CQR Anchors

[Sandero]

I find the Rochna guy continually comes on anchoring threads to promote his product. Whilst it may be OK or even good... his approach is extremely annoying. I suggest he find a less pesky means of selling his anchors.

Jef
sv Shiva
Contest 36s

Edit: and now Alain shows how he skews data to favor his product.

Of course anyone with a brain in their head understands that the pull out strength of an anchor has to do with the surface area of the anchor as it engages the material it is buried in... assuming it does break from the pull. In that sense more area will (once properly buried) have greater resistance to withdrawal... no brainer. Of course with the caveat of the geometry of the area.

The flukes and the plow shape are designed to bury and spread the anchor load as close to the direction of pull.. similar to the way a parachute uses its area to support/resist in spreading the forces in a large area.

The issues for anchor performace deal with several factors including getting the flukes to assume the proper orientation for them to dig into the bottom as the boat lays back.

Resetting and adjusting to a different direction are also key factors. We know that some angles of pull can be used to break an anchor out and others cause it to even set deeper.

The weight becomes a factor because it effects the geometry of the anchor in orienting its flukes to properly begin the set.

And finally different bottoms and even rodes will effect the perfomance of an anchor.

I suspect that the CQR design works reasonably well under most conditions and that is why it is so commonly seen. Rochna is new and so the history is not there... yet. and if Mr Smith continues his approach he may not see much market penetration for us to find out.

[ssullivan]

Guys, please. This is not a thread entitled "which anchor is best." Please refrain from product promotions here. You are welcome to start a new thread somewhere else discussing your products.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

Whilst I respect the desire to avoid strong commercial elements, I must point out that the thread has digressed from the OP's topic. From CQRs the subject went firstly to Rocna, then Alan's home-built version, then the pros and cons of copies in general, and more recently the SAIL testing was introduced.

Especially since this testing deals with the thread topic, namely the CQR, surely a presentation of the results of that testing, for those that haven't seen it, is absolutely relevant?

Craig, the thread was back on topic and going strong, at which point you added another commercial. As the OP *and* a moderator of the board, I am asking you nicely to refrain from derailing this thread and turning it into an anchor debate thread.

[Alain d'HYLAS]

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 positives 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 is 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:



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??

[ssullivan]

Not bad Alain. Real data, no plugs for other products and your own opinions about the CQR. I would tend to disagree in practice that the CQR is diffiult to set in hard bottoms, but such is the nature of opinions.

Question: Why is it that my CQR works so well for weeks at a time as the wind changes direction, pivoting with the wind? I almost assume that it jumps out and resets in an opposite direction, which is a big plus in my book.

Based on all the data above, maybe you can suggest how it is able to act "like a mooring" (to quote myself)

[Alain d'HYLAS]

You can imagine Sean, how it is difficult for a former anchor manufacturer to talk about other anchors.. and although I don't have anymore financial interest with any anchor manufacturer or distributor.. I'm still an anchor designer and I will remain so all my life..

When I started to live aboard and sail full time on my boat, I have been equiped with both a CQR and a "flat" (Britany) anchor.. The Med wasn't the easiest place to anchor as there is very few mud, but mostly very fine sand - hard packed - and quite often covered by weed..

And after countless problems with both my CQR and the Britany, I did develop the Spade, at the beginnig only for my own use...

Now, I'm not sure if it will be opinion or fact.. but I strongly believe that the CQR has a lot of difficulties to set in both hard bottoms and/or weed.. and from all I read in various forums, it seems to be a quite commom belief.

And also I have many good friends around U.K. who are absolutely happy with their CQR (mostly muddy bottoms)

And this is an opinion, but I believe that 'New generation" anchors (not any precise brand name, but in general most of them) are by far and regarding all different characteristics, much more effective than the CQR .

I know that it was, and still is, difficult to convince "conservative" poeple but I can clearly see the difference and more and more poeple have now a much more open mind toward the "new" models.

Why is it that my CQR works so well for weeks at a time as the wind changes direction, pivoting with the wind? I almost assume that it jumps out and resets in an opposite direction, which is a big plus in my book.

If you look at the curve from SAIL magazine anchor test "effect on location on holding power", you will see that some anchors gave a very good holding in some location and realy nothing in others.. and this is the "real life".. for example, the XYZ anchor was rated "first" at the latest "Practical Sailor" test.. and didn't set at all at the SAIL test..

In the place I live, I'm surounded by any kind of beaches, soft sand, shells, rough sand - very fine sand - very hard, mud..
....give me a set of anchors (and some money ) and ask me the results you want to have.. I will select the most appropiate bottom and you will have them (and this is a reason why I don't believe videos published by some manufacturers)

"Practical Sailor" has published an "anchor reset test" (volume 27 - number 2 - 15 of January 2001) where the CQR achieved an honourable 3 third position in mud and sand.. but behind two "new generation" models.

[ssullivan]

Ok, I'll agree that the CQR is not great in weeds. I've definitely seen that. I have to be careful to get it to set in that situation.

But with all of the data and all of the text above, you don't know why it is able to pivot in a circle when the wind changes? I would have thought your anchor might have the same behavior so you might know how/why anchors are able to swing a full 360 if the wind does.

Do they break out and reset? Simply rotate in place? Anyone?

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Do they break out and reset? Simply rotate in place?

Humm.. quite difficult to know when an anchor remain completely embedded and turn itself into the seafloor.. more easy when the anchor break out and reset..

Perhaps, as it is an independent test, this will better give you an answer (and sorry the CQR was not in the third position but only in 14 out of 17 tested anchors.. )

[ssullivan]

Ahhh... so it does pop out and then dig back in. Very interesting. Thank you again for some objective info. To me, if I have 150' of chain out, I could care less if I moved 15' on a reset. I'm not foolish enough to anchor that close to a hazzard.

[Sandero]

I don't think so... I have anchored often in Newport Harbor for a weekend and with shifting winds have spun around the anchor. My sense is that it is buried and rotates as the shifts are often slow and not dramatic changes. The boat is typically swinging and yawing regardless and this does not mean a reset. I don't feel that my anchor pops and resets for wind shifts... that sounds preposterous... No?

Someone needs to drop a submerissible camera and leave it for a few days of time lapse and then look at the results.

Jef

[cat man do]

Wow , after doing some more research on anchors for the new cat i'm just amazed about the amount of stuff out there.

Seems almost every company has the best anchor as voted by "Sail" or "PBO" or similar.

Here is a supposed test done by ABS for anchors to suit boats 33 to 38 ft I found, but I believed it was paid for by an Anchor manufacturer.

I'm getting more confused by the minute at the amount of [ mis ] information there is.

Dave

[craigsmith]

I should like to add the recent SAIL and Yachting Monthly results to the tests above, but the ssullivan-the-moderator doesn't seem to like what they say about his favorite anchor, and keeps removing them.

Perhaps a link to the original article will be acceptable:
www.rocna.com/press/press_0610_wm_sail_testing.pdf

This is applicable to the last few posts in particular, as a veer test was conducted and the results are mentioned in the blurbs of each anchor in the write-up.

FYI.

The Practical Sailor veer tests as posted by Alain are entirely realistic, although in softer stuff (mud) most any anchor will stay embedded throughout even a sharp and sudden veer. The harder the seabed is, the more likely it is to roll-out, and then the less likely to re-set itself automatically, and so the more important this characteristic becomes.

[Alan Wheeler]

Craig, go read the rules. It's not that Sean does not like your comments about "His favorite anchor", it's the fact that you are Blatantly promoting YOUR product. STOP IT!!

[Rick]

Craigsmith, you need to realize (whether or not you acknowledge it) that one of our moderators "speaks" as one for all of us in that you represent a commercial interest speaking "over the top" relative to any zeal in presenting your anchor as a "solve all-best all" solution to ANY AND ALL anchoring situations. The truth is not addressed by you in realizing that, in fact, there are other solutions and applications which have been eminently successful and cannot be therefore argued with. If one were to strictly apply your writings one would think that no one could possibly have survived any wind or current anchoring situations before the advent of your anchor. Guess what? Not true.

Your wording can be interpreted as arrogant and, at the least, insulting regarding the successes of many of our readers' stories with other anchors in various anchoring situations. Perhaps you are not aware that many of your readers are cognizant of the concepts of critical thinking and know that you are selectively ignoring various arguments presented to you and that you then furtively present statements that do not only fail to address those arguments they "sail" downwind in a convienent fashion towards your commercial interests.

Get a life other than a commercial one.

[cat man do]

...........OUCH !!