mick
Well-Known Member
On a CQR anchor, what is the function of the hinged joint?
CQR joint
- Thread starter mick
- Start date
Salty John
Well-Known Member
It allows the shank to roll over with less tendency to disturb the set than a fixed shank. This is important when the tide changes or the wind shifts.
geoffatstanpit
Well-Known Member
I would have thought that it was more important that it allows the lower "wing" of the plough part to tip the point into the bottom so it digs in.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
On a CQR anchor, what is the function of the hinged joint?
[/ QUOTE ]It permits the shank to swivel with respect to the body /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Why did the original designers put the hinge in, at considerable expense? Do we have any written information from them, or contemporaneous notes?
What does it achieve and what happens if you seize the hinge?
On a CQR anchor, what is the function of the hinged joint?
[/ QUOTE ]It permits the shank to swivel with respect to the body /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Why did the original designers put the hinge in, at considerable expense? Do we have any written information from them, or contemporaneous notes?
What does it achieve and what happens if you seize the hinge?
hylass
Well-Known Member
From my point of view.. the hinge was a "brillant " idea..
Except that, to have enough solidity at the level of the hinge, it has to be very massive..
Then 62% of the total weight is concentrated at the level of the hinge.. and only 18% at the tip.. and this is why the CQR has difficulties to set as soon as the bottom is hard or covered by weed.. it is a very badly ballanced anchor..
The manufacturer did know this problem, and this is why they designed the Delta, with a fixed shank and a weighted tip..
And ( at least to my own opinion) this is why the Delta is BY FAR superior to the CQR..
Except the CQR (and copies), I do not know any other anchor who feature this kind of shank made in two articulated parts.. and you ( probably ) know that, as soon as a design is proved to be good. they are always "wise" people to copy it..
It is funny to see conservative people still swearing by the CQR.. when it is a rather obsolete anchor ( <span style="color:red"> no please, not on the head!..) </span> /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Except that, to have enough solidity at the level of the hinge, it has to be very massive..
Then 62% of the total weight is concentrated at the level of the hinge.. and only 18% at the tip.. and this is why the CQR has difficulties to set as soon as the bottom is hard or covered by weed.. it is a very badly ballanced anchor..
The manufacturer did know this problem, and this is why they designed the Delta, with a fixed shank and a weighted tip..
And ( at least to my own opinion) this is why the Delta is BY FAR superior to the CQR..
Except the CQR (and copies), I do not know any other anchor who feature this kind of shank made in two articulated parts.. and you ( probably ) know that, as soon as a design is proved to be good. they are always "wise" people to copy it..
It is funny to see conservative people still swearing by the CQR.. when it is a rather obsolete anchor ( <span style="color:red"> no please, not on the head!..) </span> /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Salty John
Well-Known Member
That's true; the original designer claimed that the hinge helps the anchor set when it lands initially on it's side. He also claimed that it allows the anchor to remain set when dragged around by wind or tide. In testing, I understand, the anchor was dragged in a complete circle and the fluke never unset.
So, the hinge has two purposes. Having spent a lot of time anchoring in strong reversing currents it is the ability to reset reliably that gets my vote as the more important virtue.
So, the hinge has two purposes. Having spent a lot of time anchoring in strong reversing currents it is the ability to reset reliably that gets my vote as the more important virtue.
jimbaerselman
Well-Known Member
In strong, reversing currents I'd never rely on a single anchor. The risk of lifting out on the turn of the tide is high, and the chances of not re-setting (plastic bags etc) are high enough to give me a thoroughly sleepless night.
So I'd always go for a moor - two anchors, one up tide, one down tide, both set hard and tested, with the rodes joined below the bow. Sleep tight - even go ashore for that lovely seafood meal.
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' to find my site - comparing the cruise areas of Europe.
So I'd always go for a moor - two anchors, one up tide, one down tide, both set hard and tested, with the rodes joined below the bow. Sleep tight - even go ashore for that lovely seafood meal.
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' to find my site - comparing the cruise areas of Europe.
Salty John
Well-Known Member
See the article on anchoring, "The Happy Hooker", on my website under Cruising Resources. I've lived "on the hook" for about five years in all, once going ten months without tying up to a dock as we worked through the islands from the Bahamas to BVI.
I agree with you; I always like to use a Bahamian moor in reversing currents. I prefer two separate rodes rather than a shackle for simplicity. However, if you anchor in one spot for more than a few days you do have to untangle the rodes!
I still like the fact that a CQR resets quite reliably if disturbed, because of the hinge.
I agree with you; I always like to use a Bahamian moor in reversing currents. I prefer two separate rodes rather than a shackle for simplicity. However, if you anchor in one spot for more than a few days you do have to untangle the rodes!
I still like the fact that a CQR resets quite reliably if disturbed, because of the hinge.
craigsmith
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I still like the fact that a CQR resets quite reliably if disturbed, because of the hinge.
[/ QUOTE ]It most certainly does not reset (reliably), and the hinge is part of the problem!
I still like the fact that a CQR resets quite reliably if disturbed, because of the hinge.
[/ QUOTE ]It most certainly does not reset (reliably), and the hinge is part of the problem!
Poignard
Well-Known Member
What always puzzles me about the CQR is how well it seems to perform when anchoring a boat [as affirmed by many very experienced yachtsmen such as Eric Hiscock] whereas it seems to be a failure when it comes to anchoring a Landrover on a beach.
Could it be that sand that is under water behaves differently to sand that is not? Have any comparative trials been carried out with the various different types of anchor underwater?
Could it be that sand that is under water behaves differently to sand that is not? Have any comparative trials been carried out with the various different types of anchor underwater?
Salty John
Well-Known Member
I can see that the salesmen and zealots have waded in, but I have them all on ignore so I can only speculate on what prompted that lovely response!
Stoaty
Well-Known Member
Perhaps if we dropped the landrover and it's anchor off the front of a boat in 30-100ft of water we might get a better demonstration.
craigsmith
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Have any comparative trials been carried out with the various different types of anchor underwater?
[/ QUOTE ]Of course they have. How about the most recent comprehensive test by SAIL and Yachting Monthly?
SAIL:
"...most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom."
Yachting Monthly:
"The CQR failed to set no matter how hard we tried... Even at 7:1 scope it failed to penetrate. It set and held briefly at 2,000 lb at our second location, but released instantly and didn't re-set." The reason: "The combination of a heavy shank and hinge means it can also slide along on its side without engaging."
Compared to the comments from the same tests...
"The Spade dug instantly where the CQR ploughed a trench..."
"The Rocna rolls, sets, and holds instantly, and was one of the top performers..."
Etc.
Have any comparative trials been carried out with the various different types of anchor underwater?
[/ QUOTE ]Of course they have. How about the most recent comprehensive test by SAIL and Yachting Monthly?
SAIL:
"...most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom."
Yachting Monthly:
"The CQR failed to set no matter how hard we tried... Even at 7:1 scope it failed to penetrate. It set and held briefly at 2,000 lb at our second location, but released instantly and didn't re-set." The reason: "The combination of a heavy shank and hinge means it can also slide along on its side without engaging."
Compared to the comments from the same tests...
"The Spade dug instantly where the CQR ploughed a trench..."
"The Rocna rolls, sets, and holds instantly, and was one of the top performers..."
Etc.
jwilson
Well-Known Member
I think there is a difference in how sand holds anchors above and below water. I've walked out various anchors on sandbanks at LW, and found I could easily pull them back to the boat without ever gripping. When in above-water sand the only way to get an anchor to hold reliably seems to be to dig it in with a shovel!
However, the same anchors held fine when lowered onto the same sandbank whilst afloat - ie the sand being now underwater.
However, the same anchors held fine when lowered onto the same sandbank whilst afloat - ie the sand being now underwater.
hylass
Well-Known Member
Absolutely true..
This is absolutely true, with anchors which have difficulties to set, (like the CQR) as underwater, the surface of the bottom is more soft and the anchor digg in more easily.
When on wet sand (but not on the water) the sand surface is much harder and the anchor will not set..
But on the opposite, an anchor that will set on the hard wet sand (not on the water), will not have any dificulty to set under the water..
This is absolutely true, with anchors which have difficulties to set, (like the CQR) as underwater, the surface of the bottom is more soft and the anchor digg in more easily.
When on wet sand (but not on the water) the sand surface is much harder and the anchor will not set..
But on the opposite, an anchor that will set on the hard wet sand (not on the water), will not have any dificulty to set under the water..
FAITIRA
Well-Known Member
Crap! I have used bruce, cqr and fob and others for 30+ years, to say an anchor will perform on dry sand the same as underwater is utter rubbish. By the way, the bruce has yet to be improved on for all round performance, however I bought the present boat in Spain with a cqr 2 years ago, and it has not let me down in 4000+ miles of coastal cruising/living aboard. I think your commercial interest colours your comment.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I think you misread hylas's post...have another look
FAITIRA
Well-Known Member
Hi Lemain, looked a couple of times, it would be possible of course to get a device to dig into hard compact sand that would be useless under practical conditions, I think I get the gist of the discussion. Bill
jimbaerselman
Well-Known Member
Surely hylas was saying that to expect anchors to behave on dry sand the same way as they behave under water was not realistic. Which is what you believe. Or am I being exceptionally dim so late at night?
Nothing like being three beers downwind . . .
Nothing like being three beers downwind . . .
FAITIRA
Well-Known Member
Nothing like being three beers downwind . . . [/quote
Seemed to me that he is suggesting that a "device" that can dig into wet sand can be compared to an anchor that will HOLD in the totally different conditions prevailing in a realistic situation.
Seemed to me that he is suggesting that a "device" that can dig into wet sand can be compared to an anchor that will HOLD in the totally different conditions prevailing in a realistic situation.