Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[Delancey]

Here's an anchor from an oil drum that illustrates the principle.

[Delancey]

[QUOTE=Delfin;1403206]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

I've spent many happy hours on a tractor and I can assure you that is not correct. See pictures below for examples of a typical 19th century single bottom mold board and a similar dated furrower. The horse's behind would be above the plow, and all designs that I am familiar with still require something to keep the moldboard from going too deep. If you're talking a 2 bottom, you can set the control depth just with the 3 point. If a large roll over like in the picture below, you need the wheels you see on the plow to keep the whole thing from disappearing underground. If a horsedrawn, the little wheels you see in the images attached.

Picking nits, a CQR is not an analog for a plow, but a furrower. The former turns soil over, and yes, needs a gauge wheel like the one shown in this video to keep from deeply burying itself.

A furrower just cuts a groove in the soil, and doesn't dive particularly well, although it also needs something to keep it digging along at a constant depth. Furrowers aren't used much, except for cutting drainage channels during the winter. The CQR doesn't work that well as an anchor compared to alternatives because its shape simply cuts a furrow. A 3rd generation diving anchor is designed to avoid that deficiency.

All of these examples use a lever to drive the tip down.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

That is the Fob Rock, actually it is a good to very good anchor.
All joking aside the humble Delta is a good anchor and can certainly be improved upon, but I wish manufacturers would stop claiming that their anchor works in a radical new way. The Delta can be tweaked and improved upon and this can lead to significantly better performance, but I don't see any justification for claiming a radical departure in way the anchor fundamentally works.

There seems to some correlation to anchors of this type working better with a longer thinner fluke. The skids as on the Fob Rock or the Kingsington quickset also seem helpful. The Excel and Kobra achieve a similar effect with the broader heel on the fluke. These features set up a more aggressive initial set which is helpful in harder substrates and weed. I also like the the aggressive downturned turned tip on the Excel.

We should not make the mistake of thinking because they look similar at first glance they will all perform identically, but we should also not be fooled that they are a fundamentally a new and radical concept. The truth lies somewhere in between.

If Delta just flattened the fluke, that would be a huge upgrade.
It would look more like a Tern Anchor which is a better design.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Guys guys guys....all this talk of what's the best anchor and farming is BS. It doesn't matter because we have all seen the cruiser that just tosses their anchor off the bow, pays out some chain on top of it and then heads off to shore without ever backing down. No anchor design in the world will save you from this boat when she's dragging down on you in 35kts. They are in every anchorage with all types of anchores...actually their main concern is what will fit easily on their inadequate stock anchor roller and look pretty....come on....ya'll know I'm right here!

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Guys guys guys....all this talk of what the best anchor and farming is BS. It doesn't matter because we have all seen the cruiser that just tosses their anchor off the bow, pays out some chain on top of it and then heads off to shore without ever backing down. No anchor design in the world will save you from this boat when she's dragging down on you in 35kts and they are in every anchorage with all types of anchores...actually their main concern is what will fit easily on my boat and look pretty....come on....ya'll know I'm right here!

Very true. We do see this a lot with smaller boats, but you have to wonder what they are thinking.

[Jimbo485]

How about an adjustable anchor than can have additional fluke area attached / bolted on for the soupy mud bottoms?

And long additional stocks attached for the rocky bottoms?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Good grief.

A plow is used to plow, that is, turn soil over to bury weeds, and aerate the soil so that following discing the field can be planted. All plows have some means of preventing the moldboard from digging so deeply you bog down the tractor and have uneven furrow depth. Best steer away from farming analogies, since you know so little about the subject.

A CQR is a crappy anchor. It's why it performs poorly in all tests. A modern burying convex anchor is an excellent hook, which is why it performs so well in tests. Neither one of them is an agricultural plow, but like your problem bend, perhaps some relationship between the two entities exists in your mind.

Delfin,

Yes, there are a few non farmers who have never used a plough here spruiking knowledge of ploughs with none at all.

On some of the old fashioned horse drag ploughs the older style simply had the man behind adjusting depth. If not the horse would stall. improved models had depth wheels for adjustment and this is still often used in modern tractor implements to control depth these days with depth controlled by hydraulic cylinders that can be rapidly change depth using wheels if required.

All modern tractor hydraulics have two settings. a depth control mode and a draft control mode which is used in variable soil types to help manage depth of the plough or implement.

Without a real understanding of what they are talking about some will resort to graphics, bold typing, colours, fonts, and terminology (shouting) in an attempt to reinforce their point of view.

Shas Cho. You do understand how ploughs work.

Anchors are not ploughs.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by downunder

Anchors are not ploughs.

But some ploughs are anchors.....
Sorry the smart ass in me just couldn't resist...

[downunder]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

But some ploughs are anchors.....
Sorry the smart ass in me just couldn't resist...

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by downunder

Delfin,

Yes, there are a few non farmers who have never used a plough here spruiking knowledge of ploughs with none at all.

On some of the old fashioned horse drag ploughs the older style simply had the man behind adjusting depth. If not the horse would stall. improved models had depth wheels for adjustment and this is still often used in modern tractor implements to control depth these days with depth controlled by hydraulic cylinders that can be rapidly change depth using wheels if required.

All modern tractor hydraulics have two settings. a depth control mode and a draft control mode which is used in variable soil types to help manage depth of the plough or implement.

Without a real understanding of what they are talking about some will resort to graphics, bold typing, colours, fonts, and terminology (shouting) in an attempt to reinforce their point of view.

Shas Cho. You do understand how ploughs work.

Anchors are not ploughs.

All true, but this is an Internet forum. Where else can people with no knowledge on the subjects the profess expertise in to pretend otherwise? In the real world, they just get laughed at.

My first experience with farming was on Brindabella, 600 acres in Dubbo, SW of you. I learned how to castrate a bully (note to City dudes, this is a small male cow) with a pocket knife in about 15 seconds. All things considered, I'd rather have been in Mackay.

[congo]

Re: Anchors, Bigger is Better?
Noelex wrote:

Rex you have highlighted yet another of my concerns with certification.
As a reasonably informed anchor consumer I still have no idea what models have been tested.
The classification societies should clamp down when an anchor manufacturer claims certification that is bogus (or perhaps part of the tests have been completed ), but they seem to totally ignore blatant misrepresentation. Often forums such as CF are the only way such problems are exposed.


Rex Wrote:

Yes well you cannot get away with the points in the above here in Australia, not possible, we are continually called up buy surveyors to produce test certs when supplying anchors for boats under survey, how they were done, who did them, who approved them.

Noelex wrote:

I think anchor manufacturers don't help because they are concerned that when the consumer understands some of the details of certification we will be less impressed with the the sticker that says Super High Holding Power than we would be if the whole process was shrouded in mystery. Hence basic questions like " who selects the location" get fobbed off.

Rex Wrote:
Well Noelex if nothing else from your nit picking I think I have given you many answers, more than you would have extracted from some, (who selects the location" get fobbed off) all of our earlier day testing was done at locations around Port Phillip and Western Port Bay as travel time is an issue from where we live, by the time we were ready for S/H/H/Power testing we had developed T.A.T.S., there was no way the local councils would let us near those areas with the entourage of people and equipment we had presented.


Much to our disappointment we had to negotiate with Robertson and various peek bodies to seek a location suitable for all, in the end it was a joint decision to test in the Wilsons Promontory area, very costly for me as this location is a good 100 miles away, not just from me but also Robertson from where we would normally test; much further for the many that witnessed the testing.


Robertson after discussion, three bays were selected, Shallow Inlet, Sandy point and Port Wels pool, this resulted in a pile of red tape, a pile of money but we achieved in the end, was it worth it, well to us anyway regardless of how you feel we achieved much, we certainly more than qualified, T.A.T.S. was a World First, S/H/H/Power was a first in Australia on an Australian designed anchor.


Your take on whether you think certification has merit or not does little to dampen our enthusiasm and sense of achievement, so we will march on regardless, odd though, this is the only forum whare our efforts re certification haven’t been warmly welcomed.


Regards Rex.

[Delancey]

Nice change the subject move. All your ploughs need a lever, without it they are useless. Thinking men use rubber bands not knives.

[JonJo]

Cotemar,

You are a real whizz with the graphics, colours are stunning and your use of script styles and size almost unique. Additionally you know all about anchors.

So putting all of those skills together can you explain in words with as many. of few, syllables as you want (I at least have a dictionary - though not American) and describe accurately how a Rocna works. Do not complicate our simple minds - stick to the Rocna. How does it develop its holding capacity. Once we have learnt how a Rocna works we might then move onto other similar styles, before moving on to learn how Fluke and Wedge anchors work.

Thanks in anticipation.

Jonathan

[sabray]

I milked cows for awhile. Does that qualify me .
One time my cqr buried so hard I checked the charts. Is there a cable here? it just would not come loose. Bent the shank trying to get it out . Vertical bend.
Then in soft mud it would not hold . Danforth yes that holds. So it did for years.upgrade to the Bruce. It held everywhere but that's not good enough. Let's add a Manson supreme. Well it bights hard and fast and Seems better .
No one even mentions this anchor . It's all Rocna, mantus ultra.... .I need to buy a more popular anchor . A way oversized statement of how firm I can be . Without sissy bar.
I am now shifting to 2 three hundred pound mushroom anchors. Each having. 250 feet of 3/4 inch chain with 150 feet of plated 1" line. A hybrid dyneema snubber with crosby shackles and Monel safety wire. Hoping I get this all on board for less then 3000 lbs on the bow.
Really I have the supreme a Bruce and the fx.
When I go down east I might stick the Luke aboard.
Do I have that many rhodes? No.
I have three full runs of anchor gear. Could I do more? Yes. Do I want more? No.
Why? Because I got caught cruising and a storm developed. I wanted 2 hooks down hard. I like having the third as a ohh **** moment.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by sabray

I milked cows for awhile. Does that qualify me .
One time my cqr buried so hard I checked the charts. Is there a cable here? it just would not come loose. Bent the shank trying to get it out . Vertical bend.
Then in soft mud it would not hold . Danforth yes that holds. So it did for years.upgrade to the Bruce. It held everywhere but that's not good enough. Let's add a Manson supreme. Well it bights hard and fast and Seems better .
No one even mentions this anchor . It's all Rocna, mantus ultra.... .I need to buy a more popular anchor . A way oversized statement of how firm I can be . Without sissy bar.
I am now shifting to 2 three hundred pound mushroom anchors. Each having. 250 feet of 3/4 inch chain with 150 feet of plated 1" line. A hybrid dyneema snubber with crosby shackles and Monel safety wire. Hoping I get this all on board for less then 3000 lbs on the bow.
Really I have the supreme a Bruce and the fx.
When I go down east I might stick the Luke aboard.
Do I have that many rhodes? No.
I have three full runs of anchor gear. Could I do more? Yes. Do I want more? No.
Why? Because I got caught cruising and a storm developed. I wanted 2 hooks down hard. I like having the third as a ohh **** moment.

Yes. If you milked cows, you are qualified to speak about anchors. That combined with your anchoring experience.....

Personally, if I wanted a hoop style, the Manson would be the one. Its shank is stronger than the Rocna by a bit and way stronger than the shank of the anchor that must only be spoken of in positive terms. I have seen some poor galvanizing on Manson, but they test as well as a Rocna and everyone who has one seems to like it.

To be honest, I have no idea why the CQR doesn't work better. I shouldn't have called it a crappy anchor because so many people have used them for years very successfully, although compared to the alternatives now available it probably shouldn't be anyone's first choice anymore. I have wondered if the throat angle is wrong, preventing it from diving, or perhaps the big knuckle inhibits diving, or maybe the fact that it is hinged. Beats me, but when I changed from a CQR to a Bruce on an earlier vessel, anchoring became a lot easier.