Consequences of a too big Anchor - Rocna

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... A kitchen sink? Worst we've hooked onto are trees, logging slash and deadheads. I've seen old massive chain used to create log booms, but that's the worst of it up here ... man, I love Superior .

"Lake Inferior" just doesn't cut it!

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

"Lake Inferior" just doesn't cut it!

???

I don't understand what you're saying BC.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

???

I don't understand what you're saying BC.

I just meant that if I were naming that vast waterway, it would be Superior rather than anything else. I suspect it was named because it was the northernmost lake of the bunch or "merely" the largest but it has worked out to be superior in every way. I spent a week solo 'longshore up there one August about a million years ago. Just me and the wolves and da bears. Better than a trip to DisneyWorld, IMO.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

I just meant that if I were naming that vast waterway, it would be Superior rather than anything else. I suspect it was named because it was the northernmost lake of the bunch or "merely" the largest but it has worked out to be superior in every way. I spent a week solo 'longshore up there one August about a million years ago. Just me and the wolves and da bears. Better than a trip to DisneyWorld, IMO.

Ah ... got it. Sometimes I'm slow . You're so right! If it wasn't for this thing called winter, and the high cost of living, I might never leave.

Lake Superior is an incredible cruising ground. It is the largest Great Lake, and indeed the largest fresh water lake in the world. Most of the Canadian north shore is still wild and empty of urban development and cruisers. There are endless shores to explore -- vast regions where you can still commune with the wolves and bears. Think of this area as similar to the PNW, but without the tides and pointy mountains (ours are old and rounded). The southern shore (the American side) has a little more development, but still has some fantastic cruising areas such as the Apostles and Isle Royale (which should belong to Canada ... but that's another story).

But to keep this on-topic, we've cruised the northern Great Lakes for the past 10 years. We tend to go out for four to six weeks at a time, and we anchor virtually ever day. Anchoring is an essential skill for us, which is why I'm so interested in this notion that perhaps I've been over-doing it. I've always taken the time to slowly dig in our anchor and make sure we can hold at full-throttle before feeling comfortable. Jim's comments have got me wondering if I'm being too cautious.

[oslokid]

I replaced a Danforth style anchor/rode with a 15kg/33lb Rocna and 140ft of 5/8BB chain last year and have been very happy. Our boat is 37ft with 14,500 lbs displacement and after researching and considering going oversize (budget was not an issue) I went with what Rocna recommends in their sizing chart.

Here are the reasons I went with the 33lb Rocna and only 140ft of chain:
1. We only sail SF bay area and have no illusions of taking our boat on any extended ocean crossing.
2. We anchor (overnight) in mostly mud and never in more than 15-20ft of water.
3. I didn't want extra weight in case I have to manually haul it up.
4. I didn't want extra weight straining the windlass.
5. I didn't want a larger anchor nicking the gelcoat on the bow.
6. I didn't want extra chain to clean mud off.
7. We don't ever take our boat out in storms, let alone anchor out.
8. The Rocna is easy to clean/rinse mud off.

We've anchored overnight about a half dozen times and never had an issue with dragging or having to reset the anchor. The Rocna bites right away and we always set the anchor by backing up in reverse at around 2200 RPM for a couple of mins. When pulling it up we pull chain in slow and get stabilized on top of anchor. The anchor has come out easy every time. A little mud but no nicks.

My advice for anyone going through the buying exercise I did last year is to take into account your boat/equipment/type of use. Going bigger may not always be better.

Regardless of what anchor...make sure you lock (wire) in the bolt on the shackle connecting chain to anchor :-)

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by oslokid

Here are the reasons I went with the 33lb Rocna and only 140ft of chain:
1. We only sail SF bay area and have no illusions of taking our boat on any extended ocean crossing.
2. We anchor (overnight) in mostly mud and never in more than 15-20ft of water.
3. I didn't want extra weight in case I have to manually haul it up.
4. I didn't want extra weight straining the windlass.
5. I didn't want a larger anchor nicking the gelcoat on the bow.
6. I didn't want extra chain to clean mud off.
7. We don't ever take our boat out in storms, let alone anchor out.

Hurrah, quite agree and I don't follow the "bigger is better" idea.

Pete

[Jimbo485]

Originally Posted by oslokid

We've anchored overnight about a half dozen times and never had an issue with dragging or having to reset the anchor. :-)

Do you think that is a reasonable number of anchoring experiences from which to draw observations and conclusions?

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I've always thought it important to ensure I have a good set with my anchor. I spend time digging it in, and ensuring it will hold at maximum reverse. I can usually get the anchor set such that the flukes are completely buried. This takes time, and fuel. What you're suggesting is that this is unnecessary. Once I feel the anchor grabbing, that's enough?

When I anchor under sail (which happens occasionally) we usually can't get the same set as with the engine. So far so good ... so maybe I should be less anal about getting the perfect set all the time.

A kitchen sink? Worst we've hooked onto are trees, logging slash and deadheads. I've seen old massive chain used to create log booms, but that's the worst of it up here ... man, I love Superior .

Mike, no I'm not suggesting that you change your technique... far from it! We do much the same thing. I was saying that it isn't necessary to completely bury the anchor at the outset, especially if it is a big'un. Your conservative practice doubtless is reassuring to you and your crew.

And FWIW, I grew up summering on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, and thought it was wonderful. No sailing, sadly... but I must admit that I find oceanic venues to be far more interesting in terms of sealife. I get nervous when far away from saltwater!

Cheers,

Jim

[nimblemotors]

Would an anchor too large deeply buried not retrievable?

[sailorboy1]

I'm jealous that some even know how far their anchor is buried If I can see the anchor I have a MAJOR problem.

It would taker scuba equipment for me to find out. The only indication I have is how much mud comes up with the anchor.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Mike, no I'm not suggesting that you change your technique... far from it! We do much the same thing. I was saying that it isn't necessary to completely bury the anchor at the outset, especially if it is a big'un. Your conservative practice doubtless is reassuring to you and your crew.

It's what I've always thought, and how I've always cruised. All things considered, I stand by my original comment, which is to get the largest new-style anchor you and your boat can reasonably manage. Too small leads to obvious problems, but too big can promote poorer anchoring technique, and perhaps a reduced ability to get a good set. I say go big ... but not too big .

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

And FWIW, I grew up summering on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, and thought it was wonderful. No sailing, sadly... but I must admit that I find oceanic venues to be far more interesting in terms of sealife. I get nervous when far away from saltwater!

Yes, sea life is the one thing we lack on the Great Lakes. And the smells of the ocean -- we have none of that. But there's a lot to be said for big open stretches of water, rugged and unpopulated shoreline, and no issues with salt water. Heck, on Superior I don't even worry about how much water we carry. I drink right from the Lake.

Oh, and the water is so clear up here I can always see my anchor. On the rare occasions when we head up rivers I get nervous when I can no longer see the bottom. Visibility is easily 50 feet or more.

... why am I leaving .

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... why am I leaving .

Well, one reason is to reach a place where one can sail comfortably all year long!

And while there are no places to view wolves etc in the South Pacific, there are plenty of places where you can escape modern civilization and urban sprawl. And perhaps you could learn to view sharks as watery wolves!

Come give it a try, and I bet you will like it, Mike!

Jim

[JPA Cate]

Mike,

Although they don't have the mystique of wolves, there are dingoes to be seen at Fraser Is., easy to reach by boat, and possible to anchor off; also, one can see many types of kangaroos, and it's sort of fun to spot one camouflaged by its natural environs. All in all, not too bad. Though, you might find it too warm.

No loons, either, but waking to the laughter of the kookaburras ain't bad: their sardonic laughter reminds me of our place in the scheme of things. And magpie warblings are really wonderful, too.

_____________

Orchidius, IMO, the real downside to not having a windlass is that it becomes harder with each failed attempt to anchor to get it back up, leading to reluctance to go ahead and try the 3rd or 4th time. Also can be a problem if someone inconsiderate anchors too close to be safe for you and then refuses to move. Those sorts of problems are common, but become non-events if it's easy to get the anchor up. I hope you keep an open mind for a windlass in your future, in spite of it being a PITA to install a proper anchoring system.



Ann

[Nicholson58]

Hooked up the new Rocna 55 today. There is a tiny issue with the roll bar and our pulpit. Guess we'll have to cut & fit.

Photos: Rocna 55 & swivels in the truck
CQR #74 headed for the deep locker
Rocna 55 covering the Bruce 54 secondary.

[sailorboy1]

will keep your Bruce from falling off