Dragging of anchors

[Robin]

I walked our dock today after checking our boat in the marina following several bad thunderstorms yesterday. 5 CQRs or copies, Several cast steel Claws ( 2 genuine Bruce stamped made in Belgium) 0ne S/S Delta that looked undersized for the 35 foot host boat, 5 Danforth types and 5 galvanised Deltas including ours. Two empty 'slips' where the berth holders are away in the Bahamas, one I know has a Delta on a sailboat, the other I believe a claw on a motor yacht . Observation only of course and of no statistical or scientific relevance. Not one single Roll bar type (unless stowed away out of sight, them being so valuable of course). Our marina is a favourite passage stopover for boats passing up/down the US East Coast Intracoastal Waterway on their way to and from the Bahamas, Florida Keys and or Caribbean so not just a place full of never go anywhere Dock Queens. Oh I forgot the nice 60 foot Hatteras Trawler Yacht on the hammerhead which also has a CQR on a bow platform, albeit a very large one ( to match the obvious boob job on the owner's delightful wife perhaps), I cannot think either would drag much in a blow.:encouragement:.

 

[Hipchick]

i love the way that the mannequins in the shops have enhanced boobs too.

 

[Robin]

i love the way that the mannequins in the shops have enhanced boobs too.

Quality beats quantity in my book!:encouragement:

 

[Neeves]

This thread was not entirely meant to be about 'how good is your modern anchor' but 'has your modern anchor, good though it may be, dragged' - and this is a point missed by JD - its not about how good, but what are the weaknesses. We have had some candid comments - though there has been an overwhelming tendency to praise - without defining any weaknesses. But no-one, and there is a good cross section of posts, expresses any disappointment and no-one regrets their change - which appears to overwhelmingly support modernism.

Most modern anchors are tested only in sand, where they are superb - but then so are pre-modern models (if you have the patience). There is very little background on how these anchors perform in very hard seabeds, thin mud, very soft sand, thin weed or loose stony/pebbly anchorages. Knowing your anchor's weaknesses, or potential weaknesses is a valuable part of ones knowledge base. It is a condemnation of many anchor makers that they have not tested, or have not published the results of tests, in seabeds other than sand.

We went from a 49lb CQR branded copy, in my head 22kg?, to a 15kg modern design - so bucking the trend. As someone has said - quality not quantity. Delfin made the point that his large anchor (he does have a large yacht) is impossible to manouver by hand - size does have some issues. I'd guess that once you get over about 25kgs - size becomes an issue in an ability to do anything with your anchor if you are hanging over the bow. Large anchors, relative to the size of yacht, are more difficult to set deeply - Delfin points out one problem area with shallow set anchors (and Delfin you are not alone - we have done the self same thing - slightly different circumstances).

Points raised so far have been that in some mud modern anchors can be defeated. Concave fluke types with roll bars can collect stones and large pebbles which might clog the fluke. I wonder if the sharp toe of the flukes of most modern anchors give them a greater propensity to impale 'foreign' objects, beer cans, seaweed etc - allowing them to drag more readily than pre-modern designs (this needs to be offset by the advantage of working better in hard seabeds). Modern anchors appear to collect detritus on the seabed, supermarket trolleys, nets etc at the same rate as their pre-modern elder brothers.

Candid comment welcomed, no need to mention the model if you want to minimise degenaration into an acrimonious and destructive debate with luddites or fanatics.

Jonathan

 

[RupertW]

But no-one, and there is a good cross section of posts, expresses any disappointment and no-one regrets their change - which appears to overwhelmingly support modernism.

I think the comments overwhelmingly support sticking with the anchor you currently have. Those who felt the need to move to a modern anchor are happy with their choice and those who don't feel the need are happy with theirs. Basically people defend their purchases.

I am sticking with a Delta-ish anchor which has never dragged once laid but I dive over it most times and find that it does take a couple of metres to set. I think I would change to a modern one, possibly even a heavier one but the hassle of getting somebody to change the bow roller is too much for now and could knock out weeks and weeks of sailing time, which I can't afford.

 

[BrianH]

I changed from Bruce to a 15kg Rocna when there was only one sales outlet for them in Europe (Holland) and they were NZ made. I changed after a frustrating time in a Croatian anchorage when the Bruce repeatedly failed to set with a little weed on sand that my backup Danforth, when deployed, cut straight through. The Rocna was a revelation, always digging in with a jolt.

It has dragged on two occasions, both in the soft mud of Italian lagoons where I often anchor. Once I know the strong tidal stream that runs in the lagoon channels between ebb and flood, scoured away around the anchor and I suspect the second occasion was the same.

No, I wouldn't go back, not to the Bruce nor its precursor, a genuine CQR, which dragged on two occasions in winds well in excess of 50 knots that the Adriatic can occasionally serve up - but probably due to sand over rock bottoms that can occur in otherwise apparently ideal anchorages in Croatia and which can prevent optimal burying.

 

[NormanS]

I think the comments overwhelmingly support sticking with the anchor you currently have. Those who felt the need to move to a modern anchor are happy with their choice and those who don't feel the need are happy with theirs. Basically people defend their purchases.

+1. That's my take on it too, but I'm sure that there's a certain amount of following of fashion, and showing off. Why else would someone have a shiny, mirror finish, stainless anchor, (of any design)?

 

[RobbieW]

I changed to an NG design when I went cruising 4 years ago. The old anchor was a 60lb CQR that looked and felt well used, I found it difficult to set around southern UK waters. I fitted a Spade S120, 25Kg, mostly chosen because it fitted the bow roller with no change (but experience is now saying I need to improve the stowage 'hold down'). The boat is a Rival 41 with somewhere around 12.5 tonnes cruising weight and a fairly high bow.

In 4 years cruising, c180 nights/year, I think its actually dragged twice when it should have held, ie enough scope etc; once in Vliho and once in San Antonio. In neither place is it easy to see what your anchoring on, even by diving (not that I'd want to in Vliho). It doesnt like to set on weedy bottoms so sometimes it takes 2 or 3 goes to find a patch that it will hold in (assuming I cant actually see the bottom) but in general it sets easily first time. The final test to ensure its set runs the engine at about 2/3 revs for a minute or so. I have no trouble sleeping but I do have an effective anchor alarm built in to the Furuno GP 32.

 

[JumbleDuck]

This thread was not entirely meant to be about 'how good is your modern anchor' but 'has your modern anchor, good though it may be, dragged' - and this is a point missed by JD - its not about how good, but what are the weaknesses. We have had some candid comments - though there has been an overwhelming tendency to praise - without defining any weaknesses. But no-one, and there is a good cross section of posts, expresses any disappointment and no-one regrets their change - which appears to overwhelmingly support modernism.

A self-selected group of people who have spent large amounts of money replacing something they thought was inadequate generally say that the replacement was better? Golly.

Preach it, brother, and testify. Aaaaaaaaaamen.

 

[GHA]

A self-selected group of people who have spent large amounts of money replacing something they thought was inadequate generally say that the replacement was better? Golly.

Preach it, brother, and testify. Aaaaaaaaaamen.

Have you ever tried something like a rocna after a cqr? A blindfolded granny could tell the difference straight away.

 

[Pye_End]

Most modern anchors are tested only in sand, where they are superb - but then so are pre-modern models (if you have the patience).

I changed to a 10Kg Rocna due to poor 25lb CQR performance on hard sand in benign conditions (although this was not the only place that the CQR had failed - just the most important). However, I also also agree with one of the comments that the CQR often held in far more demanding circumstances. Rocna has been a revelation on hard sand, to the point that even if you do everything 'wrong' (ie lob the whole lot over the side and leave it to sort itself out), it has always dug in first time, and dug in well.

However, it has failed to set on one occasion, up a muddy creek with a patch of gravel. So idea how thick or course the gravel was, but no amount of coaxing would give any amount of meaningful grip.

 

[pmagowan]

Have you ever tried something like a rocna after a cqr? A blindfolded granny could tell the difference straight away.

It is quite obvious in practice that there is a difference. Whether that difference makes it better in all conditions I don't know. I do know that when I used a CQR copy I spent a lot of time holding on to the chain to feel the vibration of it dragging across the seabed until it would stick in sufficiently that I felt comfortable overnight. It often took a number of attempts. With the Rocna I started off in a similar way but my arm was nearly ripped off. It sets hard and fast so I have changed my technique. I now reverse slowly until the chain goes taut and then increase gradually to full revs in reverse to check transits. Once this is done when I look at the anchor it is always buried, sometimes with the top of the roll bar showing. With the cqr copy it was often on its side with a small mound in front of it which stopped it going forward but would not do anything when the tide turned. After much use of CQRs and copies we developed a technique whereby we felt reasonably confident we could set it first time most of the time and with a pretty good set but it certainly didn't give me as restful a nights sleep as the bang set of the rocna.

 

[Pye_End]

A self-selected group of people who have spent large amounts of money replacing something they thought was inadequate generally say that the replacement was better? Golly.

Preach it, brother, and testify. Aaaaaaaaaamen.

In another post you have admitted that next gen are better. Perhaps the tales of happiness from the change is because they are noticeably better?

As for price - have you seen how much a CQR is lately?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Have you ever tried something like a rocna after a cqr? A blindfolded granny could tell the difference straight away.

I am quite sure they could. I am quite sure that a Rocna of similar weight works better. But my CQR works well enough, which is all I care about.

 

[JumbleDuck]

In another post you have admitted that next gen are better. Perhaps the tales of happiness from the change is because they are noticeably better?

I have never denied that modern anchors are better. Of course they are. That's not the point.

As for price - have you seen how much a CQR is lately?

I haven't checked since I looked it up for a post near the start of this thread. Has it changed much since then? I used Force 4 prices.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Guys your wasting your time ,

What anchor do you have? Whatever it is, a bigger one would undeniably work better than what you have now. Why don't you go up a size?

 

[adwuk]

I have never denied that modern anchors are better. Of course they are. That's not the point.

What was the point? Oh yes...

I wondered if owners of these modern versions might like to comment on whether their aspirations have been met - have the new designs reduced the risk of dragging or have they actually removed dragging completely.

 

[JumbleDuck]

What was the point? Oh yes...

I wondered if owners of these modern versions might like to comment on whether their aspirations have been met - have the new designs reduced the risk of dragging or have they actually removed dragging completely.

To which the answers appear to be (a) maybe and (b) no.

 

[adwuk]

To which the answers appear to be (a) maybe and (b) no.

is that based on your experience of using a modern anchor?

 

[Neeves]

JD is obviously very bored, has it been raining a lot in the UK?. Maybe someone can start another thread that might divert his attention.

How about, Black is the new White?

Jonathan