Advice on ground tackle

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by mark_morwood

I actually don't think that is being argued by the posts above - most seem to agree there are sensible limits on the weight due to other factors - bow roller size, desire to limit weight on the bow, etc.

I do see lots of argument against the assertion that a smaller anchor would perform better than a larger anchor of the same design once it was deployed - assuming practical sized larger anchors.

My point is that much of this thread is only about anchoring performance and anchor handling issues.

I am saying that for me there is a significant sailing performance issue which most folks disregard. And in that case a lighter anchor is an advantage.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by wingssail

My point is that much of this thread is only about anchoring performance and anchor handling issues.

I am saying that for me there is a significant sailing performance issue which most folks disregard. And in that case a lighter anchor is an advantage.

It sure is. But as long as the chain is grade 30 or grade 40, much more weight can be saved by switching to grade 70 chain that is one size diameter down. These savings can then (partially) put back into an anchor one size up, resulting in a much better anchor performance-and- better sailing performance

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

It sure is. But as long as the chain is grade 30 or grade 40, much more weight can be saved by switching to grade 70 chain that is one size diameter down. These savings can then (partially) put back into an anchor one size up, resulting in a much better anchor performance-and- better sailing performance

I don't need better anchor performance. My anchor performs more than satisfactorily as it is. I can't sleep any more soundly. That is the point.

And anyhow the suggestion is not really practical. I am using 5/15 Grade 43 (High Test) galvanized chain with a Working Load Limit of 3900lbs. There is no lighter grade 70 chain with WLL of 3900lbs or higher. I'd have to go to 9/32 grade 100 chain. Then I'd have to have it galvanized and change the gypsy, etc etc. (are there 9/32 gypsies? Nope)

And if I went to 300' of 9/32 Grade 100 chain I'd save 60 lbs, but not really since the chain is 10 feet back from the bow but the anchor is on the bow. Oh geez, can't quite figure it out without even considering the cost of doing it.

For me that is not practical.

And also, why wouldn't I save the weight on the chain and just keep the 44lb anchor instead of upgrading to a heavier anchor, getting the complete gain?

But there is a point of diminishing returns. I'm probably past it already.

[Manateeman]

Maybe the most important item is not the anchor design but where the anchor is attached to the vessel and what system is used to reduce the pull on the anchor.
There are two anchor systems that have impressed me.
The Kodiak fisherman’s system and the hammerlock.
One piece of equipment used in oceanographic moorings, the Hazlett bungee.
What anchor do we use? What size?
We’ve got everything and a lot of it. Rocna, Bruce, German Delta, Fortress, Luke.
I’m not impressed with any anchor manufacturer data, size recommendations, or claims. Neither any computer program.
I ask fishermen who anchor offshore. Oceanographic buoy guys. Watch films of boats in a harbor in storms. What breaks. How do you stop two huge forces...the bow nosedive and the violent change in direction.
The Kodiak system works if and only if, you have the correct gear and a waterline strongpoint. Sailing side to side will exert huge forces on any anchor and it’s difficult to stop with some vessel designs. Two or three anchors set in a star is a mess to untangle but works. You can try a drag weight also but it’s not perfect.
All the “anchor tests” ignore the importance of all the other factors.
They pick one item in a system and claim it’s more important than the rest. Laughable. The only underwater video we enjoy was the manatee boinking into the aquarium glass. He must have heard a chain running out and was swimming away for his life. We actually saw a boater anchor over a manatee.
Seriously. We wish more people would learn to use a lead line.
The my anchor is the best arguments will never end. The anchor tests will never end. The technology is moving forward because the commercial sector spends the kind of money required. Rather than continue the endless story hour, wouldn’t it be nice to discuss the other parts of an anchoring system.
Happy trails to you.
Captain Mark and the stuffed like crust manatee crew.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I don't need better anchor performance. My anchor performs more than satisfactorily as it is. I can't sleep any more soundly. That is the point.

The ideal anchoring system would hold in extreme winds in any substrate and not require more than 1:1 scope. This would open up many anchoring possibilities that are not currently practical. We are still a long way from these goals.

There have been significant strides. I can now anchor in conditions and locations that would have been foolhardy with the anchoring gear I owned when I started cruising, but there are tangible, practical benefits to further improvements.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Certainly I am an outlier in this matter but I see a definite advantage to carrying a smaller anchor:

It puts less weight on the foredeck. Less weight is better for performance. I care greatly about performance.

One can state that the extra weight in the bow is too little to make a difference; it's not even as much as the weight of a single person. One can extend that argument to everything. But the accumulated weight of all the over spec'd equipment on the boat can make a difference in performance. By corollary, the accumulated reduction of weight can also make a difference, in a positive direction.

In all matters of boat equipment I prefer "right sized" rather than "bigger is better". This is especially true of ground tackle which is by nature carried in the bow, the worst place for extra weight.

I surmised when equipping my boat that a 44lb anchor with 5/16 HT chain and a Lowrance Concept 1 windlass (set well aft) would be sufficient for my boat. In 25 years that has proven to be true. I have been in many windy anchorages and anchored on all types of bottoms, world wide. I have only twice dragged after being well set. I have a 66lb anchor that I can deploy if needed. I have used it twice (not the two same occasions, BTW).

If my 44lb anchor works perfectly why would I want to carry a heavier one on the bow 24x7x365? There is no need.

So compared to a 60/80/100 lb anchor there is, from my point of view, a distinct advantage in my lighter 44lb anchor.

For those who are willing to sacrifice performance for what they consider added safety, I could see that this argument would carry little weight (pun intended). That is OK, each of us are who we are.

Of course you're right. I only meant with regard to anchor performance, and wasn't addressing the other considerations.


There are other considerations -- handling, bow roller fit, performance.


When I'm racing I take the anchor and chain off the boat altogether and keep only a Fortress and rope rode.


"Right size" takes into consideration these parameters. But I still say that any reduction of size in the anchor reduces performance (within the same type of anchor). So like Dashew I say you should have the biggest anchor of the best type you can carry, within limits of other considerations including handling, bow roller fit, sailing performance. It's all a trade-off, like so many things in sailing.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The ideal anchoring system would hold in extreme winds in any substrate and not require more than 1:1 scope. This would open up many anchoring possibilities that are not currently practical. We are still a long way from these goals.

There have been significant strides. I can now anchor in conditions and locations that would have been foolhardy with the anchoring gear I owned when I started cruising, but there are tangible, practical benefits to further improvements.

Indeed. The point is -- there are many factors which reduce anchor holding -- bottom type, scope. If one size of anchor is perfectly fine in an average bottom and good scope and wind up to 50 knots, then that size is ok for that. But what if you need short scope? Or it's a bad bottom? Or winds are stronger than that? Or God forbid, some combination of that? The bigger the anchor, the wider range of those challenges you can meet. That's why the advice given by someone on here to "don't oversize the anchor" is simply wrong, and even dangerous.

I have absolutely concrete personal experience with this kind of situation. In Northeastern Greenland the land is rocky and mountainous, and the bottom slopes down steeply. In the fairly narrow straight around the back of Milne Land, the water is supposed to be several kilometers deep. It's like an underwater canyon. There are obviously no harbours of any kind, and very few places where it is possible to anchor at all, and basically no place to anchor without compromises in scope etc. When we were there, we faced a significant storm, and faced a serious issue of how to deal with that. There are no rescue services there, so if you get it wrong, you're dead.

We found a narrow cove in an island called "Bear Island", and anchored in the very middle of it. The water was about 42 meters deep -- from memory. We had 100 meters of 12mm chain on board. I could have added some rope to the end, but there wasn't enough room in the cove, which was less than 100 meters wide, to use more scope.

What if we had followed the anchor makers recommendations without oversizing the anchor? Would it have held in 50k of wind and about 2.3:1 scope?

In the event it was fine. The very narrow cove meant that there was no wave action at all, the shelter was great, and the anchor didn't budge.

As some one said -- no one ever lay awake at night at anchor in a storm and thought "I wish I had a smaller anchor".

[smj]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Of course you're right. I only meant with regard to anchor performance, and wasn't addressing the other considerations.


There are other considerations -- handling, bow roller fit, performance.


When I'm racing I take the anchor and chain off the boat altogether and keep only a Fortress and rope rode.


"Right size" takes into consideration these parameters. But I still say that any reduction of size in the anchor reduces performance (within the same type of anchor). So like Dashew I say you should have the biggest anchor of the best type you can carry, within limits of other considerations including handling, bow roller fit, sailing performance. It's all a trade-off, like so many things in sailing.

I agree that a larger anchor of the same type would have better holding as the fluke area would be larger, which is what holds you once the anchor has set.
Interesting that Mantus’s recommendations for your boat is an anchor almost double the weight of the Spades recommendation. I’ve owned both of equal size and honestly found the Mantus to be the better of both. So does Mantus overdo their recommendations or is the Spade on the light side?

[smj]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. The point is -- there are many factors which reduce anchor holding -- bottom type, scope. If one size of anchor is perfectly fine in an average bottom and good scope and wind up to 50 knots, then that size is ok for that. But what if you need short scope? Or it's a bad bottom? Or winds are stronger than that? Or God forbid, some combination of that? The bigger the anchor, the wider range of those challenges you can meet. That's why the advice given by someone on here to "don't oversize the anchor" is simply wrong, and even dangerous.

I have absolutely concrete personal experience with this kind of situation. In Northeastern Greenland the land is rocky and mountainous, and the bottom slopes down steeply. In the fairly narrow straight around the back of Milne Land, the water is supposed to be several kilometers deep. It's like an underwater canyon. There are obviously no harbours of any kind, and very few places where it is possible to anchor at all, and basically no place to anchor without compromises in scope etc. When we were there, we faced a significant storm, and faced a serious issue of how to deal with that. There are no rescue services there, so if you get it wrong, you're dead.

We found a narrow cove in an island called "Bear Island", and anchored in the very middle of it. The water was about 42 meters deep -- from memory. We had 100 meters of 12mm chain on board. I could have added some rope to the end, but there wasn't enough room in the cove, which was less than 100 meters wide, to use more scope.

What if we had followed the anchor makers recommendations without oversizing the anchor? Would it have held in 50k of wind and about 2.3:1 scope?

In the event it was fine. The very narrow cove meant that there was no wave action at all, the shelter was great, and the anchor didn't budge.

As some one said -- no one ever lay awake at night at anchor in a storm and thought "I wish I had a smaller anchor".

Another good point here, your cruising grounds. Would one’s anchor selection be the same if there cruising grounds are going to be the East coast of the US and Bahamas and never anchoring in anything over 25’ as it would be if they were cruising to Greenland and having to anchor in 150’ of water? So many variables.