Dragging of anchors

Neeves said:
It was not perfect but it worked much of the time, despite photographs (on CF) and videos (posted above). It is easy to take an image of an anchor showing it does not work - a child can do it, and many of the images (good though they are) look as though they might be trying to prove a point with bias rather than be honest.
Click to expand...

Jonathan, I agree we need to have some heathy skepticism of videos and test results produced by anchor manufacturers, but the underwater photographs shown on CF have been submitted by independent cruising sailors who have gone to considerable trouble to take photographs and videos of their own and other anchors so that members can see real anchors working underwater. As a heavy contributor, I find it insulting that you suggest the images presented are dishonest.

Personally, I have gone to great lengths to make the photographs as objective as possible. I have posted photographs of every single anchor that I or my wife have seen underwater over the last 17 months since I purchased an underwater camera. I have done this so that there was no suggestion that the anchors have been selected.

For most anchors I have posted several images from different angles, including photographs from down at the seabed level, which show in detail how the anchor is performing.

None of the photos have been manipulated other than very simple brightness, contrast adjustments etc. I have deliberately chosen to use only a very simple program (Snapseed), which does not have any capability to manipulate images in a sophisticated or inappropriate way.

I was initially offered my current anchor at no charge to test, but subsequently elected to pay retail price for the anchor to remove any suggestion that the results are in any way biased.

I think you are suggesting the underwater images are biased and dishonest because they don't fit in with your personal belief regarding how particular anchor designs should perform. Perhaps it is time to revise those beliefs.

I notice in the past you have made very similar criticisms of the large and probably best independent anchor test that was conducted jointly by Yachting Monthly/Sail/West Marine:

"Consequently we would question the difficulty the test team had with getting their CQR to set, though it's a bit of a worry they found a sand seabed in which they could not set a Bruce, CQR or Danforth"

Australia has nice soft sand, which gives rise to great beaches, and I can understand with this experience you have a hard time believing results from substrates that have a hard sand layer just below the surface. However, shooting the messenger is not appropriate.
 
Just like most anchor thread, once again, it's gone adrift,
It's now become an, let's defend the CQR.
I don't think anyone is denying that CQR works.
The fact is there are a lot better quick setting with better holding power anchors about,
Technology has moved on and so has most of us,
Has to the quick film I shot, which I know doesn't prove much, but it did show that the Rocna anchor set within minutes,
Has it been said here and on so many other posting the CQR need time to settle before it set. Although that's was never my experience when I had one so many years ago, but it was being used in muddle rivers.
I can understand JD and others not wanting to change their anchor, after all it works for their choice of cruising grounds, I wouldn't if it worked for me.
For people who are moving around never knowing what surfaces we are going to find, we need something more versatile, and we find this in our Delta, Bruce, Ronca,Spade or what ever we choice to use, and we continue using it till it fails us time after time before looking elsewhere for something better,
I can only talk for myself, when I say, I don't buy goods because of their brand names.
Especially when I have to spend hundreds of pounds and my life can depend on it,
I research as much as I can,
Ask questions on these type forums,
but what I find most helpful, is talking face to face with other sailors who uses a type of anchor,
Only then you can get a true picture if that same anchor will work for you.

Anchors are a bit like antifouling, they don't all work in all sea conditions,
And like antifouling if you don't Apply is right it won't work at all.
So for me, I use an anchor that will work well in most circumstances and carry another two for other times where they would be more appropriate
 
Thread digression warning!
"...for our 24,000 lbs. Tayana 37..."
Why in USA are tonnes or even tons not used? Quoting thousands of pounds seems weird. Its not confined to boats. Most things seem to be measured in pounds.

I guess I should go back to my 7,000,000 gram boat and hide now!
 
Neeves said:
Why are yachts, made currently by major European manufacturers, described as being a XXX44, or a YYY 36?

Beats me also.Jonathan
Click to expand...

It's a funny thing.I see a measurement in inches and run to the calculator to convert it into cms.But someone mentions a 56 foot yacht and I have a perfect idea of it's size. Habit I guess.
 
Neeves said:
It works, the fact that after 85 years there have been improvements should not be a surprise - but that does not mean that a CQR does not work.
Click to expand...

Well said. Yesterday I dug out the 20 lb CQR which I used for a season after the one I acquired with the boat was lost. It's officially the right side for the boat, and it worked very well, but I am surprised now at how small it looks compared to the 25 lb one to which I upgraded (sic). I like area in my anchors!

next I must do something about the kedge, which is a scruffy Danforth-ish thing. Fortress instead, I rather think.
 
Noelex, Talking of shooting messengers??

Methinks you protest too much. The videos refered to are those posted above, none other. Sorry, it was never suggested your images were manipulated, I'm not sure why you think that. It was never suggested that you had any financial inducement. I do not recall ever suggesting that any design should work in any preconceived way in the only seabed in which you have recorded your images, I have never anchored in Greece and it would be presumptuous for me to pass an opinion.

You do seem to extrapolate from your results that some designs are excellent (and others poor) - but only provide evidence from one seabed - to me that shows either bias or ignorance that those same anchors might perform differently in other seabeds.

The CQR, Bruce and Danforth have been stalwarts for 85, 75 and 45 years and are still in use today (and people still buy them). It is exceptional to hold an anchor test with anchors that have shown the test of time and not get them to set. It would be exceptional not to set any anchor in sand - without explanation. It would not be exceptional to query same.

If you only want compliments please advise.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
sailaboutvic said:
I can understand JD and others not wanting to change their anchor, after all it works for their choice of cruising grounds, I wouldn't if it worked for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks. As I have said, I would never claim a CQR to be as good as a modern anchor, but it works well enough for me at the moment. I certainly don't rule out changing in the future.
 
The CQR can work well in the right substrate. I think this accounts for most of the polarised opinions seen on forums. Those that cruise areas where the substrate is appropriate, find the anchor works well. They frequently express the view that poor anchoring technique must be to blame for those that find otherwise.

You really have to see (preferably underwater) with your own eyes a CQR that refuses to set even after multiple attempts where in a similar substrate a more modern design sets without any fuss.

I have used plow and CQR anchors for many years. In fact, I still have a CQR buried in my current boat's rear locker. It was a good anchor in its day. The limitations were accepted as part of the problems encountered cruising.

We tend to focus on boat safety when discussing different anchor designs, but one aspect that should be considered is the convenience/enjoyment factor.

With a large, good quality anchor I can anchor overnight and enjoy spots that would not be usable otherwise. These tends to be the deserted anchorages that are not frequented because they are more exposed, or the holding is poor. I don't have to fuss with multiple anchors to try and supplement the holding ability. The need to change anchors for different substrates is greatly reduced or eliminated. There is less need to crawl out of bed at 2am (why does strong wind always arrive at 2am :)) for an anchor watch or perhaps even to let out more scope. I could go on, but these examples illustrate the point.

New anchors are expensive. I am not suggesting everyone is justified in changing, but consider if a new anchor might not make cruising easier and more pleasant and open up opportunities that would otherwise not be practical.
 
Last edited:
30boat said:
It's a funny thing.I see a measurement in inches and run to the calculator to convert it into cms.But someone mentions a 56 foot yacht and I have a perfect idea of it's size. Habit I guess.
Click to expand...

Not trying to get the thread back on topic but anchor chain is commonly measured in 'shackles'!

Jonathan
 
A problem with CQRs, sorry JD, is that they have a pivoting fluke and they are used in sand. It was mentioned earlier, but not explored, but unsurprisingly the bearing surfaces of the CQR wear and as they wear the shaft gets thinner and the hole gets bigger. In general CQRs, and many other anchors, will last for ever and the worst the owner sees will be loss of galvanising the owner (if he keeps the anchor for that long) will simply not notice the deterioration of the 'bearing surfaces'.

However

I'm not sure what hardness of steel is used for a CQR but galvanising is commonly harder than the underlying steel and if you think how quickly the gal on your chain or anchor wears - then the bearing surfaces of the CQR can wear more quickly. Tests I conducted show that galvanising is more wear resistant, to seabed sand, than high tensile steel (800 MPa) and HT steels are hard and more abrasion resistant than most fluke steels (and anchor chain). Once you lose the gal you are wearing the underlying steel more quickly.

One characteristic of anchors is the angle the toe addresses the seabed, basically does it engage. A second aspect is the angle at which the whole fluke addresses the seabed, the diving angle (this is why the Fortress has the adjustable fluke angle, 32 degrees (I think) for sand but 45 degrees for mud). For very hard sand you might want 28 degrees, but then it would not work so well in softer sand.

But the angles are critical.

If you were to look at a new, genuine, CQR it will have a different toe engagement angle and fluke diving angle to an old and worn CQR. Basically new CQRs will work much better than old CQRs, and you know if a CQR is really old because the fluke wobbles, its possibly be re-galvanised and maybe painted (beware painted CQRs they are definitely old). In a hardish seabed a new CQR will work much better than an old (worn and wobbly) CQR. A wobbly CQR might not engage the seabed at all.

But an old CQR will not perform as well as a new, or unused CQR. Pictures of CQRs not working - might simply be of old CQRs, I do not know - and I suspect no-one else knows either. But any analysis in the absence of more detail is subjective, maybe (unwittingly) biased even.

I have heard of CQRs being sleeved - but only heard about it - but this seems to suggest its a known and accepted problem with possibly some remedial modification.

Equally new modern anchors have sharp toes, some are so sharp they will easily chip the gelcoat. However sharp toes do not last, same problem as the CQR bearing surfaces - the seabed is a harsh and abrasive environment. New anchors, of a given design, will work better than old models, whether its a Delta or a Rocna and this will be emphasised on a hard seabed. This is why comparison of anchors in anchor tests should be conducted with new anchors, not anchors of varying ages. Ideally one should also test the hardness of the steel in the toe - but I do not know anyone who has done this yet.

Anchor testing is not an exact science, in any way - but minimising the variables helps.

Jonathan
 
Yes some owners hang on a little too long to their anchor :).

image.jpg1_zps8uf4b1n5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Neeves said:
But an old CQR will not perform as well as a new, or unused CQR.
Click to expand...

i was a little concerned about my secondhand 25lb CQR, as it seemed a little looser at the joint than the brand-new (I had to remove the price tag) 20lb one it replaced. However, it hasn't given any problem. In any case there was no rusting at the join, so I presume the galvanising and therefore the underlying metal were reasonably intact.

I think, by the way, that you worry unnecessarily about the properties of the steel used, and not just on the CQR. The chief cheerleader for Rocnas here used to harp on about the importance of exotic steels, but when it turned out that they were actually being made of more normal stuff there didn't seem to have been many problems directly attributable to the change. For the moment, and absent solid evidence to the contrary, I'm putting it down to marketing hype, along the line of hi-fi cable manufacturers banging on about the grade of copper used.

Compare the amount of metal in any anchor with the amount of metal in the chain attached to it ...
 
Sorry JD I was not worrying about the steel used on the CQR I was only trying to make the point that, even, HT steels are softer than gal. The design of the CQR is exceptionally robust, so I suspect its not an HT steel - and the hinge might wear quite quickly, though quickly is relative. The wear, for a well used CQR might be deleterious to setting, especially in hard seabeds, but most (or many) anchors are simply not well used. But people who are using a well used CQR might attribute its failings to design when the reality is they anchor on hard seabeds and the anchor is, simply, old. We expect anchors to last forever - I'm not sure why - I cannot think of any other item of marine equipment that lasts 'for ever' so why expect it of an anchor.

I'd have to disagree on shank steel. Anchors do bend, maybe not often, but the cost of using a HT steel in the shank does not make much difference to the price that you and I might pay. I get to see lots of bent shanks, people send me pictures, but I do not publicise as I simply do not know why they are bent, I know what I am told - but that's different from the harsh truth. I'd rather pay the little bit extra for peace of mind. Noelex bent his original shank and it was a mild steel (do not know what quality of mild steel). Whether we need 800 MPa (rather than, say, 700 MPa) steels for shanks - do not know, but I'm happy to pay for it.

The chain is loaded in tension in a straight line. The anchor shank can be loaded like a lever, the fluke if its a good anchor is immovable and the shank might be 'hit' with a snatch load. On our cat I have measured 650kg loads at 35 knots on an all chain rode with a short scope and I know that under certain conditions loads would be much higher. Now imagine that 650kg + on a shank loaded at 90 degrees etc. I tested anchors that I had set at 500kg load (thats about the load produced by a 50hp diesel) in the seabed and then snatch loaded them at 90 degrees - I bent every shank except one made from 800 MPa steel. Anchor makers, as a result of the data have upgraded the strength of their shanks - so some anchor testing does have a positive impact to improving what we use.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
Neeves said:
Sorry JD I was not worrying about the steel used on the CQR I was only trying to make the point that, even, HT steels are softer than gal.
Click to expand...

The shank of the CQR is so massive that the steel used probably matters little. I suspect the drop forging process severely limits the options for microstructure, but a metallurgist like Vyv would know better than me.

I'd have to disagree on shank steel. Anchors do bend, maybe not often, but the cost of using a HT steel in the shank does not make much difference to the price that you and I might pay. I get to see lots of bent shanks, people send me pictures, but I do not publicise as I simply do not know why they are bent, I know what I am told - but that's different from the harsh truth. I'd rather pay the little bit extra for peace of mind. Noelex bent his original shank and it was a mild steel (do not know what quality of mild steel). Whether we need 800 MPa (rather than, say, 700 MPa) steels for shanks - do not know, but I'm happy to pay for it.
Click to expand...

You may pay for it in more ways than one ... what's the fracture toughness like in these exotica? If you want 14% better resistance to bending you can either go for 800MPa yield over 700MPa, or you can increase the relevant dimension by 5% (since 1.053 ~ 1.15). Googling "bent anchor" provides lots of pictures of, well, bent anchors, but no hard evidence that a minor improvement in yield strength would have made any difference.
 
My previous boat had a fabricated CQR type anchor. I didn't make it but I suspect that it was made with bog standard mild steel. It weighed 140lb, and was used for many thousands of anchorings over 30 years.
Yes, the bearing became quite worn, but its performance did not worsen over that time.

Obviously an anchor of that weight is on a bigger scale than most of us have here, and maybe heavier anchors function better than lighter anchors. I had complete confidence in it with a 60ft, 45ton vessel.
 
30boat said:
I think the hollow shank thing doesn't work.If you add the wall thicknesses including the bar inside you end up with the same amount of metal as a solid shank.The air inside will provide some flotation but I doubt it makes a difference.
Click to expand...

It's an objective question , subject to calculation. If there's a litre of air in there, that's about 1kg of buoyancy. Could be significant acting through the lever of the shank, I should think.
 
vyv_cox said:
Bit of a thread drift here, but last season we decided to go swivel-free when various people questioned the need for one. Overall we managed OK but we thought the chain twisting that we always suffer was worse and the windlass showed signs of displeasure. Occasionally the anchor would come up facing the wrong way, still don't understand how that can happen, which takes a lot more sorting than if there is a swivel.

So for 2015 I decided to go back to a swivel but thought I would assess the Osculati cranked version. This is massively strong and is designed to always place the anchor at the correct orientation. It proved to be very disappointing, wedging itself against the shackle sometimes, where it prevented the anchor from setting, which dragged. Also, it didn't seem to rotate the anchor into the correct orientation. We have now reverted to the Kong with three chain links and all is restored to our previous satisfactory situation.
Click to expand...

The swivel was mandatory when we had our 55kg Rocna. The anchor's balance made it come up upside-down and without the swivel it was the devil to horse around. I was using the jumbo sized Kong one, which made it possible to turn the anchor around with a boat hook. But the big swivel would continuously jam in my bow roller, which was one of the main reasons I changed the whole system.

When we switched back to Spade, I deleted the swivel in favour of a Wichard high strength shackle. Because of the much different balance of the Spade, this has been very satisfactory and I have felt no need for a swivel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

S
What are these for?
Replies
13
Views
696
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top