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

Refueler said:
why don't we have interesting progs like that anymore ??
Click to expand...
Because we're living in the future! The Internet largely makes it redundant, YouTube has all kinds of channels on future tech.

I do agree it would be nice to see the pull at various angles and direction changes. The rode must be separated from this to test the anchor though, better to pull with a steel bar to control the angle and ensure accurate force measurements. Arguably it might be easier/better to move a big box of dirt and hold the anchor still if you were designing a good test.
 
Neeves said:
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
Click to expand...
1. I know it was British-made chain because I asked the manufacturer, Griff Chains Ltd, (established in 1835 in Dudley, West Midlands) for confirmation and I was assured that it was.

Incidentally, I know they were still manufacturing their own chain, in the sizes we are most likely to want, as recently as 2012. I enquired because I was trying to decide at that time between renewing my chain, or having it re-galvanised. But I'm not sure they still do.

2. According to Lewmar Ltd, the manufacturers, the recommended size of CQR™anchor for my 28ft Twister is 20- 25lb.

But, in his book "Cruising Under Sail", Eric Hiscock opined that a minimum of 30lb was needed to reliably penetrate weed. As the CQR™ anchor was not made in that size, I opted for the next size up: 35lb.

He was very experienced, I was not, so I took his advice.
 
Poignard said:
1. I know it was British-made chain because I asked the manufacturer, Griff Chains Ltd, (established in 1835 in Dudley, West Midlands) for confirmation and I was assured that it was.

Incidentally, I know they were still manufacturing their own chain, in the sizes we are most likely to want, as recently as 2012. I enquired because I was trying to decide at that time between renewing my chain, or having it re-galvanised. But I'm not sure they still do.

2. According to Lewmar Ltd, the manufacturers, the recommended size of CQR™anchor for my 28ft Twister is 20- 25lb.

But, in his book "Cruising Under Sail", Eric Hiscock opined that a minimum of 30lb was needed to reliably penetrate weed. As the CQR™ anchor was not made in that size, I opted for the next size up: 35lb.

He was very experienced, I was not, so I took his advice.
Click to expand...
When I tested a group of chains from a wide variety of sources I asked Griff for a sample to test. They refused, the only manufacturer to do so. It seemed a very strange decision to me.
 
Poignard said:
1. I know it was British-made chain because I asked the manufacturer, Griff Chains Ltd, (established in 1835 in Dudley, West Midlands) for confirmation and I was assured that it was.

Incidentally, I know they were still manufacturing their own chain, in the sizes we are most likely to want, as recently as 2012. I enquired because I was trying to decide at that time between renewing my chain, or having it re-galvanised. But I'm not sure they still do.

2. According to Lewmar Ltd, the manufacturers, the recommended size of CQR™anchor for my 28ft Twister is 20- 25lb.

But, in his book "Cruising Under Sail", Eric Hiscock opined that a minimum of 30lb was needed to reliably penetrate weed. As the CQR™ anchor was not made in that size, I opted for the next size up: 35lb.

He was very experienced, I was not, so I took his advice.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that a heavy CQR will be any better than a smaller CQR in weed.

These are 2 anchors, Deltas or Delta copies - makes no difference.

IMG_7557.jpeg

IMG_7571.jpeg

They are both clogged with weed to such an extant, they might have offered a few kilos or load but not much. They have collected weed at the crown and that in itself would stop the anchor penetrating through to the roots. I don't see that weight will make any difference.

Both anchors are on cats where the windlass is at the back of the bridge deck and the anchor bow roller accepts the shank through a narrow slot. Basically you have difficulty seeing the fluke at all. But they illustrate a further problem - if you are retrieving at the helm - you would not see the fluke at all. Clearing this mess from the anchors is a real task with this sort of ground tackle retrieval - you really need to do it from under the bridge deck in a dinghy - not a task to look forward to on a dark night in the rain.......(:

I suspect the owners of these yachts had no idea they were so clogged (they were secured to their buoyed mooring in a mooring field of maybe 500 yachts).

But with anchoring - there is weed and weed and then their is kelp.

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
I'm not convinced that a heavy CQR will be any better than a smaller CQR in weed.

These are 2 anchors, Deltas or Delta copies - makes no difference.

View attachment 182795

View attachment 182796

They are both clogged with weed to such an extant, they might have offered a few kilos or load but not much. They have collected weed at the crown and that in itself would stop the anchor penetrating through to the roots. I don't see that weight will make any difference.

Both anchors are on cats where the windlass is at the back of the bridge deck and the anchor bow roller accepts the shank through a narrow slot. Basically you have difficulty seeing the fluke at all. But they illustrate a further problem - if you are retrieving at the helm - you would not see the fluke at all. Clearing this mess from the anchors is a real task with this sort of ground tackle retrieval - you really need to do it from under the bridge deck in a dinghy - not a task to look forward to on a dark night in the rain.......:)

I suspect the owners of these yachts had no idea they were so clogged (they were secured to their buoyed mooring in a mooring field of maybe 500 yachts).

But with anchoring - there is weed and weed and then their is kelp.

Jonathan
Click to expand...
As you say, there is weed, and there is kelp. Some thin weed is often unavoidable, but don't anchor in kelp. A fishfinder will easily show the difference.
When I used a CQR it was a 140lb model, which was pretty capable of penetrating moderate weed.
 
Don't confuse picking up weed on retrieval with problems in weed on the bottom. Weed on an anchor at the surface is irrelevant to holding and very likely picked up on retrieval.
 
I've pulled the trigger on a new 6kg Rocna. It's a thing of beauty. I don't even want to put it on the boat as I like looking at it on my living room floor!

For those who've kindly replied and favour CQRs, then I now have a 25lb Sowester version for sale!

IMG-20250313-WA0002.jpgIMG-20250313-WA0002.jpg
 
RogerFoxTerrier said:
I've pulled the trigger on a new 6kg Rocna. It's a thing of beauty. I don't even want to put it on the boat as I like looking at it on my living room floor!

For those who've kindly replied and favour CQRs, then I now have a 25lb Sowester version for sale!

View attachment 190798View attachment 190798
Click to expand...
The shank to fluke weld is clever technology. It is a single pass weld using a 10 mm electrode. The penetration will be deep, ensuring excellent strength. Something else you don't get in a cheap copy!
 
vyv_cox said:
The shank to fluke weld is clever technology. It is a single pass weld using a 10 mm electrode. The penetration will be deep, ensuring excellent strength. Something else you don't get in a cheap copy!
Click to expand...

KevinV said:
Strange woman - did you explain that it offers excellent holding?
Click to expand...
I told her it penetrated within its own length. Again, the argument was still lost...
 
LittleSister said:
I'm glad you are in love with your new anchor . . .

. . . otherwise it would have been too awkward to so belatedly mention that your 25lb CQR was way too large for your 22' boat, and that a smaller CQR (or other brand of medieval anchor) would have been perfectly adequate (and much cheaper). 😀
Click to expand...

I don't want adequate - I want superb!!:):);)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top