Which anchor should I use - Sunday night banter

So. Given that I've 'declared' for the CQR (which anyway is attached to the chain by a shackle that is moused shut) is there any point in carrying the others, or is it a case of 'may as well'?
 
You know your cruising grounds. If your CQR work everywhere you go then a second anchor is useful - when for whatever reason you lose (even if temporarily) your CQR. Your Fisherman would then normally never see the light of day, nor the seabed a eabed compatible with CQR tend not to be compatible with Fishermans. However if you foresee trying to go further afield to areas with weed and grass - then the fisherman would be invaluable.

You imply that mousing the shackle somehow negate use of a second, or different, anchor. It would be useful to have 2 rodes anyway, even if it is just a short piece of chain and some rope. But changing anchors is really not difficult.

Provide a bit more background detail of your ambitions and you will be rewarded with more useful information.

Jonathan
 
I think you answered your know question , you say you cruise in an area you know well for good holding with your CQR . Hang on to it , if you have room has Neeves said keep a second anchor if not no worries you only out for an over night or lunch time stop all goes tits up , it's back to the marina .
I wouldn't invest a large sum on a NG if this is what you do .
Although the CQR isnt a anchor I would use these days because of the type of cruising we do , in days gone by when most of my cruising was done on the east coast , A CQR is what we used for many years .
 
Last edited:
An academic, but serious, question, possibly explained in the thread title 'Sunday night banter'.

If you have been anchoring on and off in the same places for some time with the same anchors - you must be happy (and your children have not moved next door (nor to another country) and you wife has not joined them) - so why the thread?

So why are you seeking advice on a change of anchor, or change of quiver?

I'm with Vic, we used a, genuine, CQR for years - there was little else. They served generation for years, as have Delta and Bruce - and prior everyone relied on a Fishermans. People still use CQR, Delta, Bruce and to a lessor extent Fisherman (though only in weed) - and many swear (or are happy) by their choice.

You might have been motivated by the fear factor engendered by anchor threads? or maybe it was just 'Sunday night banter'.

I'm hoping you are looking to expand your horizons.

Jonathan





Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
An academic, but serious, question, possibly explained in the thread title 'Sunday night banter'.

If you have been anchoring on and off in the same places for some time with the same anchors - you must be happy (and your children have not moved next door (nor to another country) and you wife has not joined them) - so why the thread?

So why are you seeking advice on a change of anchor, or change of quiver?

I'm with Vic, we used a, genuine, CQR for years - there was little else. They served generation for years, as have Delta and Bruce - and prior everyone relied on a Fishermans. People still use CQR, Delta, Bruce and to a lessor extent Fisherman (though only in weed) - and many swear (or are happy) by their choice.

You might have been motivated by the fear factor engendered by anchor threads? or maybe it was just 'Sunday night banter'.

I'm hoping you are looking to expand your horizons.

Jonathan





Jonathan
Click to expand...
The thread was for 2 reasons really.
1) Light hearted banter on a weekend.
2) A semi serious dig at all of the anchor threads that end up in entrenched views about the biggest NG you can afford/lift vs the featherist of featherweight NG anchors.
And in a Monty Python moment, there's a third reason...
3) I inherited the fisherman's anchor with the boat. I'm carrying it around in the bottom of the lazarette, but I really don't know why (except that I can't be bothered to take everything else out so that I can remove it, or what I would do with it if I did). I don't think I've ever seen anyone use one, and I'm not sure what I'd use it for. So I was indirectly asking if it there was any point in having it.

As for looking to expand my horizons. Well, that's an interesting one. My horizons are already pretty expanded (!) but the kids need to be a bit older, the wife needs to be a bit more confident and the engine needs to reliably start when we need it (see other threads) before trips to the Scillies, Channel Islands, France or Ireland beckon. The last thing I need to do at this stage is bore everyone to tears with long passages, especially as we don't currently have an autohelm or self steering. So for the meantime we'll stick with Cawsand, Barn Pool, Jennycliffe, Whitsand bay and the like - all a couple of hours away from the mooring and well known anchorages. I get to do a bit of sailing, the kids get to play around on the boat, the wife gets to chill out and read her book and the dog gets long walks ashore.

Just for a laugh I might chuck the fisherman's hook over at Barnpool though - it's a good, sheltered anchorage, but it's full of kelp and boulders, and there's the remains of a WW2 loading jetty on the seabed which snags anchors if you don't know it's there (its not marked on the charts). I've never had a problem with the CQR there, but in theory it's absolutely the correct territory for the fisherman's hook. I won't do it on a busy summer's day when dragging would see me on top of someone else in next to no time, but now that it's getting quieter I might try it out.
 
Re Fisherman anchors: Several years ago, with our previous boat, we were anchored in Canna. Now the bay in Canna, known as Canna Harbour, is notorious for having thick kelp on the bottom. We watched a small yacht trying to anchor, and each time, they failed, bringing up huge clumps of weed. We gave them the use of our Fisherman and they were immediately securely anchored. So much so that they were quite unwilling to return it in the morning, when we wanted to depart.

Incidentally, our anchor was a fabricated CQR type, but as it weighed 140lbs it was probably better able to penetrate weed than normal yacht anchors of any type or generation.
 
A Danforth is absolutely great for kedging off. But, sailing where you do, you may have little need to kedge off!

The other thing it is great for is locking its jaws in an an unbreakable bulldog grip on any passing ground chain. I've lost two that way!
 
Last edited:
Like you, I've sailed around in this boat for 16 years with the Fisherman and Danforth anchors at the bottom of the locker and never used them. This year, I had a clear out and left them ashore. I now 'only' have a 25lb CQR on the chain and a 15lb CQR kedge/spare.
 
I am suprised that nobody has mentioned the Fortress anchor.
Lightest anchor out there with lifetime worldwide warranty. I am sure that I read somewhere that it is the official anchor of the US coastguard.
 
benchmark said:
I am suprised that nobody has mentioned the Fortress anchor.
Lightest anchor out there with lifetime worldwide warranty. I am sure that I read somewhere that it is the official anchor of the US coastguard.
Click to expand...

Why would they? The options I have onboard are CQR, Danforth or Fisherman's.

Which I guess reinforces the point I was (very subtly) making about anchor threads.
 
I did suspect you had an ulterior motive, hence the title - Sunday night banter - and did wonder if that was the main point, rather than anything educational.

It does not sound as if you are particularly interested in squeezing the last fraction of a knot of boat speed out of your yacht. You have not mentioned, or I don't recall mention, that you are short of space. You appear to have plenty on which to invest your money ;) without thinking of new anchors and you have not mentioned that you, actually, find your CQR unreliable (but I might have missed this latter).

I think this is simply repeating - lots of people here relied on a CQR and many still do - if you are happy, why change. Lots of people rely on a Danforth and many use it as a second anchor (and actually use it) and many use it to kedge. If you find weed - your fisherman's will be a god send - because your Danforth will not work and you might feel less than confident of the CQR (depenfdfs on the weed) and the CQR and Fisherman might be a good combo - used together (2 rodes)

I'd clear out the lazaretto and have a look at what else might be lurking in there.

I'd keep your current collection - but maybe throw other stuff out that is in the lazerette.

The limitations of the designs you carry are well defined, and you appear to know them, and a new Fortress is lighter but has the same limitations as the Danforth. If you see a few metres of chain looking for a new life - you have the beginnings of a spare rode.

My only qualification is that you want to engender a bit of confidence in your wife - so I'd always back down on whichever anchor you use - as dragging at 3am is a surefire way to sailing alone :(.

I'd keep my eyes and ears open for someone who has been scared into selling their 10kg or 15kg etc etc NG in favour of a new 20kg or 30kg NG - but there seems little need to buy a new NG currently - unless it is a bargain. You don't need to worry about the pension fund of the NG anchor makers - there are plenty here already oversizing - the pension funds are larger than they ever dreamt of :)

Jonathan
 
Ditch the CQR and buy any of the so called NGA. The best thing I did was dump a 60lb CQR for a lighter, securer NGA. You waste time learning to use a CQR which could seriously let you down on any number of seabeds quite easily after you think you have it set. I used a CQR for decades and only a loony would want to keep one now. For comparison: I own a 5 year old BMW motorcycle and a 40 year old BMW motorcycle; riding the 40 year old, is frankly terrifying as the handling, brakes and comfort is pants compared to the new bike. CQR is ancient technology and they got it wrong from the off. Danforth is fine, fishermen - again, just another piece of junk that should be relegated to the garden or scrap dealer. Between the CQR and Danforth I anchored all over the West Coast of Scotland and never felt the need for a fishermen. After 5 or 6 attempts in kelp, the CQR eventually found it's way into the sediment. In the rock bed of the Flannan Isles and the north bay of Saint Kilda, the CQR found something to hook onto, although I would not trust it. Now my NGA does it all much, much better at a fraction of the weight. At the end of the day there is no need to change anything, but if you can and want to, dump the CQR, if my experience is anything to go by. Don't listen to loonies.
 
BlowingOldBoots said:
Ditch the CQR and buy any of the so called NGA. The best thing I did was dump a 60lb CQR for a lighter, securer NGA. You waste time learning to use a CQR which could seriously let you down on any number of seabeds quite easily after you think you have it set. I used a CQR for decades and only a loony would want to keep one now. For comparison: I own a 5 year old BMW motorcycle and a 40 year old BMW motorcycle; riding the 40 year old, is frankly terrifying as the handling, brakes and comfort is pants compared to the new bike. CQR is ancient technology and they got it wrong from the off. Danforth is fine, fishermen - again, just another piece of junk that should be relegated to the garden or scrap dealer. Between the CQR and Danforth I anchored all over the West Coast of Scotland and never felt the need for a fishermen. After 5 or 6 attempts in kelp, the CQR eventually found it's way into the sediment. In the rock bed of the Flannan Isles and the north bay of Saint Kilda, the CQR found something to hook onto, although I would not trust it. Now my NGA does it all much, much better at a fraction of the weight. At the end of the day there is no need to change anything, but if you can and want to, dump the CQR, if my experience is anything to go by. Don't listen to loonies.
Click to expand...
I know that I'm appearing grumpy now, but...

I fell in love with the clever front ends and persevered long after I should have given up. But I eventually turned my back on BMW motorbikes (and cars by association) when I averaged a warranty claim every 2 months for a 6 year period over 3 bikes. Memory fails me but I think I had 2 starters (on one bike, within 2 weeks of each other!), a flywheel, 3 final drives, a whole new throttle assembly, new ESA system, a clutch cover, new ABS components, and a million and one other (very annoying) little things like the paint falling off if I rode in the rain. The final straw was needing a new final drive at 12k miles on a (very expensive) R1200GSA. I know of other people who have sold their GS' and bought a Ducati Multistrada and have experienced improved reliability - which is an astonishing state of affairs!

I now maintain that only loonies own BMWs at all.

So what were you saying about listening to loonies...? ;)

As with anything I guess it demonstrates that different people's opinions are formed by differing circumstances.

PS I now ride a triumph, which despite of being British manufacture has been faultlessly reliable (thus far!) unlike my other British built vehicles... Ironically I am half considering buying a flying brick as a winter hack - but that doesn't count because it was made when BMW actually built bikes to a decent standard.
 
Last edited:
My own BMW, R1200GS Adventure has proven reliable but I know what you mean, other friends have had atrocious reliability from BMW. However, the comparison is really about old and new technology and the CQR is very much in the old technology camp. The comparison can be extended further, like BMW, the NGA Rocna, also suffered from QAQC issues.

Anyway, my post, I thought was in keeping with the style of the thread, a good rant.
 
BlowingOldBoots said:
Ditch the CQR and buy any of the so called NGA. The best thing I did was dump a 60lb CQR for a lighter, securer NGA. You waste time learning to use a CQR which could seriously let you down on any number of seabeds quite easily after you think you have it set. I used a CQR for decades and only a loony would want to keep one now. For comparison: I own a 5 year old BMW motorcycle and a 40 year old BMW motorcycle; riding the 40 year old, is frankly terrifying as the handling, brakes and comfort is pants compared to the new bike. CQR is ancient technology and they got it wrong from the off. Danforth is fine, fishermen - again, just another piece of junk that should be relegated to the garden or scrap dealer. Between the CQR and Danforth I anchored all over the West Coast of Scotland and never felt the need for a fishermen. After 5 or 6 attempts in kelp, the CQR eventually found it's way into the sediment. In the rock bed of the Flannan Isles and the north bay of Saint Kilda, the CQR found something to hook onto, although I would not trust it. Now my NGA does it all much, much better at a fraction of the weight. At the end of the day there is no need to change anything, but if you can and want to, dump the CQR, if my experience is anything to go by. Don't listen to loonies.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust any anchor in the two places mentioned. Both are deep, rocky, steeply inclined, and weed infested, and horribly exposed. But you managed with your CQR. Do you seriously think that a "new" generation anchor would be better? And if so, how?
 
NormanS said:
I wouldn't trust any anchor in the two places mentioned. Both are deep, rocky, steeply inclined, and weed infested, and horribly exposed. But you managed with your CQR. Do you seriously think that a "new" generation anchor would be better? And if so, how?
Click to expand...

Is that so, I would never have guessed having anchored in the islands a few times. and even having my soundings reproduced on Admiralty charts for the cut in the Flannan Isles (1984 rep, iirc). Of course one would never trust any anchor at both locations.

You miss the point of my post completely.

However, to address your setting point, like in Canna Harbour with it's famous kelp (funny how everyone always refers to Canna Harbour for Kelp as if that is the only place), try, try again. The CQR only responds to drop on seabed, lay back some chain, and either let the wind drift back until bites or slow astern until it bites, then a small and gentle increase in power. We all know kelp is dubious and a decent bite can be a false positive as the kelp roots break free as the CQR ploughs like a plough should. Even in Canna there are patches of clear sea bed. As for the rock, that is just luck. On the North Bay of Saint Kilda, close in shore on the mainland side is where I have found mud, probably from the spoils off the cliffs accumulating. My NGR would work there better there than a CQR for sure. Also my NGA cuts into the seabed and buries itself, unlike a CQR and works in Kelp far better than a CQR. I don't have any experience of a fishermen to compare it with, in Kelp, but observation suggests that the digging action of the fisherman is what makes it better than the CQR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlowingOldBoots said:
My own BMW, R1200GS Adventure has proven reliable but I know what you mean, other friends have had atrocious reliability from BMW. However, the comparison is really about old and new technology and the CQR is very much in the old technology camp. The comparison can be extended further, like BMW, the NGA Rocna, also suffered from QAQC issues.

Anyway, my post, I thought was in keeping with the style of the thread, a good rant.
Click to expand...

It was - good banter indeed.

The bit in bold Really? hand't heard that? Weld failures presumably?
 
Balbas said:
It was - good banter indeed.

The bit in bold Really? hand't heard that? Weld failures presumably?
Click to expand...

Gosh, there were pages of posts on it. Rocna moved production to China and there were issues over the steel that was used not being the same grade as the original design. It has all been resolved now but the Craig's product took a bit of a battering over it. I understand that it was all resolved eventually.
 
I used to own a K75RT flying brick as a commuter and an R60/7 for fun and I very much preferred the latter at all speeds below 50mph. Both gone now as I have got a monstrous great boat which absorbs 100% of time and money.

If buying an RT flying brick be aware that BMW in their infinte wisdom put the top box hinge aft and latch forward and it cannot be trusted.
 
BlowingOldBoots said:
Is that so, I would never have guessed having anchored in the islands a few times. and even having my soundings reproduced on Admiralty charts for the cut in the Flannan Isles (1984 rep, iirc). Of course one would never trust any anchor at both locations.

You miss the point of my post completely.

However, to address your setting point, like in Canna Harbour with it's famous kelp (funny how everyone always refers to Canna Harbour for Kelp as if that is the only place), try, try again. The CQR only responds to drop on seabed, lay back some chain, and either let the wind drift back until bites or slow astern until it bites, then a small and gentle increase in power. We all know kelp is dubious and a decent bite can be a false positive as the kelp roots break free as the CQR ploughs like a plough should. Even in Canna there are patches of clear sea bed. As for the rock, that is just luck. On the North Bay of Saint Kilda, close in shore on the mainland side is where I have found mud, probably from the spoils off the cliffs accumulating. My NGR would work there better there than a CQR for sure. Also my NGA cuts into the seabed and buries itself, unlike a CQR and works in Kelp far better than a CQR. I don't have any experience of a fishermen to compare it with, in Kelp, but observation suggests that the digging action of the fisherman is what makes it better than the CQR.
Click to expand...

I avoid anchoring in kelp by the use of a fishfinder. I quite agree that as in many other "weedy" anchorages, there are areas in Canna which are clear of weed, easily found with a fishfinder. Much more efficient than "try try try again"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top