Anchor Setting Comparison (Video)

[Maine Sail]

Franklin—

While the Bulwagga is well regarded in terms of holding power, I still think the stock to fluke attachment point is a weakness and think that the third fluke is a serious fouling risk. Also, the Bulwagga is a royal PITA to stow.

I guess then the hinge on all Danforths, CQR's and fortresses should also be suspect? I've yet to hear even one report of a failure of a Bullwagga or any reports of the third fluke, which would point up, becoming fouled. perhaps it has happened but I have not seen nor heard of it. Honestly the hoop on the Rocna and Manson worries me more in terms of trapping a rock than the third fluke on a Bullwagga. I do agree they can be tough to stow but so can the roll bar anchors. There's always a trade off somewhere.

I have suspected for a while that Franklin's anchor may have fouled something in the sea bed rather than just not setting. Any anchor that can hold in 110 MPH wind with the boat tied stern to, is one heck of an anchor in my book...

Max winds I've ever seen on hook was 65-70 and even in a little hurricane hole it was not pleasant. I've seen in and around 50 knots a number of times and that's bad enough..

 

[Ross]

Besides the ability of the anchor to dig in, the soil structure is a large factor in the ultimate holding strength of the system. Just as some ground is easier to dig because if breaks easily some bottoms will not hold as well as others. In these situation the larger anchor that will set will be the one that holds. In referring to size I mean physical size not just weight. The Rocna may well be larger for its weight than a CQR.

 

[BobM]

Take home message

For me the take home messages from reading all of the anchor related threads and reviews have been:

(a) You need to be aware of the compatibility between your anchor and the bottom you plan to drop it into.
(b) If you anchor frequently on varied bottoms you can invest in a Rocna or Manson Supreme, but in any case you should have at least two distinctly different types of anchors on board. Such as a Danforth and a claw type or plow type anchor.
(c) You should have at least a third of a boat length of chain on your rode.
(d) You should have enough line of sufficient diameter to have greater than 5:1 scope in bad weather (preferably more like 10:1).
(e) Back down on your anchor to set it

...but I must say that based on all that I have read I wouldn't spend the money on a CQR (up here it is roughly $250-300 even for used CQR suitable for a 30 footer) when a Manson Supreme is the same cost from JSI on ebay (~$240 + ~$50 S&H for a 24 lb anchor for a 25-35 footer).

 

[Franklin]

I would up C) to at least a full boat length.

 

[Chuckbear]

MS, We are now using the Manson simply to try the new style anchors since we had to buy a new anchor for the new to us boat. I am not saying they are not better or worse and the only way I can determine whether it is better or worse than my trusty old CQR is to use it under a variety of conditions and bottoms. We have already had a couple of experiences where we had to reset the Manson a couple of times to finally get a satisfying set. The same could be said of our CQR on occasion. As for the fellow in Annapolis, we have found in many harbors the fellow with the CQR that dragged was right next to the fellow with the CQR that held through 50 knots. It is not always the anchor, and more often the anchorer. That is what makes these discussion so difficult and why so many offer differing opinions. We have seen Mansons, Rochnas, Danforths and CQRs let go, but most all of them held well if set right with the right road and the conditions were acceptable. We have anchored in inches of sand over coral and nothing would probably have held. I can not really fault the CQR after almost 20 years of cruising all over the east coast, gulf coast, Caribbean and Central America. The boat has been at anchor through 7 hurricanes with that CQR and it NEVER let go. That is my experience with it but I am also open to new things as long as they work at least as well and hopefully better. Chuck

 

[Bob S]

Today would have been a good day to test the anchors...at least up here in NE.

http://www.weather.gov/forecasts/wfo/sectors/box.php#tabs

 

[Seattle Scott]

"Based on your comments I just dropped my 33 pound Bruce off my 12' high deck 10 times."
Mainsail, that Bruce wil have a lot of resentment now, so probably will drag, at night, in a crowded anchorage, when it is raining, and when can't find your glasses.

 

[dserrell]

1

 

[Maine Sail]

Today would have been a good day to test the anchors...at least up here in NE.

http://www.weather.gov/forecasts/wfo/sectors/box.php#tabs

Yeah but it made for great racing tonight!!

 

[jibes138]

New Information just in

I think this pretty much settles it. Hard to argue with trillions of happy users.

CQR Anchors​

The performance of the CQR™ anchor is now legendary. The original drop-forged construction of the CQR™ anchor increases its strength and reliability under load which is why genuine CQR™ anchors do not break. The hinged shank delivers consistent setting and holding even in the very worst conditions, whatever the changes in wind and current. The CQR™ anchor has Lloyd’s Register Approval as a High Holding Power anchor. 87% of Ocean Cruising Club members choose the CQR™ anchor as their primary and storm anchor.
All CQR™ anchors are guaranteed for life against breakage. Lloyd’s Test Certification is available for individual CQR™ anchors by arrangement.​

 

[dserrell]

1

 

[sailingdog]

Add lawyers to the test group, and I'm all for it...

Ahoy Fellow Sailors,

I'd like to use a few politicians as anchors, in an anchor setting comparison!!! How about that?

David

 

[BobM]

Maine?

Just got to see the video. No Youtube @ work. Do you think that this is a fair comparison? The line is parallel to the ground which is worst case. It seems that the CQR's performance would differ greatly if the angle of the pull were equivalent to what a boat would provide if scope was say 2:1, mimicking an initial set at 2:1 with further scope let out after.

 

[Ross]

Re: Maine?

BobM, I have a 35 pound CQR and 30 feet of 3/8 chain, it won't set at 2:1. I set it on the bottom as we are backing and pay out rode and snub in at every mark on the rode. It usually sets between 4:1 and 5:1. I continue backing until I have at least 7:1 out and the set it hard and stop the boat with the anchor while the engine is still in reverse.

 

[Banooma]

Bela Fleck anchors

Thanks for the effort you put into the analysis, Maine. You've raised a lot of awareness in so doing. By the way, I made sure I listened to some Bela Fleck tunes out of my catalog while watching. :dance:

 

[Maine Sail]

Just got to see the video. No Youtube @ work. Do you think that this is a fair comparison? The line is parallel to the ground which is worst case. It seems that the CQR's performance would differ greatly if the angle of the pull were equivalent to what a boat would provide if scope was say 2:1, mimicking an initial set at 2:1 with further scope let out after.

Like Ross I never once had my CQR set anywhere close to a 2:1 scope or test bite consistently. Perhaps others have? In about 18+/- years of use with CQR's I could get initial bites at 4:1+ and usually finished setting it at 7:1+.

If you re-read through this thread you'll see that I have attempted this at at 7:1 also, still no set on hard sand. I have also seen and dove on anchors while being set. The idea that with a 4:1 scope it lifts the shank off the sea bed is false, before it begins to set, as I have witnessed and seen it. Until that anchor has "bit" the bottom you won't lift 30 feet of chain or the shank anywhere there is just not enough resistance in an anchor sliding along the bottom.


Also the rode was the same for the Rocna and it began to set immediately.. The Spade & Manson also began to set immediately at 7:1 on the same day I dragged the CQR four times 60+ feet at the same 7:1 on hard sand. The control of this drag was "all things being equal" and both anchors perform dramatically different. I can actually get a set out of my Rocna, Spade and Manson at 2:1, tried it, but I would not trust it at 2:1.

Can anyone out there set their CQR at a 2:1??

 

[Ross]

It is worth doing the geometry involved with anchor scope. If you lay out a 2:1 scope with the rode pulled bar taut the angle of pull is nearly 45 degrees. A 500 pound pull on the rode would create a vertical pull on the anchor nearly equal to the horizontal pull.

 

[Maine Sail]

Results are in...

It is worth doing the geometry involved with anchor scope. If you lay out a 2:1 scope with the rode pulled bar taut the angle of pull is nearly 45 degrees. A 500 pound pull on the rode would create a vertical pull on the anchor nearly equal to the horizontal pull.

OK, I won't have the video for a while, I really suck at making them, and I just don't have the time right now but here are the results. I may just upload it via Picasa..

Definition: "Set" is defined in this case by me needing to stop the truck for fear of denting the roof. If I had continued damage to the vehicle would have occurred..

2:1 Setting on Hard Sand

CQR = No Set
Bruce (laying on side) = No Set
Bruce (upright) = Set
Rocna = Set

4:1 Setting On Hard Sand

CQR = No Set
Bruce (laying on side) = No Set to Partial set
Bruce (upright) = Set
Rocna = Set


I used my wife's truck and ran a line from under the front bumper, over the roof and then to 8 feet of chain. The roof is approx 6.5 feet off the ground, when protected by a Taylor Made fender, so 2:1 scope was 13 feet from where the line came in contact with the vehicles roof to the shackle at the anchor.

The shackle end of the shank on the CQR remained within 6" of the ground at all times, even with only 8' of chain at a 2:1. The hinge however lay totally flat, and never budged off the ground, leaving the tip of the anchor in a constant plane with the ground at all times. The attitude of the shank +/- 6" changed nothing at the tip of the CQR and 2:1 added nothing to its setting performance.

I have now tested the CQR at 2:1, 4:1, 7:1 and a basically flat rode of perhaps 15:1. Nothing has changed, it has refused to set now in seven out of seven attempts. We must remember this is a HARD sand only comparison.....

At 4:1 the shank of the CQR barely, if ever, left the ground as I have described from my visuals when diving.

Shank angle myth busted...

P.S. I am uploading the 4:1 video right now and it should be up in an hour or so..

Here's a still photo from the 2:1 test. Sorry for the crappy quality..

 

[Ross]

Re: Results are in...

My guess is that a 3 ton CQR would set in hard sand or maybe even a gravel parking lot but at 25-50 pounds just doesn't have the weight to get the point started into the ground

 

[Craig Smith]

The "shank angle" has nothing to do with it, as correctly pointed out above ALL anchors are designed to work with a flat pull, because this is what they are exposed to initially. Even at low scopes, with the anchor unable to provide any resistance (before it's set), obviously the chain is not lifted.


P.S. Maine Sail, I am offended by your biased testing in your video, you pulled that Rocna at 3-4 times the speed of the CQR! Did your foot slip?