Chain Versus Rope Scope ?

[Shanaly]

area is increased by the new larger plate of the shoe

[jewel114]

Originally Posted by avb3

I understand the why of having a 5-1 or 7-1 scope when using chain, but why would the same hold true for rope?

With chain, the weight acts as part of what holds you in place, along with the anchor. With rope, that is not the case.

It would seem to me, that once you have enough scope out for the anchor to set as it is designed, that the rest would only be needed to allow for the variance in wave or swell action, along with tides.

In other words, once you have allowed enough scope for that, any additional over and above should be irrelevant.

What am I not understanding about the concept?

This is not a smartass remark. Have you ever anchored? Harley

[avb3]

Originally Posted by jewel114

This is not a smartass remark. Have you ever anchored? Harley

As I have stated in a number of posts, I am a neophyte. This forum allows some of us to learn before we make the mistakes others did in practice. I notice you have made some interesting comments in this thread, and thanks for that.

[NorthPacific]

Crap,

I am buggering of fto the south Pacific Soon. Coral sounds like it can screw up my nice thick rode. The bit about wet nylon has me real worried. **** I am glad I never knew that when I face climbed in Langdale the Alps or Yosemite.

So I will probably get some chain probably about another 100 ft. stuck onto the rode that I have. Coral anchorages tend to be shallower than fiord spots up north. Ill let you know if I change my mind. Found a sit that shows away of bouying chain so that it does not get wrapped on coral. Post it if anyone interested.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by avb3

As I have stated in a number of posts, I am a neophyte. This forum allows some of us to learn before we make the mistakes others did in practice. I notice you have made some interesting comments in this thread, and thanks for that.

Scope determines the angle of pull on the anchor. Imagine a triangle with angles at your bow, sea bed directly below, anchor. If you lengthen one side of the triangle, you make the angle of the angle at the anchor shallower. So the force transmitted along the rode tends to pull the anchor more along the seabed and less up out of the seabed. Got it? The wider the angle, the more the anchor will tend to be pulled up out of the seabed.

And this is the principle by which we disengage our anchors from the seabed in order to raise anchor. Haul in the rode until the scope is 1:1, then let the natural action of the waves pull the anchor right out.

[NorthPacific]

Have a Sailor on a large maple leaf 44, lots of windage, welded in about 20lbs of lead into his CQR swears it is the smartest thing he ever did when it comes to ground tackle.

[dandrews]

Originally Posted by NorthPacific

Have a Sailor on a large maple leaf 44, lots of windage, welded in about 20lbs of lead into his CQR swears it is the smartest thing he ever did when it comes to ground tackle.

That must have been a tricky weld job with the melt point of steel and lead being so very different. Wonder what he used for his welding rod/wire.

Don

[River Cruiser]

If it was a galvinized anchor I think you might get lead to adhere to it. Add lead in the right area of the anchor & it may help.

[sww914]

Lead will stick to bare steel almost indefinately, if protected from the elements. For instance, all Porsche 911's have lead hiding the roof to body seams, under the paint, and the failure rate is about zero. The same is true for virtually all American cars built befor the 1990's. I am sure that there are many other automotive examples but these are the two that I've seen many times. You must tin the steel and apply the molten lead to the steel when it's glowing slightly red or a little cooler. It's soldering, basically.

[webejammin]

I like the idea of adding 20 lb's of weight to my 45 lb CQR but that does not add more width of the plow blade like a 65lb CQR does. On my anchor there is a steel bar across the bottom of the anchor that I think lead could be melted around to hold the extra weight on the anchor. I could see it might make the anchor bottom heavy and plow in better making my 45 into a 65 lb cheeply.

I wish I had read this before last spring when we bought our ground tackle

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sww914

Lead will stick to bare steel almost indefinately, if protected from the elements. For instance, all Porsche 911's have lead hiding the roof to body seams, under the paint, and the failure rate is about zero. The same is true for virtually all American cars built befor the 1990's. I am sure that there are many other automotive examples but these are the two that I've seen many times. You must tin the steel and apply the molten lead to the steel when it's glowing slightly red or a little cooler. It's soldering, basically.

Right! Lead was used as body filler before Bondo was invented. I guess that dates those of us who remember . . .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by webejammin

I like the idea of adding 20 lb's of weight to my 45 lb CQR but that does not add more width of the plow blade like a 65lb CQR does. On my anchor there is a steel bar across the bottom of the anchor that I think lead could be melted around to hold the extra weight on the anchor. I could see it might make the anchor bottom heavy and plow in better making my 45 into a 65 lb cheeply.

I wish I had read this before last spring when we bought our ground tackle

I think that weight and fluke area fulfill different functions.

Increasing fluke area will increase maximum hold of a well-set anchor.

Increasing weight -- or density -- will improve setting, and increase your chances of being well-set.

I think any CQR needs all the help it can get in the second department, so I think adding lead is a great idea (not as good as throwing it away and buying something different, however). I spent a miserable decade anchoring with a CQR. They are hard to set well.

[cal40john]

Originally Posted by webejammin

I like the idea of adding 20 lb's of weight to my 45 lb CQR but that does not add more width of the plow blade like a 65lb CQR does. On my anchor there is a steel bar across the bottom of the anchor that I think lead could be melted around to hold the extra weight on the anchor. I could see it might make the anchor bottom heavy and plow in better making my 45 into a 65 lb cheeply.

I wish I had read this before last spring when we bought our ground tackle

Swap meets in Seattle, I assume there are swap meets in Portland. Keep an eye out on Craigslist. I was looking for a storm anchor. I traded a 35 lb CQR straight across for a 60 lb CQR on Craigslist. He was tired of hauling up the 60 lbs, and I wanted something big, would have preferred a newer design. I've got a spare bent 22 lb Danforth if someone's looking to get rid of a Manson Supreme, or a Chinese Rocna

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Right! Lead was used as body filler before Bondo was invented. I guess that dates those of us who remember . . .

Don't worry it is still used in car restoration's today, i used it on my last one 2 years ago....

The fumes will kill ya tho....

[zeehag]

3 boats anchored in a harbor. one is 28 ft and has down what looked like 30-50 ft of chain plus rope rode. bruce anchor--was quite cute...small...
another is a 41 ft formosa with 150 ft 5/16 chain on bottom with 45 pound cqr.
third boat is a 65 ft schooner with 100 ft total chain out, mebbe 75 ft on bottom.
wind blowing 20 kts with added gusts.

the guy with the rope rode moved around so much he thought he was dragging anchor , when in fact, at that time , he was not.
the schooner, with her 1/2 in chain, dragged 2 times, now has 150 ft on bottom.
formosa stayed put, just walked a lil chain pout to full leng 4th boat-- in 2009-2010, every time was anchored with 30 ft 3/8 chain and 100 ft nylon 3 strand rode, dragged whenever there was a bit of wind--over 20 kts.


seems that the best solution is to have as much chain and weight on bottom as possible, NOT ROPE so that when the wind blows, the boat stays stuck in the mud, not wandering all over the bay.