Is my anchor worn out?

[smb]

Can wear take its toll on the ability of a CQR to dig in? It's a 45lb model coupled to 60m of 10mm chain. When setting I take care to slowly lay 4-5 times scope and then bring pressure to bear gradually without jerking, but still it seems reluctant to bite in anything but the softest goo.

The leading edges and tip have become quite rounded over time and the pivot has developed a lot of free play, probably due to the fluke being allowed to swing freely under passage for many years.

I am wondering if the free play means that the fluke is no longer adressing terra-firma at the correct angle, giving the blunt point a near impossible task.

Are there any issues in grinding the tip back to sharpness, or will I be wasting my time if I cannot somehow correct the angle of attack?

Steve


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[boatless]

My experience with Fortress anchors led me to believe that a sharp edge is the key to their success. Sharpening it was easy though - it being alloy.

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.

 

[hylas]

This is the usual behaviour of the CQR, either in weed or when the sea bottom is too hard (sand or Coral)

This is due to the fact that the hinge of the shank, to be strong enough, has to be quite massive.. and therefor heavy.. The weight distribution of the CQR is wrong.. 62% of the total weight on the shank... for only 18% of the weight on the tip of the anchor.. Just a question of DESIGN.. (to be compared with 28% for the Delta anchor, 38% for the Bruce and 50% for the Spade..)

You can try to grind the tip but it will not improve anything as also the penetrating angle of the tip is wrong.. like a "spreader', when it should be like a "schisel".. again a question of design..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[snowleopard]

when a CQR wears out it isn't the sharpness of the blade, the wear is in the hinge which affects the angle of the blade to the shank. in theory it might be possible to build up the side stops with weld then re-galvanise but it's a bit hit-and-miss.

this is a well-known problem in the caribbean where anchors are used for long periods in sand. to confirm whether this is the problem, try lying your anchor alongside a new one of the same size and comparing how far the shanks fold over to each side.

if you decide to get a new anchor a one-piece type might suit you better

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jerryat]

Hi!

We knew a couple of boats in the Med who had a very similar problem to what you describe. We were all discussing the matter one day, and a chap who claimed to have worked for the CQR manufacturers claimed that the difficulty in setting properly was almost certainly due to the rounded point.

I must admit to being sceptical, but he assured us that they'd had a batch that had caused problems and had investigated the cause. It seemed that one of the moulds/dies(?) that stamped out the ploughshare shape, had worn, allowing a more rounded end to form, similar to ecessive wear. The answer, he said, was 'simply' to sharpen it. Ok, the galvanising would be destroyed on our friend's anchors, but that had largely disappeared anyway.

Well, they both ground the point to match those of a new one, and Bingo, great holding again!

Whether or not his explanation was correct or not, I have no idea, but it definitely worked on these two anchors.

Just a thought, and well worth a try. IMHO I doubt very much that even fairly substantial wear to the hinge would have more than a marginal effect on digging in.

Hope it helps

Good sailing!





<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AndrewB]

It ALWAYS helps to keep the tip of a CQR fairly sharp. An essential piece of maintenance, to my mind, that makes all the difference.

Over the years the hinge does get looser, though they don't exactly start tight. In theory this affects the angle they take, and that does seem quite important, but I've never seen any hard evidence that is worsens their setting ability. Mine is now 12 years old, been used many hundred times, and is also getting very sloppy, but still sets nicely.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

Alain,

I have no problem with you promoting the Spade anchor on this site, but I really do think that you should declare an interest whenever you do. Many of us know your involvement with the Spade but it is not clear to everyone unless they look at you profile (and why should they?)

Maybe a footnote on your postings would be appropriate. Sorry 'n that, but sometimes your postings do start to look like subliminal advertising disguised as objective comment.

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Stemar]

FWIW, I've had problems with the tip of the anchor picking up shells and threading them on the tip. Result - zero holding. I can certainly see a blunt tip giving problems on a hard bottom.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Hi Joe..
Where did you see that I was promoting the Spade anchor !!!

I did quite a lot of studies about anchors, penetrating angles and weight distribution as I just try to explain from a technical point of view, why the CQR has some difficulties for penetrating hard sea bottoms or weed..

A foot note at each of my post, saying " Looks Guy, I'm the designer of the SPADE anchor.. will even be more promoting...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

A dig here, a criticism there, a bit of your theory here, a comment such as "Please note that the 'ultimate' anchor SPADE is now for 9 years on the market.." It's the overall impression of your many postings which led to my comments.
When I see you pointing out the faults of the Spade as rigourously as you point out your criticisms of the other anchors then I will believe that you are being objective. Until then I think that you really should point out that you have a vested interest.

I'm sure that you could find some appropriate words to make your personal involvement clear without it being an advert.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ean_p]

a good point well made me thinks (no pun intended) !!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

Alain,

Any comments on the loss of the yacht, reported in PBO, because their Spade anchor which had only been used a few times fell to bits?




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Guest]

If the CQR is observed ....

Try it yourself in shallow water ...... when you can see the anchor setting .....

The CQR is not designed to be like a Admiralty cast pattern or other - as it does not work by fluke or tip weight. Wtach the action and it is a PLOUGH ..... reason for the strange shape and as Hylas says (albeit with incorrect conclusion) different weight distribution. It is this design criteria that actually makes it work.

The problem as described by the original post is almost certainly tip and blade blunt edges. The hinge being worn and slacker should in fact assist the tip to drop even further out of line and dig in .... SORRY plough in using the shaped fluke to bury.

Heavy weed and hard bottoms are a pain to any anchor in fact and yes it is true that the CQR suffers more in some cases than others .... it is yet to be designed the all=purpose, all situation anchor ..... when it is - all will beat a path to the sellers door !!!!

Sharpen tip, ok lose the galvanising .... but small price tp pay for re-setting anchor.



<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ... and of course Yahoo groups :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/

 

[Joe_Cole]

A detailed rebuttal was posted by Alain <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=pbo&Number=515517&Search=true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=hylas&Match=Username&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=511105>here</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Yes.. see the answer of Joe_Cole below...


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

Thanks for that Joe. Now I understand. The Spade anchor is absolutely perfect after all!



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AndrewB]

Hylas, I also agree with Joe about this. Mostly we discuss things in these forums in a purely amateur capacity and our opinions are simply personal.

There are other people with a commercial interest in products or services that are discussed here and they always make that clear. This is not just a matter of courtesy to other readers. In theory you might in certain circumstances even be held accountable for advice or opinions you express here, if for example something you say about Spade anchors proved to be questionable, and you need to take greater care than we do in what you say.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

Naughty!.......and after I so carefully refrained from commenting!

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

Yes, you're quite right. I suppose it is a bit harsh to blame the anchor when it wasn't used properly.



<hr width=100% size=1>