Which is the best anchor

[ QUOTE ]
No one is allowed to ask about anchors or anchor techniques without Rocna or Oceane being shoved down their throat

[/ QUOTE ]

you clearly need to read more anchoring threads - the Oceane is no longer for sale.............well no longer manufactured anyway.

The Rocna will of course be available from a chandler near you very soon........... /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
If I remember correctly it is written on the Spade-website, that a plough is used to turn the soil around using the least energy to do this. As a consequence if this a plough is not the right form for an anchor. I find this argument to have value and therefore a CQR should not have the best form for an anchor. Of course a plough also experiences resistance and therefore a CQR can very well control the ship if the forces acting upon the ship are less than the resistance the bottom exerts upon the anchor. Research has shown that the spade-form has a greater resistance at the same size as a plough and should therefore be a better form for an anchor. The result of this is that all "modern"-anchors such as Spade, Rocna, Bügel and Manson Supreme use this form for their anchors. This leads Hylas and Craig to their joint statement that it is the surface-area of the flukes and not the weight that determines the holding power of the anchor. One should add that it is NOT the surface-area of the flukes that determines the holding power, but the area of the flukes embedded in the bottom. Here comes another aspect into play, the power to penetrate the bottom. I have the idea that the differences between the different "modern"-anchors could very well be caused by the way they penetrate the bottom. Many of the anchor-tests start with a well embedded anchor(see the pictures of Rocna in the present thread in the Live-Aboard forum) and compare the holding resistance starting from an "ideal"-situation. In this respect I have my doubts about the practical value of many of the tests.
The penetration of the anchor into the bottom can be divided in two steps:
1. the penetration of the point of the anchor
2. the penetration of the rest of the flukes.
Spade has tried to put as much weight as possible on the tip of their anchor (again from the spade-website) to obtain penetration of the point as soon as possible after the anchor hits the bottom. For the second step sharp edges of the flukes seem to be important. This can also be concluded from the enormous forces the Fortress-anchors can withstand when properly embedded, as I have experienced myself. The flukes of the Fortress are well-known to be very sharp as compared to many other anchors of the same type.
As soon as an anchor is properly embedded the next factor are the forces enacting upon it. These anchors are caused by the ship subjected to currents, wind and waves. In the Live-Aboard thread some of these factors are discussed and I will not go into them. The contributions of Hylas, Craig Rocna and Jim Baerselman in this thread are worth reading in my opinion.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I noticed in the article in YM on Wanderer III, now on her 5th circumnavigation, that she still deploys a CQR. I think it would be safe to assume that she has anchored on every bottom, in every seastate and in every wind condition. Maybe the experts might care to reflect on how she managed to survive for so long using such outdated, inefficient ground tackle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pick up an anchor, any anchor, and throw it over the side. What happens? The boat drifts off.
Throw the same anchor again but attached to a bit of garden string, what happens? Boat drifts off a minute or so later.
Throw the same anchor again attached to a well matched and balanced rode and what happens? You have an anchoring system and you stay in one spot.

This also applies if you use a brick instead of an anchor. You just have to use a lot bigger gear, I guessing a bit there, I do use a anchor myself /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

'Ground tackle' is not just an anchor. Better the anchor the less work the rode has to do so you can adjust or trim in spots. Use a not so good anchor, any one, and you just have to upsize everything to help it. Very simple really.

No-one has said, Craig and Alain included, that the CQR is a bad anchor just there is better.

And quite frankly we have found that 'operator error' is far from uncommon and often the cause of grief. Some punters are that bloody stupid they could not anchor a 30fter using a 5000kg block of concrete. You should see the troops dive for cover when a punter says "My mate said", code word for *F word* up approching fast.

Tougue removed from cheek beceause I know you know that already, I hope /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
"No-one has said, Craig and Alain included, that the CQR is a bad anchor just there is better."

I agree that Craig hasn't, but Alain has consistently and repeatedly slagged off the CQR. IMO slagging off the competition is a very bad sales technique, although now he isn't involved any more it's fine by me.

Nevertheless, I have found the posts from both of them very informative.
 
generally they only bring this (the CQR) up in response to suggestions that it is the best thing since sliced bread - er bit like the post above................

same with bruce

they do however both have a right go at the brittany - often from a standing start, and are little happier with the danforth.........
 
having changed my life style to a liveaboard and now depend on the anchor I have found the comments made by these gentlemen fascinating, long may they continue. If you read the liveboard section you will find that the thread has expanded to cover all sorts of teckniques, with considrable imput from he experts.
 
I'd like to see more manfacturers willing to discuss products on here with the people who use them. I can see DW's point about using the forums to spam/sell, but I haven't seen outright plugs and all of you lot are switched on enough to make up your own minds about what advice you follow/ignore?
 
I agree and I wasn't really suggesting that the CQR is the best anchor - but I acknowledge that my post could be interpreted that way.

Many independent tests - not just YM's, have concluded that the design is inferior to the Spade, Fortress/Danforth and Delta, to list a few, when it comes to setting quickly and burying. But the XYZ, that came out very badly in the YM test was a top performer in the Practical Sailor test of April this year. So...how much faith should we place in tests?

I mentioned the case of Wanderer III because I'm sure that tests - like the one carried out by YM - might lead some to conclude that the CQR has no place on a modern cruising boat. I feel that the conclusions drawn from tests and graphs must be weighed up against the conclusions drawn from real life experiences. That was the crux of my post.

I carry three anchors - all of bower weight - CQR, Danforth and Bruce. My CQR is 35lbs on an all chain rode of 5/16" (which, coincidentally, is the same spec as on Wanderer III). I have always had confidence in this tackle when turning in for the night.

However, I will be buying a new anchor this winter because I'll be in the Mediteranean next year (I certainly won't be able to afford marinas) and I'll be looking at one of the newer designs - like Rocna or Spade.
 
Most of the comments here are saying the CQR is good.. or bad.. (or something in between.. ) or report some experience : “I’ve use it for years, or during a strong blow.. it never drag.. "

And all those "real life" opinions are important.

As a manufacturer it would have been quite difficult to express my personal opinion, ( as negative comments about the competition are not often well perceived ) but I do not longer manufacture anchors..

As a designer, I have spent hours studying all anchors to see what are the positive and the negative features..

And all my findings are not opinions but facts ..

Fact: The weight repartition of the CQR is as follows: tip 18% - hinge: 62% -
Opinion: not enough weight at the tip much too much weight at the hinge

Fact : When lying side way on a hard surface, the shape of the tip in regard to the surface is like a Spreader. (angle of more than 90°)
Opinion: a Spreader is designed to spread and not to dig in –

Fact: on hard surface the CQR is very difficult to dig in

Fact: when the surface is soft enough, the tip penetrate and then the upper surface of the tip will act like a chisel.. on soft surface (mud, soft sand) the CQR works perfectly

Fact: mud or soft sand can be considered as an high density liquid and on a liquid, the gravity laws still apply

Fact: when pulling a CQR beyond its holding capacity, the anchor drags. ( valid with most stable anchors ) and then by gravity the heavy hinge will dig below, the tip will come on the bottom surface like a submarine periscope… then the tip will dig in again, the anchor going back to the right position, until the hinge will again be pushed down by gravity – the tip coming on the surface like a submarine periscope.. and all this giving the following curve:

courbcqr.jpg


Now I will not comment with a personal opinion but I will leave you making your own mind if the CQR is a good anchor or not??
 
Really sorry for that Peter.. but I also wrote:

Fact: when the surface is soft enough, the tip penetrate and then the upper surface of the tip will act like a chisel.. on soft surface (mud, soft sand) the CQR works perfectly

Peaceful anchorages

Alain
 
There's always someone in the everlasting anchor debate who insists the CQR is the best. There's also always someone who says you should go 3 or more sizes above manufacturer's recommendations. It would be interesting to go back through the old threads and correlate the two.
 
Yes - it would be interesting. I find it hard to see how going up in size with a CQR will help it to set on a hard bottom. If it's going to lie on its side because of its heavy shank/hinge and light tip it's going to carry on lying in this way regardless. Any increase in weight at the fluke/tip is going to be offset by a destabilizing increase in weight elsewhere.

So, the old wisdom that going up in size gives you a heavier anchor with which to penentrate a hard surface is possibly incorrect? The benefit of upgrading would appear to be solely that you gain a larger fluke with which to resist dragging, once the anchor sets. Obviously this is desirable but it doesn't address the apparent problem; that the CQR has difficulty in setting in certain circumstances.

My own experiences of the anchor - and I've had one on every boat I've owned since 1973 - is that it does the job and I don't think I've ever had any real problems with it setting. That said, things move on and if a newer design can be shown to set quicker than the CQR and hold better - everything else being equal - then I feel it would be wise to consider adding it to the arsenal.
 
I've appreciated Craig's contributions, particularly the bits along the lines that it is unfair to compare a 10 kg aluminium anchor with a 16 kg steel anchor because the aluminium anchor flukes have a larger surface area (not to mention that it is one recommended for a larger boat). Unfair? When I'm lying awake wondering "is that the chain moving on the sea bed", will it worry me that the manufacturer of my anchor recommended a smaller one for my boat? Hell no.

And to continue the "I'm not surprised that . . ." theme raised in another thread on this subject, I'm not surprised that Keith Walker (no relation) has leapt to Craig et al's defence. To find my copy of December's YM, I had to visit three newsagents.

Mark
 
[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly it is written on the Spade-website, that a plough is used to turn the soil around using the least energy to do this. As a consequence if this a plough is not the right form for an anchor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This intrigues me. To follow the agricultural analogy, consider the shape of the tread on tractor tyres. In forward gear the tread pushes outwards like a plough, not inwards like a spade. There is a very good reason for this, as anyone who has tried reversing a tractor up a muddy slope will know.

Disclaimer: I'm not arguing that this throws any light on the choice of anchor, merely that some of these things are counterintuitive. (Just give me an axe to grind, a furrow to plough.)

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

J
Which Goose Neck ?
Replies
0
Views
131
JCPPH
J
A
HELP! Trapper 300 Restoration - Seeking Blueprints for a Unique Family Yacht!
Replies
2
Views
267
Neeves
N

Share this page

Top