CQR anchors.

[JumbleDuck]

The Greeks first starting putting lead in anchor stocks in 5th Century BC. Before then they were all stone. A massive trove of scrolls has recently been discovered covering 2,000 years of argument between those who thought this was a good idea and those who thought it was just the latest fad.*

But what did Odysseus think of the development? After all, he was Real Cruiser(TM).

 

[Zagato]

Lewmar Epsilon Galvanised Anchor 10KG just £171.19 for a new generation anchor.

Lewmar Epsilon Galvanised Anchor

No recommendations for size or holding power to be found anywhere on the net. Lewmar just don't want to sell them.
Though you could size as per the Delta on the basis that it might be as good. lol

OK so just called around staff at Force4 staff who had no idea what is happening. Spoke to a guy from the company in the above link who said he had a video meeting with Lewmar a couple of days ago. Lewmar are aiming to get the first batch of Epsilons into the UK sometime this November. He said he didn,t know if they were even available yet in the US. He said the likelihood is that it will knock sales of the existing Delta range. The Epsilon is the result of cannibalising the Delta and designing something fresh to keep up with other "new anchors". I can see this, they may have too many of the old Deltas in stock but it is strange that the Epsilon was known and talked about two years ago. There have been no tests on it as far as I know anywhere, little marketing etc etc. Why is it so late actually coming out! Has it a design flaw, is it a manufacturing reason, who knows, I am not in any rush to buy anything unless I can see it actually does what it says on the tin. The low price mark is encouraging at least compared to Rocna, Spade. I think I will hold off on a new anchor and use my Danforth until the either the Epsilon proves it's design and worth or perhaps the Rocna will come down in price... no rush!

EDIT, this just in...

Good afternoon Chris

It was great to chat to you about the Epsilon anchors. I have now spoken to Lewmar directly, and they've said that they are expecting the Stainless Steel version to be available in November, and the Galvanised version to be available in February.

 

[Poey50]

But what did Odysseus think of the development? After all, he was Real Cruiser(TM).

Not great in kelp on a lee shore TBH.

 

[pawl]

My rationale.... I am in the process of buying an anchor when I have almost a perfectly good 10KG Danforth and 10KG CQR. My genuine Bruce is too small and not great in weed apparently which I often come across. I have to handle my anchors either deploying from the bow or cockpit. I also have to store them... the Danforth is easier to store than the CQR for me BUT the Danforth is so unwieldy to carry to the bow or out of the cabin and it will really bite me one day, you can take chunks out of your boat with it so for me it is down to the Delta or Rocna. I don,t know anything about the Epsilion, little on the internet, no idea of price, are they actually available, even though they were being spoken about two years ago...

My next anchor will be my anchor for life so I don,t mind paying a bit and selling my old anchors is bringing the price down. I have chosen the Rocna as it does appear to set first time more reliably than the Delta so an extra few quid is fine for peace of mind and less stress in a tight anchorage as I mostly sail single handed. The Rocna with its roll bar or fixed shank is so easy to handle and lift and drop back into the locker or cabin for instance. I am buying one this weekend unless Chandlers do Xmas sales?!

hi, before you finally part with the cash you might want to have a look at some of the youtube videos made by the crew of "SV Panope" ( I can't do a link but you can google it). They have tested and filmed quite a lot of different anchors including the Rocna and Vulcan, I think that they have been very methodical and extremely fair. However, I fear that one anchor is not going to be ideal in all seabeds, so perhaps hang on to your old ones.

 

[Roberto]

Not great in kelp on a lee shore TBH.

anchor stuck, a cheeky siren had taken the tripping line away

 

[zoidberg]

they are expecting the Stainless Steel version to be available in November, and the Galvanised version to be available in February.

I'm bored with dull Galvanised anchors.

What I'd really like - and maybe I'll go ask in my nearby Force 4 - is a can of Do-It-Yourself Polished Stainless Spray Paint. Would save a lot of bother.

Can't understand why International Paints don't do it. Anyone know where I'd source such a thing....?

 

[FlyingGoose]

I'm bored with dull Galvanised anchors.

What I'd really like - and maybe I'll go ask in my nearby Force 4 - is a can of Do-It-Yourself Polished Stainless Spray Paint. Would save a lot of bother.

Can't understand why International Paints don't do it. Anyone know where I'd source such a thing....?

With the tartan paint and a box of sparks shelf. Were they keep the CQR,s

 

[Zagato]

I'm bored with dull Galvanised anchors.

What I'd really like - and maybe I'll go ask in my nearby Force 4 - is a can of Do-It-Yourself Polished Stainless Spray Paint. Would save a lot of bother.

Can't understand why International Paints don't do it. Anyone know where I'd source such a thing....?

Forget stainless, you can buy chrome paint in a rattle can and stick fake diamonds on it for a real bit of bling on the bow.

 

[webcraft]

“Stocked by all good grocers” Meaningless puffery



Ohh, look! A “technical term”, used by all good anchor testers. An anchor very seldom “resets” in real life; the boat lies to the bight of the chain on the bottom.



No, It isn’t. Do as it’s inventor meant you to do and splice a fathom of rope onto the gravity ring. Pick it up with that.

A CQR sets perfectly well in hard sand. That’s what the hinge and the weighted sharp tip are for. Try it some time.



Do you habitually follow the unseamanlike practice of anchoring to windward of a dangerous lee shore? Most of us anchor in shelter, where the consequences of dragging ashore are inconvenience and embarrassment.



I suppose I anchor off the coast somewhere like Dungeness once a decade. I’ve never worried about riding out a gale lying to a CQR because I have always done so somewhere reasonably sheltered. There are such things as weather forecasts. Getting the anchor back from its expedition to the centre of the Earth, afterwards, can be more of a problem.

I have rarely read such a load of misinformed unseamanlike nonsense in a single post.

'reset' is not a trendy technical term, it is what is required of an anchor when any significant wind or tide veers through 180 degrees. Lying to a small bight of chain is an idiocy, in F6 or more your rode will be at full extension and unless your anchor is totally buried it will swivel round and reset (or fail to)

As for anchoring on a lee shore, sometimes there is no choice, sometimes any wind direction is a lee shore and other times an unexpected wind shift will place you on a lee shore. Counting on dragging harmlessly into deep water if you do drag is mindless optimism that Sods Law will soon disabuse you of.

Your post sounds as though it comes from someone who has done very little serious anchoring. I have spent hundreds of nights on the hook in dozens of anchorages in several different countries in a wide variety of wind and sea conditions. I have used CQRs (on charter and school boats) and got them to set, but never immediately as ng anchors generally do.

I currently use a Knox on the boat I have sailed to Portugal because I was privileged to participate in beta testing. I bought one because while running an RYA course I could repeatedly get the prototype 7kg Knox to set instantly and hold when anchoring a Sigma 33 under sail in 30 knots of wind. Once set on 3-1 scope the engine was started and full revs applied. The anchor did not budge. This exercise was repeated three times.

On the other boat, I have used a 10Kg Spade for 17 years in a huge variety of situations, and have never dragged. Once holed up in Canna for a couple of days in a bit of a blow friends in the same anchorage did drag - very experienced, CQR. We did not budge.

You have either been very lucky if your CQR has never dragged or you are only an occasional hooker. In any event, I found your post both patronising and insulting.

- W

 

[webcraft]

Yes, but that's Ardfern where everybody is rich, some people are royalty and the chandlery is a Rocna agent.

Anyone who thinks an anchor is the best place to start making economies obviously has great faith in his insurance company.

Those of us who get a little further afield where comprehensive cover is unaffordable or unavailable do not regret spending a few bob on a better anchor.

You simply do not see CQRs on serious cruising boats outside the UK.


- W

 

[Neeves]

Anyone who thinks an anchor is the best place to start making economies obviously has great faith in his insurance company.

Those of us who get a little further afield where comprehensive cover is unaffordable or unavailable do not regret spending a few bob on a better anchor.

You simply do not see CQRs on serious cruising boats outside the UK.


- W

As has been mentioned the difference between the engineering and manufacture of a Kobra, Delta and Rocna is not significant. All three involve casting, some CNC cutting and welding. Arguably the Kobra shank is made from a less robust steel but failures of Delta shanks and Rocna shanks suggest both are made from steel of an 'adequate' quality. All three anchors appear to be sold in decent volumes and as long as the manufacturer is slick - distribution costs should be similar.

The difference in price is therefore the level of funds directed to the pension fund - or (if you like) profit. Historically genuine CQRs were made using drop forging, today an expensive process, and when last made in Scotland (I believe they are now made in China) were expensive.

However the suggestion, or implication, that spending larger amounts of money on an anchor is one way to determine an anchor's performance is fundamentally flawed. I'd also question the statement that: 'You simply do not see CQRs on serious cruising boats outside the UK'. Skip Novak has some nice vids of anchoring - using CQRs (he has only recently upgraded his anchor), you will find CQRs on yachts across Pacific Islands, in NZ, Oz, HK and the US - maybe you need to get out more.

Hopefully when the Epsilon hits the shelves, at the prices that are current on various websites, this will put pressure on the manufacturers and purveyors of anchors and reduce profiteering.

I cannot comment on why the Epsilon has taken so long to come to fruition. It was introduced at METS 3 years ago, introduced again at METS 2 years ago and I was told went through full testing and Classification Society (CS) approvals for hold last year. Certification for Super High Holding Power also involves a requirement to provide a transparent paper trial of documentation (you have to prove you are actually using the correct steels ) and the CS are ultra sensitive over cast components and the foundry used for casting is independently vetted for process. Welding must be completed by CS approved welders. The final anchor must also be tested for strength, to ensure the shank and welds are adequate for the application. If you change part of your process - you need to restart the procedures.

Another company went through this process and obtained CS certification - they then changed their process (in this case using cast flukes instead of fabricated flukes) but omitted to advise the CS of the changes (this omission in itself raised questions) and certification was immediately withdrawn - and as far as I know not renewed.

If I were in the market for a new gen anchor and wanted to ensure that its hold was adequate I'd be happy with the SHHP approval but I would wait, for as long as possible, to assess the impact Epsilon has on the prices of potentially competitive product. Lewmar has probably the best reach internationally of any anchor maker and are stocked in virtually every chandler. If I were an anchor maker I would be seriously concerned about my sales forecast and profit margins on anchors for 2021. I have been involved in CS SHHP testing as an observer, it is rigorous (though the anchor maker chooses the seabeds, 3 different seabeds). Today if you test for SHHP you test against an anchor already SHHP certificated, which would mean testing against a Manson Supreme or Spade of the same weight (or one for the same sized vessel). Testing is based on 3 pulls of each anchor in each of the 3 seabeds and the one under test must be as good as or better than whatever is chosen as standard (so the standard slowly rises)

Most 'media' tests are based on one pull in one seabed - and some are not even tested in the sea (but are still quoted as being representative.

Jonathan

Thinking further.

Classification testing costs a fortune, you do not do it lightly. Most anchors are released onto the market place to judge reaction and to iron out any performance issues - and then consider CS certification.. There is something inherently wrong in using the market place to test your products (and I am sure some people do not want me to give examples, as, for different reasons you and they would be appalled. Some companies seem to use the market place to test their product more than others). Lewmar are showing extreme confidence in the new anchor to have invested money to have it certificated before release. I am sure it will work and meet their expectations and be accepted by the market place. Be patient. If they have it wrong - I'd hate to be responsible for the team who put the anchor together

 

[Kukri]

hi, before you finally part with the cash you might want to have a look at some of the youtube videos made by the crew of "SV Panope" ( I can't do a link but you can google it). They have tested and filmed quite a lot of different anchors including the Rocna and Vulcan, I think that they have been very methodical and extremely fair. However, I fear that one anchor is not going to be ideal in all seabeds, so perhaps hang on to your old ones.

For a link, go to the first post in this thread. It’s a report of a test, conducted in his usual meticulous way, by the owner of “SV Panope”... of a genuine CQR... he gives it rather good marks.

 

[Mark-1]

Anyone who thinks an anchor is the best place to start making economies obviously has great faith in his insurance company.

Those of us who get a little further afield where comprehensive cover is unaffordable or unavailable do not regret spending a few bob on a better anchor.

You simply do not see CQRs on serious cruising boats outside the UK.


- W

I think the anchor *is* the first place to economise. An elderly anchor will work better than almost any other elderly thing on a boat. Sails, engine, rig, seacocks need replacement and care far more regularly. I'm struggling to think of any other "fundamental boat thing" that can go 30 years without replacement or maintainace and not be a liability.

 

[Neeves]

Its amazing that a marine component is still commonly seen on a yacht of a design unchanged for almost 100 years - and still, has active proponents - something is right. I include CQR AND Danforth (though it has been improved since the original) and possibly even the fishermans (which is hardly popular but still seen).

With no disrespect to Mr Smith and Mr Lyall - I hope their designs are discarded quickly by devices much, much better.

Jonathan

 

[Mark-1]

Its amazing that a marine component is still commonly seen on a yacht of a design unchanged for almost 100 years - and still, has active proponents - something is right. I include CQR AND Danforth (though it has been improved since the original) and possibly even the fishermans (which is hardly popular but still seen).

With no disrespect to Mr Smith and Mr Lyall - I hope their designs are discarded quickly by devices much, much better.

Jonathan

I've used a fisherman on kelp in a gale - superb.

 

[Kukri]

I've used a fisherman on kelp in a gale - superb.

+1.

 

[Kukri]

The best point about the “genuine, made in Scotland” CQR - a point made by John and Phyllis of AAC - is simply that it is immensely strong. That shank is not going to bend. Flame cut flat plate ... I’m less sure. I started my short list of NG anchors by excluding those with flat plate shanks.

 

[Neeves]

The best point about the “genuine, made in Scotland” CQR - a point made by John and Phyllis of AAC - is simply that it is immensely strong. That shank is not going to bend. Flame cut flat plate ... I’m less sure. I started my short list of NG anchors by excluding those with flat plate shanks.

I sympathise with your caution but think you are too harsh.

The Anchor Right steel Excel uses Bis Alloy 80 in the shank, a 800 MPa steel. Knox uses a steel of higher tensile strength (you could check what they use) the shank is shorter vs the same weight Excel and the Knox shank is cut from thicker plate. Both cut from plate steel. Bis 80 is used as structural steel in Collins Class submarines and Bisalloy supply quench and tempered steels internationally for exotic applications military tanks - comes to mind. Proof Testing of the Excel, that I have witnessed, offers complete confidence in its strength (and the Knox will be stronger). I cannot comment about other NG anchors. I am sure that if you contact Knox they will tell what steel (I think it was a 1300 MPa from Corus) and Anchor Right would be more than happy to confirm their Proof Testing, conducted independently for vessels in survey. Another anchor to look at is Viking who use a very high MPa steel, from SSAB, for both the shank and fluke (allowing them to save weight) but I don't think weight is an issue for you. SSAB supply the same steel for the protective 'cages' for 'top end' passenger vehicles and for high strength components for mining (which is where I came across them).

I believe Manson use high MPa steels in some of their anchor shanks and this all started with Rocna where they used Bis 80 - but now simply claim the steel is 'adequate'.

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

The best point about the “genuine, made in Scotland” CQR - a point made by John and Phyllis of AAC - is simply that it is immensely strong. That shank is not going to bend. Flame cut flat plate ... I’m less sure. I started my short list of NG anchors by excluding those with flat plate shanks.

The CQR anchor shank is strong, but any anchor can bend. I inherited a bent CQR when I purchased our previous boat (cause unknown). However, there are very few reports of this happening, especially considering the popularity of this model, so I think it is extremely rare.

One advantage of the CQR is that it was designed before the classifications of HHP and SHHP were in existence. These classifications demand a shank that is very strong in a vertical direction, but they do not test on the strength of the shank with a lateral pull. Hence modern anchor shanks are very strong in a vertical, but not a sideways pull. Hence anchor shanks on modern anchors nearly always bend due to a side loading.

The CQR designer was free of any of these classification constraints and so could design a shank that was a more appropriate balance between vertical and horizontal strength. The CQR shank is not very deep but the “I” beam construction is strong in a vertical direction, but this also creates a shank that much wider than modern shanks which allows for good lateral strength.


One weakness of the CQR is the hinge mechanism. This suffers some wear especially if left to flop on the bow roller (so tie it to one side). There is little danger of the hinge breaking (although I suspect it could reach this stage in extreme cases), but the wear does effect the geometry and therefore the performance of the anchor. As the change is slow, the deterioration in performance is not always noticed by the owner.

The first photo shows a hinge with only a slight amount of wear. The second photo is a different CQR showing far too much play:

In terms of performance, the CQR works very well in the right medium consistency substrate, but struggles much more than modern anchors in different, especially hard substrates. One clever anchor observer coined it a “Goldilocks” anchor, indicating the bed has to be not too hard or too soft . When the CQR was released this was normal anchor behaviour and long distance cruising boats expected to carry a range of anchors to suit different substrates.

Modern anchors are much more versatile and while one design will not be the world’s best anchor in all substrates, the performance is usually at least adequate especially if it is practical to oversize the anchor.

The first photo shows a typical result of a CQR in the harder sand that is typical of firmer sand (the sand on the surface is soft but rapidly becomes hard with depth) . The scope was 5:1 and the anchor was correctly dropped, but has moved 7-8m and still has not buried well or rotated to the correct upright position. This is only one example but is typical of the CQR. By contrast the better modern designs will set nicely almost immediately.

 

[Neeves]

One reason to make shanks from plate is simple economy. Its easier to cut from plate steel or aluminium than fabricate a shank.

If I were Spade I'd drop the fabricated shank and make from plate steel as being cheaper and I think stronger (if you choose the correct steel).

Another reason is that the shank of a CQR reduces the ability of the anchor to dive deeply because the thick shank resists penetration. Bruce recognised this and chamfered the leading edge of his shank, still a plate but cast. The Fortress shank is also profiled (but the cheaper Guardian simply a chunk of extruded aluminium plate). Ultra and Spade also profile their shanks - but even profiled a thicker shank will resist burial. Vulcan shanks are machined from plate steel - much as I suggest, above, for Spade.

If you decide that a flame cut plate shank is not your choice then you limit the available anchors to Spade or Ultra, which are possibly the 2 most expensive anchors you can choose - and frankly if shank integrity is paramount then I'd look at Knox as possibly the most indestructible. The Knox shank is made from the highest tensile strength steel of any anchor (of which I am aware) and is braced at the top of the roll bar by the shank being fixed to the roll bar.

The reality is that shanks made from a strong enough steel simply don't bend, or so seldom that bent shanks made from steel of adequate strength are NOT a topic on internet forum. Ignoring the bendy shank saga (which illustrates what can happen when an inadequate steel is used), find links to bent Rocna, or Supreme, or Excel or Delta - You will find reports of bent flukes - but not shanks.

The Classification Society Proof Test does test for the integrity of the shank as under the test the shank is compressed along one edge (which is the same as compression along one side) and is tensioned on the other. The Proof Test is primarily designed to test the crown - but also tests for integrity of the shank itself. For the Proof Test the toe is immobilised and the shank tensioned as if to tear the shank of the fluke. If you check proof test results (contact the anchor maker) you will find the shank is, sometimes, tested to destruction - the tensions need to destroy the shank are all beyond the strength of your bow roller or the shackle.

All aspects of anchors are a compromise. Based on forum reports fears of shank integrity would be well down my list of fears (some modern anchors I would immediately discard - but that would still leave a long list for a choice) and I'd be more worried about fluke integrity than that of the shank. For example I have seen a bent Rocna toe - only one and the tension also destroyed the shackle - and I would have said a Rocna toe impossible to bend (and the shank was perfect)

I did some integrity testing and the only one to come out undamaged was the steel Excel with a Bisplate 80 shank. I did not test all anchors, I only had an Ultra on loan and I had committed not to destroy it . Its in the script but the anchors were set to 500kg tension (I recall) and then snatch loaded with a 4x4 at 90 degrees to the set direction.

Bends and Breaks: Anchor Shank Strength - Practical Sailor

Anchor Tests: Bending More Shanks - Practical Sailor

Of the shanks and anchors destroyed

Fortress replaced the shank. Anchor Right re-engineered the aluminium Excel and replaced it, the SARCA now has a BIs 80 shank. The steel Spade shank was 'straightened' but the complete anchor has been retired - in favour of its lighter aluminium brother. The Excel was also retired, in favour of its aluminium brother. The aluminium Excel now has a shank made from 18mm 7075 aluminium alloy cut from 18mm plate vs the 12mm plate of Bis 80. I have seen no test results but consider the aluminium shank stronger than the steel one. I have tested 7075 and it has minimal yield and breaks like glass, with a conchoidal fracture. Despite horror stories we have been using our aluminium Excel anchor for about 10 years and are still waiting for the shank to corrode.

Jonathan