Anchors. I hate to do this but...

[noelex]

Friends who are CQR owners are infuriated with this video, as they quickly point out that they set their CQRs using a shorter scope, which keeps the pull on the shank more vertical and not horizontal as shown.

In turn, the fluke will bury into the bottom faster and not glide along.

There are lots of home grown techniques devised to set a CQR anchor and when you desperate you try them all.
They arise because in some sea beds the CQR will take multiple attempts to get it set, sometimes it just will not set no matter what you do.
The new generation anchors are much better at setting quickly and reliably. After about 1000 nights at anchor my Rocna has failed to set the first time only on 2 occasions and one of the failed settings was due to very short scope (2:1)

 

[Brian@Fortress]

I posted this before in a forum, and maybe it bears repeating: Here in the US, two widely respected boating experts, Elbert "Mac" Maloney and Tom Neale, have both successfully used CQRs aboard their boats for decades.

"Mac", who is 91 years young, was the long time author of Chapman Piloting & Seamanship, and Tom is also a noted author who has lived aboard since 1979 with his wife Mel, and they log 3,000-5,000 miles per year.

If I told either guy that their CQR wasn't a good anchor because it did not perform well in West Marine's 5 pull test in 3 sea bottoms.....well, I think they would find that comment to be, at best, very humorous.

That said, I believe that the new generation models offer improved performance because of what I have heard or read from their customers, but......

Let's take off our "anchor brand" glasses for a moment and look closer at all of these anchors from a design / functionality standpoint. Imagine a harder, denser type of sea bottom......maybe with rocks and gravel....and you are using a "new generation" roll bar anchor.

Wouldn't the roll bar prevent deep penetration, to some degree, particularly as the "scoop" type fluke filled up with and compressed the rocks and gravel......as opposed to an anchor that DID NOT have the roll bar, and had a "plow" type fluke, which would separate and burrow into the bottom, i.e. the CQR???

Dare I then suggest that a CQR might outperform a Rocna in harder bottoms, where a roll bar might be a detriment to deeper sea bed penetration??

 

[snowleopard]

Going back briefly to the speed of pull in tests, it reminds me of a demonstration I once saw in Chatham rope works. The demonstrator had a length of rope in the test rig to be pulled until it broke. He asked the audience whether it would break slowly strand by strand or with a sudden bang. Whichever the audience voted for the opposite would happen, controlled entirely by how fast he put the pressure on.

When I first started using my Delta I found that as often as not if I motored back to dig it in it would fail to set. Now I have a cup of tea while the boat drifts back in the breeze or current, strightens the rode and sets the anchor. I then give it full astern and it holds.

That tells me that tests where an anchor is pulled rapidly across a beach are more of a conjuring trick than a real test of the effectiveness of the anchor.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

As far as I can see, the bottom, thicker part of the shank in a Manson is the same size as the whole shank in a Rocna. Same size, same metallurgical issues. That the extra bit above on the Manson is cut from the same sheet is neither here nor there.

In any case the cross-section of both shanks is so much greater than the cross section of any chain which could conceivably be attached that failure there is inconceivable.

No, that can't possibly be true. Craig has told us that the twin cut causes problems in the steel because of all the heat being poured into it. He knows about these things.

If what you were saying were true then Craig would be wrong and, with his engineering and metallurgy training, I rather doubt that.
The Manson shank is no good; Craig tells us so.

 

[Ubergeekian]

There are lots of home grown techniques devised to set a CQR anchor and when you desperate you try them all.
They arise because in some sea beds the CQR will take multiple attempts to get it set, sometimes it just will not set no matter what you do.
The new generation anchors are much better at setting quickly and reliably. After about 1000 nights at anchor my Rocna has failed to set the first time only on 2 occasions and one of the failed settings was due to very short scope (2:1)

Assuming for the moment that I am happy with the performance of my 20lb CQR, how small a Manson or Spade would give me the same results?

 

[Djbangi]

Rigger, you are quite correct, Craig is right (he is always right - cannot understand why anyone doubts him, daft buggers) he has also said that a CQR is rubbish, he must know (after all he still says he is affiliated with Rocna - and they are experts and they certainly do not doubt his skills and expertise). Pity those poor thousands of idiots who have been using CQRs, Delta's and Bruces for years - all wrong. Really makes you laugh - such sorry people. Sleeping safely at night (grandchildren in the aft cabin), at anchor and they are all wrong! Makes you wonder what the world is coming to. But it took Craig to show someone who was a member of the Manhattan project that his ideas were completely daft. Well I never. Nobel prize or, BAFTA Oscar - I'm too old, always get them mixed up - but with the length of this thread it must be up for a film or TV script. Beats 'Life on Mars', 'Ashes to Ashes' and even 'Dr Who' any day.

But to be more serious maybe Craig should go work with Bisalloy. Manson and Anchor Right who cut their high tensile steels according to their policies (and Bisalloy supply much higher tensile steels for manufacture of mining equipment, miltary tanks and nuclear submarines) need his skills. He is obviously wasted on sitting behind a keyboard affiliated (must be a new meaning - not in my Oxford) with Rocna - we, or Bisalloy do, need his sort of skill in slightly more cutting edge technologies. Craig, you could make a fortune, (maybe you could cut other people in on the deal - I'm pretty impoverished and it was my idea) and we could all sleep with rubbish anchors and not need to worry. I'll get totgether with a few others and write a CV for you, it might lack your imagination but at least it will be honest. Seems good to me, though on second thoughts having Craig near anything like a military tank or a nuclear submarine makes me shiver - can't think why. After all he is an expert and lots of people agree and I'm just a daft old yachtie and have not learnt the error of my ways.

But I'll be accused of bias - so must mention Spade and Fortress, maybe XYZ, Raya - just send a message if I missed you.

Hope your day is good.

 

[Djbangi]

Hi Noelex,

I reckon a you should forget Manson and Spade. Rocna are the best thing since sliced bread (and you know how good sliced bread is as an anchor). I'd go for a 1lb Rocna - they are amazing - they'll give any holding capacity Craig tells you - and he is an Anchorsmith.

But do not take my word for it look at the Anchorsmith video and the WM results - absolutely amazing.

But I'd steer away from Bute, its the sea cows, if they cannot get their teeth into you chain they'll eat the anchor - which is why Ossian's Cave is half way up a mountain in Glencoe. (Nobody liked the introduction of the horses so I thought I'd try the popularity of the cow).

 

[Rigger Mortice]

That tells me that tests where an anchor is pulled rapidly across a beach are more of a conjuring trick than a real test of the effectiveness of the anchor.

I must take issue with you over that.
You are implying that there is an element of deception in those tests.

We have been assured of both their independence and integrity. I can personally vouch for the fact that the force of the Toyota was calibrated to an accuracy of 3 decimal places. Peter (aka Smith Snr.) also had a calibrated right foot on the throttle.

Those tests are pukka. Craig tells us so.



Djbangi; You've forgotten my Danforth which is useless. The Rocna site tells me so.

 

[Mark-1]

How many people seeing a force 8 will anchor?...ok then how many in a 7?

Hard to imagine a reason why an old generation anchor can't handle a F8 & I'm sure you're not saying it can't. Judging by the average age on YBW I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone has spent a night or three anchored in big wind and waves on a previous generation anchor. I certainly have, and I once saw a boat with a CQR break its chain in a gale & big waves. Admittedly there must have been a flaw in the chain but the forces involved must still have been immense.

I charter and sail on OPBs so I use a massive range of ground tackle in a massive range of conditions and they all seem to work fine to me. (Including mud weights attached to nylon line!)

A number I'd like to see is the force it takes to drag 60m of chain along the sea bed with no anchor attached at all. I've experimented in a small way with this on hard sand and I'm expecting a very big number indeed.

I think most people give a strong wind forecast will head for the pontoons, I know I would if I could.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are plenty of places where if it really blows up from the wrong direction the pontoons become untenable & anchoring is a far better option. (Tobermory in a Ely F11 springs to mind - I couldn't even stand on the pontoons!)

 

[noelex]

Assuming for the moment that I am happy with the performance of my 20lb CQR, how small a Manson or Spade would give me the same results?

If you are happy with your CQR is suggests to me you are anchoring in bottom types where the CQR works well such as soft sand or moderatly thick mud and/or you dont anchor in strong winds.
If your anchor is performing well and your anchoring requirments are not changing why go to the expense of a new anchor?
To answer your specific question is difficult. I can only give you my impression after diving on many anchors and observing how well they have set and watching which boats drag in stronger wind.
My estimation would be in a thick mud or soft sand you could drop down at least one size (Say 15lb) and have the equivalent holding power or greater. In hard sand or certain types of weed the CQR does not work very well at all and a much, smaller again new generation anchor would outperform a CQR .

I don’t have any magic answers, but if offered a choice for cruising where a range of sea beds was to be expected I would select a new generation anchor in preference to a CQR that was over double its weight.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

A number I'd like to see is the force it takes to drag 60m of chain along the sea bed with no anchor attached at all. I've experimented in a small way with this on hard sand and I'm expecting a very big number indeed.

Surely not very much at all?

The buoyancy of the water makes this a very different proposition to a beach test.

 

[noelex]

Hard to imagine a reason why an old generation anchor can't handle a F8 & I'm sure you're not saying it can't

When you are at an anchorage with hard sand or weed a depressingly large number of boats drag in these conditions. Some, perhaps ½, are due to poor technique, but that leaves a lot boats where their tecnique was OK and the anchor has let them down.

A number I'd like to see is the force it takes to drag 60m of chain along the sea bed with no anchor attached at all. I've experimented in a small way with this on hard sand and I'm expecting a very big number indeed.

I have snorkeled and watched our boat and others as the wind changes it takes about 15-30K with around 60m chain out before there starts to be a noticeable force on the anchor.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

almost everyone has spent a night or three anchored in big wind and waves on a previous generation anchor.

To be serious for a moment.....

I wonder if that is true?

I suspect that most of us haven't, and that we run for shelter rather than sit it out in unpleasant conditions. I know that I actively avoid them.
I suspect that the majority of boaters just use the hook for lunchtime stops rather than for overnighting (go to any popular anchorage and see how it empties as evening comes; you will know the sense of calm when the hordes vanish!)

I use my anchor overnight about 15-20 times a year, and I suspect that that is more than most.

Blue water cruisers are different....and I envy them....but their requirements are also different. However, they must form a very small portion of the total boaty population (1% at most?)

Maybe the basis of another poll?

 

[vyv_cox]

Originally Posted by Mark-1

A number I'd like to see is the force it takes to drag 60m of chain along the sea bed with no anchor attached at all. I've experimented in a small way with this on hard sand and I'm expecting a very big number indeed.

I can tell you. We were anchored in about 2.5 metres, about 20 metres of chain out, wind strength about force 3. For no obvious reason at the time my connector failed with a bang. (Subsequent examination showed the cause to be stress-corrosion). Immediately we began to slide backwards, dragging the chain behind us. The effect of the chain was negligible.

 

[vyv_cox]

CQR's were it for a long time.
Don't think there's any scientifically-proven inadequacy, they were what most cruisers swore by for ages and many still use without problems, it's just that newer designs are better.

That's exactly it. During my first three or four years of cruising I used a CQR, which never dragged. It was sometimes problematic to set but I accepted that this was the norm when anchoring. Then a friend suggested that a Delta would be a big improvement, so I bought one. He was right and I used one for the next 20 years, perfectly happy with it.

I then experienced dragging with it, in very soft mud and strong, gusty winds. In order to try to overcome this rare problem I bought a Rocna. It sets rather better than the Delta did in a wider range of bottoms.

Measurements carried out by Anchorwatch show that actual loads are considerably lower than the theoretical predictions of e.g. ABYC. For a 33 ft boat, force 9, sheltered anchorage, peak loads of 120 kg have been measured. This suggests that the measurement of peak holding power in anchor tests is more for the convenience of the tester than an accurate representation of the quality of the anchor. As the poll elsewhere on the forum shows, the ability to set and reset is far more important than the holding power that will never be reached.

 

[noelex]

. As the poll elsewhere on the forum shows, the ability to set and reset is far more important than the holding power that will never be reached.

Not so sure about never reaching the holding power. If the anchor is set correctly and it starts dragging the holding power is reached (for that particular bottom and scope). A lot of boats drag in strong wind.

PS Hope the foot is on the mend.

 

[vyv_cox]

Not so sure about never reaching the holding power. If the anchor is set correctly and it starts dragging the holding power is reached (for that particular bottom and scope). A lot of boats drag in strong wind.

PS Hope the foot is on the mend.

No doubt that plenty of boats drag! But my point is that if I choose a 'Dragmaster' anchor over a 'Wundaset' because the 'Dragmaster' holds 4000 kg and the 'Wundaset' only holds 2500 kg I may well be selecting based on the wrong criteria.

Thanks for the good wishes. It's going to be a long haul, so I shall have plenty of forum time

 

[Chris_Robb]

I posted this before in a forum, and maybe it bears repeating: Here in the US, two widely respected boating experts, Elbert "Mac" Maloney and Tom Neale, have both successfully used CQRs aboard their boats for decades.

"Mac", who is 91 years young, was the long time author of Chapman Piloting & Seamanship, and Tom is also a noted author who has lived aboard since 1979 with his wife Mel, and they log 3,000-5,000 miles per year.

If I told either guy that their CQR wasn't a good anchor because it did not perform well in West Marine's 5 pull test in 3 sea bottoms.....well, I think they would find that comment to be, at best, very humorous.

That said, I believe that the new generation models offer improved performance because of what I have heard or read from their customers, but......

Let's take off our "anchor brand" glasses for a moment and look closer at all of these anchors from a design / functionality standpoint. Imagine a harder, denser type of sea bottom......maybe with rocks and gravel....and you are using a "new generation" roll bar anchor.

Wouldn't the roll bar prevent deep penetration, to some degree, particularly as the "scoop" type fluke filled up with and compressed the rocks and gravel......as opposed to an anchor that DID NOT have the roll bar, and had a "plow" type fluke, which would separate and burrow into the bottom, i.e. the CQR???

Dare I then suggest that a CQR might outperform a Rocna in harder bottoms, where a roll bar might be a detriment to deeper sea bed penetration??

Brian, I have never seen a CQR burrow into the bottom, it normally just ploughs a furrow. I think that is where the Manson, Spade and Rocna come off better in that they can go way underground, the roll bar makes no difference. I have lost site of anything of mine in mud and sand - it appears to go on going deeper - all very well but when you try to get it out.....

 

[Sybaris]

No need to feel left out. You can find your share of condescending opinions here
http://www.rocna.com/kb/Delta_anchor

Funny how things change. I am now finding myself defending Rocna. I have been using a Delta for 6 years in a rough estimate of over 1000 different anchorages and stern-to situations. I almost always dive to make sure it has dug in properly (except for in harbours) so I know how and when it sets, and I also often take a look at other anchors so I have seen many anchors well set, half dug in, or just lying loose on the bottom. I am happy with the Delta but if you look at my message 394 I totally agree with Peter Smith’s comments (see the Rocna/Delta link) about the exceptions where a Delta does not have the ultimate holding. Next time I buy an anchor I think it might well be a Rocna, unless something else even better has come out by then.

The opinions published about Delta are not condescending. Delta was probably the best all round anchor when it came out, but things move on and small evolutionary improvements are made to anchors as with everything else. Why fight against progress? Sure your anchor might work well most of the time, and you might have to coax it in or deploy special tricks to get it to set properly and there is then no reason to rush out and buy a new anchor. But if you are in the process of getting a new anchor why buy old technology just because “it worked then so it must work now”?

I use my anchor overnight about 15-20 times a year, and I suspect that that is more than most.

Yes sure, almost any anchor on the market will be adequate for your needs, and if you only anchor in light winds you are probably fine with just a lead weight and lots of chain. But why are you then so vocal in this discussion? There are some of us who actually do anchor much more than that, and take this discussion serious. For us the kind of childish slander now being directed at Rocna, Peter, and Craig Smith is starting to get extremely annoying and startlingly it is even perpetuated by a YM/IPC staff member. I think Holdfast (the new Rocna owners) is doing right to stay out of this kindergarten.

Regarding the comments about CQR I am astonished with what Brian@Fortress has to say. I thought he would be an expert and actually know the pros and cons of competing anchors. To Peter Smiths credit he does actually seem to know a lot about other anchors through hands-on experience during extensive sailing in a wide variety of waters.

The fact that you will often see CQR anchors lying sideways on the sea bottom when you snorkel among anchored yachts is not really a secret. I have attached a drawing of the CQR taken from the RYA Days Skipper manual.

We have cruiser friends who still use CQR’s and vigorously defend them, but they are also the ones that are up half the night when the wind picks up, and I can give you many examples when I have seen them dragging. You can get a CQR to set, and when it is dug in it will most probably be just as strong as any of the newer anchors (except for in soft mud where it will plough like the Delta), but why the hassle? And the sad truth is that very few people actually check to make sure the anchor is dug in. I have heard several people saying “if I back up to make sure it is dug in it might come loose” ehhh yeah right.

 

[fishermantwo]

Going back briefly to the speed of pull in tests, it reminds me of a demonstration I once saw in Chatham rope works. The demonstrator had a length of rope in the test rig to be pulled until it broke. He asked the audience whether it would break slowly strand by strand or with a sudden bang. Whichever the audience voted for the opposite would happen, controlled entirely by how fast he put the pressure on.

When I first started using my Delta I found that as often as not if I motored back to dig it in it would fail to set. Now I have a cup of tea while the boat drifts back in the breeze or current, strightens the rode and sets the anchor. I then give it full astern and it holds.

That tells me that tests where an anchor is pulled rapidly across a beach are more of a conjuring trick than a real test of the effectiveness of the anchor.

I have to agree, I watch all the videos and speed is the critical factor. When I was a professional fisherman[26 years] we anchored off the beach to purse seine bait before going to work. The bottom was always hard sand, not the hard sand shown in those videos but more like concrete. Most nights the wind would be light but occasionally we would get caught out and have to wait it out. Anchors were a Bruce then a Delta. I would drive the boat into position and stop, wander forward and lower the anchor chain and rope rode and let the boat drift back till the full 20 tons brought the rope tight. I would rest my hand on the rope and feel the anchor bite. After about 10 minutes I would bridle the stern of the boat to the same anchor so it sat at 90 degrees to the wind and tide. When we carried out the purse seine shot we often had several more tons pulling on the anchor.

On the occasions when we were forced to anchor because of high winds I often had to modify the routine, instead of letting the boat fall back on the anchor I would motor up the anchor rope slowing the anchor drag down. When I felt the anchor had sufficient time to bite I let the boat drift astern but kept the nose to the wind, wander up to the bow and check the feel on the rope for that reassuring vibe.

I carried two large CQR's for survey purposes but these were never used. My yacht has a CQR.