Mister E
Well-Known Member
Was that in one of those red bit on the chart
Dragging anchor
- Thread starter geem
- Start date
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
Pelagic is 23.5 metres long, he uses a 70 kg Rocna with 150 metres of14 mm chain. If you look at the Rocna knowledge base this is the recommended size for that vessel. Not oversized at all.
Rocna make them twice that weight but SN chose to stick with the right size.
geem
Well-Known Member
Except it wasn't though was it. He is having you all on
Neeves
Well-Known Member
This is quite bizarre. He believes in oversized anchors, he says so early in the vid (even if he does not) and used a 105lb (48kg) CQR in the video. However he might mean oversized when he was using the CQR. He updates his anchor quiver with a 70kg Rocna (in the vid he says he also has 2 anchors on the transom), the size recommended for his yacht by Rocna (and retires the CQR which must have given him stalwart service, maybe he changed his transom anchors, keeping the CQR).
In addition to saying he believes in oversize anchors ? he does say he does not believe in deploying 2 anchors off the bow (either as a fork or in tandem). He does not mention but must use the stern anchors as part of his 'high latitude' shore line arrangements.
Saving anyone looking at the vid again, Pelagic weighs in at 30t.
Now - what did you all learn from the vid and the additional information provided.
Jonathan
Neeves
Well-Known Member
What he said and what he does are slightly different
From the vid he is using a grossly undersized old gen anchor (though contradictorily saying he believes in big over sized anchors) in arduous conditions - and presumably did not drag. Maybe underlining, (in practice) oversized anchors are actually unnecessary - but this does not quite explain why he is now using a 70kg Rocna.
Jonathan
Edit - for accuracy (or inaccuracy) I also wonder if we/I might be mixing up the old and the new Pelagic?
Last edited:
RunAgroundHard
Well-Known Member
It is possible to over analyse with no significant benefit, law of diminishing returns and all that.
I think Pelagic proves that old anchors and new anchors hardly matter, just deploy correctly and monitor.
I think Pelagic proves that old anchors and new anchors hardly matter, just deploy correctly and monitor.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
The information I found describes the second Pelagic, aluminium hull, 23.5 metres, 70 kg Rocna, 150.metres of 14 mm chain. I assumed the displacement to be less than 40 tonnes, hence the 70 kg Rocna recommended on the Knowledge Base.
doug748
Well-Known Member
"From the vid he is using a grossly undersized old gen anchor (though contradictorily saying he believes in big over sized anchors)"
Incorrect.
Lewmar suggest a 60lb anchor would be adequate. 75lb would be large for the boat. He had a 105lb example.
https://www.lewmar.com/sites/default/files/CQR Anchor specifications.pdf
.
Incorrect.
Lewmar suggest a 60lb anchor would be adequate. 75lb would be large for the boat. He had a 105lb example.
https://www.lewmar.com/sites/default/files/CQR Anchor specifications.pdf
.
Hermit
Well-Known Member
Apropos nothing... a warship will free drop its anchor if anchoring in less than 27.5m/30yds (1 shackle of cable) depth. If deeper than this, the anchor is veered under power to within 27.5m of the seabed before then dropping. This is purely to prevent shock damage to the anchor on hitting the seabed from above 27.5m.
They also used to do 'running' anchorages (drive through the anchorage at slow speed and drop at the precise point intended to anchor, then keep going to snub). This was more accurate than trying to stop the ship at a specific point to let go. However, ship underwater design has moved on and more 'sensitive' items now mean ships do dropping (i.e.drive to intended point and then drop/veer).
They also used to do 'running' anchorages (drive through the anchorage at slow speed and drop at the precise point intended to anchor, then keep going to snub). This was more accurate than trying to stop the ship at a specific point to let go. However, ship underwater design has moved on and more 'sensitive' items now mean ships do dropping (i.e.drive to intended point and then drop/veer).
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
I have seen a Dutch long keeled boat do something similar. Approaching a wall in Greece at some speed, anchor dropped, boat rotates 180 degrees and finishes up close to the wall. A few revs astern and warps go ashore.
Took some nerve but most impressive to watch. He told me he did it quite often when space allowed.
Kelpie
Well-Known Member
Sounds a bit like the inter island ferry in Canouan. It's a bold move.
noelex
Well-Known Member
I think people are confused between Pelagic and Pelagic 2.
The video features Pelagic, which is 16.5m long. The CQR sizing tables indicate a 44lb or possibly a 60lb CQR is the optimium for this sized vessel (see the official sizing tables below). A 105b CQR has been chosen by skip Novak. This is way oversized at around double the weight recommended by the anchor manufacturer.
This is one of the problems when people recommend simply using the manufacturer’s tables, especially when they stress not going larger than these recommendations. These guidelines are all over the place. Often the recomended size for an anchor with a reputation for poor performance is much smaller than the size recommended by high performing anchors, exactly the opposite of what it should be. For example, if we look at the manufacturer’s tables for Skip Novaks Pelagic featured in the video, Plastimo recommend a 44lb Kobra, Lewmar a 44-60lb CQR and Rocna recommend an 88lb model.
These tables that are published by the manufacturers have lost their usefulness. The suggestion (for a long distance cruising boat) of selecting the largest anchor that can be comfortably managed is a much better starting point.
The video features Pelagic, which is 16.5m long. The CQR sizing tables indicate a 44lb or possibly a 60lb CQR is the optimium for this sized vessel (see the official sizing tables below). A 105b CQR has been chosen by skip Novak. This is way oversized at around double the weight recommended by the anchor manufacturer.
This is one of the problems when people recommend simply using the manufacturer’s tables, especially when they stress not going larger than these recommendations. These guidelines are all over the place. Often the recomended size for an anchor with a reputation for poor performance is much smaller than the size recommended by high performing anchors, exactly the opposite of what it should be. For example, if we look at the manufacturer’s tables for Skip Novaks Pelagic featured in the video, Plastimo recommend a 44lb Kobra, Lewmar a 44-60lb CQR and Rocna recommend an 88lb model.
These tables that are published by the manufacturers have lost their usefulness. The suggestion (for a long distance cruising boat) of selecting the largest anchor that can be comfortably managed is a much better starting point.
geem
Well-Known Member
It's interesting over the years that anchors seem to have got heavier. According to that chart, my boat should have a 16kg cqr anchor. We have a Spade 30kg, selected off the Spade selection chart for our length and weight of boat. A CQR of the same weight as our Spade would be grossly oversized, according to that chart, yet they still don't work as well, weight for weight as a NG anchor.
Wansworth
Well-Known Member
Certainly on a coaster an anchour watch was always keptOn sailing forums there is sometimes the implication that using an anchor alarm is a sign of inexperience, lack of anchoring practice. I am not suggesting Geem that you are implying this, nevertheless I think sometimes this impression exists and unfortunately it can put people off using technology that costs no money (most boats already have the equipment in place) uses very little power, but acts as an extra crew member that constantly keeps watch on your position without drinking any of your single malt..
Like you, we live at anchor. We have been cruising full time for the last 17 years. This year was typical. We went back into the water in April of last year in Scotland after applying new antifouling and have been at anchor every night since, apart from crossing the Atlantic and other days when passage making. We have now spent a total of over five thousand nights at anchor In many different countries.
Despite, or perhaps more correctly, because of this experience, we always use an anchor alarm. Experience teaches you that even the best anchoring gear deployed in the most careful manner is not 100% reliable.
So use an anchor alarm or not, but I hope I have dispelled the myth that it is a device only used by those that do not know how to anchor.
noelex
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree. The "small is adequate" strategy of selecting anchor sizes is often promoted on this forum as a new progressive way of thinking. As you point out, rather than new. it is an old fashioned practice.
The reality is that long distance cruising sailors have always used the "largest size that can be comfortably managed" method as a starting point for selecting anchor size, but before reliable electric anchor winches became widespread on pleasure boats, handling larger anchors was difficult for a small crew. This limited the anchor size that was practical.
It is only in recent times that boats with a small crew have been able to effortlessly manage larger anchors and therefore take advantage of the "bigger is better" philosophy.
Some want us to go back to the "good old days” when multiple small anchors were often used in what we would now call only moderate conditions. In the "good old days" it was also common to carry multiple anchor designs and swap the primary anchor depending on the substrate (or perceived substrate) and this is another practice those promoting "small is adequate"want us to resurrect.
geem
Well-Known Member
It's not the way I see it. Few people believe you need a massive anchor. We see lots of boats heading off around the world, many are good friends. They have anchors selected off the manufacturer’s tables. Some went one size up because they were going around thr world. I don't thing they fall in to the camp of largest they could comfortably manage. Most don't see the need for a huge anchor.
noelex
Well-Known Member
I don’t agree. Most long distance `cruising boats we meet are using anchors that are larger than the anchor manufacturer recommends and larger than the boat was equipped with when new.
There are exceptions, such as those that anchor very little.
geem
Well-Known Member
We have very different friends.
Kelpie
Well-Known Member
The 'carry lots of different anchors' mindset has definitely become less common.
One fairly extreme example- an older couple I met, who have already circumnavigated, carry only their bow anchor. No kedge. He told me that if he lost the anchor, he would buy another one at the next port. Why carry extra weight.
It's not a position I agree with. We often use our kedge anchor when anchored in tight or rolly spaces. I also carry a folding fisherman's 'just in case'. Hope I never need it.
One fairly extreme example- an older couple I met, who have already circumnavigated, carry only their bow anchor. No kedge. He told me that if he lost the anchor, he would buy another one at the next port. Why carry extra weight.
It's not a position I agree with. We often use our kedge anchor when anchored in tight or rolly spaces. I also carry a folding fisherman's 'just in case'. Hope I never need it.
geem
Well-Known Member
We carry 3 anchors. Even though we have a heavy boat I am always conscious about weight, especially in the ends of the boat. The two spare anchors are aluminium. On ocean passages we move as much weight as possible out of the ends. The sails we will need are stowed in the saloon after removing the portside cushions and fitting the leecloth. The outboard is stowed in the aft heads. The heavy ropes and anything else heavy is moved from the bow locker to the front bunk. It's makes the boat noticeably better up wind with less pitching. We don't have davits or a solar arch. We don't have a massive anchor on the bow.
Friends have the same boat that sits at least 4 inches deeper in the water! They have painted the waterline up twice. They have had a lot of rig problems that I think comes down to an over loaded boat with way too much weight in the ends