Which Anchor Lets You Sleep Best At Night?

[Beausoleil]

Originally Posted by GMac

Even the new ones aren't idiot proof.

And just when you do happen to design an idiot-proof anchor, Mother Nature comes along and has Evolution design a better idiot!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Beausoleil

And just when you do happen to design an idiot-proof anchor, Mother Nature comes along and has Evolution design a better idiot!

I love it, and will steal it for my own !!!

[GMac]

Originally Posted by Beausoleil

And just when you do happen to design an idiot-proof anchor, Mother Nature comes along and has Evolution design a better idiot!

A truer word never spoken and it aren't just anchors either.

[BigCat]

This is really very puzzling. I never had any trouble setting my 45 pound CQR, and never dragged it. I sailed across the Pacific, using BBB all chain 3/8" rode, almost always at 3:1 scope, with a 15' nylon 5/8" line on a chain hook to give it a bit of shock absorbing power, and to quiet the rumble. I always set it under sail or by backing down under power with my little 20 hp Yanmar and 18" - 2 bladed prop. The boat was a 34' monohull with a schooner junk rig, and weighed 18,000 pounds. I anchored about 100 times with this setup over 4 years - completely trouble free. Only for typhoons did I use extra anchors.

[GMac]

Not really BC. You had a good size anchor with biggish chain behind it. The 3/8 chain would have help it a lot and backing with a 2 blader probably meant you weren't going to be going too fast for it to grab. So for a 34fter I'd say that was a pretty good set-up used nicely really. 100 times over 4 years? Stop building them and use the boat more

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by GMac

Not really BC. You had a good size anchor with biggish chain behind it. The 3/8 chain would have help it a lot and backing with a 2 blader probably meant you weren't going to be going too fast for it to grab. So for a 34fter I'd say that was a pretty good set-up used nicely really. 100 times over 4 years? Stop building them and use the boat more

Hey, GMac - I always backed slowly and picked up revs after it set. Except for that one time in Opua on North Island in N.Z., when I snapped the chain trying to anchor under sail while sailing too fast. No problem getting the anchor to set there.

Maybe that's the problem folks are having - too much speed at first. Maybe too much scope is a problem, too. I am between boats at the moment-it will be a couple of years before I get back on the water in anything bigger than a kayak and smaller than a ferry-

I never had any problems with the anchor pulling out with wind shifts or current changes, either. Probably most designs will work if you use a large enough anchor, though mud/sand designs like the Danforth will only work in their favored bottom type. The Bugel probably needs to be about 25% bigger than a Rocna or Manson for the same holding power.

[harryrezz]

Max, most of the replies you've gotten are pretty good, but HMHO the most important factor is SCOPE! La Nostra is 44' LOD, 36,000pounds before I fill the 400 gal water tanks, and she has a LOT of windage. In the Windward Islands where I sail it is unusual to have a wind of less than 15 KT, and we frequently will have strings of days when the wind doesn't drop under 25 or 30 sustained. Anchorages with swell running 6 feet or more are common. Holding is usually quite good in sand.
We are using a 60 LB CQR (replaced a 45 lb CQR) and I have NEVER dragged once properly set. I use 200 ft of 3/8 chain and also have a bridle which lowers the effective point of attachment to very near the waterline. We ALWAYS use a minimum scope of 6 or 7 to 1, and I almost always dive on the anchor to make certain it is properly set. (NO anchor will hold if it is fouled on a rock or piece or coral or if it has gotten tangled in it's own rode) and therein, I feel, lies the secret. We watch other sailors come into anchorages all the time, and all too often they drop a few feet of chain, drift back, and think they are anchored. We usually wake up the next morning and see them way back from where they started .... hopefully not having encountered anyone else's boat along the way.
Anchors are all designed to hold when subjected to LATERAL forces. When pulling up an anchor you intentionally subject it to VERTICAL forces so that it pulls out of the bottom. The whole idea of putting out enough scope is that when the boat pulls back on the anchor, that portion of the rode which meets the anchor remains on the bottom so that the forces exerted on the anchor remain lateral. Of insufficient scope has been let out when the boat pulls back the rode will lift off of the bottom and more vertical forces will be exerten on the anchor and it will tend to pull out. The shorter the scope, the more it will lift ... real simple! Now, couple to this the tendency of most newer boats with their fin keels, flat bottoms and light weights to "hunt" back and forth on their anchors like caged animals - tugging and pulling on their anchors fron side to side - and you have a disaster waiting to happen.
You mentioned that you have 250 feet of chain. That should be plenty for your catamaran AS LONG AS YOU NEVER ANCHOR IN MORE THAN 35 FEET OF WATER! (250 divided by 7 = 35.7) But you must also keep in mind that it makes no difference how much chain you have on board if most of it stays in the chain locker! If you set the anchor properly and have that 7:1 scope out a 60 lb CQR (or almost anything else for that matter) will hold a pretty big boat in all but the very worst of conditions.
All that said, we've found a CQR to be a great "general purpose" anchor for our cruising grounds ... but it is NOT good in soft, mud. A Danforth type is much better there ... and a Fortress, with it's light weight and high strength is the best of these. The Bruce is also good in sand and hard mud, but niether it nor a CQR will be good in grass where the Danforth seems to be better again. Some of the new design anchors seem to hold promise, but only time will tell.
But as I said, IMHO, proper scope is the real key.

[GMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Maybe that's the problem folks are having - too much speed at first. Maybe too much scope is a problem, too. I am between boats at the moment-it will be a couple of years before I get back on the water in anything bigger than a kayak and smaller than a ferry-

I never had any problems with the anchor pulling out with wind shifts or current changes, either. Probably most designs will work if you use a large enough anchor, though mud/sand designs like the Danforth will only work in their favored bottom type. The Bugel probably needs to be about 25% bigger than a Rocna or Manson for the same holding power.

Yeap I'd agree about the speed, too fast and most anchors will just skip across the bottom even the new ones but especially the plow types. I see it often where boats are backing onto their anchor at 10kts and it's just not happening. Usually big fizz boats.

Sure using a monster anchor will increase holding but so will adding more chain, increase the chain size, add shock absorbsion i.e a snubber and as Harryress mentions, use more scope.

I don't know if I'd agree with 7:1 on all chain all the time. Not that it's a bad thing but that is a big whack and often there is just not the room to do so. I run Rope to chain and when throwing it over do the deep sounder times 5 plus a handful, never had an issue. Occasionally I'll back out to 7:1 if the weather packs up. On all chain 3-4:1 and more if nasty. Saying that if you have the room and the retrieval power, more scope the merrier.

Holding power is a bit over rated really for 98% of boaters. On a offshore cruiser I'd be looking hard at that but otherwise most of the time most anchors will hold more than enough, if backed by a matched rode. I've been doing a lot of investigations into what actual loads go on rodes and it's a lot less than many think often. I'm assembling the numbers and will put then up when I'm done.

[Alan Wheeler]

Not to mention, if you can break the chain, it must be damn hard on other gear like winch and bow roller/fairlead. It's lucky the chain broke I would say. However, the chain being the weakest link is not really the best choice either.

[BigCat]

www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf tells us what loads it takes to drag an anchor.
The interesting thing about this test is that the hydrobubble did very well, when you consider its weight. The other anchors that did well were the Rocna, Manson, and Spade.

If it weren't for the Hydrobubble doing so well, I'd have said that what the good performers have in common is a scoop with the hollow facing towards the load. The Hydrobubble is just the opposite, with the 'scoop' facing opposite the load, so it is probably a matter of angle of the stock to fluke and fluke area that give good holding, and a widened Bugel might do just as well. It would certainly be easy to make one.

Alan , if you saw my old bow roller, you'd laugh. It was welded of 1/4" ss, forming a 'u' about 5" x 5". The roller is 3" solid ss. stock, with 1/4" side flanges, mounted on a 1/2" pin (or maybe a bit bigger, can't quite recall.) It's held to the boat with 4 ss. bolts, 1/2" or a bit bigger. It's still there, 50,000 miles later-totally unchanged.

[GMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

so it is probably a matter of angle of the stock to fluke and fluke area that give good holding, and a widened Bugel might do just as well. It would certainly be easy to make one.

If you take a close look at most top end performance anchors from the last few years i.e inc the CQR, you will find that the angles are all very similar, surprisingly so. So widening the Bugel would be good if parking in soft stuff all the time but not so in hard seabeds. As it is now probably give the best all round performance. Yes they are easily copied many have.

[Alan Wheeler]

I am happy with my Anchor, once I made a few corrections to the original design to solve a few potential issues ;-) Eh Grant :-)

[GMac]

Well done Wheels, it is a glamour now just make sure no body copies it

[Alan Wheeler]

Well we both know one that can't anyway. ;-) :-) Oooh naughty me, I think I must be feeling better :-)

[BigCat]

"So widening the Bugel would be good if parking in soft stuff all the time but not so in hard seabeds. As it is now probably give the best all round performance."

Not according to the tests I posted above, and they speculated that the Bugel's inferior performance was due to a lack of blade area-IMHO, the Manson and the Rocna are dished Bugels with more area. Since the Hydrobubble did well with a 'reverse dish,' I am inclined to think, as did the testers, that area is why the Bugel didn't do as well as the dished versions. The Bugel is about 25% narrower than the Manson and Rocna. You have to add 1/3 to the width of a Bugel to get the width of a Manson or Rocna.