Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[congo]

This is an amazing thread, anchors dragging, spade, Rockna's, supreme,even when in some cases have been specked two sizes larger, some going back to a Bruce because their new gen arn't cutting it, (bigger is better) no wonder this has been an interesting thread, its like tell all and be forgiven.I wonder what would have happened if some of the users of the new gen anchore were to purchase a BRAND NEW not worn out (original) CQR, Delta ( made by Simpson and Lawrence ), Bruce and gone up two sizes, interesting confessions on the new gen anchors.

Holding area versus weight, the USL code in my book have it absolutely right with their weight specs, I would presume their calculations revisited over a period of time and then recalculated were margially based on a genuine CQR, it hasnt changed, if and when history can prove large fluke areas are so much better, I dont see much change to their regulations on anchor weight, unless of course you double the weight on some of these huge fluke areas.

Ironically with the evidence now coming through on many forums expressing anchor drag with new Gen then the present state of the USL code in anchor wieght, well, seems pretty safe.

Regards Rex.

[congo]

If you take a spade-shovel-not anchor Iam talking about, stand it on its blade on your lawn, it will simply sit there, stand on it and down she goes, take another spade twice the width follow the same process you will have to jump on it for the same result.

Mass of weight verses area of fluke is the sequence for developing a good anchor design if you want it to work in multiple sea beds,there is obviously a lot more to it than that but it is a good starting point. One of the best examples of weight distribution verses fluke area is the Origional CQR, Delta when made by Simson and Lawrence was also a great example, it is only when they went to china that their performance was greatly affected.

For example I had a genuine Delta for us to test against many years back, I bought two more from a dealer with Simson and Lawrence written on them, a small label (MADE IN CHINA) both anchors weighed around 11 Kilo yet one had a 16 mm shank thickness the other a 14 mm thick shank, I still have them, I am not knocking china as they do, can manufacture some of the worlds best gear but when it comes to anchors they are made to a price without much Quality control.

Wth the CQR they are either copies or the articulating pin is worn out rendering its burying ability to a shallow set, somtimes the pin is so worn they can become difficult to set.

Anyway the end result of the original was the original Delta would bury , the copies set fast but continued plowing at shallow depth, I would love to have known in the West Marine test, was it an original, as I do not believe the figures they produced would have been from a copy.


Convex we should know a bit about , our original Sarca was the first convex anchor design with a hoop on the market, we know this because of our patent search, now regardless of how much one argues about convex and concave, concave will not continue to bury unless in idealic conditions, look at the evidence produced on this thread alone without searching.

If you want an anchor to handle multiple sea beds, good mass weight to anchor fluke size and fluke tip, convex to displace the sea bed allowing it to bury, that is why you see so much evidence on this forum of concave clogging, they cannot displace the sea bed, so yes I agree if you deploy a concave, bigger is better, heavier anchor plus you will grab a bigger scoop of goop!

Well we have been there and done that, both Super Sarca and Sarca Excel are of convex design, sold many, many thousands over an 18 year period, if I was getting the feed back on our designs that alot are attracting on this forum I would be worried.

No, no anchors perfect, but like the USL code our forfathers knew where it was at, other wise anchors would have been concave long before this (dont you think) not much innovation in a concave design, cut out the back of a five gallon drum tie a rope to the handle , in idealic conditions you will go nowhere.

Regards Rex.

[conachair]

If bigger anchors don't hold better why do bigger boats have bigger anchors?

[JonJo]

I sense some frustration.

The majority of people to post have oversize new gen anchors, and most feel very safe. People who have normal sized anchors do not seem interested in the thread. In many respects this must be good (that people feel safe). But within this feeling of safety there is a slight tinge that some might question whether their oversize anchor might be adequately set under all conditions. The suggestion that large anchors might not be set adequately by smaller yachts (and when the anchor tries to re-set catches a polythene bag?) as we in Oz might say 'No Worries'

This (the questioning), excluding the 'No Worries', must be good, complacency and blind arrogance cannot have any place in a cruising yachtsmen's personality.

The majority of people to post have oversize new gen anchors, and most feel very safe, but cannot demonstrate any evidence that smaller new gen anchors are inadequate, in fact almost no-one (from personal experience, can quote new gen anchors dragging). So the evidence from the idea that 'Bigger is better' comes from people who have invested in 'bigger' (who seem to have no experience of, say, 'smaller', or normal).

Someone who did have a new gen anchor that dragged, did not buy a bigger new gen anchor of the same design, or even any other new gen anchor - but invested in a Bruce. Excuse me if I got this one wrong - but interestingly no-one batted an eyelid?

No-one picked up on the provocation that all the evidence, exclusively, is from concave anchors - despite the fact that lifting a fluke full of seabed is considered a positive attribute? The idea that a clod of seabed might choke a large fluke and strain a winch seems insignificant because 'bigger is better?'

I wonder if anyone can define the positive attributes of an oversized anchor with a clogged fluke (think slightly weedy bottom) in a hurricane. Anchor slowly drags (which it will - its not designed to work clogged and full), winch strains, maybe get it up (eventually and safely) now wash it out, then re-deploy. I know its never happened to you - but then my correctly sized anchor has not dragged either Nor clogged and been full of mud - at an inopportune moment. Imagine - the yacht in front with that puny anchor drags, lift our oversize anchor with is mud shroud, move out the way, wash the fluke etc. As we might say in Oz, 'No worries'.

I humbly accept we do not live on our yacht but we have covered some interesting geography, we have covered some 20,000nm with out current anchor and we have spent about 1,000 nights (well away from home base) with our current anchor. Sadly we prioritise being out of tropical storm areas for its season (call us whimps) - the tropics are so much nicer in the winter and we do not go to Tasmania in the winter, the summers are sufficiently taxing (now call us super whimps). And world girdling? - Australia has enough to offer and engross without needing to go to the Med to experience 60knot squalls in the middle of their winter and to test out my ideas on an adequate anchor - I know, no committment

But the more technical debate on anchors and holding could be developed?

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by conachair

If bigger anchors don't hold better why do bigger boats have bigger anchors?

My question precisely!

I tried this one. We took a 5kg anchor, on our cat, and tried it out. The problem is that it does not dive deeply enough, it dives and then reaches its dive depth, but it cannot dive to develop sufficient hold. However we can take a 13kg anchor and it does set and hold, under fairly tough conditions - its even better than a winch handle (but we do not have American winch handles). But given that depth of diving is important, bigger anchors dive more deeply and in some seabeds diving might be more difficult - we settled on a 16kg. Obviously bigger boats have more windage, more load, you just need to scale up.

No one said bigger anchors do not hold better, the question was; 'bigger is better?' - all round performance, sorry if the thread was not titled sufficiently, but I tried to make it punchy. But I know you were simply trying to provoke.

[congo]

conachair

I think that the answer is pretty simple, fluke area increased, weight must be increased other than just its fluke wieght to maintain continuity of weigth,increased anchor shank larger for strength for the load, larger anchor has no problem burying as the extra load being applied is significant to that of a smaller boat.

Weed will always remain a problem, dont bother trying to cover the types as there are so many,but a nicely designed toe with a good concetration of wieght coupled, couple this with displacement to move the weed to one side will fair a lot better than a scoop. Shallow set has and will always be proan to braking out in wind shifts and tide change than to that of a well buried anchor.

Regards Rex.

[congo]

Jim Cate Wrote:
JonJo, you have not dealt with my major query about use of the USL codes: what height ("H") do you use to determine what the code says is the correct anchor? And why is there no involvement of the beam of the boat? Or of displacement?

How can you place credence in the application of this set of tables which are not at all formulated on sailing yachts and the anchor loads that they generate?

I'm still confused.

Jim

Hi Jim, yes that is a very good question, when I was sitting on the N.M.S.C Committee board revising the USL Code it was discussed, but like you I see no mention of it, our marine authorities are there for all, if you were to contact a survey officer he will be able to work out all of your rigging, windage, weight and spec an achor size for you without any difficulty.

Regards Rex.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by JonJo

No one said bigger anchors do not hold better, the question was; 'bigger is better?' - all round performance, sorry if the thread was not titled sufficiently, but I tried to make it punchy. But I know you were simply trying to provoke.

I think the "bigger is better" vote on this thread is mostly from a long distance cruising perspective, and maybe not so much "bigger is better" but one day you will be in really nasty situation and need all the help an oversize anchor can give, and even if that is just one time it will over ride any other downsides as it might save your boat.
From my experience I've never had a problem resetting in mud, 600 unassisted resets in a row in mud and in nastier conditions with instant 180deg wind shifts and 60kn gusts, with instant resetting, the bow slewing round with quite incredible force as the anchor dug in again after sailing from one side of the anchor to the other, glad of 8mm steel cheek plates on the anchor roller that night .
So, in my experience anyway, the arguments of mud in the flukes and difficult resetting haven't arisen. And if the windlass isn't capable of pulling up a few more kilos then it isn't big enough for cruising.

Anchoring for boats where extremes can be avoided is a different ball game and those arguments and others might well be more relevant.

[congo]

Hi Conachair,

I dont think any of this discussion really matters, if it is your perception bigger is better and it works for you then that is all that matters.

I think the uncanny wording of this( bigger is better) that has been circulating for some time and now is an echo of what you read on these threads, (BIGGER IS BETTER) seems to be only since water under the bridge on new gen (CONCAVE ANCHORS) has come to pass.

This was never a slogan back in my day, we just wanted better anchor technology to hold in a variety of sea beds.

If you go bigger with a CQR, Delta, dare I say it, Excel Super Sarca the actual holding area dosen't grow nowhere the dimensions of a concave design, but the extra weight is a benefit as the toe has considerable extra forces applied.

Even if this larger convex design isnt fully buried the stronger the blow maybe it will, on tide or wind changes is not such a concern either in resetting, an over size concave partially clogged with mud is more likely to drag, choking even further as it drags, evidence to this is on this forum, in the Manson in weed thread there is a guy that could not get his Rocna to hold in mud, purchased an Excel and solved his problems, plus you dont have to worry about somtimes bringing up more than a concave anchors weight in mud on retreival.

If nothing else these discussions allow many to see new anchor technology from many different perspectives.

Regards Rex.

[JonJo]

conachair, thanks

I'm anchored off Tasmania's west coast and a southerly Storm front comes in (the worst when we have been there in summer, 3 days upto 70 knots), or a Southerly Buster streaks (always unforecast) up Australia's East Coast. (As mentioned we are wimps, when we get that sort of forecast we scurry to the safest anchorage we can find, oddly, so does everyone else).

I have my puny anchor out (2 sizes too small - according to the long term cruisers - but comfortably done 1,000 nights) and the chips are down, I have a monster to me (in terms of surface area) Fortress FX 23 sitting in a bow locker, assembled, rode attached, 30m chain 40m nylon, used it, very comfortable with the idea) I, or my wife - and we are both undernourished weaklings, can deploy it 'instantly'. If I have any notice its sitting on the foredeck, otherwise ready and waiting - open the locker, chuck it out (great things milk crates!). I have a Spade (used it many nights, cannot fault it), same size as my puny anchor (2 sizes too small) and enough cordage to tie up QM2 (though I do need to join it as I have 2 x 30m lengths + a lot of 10 m lengths - so give me a few minutes but if I have a bit longer I can whistle up some Dyneema from the spinnaker sheets! I have hose covered warps in case of aggressive seabeds. My original puny anchor is on all chain on a 13m (each side) nylon bridle attached to the stern cleats and I can attach each of the other 2 anchors to the bow cleats (and/or amidship cleats) or the mast. All the cleats have 5mm alloy plates, 200mm square reinforcing + one extra layer of 750gm double bias glass over the original reinforcing of 10mm ply + extra glass. If I have time I can deploy at 30 degrees each side from dead centre, or I can simply drop one after the other, line ahead. (yes they might tangle - but the chips are down!) Again if I have notice we can tie to a tree, or the shore (cats can get close in, more shelter, trees or rocks to tie to, nearer).

Downside, my alloy Spade and Fortress double my total 'anchor' weight, but triple my potential holding capacity (arguably the Fortress is higher than either of the other 2).

None of these anchors are going to clog with mud. The Fortress will hold anything beyond my wildest dreams, in terms of yachts - other wild dreams, it would be considered deranged and would be a real turn-off!). If I have time I can deploy my puny Fortress from a dinghy. If I were to lose my anchor each of my spares is 'as good' as my original. If I want to swap my anchors I'm not going to get a hernia (though if I had a bigger yacht, with bigger, but under sized - according to the 'bigger is better') it might be an issue. So I have 3 interchangeable designs, so catering for a range of seabeds. They are easy to change. Each is renowned in terms of its usefulness. I can lift the alloy anchors by hand, as can my wife.

Now why was it that I needed to cart around and use that anchor 2 sizes too big? Apparently if I had the 'bigger is better', I'd be sensible to buy a new windlass (and reinforcing for the new windlass), but I would save as I need not have those puny fall back anchors? And my 'bigger is better' might increase my holding capacity by 40%-50%! not sure (but not 300% + versatility that I think I achieve).

If I was in a weedy seabed with a yacht windward of me that I knew had a concave anchor and conditions were to be 'character building', no matter how big their anchor, my immediate fear would be - it will clog, it might drag. I would not think about it - I'd move.

[noelex 77]

I am exhausted just reading about all those options

One good, big, anchor. Simple.

[congo]

Well then Noelex, make it a big convex, rest easy and not get exhausted from hauling up the mud.

Regards Rex.

[JonJo]

Just wait till the yacht upwind with the big concave anchor chokes with weed and you will certainly be glad you only have one anchor to lift - cannot knock it. Simple, Sadly we would be tucked up in the corner of the anchorage, knitting out, fast asleep oblivious to your plight

With your fool proof ground tackle I'm not sure but: you do not cruise without spare anchors?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I am exhausted just reading about all those options

One good, big, anchor. Simple.

Sometimes things can be accepted pretty much at face value. As far as anchors goes it just seems that maybe a smaller anchor is enough, but BIGGER IS BETTER! And saying otherwise over and over doesn't change this.

But I don't think this thread will ever end until someone either posts answer that OP wants or repsonses to the thread just stop!

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Don L

Sometimes things can be accepted pretty much at face value. As far as anchors goes it just seems that maybe a smaller anchor is enough, but BIGGER IS BETTER! And saying otherwise over and over doesn't change this.

But I don't think this thread will ever end until someone either posts answer that OP wants or repsonses to the thread just stop!

Or you just close the thread because of repetitiveness.

People do what they do, because they do it.

This thread, although informative, did not pull anyone over the fence.