CQR Anchors

[cat man do]

Interestingly I have just had a look at a site of an Australian retailer and it's reckons a 15m boat, which is what i'm building, needs a 60 lb plough, but after emailing Manson , they got back to me the same day, they reckon i'll need a 45lb Manson Supreme, which is similar to the Rochna anchor and several others.

Reasoning being the extra holding ability of the newer style.

This anchor also has Lloyds certification, which some of the others may not have.

the retail prices are 60lb Yum Cha generick plough.......... $237
........................ . 60lb Manson plough........................ $299

....................... . 45 lb Manson Supreme [new style]......$440


Don't know why you'd buy the generick plough for a saving of $60, and there is a bit of difference between the manson plough and manson supreme at $130 more.

You'd think being 15kg lighter it would be cheaper, but if it has the same or better hold than a 60lb plough, I know where i'll be spending my money.

I am still waiting on a price back from Rochna as a comparison, maybe you've all scared him off.

Dave

[GordMay]

What we need is a matter for theory and conjecture, depending upon the very worst conditions we ever (eventually) encounter.
What we want is the largest anchor(s) of the Type(s) you select, and that you are able to:
1. Stow (size & weight)
2. Handle (primarily weight)
And only finally
3. Afford ($)

The recommended minimums, whether manufacturer’s, or other “authority”, should only provide the baseline upon which you build, limited only by the above constraints (mainly #1 & 2).

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Originally Posted by cat man do

This anchor also has Lloyds certification, which some of the others may not have.
Dave

Hi Dave,

I never meet any sailor who anchor and hold with an Lloyds certification,

Lloyd (and others certifications) is a very expensive process that only big companies can afford.. and it doesn't mean ANYTHING ´as the certification process does only check if the stated caracteristics are really meet..

I know an Italian anchor: AMATO anchor - which has been certified by the RINA (Italian equivalent to the Lloyd) to hold twice its weight, characteristics that can be achieved by any lump of metal.. but this anchor also is RINA certified..

[colemj]

I just looked up the Amato anchor because I had never heard of it before. While I think I keep a very open mind with regards to anchor designs, I just don't understand that one. Since there is only very sparse information available (unless you speak Italian), I cannot understand how that one works at all.

Alain, can you enlighten us as to the purpose of that design?

Mark

[Tropic Cat]

Mark

Here's the Amato anchor description in English. To me, it still doesn't answer your question.

http://www.amatoancore.com/inglese.htm

and another description translated from Italian. They seem to be saying that the weight of the anchor deoesn't matter. It's holding power is based solely on the anchor's shape. And get this, they don't advocate using chain in the rode.

http://translate.google.com/translat...icrosoft:en-us

Rick in Florida

[colemj]

Rick,

Thanks. That second site had informative pictures, although the translation resulted in phrases like "It has not stung lives, does not ruin the tubular ones of the gommoni", which I found less than helpful.

However, I now see that it is a variation on the danforth design with more fluke area. Now I understand how it works.

BTW, I really like the phrase "does not ruin the tubular ones of the gommoni" and am considering adopting it as a personal creed. Don't know what it means, but it sounds like something to strive for in life.

Mark

[Pblais]

They seem to be saying that the weight of the anchor deoesn't matter. It's holding power is based solely on the anchor's shape. And get this, they don't advocate using chain in the rode.

You tell people what they want to hear. It's not that it isn't true but the concept is to design an anchor people want to buy. They want to hear you don't need chain and that it does not need to be heavy. So they buy the light one that does not need chain. In that light who wouldn't?

[Alan Wheeler]

The Italin things says it can be used in Rock. Hmmmm, Italian Rock must be very different form NZ Rock.:-)

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by Pblais

You tell people what they want to hear. It's not that it isn't true but the concept is to design an anchor people want to buy. They want to hear you don't need chain and that it does not need to be heavy. So they buy the light one that does not need chain. In that light who wouldn't?

Are people really that stupid?

Darwinism should sort them out.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

Dave

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by colemj

Rick,

"It has not stung lives, does not ruin the tubular ones of the gommoni",

I hate when the tubular ones get ruined.

We had a 40lb CQR on our boat (40' steel Roberts) and I never really felt it set properly. I like to dig an anchor in slowly in reverse, then give the engine a lot of revs in reverse, to make sure it's set. I figure that should (hopefully) be the hardest pull the anchor has to handle. The CQR would often drag at this time. I got a 30kg Bruce (yes I know it's a lot heavier so the comparison isn't really fair) 2nd hand at a good price and just love it. It just sets every time, and never budges.

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Originally Posted by colemj

Alain, can you enlighten us as to the purpose of that design?

Mark

Oooppss really sorry to “introduce a new wolf in the sheep-fold” :-)

This was only to point out that to be certified by the Lloyd, the R.I.N.A. or any other certification company doesn’t mean that the product is outstanding..

Now if you read carefully the storry:
“Giuseppe Amato, is a master of foreign-going vessel with a thirty year career as a yacht captain behind him,…”

Humm very impressive!..

but a few lines after they wrote “Captain Amato had at his disposal, on board of his 5 meter launch,("Launch" means small motor boat)....

So Giuseppe Amato has been yacht captain and master of a 5 meters length foreign-going vessel :-) that’s typical from Italian “comedia del Arte”..

And this anchor has been designed to free itself from all other’s mooring chains, which are really a problem in crowded Italian ports.. and it is registered by the RINA for an holding power of twice its weight ..

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by Alain d'HYLAS

This was only to point out that to be certified by the Lloyd, the R.I.N.A. or any other certification company doesn’t mean that the product is outstanding..

Fair enough Alain, I don't have huge amounts of faith in rubber stamps from various institutions, but feel that at least some acredditation be it Lloyds, Det Norske Veritas, R.I.N.A or similar, is surely better than none at all.

Someone has looked at it and decided it at least meets some minimum standard.

Dave

[GMac]

Originally Posted by cat man do

Someone has looked at it and decided it at least meets some minimum standard.

Which is good but having asked an anchor maker and Lloyds themselves what SHHP means, i.e SHHP compared to what, neither will say. The only conclusion is the minimum standard must be very low otherwise why would you not sing it's praises.

I can tell you that during the approval process the factory and the gear in it is looked at. There is a fair wack of that which covers construction quality i.e is it built so it won't fall apart. Then again this guys anchors are not that nicely finished compared with it's 2 main rivals who both have far superior finishing and I suspect strength in one or 2 small areas. It also cost big big bucks.

All a bit strange really.

A bit like SARCAs 'NZ Martime Authority Approval'. NZ Maritime don't approve anchor types only weights.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by cat man do

Fair enough Alain, I don't have huge amounts of faith in rubber stamps from various institutions, but feel that at least some acredditation be it Lloyds, Det Norske Veritas, R.I.N.A or similar, is surely better than none at all.
Someone has looked at it and decided it at least meets some minimum standard.
Dave

The minimum standards are so low as to be worthless. It also means that $50,000, or whatever the certification costs were, have been spent on said certification instead of something else (like R&D).

[BBill]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

The minimum standards are so low as to be worthless. It also means that $50,000, or whatever the certification costs were, have been spent on said certification instead of something else (like R&D).

The way I see certifications they are better than nothing. At least Lloyds is a credible benchmark for quaility...but a certification in holding power is useless to me unless the test is done in the identical bottom and conditions I anchor in. It's like hiring a college grad instead of someone without formal paper. It doesn't mean the grad knows more but the odds are in your favor the college grad is going to be a higher achiever. No offense but without certifications all we have is verbal opinion and glossy advertising to judge by. I haven't seen an anchor test yet that couldn't have holes blown in it by experienced cruisers who spend lots of time on various bottoms and anchors.

Of course, this being a CQR string my mind is made up about CQRs and no certification in world could change my mind.

BB