CQR Anchors

[ssullivan]

Catmando: I think you're onto something here. I have seen the same type of stats. Each anchor has stats to support it and as proved on this thread, most of the data seems to be garbage created to support a particular anchor manufacturer.

I suspect most of these anchors bascially do the same thing with the same degree of success, if used in a way they are designed to be used. As Rick points out, boats have been anchoring without dragging since the dawn of time. I'd say the only huge differences are danforth style vs. the Delta/Rocna/CQR... and the fisherman's (the hook like on popeye's arm). Other than that... and maybe the mushroom, it's all the same junk.

My boat came with a CQR which has worked tremendously well for me. Others have Deltas which have worked tremendously well for them. Yet others have some of the latest designs from the above authors, which work well for them. Basically, you could throw a small car over the bow with a chain attached and it would do the exact same thing.

[Pblais]

I would agree Sean. Deployment is the part of the test they can't really test. How do they know if you have any clue about setting an anchor. Proper deployment will tell you that you never set the anchor in the first place and need to reset it again. I serious conditions using a second anchor would be prudent. I would like to know how many boats drag anchor because the anchor was never properly set.

With no wind I can drop a 45 lb anchor and 160 lbs of chain and stay put with just dead weight. I only can feel secure if I properly set the anchor too. So they test in different bottom conditions, but not all conditions and all depths. The anchor you know and can tell when it is really set is the better anchor to use. Having a second anchor that is perhaps a different style may the the real total solution as well.

For myself, my Bruce and CQR have only failed to set on the very first attempt one time and the Bruce set on the second attempt because I knew it wasn't set the first time.

[Alan Wheeler]

Good points Paul. Sean, your comments are exactly what I stated very early on in the thread. Every single test IU have seen is flawed in some way and results always seem to get screwed to suit the manufacturer.
I have my own anchor (photo's in gallery) on my bow. I also have my CQR. So far I am having great results with my own anchor. Will I get rid of the CQR? NO WAY!!! I'd be a fool. I bet I will find a time that my own anchor will not set and the CQR will.
The CQR and Bruce were not designed by fools. These both have had years of use and have a reputation IMO that is unsurpassed by any other anchor. Due to time of being around of course.

I wonder though, can we as a Forum do a very involved Cruisers Forum test on anchors?? Or are we doomed to be no more relaible than any of the magazine articles, due to the fact that there are just too many variables.
If you all think we can do it, then I propose we design a test procedure on here and hone it till we come to an agreement on a good test range to be carried out.
Then we need some volunteers to do the testing. I propose some of you that can get together with you boats and carry out the testing over say an entire weekend or something.
Thoughts???

[Paul Elliott]

It seems to me that some of us are discounting the resetting issue. Certainly poor technique can make any anchor look bad, but if my anchor pulls out as the boat swings, it had better reset well, because I probably won't be monitoring the process. Even then, given the chance of fouling as it tries to reset, I would prefer that it stay buried as my boat swings.

By the way, I've got a Spade, a Delta, a Lewmar Claw, and a Fortress (hanging on the stern), and they have all worked well for me, admittedly under moderate conditions. I have had the Delta drag in soupy mud, and the Fortress drag under too-short scope. I don't do all that much anchoring, though.

[ssullivan]

Wheels, sorry to quote you without reading all the way back to what you had originally said. Whoops!

I lived at anchor from April 06 until Oct 06 this year. I think we are doomed to be unreliable, just as the magazines are, but with one important difference. We represent a vast body of applied knowledge. What a sailor (new or old) learns from reading this post will be of tremendous help to him or her in understanding anchors and making sense of those magazine tests.

[Rick]

Wheels, I just don't know....I've always been confused by the conflicting, and supposed "unbiased" various anchor tests that have appeared over the decades. There is just something about all of those tests that does not seem to adequately simulate the real world experiences of mine and others. Steady pulls, jerks, and pull-out-and-reset is all too difficult to define as each of us has their own methods of setting an anchor in the first place. Current and surge from heavy waves are just not ever properly simulated, as far as I could determine, by any of the tests. Add to that all of the various bottoms that exist and making a good test becomes very daunting at the least.

When in warm (and sometimes cold) clear waters I always made an attempt to dive on my set anchors. On most occasions when swinging to tidal shifts I could tell that my CQR would NOT pull out, it would rotate around as it was buried and set in the new direction. Several times I actually spent the time watching during a wind and/or tide shift to make that observation. I was not as happy with my Bruce in that regard. It would sometimes pull out before resetting and it sometimes took more geography to make the set. In heavy mud that was not true, tho.

In Belize I anchored in several places inside the reef where the water was fairly shallow and there was a flat hard cement-like coral bottom covered by only a few inches of sand. I would dive and look for a circularly enclosed lip of area that usually was only about 1/2 inch of a drop. I would place the CQR inside that area and observed that here was where the reticulating design of the CQR REALLY came into play. The tip would follow the lip as the boat swung around always keeping the boat from dragging away merely by the tip and lip of that hard ridge. The reticulation of the shank allowed the tip to always follow the edge without falling over and levering out of the ridge...cool, huh? Without that it would have been relatively impossible to anchor on that bottom without dragging.

[ssullivan]

Wow! I think Rick might have just posted the most informative post here regarding how an anchor works while "veering." I had always been very curious about that. Thanks Rick, for answering my question a while back to the anchor manufacturers. Now we know for certain that a CQR (and probably many others) rotate without coming free and resetting.

Very interesting!

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Hi Alan.

I did those tests myself when I was already an anchor designer but not a Manufacturer..
And I throw away my CQR.. to manufacture something much better..

The test you will do will be as flawed than the ones of the Sailing magazines.. just because you will never find a sea bottom perfectly identical (it could change very rapidly in a few meters or less..) You will also have changing conditions, tides, wind..
You need a very powerfull boat to pull the anchors as you have to go over the anchor limits.. (and some are very high.)

Then you must record the curves using a strain gauge and a computer. If you want precise measurements..

An entire week end will not be enough, by far.. If you really want to have a good test, you should perform as much test as possible with any single anchor.. and it is very time consuming..

Yes CQR and Bruce anchors have not been designed by fools.. but everything can be improved, and to improve something, you must first make your own errors. Just an example, the CQR is hardly the only one to have a pivoting shank.. no one single “new generation” anchor has it.. It would have been so easy to copy it.. but this feature was a big mistake..

“These both have had years of use and have a reputation IMO that is unsurpassed by any other anchor.”

Perhaps you should also consider that the experience of the CQR is quite short in comparison to the one of the Fisherman anchor.. (70 compared to 2000 + years). and the Fisherman anchor has still strong believers.. The CQR and the Bruce were a great improvement over the Fisherman.. but the World is still going on, and many improvements have been done over the original design of both the CQR and the Bruce, like for all other products.. electronics, planes, cars etc..

You are probably right when talking about “reputation” but I strongly believe that is the only point left where both anchors have not been surpassed by new models :0)

As I told my kids often "don't slag something until you've tried it".
Is that a relevant statement here?? I suspect it maybe.

Try all anchors, all in the same conditions, but not only with fair winds, but also on hard sand, weed, soft mud, and with winds stronger than 50 knots, and then I will be very interested to see if you opinion will change or not??

[Rick]

No offense, Alain, but the statement, "don't slag something until you've tried it" and other ones similar, is a logical fallicy. The fallacy is that one cannot credibly criticize anything unless one has actually performed the act oneself. A great example is to not criticize suicide unless one first commits sucide. Another example is that one cannot criticize an opera singer unless one IS an opera singer. Not true.

[Tropic Cat]

easy Rick, we're just talkin anchors here.

It's true that it's a passionate enough subject, and everyone seems to have an opinion. A lot has to do on how and where we use our boats. I live in Florida and really try not to anchor in hurricanes. We have sand bottoms generally without vegetation. I use a Fortress and it's never let me down, but then again, I don't anchor a lot and my boat lives in a marina slip.

If I had lots of hard bottom, that's not the anchor I'd carry.

Rick in Florida

[Pblais]

I wonder though, can we as a Forum do a very involved Cruisers Forum test on anchors?? Or are we doomed to be no more reliable than any of the magazine articles, due to the fact that there are just too many variables.

Too many variables I think is the problem.

A magazine needs a test that can be understood in 25 words or less. The real world is not simple because we want it to be so. What would be cool would be video analysis of anchors pulling loose with all the instruments to really describe in a technical way why they failed as you watched. You could perform 100's of situations with a lot of anchors and spend a few years doing it and then another few analyzing it. Then make a reality TV show with boats crashing into the rocks that didn't work quite right. Stay tune when next week when we go to the Bay of Fundy ... .

Variable - boats, bottoms, anchors, rodes, sea states, current, tides, weather conditions, prices, and sailors. Now add limited press deadlines, budgets, skill, technology, and the rule that it all fits in a page and a half with a ranking score so we know who is the "best" making sure no advertisers do as bad as who ever came in last. This my friends is junk science at it's worst. More of it never really helps. Sometimes anything is not better than nothing at all - junk science. More of it won't help.

There seems to be this desire to say if you just throw this wiz bang anchor overboard your boat stays put and don't worry how you do it because the anchor is the whole solution. Just be sure you attach the rope.

Other than a straight 8 engine block I'm not ready to believe it can be done. In the end the whole point is later on I want to easily pull it in and leave. I never wanted to stay put in the first place. They don't tell you how easy it is to pull them up either! I wonder which is the easiest to pull in?

I think I can make a better case that to anchor a boat for an indefinite period of time is totally unwelcome if not impossible.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by Pblais

They don't tell you how easy it is to pull them up either! I wonder which is the easiest to pull in?

.

I think the easiest anchor to pull up is the one that has trouble setting and at least from those tests we can see which ones don't set.

If your boat has an anchor winch and sufficient power, getting it out shouldn't pose to much of a drama.

But if pulling up manually, some of these newer style ones could cause some grief.

But at the end of the day, when the $hit hit's, I want to know i'm attached.

If I have to leave an anchorage that goes bad, and can't get my incredibly well dug in anchor back, I suppose one could alway's attach a fender and line and come back when it's safe and retrieve it.

Would'nt be the first time i've done this out the reef.

Dave

[Rick]

Well put Paul. No one has published an anchor test using real boats anchoring in huge swells and wind on various bottoms because it just isn't feasable. Such dynamics associated with a real boat windage and displacement "sailing" at anchor might better be modeled with one of those $80k software dynamic similitude programs than any tugboat pull test might reveal.

Rick in Fl: Sorry that I "write" across without much of a smile sometimes yet I'm always cracking myself up from various of my own stupidities. "Wouldn't life be great if we could watch it all on videotape".

BTW: Cat Man Do deserves a kudo for having such a great name (as opposed to the usual "windrose, compass rose, valhalla, etc.). I have had to bouy off anchors a few times to retreive later which is why I cruise with 5 anchors of various types in addition to two for the dinghy.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by Rick

BTW: Cat Man Do deserves a kudo for having such a great name (as opposed to the usual "windrose, compass rose, valhalla, etc.). .

Thanks for that Rick, but I was beaten to the punch in Aus.

A cat is already called " Kathmandu " which means "Temple of Wood".

Pretty cool name for a timber composite cat.

Dave

[GMac]

No one has published an anchor test using real boats anchoring in huge swells and wind on various bottoms because it just isn't feasable.

And is not what 90% + of people do anyway. That is more the realm of the 'cruisier' not the majority of ma and pa boaters.

It is very very rare to see boaters here 'set' their anchor, it's more a chuck it over and grab a cold stubbie. This also applies in most other places worldwide that I have had the chance to observe. Also if you mention buoy off, snubbers and so on most would look at you as if you are speaking in tounges.

The nature of the beast says that cruisers are a fussy bunch because they know that a good anchoring system keeps them alive when stuck in the back blocks of Kiribati in 50 knots and swell. Due to this fussiness the cruiser does research, asks questions and the like. It is very very unusual to see a cruiser walk in and grab the closest lump of metal and walk out. The average punter asks a few questions of us but the cruiser tends to interrogate. I don't have the slightest problem with this and enjoy someone actually thinking about this for a change.

Just like cars. 95% of people (your average boater) buy what is recommended by the salesperson (not being PC as I employ girls as well ), their mate said to get or can get a deal on. Michael Shumacher (the cruiser) needs better gear so looks harder at it.

A good anchor must be made so that Ma and Pa can use it safely wether they actually know what it is or not. I suspect this is what most anchor manufacturers aim for. This is not going anywhere near the fact most cruisers are on very tight budgets (squeaky is another word ) and the manufacturer would go broke very fast if they only targetted the crusier.

This is the main reason I think the 'new gen' (I hate that phrase but never mind) are a step above over the older ones. Not completely foolproof but a big pile more than most especially a CQR type. Before anyone gets too excited I don't think a CQR is that bad as long as you have a well matched rode and know it's quirks.

Is there a perfect anchor? No. Will there ever be? I think there could be apart from one small but very significant point, the price, it would be massive. Is there a group of anchors that are more idiot proof than others? Yes I really do believe there is. Is this an improvement over the choices we had 15 years ago, abso-bloody-lutly.

I base these comments on things heard, asked and observed over the last 35 years odd of anchoring myself, having sold 1000's of anchors and feedback which I very active encourage and chase. The feedback we are getting about the new ones leads me to say with confidence "In 10 years time most of the common older designs will be talked about just like we now talk about wooden masts and manila ropes" i.e how cute but very old school

Sure I am in NZ where we have had all the contenders for a few years already, Supreme excluded. For any who may think I lean one way or the other due to commercial reasons can I say that as far as we know we are the only place in the entire world all of them are under one roof so that excludes that. Personally I do have my preferances which are fitted to my boat and they both come from differant stables as they need to do slightly differing jobs.

An anchor must be made for the general market, be as user friendly as possible, idiot proof as possible, set and reset well. Cruisers are not the general market, don't seem to mind mucking around a bit when anchoring and are not idiots..... err, well mostly anyway

And I'm not going near the effect a good rode has on any anchor, it can easily make a good anchor look bad or the other way around. See it all the time "my CQR is great" backed by all chain just as much as "my CQR is a bit of $hit" backed by a bit of garden string.

The main reasons tests will never be that good is because lots of factors can't be included. Wave, wind action and differing seabeds can be got around if someone has the time to work that through. The factors that can't be tested is the differing boats, differing rodes and the operator. So many differing people and so little clues with many