Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[JonJo]

Sorry bash,

You post came in as I was drafting my last one.

When I posed the question Bigger is Better - I had read 2 opinions on use of bigger anchors, one from Morgan's Cloud and one from Noelex. Both used Rocnas. Since then others, the majority, have come to support the Bigger is Better idea and they do use a range of anchors. But when the thread was raised I had evidence of only one specific design from 2 independent people. I had not read the idea of Bigger is Better propsed formally anywhere else. The thread was initiated as I'm not a fan, of Bigger is Better, and wanted to solicit views, I was looking to be enlightened. The fact that all the accusations you are making are based on the opening thread comments is illustration of my looking for educated and informed responses, not because I had an agenda. I did not reply to the question, which brand or design, as I specifically thought that stating the design might lead to comments on bias - it seems it would not matter (to you) which way I had replied - I'm accused of bias.

It now seems to me that opening a thread to engender enlightenment of oneself is fraught with problems - one can be accused of bias - yet the thread was simply raised to encourage the airing of the views of others.

Sadly the large numbers of people who had contributed to the Excel thread, it had almost 20,000 visits, did not comment on their choice of size of anchor - in fact they all seem to have left this forum 'en masse'. This seems a sad loss to CF. And for obvious reasons I would not want to rely on a comment from AR, I'd rather had had the comment from the owners.

However I must confess to an ulterior motive, which is, was, financial.

I found the concept interesting (and can see the merits - the obvious ones). I personally have not doubted my puny choice of anchor. There is this nagging thought that bigger anchors might not set easily and might thus pose a danger. There was this nagging thought that maybe this was an issue of anchor style - the concept is true for efficient concave but not efficient convex (but there was no feed back on this - they all migrated to Anything Sailing or the Trawler Forum, or where-ever). I wanted robust comment where people were pretty certain about their views and I wanted to explore as much of the issues as possible. So environmental issues came in, carrying mud came in, overloading winches came in - I wanted to explore all the issues. I wanted to develop a sufficient base load of honest and balanced opinion on which to focus my own views for an article, for which I, hopefully, will be paid, maybe for Oz (maybe a wider audience). So I have the baseload of opinion which is largely in favour of BIB (but there are some interesting people who seem to agree that 'Bigger is Better' is not for them). I'll have a look at setting big and small anchors, Fortress, concave, convex and see if there are any risks. I'll have a word with winch makers as to whether there has been an increase in burnt out winches since concave was introduced.

But - my motives were not totally altruistic. Hopefully I will be forgiven as 'your' views can enjoy a wider audience, maybe in a less wordy format!

[congo]

Congo here,

Bash wrote:

Less substrate disturbance. Sheesh.

I'm shaking my head. Well, at least you've discovered your spell checker. A shame the don't make these word processors with logic checkers.
__________________



Rex wrote;

Well Well, Sheesh Bash, you go by a good name my friend, I have and have always had dislexia, not an excuse, fact, so my spell checker is my wife, unfortunately sometimes she cannot be holding my hand and all hell breakes loose with my spelling.

You know it is these kind of remarks that get every thread that mentions our product closed,you are good with the use of an agenda, I hope there is no agenda here,as you are a main contributor to CF I would expect you, of all people to abide by the rules. (stick to the tool)

Bash wrote:

Assuming yet another anchor salesman has been outed here, please allow me to point out a forum rule that may have been violated in the post quoted above. Among other rules about Commercial Members are these two:

Rex wrote:

That post was in the course of answering a question, that photo was copied of another forum should you care to wade through them of a user of that concave in the real world, (I'II bet you have heard that phrase before,) I certainly didn't take it, if you feel it is emotionly charged then you must have a reason, not my problem you purchased one.



Cotemar wrote:

CI am a bit concerned for JonJo and his discussions and behavior in these anchor threads.

As a writer for Practical Sailor and other magazines, I was always led to believe that the writer and testers are impartial and will not show any bias as to personal likes and dislikes.

We are not seeing this behavior with Jonjo’s writings here. ommercial Members are prohibited from making direct, emotionally-charged posts to, or about, competitors.



Rex Wrote:

Of all people Cotemar I really didn't expect that from you, I hope you have some hard evidence to back that statement up, again all threads with our product name mentioned were locked because of personal attacts, accusations and not sticking to the tool. (HOW DO YOU DESRCIBE THE ABOVE?)

I certainly don't expect an apology as I have become immuned since the launch of concave roll bar designs, as far as smart marketing goes you guys just don't get it, I could not care a less whether you purchased our product or not,its your choice, we dont even have a distributor in your region yet, further the asserstion you have made of Jonjo is totaly incorrect, I have no association with JonJo other than he uses one of our anchors and happens to like them.

To be honest if he wern't on this forum no one other than myself would have mentioned our product name, all of the ones that have made comment as to how they have found our product have vanished, one can only ponder as to why that is.

I have only commented on what has been said on this forum, the evidence on concave roll bars are your confessions, if one is challenged or asked why their product is different and how it compares and you dont answer, then you Bash would still be using a CQR.

I have hung in here with support from an encouraging number of CF members that have enjoyed these threads,it is a not cricket when regardless of whom it is mentions, supports our product range is sighted, labled, as someone that is affiliated with our company.

Regards Rex.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by CaptForce

It's noon in Sydney,- G'Day!

Thanks Capt, Here it is, gorgeous. I was trying to be polite to those in the antipodes to me (smooth ruffled feathers etc, build bridges, reduce the ideas of conspiracy theories) Nearly all the Anzacs have gone off in a huff and hopefully take offense less easily anyway.

Fair winds to you Capt

[JonJo]

[QUOTE=Panope;1178795]From the Fortress anchor website sizing guide.
"For storm conditions use an anchor one or two sizes larger"

From the Manson anchor website sizing guide.
"If in any doubt about anchor selection always use a bigger anchor"

From the Forfjord anchor website sizing guide.
"Use next size larger for heavily laden commercial boats and for Alaskan winter waters"

From the Rocna anchor website sizing guide.
"If in doubt, give preference to the larger anchor model"


/QUOTE]

I'm slightly cynical, of course they want you to buy a bigger anchor. But if they have doubts over their own sizing charts why not say so.

In the context of the thread, the views of people who have posted have 'slightly less' (anglo saxon understatment - for the sensitive ones) bias than the anchor makers.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by JonJo

It now seems to me that opening a thread to engender enlightenment of oneself is fraught with problems - one can be accused of bias - yet the thread was simply raised to encourage the airing of the views of others.

The impression got from you was you felt those that supported the "bigger is better" were fools (to use a word that sums it up).

[Kettlewell]

One correction here: Morgan's Cloud uses a big Spade. 120 lbs. I think.

[Panope]

[QUOTE=JonJo;1179045]

Originally Posted by Panope

From the Fortress anchor website sizing guide.
"For storm conditions use an anchor one or two sizes larger"

From the Manson anchor website sizing guide.
"If in any doubt about anchor selection always use a bigger anchor"

From the Forfjord anchor website sizing guide.
"Use next size larger for heavily laden commercial boats and for Alaskan winter waters"

From the Rocna anchor website sizing guide.
"If in doubt, give preference to the larger anchor model"


/QUOTE]

I'm slightly cynical, of course they want you to buy a bigger anchor. But if they have doubts over their own sizing charts why not say so.

In the context of the thread, the views of people who have posted have 'slightly less' (anglo saxon understatment - for the sensitive ones) bias than the anchor makers.

I think they want you to buy a bigger anchor so that their customers do not become injured or dead. The numerous anchor manufactures (I looked at every anchor website that I could find when researching for my above post) that neglected to give the bigger is better advice are in my opinion just avoiding the subject in order to give the appearance that their anchors are invincible.

JonJo, will you please direct me to a person article or post that claimed that their anchor dragged because it was to big. My apologies if you have already done this somewhere in this ridiculously long thread.

Steve

[JonJo]

[QUOTE=Panope;1179079]

Originally Posted by JonJo

JonJo, will you please direct me to a person article or post that claimed that their anchor dragged because it was to big. My apologies if you have already done this somewhere in this ridiculously long thread.

Steve

I cannot, the conclusion must therefore be that Bigger is Better! Off setting that I do not see many people mentioning that their modern, efficient anchors have dragged either and Noelex has said that any anchor can drag. This latter is a comment with which I can agree - any anchor, no matter how big, can drag. Its why it drags that is important. I think if you read the Manson Supreme in weed thread you will find Ceeto seemed to be dragging his anchor 50% of the time, or it would not set 50% of the time. But I'm not sure that his anchor was oversized. Equally I'm not supportive of one experience in one seabed being taken as typical (so would not use it to counter your comment).

People tend to be very defensive about their choice of anchor. It is only recently we have had a refreshing number of people admitting that they often lift their anchor with a big clod of seabed. Concave anchors have been around for years but people have been incredibly sensitive to mentioning anything negative about their choice. Given this loyalty to the individual's choice of anchor it is very difficult to ensure the comments that are being made are totally honest - for example, one might feel defensive about having bought an anchor of 55kg when the recommended size was 33kg. Robust comment, carefully justified, seems to ensure what is being said is correct and not some emotive defense of a choice.

Kettlewell: Morgan's Cloud uses both a Spade and Rocna, the original article, from memory, was about the Rocna. I recall when I read it originally the image was of the bow of a yacht, twin bow rollers with a Spade and Rocna but this might have been my imagination as the image now is contradictorily of a CQR?

Don L, Fools? Its much the same as owning a puny, non roll barred, convex anchor having used it for years, maybe 1,000 nights (from as far north as Brisbane to as far south as Tasmania's south coast), and being repeatedly told by people who have never seen one, touched one or used one - that it does not work and that its far too small.

[Panope]

[QUOTE=JonJo;1179110]

Originally Posted by Panope

People tend to be very defensive about their choice of anchor. It is only recently we have had a refreshing number of people admitting that they often lift their anchor with a big clod of seabed. Concave anchors have been around for years but people have been incredibly sensitive to mentioning anything negative about their choice. Given this loyalty to the individual's choice of anchor it is very difficult to ensure the comments that are being made are totally honest - for example, one might feel defensive about having bought an anchor of 55kg when the recommended size was 33kg. Robust comment, carefully justified, seems to ensure what is being said is correct and not some emotive defense of a choice.

I think this is yet another case where your "cynicism" (your word not mine) has gotten the best of you. I do not believe that the people talking about clods of seabed in thier anchor were "admitting" anything. If they were not mentioning it previously it is because they felt the mud clods do not matter.

Steve

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Mate... its not what you've got... its how you use it.. you should know that by now...
I sail a variety of boats doing deliveries so come across a variety of anchors... last year in Las Brisas, Panama the BR 54 I was delivering had a CQR... every afternoon the winds, lightening and rain would come.. we never dragged.. did have to ride the dinghy to rescue a few others with the new Super Anchors tho'...
Re anchor bans Salcombe enforces that as well.. also they've changed all their moorings and floating pontoons upstream toward Kingsbridge to the screw in types... Studland Bay tho' seems a tad extreme... the main weed/grass is under the cliffs & about 500 metres out.. running out to Old Harry... which is used as a play area for water skiers etc.. though they still like to come into the anchorage area to show off.
The Studland Arms has laid a few moorings for patrons.. free of charge.. maybe this will be expanded as its a very popular spot protected from all directions but E & NE..

Hey there Mate---, BEEN THERE , DONE THAT! I use to proclaim nothing could match a Bruce at least in this area. But later mine seemed to always pull free out along with 200#s of grass and muck on it. It worked well before ell grass. I still have a real 33# in my basement. If you're ever in my area I'll give it to you.

I am a firm believer that if something works, stick with it. I knew I would get your attention

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Hey there Mate---, BEEN THERE , DONE THAT! I use to proclaim nothing could match a Bruce at least in this area. But later mine seemed to always pull free out along with 200#s of grass and muck on it. It worked well before ell grass. I still have a real 33# in my basement. If you're ever in my area I'll give it to you.

I am a firm believer that if something works, stick with it. I knew I would get your attention

ROFL... I luv anka threads... but small correction...
I've never said Bruce is 'The Best'.. just what I'm happiest with on my boats... never told an owner they should switch anchors... maybe insurance company's..
But I just can't resist winding up the prophets of the New Order...
Jaws could take lessons...

[marujo.sortudo]

It seems there's a great deal of opinion here, but few folks sharing experiences relevant to the question at hand. I'll describe mine even though no "new gen" anchors are involved, and because it's unusual to most CF members (although not so strange on the coast of Maine.) I carry 3 Wilcox & Crittenden pattern yachtsman anchors a 42# (primary), 35# (secondary), and 75# (storm.) All of these are deployed with about 9' of chain and the rest nylon rode. There is also a 15# Northill stern anchor that deploys with only nylon (no chain,) and a FX-23 that would be deployed with 9' of chain. I've never used the Fortress nor the storm anchor, so I have no comment there. I've anchored on the others for probably 200 nights or so and the original owner of this boat used the same setup everywhere from Nova Scotia to the Bahamas for years and had complete faith in it. My range has been from Maine to Georgia. This is on a 32', low windage, heavy displacement, fairly traditional profile boat, albeit with bowsprit and boomkin she measures 40'. If you go by the old sizing rule of thumb of 2# per foot for yachtsman anchors, you could say my anchors are under-sized.

Believe it or not, the primary, secondary and stern anchors are all easy to deploy in a hurry and can often be retrieved by hand with the assistance of a small drum windlass to help to break them out. I've fouled the primary anchor twice that I can remember (both times by deploying it poorly,) although if there are light conditions or a reversing current I almost always deploy 2 anchors, usually in a Bahamian moor. I have a full keel so there is no danger of catching the keel on the rodes. Aside from those two times, there is one anchorage that I could not get a set in: Love Cove off the Ebencook in Maine. In fact, I was able to drag the primary and secondary simultaneously through there repeatedly with my engine. Later heard the bottom has a bad reputation as soft and foul. Beyond that, I've never had either of these anchors drag (often monitored by GPS,) nor have I had them fail to set on the very first try. In fact, I'll often let go an anchor while sailing at about 3 knots or so and let it bite and turn the boat head to wind. I always anchor with 5:1 scope and let out more if a blow is expected.

The 15# Northill has held quite well and has sometimes been deployed with as little as 3:1 scope. Of course, this anchor is usually only deployed when its not expected to hold the whole boat and/or when the boat will swing safely to the primary should the stern drag. Sometimes it's deployed from the stern only to have the rode led to the bow later as conditions change. It has rarely dragged, but when it does so in a given, usually mud, bottom, it does so consistently and resetting it doesn't seem to keep it from dragging. Even extra scope seems to have little effect, so I can only surmise it's a reflection of bottom quality and that the anchor is either under-sized or an inappropriate design for that bottom.

Greatest test of the system so far for me has been gusting to gale force with sustained winds shy of it for about 3.5 days in Belhaven, NC. The primary and stern anchor were deployed from the bow in a Bahamian moor well before this weather moved in, and I didn't change them before the weather shifted (otherwise, I would have had the secondary down instead of the stern anchor.) As the wind built in, I increased scope on both anchors to about 7 or 8:1. Initially, the wind came from the south, right through a slot in the breakwater the boat was pitching in about 3-4' waves for the first day or so while being held by just the primary. As the wind swung to the west, we sat to both anchors and the waves were a bit less (2' ?). Finally, the wind came from the north and the boat sat happily to just the Northill. Neither anchor dragged enough to register on the GPS. The Northill staying put really surprised me, but I've been surprised by its holding power before.

Plenty of days sitting to lesser conditions including up to gale force and sometimes with river currents thrown in.

So this is the kind of posting I'd like to see more of in anchor threads. Just folks actual experiences. Hard data, if only anecdotal. All the shouting opinions doesn't really make us better sailors.

[JonJo]

[QUOTE=Panope;1179126]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I do not believe that the people talking about clods of seabed in thier anchor were "admitting" anything. If they were not mentioning it previously it is because they felt the mud clods do not matter.

Steve

I think Ceeto found it an issue, but it is possible that he was unique.

[44'cruisingcat]

Well, there is something to be said for pulling up a little mud - a couple of days ago we raised our anchor in Lake Macquarie, and pulled up just about the biggest mudcrab we've ever seen! (It was tangled in fishing line, and caught in the anchor)

A nice bonus since mudcrab pots are illegal in here.

[congo]

Hang on fellers,fair suck of the sav, what about anchor Right's web site(anchor sizing)

Panope wrote:

I think they want you to buy a bigger anchor so that their customers do not become injured or dead. The numerous anchor manufactures (I looked at every anchor website that I could find when researching for my above post) that neglected to give the bigger is better advice are in my opinion just avoiding the subject in order to give the appearance that their anchors are invincible

Rex wrote:

I am glad that is just your opinion, we have been running with our chart for over 18 years, rarley have an anchor dragging, we do accept that if a boat is at the pointy end of a particular size to jump to the next size.

Saving lives,well we have documented evidence of this from when the Tsuami hit Phuket, saved a yachties life plus a lady being swept out to sea simply because the good old original Sarca held, and that was on the pointy end of our anchor sizing chart.

Like I said earlier, as we are certified Super High Holding Power we deal hugely with boats under survey, so on many years of dealing with survey officers and the USL CODE gives us a good reliable specking system that has stood the test of time.

It is an amazing contrast from what is acceptable on this forum (BIB) as when we are dealing with huge boats it is the opposite,a survey officer specks an anchor for example an 80 ton vessel, all we get is (bloody ridiculous), we dont need one that big.

What you should all understand with the USL CODE specs, it is an example of how they work out the basics, upon survey it will all change, your anchor will be based on the USL CODE and then all of the variables, rigging,loaded weight, shelterd waters, the list goes on,if you are a ferry lighter anchors can be used, if you are boat carrying goods, or explosives all changes again from the surveyers hand book, if you decide to have your boat specked by a survey officer, it is not a free service.

Panope wrote:

I think this is yet another case where your "cynicism" (your word not mine) has gotten the best of you. I do not believe that the people talking about clods of seabed in thier anchor were "admitting" anything. If they were not mentioning it previously it is because they felt the mud clods do not matter.

Rex wrote:

You wish my friend, care to run back over a few threads, check out a few other forums.
Many times I see this qoute: Mud is not a problem it lets you now your anchor is digging in, if your boat holds well at anchor then you trust it,it must have penetrated the mud, further not much point in acknowleging how well your anchor has dug in once retieved,might be an idea though to put a camera down there to see if is breaking out because of a compacted clod.

Any way I am off boating for the next three days, can you believe it, trialing new developments on our anchor designs, well maybe some fishing.

I appologize for my spelling.


Regards Rex.