CQR Anchors - silly modification idea or not?

N

npf1

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 Oct 2004
Messages
2,303
Location
Oxfordshire
Visit site
Looking at the recent anchor test and subsequent heated threads about anchoring, the main criticism of the CQR was that can often end up on its side. The Hydrobubble, that came out well in the tests, gets over such a problem by its float. It occured to me that fixing a similar float to a CQR could give it the self righting properties of the Hydrobubble hence perhaps resolve what some seem to think is the issue with the CQR. Good/bad idea - discuss ...
 
In my experience CQR's only lie on their side if you don't set them properly i.e. if they are carefully (purposely) dragged a short distance they 'stand up' and dig in. We do it by putting out about twice depth and letting the chain harden up.
 
Doesn't everybody anchor with sternway on? Head to wind or tide as relevant, or a tug astern on the engine if necessary. How else can you know that the anchor is set? I only let out the final scope when I know it's dug in.
 
I agree 100% with Kellyseye: nothing wrong with the (genuine) CQR that sound anchoring technique will not deal with, whereas if a 'bright idea' modification of a highly reputable anchor results in a wreck, you don't have a much chance of persuading your insurer to pay up!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I only let out the final scope when I know it's dug in.

[/ QUOTE ]

In really shallow water (say around 2m or less at low water) I find it best to do the exact opposite....... dig in the anchor with a long scope and THEN shorten up to my required scope.

Vic
 
I understood that the design concept of the CQR was that it always lay on its side and set with the downward side hinged down. This is my explanation for its relatively low holding strength compared with unhinged, double sided anchors that are fundamentally the same shape. Having dived on hundreds in the Med I have yet to see a CQR sitting upright, in contrast to Deltas and copies that always sit upright, if set properly.
 
Don't be daft ...

1) Rush up to a crowded anchorage and find a small spot in between two boats whose owners are either taking a swim or having lunch.
2) Use lots of engine to bring the boat to a complete stop.
3) Yell at the deck hand to "Let Go Anchor" or if you're really posh then press the "Down" button on the windlass
4) Wait a few minutes for the chain locker to nearly empty
5) Panic because you just remembered you hadn't tied off the end so either yell at the deck hand or lift your finger off the button.
6) Turn off the engine - unless the batteries need charging or you're making a microwave dinner ....
7) Crack open a bottle of wine, turn up the stereo and enjoy a few hours of rest and relaxation whilst your neighbours swear at you!

Doesn't everyone anchor this way?
 
[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> In my experience CQR's only lie on their side if you don't set them properly i.e. if they are carefully (purposely) dragged a short distance they 'stand up' and dig in. We do it by putting out about twice depth and letting the chain harden up.

in contrast to Deltas and copies that always sit upright, if set properly.</span>

[/ QUOTE ]


Is is because all cars are driving on the WRONG side /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif in UK – that the anchors also behave on a different way than in the rest of the world??

In both the North and the South hemisphere, if you put either a CQR or a DELTA upright on the sea bottom, with enough chain lying on the bottom.. As soon as you will pull it, the chain resting horizontal on the sea bottom, both anchor will fall on its side, in what I call the "initial setting position.." all others “new generation” anchors – Büegel – Spade – Rocna – Supreme - Sword... will do exactly the same..

When starting to set, all these anchors will gradually turn until they reach the upright position.. fully embedded in the sea bottom.

panoram-Reduct.jpg


The hydrobubble is a different (successful) concept and it will stay upright, thanks to the flotation bubble.

But the Hydrobubble as been designed as a very light anchor.. and a small bubble is enough to right it up.. in order to do the same with a CQR, you should use an HUGE bubble.. and then you will invent the “floating” anchor…

I wish you a good success with you "New” design.. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
I probably dived on my Delta anchor after anchoring more than 100 times this year. In many cases I didn't need to as the water was so clear that I could see it anyway. I don't remember ever seeing it on its side. It lands on the bottom upright, I run some chain out then motor gently astern initially, then pull harder. The Delta remains upright throughout. The CQR does just as I described.

I drive a left-hand drive car.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I probably dived on my Delta anchor after anchoring more than 100 times this year. In many cases I didn't need to as the water was so clear that I could see it anyway. I don't remember ever seeing it on its side. It lands on the bottom upright, I run some chain out then motor gently astern initially, then pull harder. The Delta remains upright throughout. The CQR does just as I described.

[/ QUOTE ]The Delta uses what Simpson Lawrence referred to as "three point geometry", where it lies on the tip of its fluke, the end of its shank, and the side of its fluke. Its tip weight is then intended to push the tip in, and it screws into position.

If it is remaining upright, and especially if you are able to see it visibly from your boat (close enough), you are not letting out nearly enough scope and although it might bite in, it will not be setting as well as it should.

The HydroBubble concept is a little silly. The bubble is problematic in that plastic is not a good material to use on an anchor, given the harsh conditions it will be subjected to. If it is kept outside on the bow, the UV will eventually destroy it also. On top of this, the presence of a float obviously reduces the effective underwater weight of the anchor. Add to all this the fact that it clearly isn't necessary, as almost every small boat anchor of the last 100 years - new and old - has demonstrated, and it is hard to see the point.

The CQR either sets properly or it doesn't. When it doesn't, it is because the shank articulates and allows the fluke to lie at the incorrect angle for penetration. A bubble will not help this. The solution is to fix the shank and redesign the fluke - but Simpson Lawrence already did that, and called it a Delta.
 
Like many others, I found that a CQR which was so reliable in the Channel was much less so on hard sand/weed in the Med. It is the hinge which is responsible, as Craig says, allowing the fluke tip to lie parrallel to the bottom and slide over hard sand. A float is not going to stop the hinge turning. Has anybody ever welded up the hinge????????!!!!!!!!!
The advantage of the hinge is that once the CQR is set, a certain amount of swinging can occur without resetting the flukes. Also the hinge allows the CQR to lie flat on the foredeck for safer stowage on offshore trips. The CQR hinged shank is also massive with a massive shackle and very unlikely to bend, which cannot be said for less massive non hinged shanks.
However for the last few seasons my main anchor has been a Delta which has been reliable in the Med. And it lives in the roller with a safety bar so it's lack of easy flat foredeck stowage doesn't really matter.
However this year I left the Delta jammed vertically under a rock ledge. I do wonder whether it would have been easier to dislodge a CQR with it's hinged shank.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Is is because all cars are driving on the WRONG side in UK

[/ QUOTE ]

It not only the UK that drive on the left. Most of South and East Africa do, OZ and NZ as do others from the days of the old empire.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is is because all cars are driving on the WRONG side in UK

[/ QUOTE ]

It not only the UK that drive on the left. Most of South and East Africa do, OZ and NZ as do others from the days of the old empire.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize Rogershaw .. i didn't put enough smileys.. it was just a JOKE /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
- The Delta uses what Simpson Lawrence referred to as "three point geometry", where it lies on the tip of its fluke, the end of its shank, and the side of its fluke. Its tip weight is then intended to push the tip in, and it screws into position.

If it is remaining upright, and especially if you are able to see it visibly from your boat (close enough), you are not letting out nearly enough scope and although it might bite in, it will not be setting as well as it should. -

I suspect that it depends how the anchor is launched. I almost always motor it down and it lands upright. Nothing to do with how much scope, which is always plenty. Having spent much of the past three years at anchor without a problem, except for other boats dragging down on us, I feel reasonably qualified to discuss the practical side of anchoring.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...CQR... was that it always lay on its side and set with the downward side hinged down. This is my explanation for its relatively low holding strength compared with unhinged.... Having dived on hundreds in the Med I have yet to see a CQR sitting upright, in contrast to Deltas and copies that always sit upright, if set properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you've dived on hundreds of CQR's that are on their side then you have dived on anchors that haven't been set properly. As a plough anchor they must be ploughed in, when ploughed in the sea bed tends to raise the shank to the vertical plane. To say they have low holding is nonsense, provided they are dug in.

Observing long-distance cruising boats, around seventy per cent have a CQR as their primary anchor (the next largest group is Danforth/Fortress style). It's my belief that if you want to know what works ask the long-distance cruisers, the proof of the pudding etc.

Also, I'll believe anchor tests when they put half a dozen yachts, with different anchors, in an anchorage when a gale comes through and the wind backs or veers at least ninety degrees i.e. conditions that cruisers, most with CQR's, expect occasionally.
 
No afence taken just a bit or Brit a tongue in cheek comment and I don't want to start the 100 years war again.

It useally the guys across the pond not across the channel we have to keep in check.
Don't understand the smilleys so all said jockingly.

Interesting discussion on Anchoring. Not being an export just a ,normal mechanical design engineer, like a lot of things, suppliers try to have a "one size fits all" but because the conditions can be so different and so many different anchor types work best in different conditions the best a yacht owner can do is to find the best combination and/or the best compromise for his situation.
 
That's why I deliberately said 'relatively low'. I accept that very many British yachtsmen use CQR very successfully, although I don't accept your 70% generalisation. There have been so many holding trials that show the CQR as being somewhat inferior to many modern anchors that there cannot be much doubt about their truth. Whether the reduced level of holding offered is of great importance to the vast majority of users is another question. If a 35 ft boat can exert a pull of something like 2 tonnes in a force 12, why bother arguing about the difference between a 4 tonne and 5 tonne-holding anchor?

My observation, as a dedicated snorkeler in anchorages, is exactly as I said above. I cannot comment on how well they were set, only on what I see. I do accept that many had not been called upon to do much work in the light conditions of many Med anchorages. Indeed, many seen were not set at all.

I entirely agree that the situation most ignored by the tests is the ability to reset. Which is why I use a Delta, although I also carry a CQR. In contrast my Fortress kedge can be relied upon not to reset
 
For what its worth I am very attracted to the Rocna.
My 45lb CQR which I had no trouble setting and holding in Scotland seems to drag without setting easily all over the hard sand I have often encountered in Spain.
Although This year in May in the Mar Menor, a place I had visited because it is "rarely troubled with Strong Winds" according to the pilot! - in the small hours we got up to well over 40knots and we started to tow the CQR through what was stiffish mud (or so it looked when I eventually pulled up the anchor next morning). So am not too impressed with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top