Anchor Chum

[Guest]

Anchor ideal and chain ....

The original theory of the anchor is NOT to hold the boat, but to hold the end of the chain or rode.

The catenary and weight of chain / rode is what holds the boat.

If you run a CHUM or weight down the rode to increase the curvature - you increase the inertia of the rode to pulling straight and in so doing reduce snatch etc. It works and has been demonstrated for years ........

If you disagree then pray explain why you pay out so much chain / rode instead of just enough for anchor to bed in ?

The problem is that the average yottie doesn't anchor as 'designer' intended and uses all sorts of lighter arrangements to get around handling chain / heavy stuff etc.

Truth hurts sometimes !!!!!!!

Finally easiest way to fit one is to use a large sprung snap link that is bigger than the chain ............




<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ...
Bilge Keelers get up further ! I only came - cos they said there was FREE Guinness !

 

[Strathglass]

Re: Anchor ideal and chain ....

There is a description if the operation and use of the anchor buddy at <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.anchorbuddy.co.uk>http://www.anchorbuddy.co.uk</A>.

Seems quite good to me

Iain

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfkal]

Re: A Marketing gadget...

Your experiment is flawed if you do it at the beach since you are pulling horizontally. Try pulling vertically and the anchor is no more use than the chain per given weight. The truth for a boat at anchor lies somewhere in the middle. Length of chain and or chum help to keep the pull as horizontally as possible. QED.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

Re: A Marketing gadget...

Nothing like a dose of self interest to give a biased point of view.... however the Navy (and most others disagree :-

"The Royal Navy's test on why anchors drag, show that "When the shank is pulled above horizontal, the efficiency of the anchor is greatly reduced. If the angle of pull is 10 degrees off the seabed, the anchor's maximum holding power is down to 60%. At 15 degrees, it is further reduced to only 40% of its maximum holding power".
The additional pull when a ship yaws is considerable..(tests)..have shown that only 100 of yaw increases the pull by 60%".
(Information sourced from Admiralty Manual of Seamanship. Vol. 2)

Tests have shown that the correct size anchor of any reputable design pulled horizontally, is more likely to hold than an oversize anchor pulled upwards.

Recent tests in the UK revealed that 5/16 chain unweighted, gave a maximum load of 0.44 tonnes before the 35lb CQR anchor dragged. By adding a 12kg or 26lb weight, the maximum load was increased to 0.58 tonnes, an increase of 0.14 tonnes."

Almost every text on heavy weather anchoring advocates their use, most have been written by people who have had considerable experience in riding out severe weather. When sailing with my father he only once used one (fasioned by lowering a large fisherman anhcor down the anchor rode) we then passed a fairly sleepless night in what he described as a 'fresh blow'. Nassau radio reported gusts 95 of knots in the anchorage. Given that the boat was 120' 3 mast schooner, there was plenty of windage.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: A Marketing gadget...

if you go back over the last 6 months you will find Alain quoting exactly the same data - I don't think it is a matter of self interest; more one of trying to answer all the questions ever raised about anchoring in a single thread!
At the risk of confusing things, but trying to help,
(1) the design of an anchor and it's weight both have a significant impact on holding power. However this can be a somewhat false picture because in general the holding power is proportional to the effective area (once dug in) and this tends, within any given material, to be proportional to weight - bigger anchor is heavier).
(2) design has the biggest impact on the effect of the direction of pull, including snatch forces etc - it is here that most of the argument in this thread seems to be placed.
(3) Some anchors retain a significant percentage of their holding when subjected to a pull at 10-15 degrees from horizontal, some loose most of it (Bruce/M being an example). It follows that to get some anchors to hold as the conditions build (or you wish to reduce scope) additional 'weight' helps and it is most efficent applied to the end of the stock. Wether by heavier chain or chum is mathamatically irrelevant but there is clearly a convience.
(4) The primary purpose of chain is to avoid chafe whilst in contact with the bottom; however it works well with gypses, is strong and low maintance, and enables a lower scope to be used in most conditions - all of which make it practical. Again the technical test seem to indicate that at a scope of 6 x 1 there is little significant holding obtained beyond approx 10 metre of chain.

Because of the variables, including convience (I admit I have a Bruce because it is self stowing and cheap, but I carry 20kg more on the bow than I need in anchor and chain), most avoid the technical issues one way or another - ie few of us optimise our anchor systems.We either compromise or go 'overweight', with the feeleing of security it brings.

In all the above it is clearly easy to confuse in extremes, ie 3 tons of chain will clearly hold a 2 ton boat in 12ft of water against just about anything without an anchor!, or more realistically adding a 25kg chum will make a big difference to the scope needs of any anchor system for the same boat - but it probably won't improve the ultimate holding power significantly over a good 8 kg anchor with 8 m 8mm chain to 14mm warp giving an all up 20kg set at 6x1 scope. Personally I would carry a 1kw gennny instead of the chum!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

Re: A Marketing gadget...

No argument with what you write, but it only covers a proportion of the requirements of an anchor. I would venture to suggest that very few people are ever in the situation that they require their anchor to exert its maximum holding power, whereas most of us in Northern European waters require our anchor to have good resetting properties when the tide or wind changes. We also, as you suggest, need something that we can stow on the boat, plus that doesn't require a crane to launch or recover it, that doesn't cover the deck with rust, that will hold in a variety of bottoms, and that doesn't cost a fortune to buy.

Many people, in my experience, base their anchor purchase on the advice of people in their area. What works well for one will usually work equally well for another. So local conditions play a significant part, as does your anchoring habits. For this latter reason, it seems to me, that a survey conducted walking around a marina, where people tend to be less dependent on their anchors, will give a very different impression from, for example, one carried out amongst my fellow club members in North Wales, where virtually nobody has a marina berth and anchoring is the primary form of berthing throughout the sailing season.

Amongst my club members I would guess that 50 - 60% own CQR, the rest being probably 50/50 Bruce and Delta, with the occasional Danforth. Almost without exception they will have 100% chain warp, if only for the reason that one boat on rope amongst the majority on chain is a total nuisance due to its skittering about. Long experience has shown these combinations to work well in mixed bottom anchoring, strong tides and indifferent weather. Many of us have anchored in bad conditions sheltering from gales. But very few have done so in exposed locations where the ultimate holding strength has been needed - that's what experience teaches us.

By contrast. About 10 years ago I was cruising in Western Brittany. We met a boat out of The Hamble, with experienced owners who had been sailing for many years. The skipper told us that he had once tried to anchor, it had proved unsuccessful and he had never tried again!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: A Marketing gadget...

exactly - I actually deleted a paragraph that made reference to the fact that one person's anchor system would be considered anothers lunch hook because I thought it might be considered insulting but, the fact is there is a gulf between those who do often and in varied conditions, and those who would prefer not to!
Sadly many of the latter will read this thread and take it as confirmation of their current view.
Interestingly I can't help feeling that this also contributes to many 'nice anchorages' having a reputation for poor holding - Newton Creek (IOW) springs to mind.

btw vyv I have finally got the antennae back to the house from the van and will proceed to getting it in the post stage in due course! sry for the delay.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ponapay]

Re: A Marketing gadget...

A very useful device it is. When anchored in 10m with 50m 3/8 cable out and with a 55lb CQR down I found I was slowly dragging, an extra 10m cable made no difference but lowering a 25Kg 'chum' weight down the cable instantly stopped the dragging. This was in force 8 in light sand, there was very little motion other than wind effect.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MedMan]

Re: Anchor ideal and chain ....

"The original theory of the anchor is NOT to hold the boat, but to hold the end of the chain or rode. The catenary and weight of chain / rode is what holds the boat."

Hmmm! I don't think we can let you get away with that! On this matter I agree 100% with Hylas. The chain most certainly does not hold the boat. As Hylas rightly pointed out, the amount of resistance from chain when dragged across the sea bed on its own is negligible. It is the anchor that provides the resitance by hooking into the sea bed.

Where I disagree with Hylas is in his assertion that it is only the anchor that matters. The importance of the weight of the chain and all that scientific stuff about catenary curves is that the catenary ensures that the pull on the anchor is horizontal. As has been pointed out in several posts in this thread, as soon as the pull rises above the horizontal the ability of the anchor to hold reduces dramatically. To put it in simple terms: pull horizontally on an anchor and you pull it IN to the sea bed; pull vertically and you pull it OUT. Anywhere in between is in between.

I suspect that much of the arguments here are not about anchoring but about language. You say "The catenary and weight of chain / rode is what holds the boat." Hylas says "the anchor holds the boat and the chain is unimportant." I say "The catenary of the chain keeps the pull on the anchor horizontal so that the anchor can hold the boat with 100% efficiency." However, I suspect that if we sat around a pub table and talked it over for half an hour with an English Teacher as referee to make sure we all said what we meant, we would quite probablly discover that we all agree!

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/>http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/</A>

 

[duncan]

Re: Anchor ideal and chain ....

put that way I couldn't disagree.......the pub bit seems sensible too.

we now seem to be down to degrees - specifically the impact of various factors over the angle of pull exerted on the anchor stock under different conditions. Test results are well documented for the impact of that angle on an anchors holding but whilst a chum will enable you to reduce scope, and therefore swinging circle, in 'normal conditions, will it actually make a difference at 6 x 1 scope to all anchors? As this is a matter of fact we should be able to find out!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[chippie]

Re: Anchor ideal and chain ....

Duncan, since we are all off to the pub, can I ask you how well the 1KW generator starts after use on the anchor chain?;-)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: Anchor ideal and chain ....

GrahamC

Yes, this is well « THE » question?? Where would the “chum” be the most effective?? A lot of sailors are talking about this “Gadget” but I never read any info about the place where it would be the most effective??
From your own opinion? Would it be at the middle of the rode?? Near the boat’s bow?? Or close to the anchor’s shank??
But sorry, I maintain that a chum will not notably reduce the swinging circle.. I will be pleased to learn your scientific explanation of how it will reduce swinging??
And also does a “chum” reduce the swinging circle, increase the anchor’s holding or both?? And why??


Dear nigel_luther

I have to point out that I don’t have any “dose of self interest” to give a biased point of view.... I’m not selling any rope, chain nor any kind of “chum” or competitive product of any sort.. my only interest is to destroy all these old wrong beliefs.. like “The original theory of the anchor is NOT to hold the boat, but to hold the end of the chain or rode.
Up to my own opinion, it is the anchor which hold the boat and the rode is only there to transmit the holding of the anchor to the boat..
“The catenary and weight of chain / rode is what holds the boat.”
The catenary and weight of the chain has nearly NO action in the holding..
The use of a “chum” will slightly reduce snatch.. but elasticity of a nylon rope will be much more efficient and easy to use..
“If you disagree then pray explain why you pay out so much chain / rode instead of just enough for anchor to bed in ?”
Very easy; nearly all modern anchors have been designed to work with a pulling angle lower than 7° and the most horizontal, the best.. this angle is achieved by “SCOPE” or the length of the rode related to the height of the water.. NOT by the weight of the rode..

“The problem is that the average yottie doesn't anchor as 'designer' intended and uses all sorts of lighter arrangements to get around handling chain / heavy stuff etc.”
Ho yes, I fully agree with you.. and that’s why I’m trying to proove that it will be much better to anchor with ROPE instead of chain, and to leave all these gadgets like a “chum” on the quay

Truth hurts sometimes !!!!!!! but not in this case as we fully agree with each other!!!


Dear jfkal
“Length of chain and or chum help to keep the pull as horizontally as possible.”
This is also an old wrong belief.. Chain is working on the WRONG way.. pulling horizontaly when the pulling force is nil or very low.. and as the pulling force increase, the chain catenary tend to disapear and the pulling angle increase.. and as the result, the anchor holding decrease.. when the reducing of the snatch will be the most needed, the chain is nearly straight and will not any longer act as a damper.. Nylon rope will.. by its elasticity and not by its weight..

Dear qsiv
As I told before, I don’t have any dose of self interest in this subject.. and I don’t care if the NAVY or most others disagree.. this is not the fist time that the defender of a “new “ idea has been burnt at the stake..
But news idea are there to improve the technics.. Perhaps I’m wrong?? Or also perhaps in ten years from now “most others” will say that they are at the origine of these news ideas..
Do you belive that I will continue to defend my ideas (with nothing to sell, and no profit to withdraw..) if I was not sure that my ideas would have some truth in them??
I fully agree with the comments of the Royal Navy: "When the shank is pulled above horizontal, the efficiency of the anchor is greatly reduced. If the angle of pull is 10 degrees off the seabed, the anchor's maximum holding power is down to 60%. At 15 degrees, it is further reduced to only 40% of its maximum holding power".
And that’s why we have to use the right “SCOPE” as the pulling angle is DIRECTLY related to it..
Our tests revealated that effect of the weight of the chain in the total ground tackle holding was less than 3%, or lets say, negligeable..
Heavy weather or not, I also advocate the use of some chain, as it is the only way to avoid chaffing of the rode on the (some time) very aggressive sea bed.. but this is another question..
From my own experience, the main reason why an anchor drags is not the pulling force due to the wind but the peak of pressure given either when the boat yaws or due to the action of the waves.. then (cinetic energy formula E= ½ MV²) the force can reach several TONS..and the best way to damp these peaks, is not to use chain or “chum” but a NYLON rope..

But unlike you, I’m not reading any stories or advices coming from “people who have had considerable experience in riding out severe weather” when they are still trusting “fisherman anchors”.. the design of this anchor has been done during Roman an Greek time, and technology did slightly improve since that time.. this is exactly what I call “conservatism”..


Thanks duncan

To come at my rescue.. I perfectly know that my action will be quite difficult.. but I know that more and more people will join the “club”..
My own theories are that the weight of an anchor has nearly no action on its holding.. but its buried surface area and its design have.. Due to its design, for the same total weight, an anchor can have more than twice the surface area of another one..

Dear ponapay

Your “single case” experience can’t be considered as a general case.. yes it has worked once, but it will be imposible to prove that it was the 25 kg of the chum which has stopped your anchor from dragging..

Dear MedMan

Thanks also for your contribution.
Yes the anchor itself is a very important point for anchoring, but also, and then I agree with you, the pulling angle..
The main difference between our theories is that you are trying to achieve this pulling angle by the weight and the catenary effect of the chain when I use the SCOPE..
As I explain before, your method is good with light winds.. When nobody cares about anchor’s holding.. but doesn’t work any longer with strong winds.. when, increasing the scope will still decrease the pulling angle..
But , Medman, I fully agree about your suggestion to sit around a pub table.. after some beers, we will all agree.. :0)



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MedMan]

Scope or Weight?

Hylas: You say: "nearly all modern anchors have been designed to work with a pulling angle lower than 7° and the most horizontal, the best.. this angle is achieved by “SCOPE” or the length of the rode related to the height of the water.. NOT by the weight of the rode.. "

In time-honoured fashion, as the wind pipes up I increase the scope. The greater the wind, the more the scope I let out. In a strong blow I have many times lain to 50 metres of 10mm chain in 5 metres of water. When it comes to staying put in a gale there can be only one message: SCOPE SCOPE SCOPE!

So the question we have drilled doen to would seem to me 'why does increasing the scope work?' You say that it is nothing to do with the weight of the rode. I say: it has everthing to do with the weight of the rode! The ONLY benefit of increasing the length of the rode is that by doing so you increase the weight of what is out there. The greater the weight the harder you have to pull before you raise the angle of the rode above the horizontal. Not convinced? Let us conduct a theoretical experiment:

Imagine if you would that Captain Kirk has somehow managed to beam us some Hi-Tech 'chain' from the 25th Century. It is infinitely strong yet it is so light that it is neutrally buoyant in water i.e. it neither sinks nor floats. Would it make a good anchor chain? If your theory is correct it would, but I say it wouldn't.

Even in the lightest possible wind, Captain Kirk's 'chain' would pull out to a straight line between anchor and bow roller. The pull would therefore only ever be horizontal in a flat calm. It is only by introducing weight that the catenary action has any effect.

Beam the chain back up Scotty - its no use down here!



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/>http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/</A>

 

[Jacket]

Re: Anchor ideal and chain ....

<As I told before, I don’t have any dose of self interest in this subject>

<(with nothing to sell, and no profit to withdraw..)>

So who's getting the royalties from your spade anchor?

I agree that there are many myths about anchoring. Unfortunately i feel you're adding as many new ones as you're trying to remove. Also, I think you're forgetting 2 important points.

Firstly, most of the time, when we anchor, its not particularly windy, but the anchorage is crowded. In these cases chain (and a chum if you want) is a definate advantage. There will be significant catenary in the chain in anything less than a F6, so you can deploy much less cable than if you were using warp.

Second, weight does matter. I'd say for many of us, the most common problem isn't the anchor dragging once set, but getting it to dig in in the first place. In this situation you can'r beat weight. yes, clever design which puts more weight on the tip helps, but you still need the weight. And given most people have anchor widlasses nowadays (appart from me!) I really can't see any excuse for cruising yachts not to have a heavy anchor.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: Mooring rode

Dear MedMan

You are perfectly right when increasing the SCOPE when the wind pipes up..

'why does increasing the scope work?'

I suppose nobody will argue on the fact that more hozizontal is the pull, more efficient is the anchor..

If you imagine that your mooring rode is always straight, a scope of 1/1 will give you a pulling angle of 45°.. Increasing the scope to 2/1 will reduce the pulling angle to 27° at 3/1, the angle is now 18.5° (4/1 = 14° - 5/1 = 11.3° - 6/1 = 9.5° - 7/1 = 8° etc…)

First observation:- the change of angle is much more important at the beginng ( 1/1 up to 5/1)

Second observation: a) Increasing the scope beyond 6/1 doesn’t result in a greatly increased angle

b) Increasing the scope beyond 10/1 will have nearly no effect on the angle..

and this rule is perfectly true either with a rode in chain or in rope or let’s say, it has no relation with the weight of the rode.. it is just a question of Geometry.
Then I have to agree with you “The greater the weight the harder you have to pull before you raise the angle of the rode above the horizontal.” Or explained in another way: - with an all chain rode, the anchor efficiency is increased with light winds (or when nobody cares about holding..) but as soon as the wind builds up to more than 30/35 knots, the chain is nearly bar thight (catenary formula) and the pulling angle is about the same than an all rope rode.. At this time SCOPE, SCOPE, SCOPE.. will be the answer, regardless of the weight of the rode (or of the use of a “chum”.. )

The Captain Kirk’s Hi-Tech 'chain from the 25th Century has already been invented under the name “Nylon” rope and all over the world, they are much more boats using Nylon anchoring rode than all chain rode.. and without the heavy weight of the chain, they are anchoring in total security..

Nylon will introduce a very important characteristic: ELASTICITY and this characteristic will always be present, including with very strong winds; as CATENARY effect will gradualy decrease and become practicalment nil with winds of more than 30/ 35 knots.

(Catenary sag per 100 ft of chain: Wind Speed 10 knots = 15ft – WS 15 knots = 6 ft – WS 20 knots = 3 ft – WS 30 knots = 1 ft – WS 40 knots = 0 ft…) (The complete book of anchoring and mooring – Earl Hinz)


Dear Jacket

It seems that your are slightly confusing things.. In this thread, we are talking about “CHUM” and mooring lines,, not comparing efficiency of anchors!!

The fact that you will be using an all chain rode, a Nylon rode, a chum or not a chum, will have absolutely NO EFFECT on the level of royalties I would receive from SPADE anchors.. so again: “I don’t have any dose of self interest in this subject with nothing to sell, and no profit to withdraw “

Two points..

1 - Crowded anchorages:
- with my car,(when I had one!) when the parking place I have found is smaller than the car.. I always go somewhere else.. So do I also with my boat.. when the anchorage is crowded and when I will not have enough space to have a safe SCOPE.. I go elsewhere..

- I agree with you: “There will be significant catenary in the chain in anything less than a F6” , but for me there is NO problem when anchoring with less than Force 6 and you can use what ever you whant.. all anchors will hold and you don’t need to use a “chum” The problem is with winds greather than force 6..

2. Weight..

I agree with you, weight is one of the points when digging in an anchor.. but where I don’t agree with you anymore is to the location of this weight.. To dig in, weight has to be located ON THE ANCHOR’S TIP.. not on the chain..

But weight is not absolutely mandatory.. on the two anchors type I’ve designed, one has the tip ballasted with lead and the second one has absoluetly no ballast.. their diggig in characteristics are about the same.. the first one will dig in by static effect and the second one by dynamic effect..

No, you don’t need an “HEAVY” anchor.. the efficiency of the 16 kg “Océane” is bigger than the one of the 30 kg “SPADE”.. (yes, in this case, I have a dose of self interest) but this is another subject.. we are talking about the mooring line and not about the anchor’s weigth..



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[charles_reed]

Re: Anchor ideal and chain ....

The point is that the ground gear is a system demanding a quantum math approach as opposed to the Euclidean methodology you're all using (and Hylas is as much adrift as all the everyone else).
The points made are all apposite but are less than 50% of the picture.

I note that all appear to be arguing (perhaps unwittingly) around a bottom of nice soft sand.

What about thin sand on rock, the ultimate test of an anchoring system?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Anchor ideal and chain ....

There is no right nor wrong.

Thin layer of sand over rock is back to an old fashioned fishermans anchor, and hope and pray it will catch. Or a more modern anchor..and hope and pray it will catch.


Sorry, but I'm with Hylas here. I'd rather go with a modern anchor design in most situations, as I'm only likely to be carrying one, or at most two, anchor designs in any boat I'm likely to be using

The best advice is to use an anchor appropriate to your situation.. Failing that, put out plenty of chain or scope.


If circumstances mean you cannot change your anchor, then get a longer or heavier chain, or put out more scope (that includes nylon)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ponapay]

Will others please add their experiences

to mine.

Maybe Hylas will accept the practical approach even if he does not agree with the maths.

Most practical sailors know that a weight lowered down the cable improves the holding of most anchors - perhaps it does not with a spade - and that it needs to be lowered to at least 1/4 of the way down but no more than 1/2 to be most effective.

I have no arguement with regard to different anchors, I am onlyt referring to a 'chum' weight and its effect on holding.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MedMan]

Re: Will others please add their experiences

Whether it be in the form of additional chain or an anchor chum, extra weight will keep the pull on the anchor horizontal for longer as the wind pipes up. The stronger the wind, the more weight is needed. The difference between veering more chain and using a chum is that veering more chain increases the swinging circle whereas deploying a chum does not.

Enough of the theory. You have asked for other's experiences. It's hard to count exactly, but over the last 20 or so years I reckon I have spent well over 1,000 nights at anchor. Of these, I doubt if I have used a chum on more than 50. When the wind pipes up, provided there is swinging room, I opt to veer chain for preference simply beacause it is so much quicker and easier. However, there are times when one is faced with a crowded anchorage and very limited swinging room. Hylas may always move on until he finds the perfect anchorage, but if its getting dark and I have just completed a 50 mile passage in brisk conditions and the next anchorage is 30 miles away upwind I look for a way of making my boat safe in the less-than-ideal anchorage. That is when the chum comes into its own as one can veer less chain than one would have to if using chain alone.

There is one other situation when I routinely use a chum and that is when anchored fore and aft in a narrow bay. I lie to my bower anchor and deploy a second anchor on nylon rope at the stern. As Hylas rightly says, nylon rope has the advantage of being very elastic, but it also has the strong disadvantage of being very light. Instead of dropping away from the boat in a catenary curve it tends to run out straight. This makes it much more vulnerable to being chopped through by the prop of a passing boat. I always deploy a chum on a rope rode in order to keep it well under the water and out of harms way.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/>http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/</A>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Will others please add their experiences

Gladly. Chain has a significant effect on anchoring performance, especially in deeper water. In my experience with 10mm chain and a 12 tonne (all up) weight not low profile yacht, and in the depths we normally anchor in (average around 20 m) the catenary does not pull out of the chain in 30-35 knot winds as stated by Hylas. It certainly would do so with a nylon rode.

In most up to moderate anchoring situations, with a 3:1 or more scope, it is clearly evident from attached mud, etc. that much of the chain sits on the bottom - the most useful accessory when using chain, after a windlass, is a deck washdown pump (ships seem to find the same need to wash chain when retrieving it).

Furthermore, the reliability performance of nylon under cyclic extension and relaxing is indeterminate, especially that part out of the water, both from internal heating and chafe. Chain has a significant shock absorbing ability without inducing shock loads at all times while it hangs in a catenary. We have not noticed any shock loads whatsoever when using chain in 50 knot conditions (cannot speak from experience for over that). Under normal moderate anchoring conditions, say up to around 25 knots with, say, 40 knot gusts coming out of anchorage valleys, the weight of the chain significantly reduces the freedom of the boat to range about the anchor purely from it being dragged around the bottom and the force of the catenary.

I intend finding time to investigate the forces involved insofar as the chain/rode are concerned, but unfortunately it won't be any time soon. In the meantime practical experience flies in the face of claims that the weight of the anchor warp is not relevant and I can only assume that those claiming so have missed something important out of their analysis (rather like the claims that analysis shows that bumble bees cannot fly - as we know they can, therefore the anlysis is wrong). In the case of artificially adding weight to a rope warp, I cannot comment from experience, but I would expect that adding significant weight, appropriately placed along the warp for most advantage would be worthwhile.

I am not anti rope rodes, we carry one also, but on the occasions we have sat out Force 9 winds in an anchorage at night, I have been pleased that I was hanging off chain.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>