geem
Well-Known Member
Maybe we should have a collection and by him a decent anchor. If he is so vocal about the virtues of a CQR imagine how vocal he would be about an anchor that actually worked.....
Dragging of anchors
- Thread starter Neeves
- Start date
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
It's based on responses here, and on Mr Neeves' many other similar evangelical threads. We have heard from people who have had no dragging problems with older anchors like deltas; for them there may or may not be a reduced risk of dragging with a modern anchor. We have also heard from people who have dragged modern anchors, so clearly the risk is not eliminated.
Since I have had no problems with either setting or holding - in the places and conditions in which I anchor - I see no need to change on that basis. I might in the future consider swapping for a small modern anchor to get the same holding power from a much lighter anchor. That, for my sailing, is the attraction of getting something modern.
These threads are always rather reminiscent of hi-fi discussions. Everybody thinks that anybody who spent less must have an inferior solution. Anchor and let anchor, I say.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Nice sunny day here. I'm stuck indoors, damn it.
I have no illusions about my anchor. Others might work better, but mine works well enough. If anyone wants to buy me a modern one then of course I won't say no. Spade, please. The slot down the Manson just looks ugly to me and I refuse to consider a Rocna after the behaviour of its chief cheerleader here in the past.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
What did you expect? Starting an anchor thread.
Does anyone doubt that modern anchors work better than older ones, size for size? No.
Does everyone instantly go out and buy a modern anchor? No.
Which leaves the only real question in any anchor thread:
Are people who don't buy a modern anchor necessarily stupid?
Pragmatists say "No, they may have perfectly good reasons for not swapping"; the zealots say "Yes, anyone who doesn't do what I do is clearly an idiot" and most people go elsewhere to argue about motoring cones, or sail, or something.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
JD
The thread was focussed at the experience(s) of people who had had pre-modern anchors and have used a, or some, modern styles. It was a thread trying to define if these modern anchors had any weaknesses, did they drag, how and when.
There is no attempt that I have seen to persuade anyone to go and buy a modern style anchor. There has been no suggestion that people with pre-modern style anchors are in any way lacking - if they interpret they might be missing something that is up to them. If they are so sensitive to think there is any suggestion they lack intelligence or reasoning power - it was certainly not intended.
And other than you, no-one is arguing.
Jonathan
The thread was focussed at the experience(s) of people who had had pre-modern anchors and have used a, or some, modern styles. It was a thread trying to define if these modern anchors had any weaknesses, did they drag, how and when.
There is no attempt that I have seen to persuade anyone to go and buy a modern style anchor. There has been no suggestion that people with pre-modern style anchors are in any way lacking - if they interpret they might be missing something that is up to them. If they are so sensitive to think there is any suggestion they lack intelligence or reasoning power - it was certainly not intended.
And other than you, no-one is arguing.
Jonathan
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
What, then, is the relevance of the anchor they used before? Has hearing of dragging problems with modern anchors modified your views at all?
GHA
Well-Known Member
Not here. From posts on this thread others have had the same exprience as me. Once in a blue moon they'll drag when the wind gets up, soft mud being he worst. But rare occurance. Unlike before.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
It has no relevance at all, I'm not sure why you ask - it is not requested in the opening post.
If you read the opening post carefully you will notice that it specifically suggest there is no need to mention model or design - simply weight. You are the one who has harped on about your CQR, many people have mentioned design, but many have not. I think you have mentioned your CQR more frequently than anyone has mentioned their own model. You have missed your vocation - anchor salesman. Basically the model they used before is simply not relevant, it might (or might not - depends on the detail given) be interesting - the weight was, in comparison with the weight of the new anchor.
As you have asututely and frequently pointed out many people when they change their anchor buy a 'modern' anchor bigger than their pre-modern model. I was actually not so interested in this information but I was interested in how those that bought smaller modern anchors described their experiences. Because the claim of anchor makers is that the modern anchors are better and that might be interpreted you can use a smaller size and also have an improved experience. Those few that have bought smaller modern anchors compared to their pre modern models appear to validate the idea that a smaller modern anchor still outperforms the bigger premodern version.
One aspect I have learnt is that convex roll bar anchors can catch large loose stones in the fluke - this is not something that I have heard mention previously. An accidental aspect has been the numbers of people carrying Fortress, much larger than I had thought. Another accidental piece of information are the numbers that regularly use a fork or 'V' deployment.
So thank you for asking the question as you have provided some opportunity to summarise some of what I have gleaned. I leave you to have a look and find the other gems.
I am of the view (and its hardly original) that one anchor, one design, does not suit every seabed environment, the thread provides ample evidence to support that view. If you are cruising into new areas your current anchor design might not suit. Carrying a cross section of designs thus seems sensible. In the areas we cruise we have seabeds composed of mud, loose rocks, firm sand, soft sand and weed varying from thin ribbon grass to kelp. We remain defeated by kelp but we can cope with other seabeds (because we carry a cross section of designs - and you will note I have not harped on about which designs) - it is interesting to note that other people have come to the self same conclusions. Carrying multiple designs also means that rather than one big anchor some are quite comfortable and successful in deploying 2 anchors in a V when stronger winds are forecast. I also note that choice is often nothing to do with design - its whether it fits in the locker or on the bow roller and design is less important that it being 'modern' and fitting - so no attachment to one specific design.
One thing i have definitely learnt is that you have no interest in people sharing their views on modern anchors and would rather they did not, share.
Jonathan
If you read the opening post carefully you will notice that it specifically suggest there is no need to mention model or design - simply weight. You are the one who has harped on about your CQR, many people have mentioned design, but many have not. I think you have mentioned your CQR more frequently than anyone has mentioned their own model. You have missed your vocation - anchor salesman. Basically the model they used before is simply not relevant, it might (or might not - depends on the detail given) be interesting - the weight was, in comparison with the weight of the new anchor.
As you have asututely and frequently pointed out many people when they change their anchor buy a 'modern' anchor bigger than their pre-modern model. I was actually not so interested in this information but I was interested in how those that bought smaller modern anchors described their experiences. Because the claim of anchor makers is that the modern anchors are better and that might be interpreted you can use a smaller size and also have an improved experience. Those few that have bought smaller modern anchors compared to their pre modern models appear to validate the idea that a smaller modern anchor still outperforms the bigger premodern version.
One aspect I have learnt is that convex roll bar anchors can catch large loose stones in the fluke - this is not something that I have heard mention previously. An accidental aspect has been the numbers of people carrying Fortress, much larger than I had thought. Another accidental piece of information are the numbers that regularly use a fork or 'V' deployment.
So thank you for asking the question as you have provided some opportunity to summarise some of what I have gleaned. I leave you to have a look and find the other gems.
I am of the view (and its hardly original) that one anchor, one design, does not suit every seabed environment, the thread provides ample evidence to support that view. If you are cruising into new areas your current anchor design might not suit. Carrying a cross section of designs thus seems sensible. In the areas we cruise we have seabeds composed of mud, loose rocks, firm sand, soft sand and weed varying from thin ribbon grass to kelp. We remain defeated by kelp but we can cope with other seabeds (because we carry a cross section of designs - and you will note I have not harped on about which designs) - it is interesting to note that other people have come to the self same conclusions. Carrying multiple designs also means that rather than one big anchor some are quite comfortable and successful in deploying 2 anchors in a V when stronger winds are forecast. I also note that choice is often nothing to do with design - its whether it fits in the locker or on the bow roller and design is less important that it being 'modern' and fitting - so no attachment to one specific design.
One thing i have definitely learnt is that you have no interest in people sharing their views on modern anchors and would rather they did not, share.
Jonathan
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
Here's my collected rock photo. Astypalaia in the Dodecanese. Rocna anchor.
Robin
Well-Known Member
well caught sir!
Vyv the float in you picture like frequently seen in Noelex's underwater pics, why? Is this an Eastern Med anchor marking habit or one that passed me by over the years that I should adopt? In some of Noelex's interesting pics It looked like a line wrap could potentially have hindered a set or a reset.
Vyv the float in you picture like frequently seen in Noelex's underwater pics, why? Is this an Eastern Med anchor marking habit or one that passed me by over the years that I should adopt? In some of Noelex's interesting pics It looked like a line wrap could potentially have hindered a set or a reset.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
I doubt that the lines used could adversely affect anchoring. We adopted a line and float after a swivel failure when we were unable to find the anchor. Since then we find it very useful to locate the anchor when diving on it, particularly in weed but even when buried in sand. It is very common in eastern Med: I understand that all Sunsail boats have them. In extremis I could probably pull a wedged anchor out using it.
Robin
Well-Known Member
Thanks Vyv, I haven't snorkel dived since my stroke so it might be useful as a sighting aid from the foredeck. I have a tripline and marker ready to use but not used it ever in the USA yet. These days anything above 10ft is 'deep' so the little float and a loop in the line might even be reachable from on deck with our telescopic boathook, less risk than from a traditional tripline that I have never really favoured unless deployed with really good reason
noelex
Well-Known Member
An underwater float is not often seen outside Europe, but I think it is a good idea that could be usefully be used elsewhere.
The main advantage is that if you snorkel to check the anchor it is easier to find.
It is especially useful for anchors without a roll bar which disappear as soon as the fluke and shank are buried. A roll bar works as a permanent float but in soft substrates, or strong wind, even a tall roll bar can disappear. In thick weed any anchor can be very hard to find even when poorly set.
The other big advantage of an underwater float is that it is much easier if you need to to attach a line to pull a stuck anchor out backwards. Diving and threading a rope though a small hole is not easy. Especially if the hole is buried. The float reduces the need to dive by a couple of metres which is a help when holding your breath.
There is some risk the float can get caught under the anchor. This is rare, and will not have much effect, but is less than ideal.
If anchoring in very shallow water where there is a risk of catching the float in props you need to use a cable tie to shorten the rope, but it needs to be very shallow water before this a problem.
An underwater float (if anchoring in normal depths) does not cause a hazard to other boats like a normal anchor buoy.
This shows the underwater float in action on my Mantus anchor:
Here is one of the rare occasions when my float has caught under the fluke:
If you are cruising in areas where it is practical to snorkel, or dive an underwater float is worth considering.
Last edited:
Robin
Well-Known Member
An underwater float is not often seen outside Europe, but I think it is a good idea that could be usefully be used elsewhere.
The main advantage is that if you snorkel to check the anchor it is easier to find.
Thanks Noelex, I will make me one up and short enough to clear the prop under all normal circumstances. We only have 5ft draught these days but sail and cruise in very 'skinny' waters, in Septic parlance I have yet find out if I can snorkel still after my stroke 3 years back, haven't tried it yet although it would probably be OK and verygood exercise. My lovely mermaid never was good at it. .
It is especially useful for anchors without a roll bar which disappear as soon as the fluke and shank are buried. A roll bar works as a permanent float but in soft substrates, or strong wind, even a tall roll bar can disappear. In thick weed any anchor can be very hard to find even when poorly set.
The other big advantage of an underwater float is that it is much easier if you need to to attach a line to pull a stuck anchor out backwards. Diving and threading a rope though a small hole is not easy. Especially if the hole is buried. The float reduces the need to dive by a couple of metres which is a help when holding your breath.
There is some risk the float can get caught under the anchor. This is rare, and will not have much effect, but is less than ideal.
If anchoring in very shallow water where there is a risk of catching the float in props you need to use a cable tie to shorten the rope, but it needs to be very shallow water before this a problem.
This shows the underwater float in action on my Mantus anchor:
Here is one of the rare occasions when my float has caught under the fluke:
If you are cruising in areas where it is practical to snorkel, or dive an underwater float is worth considering.
Thanks Noelex I will make something suitable up. These days we cruise in very 'skinny ' waters to use Septic parlance so it could be useful but needs to be fairly short. I have not snorkeled or even swum in the ocean since recovering from a stroke 3 years ago but it would probably be very good exercise even if I could not reach a loop in the float line with our extendable boathook either from the RIB or from on deck. I guess the line doesn't need to be too thick maybe 4 or 5mm. and I think I have something suitable.
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
What you wrote was "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." From the reference to "reduced the risk" I think it's pretty clear that you wanted to hear from people who made the switch. Now, collecting evidence is a jolly good thing to do, but if you phrase the request as "Please will anybody who didn think their old anchor was up to it and so bought a new one instead" you are hardly going to get the unbiassed opinion of a random sample, are you?
I'd be a bloody awful salesman for CQRs, bearing in mind that I've said (a) that modern ones are indubitably better and (b) that new CQRs are inordinately expensive.
Quite the contrary, my dear chap. I am very interested in modern anchors and enjoy reading about them. It's those of us who haven't (yet) been convinced to make the switch who get shouted down.
noelex
Well-Known Member
Sorry to hear about your health problems Robin.
One poster on another forum suggested using a strong float such as a metal can as an underwater float. The idea is if the anchor ever gets stuck you can use a grapnel to trawl around the approximate location of the anchor and hook the rope/float. This can be used to pull the anchor out backwards. Generally stuck anchors do not need a lot of force to free them they just need to be pulled out in the right direction (in the opposite direction to the normal pull). 4mm Dyneeema has a breaking strength of around 1200 Kg although you will loose a lot in the knot/splice.
I have a fishfinder installed in my tender and interestingly it can, just, pick up the underwater float. So I can potentially find the anchor without knowing where it is. It is less than 100% reliable but I think the idea has potential with a float that had a better echo return (lots of air?). Fishfinders are cheap these days.
Stuck anchors are not common and there other solutions, such as a conventional anchor buoy, or a rope loosely tied to the chain. However, a simple underwater float that does not inconvenience other boaters, and is always available, does have some potential, although its main use is to make the anchor easier to find when snorkelling is viable.
Last edited:
Birdseye
Well-Known Member
I have owned and used Bruce ( genuine) CQR ( genuine) Rocna, Manson Supreme and now a Fortress. The initial bite of the Rocna and in particular the Manson were noticeable. Never dragged with either but then I never dragged with the CQR - iy simple failed to bite in some bottoms. I still have the CQR and a FOB which has only ever been used once. And a Bulldog. And a small Bruce.
Disadvantages? Yes - they are all really heavy which is why I switched to a Fortress. Yes its not really a modern design. Its a rework of a Danforth but with sharp flukes and made in ally so that the fluke area can be made bigger for a given boat size. And its fluke area that matters once the anchor is dug in. Sharpness aids digging in.
The modern roll bar anchors are terrible to stow on most boats and manhandling a 35lb or 45lb anchor at arms length out of the anchor locker and under the pullpit makes anchoring a nightmare
P.S. If anyone fancies a 35 lb FOB used only once, pm me.
Disadvantages? Yes - they are all really heavy which is why I switched to a Fortress. Yes its not really a modern design. Its a rework of a Danforth but with sharp flukes and made in ally so that the fluke area can be made bigger for a given boat size. And its fluke area that matters once the anchor is dug in. Sharpness aids digging in.
The modern roll bar anchors are terrible to stow on most boats and manhandling a 35lb or 45lb anchor at arms length out of the anchor locker and under the pullpit makes anchoring a nightmare
P.S. If anyone fancies a 35 lb FOB used only once, pm me.
Artic Warrior
Well-Known Member
Funny tho even though we slate the CQR and im not keen on it, but its good for the purpose of where it was designed for Scotland with soft mud/sand........My point is that Skip Novac on his artic vessel 54 ft probably around 25 ton
He uses a very large CQR,,,,,which on retrospect is nice to see don't ya think.
Ps its also all about heavy chain,,,,,,my boat 18ton 13mm chain can be in a blow of 25 and the chain doesn't even stretch out to even start to pull the anchor some times.....
He uses a very large CQR,,,,,which on retrospect is nice to see don't ya think.
Ps its also all about heavy chain,,,,,,my boat 18ton 13mm chain can be in a blow of 25 and the chain doesn't even stretch out to even start to pull the anchor some times.....
Neeves
Well-Known Member
You put 75m of overly heavy chain on most modern yachts, and most modern yachts is all we can buy, and its like having an extra crew member, but they permenantly stand on the bow (hail or shine) and are a real nuisance when you are plugging into seas and a decent headwind. If you use 75m of recommended sized chain for your modern yacht then at 20 knots most of it is lifted off the seabed and at 30 knots its effectively a long straight inelastic length of steel - I exaggerate but it gives the idea.
Jonathan
Jonathan
