Primary anchor selection

[bcooke]

Hi all,

My boat came with a rediculously small Danforth type anchor so I am looking around for a primary anchor for my Triton. I am looking at a CQR or Bruce anchor but my problem is that the two anchors always seem to be lumped together in the "general purpose" category usable on sand, mud and to a lesser extent rock (and poor holding in weeds). With all the information out there I can never find comparisons between the two. Does anyone know any specific attributes that would make one or the other a better choice? My readings suggest that in the past the older CQR design was the one to have but newer preferences seem to be towards the Bruce which I believe is a newer design.

Right now I am planning on putting it on a bow platform with a large Danforth next to it as a secondary. Eventually I would like to keep a Fisherman stored below for the "when all else fails" scenario.

I am getting the feeling that either anchor does the exact same thing with minor differences that no one is really sure about.

Thanks again,

-Britton

[dasein668]

Am I having deja-vu? I feel like we already had this poll here...

No matter. I have a Bruce and a CQR on my bow platform. I haven't used the Bruce yet. I'm guessing I've anchored my boat something like 50-60 times in the past 3 years and I have not yet had the CQR drag once it was set. I have only had maybe 3 or 4 times when I have not had the CQR bite on the first attempt.

That's anchoring along the Maine coast. We have a variety of holding grounds, but I usually try to avoid rocky areas. The CQR is great in the mud bottoms that we have in many areas and seems to cut through weeds relatively well?despite some claims to the contrary.

In severely weedy or rocky areas most anchors will perform poorly, so if possible choose a different spot. These are the only conditions when I might choose a Fisherman... if I had one.

[George ( C&C 40 )]

Hi All,

Since the Chesapeake offers some of the best holding firm mud bottom around, we tend to always use small sized Danforth type anchors with 6 or 10 feet of chain. This provides excellent performance and I have never drifted once with this setup on my Triton. My C&C 40 uses a Danforth type anchor with an all chain rode. This tends to be a bit of overkill for the Chesapeake but it works well with the electric windless.

George Jones
C&C 40 "Delphinus"

[bcooke]

There may be another poll, I didn't find one on a quick search. It is certainly a common poll question and the results are of dubious value I suppose. Each one of us has different needs and thus has their own particular reasons for the ground tackle they choose. I have been wondering how that poll function works and got tempted into trying it.

The setup on my boat would be perfect for the Chesapeake then. Strange though that the boat has lived most of its life in Maine. I was told that the anchor was probably never dropped as the boat was only daysailed for 30+ years. There are some scars on the bow that suggest otherwise but they are probably pretty old. The Chesapeake and the local conditions around me now are reasons to keep the Danforth as a secondary on the anchor platform.

I do a lot of my sailing in Maine and would probably be fine with a CQR. I just wonder why others choose the Bruce. James Baldwin has a Bruce (based on his website) and has probably anchored his Triton in more types of bottoms than most. I don't know if he checks this site much, maybe I will try to bother him for an answer or opinion.

Most of my experience with the Fisherman comes from Outward Bound. All their pulling boats carry them. I would say they are not exceptional in any circumstances but they seem to work fairly well in all bottoms. They do tend to snag and they are brutally heavy which is why I wouldn't consider them as a primary.

-Britton

[bcooke]

P.S.

The best thing about Fisherman type anchors is that they look really cool hooked on the bow pulpit ready to go.

[dasein668]

I'm sure you would be happy with either a Bruce or CQR. I have both, as I said, but haven't found a situation where the CQR wasn't suitable. My CQR is a bit easier to deploy than my Bruce. That's the primary reason I use it over the Bruce. I keep the Bruce there for a spare basically. That said, I'm sure I could use the Bruce as my primary and be just as happy.

[Figment]

Just how "ridiculously small" is this danforth that came with your Triton? Seemingly small danforth anchors can provide a surprising amount of holding power, given enough chain.

My primary is a 14lb (I'm 90% sure) danforth with about 10' of chain, and it does a dandy job. I'm guessing that I could get away with something even smaller as a "lunch hook". The bottoms I frequent are generally sandy, muddy, or rocky (no heavy seagrass or kelp), and I've never had a problem hooking up or staying hooked, including one particularly hairy situation this year in 20-30kt winds, 3' seas and 4kt current.

Though I currently have another 14lb danforth as my backup anchor, in the back of my mind I want to pick up a Bruce-type claw for this function the next time I come across one at a tag sale. I think it makes sense for the backup to be a different type than the primary, but also it's an issue of stowability. The danforth is a pain to stow belowdeck, I currently have it lashed to the bulkhead in the Vberth, and this bugs me. A claw-type would lend itself better to stowing in a compartment somewhere, I think.

As I personally dislike stowing anchors on deck, I think that stowability also factors into primary anchor selection. Plows and claws (generally) require a bow roller for easy stowage and deployment, whereas the danforth can hang from the bow pulpit rail. Choose your poison.

I did some CQR vs Bruce research over the winter because I got a bug in my ear about it for some reason. You're right, there isn't much out there in terms of direct comparison. Practical Sailor does the occasional thing on anchors, but never really seems to bite into this question, as they generally use them as benchmarks for comparing newer designs that crop up on the market every so often. What I did learn, however, is that the engineering of the CQR is pretty precise and really does matter. Knock-offs (Delta, etc.) just don't seem to perform as well or as consistently as the genuine article. The "claw" category (Bruce, etc.) is rather more forgiving in this regard.

[Figment]

Come to think of it, we put the anchor through a pretty good test last night. 20kt winds gusting to 35kts, blowing 90-degrees-opposed to the outgoing tide. As the wind and tide fought to determine which direction the boat would lie, we swung through a 50-degree arc at least 8 or 10 times.

The harbor was INSANELY crowded (fireworks show) and has boat-eating rocks all over the place, so the margin for error was essentially nonexistant. I'll admit, all of that swinging about made me a little nervous, but the anchor never budged an inch.

I'm guessing that the owner of the Hinckley Pilot 38 anchored directly to leeward was also a little nervous watching us swing about like that!

[bcooke]

Just how "ridiculously small" is this danforth that came with your Triton? Seemingly small danforth anchors can provide a surprising amount of holding power, given enough chain.

Well, I may be overreacting a bit. I think it may have been more like 10 pounds but now that I buried it in storage I can't recall. The surveyor and broker joked about it too so I don't think I am alone in my doubtful opinion. You are very right in that the Danforth types hold surprisingly well for their size. That is until they let go and then they can have trouble resetting. I think also that they can trip themselves up with reversing tides as well (chain getting around the bars on the end or jammed between the flukes and shank). I usually try to get up and take a look after the boat swings. That said, I have used Danforths as my primary on past boats but only the larger sizes and with lots of chain as you mention. The majority of the time I sleep alone or at least with no anchor watch and I just can't sleep well if I don't just feel good about the anchor under me. I want lots of overkill.

I agree that anchors on deck can be a pain too - all that extra weight on a platform or constantly stubbing my toes on the foredeck. On the other hand my butt has been saved a few times by having an anchor ready to go. An old teacher of mine once said "When everything goes wrong, toss the anchor, even if it won't reach the bottom". I have never tried tossing them in the deep blue but even a dragging anchor can bring some calm to a bad situation (a broken rudder on a downwind leg comes to mind...)

Anchors over the v-berth? That must smell good :-) Don't have nightmares and jump out of bed too quick! On my last boat I could position two anchors in large basket thingies under a foredeck hatch. They were off the deck with the weight further aft and still easy to get to in a hurry. I don't think my Triton is going to be so accomadating.

I was leaning towards the CQR (and not a knock-off) but I couldn't explain to myself why I didn't consider the Bruce which is what got me thinking. I have never used the Bruce before and I would have thought it was easier to deploy then some of the others. The CQR easier than the Bruce to deploy... that is interesting. I think I may just contact Bruce Anchors directly and pose the question for them. I am sure they can dream up something believable for me!

Dragging into a Hinckley would be worse than putting my boat on the rocks. I know I can fix/ afford laying on the rocks but laying on a Hinckley could tie up my cruising funds for a long time.

Thanks for the input guys. I will let you know if Bruce anchor has anything worthy to say.

-Britton

[Dave, 397]

I like the Bruce for the relatively inexpensive nature of the hook and the very secure holding they provide in the muddy bottoms I am surrounded by. On the other hand I do think that something pointy (Delta, CQR, Etc.) might make for a more immediate penetration of the seabed foliage that many of our Puget Sound anchorages are blessed with.
One of the keen considerations for me in selecting a Bruce over a CQR is simply that I can actually AFFORD the Bruce! Now, that's just my circumstance. All the same, I have also had to leave an anchor before (I even had an engine at the time!) and would much rather leave the bruce than the CQR given the price tags. This, if memory serves, was the primary reason behind James' preference for the Bruce as well.

One fussy point I have with the Bruce...
I have seen the Chinese and Indian Bruce knockoffs bend (one of them including some cracking-!- at the shank-!!-and am a bit skeptical about the overall quality of third-world metal products in general. Both of my Bruces are old, Belgian-made ones and I feel pretty good about the way they make things! All the same, I was really disturbed to see a 'genuine Bruce' anchor at the store about a year ago...that was made in China!
Guess if I ever need another I'll have to buy it used like the other two.

I used to have a 10 Kilo for the primary and a little 5 Kilo for the stern on the Commander. For the Triton I think that the 10 Kilo makes a good all-around hook, but for most secure holding James recommended the 15 (?) Kilo...I just call it a '33-pound", and it is buried in the coat closet so I cannot readily tell you which Kg size it actually is.

With the 33 off the bow and the 22 off the stern, given adequate chain and good scope in reasonable holding ground...I think (hope) it would be pretty hard for the Triton to move without my wanting her to.

Best,
Dave

PS---A friend of mine decided once that he wanted to see just how well his 22-pound Bruce would set in mud, so he rowed it out in his dinghy and dumped it off at low tide, hooked up to his beefed-up 302-powered 1971 Ford Bronco with the big tires, mean gears and Tru-Trac diffs on the beach. The Bronco set it but could not break it out. I guess retrieving it was a lot of fun!

[dasein668]

Never gave the price any consideration, since I got both the CQR and the Bruce with the boat.

Here's why I say that the CQR is a bit easier to deploy (and retrieve, more importantly: the shank on the Bruce is taller than the CQR and tends to get hung up on the furling drum when I try to get it underneath and onto the roller.

[Tim]

The Practical Sailor anchor "tests" are completely meaningless, as are any manufacturer's ratings relating to some arbitrary "pounds required to pull the anchor out" setting or what have you. Anchoring in the real world is far removed from any sort of made-up situation.

Danforths, and similar anchors like the Fortress, are highly engineered and work very well for a light weight. This assumes that the anchor can properly dig itself in; the entire premise of Danforth anchors is that they dig deeply into the bottom (if sand, hard mud, or similar), and therefore provide excellent holding power for their weight. This is definitely true, and Danforths often work well. I think they are worth having on board, but hesitate to use them as a primary (or, even worse, as the only) anchor.

Danforths fail in rocks, loose mud, grass, and other bottom situations. They are also less good at resetting if they are flipped, as might happen during a wind or tide change. If the bottom is ideal, then the Danforth will probably reset itself, assuming nothing gets stuck between the flukes and shank. They have good holding power when properly set.

Anchors like the Bruce and CQR are somewhat more dependent on their weight for best performance. Therefore, you require a heavier anchor. Both types dig in well to a variety of bottoms, and both types seem to be highly favored by cruisers. Both are difficult to stow--the Bruce, in particular, is very bulky with its very wide flukes--and are best stowed permanently on anchor rollers. CQRs and Bruce anchors don't do well in rocks either, but may be better in grassy bottoms than the Danforth, as the sharper points tend to bite through (especially the CQR). In loose mud, the extra weight of these types can be more effective, though loose mud doesn't hold anything particularly well.

CQRs are well adapted to changes in pull direction, as are Bruces. I like having the anchors on rollers ready to go, just in case. I always have the CQR on the bow, hooked up and ready to drop, and the 13# Danforth on the stern. When cruising, I have the Bruce on the bow as well, but not early and late in the season when we're only daysailing for the most part.

Newer anchors are gaining favor, like the Delta Fast-Set (looks like a plow, but with no hinge), and the Spade. Full-time cruisers still seem to prefer the Bruce and CQR, however. Considering that these folks anchor nearly every day in a wide variety of conditions, over a period of months or even years, I would say that their opinions carry some (ahem) weight.

I carry a 35# CQR (it is widely said that there is "no CQR smaller than 35", indicating that the lighter ones may not work as well), 33# Bruce, 20# Danforth, and 13# Danforth. I believe in a wide variety of anchor types, as one type does not fit every situation--and no one has ever said they do, except perhaps the manufacturers. What I have is overkill, but I've too much wrapped up emotionally in my boat to skimp on my ground tackle. My Bruce has never been wet, nor have either of the Danforths. I have used the CQR exclusively with flawless results. I love it. I carry the Bruce on the bow for cruises so that I have a second anchor ready, should it be necessary. The 13# Danforth is stored as a stern anchor on the pulpit, ready for use as a kedge or whatever, and the other Danforth is a spare, or for use should both the CQR and Bruce fail to set.

Eventually, if I do any serious cruising, I will buy a large 60-ish # Paul Luke anchor (Fisherman type) as a storm anchor. No rush on that one.

I think the keys to successful anchoring are somewhat higher than required weight, longer amounts of chain (I use 30'), and, most importantly, SETTING the anchor once you have dropped it. I set my anchor each time with 1-2 minutes of 2500+ RPM in reverse. This has worked flawlessly. If you drag while setting the anchor in this manner, then consider yourself lucky. As annoying as it is when the anchor doesn't set on the first try (it usually does, BTW), it is far more annoying to deal with it in the middle of the night, or when bashing against that Hinckley. The wind can put far greater strains on your anchor than the engine ever could, so even this is no guarantee.

No matter the anchor, I don't sleep well if the wind comes up in the middle of the night. So the more I can stack the deck in my favor, the better. I am definitely prone to overpreparation, but the only time to prepare for any possibility is well in advance.

[Dave, 397]

There is a lot of good to be said about the Danforth anchor. As the no-doubt longwinded reply to follow might indicate, I'm actually a bit of a fan, with conditions.

It was a bit of time before I could come up with my first Bruce, and until then I used the pair of good-sized and ancient Danforths that came with the Commander. Not real heavy, but definitely good-sized. I had trouble getting the head anchor into the cockpit locker, for whatever sizing reference that makes (locker was the same opening size as the Triton). I had that big (-ish) Danforth hold in a Gale one night, and had the pair of them hold the boat in very thick bottom growth once against a pretty good current all night long (I did get up hourly to check my cross-bearings) only to discover on the get-up that there was nothing but kelp and grass on the hooks.

I think the big issue is really that there are a lot of cheapy Danforth-style anchors to be had out there that are simply not worth beans, largely due to the proportions of shank-vs-stock-vs-fluke. If you look at a "genuine" Danforth it is rather large for any given weight...and I think this stability imparted has a lot to do with how it holds or does not. Mine were good enough that I did not feel bad putting them back on the boat when I sold her and keeping the Bruce Brothers.

I'd whole-heartedly (as one who grew up with only Danforths on the boats) agree with Tim that they do not do as well as other types if you have a big swing. I only really felt good about it on my Commander if I had it hooked both ends.

One of the most overlooked areas for many is adequate chain on the order of at least 1 foot per foot of boat length...this helps the Danforth's holding a great deal over the 15-feet setup that seems to be common. Of course, it can make for a difficult lunch-hooking on smaller boats in shallow water if they are not equipped with a roller, but this is less common than it is prevalent...at least round here. It's also a VERY big aid to send a small vinyl-coated mushroom anchor down the rode on a cribiner as a 'sentinel' or 'messenger'...Dad always called it a 'kellet'. I hardly ever see anyone do this anymore, which is too bad as it really makes a big difference especially if swinging to a single Danny in areas with a large shift that for whatever reason are not conducive to two hooks out. Running it down the rode is a bit of a pain as it does require a retrieval line (a tangled mess waiting to happen) and there is some concern of chafing (leather sewn to the rode is a must in the area where it is going to ride--right at the splice ahead of the chain) if you use it often.
I changed Dad's method for my own purposes by just shackling the thing to the chain about a foot outboard the rope-to-chain union when I was going to use it. It does make for a bit heavier getup sometimes, but these are fairly lightweight bits of tackle anyway. Works well. Really stuck anchors can be fair-led (snatch blocks are lovely if you have or can afford) to a halyard winch on the mast as needed, of a rolling hich bridle hooked to the rode and hauled on with the spinnaker halyard. This gives such a good upwatrd angle of pull it will break loose almost the most stubbornly stuck anchor. Sailing them out stinks if it can be avoided...and if the boat is equipped with an auxiliary care needs to be taken on the concept of running over it forwards to break it free (see what follows!).

Another bit of Danforth trivia...if you have to sail it out, or if it is really mucky...the things will waterski at about 1-3/4 knots or above! Makes for a real clean anchor although it is a bit of effort to watch the topsides don't get dinged when you bring it aboard.

One of the main reasons I changed my preference to Bruce is that I need something that will set fast and sure, sometimes at two or three knots...and the Dannys have a tendency to surf/shi as noted as well as a tendency to skip on the bottom. One fellow I know says he had trouble tumbling and fouling his with the flying set method, but it was not a 'real' Danforth and I do not think it had the greatest stability on the bottom.

I'm probably preaching to the choir for most of you all, but I'd like to outline a couple of good methods of getting an anchor well set with no engine involved just so that it's been discussed in case anyone ever needs to do it unexpectedly.

The good old 'Peter Heaton Book' ("Sailing" by Peter Heaton, Penguin Paperback, out of print, great book, 1.99 at a used bookstore near you) gives the method I've seen most other places as well, which is to drop the hook off and pay out scope as the boat weathercocks in irons, letting the wind and/or tide shove the boat aft and hopefully set the hook. If that book doesn't go into it, this method is often described in conjunction with rowing out a kedge astern to get the hook really and truly set. Works, done it, but it is a lot of work and you never really know how well you are hooked up and if you do use a kedge to set you could, depending on where and when you are, be in for an unpleasant situation if the kedge breaks the bow hook loose! This also all assumes that there is much wind and/or tide to force the boat aft against the hook. Maybe in England where Heaton sailed, but not always so in the Pacific Northwest.

Method #1 that I like to use is similar...sail up and stall out at the point where you want the hook to be, get it off the bow and pay out a quick 3:1, letting it snub on the bow cleat for a minute. Then pay out rode in a really antisocial fashion, twice whatever you will actually be hanging on. Cleat it off. Put the kedge over the stern and then haul back on the bow hook until you have equal amounts of rode out bow and stern. Take the stern rode to a winch and haul it BAR TAUGHT. Wait 10 minutes or so and watch it...if it slacks, you are dragging and need to try again. If it seems you have dragged a whole lot, prudence might require you to haul the kedge up (read on for how to do best...especially if you are unsure about the grip of the bow anchor it is best to use a little care here lest you set yourself on a drifting course you don't need or want), raise the main again and re-do the whole excercise. If it dragged just a bit, you can haul down on it again and see if you have got the main hook dug in. If it doesn't hold fast on the second try, MOVE!

To get the kedge up it is easiest (and depending on the circumstance, safest) to pay out back to your antisocial amount of scope on the bow anchor and THEN have at it with the winch as needed, so that the pull is pretty much straight up. Helps break out the kedge and is less likely to rip out a poorly-set head anchor. Of course, if all has set well and you wish to anchor bow-and-stern to keep the boat head-to the prevailing wind you are good until morning and can go ahead and stow sail, etc.

Even if there is an auxiliary involved I find this a useful technique any time one wants to me VERY sure of the set of the #1 anchor...it gives a true indicator that you can't get just by backing down hard on the head anchor to set it and you will enjoy your time ashore a lot more not worrying so much in the back of your mind about the boat.

Method #2 may or may not include the kedge to be sure of the set, depending. Method 2 is also not really recommended unless 1) You have to for some emergent reason or 2) you are well familiar with the anchorage you are entering. I have a bit of reservation about doing this in a boat without some sort of roller and unless the roller had a security bail over the top...you'll see why. Be Careful no matter what!

Method #2:


--Lay out or "flake" a 3:1 to 4:1 scope neatly on the deck so that it can pay out freely, and make it fast to the bow cleat. Make very sure that nothing is going to foul it as it pays out in a hurry.
It is nice to rig a simple toggle to hold the anchor back, anchor actually dangling off the roller if possible, with a long bit of line back to the cockpit...that way you can control the whole setup from the pit. Sometimes it may also be best to drag the hook back and have it on the leeward side deck so you can toss it off from there...but watch that there is nothing to foul on deck!

---Come bombing into the anchorage at a good 2-3 knots. When you sail over the spot where you want the hook to go, let 'er rip. Do not do one solitary thing to change your course or slow the boat. Watch the boom in a second!
Assuming she hooks well, the boat will fetch up and snap a 180 WITH FEELING, and the hook will be pretty well set. This does not always work so well with Danforths as they may hop and skip across the bottom.

At this point you may or may not want to verify set with the kedge. If you are just hanging around for lunch, probably not. Again, this is only good to do if you have anchored in the spot before a number of times and are familiar with the bottom and holding characteristics in a number of places in that anchorage...but boy does it work! Blasting in towards the beach like that is a bit unnerving, though...

I prefer, when it is time to go, to bust it loose with the main flogging and then bear off and leave, letting the hook go bump-bump-bump along under the boat a ways to clean it off (this assumes I know that this is doable with the bottom topography and so forth). If not, one can always sail it out...this is best done on a 2.5-3:1 scope so the boat has a good 'run' on the hook. If you go at it under main alone she will often self-tack and allow you to stay forward sweating in a bit of rode on each tacking evolution.


My 10 cents' for the day...
Dave

[Tim]

My 10 cents' for the day...

Dave,

I think that was more like $2.50! hehe

[Figment]

Dave, I use your Method #2 at least half of the time, but I don't do it dead-downwind. I'd call it a "moderately broad reach, so that the boat only snaps around about 100-120 degrees when the anchor bites. When I use this method, I deploy the anchor from the cockpit (but to windward) and instead of securing the rode to the bow cleat, I lead it back to the windward genoa winch. With a double turn around the winch drum I can damp the severity of the "snap-around", just in case it catches good 'n hard on a boulder or something right away.

Julia calls it my "showoff method", and takes great delight in watching me HEAVE on the rode when it comes time to unhook (testimony to how well this method sets), and laughs even harder when I surrender and lead the rode to the winch once more for some mechanical advantage. "yeah yeah, here tail this for me while you're laughing, chuckles..." huff, puff, huff, puff grind grind curse grind curse.

I'm also a big fan of using sentinels when things get truly snotty, or when the anchorage is full of powerboat morons who seem to drive around intent on cutting someone's rode before the day is out. Leading the sentinel retrieval line back to a midship cleat avoids much of the tangled line syndrome, though some argue that this induces more chafe.

The undersized chain thing just baffles me. It's no great secret, but still it's a problem for so many boaters! I swear I just LOOOOOOVE watching these guys with the 36' boatshow-purchased SeaRay try to anchor with a 20something pound danforth windlass'ed through the bow pulpit with about a foot of chain.

I remember one old salt phrasing it this way: "Anchor, schmanchor, it's all about the CHAIN! I'm tellin ya a BUNKERSNAGGER will hold that boat if you put enough CHAIN on the end of it!"

[Tim]

One thing that hasn't yet been mentioned is that the Bruce anchor was designed for oil rigs in the North Sea. Obviously, the design has been downsized and modified somewhat for the yachtie trade, but the design heritage of this anchor is rather telling, I think. It's not a new design, and has been trialed in some of the most trying conditions there are.

If you were looking for only one anchor to buy, I am leaning towards suggesting the Bruce--a nice heavy one, like 33#. And stick with the drop-forged genuine article, not the Chinese cast knockoffs. It makes a difference. My genuine Bruce was made in Brazil, funnily enough.

[bcooke]

I am leaning slightly towards the Bruce too. All other factors being equal they cost quite a bit less.

The Bruce sales team does not comment on other anchor types on policy.

Lewmar had this to say about their CQR

In response to your e-mail enquiry.
Both the CQR and the Claw (Bruce type) anchor offer very good holding
power in a wide variety of sea beds, however the CQR with its hinged shank offers a more consistent setting and holding especially when the tide or wind are changing direction. The hinge allows the anchor to move with the chain etc with out it having to constantly re set as the claw has to. In a single direction the claw is very good.

For a boat of your size you would need to use a 16kg CQR, if specifying a
Claw you would need to look at a 20kg anchor. Another plus point for the
CQR is that you do not need as heavy a unit.

The CQR is a Lloyds registered approved anchor and comes with a life time guarantee against breakages, quite a big plus point.

A couple of points I would have with this answer:

1. The hinge might be useful for a change in wind but 180 degree tidal changes are what I am most concerned about and the CQR hinge won't work over that range.

2. I must be looking at different selection charts because I find that I would need a heavier CQR for the same job. Of course I understand that those charts are of dubious value and I always oversize. I too was thinking a 33# Bruce but I was also thinking about a 35# CQR. No where have I read that I would need a 45# (~20kg) claw for a boat the size of a Triton. The 35# is listed as two sizes bigger than needed for a Triton sized boat on the Bruce website.

3. Has anyone ever broken an anchor? I didn't think that was much of a problem. Setting and then re-setting if they break out are my main criteria.

It sounds like the Bruce might do a bit bettter in rock and maybe not quite as well in the softer stuff. I guess I would have to agree that in practical terms there is not much to recomend one over the other. The difference is in the fine details and local anchoring conditions. I just need both. That will solve that question. I think I need a bigger boat....

I have heard about the Bruce being used in the North Sea. I wonder how important that is though. Oil rigs don't swing around and I would imagine are staked out with an anchor at the minimum at each corner. I don't know much about oil platform anchoring practices but I know that moving while drilling can't be a good thing.

-Britton

[Dave, 397]

Anytime the topic of anchoring comes up, I always end up pontificating on this issue...since I've done it on near every other forum I belong to, I may as well add it in here. Apologies in advance to everyone who has already heard it, but for those who haven't here goes...

Most boats do not carry enough scope. That simple. Listen to the calls on 16 to the USCG on any busy weekend, and you always hear somebody calling to say they are without power/adrift/can't sail/who knows what and are drifting into hazard. Inevitably the first question from USCG is whether or not they have an anchor they can deploy...and often the answer is that yes they do, but the water is too deep.

In a dead calm, anything is an anchorage...even on a 1:1, for a while. Of course this does not take Mr. Tide and Mr. Current into account...and you never know where you might need to hang out for a while. With depths of 100' and more to deal with some places, you'd need 5 or 600 feet...and people always protest that they can't possibly carry that much weight and/or bulk in the chain locker.

Now, since this kind of scope sometimes IS required (sooner or later, every one will become an engineless sailor, if only temporarily...and the fact that the non-engineless boat is usually set up a bit differently from the engineless counterpart...that may mean that the same sort of light-air sail inventory may not be aboard, or that the motive requirements for the boat due to weight/drag may exceed those of the light air sails on hand...making the parking brake the only or best of the available options) I would disagree that it is excessive. I've carried this kind of scope, most of my chums carry this kind of scope...and it's pretty simple to do.

One Word: Amsteel.
Small, light. 100% spectra, and strong as well, steel. Not too costly, either, especially if one looks at it as vital safety equipment. If you have, say, 35-50 feet of chain backed up with 200 feet of 3-twist nylon...then 3 or 400 feet of amsteel can be made fast to the end of the nylon and flaked down neatly in the bottom of the chain locker without taking up much space at all. Granted, it isn't free (unless you are lucky enough to live near a rope mill and have a friend there!). Another good alternative, while a bit bulkier, is some 12(?--I've never really counted, you know?) strand polypro from the fishboat chandelry, fairly light, definitely smaller than the regular 3-strand nylon would be. Not so nice to handle, but you aren't going to use it every day. Amsteel is a bit rough on the paws, as is chain...I don't care much for 'sailing gloves' but I do keep a ratty old pair of cheap ones for hauling anchor!

Of course if a guy really needed more scope, he could start getting creative with the stern rode, spare sheets, warping lines, dock lines, you name it...and have a LOT of scope! Maybe need to do that someday, who knows...but the point is that none of that is ready to go right away if needed. In the big picture, all that Amsteel is pretty cheap compared to the potential consequence.

Today's .02

Dave

[Tim]

1. The hinge might be useful for a change in wind but 180 degree tidal changes are what I am most concerned about and the CQR hinge won't work over that range.

Living in Maine, with significant tides, I am faced with exactly this issue on a regular basis. I have yet to experience any trouble. While the hinge does not, by itself, allow the pull to swing 180 degrees, it does help (I assume) the anchor more easily reset itself if necessary, even with larger changes in pull direction.

There are also frequent times when the wind might shift direction 180 degrees, more or less--say, after passage of a cold front, or during a thunderstorm, or some such. Again, I have never had a problem with the CQR resetting itself. It resets seamlessly, and I have never even worried about it. I feel that the hinge must help the change in pull direction more gradually slide the anchor around. Not once have I even noticed any sign that the anchor might have become even temporarily unstuck in these situations (and I'm checking, believe me!).

Note that most bottoms in Maine are soft, sticky mud--even when the shores are rocky--so this is the type of holding ground I have my experience with. I have encountered few truly rocky bottoms--not that they don't exist.

Put another way: you would not be unhappy if you chose a CQR anchor. I love mine and still choose it each and every time I anchor. And it stores very nicely on a roller--better and more sleekly than any other kind, I would opine.

2. I must be looking at different selection charts because I find that I would need a heavier CQR for the same job. Of course I understand that those charts are of dubious value and I always oversize. I too was thinking a 33# Bruce but I was also thinking about a 35# CQR. No where have I read that I would need a 45# (~20kg) claw for a boat the size of a Triton. The 35# is listed as two sizes bigger than needed for a Triton sized boat on the Bruce website.

The 35# CQR is a good choice for a Triton to cover a wide range of potential anchoring situations. More weight is always better than less, to a point, of course. No one ever wished for a lighter anchor during a storm. The 35#, coupled with 30 feet of 5/16" chain, is manageable to haul up by hand, even when anchoring in 30 feet or more of water (when the full weight of anchor and chain are dangling off the bow while weighing anchor). Anything heavier would become difficult in this situation (and is also unnecessary), unless you have a windlass. Obviously, all-chain rodes require a windlass. I think 30' of heavy chain and plenty of nylon is just fine, though, for most situations in a 28' boat. A sentinel would be a good thing to have on hand for "real" cruising, if not strictly necessary for coastal weekending.

I agree that all the size charts I have seen indicate that you need a bigger CQR than a Bruce--not sure what Lewmar is saying. In any event, a 35# CQR is realistically oversized, and a 33# Bruce is appropriately oversized for a Triton as well. You could go smaller, but why?

3. Has anyone ever broken an anchor? I didn't think that was much of a problem. Setting and then re-setting if they break out are my main criteria.

Approximately 1000 years ago, while cruising as a kid with my family in Bass Harbor, ME, we managed to hook a Danforth anchor (the real kind, back when Danforth existed as a company right here in Portland, ME) into some huge, sunken piling or some such on the bottom. After much ado, sweating, and swearing, we got the anchor to the surface to find it wrapped around this piling thing. Somehow, we got it untangled; I forget if we required outside assistance or not. The point is that the anchor shank was twisted like a pretzel. It was taken to a local machine shop, where they carefully heated and straightened it (I guess; I might have been 11 or 12 at the time, so forgive me if I don't remember). We continued to use the anchor for several years.

It's very difficult to break an anchor in normal use. But you never know what might be on the bottom. Obviously, the stronger the anchor, the better: this is why you must choose a drop-forged anchor like a CQR or "real" Bruce. Avoid the cast versions that look the same. While actually breaking any anchor may be unlikely, if you should ever run into a situation where you stress the metal itself (such as that described above), you certainly want the strongest thing you can get.

I would have to agree that in practical terms there is not much to recomend one over the other. The difference is in the fine details and local anchoring conditions. I just need both. That will solve that question.

That, in a nutshell, explains why I have one of each! Something for every situation--plus the extra tackle aboard should I need it during severe weather, or to prevent undue movement, or if anything happens to one of the other anchors.

...Most boats do not carry enough scope...

Dave is 100% correct. The idea of a large quantity of light, strong line on hand for emergencies is a good one that bears real consideration (and I am...). Having a simple, continuous length of rode for these emergencies makes sense.

That said, having 3 or 4 complete anchor setups on board means you have lots of additional rode as well. I think it is sound practice to ensure that your bower anchor(s) have lots of rode permanently attached; I use a 300' rode on my CQR, plus the chain. That's enough to get your anchor on the bottom in almost any situation where you might need it. My stern anchor has a ridiculous 400' rode, which is ready to drop at a moment's notice, as well. Hopefully, either of these anchors, if dropped in an emergency even in 100 or more feet of water, would at least slow the boat, should it be drifting helplessly for some reason. There won't be wind in this hypothetical situation, or else you would be able to sail away from the hazard. I suppose the rig could be over the side, but let's hope not! (And it won't be, if one is prone to careful maintenance and regular inspection.)

I could combine the 4 rodes I have for a total of over 1200' of total rode, plus chain (2-30' sections, one 10' section, one 6' section). I hope I never have to. I feel ready to deal with an emergency with my current setup, but maybe I'll pick up some Amsteel, just for grins.

I freely admit to overkill when it comes to equipping my boat. But everything I do, and all the gear I buy, has the sole purpose of keeping my boat, and her occupants, safe in any conceivable situation. I'd rather have too much than be wanting for something critical. 90% of the time, a 12# Danforth with 6' of vinyl coated chain and 100' of rode will fit the bill...but during that final 10% of the time, watch out!

Phew. Long-winded, as usual.

[Figment]

It's amazing how these discussions just build on themselves.

There's this boat docked adjacent to a buddy of mine. I think it's a cape dory, something in the 33-36' range, anyway it's a good-sized boat, and the plow anchor on the pulpit always just looked.... well.... ridiculously small. Because I had this thread in the back of my mind, I picked the guy's brain when I happened to be at that marina over the weekend. He actually had a few interesting thoughts on anchoring.

The ridiculously small plow, he says it was the smallest available on the market at the time, on 5' of chain is really just a lunch hook, but it's the foundation of what one might call his "anchor system". It's the hook he sets when only for short duration when he knows the conditions to be favorable. (let's face it.... that covers 90% of most anchoring situations)

When setting for an extended duration, or if the weather pipes up unexpectedly, he sends a #20 sentinel down until he feels it contact the chain (or the bottom, whichever comes first), then brings it back in by a third, which he says is enough to effectively double the scope. Makes sense by my math.

Here's the interesting part:
When setting for storm conditions, or where he expects 180degree swings, etc. He has a second small plow anchor with 1' of chain, and he shackles this to the tripline-eye at the head of the first anchor..... two anchors in line, connected by 1' of chain. Says the only trick is to ensure that the two anchors don't land on top of each other on the bottom and foul. Must lower somewhat slowly and be moving backward when they strike bottom.

Neat concept, I thought.

[Tim]

I've heard of setting two anchors in a line and on the same rode, though with somewhat more than 1' between. It's not a concept you hear of often, though, probably because of the difficulties inherent in setting the arrangement without fouling. I guess it would work fine, though if I'm going to bother with two anchors I'd just as soon have the second chain and rode too--added security.

I also read on another board some time ago about some guy who argued for using ONLY chain: no anchor at all. Somthing about all the friction on the bottom with the chain, etc. Now, obviously that's silly and I wouldn't try it for real on a bet, but I'm sure it would work in benign conditions. The problem is that we never know when the weather might change. It can happen in an instant.

However, there's a solution for everybody! It's all about what one is happy and comfortable with. There are certainly a wide variety of options, to be sure. I like knowing that I have heavy tackle down at any time, and don't mind pulling it up. If I get sick of hand-hauling, or my back can't take it, I'll go for a manual windlass.

[bcooke]

Well now Tim you have some good replies and then you took the conversation into another interesting topic.

If I get sick of hand-hauling, or my back can't take it, I'll go for a manual windlass.

Why stop with manual windlass? They seem pretty slow to me. I am usually worried about getting the anchor up before I can run back and correct the boats drift into the nearest pile of rocks or that Hinckley. My long term plans may include a windlass because my back isn't getting any better with age but I was leaning towards an electric windlass. The power drain is big but I thought I would just run the engine when I was planning on using the windlass.

When one reads about "serious" cruisers, the majority seem to recommend an all chain rode. I realize it wouldn't be required in the northeast but from what I hear it is nice to have around coral and can shorten the swinging room in crowded anchorages. I wonder how heavy it would really be to raise. Figuring in the catenary (?) action of the chain would you really be picking up more than say twice the anchoring depth at a given time? Even with a 7:1 scope, I would think the weight of the anchor would not be felt until the boat was pretty close over the top.

Of course, I imagine a Triton or similar sized boat, would dip her nose a bit if 300 feet of 5/16 chain were nestled in the chain locker. I was thinking of less chain and more nylon in the chain locker and keeping extra 50 foot sections of chain layed out further aft in the keel area under the cabin sole. Just a thought.

-Britton

[dasein668]

Eeech. I can't imagine hauling all that chain by hand. Not so much because of the weight, but because I find chain to be really tough to handle. Especially when it's wet. And covered with slippery mud. I curse my short (15 feet) length of chain every time I haul... 'course, when the wind blows I'm glad I've got some chain on the bottom, and often think more would be better...

[Dave, 397]

There is another big issue--
The 'Get-Up". A 22-ib. Bruce on 30' of 1/4" chain, all of it full of muck and ook...can be a real nut-buster all on its' own. Not looking forward to a 33-pounder!

On that basis, and also on the basis of Mary's reconstructed (more or less) back, I did get a lightweight manual windlass much as it pains me to put crap on the foredeck to snag/foul/trip over (all of which I have great talent for doing, you see...). All the same, as was so well pointed out, sometimes it is needed to just get it up quick, and a manual windlass is not the thing to do that with to be sure. Guess in those (hopefully rare) situations, I'll just put on the trusty Trophy-brand rotten stinky gloves and go to it. Yick.

Weight of chain was mentioned...I had originally planned on gaining a bit more room in the master suite by moving the chain locker bulkhead forward 6" or so, which seemed like a real good idea until I saw just how far outwards and upwards it was going to push all that weight (er, chain). James Baldwin recommended I set up with 175' or 5/16 BBB chain, which is probably going to end up more like 150' or 1/4 hi-test (spendier, but equivalent strength and less weight) coupled to 150' of 5/8" nylon 3-strand and backed up by my trusty 300-odd feet of Amsteel. Lot of weight to pack up in the end of one of these boats, but I can't see any other way about it. Keel will be all full of canned goods, wet sump and water tank...and I don't want my corned beef hash all rusty, you know--the rust-out can of Tuna was bad enough...

Best,
Dave

[Tim]

Well, I know manual windlasses are fairly slow. While I haven't seriously considered a windlass at this time, I have thought the whole thing through a number of times, and would not reject electric out of hand. I still lean towards the simplicity of the manual versions, though. I would of course go for the double-action ones, but even these are pretty slow, I guess. I have never used one, so have no direct experience. Perhaps the manuals are so frustratingly slow that it would not be worth it.

But manuals are also reliable and unlikely to ever fail. Electric windlasses seem to be notorious for experiencing failure from corrosion (the motors, that is). Now, this is not to say that a well-installed and well-maintained electric motor will automatically have problems, but I sure have read about a lot of trouble with these things. A spare motor would be a must for remote cruising, by my way of thinking. All electrics (or most, anyway) have manual backup, but some of the systems look very awkward, so one would want to choose an electric that also had a sound--and practical--manual backup.

With their large power draw, electrics require large cables run the length of the boat, one way or another: you can install a dedicated battery in the bow for the windlass, but you still need the large cable running back so that the battery can be charged. It's a long run, and difficult to do in a Triton (no running wires through the bilge, now...).

The power needs can be handled by running the engine, as you say. And maybe the failure rate can be minimized by not only choosing the highest quality windlass to begin with, but also ensuring that it is very carefully installed and then maintained thereafter. Salt-air moisture seems to kill these things. I have seen many balls of rust hanging below the foredeck in the chainlocker on boats.

I have tried to avoid unnecessary complexity on board. I have no electric pumps (except bilge pump), and a basic electrical system, notwithstanding the complicated charging system I installed (which belies my attempts to remain simple, I know).

I don't think it's even feasible to consider an all-chain rode without a windlass. The difficulty of gripping the chain, the inherent danger of dealing with all that metal, and, most of all, the potential weight make some sort of windlass a necessary evil when going to chain. There's no way anyone but the Incredible Hulk could pull up a 35# anchor and, say, 50' of chain that might conceivably be dangling--certainly not with any regularity. It's nice to anchor in 12' of water, but you have to be ready to handle the possibility of anchoring in, say, 50' sometime.

However, I think you can make do with something like 150 feet of chain, which would cover your all-chain anchoring needs in typical water depths. If Baldwin recommends 175, then that would be more than suitable for any situation--he's been there and done that enough times to know for sure.

For anchoring in deeper locations, a long length of nylon would extend your scope as needed. Since one of the main arguments for all chain is, as you mention, the abrasion resistance in coral-heavy areas, the 150 feet would be more than enough in any situation to circumvent this issue. Nylon is plenty strong, so there is no issue there.

Yes, all this tackle is undeniably heavy. The Triton, however, can handle it fairly well considering its size. Still, compromising on the ultimate amount of chain might be prudent to avoid ridiculous amounts of weight forward--especially if that weight is unnecessary, as in an extreme amount of chain. You could help the situation by reconfiguring the chain locker and vee berth to route the chain further aft, to the area forward of the water tank. This small amount would definitely help with the overall trim. Using the 1/4" hi-test chain is a good weight-saving idea; you just need to know what type and size chain you are planning before buying the windlass, so that you get the proper wildcat.

I carry 35# and 33# anchors on the bow, plus 60' of total chain (which ends up as something like a pound per foot, so another 60#). This is 130-ish pounds total (plus the weight of the nylon, whatever that is), right in the bow, and I really don't notice that much of a difference in the boat's trim when all this gear is up there. You'll be adding weight aft anyway, so while your boat will sink lower in the water over time, it can remain in proper trim.

For now, I'm sticking with my current setup. Should the time come when I truly found a need for all chain, I'd act appropriately. I hope to not need to, though. For whatver it's worth, those are my reasons for thinking manual over electric. But who knows, really? I could easily change my mind when the time came. I'd honestly have to use the exact manual I wanted before I could make a sound decision.

[bcooke]

I would have to agree that simple is better and I don't like the idea of handling 150+ feet of chain. For me it might be better to just avoid anchorages where extreme amounts of chain rode is required. I would guess that 99% of the time, 50 feet of chain plus a suitable length of nylon would be more than adequate. Okay maybe just 95% of the time. I don't plan on circling the globe anytime soon - think never - so that huge chain rode would probably never be missed. For those rare occasions, a manual double acting windlass might fill in the gaps. The more I think about keeping an electric windlass running, the more I think I can live with a manual type.

The 'Get-Up". A 22-ib. Bruce on 30' of 1/4" chain, all of it full of muck and ook...can be a real nut-buster all on its' own.

From certain angles, the Bruce does look an awful lot like a shovel. Interesting.

I am thinking my initial setup for my primary will be a Bruce or CQR (still undecided) with 30 feet of 5/16 chain. I will probably also carry a 30-50 foot section of chain and some sort of kellet. Backing that up would be a fluke type anchor or two. I think that would be more than adequate for the next few years. I am planning on building an anchor platform in the next month or so (hence my pre-planning on the whole subject) and will think about a future placement for a windlass.

Has anyone included a samson post in their anchoring system? When I say samson post I am thinking of a post for securing anchor rodes/tow lines that would pass through the deck and brace against the bottom of the forepeak with another brace forward against the stem. I was thinking something a little stouter than just a post bolted through the deck though again I may be thinking overkill.

-Britton

[dasein668]

I would guess that 99% of the time, 50 feet of chain plus a suitable length of nylon would be more than adequate. Okay maybe just 95% of the time.

So far for me 15 feet of chain on suitable rode has been 100% sufficient. That's not to say that there might not come a time when it isn't, but we'll be looking at an extrememly high level of suitability regardless. More is always good, to an extent, but...

Unless you are anchoring in coral areas I've got to believe that 50 feet of chain will be sufficient for anything short of a hurricane.

[bcooke]

Unless you are anchoring in coral areas I've got to believe that 50 feet of chain will be sufficient for anything short of a hurricane

Exactly :-)

If and when I make a trip south I may include more chain. Then again, maybe not.

-Britton

[Tim]

Has anyone included a samson post in their anchoring system? When I say samson post I am thinking of a post for securing anchor rodes/tow lines that would pass through the deck and brace against the bottom of the forepeak with another brace forward against the stem. I was thinking something a little stouter than just a post bolted through the deck though again I may be thinking overkill.

That would certainly be strong. If you design the samson post so that it is an integral part of the supporting structure for your anchor platform and part of the backing reinforcement for the platform, then it makes good sense. The platform may end up under some significant loads at some point, someday in some less-than-ideal anchoring situation. Such an arrangement would probably be overkill nonetheless, but it sure is nice having a big post to which to secure your lines, rather than some puny cleat. I also think it's easier to stub your feet on a low-profile cleat than a taller post, myself, so that's a possible benefit.

I also think that a throughbolted bitt or other arrangement is plenty strong when properly backed up through a sound deck, so that remains a viable option. Remember that the forces on the hardware and their fasteners are usually shear stresses, and quality fasteners are very strong in this application.

But I think the integral post sounds interesting. Let us know if you do it.

[Dave, 397]

My friend Perry put a HTG Samson Post (purpleheart, at that) on his Cheoy Lee Cadet/Offshore 27 when he added the sprit. Quite a monster.
I'll send you a pic of the sprit/post, Tim.

Dave

[Tim]

Here's the pic.

[James384]

I use the 33 lb bruce instead of a 35 CQR mainly because I can't afford to lose a CQR. Otherwise, I think both are acceptable. A 35 Delta may be an alternative if you find the Bruce too bulky to stow and the CQR too pricey, though I haven't used one. In the US east coast and Bahamas waters I'm recently sailing in, 150 feet of 3/8" chain with some nylon attached has been adequate on the primary anchor. A manual windlass is needed for that, of course.

Britton, you might check out the link below for more on my anchoring setup:

http://atomvoyages.com/atom/faq.htm#13.

James
#384