Anchors

[NormanS]

I now do not now have a CQR, although I did use one for more than 30 years without problems. I suspect that a lot of the problems that people seem to have are not necessarily with genuine CQRs, but with some of the more abominable copies. This is probably true for copies of many genuine anchors.
A lot of people have been persuaded by advertising and peer pressure into parting with their hard earned cash, to buy whichever flavour of the month anchor happens to be fashionable. Well, naturally they're going to defend their purchase decision.

 

[stuarthearn]

well, there are anchors and anchors, In the Pacific lagoons often the botton is hard flat rock, coral or otherwise, covered with a shallow covering sand, most anchors cannot hold, full stop
I owned a 43 sailing boat, steel, that I taken 7 years to build
I made 2 80lb danforths on 100m of chain, we dragged , it was scary in the night, trades blowing
Plow type and deltas were useless there
later in Bay of Islands NZ I was anchored in mud, it blew gales for days, I was not present, when I retuned, the anchor chain had stretched the shank of both anchors were bent, but the danforths held
later i built the only anchor that would hold on any bottom, the Fisherman or Admiralty pattern anchor
I used 2 inch bar , high ten steel, formed it on a 100tonne press for the head, 3/4 plate palms 10x6 and 2 inch shank, one inch stock, 40 inches long. my insurance, my storm anchor
I,d not pay for some of the anchors that have become popular in the last 20 or so years, not because they do not work, but because they are expensive and I like building my own
my 43 was a high wooded boat, 18 tonnes , lots of windage,
my last build was this
Herreshoff said of plough type
(plough anchors are just that, they plough)

 

[stuarthearn]

Just google admiralty patter anchors

 

[alan_d]

Seatbelts and airbags are only needed by bad drivers,

What an extraordinary thing to say. Have you thought this through, or are you just trying to provoke?

 

[stuarthearn]

He did very much improve the clogging problem by drilling holes in the Rocna in the clogging area. This also worked perfectly with a Manson, which suffered in the same way. So maybe the hoop is a red herring.
I would like to see tests in heavy river mud, the sort of stuff that is difficult to force off with a boathook; I picked up a clump the other day that I think would defeat anything except perhaps a Fisherman.

His tests do put a big emphasis on veering and resetting performance. It might be that in reality hard 180deg resets and heavy veering, at the margins of performance, are just not that common.

.

well in my experience the danforth is best in thick mud, so good that inferior chain, such as long link will stretch well before the anchor fails to hold

 

[Neeves]

As mentioned - the article fails miserably because it is simply subjective, there is not a single data point. This was an opportunity for the Epsilon to be put through its paces - and there was no attempt at all to define its performance. Most of the other anchors are known - but not the Epsilon.

The Bugel and variants are very common on German yachts and as you move eastward through the Med. I have been told they are made in Turkey, cheaply. There are many variants, I have seen them with two toes and with a turned down toe (though this might be simply - they bent). I have never tested one - but the concept is simple - its a welded up Danforth with a roll bar. Of the ones I have seen the fluke plate tends to be very beefy - which will make penetration difficult, but possibly produce the strength needed.

As also mentioned - a poor advertorial.

As I mention on another thread, where I offer the links. Work has been done clearly demonstrating that an anchor deep set and with a high hold better resists veering (maybe not really surprising). I and some others think that veering and chop reduce the hold in a straight line pull of a set anchor. Consequently hold is a measure of resistance to veering, and by extrapolation, resistance to chop. So measure hold and you have a measure of performance.

Hold is measurable and repeatable. - Hold has been measured for decades, the Classification Societies, the YM/Sail 2006 anchor tests, the Vloie et Voileur tests etc - to describe anchor performance without measuring hold, this article, the Panope work, seems arrogant, without explanation. If you accept that deep set anchors resist yawing then hold offers a simple numerical basis for comparison with a test that can be used repetitively. Measure hold using a standard anchor and compare that hold with others in your group. Use that standard anchor in another test 2 months later with different anchors. Use that standard anchor in another seabed etc etc. You can vary using different scopes. etc. Increasing your number of standards, say Rocna, Spade and Fortress and you have a serious basis for numerical comparison.

It has been pointed out on another thread - 'has Rocna been denigrated by video tests' or words to that effect that Panope's testing of Rocna is questionable - given its popularity. The tests results totally contradict the numbers you seen in anchorages (or on bow rollers - for those owners who still need to work).

There is no perfect anchor and no single perfect test, for anchors. Look at a number of tests and 'average' the results. Scour google for other anchor tests - clogging of anchors and resetting, etc - you will have enough background to make an informed decision (except for Epsilon (where there has been no independent testing).

Sorry Norman - this will be far to wordy for you.

Jonathan

 

[KompetentKrew]

They are not new generation. They don't work particularly well. You used to see quite a few German yachts with them because they were home made anchors. They seem to go with home built steel yachts. The one German guy I know has one as a second anchor because he can't bare to part with it since he made it himself about 20 years ago. He now uses a 'far better Rocna anchor'. His words not mine.
I don't know who made them commercially but they are a simple flat plate with a roll bar. That was the attraction of home build. Simple to make

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

 

[Neeves]

Bugel manufacturer

I recall, possibly wrongly, they were originally made in stainless by a company called Wasi

Hamburger Anker Manufaktur. The only maker of the Buegel anchor GL • ORIGINAL STANDARD. High holding power on all grounds, certified by Germanischer Lloyd.

I think they also make a Delta clone.

Jonathan

 

[john_morris_uk]

There is something very odd about the Panope testing. He consistently marks the Rocna down, whereas with few exceptions most users are delighted with theirs. Skip Novak and other renowned cruisers use Rocna in high latitudes and other extreme cruising, apparently without problems.

It is reported that mud clogs the Rocna hoop, preventing its resetting, but why is this unique to Rocna? There are many hoop anchors, what about the others?

I agree. I’m also trying to get my head round his marking the Spade anchor a “1” for its galvanising/corrosion. On what grounds?

 

[Goldie]

I agree. I’m also trying to get my head round his marking the Spade anchor a “1” for its galvanising/corrosion. On what grounds?

I can only add my personal experience with a Spade 20kg. Over nearly 40 years of boat ownership I’ve had a number of anchor types - Danforth, Fisherman, Bruce, CQR, Spade, Rocna etc. and of all of them, the Spade corroded more quickly and more extensively than any other. It’s now a one piece anchor as despite a local engineering company having it glowing red and on a large hydraulic press, the 2 components cannot be separated. I’d already tried and failed despite it standing in penetrating fluid for a month (and yes, I HAD taken the bolt out…) My suggestion for Spade owners is that they dismantle and re-assemble their anchors as part of fitting out. As an anchor, it’s as effective as it ever was (very!) but cosmetically, it looked a real mess. Imho the galvanising - at least when mine was built - wasn’t great.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I can only add my personal experience with a Spade 20kg. Over nearly 40 years of boat ownership I’ve had a number of anchor types - Danforth, Fisherman, Bruce, CQR, Spade, Rocna etc. and of all of them, the Spade corroded more quickly and more extensively than any other. It’s now a one piece anchor as despite a local engineering company having it glowing red and on a large hydraulic press, the 2 components cannot be separated. I’d already tried and failed despite it standing in penetrating fluid for a month (and yes, I HAD taken the bolt out…) My suggestion for Spade owners is that they dismantle and re-assemble their anchors as part of fitting out. As an anchor, it’s as effective as it ever was (very!) but cosmetically, it looked a real mess. Imho the galvanising - at least when mine was built - wasn’t great.

That’s interesting. Perhaps there was a poor batch as ours is fine and we anchor lots. We’ve had ours about 15 years.

PS. If they had the anchor glowing red hot how come the lead didn’t fall out of the tip?

 

[lustyd]

I now do not now have a CQR, although I did use one for more than 30 years without problems. I suspect that a lot of the problems that people seem to have are not necessarily with genuine CQRs, but with some of the more abominable copies. This is probably true for copies of many genuine anchors.
A lot of people have been persuaded by advertising and peer pressure into parting with their hard earned cash, to buy whichever flavour of the month anchor happens to be fashionable. Well, naturally they're going to defend their purchase decision.

If it's that easy to get a copy wrong then the outcome remains the same, just get rid of this pattern. It's been superceded, let's just let it die.

I'm not suggesting that everyone need to bin their anchor, or pressuring anyone. Just suggesting we stop putting it in lists and training materials as if it's somehow equivalent to more modern designs.

 

[doug748]

I can only add my personal experience with a Spade 20kg. Over nearly 40 years of boat ownership I’ve had a number of anchor types - Danforth, Fisherman, Bruce, CQR, Spade, Rocna etc. and of all of them, the Spade corroded more quickly and more extensively than any other. It’s now a one piece anchor as despite a local engineering company having it glowing red and on a large hydraulic press, the 2 components cannot be separated. I’d already tried and failed despite it standing in penetrating fluid for a month (and yes, I HAD taken the bolt out…) My suggestion for Spade owners is that they dismantle and re-assemble their anchors as part of fitting out. As an anchor, it’s as effective as it ever was (very!) but cosmetically, it looked a real mess. Imho the galvanising - at least when mine was built - wasn’t great.

Yes, I have seen lots of rusty ones in marinas, one of the reasons I did not get one myself.

However, there are regular clangers in Steve Goodwin's subjective scores. For example, in the table above, he gives the alloy Spade a score of 2 for price, the same as the Epsilon. The former costs £1200 the latter 200.
I generally take the opinion stuff with a pinch of salt and just check out the figures and what you actually see - which of course is outstanding.

.

 

[NormanS]

If it's that easy to get a copy wrong then the outcome remains the same, just get rid of this pattern. It's been superceded, let's just let it die.

I'm not suggesting that everyone need to bin their anchor, or pressuring anyone. Just suggesting we stop putting it in lists and training materials as if it's somehow equivalent to more modern designs.

Sorry, but your logic escapes me. There are innumerable things in this world which are copies of originals - some better, some worse. All I'm saying is that it's a shame if all genuine CQRs are condemned because of the behaviour of inferior copies. After all, generations of boat owners including myself have used them successfully, and many still do. Someone's choice of anchor is a very personal thing, based on many different factors. For example, I prefer an anchor without moving parts - one of the reasons that I now no longer have a CQR. I want an anchor that will sit easily and safely on its bow roller. I don't much like roll bars - I consider them to be an ugly and inefficient continuation of the idea of the stock on the original Fisherman or Admiralty Pattern anchor. A well designed anchor will self-right without a roll bar. Above all, I want an anchor that I can trust. I am not a dedicated follower of fashion. The bling adorning the bow rollers of yachts in marinas, is not a positive influence on my decisions.

 

[Neeves]

Much of the the testing lacks a numerical basis and cannot be reproduced to allow comparison -

Excactly how can you define galvanising quality by looking at it. Galvanisers use coating thickness meters - I wonder why. Vyv has a simple test for the strength of the gal to underlying steel adhesion based on a BS test protocol - with no disrespect to Vyv - none of this is rocket science - but determining gal quality by 'looking' ???

I must admit Vyv's test works for chain - but would be expensive for an anchor

Jonathan

 

[geem]

I can only add my personal experience with a Spade 20kg. Over nearly 40 years of boat ownership I’ve had a number of anchor types - Danforth, Fisherman, Bruce, CQR, Spade, Rocna etc. and of all of them, the Spade corroded more quickly and more extensively than any other. It’s now a one piece anchor as despite a local engineering company having it glowing red and on a large hydraulic press, the 2 components cannot be separated. I’d already tried and failed despite it standing in penetrating fluid for a month (and yes, I HAD taken the bolt out…) My suggestion for Spade owners is that they dismantle and re-assemble their anchors as part of fitting out. As an anchor, it’s as effective as it ever was (very!) but cosmetically, it looked a real mess. Imho the galvanising - at least when mine was built - wasn’t great.

Yep, until recently the lead was not encapsulated. The zinc galvanising and lead in contact with salt water increase the rate of loss of the zinc. The current Spade anchors have the lead sealed with epoxy such that it is no longer in contact with salt water.

 

[geem]

There is something very odd about the Panope testing. He consistently marks the Rocna down, whereas with few exceptions most users are delighted with theirs. Skip Novak and other renowned cruisers use Rocna in high latitudes and other extreme cruising, apparently without problems.

It is reported that mud clogs the Rocna hoop, preventing its resetting, but why is this unique to Rocna? There are many hoop anchors, what about the others?

I queried Panope on why he was happy to score the Rocna anchor' so poorly without any comment as to why all other independent tests score it highly. His clean sand test scores Rocna near the bottom. He said in reply that he thought some binder in the sand might be clogging the anchor. I replied and said that if you call the sand clean then say because it's dirty the Rocna doesn't set you are misleading people. No reply.
I also asked him why he described anchors as set when in a straight line pull they were clearly still moving very slowly (Mantua I think), he said that if he was in a hurricane that would be good enough! I said not acceptable. Set it not moving as per other anchors that actually stopped moving. No reply from him on that one.
I told him about the new Spades having sealed lead by epoxy. He said that unless Spade sent him one he would still score the anchor down on galvanising. I came to the conclusion that his information in his videos is seriously flawed. He appears to have favourites and bias. I no longer watch his videos.

 

[MikeBz]

I now do not now have a CQR, although I did use one for more than 30 years without problems. I suspect that a lot of the problems that people seem to have are not necessarily with genuine CQRs, but with some of the more abominable copies. This is probably true for copies of many genuine anchors.

Agreed. We had a Lewmar-branded CQR copy which despite trying a variety of techniques would happily skip some distance over soft mud before deciding to set. It is now performing very well as a garden ornament, Prior to that on a previous boat we had a Bruce copy which was a bit undersized but set & performed very well, when overwhelmed by wind & current it would just drag very slowly.

A lot of people have been persuaded by advertising and peer pressure into parting with their hard earned cash, to buy whichever flavour of the month anchor happens to be fashionable. Well, naturally they're going to defend their purchase decision.

I'm sure that's true of a lot of people, but there are plenty (like me) who would be livid if we spent chunks of hard earned on items which don't perform and would be very happy to publicise the shortcomings. I couldn't be happier with the (anchoring) performance of the Rocna which replaced the CQR copy, although am disappointed that after 8 seasons of light use it is now quite rusty.

 

[vyv_cox]

The Bugel is recognised as the forerunner of new generation anchors, novel in its day. The story goes that the designer in error did not register the design but published the dimensions and construction details. WASI built them and most 'copies' are also dimensionally accurate, although welding quality inevitably varies.

I have discussed them with many owners, who almost universally are delighted with them. I think their surface area is rather small for their weight: one of the few occasions when it might be wise to select a size bigger than recommended.

 

[Refueler]

Well ... let me give an example of anchor use :

Yesterday, myself and another decided to have a day on the river ......... wind was weak but reasonably steady - giving us a nice relaxed sali ........ boat ? 4 ton 25ft motor sailer.
When we decided to turn back ... wind was increasing .. and being a river - had various orientations of direction. After a while - wind was too much on the head - so time to furl headsail.

HOLY SMOLY ... furling gear decides to faiil ...

So there we were with genny flogging itself to hell and back ...

Engine on to give us steerage .... by now wind is strong ... (forget we are on river) ... and get to river centre ...

I'm up on bow pulling chain out of locker .. Holdfast Plough anchor (20lb) ready to deploy. Once boat is river centre ... depth 5m ............ I ask for engine neutral ... and wait boat to stop moving forward ... all the while genny is flogging like crazy ...
Finally - anchor dropped ... let chain run as boat with genny is paying off .... but then snub chain at 15m and make fast.

Boat comes round and holds despite the hard bottom .. and genny still up.

Now I can drop genny and look at a diesel powered run home ....

Why tell the story ? Simple. The Plough anchor has come in for a lot of criticism over the years ... but here I have a specific case to quote ... where it has proven its worth against not only wind but also the power of genny ...

When the anchor was recovered - the chain and flukes showed clearly that the anchor had not buried itself deep but sufficient in a semi hard river bottom .... indications that mud was not more than 10 - 20cms deep on bottom ...

Crew with me has a 31ft boat and having seen this is now considering changing his setup from 5m chain then all rope rode to longer chain .......

I rest my case ............ Reasonable anchor weight + chain.