CQR Anchors

[ssullivan]

I just have to gush for a minute about CQR anchors. With the bizzare weather we are having in the northeast USA right now, the wind has gone (in 24 hrs) from E to N to NE to SW to W. No joke. It's actually NW as of minutes ago, predicted to be SW tomorrow.

In this 24 hours, I have been spinning around like a top and the CQR I have down (45lbs with all chain rode) keeps me in place like a mooring would.

It's just amazing how well this anchor resets.


As for my snubber getting twisted... now that's another thread!

[Rick]

Hey Sean, I'm wondering how is your snubber arrangement? Haven't had a real problem with a snubber because it is attached near the water line at the stem and I attach it (20-25 ft of 1/2" three-strand nylon for stretch...a much larger diameter just will not stretch as much and the 1/2 inch is quite strong and sacrificial, if necessary) using a Prusic hitch regardless if attached to either chain or nylon. When retreiving I bring the rode up over the roller along with the hitch and conviently remove the hitch and any wraps from the rode pulling it back over the roller out of the way and continue retreival...no problem.

Like you, my first choice anchoring is the CQR. Although I carry another plow (a Bruce) I have discovered over the years that it does not reset as reliably in as many different bottom types as does the CQR. I love the Bruce for a kedge which most easily drops into my inflatable on a pad and drops over the inflatable tubes easier than other anchor types. I love the high-tensile Daforth for minimum scope and great holding power in one direction only and NEVER swing on one. All in all I carry 5 anchors not counting the little ones for the dinghy. Once I had all but one deployed and was glad to have that extra one as spare.

[Pblais]

I have both a Bruce and a CQR and like both well. I did many 360's one evening in T Storms on the CQR and it held while 2 other boats dragged and I worried.

The Bruce has only failed to Set on the first pull once. I like both enough to say I don't like one better though my CQR is my second as the Bruce is all 10mm Chain Rode. I've been struggling with a snubber but I'm ready to try a long prusic led to my two hauspipes. My current chain hook set up works mostly, but the problem is mostly with the "mostly".

[rsn48]

Oh I wish you hadn't raised this topic. There is a chandlery here in North Vancouver, BC that is one of those second hand joints, also carrying new equipment, where the price drops fractionally every day until the unit is free. I had been eye balling CQR's but was worried about the price. I went away for a month coming back to find that my said lusted after anchor had been sold. I then priced it at the "normal" chandleries only to discover they are about $250 more than what I had been eyeing.

Kingston has a copy of the CQR and I had been debating those, but some have said the quality of the metal isn't the same and they worry about the joining pin.

Anyways glad to hear you are happy with your CQR's.

[Rick]

Not only will you be happy with a Bruce and/or CQR, there are several instances where I have purposefully talked with people aboard boats which had bent anchors on their bows. They were dropped forged anchors which never failed in their instances that bent them. These cases were ALWAYS (at least with my sample set) anchored on a lee shore with mounting wind and waves unable to change thier circumstances. The anchors got caught in rocks and the veering vessel caused a high stress on the captured anchor stocks. In a few cases the anchors (this is my follow-up) were straightened with hydraulic presses just to make them look better. The owners just were fine with using them later after straightening them.

I had this happen to myself and naturally became a "believer" (such is the nature of the forming of religion).

Paul, Paul, Paul. Practice fastening a Prussic one-handed on a rode and you will never use a chain hook again!

[Alan Wheeler]

Yes I like the CQR as well. But I have just tried a Rochna. Only tried it once so far, and that was in heavy mud, so I can't honestly say if it is better in all conditions yet, but Mate!! First bite in, it stopped the boat dead in the water like I just hooked a mountain. When I went to retrieve it, I couldn't pull it up with the maxwell HC2200 winch. I had to retrieve as much chain as possible and then motor over it and let the boat break it out. Which is actually proper practice, but the CQR as never required that sort of effort before. And this is in a place I have anchored often with the CQR.
The other advantage is that the Rochna is a fraction of the weight of the CQR.
I will post further reports when I have put it through some more testing.

[Rick]

Decades ago when Bruce marketed their anchors in chandelries they provided a little sandbox and a miniature anchor on a lead that you could use to drag it into the sand and watch it plow under and continue to plow. What people missed by this demo is that there was not another little anchor of a different type to compare it against which might actually be better at STOPPING in the sand.

Several years later I was anchored off of Cabo San Lucas, bow and stern into the huge swells wrapping around the cape from the Pacific as were many other boats. I had a Bruce stern anchor in 3 feet of water on 250 ft of chain and rode having wonderful scope, I'm sure you will agree. I noticed that I had to tighten up on the stern rode every day because the Bruce was "plowing" deep beneath the sand yet not stopping.

Finally when it was calm I went out in my dinghy and pulled the anchor up and directly replaced it with the same weight HT Danforth. Over the next several days heavy swells came in and the anchor never moved nor did it bury like the Bruce did (which was also difficult to pull up due to that burying....are you relating to this now?). It held fast and was easy to retreive.

So, I'm suggesting that your having to motor up the anchor was not necessarily a good indication that it is a good anchor. I'm suggesting that if it was difficult to get up that is an indication that it moved and moved and moved into the earth when it should have bit in and stopped.

What do you think?

[Pblais]

Rick,
I think there is a difference in anchors and ground conditions. Cabo has a course sand and it's pretty much pure sand too so quite loose. In that type of ground I have to believe the HT Danforth is clearly the better choice if noit the very best choice especially with waves.

I think that is the problem in that nothing really is good at everything and in any particular ground you could find one that was quite a bit better though it may not be the same one.

[Alan Wheeler]

I agree with both of you whole heartedly. And it's why I am reserving judgement till I have used it for awhile in many different conditions.
A friend next slip beside me has a very flas ginpalace of equal length to me. He has a spade anchor. It was interesting that on one occasion, the anchor bit very hard into the bottom, (just as I described with mine) but suddenly just pooped out and wouldn't reset. Either the anchor fouled on something that gave a false sense of security,(common in mud bottoms and may have been why mine held so solidly) Or the way it attacks the bottom, means it doesn't keep going down. I agree that the better holding is the one that keeps going down. (Even though Rocna say theirs does, I haven't seen mine in the bottom to confirm it) So the one that "feels" like it bit hard, may infact just pop back out with a mouthful of mud.
Now at this point, I should perhaps come clean and be very clear on my new anchor. It is not a "real true blue" Rocna. I have taken the basic design and made some changes to suit myself and to what I consider as improvments. I have made enough changes to appease my conscience that I am not violating any patent or copyright. So from this point forward, it is probably not fair for me to make comments based on you guys thinking this is a real deal Rocna. I am sure Rocna would not mind if my experiance works out great, but I know they will get very upset if I have even the slightest negative response at all in the future

[Pblais]

You can find other versions of the name brand anchors with highly different materials, quality, and construction. I think it really is hard to weed out the true copies from the cheap imitations. The Bruce is easily copied by not so easily equalled. Same goes for most of the "spade' anchors too. These two varieties seem to be the ones most copied.

I can't say negative stuff about the copies as I don't have one nor used one enough to know.

Just as our boats, the anchor choices we make are compromises. Having two different ones is a whole lot easier with anchors than with boats. I also carry a small Fortress on the stern rail and 75 ft of 1/2 inch nylon with 4 ft of chain. It can be handy if you lose steering in tight quarters or just want to stop for lunch. It's always nice to have a large bag of tricks for the crowds that always seem to gather when you screw up or get screwed.

[markpj23]

I grabbed a North Star "Bruce" copy off of eBay for less than 1/4 the price of the real one. It has worked flawlessly for me so far. My other bow anchor is a 'real' Delta, and I have a 'real' Fortress FX-37 for the stern if I need it.

I checked the specifications of the North Star against the Bruce and felt it was at least equally suiited to my needs. Don't think I'd buy a cheap Chinese import casting but IMHO the North Star is well-made and has performed well so far. And before you ask, no - I do not have any connection with North Star other than being a customer.

Copies are not for everyone, as this forum shows all too well. I'll trust the copy anchor and maintain a taught anchor watch until I've developed more confidence in it. Then one day I'll just toss the hook overboard and go below to get sauced...

[Rick]

Yeah Paul, the great difficulty for me in evaluating an anchor is with the varying bottom conditions, many of which are indeterminate unless I actually dive and dig to see for myself.

In fact, one of the worst bottom conditions was at Isla Mujeres...I just couldn't get my CQR to set. After several tries I pulled it up to change to another type and found a garbage bag wrapped on it. After removing the bag it set right away, gee.

Wheels, you can copy ANY patent in the world and build it. You just can't legally SELL it. Many patented items in the scientific world are made (especially in chemistry and biology) all of the time in order to verify the scientific published claims made by the scientists trying to make names for themselves. They NEED others to verify for them their claims to fame. You probably know this and just want to see what "bites" you get, huh?

[capt lar]

Hey Wheels, I am surprised to read your Rochna knockoff is lighter than your CQR. My boat, at 7 ton disp specs for a 35 lb CQR but a 44 lb Rochna. What is your disp and weight of CQR ?

Larry

[Alan Wheeler]

Larry, normally the rule of thumb for CQR sizing is based on boat length, not its weight. My boat is 46ft, so a 45lb CQR was fitted, however at 26ton, it is heavier than most that size, so it should really have been the next size uip. The Rocna model I based my build upon was the No.40. because my boat is so heavey. Their info states theirs at 88lbs. But mine is half the weight of the CQR. I built mine from SST, and have made some minor mod's to maintain strength, but keep material thickness down and thus weight down. It did equate to a many more man hrs, but my time is free. With these anchors, weight is not really a major component of how they work.
By the way, I used all their angles and diamensions. The silly people publish a detailed drawing with those specs on the website.
Most copies of anchors get angles wrong. I have seen CQR and Bruce copies that just don't work as the original does. It all comes down the the research done on the angles.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by rsn48

Kingston has a copy of the CQR and I had been debating those, but some have said the quality of the metal isn't the same and they worry about the joining pin.

In general terms copies are never as good as the originals, frequently in terms of performance as well as construction.

With specific regard to the CQR and its knock-offs, see here for a brief photo journal demonstrating the setting performance of a CQR compared to a popular brand of copy here in New Zealand.

Originally Posted by Pblais

Rick,
I think there is a difference in anchors and ground conditions. Cabo has a course sand and it's pretty much pure sand too so quite loose. In that type of ground I have to believe the HT Danforth is clearly the better choice if noit the very best choice especially with waves.

I think that is the problem in that nothing really is good at everything and in any particular ground you could find one that was quite a bit better though it may not be the same one.

Danforth-type anchors should never be recommended as a serious choice for use as a primary anchor. They are not roll-stable, do not re-set reliably, and are not structually strong enough.

Originally Posted by capt lar

I am surprised to read your Rochna knockoff is lighter than your CQR. My boat, at 7 ton disp specs for a 35 lb CQR but a 44 lb Rochna. What is your disp and weight of CQR ?

Larry

Larry we do not "spec" anchors following the same process that CQR apparently do.

There is a tendency amongst anchor manufacturers to recommend sizes smaller than those really required. They invariably suggest very optimistic sizes for impractically light conditions. One brand states that a "working anchor", i.e. what they size their anchors to be, should hold “up to 30 knots of wind”. That's routine in the environments we take into consideration.

We have been sure to resist this temptation, and the recommendations in our sizing table are appropriate for heavy-duty use in all conditions. In our view a working anchor should hold its boat in practically anything.

Having said that, Alan has selected a Rocna that is heavier than even we advise (see below).

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Larry, normally the rule of thumb for CQR sizing is based on boat length, not its weight. My boat is 46ft, so a 45lb CQR was fitted, however at 26ton, it is heavier than most that size, so it should really have been the next size uip. The Rocna model I based my build upon was the No.40. because my boat is so heavey. Their info states theirs at 88lbs. But mine is half the weight of the CQR. I built mine from SST, and have made some minor mod's to maintain strength, but keep material thickness down and thus weight down. It did equate to a many more man hrs, but my time is free. With these anchors, weight is not really a major component of how they work.

For a 46' boat @ 26 tonnes, we recommend a Rocna 30 (66lbs) (shortly to be 33Kg / 73lbs), not a 40.

Weight is not a huge issue with the Rocna, but there are significant design factors that keep weight on the tip of the anchor, which is important. A Rocna 40 which weighs half as much as it should (e.g. if it were built of aluminum) will not offer quite the same setting performance, especially in very hard sand and weed/grass (although the differences would be marginal).

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

By the way, I used all their angles and diamensions. The silly people publish a detailed drawing with those specs on the website.
Most copies of anchors get angles wrong. I have seen CQR and Bruce copies that just don't work as the original does. It all comes down the the research done on the angles.

The "detailed drawing" on our website is not at all accurate. The sketch is very rough and the angles etc are incorrect. The shank position is wrong, and the dimensions provided have had deliberate inaccuracies introduced so as to hinder the production of copies, while not greatly affecting the purpose of the diagram, which is to allow customers to ensure compatibility with their bow-roller.

Details such as steel thicknesses are not listed. These are carefully balanced throughout the anchor, and determine weight-on-tip and distribution of strength.

Most copies do indeed get the angles wrong - many manufacturers of copies do not really understand what they're doing, and only give thought to producing what they think is the same product at a cheaper cost. A copy that works at all, will work in soft mud - but the harder the substrate is, the more the problems will become apparent.

Furthermore, it is very unlikely that a well-made one-off copy of a Rocna be produced at a cost that would save the copier any money, even if hours invested are not taken into account. Any "savings" made will correspond to compromises made; there will be a reason we also don't do it.