Rocna- what to buy instead?

[charles_reed]

I have lived with more than a few CQRs and CQR copies over the years and found them all pretty good even the cheapo cast copies, but needing just a bit more care in setting. I have far less confidence in Danforths except as stern anchors and even then they can clog or jam with rubbish/weed etc. Then we switched to a Delta, simply because one came with the last boat. That Delta was a size smaller on a 41 footer than the (genuine) CQR we had on the earlier 33 footer, yet it set instantly and once in never dragged, despite some hard tests. So by rights a bigger Delta (ie same size as the recommended CQR, not the usual one size less) should be even better and one that is one size up on that even better still.

I have no doubt that the modern anchors have fast(er) set ability and high(er) holding power but all that is really required perhaps is 'adequate' plus a fair bit of a safety margin. It is the whole anchoring system too that is really on test is it not, not just the individual parts and that whole system starts with the seabed and ends at the foredeck? Perhaps the downfall of the really really high hold anchors is that they then make other parts of the system into the weak point, like bending of shanks or breaking of chains even. I have a definite love for preventing snatch loads with a stretchy nylon snubber line into which is wound an extra stretch mooring compensator component. I even have two snubbers, one with standard and one with storm (stiffer resistance) compensator. I don't like 'snatch', that kind at least. I recall the days of my then YC lift in by crane into shallow waters at big spring tides when some of the deeper draft boats sometimes needed launch assistance to get them away. The technique was simple, just jerk them a few feet at a time with the club workboat, snatch snatch and more snatch until the job was done and they were away. That snatch is just how anchors get broken out IMO, or even bent shanks...

I have to agree.

The CQR does require a little more care in setting and does have a horrible habit of turning on its back and waving its flukes in the air.

But if you know what you're doing it's an excellent anchor.

I suspect that the main benefit of the "modern" anchors is that they are idiot proof and the adverse comments about the CQR are more a reflection of the commentators competence than the anchor.

 

[G12]

"Rocna- what to buy instead?"

Whatever you do don't buy one of those genuine CQRs. The sooner people realise how completely useless they are and start giving them away, the better.

Well that's not really true is it. They may not be the best anchors in comparison to a modern one but they're ok if you accept their limitations and use accordingly. Same as any other type really.

 

[Robin]

I have to agree.

The CQR does require a little more care in setting and does have a horrible habit of turning on its back and waving its flukes in the air.

But if you know what you're doing it's an excellent anchor.

I suspect that the main benefit of the "modern" anchors is that they are idiot proof and the adverse comments about the CQR are more a reflection of the commentators competence than the anchor.

We had some friends we cruised in company with one year down to La Rochelle & back, we had a W33 then with a 45lb genuine CQR and 10mm chain and they had a westerly Seahawk 34 with an identical 45lb CQR anchor and same 10mm chain size. We anchored in many places, our anchor set without problems, theirs took several attempts and seemingly lots of shouting every time. On one occasion inside the Morbihan, I was so frustrated by their lack of success that I dived in and swam over to their boat and set the thing for them, fist time. They simply gave it no time to start to penetrate before putting too much load on it, instead of softly softly catchee bottom it was full astern Maud and we'll show the frogs how it is done, going backwards fast with a skippy anchor that is.

I have found the Delta much more idiot proof in that for us it was instant setting and maybe the new kids on the block really are that much easier still, which is good I suppose and it keeps a few more Chinese employed and the world's forums alight with inter designer battles.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I suspect that the main benefit of the "modern" anchors is that they are idiot proof and the adverse comments about the CQR are more a reflection of the commentators competence than the anchor.

So how are the idiots implied by your post able to tell whether the CQR has laid on its back or not? And how do the same idiots learn to get a cqr to dig into hared sand for example.

 

[Conachair]

I have to agree.

The CQR does require a little more care in setting and does have a horrible habit of turning on its back and waving its flukes in the air.

But if you know what you're doing it's an excellent anchor.

I suspect that the main benefit of the "modern" anchors is that they are idiot proof and the adverse comments about the CQR are more a reflection of the commentators competence than the anchor.

In one anchorage my rocna reset itself 300 times in a row without any assistance, what you are suggesting is that in tidal anchorages is that to be competent 4 times a day someone needs to be on hand to reset the anchor??

I shall happily remain less competent.

In my experience the main benifit on modern anchors is that they are better. Hold better, dig in faster and reset better. Just plain better.

 

[uxb]

And how do the same idiots learn to get a cqr to dig into hared sand for example.

Wots the cymbal for Hared Sand on the chart?

 

[sarabande]

?

 

[Robin]

So how are the idiots implied by your post able to tell whether the CQR has laid on its back or not? And how do the same idiots learn to get a cqr to dig into hared sand for example.

A small clue might be that on gently trying to reverse the anchor in, that their boat keeps going and going?

Before everywhere filled up with moorings and marinas, people learned how to anchor and to do so used the anchors that are now being called useless. The Hiscocks managed a world circuit or three using CQRs, but then they were crazy, as were many others back then.

In one anchorage my rocna reset itself 300 times in a row without any assistance, what you are suggesting is that in tidal anchorages is that to be competent 4 times a day someone needs to be on hand to reset the anchor??

I shall happily remain less competent.

In my experience the main benifit on modern anchors is that they are better. Hold better, dig in faster and reset better. Just plain better.

I have no problem with that, it is your choice.

However in all the years I used old style anchors like CQRs and a Delta, I never had to be on hand to reset an anchor that I set properly in the first instance. Most of the time when the tide or wind direction changes the anchor doesn't pull out and reset at all, in fact very often the boat will lay happily to the chain on the bottom and simply rotate about that with no load on the anchor at all. In any case anchoring in places with strong reversing currents is best avoided as it poses the risk of wind against tide where yes the boat can ride all over the place and possibly cause an anchor to break out. It makes more sense to use 'defensive' anchoring and to pick your spot out of the mainstream tides/currents and sheltered from the expected wind directions. I might tentatively suggest that if your anchor really did reset itself 300 times in one anchorage then that was not the best choice of anchorage, but I suspect in reality it didn't break out and reset anyway and the boat just swung round on the chain weight with an occasional tug maybe on the pick, but not enough to rotate it even.

I don't disagree that modern anchors are better, because design should be capable of improvement or we would all be driving Model T Fords. That doesn't mean that what worked so well in the past is instantly rendered useless, just because Craig Smith or somebody says it is, the clue is in 'what worked so well in the past'.

As a general comment I also find it odd that many folks are so wary of anchoring that they have all their electronic alarms set to tell when the boat moves a yard (sorry metre) or two. All this paranoia stems I think from modern day parking in marinas and cruising between them or visitor buoys etc, routines that mean anchoring is an occasional event not a routine as it used to be.

Another observation, since we are moving to live aboard in the USA I have been looking at routines over there. I was surprised to find that anchoring is much more common than here, at least on the east coast USA and out in the islands like the Bahamas, Exumas, Abacos. This is perhaps a) because 'transient' berths are expensive relative to annual contracts, averaging around $2/ft/night + electrics. b) because (contrary to expectation) in lots of places marinas are far apart c) simply because they like it. Our new boat returned in April from a 3 month cruise in the Bahamas, Exumas etc and was on the hook the whole of that time away, on a copy Bruce claw which is an anchor I'm not really fond of, even if it were an original. As part of our long searches in the USA for boats I can honestly say that not one was on sale with a modern anchor, Rocna, Manson, Spade or whatever, so it seems they managed quite well with the older ones. Sure the new stuff is in the chandlers and people are buying it (taking it back too in the case of Rocnas) but then people are also buying newer plotters and radars etc, even if the older stuff still worked, all part of human nature to have the latest gizmo going.

I've said earlier, I'm not immune to prejudice either, because I'm no fan of claw anchors, be they genuine Bruce or chinky chink cast copies. So we will be switching out the copy Bruce we inherited for something better, or that I trust more which is the real point. Rocna and Manson for us are a problem because of their roll bars as ours stows in, not on, a plank and whilst it could be modified that adds even more to the cost to change. A spade would work but then SWMBO would also have to work to pay for it. So top of the probability curve is another Delta but up two sizes from the minimum recommended (50 foot motor yacht now) to at least the 55lb and probably the 70lb one, this still comes in at an affordable £380 in septic money converted.

 

[BelleSerene]

Before everywhere filled up with moorings and marinas, people learned how to anchor and to do so used the anchors that are now being called useless.

Which they're not.

Just not as useful as a new-generation anchor that resets much sooner and more reliably than, say, a CQR.

Any sailor worth his salt is going to anchor successfully, because if the anchor (or substrate) isn't up to bedding in the first time he monitors a transit and tries again until it's fast. So for anchoring in a constant current, it's more a matter of convenience between an old-style anchor (say, a CQR) and a new-generation one (say, a Rocna (OK, non-Chinese) or a Spade.

That's not where the risk lies, though.

Overnight the tide is bound to turn. So to be satisfied with a CQR-type anchor you've either got to restrict yourself to anchoring out of the current so the boat will lie to the chain over an unturned anchor that's holding the wrong way (if you're content with this, just shackle your chain to a rock and save yourself the money), or you're content to get up once or twice in the night to re-set the hook.

Or else you could buy a new-gen, concave anchor.

The fact that sailors got by before new technology doesn't deny its value to us. It makes life easier and removes risks. So we choose a Rocna/Spade over a CQR to moor securely, 21st-century sails over canvas to sail faster and more controllably, and whilst my sextant still works perfectly well it doesn't see as much use as the chartplotter.

In my humble opinion of course.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

?

So, as you are posting on a Rocna thread, are you RocnaOne?

 

[photodog]

Ive got one of these... which came with the boat... looks like a cheap CQR sort of copy thing....

Never had a issue with dragging or setting.... but I always lay out loads of scope....

Even though I have had no issue myself... all this talk of hi-tech Sporn and Macna anchors leaves me nervous that I dont have some wonder anchor up front... and just what am I slinging over the side anyways???

Am I deluding myself and should I go out and purchase something expensive pointy and shiny???

 

[jordanbasset]

Ive got one of these... which came with the boat... looks like a cheap CQR sort of copy thing....

Never had a issue with dragging or setting.... but I always lay out loads of scope....

Even though I have had no issue myself... all this talk of hi-tech Sporn and Macna anchors leaves me nervous that I dont have some wonder anchor up front... and just what am I slinging over the side anyways???

Am I deluding myself and should I go out and purchase something expensive pointy and shiny???

I would go out and buy something that is very effective and excellent value

 

[Robin]

Which they're not.

Just not as useful as a new-generation anchor that resets much sooner and more reliably than, say, a CQR.

Any sailor worth his salt is going to anchor successfully, because if the anchor (or substrate) isn't up to bedding in the first time he monitors a transit and tries again until it's fast. So for anchoring in a constant current, it's more a matter of convenience between an old-style anchor (say, a CQR) and a new-generation one (say, a Rocna (OK, non-Chinese) or a Spade.

OK agree so far!

That's not where the risk lies, though.

Overnight the tide is bound to turn. So to be satisfied with a CQR-type anchor you've either got to restrict yourself to anchoring out of the current so the boat will lie to the chain over an unturned anchor that's holding the wrong way (if you're content with this, just shackle your chain to a rock and save yourself the money), or you're content to get up once or twice in the night to re-set the hook.

Or else you could buy a new-gen, concave anchor.

Tidal flow, even if strong really puts little in the way of load on the anchor on it's own. If the flow is against the wind then it is a wholly different matter because the boat will 'sail' around, pull from all sorts of directions and probably apply snatch loads. IMO snatch is what jerks out bedded anchors, rather than a little constant 'lean' from a flow of current. I have used CQR types for years in changing tide situations without problems, BUT always avoided if at all possible any risk of wind against tide. Wind across tide is OK, wind with tide is OK but of course that will change at some point and be wind against. If you anchor in the strong tides around my home base of Poole, it is possible to avoid the wind over tide situation with careful choice of spot (there are enough twists and turns to pick a wind across spot, or better places to get out of the strong flow). I wouldn't want to anchor with wind over tide even with a new style anchor, because it is not good for the hull to have the chain riding and chafing underneath, let alone the antics when all nearby are dancing around to the same tune!

The fact that sailors got by before new technology doesn't deny its value to us. It makes life easier and removes risks. So we choose a Rocna/Spade over a CQR to moor securely, 21st-century sails over canvas to sail faster and more controllably, and whilst my sextant still works perfectly well it doesn't see as much use as the chartplotter.

In my humble opinion of course.

Quite agree.

It still doesn't mean that if your boat comes with a suitably sized and quality (ie not a poor copy) older style anchor that you should immediately scrap it and spend your Xmas bonus on a new one before daring to anchor anywhere! Personally as I said in an earlier reply, I'm quite happy to buy a new Delta now to replace the copy Bruce claw we inherited with our new boat. Actually that is also being unkind to that copy Bruce because it has a proven record on our boat over 3 months of anchoring out every night in the Bahamas, Exumas and down to the Turks and Caicos. I just don't like claws, let alone copies, so my prejudices are coming out!

 

[Robin]

Ive got one of these... which came with the boat... looks like a cheap CQR sort of copy thing....

Never had a issue with dragging or setting.... but I always lay out loads of scope....

Even though I have had no issue myself... all this talk of hi-tech Sporn and Macna anchors leaves me nervous that I dont have some wonder anchor up front... and just what am I slinging over the side anyways???

Am I deluding myself and should I go out and purchase something expensive pointy and shiny???

We have used copy CQRs without problems on several boats in the past. My biggest concern was not the holding but that they were cast rather than forged and some had been known to break due to weak castings. We had one that came with a W33 which worked very well, but which I did replace with a genuine one solely for the strength of build reason.

If what you have works why rush to change, unless you are planning more extensive anchoring in more exposed places?

 

[Conachair]

Ive got one of these... which came with the boat... looks like a cheap CQR sort of copy thing....

Never had a issue with dragging or setting.... but I always lay out loads of scope....

Even though I have had no issue myself... all this talk of hi-tech Sporn and Macna anchors leaves me nervous that I dont have some wonder anchor up front... and just what am I slinging over the side anyways???

Am I deluding myself and should I go out and purchase something expensive pointy and shiny???

What never seems to get mentioned is how much of it is phscological. you can have all the numbers in the world but it's how you feel about it that's important. My cqr was fine to start with but one bad drag and suddenly I couldn't relax anymore, always wary that it would again. The rocna is streets ahead, always digs and stays that way so I have confidence in it.
So if you're happy why change?

Though if someone loaned you a new gen and you went anchoring for a month or 2 I doubt if you would want to give it back

 

[jdc]

equivalent wind force to tide

...Tidal flow, even if strong really puts little in the way of load on the anchor on it's own. If the flow is against the wind then...

I agree with this (and infact with all of Robin's opinion on this thread), but nonetheless this kind of statement is like catnip to me - it always calls for a graph!

This is for my boat, but it should be pretty much the same on all sailing monohulls with quite large displacement / traditional shapes.

It shows the force on the boat due to tide as an equivalent wind strength, so one can relate knots of tide to knots of wind. Thus a 3kt tide exerts roughly the same force on the anchor as a 10kt wind. Or, if there's already 13kts of wind (ie F4), 3kts of tide only takes the 'effective' wind speed up to 16kts.

 

[webcraft]

The Spade often get berated for it's price, ours paid for itself in the first year.

+1

The Spade is a more cleverly engineered beast than any of the other new anchors I have looked at - which justifies its price. Ours has never dragged. Set and sleep!

- W

 

[Robin]

We would be buying our replacement anchor in the USA and a 55lb Spade (min recommended) would cost $1180 inc taxes. The better 66lb option would be $1,430 inc tax. A 70lb Delta (one size up from recommended for boat) is $645 and a hefty 88lb one $722 both inc taxes. So in our size range the Spade is around double the cost of a Delta, or looked at another way I could use the 88lb Delta and still be $458 better off than buying the minimum recommended Spade.

Maybe the differences are less marked for smaller boats and smaller anchors, but at our size OUCH!

I like the Spade concept and I remember Allain of this parish who was originally involved with it before his earnings took him off RTW on his boat! I'm sure it is very good indeed but but then I think the Delta, especially one two sizes up, which we can handle no problems, would do the job nicely and leave us a few greenbacks for something else.

 

[Poignard]

Well that's not really true is it. They may not be the best anchors in comparison to a modern one but they're ok if you accept their limitations and use accordingly. Same as any other type really.

Of course it's not true. I was joking!

For the record, I have a 35lb CQR bower anchor and a 20lb CQR kedge and they are entirely satisfactory.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

This thread has me thinking, does the anchor on the new boat I am considering need to be replaced?

The charter company appear to have thrown all the rubbish onto this boat to sell it with a "full inventory".