Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by conachair

Why else would anyone go so heavy?

There are advantages of bigger anchors that make them appealing even if you feel the holding is adequate with the recommended size.
The ability to anchor in difficult holding grounds, or on shorter scopes for example.

If you anchor often enough you are risk of this sort of event, which was a microburst not a named storm. It was not even during the time of year when most of the bad weather occurs in this area.

Ανεμοστ�όβιλος στο Βλυχό Λευκάδας - Tornado at vlyho - YouTube

[sailorboy1]

I was on the Mantus site the other day. On it they recommended a bigger anchor for my boat than what the charts on Ronca and Manson Supreme recommended (the Mantus was 1 size larger, which is in fact what I have far as my Manson Supreme). Which is interesting considering that Mantus I believe claims to hold better than the other 2.

I just mention this as part of the bigger is better (or not) that there really isn't any way to know just what is "bigger" or even enough" for anchors.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by JonJo

But really you are suggesting to be considered seriously one should restrict choice to:

Rocna, Manson Supreme, Ultra, Fortress, Super SARCA and Excel?

If you factor in price and availability you have a pretty restricted choice unless you live in 'The Lucky Country' - where every single one of these is available at a chandler near you

Jonathan

Pretty much yes. At least until someone else gets the certification. Frankly it is too easy to get type certified (a lloyds cert costs about $30,000) for me to be willing to trust a manufacturer's claims absent one. It isn't just about the anchor, it also says that this is a company that has enough resources to be able to handle warranty issues, have faith in their product, ect...

As far as I am concerned the baseline is type certification from any of the recognized classification societies. Like I mentioned I am not too picky about which one. Mostly because for this purpose it doesn't matter that much, they all are well known, respected, and have public testing protocols.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I was on the Mantus site the other day. On it they recommended a bigger anchor for my boat than what the charts on Ronca and Manson Supreme recommended (the Mantus was 1 size larger, which is in fact what I have far as my Manson Supreme). Which is interesting considering that Mantus I believe claims to hold better than the other 2.

There is a lot incentive for manufacturers to recommend small anchors, especially when selling anchors to production boat builders.
Get a contract to fit all new Beneteau's with your anchor and that is a large number of units sold.
The smaller the anchor recommended the cheaper it is to supply it and there are big savings in anchor winch sizes and bow roller construction.
If the consumer complains Beaneteau will deflect the criticism by stating that they have fitted the manufacturers recommended size. (Not picking on Beaneteau all the manufactures do this sort of thing. They just sell a lot of boats so are a good example).

As well the average consumer believes it must be better if the manufacturer is recommending a smaller model. In fact there seems to be an inverse relationship. The better anchor designs recommend larger anchors (as an overall trend rather than a specific rule)

The above may be cynical view, but I believe this is partially why we get such small anchors recommended. (Together with the fact that very few boats actually anchor overnight or in any wind)

Companies like Mantus, and Rocna are to be applauded for their honesty.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

There is a lot incentive for manufacturers to recommend small anchors, especially when selling anchors to production boat builders. This is where manufacturers can sell very large volumes of anchors.

This is so true.

It's unfortunate that boat manufactures use the minimum anchor size recommended.
It just puts one more expense on the new boat purchaser.

If they are a cruiser that likes anchoring, then they usually have to replace the anchor within the first year of use.

That is the first thing I did on my boats as the factory just did the minimum.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Yup - you have taken the words out of my mouth

Jonathan

I didn't make the point very well. 50% sounds loads but in the smaller size of boat 10kg extra is nothing hanging off the bow for a cruising boat. On bigger boats does anyone go 50% over?

I'd far sooner deal with another 10kg than have to mess about with 2 anchors every time the breeze gets up a bit or to holding might be suspect.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by conachair

I didn't make the point very well. 50% sounds loads but in the smaller size of boat 10kg extra is nothing hanging off the bow for a cruising boat. On bigger boats does anyone go 50% over?

I'd far sooner deal with another 10kg than have to mess about with 2 anchors every time the breeze gets up a bit or to holding might be suspect.

One of the best known heavy heather cruisers, Steve Dashew, the designer behind the Deerfoot, Sundeer, Beowolf, and now the FPB designs does. The current production FPB are using a 110kg Ronca on a 64'. His Deerfoot 60's came with a 176lbs Bruce (I think). The Sundeer 64 used a 176lbs Bruce.

With 200,000 miles of cruising (many of it high latitude) he recommends going with the largest anchor you can possibly fit, often using anchors much higher than 50%. Even Ronca which is known for upsizing its recommendations only suggests a 55kg anchor for the FPB 64, yet Dashew sells them with a 110kg instead. His take is the extra 55kg isn't that big of an issue on a 40tonn boat, so why not take the extra holding power of the bigger anchor.

[motion30]

I recently bought a 105lb mantus for my 44' 40,000 MY. Bigger then recommend but I figured



how can that be a bad thing?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Stumble

One of the best known heavy heather cruisers, Steve Dashew, the designer behind the Deerfoot, Sundeer, Beowolf, and now the FPB designs does. The current production FPB are using a 110kg Ronca on a 64'. His Deerfoot 60's came with a 176lbs Bruce (I think). The Sundeer 64 used a 176lbs Bruce.

With 200,000 miles of cruising (many of it high latitude) he recommends going with the largest anchor you can possibly fit, often using anchors much higher than 50%. Even Ronca which is known for upsizing its recommendations only suggests a 55kg anchor for the FPB 64, yet Dashew sells them with a 110kg instead. His take is the extra 55kg isn't that big of an issue on a 40tonn boat, so why not take the extra holding power of the bigger anchor.

I did see that somewhere. Wasn't part of the reasoning on his own boat to allow better holding with a very short scope?

[roland stockham]

Well yes of course. Never mind the maths or type of anchor a 60lb will hold better than a 45lb, 10mm chain will hold better than 8mm, chain holds better than rope. And think about it, a mooring block doesn't have a clever design it just weighs a few hundred pounds.
It is interesting to look at 'old' scantling books, I don't mean 1800's I mean pre 1960's The recommendations for ground tackle are about double modern recommendations for the same size boat. True modern boats have less weight but generally more windage and shear about more so put greater loads on ground tackle.
So why the change? Simple, a modern lightweight cruising boat isn't incapable of carrying it's pre 1960's recommended ground tackle both because it won't fit in the chain locker and because it is too heavy.
Solution? Change the recommendations... Everyone uses marinas now anyway so what does it matter...
Just to check I looked up the CE plate for a modern 35ft boat, says you can take 1850kg on an 8 berth boat. That includes fuel, water, life raft and safety gear, dingy and outboard, tools and spares. Also it is a broad stern and fine entry so don't put the weight in the bow. I reckon I probably carry more than that before I even get the crew on board!
It's a great boat with very good performance but food for though if you are into cruising away from the dock

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Stumble

One of the best known heavy heather cruisers, Steve Dashew, the designer behind the Deerfoot, Sundeer, Beowolf, and now the FPB designs does. The current production FPB are using a 110kg Ronca on a 64'. His Deerfoot 60's came with a 176lbs Bruce (I think). The Sundeer 64 used a 176lbs Bruce.

With 200,000 miles of cruising (many of it high latitude) he recommends going with the largest anchor you can possibly fit, often using anchors much higher than 50%. Even Ronca which is known for upsizing its recommendations only suggests a 55kg anchor for the FPB 64, yet Dashew sells them with a 110kg instead. His take is the extra 55kg isn't that big of an issue on a 40tonn boat, so why not take the extra holding power of the bigger anchor.

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong - as I am sure someone (or everyone) will, the other recommendation is to go down in chain size and use G7 chain. So the recommendation is 'bigger anchor and smaller chain'. They might also suggest longer chain.

I wonder what size of windlass is used to lift a mud filled 110kg Rocna (and what on earth do you do if the windlass is inoperative? - or does everyone have 100% relaible windlass?).

There was a series of awards given at the back end of 2012 to a variety of adventurous yachtsmen, 2 of whom, 2 yachts, had gone through the NW Passage and to Sunstone who had completed a cruise from Japan to B Columbia and anchoring along the way). Oddly they, the 3 I recall, all used CQRs (though they might have been oversized - but Sunstones looks 'normal')

Jonathan

[JonJo]

So which is better?

They both weight the same. Seems the one on the right is bigger!

[roland stockham]

From experience. I used a 45lb Danforth on about 50m 10mm chain (same as the one on the right although that my be a fortress) to moor a 60ft motor yacht over winter in S Wales. In a mud creek with bow tied to the bank but the gales come on the stern quarter. Fairly rough winter! In spring it took a spade and a full tide to retrieve it (fortunately the creek dried) as it had buried
itself about 4ft down. Would probably have broken the chain before dragging!!! In rocks the flukes tend to bend. Also can be prone to skid over hard sand. They will stow on a rail (good for spare/kedge). The other one is probably stronger and a more 'general purpose' anchor. Looks like it will dig into hard pack well. Never used one but seen lots.
So whether one is better depend where you are anchoring. I would put the Danforth on the stern rail as a mud anchor/backup/kedge and the other one on the bow if the rollers take it OK.
Actually the anchor weight is almost insignificant to the boat. I use twin 45lb bowers but the chain weights 440lbs! - question usually is will it fit the bow gear and can I handle it.
JonJo
Any large boat where ground tackle cannot be raised by hand MUST have twin windlasses, preferably hydrolic. Anything else risks not only having to dick the ground tackle in the event of a problem but would then leave you with no way of re-anchoring.

[JonJo]

Sorry - its a Fortress and the other one is a Rocna

J

[congo]

We still rely solely on the Marine authorizes surveyors spec's, being certified we have learnt from many years in the business of supplying boats under survey that our anchor specs are pretty much as to what they spec.

Just supplied a boat under survey, 37 ft Steaber Craft---12 ton with healthy wind age—30 K.G. Excel, boats licensed to carry twelve, this basically is what I would have specked anyway, of all discussion on this thread, over twenty years we have not had problems with our anchor sizing, either extremely lucky or running with the experience of the marine authorities professional engineers has kept us in good stead.

Regards Rex.