Anchors. The YM article on these...........

Re: Some comments

We anchor whenever possible. But then we're not based on the solent.

The boat came with a danforth, a design which interestingly came top and bottom of YM's test. Ours isn't the expensive aluminium one, but we've had no problems with it setting.
 
Comments on CQR

I was not at all surprised at the bad review on the CQR.

I did my own anchor inspection in Turkey a couple of years back, diving to inspect how all the anchors in the bay had set. All the CQR's were happily lying on their side with just the tip in, just like the photo in YM. ALL the others had dug in well, with little furrowing showing initial drag. We dragged on our CQR almost every time the wind got up.

I eventually abandoned the CQR as the main anchor on that charter and used the much lighter weight danforth kedge - problem solved.

Elsewhere I have had good success with the CQR in the Helford - with thick glutinous mud - well it should bloody well work in that!!!

When I get another boat - the CQR will be ditched overboard - or sold on ebay.
 
Re: Comments on CQR

So, none of those anchors you saw had been properly set by either going astern or heaving with the anchor winch against a shore line.

This is quite normal among bareboat charter vessels, whose skippers are rarely checked out on the nitty gritty of anchoring.

That's not to say the CQR is an efficient anchor, but it does need far more TLC than more modern hooks to make it work well.
 
Re: Comments on CQR

I never really understand this 'the anchor was not properly set' thing.

When the tide changes, or wind direction changes, a CQR (unless in mud?) invariably breaks out. If you are not on board at the time you may have a problem!

From what I can tell many of the newer anchors re-set much more quickly (and properly!), and this alone must be a huge benefit.

I would also ask how you know whether a CQR is burried the correct way up, or just on its side when anchoring where you cannot see it.
 
Re: Some comments

Sorry about being slow on the uptake but I only just noticed that you designed the Spade. At the risk of annoying others I have to say 'Well Done'. I hope you did well out of the sale!

Only time mine (27kg on 10mm chain) hasn't set has been on rock and I think I can forgive that! Held my high windage boat for two days and nights in 30 to 49 knot winds this year on only 5:1 scope (not enough swinging room to extend). It was so secure I transferred my paranoia to the shackle instead!

Previously had a CQR (copy) which I had been reasonably happy with but occasionally took more than one go to set. I felt less confident in it's ability to re-set when tide / wind changed and bought a Spade based only on reviews.

It has increased our confidence no end which is important as we now live aboard.

I haven't tried other anchors so they might be wonderful as well!
 
[ QUOTE ]


..... and the Testers used 20 m of chain and some nylon rope. Have we got it wrong again? Comments on that welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should know better than to reply to YET another anchor thread, but I'm hooked! (sorry)
Incidentally the Testers didn't use 20 m of chain, they used 20 FEET.
Maybe this, and the nature of the sea bed (which seemed to be generally sand on top of a slightly harder substrate), affected the results - although, of course, conditions would be the same for all anchors. A severe test, perhaps, but maybe a fair one.
 
[ QUOTE ]

just goes to show that there is no such thing as a universally suitable anchor.
Steve Cronin

[/ QUOTE ]Steve you mention in your post: CQR, Fortress, and Britanny. All old style anchors which have known problems. It is no surprise you conclude that you need to carry all three. The fact is, if you had experience with some more modern types, your conclusion might be different.

The testers, both SAIL and Yachting Monthly, state in their last paragraph that multiple types are required. We don't understand how they can conclude this, as they only tested in one type of bottom. If they had tested in a variety, they would see that some types display very consistent behaviour. For instance we argue that a Rocna is a top all-round anchor in all conditions and bottom types. There is no anchor, even so called specialist types, that would out-do it.

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only person not supprised by the poor rating of the CQR?
I've used them on a variety of boats in a variety of bottoms. In mud in Newtown creek it seemed to work fine, but in sand I've never been satisfied, especially in harder sand where it just folded up and skidded across the surface. I was quite shocked to see that when I snorkled on it!

[/ QUOTE ]Worldwide this is very common feedback. It is just a little less common in locales with softer seabeds.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe if you ditch the Spades and try a Delta next time you go to Southern Brittany you might have confidence to try the anchorages!

Relax Hylas et al that was a JOKE, almost.... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]Not necessarily such a joke; the Delta performed very nearly as well as the Spade in terms of average holding power in the SAIL and YM tests.

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:purple"> Rocna: on the second 5:1 pull, it release suddenly !!! awkward to stow!.. </span>

Perhaps it could be wise to wait a little bit for some longer experience to see what could happen??

[/ QUOTE ]In fact the full quote is as follows:
<span style="color:purple">"On the second 5:1 pull, it released suddenly at maximum tension when revs were reduced, only to reset instantly at 4,300 lb of resistance, which was astonishing for an instant set."</span>
Why release suddenly? Who knows. Perhaps there was a rock or something. This is the nature of the real world. What one needs is something to deal with it.

This is a fun game actually, using quotes to further one's cause. Let's have a go:

Re the Spade: <span style="color:purple">"On shortened 3:1 scope and at the third location results were mediocre... Results fell off dramatically at 3:1 scope and at the New Brighton location. - Make sure you tighten the Nylock nut – one sailor lost his yacht because he didn't..."</span>

Re the Fortress: <span style="color:purple">"We subjected it to a further test at 3:1 and it gave an amazing 4,500 lb-plus, though the shank bent slightly... we did bend a fluke slightly during our veering test."</span>

(No exclamation marks added for extra effect!!!)

Disclaimer: my tongue is firmly in my cheek. I'm just shining the light on Poiraud's nonsense. Read the full testing for your own edification.

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:purple"> Hydrobubble: </span>

I’ve been surprised by the good results of this light non ballasted anchor.. No explanation /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]In fact, when the average holding power results are considered, it didn't do so well at all. There is a massive discrepancy between the holding power and the max force measured by the testers while dragging it. The conclusions and claims seem based on the latter.

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:purple"> Fortress: </span>

I’m not surprised at all by the impressive results. At the beginning of the test, they say that the size of the anchors has been selected to fit a 35/40’ boat. If you look at the Fortress Web site, for a 35/40 boat, they suggest a FX 16 model - equivalent to a steel anchor of 14/18 kg - that’s the range of other tested steel anchor.

The Fortress used for the test was a FX 37 suggested for boats up to 46 – 51” AND WHICH REPLACE 33/50 lbs steel anchors.. MUCH MUCH bigger than all steel anchors tested – TWO SIZES- not surprising that the results have been better!!!.. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]100% correct. The Fortress tested, if it were in steel, would weigh 28Kg. Hardly a fair comparison to 15Kg steel contenders!

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally the Testers didn't use 20 m of chain, they used 20 FEET.
Maybe this, and the nature of the sea bed (which seemed to be generally sand on top of a slightly harder substrate), affected the results - although, of course, conditions would be the same for all anchors. A severe test, perhaps, but maybe a fair one.

[/ QUOTE ]Certainly a fair test. The rode used doesn't make much difference to setting; so long as at least some chain was used, the angle of pull on the anchor will be very close to horizontal as it starts to set. This is because the anchor is incapable of providing any resistance to pull the rode straight before it is buried.
 
[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> There is a massive discrepancy between the holding power and the max force measured by the testers while dragging it. The conclusions and claims seem based on the latter. </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

On his anchor test, published Aug 2002, on PBO – Pr john Knox wrote:
“ An anchor which drags or ploughs through the sea bed will hold better than another which remain static – Dynamic holding force is function of the ploughing rate and increase with the rate of ploughing..”

Interestingly enough.. YM didn’t publish the same figures than SAIL.. on Sail report there is a curve named “ Average of peak strain in all locations ” and this is the curve which is called “ mean holding power ” by Rocna.. but it is a completely different thing!!

SAIL also publish another figure “ effect of location on holding power ” figure which is deliberately ignored by Rocna.. as the results are much less favourable for them.

For me a “Peak strain” is not a “mean holding” and “effect of location on holding power’ is not measuring “different locations”.. but measuring different holding powers (and no Peak strain!. )

And sorry, but looking at this latest specific figure, the “best on test” anchor is not the BIG 32 lbs Rocna but the small <span style="color:red"> 16 lbs </span> Hydrobubble..
 
Re: Some comments

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> At the risk of annoying others I have to say 'Well Done'. </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

Many thanks Bob,
 
[ QUOTE ]
On his anchor test, published Aug 2002, on PBO – Pr john Knox wrote:
“ An anchor which drags or ploughs through the sea bed will hold better than another which remain static – Dynamic holding force is function of the ploughing rate and increase with the rate of ploughing..”

[/ QUOTE ]Quite. What Knox terms "dynamic holding force" is very important, because if the anchor drags, it is desirable for it to offer increased resistance, rather than lessened.

On the SAIL testing results, seen below, the "max before releasing" results are the peak static holding force. The "max pull" results are the peak dynamic resistance.

wm_testing_chart_orig.gif


This graph doesn't take into account the varying sizes of the anchors. For an analysis that does, see our website.

So, while it is important that the "max pull" (dynamic) results are higher than the "max before releasing" (static) - or indeed present in the first place (note the absence in the case of some contenders, implying that it was less) - the static holding power is the critical measurement.

[ QUOTE ]
...On Sail report there is a curve named “ Average of peak strain in all locations ” and this is the curve which is called “ mean holding power ” by Rocna.. but it is a completely different thing!!

[/ QUOTE ]Well, no it isn't - see above.

[ QUOTE ]
SAIL also publish another figure “ effect of location on holding power ” figure which is deliberately ignored by Rocna.. as the results are much less favourable for them.

[/ QUOTE ]We haven't deliberately ignored them, but the results listed there are incomplete and only cover one set of scope tests. In fact if the results for each location according to those graphs are weighted equally then graphed as a summary, the results are not too different to the combined averages.

[ QUOTE ]
And sorry, but looking at this latest specific figure, the “best on test” anchor is not the BIG 32 lbs Rocna but the small <span style="color:red"> 16 lbs </span> Hydrobubble..

[/ QUOTE ]Hence HydroBubble's recent press release claiming they "won" this testing. However, when the true static holding power is considered, the reality is quite different.

The upshot of all this is that both magazines have published very confusing results, and have simply failed to conduct a proper analysis of their own data.

However, it is possible to study it closely and draw the proper conclusions. Here are some quotes from various independent people interpreting the test on their own initiative:

<span style="color:blue">There is in this article [SAIL] a chart which represents the average of several tests on various seabeds, with a length of rode equating to both 5 and 3 times the height of water. This test mixes various weights and metals (steel, light alloy), according to an unfortunately recurring practice in these tests.

The chart shows the each instance's highest peak of performance obtained during the pull. The anchors are similar enough for this measurement, but occasional peaks are hardly interesting in practice and do not seem to discriminate.

This chart also shows the average value on the various seabeds for the maximum before letting go, which is more realistic than a single peak. The best is Rocna, followed by Delta and Spade, and also the Wasi [Buegel].</span>

- "Various Anchor Tests" - Hise-et-Oh (translated from the original French)

<span style="color:blue">We know that the holding power of an anchor depends on many (too many) factors - no test will succeed in covering all the possible scenarios - for this, the SAIL team has tried all the anchors in the same identical conditions, therefore, at least for those conditions, giving comparable results...

The first surprise concerns the holding. From the anchors with high holding to 5000lb with 5:1 scope, upon reducing scope to 3:1, three anchors maintain high holding to 4000 pounds: the Fortress 22lb [alloy], the Manson Supreme 35lb, and the Rocna 32lb (the last two are New Zealanders).

In the varying locations, only three anchors behaved well, maintaining holding in two locations very well although less so in the third - where however they did hold over 1000 pounds: the Fortess, the Hydrobubble 16lb, and the Rocna. In the third location all the other anchors were inferior, under 1000 pounds.

The Manson in two of the three locations gave holds inferior, under 2000 pounds.

The HydroBubble is a perculiar anchor with a floating bubble that maintains the anchor in position to plough; it surprised the experts for its holding abilities at 5:1 scope, going up to the 5000 pounds in two locations, but the article unfortunately does not mention the holding with various rodes...

The remaining shining stars are the Fortress, the HydroBubble, the Rocna - and the Wasi 32lb (but insufficient results were given in the holding power tests).

...Now I have one Bruce and one Admiralty-type: tomorrow I run to buy a third anchor, a Fortress or a Rocna, perhaps a Rocna because it has a sturdier air than the Fortress, since during the test the fluke of the Fortress was damaged, and the HydroBubble does not inspire confidence in that I fear that the floater can detach itself.

The Rocna anchor has a particular design with a type of semi-circular bar that forces it to position itself with the tip in the working position. Other anchors have appeared on the market with a similar design (Manson, Sarca, Wasi), but again the results of the tests - inferior results.</span>

- "Anchor Testing" - International Sailing Academy of the Adriatic (translated from the original Italian)

/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe if you ditch the Spades and try a Delta next time you go to Southern Brittany you might have confidence to try the anchorages!

Relax Hylas et al that was a JOKE, almost....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily such a joke; the Delta performed very nearly as well as the Spade in terms of average holding power in the SAIL and YM tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could also have said CQR because I used (genuine) one for many years in the same area without dragging once it was properly set and dug in. The difference with the Delta which I now use and prefer is that it sets instantly with less operator skill maybe than the CQR. The bottoms in places where both anchors were succesfully used varied but included hard sand that seems to trouble others with CQRs. I would qualify my comments that I would always try to anchor out of any tide, simply because anchoring where wind over tide is a possibility is a serious PITA in my book, riding over the chain or sawing through a warp for those using them are possible consequences. Avoiding strong tide anchoring does take out the break out then reset risk.

So key comments being 'properly set and dug in' and 'avoiding strong tides'.

I once cruised the area with friends that had an identical CQR to ours, same size boat and they could never get it to set. In frustration a couple of times I went over and set it for them having watched them struggling, with care it worked first time for me which just made them more angry /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm sure the new generation anchors will make life easier but in our case we have full confidence in what we have and do so will not be rushing to change, simply because we have seen no need.
 
[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> “The upshot of all this is that both magazines have published very confusing results, and have simply failed to conduct a proper analysis of their own data.” </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is very useful when you want to “ interpret" the results at your own advantage..


effectoflocationonholdingpower.jpg


For me, the results are quite different than what you pretend:

Considering the AVERAGE HOLDING POWER :

- On “East of warf “ (yellow graph) the winner has been the Fortress - followed by the Spade, and tie the Supreme, the Hydrobubble and the Rocna

- On “West of warf” (red graph) the winner has been the Fortress, followed by the Hydrobubble, the Oceane, the Spade.. and far behind the Rocna

- On New Brigton (Blue graph) the winner has been the Hydrobubble, followed by the Manson and the Rocna in third position.

For me it isn’t confusing results at all (unless YOU are introducing confusion) and do you pretend that you are the only one to “ conduct a proper analysis of their own data .”

Considering these data, how can you pretend on all nautical forums as well as on the Rocna Web page that the Rocna anchor was the “best in the test”??

[ QUOTE ]
“ <span style="color:blue"> This graph doesn't take into account the varying sizes of the anchors. For an analysis that does, see our website."</span>

[/ QUOTE ]

I will be very interested to have YOUR precise explanation of how you did manipulate the results in order to “ take into account the varying sizes of the anchors ”

Yes the size of the Fortress was much too big to be compared with all other steel anchors.. but did you also take into consideration that the weight of the steel Hydrobubble was only <span style="color:red"> 16 lbs </span> (compared with the 35 lbs of the Rocna) or that the surface area of the Spade was only 800 sq cm – compared with the 1030 sq cm of the Rocna (+ 28.7 %)??

If you HONNESTLY have taken all these differences into consideration.. in NO WAY the Rocna could have been the “best in the test”
 
[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> the Delta performed very nearly as well as the Spade in terms of average holding power in the SAIL and YM tests. </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is always possible to " interpret " the results the way you like them /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif


effectoflocationonholdingpower.jpg


From this figure it is absolutely OBVIOUS that " the Delta performed very nearly as well as the Spade " /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: Some comments

hylas, for heavens sake relax!

You've designed one of the best anchors in the world, you don't need to plug it at every possible opportunity! Just sit back, enjoy your retirement and let it speak for itself.
 
Re: Comments on CQR

[ QUOTE ]
When the tide changes, or wind direction changes, a CQR (unless in mud?) invariably breaks out. If you are not on board at the time you may have a problem!


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Hence, set two anchors (one up tide, one down tide) if you wish to survive a tide turn. I'd even do this with modern anchors, because I still imagine that there's a chance of a flip and reset, and the re-set may catch a wodge of polystyrene or whatever. A remote risk now? Maybe I'm too conservative.

[ QUOTE ]
I would also ask how you know whether a CQR is burried the correct way up, or just on its side when anchoring where you cannot see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

By pulling with the engine in astern - if it's on its side, it'll drag for a distance before ploughing in and holding. Or won't plough in. Of course, it's easy to see what's going on in the Mediterranean - just go for a swim with the goggles. The CQR on soft sand will travel 2 to 4 metres before digging, and in hard sand, it sometimes won't dig. The evidence? The grooves show up beautifully!
 
Re: Some comments

[ QUOTE ]
hylas, for heavens sake relax!

[/ QUOTE ]
Here here!

Four contributions to hold are:

1. The nut on the helm
2. The rode to the bottom
3. The bottom itself
4. The anchor

The first is most important, and can make a silk purse out of a pig's ear of a lump of metal sitting on a shiny bottom. With sheer ingenuity.

As long as the rode is strong enough.

All this anchor noise is about making life easier for the nut on the helm. Anchors which call for less ingenuity are an improvement. Anchors which do the same job for less weight are an improvement. If it's difficult to determine the difference between two anchors, the difference is irrelevant - look to the bottom, the nut and the rode.
 
Re: Some comments

[ QUOTE ]
Four contributions to hold are:

1. The nut on the helm
2. The rode to the bottom
3. The bottom itself
4. The anchor

and the rest

[/ QUOTE ]

Never seen it said better. Magnificent /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

R
Brokers.
Replies
6
Views
523
Irish Rover
Irish Rover
S
How much does re-upholstery cost?
Replies
16
Views
876
jon and michie
jon and michie

Share this page

Top