Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[Kettlewell]

The variables are infinite. There is no right and wrong. The most important thing is if it works for you and you are happy with your set up. I recall one of the first people I ever cruised with, up to Labrador and back. He firmly believe the anchor had to be removed from the bow every time. So we unshackled the 35 lb Danforth from its mostly nylon rode (6 feet of chain I believe), on a 30-footer, and stowed it on the cabin top every single time we used that anchor, which was often multiple times in one day. His secondary anchor was I believe a 75 lb. Luke, three-piece Herreshoff style anchor on all rope rode, which we only broke out once in two months, and that was when we were solidly aground on solid rock, and the Luke worked perfectly in those conditions. Most people today wouldn't even cruise on a 30 foot sailboat, and the BIB crowd would shudder at using nothing but a 35 lb. Danforth on mostly rope rode and maybe 6 feet of chain, but it worked perfectly for the owner from Maine to Labrador numerous times, across the Atlantic several times, and numerous other trips in higher latitudes.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by JonJo

......

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?

.....

JonJo, once again you seem to have missed or ignored my inputs to this thread. If you will look back to post 520 you will see that there is at least one additional case of dragging a properly sized Manson Supreme, where there is at least a suggestion that a larger one might have held.

My interpretation of the evidence is that while there is no positive proof that bigger is better, there is equally no proof that it is not better. The proposition that a larger anchor can not be properly set seems lacking to me. If larger loads are later imposed upon the "improperly" set anchor, how is this different from the loads that would have been applied to "properly" set it?

Argument by extremes, ie the 200 lb anchor on the West Wight Potter scenario are not productive and have little to do with the proposal to upsize one or two notches from the mfg's suggested size. IIRC, many mfgs state that there recommended sizes are for winds of 30 knots or so, and even suggest that a larger size is required for more severe usage.

Finally, AT's implication that one should select a cruising boat such that a small anchor is sufficient will not find favour with many cruisers, ones who feel that there are more important aspects to an enjoyable and safe cruising life. Some forethought to anchor recovery in teh event of windlass failure is wise, but to limit the size of the boat to that which can be safely anchored on an anchor that can be hoisted by hand is too restrictive for most of us.

Oops... that wasn't really final! I agree with Evans in that most long term cruisers end up using a single oversize (by mfg standards) anchor on an all chain rode. Yes, there are exceptions, but in general that has been my observation as well.

Cheers,

Jim

[estarzinger]

JJ,

Are you really suggesting you think "next gen" anchors don't drag?

Every anchor design is going to drag somewhere sometime. Use them long enough and you are going to get enough wind on a bad enough bottom (for that design) and they will drag. Thats true even with a BIB sized one. That's just a plain fact of life.

I have seen first hand spades and supremes and rocnas drag. +60 kts in Calabria martial (it's the common overnight spot just north of Cape Horn).

Take pretty much any anchor at all (except a huge and specially sharpened pick) and try to anchor in Albany (SW Australia) and you will drag whenever the wind goes over 30kts. The bottom there is sand so hard it's like concrete. The locals drive 4x4s on the "beach" and leave no tracks at all. We had a full group of cruisers with all sorts of anchor designs dragging there one night. Hawks solution was two anchors in tandom (the 50 kg rocna plus a 55 lb delta) plus all our chain . . . Just enough weight and friction to "hold", but not really "set" at all by the normal definition (I dove to look at it).

The question is certaintly not whether they will ever drag (they will), nor whether they have excellent holding in good sand and mud (they do but the fortress will always win in terms of holding/kg), but which anchor you have more confidence in over a wide range of bottoms (the bottoms one is likely to encounter given your specific cruising plans).

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

JonJo;
They know different ground conditions work better for some anchors than others.

On the basis one has one big anchor or 2 smaller ones of different design (to suit different bottom?)

JJ

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

.......... AT's implication that one should select a cruising boat such that a small anchor is sufficient will not find favour with many cruisers, ones who feel that there are more important aspects to an enjoyable and safe cruising life. Some forethought to anchor recovery in teh event of windlass failure is wise, but to limit the size of the boat to that which can be safely anchored on an anchor that can be hoisted by hand is too restrictive for most of us.
............

Jim

I can well understand you thinking (mistakenly) that I was selecting a smaller than optimal cruising boat on the basis of being able to raise the anchor by hand, because my explanation was condensed to the point of incomprehensibility in that regard.

... but I don't anything I wrote should have led you to think that I was putting that forward as a recommendation for others.


I was alluding, in shorthand, to some unusual compromises I'm personally prepared to make in building an expedition yacht.

I would actually rather build a shorter boat than 11m, and build it with sufficient freeboard for standing headroom.

Whereas I'm planning on building it both longer and squatter (flush decked) than I would prefer, for performance reasons in extreme conditions, while maintaining the volume I need to carry the food and fuel and gear I need.
The low freeboard is also dictated by a very shallow draft with the keel raised, which is worth a lot more to me than being able to stand up when offshore. I'd frankly rather have plenty of deckhead handrails I can reach sitting down, when things get lumpy.

At anchor and in settled conditions, I will be able to stand up under the numerous hatches, equipped with suitable pram hoods. I do a lot of sailing on small boats without standing headroom, and I've found big hatches in the right places make them perfectly livable even on long trips.

And I don't imagine I'll routinely be raising a 30kg anchor on 13mm chain by hand, but there's a fringe benefit of the design decisions I describe above: 30kg is a smaller anchor than I would consider sufficient, if the boat had more weight and windage (given that I'm also compromising my maximum holding power by sticking with a Bruce)

It would be difficult, but doable, to raise it alone using a hand-cranked utility winch, clapping a line to the chain. (Helped by the navel pipe being back at the mast - allowing longer 'bites'). But if I'm on my own there's realistically likely to be times that, if the windlass is hors de combat, I'll be slipping it and coming back when conditions improve. And in the meantime, probably resorting to two more manageable anchors.

I agree with carrying an anchor which is big enough to cope with most circumstances, and I've always done that, (and in windy parts of the world that means a big anchor) but that doesn't preclude laying out several anchors (Evans just gave another class of instance where that proved necessary), and I don't understand the widespread vilification of that as a viable option.

I can well understand that some anchor manufacturers would wish to discredit the practice, and I wonder if perhaps they have largely succeeded.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

The locals drive 4x4s on the "beach" and leave no tracks at all.

not unusual, up ocean side of Fraser Island and Teewah Beach (noosa north shore) same applies, so I wouldnt rely on that to diagnose anchoring requirements. Otherwise happy to accept your point about Albany.

[Snowpetrel]

Thank you all for your input into this thread, I have found it has caused me to critically evaluate much of what I know about anchoring and stack it up against my own and more importantly your experiences and since I am in the process of trying to work out what anchor and what size to use as my main anchor for my new 40 foot 8-10 tonne boat it is very relevant to me. Now this is going to be rather long winded and full of waffle... feel free to skip!

My own experience ranges from occasional delivery skipper, running a charter boats here in Tasmania and also out of Ushuaia to the Antarctic peninsular, Mate on a 100 foot brigantine from two seasons around the south pacific, sailing my own 34 foot boat from tassie to commonweath bay in antarctica. And growing up sailing and living aboard my folks 45 foot gaff ketch. I also was a navigating officer on cargo ships ranging from 60 meter roro's to 290 meter container ships

I have not used any next gen anchors with the exception of a delta a handful of times times and a manson supreme that failed to set in a rocky bottom in Auckland, I have so far never dragged unexpectantly (touch wood, but I have dragged a few times when I expected to!). Over the years I have also had much frustration getting the CQR to set, having to run extra anchors for piece of mind (POM) and sleeping with one eye open, or running anchor watches.

My first boat was a 26 foot folkboat derivative about 2.5-3 tonnes loaded, with a 25 lb genuine CQR, and 27lb danforth a 30lb fishermans. I carried 440 meters of 12 nylon broken into 55m coils with thimbles spliced into each end. I had 3 lengths of 8mm chain about 7 meters long, each being about right to fit into a bucket and be easy to carry. I had no engine for the first few years of sailing around cook strait in NZ, then I got a 3.5 hp short shaft outboard. This anchor setup served me well. Commonly I ran two anchors and on a fair few occasions all three. I never once dragged, and had enough rode to anchor well offshore in most conditions if I ever lost my mast, plus a good shoreline setup when I needed it.

When I sailed her across to Sydney with all the traffic and crowded anchorages I would have been better to rejig it all with 40 m of chain plus rope, but I was worried about the weight of chain forward. In retrospect I should have just run the spurling pipe to the mast and gone chain for POM. My main worry was some idiot cutting my rope with their prop by passing to close.

One of the requirements for the next boat was a good heavy main anchor (BIB) and an all chain rode. I felt this was a better way to go. Snow Petrel had 60 meters of 3/8 chain, and a 45lb anchor for a 34 foot 8 tonne Roberts 34. So far it has only let me down badly around Flinders Island. I swapped it out for a borrowed 55lb fishermans anchor on good advice from Don McIntyre when I sailed her south from Hobart to Antarctica with complete success in the scoured rock bottom.

I carried the same spare anchors from My first Boat and used them on a few occasions, surprisingly it was the danforth that was the only anchor I ever got to set in the hard-packed gritty sand and weed around Flinders island, not the fisherman.

The New boat has a 50 or 60 lb fisherman, I also have a monster 60 lb genuine danforth to go aboard with the High tensile forged shank. These will cover the lost main anchor scenario and the extremes of very soft mud or really hard bottoms with weed that a next gen anchor can still struggle as Jim Cate and other posters have described.

What I now need is a good all round anchor to replace the poor 35lb Cqr copy, still tossing up the Excel or the Supreme, or maybe some other Next G anchor. For weight one size up seems about right, I might get away with 45lb but would have more POM with a 60lb, the downside being that I could no longer easily lift it and the 3/8 chain without a windlass. That doesn't worry me, I have a nice Manuel SL windlass that came from Northern light (thanks rolf and deb), and with a chain pawl on the bow roller and my primary self tailer's I can get it up pretty quick if the SL ever dies.

Seems to me that a slightly bigger next G anchor is the best compromise, More likely to hold in very soft mud with it's bigger fluke area, and more likely to dig into harder substrate with it's greater tip weight. But all things in moderation... I will be keen to see if Jonjo theory of smaller anchors setting deeper and more reliably pans out, I can see this being true in good holding, but in these conditions most appropriate anchors have no big dramas setting or resetting. I think a slightly bigger anchor will extend the range of usefulness out from maybe say 85% of bottom types reasonably reliably to maybe 90-95% of bottom types, leaving the last tricky ones for the specialists.

Nothing is likely to convince me to part with my specialists, I would also love to get a fortress as a lightweight kedge. In reality these will spend most (hopefully 99%) of the time gathering dust in the bilges but that's extra weight I am willing to carry.

One point on multiple anchors. I generally don't use more than one if there is ice about. Down on the peninsular in most places escape speed is critical, unless you are in one of the protected nooks with shorelines. One anchor is also less likely to funnel ice down to your bow. I have had to get out of anchorages a few times when a decent burg has threatened to park itself over the chain. Got to run a good anchor watch in many places!

One thing that does concern me about the whole BIB concept taken to extreme's is the overconfidence that it might cause. It only takes one tin can or a tenuous hold on a rock ledge to cause problems. All anchors can drag, even massively oversized one's. It's like putting all your eggs in one basket!

There are some places and times where dragging is not an option. In this cases the whole damn lot go's out.

cheers, and thanks again all for the lively discussion and excellant information.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

It's like putting all your eggs in one basket!

There's a fun anchor to look at sitting around Puerto Williams somewhere. It's a 75lb CQR that an iceberg sat on. Its been squashed almost perfectly flat.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

...I had 3 lengths of 8mm chain about 7 meters long, each being about right to fit into a bucket and be easy to carry.
...

Ah yes, the old chain in a bucket trick, brings back happy memories, works a treat on small boats with no chain locker, eh !

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

had enough rode to anchor well offshore in most conditions if I ever lost my mast
...

Amen to that, and it's a good idea to keep in front of people. The notion of anchoring offshore has almost left the gene pool, judging by how much resistance I encountered to floating the notion on this forum (which is admittedly probably not representative of long-distance sailors)

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

I swapped it out for a borrowed 55lb fishermans anchor on good advice from Don McIntyre when I sailed her south from Hobart to Antarctica with complete success in the scoured rock bottom.
...

As they say, 'Circumstances alter cases'

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

I carried the same spare anchors from My first Boat and used them on a few occasions, surprisingly it was the danforth that was the only anchor I ever got to set in the hard-packed gritty sand and weed around Flinders island, not the fisherman.
...

I've struck that situation (very rarely) and heard others say the same ... some anchors clearly don't read books or go online much!

I'm working on an evolutionary development of a fisherman I built for a big expedition yacht, with wickedly sharp, machined-bevel 316 palms.
The idea is that it could be lowered on a tripline in the correct orientation.
The stock would engage the bottom with spikes at each end, and hold the shank slightly clear of the bottom so that the pick could make a forced entry, like a Chinese worker building the railroad across the Canadian Rockies, or a steampunk version of those glass-bowl woodpeckers you see in shop windows....

I guess it's sort of like Nick/Jedi's 'gravity drop' idea, but with a proper pick, and the ability to repeat the drop multiple times in a specific location. Even in papa/mudstone my trials suggest this could provide a hold, if one were desperate enough...

I talked to Leiv about the anchoring at the islands of the Recherche Archipelago near Esperance (similar to Albany) and as others here have said, he simply put everything he had on the bottom and relied on the weight.

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

... with a chain pawl on the bow roller and my primary self tailer's I can get it up pretty quick if the (windlass) ever dies.
...

Chain pawls on the bow roller are awesome- your mention is the first I've struck on this forum.

I did one for a smallish boat, whose heavy (ie gravity loaded - no spring required) pawl flipped itself up when the anchor shank came onto the roller, and the backside of the pawl hooked over the shank to hold it down.
This came in rather handy when I missed the channel motoring into a river mouth across a bar singlehanded. My first inkling was when the swing keel touched as a warning (I'd left it a little way down as a 'depth sounder', because there was too much sand in suspension for the electronic sounder to work properly).

With the dagger rudder retracted to clear the bottom, and the tip of the keel touching well aft, tending to turn the bows inshore every time a wave came through, there wasn't enough steerage to get the bows pointed on the reciprocal, so I was at imminent risk of being taken up the beach by a big one.

Being still in three feet of water, carried in sideways, I preset the autopilot on the reciprocal and raced up to the bow and was (to my surprise) successful in using the anchor to 'box-haul' the bows around onto an offshore heading.

Apart from the fact that the pawl system meant the anchor was ready to deploy at a moment's notice, the other crucial enabling feature was the ability it had to stow the anchor securely on the roller when we motored back out past it (in the moment it took to throw a loop of chain around the bollard) so I could get back to the cockpit to tweak the helm before the first big one hit and she dipped her bows under.

Phew!

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

One point on multiple anchors. I generally don't use more than one if there is ice about. Down on the peninsular in most places escape speed is critical, unless you are in one of the protected nooks with shorelines. One anchor is also less likely to funnel ice down to your bow. I have had to get out of anchorages a few times when a decent burg has threatened to park itself over the chain....

I'm guessing that's one reason you'd like less draft (so you can get into water too shallow for big ice?)

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Got to run a good anchor watch in many places!

That reminds me something I'm starting to wonder about, which might be a common feature of many of those adherents of the "Single Big Anchor for all situations" doctrine:

they often seem to be "swanning round the Med" or in other locations where it's feasible to dive on the anchor all the time (no freezing water, no leopard seals...) and possibly often in locations where you can more or less relax and almost go off duty, provided a single massive anchor is properly set.

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

All anchors can drag, even massively oversized one's. It's like putting all your eggs in one basket!

There are some places and times where dragging is not an option. In this cases the whole damn lot go's out.

...

Great post, lots to chew on.

[JPA Cate]

Hey, AT,

Evans wrote that he dove the anchor in Chile, doesn't sound like "swanning around the Med to me."

[Andrew Troup]

Ann

I'm not sure if you're saying Evans is one of the guys I was referring to as promoting "Single Big Anchor for all situations"(he's not)

or whether you're saying I should toughen up and dive on the anchor regardless

(In my defence, I do recall taking a dip without a wetsuit (or togs, for that matter!) at a sea lion colony on the Auckland islands, which is Patagonian latitudes, in autumn ... so I guess I'm not squarely parked in the wimpout camp...)

[JPA Cate]

"Ann.....In my defence, I do recall taking a dip without a wetsuit (or togs, for that matter!) at a sea lion colony on the Auckland islands, which is Patagonian latitudes, in autumn ... so I guess I'm not squarely parked in the wimpout camp..."

Sorry if I made you feel defensive, but what I thought you meant was that Evans, who had been contributing what seems to me to be unbiased inputs was said to be "swanning around the Med," whereas he had just posted that he had dived the hook in Chile.

I'm impressed by your nude skinny dipping in the Aucklands, gotta be COLD. I hope it was "Indian summer," a warm autumn day. Or was that a gentle tug on my leg?

You'd have to place me in the wimp-out camp. I won't dive in muddy plus shark or mud plus alligator places, and I prefer warm water to chilly, too.

Cheers,

[estarzinger]

Ann,

Thanks for the defense.

I don't mind being called a "swan". I wish I was still that sleek and beautiful, but I look more like a pear than a swan these days.

And you are both sort of right, I do carry a BIB and do usually only put it out. However I am more than aware there are situations where further gear is useful and more than willing to put it out when needed.

If I felt the need for more than the BIB, my first choice would always be to try to find a properly secure shore tie cove. One gets very comfortable and practiced at that in the south and it's bulletproof when done properly, and I have found many places where it can be done but is not because it's just not a common skill for the locals. But sometimes the answer is just to put more metal on the bottom, and I carry and am willing to drop a lot of metal if its necessary.

I have recently been wondering if a screw anchor (as is now often used in moorings) could be useful. They are not that hard to set, especially with dive gear or in shallow water. And are really and truly secure when properly set. And would not be that hard to stow and easier to unstow than a huge BIB anchor.

[Andrew Troup]

I guess the "anchor watch" question is one which perhaps tips modern thinking towards bigger anchors:

the first time I ever stood formal anchor watch I was one of six on roster (on a boat with fourteen crew) and that was no hardship whatsoever

The average number of able-bodied crew has declined steadily over the years, at least for me:

the last time was with a total crew of three (with an oversized Rocna, come to think of it - but this was before they ever came on the market, so possibly not completely optimised ...)

And one of the reasons I fall in the camp where "two sizes too big" is not big enough, is that I sometimes won't have anyone else to take a turn at standing anchor watch : it loses all attractions once the number of available people falls below three, I reckon...

[Andrew Troup]

Evans, funny you should post that.

I'd been thinking along similar lines, even to the point of wondering how the local authorities would feel about some sort of underwater nailgun, for those glacial valleys where the bottom is polished granite!

And I straight away realised that regardless of what the authorities might think, I felt about the same about that as Yvon Chouinard did about pitons when he famously turned his back on using them to climb at a time when he was their leading manufacturer.

Maybe some sort of underwater epoxy and a big padeye?