What an Excellent Article On Anchors

[Robin]

Re: Begging to differ too

Harald, this sounds like I am selling CQRs as the only or ultimate answer which is not true, but:-

Is yours a genuine drop-forged CQR or a cast copy? Simpson Lawrence did not make a genuine 50lb drop-forged CQR as far as I know, only 45lbs or 60lbs. The 45lb one I believe would be on the light side of the ideal for your boat?

I agree that if you once broken out it can go belly up and skid if the force continues to be applied. You cannot expect an anchor to set or reset if it is moving too fast across the bottom, it needs a litle time to dig the point in and start to work, so once pulled out you are starting again from scratch.

I suspect your mud is different from ours! CQRs like our kind of mud which I guess is clay based? If the mud is soft I think the Fortress has adjustable blade angles to help hold in that type of bottom.

Fine sand I would guess is best handled with a Danforth type or something with a lot of surface area? If the surface is easily moved that surely is a problem for all, it must be like sticking a hook on a painted wall, only as strong as the adhesion of the paint to the wall.

Once again I am not promoting any one type of anchor over another, just trying like everyone else to pick a best option for where we are likely to anchor. The problem is that all solutions are a compromise, we have to chose something that we trust in all places we chose to anchor, yet is still capable of being handled and stowed on board. I have only used Fisherman, Cast Plough, Genuine CQR, Delta and Danforth (plus I have a so far unused Fortress) probably the same as most people on the forum. I have never tried a Bruce but have seen a couple of poor test results including the recent YW one.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[HaraldS]

Re: Begging to differ too

Sorry, just checked: It is a 45lbs original drop forged CQR. I know it is kind of smallish, but as a kedge anchor I thought it would be fine, and it stores nicely at our transom. Had a 60lbs CQR on the previous boat a Rival 41 and it was mostly doing ok, but we had a few occurences where it let go very sudden under increasing wind load. The test diagramme in YW seems to confirm this behaviour and it isn't what I like for a good sleep at anchor.
The Bruce bow anchor is our first Bruce and a genuine one, so far it didn't work only once, and there it was rock under a few inches of sand.
The 45lbs CQR is small enough to always break out nder engine no matter what ground, so I know that it suddenly pops up, regarless of an almost flat chain and it was well dug before. The bruce is simply to big to possibly get to that point with our engine power, though it seems to go deeper and deeper into the bottom. That's all I can say from watching these anchors under load.
We also carry two genuine Frotress anchors and use the small one FX-13, I think it's 20 lbs as another kedge anchor, especially when we need to bring it via the dinghy. Then it is mainly rope. It did always hold well where the CQR didn't want to, which isn't surpricing.
The special mud was in Sweden and Denmark;-) But I also had the CQR out as a stern anchor in Loch Swilly Ireland, and it let go under some heavy gusts. We were laying to the big Bruce, but were a bit limited in swinging room and had to keep the boat just 10 or 20 degrees off the wind. So no extreme load. When we brought out the little Fortress it was ok.
Like you I'm just trying to find the safest way to anchor and I read every piece of new information with interest. The YW test seems to carry a message that appears to say: The CQR was and is the best choice, look no further. The other message is that only the original is any good, but they take a fake Bruce to declare all Bruce anchors as the worst. So not particularly credible.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.taniwani.de>http://www.taniwani.de</A>

 

[Robin]

Re: Begging to differ too

You have a bigger engine than us! We couldn't pull out a 45lb CQR on our Westerly 33 with 50HP full astern in most conditions other than perhaps gravel. We only have 44HP on our Sun Legende 41 and now have just the 35lb Delta as the main anchor which has been very good (so far!), though I would prefer it a touch bigger. (S-L did claim the holding power of a 35lb Delta is the same as a 45lb CQR)

I couldn't understand the logic in the YW/Voiles et Voiliers test of adding together the results from the two bottom types. I could maybe see some logic in averaging the results for comparisons (I tried it though and the league table stayed just the same). I would have thought really that the only safe comparison is the result they obtained for each anchor in each specific bottom.

Probably the best option is to carry 3 different types of anchor in the biggest sizes we can manage and select one each time. Sadly however that is unrealistic and when the wind gets up we will stick with whatever is on the bow or already down and either trust it or add another if conditions allow.




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: Begging to differ too

"I couldn't understand the logic in the YW/Voiles et Voiliers test of adding together the results from the two bottom types."

I fully agree with your comments.. It could have been interesting to test anchors in different sea beds such as sand, hard sand, mud, weed.. (no sorry, not rock!.. ) but gravel was not a good choice.. there are some bottoms where anchors, (including "the Best". :0) ) will not work, like gravel, soft mud, boulders.... These bottoms have simply to be avoided..

In this regard, it is quite interesting to study, for example the holding curve of the CQR in gravel.. for more than half of the curve, there is absolutely NO holding,, and for the second half, the holding increased up to approximately 300 kg::
What does that mean?? perhaps then the CQR fall in a place where the ground was sligthly different and gave a better hold??

In gravel, no anchors gave a satisfactory holding. My own conclusion is that anchoring in gravel (and in any poor holding ground) should be avoided, regardless of the type of anchor used


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: Begging to differ too

Hi Alain, either you are very patient or have been busy elsewhere! :0)

If you exclude the gravel figures then the results of the most common competitors in heavy sand are similar enough to be within experimental error, so comparisons are back to square one again! There are so many ifs, buts and maybes, that perhaps all we can reasonably do is have a decent sized recognised design of anchor, find the best place to put it down on and make sure it is properly set.

Robin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[HaraldS]

Re: Begging to differ too

Robin, I didn't understand the logic of adding the holding power either. I think the YW test is not so ultimate after all, as there are so many more parameters to consider.
Thinking about it, I think aside of many different bottoms, the absolute weight of an achor may play a bigger role than one might think. Somehow I have developed the feeling that Bruce anchors need a certain size before they work. And I can easily imagine that the pressure on the cutting edge is much higher with a heavier anchor and hence it might go easier into weed.

My heavy Bruce has been cutting into weed just fine, and as expected the light fortess doesn't like it so much even so it has maybe a sharper tip. An extreme example is the 'floating' Fortress of a friend who tried to use it in 7kn of current: It was simply surfing on the surface!

So I'm sure that when going up two sizes from the tested anchors, the diagrammes would not only differ in value, but also in shape.

With the heavy and original Bruce, (don't know what may matter more), I have not seen the wobbly behaviour that the YW folks observed, but I can confirm that it starts digging in with one side first, and right itself up as it goes in deeper. If that process is somehow not working, either due to lack of weight or the wrong angle of attack, then I can quite well image their results.

Still, even on the small anchors, picking them from the shown diagrammes, my first joice would be the spade, not the CQR. And along those lines I think everybody will draw his own and differnt conclusions. But it certainly is an interesting subject.

On engine power: we have a 100HP Yanmar and a 3-blade flex-o-fold. It puts up quite some power and stops either of the two windlasses that are speced at pulling in 1200kg and 1000kg respectively. So I think the break out in perfect sand was probably above 1000kg.



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.taniwani.de>http://www.taniwani.de</A>

 

[Evadne]

Re: Begging to differ too

I thought that averaging the results of two different tests gives you a sort of index of usefulness. I agree it would make more sense if more types of sea bed were included. (I hate to be picky but adding two results together or averaging them (adding together and dividing by two) is, unsurprisingly, going to give you the same relative results.)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: Begging to differ too

Harald, that is a big engine, but then I just looked at your excellent web site and can see what a lovely and HUGE boat you have. It just shows really the difference that size makes, our 41ft is biggish but at just 8ft more LOA yours is more than double the displacement and probably double the effective size with systems to match! Perhaps in anchoring terms you should be looking at an anchor suitable for a ferry or a minesweeper! :0)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[HaraldS]

Re: Begging to differ too

Robin, things don't get simpler though, despite the fact that anchors don't seem to grow proportionally to boat weight. At least the freighters I'm seeing, seem to have quite modest anchors compared to their displacement;-)
On ours the yard usually puts on a 30kg Bruce and 60m of thinner chain. I just wanted the bigger thing and 100m, as I'm quite frequntly anchoring in deper water and that's already streching it for our boat. It has a very fine entry, and the bows can't carry too much weight. It's always a compromise, but I like the windward going capability I got in return. Every boat is a compromise...

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.taniwani.de>http://www.taniwani.de</A>

 

[scarlett]

Definitive test

Thank you for the replies to my call for a definitive anchor test. The subject is really generating some interest. I recall the test about five years ago.

I would like to see a respected body with a scientific background develop a rigourous anchor test using only the genuine design and a couple of sizes each.

Yes - there are diffent bottoms even with similar materials e.g. sand, but this can be incorporated into the test.


And I would like to include work on eelgrass. I thought my 25 lb Fisherman was my anchor for eelgrass. I dug it fully into a sandy bottom, pulled and then watched as the eel grass bunched under it and lifted the fluke out. In the end the bunch of eel grass was the only link with the bottom.

I did a test with a friend's 20 lb genuine Bruce in the same hard sand. It ploughed a shallow furrow with one fluke and never dug. Maybe one twice as heavy would have done better but there is a limit what a light twenty five foot boat can carry.

I could go on.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

At anchor, in tropical waters

Yes, different bottoms produce different results and any test results have to be taken as applicable to those circumstances only..

Yes too, they are so many variables that it will never be possible to make a scientific test taking into account all variables.. But in general, tests can give a quite precise image of what would be the anchor behaviour..

What actually causes an anchor to start dragging once set..?? here too they are several answers..:
- 1° the desing of the anchor itself: - for me, they are two types of anchors.. stable and unstable ones.. Unstable anchors, under high loads will “corkscrew” and break out.. Stable anchors will only slightly drag, but will stay buried on..
- 2° sudden snatchs due to wind gusts
- If there is swell entering the anchorage, there is no other issue that leaving the anchorage. If the anchor hold.. then the chain, cleats or something else will break..
- During a gale..the wind is never stable and this is during gusts, or when the boat is sideway to the wind that the load increases and the anchor breaks out..
- I want again underline the importance of an ELASTIC mooring line, to absorb shocks.. and elasticity isn’t compatible with chain. some NYLON rope is a MUST.. (see: http://alain.fraysse.free.fr)
- The charateristic of staying set after a change in the direction of the applied load, is also very important. If the anchor break out.. there is absolutely no garanty that it will set again.. (very few anchors can positively answer to this characteristic..)
- NO.. the anchor weight doesn’t affect the holding.. when the anchor is set, holding is mostly related to the SURFACE area of the anchor and to the shape of this surface..
- Leightweight Aluminum anchors have demonstrated an holding as good as steel anchors of the same size..

Yes the CQR has been used and trusted by so many around the world. But the anchor which is the most commontly used is still the stone and rope one (for example: by nearly all fishermen in East and Far East countries.)

Some years ago, it would have been a crime to write “ the CQR diggs in quite nicely and hold up to a certain load, then it appruptly breaks out and ends up on its back and never recovers”..
During our own tests, in 100 % of the cases, we have found exactly the same behaviour.. and this is very easy to explain..:
- the CQR is the only anchor with an articulated shank.. and to have this shank strong enough.. it has a big and heavy hinge.. then, 62% of the total weight of the anchor is located on the shank for only 18% on the tip.. and that’s the only reason why the anchor ends up on its back..
The Delta (new technology CQR) doesn’t have this heavy hinge..

“. The YW test seems to carry a message that appears to say: The CQR was and is the best choice, look no further.”
It is very interesting to see how people can read the results they want to read.. I don’t have (yet) the English version of the tests but the French one says: “ when dragging, it appruptly breaks out and ends up on its back and never recovers”.. it doesn’t seem to me to be the “best” choice??..

Remember what Bernard MOITESSIER wrote when he loses his boat « Josua »..

“This is bad weather... Suddently, the 45 pounds CQR drags on the coarse sandy bottom.
I let go the second anchor and Joshua faces the wind again. The swell has increased a lot.. Another gust, real strong. It seems that it last forever..
My God, Joshua is dragging again, fast! Very soon after this, we are on the beach. The ruder touches first. Then the boat pivots, slowly.. Now it is laying over, sideways on the beach... “

“they take a fake Bruce to declare all Bruce anchors as the worst.”
Surprisingly.. in ALL recent tests I have read from sailing magazines from all over the world.. all results from the Bruce are coherent.. this is an anchor which as one of the best digging in characteristics, wich can stay set after a change in the direction of the applied load, which is also stable.. but weight for weight, its holding is much lower than modern anchors (1/3 to 1/5) . So if you can afford to oversize it.. it is just fine..

I’m amused to realise that they are still some sailors in favour of the old fashioned fisherman .. compared weight for weight to the new technology anchors, it doesn’t have any single advantage..


Now, as a conclusion, I fully agree:
“all solutions are a compromise, we have to chose something that we trust in all places we chose to anchor, yet is still capable of being handled and stowed on board”

S/Y HYLAS at anchor in Porto Grande – Mindelo – isla de São Vincente – Cap Verde Archipelago.




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[scarlett]

Re: At anchor, in tropical waters

I bow to Hylas's anchor knowledge. I have bought one of his anchors. But it must be possible for someone from a scientific background to design an anchor test that, whilst not going down the route of suggesting a diffent anchor for every possible bottom, will suggest a compromise that will be best first choice anchor.

I would guess that the majority of boats that anchor regularly, are in the range 25 to 35 foot. Thus their anchors, maybe three, must be, together with lots of chain, a maximum size as well as a minimum size. To make the best of the available weght carrying capacity etc, I would appreciate more facts.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Back home in the office

That all makes a lot of sense. I am especially in favour of an 'elastic' rode and always set our all chain gear with a nylon line in which is inserted one of the rubber mooring snubbers. In fact we have two such lines made up, one with a normal rubber snubber and the other with a heavier one. It is interesting to watch the behaviour of these in a windy anchorage, they do remove all the snatch loads and the chain catenary in moderate winds doesn't change, all the energy is absorbed in the rubber snubber. In heavier winds yes the chain is pulled taught but the snubber is still working continuously and it seems like the load on the chain stays more constant as a result. I know it was only F6 but this gear has kept us anchored more than once when the Vent Solaire off Isle de Houat blew straight onshore about 2am, with a matching swell, and lots of boats dragged.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[timevans2000]

Re: Begging to differ too

Interesting thread.
I have a 5 tonne Catamaran. We only have 7 metres of 10 mm chain (I will increase this over the winter to 25 mtres) then anchorplait. On the end is a 9 kg aluminium spade anchor.

Clearly I have little weight to play with and I havent had to anchor in rough conditions but I have had no problem with this anchor dragging or bedding in except when I tried to anchor in kelp/rocks. Even in strong gusts causing us to surge about we had no problem. I engine the anchor in when laying it when condition necessitate and even putting the 35 hp Yanmar at full revs in reverse it doesnt drag.
I am not sure where these observations leave us. Maybe just add to the mistery of anchoring!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: At anchor, in tropical waters

Scarlett,

Thanks for being one of my faithful clients. It is nearly impossible, due to the quantity of variables, to design a perfectly scientific anchor test.. much too much time consuming and expensive..

Two summers ago, P.B.O. has published a very interesting test done by Pr. John Knox and the results did suggest a compromise that will be best first choice anchor. (Guess!.. :0) )

The old theory says that you must have at least two different types of anchor.. each one better adapted to different anchoring conditions.. for example a plow and a fluke anchor.. I did that, to realise that both are well adapted to the same anchoring conditions and not adapted also to the same sea bottoms..
They are grounds, where it is nearly impossible to anchor, such as soft mud, flat surface rocks, gravel or boulders.. and no anchor will be well adapted for these conditions..

They are some anchors which works well in “standard” sea bottoms, mud, sticky mud and sand..

They are also grounds which are difficult for most anchors; hard sand and coral, weed.. some anchors works well in these conditions and they will also give very good results elsewhere..


<hr width=100% size=1>