penfold
Well-Known Member
If nothing else the privilege to post in anything other than plain text at 10pt should be withdrawn after repeated abuse.
Anchor setup for serious crusing - anchor size for 25 foot, 2 tons (4500 pounds) yachts
- Thread starter slawosz
- Start date
- Status
Twyfordbridge
Member
I found that extensive anchor test very interesting. They mentioned a few times in the tests about sharpness of flukes. I haven’t closely examined by Bruce or Danforth for condition but imagine that the Danforth tips would look like they’ve been struck with a club hammer and the Bruce edges would resemble my ancient garden spade.
Perhaps the biting edges or tips could do with a little dressing with a file or angle grinder, not to get razor sharp but to give a slight touching up or bevel to assist digging in. Might not make great difference but anything to reduce possible drag.
Perhaps the biting edges or tips could do with a little dressing with a file or angle grinder, not to get razor sharp but to give a slight touching up or bevel to assist digging in. Might not make great difference but anything to reduce possible drag.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
One factor that has come out since the article was published is the effect of tip weight proportion. The Spade has 50% of its total weight acting on the tip, the highest I know of. Rocna and Supreme have about 35% whereas the CQR, having so much weight in the knuckle and shank, only has 14%. This seems to influence setting in this type of anchor but is maybe different for 'flat' anchors like Fortress.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
I hesitate to enter this bullring, but a Fisherman also has 50% of its weight on the tip. ?
They have their uses, but maybe not as your normal choice of bower anchor.
TNLI
Well-Known Member
The anti Lewmar test was not filmed and only done in one type of sea bed. Tip weight is only a very small part of the performance of an anchor in serious conditions, this test is a very good one, although it needs repeating to get some average figures and most important of all a variance figure. The cobbelstones test should have been repeated 10 times to get an idea of the difference, and if you watch the film it's obvious that the results are going to vary with rock size.
The figures should also be displayed in anchor size and then in weight terms, as different owners have different requirements in that respect. There is no warning about some of the new generation anchors that are far too easy to bend or brake.
The final result is that the genuine steel CQR is a fraction better than the Lewmar Delta, the complete opposite of the anti Lewmar test done in only one rare sand type, that was not filmed. All of the so called experts of that test were only interested in one thing, selling new anchors.
CQR vs. Delta. Anchor Test Video # 124 - YouTube
I would note in the all important anchor mix of 3 anchors to cover all sea bed and depth requirements, that the Herreshoff could beat every anchor in a short scope shoot out !
It's a pity Lewmar don't make one, as it's performance is just incredible and I'm determined to get one. The Excel looks good as I've already said, but I've not seen any reports on the stregth of its edges, as they look a bit on the thin side. For serious cruising you do not want any kind of failure, even a bent edge, as the nearest chandlery or post office might be out of range, or too expensive in import tax terms.
If you chose the Lewmar CQR or Delta for storm main, with a Danforth for secondary and things got real sporting in a gale and the Danforth got bent, or one anchor was lost for some reason, having a normal or even admiralty fishermans is just no good, as it's not a good anchor in soft sand or mud, so you are in effect down to one real effective anchor. Now if we had a Herreshoff as third deep water and rocks anchor, and one of the mains is lost or bent, you still have 2 good anchors !!
Now I'm off until late tonight, so it would be good to answer the OP's questions, as they should carry 3 anchors AND rodes for a safe time anchoring around Scotland. It's possible one gets lost or damaged, so what would be good is if you could all think about doing something rare and figure out the answer,
The solution might be a Delta and a CQR, plus the Herreshof for deep water, and a baby Herreshoff for the dinghy, others who feel they must get something designed after 1873, might list a Spade a Herreshoff and a Delta if the anchorages are mud, weeds, cobblestones and debris.
When I get a chance I will post about what a serious anchor set up needs in the way of a means of reducing the snatch loads in a storm, as I've seem some bad mistakes in that repect. For some reason boaters think rubber snubbers designed for use in a marina are good for reducing shock loads, but they are only effective in shallow water.
[193211]
...
Oh wow.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
Yes, I imagine that a Fisherman would set very well as you imply. Holding is another matter altogether. I am not the first to suggest that anchors are a compromise.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
People who know a lot more about the topic than I do would strongly disagree that tip loading is only a small part of anchor setting effectiveness. Alain Poireaud went to great lengths to maximise tip loading, the result being the anchor that comes top in the vast majority of tests and is probably regarded as the best on the market.
RunAgroundHard
Well-Known Member
Excellent, I do like to read your advice as I find it provides a counter point to oft repeated statements on these fora.
In particular, and not withstanding long held points of view, why, if chain on small boats play no part in an anchor’s ability to hold a vessel, do I need to increase my rope road by at least an extra 2 times the water depth compared to my chain rode? That one flummoxes me and I always use 4 x depth at HW when on rope only.
Hurry back. I am not sure my nerves can withstand another grounding. The boat can, being long keeled with rudder bolted to the keel. What would you recommend to prevent damaged on the forefoot of my keel.
zoidberg
Well-Known Member
As a momentary distraction, a modest 'wenwe'.....
....During the 2003 Fastnet Race - a very light winds event - I recall finding ourselves completely run out of breeze a few miles east of the Shambles Bank ( south-east of Portland ) as the tide turned against us. As usual, many scores of other boats had gone inshore along the Dorset coast, seeking every scrap of sea breeze with the option of 'kedging' if/when that failed. It looked to my colleagues as though our tactic of following the 'rhumb line' well offshore was about to be proved 'a loser' - despite the big Class 1 boats having gone the same way....
...Until I suggested that we 'kedge', too, and produced my secret weapon - a 200m. drum of 6mm pullcord ( rated at 1300lb ) as used to draw fibre-optic cables through ducts. This was secured to the anchor's short chain, and down it went into >30 metres of now-flooding Channel. Despite more than a little scepticism, it held - albeit with the cord 'thrumming' - while bigger racing multihulls that had been way ahead of us came sailing back down past us, going backwards on a 3 knot flood tide!
We did the same again a dozen miles off Prawle Point, in even deeper water..... and the net effect contributed to our conclusive Multihull Class and Series Win.
Only afterwards did I confess it was not my idea. 'Deep water kedging' was a trick used by wily Adlard Coles in RORC campaigns decades earlier to win races competing against the likes of Captain John Illingsworth. He used a reel of piano wire, describing this in one of his books.
'New dog, old tricks'... or summat!
....During the 2003 Fastnet Race - a very light winds event - I recall finding ourselves completely run out of breeze a few miles east of the Shambles Bank ( south-east of Portland ) as the tide turned against us. As usual, many scores of other boats had gone inshore along the Dorset coast, seeking every scrap of sea breeze with the option of 'kedging' if/when that failed. It looked to my colleagues as though our tactic of following the 'rhumb line' well offshore was about to be proved 'a loser' - despite the big Class 1 boats having gone the same way....
...Until I suggested that we 'kedge', too, and produced my secret weapon - a 200m. drum of 6mm pullcord ( rated at 1300lb ) as used to draw fibre-optic cables through ducts. This was secured to the anchor's short chain, and down it went into >30 metres of now-flooding Channel. Despite more than a little scepticism, it held - albeit with the cord 'thrumming' - while bigger racing multihulls that had been way ahead of us came sailing back down past us, going backwards on a 3 knot flood tide!
We did the same again a dozen miles off Prawle Point, in even deeper water..... and the net effect contributed to our conclusive Multihull Class and Series Win.
Only afterwards did I confess it was not my idea. 'Deep water kedging' was a trick used by wily Adlard Coles in RORC campaigns decades earlier to win races competing against the likes of Captain John Illingsworth. He used a reel of piano wire, describing this in one of his books.
'New dog, old tricks'... or summat!
penfold
Well-Known Member
I don't fancy recovering piano wire; did they just snip it?
boomerangben
Well-Known Member
To me the best anchor test is the quality of sleep afforded to the skipper whose pride and joy (and life) relies on the hook.
There’s plenty of choice and lots of people sleep really well with lots of different type of anchor. It’s the choice of bottom that really matters and a proper sailor knows how to make sure they don’t end up in the wrong bottom.
If you’re a really adventurous you have a choice of picks for a choice of bottoms. And they sleep well too, I’m sure
There’s plenty of choice and lots of people sleep really well with lots of different type of anchor. It’s the choice of bottom that really matters and a proper sailor knows how to make sure they don’t end up in the wrong bottom.
If you’re a really adventurous you have a choice of picks for a choice of bottoms. And they sleep well too, I’m sure
RunAgroundHard
Well-Known Member
I always give ooze a pass, can’t get a reliable hold.
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
It’s a great trick and one I used in a race to St Peterport in about 1993. We didn’t make the tide and kedged in deep water off Cherbourg. Our line was on a drum we rigged across the companionway. Unfortunately we still didn’t win…!As a momentary distraction, a modest 'wenwe'.....
....During the 2003 Fastnet Race - a very light winds event - I recall finding ourselves completely run out of breeze a few miles east of the Shambles Bank ( south-east of Portland ) as the tide turned against us. As usual, many scores of other boats had gone inshore along the Dorset coast, seeking every scrap of sea breeze with the option of 'kedging' if/when that failed. It looked to my colleagues as though our tactic of following the 'rhumb line' well offshore was about to be proved 'a loser' - despite the big Class 1 boats having gone the same way....
...Until I suggested that we 'kedge', too, and produced my secret weapon - a 200m. drum of 6mm pullcord ( rated at 1300lb ) as used to draw fibre-optic cables through ducts. This was secured to the anchor's short chain, and down it went into >30 metres of now-flooding Channel. Despite more than a little scepticism, it held - albeit with the cord 'thrumming' - while bigger racing multihulls that had been way ahead of us came sailing back down past us, going backwards on a 3 knot flood tide!
We did the same again a dozen miles off Prawle Point, in even deeper water..... and the net effect contributed to our conclusive Multihull Class and Series Win.
Only afterwards did I confess it was not my idea. 'Deep water kedging' was a trick used by wily Adlard Coles in RORC campaigns decades earlier to win races competing against the likes of Captain John Illingsworth. He used a reel of piano wire, describing this in one of his books.
'New dog, old tricks'... or summat!
zoidberg
Well-Known Member
Dunno. The Adlard Coles book I read was years old, and that was years ago.
The stuff I had was lightweight, a 'freebie' recovered from a roadside skip. It emerged that when a 'pull' of fibre-optic cable was completed, this special rope - comprising a core of aramid parallel fibres in a loose-braided poly**** cover - was simply discarded. Its cost is far higher than piano wire, so I - with a bit of help from my friends - recycled it.
I've used it as 'lazyjacks' on two boats, and it lasted years. I've also learned to splice it.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
Among other sources of information, I use a fishfinder to check the condition of the seabed at the selected anchorage. Saves all the worries that some people seem to have with coble stones, weed, debris, and rocks. ?
zoidberg
Well-Known Member
Do please forgive if I do NOT ask What In Hell's Name were you doing off Cherbourg. Even I know that's a very long way from the light on the corner at Casquets, which is the kosher way to get to the Little Russel and the fleshpots of St Peter Port.
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
My mistake. I’ve just checked with one of my crew (Yoda of this parish) who has helped crew for us across the Pond and is with us now. He’s reminded me that the race was from the Solent to round the special purpose mark off the Cherbourg breakwater and back.
zoidberg
Well-Known Member
TNLI
Well-Known Member
Please try and define which type of fishermans anchor you are refering to, as there are huge differences in performance in mud and sand in particular. The cheap bar versions of the fishermans are no good in mud or sand, and some of them can be bent due to the use of cheap steel. The Admiralty version is a bit better but still not much good in mud and sand. In weight vs size terms the Admiralty anchor is real heavy for a given size, so it's a much better version though, BUT the real star is the Bronze Herreshoff that is able to compete with more normal anchors if required. It's a development of the fishermans and the Bronze 3 piece Herreshoff is supposed to be the only bolt or pin together anchor that does not seem to bend or brake in serious use. In reality it's a classic case of you get what you pay for, as a 7.5KG one, which would be perfect for my lifeboat costs around 800 quid !!
Anchor Reset Tests - Practical Sailor (practical-sailor.com)
The results of the anchor tests are completly different as usual, and mixing up alloy anchors without saying they are top of the list for bent shanks is potentially dangerous in terms of the impression it gives. It's the comments and results for the Herreshoff that are just incredible. If I had to anchor in bad conditions in an area that was marked as mixed, so some sand or mud, weeds and rocks, then using a Herreshoff and a steel Danforth set at least 30 degrees apart should be good.
That article is very interesting, but like many tests they fail to accept that using an anchor that can be bent or broken for a main storm anchor is one bad idea, BUT it is OK to use such weaker anchors as secondary mains. So when you find that you can't use enough scope for a CQR, or Delta due to depth or overcrowded anchorage issues, then you should use the secondary, as a Danforth should work well on 3 to 1 of chain, although the UK Spade would also work well as a secondary.
If you go on a real serious cruise, you will find you might have to use some anchorages that have dubious holding and the odd rock or coral head, and even when you are using good sand or mud anchorages I've seen some real surprises caused by debris, tin cans in particular. So I always recommend that you deploy a second anchor, even though it does not need setting. The Danforth is a real star at setting itself, as is the Herreshoff.
The way an anchor behaves when used in dubious holding is important and the SV Panope videos are interesting to watch. The interesting part is the most dangerous anchor is not one that fails to set, it's the one that then pulls out and then fails to reset. Some of the copies are bad in that respect, but the Bruce is the one I'm not too keen on, as it sets quickly in soft mud or sand, BUT if any weed gets picked up, it can bite you by pulling out for no reason and then failing to reset due to the clump of weed. Unfortuntely I can't find any tests of anchors in weed, which is a pity, cos if you like exploring off the beaten track, weed issues are as common as rocks or cobblestones.
I will always keep my CQR as a main, partly because I know how it behaves in practice, it also saved me from dragging when I tried to anchor in Tonga, (Vavau), where that is not advised due to poor holding, (The Moorings club have moorings that can be rented). I could see the area was sandy but did not know it was patchy thin sand over a rock shelf. I was going to set up 2 anchors from the bow and a line ashore. The CQR refused to set, so I gave up and went and picked up a mooring. If I'd used my Danforth in the thin sand it would have set fairly well, but then pulled out when the wind increased later in the day, as demonstrated by an American yacht with a Bruce set from the bow that dragged later in the day. The Bruce sets very quickly in light sand, but the skipper failed to use enough power to check if it really was set. He also failed to use a second anchor, which is an absolute must if an anchorage is listed as poor holding. My error was in not knowing why the holding was bad!
I don't like anchors that have super high holding powers, but can surprise you when subject to a 90 degree veer when the shank bends too easily, or simple fails to reset after a 180 degree veer. The Rocna is top of the 180 degree veer test failures, but some of the other lighter alloy anchors are just as bad in a storm, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SECOND ANCHOR SET, cos the anchor will drift too fast to reach the bottom in some cases where there is a lack of chain. A second anchor will slow down the drifting anchor allowing it to reset. In reality you wont go far wrong selecting anchors for a serious cruise if you look at what Lloyds and the ABS are willing to certify for commercial use. Nearly all anchor manufacturers try to get one or the other type of approval, and they fail due to lack of strength, and selecting a main storm anchor that lacks an approval is not a good idea, and very few new generation anchors can pass the ABS or Lloyds tests. Most insurance companies do not allow the use of unapproved anchors for commercial applications. Alas the private insurance companies do allow any type of anchor, which is not a good move.
Last edited:
- Status