latest anchor test
- Thread starter pcatterall
- Start date
Robin
Well-Known Member
The second part of anchor design concerns not just the efficiency but the ability to stow it in the bow roller. The CQR is good if you have a double bow roller as the hinged bit allows it to be tied to one side so the second roller can be used without anything chafing on the anchor. With a Delta, on some boats the point can catch the hull when stowed on the bow roller, I added a bow fender on our last boat to keep our Delta farther away. None of the modern stuff with roll bars will stow in an enclosed roller on a plank, which is what we now have.
We have a Bruce 66lb that came with the boat and which stows nicely in the bow plank. I'm pretty sure a Delta 55lb would also be OK but if we won the lottery and bought a Spade or whatever we would have to add a second different style of roller, feasible but adds even more to the cost. Last owners swapped a S/S CQR type for the Bruce and they rate it, but personally I prefer neither but what to do is yet to be decided. Spades and even Deltas are expensive in the USA where our boat is.
We have a Bruce 66lb that came with the boat and which stows nicely in the bow plank. I'm pretty sure a Delta 55lb would also be OK but if we won the lottery and bought a Spade or whatever we would have to add a second different style of roller, feasible but adds even more to the cost. Last owners swapped a S/S CQR type for the Bruce and they rate it, but personally I prefer neither but what to do is yet to be decided. Spades and even Deltas are expensive in the USA where our boat is.
bluedragon
Well-Known Member
I don't read anchor tests, I don't need to, we have a Spade
Ah, but what about the suitcase full of money theory? Your attempts to divert us from the real story here by talking about anchors is reprehensible, Snooks. Clearly a tip-off to the ex-NoW hacks and a Parliamentary enquiry are now my only course of action
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
This is true, but do you buy a boat to fit an anchor or have an anchor of your choice and design methods of making them fit?
If you sleep on your anchor regularly, you have to have confidence in the system you employ, whichever anchor you choose. With any anchor system used overnight it would be best to use alarms too.
snooks
Well-Known Member
We stow the anchor in the anchor locker, best place for it.
Robin
Well-Known Member
Good idea, perhaps you would lift ours (66lbs) through the pulpit and put it in a locker for us?
Or more to the point put it back on the bow when needed in a hurry!
Robin
Well-Known Member
The previous owners of our boat slept whilst at anchor in the Bahamas for 3 months, so they had confidence in the Bruce. It is just that I've never been a Bruce fan hence am thinking I might change it.
As for using anchor alarms, if I was worried enough to need such a thing I would never anchor. As you say you have to have confidence in your anchoring system, something I have always had on previous boats and I might have this time too after a few trials with the Bruce versus two 250hp diesels! If I have confidence, no alarm needed, if I don't have it then new anchor needed!
snooks
Well-Known Member
Good idea, perhaps you would lift ours (66lbs) through the pulpit and put it in a locker for us?
Would love to, but my back is knackered after I was hit by a powerboat. Now I have to be very careful lifting our 15kg Spade
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
Hi Robin, agreed ... we all need to make our own assesments and judgemnts. Many yachts now seem to have plotters of various types and sizes and I believe they nearly all have an anchor alarm facility. Depending of course on the electrical demands of any boat, this is an option.
S.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
I don't have any evidence to support this theory, but reading hundreds of anchor threads on many forums suggests that heavier CQRs and Bruces perform far better than the lighter ones, under, say, 35 lb. Many of the owners who swear by theirs, quoting months of anchoring in serious winds, turn out to have bigger boats with heavier anchors, and often with oversized chain.
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
Would love to, but my back is knackered after I was hit by a powerboat. Now I have to be very careful lifting our 15kg Spade
Perhaps then you should trade in for a 15kg Rocna (made of the correct metals of course)which because of its hoop is much easier to manhandle although possibly more difficult to fit on Pixies roller??
The 15kg Rocna also bettered the 15kg Spade in Professor Knoxs Ultimate Holding Capacity assessment.
Last edited:
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
Yes, and of course the Ultimate Holding capacity is even more important to establish. The conditions which bring this UHC about, most of us will not experience often, if at all.
Poignard
Well-Known Member
This agrees with what Eric Hiscock wrote in 'Cruising Under Sail'
"But no matter how small a yacht may be, I do not consider it is wise to use any type of patent anchor weighing less than 30lb., for although it may well have ample holding power once it had dug in, it may not be heavy enough to force its way through a layer of weed to reach the holding ground, and if it does not bite in quickly, its fluke may become so foul with weed as it slides along that it will not bite in at all. As a CQR of 30lb. is not made, I would use the 35-lb. rather than the 25-lb. model."
Tranona
Well-Known Member
My take on anchoring is that it depends on two things. Firstly the type of seabed and secondly, but related, whether you are measuring ease and speed of setting or ultimate holding power.
For the last 30 years I have used a 25lb CQR on my boat based in Poole. It has never failed to set - except in the eel grass in Studland!. In fact the biggest problem usually is getting it to break out of the Poole or Solent mud.
Very different story with the boat in the Ionian. The original CQR was ok sort of in straight pulls when mooring at a quay, but did not always set and usually hopeless free anchoring - either because of weed on the bed, hard bottom or loose sand over rock. Replacement Delta significant improvement in all situations. Set quicker but arguably similar holding. Always had success with the kedge Brittany style where the pull was straight.
The other factor which one has to take into account, particularly if anchoring in tidal waters or with strong shifting winds is the ability to reset. I think this is a function of how well the anchor is dug in and its shape. The roll bar type seem to perform well here, although I remember being storm bound for three days in Newtown creek turning with the tide and being either head or stern into force 6s and 7s. CQR was well bedded in and never moved.
So the tests cannot hope to cover all anchoring situations, but understanding the characteristics of each type in relation to your potential usage helps in the decision.
For the last 30 years I have used a 25lb CQR on my boat based in Poole. It has never failed to set - except in the eel grass in Studland!. In fact the biggest problem usually is getting it to break out of the Poole or Solent mud.
Very different story with the boat in the Ionian. The original CQR was ok sort of in straight pulls when mooring at a quay, but did not always set and usually hopeless free anchoring - either because of weed on the bed, hard bottom or loose sand over rock. Replacement Delta significant improvement in all situations. Set quicker but arguably similar holding. Always had success with the kedge Brittany style where the pull was straight.
The other factor which one has to take into account, particularly if anchoring in tidal waters or with strong shifting winds is the ability to reset. I think this is a function of how well the anchor is dug in and its shape. The roll bar type seem to perform well here, although I remember being storm bound for three days in Newtown creek turning with the tide and being either head or stern into force 6s and 7s. CQR was well bedded in and never moved.
So the tests cannot hope to cover all anchoring situations, but understanding the characteristics of each type in relation to your potential usage helps in the decision.
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
And if Eric Hiscock was around to try out the new generation of anchors, what conclusions might he have come to?
I wonder if he would have stuck to his original equipment just because it was there, or if he would have made his own assessments along with listening to others.
snooks
Well-Known Member
Perhaps then you should trade in for a 15kg Rocna (made of the correct metals of course)which because of its hoop is much easier to manhandle although possibly more difficult to fit on Pixies roller??
The 15kg Rocna also bettered the 15kg Spade in Professor Knoxs Ultimate Holding Capacity assessment.
I can handle the Spade by holding onto the shank, I know where the balance point is which makes a big difference, no need for a hoop. One hand on the anchor, the other taking the weight off my back using the pulpit/forestay.
The hoop would get in the way and make it harder to stow in the anchor locker
I've got no reason change, I'm more than happy with my Spade
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
We are shown a diagram of 3 restraining anchors that were used to hold the test rig against the anchors tested, only one was photographed set up.
Last edited:
bluedragon
Well-Known Member
Well as everyone else is repeating everything that has been said before a zillion times, why not me as well!
The reason I groan at these ultimate holding power anchor tests is that for most of us that's not the issue. I can see why blue water sailors and liveaboards might put more emphasis on this, but for us coastal sailors in sheltered waters it's less important than how well and reliably the anchor sets in the first place.
We've all held the chain whilst backing down / digging-in to assess what's happening on the bottom, and by the time the damn thing has finally got a grip, we're now a few boat lengths from another boat in a crowded anchorage and have to up anchor and do the whole thing all over again! That's why I got rid of our CQR.
I would be far more convinced by video shots showing the ease or otherwise of our anchor choices actually digging into various seabeds. That's pretty rare footage in my experience (unless somebody tells me otherwise)...and THAT'S what PBO/YM should be doing IMO, not more load cell tests which I assume is what's being done here.
The reason I groan at these ultimate holding power anchor tests is that for most of us that's not the issue. I can see why blue water sailors and liveaboards might put more emphasis on this, but for us coastal sailors in sheltered waters it's less important than how well and reliably the anchor sets in the first place.
We've all held the chain whilst backing down / digging-in to assess what's happening on the bottom, and by the time the damn thing has finally got a grip, we're now a few boat lengths from another boat in a crowded anchorage and have to up anchor and do the whole thing all over again! That's why I got rid of our CQR.
I would be far more convinced by video shots showing the ease or otherwise of our anchor choices actually digging into various seabeds. That's pretty rare footage in my experience (unless somebody tells me otherwise)...and THAT'S what PBO/YM should be doing IMO, not more load cell tests which I assume is what's being done here.
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
I agree that this would be good. A pity more time and money isn't available to those testing to have done so. However, I doubt if the viz on the bottom around many of our anchorages would have let you see much.
snooks
Well-Known Member
Visibility is one problem, the other is that the sea bed can vary from site to site, so one anchor might find a soft patch and another might find a hard patch. Anchor 1 gets a good result anchor 2 doesn't, and it would be the luck of the draw which anchors set where and if anchor 2 had the site anchor 1 had the results would have been different.
We like to remove the "luck" and human element as much as possible when testing anything. But unfortunately with anchors there is no one way to test them, the same way there is with rope for example.