Upgrading to a Smaller Anchor

[kmacdonald]

When replacing an older CQR or Delta anchor with a new generation anchor should you get a lighter new gen since they work so much better? If so, how much smaller?

[wingssail]

It is my view that the reason they work better is that they are bigger.

I know, I know, I've seen the tests but they don't seem to jive with my own experience. My 44' Bruce has been excellent. But now every 45' boat has to have a 60-80lb new generation or they can't sleep at night.

I remain unconvinced.

[sailorboy1]

The weight and cost difference between a new gen of same size as you used to having with an old style seems counter to the purpose of switching. Get the same size or even bigger.

I went from a 45# Delta to a 60# Manson Sirpreme. In 10 years i5 has never dragged once set and failed to right away twice.

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

When replacing an older CQR or Delta anchor with a new generation anchor should you get a lighter new gen since they work so much better? If so, how much smaller?

If you already have the gear to handle a particular weight of anchor, why go lighter?

I think a strong case can be made that going from CQR of weight X to next-gen of weight X is going to improve your situation.

Going from CQR of weight X to a next-gen of lesser weight, I don’t think anybody here can say anything conclusive about that.

And even if there were a well-defined relationship between ‘weight’ and ‘performance’ for both of these anchors, why would you choose to nullify the performance gain of switching to a next-gen anchor by undersizing it?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

The weight and cost difference between a new gen of same size as you used to having with an old style seems counter to the purpose of switching. Get the same size or even bigger.

I went from a 45# Delta to a 60# Manson Sirpreme. In 10 years i5 has never dragged once set and failed to right away twice.

Maybe that's why everyone says a new gen is better, it might just be the size difference if they are buying bigger.
I have a Rocna 15kg on the bow now but might try a Manson 10kg with a foot or two of 1/4" chain to make anchoring easier.

[Lost Horizons]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

When replacing an older CQR or Delta anchor with a new generation anchor should you get a lighter new gen since they work so much better? If so, how much smaller?

Just go with the new anchor manufacturer’s recommendations. It is irrelevant what size your old anchor was. If you anticipate anchoring in conditions with very strong winds and short scope, you may increment the recommended size, but in my experience it is not needed. In a muddy PNW bottoms, Rocna sized according to the manufacturer’s specifications held at 1.7:1 scope when backing up at 2500 RPM (45 hp Yanmar, 2.35 transmission ratio) in my tests, which should be similar to the force of 50-55 kn wind. That was a 60 feet of chain in 35 feet of water, so technically, the scope was even shorter accounting for the distance from the water to the bow roller. I am guessing, it should hold with the wind in excess of 100 kn with a proper scope in a similar bottom.

[barnakiel]

You can get a lighter anchor if you get a Fortress style one.


b.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

You can get a lighter anchor if you get a Fortress style one.


b.

I have a couple of those. They are great until the wind changes direction.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by chris95040

If you already have the gear to handle a particular weight of anchor, why go lighter?

I think a strong case can be made that going from CQR of weight X to next-gen of weight X is going to improve your situation.

Going from CQR of weight X to a next-gen of lesser weight, I don’t think anybody here can say anything conclusive about that.

And even if there were a well-defined relationship between ‘weight’ and ‘performance’ for both of these anchors, why would you choose to nullify the performance gain of switching to a next-gen anchor by undersizing it?

Chris95040, Perhaps the performance gain he is looking for is derived from having less weight on the bow?

[Panope]

Because I used a 33 Bruce on a 15,000 lb boat for 10 years without problem, I could say that a small Bruce is all that is needed - But I will not say that. (Loved that anchor)

Because I just tested a 21 pound Spade on this same 15,000 lb boat, and it performed perfectly, I could say that a very small Spade is all that is needed - But I will not say that.

Because I have driven in automobiles for for 50+ years without being in a head-on collision, I could say that shoulder harnesses and air bags are not necessary - But I will not say that.

Safety systems should be designed with large margins to cope with unknown/unforseen/unusual circumstances. For example, I might drop my anchor on a beach towel, a stick, or a clump of heavy weed and only get a partial set. Some other vessel may drag into mine at 3 a.m. resulting in my anchor now holding 2 boats. I may be forced to use very short scope due to small or overcrowded anchorages. Or maybe I will simply blow-it and do a crappy job of anchoring. In all those cases, a larger anchor will give higher holding power and therefore be safer.

I use 45 lb anchors regardless of design, rating, or holding power because that is the weight that I can comfortably handle (boat does not care how big the anchor is). If someone developed an anchor that was 10 times better than what is available today, I would still use a 45 pounder.

Steve

[kmacdonald]

Great points Steve. I guess it comes down to how well you sleep at night. I don't have a windlass so that's the main reason I like to go light. I also like to keep the boat as light as possible and every pound counts.

[LittleWing77]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I have a Rocna 15kg on the bow now but might try a Manson 10kg with a foot or two of 1/4" chain to make anchoring easier.

It's not about making anchoring easier. It's about keeping your boat safe.

My two cents would be to stick with the Rocna.

LittleWing77

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by LittleWing77

It's not about making anchoring easier. It's about keeping your boat safe.

My two cents would be to stick with the Rocna.

LittleWing77

It's really not that simple. There are other variables at play, at least in my mind. Anchor retrieval ease happens to be second on my list. In my case, dragging isn't usually a catastrophic event with the muddy bottom of the Chesapeake. When I go to Maine I might consider a bigger or different anchor.

[rslifkin]

With no windlass, optimizing a bit makes sense. That's when a moderately sized primary is fine, but carry something big (even if it's light like a large fortress) for the times when you might need more.

For those with windlasses, it makes sense to just use the big guns all the time and not worry about it. In my case, I went up a size from the chart even though I probably had no need to. But I was going to need to modify the pulpit either way, so it was no extra effort, only a little extra cost, and it gave me more margin for error for crappy bottoms and short scope. And compared to the weight of the boat, the rest of the ground tackle, etc the 20 lbs isn't much. I probably pulled more than that of junk off the boat over the winter anyway.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Great points Steve. I guess it comes down to how well you sleep at night. I don't have a windlass so that's the main reason I like to go light. I also like to keep the boat as light as possible and every pound counts.

I reckon that a light sleeper might do fine with smaller gear as they will be woken by the slightest change.

Myself, I sleep like death no matter what. I'd likely sleep through the anchor drag alarm (gps signals wont pass through aluminum - must place phone in pilothouse) and only be woken by the boat grinding away on the cliff walls.....