CQR joint

[Bajansailor]

Going back to the hinge on the CQR - we have a 35 lb version which is about 12 years old and generally in good condition (all galvanising intact, no surface rust) - apart from in way of the hinge pin, which appears to be worn somewhat.

Hence there seems to be a fair bit of 'play' in the hinge, ie the shank can wobble about a bit - its not a tight fit.
I hadnt really noticed it before, even when it habitually squeezed my fingers when lifting it on and off the bow roller.....
(Yes, non hinged shank anchors have a lot going for them in this respect!)

I don't know of any other CQR's on nearby boats to compare it with, and nobody here sells new ones (they only sell Danforths in the local chandlery).

Hence I would just like to ask the opinion of the Forum (or those who have CQRs rather!) how much 'play' would you consider to be acceptable in the hinge?

 

[hylass]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your commercial interest <span style="color:green"> colours </span> /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gifyour comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by " <span style="color:brown"> commercial interest </span> ".??

I do not have more commercial interest than you!..

.. and it is not at all a good excuse for not trying to understand what my BAD English allows me to write.. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Salty John]

The genuine CQR does have quite a sloppy hinge, this is by design I believe. The hinge is forged together with the anchor on the genuine CQR. Copies often have a bolt and nut and much tighter hinge or a pin driven through a hole in the casting; both less reliable than the genuine CQR in my opinion.

 

[Aja]

[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they are just rubbish at anchoring. Should get out more and practice.
/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Donald

 

[craigsmith]

[ QUOTE ]
Crap! ... the bruce has yet to be improved on for all round performance...

[/ QUOTE ]Indeed...
(forgetting, of course, the lack of relevance in commenting on an anchor which no longer exists)

Yachting Monthly:

"The Claw is Lewmar's version of the Bruce... Bruce no longer make yacht anchors, hence our testing this version. We were surprised that it was one of the worst performers in our tests. The tension graphs showed that the anchor never penetrated properly, setting and releasing rapidly or simply scraping the bottom."

SAIL:

"During most of the 5:1 pulls, it seemed to set and release rapidly without ever really catching. One pull showed it was slowly dragging under a load of about 300 pounds, but we were never able to say with certainty that the anchor had set. We recorded similar results with 7:1 scope... The beach pull was also telling in that the Claw dug a much longer trench than other anchors that produced better results during the holding-power pulls."

Practical Sailor - 1999:

"Anchors that failed our 400-lb. minimum were the Bruce, Claw, Danforth… "Neither the Bruce, with an average holding power of 307 lbs, nor the Claw, which held to an average of 283 lbs, did anything to alter their reputations."

Practical Sailor - 2003:

Set well and remained set during veer but "...total drag about 12', avg. reading of 200 lbs [compared to well over double that for better anchors]. Never regained its initial grip in the hard sand."

Voiles et Voiliers:

"… much of their popularity derives from the ease with which they stow on the stemhead. But their performance proved disappointing… the Bruce anchor's reputation was founded on it being used to anchor oilrigs but a Bruce of dozens of tons is a very different animal from the ones we tested. In gravel these claws bounce about whereas in sand they lie down on their side and rarely exceed 200Kg of holding power."

And if you refuse to believe that independent testing could possibly have any possible connection with reality...

"The Spade was the best performer for a given weight. It was roll-stable and held extremely well. It was also the most deeply buried anchor. The Delta… and Bruce… gave about 60% of the Spade's hold." - John Knox (PBO)

"We often had to repair boats that were damaged on rocks after anchor dragged. But since I changed the whole fleet over to German Bügel anchors, there’s been no problem." - Yildiz Yachting (Med charter company)

"I have used (extensively) big fisherman anchors on traditional craft, Bruce, Delta, and CQRs of various sizes... [On the Rocna:] By far the best anchor I have ever used, and I've used most..." - Colin Speedie, Scottish Wildlife Trusts

"Better than any anchor we have used in the past - Bruce, CQR, Danforth... excellent versatility." – Steve Dashew (on his Rocna), Dashew Offshore

Etc.

 

[Guest]

Post deleted by danfoley

 

[Aja]

Brain

On reflection, I'll remove the smiley.

I'm happy to admit that I've always used a CQR. It may not be as good as more up to date designs. But on the other hand it is not a bad anchor and shouldn't be rubbished out of hand by people promoting their own designs.

Donald

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if a CQR anchor drags, it's due to the operators fault or wrong seabed conditions and not due to the design of the anchor itself

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think that you should make allowances for an anchor that lends itself to being used incorrectly. OK, we accept that there are some bottoms that are impossible - smooth rock or impenetrable hard sand, very deep weed, porridge-like mud, for example, but for the most part if an anchor is worth stowing on the bow as a main anchor, it should be safe for use in any place designated as an 'anchorage'. Sadly, most don't seem to be - at least not here in the Med.

Last summer, an Almerimar resident - experienced, with a large yacht, had declared that he NEVER drags. I met up with him in San Antonio in Ibiza and having dragged myself there a few days earlier, I warned him about the holding and told him from whom he could rent a buoy for a small sum. No, he NEVER drags. One night in F6 or so, he and many of the yachts anchored started dragging and were seen motoring round the anchorage for hours. One motor boat ended up dragging right out of the harbour to the sea, chased by the owners half an hour later in their tender.

Did all of these people anchor badly? What's the point of having an anchor that isn't any use in an anchorage?

 

[hylass]

Hi Brian,

70 years ago the CQR was, by far, the best on the market, as it was no other competitors.. (other than the old Fisherman anchor )..

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue">I think if a CQR anchor drags, it's due to the operators fault or wrong seabed conditions and not due to the design of the anchor itself. </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose that you had already the occasion to deeply study the CQR and to record how it was behaving under strong pulls.. and also to make a comparison with “ MODERN” anchors.. to assert that the design has noting to do with the behavior of the anchor??

This is a typical behaviour of the CQR dragging:
- at first the anchor dig in, and the holding increase regularly, until the anchor start dragging, then due to the gravity law and the too heavy weight of the hinge, the anchor start to turn upside down ( still under the bottom ) and the anchor go up, until the tip protrude on the sea bottom, like a submarine periscope.. for digging in again.. and the whole cycle start again…

This is the typical of one modern design ( in this case the Bügel anchor )
Like the CQR, the anchor dig in ( <span style="color:green"> recording a curve like that is very interesting, as you can clearly see, the time the anchor is sliding on the bottom before finding a grip </span> ) – then the holding increase until the anchor reach a plateau value.. ( and this plateau is not the holding limit of the anchor, but the holding limit of the peculiar sea bottom.. )

When reaching this holding limit, the anchor drag, remaining completely buried on, the holding force is quasi constant ( the slight variations are due to the holding variations of the sea bottom itself )

If you are pulling at constant speed, the holding value will remain constant, but if you increase the dragging speed, the holding will increase to the SQUARE of the increase of speed..

Now, studying these curves, you can clearly understand why moderns anchors are better that the old CQR..

 

[silver-fox]

[ QUOTE ]
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]

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?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that you sum up the crux of the debate very well.

I believe the answer is straightforward

Firstly no-one is saying that the CQR does not work or that it does not set. What they are saying is that there are more modern designs that "weight for weight" set faster and hold better - particularly on hard sand where the CQR has a tendency to slide. (See YM's comprehensive test in Dec 06)

The thousands of CQR users out there know what to expect from their anchors after years of use - and have sized them accordingly - and the CQR delivers to their expectation so everyone is happy.

Few people ever experience extreme conditions so the combination of "throwing weight at the problem" and the anchor not being under stress preserves the CQRs reputation. Hand on heart how many of us would be able to tell the difference when cruising between the 2,000lb maximum the CQR achieved (albeit in only one of 5 pulls) compared with the 5000lb maximum load the more modern anchors regularly managed in the recent YM tests? Yet that extra capability could mean the saving of a boat at anchor in severe circumstances.

Eric and Susan Hiscock are heroes of mine. Their first circumnavigation was done without self steering! They used the best they could find at the time. (When they first started sailing the CQR was fairly new!)

From memory they used to carry a 65lb CQR, presumably because that gave them the holding power they needed. I have little doubt that were they on the cruising scene today that they would evaluate the the new technology.

I have used a CQR for years, its served me well but I really think there are better solutions out there now as is evidenced by independent test after test.

What is really so great about sailing is that there are no rules being enforced. Each boatowner makes his own decision and takes the consequences! So there no need for any of the vitriol or personal insult that seem to conclude every anchor debate.

I just hope that anyone anchored upwind of me in a blow is as least as prudent as I am!! One thing is for sure whilst this is my final post on the subject I bet the debate rages on...../forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[hylass]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing is for sure whilst this is my final post on the subject I bet the debate rages on.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said Stevie_D and I fully agree with you..

This will also be my final post on this subject..

 

[laserman2]

I have mainly used CQR and have to admire it from time to time. I have experienced the CQR dragging and prefer not to be in that position. Sometimes, due to economics we have to use the equipment that comes with the boat. Having got my own boat now I have a 15 kg Bruce for a 10metre yacht that is really specified for a 39 ft yacht up to a force 9.

I can sleep securely at night knowing that I am anchored in a good patch (using local knowledge) have an oversize anchor and lie to usually lottsa chain.

I think it is obviously open season that commercial people comment on this forum slag off other anchor designs to make us feel inferior and rush out and buy their product. Shame on you who know who you are for thinking that us yachities are an easy pull - Quite by a long margin we are not daft so don't treat us that way.

In any case these test of dragging an anchor over a beach at low water isn't the real thing.

Bruce anchors are ok do their job and so do CQR's if they weren't doing it I would ditch it and buy something that worked.

 

[GMac]

I bet you all I could get a 10kg lump of concrete to hold my boat better than anyone of your 10kg anchors real easy.

Why? An anchor will not stop a boat from drifting through the bay. Simple fact.

The people who drag have brought an anchor and the people who don't have brought an anchoring system.

See it everyday, they come in and buy anchor with no regard to the rest of the system, many will drag. Those who come in and match the set stay put a whole lot more. Again simple fact.

 

[FAITIRA]

Me too, sorry if I got it wrong hylas! Good Luck, Bill.

 

[FAITIRA]

I just hope that anyone anchored upwind of me in a blow is as least as prudent as I am!! One thing is for sure whilst this is my final post on the subject I bet the debate rages on.....

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[Guest]

This is also my FINAL post on the subject. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

...and first. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif