Should I swap to a smaller / 3rd gen anchor?

[Refueler]

Years ago I proved this statement to be incorrect. I was able to drag my 65 metres of 8nmm chain along a dirt boatyard. I guess I might pull 50 kg, a tiny figure compared with what would be generated in a good blow.

As I said in my post #114 ..... yachts and ships anchoring are two different worlds .... yachts rely on anchor setting and the rode to maintain the pull angle.

BUT - various other factors do play in this ... that photo of my boat at Priory Bay - indicates that the boat swung round via an arc ... which means the chain would be in a curve and not being pulled in a straight line ... that increases the amount of pull needed. No doubt my boat touched bottom before chain was brought into a near straight line ...

I have a small 4kg anchor with Ankorlina tape reel ... it used to have a 3 or 4m short length of chain - which later was removed for ease of handling on the river for fishing. The difference when that chain was removed was immediately obvious ... as I fish in same locations repeatedly.

Here on deck next to my Holdfast Plough ...

With the chain - even my 4 ton boat (deck its on in photo) could use it as a 'lunch hook' or even short stay stern kedge. But without the short length of chain - its now used for smaller boats ..

For that boat I now use my old Fishermans ... yep - I still have one !! for stern kedge but not for bow anchoring - the plough does that ..

I am actually amazed at the holding that Fisherman has ... departing and lifting it shows how well its set !

My 38ft has a Bruce with short chain and Ankorlina tape reel in the transom locker ... obviously set up by previous owners for Baltic Moor (stern kedge use) .... I HATE IT ..... and I look at it sometimes and imagine how to sort it and make it more usable ! The reel has been bolted to the inner locker bulkhead instead of as most do - to the pushpit rail.
If I move it - then I have that ridiculous large Bruce to sort ..... UGH !!

 

[vyv_cox]

As I said in my post #114 ..... yachts and ships anchoring are two different worlds .... yachts rely on anchor setting and the rode to maintain the pull angle.

BUT - various other factors do play in this ... that photo of my boat at Priory Bay - indicates that the boat swung round via an arc ... which means the chain would be in a curve and not being pulled in a straight line ... that increases the amount of pull needed. No doubt my boat touched bottom before chain was brought into a near straight line ...

I have a small 4kg anchor with Ankorlina tape reel ... it used to have a 3 or 4m short length of chain - which later was removed for ease of handling on the river for fishing. The difference when that chain was removed was immediately obvious ... as I fish in same locations repeatedly.

Here on deck next to my Holdfast Plough ...

With the chain - even my 4 ton boat (deck its on in photo) could use it as a 'lunch hook' or even short stay stern kedge. But without the short length of chain - its now used for smaller boats ..

For that boat I now use my old Fishermans ... yep - I still have one !! for stern kedge but not for bow anchoring - the plough does that ..

I am actually amazed at the holding that Fisherman has ... departing and lifting it shows how well its set !

My 38ft has a Bruce with short chain and Ankorlina tape reel in the transom locker ... obviously set up by previous owners for Baltic Moor (stern kedge use) .... I HATE IT ..... and I look at it sometimes and imagine how to sort it and make it more usable ! The reel has been bolted to the inner locker bulkhead instead of as most do - to the pushpit rail.
If I move it - then I have that ridiculous large Bruce to sort ..... UGH !!

I actually found it far easier to pull the chain around in an arc than in a straight line.

 

[Refueler]

I actually found it far easier to pull the chain around in an arc than in a straight line.

Likely if your pull is moving the end round instead of pulling the whole arc across the bed.

Its a bit like moving that garden hose round the flower beds ... if you are pulling the end round - its easy as you are only moving a short section progressively ... but if you try to move the majority of the arc in one go - it bogs down and can be harder than pulling the straight hose ..

 

[Laminar Flow]

I have been using CQRs for some forty years. Once set, they are fine and will hold well enough and I have tested that to 50kts of wind (75 lbs on 30t/65' Loa. The problem is to get them to stick in the first placed and I have quite often needed five attempts to get them to grab or gave up to find another place. To be sure, the heavier models are easier to get dug in.

We, on our present boat, 8.5t/32' with a wind resistance coefficient of a brick, have now switched from a 35 lbs CQR to a 16kg Kobra II. I am continuously impressed by the Kobra's aggressive setting response and holding. Frankly, there is no comparison. The Kobra has a ballasted tip and a much larger surface area than its predecessor. If I recall correctly, the German magazine DIE YACHT, has done three anchor tests over the last years and each time in three different bottom locations: Mud with weed, sand and gravel. In each test and on every bottom, the Kobra came out on top and they now regard it as their point of reference when it comes to anchor testing. Ultimate holding power is but one of the qualities an anchor should have, ability to successfully and reliably reset is as least as important, as well as the ease with which it sets in the first place and on every bottom type suitable for anchoring. Another nice thing about the Kobra too, is its reasonable price compared to the competition.

This year, we have effectively circumnavigated the UK, via Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Shetland, Orkney and back to Brittany down the Scottish coast. We mostly anchor. This year's weather was atrocious and we were provided the opportunity to test our gear on at least three occasions in winds over 40 kts (yes, in Scotland, where I have come to understand, following this thread, that they have the worst weather anywhere and boats go to die at anchor). No worries, we slept well on all accounts, except one time when there was a miserable swell to boot. We use a snubber, attached at the water stay chainplate, and 60m of 8mm chain plus another 40m of rode, if we need it.

I am always astounded that hardly anyone has really any idea what the realistic loads might be on their anchor and for their boat at any given wind speed. I have heard some quite fantastical assumptions made for winds of 15 or 20 kts. It is relatively easy to make a calculation of the loads for various wind speeds, while always assuming the least favourable parametres.
For our brick-shaped ship, with a freeboard akin to an aircraft carrier, a greenhouse on top and a ketch rig, the wind load in 50kts is 350 kg. But hey, there also happens to be a nasty current at this anchorage of say, 5kts. So, add another 150 kg and now we are at a total load of 500 kg.
I know from tests, that the minimum holding power of our anchor is 1100kg. This ratio provides a comfortable margin, even in difficult situations, considering that we try not to anchor out in 50 kts if we can avoid it. This is why I sleep well at anchor and with the enthusiasm with which my wife backs it in, I know the hook is going to hold.

Incidentally, during the aforementioned Scillies storm, one boat rode it out on their16 kg Kobra and 8mm chain without incidence.

 

[zoidberg]

I'm most impressed/gratified/relieved and... er, pleased with 'Laminar Flows's account above. The reason?
I have a Kobra II of the same 'avoirdupois' whiling away the days at the back of my famous huge polytunnel-cum-aladdinscave. Right beside it is a steel Spade of near-identical proportions - both 'Plus Size' and both presently unused.

And my wee boat displaces less than half that of our friend 'LF's bricky bateau. And I have a brace of Neeves' favourite Fortress thingys nearby. Some might say I've become a 'right anchor' nerd.....

Just like 'Laminar Flow', I've used the 'genooine bedooine' drop-forged CQR from Simpson-Lawrence for decades, and been grateful for its rugged olde-worlde reliability. Only once did I find myself swearing at it. That was at the end of a several-days meandering around the Inner Isles, fetching up one evening 'very drouthy indeed' - after a long, hot and windless passage from Rhum - at the most remote pub in Britain, the Old Forge at Inverie. That fatherless lump of unmentionable steel just refused to do 'its one job'. Five times did I lay the unredeemable beast on the floor of the loch; five times did I drift back with a feather-touch to settle the thing in; five times it refused resolutely to stick.

There was no wind. There was no current. There was no excuse.

My thirst was mighty; my wrath terrible to behold. I cursed the thing to eternity and back.

Finally, I dumped all 240' of 10mm chain on top of it ( don't ask! ), and rowed us ashore for the most longed-for pint in my long career. I got one - just the one, for they were closing early then heading off into the wilderness that was Knoydart. They had a date, apparently, with the much-abused Lord Brockett monument and some evil auld Druid practices involving the invocation of a centuries-old curse intended to keep Himself turning in his grave. Outsiders were not invited....

 

[Neeves]

The downside to a Kobra anchor is its wimpy shank, prone to bending.

Otherwise an excellent product. Sets reliably, holds tenaciously and is cheap. Its probably the cheapest of the better anchors. It has an odd folding mechanism, I had ours welded up as we had no need for a folding anchor and the folding mechanism seemed potentially prone to failure.

I'm not sure I'd use it as a reference standard - there are better anchors. Over the lifetime of an anchor its cost is irrelevant - cost of night per anchor, if you anchor frequently, soon approaches zero.

Inspired by this thread I just checked the cost of a Rocna Mk2 sized to fit my boat. HOW MUCH???? I can buy a whole boat for that

Has anyone seen a recent comparative review of the various new anchor types?

As I mention, with link, in the Odin thread Steve Godwin aka Panope has stopped anchor testing. He is considered by many as the 'go to' for anchor performance - but I question some of the protocols and the absence of any hold comparison. I was firmly under the impression that hold was a necessary characteristic for an anchor ....

There are a number of spread sheet summaries, for different sized/weight anchors - here is one:


The actual 'anchoring' characteristics are in the left hand box, characteristics like engineering and cost are to the right. Cost is a bit of a phurphy - a Knox will be much cheaper if you buy one in Scotland rather than have it shipped to Seattle. I think those that bought a Knox would question its location on the spread sheet, as would I. I think those that bought an Epsilon would question its location adjacent to Delta and well below a CQR......???

How you can measure and rate engineering, weighted the same way as galvanising, are simply 2 of the questions I raise.

The spread sheets are quoted as the new bible for many.

One characteristic that might be included is which anchors have been rated by Classification Societies (CS) for Super High Holding Power, Spade, Excel, Rocna, Epsilon, or High Holding Power. Delta and CQR as the CS include a test of strength, call it engineering. CS testing and certification is enormously expensive and not being tested can be a small manufacturer with an excellent product but insufficient moneys to pay for Lloyds

The Panope spread sheets are but one source of comparison of anchor's performance there have been a string of tests, the YM 2005?, Voile et Voileurs - many tests AND the Panope tests cover most products, add in SHHP and you have a good basis for comparison. Anchors don't change much - if they were rated well 20 years ago - they are still a good anchor.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

I am always astounded that hardly anyone has really any idea what the realistic loads might be on their anchor and for their boat at any given wind speed. I have heard some quite fantastical assumptions made for winds of 15 or 20 kts. It is relatively easy to make a calculation of the loads for various wind speeds, while always assuming the least favourable parametres.

Loads on an anchor....

Windage is only part of the load. If the wind were constant, there was no chop and the yacht did not move - then windage is indicative of the tension on an anchor.

Unfortunately wind is not stable, especially in tight anchorages - some times it comes from multiple directions as gusts, some yachts yaw at anchor etc. Just watch an aircraft landing in strong wind as it yaws in 'steady' wind.

The high tensions occur when the yacht moves, accelerates and then comes to a sudden stop when it reaches the end of its tether. Sure windage is a factor but the snatch loads caused by sailing at anchor can be factorially higher than steady state tension. Add in chop that might develop if you need to anchor at a distance from shore, too shallow, too many other yachts - and the calculations and assumptions need to be revised.

I've measured tensions of 650kg - very unpleasant (the anchor has a hold of 2,000kg) - but its the crew who are weak, not the anchor.

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

I know from tests, that the minimum holding power of our anchor is 1100kg.

Keep in mind you are quoting figures from anchor tests performed in excellent substrates. Anchor tests in less ideal substrates are more difficult to perform, but have been done.

Look at the tests performed by Steve (Panope). The better performing 20 kg anchors can only generate a 200 kg holding force in substrates such as cobblestone (coincidently a reasonable match for the seabed where we are currently anchored). Also look at results conducted in more average substrates such as those of Professor Knox in softer sand. The best anchor in his test was the 15 kg Rocna that held 480 kg (the steel Spade was close at 420 kg).

It is not correct to believe your 16 kg anchor has a minimum holding power of 1100 kg (or even worse the often quoted 2000 kg for 15 kg anchors). In many substrates it will be significantly less.

 

[Poignard]

I just did what Eric Hiscock recommended.

I got a genuine CQR heavy enough to stand a good chance of penetrating weed, and a long length of British-made chain to go with it.

And lived happily ever after.

 

[Neeves]

I just did what Eric Hiscock recommended.

I got a genuine CQR heavy enough to stand a good chance of penetrating weed, and a long length of British-made chain to go with it.

And lived happily ever after.

Just out of interest - how do you know it was British made chain. Secondly what size, weight, of CQR do you need in order to have a good chance at penetrating weed.

Jonathan

 

[Refueler]

I always remember a published anchor test - which at minimum was totally 100% laughable !!

Guy took a series of anchors .... a length of rope .... gauge to measure lb's (US units) .... a tractor and a beach.

He then proceeded to create a table of pull for each anchor and at what pull they started to break out.

Why laughable ?

1. He just laid the anchor on the sand - no setting of anchor as we would on a boat.
2. The rope was completely horizontal from tractor hitch to anchor shank. No catenary or rise.
3. Pull was steady and not as a boat in shock loads
4. He claimed that his testing was the ONLY valid testing compared to others.

I've tried to find the article - but it was quite a few years ago .. maybe someone else remembers it ?

I put more value to boaters claims than that guys tests ...

 

[billskip]

Guy took a series of anchors .... a length of rope .... gauge to measure lb's (US units) .... a tractor and a beach.

Yes I remember that...

I think it may have been on "tomorrow's world" ..

 

[Laminar Flow]

I must have anchored thousands of times over my career, all over the world and often in locations I would have previously considered impossible. I know what 40kts and 50 kts at anchor looks like and I think I have a pretty good sense of when my hook is properly stuck. Sometimes you just have to understand when its time to pack up and go. Generally speaking, we sleep just as well at anchor or better than in a marina, we go for long hikes ashore and do not fret about leaving the boat to swing on her hook.

I also know what its like to have to "massage" a CQR into the ground. Call it seamanship, if you like, but compared to a modern hook it is just a pain in the a... .

I'm not sure in which book a gravel seabed is an optimum substrate, just one of the ones used in the German test series. Weed over mud is equally difficult. Some of the much more expensive hooks failed to cope with the conditions.
To be sure, the German tests were done afloat, a diver was at hand to photograph and film the the performance.
The pull and hold pattern was measured and the load was taken up to the equivalent of a F8. Not an "ultimate" test, but at least indicative.

We tend to back the anchor in quite vigorously. When a 8.5t boat comes to a sudden stop, the chain whips white through the water as it snaps tight, I know I'm not going anywhere.
After a good blow, the only way to retrieve the hook is to take it up short and run it over. So far, the supposedly whimpy stock on the Kobra II has withstood the abuse without issue.
Over 10 kg the Kobra II is bolted and no longer has that goofy folding mechanism.

 

[lustyd]

1. He just laid the anchor on the sand - no setting of anchor as we would on a boat.
2. The rope was completely horizontal from tractor hitch to anchor shank. No catenary or rise.
3. Pull was steady and not as a boat in shock loads
4. He claimed that his testing was the ONLY valid testing compared to others.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me if it was an anchor test. Scientific tests try to isolate the thing they are testing so it's absolutely appropriate to exclude chain effect and catenary if testing anchors. I'd like to see a pull from an angle as well as flat, but otherwise the above sounds pretty sensible to me as a first go.

 

[Refueler]

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me if it was an anchor test. Scientific tests try to isolate the thing they are testing so it's absolutely appropriate to exclude chain effect and catenary if testing anchors. I'd like to see a pull from an angle as well as flat, but otherwise the above sounds pretty sensible to me as a first go.

Your choice ..... each to their own.

My dislike of the test - is that it only relates to anchor remaining horizontal to the beach. In that - most anchors will perform well - but once the shank starts to rise and flukes change angle to the bed - the holding can dramatically change. The tests took no account of that.

Imagine someone who doesn't think about this ... sees the tests - goes out and buys what tests indicate is better ... then he finds out when used - angle of rode / catenary / snatch etc gives a completely different result ...

 

[billskip]

Your choice ..... each to their own.

My dislike of the test - is that it only relates to anchor remaining horizontal to the beach. In that - most anchors will perform well - but once the shank starts to rise and flukes change angle to the bed - the holding can dramatically change. The tests took no account of that.

Imagine someone who doesn't think about this ... sees the tests - goes out and buys what tests indicate is better ... then he finds out when used - angle of rode / catenary / snatch etc gives a completely different result ...

I'm pretty sure that test was way back in the 70's on tomorrow's world and iirc it was s test to demonstrate the "digging in/ setting " ability of a new design, nothing to do with the holding ability, simply a comparison demonstration.

 

[Refueler]

I'm pretty sure that test was way back in the 70's on tomorrow's world and iirc it was s test to demonstrate the "digging in/ setting " ability of a new design, nothing to do with the holding ability, simply a comparison demonstration.

I know it was quite a while back .. but I have a feeling it was published in a sailing mag ....

Tomorrows World .... why don't we have interesting progs like that anymore ??

 

[[193211]]

Feels a bit redundant posting this after 7 pages of the usual….

I have a similar size boat to the OP and replaced the Bruce and 8mm chain that came with the boat with a 6kg Epsilon, 6mm chain and 12mm Anchoplait.

Epsilon is a bargain. Yes it looks rough and ready but there’s no hint of rust. It fits in my bow locker and it sets first time and I’m yet to have any issue at all.
The setup is easily handled and the mainly rope rode is key to that with my small boat.
(My kedge is a fortress fx7 with the same kind of rode.)

The whole thing was about £400. A lot of posters on this thread will own much bigger boats where replacing the anchor and rode is a matter of thousands.
A worthwhile upgrade imho.

 

[Poignard]

[...]

Tomorrows World .... why don't we have interesting progs like that anymore ??

If you want to know why, I'll tell you why.

It's because young people today don't know what' good for 'em, that's why!

 

[billskip]

If you want to know why, I'll tell you why.

It's because young people today don't know what' good for 'em, that's why!

View attachment 182736

Oil!where did you get my passport photo?