Anchor size. I know. Sorry.

[Tranona]

“The art of anchoring with a CQR”, as I was taught it:

1. Luff to a stop at the place where you want your anchor to be. Drop the headsail.

2. Dump the anchor and dump five fathoms* of chain right on top of it.

3. Allow the boat to fall back, paying out chain as she does so, until you have paid out three times the depth at high water.

4. Put the brake on.

5. That’s it. The boat will continue to fall off until she suddenly brings up having snatched the CQR into the bottom.

6. At this point, drop the mainsail.

7. If for some extraordinary reason the anchor doesn’t bite, tack up to it and try again. But it almost always does bite.

No engine, no “motoring astern to set the anchor, and so on.

Plan B is to drop the anchor while you are making headway… only do this if you know your boat and are really confident in your windlass…

* Ten metres, if you prefer.

Note: This is according to Eric Hiscock and others. If you don’t dump some chain on top of the anchor it won’t set.

If you are lucky..... The very opposite of how an NG anchor should be set> As the many tests show a CQR often does not set first time and needs the weigh (and catenary) of all that chain to keep it on the seabed until it does set.

The past is another country and although Hiscock (and Tilman) were of their time, most of us -even ancients like me have learned how to play with our new toys and just think fondly of the past. My hero is Maurice Griffiths. I have owned 2 of his designs. Met him on more than one occasion, have all his books but his views were formed by his experiences that are so different from now.

 

[zoidberg]

'A long time ago, in an archipelago far, far away....'

...the lassie, who is now Milady, and I were involved in one of yon Greek bareboat flotillas, and we found our way into a little bay just round the corner from a little village with a well-reputed taverna. The decision was made that this would do nicely for lunch and a pm snooze, so yrs trly set about dropping an 'ook from the back end on a long line, then somehow getting a rope from the front end secured onto one of the trees along the shore.

The dinghy wasn't inflated; nor could we find the 'blower-upper'. It didn't seem prudent to run the bows up the gravel and pebbly strip of beach, so it was decided to send said lassie to swim ashore with the end of the requisite rope.

A swift 'left-handed Duntocher ham hitch' around the waist of the willing maiden... and off she went in a fine flurry of dogpaddle. Some minutes later she emerged from the waves like Aphrodite, shook herself like a poodle, and - again like a poodle - headed for the nearest tree.

It was then that the flaw in the plan uncloaked itself.

She didn't know any knots!

A consultation was commenced. A conclusion was reached. And she walked herself, still tied by the waist, round the tree three times..... then stood there securing the bitter end while I fussed about making the dinghy do its thing, and rowed ashore nice and dry with our things. She wasn't best pleased, sensing vaguely that she'd somehow been put upon - but a carafe or three of wine with the chick'n chips salved the hurt feelings.

She still tells the tale at family gatherings.

She still hasn't learned to tie a bowline....

 

[Neeves]

'A long time ago, in an archipelago far, far away....'

...the lassie, who is now Milady, and I were involved in one of yon Greek bareboat flotillas, and we found our way into a little bay just round the corner from a little village with a well-reputed taverna. The decision was made that this would do nicely for lunch and a pm snooze, so yrs trly set about dropping an 'ook from the back end on a long line, then somehow getting a rope from the front end secured onto one of the trees along the shore.

The dinghy wasn't inflated; nor could we find the 'blower-upper'. It didn't seem prudent to run the bows up the gravel and pebbly strip of beach, so it was decided to send said lassie to swim ashore with the end of the requisite rope.

A swift 'left-handed Duntocher ham hitch' around the waist of the willing maiden... and off she went in a fine flurry of dogpaddle. Some minutes later she emerged from the waves like Aphrodite, shook herself like a poodle, and - again like a poodle - headed for the nearest tree.

It was then that the flaw in the plan uncloaked itself.

She didn't know any knots!

A consultation was commenced. A conclusion was reached. And she walked herself, still tied by the waist, round the tree three times..... then stood there securing the bitter end while I fussed about making the dinghy do its thing, and rowed ashore nice and dry with our things. She wasn't best pleased, sensing vaguely that she'd somehow been put upon - but a carafe or three of wine with the chick'n chips salved the hurt feelings.

She still tells the tale at family gatherings.

She still hasn't learned to tie a bowline....

Visitors to high latitudes will be queueing up to remind us that though tying to trees is very useful except that in high latitudes (and even not so high) there are no trees. They will then tell us this is not quite true - there are lots of trees but they are only a few inches high. This is actually where high latitudes score - as instead of tying to trees (they exist but are too small) there is usually a surfeit of rocks to which you can secure one or 2 shore lines. This is why when you discard your old anchor chain you cut out the bits that are not corroding and use short lengths of chain round the rocks to protect your shore lines from abrasion.

Those of us with a fetish for weight, and have 10mm anchor chain (not your average sized YBW yacht, but a 50' monster) can buy some G100 6mm lifting chain which will be lighter than 10mm chain and strong enough.

On Josepheline we carried 5m lengths of G100 for just such eventualities and the lengths were dual use as we used them in mixed rodes, chain and rope (I imagine - as useful in Scotland's Hebridean islands as in Patagonia or Labrador - or SW Tasmania

You don't need an anchor, nor a tree, to anchor a yacht - just some lateral thinking, and some preparedness.

Jonathan

 

[zoidberg]

There are those - some of them quite possibly members on here - who consider anywhere beyond 55° North aka Carlisle to be 'high latitudes'.

Those few of us who have participated in the Scottish Island Peaks Races know some of the more exotic means of anchoring that last just long enough to gather your hill-runners in and get going again, without SHHP anchors becoming stuck in trawlers' discarded debris of generations.

There are even fewer of us who have anchored deep in Loch Scavaig, inside the mountain ring of the Black Cuillins, and been grateful for the handful of rock-climbers' steel pitons that members of the Scottish Mountaineering Club have hammered into the bare slabs around the cove, and to which one's half-dozen stout lines are now secured against the 80-knot williwaws that come spiralling and screaming down off the jagged bare ridge thousands of feet above, whipping the dark waters to a blinding hard white high-velocity smoke....

You don't need to go as far as Patagonia.

 

[Neeves]

There are those - some of them quite possibly members on here - who consider anywhere beyond 55° North aka Carlisle to be 'high latitudes'.

Those few of us who have participated in the Scottish Island Peaks Races know some of the more exotic means of anchoring that last just long enough to gather your hill-runners in and get going again, without SHHP anchors becoming stuck in trawlers' discarded debris of generations.

There are even fewer of us who have anchored deep in Loch Scavaig, inside the mountain ring of the Black Cuillins, and been grateful for the handful of rock-climbers' steel pitons that members of the Scottish Mountaineering Club have hammered into the bare slabs around the cove, and to which one's half-dozen stout lines are now secured against the 80-knot williwaws that come spiralling and screaming down off the jagged bare ridge thousands of feet above, whipping the dark waters to a blinding hard white high-velocity smoke....

You don't need to go as far as Patagonia.

Of course not.

But when you are being evangelical about claims that we all need bigger anchors - the argument sounds so much more convincing if you claim experience honed in Labrador or Patagonia.

Jonathan

 

[Chiara’s slave]

We still have the odd anchoring excitement on the south coast. So far our not oversized anchors have not let us down. Whilst we anchor with increased confidence with each success in poor conditions, it doesn’t entirely stop the nerves as the whistle in the rigging goes higher pitched. We’d certainly buy a bigger anchor if we thought it was going to help. But we don’t believe it will.

 

[Neeves]

You have unusual windage on Chiara, (meriting a bow on photo?) - what are the dimensions, weight and then on what do you rely - bridle (aka snubbers), rode (chain and rope?) and anchor.

Jonathan

 

[14K478]

If you are lucky..... The very opposite of how an NG anchor should be set> As the many tests show a CQR often does not set first time and needs the weigh (and catenary) of all that chain to keep it on the seabed until it does set.

The past is another country and although Hiscock (and Tilman) were of their time, most of us -even ancients like me have learned how to play with our new toys and just think fondly of the past. My hero is Maurice Griffiths. I have owned 2 of his designs. Met him on more than one occasion, have all his books but his views were formed by his experiences that are so different from now.

I have watched enough “anchor test” videos for one lifetime but I don’t recall seeing one in which a CQR was dropped this way.

And another thing - on the east coast, and in my limited experience of the south coast, it just isn’t sensible to anchor with long scopes of chain. So many former anchorages are now mooring fields that you have to tuck in where you can, and try to keep clear of other boats, the channel, and the shallows. 3:1 works well enough in moderate weather if you use heavy chain, not the watch chain recommended by the experts.

Obviously you veer more if the weather comes on to blow. And you tend your cable over the turn of the tide. That is called seamanship.

But it’s all out of date now.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

You have unusual windage on Chiara, (meriting a bow on photo?) - what are the dimensions, weight and then on what do you rely - bridle (aka snubbers), rode (chain and rope?) and anchor.

Jonathan

I don’t have a direct bow on photo, she is pretty slippery though, apart from above deck, where there’s multiple diamond stays, a roller jib and a fat stackpack, plus a 13.5m tall 250mm thick mast. 2110kg on our measurement certificate IIRC, 6.8m beam. We use a bridle made of octoplait, 10m of chain, then octoplait. The main anchor is a 12kg aluminium spade. The kedge a Fortress. That is all rope. We tried that last week, cos we hadn’t before. No dramas in 25kn, and easy for Mrs C to deploy, she prefers that role to driving the boat around a crowded windy anchorage. That has to be done quite fast if you are ever going to get the bow through the wind as you turn. It makes her understandably nervous, along with a lot of the boats around us, probably cursing us as reckless fools. At least there’s no wash.

 

[Neeves]

I have watched enough “anchor test” videos for one lifetime but I don’t recall seeing one in which a CQR was dropped this way.

And another thing - on the east coast, and in my limited experience of the south coast, it just isn’t sensible to anchor with long scopes of chain. So many former anchorages are now mooring fields that you have to tuck in where you can, and try to keep clear of other boats, the channel, and the shallows. 3:1 works well enough in moderate weather if you use heavy chain, not the watch chain recommended by the experts.

Obviously you veer more if the weather comes on to blow. And you tend your cable over the turn of the tide. That is called seamanship.

But it’s all out of date now.

I have not noticed many experts only ordinary folk like you, I and the other regular forumites who have developed their own ideas of right and wrong through, sometimes, bitter experiences (of following the advice of old salts).

But, there is always a but

Heavy chain was the advice of our fathers and grandfathers who relied on an Admiralty design or if they were a bit younger the newfangled CQR and Danforth (from the 1940s) and then Delta and Bruce (from the 1980s). There is no need for heavy chain with current designs plus a decent snubbers (to replace the religion of catenary), just chain to avoid abrasive seabeds and strong enough not to fail. You don't need to be an expert to see through the fervour of 'heavy chain'.

Jonathan

 

[14K478]

/|\ An expert speaks.

Heavy chain in light conditions keeps the boat close to her anchor, which is nice in a confined anchorage.

Nine times out of ten I just want to anchor, go to the pub or walk on the beach, or both, and get a quiet night’s sleep, and I find people busily demonstrating all the very best Australian Expert techniques, loudly revving an engine that they didn’t need to turn on in the first place, in order to “set” their expensive bit of bow jewellery, on its watch chain, and veering far too much of it, in anticipation, no doubt, of some Ultimate Storm which the Met Office has forgotten to mention.

It’s silly and unnecessary “performative yachtsmanship”.

Eric Hiscock whom you and Tranona dismiss, set the ideal as “cruising without fuss”.

Do you really think that our “fathers and grandfathers” dragged their anchors any more often than we do?

Rant mode off…

In fairness to you, Johnathan, unlike some other Australian Experts, you don’t seem to be selling any particular brand of magic stemhead jewel and you were kind enough to help me with advice in the past.

But I am sick of all the silliness about anchors and ground tackle.

 

[zoidberg]

/|\

Interesting and unusual.
Reminds me of the Ordnance Survey Benchmark symbol. There's one carved in the cornerstone of this building.

 

[14K478]

/|\

Interesting and unusual.
Reminds me of the Ordnance Survey Benchmark symbol. There's one carved in the cornerstone of this building.

It is an arrow made with /, |, and \, and it looks like the OS benchmark:
__
/|\

because the OS benchmark has the exact height for triangulation marked by the horizontal line with the broad arrow, signifying “government property”, pointing up at it, meaning “don’t erase this”.

The broad arrow itself /|\ was cut with a felling axe on trees selected for use by the Royal Dockyards.

 

[boomerangben]

There are those - some of them quite possibly members on here - who consider anywhere beyond 55° North aka Carlisle to be 'high latitudes'.

Those few of us who have participated in the Scottish Island Peaks Races know some of the more exotic means of anchoring that last just long enough to gather your hill-runners in and get going again, without SHHP anchors becoming stuck in trawlers' discarded debris of generations.

There are even fewer of us who have anchored deep in Loch Scavaig, inside the mountain ring of the Black Cuillins, and been grateful for the handful of rock-climbers' steel pitons that members of the Scottish Mountaineering Club have hammered into the bare slabs around the cove, and to which one's half-dozen stout lines are now secured against the 80-knot williwaws that come spiralling and screaming down off the jagged bare ridge thousands of feet above, whipping the dark waters to a blinding hard white high-velocity smoke....

You don't need to go as far as Patagonia.

Mmmm Loch Scavaig. Magical heaven or pure hell without the fire and brimstone. Don’t bother going if there’s a strong northerly forecast. Watched the Mallaig life boat extract a yacht dragging in there once. Apparently the yacht had four anchors out. The coast guard helicopter couldn’t get anywhere near due to the down drafts

 

[Tranona]

I have watched enough “anchor test” videos for one lifetime but I don’t recall seeing one in which a CQR was dropped this way.

And another thing - on the east coast, and in my limited experience of the south coast, it just isn’t sensible to anchor with long scopes of chain. So many former anchorages are now mooring fields that you have to tuck in where you can, and try to keep clear of other boats, the channel, and the shallows. 3:1 works well enough in moderate weather if you use heavy chain, not the watch chain recommended by the experts.

Obviously you veer more if the weather comes on to blow. And you tend your cable over the turn of the tide. That is called seamanship.

But it’s all out of date now.

No, but they do illustrate that the CQR is not easy to set unless you follow your method of dumping weight on it and giving it time to sink into the mud or sand before you apply any load. However in many other parts of the world there are hard seabeds, for example in the eastern Med. Spent many (un)happy hours watching the original CQR skipping across the hard seabed or failing to dig in at all in the soft sand that overlays rock in some anchorages. This when you discover why it is called a plough anchor! A Delta was an improvement, but this was before NG anchors had become widely available. A Rocna would have been a big improvement as Vyv Cox has shown.

Back to the south coast and restricted swinging areas, the now common method of setting a modern anchor by dropping with a 3:1 scope and then using the motor to set the anchor means you can achieve your chosen spot more reliably. All chain gives the catenary to keep within your chosen arc in lighter winds up to say 25 knots. It does not need to be heavy chain as the difference between say 8 and 10mm is not great. As Jonathan says you can always use a snubber to complement the chain. There is little benefit in heavy chain other than the marginal increase in catenary effect. The rode's primary purpose is to connect the anchor to the boat securely. The smaller chain that you dismiss does that at substantially less weight, bulk and cost.

As to your "rant" I have some sympathy with that view and often in the past dropped anchor under sail and sailed off. Easy in Poole harbour or Studland during the week 40 years ago when anchorages were deserted, there was a bit of wind and/or tide to help set the anchor (a CQR then) but the world has changed and one has to adapt one's technique to reflect the different environment and equipment available

 

[Dockhead]

Heavy chain was the advice of our fathers and grandfathers who relied on an Admiralty design or if they were a bit younger the newfangled CQR and Danforth (from the 1940s) and then Delta and Bruce (from the 1980s). There is no need for heavy chain with current designs plus a decent snubbers (to replace the religion of catenary), just chain to avoid abrasive seabeds and strong enough not to fail. You don't need to be an expert to see through the fervour of 'heavy chain'.

Jonathan

"Fervour" for heavy chain? I've never seen anyone express anything like that.

Everyone knows you don't need heavy chain to anchor successfully. Dashew advocated using lighter high test chain -- "put the weight into the anchor". And the biggest anchor you can handle. Dashew's reasoning was that the effect of catenary disappears just when you need it most -- when there is the greatest force on the ground tackle. Therefore, logically, heavy chain doesn't add much to ultimate holding power. Can't argue with that.

But that doesn't mean that heavy chain doesn't have any benefits. If you can carry it -- that is, you're not a catamaran, and your boat has enough buoyancy in the forward sections, etc. etc. -- heavy chain in deep water gives a really plush ride at anchor, and may eliminate the necessity of a snubber in a wide range of conditions. It also lasts longer. It's in no way necessary, but it's nice.

Last time I renewed my anchor chain, I considered downsizing my own chain from 12mm G40 to 10mm G70 per Dashew's recommendations, which would have allowed me to carry more than the 100m I have now. In the end I decided to stick with the 12mm.

In reasonably deep water (12-15m or more), I don't even think about snubbers until the wind is over 30.

 

[14K478]

Horses for courses. Whilst most of us dream, just as our parents and grandparents did, of making long ocean passages to anchorages with palm trees and hula girls, and a few of us actually do it, most of us are on the boat for the weekend and an annual summer holiday cruise, anchoring close to home, and we are not actually going to be riding out typhoons and hurricanes. A wet weekend with a force 5 (like right now!) is about the worst we usually get. One year in five we may sit out an F8 gale at anchor, and we will have ample warning of it.

How many of us regularly use a snubber? I carried the kit for years and only used it once. Too much faffing around. Like mainsail covers.

But the ability to show off the latest anchor on the bow roller in a marina is what really counts!

For my next anchor I will get a stainless steel Ultra with stainless steel chain. Really blingy!

I’ve recounted the first time I met Maurice Griffiths. My 13 year old sister and my 18 year old self were “cruising the East Coast” in an 18ft half decker with an ex army ground sheet over the boom and we had been shopping for “stores” in Woodbridge, having gone ashore by plywood pram dinghy by the Ferry Dock shelter. We were just setting out back to the boat when a distinguished looking old gentleman with a goatee beard asked us to put him off to his dinghy, as the tide had covered his anchor.

We both recognised him at once and we both thought of the opening pages of “The Magic of the Swatchways”. But we knew that he had picked a couple of kids because he didn’t want to be recognised, and we said nothing!

 

[Dockhead]

But when you are being evangelical about claims that we all need bigger anchors - the argument sounds so much more convincing if you claim experience honed in Labrador or Patagonia.

Yet another straw man from you, Jonathan.

No one in this thread has said everyone needs bigger anchors. On the contrary, everyone should choose whatever anchor he wants. You can use a rusty fishhook for all I care -- it's your boat.

What has been argued is to dispute the claim that the advice of Dashew, Harries, Smith, etc. etc. etc. is all wrong, and that any anchor bigger than the manufacturer's recommended size is a waste of money. This claim is false, and has been proven to be false. The maker's recommended sizes may well work for many people in conditions they actually anchor in, and that's great! But the range of conditions which is possible to anchor in is expanded with a larger anchor, hence the traditional advice. This expanded range of feasible conditions is concretely needed by some people, and not only in high latitudes. And is not needed by others. Or not so far, anyway.

That does not mean that "everyone needs a larger anchor". That's up to everyone to decide for himself.

 

[Dockhead]

Horses for courses. Whilst most of us dream, just as our parents and grandparents did, of making long ocean passages to anchorages with palm trees and hula girls, and a few of us actually do it, most of us are on the boat for the weekend and an annual summer holiday cruise, anchoring close to home, and we are not actually going to be riding out typhoons and hurricanes. A wet weekend with a force 5 (like right now!) is about the worst we usually get. One year in five we may sit out an F8 gale at anchor, and we will have ample warning of it.

Absolutely right. Use cases are very different from boat to boat. It's an error to universalize one's own use case.

 

[geem]

Yet another straw man from you, Jonathan.

No one in this thread has said everyone needs bigger anchors. On the contrary, everyone should choose whatever anchor he wants. You can use a rusty fishhook for all I care -- it's your boat.

What has been argued is to dispute the claim that the advice of Dashew, Harries, Smith, etc. etc. etc. is all wrong, and that any anchor bigger than the manufacturer's recommended size is a waste of money. This claim is false, and has been proven to be false. The maker's recommended sizes may well work for many people in conditions they actually anchor in, and that's great! But the range of conditions which is possible to anchor in is expanded with a larger anchor, hence the traditional advice. This expanded range of feasible conditions is concretely needed by some people, and not only in high latitudes. And is not needed by others. Or not so far, anyway.

That does not mean that "everyone needs a larger anchor". That's up to everyone to decide for himself.

Agreed. But why do some people consistently tell us we need to go up a size or two. We already have NG anchors that set far better than the old CQR, Bruce and Delta and numerous tests tell us they develope twice the ultimate holding power of those old anchors. Many of us routinely use snubbers that have been proven to reduce snatch loads be a half.