The Delta Failed us Again.

[onestepcsy37]

Originally Posted by Brown Sugar

I'm in the process of upgrading my anchoring system and came across this article that you might want to look at. http://northpacificresearch.com/down...d_revealed.pdf
The numbers he uses about scope and anchor load were eye opening to me.

but not nearly as eye opening as watching your boat pounding on the beach after dragging on your 12 pound danforth and 3:1 scope.

circumnavigator friends once told me that 'you could always tell the long term cruisers from the newbies - the long termers always had the most and the biggest anchors.'

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Greenhand

I thought 3:1 was quite minimal, barely suitable for a lunch hook, even with chain.

I must admit that I surely admire the skippers who can get away with that.

Lunch hook? Wazzat? Either you anchor or you don't...

[Dhillen]

3:1 scope is enough if you have a new generation anchor and use all chain rode. We use a 110# Spade and 3:1 is ample for most anchoring we do. Obviously, if I think the anchorage is more exposed or the weather may be "iffy" I will use more scope.

I would never use just 3:1 scope with dinosaur anchors such as a CQR, etc. We cruised for years on a CQR and while it was a big jump in performance over the previously mentioned "rock on a rope," the Spade is that jump again.

Cheers.

Dhillen

[Adventurebound]

Tests I have read show that a scope up to 8:1 has the biggest advanage. After that your angle to the anchor changes relatively little. Useful to know if space is at a premium. Also, the bow in your line will initially assist poor performing anchors to dig in. However, once you have the full pull in a strong wind, there is no bow and the upward pulling force is at maximum.

[jackdale]

The only anchor I have ever had a problem setting is a Delta. At least 5:1, 150 feet chain, plus 50 feet nylon. mud bottom, familiar anchorage, 1500 rpm. It took three attempts to succeed. To make matters worse the windlass decided to fail; I picked up the entire length by hand twice.

They look like they should work. Nothing else: Bruce, CQR, new gen, has ever been that bad.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Dhillen;1552007with [U

dinosaur anchors[/U] such as a CQR, etc.

Ah, finally, a catchphrase for those oldie but not so goodies. Thanks.

[Robin3]

well now it has really got going I will add my two pennyworth to my earlier reply. Shallow water needs more scope (I'm talking of chain 'cos I don't like string rodes except if really deep water is involved or as a snubber) to be deployed than a simple 'n' x depth as shock or snatch loads influence events disproportionately. That is from practical experience not a spreadsheet though I don't doubt a maths professor could prove the theory behind it. As I said earlier too, I'm no fan of double ended anchoring except on a rare occasion as a means to try and keep the boat's head into a swell to reduce rolling I can remember a middle of the night drag years ago in a river anchorage using a genuine CQR up front and a Danforth copy 'tother end to reduce swinging room in crowded spot. 3am is not the best time to discover that arrangement doesn't work well, especially as the tide had by then had dropped low enough to bump the keel on the hard sand bottom from time to time, then when the current flow reversed we turned side on to it and pulled the CQR bow anchor out... interesting (not!) It was not the fault of the CQR Either, but it was certainly the fault of the dumbarse skipper, namely yours truly. That was over 40 yers ago but well remembered still. If you anchor fore'aft the tension on the stern anchor rode is trying hard to pull the bow anchor out of the bottom seemples yes?

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Robin3

If you anchor fore'aft the tension on the stern anchor rode is trying hard to pull the bow anchor out of the bottom seemples yes?

Why? If the rodes are appropriate... I've anchored in rivers with reversing currents, bow & stern and have not had those issues at all.

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Why? If the rodes are appropriate... I've anchored in rivers with reversing currents, bow & stern and have not had those issues at all.

Because to keep the boat lined uptraight between them, both rodes need to be at least partially taut. or you have the front of the boat on one anchor and stern on another, disconnected arrangement divide and conquer?? If two anchors are required to reduce swinging room I would be much happier havin both set off the bow as in a mooring

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Robin3

Because to keep the boat lined uptraight between them, both rodes need to be at least partially taut. or you have the front of the boat on one anchor and stern on another, disconnected arrangement divide and conquer?? If two anchors are required to reduce swinging room I would be much happier havin both set off the bow as in a mooring

Wouldn't that then be considered "technique?" The rivers I anchor in have reversing currents as well as differing tidal heights. Meausre the tidal height when one anchors, consider the changes coming in the next 6 - 8 hours and have a nice sleep.

Have done it successfully in a 25 footer and a 34 footer. Tight makes right, unless the water is rising big time.

In a narrow river, two anchors off the bow simply don't work.

[sharkbait]

You obviously XYZ next gen anchor. How could you have been so stupid. You newbies, you probably don't even have guns aboard. How dare you!

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Wouldn't that then be considered "technique?" The rivers I anchor in have reversing currents as well as differing tidal heights. Meausre the tidal height when one anchors, consider the changes coming in the next 6 - 8 hours and have a nice sleep.

Have done it successfully in a 25 footer and a 34 footer. Tight makes right, unless the water is rising big time.

In a narrow river, two anchors off the bow simply don't work.

Sure it does and it is how moorings are laid in confined spots. a bit of slack and the rode catenary (chain not string) takes some of the snatch loads out of the equation, tight will jerk something if a wave passes underneath or a powerboat wash hits, wind over (opposing) tide/current causes a chop that applies loads to tethers the two rodes ideally will be joined together off the bow not on board. In a permanent mooring the riser would most usually come from the mid point of a ground chain laid between two opposing anchors so the boat swing s in a radius equal to approx the sum of the riser length plus half the ground chain length . I was in charge for some years of laying our then yacht Club moorings that was in a shallowish harbour exposed to the prevailing winds and with strong tidalflow rates (3-4kts) but relatively small rise and fall.(6-7ft max). ANYways even though a newgen wonder anchor could well be better, the Delta will work if given chance by the use of proper technique IN the UK where I lived and sailed for over 50years, the RNLI tested and chose the Delta as the best anchor to be used on their lifeboats that was when it was first announced but as far as I know the RNLI Have not yet dropped their Deltas in favour of the newgen Mansons, Rocnas or Spades.

I know I' getting old and doddery and resistant to change but hey that's my thinking regardless I trust what I know.

[HopCar]

I usually try to stay out of the anchor wars, but 3:1 scope is just too short for any anchor. With all the catenary stretched out a 3:1 scope will form about a 17 deg. angle with the bottom. A 5:1 is only a 10 deg. angle. At 8:1 the angle drops to only about 6 deg. Chain of course helps as it makes it much harder to stretch out the catenary. Still, next time let out some more rode.

By the way, not only is your anchor too small, it's the wrong kind and you don't have enough chain, but your gun is too small, it's the wrong kind and you don't have enough ammunition.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Greenhand

I thought 3:1 was quite minimal, barely suitable for a lunch hook, even with chain.

I have never used less than 5:1, even in lunch hook/90 minutes stopping situations. I've seen too many times the wind veer and/or pick up quicker than I'd like.

That said, the "Delta failure" has to be in the context of holding, too short scope (as reported) and too light an anchor. Give it to me for my five-tonner and I'll put a mixed chain and 5/8" rope rode on it with that minimum 5:1 scope and it will probably work in everything but silt.

There are compelling reasons to carry "opposite" anchors, but one is the calm realization that, even if you have the right technique, which I do not believe is the case here, some anchors won't work, or won't work dependably, in certain conditions. It's why I carry an old fisherman's. It's only 15 lbs., but in certain weed or rock bottoms, it's the only thing that will grab. Damned useless save for a bar ornament otherwise.

Get a good book, like Earl Hinz's, and learn about the newer anchors. Then go out on calm days and practice until your technique is clearly effective. Then think about whether the Delta's a failure.

[pbiJim]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

It's good to have different types of anchors for different conditions.

This has been my experience as well.

I think that the answer to the original question may lie in post #1. The Danforth did not pull out. It was probably the better choice to have used for the main anchor on that particular day, in those particular conditions, with that particular bottom type.

Yes, larger & other types of anchors may also have performed better.

Originally Posted by Robin3

Shallow water needs more scope

My experience also supports this statement.