CQRs for sale ??

I was once unfortune enough to have to get a boat off a shingle beach where she had bee neeped and with the wind in the direction it was she didnt float. So on the next tied I laid the main anchor and all the substatial (for her size) supply of chain accross the beach giving a scope acroos the muddy creek bed of about 50:1. when the tide got to the top all hand laid to both winches which rant to block and brough the cable bar tight and about middle 'C', you could see it visably thin. The boat however didnt budge so when the tied was down I walked round to recove the anch assuming it would be so well burried that it would need digging out. Imagion my suprise to frind that I had droped it on a sheat of ply sunk in the mud are there it sat high and dry, what had resisted all our efforts was 50m of 8mm chain and some sticky mud!

The moral, since confirmed many times, is that the cable is far more significant than the anchor. 5x for chain is ok in fair conditions but 7 times for rope is courting disater, and anyway why try to lay the minimum, lay out enoug heavy chain to garentee a good length is laying on the bottem and you wont drag. On my boat I use 2 45lb CQRs to give 90lb but then 100m 10mm chain which is about 500lbs! for a 6.5 ton boat
 
[ QUOTE ]
Wot the [--word removed--] does that mean ?

which way does the graph swing?

cheers Joe

[/ QUOTE ]The graph is Hylas's own, he's just put some particular results (that aren't totals or averages anyway) on top of each other. An illogical method, since each test result is not evenly weighted (you will notice the smallest weighting goes to the test in which the Spade did the most poorly).

The SAIL testing results are on our website, but it will be interesting to see how Yachting Monthly have interpreted the same testing.
 
the hydrobubble result has obviously been replicated in the SAIL tests. I wonder what the price will be in the uk. It is pretty chep in the US (£135)
 
Craig

I should think you will be smiling when you get to see the YM test report. The Manson, I would say, just beat your Ronca to second place, the Manson also having a price advantage too.

However, as a CQR user, I wont be off to order one of your clearly excellent hooks. As I have already said in a post on SB, I cannot remember a case when I have dropped my CQR and it has not held, usually coming up with a lump of sea bed. It is a 15kg attached to 30mtrs of 10mm chain plus a much rope as has ever been needed, thats on our 5.5 ton boat.

So, Craig, is there going to be 'special' price for all yopur pals on the forum? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Hydrobubble and Hylas

I have been anchoring in the Med on an Oceane for the past three years and my results match those of the YM test. You could not rely on it setting every time UNTIL I fitted it with a 4"x6" white float on a metre of light line.[Tim's Tiny Trip Tip, Sailing Today. 'Tim' is also me.]

As you go back and before the anchor reaches the bottom, the float drag and buoyancy holds the anchor in the correct position to set first time every time if there is anything on the bottom it can grip.

It has the added advantages of 1] being able to get your anchor up by the crown if you snag someone else's chain 2]You can swim and find your anchor easily even when it is very buried. 3] Others can better spot your anchor when they are looking for somewhere to drop theirs. 4] Etc

The Oceane held me on a 4 to 1 scope in vocanic ash in three days and nights of winds up to 51 knots this summer. I am happy.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Craig

I should think you will be smiling when you get to see the YM test report. The Manson, I would say, just beat your Rocna to second place, the Manson also having a price advantage too.

[/ QUOTE ]I should be interested to see this, as we won't be particularly happy if an anchor which we consider a direct copy of the Rocna was in fact rated better.

The graph of average results from SAIL looked like this:

wm_testing_chart_orig.gif


The "max before release" figures represented by the greenish-yellow columns are the actual measure of holding power, i.e. the strain the anchors took before moving (the higher measuring but not always present "max pull" figures are interesting but a bit misleading; the anchors are dragging when that result is measured).

It will be good to know if Yachting Monthly have managed to come up with substantially different results, especially since this is from the same testing.

[ QUOTE ]
So, Craig, is there going to be 'special' price for all yopur pals on the forum? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]Well you never know... we expect to be at the London boatshow...
 
[ QUOTE ]
this months YM has a pretty comprehensive anchor trial. some the new designs did astonishingly well compared with the traditional anchors. my genuine CQR did very badly.
.i wonder if there may be some up for sale soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a women yesterday outside tesco loading her shopping into an old land rover, presumably her shopping got home.

Seen a guy there in a brand new lambo, presumably his shopping got home too.

What im trying to say is that it's an anchor, it has a mundane job, regardless of how snazzy it is all it has to do is be quite heavy, strong, made out of metal, roughly the right shape and if it's set right it's gonna hold.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...all it has to do is be quite heavy, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

So long as your not suggesting that an anchor is a weight, it is actually a mechanical device. As most ladies will agree, shape, form and experience are more important than size. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> roly_voya I laid the main anchor and all the substantial supply of chain across the beach giving a scope across the muddy creek bed of about 50:1.[/ </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

It is clear that holding will increase with scope.. just because the pulling angle between the anchor line and the sea ground will decrease.. but with scope of more than 10/1, a big variation in the line length will only induce a very small decrease of angle. A scope of 50/1 is very difficult to achieve because :
- you will not usually carry enough line
- in crowded anchorages, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to do

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> the cable is far more significant than the anchor. </span>

[/ QUOTE ]
Well.. if you use hundreds and hundreds meters of chain, you will obtain a dead weight mooring.. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif For those poor sailors who can only use a 5/1 or a 7/1 of chain.. No way. A good anchor is far more useful than tons of chains..

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> 5x for chain is ok in fair conditions but 7 times for rope is courting disater </span>

[/ QUOTE ]
Agree.. 5x for chain is ok in fair conditions but in bad conditions 7 times for mixed lines chain + rope is a MUST as you need some “elasticity” (shock damping ) in your line.

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> why try to lay the minimum, lay out enough heavy chain to guarantee a good length is laying on the bottom and you wont drag. </span>

[/ QUOTE ] Just because in most cases, you will not have enough space to put more than 5/1 or 7/1 scope..

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> Galadriel I cannot remember a case when I have dropped my CQR and it has not held, </span>

[/ QUOTE ] Well Galadriel, I trust you,, if you are anchoring around U.K. where bottoms are mostly mud.. it works.. but if you go sailing, for example in the MED, with hard sand and/or weed .. your CQR will be simply useless.. I started living aboard my boat in the MED equipped with a CQR.. and this is why I did design the SPADE.. as I had too many problems with the CQR…

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> craig@rocna.com we won't be particularly happy if an anchor which we consider a direct copy of the Rocna was in fact rated better. </span>

[/ QUOTE ] /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif this is just a good come back of the situation, are you also considering that the Rocna is a direct copy of the Bügel and the SPADE ?? (which did better than the Rocna /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)
 
thats what common sense would suggest. however the results of a number of tests both ym, and sail suggests form and function are more important than weight. the fortress is an aluminium anchor and appears to perform v well. the hydrobubble has a float on it and is v light and again seems to outperform the old heavy anchors
 
Ive heard of the fortress spade& Delta,But never heard of any of the others.In Italy staying in a transit port i put out my CQR rather than my danforth as the CQR was the kedge and 10LBS lighter.

That night it blew quite hard but the CQR dident move,when i came to leave i was sure my fear of a fouled anchor had been justified.By luck a diveing boat came in and they kindly went down to free it(Italians are really great people so kind!)

It wasent foul just holding!!Really well as CQRs do. That and exerience with other modern anchors such as the bruce is for me a better guide than any test

I tried a Bruce as a dingy anchor i laid it in a muddy port then went achore and tried winching it out it came out several times giveing the impresion of just another over rated modern anchor,In practice it works!

Tests are saddly all flawed
 
[ QUOTE ]
....again seems to outperform the old heavy anchors

[/ QUOTE ]

outperform how? My old CQR has never, ever let me down so the only way it could possibly be outperformed is if the new anchor never, ever, ever let me down. So if I was buying new I would probly buy a newer design but there's no point changing a perfectly functional and more than adequate anchor. An anchors job is simple, all the peeps from spade and rocna and whoever try to make out that your old anchors bound to drag and it's all very hi-tech nowadays and our pointy lumps of metal are soooo much more lumpy an pointy than the old lumps of pointy metal, basically to baffle noobs into lashing out a few hundred quid unnecessarily .
 
I lost my Delta under a rock ledge this July. Had to revert to intially the Fortress which that night held us in mud during a violent thunderstorm, then the rusty old CQR which had lived under the engine for several years. It performed better in the Med than remembered. It's true they can drag on hard sand/weed, but the hinge allows them to lie flat on the foredeck. I do like the look of the Rocna, possibly 'cos it resembles a Spade with a Buegel roll bar, combined with a Delta shank. Must be quite a talking point on the foredeck. I think I may attend the LIBS!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, I know of a few folks who would scoff at the very mention of an alli anchor. Its got no weight, they would cry.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bit like the MAB v AWB argument then? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
My boat (40', 11 tonnes) came with a 44# Delta anchor. It was fine, but I wanted a bigger anchor. As long as I was going to change I looked at the spectrum of available anchors. Based on the information I could find it seemed a Spade or Rocna was the right answer. Since a friend with a similar boat had a Spade, I bought a 25 kg Rocna. We plan to compare notes over time.

So far the Rocna has been great. It sets more easily than any anchor I have experience with (CQR, Danforth, Delta). In every instance I have had to drive over the anchor to break it free. I haven't ever had that sort of set before.

The roll bar keeps it from stowing quite as nicely in my bow roller as the Delta (it bangs up against the bowsprit), but I am nonetheless very pleased with it.
 
Totally agree ....

Why change what works ......

What matter which anchor you have if it holds your boat ... ?????
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....again seems to outperform the old heavy anchors

[/ QUOTE ]

outperform how? My old CQR has never, ever let me down so the only way it could possibly be outperformed is if the new anchor never, ever, ever let me down. So if I was buying new I would probly buy a newer design but there's no point changing a perfectly functional and more than adequate anchor. An anchors job is simple, all the peeps from spade and rocna and whoever try to make out that your old anchors bound to drag and it's all very hi-tech nowadays and our pointy lumps of metal are soooo much more lumpy an pointy than the old lumps of pointy metal, basically to baffle noobs into lashing out a few hundred quid unnecessarily .

[/ QUOTE ]

If a CQR works for you then I don't think that anybody would suggest that you change.

However, don't assume that the CQR works for all, and the comment that other anchors may be 'better' may still be true in spite of your experiences.

If buying new again I would have different anchors than I have now. I may even change my CQR based on my experiences with it, and that also is my choice.

Information and informed debate about such designs must be useful to people thinking of changing.

I would like to see similar tests done in East Coast mud for instance, but am unlikely to see it in the near future I suspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top