CQR Anchors

[Pblais]

At least Lloyds is a credible benchmark for quaility

Certification for a particular purpose is what we would want but of course it's not what it means nor that it sustantiates all claims the manufacturer has made about the product.

It may indeed be made well and under the very best QA standards but what we want to know is "what it does" and "does it work". In the end will it work for me?

Even if it's "holding power" is certified, just what does that really mean? If that is really the one important measure then large fluke anchors would be the only ones any one would ever need because they can effect more surface area contact to the bottom material if completly set into the bottom. That is if you can set them and they stay set. More like a lot of uncertified If's.

So in the end the certification is really only better than nothing.

[defjef]

There are many varibales in the fine art of anchoring.

Some anchors may be a better design.

But factor in the varibles and it might erase any inherent design quality.

I have 99% of my experiences with a CQR... and after 21 yrs I am still here, boat has never dragged into danger... so I would say it works.

Did I ever drag? You betcha and I think I know why... mostly bad technique (lazy, slopy or inexperience and nylon rode or bottom).

I think to expect every drop to be a perfect set is bording on believing in the tooth fairy.

To me the holding power has to do with the fluke area and geometry.. once buried. To compare anchors you have to control for "somethings" because there are too many varibles for comparing anchors.. it becomes comparing apples and oranges.

I would be more apt to listen to a sailor who had years of experiences with different anchors on the same yacht under different conditions than someone who has more limited experiences or with one anchor (such as yours truly).

This is not rocket science to have controls in a trials... Where are the scientist/sailors out there with nothing better to do than run the trials?

[Pblais]

But factor in the variables and it might erase any inherent design quality.

I would agree totally. So it would seem the type of anchor is maybe less important than many other things. It also seems that learning to use an anchor involves more than just what kind or brand it is too. They all are of course different so skill with one is not 100% transfered if you suddenly change brands. Though some significant element is fundamental to any anchor. Last is the rode. It's as much a part of anchoring as the anchor.

21 years of good results with a CQR is a pretty impressive anchoring system, but it does not mean if anyone with no experience bought a new CQR that they could get the same results you get now nor that if they tried a different anchor that they would anchor with the same results you get now either.

The skill of anchoring is more complex than the label on the anchor.
Anchoring may not be as hard as mastering the violin but you can't just toss one overboard and expect it to hold all the time without knowing how.

Can you tell how much of your years of success was due to the CQR itself, how much was from your skill, and how much was luck? Better to be lucky than dragging. I'm not sure the anchor deserves the large part of the credit nor that your luck could last that long. 21 years of good anchoring is due to something.

Sometimes the scientific method is about trying to expose the important part of the equation and not determining the details of the less important parts.

[Amgine]

I've sailed with a number of anchors, and I've dragged twice. My luck is mostly because I'm paranoid, and I'm willing to carry a fair bit of iron. And the two times I dragged I was on anchor watch because the weather was bad and I was in a stupid location without the right anchor gear.

The current boat (25') carries a 25lb and a 30lb CQR, and a 15lb Bruce lunch hook. I plan to replace one of the CQRs with an 18kg Bruce, and add a 15-20lb danforth-type for the lunch hook. Plus add gear for anchor tripping.

The CQRs are good general-purpose anchors, but the little Bruce has out-performed them on occasion (possibly due to it's lighter, springy nylon rode with only a short 30' of chain.) I've fouled CQR, Bruce, and danforth-types when trying to set, usually with plastic grocery bags. After serious storms in ideal anchoring grounds the CQRs are much more thoroughly set/difficult to retrieve.

Anchors are compromises, like rigs. Go to far away places and you'll find people who have made it there safely with all kinds of gear, so it isn't the equipment so much as a familiarity with it and the skills to repeatedly and successfully set it.

[dkall]

I think the rotation of 65% vs 18% is an oversimplification. Where is the center of gravity. One must take the entire anchor into act. I've never watched one "pop" out.

As for holding in hard bottoms and grass those are always tricky situations. Up the weight of an anchor, any anchor for the hard bottom and eventually you'll be able to pierce it. If not than go to a different anchor.

When we first started crusing we had a 35 lb CQR. I had some difficulty digging in at times and a little dragging. Boat was a 20k lb cutter. I upped the weight (new anchor) to a 45 lb CQR and never had the problem w/ piercing the bottom again. My cruising area was Florida, Bahamas and N Carribean north of the VI's. In light grass it held fine but in heavy grass I needed to go to the Luke that I carry.

Of course the anchoring delima can't be fully understood w/o the discussion of rode. And while anchor tests often just compair anchors they never really work rode into the situation. Nor are there many scientific rules applied; ie they compare anchors of different weights to each other, there is no comparision of same style anchor to different weights in that style, there is no compairson of different scope lenghts to the same anchor.

The Sail test was interesting, but anchoring on the 3 / 1 scope seemed bizare to me. While one may begin setting the anchor at 3 / 1 I don't know any "cruisers" that anchor on 3 / 1. Those that do soon learn and change to a longer scope.