mick
Well-Known Member
Just seen the YM report on anchors. Does anyone think I should now get rid of my plough anchor (CQR type)?
YM anchors
- Thread starter mick
- Start date
ponapay
Well-Known Member
NO.
I have used mine effectively in a huge range of circumstances from mud to rocks via sand and gravel and have only once dragged. The wind on that drag suddenly reversed from Nly 3/4 to Sly 8, the bottom was soft mud and I had 5:1 scope of all cable. I lengthened the cable to 7:1 and the anchor reset immediately.
I have no connection with SL or the new manufacturer of CQRs and have full confidence in them.
I have used mine effectively in a huge range of circumstances from mud to rocks via sand and gravel and have only once dragged. The wind on that drag suddenly reversed from Nly 3/4 to Sly 8, the bottom was soft mud and I had 5:1 scope of all cable. I lengthened the cable to 7:1 and the anchor reset immediately.
I have no connection with SL or the new manufacturer of CQRs and have full confidence in them.
JIMCAT
Member
Problem C Q R difficult to set in hard sandy bottom and to reset in wind shift situation of more than 90 deg, answer I have found after 15 years CQ R anchoring with several dangerous dragging events is the Delta. Iaverage 40 anchorings per season in the med and in the last 7 years no problem with the Delta. I have no connection with the manufacturer
jimbaerselman
Well-Known Member
If you use the appropriate techniques which match your normal anchoring conditions and your anchor, you won't need to change. Your test is simple - do you often drag anchor when you wish you didn't, something need to change. If not, you're a happy bunny.
If something needs to change, first, check your technique against best practice. Do you let out enough scope (6 x 1 for difficult conditions). Do you dig in the anchor and check that it holds in full astern (sailboat, 20 to 40hp). Do you take steps to handle either tide reversal, or sheering in strong winds (dropping two anchors in suitable configurations).
Thes things matter more than anchor efficiency.
If you pass all these tests you've still got options which will work. Get a bigger anchor, or a heavier anchor, or get a more efficient anchor. If weight is critical to you, more efficiency may be the answer.
Magazine tests of anchors tend to demonstrate fairly convincingly that perfomance varies with age (ancient - CQR, fisherman; updated - flat anchors and bruces; modern - self righting jobs with hoops on them). Within these groups it's difficult to determine differences - so the differences don't matter.
To confuse matters, every man will testify that his anchor is best, since it doesn't drag. In other words, he's worked out how to use that anchor in such a way that it doesn't let him down. This should be read, not as a testimonial for that anchor, but as a testimonial for that skipper, in his normal location, using good anchoring techniques which don't expose the limitations of his anchor.
And all anchors have limitations. A matter of degree, of course.
If something needs to change, first, check your technique against best practice. Do you let out enough scope (6 x 1 for difficult conditions). Do you dig in the anchor and check that it holds in full astern (sailboat, 20 to 40hp). Do you take steps to handle either tide reversal, or sheering in strong winds (dropping two anchors in suitable configurations).
Thes things matter more than anchor efficiency.
If you pass all these tests you've still got options which will work. Get a bigger anchor, or a heavier anchor, or get a more efficient anchor. If weight is critical to you, more efficiency may be the answer.
Magazine tests of anchors tend to demonstrate fairly convincingly that perfomance varies with age (ancient - CQR, fisherman; updated - flat anchors and bruces; modern - self righting jobs with hoops on them). Within these groups it's difficult to determine differences - so the differences don't matter.
To confuse matters, every man will testify that his anchor is best, since it doesn't drag. In other words, he's worked out how to use that anchor in such a way that it doesn't let him down. This should be read, not as a testimonial for that anchor, but as a testimonial for that skipper, in his normal location, using good anchoring techniques which don't expose the limitations of his anchor.
And all anchors have limitations. A matter of degree, of course.
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
Jim, your post above is (IMHO) a truly brilliant summary of the anchoring world, and how we live in it.
You have said in a nutshell what everybody else has spent hundreds of pages arguing and pontificating about on various other threads that are still on-going.
There is no 'perfect' anchor - same as there is no 'perfect' boat - but we all have our individual opinions about what is perfect (or as near as dammit perfect) for us.
Ultimately it comes down to the person using the product - blame should not be heaped on the poor anchor's shoulders until all possible areas of (human) error have been eliminated.
You have said in a nutshell what everybody else has spent hundreds of pages arguing and pontificating about on various other threads that are still on-going.
There is no 'perfect' anchor - same as there is no 'perfect' boat - but we all have our individual opinions about what is perfect (or as near as dammit perfect) for us.
Ultimately it comes down to the person using the product - blame should not be heaped on the poor anchor's shoulders until all possible areas of (human) error have been eliminated.
Krusty
Well-Known Member
If your anchor really is a 'plough type', i.e. a cast imitation of the original, then get rid of it. If it is a genuine CQR, made by Simpson Lawrence, and stamped 'Made in Scotland' then keep it, use it with confidence, and treat it as an hierloom to be passed on to someone you love!
I too have just read the YM report on anchor tests, and do not recognise the behaviour of the Lewmar-manufactured 'CQR'. My conclusion is that Lewmar, attempting to reproduce the original SL-made CQR, have failed, perhaps in some important aspect they have not considered to be important.
I have trusted my boat to genuine CQRs on over 1400 occasions, and they have never let me down. Occasionally (less than 1 per cent) they have been reluctant to set, but once they are in they never let go, even in storm-force winds.
I have also used Bruce, Danforth, Brittany but either abandoned them or gave them away.
I too have just read the YM report on anchor tests, and do not recognise the behaviour of the Lewmar-manufactured 'CQR'. My conclusion is that Lewmar, attempting to reproduce the original SL-made CQR, have failed, perhaps in some important aspect they have not considered to be important.
I have trusted my boat to genuine CQRs on over 1400 occasions, and they have never let me down. Occasionally (less than 1 per cent) they have been reluctant to set, but once they are in they never let go, even in storm-force winds.
I have also used Bruce, Danforth, Brittany but either abandoned them or gave them away.
craigsmith
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I too have just read the YM report on anchor tests, and do not recognise the behaviour of the Lewmar-manufactured 'CQR'. My conclusion is that Lewmar, attempting to reproduce the original SL-made CQR, have failed, perhaps in some important aspect they have not considered to be important.
I have trusted my boat to genuine CQRs on over 1400 occasions, and they have never let me down. Occasionally (less than 1 per cent) they have been reluctant to set, but once they are in they never let go, even in storm-force winds.
I have also used Bruce, Danforth, Brittany but either abandoned them or gave them away.
[/ QUOTE ]Lewmar do not produce a copy, it is the original CQR, built to the same specifications. However, the point about copies in general is perfectly valid.
While if you are happy with your CQR there would seem little reason to change, consider your future sailing/cruising. The YM testing is on reasonably hard sand, which serves to shine the light on those anchors which have problems setting. The CQR and claw were two such types. So, if you need an anchor that will handle hard sand, or needs to be a reliable "setter", the answer to the original poster's question is "most certainly"; otherwise, why worry... /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I too have just read the YM report on anchor tests, and do not recognise the behaviour of the Lewmar-manufactured 'CQR'. My conclusion is that Lewmar, attempting to reproduce the original SL-made CQR, have failed, perhaps in some important aspect they have not considered to be important.
I have trusted my boat to genuine CQRs on over 1400 occasions, and they have never let me down. Occasionally (less than 1 per cent) they have been reluctant to set, but once they are in they never let go, even in storm-force winds.
I have also used Bruce, Danforth, Brittany but either abandoned them or gave them away.
[/ QUOTE ]Lewmar do not produce a copy, it is the original CQR, built to the same specifications. However, the point about copies in general is perfectly valid.
While if you are happy with your CQR there would seem little reason to change, consider your future sailing/cruising. The YM testing is on reasonably hard sand, which serves to shine the light on those anchors which have problems setting. The CQR and claw were two such types. So, if you need an anchor that will handle hard sand, or needs to be a reliable "setter", the answer to the original poster's question is "most certainly"; otherwise, why worry... /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
GMac
Well-Known Member
What Craig and everyuone else said - No unless you have no confidence in it.
FYI - The owners of S/L brought Lewmar or the other way around. They are fazing out the S/L brand as the reckon the can charge more with a Lewmar sticker on it (spot any cynical posters anyone /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) . As noted above the S/L CQR and the Lewmar CQR are exactly the same anchor made by the same people.
FYI - The owners of S/L brought Lewmar or the other way around. They are fazing out the S/L brand as the reckon the can charge more with a Lewmar sticker on it (spot any cynical posters anyone /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) . As noted above the S/L CQR and the Lewmar CQR are exactly the same anchor made by the same people.
EdWingfield
Well-Known Member
I had a 5Kg cqr which I used as the kedge. It was unsatisfactory. I bought a 5kg Bruce copy from Ebay - works fine.
Result. One cqr going cheap - Tyneside.
Result. One cqr going cheap - Tyneside.
Salty John
Well-Known Member
Absolutely correct, an excellent summation of anchoring in the real, as opposed to theoretical, world.
Malish
Well-Known Member
To save a lot of repetition, have a look at:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1238042/an/0/page/2#1238042
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1238042/an/0/page/2#1238042
jeanne
Well-Known Member
The relevant fact is, in the YM tests, they used the weight of anchor recommended by each manufacturer. IMHO, if you want to have faith in your anchor, you just cannot beat weight and all chain rode. We acquired an 80lb CQR (Flying boat anchor!) while we were building our boat. We spent 3 years trying to swap it for a 60lb, but nobody else wanted it. 21 years later, we wouldn´t swap it for the world, and use it all the time. (I would add that we have a 6ft bowsprit with a roller system that means the anchor comes home without us having to ever manhandle it! First with a manual windlass, now, as we age, an electric one...)) And nobody has mentioned a fisherman anchor. Our second line of defence in rock, coral or poor holding. Again, good and hefty.
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
Another stauch advocate for weight in the bower anchor is Steve Dashew who developed the Deerfoot and Sundeer range of offshore sailing yachts - have a look at (links to) some of his thoughts re this matter on www.setsail.com.
He presents a very convincing argument for having extra weight in the anchor, especially if you have a windlass for heaving it up.
Here is one article by him re anchoring at http://www.setsail.com/s_logs/dashew/dashew227.html.
Edited, as that link was in brackets, which decided to form part of the link, and hence didnt work......
And thanks to Craig for that much more detailed link mentioned below!
He presents a very convincing argument for having extra weight in the anchor, especially if you have a windlass for heaving it up.
Here is one article by him re anchoring at http://www.setsail.com/s_logs/dashew/dashew227.html.
Edited, as that link was in brackets, which decided to form part of the link, and hence didnt work......
And thanks to Craig for that much more detailed link mentioned below!
craigsmith
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
He presents a very convincing argument for having extra weight in the anchor, especially if you have a windlass for heaving it up.
(I just found one article by him re this matter at http://www.setsail.com/s_logs/dashew/dashew227.html).
[/ QUOTE ]And here: www.setsail.com/c_central/faqs/faq_anchor.html
He presents a very convincing argument for having extra weight in the anchor, especially if you have a windlass for heaving it up.
(I just found one article by him re this matter at http://www.setsail.com/s_logs/dashew/dashew227.html).
[/ QUOTE ]And here: www.setsail.com/c_central/faqs/faq_anchor.html
jimbaerselman
Well-Known Member
He is a staunch advocate of big anchors because he prefers to anchor with very short scopes: 2/1 or 3/1. Also, he prefers not to use two anchors . . .
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
Each unto their own opinions........ I am happily sitting on the fence, observing and listening to these discussions........
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
Re: YM anchors trial
I just received my December Yachting Monthly in the post today, and have just (so far) scanned through it - must read it more comprehensively soon.
But certainly lots of food for thought (and discussion, especially on here!) re the anchors thread.
I can see that the modern designs like the Rocna are breaking new ground everywhere, but I shall stick with the tried and tested 35 lb CQR we have. We also have a 15kg Bruce, and a Danforth (about 10 kg)
I just received my December Yachting Monthly in the post today, and have just (so far) scanned through it - must read it more comprehensively soon.
But certainly lots of food for thought (and discussion, especially on here!) re the anchors thread.
I can see that the modern designs like the Rocna are breaking new ground everywhere, but I shall stick with the tried and tested 35 lb CQR we have. We also have a 15kg Bruce, and a Danforth (about 10 kg)
