Oh goody, goody another anchor debate

Re: another anchor debate

[ QUOTE ]
Yawing shifts the angle of pull laterally by up to 60 degrees on some vessels. CQR hinges deal quite well with that problem. Rigid shank anchors shift their angle more, and have a bigger risk of tripping and needing to re-set.

[/ QUOTE ]This is incorrect. Sufficient force to pull a rigid anchor around or trip it out will also pull the CQR straight (do you really think it sustains large forces with its shank on an angle?). Weak forces which do not pull the CQR's fluke straight will not trouble a rigid anchor.

Of course if an articulated shank was advantageous, every anchor since the CQR would have one, but in fact all have avoided it.

[ QUOTE ]
Pitching is most commonly met in the Med, mooring bows or stern to, or with a line ashore, when the wind suddenly blows from an embarrasing direction. But the lateral angle of pull stays constant. Rigid shank anchors come into their own in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]Pitching does not really affect the anchor in the sense of changing the angle of pull, unless you are using extremely short scope. Shanks on anchors obviously require more strength in the vertical dimension than in the lateral dimension, but this does not affect the idea of articulation.
 
Re: another anchor debate

The problem of setting didn't seem to be looked at sufficiently in the article. I have found that my Delta won't set if I drop it then immediately motor back but if I let the wind and tide stretch out the cable while I have a cup of tea I can then give it full throttle and it stays put.

OTOH they said the Fortress set instantly whereas I have seen mine 'fly' across a sandy bottom like a manta ray as I hauled in the warp hand-over-hand.

Another factor skimmed over was the 'ploughing' - anchors like CQR and Delta travel through the bottom under heavy load (without actually breaking out) while Spade, Rocna etc stay put. Both approaches seem to work but I guess there's a risk of ploughing into a bit of bad ground and then breaking out.
 
Hylas,

Perhaps you should read my post again, this time properly! We have spent about 6 1/2 out of the last ten years in the Med, and the remainder mostly in France, Portugal and the Caribbean.

I do assure you that the CQR has performed exactly as I stated i.e. superbly!!

Cheers Jerry
 
[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> Hylas,
I do assure you that the CQR has performed exactly as I stated i.e. superbly!!
Cheers Jerry </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jerry,

My own experience is completely different from yours, and having had a lot of problems with my CQR decided me to look at something different, that's why I developped the Spade, which is exactly the opposite of the CQR..

Then I also did a large quantity of tests, both with sailing magazines and to understand how anchors works.. I can then explain you (on a specific thread) all the reasons why a CQR will not work properly.. On this specific thread about the CQR, I would also attach all negative comments about the CQR, I have collected on various nautical forums..

Last point; one will never change a wining team!.. why do you think that Lewmar has design the Delta??

Last last, after 45 years of sailing with 13 at full time, I have perhaps not enough experience to use correctly an anchor.. but they are also lot and lot of sailors who doesn't like the CQR for it's poor setting ability and its consistant dragging..
 
Re: another anchor debate

Craig,

The original post was about a Danforth - what I call a flat anchor, similar to a Brittany, and not like a Spade or your Rocna. I'd gained experience of slow setting in CQR, and knew about quick setting in flat anchors, and read up lots of 'tests' on varying anchor types.

I had never found any tests which looked at well set anchors, then pulled them sideways (parallel to the ground) at up to 60 degrees to see what happened, so a couple of us did it to see. We didn't measure forces involved, but did snap one 16mm nylon rope when heaving a flat anchor.

At up to 30 degrees the CQR shank shifted. As force was increased, the plough slowly moved towards the pull and re-oriented without lifting, but did move a distance through the sand. At more than 30 degrees it lifted a little and ploughed back, moving a bigger distance through the sand.

Flat anchors re-oriented underground if the pull angle was less than 30 as the force came on, but at around 45 (rather variable) flipped out and re-set after travelling 2 or 3 metres.

We were working with fine, hard sand, and I'm aware that mud, shingle and other softer surfaces may well give other answers

My conclusion was that flat anchors were fine for Mediterranean moors, but risky if there was a big change in pull angle. And CQR would always work slowly through the bottom in a yawing situation on hard sand.

So my practice in open anchoring (other than for lunch stops) is always to lay two anchors well apart to minimise yawing.

I'd be very interested if you could lead me to tests involving pulling at angles - I'm only an amateur at this game!
 
Re: another anchor debate

[ QUOTE ]

1° I had never found any tests which looked at well set anchors, then pulled them sideways (parallel to the ground) at up to 60 degrees to see what happened, so a couple of us did it to see. We didn't measure forces involved, but did snap one 16mm nylon rope when heaving a flat anchor.

2° My conclusion was that flat anchors were fine for Mediterranean moors, but risky if there was a big change in pull angle.

I'd be very interested if you could lead me to tests involving pulling at angles -

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of test has been done by the independant Saling magazine "Practical Sailor" see the main results below..
resettest.jpg


about ALL flat anchors.. under high loads, they all have the tendency to corkskrew and to break free.. most of the time without any chance to set again.. (see the attached curve of the holding of a Fortress anchor)

DANFORTH.jpg
 
Re: another anchor debate

I think we can all agree that there are a lot of variables associated with anchor performance. I have seen many posts and letters that identify one variable or another that is not controlled or accounted for in any particular test and then offers up some opinion (often labeled "fact") on the implications.

I'd like to see a more rigorous set of tests. In my opinion, the test protocol should include a range of sizes (5 perhaps) of each anchor design. Every size of each anchor should be tested in a range of bottom materials: hard sand, soft sand, sticky mud, soupy mud, shingle, and grass/weed. There should be at least 30 and preferably 50 tests of each size of each anchor.

Measured physical characteristics of each anchor (blade area, projected area, weight, lever arm between shackle and anchor center of effort) would allow analysis to reach meaningful findings about the set and holding of each design.

A follow-on protocol with a similarly statistically significant number of tests could look at holding in the face of changes in pull (as from wind shifts and tidal currents).

It seems to me that the duration and cost of running these kind of tests requires government support. Perhaps an organization like the IMO with support from one or more Navies and reported by independent bodies like RINA (Royal Institute of Naval Architects) and SNAME (the U.S. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) could pull it off.
 
Re: another anchor debate

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be very interested if you could lead me to tests involving pulling at angles - I'm only an amateur at this game!

[/ QUOTE ]There are a few older independent tests that looked at veering the pull, but none recent with the more modern anchors.

For what it's worth we have demonstration stuff for the Rocna, such as this:

rocna_anchors_veer_test.pdf
(use arrow keys to move through the pictures, or run it full-screen as a slideshow)

That's a 6Kg which we've intentionally dragged in one direction, then dragged it at right-angles to demonstrate that it doesn't roll out. Lighter anchors such as this usually have more problems in this respect, whereas bigger heavier anchors are less susceptible to sudden jerks and tripping out.
The bottom is soft grainy mud with shell and pebble over hard clay.
 
Re: another anchor debate

The RNLI did a very comprehensive series of anchor trials about 14 years ago using all the commercially made anchors available then, including their heavy Fishermen, and the overwhelming consensus then was that the Delta was far superior as an all round anchor (even in kelp, which was the Fisherman's favourite) to everything else then available.

I was working in the Design Office at the RNLI at the time, and helped the Research Manager to analyse the data, and it was quite obvious how the Delta stood out then.

I do acknowledge though that various other new anchors have been introduced since these trials were carried out. And I am sure that if the same trials were carried out today using all the new anchors as well as the old favourites, it is possible that the results might now be rather different.

Although I shall always be a strong advocate of CQR and Delta anchors.
 
Having now read the article in full I find a serious error. They claimed they were testing the anchor size recommended by the manufacturer for a 35-40 ft boat. Here is an extract from the Fortress website:

FORTRESS SELECTION GUIDE
Model FX-16 FX-23 FX-37
Boat Length ft 33'-38' 39'-45' 46'-51'

The fortress tested was the FX37, i.e. at least one size above the manufacturers recommendations. No wonder it performed well!

Now I start to wonder who made the decision to test with that particular anchor. If one of the manufacturers had supplied a 25kg steel anchor that would have stuck out like a sore thumb but being aluminium it's not so obvious. Comparison photos would have shown it up, I've got an FX37 and it's HUGE.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Now I start to wonder who made the decision to test with that particular anchor. If one of the manufacturers had supplied a 25kg steel anchor that would have stuck out like a sore thumb but being aluminium it's not so obvious. Comparison photos would have shown it up, I've got an FX37 and it's HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. The FX37 weighs 10Kg. If the same anchor (same size) was in steel, it would weigh 28Kg, and as you can see the other steel anchors tested weighed around 15Kg - not exactly a fair comparison.

This is one of the reasons we made our own graph of the testing, so as to measure holding power results against each anchor's size. There is even some considerable variation in size between the steel types.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... why do you think that Lewmar has design the Delta?? ...

[/ QUOTE ] Guess .. cheaper to produce than the CQR?

[/ QUOTE ]Every copy of the CQR is cheaper to produce - they didn't produce just another copy, they did something superior. In fact most plough knock-offs are cheaper than a Delta. Simpson Lawrence (not Lewmar) designed a better anchor, and threw quite a bit of $ at it. And it was, at the time, the best general purpose pick available. It was/is certainly better than a CQR in every respect.
 
CQRs

The comments about CQRs only working in soft mud are correct. And the copies are worse. I bought an Etap 32i with an Etap provided 30lb Plastimo copy CQR. It was an illigitimate thing appearing to be the shaft of a 35 lb model with the head of the 25lb model and no lead in the tip.

The hinge was so heavy that in Med. sand you could guaranttee that it would lie on its side looking like a dog in front of a fire - and about as useful.

I sold it to a boat jumble dealer for £50. It was my birthday!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

R
Brokers.
Replies
6
Views
528
Irish Rover
Irish Rover

Share this page

Top