Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[lancelot9898]

I haven't read all the posts on this thread so many of these thoughts have probably been covered. The holding power of an anchor is determined by how well it attaches to the bottom. Weight is important for that pentration through weeds, etc, but the distribution and the design in how that weight is used to achieve that objective is more important than shear weight itself. The same can be said for mere surface area in that a concave design would allow for better holding than a plow assuming all other factors are the same, which they aren't. There is only one situation where a bigger anchor of a given design may not be as good as a smaller one and that is when the bottom has a thin layer of sand above a solid rock bottom. The larger anchor will not penetrate fully whereas the smaller anchor of the same design will. No experiments to back that up just a guess on my part that full penetration is better. No pun intended.

One other comment in anchoring in that the attachment to the anchor is important for penetration. A friend used a short wire attachment between his anchor and chain which allowed the danford to penetrate deeper into the mud. He used it as his hurricane anchor and afterwards was not able to retrieve it, but it held the boat. He called it the cheese slicer.

[Kettlewell]

Talking about penetration, does anyone remember when Danforth came out with their Deepset line of anchors? They had very thin and flexible shanks--spring steel I think--with the idea being that there would be a lot less resistance to penetration. I think for some time they also sold stainless steel cable leaders that would be used instead of a short length of chain. In the Carolinas where there is very deep oozy mud I know of some folks who utilize Danforth and Fortress anchors on cable rodes for hurricanes. They just dive down and down and hold forever. One problem with this concept is that some bottoms are so hard that penetration is not possible beyond a certain point--those Caribbean anchorages with a thin layer of sand over a very hard substrate.

[Hydra]

I took the time to read the part of USLC section 13 about anchors. It says:

"The masses given are for Admiralty Pattern Stockless anchors with an assumed holding power of 3 times their own mass.

The Authority may allow approved high-holding-power anchors to be carried at the owner's request, and shl allow a reduction of 30 percent of the specified anchor mass, where such anchors are used. Approved high-holding-power anchors shall be those anchors having a holding power at least double that of Admiralty Pattern Stockless anchors, ie. high- holding-power anchors must have holding power at least 6 times their own mass."

All average-to-good quality anchors used on yachts have holding power much greater than 6 times their mass. For example, in Yachting Monthly Nov 09 test, the Britany 16kg (35lb) anchor held 446kg (982lb) in muddy sand. That's more than 27 times its mass and the result was considered rather poor by comparison with other anchors.

IMO, the authors of USLC had a very pessimistic opinion of anchor performance. Perhaps is it not necessary any more to follow it closely.

Alain

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by congo

I wonder what would have happened if some of the users of the new gen anchore were to purchase a BRAND NEW not worn out (original) CQR, Delta ( made by Simpson and Lawrence ), Bruce and gone up two sizes, interesting confessions on the new gen anchors.

Regards Rex.

I did come close! I started with a 44# after I changed from a 30' Hunter to my current 40' Silverton aftcabin. Sure, I agree that anchor was on the small side for my 40'. It however did hold very well in sand, not ell grass. I knew I had to move to a larger anchor.

I found a like new 55# Delta on Ebay which I purchased. I KNEW THAT HUNK OF STEEL WAS GOING TO HOLD or so I thought!!! SADLY, IT DID NOT!

OK, my quick assumption was I should have gone larger. So I next ordered a brand new 88# Delta from Defender in Connecticut. I was sooo anxious to get that new beast, I drove the 100 miles or so (one way) and personally picked it up. This brand new over sized beast held no better than the 55#. I longed for the times I enjoyed sleeping at anchor in my Hunter. Got fed up having to get up to constantly do anchor watch which invariably led to moving my boat to a mooring at hours ranging for 1-3 AM! I don't know about others, for me anchors only seemed to slip between midnight and dawn.

I gave thought to purchasing a Rocna, I was desperate to anchor safely so I could sleep. Back then there was constant salesmanship here in the forums by a merchant raving the benefits of the Rocna over all other anchors and I got turned off. I purchased an 80# Manson Supreme which holds surprisingly well meeting all my expectations. Shortly after I purchased the MS, Rocna started to get mixed field results with bending shafts. OH, I have not seen the supporting vendor here in the forums since then.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Just wait till the yacht upwind with the big concave anchor chokes with weed

Genuine question as I haven't had any probs in weed with a concave but then again have spent very little time in weed - do others commonly have a problem in weed with concave anchor?


Mud has never been a problem either, though mostly soft mud where the prob has been a dirty deck and others dragging.

[Cotemar]

Foggysail,

I agree, Peter Smith (Rocna) ceo at that time was much to aggressive in most of his post. He has sold the company since then, so you do not hear from him anymore.

As long as these anchor company ceo's keep it real and stop the incessant pumping of their products, things seem to precede on the level.

80# Manson Supreme is a sweet anchor and it sounds like you can get a good nights sleep with it. No worries, it's all good.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by conachair

Genuine question as I haven't had any probs in weed with a concave but then again have spent very little time in weed - do others commonly have a problem in weed with concave anchor?


Mud has never been a problem either, though mostly soft mud where the prob has been a dirty deck and others dragging.

Concave anchors work fine in weed. The OP had a little product steering going with a bit of sarcasm mixed in

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by foggysail

(...) What was on my mind with that assumption left me considering two different Danforth style anchors one made of steel and the other made of aluminum where the aluminum anchor would have a much larger surface area to provide better holding even if each had the same mass. So mass didn't matter! (...)

Do not twist.

BiB means bigger of the same. E.g. a 10 pounder CQR vs. a 20 pounder, both build of the same material (e.g. galvanized steel).

When you mix and match materials and designs then no wonder some smaller anchors will hold better than other bigger anchors. But I do not believe a 7+ page thread went on without agreeing on such basic facts.

A better design (better match of the design with the bottom type too) smaller anchor will hold better than a heavier, poorly designed anchor. Everybody happy. But a discussion like this will never lead to applicable findings.

b.

[barnakiel]

@ foggy:

And YEP I too would opt for a 15 kg alloy Danforth vs. a 15 kg steel Danforth (assuming the alloy design is strong enough to take the physical abuse). HOWEVER, I found that a big alloy Danforth is way to large for us to comfortably carry aboard (other than in the form of an emergency kit stored below deck). HOWEVER again, I find a less perfect anchor ready to deploy a better take than a perfect anchor stowed away.

So to say, everybody is right here but everybody is talking about a different thing.

Cheers,
barnakiel

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Do not twist.

BiB means bigger of the same. E.g. a 10 pounder CQR vs. a 20 pounder, both build of the same material (e.g. galvanized steel).

When you mix and match materials and designs then no wonder some smaller anchors will hold better than other bigger anchors. But I do not believe a 7+ page thread went on without agreeing on such basic facts.

A better design (better match of the design with the bottom type too) smaller anchor will hold better than a heavier, poorly designed anchor. Everybody happy. But a discussion like this will never lead to applicable findings.

b.

OK, maybe I just read your post too quickly

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by conachair

Genuine question as I haven't had any probs in weed with a concave but then again have spent very little time in weed - do others commonly have a problem in weed with concave anchor?


Mud has never been a problem either, though mostly soft mud where the prob has been a dirty deck and others dragging.

Yes, if the concave anchor doesn't set immediately, it grabs onto the first hunk of weed ahead of it, then just drags along the bottom collecting a big ball of sea weed. The weed ball then prevents it from digging in (it's hand is full). On the Rocna, the roll bar allows it to collect an even larger size ball. One time it took the two of us 1/2 hour in a dinghy to cut the weed ball loose from our Rocna.

To be fair, other anchors would have probably had the same issue. The only solution is to have an anchor that will dig down immediately and bite.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The shank on the Ultra cannot be compared directly to the Spade since the ultra construction is a hollow core box section shaft which gives it comparable strength to the single plate steel shaft of the Spade.

The Spade is also hollow core box section; the Ultra is a pretty close copy of the Spade in all respects. If I were you, I would at least think about going for the stainless Spade instead of the Ultra -- a little extra peace of mind at least. Although of course it is quite a bit more money.

Are you going with a stainless chain, too? I am not all that crazy about stainless anchors (not only is the steel weaker, but the slippery finish can't be good for holding), but stainless chain is fantastic if it's sized to give the right strength. Its slipperiness, on the contrary, is a great boon when it's running in and out of the chain locker. No flaking required; no piles or tangles of chain!

One last tip: The Ultra is ballasted like the Spade; I found I didn't need a swivel at all (whereas my previous Rocna was unusable without a swivel). You might give it a try without that weak link and see if it works.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Yes, if the concave anchor doesn't set immediately, it grabs onto the first hunk of weed ahead of it, then just drags along the bottom collecting a big ball of sea weed. The weed ball then prevents it from digging in (it's hand is full). On the Rocna, the roll bar allows it to collect an even larger size ball. One time it took the two of us 1/2 hour in a dinghy to cut the weed ball loose from our Rocna.

You speak the truth! Been there; done that . . . .

[foggysail]

Cotemar--

Yes, the 80# MS is great to have aboard. It took awhile to for me to finally give up on the Delta. It is a real joy to again sleep at night.

[foggysail]

JonJo--

I know where you're coming from regarding oversizing. In one of my earlier posts I questioned if a smaller anchor could have advantages. I wondered about this before you started this thread. My thought at the time was a smaller anchor under certain conditions could be better set--ie-- dig deeper with less applied force.

I elected to oversize, I am not concerned about lifting a heavy anchor along with a chain rode and no, I am not on steroids. I installed a 24vdc Maxwell HWC2200 windlass just after I purchased my boat. My big heavy anchors are no match for that windlass which I power from a pair of group 29 12v batteries connected in series..

Maybe without my windlass I would have considered something smaller.