New to anchoring - appreciate advice/opinions

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Don C L

... can someone explain to me why these anchoring threads end up heading this way?

Thanks for photos, picture says it all!

Two reasons:
1. Idiots like me say things like "never" when we mean "sometimes" or "just once in a while". Thanks to Fortress, I stand corrected. (Sorry F, I wouldn't part with my Fortress standby anchor for all the tea in China.) But we need to acknowledge the danforth type is better used in tandem with another anchor ... unless buried under 13 ft of mud of course (but then my old fisherman would serve too, without hooking up on the chain as the tide turns).
2. Others who for some strange reason have never yet dragged may think this means their technique is bullet-proof, so they tell others the older style anchors are no big deal, and what's all the fuss about.

I think everyone should just be pointed towards sound, scientific test data. Once you've seen the danforths and ploughs doing their thing, streaking across the seabed, or poor old Bruce digging a shallow trench instead of burying, in Panope's excellent underwater videos, there's just no argument really.

Well, I'm sure someone will argue - that's the internet.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Look.

Don, we know that in the Channel Island area it is common practice to anchor bow and stern,... been there and done that to fit in.

But we've anchored in many similar coves elsewhere, coves with lots of boats sharing the area, and nowhere else across the Pacific have we found such a practice. The conditions in the CI are not unique at all, so I'm left wondering how and why the practice has developed there?

Anyone know?

Jim

[Tayana42]

The bottom slopes quickly away from the beach giving a steeper angle if pulling away from shore. Often the stern anchor is hand set on the beach. Also, one wants to stay bow into the swells even if gust come from on shore.

Mostly though, I think it allows boat's to pack into tight quarters like a mooring field.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Don, we know that in the Channel Island area it is common practice to anchor bow and stern,... been there and done that to fit in.

But we've anchored in many similar coves elsewhere, coves with lots of boats sharing the area, and nowhere else across the Pacific have we found such a practice. The conditions in the CI are not unique at all, so I'm left wondering how and why the practice has developed there?

Anyone know?

Jim

While I still have wifi I can answer. What Tayana said is right but also some of the coves are smaller than the one in the photo, and even if only one boat were in swinging on one hook, you could be at risk of swinging into rocks or a wall. Bow and stern they are perfectly good cove to anchor in however. In the cove pictured, Fry's harbor, there is actually enough room for 10 boats or so if everyone knows what they are doing. Many folks anchor bow-in because night winds often come down from the canyon there. Incidentally, while I was there a gentleman sailed in in his still new-looking Cal 28, the same one he has had for 40 years! He is a bit well-known around here since he has done charters, taught navigation and is still a surveyor. I had not seen him in 30 years so I was very pleasantly shocked to see him sail his boat in! Being of elder years, more elder than I, it was inspiring to see him still sailing, and at the same time I did take note that he set two Fortress anchors bow and stern. In these parts I consider that a vote of confidence for the design!

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I think everyone should just be pointed towards sound, scientific test data. Once you've seen the danforths and ploughs doing their thing, streaking across the seabed, or poor old Bruce digging a shallow trench instead of burying, in Panope's excellent underwater videos, there's just no argument really.

The thing is, every anchor drags once in a while. I went back to a bruce clone after loosing a really nice mantus (which is a great anchor no question) to a snag (which happens too). If I had a mantus or other New Gen anchor I would use it with out worry. But then I don't worry with a bruce either.

Does a bruce or bruce clone hold as strongly as a mantus or other new gen anchor? No not at all. A mantus can be hard to break out so it does hold quite well.

But for mud and sand of the bay and delta, a Bruce, Ok Bruce clone holds well enough when the winds blow. I mean if the boat does not drag then it's good enough. Why spend more?? For me it's paying 1/2 as much as a mantus and still not dragging. If I dragged or dragged lots with a bruce you can be sure I would use a different anchor. But I don't and have not in 13 years of using a bruce.

Being an engineer I take tests and studies with a grain of salt as many are bias toward who paid for the test/study. How well an anchor performs for me is what really matters.

I don't sell anchors, I use them to protect everything that I own. For me a Lewmar Bruce clone works for me in winds to 50+ MPH. It might not work for you.

New gen anchors are better but they cost a pretty penny too. So I go with good enough based on my personal experience. YMMV

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Has anyone else noticed how every thread on anchoring seems to end up with someone claiming their CQR (Bruce, Danforth...) is as good as any 'modern' anchor, it's all about technique, etc? Do they do it so as to light the fuse and watch the fun, or can they be serious?

A good anchor will likely save your bacon some day, whereas a shitty anchor, one day, will cause you so much grief if you dare to leave your boat for a trip ashore and the wind changes.

We think nothing of spending a few grand on some electronic gizmo that can lead to a false sense of security, but shy away from investing in real security, the security of double the holding power when the wind starts to whistle in the rigging, and knowing it won't flip out at the first wind change and fail to reset.

I still recall those days when a CQR was the best there was, but everything else has moved on. No one still uses those spinning depth sounders (remember the ones with the flickering red beam spinning around the dial - near impossible to read in a lumpy seaway); no one tosses out a Walker log any more to measure speed and distance; so why use a totally outdated anchor? Not only your boat is at risk - you are risking mine too when you drag towards me on a dark and stormy night because of totally outdated, inferior equipment that lives depend on.

A good anchor is the number one priority piece of safety gear on any vessel; why compromise? And please, never tell anyone new to anchoring that the type of anchor doesn't matter - when the chips are down, it surely does. Point them to a reliable source of comparative data, instead of spinning old wive's tales about technique trumping everything.

So well put. This should be a sticky!!! Thanks, needed to be said and you did it very well. Thanks.

[sailorchic34]

I should note that I still use a 43 year old heathkit depth sounder also. It still works just fine. I even have the manual to rebuild it should the need arise. Try that with the latest B&G or raymarine. Mind you it uses those new fangle digital vacuum tubes for the display.

Is technique important? Of course it is, both in sailing and anchoring. A New gen anchor perhaps needs less technique and can be more forgiving, though more scope is of course always better. Yet even they will drag under the right conditions.

Just remember that in 10-15 years there will be the next generation of anchors, which will make the current new gen's completely obsolete and prone to failure.

[Fortress]

One thing I have noticed over the past 10 years is that some boaters will dramatically upsize from their old generation anchor to a new generation model, and then exclaim its superiority.

For example, they will go from a 45 lb CQR to a 73lb or 88 lb new generation anchor, and then say how much better it performs.

Well, at 50-75% heavier, shouldn't it???

And since the new generation anchors perform so much better, then why are owners not sizing DOWN from their old generation models, and saving weight on the bow and anchoring system?


One other point is that the old generation anchors, such as the genuine Bruce and CQR models, have far more structural strength than the vast majority of new generation models.

We have an anchor destruction machine here at our factory, and our late owner used to marvel at the structural strength of the genuine Bruce.

As far as I know, among the new generation anchors only Anchor Right (Excel) and Manson (Supreme) are made of a verifiable high strength steel and have any certifications.

Stay safe,
Brian

[sailstoo]

The Fortress has great holding power but doesn't reset particularly well in a wind/tide shift (ask me how I know). Weeds will also foul it. For back-up (or weedy bottom) a Spade is tough to beat. Put as much chain as you can out there but all that weight in the anchor locker will affect performance.

[NevisDog]

It occurred to me that the argument for/against SHHP may divide somewhat between those who live at anchor, and those who choose to anchor as and when they feel like it. Those that live by anchor probably need the best money can buy and, with the luxury of great choice out there, research is necessary to find which best suits your particular situation. (That's where Steve's totally unbiased videos come in - they sure altered my perceptions.)

FYI, I had to downsize my Rocna - no way could I haul the 25kg (55lb) every day (I prefer doing things by hand rather than machine but geeze those things can bury!) and it was too bulky to store as a storm anchor so I swapped it for a 15kg. That's the one that dragged (the smaller one), even though it is still oversize for this boat. So now I need a stowable storm anchor (plus the Fortress of course, makes three, a bare minimum IMO).

When life depends on having the best, there's no argument about cost cutting. Like someone already said, I'd give up eating for a month to get the right anchor.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

It occurred to me that the argument for/against SHHP may divide somewhat between those who live at anchor, and those who choose to anchor as and when they feel like it.

I'm at anchor 100 percent of the time at least 3/4's of the year. It's more what one can afford. My life savings is currently lower then what a Mantus 45# costs.

It's why some folks drive a BMW and others a YUGO.... holding down the lower end of the social economical spectrum requires some adjustment as to what is realistic and affordable. I sleep very well at night with the claw anchor. Plus it stows better on the bow.

Let me know how that not eating for a month thingy works out for you.....

[NevisDog]

Okay, so long as we don't try to advise those 'new to anchoring' that type doesn't matter. Forgot to mention, when our anchor dragged about 10m in a storm two months ago, next to us was a French yacht. He dragged too, and was still dragging when he hauling up his CQR (yep, I had the binos on him, in case he needed help of course) and heading for the marina. Everyone else was on a mooring. So, maybe our good anchor saves us money after all... pays for itself really.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by sailstoo

The Fortress has great holding power but doesn't reset particularly well in a wind/tide shift (ask me how I know). Weeds will also foul it.

Please spare no details! In 100% of the handful of cases that I have heard during the past 20 years concerning the Fortress failing during a wind shift, it was due to the anchor being undersized for the boat, sea bottom and wind conditions.

Additionally, any anchor can fail in weeds and become just a giant clump of soil and vegetation, but I do agree that the Spade with its massive weight behind a very pointed narrow fluke might work better in that type a bottom.

[four winds]

Living on anchor one of my hobbies is observation of boats dragging anchor. Almost always unattended boats. They get repositioned by the owner or a good Samaritan and it is obvious the anchor is undersized, and little or even no chain. Usually a Danforth style, followed tiny Delta, Bruce, and CQR types. Too small an anchor seems to be the number one reason for issues at anchor.

Of the livaboard cruisers that drag, the next thing you hear is that the ground tackle has been upgraded. Have seen this many times in recent years.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by four winds

... one of my hobbies is observation of boats dragging anchor. ... and it is obvious the anchor is undersized, and little or even no chain. ... next thing you hear is that the ground tackle has been upgraded...

Upgrading to a much heavier (heavier than specified) older-style anchor may be one option, or option two (maybe not much more expensive) could be choosing a correctly sized SHHP from one of Steve's highly rated and more reliable next generation. (Hopefully it won't take long to realise chain is important.) Have you noticed which option people generally choose?

Thinking of pros and cons: heavy older style is, well, heavy on equipment and heavy hanging on the bow, especially when two or more are needed in some situations. New-gens should prove much less prone to skidding (or shallow plowing - equally risky in a blow) and less weight on the bow for same holding power (note: this will really improve sailing characteristics.).

But there is a choice - whatever works for us I guess (just so long as we don't try telling newbies that "type don't matter").