New Anchor Chain

[slug]

Stern too works

But its for special situations

Wind on the stern and no surge

It also takes a lot of skilled manpower

I prefer a deep anchor when possible

[a64pilot]

Another issue on chain life of smaller chain is because it’s smaller, the bearing surface between the links is less, so the loads on the galvanizing will be higher, and it will wear off significantly faster.

So far as chain rust is concerned, it’s seems since I have taken to washing off my chain with fresh water as it goes into the locker, it seems to have almost stopped rusting.
I theorize the salt not being there of course helps, but it also seems to dry off much faster without the salt. Drying off doesn’t matter when you anchor every day, but I spend Summers at a dock and a damp salty chain seems to rust then of course.

But the telling thing is your statement that it doesn’t seem to affect trim or really sailing speed, so what’s to grain by spending more money on chain that won’t last as long?

We spend a lot of time on the forum discussing theoretical advantages of things, like the fat stiff coax, but I believe a lot of time the actual difference is so little as to not be noticed.

Me, personally even if you never used it, I would splice some rope to the chain. What do you lose?
8 plait maybe for dock lines, but why would you want it for rode?

[Breaking Waves]

^^ I guess my (and the chile cruising crowd's) experience would suggest that shore ties work quite well. We never ever had a shore tie situation drag or feel insecure. We (and many of the chile crowd) use it elsewhere around the world (we found common use in scotland, PNW, the other side of greenland, etc) and it continued to work well. In fact after chile experince most of us comment that we feel less secure when just hanging on an anchor (in the normal way) that we cant see.

With a shore tie, the 'bad' situation is not to do with the bottom/anchor, but if you get strong wind on the beam on a side you are not protected by shore effects andand cant take ropes out that direction. You would like to avoid that, because the loads go up . . but while it occasionally caused us some stress was never in fact a problem.

I dont think the Dashews ever went to chile - right? I'm not sure why but 80' ( the big charter boats were 80' and did do shore ties all the time, but bigger than that and they tapered off on the approach) was sort of a size limit on people doing shore ties down there. I guess on big boats you get to a point where the shore lines are just too bulky and heavy to handle, and you dont want to be manouvering around in tight little coves.

On our bigger boat (still smaller than yours) we had 300' of chain, again split into 2 lengths, and we usually had 150' in the bows with rope (and the other 150 in bilge) and that was sufficient 95% of the time to be on chain (plus ocasionally a very small amount of rope out). We put the extra chain on for chile (and the pacific) ... because in shore ties it is nice to set the anchor out some way from shore so you are not messing around to close . . . and you do end up with massive near infinate (when you take into account the positive upslope) scope.

I personally have only very rarely needed more than 150' of chain, and I dont mind using/handling rope on the end of the chain. Yes, fully agree with the people who say Rope/chain is a bit more work/hassle . . . it is . . but it is also perfectly doable/managable. I will agree that single handing on a >35' boat, all chain (with a good windless setup) is super nice from an easy of handling perspective.

I do look at depths when planning our anchorages . . . and if its going to be 40m with no shore tie . . . .then usually I decide to go some place else And that has not seemed to limit my number of terrific places to visit

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

8 plait maybe for dock lines, but why would you want it for rode?

It flakes into a chain locker very nicely, much like chain does. And it packs down quite compactly. So it's easier to have the windlass feed it into the locker and then dump chain on top of it without tangling or anything than 3 strand would be. My total rode (90 ft of 5/16 G43 and 300 ft of 5/8" 8 plait) takes up something like 1.5 or 1.6 cubic feet in the locker. Having 3 strand in there would lead to far more air space in the lower part of the locker and a larger volume to store the whole rode.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

^^ I guess my (and the chile cruising crowd's) experience would suggest that shore ties work quite well. We never ever had a shore tie situation drag or feel insecure. We (and many of the chile crowd) use it elsewhere around the world (we found common use in scotland, PNW, the other side of greenland, etc) and it continued to work well. In fact after chile experince most of us comment that we feel less secure when just hanging on an anchor (in the normal way) that we cant see.

With a shore tie, the 'bad' situation is not to do with the bottom/anchor, but if you get strong wind on the beam on a side you are not protected by shore effects andand cant take ropes out that direction. You would like to avoid that, because the loads go up . . but while it occasionally caused us some stress was never in fact a problem.

I dont think the Dashews ever went to chile - right? I'm not sure why but 80' ( the big charter boats were 80' and did do shore ties all the time, but bigger than that and they tapered off on the approach) was sort of a size limit on people doing shore ties down there. I guess on big boats you get to a point where the shore lines are just too bulky and heavy to handle, and you dont want to be manouvering around in tight little coves.

On our bigger boat (still smaller than yours) we had 300' of chain, again split into 2 lengths, and we usually had 150' in the bows with rope (and the other 150 in bilge) and that was sufficient 95% of the time to be on chain (plus ocasionally a very small amount of rope out). We put the extra chain on for chile (and the pacific) ... because in shore ties it is nice to set the anchor out some way from shore so you are not messing around to close . . . and you do end up with massive near infinate (when you take into account the positive upslope) scope.

I personally have only very rarely needed more than 150' of chain, and I dont mind using/handling rope on the end of the chain. Yes, fully agree with the people who say Rope/chain is a bit more work/hassle . . . it is . . but it is also perfectly doable/managable. I will agree that single handing on a >35' boat, all chain (with a good windless setup) is super nice from an easy of handling perspective.

I do look at depths when planning our anchorages . . . and if its going to be 40m with no shore tie . . . .then usually I decide to go some place else And that has not seemed to limit my number of terrific places to visit

OK, obviously I'm missing something on shore ties, and I will defer to yours (and everyone else's) greater experience. I guess I need to cast aside my prejudices and try it. If I go back up to Greeland next summer (and maybe Jan Mayen -- toying with the plan) then I'll need to figure out a way to mount reels on deck.



For chain, I guess I'm leaning toward just biting the bullet and doing another 100m of 12mm. If I weren't thinking about Greenland again maybe I wouldn't, but up there it sure is nice having all that heavy chain. There are times when you REALLY don't have any choice but anchoring in 40 meters. You can't just "go somewhere else" -- there just isn't any shelter anywhere. In many, maybe most of the few coves in Scorsebysund, you have 30 meters of water, 30 meters from the rocks, and you feel damned lucky to find 40 meters somewhere and a flattish bottom.


Add to that mix that the water is full of ice . . .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

It flakes into a chain locker very nicely, much like chain does. And it packs down quite compactly. So it's easier to have the windlass feed it into the locker and then dump chain on top of it without tangling or anything than 3 strand would be. My total rode (90 ft of 5/16 G43 and 300 ft of 5/8" 8 plait) takes up something like 1.5 or 1.6 cubic feet in the locker. Having 3 strand in there would lead to far more air space in the lower part of the locker and a larger volume to store the whole rode.

And besides that doesn't hockle. 8 plait rules for anchor rode.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

. . . So far as chain rust is concerned, it’s seems since I have taken to washing off my chain with fresh water as it goes into the locker, it seems to have almost stopped rusting.. .

That sounds reasonable, and I do wash my chain when i can, but where do you get the fresh water when you're off grid? I would have to bring it in buckets from the galley.

[GTom]

If you make anchoring in 40+m water a habit, I'd keep the 12mm/100m heavy chain plus add a heavy (20mm?) octoplait.

Regarding heavy: you could ask these guys for 12mm studlink.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

For chain, I guess I'm leaning toward just biting the bullet and doing another 100m of 12mm. If I weren't thinking about Greenland again maybe I wouldn't, but up there it sure is nice having all that heavy chain. There are times when you REALLY don't have any choice but anchoring in 40 meters. You can't just "go somewhere else" -- there just isn't any shelter anywhere. In many, maybe most of the few coves in Scorsebysund, you have 30 meters of water, 30 meters from the rocks, and you feel damned lucky to find 40 meters somewhere and a flattish bottom.

In a place like that, I'd either go for the 100 meters like you're thinking, or reduce to no less than 70 meters or so. And in either case, I'd be tempted to add some rope behind it, either another 30+ meters or until you reach the reasonable capacity of the locker. Even if you don't expect to use the rope portion, your windlass can manage it and it gives more options in the really deep places (for a fairly small cost and weight penalty).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GTom

If you make anchoring in 40+m water a habit, I'd keep the 12mm/100m heavy chain plus add a heavy (20mm?) octoplait.

Regarding heavy: you could ask these guys for 12mm studlink.

Well, I'm limited by my chain gypsy, which wants 12mm calibrated short link chain, and 20mm "hard laid" 3 strand.


For 50 meters of water, yeah, I would want more than 100m of chain, no matter how heavy.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

In a place like that, I'd either go for the 100 meters like you're thinking, or reduce to no less than 70 meters or so. And in either case, I'd be tempted to add some rope behind it, either another 30+ meters or until you reach the reasonable capacity of the locker. Even if you don't expect to use the rope portion, your windlass can manage it and it gives more options in the really deep places (for a fairly small cost and weight penalty).

Yeah, maybe that makes sense. 70m of chain and say 70 m of rope -- ought to save some weight and cost, and add some options with little loss of any advantages.

[Kelkara]

If you're running short of chain in deeeep anchorages, it seems like a no-brainer to add 40m of rope to the end of the chain ... it adds relatively little weight, and won't even touch the bottom in those circumstances.

I have 70m of chain with an extra 70m of rope spliced to the end ... under normal circumstances I'm on all-chain, but when I have to anchor in 30m I can go 3:1 without the rope touching the bottom, or (if swinging room allows) 4.5:1 if I want a longer scope on a windy night.

[GTom]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, I'm limited by my chain gypsy, which wants 12mm calibrated short link chain, and 20mm "hard laid" 3 strand.


For 50 meters of water, yeah, I would want more than 100m of chain, no matter how heavy.

Right, stud links might not fit to your gypsy. Same type then what you had, maybe longer.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I'll need to figure out a way to mount reels on deck.

We kept our shore lines (and spare anchor rodes) in mesh bags. The key was the bag should be tall and narrow. That allowed the rope to run out without tangling. That is the opposite of the traditional 'duffle bag' shape (which is short and wide and can cause the rope to tangle when comming out)

The bags were as fast as spools for running the line out, a bit slower than spools for getting the lines back in, and much more convenient for stowage (and keeping the decks clean when offshore). And they were dirt cheap (I sewed them, but any seamstreess would do for little money).

It takes a certain 'eye' to know when you see a good spot for shore ties. You definately develop that eye after a couple years in chile - and it is then a skill you have transferable to other place. It's probably harder to pick up elsewhere and there is not much written on it.

Our windless gypsy's (lewmar and Simson Lawrence) all pulled both 3 strand and 8 plait pretty well. You just ocasionally needed to baby the rope to chain splice around if the splice was a bit stiff, otherwsie it was a hands off operation. I have always put a 100m of rope on the end of the chain, even when i had 300' of chain, just did not see any downside to it. Our windlesses were always rated so that they could in fact pick up the full chain and anchor hanging streight down (I think this is an MCA and RINA requirement for classed boats. I could be mistaken, but I do remember when we were getting RINA class the surveryor require us to do it).

I do not know your side of greenland. I remember that Seal did shore ties over there, but they are a flat bottom centerboard boat with super heavy plating, so they can go in real close to shore behind rocks and are not too concerned with drying out. The west coast had a lot of nice spots.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

. . . I do not know your side of greenland. I remember that Seal did shore ties over there, but they are a flat bottom centerboard boat with super heavy plating, so they can go in real close to shore behind rocks and are not too concerned with drying out. The west coast had a lot of nice spots.

"My side of Greenland" (what a nice concept, to think that part of it is "mine" ) is the frozen side -- the current runs clockwise around Greenland, so in the East it flows from the North Pole, so the East side is frozen most of the year, Scorsebysund has only recently started to break up in the middle to late July or so and in the past some years didn't break up at all. It's not just frozen, it's the desolate and rocky side -- only 5,000 people out of Greenland's 55,000 live in the East, and all but 350 of those live in the Southeast. It's the most utterly remote and desolate place I've ever been. There is no place to hide in case of bad weather, just one place actually in the whole fjord complex which sort of resembles decent shelter (in the Bear Islands). In other places we mostly anchored onto river silt deposits at the mouths of glacial rivers, with hardly any kind of shelter.

There were a couple of places where, if I had had long enough ropes, I might have been able to tie off in two different directions. Now that would be a different level of security. The ropes would need to be 150m+ each for that. Maybe they could be made out of Acera Amundsen to keep the weight and bulk in reasonable limits. The boats I saw with reels on deck seemed to be using polyprop, and in huge quantities, maybe hundreds of meters.

Another issue with shore ties is what do you tie TO. There are no trees. I always used trees for shore ties in the Aegean, but there are none in NE Greenland, not a single tree anywhere. I guess it would take a chain around a big rock or something. The Swedes use spikes for their little shore ties in the Baltic, but I don't think I could deal with that with confidence, for this use case.

Bit of a faff. Anchoring in 40m starts to look good again. I felt quite secure in the Bear Islands, and we went through one storm like that, the only storm we experienced up there. But of course -- you are 100% dependent, on nothing going wrong. No margin of error. The rocks are 120m -- 150m away in every direction. Drag even a little in a blow and you are stuffed, possibly dead, as there are no rescue services, no harbor, nothing. To get the expedition permit from the Greenlandic government, I had to sign a waiver in bold type stating that I agreed that in case of trouble, I WOULD NOT BE RESCUED. Ha! Tends to focus the mind!