Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

[Vasco]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

It's that the boat is 30 years old, and if the 25 lb CQR was a big problem, one of the PO's (at least 3) would have replaced it by now.

Not necessarily so. Most owners seldom anchor and when they do few know how to do it properly. Just look around a popular anchorage on a weekend. In some places where the holding is usually good such as the Chesapeake it doesn't make a lot of difference. Nine times out of ten you should be alright. But if you go cruising and want to sleep at night, bigger is better and the newer designed anchors are much better.

[forsailbyowner]

I had two beefs with the danforth that eventually made me decide to switch to delta type. One is during a really hard blow it would dig so deep it would straighten out the flukes before giving up its hold. Better to replace anchor than drag though. Two is I've had occasions in firm mud where a chunk would come up and stay in flukes while dragging. Will probably switch to spadewhen novelty wears off and price comes down to realistic level. It doesn't cost any more to make a spade than it does plow of equal size. Paid $200 for my 45lb delta.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

plough in hard sand or weed and it just does not work. new generation anchors will set instantly

Yes, there are of course some bottoms that are difficult for some designs, but in our experience they are rare, and almost non-existant in the Cheaspeake (which was what the OP was asking about).

Hard sand and weeds can be challanging to set in for any small/light weight anchor. The tip weight is just absolutely low for a small/light anchor and that makes it skate rather than dig. This is true for any design - depending on how hard the bottom is, there will be a size where the anchor is just be too small/light to penetrate.

I think you will find the delta will generally set pretty much just as well as the 'next gen' anchors.

The CQR is probably the least good of the 'prior gen' plows but it does surprisingly well with proper technique.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

#3 pretty much no-one thinks enough of the next gens vs the prior gens to suggest you should get a lighter next gen.

This is because of the confusion around sizing. The sizing charts are marketing tools and the variables in them are often apple and oranges. For example: sizing charts for anchors such as CQR and Bruce go back many years and had different types of boat designs from those days in mind (lower windage, for example). Sizing for the Spade anchor was dictated by French law specifications that tend to be conservative. Manson, Rocna and Raya spell out quite specifically the wind and windage holding expectations of their anchors, along with the surface blade area (all of which are higher than many others).

The results of the various anchor tests to some extent equalize the sizing charts when they compare anchors of similar weight. Those anchors performing less well could be considered undersized to those performing better. The newer generation anchors almost uniformly exceeded the straight line holding performance of all but the Fortress in most tests. This might suggest one could indeed match the performance of an older generation style by getting a lighter newer generation (best, though, would be to go vice-versa).

Mark

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Yes, there are of course some bottoms that are difficult for some designs, but in our experience they are rare, and almost non-existant in the Cheaspeake (which was what the OP was asking about).

Hard sand and weeds can be challanging to set in for any small/light weight anchor. The tip weight is just absolutely low for a small/light anchor and that makes it skate rather than dig. This is true for any design - depending on how hard the bottom is, there will be a size where the anchor is just be too small/light to penetrate.

I think you will find the delta will generally set pretty much just as well as the 'next gen' anchors.

The CQR is probably the least good of the 'prior gen' plows but it does surprisingly well with proper technique.

I am sure you are right about the Chespeake. My comments were more directed at your reply rather then the OP. Hard sand and weed would be described as "rare" or common depending on where you sail.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Harry,

4. All the plows (both old gen and new gen) are good multi-bottom (except rock) anchors and re-set well in wind shifts. Generally when any of these designs (properly sized) drag it has been because of operator error

"Multi-bottom (except rock)" imply s that the CQR will work in hard sand and weed and that dragging is generally due to operator error. I don't agree with this. If the anchor will not work when all the new generation anchors would I believe the blame should be directed to the anchor.

[rtbates]

About my experience with Danforth type anchors.

They work great as long as the wind never shifts 180. IF it does they like to break out and skip along till your boat comes upon a land mass. They also will foul in a heart beat if an oyster shell gets jambed in the flukes. I use my Danforths to plug holes at the bottom of my fence so my dog can't escape. I use a Bruce to keep my boat in place.

My opinion on the new style anchors is that they work better than the older types, CGR, etc because they are NOT shaped like a plow. A plow is design to move through the ground digging a furrow. A plow anchor will do the same thing. The new style are shaped opposite like a spoon in that it is concave. And they bring up a lot of bottom becasue of this shape. I'd live with that.

[Talbot]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

............Despite all the high holding power marketing claims about the next generation anchors they are not willing to recommend smaller/light anchors than the prior gen anchors. ...........

Perhaps you need to look again at the Raya recomendations before making such sweeping (incorrect) generalisations.

[barnakiel]

Better:

- set faster,
- hold stronger,
- re-set better.

Probably only a shortlist of what is a longer list of benefits.

My old hook CQR useless, converted to Bruce, much better, my future plans - either a Manson, Rocna or a Spade, or whatever found best at the time of my re-fit.

There is no one overall winner, but the one gaining most points in a set of conditions wins IMHO (sort of like winning a decathlon competition).

b.

[sailingharry]

Barnakei,

I've heard the words many times before, and tend to "believe" all of them, especially the "reset better" which while important is a very difficult one get anecdotal comparisons between anchors. But I believe! The challenge, and I do suspect it is a complete lack of standards or consensus on how to make the recommendations, is that the recommended weight goes UP with "better" anchors.

Your selection of anchors closely parallels my initial thoughts, where I initially thought my 25lb CQR was incredibly dumb, and I should go with a Bruce (arguably the first and most well known major increase in anchor design), until I found that the recommended Bruce was as big or bigger than my CQR, so then I started learning and found that I now am more confused than when I started.

In your case, could you let me know the size/weight of your boat, the kinds of bottoms you anchor in, the size of the CQR and Bruce that you used, and anecdotally, the "bad" of the CQR and the "bad" of the Bruce (you are considering replacement, after all).

Oh, a buddy of mine, with a Sabre 36 (mine is a 34) has a 25lb CQR as I do. He has anchored many times over many years in the Bay, often as the anchor boat in a raft in heavy air, and finds it fine. My skepticism is unabated -- I want to sleep and the "reccomendations" say I need another 10 lbs in my CQR or another 20 lbs for a Ray (Bruce type). But then, I run into the fact that I can barely manhandle that 25lb CQR onto the roller and can't imagine trying to recover a "better" 44 lb Ray.

Oh the confusion! I think I'm just going to go sailing this weekend! (oh, and raft to someone so THEY can worry about the anchor...).

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Barnakei,
The challenge, and I do suspect it is a complete lack of standards or consensus on how to make the recommendations, is that the recommended weight goes UP with "better" anchors.

.
The problem you have is that a suitable sized anchor is going to be to big for you to handle. Have you considered an aluminium spade, it does not work as well as the steel version, but that still makes it a lot better than the designs you are looking at. If you are manhandling the anchor I would try an avoid any of the designs with a pivoting fluke. The CQR is deadly on fingers.

[Islandmike]

I can say this, I have had many different types of anchors, and for the most part they all worked reasonably well. However, when we decided to take our 30,000 lb sailboat down the ICW from CT to FL I wanted the best and most reliaible anchor I could get. After much research we picked a 60lb Manson Supreme. I have to say that we anchored most of the time, and through a number or Gales we never, ever dragged. In fact we have to be careful when we set our Manson because it sets so fast and so hard. It stops the boat dead in its tracks, I mean bam and you are stopped and set. I know 60lbs is a lot, but because we anchored and still anchor out alot, sometimes for days at a time... I wanted complete security, I did not want that to be an area I worried about, I wanted to sleep. Now with this said, I do know that anchors are a highly personal item. Do your research and pick the one that you feel will keep you and your family safe....

By the way we do have a manual SL 555 SeaTiger, not sure if I could pull this all the time by hand. That is also a consideration..

[YOGAO]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Barnakei,
...
In your case, could you let me know the size/weight of your boat, the kinds of bottoms you anchor in, the size of the CQR and Bruce that you used, and anecdotally, the "bad" of the CQR and the "bad" of the Bruce (you are considering replacement, after all).

Oh, a buddy of mine, with a Sabre 36 (mine is a 34) has a 25lb CQR as I do. He has anchored many times over many years in the Bay, often as the anchor boat in a raft in heavy air, and finds it fine. ...

Oh the confusion! I think I'm just going to go sailing this weekend! (oh, and raft to someone so THEY can worry about the anchor...).

Harry,

I think Evans (estarzinger) pretty much nailed it in his overview post.

Here is some anecdotal info.

We owned a C&C 34 for 15 seasons on the Ches Bay - about 12,000 lbs, so pretty darn close to what you have.

We were members of a very active sailing club with large raft-ups at least once/month (10 - 15 boats up to 41').

CQR - I personally would use this as a garden decoration. A huge percentage of times that the anchor boat was using a CQR we dragged. We eventually refused to raft with a boat using a CQR (especially in the Rhode). Never ever considered using this type of anchor on our boat. [Yes, I know I will now get beaten up and reported to the mods for this post by CQR lovers.]

Bruce - Our experience with a 33lb bruce was marginally better than with the CQR. This was always confusing to me because it looks like it should do well...it was also HARD to hump that thing up.

Danforth - We used a 13# danforth that came with the boat (1980 model). Initially it had 6' vinyl coated chain w/3-strand nylon rode. After we bought the boat in '91 we replaced that with 20' chain and 3-strand. The only times we dragged were when we

A) - did not properly set the anchor/used too short scope in a narrow creek
B) - had too many boats rafted in too much wind (we had as many as 13 boats on several raft-ups)
C) - after a big wind shift turned us 180 degrees

Note that we decided to buy a heavier hi-tensile danforth style from WM. We thought the extra weight would help and quickly returned it after spending a weekend dragging all over the Corsica River.

YMMV!

Fair Winds,
Mike

[moonrsn]

Have you read 'The Complete Anchoring Handbook'?
I found it to be very informative.
It came out in 2008.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

..."believe" ...
...lack of standards...

... could you let me know the size/weight of your boat, the kinds of bottoms you anchor in, the size of the CQR and Bruce that you used, and anecdotally, the "bad" of the CQR and the "bad" of the Bruce (you are considering replacement, after all).

Hi to all,

msg mostly to Sailingharry, hope others will not get too bored:

In my case it is not a "believe" factor that rules. If you read thru the tests done pretty many times over by various sailing magazines - they give the exact methodology they used, anchor types / sizes and bottom types. To me, they set pretty accurate standards. Then come conversations with other cruisers (esp after a bad night) and last but not least my own experiences. There is an amount of 'art' and some 'ifs' in anchoring like in any other aspect of sailing that is broad and varied enough, but otherwise it is all hard facts.

To keep things in perspective - my own boat 4000 metric loaded (say 8800 lbs), my CQR 25 lbs, Bruce 22 lbs, Dan 22 lbs, chain 60' of 10 mm (believe it is 3/8), then 16 mm Polyester line (on the main). No anchor winch. I consider all my anchors to be one size too small for my boat, but the chain was pretty good.

Anchoring over last 7 years in probably any type of bottom (sailing from Europe to NZ we anchored 100% of time, from NZ to Europe we anchored everywhere except in RSA. We preferred anchorages with about 20-30' depth, sand or mud, needless to say - this was not always possible. We used two anchors a lot of time, in a couple of combinations depending of local conditions.

We dragged I think two or three times, one time dramatically so.

My comments on CQR - sets with difficulty, drags through soft mud / coral sand / does not penetrate weed, does not re-set. Sets very well on submarine cables though.

My comments on Bruce - does not penetrate weed (worse than CQR), can grab a rock and then clogs with it and stops to work, otherwise magic, but re-sets 50/50 - (my guess - gets clogged with heavy mud and other adhesive types of bottom).

Danforth - may penetrate weed, sets poorly, but magic in sand and mud, does not re-set though. Big disadvantage - tends to trip in bottoms where there only a fine layer of sand over rock or coral. And often drags a lot before it sets.

We used the Bruce as our main and the Danforth as our second or kedge.

The choices for our cruising future are either Rocna or Manson, maybe Spade (or whatever will be the best thing available at the time of our re-fit). We also want to downgrade to finer (5/16) higher quality chain - I believe 5/16 is OK for my boat and I want to go for 100' on the main (now 60'). I will go for about 30-35 lbs of new anchor towards my 8800 lbs of boat. (Please note the anchor weight / boat displacement ratio is not linear, so it is of little use for your boat).

(In fact - I talk lbs of anchor, but what I want to gain is not the anchor weight only but the fluke area too - I believe if talking weight then once the anchor is just big enough (say 1 size bigger than the charts) there is no point to get an even bigger one - I believe once the anchor is OK then it is a better use of the weight to have longer and heavier chain).

The reason why I want to upgrade is that the new anchors set faster, hold stronger, penetrate better (weed!!!) and re-set faster and more reliably. All this confirmed in tests and by people I have asked on their Spades, Rocnas and Mansons.

Off course, I also want one of those lovely Guardians (cheapo Fortress) to join my trusty rusty Dan.

My final note is that anybody who cannot handle their anchor manually should use a sort of winch. I am only 6' tall and just 130 lbs of bones, a very skinny guy they say - weighing up my 25 Bruce plus 60' of 3/8 chain (about 120 lbs I guess) is probably as far as I would recommend to anyone, then there are the winches.

Hope this explains my case.

b.

[sailingharry]

Yogao,

You provided what is rarely provided -- actual weights and results. But the one I was most interested in -- the CQR because that's what I have on the bow right now (25lb), you didn't give the weight. The boat also came with a 15lb danforth, and I suspect your recommendation would be to swap those two RIGHT NOW, and if you had that much trouble with your CQR and it was 35 lb, the words are even louder.

So how big was that CQR?

Oh, Moonrsn, I grew up cruising for many summers and many thousands of miles on a 28,000 lb high-bow ketch, anchoring from the Chesapeake to the upper reaches of Nova Scotia, with a 22lb Danforth with few (not none, but very few) draggings. I suspect if we'd used a 50 lb Danforth, we'd have had zero as well, and been 10 lbs lighter. I also probably wouldn't have been such a scrawny kid!

Harry