|
|
24-04-2011, 14:57
|
#301
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Between Caribbean and Canada
Boat: Murray 33-Chouette & Pape Steelmaid-44-Safara-both steel cutters
Posts: 8,845
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger
|
This boat is on the Delaware, at the canal so we do the Delaware and upper Chesapeake. But we we have bigger ambitions.
We have a second boat in Bonavista we will be moving back to Lewisport in July. That is a 33'er, 9 ton, and I have a 20kg Rocna on it.
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 15:06
|
#302
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Easton, CT
Boat: MJM 50 Z
Posts: 343
|
Our boat came with a Bruce and then we switched to a Spade.
The Bruce is a good anchor but has low holding power per pound.
It sets well and will pivot in the bottom with a wind shift.
Figure two sizes larger if you go with a Bruce or knockoff.
As far as the cost goes... A good anchor is better than good insurance and way cheaper.
The anchor system is closely connected to survival of the vessel and passengers.
Much more so than entertainment equipment, fine furniture or well varnished teak.
Except for soft mud, the Spade and similar anchors are the best all around anchor, period.
Not by a little either, it's a huge jump in the state of the art.
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 15:35
|
#303
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: atlanta ga
Boat: hanna carol ketch
Posts: 24
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
im building a 15 ton hanna carol ketch im planning on using one of the old fisherman style anchor 100 pounds not a sailor yet but working on it any info on this anchor would be appreciated
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 15:37
|
#304
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Boat: Roaring Girl: Maxi 120 ketch, 12 long
Posts: 399
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
We do carry a fishermans but have never used it ... and that's the rub. 100lbs is a heavy bit of inconveniently shaped metal with lots of sharp bits. Why bother to do it the hard way, even if you have built the boat yourself?
They are supposed to be very good in mud and for grappling something like a coral head (but should you be doing that?)
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 15:43
|
#305
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 31,079
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironworker
im building a 15 ton hanna carol ketch im planning on using one of the old fisherman style anchor 100 pounds not a sailor yet but working on it any info on this anchor would be appreciated
|
Admiralty Pattern
An Admiralty Pattern anchor
The Admiralty Pattern, "A.P.", or simply "Admiralty", and also known as "Fisherman", is the most familiar among non-sailors. It consists of a central shank with a ring or shackle for attaching the rode. At one end of the shank there are two arms, carrying the flukes, while the stock is mounted to the other end, at ninety degrees to the arms. When the anchor lands on the bottom, it will generally fall over with the arms parallel to the seabed. As a strain comes onto the rode, the stock will dig into the bottom, canting the anchor until one of the flukes catches and digs into the bottom.
The basic design remained unchanged for centuries, with the most significant changes being to the overall proportions, and a move from wooden stocks to those of iron. Since one fluke always protrudes up from the set anchor, there is a great tendency of the rode to foul the anchor as the vessel swings due to wind or current shifts. When this happens, the anchor may be pulled out of the bottom, and in some cases may need to be hauled up to be re-set. In the mid-1800s, numerous modifications were attempted to alleviate these problems, as well as improve holding power, including one-armed mooring anchors. The most successful of these patent anchors, the Trotman Anchor, introduced a pivot where the arms join the shank, allowing the "idle" arm to fold against the shank.
Handling and stowage of these anchors requires special equipment and procedures. Once the anchor is hauled up to the hawsepipe, the ring end is hoisted up to the end of a timber projecting from the bow known as the cathead. The crown of the anchor is then hauled up with a heavy tackle until one fluke can be hooked over the rail. This is known as "catting and fishing" the anchor. Before dropping the anchor, the fishing process is reversed, and the anchor is dropped from the end of the cathead.
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 15:45
|
#306
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A real life Zombie from FL
Boat: Gulfstar 53 - Osiris
Posts: 5,416
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by hpeer
This bloody thread and anchor issue is driving me NUTZ . . .
|
Rather than tout this anchor or that, I would suggest to any cruisers intending to "cruise the world" that you need an assortment of different anchor types. I carry 5 anchors on board - 2 on the bow, one on the stern, and two in lazerettes in case of storms or losing one.
- - For a world cruiser, it is not uncommon to lose an anchor either due to worn out rodes and/or shackles/swivels. Or, you have to "cut" the anchor away due to emergency wind/wave conditions. Also it is not uncommon to snag some obstruction or sunken wreckage in water too deep to dive even if you have the SCUBA equipment to go down there. So you will need to carry a replacement for your the lost anchor.
- - I carry two anchors on the bow as there are really only two different "styles" of anchors - heavy, plow/shovel anchors and the other, light flat blade "Dansforth" type anchors. The new whizz-bank anchors, IMHO, are just improvements and variations on those themes.
- - For deep anchorages common in the Caribbean the "heavy" one works the best as you are sometimes anchoring in 100ft (30m) of water only a hundred yards offshore. Other times you are in reasonable bottom conditions like grass/hard sand where the heavy weight seems to work best.
- - In other anchorages you are in 10 ft or so of water with soft or sugar sand or mud bottoms. Here the flat blades "Dansforth-type" anchors seem to work best as they can dig down and present a "flat-plate" resistance to the boat's pull.
- - I have the same displacement size as hpeer so I use a 66lb Bruce and an FX-55 on the bow. Each has it own rode, bow holder/roller and rode locker.
- - On the stern I have an FX37, on 50ft of chain and several hundred feet of nylon 3-strand. This anchor is primarily for anchorages where there is limited swing room and current reversals twice a day or so. But even in "normal" anchorages it is not uncommon for the wind and swells to be perpendicular to each other which for a mono-hull means significant rolling day-in and day-out. That is really a very uncomfortable situation so I put out the stern anchor and pull the bow into the prevalent swell. That gets rid of the swell and turns it into pitching which is a lot easier to deal with during the day and night time. Swell induced rolling is a major, I mean major, problem in the eastern Caribbean.
- - In my lazerette I keep a spare disassembled FX-55 and an old 45lb CQR along with spare long lengths of 3-strand nylon. These are my storm anchors or replacements for a lost anchor.
- - The new-super anchors seem to me to be just "better-mouse traps" than their classical earlier "grandfathers" which is great, but the prices are quite high.
- - There is no end of lost anchors in most popular anchorages that you can recover with some SCUBA equipment. Or you can get good anchors from the "used boat parts" stores for a fraction of the cost of a new anchor. Just be sure to check the parts that swivel, if any, and shank shackle attachment for excessive wear and lose of metal.
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 16:43
|
#307
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Boat: Finnsailer 38
Posts: 5,823
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Quote:
OMG! RUN like crazy from anyone trying to sell you one of these pieces of metal masquerading as an anchor!
|
I wish you weren't so ambivalent about it. Ha! I guess we'll have to accept your word on it as a previous thread on here didn't generate much response either way on the Kingston QuickSet. The one test did by PS a long time ago indicated it was around the same holding power as the Delta, I believe. What anchor do you use? The OP needs an anchor without the hoop on the back.
__________________
JJKettlewell
"Go small, Go simple, Go now"
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 17:12
|
#308
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: St. Augustine, FL - an unwilling C.L.O.D.
Boat: Maine Cat 41
Posts: 519
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kettlewell
I wish you weren't so ambivalent about it. Ha! I guess we'll have to accept your word on it as a previous thread on here didn't generate much response either way on the Kingston QuickSet. The one test did by PS a long time ago indicated it was around the same holding power as the Delta, I believe. What anchor do you use? The OP needs an anchor without the hoop on the back.
|
We "graduated" to a Rocna (aka, "hoop on the back") and never looked back.
Our experience with buddy boats in a similar size range to ours with a real Delta led us to feel the Kingston was a cheap knock-off indeed. The angled ears on a Delta makes the anchor behave much differently when the anchor is on its side AND when the anchor is upright. The Kingston, with its gently sloped ears behaves like a farm implement when upright and our experience was that once it was on its side it wasn't going to dig in at all.
Other buddy boats with the Spade had a very similar experience to our Rocna one. Essentially these anchors make most Caribbean anchoring pretty easy and leads to regular nights filled with sleep.
Fair Winds,
Mike
__________________
Fair Winds,
Mike
My plans are firmly carved in the sand!
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 17:23
|
#309
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 31,079
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOGAO
Other buddy boats with the Spade had a very similar experience to our Rocna one. Essentially these anchors make most Caribbean anchoring pretty easy and leads to regular nights filled with sleep.
Fair Winds,
Mike
|
So many Christians... so little Faith....
Bruce Rocks...
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 17:53
|
#310
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,033
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirissail
- - For a world cruiser, it is not uncommon to lose an anchor either due to worn out rodes and/or shackles/swivels. Or, you have to "cut" the anchor away due to emergency wind/wave conditions. Also it is not uncommon to snag some obstruction or sunken wreckage in water too deep to dive even if you have the SCUBA equipment to go down there. So you will need to carry a replacement for your the lost anchor.
|
apologies for a short hijack . . . but I am curious to hear reactions from those with a lot of anchoring experience about this comment. Have you all lost anchors? Just how common is this?
When we started out we were (and still are) prepared with a 'spare' but in fact we have never lost an anchor, nor had to cut one loose. We have only once been happy to have used a trip line (In flying fish cove, Christmas island where the anchor was 80' down and stuck in some boulders, but the trip line pulled it up)
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 18:01
|
#311
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Boat: Finnsailer 38
Posts: 5,823
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Never lost an anchor, never had the line, chain, or shackles break, and only very rarely have I used or needed a trip line. Never had to cut one loose either. I think when you use your anchors and gear a lot you also look at everything a lot, so that it probably gets more inspection than an anchor and chain that is rarely used, sitting in the bottom of a damp locker. The most likely scenario I can see is fouling it on something like an old wreck, a pipeline, or having it jam in rocks. I currently carry one main anchor and two lightweight Fortress secondary anchors that I use for kedges, or two-anchor sets mainly. But, if I lost the main anchor I could use the Fortresses perfectly safely until I was able to find another primary. One good thing is that so many in the cruising fleet carry so many anchors that there is usually someone around to lend or sell you one.
__________________
JJKettlewell
"Go small, Go simple, Go now"
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 18:03
|
#312
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 31,079
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger
apologies for a short hijack . . . but I am curious to hear reactions from those with a lot of anchoring experience about this comment. Have you all lost anchors? Just how common is this?
When we started out we were (and still are) prepared with a 'spare' but in fact we have never lost an anchor, nor had to cut one loose. We have only once been happy to have used a trip line (In flying fish cove, Christmas island where the anchor was 80' down and stuck in some boulders, but the trip line pulled it up)
|
Only ever lost one... a CQR which the PO of the boat had foolishly drilled a hole in the shaft so he could put a holding pin through the roller cheeks and shaft while underway.... the shaft snapped at the hole after sawing back and forth for 3 days of 40kt+ kabatic winds while anchored off Cascais...
Been a Bruce fan ever since.... with Plough back up
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 19:26
|
#313
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chesapeake Bay
Boat: HR 40
Posts: 3,651
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger
apologies for a short hijack . . . but I am curious to hear reactions from those with a lot of anchoring experience about this comment. Have you all lost anchors? Just how common is this?
|
I think losing anchors is an apocryphal story based on a very few incidents that has become part of the cruising culture and repeated by the "cut and pasters."
Geez they tick me off.
__________________
sail fast and eat well, dave
AuspiciousWorks
Beware cut and paste sailors
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 20:25
|
#314
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Florida Keys
Boat: 1978 Marine Trader 36
Posts: 312
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Wow an anchor thread with 21 pages, and it hasn't been closed. That has to be a record.
|
|
|
24-04-2011, 21:28
|
#315
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: on board, Australia
Boat: 11meter Power catamaran
Posts: 3,648
|
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'
Cruising amongst the GBR and islands over the years have salvaged many anchors and chains.
Most cruisers would not admit such.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Advertise Here
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vendor Spotlight |
|
|
|
|
|