Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[noelex 77]

Unfortunately I get to see a lot of boats drag. My estimation is about 50% have used incorrect technique (low scope for example) and 50% their anchor has just let them down.

It is rare to see an anchor that is below the recommended size so my conclusion is that the anchor sizing charts are not correct, especially when I see boats drag in only 30 knots wind.

I have some sympathy for the anchor manufacturers. Consumers assume, incorrectly, that better anchors would specify a smaller size. Therefore there is considerable pressure on them to promote smaller anchors.

[JonJo]

The first anchor maker to raise its sizing charts by 2 places will go bankrupt!

Who is going to bell the cat?

The few cruisers to support such a move will not replace the thousands of customers who go elsewhere.

The number of yachts that drag and are lost is not significant - its the same as the number lost through bent anchors. You suggested anchor shanks were too strong, now you want anchor makers to increase their sizing charts. Is there a correlation?

Serious cruisers know the issues and should be sufficiently informed to make their decisions. People who need an anchor for lunch time stops do not need to go two sizes bigger and support anchor makers (however laudable that might be).

Please can we be realistic?

You seem to be making a complete nonsense of claims by some anchor makers of fantastic holding power - it now seems this data is totally irrelevant and presumably untrue.

Jonathan

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

That's "governmental", not "government."

No its not

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

The first anchor maker to raise its sizing charts by 2 places will go bankrupt!

Yes I agree. Unfortunatly it is an area where honesty clashes with commercial reality.

Originally Posted by JonJo

The number of yachts that drag and are lost is not significant - its the same as the number lost through bent anchors.

Fortunately not many boats are lost from dragging, but damage (including occasionally serious damage) is quite common, we have a couple of scrape marks where boats have dragged into us. Most anchors bend on retrieval and the risk of damage from a bent anochor is very low.

Originally Posted by JonJo

People who need an anchor for lunch time stops do not need to go two sizes bigger

Agreed.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Panope

From the Fortress anchor website sizing guide.
"For storm conditions use an anchor one or two sizes larger"

From the Manson anchor website sizing guide.
"If in any doubt about anchor selection always use a bigger anchor"

From the Forfjord anchor website sizing guide.
"Use next size larger for heavily laden commercial boats and for Alaskan winter waters"

From the Rocna anchor website sizing guide.
"If in doubt, give preference to the larger anchor model"...............

Sorry for the re-post. It does seem that the above anchor manufacturers leave the door open on size selection.

Steve

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by Factor

No its not

As it was MY words being misquoted,
I don't understand how you can presume to correct my correction.
I said 'governmental' and that's what I meant.
Don't you have something more important to comment on?

[JonJo]

As far as I am aware Classification Societies are independent of Government and are no more governmetal than any charity or commercial company. Most countries, such as Australia does not have a local CS, and most CS operate internationally. I'm not sure that Lloyds or RINA based in China have any governmental role in China, in the same way they have no governmental role in Australia, and to suggest they might would be incorrect. I suspect the Chinese Government would bristle at the idea that they were being dictated to by the CS.

The CS set certain rules and standards that are accepted and/or agreed, or not - but those same standards can be achieved, for example in Australia, completely independent of the CS and may be different standards to those set by the CS.

Perhaps you can define what you mean by 'governmental'.

confused

Jonathan

[conachair]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Its nice to find someone else to admit they are ready to deploy a second anchor and have it ready.

I have 5 onboard all ready in a few minutes. (OK, maybe not the big fisherman in the back of a locker)
4 soon when I get rid of that cqr.
But the only time I've been worried just on one (gusting 60kts from every direction in the canaries) having 2 out would have been a complete disaster and dangerous. In my experience round the Atlantic a big one is better than 2. No question about it.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by conachair

I have 5 onboard all ready in a few minutes. (OK, maybe not the big fisherman in the back of a locker)
4 soon when I get rid of that cqr.
But the only time I've been worried just on one (gusting 60kts from every direction in the canaries) having 2 out would have been a complete disaster and dangerous. In my experience round the Atlantic a big one is better than 2. No question about it.

I'm not going to ask you why you carry 5 but basically only use 1

Jonathan

[conachair]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I'm not going to ask you why you carry 5 but basically only use 1

Jonathan

Will be 4 soon when the cqr goes. Pretty standard for a cruising boat I think. Rocna and spare delta as main, fortress for a kedge and big fishermans for rocks.
Rocna has worked first time every time around the north and south Atlantic so never needed to try anything else.
Would be interesting one day to try the rocna and delta one after the other to see if they felt any different.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by conachair

Will be 4 soon when the cqr goes. Pretty standard for a cruising boat I think. Rocna and spare delta as main, fortress for a kedge and big fishermans for rocks.
Rocna has worked first time every time around the north and south Atlantic so never needed to try anything else.
Would be interesting one day to try the rocna and delta one after the other to see if they felt any different.

Waste of time, I think the Rocna will outperform the Delta to such a degree you will wonder why you carry it. Maybe I'm too harsh (bigoted?) but it, the Delta, might simply be deadweight. If money were no object I suspect you would change it - but to what?

I assume the Fortress is more than a kedge - maybe also a storm anchor? unless its very small.

There ought to be a competition for useful applications for (or ways to make money from) second hand CQRs.

Jonathan

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Waste of time, I think the Rocna will outperform the Delta to such a degree you will wonder why you carry it.

I think that is a little harsh. The Delta is still a good anchor.
It sets reliably in hard substrates where many do not. Its weakness is in very soft substates where the resistance is not as high as should be. In this type of bottom it will sometimes drag.
It often does this slowly and if watched the anchor remains completely buried, but slowly drags. Unlike the normal anchor breaking out and dragging very quickly.

At least this sort of slow drag is easier to deal with. It can be cured by avoiding using it in soft substrates. A Fortress works well in these bottoms so is a good companion to the Delta (if you note the caution about resetting, but this is less of problem in softer substrates) .

The other option is over sizing the anchor.(in contrast to an anchor design that will not set in hard substrate that is not helped much by going bigger). It is an anchor that should be oversized if you retain versatility.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I think that is a little harsh. The Delta is still a good anchor.
It sets reliably in hard substrates where many do not. Its weakness is in very soft substates where the resistance is not as high as should be. In this type of bottom it will sometimes drag.
It often does this slowly and if watched the anchor remains completely buried, but slowly drags. Unlike the normal anchor breaking out and dragging very quickly.

At least this sort of slow drag is easier to deal with. It can be cured by avoiding using it in soft substrates. A Fortress works well in these bottoms so is a good companion to the Delta (if you note the caution about resetting, but this is less of problem in softer substrates) .

The other option is over sizing the anchor.(in contrast to an anchor design that will not set in hard substrate that is not helped much by going bigger). It is an anchor that should be oversized if you retain versatility.

No problems Noelex.

I was not saying the Delta was not 'adequate' I was saying that it would not compare with a Rocna when used as the primary anchor. If I misled, I apologise. There was no reason to compare it with a Fortress as I do not know the size being used or why it is carried (other than as a kedge).

Jonathan

[conachair]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Waste of time, I think the Rocna will outperform the Delta to such a degree you will wonder why you carry it.

Well it came with the boat which is why it's there. A spare. They seemed popular with US cruising boats spending the winter in London so can't be that bad. But I think for most of us most of the time an empty tin can at the end of a bit of chain would keep the boat in one place, it's seldom anchors have to do much, which is why I think it takes a long time to get to know an anchor.

I assume the Fortress is more than a kedge - maybe also a storm anchor? unless its very small.

The fortress is a piece of metal
Only used as a stern anchor so far to keep the boat tucked into a snug anchorage, but if things got a bit crazy and putting to sea didn't make sense I think it would be in tandem behind the rocna. Though I've never played around with either tandem anchors or setting two, as a single hander your liking for two fills me with dread, give a bit oversize any day.

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Perhaps you can define what you mean by 'governmental'.

I'd have thought it was evident
from the context in which I employed it-
Stumble posted
"As far as I am concerned the baseline is type certification from any of the recognized classification societies. Like I mentioned I am not too picky about which one."

I responded
"I'm on the other side of that river.
I have less than zero interest
in the public opinions of governmental agencies.
They have their own agendas
and it is rarely the protection of sailors."

Rule makers.
Recognised classification societies.
Groups that know just how the rest of us should think and act.
Political governments *are* governmental, of course,
but so are standard-setters and busybodies of all stripes.

So long as they are simply descriptive
they can serve us well and provide valid information.
As soon as they become prescriptive,
and those who survive generally do so,
they are governmental
and restrict freedom and innovation
while increasing costs and paperwork.

Some govern only those within their group,
such as school administrations
and condominium committees;
others attempt to govern "strangers",
such as telling them how to equip their boats...

This is merely my personal opinion,
based on my own experiences and observations.
I don't expect you to share it.
But I hope that my use of the word "governmental" is clear now.