CQR & Plough Anchors

[PhilipMcLaughlin]

Is there any difference in performance between a CQR and an SOC plough (articulated) anchor of the same weight? They seem to look much the same, but with a large difference in cost. Is it that the genuine CQR is a much stronger fabrication being drop forged? Any advice appreciated.

Cheers - Phil

 

[ColinHuggins]

I'm sure this has been documented in several boating mags. But IF you have room for a plough type then go for the Bruce which has consistently rated better than the CQR. Mine digs in a treat, and hangs over the bow too.
(Kedge is a Danforth - stows flat - and spare a Fishermans - for the Channel Islands.)

 

[Salty John]

Re: CQR & Plough Anchors

The CQR, with its articulated shank, has advantages over fixed shaft anchors when it comes to resetting after changes in current direction. The CQR has a forged pin, in fact the whole anchor is forged as one piece. Imitation CQR's often have a steel bolt at the joint and this rusts and can fail.
The CQR is an excellent anchor and has provided secure anchoring to thousands and thousands of sailors all over the world and for some considerable time. You will now be deluged by opinions regarding every other anchor made, and particularly modern designs seeking to oust the old guard!

 

[cliff]

There is only one "CQR" although there are many copies. The copies are IMHO poor in both reliaility and endurance. If you have the room have a look at the Delta Fastset.

FWIW I use a Delta as my main anchor with a genuine CQR as backup/second main and a Bruce as a kedge.

I would not entertain any of the "new technology" anchors we frequently hear about and promoted by a very small number of forumites.
--------------------

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
sailroom <span style="color:red">The place to auction your previously loved boatie bits</span>

 

[Guest]

CQR is a Trade Name and for years they advertised the durability and strength of the forging.

Plough is the generic term for a CQR and other "similar" types - it has become common-place to assume a CQR copy when Plough is mentioned.

The copies often are of cast construction and you will hear comments about dropped onto hard ground and fluke / pins breaking etc. It may be true - but I have had both CQR and copy - plus known many boats / people with either - never actually met anyone with first-hand experience of such breakages.

The CQR is also reported as having a slight difference in fluke to shank angle and also range of swivel angle ......

Anyway - I have had both and to be honest - I am not a follower of fashion, I carry the heaviest plough I can manage and have not had any problems. Allied to all chain rode for me its QED.

 

[Dipper]

Genuine CQRs are drop forged up to 48kg and fabricated from 48kg upwards. They are guaranteed against breakage for life so presumably they don't break! They can be bent but not snap. Cheaper plough anchors could have faults in their construction which may allow the metal to snap under heavy loads.

The shape of CQRs is slightly different from plough copies. The shank on a CQR is usually longer and the anchor slightly slimmer. In simple terms, CQR's are better quality than plough copies. Whether you think the price difference is worth it is up to you. You will probably find that long term cruisers will tend to buy genuine CQRs in preference to copies for greater piece of mind in adverse conditions.

These comments also apply in general to Bruce anchors and the cheaper claw copies. Like CQRs, Bruce anchors are much better made than copies, they are stronger and weight for weight give better performance than the copies.

 

[Pye_End]

There is 'Rocna' post worth reading in the 'Livaboards' area. The Rocna website in itself is quite interesting, especially the video footage. Not really a plough anchor, but I certainly think worth looking at.

If you really want a plough, as already muted, go for the original with the CQR name.

 

[craigsmith]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any difference in performance between a CQR and an SOC plough (articulated) anchor of the same weight? They seem to look much the same, but with a large difference in cost. Is it that the genuine CQR is a much stronger fabrication being drop forged? Any advice appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]The short answer is "yes" and "you get what you pay for". Copies are rarely as good as the original in terms of performance, and in this case the CQR has the added advantage of its construction which as has been said by others is quite superior. However this is not necessarily a deal maker or breaker - there is nothing wrong with fabricated or cast steel if it's done right.

Here is an example of a CQR vs a copy.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this has been documented in several boating mags. But IF you have room for a plough type then go for the Bruce which has consistently rated better than the CQR.

[/ QUOTE ]This is nonsense, in fact even within the context of the old generation types the exact opposite is true:

^ Averaged results of old US Sailing data

[ QUOTE ]
The CQR, with its articulated shank, has advantages over fixed shaft anchors when it comes to resetting after changes in current direction.

[/ QUOTE ]This is also nonsense; the Delta is a far superior anchor to the CQR in every sense with the sole exception of strength. The articulated shank is a very negative feature in this sense as it allows the anchor to lie on its side, and drag along with the fluke effectively upside down.

[ QUOTE ]
There is 'Rocna' post worth reading in the 'Livaboards' area. The Rocna website in itself is quite interesting, especially the video footage. Not really a plough anchor, but I certainly think worth looking at.

[/ QUOTE ]Definitely not a plough /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif (ploughs have convex flukes and are designed to plough the seabed; the Rocna has a concave fluke which gives far better resistance).

The guy who posted in the Liveaboards forum also sent us an e-mail and we put together a page on him. This pertains to this thread as he talks about CQRs - see here.

 

[GMac]

[ QUOTE ]
They are guaranteed against breakage for life so presumably they don't break! They can be bent but not snap. Cheaper plough anchors could have faults in their construction which may allow the metal to snap under heavy loads.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do bend and break but not often and will be replaced under the gaurantee.

[ QUOTE ]
In simple terms, CQR's are better quality than plough copies. Whether you think the price difference is worth it is up to you. You will probably find that long term cruisers will tend to buy genuine CQRs in preference to copies for greater piece of mind in adverse conditions.

These comments also apply in general to Bruce anchors and the cheaper claw copies. Like CQRs, Bruce anchors are much better made than copies, they are stronger and weight for weight give better performance than the copies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Manson Marine make a plough that is stronger (not that you would want to find out while using it), works exactly the same, dosen't suffer the pin flogging out as much, lifetime guarantee as well and is cheaper. But apart from that specific one and a genuine CQR the rest can be regarded as 'use with caution if you have to use it at all'.

Never seen a Bruce copy anywhere as good as the genuine.

 

[Twister_Ken]

SBC - It's true we've never met, but I've succeeded (without trying very hard) in breaking a CQR-alike, on a Scumsail yacht in Croatia. Dropped the hook from the bow, motored backwards to get the stern to a wall, snubbed the chain to dig the hook in - ping - and the boat continued merrily astern. Hauled in the chain to have another go and it brought up the shank, but no plough. The whole shebaggings had sheered just on the plough side of the hole through which the swivel pin passes (pin and hole were still at the end of the shank). Fortunately, there was a massive Danforth-alike as a kedge, which did hold and did the job, once I'd put my back out moving it onto the chain.

My advice - don't buy lookalike anchors, buy the real thing.

 

[Graham_Wright]

Nice to hear someone with something good to say about the Bruce.

About 5 years ago I bought the the Bruce because it came out well in the tests.

This year "Voile" magazine (I think it was Voile) did tests and the Bruce came out worst.

Maybe all the others just got better?

 

[Pye_End]

Craig -

I currently stow my 25lb CQR on deck on chocks (I have a bow sprit, so stowing on the stem head fitting is not an option). So far I have seen no pictures of deck stowage for your anchor, and am considering trying a 'new anchor'. Can you comment on the best arrangement, and how it compares with a CQR for this.

Can you also say whether we are likely to see a UK agent in the next year or so?

 

[Anchorite]

Re: This says it all (well, nearly)

Practical Sailor is an american mag with NO adverts!!! A bit long this report, read the last paragraph (also):


The Bruce Anchor Sets Best

In our tests in sand of 11 anchors, the Digger and two prototypes fail to set at all three scopes used. For the others, setting is sometimes a trade-off with holding power.


A goodly portion of the best years of every sailor’s life has been spent reading reports on, opinions regarding, claims for, studies of and test results about those odd-shaped objects called anchors.

It’s all in search of an all-purpose, never-failing, indestructible contraption with which one can attach the confounded boat to the crust of the good old earth, which unfortunately can be sandy, muddy, stony, rocky or weedy.

There are but two questions: Will the anchor set? Will the anchor hold?

Tests? There have been dozens of them—the French APAVE, the U.S. Navy tests, the RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) in England, the BOAT/U.S. and Cruising World magazine strength tests, the so-called Dutch tests (which were done in a huge sandbox), the on-going tests done by the naval architect and author Robert A. Smith, and lots of tests sponsored by anchor manufacturers.

Even the most recent impartial tests often aren’t very definitive. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these was the “Seattle Tests,” co-sponsored by the Safety at Sea Committee of the Sailing Foundation and West Marine. It involved two trawlers, two tugs, dozens of workers (including divers), five different sites in Puget Sound and 253 “sets” with seven anchors. Our exclusive report on the Seattle tests appeared in the February 1, 1996 issue.

Better Mousetraps
And what of the new anchors not yet on the market? Anchoring is a subject that seems to fascinate inventors. It’s not just “build a better mousetrap.” Rather, it’s a trap that will catch mice, cockroaches, berserk bears and runaway bulldozers. Some of the new anchors are, frankly speaking, just plain weird. Nevertheless, each inventor seems very sure that his is going to be that perfect, all-purpose anchor.

Is there such a thing?

Probably not.

So, let’s take a different cut at it.

Which anchors excel or rate among the best in the various functions assigned to the anchor?

There never appears to be any disagreement that an anchor’s major functions are:

1. Setting
2. Holding (with dragging as a derivative) and,
3. Re-setting (or holding) when veered.

Four less important factors in anchor selection might be considered (1) the difficulty of breaking out, (2) weight onboard, (3) the quality of workmanship (as it pertains to long-term utility), and (4) ease of handling and stowage (either at the bow or in an anchor locker). With many boat owners, stowage, self-launching and automatic retrieval from the bow is a great plus. Conversely, no one likes to be forced routinely to break an anchor out of deep stowage, especially on any fairly large boat that requires an anchor of unhandy size and weight.

Indeed, for those who anchor often, self-launching and stowing can rank very tight up behind the three major functions.

How To Begin
Taking first things first, Practical Sailor, in this attempt to field test anchors, herewith begins a series of tests that cumulatively should be of value to its readers, or at least assist in the selection of an anchor that best fits the intended usage.

Someone who sails in nice weather on weekends in protected water, never far from a nice harbor in which to have lunch or take a nap, can rightfully be said to have anchor needs radically different from the ocean cruiser wandering the world. Most of us fit somewhere in-between and can be described as sailors who occasionally get caught during very bad weather in an anchorage not of our choosing. The latter instance makes anchor selection very difficult.

Whatever the need, we’re reasonably sure that setting is one of the two most important major functions of an anchor. Setting and holding are inextricably linked. But an anchor is useless if it doesn’t set and leads to nervous disorders if it sets “62% of the time in sand, 29% of the time in shingle and almost never in weeds.”

So the next question is: “Sets in what?”

We’ll commence with sand, partly because it seems likely that anchoring is done most often in deliberately-sought-out sand bottoms, but also simply because one must start somewhere and sand seemed like a good medium in which to launch a developmental learning curve. In truth, an experienced sailor usually looks for the kind of bottom in which the anchor he favors works best. It’s when he doesn’t find his preferred conditions that he is at risk.

Designing The Test
On a nearby beach, we devised a method to test each anchor both in wet sand (just above the waterline) and in sand in the water.

Wet sand just above the water’s edge is a difficult medium for an anchor to pierce; it’s much harder than sand under a foot or two of water.

The rode, assembled with standard shackles, was a 10' length of 7/16" chain backed with line. The line was lead to a snatch block 10' off the ground level (on an 18"-diameter pole set deep in the sand) thence down through a block attached to a Dillon dynamometer and then to a two-speed, self-tailing Harken winch mounted on a fixed base.

The arrangement permitted the repeated testing of each anchor in hard wet sand and in the water, at scopes of 3:1, 5:1 and 7:1. This was done simply by placing the anchors at either 30', 50' or 70' from the base of the pole. The three different scopes made the work time-consuming, but seemed necessary not only because of the varying claims made by anchor manufacturers, but also because, in actual anchoring, the available scope sometimes is limited.

After setting up the apparatus, it was easy to place an anchor on the wet sand or in the water, in any configuration desired, stake its original position and measure where it “took hold” and engaged the sand sufficiently to resist a 200-pound pull on the line. Because of the difficulty of measuring under water, the figures were rounded at 6".

We found that it matters not how most anchors land on the bottom while being launched. A good anchor cares not how it lands. The initial pull on the rode swivels or flops such anchors to the proper position.

Because this was a test of setting characteristics, no attempt—other than a few deviations that seemed appropriate—was made to go beyond a 200-pound pull. That’s the pull that would be produced by a 30' sailboat anchored in sheltered water in 30 knots of wind. (For a discussion of “The Load On Your Rode,” see the July 1, 1996 issue.)

Eleven Anchors In All
For this initial test we selected the old standbys (CQR, Danforth and Bruce), plus relatively new types (Claw, Delta, Digger, Fortress, Max and the West Marine Performance2). The Ship's Store in Portsmouth, Rhode Island loaned us a number of these anchors.

Also included are several prototypes, both very promising anchors that their designers asked us to test. We’ll not name the prototypes because they are under development, are not yet on the market and, in this test, yielded results not equal to those of the best of the rest. To pre-judge them would be unfair. We’ll use photos and describe them, but call them “A” and “B”.

In the process of testing, examining, experimenting, discussing and thinking about these anchors, we concentrated on the subject of how they set. However, it was impossible to reject thoughts about holding power, swiveling (or re-setting) ability and stowage. We also reviewed data from several of the prior tests identified earlier.

Thinking just about setting, it appears without question that designing an anchor is not a simple matter.

First of all, no matter how it is dropped to the bottom, the anchor must be capable of assuming its initial “dig-in” position. Further, its point or points must take an angle into the bottom. This “point presentation” is accomplished by a fairly large angle of attack (as in the case of the Bruce, Claw and Max), by a “heel” that heads the points downward (as with the lightweight types) or by weighting the point (as is done by the CQR, Delta and both of the prototypes). The latter suggests that the weight is only needed to help the anchor dig in, when in fact its purpose also is to shift the center of gravity away from the roll axis in order to force the point into the bottom.

From a pure engineering standpoint, adding weight to get an anchor to set seems self-defeating. The end product of that line of thought would be a 500-pound pointed chunk of lead. But if a weighted tip helps an anchor dig in quickly and that anchor performs other functions in a superior manner, the weight would become tolerable.

Whatever the design, one glaring, common conflict is that if an anchor is designed to go into the ground easily, it should have minimal cross-sectional resistance—which happens to be exactly the opposite of what an anchor needs to provide high holding power. We may later examine the “resisting plane footprints” or silhouettes of anchors.

The Bottom Line
In the Practical Sailor test to determine not only what anchor sets best in sand but how long it drags before doing so, the Bruce was the hands-down top performer. As indicated by the chart, there is no question that the Bruce sets quicker than any other anchor. The Bruce was followed by the Max, the Claw and the Fortress.

The Bruce’s reputation for setting was enhanced by the Seattle tests, in which it set 97% of the time. Even in two rocky bottoms in which all other anchors had complete or unacceptable failures, the Bruce had a 100% record for setting. (Its closest competitor, a Max, set 65% of the time.) Besides Bruce and Max, in the Seattle tests, with their setting percentages, were a Luke yachtsman (14%), a CQR (63%), a Delta (57%), a West Marine Performance2 (65%) and a Fortress (59%). (The Claw, Digger, Danforth and two prototypes in our test were not included in the Seattle test.)

(The rankings in the Seattle column on the chart were developed using data only from three test sites; not used were data either from those two rocky sites that some observers firmly believed were not proper anchorages or from the two veering tests, which failed to produce adequate numbers for anchors that otherwise appeared outstanding. If the bad site data had been used, Bruce would rank #1 on our chart under the Seattle ranking.)

If one wants to carry an anchor that will set, with an insignificant percentage of failures, in any but the foulest bottom, a Bruce is the undisputed choice. That’s why it is a favorite aboard so many cruising and charter boats.

But despite its excellent setting ability, in almost every holding power test the Bruce has been outdone by other anchors.

 

[craigsmith]

[ QUOTE ]
Craig -
I currently stow my 25lb CQR on deck on chocks (I have a bow sprit, so stowing on the stem head fitting is not an option). So far I have seen no pictures of deck stowage for your anchor, and am considering trying a 'new anchor'. Can you comment on the best arrangement, and how it compares with a CQR for this.

Can you also say whether we are likely to see a UK agent in the next year or so?

[/ QUOTE ]Mmmn that's an interesting one - you're right, we have no material on that.

The anchor lies nicely on its side, in the same position as its setting attitude, with the tip, end of shank, and skid resting on the ground. It would not be hard to build chocks that would accomodate it, although you may want to lash it down well depending on how solid the chocks and their mounts are, because the fluke area is quite large - much larger than the equivalent CQR - and green water across the deck could provide enough force to free the anchor.

A UK agent in the next year or so? Quite possible in a year, almost definite in a year "or so". In the mean time the freight from NZ to the UK for the 15 (33lbs) and smaller is not a complete deal breaker.

 

[craigsmith]

Re: This says it all (well, nearly)

[ QUOTE ]
But despite its excellent setting ability, in almost every holding power test the Bruce has been outdone by other anchors.

[/ QUOTE ]Exactly.

And this is quite old and out-dated - they weren't comparing to any new generation types.

Does it set better than a CQR? Of course, but it was developed in the 1970s to address that very issue with ploughs - whereas the CQR was the very first small boat anchor, invented back in 1933. What do you expect? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[duncan]

Re: disappointing

all of this highlights why it was so disappoining that the recent test in MBM used the same old anchors...........although to be balanced availability is a factor and some have a significanlty higher profile on the forums than they do in the chandlers around here (UK).