Dragging of anchors

Neeves said:
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
Click to expand...

Just speaking for myself, but having perused the excellent images Noelex has posted on Cruisersforum, the overwhelming impression I got was that if all you had to go on were the pictures, the majority of anchors other than a Mantus were poor anchors and those that set ok for some reason still rarely looked quite as set as the pictures of the Mantus. Perhaps the Mantus is the best anchor in the world, but real world experience with other designs would indicate that whatever the pictures taken show, these other designs work just fine when handled properly, and in the recent Fortress tests the Mantus was a middle of the road performer - in those bottom conditions, which are clearly different than Noelex's.

My experience with the CQR is that once you get it to bite, it holds. My experience with a Bruce, a Danforth, a Fortress, a Claw and an Ultra indicate the same. All depends on technique, bottom conditions, scope, rode, etc. To the extent anchor tests replicate real world experience I prefer to own an anchor that tests better than others and that I can stow on the bow. But perhaps I am making it too simple......
 
Delfin said:
Just speaking for myself, but having perused the excellent images Noelex has posted on Cruisersforum, the overwhelming impression I got was that if all you had to go on were the pictures, the majority of anchors other than a Mantus were poor anchors and those that set ok for some reason still rarely looked quite as set as the pictures of the Mantus. Perhaps the Mantus is the best anchor in the world, but real world experience with other designs would indicate that whatever the pictures taken show, these other designs work just fine when handled properly, and in the recent Fortress tests the Mantus was a middle of the road performer - in those bottom conditions, which are clearly different than Noelex's.

My experience with the CQR is that once you get it to bite, it holds. My experience with a Bruce, a Danforth, a Fortress, a Claw and an Ultra indicate the same. All depends on technique, bottom conditions, scope, rode, etc. To the extent anchor tests replicate real world experience I prefer to own an anchor that tests better than others and that I can stow on the bow. But perhaps I am making it too simple......
Click to expand...

+1 we have finally found something to agree on,D, I must call the shrink!:encouragement:
 
Delfin;5452105My experience with the CQR is that once you get it to bite said:
The gliding world has the saying TINSFoS: There Is No Substitute For Span. As far as anchoring goes, I cannot help feeling that There Is No Substitute For Size.
Click to expand...
 
I used my 25pound CQR on many 30 knots nights and never had an incident.It would even set without major drama .So for the time it was a good anchor and there were no Spades or Rocnas around to compare it with. Knowing what I know today I wouldn't go back to a CQR .I wouldn't want a wooden boat or cotton sails either....
 
Dockhead said:
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 reasonrs 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.
Click to expand...

A swivel may make it easier to turn the anchor when it comes up the wrong way, but a bent link or "boomerang" (or other names for the same thing) makes sure that it comes on to the roller correctly orientated, in the first place.
 
JumbleDuck said:
The gliding world has the saying TINSFoS: There Is No Substitute For Span. As far as anchoring goes, I cannot help feeling that There Is No Substitute For Size.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Since our anchor is 176#, virtually any design is going to stop the boat. That size Claw held us in 50 knot winds without an issue. The Ultra would as well and about the only difference I can detect is that the Ultra must be better stuck as it can't simply be yanked up by the hydraulic windlass, but coaxed up. Since our anchor is larger than most, I doubt much of my experience is necessarily transferable to smaller hooks, as you suggest. But my experience with CQR, Bruce and Danforth were on a 12 ton boat, so would apply.
 
Delfin said:
Just speaking for myself, but having perused the excellent images Noelex has posted on Cruisersforum, the overwhelming impression I got was that if all you had to go on were the pictures, the majority of anchors other than a Mantus were poor anchors and those that set ok for some reason still rarely looked quite as set as the pictures of the Mantus. Perhaps the Mantus is the best anchor in the world, but real world experience with other designs would indicate that whatever the pictures taken show, these other designs work just fine when handled properly, and in the recent Fortress tests the Mantus was a middle of the road performer - in those bottom conditions, which are clearly different than Noelex's.

My experience with the CQR is that once you get it to bite, it holds. My experience with a Bruce, a Danforth, a Fortress, a Claw and an Ultra indicate the same. All depends on technique, bottom conditions, scope, rode, etc. To the extent anchor tests replicate real world experience I prefer to own an anchor that tests better than others and that I can stow on the bow. But perhaps I am making it too simple......
Click to expand...

I agree, actually. In my opinion, anchor performance is all about how easy it is to set, not how well it holds after you do get it set. The problem is that with anchors which are very hard to set, like the CQR, it becomes unrealistic to get it really well stuck in every time, so you start to put up with less than perfect sets and pray that it holds.

I don't think Noelex says anything to contradict this. He has provided a ton of interesting real world data which shows how anchors are getting set by real people in real conditions. His giant Mantus does well, but he has also shown very good setting performance from Spade, Rocna, Ultra, and others. I don't think he has claimed that the Mantus is clearly superior to any other NG anchor. You have to take it all with a grain of salt, in any case, as what is depicted is the result of the skill of the operator, the particular spot of the particular bottom involved, as well as the qualities of the anchor. He's clearly an excellent sailor, so I would bet dollars to donuts that he would be getting good performance out of just about any anchor.

I don't think we have any empirical data which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that any one anchor is superior to any other anchor under any given conditions. I certainly wouldn't buy test data -- carried out by manufacturers to boot! -- as anything like that. Or even pay much attention to it. The only reliable way to choose the right anchor for you is to try them out yourself.
 
Dockhead said:
The problem is that with anchors which are very hard to set, like the CQR ///
Click to expand...

I am not selling them, honest guv, but I have to take issue with this. I have never had any difficult whatsoever in getting a CQR to set. I chuck it over, give it a bit of a yank and it sets. I know it sets, by the way, because the chain goes bar taut and the bow swings round. Maybe it's something about the (Scottish) anchorages I have been in and maybe other things would have set even faster, but "very hard to set" it is not, in my experience.
 
Delfin said:
Must be a bitch to stow.
Click to expand...

If you're thinking of buying one you can make a cardboard template to check. Here's the pattern:

Circle.gif
 
JumbleDuck said:
I am not selling them, honest guv, but I have to take issue with this. I have never had any difficult whatsoever in getting a CQR to set. I chuck it over, give it a bit of a yank and it sets. I know it sets, by the way, because the chain goes bar taut and the bow swings round. Maybe it's something about the (Scottish) anchorages I have been in and maybe other things would have set even faster, but "very hard to set" it is not, in my experience.
Click to expand...

You have the magic touch! Respect. I suffered more than 10 years with a CQR, and could never get the damn thing to set properly, not even in sand.
 
Most of the people contributing to the thread anchor a lot, some do not use snubbers (at all) some use short snubbers and some use snubbers that provide some real elasticity.

For those that use short snubbers (so you are simply moving the load from the windlass to a strong point and you stop chain rattle on the bow roller) and even those that use long snubbers - have you ever damaged a chain hook. I recall someone mentioned, on another thread, that they had bent a Witchard hook, not the pin but the hook. Is this common (to bend the hook). More likely on a short snubber, say 6" or less.

If you bend a hook then you are imposing the same 'load' on the anchor (so it might be likely to drag?? on the chain, so it might stretch and also loading your strong point. Any experiences? and if so what heppened and how

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
Most of the people contributing to the thread anchor a lot, some do not use snubbers (at all) some use short snubbers and some use snubbers that provide some real elasticity.

For those that use short snubbers (so you are simply moving the load from the windlass to a strong point and you stop chain rattle on the bow roller) and even those that use long snubbers - have you ever damaged a chain hook. I recall someone mentioned, on another thread, that they had bent a Witchard hook, not the pin but the hook. Is this common (to bend the hook). More likely on a short snubber, say 6" or less.

If you bend a hook then you are imposing the same 'load' on the anchor (so it might be likely to drag?? on the chain, so it might stretch and also loading your strong point. Any experiences? and if so what heppened and how

Jonathan
Click to expand...

No experience with bending but a soft shackle is so superior in every way to a hook of whatever design I have no clue why anyone uses a chain hook at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

S
What are these for?
Replies
13
Views
697
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top