and 50m of 12mm Octoplait.

 

[charles_reed]

Re: Where\'s Hylas?

'Tis the spade and very good it is in the nasty thin sand on rock you get in the Med (but IMHO) not as good as the CQR/Delta in stiff mud or soft sand.
There's also a German stockless anchor whose name I'm desperately trying to recall, which is also good in the Med.

 

[charles_reed]

Anchoring depths

So the most you're going to anchor in is about 6m of water?

 

[charles_reed]

Brittany

Plastimo's anwer to the Danforth - little to choose between them except the Brittany tends to have a greater weight for a given fluke area (but no transverse fold to add stiffness) than the Danforth.

 

[charles_reed]

Not as well as the Delta - and I'd support your 35kg as you have to go to a power anchor winch from 20 kg onwards - you might as well have the benefit of the extra weight where its needed.

 

[Jacket]

Re: Where\'s Hylas?

>There's also a German stockless anchor whose name I'm desperately trying to recall

Barnacle?

 

[charles_reed]

Nope

Punning is not a German habit. They're into more physical types of humour - it begins with a W and is the Chinese copy (or the other way around) of the Spade

 

[Trevethan]

Re: Nope

This could be the start of a very interesting and far from PC guessing game... How about the

"Ve are not going to drift avay in ze storm anchor" or Vanchor?

Apols to any Germans - but did manage not to mention the war

 

[Trevethan]

Re: Nope

This could be the start of a very interesting and far from PC guessing game... How about the

"Ve are not going to drift avay in ze storm anchor" or Vanchor?

Apols to any Germans - but did manage not to mention the war

 

[Roberto]

Bugel - Buegel (?) nm

.

 

[Gunfleet]

Re: Bugel - Buegel (?) nm

I have the very strong suspicion that means bra in German. I have 30 metres of chain on my bra. My friend has a chum on his bra. The mind boggles.

 

[Roberto]

Re: Bugel - Buegel (?) nm

Wonder what a tripping line could do!..

 

[Gunfleet]

Re: Bugel - Buegel (?) nm

You don't wonder. You know.