Anchor Poll

[wolfenzee]

Considering all the variables involved chain or chain rode (and how much chain), scope, bottom conditions, weather, wave hieght, boats, not to mention how much the older anchors vary from each other as well as how much the new anchors.....you can't just plug in a single number for amount of holding capacity. The only way you can come up with a single number is from the "laboratory test" run by the manufacturers of the particular anchor....and the marketing people will pick the number that best suits their product.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by wolfenzee

Considering all the variables involved chain or chain rode (and how much chain), scope, bottom conditions, weather, wave hieght, boats, not to mention how much the older anchors vary from each other as well as how much the new anchors.....you can't just plug in a single number for amount of holding capacity. The only way you can come up with a single number is from the "laboratory test" run by the manufacturers of the particular anchor....and the marketing people will pick the number that best suits their product.

Classification Societies, who are fairly independent, have a system whereby Delta, CQR, (I think Bruce might have been tested), Bugel and Danforth are certified as High Holding Power anchors (HHP). The CS have another category, Super HHP - and a SHHP must produce holding capacity 2 times that of a HHP. The Supreme, Excel, SARCA and Fortress meet this SHHP standard under the CS rules. Many magazines have done similar tests and Spade and maybe a couple of others have been demonstrated, a number of times, to compare favourably with, ie the equal of, Supreme, Excel etc. On balance there does not seem too much argument that the modern anchors are twice as good, in terms of holding capacity as the older models. If you want to be pedantic I'll go along with 1.75 times - but this would suggest the CS have it wrong - but I'm quite happy to humour anyone wanting to go with 1.75 times or 2 times.

The new anchors are appreciably better.

Are the tests realistic?

If they are not realistic they are surprisingly consistent, whether a work boat in SF, a test rig with winch on a south Australian beach, a converted lifeboat in France or a meticulous measurement, every 1cm, with a winch on a beach in Scotland - there are more, its a long list. A huge cross section of bottoms, a huge cross section of load application techniques - each trying to simulate realistic conditions - but all coming up with the similar results. There are simply too many consistent results to ignore - and an awful lot of people on the poll seem to have voted with their wallets.

Jonathan

[Andrew Troup]

Old gen anchors are very useful if you need to tether your dog to a very wide sandy beach

or if you need an anchor of last resort in heavy kelp over rounded boulders - there's no substitute for a v. large, heavy fisherman with wickedly sharp, pointed palms.

If you don't sail in such waters, you won't find much use for one.

I've used an iceaxe with a wrist strap to get safely ashore across this stuff, in a surge - it's a vaguely similar challenge.

[Andrew Troup]

As for holding power, the only figure I'm interested in for a particular anchor is the WORST figure it might develop in any bottom I'm likely to use it in.

I don't care how well it holds at best: I care how badly it holds at worst.

[sabray]

Took me a bit but your right. You need to know what holds worst.where you are.
Here goes for boats of 22000 lbs up using appropriate anchor weight. Bruce Rocna Manson will hold you quite well in most bottoms, cqr will do well in sand and rock if it gets lodged. Cqr is phenomenal when hooked into a municipal power feed. Danforth/fx is good in muck mud and clear sand but don't spin about. Spade is good in hard sandy stuff or muck mud with hard stuff below.
Luke will get you into Rocky bottom stuff but getting this thing back up sucks. Unless your anchoring in hard pan boulder area you don't need this. Hope that helps.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

As for holding power, the only figure I'm interested in for a particular anchor is the WORST figure it might develop in any bottom I'm likely to use it in.

I don't care how well it holds at best: I care how badly it holds at worst.

Good point, no-one does such tests!

[Shamancat]

Hi our primary is a 33kg ROCNA on 60m of chain and our spare/mud anchor is a Fortress FX 55 which has not yet been needed. Been very happy with the ROCNA so far.

[wolfenzee]

This has evolved into one of those "my way is right and anyone who doesn't agree with must be wrong" threads.....which I sort of expected

[wolfenzee]

I conceed: if marketing, laboratory tests (and the salesman at the boatshow) say something is the ultimate anchor and anything else isn't worth considering, then it must be so. It is this blind faith in marketing that is the basis of the US economy.

That said a friend of mine who has sailed all over the world, has an Atkin Eric (32' LOD, 20,000lb full keel wooden ketch) regularly anchors with a CQR...when it gets dicey he uses a Herreshoff anchor. Last time he used it he ended up on the beach, but no fault of the anchor. With 40+ kt winds, 5 mile fetch, 6-8' waves (with short frequency due to shallow water)...30' of chain and a good amount of 3/4" rode. The rode parted, not due to chafing but because it was the weak link, the chain was stronger than the rode and the anchor wasn't budging. It may be big and awkward and old fashion....but when the chips are down sometimes old fashion actually works.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by wolfenzee

It may be big and awkward and old fashion....but when the chips are down sometimes old fashion actually works.

In the heyday of the Herreshoff anchor, standard operating procedure, even on yachts, was to post an anchor watch 24/7. It was also standard to keep an axe by the hawser so that it could be chopped if the anchorage needed to be abandoned in a hurry.

Sometimes progress is progress.

[wolfenzee]

Originally Posted by Bash

In the heyday of the Herreshoff anchor, standard operating procedure, even on yachts, was to post an anchor watch 24/7. It was also standard to keep an axe by the hawser so that it could be chopped if the anchorage needed to be abandoned in a hurry.

Sometimes progress is progress.

Some of the equipment I have on my boat is perfectly good equipment and I was able to get it really cheap.....the reason being someone else wanted "the latest & greatest" (example I got perfectly good RayMarine radar for $125, complete, because someone wanted a Garmin color display w/built in GPS). I am not saying I will get a Herresoff anchor on my boat, but I am not going to toss out my Bruce and Forfjord because a marketing pitch says what they are selling is better and due to their tests what I have is sucks.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by wolfenzee

This has evolved into one of those "my way is right and anyone who doesn't agree with must be wrong" threads.....which I sort of expected

I consider for some posters that may be the case but for me there has be some good information come to light including fact (by the poll) that the new fangled anchors are proving by demonstration useful to cruisers.

I doubt salesmen and marketing but that rather anchor dragging was the main reason behind their change. Surely you would not toss out A Manson Supreme, Rocna or similar if you found one abandones on the seabed because you had a CQR. I can understand completely your reluctance to fund a new anchor when you are happy in a area you know well.

Be sure you have all chain rod (unlike your mate) when you venture across the Pacific

I vote with Bash - progress.

[wolfenzee]

Originally Posted by downunder

I consider for some posters that may be the case but for me there has be some good information come to light including fact (by the poll) that the new fangled anchors are proving by demonstration useful to cruisers.

I doubt salesmen and marketing but that rather anchor dragging was the main reason behind their change. Surely you would not toss out A Manson Supreme, Rocna or similar if you found one abandones on the seabed because you had a CQR. I can understand completely your reluctance to fund a new anchor when you are happy in a area you know well.

Be sure you have all chain rod (unlike your mate) when you venture across the Pacific

I vote with Bash - progress.

I don't have all chain I have 30' of 3/8" chain with rode and that is what I usually use, but I am also set up for all chain (but because of a snag only have 130' of 5/16" doubleB chain). Though a friend of mine is convinced that using chain and rode together you need to have 100' of chain....which in most circumstances would be the same as all chain).
Tomorrow I have a diver looking for my lost chain (which will give me 300' again), but I have a hand windlass and the cranking in all chain is what you get a crew for.

[NornaBiron]

Until today our primary anchor was a 27kg CQR, secondary was a 15kg Bruce and storm anchor a 55kg fishermans. We took delivery of a 45kg Spade yesterday and that is now nicely dug into the seabed in our winter anchorage.

[wolfenzee]

I have a big beautiful bronze anchor windlass on my foredeck, If I am anchored with all chain it takes awhile to get it in. I have found a power attachment for it, with other uses, auto helm, works for raising sails and pulling in sheets. Also shares in cooking and is a companion.....goes by the term crew.