'Genuine' CQR

[webcraft]

\'Genuine\' CQR

Mine says Sowester on the shank. Does this mean it's genuine.

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[ccscott49]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

Don't think so, mine says genuine CQR.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[chas]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

If a genuine CQR was copied, would it not, by deninition, say "Genuine CQR"?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

Sowester is Simpson-Lawrence, who are as far as I am aware the original manufacturers of CQR - but I could be wrong, it's not totally unknown . . .

- Nick


<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

No it is NOT a genuine CQR. The genuine version was made by Simpson Lawrence by drop-forging, the others are similar shape but are cast construction, that includes a cheaper plough produced by Simpson Lawrence as well.

Cast 'CQR type' anchors may be perfectly OK, we had a 45lb one that came as standard on a Westerly 33 that was very good. We did replace it though with a genuine CQR when a good deal secondhand came up. Some of the cast type copies broke in use through faulty castings some years back, one make (cannot remember) was especially prone to this. The genuine CQR I think came with a lifetime warranty.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

I confirm, it is NOT an original one..
they are big (enough) differences between a genuine CQR and cheap copies..

the CQR is expensive because it is drop forged (expensive manufacturing process) but the strenght is by far much higher than cast copies..

All others copies are cast.. most of them comming from China.. during the last anchors test performed by the French magazine "Voiles & Voiliers" (May issue) cheap copies hardly reached half of the holding of the genuine CQR.. You have what you paid for..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ivy]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

I had a genuine CQR that I have dragged across several anchorages, however it was only 15Lb, a bit light for a Sadler 25. Now I have a 22Lb (10kg) Bruce that I can depened on in almost any conditions, it digs in virtualy straight away as the CQR didn't.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

It could be interesting to review the anchor tests results given by PBO july and august 2002 concerning these two models..

tests results from the french Magazine "Voiles & Voiliers" may issue, gave about the same results..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ivy]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

I think that is the test report I read, which is why I bought a Bruce. Slightly bigger than the one recomended for my boat and I also went up a size in chain. A good report if I remember correctly.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

Yes it is a very good study.. very clear with a lot of photos and also curves of holding force.. but unfortunately written in French.. :0) the anchor study done by Pr John Knox and published by PBO in July and August 2002 was also very interesting..

Both studies did find the same results about Bruce anchors.. Good to set.. but very poor holding..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

Small \'Genuine\' CQRs

I have a 10lb one (no longer made) which is fine for my 16ft launch, (not that much is ever asked of it!) but I recall Eric Hiscock writing that CQRs are not to be relied on in sizes under 25lb, as there is not enough weight to start them digging.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jeanne]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

I can't believe that anyone would rely on a 15lb anchor for a 25ft boat! Genuine CQR or not - there is NO substitute for weight, all the mags agree on that. I don't really think anyone who is serious about anchoring and wants a good nights sleep would go for anything less than 25lb for a CQR but could perhaps get away with lighter for Bruce.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ccscott49]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

Not true "theres no substitute for wieght" aluminium anchors work very well, it's weight in the right place and the shape, not pure weight.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

Weight is important.. located at the anchor's tip. to start diggin in.. and that's why most anchor doesn't work under a specific weight..

Location of Weight is also important as demonstrated in the recent V&V study, the genuine CQR has 62% of its weight located on the shank and the strong hinge.. and photos show the anchor dragging upside down with the tip like the "periscope" of a submarine.. we found exactly the same behaviour.. (but we can't publish our own results..) Weight MUST be located at the TIP..

As soon as the anchor is fully buried, the action of the weight is nearly nil.. Holding is given by the SURFACE and by the SHAPE of this surface.
Aluminum anchors compared SURFACE for SURFACE with steel anchors (but half the weight) give the same holding..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

Re: \'Genuine\' CQR

Well, it's a bit of a wandering post . . .

So - if it says Sowester on the shank it's a Simpson Lawrence but not a genuine CQR, a SL copy of their own anchor.

So - a SL copy should be better than most copies, non?

All I wanted to know is how much can I ask for this monstrosity that is hulking in my port locker. I want a Fortress or similar for the locker/kedge/secondary anchor, but need to get rid of the (apparently non-genuine) CQR first.

- Nick


<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>