Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[RainDog]

Originally Posted by carstenb

What's the problem? I can only see advantages to the larger anchor - noone has ever been able to point out any disadvantages (unless you have to haul it up by hand - I have an electric windlass)

I think the OP was saying the problem is they dig in so hard it can be a nightmare to get them out.

Note that I have a 20Kg MS on a 13,000 lb boat, so I am off the "biggest anchor that will fit" school.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by JonJo
"Of most interest would be respondents who have used the recommended sized (new gen) anchor, found it wanting, and bought the same design only bigger - and found it satisfactory."

"That would be interesting. Anyone out there that fits this description?" Raindog


I bought a Rocna one size larger than recommended for a Hunter 450. Most of the time it was satisfactory and held well, no worries. It only dragged once in grass, and I was glad to have the size advantage on that day when I reset the anchor. All chain rode with snubber.

[JonJo]

The jury is wholeheartedly in favour of 'big is better'.

Can anyone explain the contradiction that: take a vessel where the USL code recommends 33kg, 2 sizes bigger is 55kg but the Classification Societies would allow a 30% reduction in weight - say 25kg.

So the big is better school would buy a 55kg anchor but the Classification Societies would be happy with 25kg

Conversely if you accept the example above and assume that a 55kg new gen anchor is right (and the USL codes wrong) then if you were to carry at Delta or Bruce it would be 30% heavier at 70kg (and this is for a yacht where the USL codes are suggesting 33kg. On the basis that the yacht was built for a 33kg anchor I'm thinking you will need a new windlass and probably a new bow roller.

The USL codes were used for decades and used for people circumnavigating with CQRs, Bruces and Deltas (I only exclude the danforth as I'm not sure if its chosen weight for weight - we do not see them in Oz).

The whole point, or one point, of new gen anchors was they were better - it now seems they might be better but you still need to go oversize (and by a lot). I have no issue with replacing a 33kg anchor with the next size up, 40kg. 7kg is neither here nor there - but to upsize to 55kg looks overkill (especially as it is likley it might not fit the bow roller and I'd be thinking of a bigger windlass.

What's my issue with 'big is better' a 55kg anchor costs more than a 33kg anchor and maybe that money would be better spent on heavier chain (or a second anchor and chain) - especially as the anchors are built with such a huge holding capacity safety margin. I'd rather 2 anchors catering for different substrates than one big one.

I also have the fear that a yacht for which a USL code demands a 33kg (old gen) anchor but is now going to carry the 55kg anchor cannot actually set that anchor properly (the engine is not big enough). So go into an anchorage and normally you would set a 33kg model with the engines and completely bury it - this is unlikely with a 55kg model, it would sit half set, wind or tide change - the 'big is better' might simply flop over on its side, catch a priece of seaweed or waterlogged wood in its toe and never re-set. The 33kg model might shuffle round, never re-surfacing.

I should have asked when I opened the thread for people to quote their anchors size, vessel length (type) and weight.

We are Excel 16kg, 38' cat, 6t, 8mm chain, 14m nylon bridles. (we have not dragged since we bought the anchor 6 years ago - but have never had winds over 50 knots in an anchorage, but we also have an FX-23 and a Spade A80 one of which we deploy when winds are to be over 35 knots)

As far as I can make out the jury has returned a verdict - but the verdict seems based on 'feel' rather than any technical basis. Has anyone tried a correctly sized new gen anchor - found it wanting and upsized? Has anyone sat along side a similarly sized yacht both with new gen anchors but one over sized - and has the yacht with the smaller anchor dragged? Anecdotal information is usually flawed - so the best responses are from those with the smaller anchors. Under what circumstances have people with new gen anchors, sized as per the USL code, dragged? People obviously 'feel' more secure with bigger anchors - and maybe forking out the extra $500 for peace of mind is a good thing - but is it necessary, is there evidence to show that the $500 extra was more than a 'placebo'?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by JonJo

What's my issue with 'big is better' a 55kg anchor costs more than a 33kg anchor and maybe that money would be better spent on heavier chain (or a second anchor and chain)

I don't see why just because you have a big anchor you need a bigger chain. I didn'tt change from 5/16 to 3/8 when I got a 60 lb anchor. I did have to use 2 schakles to connect them but looked at that as a plus.

I will always have better piece of mind with the larger anchor than any interest in saving the less than $200 cost between the anchors.


But you are one to be able to tell yourself "the code says the anchor is big enough", go ahead and get the smaller one.

PS - I don't really understand trying to save money on a piece of equipment that you expect to last years and years when it comes down to it the equipment costs less than 2 gallons of good botton paint that lasts a couple of years if you are lucky

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Everybody made fun of our 176 pound (80kg) anchor, until hurricane Ivan came along. It didn't matter what new gen anchor people had... all washed away... except us. Should have been a lesson for everyone, but now, if a 60 knot squall comes through at night, we still get up, brew coffee and get out the big fenders to fend off the draggers with their mickey mouse spades etc.

I rode out two tropical storms in the previous boat with my "mickey mouse spade" without budging an inch, and it was not greatly oversized, either. In fact I have never dragged a single time with any new gen anchor (my experience is with Spade and Rocna) despite some pretty hairy anchoring situations. I dragged constantly with CQR's and Bruces on previous boats, to such an extent that I got into a habit of not sleeping at anchor, keeping one eye open.

I would love to have a 176 pound anchor (preferably a Spade) on my boat, but no way could I manage it without completely rebuilding the stem fittings and bow rollers, and adding a heavy duty hydraulic windlass, and I don't even want to think about how much all that would cost. It's just not realistic on my boat. The 100 pound Spade is working very well so far. The great advantage of this and other new gen anchors is not only that they are much easier to set, but also that once set, should they trip for some reason, they reset with a vengeance unknown in other anchor types.

For a real storm anchor where ultimate holding power will be key, I would go with something which maximizes fluke area. Some people might like a Fortress for that (which indeed is a brilliant anchor). I might go with a huge aluminium Spade, which can be taken apart for stowage.

Edit: scratch that last point -- Spade don't make a huge aluminium Spade. The biggest one is the A200, which has only 10% more fluke area than my S180. I guess it would have to be the S240, which has meaningfully more fluke area than my regular anchor, and weighs 70kg, or 154 pounds. Yeah, that would be a helluva storm anchor, albeit not very easy to rig or deploy.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Don L

PS - I don't really understand trying to save money on a piece of equipment that you expect to last years and years when it comes down to it the equipment costs less than 2 gallons of good botton paint that lasts a couple of years if you are lucky

If you re-read my post and limit the editing you will note I said that I would rather spend the money on more or bigger chain or a second anchor. I'm a Scot, and Scots are not mean - they simply do not like to spend money unnecessarily. To me the extra money invested in one design would be better spent on 2 different designs.

Mention has been made of the better chance of the bigger, new gen, anchor setting in weed (because of the extra weight). This seems to contradict all experiences where people will praise a Luke (of Fishermans) which has weight but minimalist surface area. Some new gen anchors make a feature of their high surface area to weight, Rocna, Supreme, Super SARCA, Boss. The OP of the Manson Supreme in weed thread tried his new gen anchor - found it completely wanting and is to buy a (I think - Marsh) Stockless. In his case he will have the oversize Manson Supreme, for everywhere else (but cannot use in weed) and a stockless (oversize?) for weed.

[sabray]

These are all compromises. I like having 2 upper sized anchors. I could carry bigger but don't. I don't want to deal with a single mass that heavy. I put my best gear down first. It's heavy but manageable. If its tropical storm time I put out extra gear. As a third I have a fx 37. This could be bigger without weight gain but its what I have.
I need to spend money on rigging and lines and paint and sails etc....
Comparing a single cost item with one other price item is not a complete picture. Adding insane amounts of weight can screw up a trip like any other bad idea.
I have also changed over the years my approach. Have a few anchors sitting on dirt. Some boats can carry massive werght and spares and its a small dip. Others are going to suffer in many ways when they are over laden with ground gear that you just must have and should never sail without.
Course some boats with all that are not going to sail or point and will wind up at some dock. Others will drag all over and be so worried they wind up at a dock. The remaining few found what worked for them and balanced all the demands. No one right answer.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by cfarrar

Yes, B.I.B., within reason. The previous posts state it well:

- More surface area means greater ultimate holding
- Better short scope capability
- More weight can be an advantage in weed and other dicey substrates

What's the downside? There's far more weight in the chain rode than the anchor, so if your bow is overloaded consider G70 chain. Meanwhile, as long as the windlass is up to the task and you use it properly, go for it.

I disagree that the advocates of B.I.B. use anchor in particular. They use Spade, Bruce, Rocna, Manson, etc. I would take the Fortress off the list of primary anchors.

You make a good point that smaller anchors are more than adequate in bottoms with good mud or sand. However, the argument that some bottoms may defeat even a large, modern anchor doesn't convince me. There's a whole range of bottoms between ideal (thick mud) and adverse (super thick weed or large rocks). And that's where I'd rather have the larger anchor than the smaller one.

Read the Manson Supreme in weed thread, or read the first few posts and the last few posts.

You mention high surface area, and discount a Fortress. You mention thick weed and large rocks and include a Bruce. This seems contradictory - especially when in the '2nd anchor poll' approximately 50% of the respondents are going to rely on their Fortress when the chips are down. Reading other threads on CF - many use a Fortress in really adverse conditions - strong winds - and the biggest problem that is common to most comments is that the Fortress hold and sets so well it is difficult to retrieve. After a strong wind no-one complains their Fortress did not hold, no-one complains that in bent - they are all surprisingly happy.

My argument is that a surprising number of people survived with old gen anchors chosen to meet USL codes. We now have new gen anchors that are 'twice' as good (I do not want to get into a discussion on 'twice' - lets say much better, they hold, set and re-set better). Why do we need to upsize the new gen, when our fathers and grandfathers all survived with old gen, why not invest in different anchor designs, Supreme and Fortress or Excel and Spade (alloy) correctly sized under the USL codes - rather than the BIB one design?

And importantly what actual evidence is there to support one BIB rather than 2 differently designed anchors of the correct USL size.

[robert sailor]

Anchor debates are like oil debates on motorcycle forums, generally not too much to be learned. Old saying..when it comes to winches and anchors there is no such thing as too big.

[barnakiel]

Not really much to think about: I have seen boats drag then found their anchors were toys. Never seen a boat with an oversize anchor go into trouble 'because our anchor was too big'. Hence, get the bigger of the two anchors that you are considering and you cannot go wrong.

b.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Has anyone sat along side a similarly sized yacht both with new gen anchors but one over sized - and has the yacht with the smaller anchor dragged? Anecdotal information is usually flawed - so the best responses are from those with the smaller anchors. Under what circumstances have people with new gen anchors, sized as per the USL code, dragged? People obviously 'feel' more secure with bigger anchors - and maybe forking out the extra $500 for peace of mind is a good thing - but is it necessary, is there evidence to show that the $500 extra was more than a 'placebo'?

Despite what you read on magazines all anchors will drag, even oversized new generation anchors deployed correctly. There is no foolproof system.

We are relling on a bit of metal that is several hundred times lighter than the boat deployed in an extremly variable substrate.

All we can do is improve our odds of holding.

New generation anchors are much better than there predecessors . Larger anchors hold better, but we are only increasing our chances of holding, not inventing an absolute system.

I believe spending your money (and weight) on larger chain is wrong. Putting those resources into the anchor will result in greater holding power ( providing the rode is still strong enough)

I have seen boats with most types of anchor discussed on CF drag.

The difference is the good anchors drag much less often. Good oversized anchors drag very rarely.

Modern society is is used to absolutes. The sea has not yet conformed to the modern world.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Why do we need to upsize the new gen, when our fathers and grandfathers all survived with old gen.

Our father and grandfathers survived, because they made do with the few anchor designs out there at the time. If a storm was piping up, they stayed up and kept watch until it calmed down.

Today the designs and alloys are much better and stronger. Today there is a bigger pull into boating because of this better design and technology. More and more cruisers feel comfortable being on the hook today than in years past.

[Kenomac]

Jonjo,

One anchor which is rarely mentioned that we plan to buy this season is the Ultra Anchor which is made in Turkey. You might want to also consider this model. It digs in further than the Rocna because it doesn't have the roll bar, is made of stainless and has a very sharp lead weighted tip for grass and weed. It looks a lot like a tricked-out stainless steel Spade with some added "bling."

From a Fellow Scot.
I'm also don't like spending too much money... but like quality stuff.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jonjo,

One anchor which is rarely mentioned that we plan to buy this season is the Ultra Anchor which is made in Turkey. You might want to also consider this model. It digs in further than the Rocna because it doesn't have the roll bar, is made of stainless and has a very sharp lead weighted tip for grass and weed. It looks a lot like a tricked-out stainless steel Spade with some added "bling."

From a Fellow Scot.
I'm also don't like spending too much money... but like quality stuff.

The stainless anchor is -not- quality stuff.

[Cotemar]

Kenomac,
That Ultra Anchor looks like a sweet anchor. A real piece of art. Had seen a few at the boat shows
The $1,965.00 for the 21 KG / 46 Lbs model may hold some cruisers back. Maybe someday they will make it in galvanized alloy steel