Redundancy - how much

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by Wotname

It seems no-one has mentioned food as a topic of redundancy. Perhaps it is not really a system as such or maybe none of us would ever consider not having ample stores on board

Good one!

We always have backup food, but I never thought of putting it down here. We keep cans of nasty food, just in case, as well as powdered milk. Much of our food is made fresh, so we have Lock n Locks (containers) of flour, rice, etc... etc... that all you need is water and maybe some heat to prepare. We don't carry things like backup bread because we make it all from scratch / dry ingredients anyway.

[Charlie]

I've alway thought of anchor redundancy as very important. Here is my reasoning:

1) Different bottoms require different anchors.

2) Sometimes you may need two anchors to hold yourself in place (i.e storm anchor)

3) What if you have to leave an untenable anchorage in a hurry and have to leave your anchor or lose your boat.

As I write this I realize that the situations that you confront are directly related to where you intend to sail, or stated another way -- you perception of sailing. Right now I'm focused on sailing to Mexico. There are large stretches where you can't get parts to fix your boat even with overnight mail. Say between Ensenada and Cabo San Lucas. You need to be able to make it on your own till you can get parts. If you don't have an anchor you are in trouble b/c the alternative is to keep moving.
OTOH if you were going to make a passage in the ICW (and I don't know if this is possible) where you stay at a marina every night. An anchor doesn't seem so important. I think this logic can be applied to any system. Do you need that system to perform the sailing you intend to do.

[ssullivan]

To respond, Charlie...

I may need to be more clear. When I say "redundant", I mean many types of anchors, rather than having a backup to your primary.

I do have a 2nd anchor, I just wouldn't call it "redundant" because it isn't the same type and setup as my primary. It serves no other use than as an emergency backup for that case as you mentioned where you lose your anchor and must leave.

I have never in many thousands of miles of traveling on boats and living at anchor for years, had to use any other type of anchor than a primary CQR and now the primary Delta I have. When I worked on megayachts and anchored in various places in the Caribbean, we used the primary anchor as well. Never needed any other anchors.

I don't believe that different bottoms requrie different anchors, unless the bottom is weeds (with roots not allowing the anchor to hold) or cement. In those cases, no anchor will hold. To say having a Delta, CQR, Manson and Rocna on board means you are redundant, I'd agree. BUT... you are redundant in the same way you would be if you had 5 mainsails on board. They are only needed if you shred one (or lose an anchor entirely).

I know it flies in the face of what everyone says, but I've been out here a while living at anchor... probably logged a very conservative 1000 days at anchor? I never had a single problem with these plow/burying anchors not setting in a seabed.

I also would have to disagree that geographical location (sailing a couple thousand miles up the East Coast and sailing a couple thousand miles down the West Coast) has anything to do with it. An anchorage in the East Coast USA is the same as one in the West Coast is the same as one in Europe, is the same as one in South America, is the same as one in Alaska. It's all just dirt, mud, gravel, sand or what have you that you are hooking into under the water.

So... I'm still of the opinion that you don't need redundant anchors. Maybe a 2nd one in case of emergency, but not "fully redundant" anchors, meaning 3 or 4 different types.

Originally Posted by Charlie

I've alway thought of anchor redundancy as very important. Here is my reasoning:

1) Different bottoms require different anchors.

2) Sometimes you may need two anchors to hold yourself in place (i.e storm anchor)

3) What if you have to leave an untenable anchorage in a hurry and have to leave your anchor or lose your boat.

As I write this I realize that the situations that you confront are directly related to where you intend to sail, or stated another way -- you perception of sailing. Right now I'm focused on sailing to Mexico. There are large stretches where you can't get parts to fix your boat even with overnight mail. Say between Ensenada and Cabo San Lucas. You need to be able to make it on your own till you can get parts. If you don't have an anchor you are in trouble b/c the alternative is to keep moving.
OTOH if you were going to make a passage in the ICW (and I don't know if this is possible) where you stay at a marina every night. An anchor doesn't seem so important. I think this logic can be applied to any system. Do you need that system to perform the sailing you intend to do.

[Charlie]

I knew after I read my post that you would feel that I was aiming this at you in particuilar. I wasn't. The West Coast East Coast portion of my comment had to do with the type of sailing that you do rather than what coast you are on. For instance if you were sailing in Puget Sound and you sailed from marina to marina then the importance of an anchor is not as great. (I know that you are not a marina sailor and prefer to anchor out.) OTOH if you are vision of sailing is being far away from people and chandeleries then redundancy becomes more important. If you were on the East cost of Mexico it might be more important to have different and redundant anchoring systems.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that different anchors are better in different situations. I know that a Danforth is a good anchor for mud and isn't very good for rock (what is). Whereas a fishermans' anchor is good for rock and not good for mud.

Also I guess we have a difference of opinion as to what the definition to redundancy is. In simple terms I think of it as having a backup plan. To my thinking a second anchor is a redundancy. It does not have to be the exact same as the original to be redundant. For example if my primary alternator is a 130 amp and my spare is a 75 amp I would still consider it as being redundant.

[ssullivan]

It's all just an intellectual discussion... no worries, Charlie. No negative feelings. Now that we both gave a little more detail, I don't think our opinions are so far apart after all.

I definitely agree that if you are sailing from marina to marina an anchor isn't so important. Where I'm from up in New England, many people have tiny little "lunch hooks" on their boats, and that's about it. They use moorings and marinas and seldom anchor out overnight. I'd say the vast majority are actually like that.

Also, I'd agree that if you were somewhere that you can't get supplies, you had better well have a backup.

So, I understand your post.

PS: I don't like Danforths in *any* conditions from their inability to properly reset when tugged out. I had many a dragging way *way* back in the day when I was one of those "lunch hook" carrying guys with some nylon rode and no chain. All of them with a danforth that came with my old Kells 23 footer.

[imagine2frolic]

An anchor is still important if you are going from marina to marina. Bad things can, and do happen in between destinations. I took the second anchor, and mounted it on the crossbeam also adding a second twin windlass.