Anchor types and General questions

[hsi88]

Doing what a lot of you have already done. Utilizing a modern anchor for any overnight stays and will pull out the old Danforth for squishy mud if I can't relocate first.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by thomm225

So it's a good thing a CQR is like a double plow...

And btw, have you ever pulled a plow through the dirt?

The one I used to pull was a 7 bottom plow and the dual wheeled tractor with the 6 cylinder diesel definitely felt the strain when those 7 plow blades were lowered in the ground

https://www.google.com/search?q=7+bo...=1494930416317

Check out Steve from Panope's last video of anchors setting thread. Post 307

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...155412-21.html

Shows the relative performance of a plough anchor (Delta) and another anchor that some experts have also called a plough.

Watch what happens as increased thrust is applied to the anchor after initial setting.

What you need is an anchor that dives. Cheers

[sailorboy1]

[QUOTE=noelex 77;2394501
When CQR and Delta anchors are issued certificates from a company like Lloyd’s that proclaim these designs as "high holding", in my opinion it is time for the standards to be overhauled.[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that basically these anchor certify things are so useless as to just be meaningless. As example I don't care if my anchor schank is certified to not bend, I'm interested in knowing the load it will hold.

I feel that for the most part once any anchor is well set it hold for pretty much all conditions a sane person would expect it to.

Anchors are among the most amazing things in boating. I mean my oversize anchor has a area ratio to my boat of like 1:140 and weight ratio of 1:367 and I expect it to hold my boat is nasty conditions (and it has). That's just amazing!!!!!

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by downunder

Check out Steve from Panope's last video of anchors setting thread. Post 307

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...155412-21.html

Shows the relative performance of a plough anchor (Delta) and another anchor that some experts have also called a plough.

Watch what happens as increased thrust is applied to the anchor after initial setting.

What you need is an anchor that dives. Cheers

What I know is that this old worn CQR has held for me when I anchored in the wrong place because that is where I wanted to be the next day in onshore winds nearing 30 knots while I was 70 yards offshore.

The waves were a mix of bay and ocean waves nearing 3'

The anchor held every time. I even rigged the backup Bruce one night around 2am because I was worried about the anchor slipping.

I had to remind myself that the PO had sailed the boat for 2 years from Massachusetts to Florida (and the Bahamas) and most of the way back and never rigged the Bruce.

The CQR remained on the bow when I found the boat

I don't need a staged video to tell me what the anchor can do I've taken the chance on it and it held many times

And btw, I've never backed down to set this anchor or any other but I do enjoy the show when others do it. Some folks really get crazy with it.

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

When CQR and Delta anchors are issued certificates from a company like Lloyd’s that proclaim these designs as "high holding", in my opinion it is time for the standards to be overhauled.

Isn't there now a category for higher holding power than the CQR and Delta and so forth? Super something? If so, maybe that was an attempt to update standards?

-Chris

[double u]

fwiw:
the genuine CQR ("made in Scotland") was never cast but drop forged (the very large sizes fabricated)
since just a short while ago the drop-forged ones are not made any more-all sizes CQR are now fabricated
35, 45 & 60lbs gebnuine CQRs served us very well on 2rtws, on the 3rd a Bügel relegated them to the lazarette...
(next time:
Mantus, fortress & Spade)

[estarzinger]

I will comment that I believe there are two entirely different anchoring 'load cases'. One is in a 'burying bottom' - eg mud or sand where the anchor will bury/penetrate - the sort of bottom you see in almost every anchor test. The second is in a 'non-burying bottom' - eg a thin layer of sand/mud over coral or rock, or a jumble of rocks, etc - this sort of bottom is not uncommon out in 'the real world'. I once guesstimated that it represented a third of the bottoms that we anchored on.

The 'next gen' anchors are terrific in the first type of bottom. In both my experience and my testing they were less good in the 'non-burying bottom' situation and we preferred the Bruce type for that (a Manson Ray as the best choice since genuine Bruce no longer available).

When we were last in Chile we had on board a Supreme, a Rocna and a Ray (all around 55kgs). We tested them and alternated them in use. We sold the supreme after that testing program, put the Ray on our bow as our primary anchor, and for a couple years we carried the Rocna in our sail locker as a spare, and I pulled it out and 'retested' it when I got up to nova scotia and newfoundland and greenland but had the same result and sold it. We continued to carry a big aluminum fortress and a big steel danforth as 'extra' anchors.

Our experience was that in burying bottoms all three anchors were completely satisfactory - all three were big enough to penetrate and had enough surface area to hold. But in 'non-burying' bottoms the Ray was superior at setting and holding. So, in our experience it was the better 'general purpose' solution.

Some people have told me we should just not anchor on 'non-burying' bottoms, but that seems a bit impractical. Often you dont really know what sort the bottom is, and sometimes you dont have much choice of anchorage. We do try to search out 'burying' spots, but sometimes we just did not have a choice.

To be clear - I believe all the modern anchor choices are pretty decent, when sized properly and set with appropriate technique (especially scope). But in our direct experience, because of the not so uncommon 'non-burying bottom', we found the Ray to be the best general purpose choice for us. . . . and we put our money (buying and testing the alternatives) and our lives (putting the ray on our bow) where my mouth is.

[Panope]

Thanks for that, Evans.

Unless I am mistaken, your anchors were a bit larger (40kg?) than most and I wonder about the effects of scale on anchor performance.

Many people (myself included) report that the small Bruce anchors have trouble burying (in burying type anchorages) with resulting very low holding power.

Can you confirm the size of your Ray anchor and comment on any performance differences with the Bruce?

Steve

[estarzinger]

^^ yes our anchors were big (50-55kgs), and yes, I believe there is more of a 'scale effect' with the bruce types than other types.

On our previous boat we used smaller anchors, and my personal judgement is that you are over the bruce type 'scale hump' over about >20kgs (we had perfect 100% no-drag experience RTW with a 20kg genuine bruce on that boat). While we also had a small (5kg?) dinghy anchor bruce and it was pretty much worthless (about as good as a similar weight mushroom).

But take that just as a very rough judgmental ballpark. I dont know anyone who has good data on what the scale effect looks like for various different designs.

And the comments about scale effect should not obscure my main point, which is that there are (I believe) two quite different bottom 'load cases' and I at least prefer to have my anchor tailored to perform well in the more difficult (but less common) of those two, while most anchor tests seem to focus on the easier (but somewhat more common) of those two (understandable to a degree because the harder case will produce very high variability results - difficult to analyze or summarize). That is the key take away.

As to Ray vs Genuine Bruce . . . .we had a 50kg Genuine bruce on Hawk for many years, before a galvanizer in Chile broke it, which is when we organized to buy/test the Ray, ROCNA and Supreme. I was not able to test the Ray and Bruce side by side (because the Bruce was broken when we got the Ray). But we had a lot of years with the Bruce and then a lot of years with the Ray and I will suggest that I noticed only one meaningful performance difference that the Bruce perhaps did a bit better at low scope than the Ray. I think the Ray construction was stronger (not that any of these anchors had a strength concern).

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Tkeeth

I agree and was just soliciting some general thoughts, mostly with the cheepo's until I can really buy what I want. I have decided it's just not worth it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Very wise move.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

...........And the comments about scale effect should not obscure my main point, which is that there are (I believe) two quite different bottom 'load cases' and I at least prefer to have my anchor tailored to perform well in the more difficult (but less common) of those two, while most anchor tests seem to focus on the easier (but somewhat more common) of those two (understandable to a degree because the harder case will produce very high variability results - difficult to analyze or summarize). That is the key take away.........

Oh, I did not mean to obscure. I value the observation.

I'd love put my camera down in a 'non-burying' anchorage, but none exist (that I know of) in my area. One day I will go North, to Alaska and may very well find such anchor beds.

We'll have to wait and see if my 'rock' solution (Forfjord Anchor) is in fact better than my go-to burying anchor (spade).

Note: I would normally NOT recommend a second, special purpose anchor on the bow. My boat is unique in that it REQUIRES ballast in the extreme bow.

Steve

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

But take that just as a very rough judgmental ballpark. I dont know anyone who has good data on what the scale effect looks like for various different designs.

I've done a bunch with anchors from 2-50 pounds in sand and mud, and so long as the bottom is consistent, scale-up is virtually linear, with exponents ranging from 0.92 - 0.96 for all modern designs, including plow and claw types. I am not the only one to have done this, so it is well accepted, and yet still, the accuracy of the fit is surprising. Your gut strongly tells you to expect holding to go up more dramatically with size than it does. This scale-up uniformity continues into multi-ton sizes. Interestingly, the factor is less than 1--doubling size does not quite double holding capacity.

However, if you add ANY of the factors Starzinger suggested--even a few sticks on the surface, some weeds, or a tough layer of shells--then there are no correlations that make any sense, or rather the data gets so variable it's best no to make judgments. Variability between sets can exceed 70%. Even the rode lying across a rotten stick is enough to keep the anchor from burying quite properly. If it comes down to breaking through something, the exponent will be greater than 1. If it is hooking on a rock, the anchor won't drag until something breaks, even with a small anchor. Unpredictable. What is predictable is that a heavy anchor with a good point aimed down (a big Ray qualifies) always has a good chance at doing something worthwhile.

I did notice something of a "critical size" with claw-type anchors. When they begin to roll up right, if over ~ 50 pounds there is a much better chance of the blunt web between the three points cutting through, while in smaller sizes that blunt area sometimes resisted rolling upright in firm or trashy bottoms. There also seems to be a lot of experience supporting that conclusion--a really big claw is robust, while a smaller size is often disappointing.

But this gets back to why anchor testing in poor bottoms is never done. It is frustrating and complicated. I'm glad to see more testing in really soft mud--that is one type of poor bottom. But it's hard to even suggest what a "difficult bottom" testing program would look like:

• Rocks. How big, what shapes, and do they break loose and roll?
• Shallow sand. How thin and what is under it?
• Weeds. What type and how dense, growing in what?
• Hardpan. Generally the simplest, since mostly it's just friction. But one bottom will still be way different than another, and all will be too little for a brisk wind.
• Scope. It is more important for these bottoms than sand/mud, since they often cannot resist up-lift by virtue of being buried.

You'd need a $100,000 budget to begin to do it justice. I think it would be fun and very educational, but no way it will ever get funded. I've spent many hours over bad bottoms, playing with anchors and load cells, and diving while the boat dragged. But the central problem is that most bad bottoms are also variable. I can't even say that one anchor was best in all "Bad bottoms." Delta was generally poor (plows can glide over stuff), but scoops, claws, and yachtsman (Northill) were all "best" in some place, since they each did something better. Just crazy and I never picked a "favorite."

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Panope

I'd love put my camera down in a 'non-burying' anchorage, but none exist (that I know of) in my area. One day I will go North, to Alaska and may very well find such anchor beds.

Do you range up to Prince Rupert? I remember we encountered an anchorage with "couple inches of mud over rock" bottom just a bit south from Price Rupert - as a stop on the way over to the Queen Charlotte's. We were tucking in for a 50kt blow and ended up making a 3 way shore tie 'to be sure' - turned out not to be necessary at all but let us sleep well.

There was an 'interesting' one in Nova scotia - pretty smooth flat rock with mud ridges on it. The yachts would set their anchors into a ridge, back on it and feel like they were set. But if it was blowing, your anchor would drag very very slowly thru the ridge (because it could not bury any further and was in fact skating on the rock), and then when it came out the other side of the ridge you would take off at speed. We had a CCA rally gathering and dinner ashore in this anchorage when it was blowing 25-35, was "interesting"


Thinwater - interesting - I would never have guessed holding power was linear with weight, especially with the Bruce types.

[Panope]

I have not made it that far North - yet, but the Queen Charlottes are high on my list of places to go. I've got a young kiddo and a somewhat lubbery wife, so it will be a few more years.

Steve

[hsi88]

Couldn't resist. Bought a Rocna copy. Except for the finish, it looks pretty much like the original. The welds show a little splatter, but have excellent penetration. I bought a 35 pounder for $199 with Free Shipping. I have to admit, seems like its going to be more than strong enough for my Catalina 30. I realize I'm not an 11,000 pound boat (closer to 300), but I jumped up and down on the shank and it didn't bend at all. I would not do that with my Danforth. Here are some pictures. I put my finger on the edge of the shank to give an idea how thick it is. I have not measured it yet. Also, the steel is double thick at the point, so lots of weight where it needs to be. Look forward to trying it out.