Anchor Chain Overkill??

[Capt. Kermie]

Bad Back??

The way I see it no way 90' of chain is going to let you sleep better if your back is in pain and keeping you awake. Someone once told me as a rule of thumb that I should have a foot of chain on my rode for every foot of boat lenght, so on my 26' boat I have 26' of chain and another 200' of nylon rode. You may wish to have more than one anchor to attach to the rode for different bottom conditions. The 90' of overkill would be nice to have on hand for extended trips when you may need it in an emergency but for daysailing or the occasional overnighter I'd have something on hand that is easier to manage and just bring out the heavy artillary when needed.

 

[Ross]

Summertime thunderstorms on the Chesapeake

are legendary. When a storm blows in we can go from flat calm to fifty mph winds in a very few minutes. people have to scramble just to get sails down when such a storm come through. the storms can move at thirty mile per hour so from the time the sky starts to look threatening until you are in the middle is short.

 

[BobW]

Not at all, Liam.....

and at the risk of annoying you, I'm going to repeat my answer to Paul:90 feet of chain doesn't offer any significant increase in holding power over 30 feet, when the rest of the rode is nylon. My reasons are in my post #12 in this thread, so I won't write them again.Please note that Paul didn't ask if he should have more chain - he asked if he needed the 90' of chain he has. I answered the question he asked.I also don't consider a 35# CQR with 25' of chain and adequate nylon rode (he has 150', I recommended he lengthen that) to be a 'lunch hook'. Neither is a 33# Bruce.Ross in Tampa, your Fortress FX-11 is a much better soft mud anchor than a Bruce weighing 3 times as much. Did you have the flukes adjusted to the 45 degree soft mud angle? That doubles the holding power.If you're going to buy a new anchor, check out the Manson Supreme and Rocna - they appear to be consistently superior performers. Read the tests - Sail mag and WM did one recently, some results are in the WM catalog, the full story was recently posted in this forum.Also, increasing from 6' to 30' of chain isn't going to help your anchor hold in extreme conditions. If you're going to be sailing in coral/rock waters, you might want to look at getting 200' of 3/16" chain. It's only 80 pounds total weight, has a working load of 750# and breaking strength of 3,000#. A 25' boat in 60 knots pulls on the anchor with a force of about 2,000#.FWIW, Liam, the Bruce anchor performs poorly in every test I've read. No, I'm not picking on you, I have one too. My point is that even a poorly-rated anchor holds your boat in 50 knots without dragging, even when your chain is bar-tight.Cheers,Bobs/v X SAIL R 8

 

[Liam]

Hi Bob

Hi Bob,No worries or offense taken. I have read a number of your posts and always appreciate your comments and respect your point of view.Yes, I read the anchor tests. Actually I was surprised that the "Claw" anchor did so poorly. I was wondering if the results would have been the same with a Genuine Bruce instead of the Lewmar claw knock-off??Anyway, I have decided that I will replace my primary bow hook with a Delta. The test results on the "hydrobubble" anchor were interesting and seemed great, but I just can't get past that plastic bubble!I will put the Bruce in the lazarette with the Fortress and the Danforth.Thanks for your comments.Best regards, Liam.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Part of the discussion

which didn't enter into this thread, is what the bottom is. I understand why it did not get discussed, because it was not part of Bob's point or the thrust of the question. However, Liam, I think you may be foolish in relegating your other anchors to the locker so prematurely. We anchor around here in what is mostly mud, and I find our smaller Bruce works very well, from Clipper Cove all the way to the delta. The toher anchors you have also are supposed to work well in mud. I recall most of those tests appeared to have been done in sand, and we don't see a lot of that around here. Unless, of course, you're heading out the gate.Our earlier boats had Danforths, but anchoring where wind and current oppose made Danforths a second choice. On 'Aquavite' I keep our Danforths in the acnhor locker. Our Bruce resets. A Delta will, too.

 

[Ross in Tampa]

Thanks Bob W...

Thanks for the responses. I did have the flukes adjusted to 45 degrees. The bottom lacked substance to hold. The Fortress, in my opinion is a great anchor, and up to this instance, had never given me reason to doubt it's hold.I will still investigate a second anchor, and will increase my chain none the less.As far as the bad back goes, I too am a member of that club. But lifting chain is no more stressful than pulling a loading rode. I don't try to lift all the anchor chain at once.Ross in Tampa

 

[Liam]

Hi Stu

Hey Stu,Yes, you are right. I have always had great results with the Bruce in The San Franciso Bay and in the Delta where the bottom is mud. Lately I have been anchoring mostly outside The Gate where the bottom is sand (Santa Cruz, The Monterey Bay, and points south). The difficulty with the Bruce is that it comes up with either a giant ball of kelp when in the Monterey Bay and San Simeon or 60 pounds of mud when in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Whenever I sail down to the Channel Islands I use the Fortress for a stern hook. The Bruce and the Danforth are carried in the lazarette basically for back-ups in case I loose one.