Anchors - Is One Enough

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Pauls

"True when referring to crap stainless coming out of a crap country. Complete Bee Ess when talking about high quality stainless fabricated to a high standard and tested composition. I just hate to see Bee Ess repeated over and over on the Internet until some begin to believe it."

It is not BS. Crevice corrosion and stress corrosion do not stop because the part is
"high quality stainless fabricated to a high standard and tested composition." If it's a 300 series stainless it will experience these issues. This is metallurgical fact, it cannot be eliminated.

If you wanted to suggest that these factors are not likely to be important on an anchor, which should be way overbuilt for the loads it will see, I would not disagree.

Points that will always weigh against stainless anchors: 300 series stainless yield strength is less than common steels, so they are weaker for their weight (meaning they will bend easier). If used with galvanized chain electrolysis will attack the connecting link. And they cost a hell of a lot more than galvanized.

The biggest problem is with SS in an oxygen depleted environment. Stale water situation..... like inside a stuffing box on a boat that is not being used or a chainplate that has water infiltrated between it and the hull or bulkhead. An anchor is not that situation.
Still.. I would opt for the galvanized anchor....

[sapient sue]

Hi all

We are a 40ft yacht and carry 3 anchors nowadays, (it used to be 4).

The main bow anchor is a 65lb Manson Plough with 90 metres of chain. Our stern anchor is a 301b Manson Plough with chain and rope rode. Our spare anchor is a G37 Guardian with chain and rope. We used to carry a 65lb fisherman's for kelp, but it never got used in 16 years and we sailed in Alaska and Tasmania; it was sold so my new Corian galley could be installed (same weight).

We use both spare anchors, deploying which ever suits the situation, holding into swell or against river flow. In strong winds we deploy the stern anchor from the bow in a "V" formation. (Particularly handy on the west coast of Tasmania in sustained 60knts). We have only dragged on a couple of occasions in Alaska anchoring on a bed of Newspaper Kelp and we were grateful for the anchor alarm.

Cheers Sue

[Factor]

Sarca Excel as primary and Fortress FX27 as secondary.

Not only does carrying two anchors make operational sense, it is effectively* legally required in my part of the world.

(Legislation imposes a general safety obligation on skippers, that safety obligation is deemed to have been met if, inter alia, you have a second anchor system on a vessel of my size.

[Shrew]

Manson Supreme as primary (Had a Rocna returned in a recall.) Fortress as secondary & stern. I can't recall the last time we used a stern anchor.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by steve77

Our primary is a Mantus 85. A CQR 75 is also on the bow, with a Fortress stowed partially assembled in the cockpit locker. A Luke 120 is our storm anchor.

I have always been curious about the cult following of Luke anchors as ultimate storm anchors. While you have a large one, I have often talked with people who tell me, in a lower, more serious voice with that certain look of respect and awe on their face: "…and we have a 50lb Luke for when the ***** really hits the fan…".

Since you anchor regularly with an 85lb new generation anchor, do you really think your slightly heavier Luke is going to outperform it when things go rotten?

Frankly, unless one regularly needed a Luke to hook up on rocks or maybe cut through thick grass, I can't see why one of any size would even be on a boat.

I don't mean the above as confrontational. Our boat came with a Luke and we carried it around for several years with me looking at it and wondering when I would ever use it. I tossed it 10yrs ago and have been wondering since if I will ever get in a situation that would prove me to have made a mistake. Particularly since I read comments by people, and am told in person, how important it is to have a Luke as an end-of-days anchor.

Mark

[zengirl]

Originally Posted by Sun and Moon

Stainless is a lousy material for an anchor. It's prone to crevice corrosion which is hard to detect, and then failure when you most need it. Not to mention it's very expensive. Galvanized wins in every category except looking shiny at the dock.

Thanks for the advice, not into shiny or expensive unless warranted, so glad to hear I can get what I wanted.⛵️

[Pelagic]

Experienced sailors know that Murphy's law always finds the weakest link

Lots of hype about which anchor(s) are best, but the reality is that respecting the design ergonomics of your bow and a conservative approach to deployment will offer you the best form of Murphy free security.

Consider these important factors in choosing your ground tackle:
1 the ease of deployment/recovery that is inherant in your bow arrangement
2 structural bedding of anchors for offshore passages
3 Redundancy of spares to easily and quickly replace Primary in case you loose or need to bouy off primary.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Pauls

Points that will always weigh against stainless anchors: 300 series stainless yield strength is less than common steels, so they are weaker for their weight (meaning they will bend easier). If used with galvanized chain electrolysis will attack the connecting link. And they cost a hell of a lot more than galvanized.

I just asked the metallurgist sitting across from me in the room, he says you got your facts bass-awkwards. He says, look it up... Stainless 316 has the higher yield strength than steel, plus... A galvanized anchor is certain to rust when the zinc coating wears off, whereas the stainless actor will not rust if manufactured properly. Stainless is also a tougher material, more resistant to impact damage.

Don't use the cheaply made stainless swivels which are prone to crevis corrosion to compare anchors. With the swivels, the fault is in the inferior grade stainless used overseas and the actual manufacturing process.

You get what you pay for...

[colemj]

First, let me say that I like SS anchors and have no issues with them. I think the fear and doom around them has little basis in practice. If I could afford one, I would have it.

However, it is easy to look up yield strengths. SS316 has a 2% offset yield strength (a common measurement) of 205mPa. The ultimate yield strength, where it completely separates and fails, is 485mPA.

Bisalloy 80 and similar, which is in common use on new generation anchors, has a 2% offset yield strength of 750mPa. This is over 3.5x that of 316SS, and is 1.5x higher than 316SS ultimate yield strength.

Quite a large difference.

For comparison, mild steel is 250mPa and T6 aluminum 276mPa. Both higher than 316 SS.

I don't know what your metallurgist was thinking.

Does impact damage resistance matter much in an anchor? I assume battering ram is not a common use mode for this gear…

Mark

[wesevans]

On a boat of any size that will be anchoring out 2 is minimum and for serious cruising 3 would be advisable.

[tenchiki]

I had a 17ft boat, and was glad I had 3 anchors once.
The northern Channel Islands in southern California have a lot of small, deep anchorages. Some of them you couldn't even put one boat in on a single hook, but can hold several anchored bow & stern. The wind usually doesn't shift very much, the stern anchor is mostly to limit swinging.

[Agape39]

Originally Posted by zengirl

Hi, looking to buy a Rocna, I see stainless steel or galvanized. Big price difference. Pro's and con's if you remember or know of any. Thanks

p.s. 29.9 Bristol 1971

I use a Rocna 25kb as primary. Seldom find it nessacary to use anything else. I do have a Fortress 37 as a backup.
get a stainless one if you want it pretty but the price doesn't warrant the need in my case.

.....___/)

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by zengirl

Hi, looking to buy a Rocna, I see stainless steel or galvanized. Big price difference. Pro's and con's if you remember or know of any. Thanks

p.s. 29.9 Bristol 1971

The stainless steel anchor will look better at marinas and the fish will like it when you're anchored. If it gets hung up and you have to cut it loose you will cry harder and longer.

I view an anchor as a "tool", nothing more. Just as a stainless steel hammer will drive nails no better than a plain steel hammer, a stainless steel anchor will hold your boat no better than a galvanized steel anchor of the same size and design. The savings can go towards a larger anchor or something else of use.

[steve77]

Originally Posted by colemj

Since you anchor regularly with an 85lb new generation anchor, do you really think your slightly heavier Luke is going to outperform it when things go rotten?

Frankly, unless one regularly needed a Luke to hook up on rocks or maybe cut through thick grass, I can't see why one of any size would even be on a boat.

Mark

I refer to our Luke as a storm anchor out of habit. It may or may not be used in a storm, depending on the specific situation we are in. It is on board for precisely the situations you list above - rock and thick grass. I respectfully disagree that you need to "regularly" anchor in these type of bottoms to justify carrying this anchor. The Luke helps me keep options open when determining where and how to anchor.

I may also point out that the difference between 85 lbs and 120 lbs is not "slightly heavier". Horsing this thing around on deck is a chore. It's a 41% increase by weight, and that is not "slightly heavier".

To your point, a Luke may or may not suffice as a storm anchor. It would depend on all types of things, primarily the holding ground. Our Mantus is a great anchor, but in certain circumstances, there is no question that the Luke would be a better choice.

Peace,

Steve

[zeehag]

i carry 5 or 6 anchors on my boat. primary 30kg bruce, all chain.... secondary cqr 45 pounds (too light) and all chain, an d2 danforth, one yachtsman/fishermans, 2 dinghy anchors.
no i cannot add.
they all, except brucie, came with boat on purchase.
i added the bruce. it works well.