Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[Kettlewell]

You have to define the term "better."

[Jimbo485]

Yes, it is, in terms of anchoring.

No, it is not, in terms of efficiency (economic, weight, space, etc).

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

You have to define the term "better."

Far as I'm concerned "better" in an anchor means it stays where you dropped it (meaning it set and held).

Anything else is about something else other than being a better anchor.

[Kettlewell]

Don, it is very hard to compare apples to apples. Take a 40-footer. I would normally recommend about a 45-lb anchor, which is technically oversized according to the charts. In my experience, I can anchor just about anywhere I want to with that size, up to gale force and above conditions if the holding is decent. However, the BIB crowd might say to upsize to 60 or 80 lb. Yes, those anchors have potentially greater holding power, but I won't need it 98% of the time. I would rather go with less strain on the windlass, be able to haul in the anchor by hand, less weight in the bow, and then add a second anchor when needed for extra holding power. To me that is "better," but wouldn't be to the BIB crowd.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

Evans, would not "pounds per square inch" of tip pressure be a better measure of penetrating (setting) ability than tip weight.

By " tip weight " I meant not the weight of the tip part of the anchor, but rather the weight the tip exerted on the bottom. This is pretty easy to measure . . . Put a scale under the tip.

I agree that lbs/sq-in would in theory be even better . . . But in practice #1 the tips that contact the bottom are actually not all that different. All the MFG's know they need to be sharpish. And #2 the sq in in contact with the bottom is hard to measure, and changes/increases as the tip penetrates. So this is a difficult metric to actually execute. Overall I thought (and still think) that tip weight is the best practical metric for setting.

--------------

I agree with K above that there may be a size of boat where "normal size" is big enough to handle by hand while "big size" requires a windless and the owner does not want to have to use a windless. It sounds like K's boat is in this size range.

But smaller than this boat size, even a "big" anchor is still able to be handled by hand . . . And bigger than this size even a "normal" anchor requires a windless so "big" adds no extra complication.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Don, it is very hard to compare apples to apples. Take a 40-footer. I would normally recommend about a 45-lb anchor, which is technically oversized according to the charts. In my experience, I can anchor just about anywhere I want to with that size, up to gale force and above conditions if the holding is decent. However, the BIB crowd might say to upsize to 60 or 80 lb. Yes, those anchors have potentially greater holding power, but I won't need it 98% of the time. I would rather go with less strain on the windlass, be able to haul in the anchor by hand, less weight in the bow, and then add a second anchor when needed for extra holding power. To me that is "better," but wouldn't be to the BIB crowd.

I would think it pretty easy to compare apples!

When I got my boat it had a 45# Delta. I replaced it with a 60# Manson Supreme. So it is BIB to you and it is better.

I don't care about windlass strain as that isn't the goal of an anchor to nice to the windlass. My windlass has pulled my 60# anchor with all 5/16" chanin up out of the mud from 75' depth with ut a problem. But if it couldn't I would replace the windlass, not the anchor.

And I have hand pulled it up from 30' (and if I couldn't I could tie a line to it and winch it up).

If your cruising boat can not carry an extra size up in anchor weight, well you should rethink your choices.

Anchors are about anchoring! Not weight, cost, windlass, or anything else.

But this is just how I see it.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Don L

I would think it pretty easy to compare apples!

When I got my boat it had a 45# Delta. I replaced it with a 60# Manson Supreme. So it is BIB to you and it is better.

I don't care about windlass strain as that isn't the goal of an anchor to nice to the windlass. My windlass has pulled my 60# anchor with all 5/16" chanin up out of the mud from 75' depth with ut a problem. But if it couldn't I would replace the windlass, not the anchor.

And I have hand pulled it up from 30' (and if I couldn't I could tie a line to it and winch it up).

If your cruising boat can not carry an extra size up in anchor weight, well you should rethink your choices.

Anchors are about anchoring! Not weight, cost, windlass, or anything else.

But this is just how I see it.

Don, for once I find myself in agreement with you! I think yours is a good general anchoring philosophy -- well said!

Cheers,

Jim

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Don L

I would think it pretty easy to compare apples!

When I got my boat it had a 45# Delta. I replaced it with a 60# Manson Supreme. So it is BIB to you and it is better.

I don't care about windlass strain as that isn't the goal of an anchor to nice to the windlass. My windlass has pulled my 60# anchor with all 5/16" chanin up out of the mud from 75' depth with ut a problem. But if it couldn't I would replace the windlass, not the anchor.

And I have hand pulled it up from 30' (and if I couldn't I could tie a line to it and winch it up).

If your cruising boat can not carry an extra size up in anchor weight, well you should rethink your choices.

Anchors are about anchoring! Not weight, cost, windlass, or anything else.

But this is just how I see it.

Don & Jim,

I agree with you both. An adequate quality anchor winch is just as important as a the anchor on a cruising vessel. Not an area to be light on

Chartered a L400 cat a week ago in Whitsundays. The small Quick winch would trip out with the lightest of load. Totally inadequate. The Muir on the Seawind I had the previous year never an issue.

[JonJo]

One reason everyone uses weight to 'classify' their anchors is because it is the common measure of anchor size. Many anchor makers do not quote surface area and I'm not sure that those that do quote actually measure the same way. A Fortress is simple, its simply (with no disrespect) flat plates, but how do you measure a Bruce in comparison. Do you measure the projected plan view (its shadow) or do you take in its vertical wings, that might not contribute to holding capacity. I use 'shadow area'.

But Cotemar your list of important anchor attributes is a good list But 'material' is near the top of the list (as it is on my list), how many anchor makers define what materials they use? if you limit yourself to supplliers who declare steel quality you would limit your choice of Concave to Boss, Supreme and Knoxanchor and given the lack of history to both Boss and Knoxanchor you end up with a choice of one from one.

The consensus on this thread is that 'bigger is better' but the respondents on this thread nearly all use concave anchors. Currently any poll is therefore only going to reflect the members posting and its results will be focussed to one generic design (concave), Mantus, Bruce, Rocna, Supreme, Knoxanchor and Boss. To me that leads to conclusions that may or may not be right but it does deny the opportunity of considering that at the other end of the world there might be a design trend that offers something that N Americans and Europeans do not have.

I frankly remain to be convinced, that 'bigger is better' but accept that if that is the consensus of people using concave anchors then it must have validity. The Granny Smith video underlines my beliefs as their experience echoes mine, but I did not have the presence of mind to take a video. My experience of using a Fortress suggests a correctly sized anchor is more than adequate and I would see no need to go bigger. (I ignore other facets - I simply refer to size.)

It is easy to say convex cannot work - until you try one in its modern incarnation.

It is a pity the various SARCA threads were closed down as their 'locking' instead of some heavy editing simply disillusioned the Australian members and they left en masse, mostly feeling slighted (so some of them told me, some were charitable most were colourfull of their comment). I note Factor has returned but not many others. We have consequently lost the views of people who use modern convex, your loss not theirs. I'm not trying to be critical and expecting a long string of reasons why the threads were locked - I'm simply pointing out that the end result is we have a concave focussed thread (and in fact any other thread looking at anchors will have a very strong concave focus). As I say its a loss to CF.

There is one other factor and that is that Bigger is Better might be more important for owners with bigger anchors. I can 'easily' deploy a second anchor. However if my second anchor weighed 40kg it would be very difficult, if not down right dangerous. I have noted Noelex is fairly consistent with his views (and he has a larger yacht) but that Kettlewell is fairly consistent with opposing views (and he has a smaller yacht). I also note Cotemar that I recall your anchor was not very big, easily manageable. On the same theme many modern production yachts today only have one bow roller, retrofitting is expensive (if not impossible) - so deploying 2 anchors is not feasible (if the anchor would need weigh 40kg or more).

Jonathan

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Don L

When I got my boat it had a 45# Delta. I replaced it with a 60# Manson Supreme. So it is BIB to you and it is better.

I think Manson would be most upset if you had not found that a 60lb Supreme was better than a 45lb Delta. Your experience is typical, upgrade from an HHP anchor to a SHHP anchor (of larger size than the HHP anchor). I'm not surprised you are happy, you are comparing Quince with a Granny Smith What would be interesting would be someone who upgraded from a Delta to a slightly smaller Supreme (in line with HHP and SHHP differences), found the smaller Supreme still wanting and then upgraded to the larger Supreme which then was found adequate. This si not to suggest a smaller Supreme might not work - its the principal to which I refer, the Supreme is just the example quoted.

Jonathan

[Factor]

Originally Posted by JonJo

One reason everyone uses weight to 'classify' their anchors is because it is the common measure of anchor size. Many anchor makers do not quote surface area and I'm not sure that those that do quote actually measure the same way. A Fortress is simple, its simply (with no disrespect) flat plates, but how do you measure a Bruce in comparison. Do you measure the projected plan view (its shadow) or do you take in its vertical wings, that might not contribute to holding capacity. I use 'shadow area'.

But Cotemar your list of important anchor attributes is a good list But 'material' is near the top of the list (as it is on my list), how many anchor makers define what materials they use? if you limit yourself to supplliers who declare steel quality you would limit your choice of Concave to Boss, Supreme and Knoxanchor and given the lack of history to both Boss and Knoxanchor you end up with a choice of one from one.

The consensus on this thread is that 'bigger is better' but the respondents on this thread nearly all use concave anchors. Currently any poll is therefore only going to reflect the members posting and its results will be focussed to one generic design (concave), Mantus, Bruce, Rocna, Supreme, Knoxanchor and Boss. To me that leads to conclusions that may or may not be right but it does deny the opportunity of considering that at the other end of the world there might be a design trend that offers something that N Americans and Europeans do not have.

I frankly remain to be convinced, that 'bigger is better' but accept that if that is the consensus of people using concave anchors then it must have validity. The Granny Smith video underlines my beliefs as their experience echoes mine, but I did not have the presence of mind to take a video. My experience of using a Fortress suggests a correctly sized anchor is more than adequate and I would see no need to go bigger. (I ignore other facets - I simply refer to size.)

It is easy to say convex cannot work - until you try one in its modern incarnation.

It is a pity the various SARCA threads were closed down as their 'locking' instead of some heavy editing simply disillusioned the Australian members and they left en masse, mostly feeling slighted (so some of them told me, some were charitable most were colourfull of their comment). I note Factor has returned but not many others. We have consequently lost the views of people who use modern convex, your loss not theirs. I'm not trying to be critical and expecting a long string of reasons why the threads were locked - I'm simply pointing out that the end result is we have a concave focussed thread (and in fact any other thread looking at anchors will have a very strong concave focus). As I say its a loss to CF.

There is one other factor and that is that Bigger is Better might be more important for owners with bigger anchors. I can 'easily' deploy a second anchor. However if my second anchor weighed 40kg it would be very difficult, if not down right dangerous. I have noted Noelex is fairly consistent with his views (and he has a larger yacht) but that Kettlewell is fairly consistent with opposing views (and he has a smaller yacht). I also note Cotemar that I recall your anchor was not very big, easily manageable. On the same theme many modern production yachts today only have one bow roller, retrofitting is expensive (if not impossible) - so deploying 2 anchors is not feasible (if the anchor would need weigh 40kg or more).

Jonathan

I use a main anchor that is big enough, and more importantly well designed enough to do its job, to do its job, I don't believe in Lunch hooks and similar. I use an anchor that can reset effectively in violent wind shifts, and that almost certainly means a convex anchor. But a good one - Sarca Excel. Anchor manufacturers and many users suggest that quick reversals can result in anchors coming out, and if they do, then its usually a lee shore situation, i.e. I anchored in a nice spot hanging away from the shore, in a reversal situation my nice anchorage is now a bit of a worry.

I use a second anchor that is light easy, to carry and easy to deploy, (A Fortress) it also offers unmatched holding power, but is not so good in reversal situations, so I dont use it for that.

I recognise the positives of each and use them.

I too am disappointed that I can no longer share info and experiences with other Excel users.

[Andrew Troup]

Getting back to the interesting question central to the posted topic: Is there such a thing as an anchor too big for a given boat's ability to set it?

I happened across this characteristically frank acknowledgement to this effect from a certain anchor manufacturer.

It seems to me a shame that such a degree of forthcoming is such a remarkably uncommon trait.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post827862

Don't be misled by the thread title: the post linked to is by ANOTHER anchor manufacturer

[Kettlewell]

A thesis was proposed that a bigger anchor was better than 2 anchors with part of the argument based on the anchor in question being a new generation anchor. I am sure 'new generation' was not universally defined but for the sake of this thread I'm thinking of (in no particular order), Fortress, Spade, Super SARCA, Rocna, Supreme, Excel, Boss and Mantus (if someone want to add something I've missed, be my guest).

That was the actual question in the first post. I'm firmly in the two anchor camp. So, if BIB is your philosophy, where does it stop? Why not put a 200-pounder on your bow, if BIB? You say all it takes is getting a bigger windlass. How do you determine when you've gone beyond BIB to ridiculous overkill?

[estarzinger]

^^

Generally the BIB camp suggests a single anchor roughly the same weight as the combined weight of the two you would otherwise carry and use in a strong squall or storm, or perhaps just a bit less than that. So you have the same (or less) payload on the boat, and a "better" anchor out every day, and no need to rush out another anchor when an unexpected squall comes thru, and no need to untangle two rodes after the boat has in around a couple times.

K, you do know that you are in a distinct minority on this among the long term live-at-anchor blue water fleet? Many people start off cruising with your approach and then switch to the bigger single anchor approach because in the real world it just proves easier and less stressful and more secure.

[Kettlewell]

K, you do know that you are in a distinct minority on this among the long term live-at-anchor blue water fleet? Many people start off cruising with your approach and then switch to the bigger single anchor approach because in the real world it just proves easier and less stressful and more secure.

The tyranny of the majority! I suppose a lot of it has to do with anchoring skills...