Dragging of anchors

[NormanS]

My present boat came with the 20kg (genuine) Bruce, and a (genuine) 20kg Danforth. For easier handling, I bought an FX23 Fortress, which has similar physical dimensions to the Danforth, and presumably similar holding. The Danforth is now surplus to requirements, and is looking for a new home. Anyone interested?

 

[Neeves]

My present boat came with the 20kg (genuine) Bruce, and a (genuine) 20kg Danforth. For easier handling, I bought an FX23 Fortress, which has similar physical dimensions to the Danforth, and presumably similar holding. The Danforth is now surplus to requirements, and is looking for a new home. Anyone interested?

Obviously the Fortress has a significant weight advantage , in your case for deployment. Ignoring this characteristic (shared with the alloy Spade, alloy Excel, Racer and FOB Lite) - have you ever noticed any signifiant other differences - as I've said I simply don't see them and have no idea how they perform.

Thought - the man wants to sell his Danforth - he's no different to any other anchor spruiker - treat with caution!


Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

Obviously the Fortress has a significant weight advantage , in your case for deployment. Ignoring this characteristic (shared with the alloy Spade, alloy Excel, Racer and FOB Lite) - have you ever noticed any signifiant other differences - as I've said I simply don't see them and have no idea how they perform.

Thought - the man wants to sell his Danforth - he's no different to any other anchor spruiker - treat with caution!


Jonathan

To my mind, the Fortress has been blatantly copied from the Danforth, but is made to look like a more "engineered" product with a shaped shank and finer tips. For some people (not me) the fact that the anchor can be disassembled, and kept under the bed, is seen as an advantage.

The lesser weight may make the Fortress slightly less keen to dig in to some bottoms, but this may be compensated by having sharper points. The reason that we changed from a Danforth to a Fortress of roughly the same dimensions, was simply because it is so much easier to handle, either on deck, over the side, or in the dinghy.

I would be surprised if the holding capacities of the two anchors were measureably different. The main thing for us was simply that if it was easier to handle, we were more likely to use it. A victory for lazyness.

I had to Google "spruiker", and I see it's some sort of Antipodean term. Thank you for broadening my knowledge.

 

[Kukri]

The trouble with most old gen anchors is their name,CQR, Delta, Danforth and Bruce roll off the tongue so easily and we all know exactly what the words mean. Sadly there are many clones and for convenience everyone calls their CQR or Delta clone a CQR and Delta.

Small differences in design make a big difference in performance and I am sure that some distrust of old gen models is because the experience was from a clone, not a genuine model. Our Manson plough is a good example as the CQR, on which it is roughly modelled is a much better anchor (I have both in my workshop and have used both). The Manson model has a much shorter shank, than the original - and may have other differences. Manson also make a Ray, based on Bruce - again they are very different in actual design. Compound this and also consider that CQRs are almost indestructible - except the hinge wears - and the worn hinge results in a different fluke/shank angle.

Mention of Danforth is not that frequent here - but I see 'Danforths' which I assume are copies as I have never, ever, seen a genuine Danforth for sale, except in America and (oddly) in Japan. As I don't see genuine Danforths frequently I don't have much knowledge of their design, except for the overall concept (and they look like a Fortress) and how close the copies are to the original - I don't know.

The genuine old gen models obviously worked - because people still use them (and West Marine sell genuine Danforth) - and they would not be used if they had a very high frequency of dragging. Whether the 'new' iteration of CQR, sold by Lewmar, that is now 'fabricated' which I assume meanest is no longer drop forged is as god as the original don't know.

The new gen models are much more forgiving and reliable in terms of ease of setting (and once any anchor engages and starts to set you are almost 90% sure it will continue to set).

Old gen models might be more susceptible to veering (etc) of the parent yacht (than new gen anchors - and I suspect this might be the case as old gen tend not to set so deeply) but winds need to be strong for this to be a major concern - the concern is getting them to set initially (and the more you use them the more experience you have of setting characteristics). Change of tide, or large and rapid change of wind direction is an issue - because you are often not around to coax he old gen anchor to re-set (but even this cannot be a major issue as tidal change is a common occurrence, or it is where I live , yet people do not drag sufficiently frequently that it forces them to buy a new gen model.)

There are too many experienced yachtsmen here, like NormamS, who use old gen models in testing conditions with success and no doubts. We cannot write them off, the olden anchors, yet - the new gen anchor makers have a way to go before they conquer the world.

As an aside CQR, Danforth, Bruce (+ roll bar) and Delta as leisure anchors were refreshing designs in their day, as later was Spade (and Fortress' use of alloy) - all of which date from before the mid 90s. But each introduction brought new and novel ideas. If you look at the new gen anchors - there have been some tweaks - but the ghosts of the old designs are still in there.

And new gen anchors can still drag.

Jonathan

I agree. I am guilty of labelling anything that looks like a Danforth "a Danforth", as I don't know much about them (and it is very likely that I have been prejudiced against them by bad copies!)

I know more about CQRs. An old one will have an "I" shaped shank with the words "CQR. Patent applied for" stamped into it. A younger one has an I shaped shank with the words "CQR, Made In Scotland. Patent no XXXXXXX" stamped into it. The "B" CQR was a cast copy of a forged steel CQR, made to the same dimensions by the same people (Simpson Lawrence) for use in inland and sheltered waters. NOT for use at sea - but you still find them on seagoing boats. Fortunately they are identified with the letter B on the shank.

Edited in the light of corrections below:

If a CQR clone does not have this rubric on it it is not a CQR. Note that the very early models of real thing have a lead weight cast into the toe. Later models of the real thing have steel.

 

[thinwater]

I've had both Danforth and Fortress anchors on the same boat, at the same time, and used them side-by-side. I also have a collection of clones, which I am not talking about (some are good and some are not).

I think most testers would agree that the Fortress sets a little more reliably and hold is about equal for equal size (not weight). The difference is setting is probably due to the larger mud palms.

Oddly, I've never seen a CQR clone (US). Lots of Danforth copies. In fact, the only clones that seem common are Danforth-type, other than obviously fabricated anchors on larger fishing boats. Northill clones were once popular on larger boats.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The "B" CQR was a cast copy of a forged steel CQR, made to the same dimensions by the same people (Simpson Lawrence) for use in inland and sheltered waters. NOT for use at sea - but you still find them on seagoing boats. Fortunately they are identified with the letter B on the shank./QUOTE]

And with fractional weights. Forged CQR 25lbs vs Cast CQR 24 1/2lbs, for example.

 

[Neeves]

I am sure there are good clones, it cannot be that difficult to make an exact copy (though I'd have no idea) but as clones tend not to be branded - you simply don't know. I'd also be twitchy as to whether the clones utilised the correct, or at least similar, steels as has been show - its quite important (but very difficult for a potential owner to judge with an anchor on display in a chandler).

If you are really bored and look at Alibaba you can find clones of modern models, Rocna, Spade, SARCA,Mantus and certainly copies of older models, CQRs, Danforth, Bruce and Delta. Obviously America has not embraced sourcing from China with the same enthusiasm seen elsewhere.

I was, totally, unaware that CQR came in 2 versions - we are never too old to learn, but now it comes in a fabricated version, I assume that means welded, and I think the drop forged ones have been dropped (maybe discontinued is a better word ). Lewmar have a new model in the wings, it was on display at METS last year, from memory they were waiting for Classification Society approval or holding capacity results - and maybe a tweaked iteration. Holding capacity i not the ideal measure of performance - but it currently all we have. Anyone who is critical of holding capacity tests, please offer a realistic alternative with your criticism.

I'd caution against sticking your neck out on any new model until it has enjoyed some holding capacity testing v it peers and some indication its strength is adequate (let others take the risks). There are already anchors on the market from apparently 'reputable' suppliers with no holding capacity data (and, beggars belief, introduced with mild steel shanks).

There are plenty of reliable known models available, one for most applications and some pockets (sadly not shallow ones), Rocna, Supreme, Fortress, Excel, Spade, Ultra, some coming in stainless, gal or alloy and some define the shank material - there is no need to find you might have bought a lemon.

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

Holding capacity i not the ideal measure of performance - but it currently all we have. Anyone who is critical of holding capacity tests, please offer a realistic alternative with your criticism.

The independent holding capacity tests conducted by sailing magazines, while by no means perfect, provide some excellent information, especially when the study was large enough to produce some meaningful statistically significant results. Unfortunately, with the current state of the magazine industry, there have been very few of these published in recent years and I cannot see this changing in the near future.

I am not a great fan of tests conducted by, or paid for, by anchor manufacturers. Not surprisingly, the best anchor on test is invariably the manufacturer that paid for the test.

I think the best method of determining anchor performance is simply observing how the anchor behaves on the seabed. There are marked and very easy visible differences between excellent designs and models that are obviously struggling. In the real world the performance can be observed not just in straight line pull, but with changes in direction of pull.

There are other methods. User reports are useful especially when you can discuss their experiences face to face. Sailors cruising and living at anchor for extended periods take anchoring very seriously. Their anchoring gear has to keep them secure at night and they are quick to rate the equipment and report and shortcomings.

I also think a lot can be evaluated by analysing the anchor design, especially if the model is a simple extension, or modification of an existing design whose characteristics and performance are well known.

 

[RupertW]

The independent holding capacity tests conducted by sailing magazines, while by no means perfect, provide some excellent information, especially when the study was large enough to produce some meaningful statistically significant results. Unfortunately, with the current state of the magazine industry, there have been very few of these published in recent years and I cannot see this changing in the near future.

I am not a great fan of tests conducted by, or paid for, by anchor manufacturers. Not surprisingly, the best anchor on test is invariably the manufacturer that paid for the test.

I think the best method of determining anchor performance is simply observing how the anchor behaves on the seabed. There are marked and very easy visible differences between excellent designs and models that are obviously struggling. In the real world the performance can be observed not just in straight line pull, but with changes in direction of pull.

There are other methods. User reports are useful especially when you can discuss their experiences face to face. Sailors cruising and living at anchor for extended periods take anchoring very seriously. Their anchoring gear has to keep them secure at night and they are quick to rate the equipment and report and shortcomings.

I also think a lot can be evaluated by analysing the anchor design, especially if the model is a simple extension, or modification of an existing design whose characteristics and performance are well known.

Although I largely agree with you I think that reports from sailors about their own anchoring experiences are completely biased in favour of the anchor that they end up with, no matter what it’s type.

If their CQR or Delta clone works fine for their needs then they will extol that, if it fails they will change anchor to another type and usually increase the weight so much they cannot properly assess the design change but will still extol the new design of it works for them.

We all like to sleep safe so we get to love the anchor that seems to do that for us. In my case it is a Delta possibly a clone, and far lighter than most peoples new generation anchors but I bet I will eventually love one of those too.

 

[GHA]

..... I think that reports from sailors about their own anchoring experiences are completely biased in favour of the anchor that they end up with, no matter what it’s type..

Wouldn't agree with that if the sailors are long term cruisers living mostly on the hook, generally they tend to be much more objective with any shortcomings in any equipment , more so the more it cost!

 

[MM5AHO]

I agree. I am guilty of labelling anything that looks like a Danforth "a Danforth", as I don't know much about them (and it is very likely that I have been prejudiced against them by bad copies!)

I know more about CQRs. An old one will have an "I" shaped shank with the words "CQR. Patent applied for" stamped into it. A younger one has an I shaped shank with the words "CQR, Made In Scotland. Patent no XXXXXXX" stamped into it. The "B" CQR was a cast copy of a forged steel CQR, made to the same dimensions by the same people (Simpson Lawrence) for use in inland and sheltered waters. NOT for use at sea - but you still find them on seagoing boats. Fortunately they are identified with the letter B on the shank.

If a CQR clone does not have this rubric on it it is not a CQR. Note that the real thing has a lead weight cast into the toe.

I had a genuine CQR (Simpson Lawrence) that did not have lead cast into the toe, but was steel. I do not think this is a clone (also agrees with your other observations about genuine SL ones), but it's different in this one respect.

 

[Neeves]

Re - recommendation of anchor by an individual

1 Few will admit they bought a lemon, they live with it - and quietly change.

or

2 Its easier to fool people than show them they have been fooled.


Our CQR, patent number embossed into the shank, appears to, also, have steel as its ballast. I think, would need to check, it is 20lb. I bought it around mid, late 80's (when there was not much choice - how things change). Our Manson Plough, CQR copy, has lead cast into the underside of the toe of the fluke (no actual pocket - just an open recess). It is stamped 40lb, but weighs 50lbs and is surplus to requirement - but I would not sell it, unless you need something to retain a (small) dog. Supplied on commissioning - year 2000 (again not much choice), long retired (I mean the anchor).

Jonathan

 

[RupertW]

Wouldn't agree with that if the sailors are long term cruisers living mostly on the hook, generally they tend to be much more objective with any shortcomings in any equipment , more so the more it cost!

By that logic alllong term cruisers would have a new generation anchor which from my experience they don’t. Instead they have a whole mixture of anchors on their bows having (I think) changed if their last one failed them and stopped changing once they have an anchor of any type does the job for them.

But maybe I’ll see them all moving to NGs in the next couple of years which would prove your point.

 

[GHA]

By that logic alllong term cruisers would have a new generation anchor which from my experience they don’t. Instead they have a whole mixture of anchors on their bows having (I think) changed if their last one failed them and stopped changing once they have an anchor of any type does the job for them.

But maybe I’ll see them all moving to NGs in the next couple of years which would prove your point.

Not as cut and dried as that, maybe we drink in different bars..

Were do you see these hooks? They live in the mud and only come up in conversation

Many have new gen, of others you'll often get a - "Will get a new gen one of these days but that thing does OK in the holding round here", or other friends who are happy with a bruce. But it is HUGE!.

Nothing to do with logic or proving a point, just what happens with people who have been living on the hook for many many years IME, very honest about kit.

And slow to judge people or cultures

 

[noelex]

I had a genuine CQR (Simpson Lawrence) that did not have lead cast into the toe, but was steel. I do not think this is a clone (also agrees with your other observations about genuine SL ones), but it's different in this one respect.

All genuine CQR anchors use steel as the ballast the only exception is apparantly some of the very early models.

 

[Kukri]

All genuine CQR anchors use steel as the ballast the only exception is apparantly some of the very early models.

Thanks for the correction - I was going by one that I had with the words "Patent Applied For" stamped on the shank, i.e. an early one. I never bothered to look at what ballasted my "Made in Scotland" (more recent!) one!

 

[noelex]

Although I largely agree with you I think that reports from sailors about their own anchoring experiences are completely biased in favour of the anchor that they end up with, no matter what it’s type..

Reports from users do need to be considered carefully and not just taken at face value. Cruisers tend to be very critical of gear so I don’t think confirmation bias is such a major issue, but there are some problems with user reports.

The most common problems are people upgrading from old generation anchors. They are likely to find significant improvement in any new generation anchor. This is useful information, but does not help separate the performance of any particular new generation model. Often with some questioning more details about the performance can be gathered.

The second most common problem is people that only anchor in light wind. There is nothing wrong with this. There are many styles of cruising, but people can sometimes rave about their anchors holding when with they consider 25 or 30 knots a tough test.

Forum reports can also be useful, but unfortunately occasionally problems like sock puppet members can can skew the impression.

 

[Neeves]

Rupert,

Possibly Morgans Cloud or the Starzingers illustrate a point - they both used Rocna - Strarzinger reverted to using an, oversized, Bruce, or 2, and MC recommend against Rocna and use a Spade.

In the Falklands I counted 1 Rocna, 1 Bugel and 2 CQRs, Novak who is said to use a Rocna had nothing on the bow roller. In Ushuaia a Bugel and CQR on a modern cat out of Tahiti, A Rocna on bow roller with 2 CQR on the transom on yacht out of Malta, another Rocna and 2 or 3 CQRs on bow rollers. None of the Bugel were genuine (but oddly popular) - I did not think to look to see if the CQRs were genuine. All yacht in both Stanley and Ushuaia had anything upto 4 shore lines (and when away from habitation would typically use all of them (some 'liveaboards' do not rely on their anchors all the time, think also Starzinger/Hawk - something liveaboards don't often mention ) When the going gets tough, rocks and trees are the preference.

From this straw poll - CQR, Rocna, Bruce, Bugel, Spade (and shore lines) - a clear vote. for shore lines - which might indicate something - or any anchor of your choice.

And GHA is suggesting some contempt for huge anchors

quote:

or other friends who are happy with a bruce. But it is HUGE!.

unquote

I wonder what huge means?

Its going to be some time before New Gen anchors rule the world.

Based in Australia the more notable characteristic of yachts in high southern latitudes - every yacht had a chimney.

Jonathan

 

[Kukri]

Just a bit of "old anchor" stuff which some people don't know.

As we all know, there is an eye on the back of the CQR. That isn't there to tie the buoy rope to, although you can use it for that. It's the CQR's equivalent of the "gravity band" that was usual on the yacht sizesa of the old big Admiralty pattern / fisherman pattern anchors that the CQR put out of business. The gravity band is so called because it provides an eye to hook a tackle onto at the point of balance of the anchor.

To explain I need to go back into Olde Worlde Seamanship - you handled a big ship's stocked anchor by hooking the cat tackle into the ring and hauling it up to the cathead, and then hooking the fish tackle onto a fluke and hauling that up (take a look at HMS Victory!) but yachts kept their anchors on deck, unstocked, and got them there by hooking the anchor davit tackle (or a Spanish burton from the lower cap, if you went in for Claud Worth's newfangled notions) onto the eye on the gravity band on the anchor.

The CQR's gravity eye is for picking up the anchor with. Splice a fathom or so of rope onto the eye. When you have the anchor at the bow, fish up the line with the boathook and use that to pick up the anchor and get it on deck. It won't try to bite your fingers, and you can handle up to a 75lbs CQR this way.

What this means is that it is relatively easy to use a bigger CQR anchor than is recommended for your boat, even if you don't stow it on the roller. Given the price differential between a big secondhand genuine CQR and a new generation anchor, if you are counting the pennies you go for a secondhand oversized CQR.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Although I largely agree with you I think that reports from sailors about their own anchoring experiences are completely biased in favour of the anchor that they end up with, no matter what it’s type.

That's basically the same concept as "You always find things in the last place you look". Nobody sticks with an anchor they perceive to be inadequate, therefore everybody perceives their anchor to be adequate.