Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[JonJo]

I tried to raise the question:' is a bigger anchor better' on the terminated SARCA Excel thread. Its not about a specific design but about whether 'bigger is better'

A thesis was proposed that a bigger anchor was better than 2 anchors with part of the argument based on the anchor in question being a new generation anchor. I am sure 'new generation' was not universally defined but for the sake of this thread I'm thinking of (in no particular order), Fortress, Spade, Super SARCA, Rocna, Supreme, Excel, Boss and Mantus (if someone want to add something I've missed, be my guest).

The argument, or thesis, was described here:

One Big Anchor Better Than Multiple Anchors In Almost All Situations

The thesis has had supporters on CF, witting or unwitting.

Simplistically the debate is:

In high latitudes conditions will be more taxing but carrying one anchor larger than normally recommended should be sufficient (those who enjoy lower latitudes suffering from cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes might care to bristle). The anchor carried should be one size larger, but the authors carry an anchor 2 sizes larger - which, in my biased opinion, seems to indicate some of their thinking. I repeat the thesis is predicated by the idea we are referring to modern anchors.

I care to differ:

I have tested a whole range of modern anchors with a winch from a beach, all anchors in the water. Testing anchors of 10-15kgs we stop the testing when the loads reach 2t as the anchors have dived so deep it takes so long to dig them out. An anchor maker, not Australian, has tested a 15kg anchor with a 90t tugboat (they had to upgrade the chain etc) to 5t. A common comment of anchors actually used under arduous conditions (quoted have been cyclones and hurricanes) suggest retrieval of 'normal' sized anchors after a big blow can be time consuming (they have dived so deep) and in the extreme have been abandoned. Classification Societies allow a 30% reduction in anchor weight for SHHP anchors, over the USL codes - so why go 2 sizes up?

So holding capacity is not an issue - even a 15kg anchor will produce a 'holding capacity' well in excess of the load needed to hold a yacht for which the USL recommends that size.

An argument is - how about poor holding seabeds, excellent point - but what sort of poor holding seabeds, ones with weed that might clog a concave anchor? rock in which only a fishermans/Luke might hold, thin mud - so if we are going to oversize - which design do we put our eggs into?

Interestingly the advocates of big is better - seem to use only one type of anchor - coincidence?

If your yacht would normally use a 33kg model of one specific brand then 2 sizes bigger is their 55kg model. Good for the anchor maker's income and probably good for windlass sales - but is it necessary?

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.

[ElGatoGordo]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Interestingly the advocates of big is better - seem to use only one type of anchor - coincidence?

Well before this thread goes to crap, tell me which one that is!

[JonJo]

Read the link, maybe read other related links. I simply noted that the premise seemed to be based on one design. If having read the link you think the thesis (big is better) has a firm basis for any, or all, design - say so. I was actually looking for a constructive comment

If you read the link you will find the thesis enjoys considerable wide based support and there is no need for the debate to become contentious if it is based on personal experiences, as opposed to anecdotes.

[noelex 77]

I am a firm advocate of The bigger is better theory (at least in terms of anchors !)
Despite what the test show no anchor is 100% reliable even when deployed by experienced sailors. All long distance cruising sailors drag at some point. ( unless they spend all their time in marinas). A bigger anchor will drag less.

It is always a puzzle to me why people are so horrified at an extra 20kg of weight. Compared to rest of the weight in the anchoring system alone the difference is small. Our anchor chain is is G7, but it still weighs over 200Kg. (The next sized up chain would weigh 320kg )

Oversized anchors also have a lot of additional advantages.
Anchoring on a short scope and in poor holding ground is a lot more feasible and this allows you to explore areas that are normally not viable.


Some of the most idilic spots on this earth have a swarm of boats during he day, but they all nearly all leave in the afternoon to get to a "safe" anchorage, or marina for the night.
Look at my avatar if you want an example.

To have a glass of wine at sundown with place like this to yourself is one of those unforgettable experiences.

[ElGatoGordo]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Read the link, maybe read other related links. I simply noted that the premise seemed to be based on one design. If having read the link you think the thesis (big is better) has a firm basis for any, or all, design - say so. I was actually looking for a constructive comment

If you read the link you will find the thesis enjoys considerable wide based support and there is no need for the debate to become contentious if it is based on personal experiences, as opposed to anecdotes.

Ok nevermind

[carstenb]

I gotta agree with Noelex on this. What's the problem? I'm buying a 33 kg anchor instead of a 25 kg. 8 kilos is gonna sink my boat?

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)

[denverd0n]

Bigger is better, within limits. If you happen to be second-cousin to The Hulk, you might be perfectly able to man-handle a 200 lbs. anchor. Putting it on your 25' trailer sailor would be pretty ridiculous, though. So, yeah, bigger is generally better, but there is such a thing as over-kill.

[Kenomac]

Regarding sizing up your primary anchor: It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Besides, I sleep better and go ashore with total confidence in my anchor when it's one size larger than recommended.

[Dockhead]

In a word -- YES.

But obviously you and your windlass and other gear need to be able to handle it.

My previous anchor as a 55kg (121 pound) Rocna, which replaced a 25kg Delta. It was just a little too big -- got hung up on my forestay chainplate and was hard to handle. I replaced it with a 100 pound Spade which is just right for my boat.

Like everything with boats, it's a tradeoff, but in my opinion your anchor should be the biggest one you and your gear can reasonably handle. I agree with Noelex that other than the handling factor, the weight is irrelevant -- whats 20 or 50 pounds on a 10 or 20 ton boat, after all, even right on the bow.

[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.

[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.

[Cotemar]

You can never have enough. Bigger really is better.
I once had a 500 lbs anchor. Well, ok I just snagged it.

For those cruisers that just want to use their primary anchor even in a storm instead of putting out their 2nd/ storm anchor then again bigger is better

[sailorboy1]

JoJo why is it so important to you that people use a smaller anchor?

When I replaced my anchor 2 years ago by the chart I could have gone with a 45 lb Surpreme. I got a 60lb instead and considered getting the 80 lb. Maybe I threw away my money by getting the 60# instead of the 45#, but it has never dragged yet. And the $190 added cost is nothing in the big picture and over the life of the anchor!

[rebel heart]

The only qualifier I'd put in is "the biggest anchor you can safely and effectively manage", and there's an upper limit on that number for all vessels. Especially on a boat with a bowsprit (like mine), dimensions matter. Something light enough that you can haul by hand helps as well.

Spinning around in a tidal area, yanking the anchor around in different directions several times a day, creates a much different profile than a winch on a beach. If that was the complexity of anchoring everyone would have a 30# danforth and call it a day.

[RainDog]

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?