Dragging of anchors

[thinwater]

Yes, the CQR is obsolete. It was invented in 1938, for goodness sake. So is the boat it's attached to. For that matter, I'm certainly obsolete, or so prospective employer's have told me. Sailing itself is hopelessly obsolete. So is going for a walk. As sailors, don't we embrace anachronism (lead lines and all)? Often this talk reminds me of the Amish, who shun all progress since the late 19th century... but not the progress that brought them to that point. We accept Dacron and GPS, but not NG anchors or Dyneema.

I sure hope they don't throw me away, or all of us old codgers. Isn't that a new age worry? All we do is read forums.

 

[Kukri]

I accept anything that is reliable and cheap. I'm sure a new generation anchor would suit me just fine, but at the moment there are plenty of good CQRs with little wear at the pin on the secondhand market.

Dacron, Nylon, diesel engines, GPS, Hypalon, inflatable mooring buoys... even GRP has its place...

I just bought a boat from a chap who started sailing in 1945 and is now 87, because he needs to spend more time taking care of his wife... the boat has quite a bit of Dyneema about her...

 

[zoidberg]

I accept anything that is reliable and cheap.

I reckon when I get old, I'll buy something 'reliable and cheap', that doesn't take a lot of effort to sail, rather like this....

 

[Neeves]

Too many people still have a CQR on their bow roller and suggest they use them, Minn for example, which suggests to me it is premature to call them obsolete. Design and technology may have moved on, or improved, but they work the same today as they did over 70 years ago. The new designs are easier to use, arguably much more efficient, are more reliable and are much more expensive (excluding perhaps a Kobra) - but the success of the CQR is underlined by its continuing use.

It is too early to discount them - the new gen anchor manufacturers have a long way to go before all the CQRs, Danforths, Bruce and Delta's are replaced.

In reviewing the thread there was a surprising dearth of first hand experiences of dragging, lots of thread drift, but it would be a brave man, or woman, who was able to discern any pattern from the dragging experiences quoted. I confess to have be surprised - I thought there would be more instances described and that some pattern of reasons would develop

Threads develop a personality of their own - don't anticipate a conclusion!

I was surprised that lead lines still figure in the kit people carry - and that they use them. That was a surprise. Use of fish finders was not a surprise - we have found a fishfinders useful since we installed one, about 4/5 years ago - but we managed for decades without one - and I cannot say that the information on the fish finder has ever, not once, shown we were in the wrong place - but it has simply confirmed what the earlier surveyors had said (though if you want to know what is down there - drop your anchor, retrieve and have a look at what the flukes bring up (easier with a concave anchor). As Norman said we all develop a bag of trick we use to determine where e anchor - and the absence of horror stories seems to suggest we, mostly?, already have it right.

I would admit forward looking 3D sonar would be a marvellous aid, and there are a number of models available, but you ned a private bank to fund such toys (currently) so they are not even on our with list, yet


A facet that does intrigue

Mention is made of sand, or a soft substrate, over hard pan or smooth rock - such that one might be beguiled into thinking your anchor is set - but is only superficially set - and with a bit of wind you are off, dragging, across the bay. In reality - how often does this happen. How often are anchors, old gen or new gen defeated because the seabeds is too hard (whether covered by a thin layer of sand or not) - and this feature was not well known and documented?

One reason for asking - if this common - having an anchor that can penetrate hard seabeds (not actual rock) would be a useful addition to ones quiver of anchors (or are seabeds so hard, not actual rock, to defeat a Rocna etc - simply illusory and part of the greater scare mongering, of forum thread and manufacturer's hype, associated with anchors and anchoring).

It seems a hard base covered thin sand is a feature in the Med, and presumably well documented, its not a feature in Australia, and we have a lot of coast, - what about other locations - or is it an inland sea, call it Med or glacier mouth/snout feature?

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

OK, back to dragging. I remember the first time I ever dragged. With another wee boy, I sailed across the Firth in a dinghy, and anchored in a harbour on the other side. Big adventure. Next thing, we're slowly dragging downwind. Pulled up the anchor, and found an old tin can impaled on it! 60 years later, I honestly can't say what kind of anchor it was. It may have been a "New Generation" of its time, or maybe not. The lesson though, has never been forgotten.

 

[thinwater]

I've recently switched to a lighter simpler boat and I'm loving it. I compare it withe driving a sports car instead of a big caravan.


Obviously I was joking about obsolescence. In fact, I never comment on CQR because they arn't that common here and I've only used one a few times. Those times, it held like a bull. On the other hand, I was using it to help someone kedge, and it wa heavy for that use--a Fortress would have been far better.

For evaluating the bottom condition, I would much rather have a waveform a-scan than a unit with false color. The translator looses too much information. I've spent a lot of hours with the unit in the image. With practice, the squiggle tells me a lot about the material, what's inside, and layers. False color is only going to work if you dive and compare what you see on the display with reality. UT units are also calibrated before use with objects of known thickness and density; you don't have that option on a boat. But I do believe it could tell a smart operator a lot.

 

[thinwater]

That sounds a very dangerous way to use these things. Rigged that way, if I understand you correctly, if the rubber fails, the line fails. It's much more normal and safer to rig so that the rubber takes up stretch, but ultimately the line is still in one piece.

You misunderstood, perhaps because I did not explain fully. I did not say the dockline did not also attach to the cleat.. The dockline is used in the normal manner, and the rubber is used to secure a lazy loop, to remove slack. The rubber lines are attached to the dockline by a prusick, rolling hitch, or similar means. Should rubber fail, nothing is lost.

Why attach the snubber to the cleat at one end? It's easier to adjust than if it secures a bight of rope with two prusiks. But the same idea.