billskip
Well-known member
As meaningless as your statement if you haven't anchored in a category 5 hurricane
Should I swap to a smaller / 3rd gen anchor?
- Thread starter RogerFoxTerrier
- Start date
andsarkit
Well-known member
noelex
Well-known member
When you anchor full time, it is not difficult to compare your anchor’s security with that of your neighbours.
Boats with small anchors (relative to boat size) do not do as well in difficult substrates or strong conditions.
Many with poor quality ground tackle have experienced these problems before. They don’t anchor overnight in difficult substrates and they escape to a marina or seek a mooring ball in stronger conditions. This avoids a problem, but they miss out on some great locations. Unfortunately, there are often a few stragglers that have not yet learnt the limitations of their ground tackle, but these at least provide a useful comparison.
IanCC
Active member
Lots of very competent people, not short of a bob, choose and use a cqr.
billskip
Well-known member
That one at 230 grams looks ideal..
I'm sure I'll feel comfortable and secure while fishing on the Severn...
lustyd
Well-known member
Nobody said lighter was better
billskip
Well-known member
Is it?... or isn't it?
lustyd
Well-known member
You’re being obtuse. “Heavier isn’t better” is not the same as “lighter is better”.
If the boat isn’t able to set a bigger heavier anchor then the anchor is no better than a heavy rock and will slide when conditions get worse. Some of the very good research that’s been done shows this, as well as how slimmer shanks and smaller chain enable digging in deeper. No idea where Neeves is today but usually he does a great post on this stuff.
billskip
Well-known member
If the boat is able to drag (you say slide) the anchor then surly it's able to set it....
I'm sure all the technical and scientific stuff serves a purpose, but nature has outfoxed this before....I've seen too many yachts on the beach to trust any anchor in all weather conditions.
As said before I go sailing to enjoy the sailing, not to try and go as fast as I can and believe that a couple of extra kilos is going to allow me to cover distance one second an hour slower. Nobody on a sailing boat has to lift an anchor from the ground by hand ...
lustyd
Well-known member
Nobody here is suggesting anyone should, it’s like you’re reading a different thread.
Considerably more boats fail to set or drag with CQR than newer gen anchors. I get that some sailors get nostalgic but the newer gen are objectively and measurably better, it’s ridiculous to argue against that. I agree that the investment might be too high for some, but that’s not what OP wants to know, they want to know if modern anchors are better at anchoring.
Nobody is trying to save weight. The extra weight in old gen anchors doesn’t contribute whatsoever to holding power. The lower weight is a byproduct of better design and testing, not a design goal.
KevinV
Well-known member
I specifically mentioned saving weight on a small boat like the OP's and mine - that saving coming from a N(er)G design, with no loss of holding power.
noelex
Well-known member
Have a look at my photos showing how a large anchor is correctly set (it is often the best set anchor in the anchorage), but If it was not set because not enough force can be applied by the motor why would it not set when conditions "get worse"? It does not make sense.
Your contention is not reflected in the practical performance results. Boats such as mine with large anchors report superior performance in a wide range of conditions. Hence the phrase expressed earlier by another member that "in a gale I never wished for a smaller anchor".
I can understand the philosophy that a smaller anchor may be adequate for the needs of some, or the practical constraint that only a small anchor can be managed comfortably by some vessels, but to try and justify this limitation by claiming the performance of a smaller anchor is better has no basis in anchor trials (all these show holding power increases with increasing anchor size) or the practical reports of sailors who actually use larger anchors.
Given the reported difficulty in handling the larger anchor I think the OP would be better choosing a smaller anchor, but he would be foolish to believe a 6kg Rocna will have the same performance as a 10 kg Rocna.
Last edited:
zoidberg
Well-known member
The above is more than sufficiently logical and reasonable.... but that's not the currency mostly used in here!
boomerangben
Well-known member
There is weight and weight. I agree that a 12kg NG will have higher holding than a 12KG old gen. But I am grateful of the weight saved by going for an aluminium anchor and on small boats, any weight increment is more significant than on larger ones. I would suggest weight should be a consideration for the OP, not just for sailing trim and recovering, but for towing as well. I am surprised that more anchors aren't offered in aluminium to be honest. I get that for serious conditions, they might not be as robust as their steel counterparts, but since as we see on here, there is such a diverse application of anchor use (as demonstrated by the diverse opinions!!), I would imagine there is a significant market for them.
I like the idea of a carbon fibre anchor, the question is whether it would hold a sharp enough edge to provide sufficient tip/blade edge pressure to penetrate the seabed. I would be less enthusiastic about the cost, mind!!!
Neeves
Well-known member
Its refreshing to read someone thinking laterally.
The use of aluminium is restricted to Fortress, a Lewmar clone (which was introduced and never mentioned again), Spade and Anchor Rights aluminium Excel. I'm sure that Lewmar's offering works as well as a Fortress and we used aluminium, both Spade and Excel as a primary and I think others also use Spades aluminium version. Blind fold I could not tell the difference between a Steel Spade or Excel and their identically sized aluminium versions.
There is another option and that is Viking's Viking and Odin anchors where they use thinner high tensile steel to save weight - a move that seems obvious but only they use the concept. Now that Odin has been released - its the best of the two - same hold as the same weight Viking but no roll bar and no ballast, so similar hold to a steel anchor of about twice Odin's weight and a hold similar to a same weight aluminium anchor.
In terms of the carbon anchor - you answer it yourself - it would not have the abrasion resistance.
The reality is the savings in weight if you swap to an aluminium or HT steel anchor are not great, you replace a 15kg anchor with an 8kg version - if you want to save weight you need to down size your chain, search the Sharardising thread. You can buy, off the shelf, gal G80 chain but the chain comes with an unusual link size. This is being addressed, a gypsy that will accept standard, say, 8mm chain and the unusual gal G80 8mm chain but I have not heard of the results yet.
There are no technical downsides to reducing chain size, you save weight, you improve the weight distribution in the bow and you have more room in your bow locker (for light items like fenders). Smaller chain can be as strong as the 'recommended' chain - in fact it might be stronger. If you plan ahead - your windlass will be cheaper, the cable run smaller, smaller cables, and power (battery) requirements will also be smaller. You do need to use snubber(s) to replace catenarary - but that is neither expensive nor onerous. Its a win win.
Jonathan
Last edited:
noelex
Well-known member
Aluminium and steel anchors cannot be compared on a weight for weight basis. I think this is obvious.
We can only compare the performance of anchors of the same design and construction material. A larger anchor of the same design and construction material will have a higher performance than a smaller equivalent. This is a well established fact from numerous anchor tests.
A 10kg steel Rocna will perform better than a 6kg steel Rocna. It is disingenuous and misleading to suggest otherwise.
We can only compare the performance of anchors of the same design and construction material. A larger anchor of the same design and construction material will have a higher performance than a smaller equivalent. This is a well established fact from numerous anchor tests.
A 10kg steel Rocna will perform better than a 6kg steel Rocna. It is disingenuous and misleading to suggest otherwise.
Last edited:
Neeves
Well-known member
Let me clarify and reiterate:
I never said a 10kg steel anchor of the same design as a 6kg anchor would not have a higher hold.
If you compare 2 anchors of the same, identical, design made from the same materials then a heavier, ie larger physical size, anchor will have a higher hold - whether you need that hold is a completely different issue. So a 15kg Excel or Rocna will have a higher hold than the 10kg version.
I have used an aluminium Spade and a steel Spade of the same physical size, the aluminium Spade weighs 8kg and the steel Spade weighs 15kg. I have used a steel Excel and an aluminium Excel of the same physical size, the aluminium anchor weighs 8kg and the steel Excel weighs 15kg. I have used all 4 anchors over a 10 year period, or longer. I have used a 8kg Viking over about 5 years and it has approximately the same area fluke area as both the Excel and Spade, the Viking fluke is slightly smaller (but the thinner fluke should penetrate more easily than piece of chunky steel. I have used an 8Kg Odin a few times and have tested it for hold. All the anchors have a hold of about 2,000kg in sand - which would be expected - they have similar fluke sizes.
This is a stainless Spade fluke of 15kg overlaid on a Viking 10, 8kg, fluke.
and a 8kg Viking, on the right, vs a 8kg Odin.
Blindfold I cannot tell the difference in performance, in terms of holding and setting ability between the aluminium Spade, steel Spade, aluminium Excel, steel Excel, HT steel Viking and HT steel Odin. Subjectively I would favour Odin, it has a thin fluke allowing easier penetration in difficult seabeds, it has no roll bar to catch and store weed and mud - it has the characteristics of Viking, highly rated in the Panope video spread sheets - but without the need for the ungainly roll bar.
A major difference is price - and pricing in Australia will be different to Europe - The Tyranny of Distance.
I have tested the Spades, Excels and Viking with both 6mm and 8mm chain, there is no measurable difference. Logically setting should be better and the hold should be higher with the smaller chain - but there are so many variables, even if only in the seabed, that you would need a very large number of tests (pulls) to show conclusive evidence. With a hold of 2,000kg - its does not matter if the 6mm chain offers a 10% advantage - if the anchor is sized correctly you will never need the 2,000kg hold anyway (any tension in the rode beyond 600kg - and you will be moving to a different location - basically there is a 3: 1 safety factor in anchor size/vs vessel size - a not uncommon marine safety factor). We could only use the Viking deployed by hand (the roll bar fouled the cross beam) - which discourages intensive use and I have only had the Odin a very few months and tested it only from a 30' yacht, a 40' MoBo and beach testing.
Thank you Noelex for raising an apparent ambiguity - I apologise. However your post offered me opportunity, which I otherwise would not have bothered with, to further explain the advantage of using aluminium or HT steels and further emphasising that weight is not the only factor in anchor production. Keep up the good work.
Jonathan
Last edited:
billskip
Well-known member
You will not if you can not.....That is why my ground tackle gave me confidence that I could be more secure to the best of my ability..in case the circumstances arose when thats all I had to secure with......it seems to me that all this discussion leaves out the extreme conditions which one might find themselves in.....
Some boats have anchors that have never got wet....and some ended up on the rocks/ beach....
The difference is, between all yout science and facts the end result is the unpredictable weather.
NormanS
Well-known member
Jonathan,
In your long statement, you state, "......any tension in the rode beyond 600kg - you will be moving to a different location..."
Perhaps you would like to expand on the practicalities of this theory.
I know that in my own circumstances that if I'm experiencing these sort of conditions while anchored in a Scottish Sea Loch, the last thing on my mind is going out to sea, to see if it's any better in another Sea Loch several miles away. That's why I use substantial anchors and chain.
In your long statement, you state, "......any tension in the rode beyond 600kg - you will be moving to a different location..."
Perhaps you would like to expand on the practicalities of this theory.
I know that in my own circumstances that if I'm experiencing these sort of conditions while anchored in a Scottish Sea Loch, the last thing on my mind is going out to sea, to see if it's any better in another Sea Loch several miles away. That's why I use substantial anchors and chain.
boomerangben
Well-known member
I’m sure Neeves will be along to explain it more detail, but I think if you experienced a rode load of 600kg (which will be a dynamic one), you would be looking to do something different, including a change of underwear. There are other options to moving.