Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

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?

I think for most it stops at 1 size up in the charts for your boat. If the chart says 45# you BIB and get a 60# (the next size up).

This seems to be pretty standard here on CF based on the lowly 2 anchoring threads written.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

The tyranny of the majority!

No. The tyranny of experience.

We ourselves started off with your approach on Silk, with a CQR and a Bruce on the bow (And a danforth in a locker), putting out two anchors when we felt it needed. By the time we had done our "shakedown" Atlantic circle we had replaced both and put one bigger anchor on the bow.

Your approach of course works. I have no problem anchoring behind someone who is using it. And I understand your "windless issue" (which is an "old school" philosophy). But it is neither the easiest nor most secure approach.

[Kettlewell]

Seems like most of the BIB folks have gone at least two sizes up, or more. Manson recommends a 35 lb Supreme anchor for a 12 meter boat, I believe. Don has a 60 pounder. They would recommend a 50 pounder for Evans' boat--he's got 110 lbs of Bruce on the bow. Nick carries 156 lbs. of Bruce, Manson recommends 125 lbs., so he is closer, but still around two sizes up. So my rough calculation is that BIB is about two sizes up for most folks.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Seems like most of the BIB folks have gone at least two sizes up, or more. Manson recommends a 35 lb Supreme anchor for a 12 meter boat, I believe. Don has a 60 pounder. They would recommend a 50 pounder for Evans' boat--he's got 110 lbs of Bruce on the bow. Nick carries 156 lbs. of Bruce, Manson recommends 125 lbs., so he is closer, but still around two sizes up. So my rough calculation is that BIB is about two sizes up for most folks.

I'm only 1 size up. But my boat was at the lower end of the scale for the smaller chart one. But I admit I toyed with the idea of getting the 80# anchor instead.

But in the end I still support the "when in doubt get the getter anchor" thinking!

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Seems like most of the BIB folks have gone at least two sizes up, or more. Manson recommends a 35 lb Supreme anchor for a 12 meter boat, I believe. Don has a 60 pounder. They would recommend a 50 pounder for Evans' boat--he's got 110 lbs of Bruce on the bow. Nick carries 156 lbs. of Bruce, Manson recommends 125 lbs., so he is closer, but still around two sizes up. So my rough calculation is that BIB is about two sizes up for most folks.

Usual mfg recommendation for hawk is about 66lbs. Two anchors at 66lbs is
130lbs, and we use 110lbs. So we save weight and have a "storm" anchor out every day.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

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?

As a general rule the longer people have been cruising the bigger anchors they get.

To answer the question cruising yachtsmen keep getting bigger anchors until they stop dragging at 3am.

Two anchors, used routinely. are a popular intermediate step because they allow the existing equipment to be utilised, but sooner or later most cruisers, that spend their time at anchor, upgrade to a larger anchor, even if it means modifying their bow roller, and/or anchor winch. ( in many cases it does not. Using hi-test chain the total weight can usually be decreased)

A few narrow escapes is great teacher.

There are of course exceptions, the most common one is long distance sailors that cruise from marina to marina, at least when bad weather is forecast. (that is often a great approach, the aim is enjoy yourself, but it is important to realise the equipment requirements are different if you prefer to anchor each night)

[Kettlewell]

The longer people have been cruising the bigger anchors they get.

Basically cruising yachtsmen keep getting bigger anchors until they stop dragging at 3am.

The first long sailboat cruise I took was to Labrador and back in 1978. Bought my first cruising sailboat in 1980, so I have a bit of experience. Can't remember the last time I dragged anchor.

[Andrew Troup]

My preference, arising from both personality and reflective thought, is to verge on Single-Big-Anchor overkill, but it occurred to me in an earlier riff that I prefer to treat this as aspiration, rather than an operational prescription.

And that's partly because, for me, it's in conflict with other important desiderata, some applicable only or mainly to expedition sailing combined with the knowledge that I will sometimes be sailing alone:

1) Not putting too many eggs in one basket
2) Not becoming a hostage to interdependent systems, where it can be avoided
3) Not falling into other more subtle traps of exaggerated action
4) Not burdening one area of performance unduly at the expense of others

Amplifying these:
1) I may lose my SBA, or may encounter territory where it repeatedly fails
2) eg powerful windlass, massive bow roller, but less obviously: the need for a big engine swinging a big prop, and fuel to run it
3) to live like Elvis is to risk dying like Elvis ...
4) especially for a throwback like me who still, also, likes big chain

And mitigating these:
1) By carrying (and maintaining the skills to deploy) a supplementary 'quiver' of carefully chosen smaller anchors, which can be combined to deputise for the missing or damaged SBA, with less convenience but similar ultimate holding potential
2) By building a smaller, squatter boat than comfort would suggest, (even forgoing standing headroom if necessary) using storable (in my case, hydraulic) propulsion power transmission and retractable prop to allow short-term, high bollard pull without the need for a large engine (or, conceivably, any engine)
3) By exercising moderation in other areas (like engine size) - which provides a natural 'ceiling' to moral hazards like technology dependence and the resulting hubris
4) By locating the windlass and chain locker back at the mast, with the locker designed to allow the bulk of the chain easily to be redistributed and secured deep in the bilge when on passage, so that it becomes internal ballast.

[Kenomac]

I haven't checked back on this thread for a while, but I'd like to add one more thought. It's not just the size of the anchor which will insure good holding and a restful night, but the rest of your ground tackle does make a big difference.

Case in point: A good friend is always nervous to anchor for fear of dragging which has happened to him. His 25 ton Discovery 55 came with a huge 100 pound Spade, swivel and 200 ft of 5/16 chain. We currently anchor our 25 ton Oyster with a 75 pound CQR using up to 300 feet of 1/2 chain along with a snubber. We sleep well with all that heavy metal down there on the bottom along with the 1/2 chain and snubber acting as an enormous shock absorber. There's a big difference between 5/16 and 1/2 chain.

We upgrade next month to a 45 kg Quickline Ultra Anchor for 6-7 months per year at anchor. Good ground tackle pays for itself very fast.

[Andrew Troup]

Kenomac:

While you were writing your post, I was writing a post on the other thread (Bruce almighty) wondering if chain size was an "elephant in the room" which helped explain why "old gen" anchors work better in practice than in theory

It must be telepathy !

[JonJo]

Some of the responses, for example Evan, are discussing use of a bigger Bruce than recommended. There is a school of thought that bigger Bruce work better than smaller Bruce, the big ones have an ability to penetrate more seabeds than smaller ones. This to me is not an example of BIB but an example of either poor design, for the smaller one, or simply there is an effect outside scaling. It might be there is a similar effect for other older anchors, CQR and Delta.

With no disrespect to Peter Bruce I cannot include his design as a 'new gen' anchor, nor a Bugel - as neither offer higher holding capacity. My definition of new gen, modern, efficient covers Kettlewell's list (when Mantus and Boss have some independent testing) - to be new gen they need to work twice as well, holding capacity, as say, Bugel, Delta and CQR.

The comments has been made that most Blue Water cruisers start with a standard sized anchor and move up, usually 2 sizes. If they had used a Bruce (CQR?, Delta? Bugel?) and moved up 2 sizes then maybe the larger size anchor worked, it was not the increase in size that made them more comfortable at anchor but the simple fact smaller anchors (of that design) are simply not good enough in a wide range of seabeds. Basically - give a Bruce a hard seabed and it does not work, increase size and it penetrates simply because it is heavier.

If the blue water cruiser upgrades from a 30kg Bruce to a 50kg Rocna, Supreme etc - of course he sleeps more comfortably - its a better anchor. Based on their previous experience the logic would be, we know bigger Bruces will work, so we must go bigger, we are buying a new gen anchor so may as well go bigger anyway - the question is - did they need to?

I'm not denying they all feel comfortable - the question is did they need to go up in weight, or was that simply a belt and braces approach, overkill. We only have one vid and a few others comments, but it suggests overkill.

We all know of people dragging but they all seem to be using old gen anchors, sometimes large ones. I simply have not heard of anyone dragging a new gen anchor, big or small (other than Evan) unless it was in a heavily weedy seabed or a seabed that needed something really special, like a Luke!

The question was not asked of people who carry oversize Bruce or CQRs it was specifically focussed at new gen anchors. I gave a list of famous blue water cruisers who all use CQRs (which might be oversize), the question was not for them but was really raised to help anyone with a Delta who was going to move upto? a new gen (including Fortress). It was not a question of do you feel more comfortable but is there any evidence that buying bigger is essential - is it overkill and might there be disadvantages?

Did anyone have a 30kg Bruce, upgrade to a 30kg Rocna/Supreme and then buy a 50kg Rocna or Supreme. No-one has come up with an answer. The only person who really dragged a Rocna was Evan - and he went back to a (very big) Bruce.

The other question that Andrew tried to raise - can the anchor be too big? sits unanswered.

[Andrew Troup]

Hmm, JonJo, thought provoking points as usual.

I can't help pointing out, though that you're commenting "I simply have not heard of anyone dragging a new gen anchor, big or small" when two posts up this same thread, a Very Big Spade is described as doing just that.

Are you implicitly agreeing that chain weight DOES play a role, but extending that even to New Gen hardware (which is a step further than I'm prepared to venture!)

(ON EDIT: I'm sure the Rocn@ knowledge base is full of other instances of NewGen anchors dragging -- with one notable exception -- but I'm not about to trawl through it, or make any claims that it represents reliable data)

[DumnMad]

JonJo; Things I've learned from listening to the most experience cruisers who spend a lot of time on the hook;
They like to sleep well at anchor.
They go 1 or 2 sizes up from the recommendations for normal use.
They all know how to use the anchors they have.
They know different ground conditions work better for some anchors than others.
Wind change & wave change have to be taken into account.
They are unlikely to take much notice of some theoretical beach test.
All anchorages are different and no rule will fit all.
All boats are different and no rule will fit all.
Those who want a rule for anchor size will not get one from them.

[Kettlewell]

My own personal experience with chain is mixed, and I'm not sure what it tells me. The theory and practice of some indicate that at higher wind speeds, possibly as low as 30 knots or so, typical chain rodes are pretty useless in terms of the catenary effect. They get straight and are no better than pure nylon at that point. However, I have found that at most normal wind speeds, even up to gale force, there are numerous ups and downs--lulls and gusts. During the lulls, the heavier the chain the more it sags, and presumably lowers the angle of pull on the anchor and reduces the maximum load during those periods. It is rare that there is a sustained 40-50 knots for hour after hour, but it does happen, and more during hurricanes. In those conditions, I wonder if you would be better off with just nylon rode to provide the bounce, and the chain is really useless? Another data point is that many, many times I have dived in to check or set an anchor in areas with clear water and been able to walk the anchor around on the bottom, because the boat is being held mainly on the friction and weight of the chain on the bottom. It is rather a paradoxical advantage using heavy chain: a real bonus for holding at low to medium wind speeds, and then no help and possibly a detriment at higher wind speeds.

My bottom line is that chain is very useful to prevent chafe, and makes using a windlass much easier, but absent those two advantages it is pretty useless. The main reason most cruisers want it and lots of it is to avoid having the rode chafed through, as we saw in La Paz here on this forum.

[JonJo]

Hi Andrew,

I rely on first hand experience, only - except for vids that look as if they cannot be questioned (or staged). We do not know why the Spade dragged, not enough scope, something caught in the fluke (seaweed, beer can). First hand experience usually defines what goes on, but second hand experiences can miss out critical bits of info. I'm not denying the accuracy of the statement, just the lack of background detail that only a user can give. Interestingly the person relating the story of the Spade is going to buy an Ultra - and many think the Ultra a Spade clone (suggesting some contradiction +?)

We had the same sort of info on the Excel thread - second hand comment that an Excel dragged and that the person relating the info used a Bruce without question. Both were in the same multihulls, same chain, anchored next door to each other etc. (His suggestion was that the Excel was a load of rubbish - and he was proving it) When AR offered the owner of the Excel his money back - low and behold he did not want to take up the offer. I'm sure the Excel did drag but the event was insufficient justification for the Excel owner to dump the anchor and buy anything else he thought would be better (including something like his friends much vaunted Bruce).

Frankly I have enough difficulty recalling the precise details of my own anchoring experiences (so I try to write them down in the log) let alone trying to describe with accuracy what happens on a yacht next door to me. Usually the critical bit of info that I want, say 2 months later, is the bit I did not write down!

Jonathan