CQR Anchor

[lancelot9898]

Originally Posted by chala

Good thread but there is no mention of the link between the anchor and the chain, which often is the weakest part of an all chain rode. Beware of S/S Anchor Connector Swivels they have a bad reputation.

I agree with you about the swivel which the manufacturers don't seem to factor in side loadings in their ultimate strength numbers. Another weak link is the chain/rope interface for those of us who anchor with a chain rope combination. To get the interface to pass through the windlass, I splice the rope directly to the chain with an eye splice...not a back splice. I like using all three strands of the 3 strand nlyon line through the last link rather than just 2 strands like the back splice uses. Chafe is the area that is most likely to be the failure mode in extreme conditions and that is one reason for going with the largest line possible. My anchor setup is a 45 lb manson supreme, 80 ft of 3/8 BBB and 200 feet of 5/8 3 strand nylon.

[Paul L]

[QUOTE=lancelot9898;374593... To get the interface to pass through the windlass, I splice the rope directly to the chain with an eye splice...not a back splice. I like using all three strands of the 3 strand nlyon line through the last link rather than just 2 strands like the back splice uses. ....[/QUOTE]
A back splice does put all 3 strands through the last link.
The Chain Splice

Paul L

[Cheechako]

You should be able to find a used 35# CQR for a lot less than $500 now days with so many people going to the newer style anchors. Or go to a used Delta of adequate size.

[lancelot9898]

Originally Posted by Paul L

A back splice does put all 3 strands through the last link.
The Chain Splice

Paul L

You're right. Maybe I was thinking of another splice?? Anyway notice that even though 3 strands are passed thru that last link they were all seperated whereas with an eye splice the stands stay intack through the link and to me that seems superior. IMHO

[Paul L]

Lanc
Its anchor gear, whatever makes you feel comfortable.

Paul L

[marujo.sortudo]

Originally Posted by lancelot9898

Chafe is the area that is most likely to be the failure mode in extreme conditions and that is one reason for going with the largest line possible.

Chafe is a frequent source of failure (esp. in storm conditions), but larger line has a significant drawback and there are other ways to address chafe. Namely, larger lines operate at lower percentage of their breaking load which greatly reduces their elasticity, one of the primary advantages to a combo (rope/chain) rode.

All chain rodes should also have some kind of device, spring lines, or somesuch to provide shock absorption. In high winds/waves, the shock loads are much greater on an all chain rode because of its lack of elasticity and can break the chain much easier without some form of shock absorption.

[Rene]

Most independent test I have seen rate the CQR as the worst and designs such as the ronca and supreme as the best holding in most bottom conditions. These tests were independent with no axe to grind. The CQR was especially bad under shifting wind conditions. I don't want to ruffle any feathers but these test results are available and were conducted under controlled conditions.

[barnakiel]

- risk - boat loss, life loss or both,

Go for a better design: Rocna, Mason, Spade, etc. Bruce or Delta as a minimum. Unless you only need a lunch hook.

My boat 26', 7000Lbs, Bruce 23Lbs, 60' 3/8 chain. Just good enough, looking forward towards 35Lbs Rocna and 100' 5/16 G-40 chain soon.

b.

[highseas]

How can the CQR be such a poor anchor when about 75% of cruisers actually cruising use these anchors.I don't see boats dragging all over the harbor.In LaPaz the current and wind wreak havoc on ground tackle,boats spinning in circles all day in 20knot winds.Why are they still there?This is purely marketing bull.Everyone I know uses one,my 50lb Manson plow has never dragged once,even riding out 50 knot winds for 2 days straight.Ask real sailors what they really use.

[barnakiel]

Q: How can the CQR be such a poor anchor when about 75% of cruisers actually cruising use these anchors.
A: 75% people in the US eat only highly processed food. Does it make an apple unhealthy? CQR may be a good anchor, but many sailors say that there are some newer and better designs. NB I do not think 75% of cruisers use CQR. Can you PLS quote the source of this figure.

Q: I don't see boats dragging all over the harbor.
A: It may mean your harbours's bottom is perfect for CQR. Stick with it.

Q: This is purely marketing bull.
A: There may be some bull in it, but not exclusively. There is also years of trial and error, looking for the better thing, design and material developments.

Q: Ask real sailors what they really use.
A: I believe it is exactly what the poster did. Or do you imply users of this forum are not real sailors? ;-)

barnie

[Rene]

As I understand it the CQR was developed during WW1 as an anchor for barrage ballons. This may explain why many cruisers use them. They have been around for a long time and many of us being frugal (read cheap) are not willing to shell out for somthing better even in the face of growing data which indicates we should. I anchor in Mexico with long time cruisers using CQR anchors. Many of them have dragged under asaults from depressions and corumels.

[highseas]

If people felt the need to get the best to protect their investment ,wouldn't they be running to the marine store to purchase something better?.Why don't insurance companies require them to?Seems most boats have all the latest gadgetry costing big $, but still have a plow on the bow.Just an observation.

[chala]

Originally Posted by Rick

Capt Lar,
No question that the CQR is one of the most successful all-around anchors. Regardless of all calculations and theoretical arguments promulgated by competitors the CQR is the best reseting anchor to lay to with shifting tides, currents and winds. Any anchor design is a compromise and, to be sure, other anchors should be carried in addition to a CQR for radical bottom conditons. I have 5 anchors aboard and love every one of 'em but the CQR is my favorite way, in general, to get sleep.

I agree.

[idpnd]

Ground tackle questions seem to reach nearly religious proportions, particularly due to the lack/impossibility of scientific data.

Facts are

- the CQR is a patent from 1933/35, and was one of the first anchors certified as "high holding power" by Germanic Lloyd

- the anchor has been and continues to be enormously popular in the boating community

- there are newer anchor designs, which are all to some extent based on the CQR and similar plough designs. The new designs are often extortionately expensive and marketed accordingly

- the CQR has performed abysmally in all tests I could find on the subject. However, not a single one of these tests was looking at lateral force, or forces from varying directions to simulate changing conditions.

As I said above, my boat came with a huge CQR (approx. 110 lbs) for a boat of 55K lbs, and I will give it a try when I launch it. From looking at it, I can see it dragging along on the ground just lying on its side doing ****all.

I'm actually considering a 110 lbs klipp/patent anchor (an even older design) as a replacement. These are used by all larger commercial vessels (yes you have seen that design before) and just seem to make sense. Plus it's rather affordable.

[idpnd]

Actually, practical sailor did veering tests, AND they were impressed with the CQR, somehow contradicting the above.