i made my own
about a 25# fluke with 5' of chain but i'm a pond sailor as of yet so it does fine
about a 25# fluke with 5' of chain but i'm a pond sailor as of yet so it does fine
- Status
Lot's of misinformation in this thread...
Quote: Fortress anchors out hold heavier anchors in all tests. Reality: Not true at all the Fortress has been beat by Delta, Manson Supreme, Spade & Rocna in holding power tests! While they do provide relatively high holding power, in a straight line pull, they do not set well compared to many other designs. The other very important piece of information you're leaving out is they have terrible re-set reliability! A Fortress should never be used as a primary anchor! I use one but it's as a dedicated stern anchor only where I'm guaranteed a straight line pull with no chance of rotating it breaking out on a wind or tide shift. Quote: Can you make an anchor that holds better than a traditional anchor of course. can you make it for less money and sell it for less money ? perhaps not. If you can make it for less will you sell it for less? Hell No! Reality: I paid less for both my Rocna and my Manson Supreme "new generation" anchors than a new CQR sells for so the statement above is hog wash! How long have they been building CQR's and they are still price gouging and charging more than the newer better setting and holding anchors? Don't you think the R&D has long ago been paid for on the CQR and they can now drop the price a little? Perhaps if the price of the CQR was less these other (new generation) manufacturers would not feel the need to price theirs "slightly" below the all mighty (not) CQR! Quote: Fortress is aluminum ? so is surface area more important than weight? If you were to make a 35 pound aluminum plow would it hold better than a 35 cast steel plow? All of this presumes that there is no material failure. Reality: Surface area is what holds the boat once the anchor has set! The weight of an anchor does play a big part in actually getting it to set though. I actually own two identical anchors one made in aluminum and one in steel. They are both Spades an S-80 and an A-80. Once set both anchors hold exactly the same but the aluminum anchor is much tougher to get set. My A-80(aluminum)has about a 55% set ratio on the first try (worse than my CQR's) while my S-80 (steel) has a set ratio of around 90% first try or about 20% better than my CQR's. These anchors are identical in size and shape other than the material they are made of. Part of the problem is not always weight but design characteristics. CQR's, Delta's & Spades all use a lead weighted tip to help the anchor penetrate. They need this because they are all poorly designed from the get go. While the steel Spade will outperform the CQR & Delta it still has a large tip cross section making it more difficult to penetrate a hard bottom when compared to a Rocna that needs no tip weighting. I actually hooked my Rocna to my bumper and actually set it in my lawn (that is very thick weeds) and although the wife was not happy it set in about three feet. I then tried to duplicate this with my 35lb CQR and basically towed it 100+ feet without even so much as a divot in my lawn! The Rocna actually weighs 2 pounds less so I'd say design is as important as weight and surface area which by the way the 33lb Rocna has about 1/3 more surface area than a 35lb CQR!
Quote: Fortress anchors out hold heavier anchors in all tests. Reality: Not true at all the Fortress has been beat by Delta, Manson Supreme, Spade & Rocna in holding power tests! While they do provide relatively high holding power, in a straight line pull, they do not set well compared to many other designs. The other very important piece of information you're leaving out is they have terrible re-set reliability! A Fortress should never be used as a primary anchor! I use one but it's as a dedicated stern anchor only where I'm guaranteed a straight line pull with no chance of rotating it breaking out on a wind or tide shift. Quote: Can you make an anchor that holds better than a traditional anchor of course. can you make it for less money and sell it for less money ? perhaps not. If you can make it for less will you sell it for less? Hell No! Reality: I paid less for both my Rocna and my Manson Supreme "new generation" anchors than a new CQR sells for so the statement above is hog wash! How long have they been building CQR's and they are still price gouging and charging more than the newer better setting and holding anchors? Don't you think the R&D has long ago been paid for on the CQR and they can now drop the price a little? Perhaps if the price of the CQR was less these other (new generation) manufacturers would not feel the need to price theirs "slightly" below the all mighty (not) CQR! Quote: Fortress is aluminum ? so is surface area more important than weight? If you were to make a 35 pound aluminum plow would it hold better than a 35 cast steel plow? All of this presumes that there is no material failure. Reality: Surface area is what holds the boat once the anchor has set! The weight of an anchor does play a big part in actually getting it to set though. I actually own two identical anchors one made in aluminum and one in steel. They are both Spades an S-80 and an A-80. Once set both anchors hold exactly the same but the aluminum anchor is much tougher to get set. My A-80(aluminum)has about a 55% set ratio on the first try (worse than my CQR's) while my S-80 (steel) has a set ratio of around 90% first try or about 20% better than my CQR's. These anchors are identical in size and shape other than the material they are made of. Part of the problem is not always weight but design characteristics. CQR's, Delta's & Spades all use a lead weighted tip to help the anchor penetrate. They need this because they are all poorly designed from the get go. While the steel Spade will outperform the CQR & Delta it still has a large tip cross section making it more difficult to penetrate a hard bottom when compared to a Rocna that needs no tip weighting. I actually hooked my Rocna to my bumper and actually set it in my lawn (that is very thick weeds) and although the wife was not happy it set in about three feet. I then tried to duplicate this with my 35lb CQR and basically towed it 100+ feet without even so much as a divot in my lawn! The Rocna actually weighs 2 pounds less so I'd say design is as important as weight and surface area which by the way the 33lb Rocna has about 1/3 more surface area than a 35lb CQR!
Craig, send me one, if I like it I will talk it up
to the 1000+ boats on Lake Arthur in western PA. I am skeptical of new (unproven to me) ideas. Truthfully, the Rocna looks hokie to me. In August, I usually anchor a 15 boat raft up with my 16# Manta claw w/ 20' of 1/4" chain and a 3/8" nylon rode, to keep it from swinging during fireworks. I know it will hold and it always does. Storage still looks like the problem.. r.w.landau
to the 1000+ boats on Lake Arthur in western PA. I am skeptical of new (unproven to me) ideas. Truthfully, the Rocna looks hokie to me. In August, I usually anchor a 15 boat raft up with my 16# Manta claw w/ 20' of 1/4" chain and a 3/8" nylon rode, to keep it from swinging during fireworks. I know it will hold and it always does. Storage still looks like the problem.. r.w.landau
Appreciated r.w.landau
but if you care to look at the more recent independent testing, reviews, and just user feedback, you will see that the key "new ideas" are anything but unproven. On the contrary, they are rather consistently proven against the older (apparently "proven") designs that the traditionalists stick with. As to proving to yourself, well, only you can do that. You want to buy a new fridge, you do the research, make your purchase, and hope you chose well. You can get a Rocna from West Marine, they have decent returns policies for your reassurance. You can check stowage/fitting at the link.
but if you care to look at the more recent independent testing, reviews, and just user feedback, you will see that the key "new ideas" are anything but unproven. On the contrary, they are rather consistently proven against the older (apparently "proven") designs that the traditionalists stick with. As to proving to yourself, well, only you can do that. You want to buy a new fridge, you do the research, make your purchase, and hope you chose well. You can get a Rocna from West Marine, they have decent returns policies for your reassurance. You can check stowage/fitting at the link.
WhenI first aquired my CQR anchor I did the
pull across the lawn test with the same results that Maine Sail had. But I figured that the bottom of the bay wasn't lawn grass with 3 inch turf. If the Rocna sets in a few feet I will certainly consider it for an upgrade to my present 35 pound CQR which has been entirely satisfactory for 7 years.
pull across the lawn test with the same results that Maine Sail had. But I figured that the bottom of the bay wasn't lawn grass with 3 inch turf. If the Rocna sets in a few feet I will certainly consider it for an upgrade to my present 35 pound CQR which has been entirely satisfactory for 7 years.
Love my Fortess
Say what you will about the Fortess I love mine and it's quick to set, never a problem resetting and has held firm in pretty good blows.
Say what you will about the Fortess I love mine and it's quick to set, never a problem resetting and has held firm in pretty good blows.
Strange how the best holding anchor is
the one deployed by the wits of a very experienced mariner. Anchoring may be one of the activities where it may pay to be behind the times by some years. By then all those new designs and manufacturing processes may have been time tested and those not adequate may have been weeded out. The safety of my boat and those aboard will not be compromised by an anchor whose best qualifications is to have the best advertisement and perhaps the distinction of having won a comparison test under a limited number of conditions. I firmly believe that you should equip your boat with a heavy (adequate for a boat 6-8 ft longer), proven design (over a number of years tested by many sailors ) coupled with adequate tackle. The most important factor is anchoring technique and that is one area where I always try to learn and improve.
the one deployed by the wits of a very experienced mariner. Anchoring may be one of the activities where it may pay to be behind the times by some years. By then all those new designs and manufacturing processes may have been time tested and those not adequate may have been weeded out. The safety of my boat and those aboard will not be compromised by an anchor whose best qualifications is to have the best advertisement and perhaps the distinction of having won a comparison test under a limited number of conditions. I firmly believe that you should equip your boat with a heavy (adequate for a boat 6-8 ft longer), proven design (over a number of years tested by many sailors ) coupled with adequate tackle. The most important factor is anchoring technique and that is one area where I always try to learn and improve.
Benny you need to consider the source and data...
The best advertising? Are you serious? If you are reffering to Rocna you really should try and find one print advertisement in Sail or any other mag that's bigger than a 1X1 inch square way in the back of the mag. The Sail Magazine article had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were. The XYZ by the way was a poor performer in these tests and it's a "new generation" anchor. People on this and other forums have made ridiculous claims that Sail gave preference and may have "fixed" the results to satisfy advertisers. Using this logic Sail magazine really cut off their supply of ad money in that months issue. It seems three of the anchors that got beat up the worst were the LEWMAR Claw, the West Marine Performance 20 and the venerable CQR. Lewmar is one of Sails larger advertisers! In this months issue they have one full pager and one quarter page ad. West Marine's VP of product development Chuck Hawley was actually involved in the testing and WM also spends huge ad money with Sail. Three of the best performers in the tests were the Manson Supreme, Hydrobubble & the Rocna. Each of these manufacturers have no advertising in Sail Magazine at all! Biased I think NOT.. This test was however a very "biased" test when it came to the "behind the times anchors" like the CQR & Claw but not their new competitors. They investigators went so far as to have in-depth discussions to figure out a way to get the Bruce and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results for them. Now this test was only a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were hard sand tests. Can you guarantee that you will never anchor in a hard sand bottom? If you can then go ahead and continue using your "behind the times" technology because that's about the only place they set well. I have also borne out these results on my own over my 30+ years of anchoring and diving on anchors. Here's a direct quote from Sail Magazine: "The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom." Hmm that sounds just like what happened in my yard when I tried to get the CQR to set in my lawn! It's funny how the Rocna set in about three feet, in my lawn, and after towing the CQR for over 100 feet I had not even disturbed the lawns surface.... This to me sounds like they (Sail)perhaps had to give the CQR a little "extra" by going "slower" than with other anchors and trying to "manually coax" it to set. How can anyone, in their right mind, that has a reading comprehension level higher than a first grader, claim a bias against the CQR when they (Sail) clearly gave the CQR preferential treatment? This methodology seems a little unfair & clearly flawed if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors to make it as FAIR as possible. The results of Sail's tests don't surprise me at all as I own a Bruce and a CQR and though they perform decently in all mud they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion that 80% of boaters never actually set an anchor and get very lucky using basically a "rope on a rock", in benign summer conditions, seems more true than ever. Last summer on a friends boat he left me at the helm while he went to drop his CQR. I backed down, like I always do, gradually increasing to 80% throttle and the anchor dragged! Here's how the conversation went "Geez that's never happened before","Really? Lets try it again",. On the second attempt it had an initial bite (starting to burry) but when I applied power it broke free. "Your giving it to much throttle and ripping it out of the bottom", "it's an anchor!", "let me try", "ok". So I now go up to let the anchor down & he puts the boat in reverse gets it moving and then puts it in neutral and we get an initial bite. "There see it's set", "No it's just starting to dig in it now needs to be set", "It's always held me before", "Have you ever experienced a 30 knot blow on the hook?", "No" "Well a 30 knot blow on your boat is the equivalent of roughly 900 pounds of pull on the anchor were you aware of that?", "No", "Did you know that the motor on this boat can barely re-produce 350 pounds of pull wide open from a stop?" "No", "Well let's let it set your way and in a couple of hours we'll simulate 20 knots of wind with the motor and see and happens", "You're on". You can probably guess what happened. Because we never properly set the anchor it dragged! We did get it to set that day using a 10:1 scope then shortening to 5:1. My friend could not believe that the CQR could hold his boat using 80% throttle and was totally surprised by it! Scary I know especially from a "seasoned" sailor.... From my experience I find a CQR likes a minimum of a 7:1 to set but it sometimes prefers more.. He now understands that an anchor should hold your boat at wide open in reverse without moving. This is a guy who has been sailing for 25 years and admittedly dragged "perhaps 20 times but never with my CQR"! Once is to much! It's imperative the anchor gets "set" properly. Yes the CQR sets better in soft bottoms than in sand but not all boaters are lucky enough to always drop the hook in a soft bottom. So if you're in a hard bottom make sure to get it set. The CQR will set well but it may take more than one attempt. Don't ever be fooled by the "initial bite". With a CQR this is a situation where the anchor is laying on it's side with the tip just starting to dig in. Like the picture at the beginning of Sail Magazines article. If you stop there on any sort of wind or current shift the anchor will twist out. A CQR needs to be vertical and burried to the shank or it's not properly set! If it's properly burried it can sometimes survive a 180 shift without "breaking free". I suggest some of you begin diving on your anchors in a shallow spot to see what's going on down there I think you'd be surprised... By the way the folks at West Marine were so impressed with the test results (they were involved first hand) they are now selling the Rocna. They are selling it even though they make far less margin on it than they can on any of the Lewmar anchors like the Delta, CQR or the Claw! There doing it because it clearly is the best all round performer regardless of the margin they make! _________________ -Maine Sail CS-36T Broad Cove, Maine
The best advertising? Are you serious? If you are reffering to Rocna you really should try and find one print advertisement in Sail or any other mag that's bigger than a 1X1 inch square way in the back of the mag. The Sail Magazine article had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were. The XYZ by the way was a poor performer in these tests and it's a "new generation" anchor. People on this and other forums have made ridiculous claims that Sail gave preference and may have "fixed" the results to satisfy advertisers. Using this logic Sail magazine really cut off their supply of ad money in that months issue. It seems three of the anchors that got beat up the worst were the LEWMAR Claw, the West Marine Performance 20 and the venerable CQR. Lewmar is one of Sails larger advertisers! In this months issue they have one full pager and one quarter page ad. West Marine's VP of product development Chuck Hawley was actually involved in the testing and WM also spends huge ad money with Sail. Three of the best performers in the tests were the Manson Supreme, Hydrobubble & the Rocna. Each of these manufacturers have no advertising in Sail Magazine at all! Biased I think NOT.. This test was however a very "biased" test when it came to the "behind the times anchors" like the CQR & Claw but not their new competitors. They investigators went so far as to have in-depth discussions to figure out a way to get the Bruce and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results for them. Now this test was only a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were hard sand tests. Can you guarantee that you will never anchor in a hard sand bottom? If you can then go ahead and continue using your "behind the times" technology because that's about the only place they set well. I have also borne out these results on my own over my 30+ years of anchoring and diving on anchors. Here's a direct quote from Sail Magazine: "The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom." Hmm that sounds just like what happened in my yard when I tried to get the CQR to set in my lawn! It's funny how the Rocna set in about three feet, in my lawn, and after towing the CQR for over 100 feet I had not even disturbed the lawns surface.... This to me sounds like they (Sail)perhaps had to give the CQR a little "extra" by going "slower" than with other anchors and trying to "manually coax" it to set. How can anyone, in their right mind, that has a reading comprehension level higher than a first grader, claim a bias against the CQR when they (Sail) clearly gave the CQR preferential treatment? This methodology seems a little unfair & clearly flawed if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors to make it as FAIR as possible. The results of Sail's tests don't surprise me at all as I own a Bruce and a CQR and though they perform decently in all mud they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion that 80% of boaters never actually set an anchor and get very lucky using basically a "rope on a rock", in benign summer conditions, seems more true than ever. Last summer on a friends boat he left me at the helm while he went to drop his CQR. I backed down, like I always do, gradually increasing to 80% throttle and the anchor dragged! Here's how the conversation went "Geez that's never happened before","Really? Lets try it again",. On the second attempt it had an initial bite (starting to burry) but when I applied power it broke free. "Your giving it to much throttle and ripping it out of the bottom", "it's an anchor!", "let me try", "ok". So I now go up to let the anchor down & he puts the boat in reverse gets it moving and then puts it in neutral and we get an initial bite. "There see it's set", "No it's just starting to dig in it now needs to be set", "It's always held me before", "Have you ever experienced a 30 knot blow on the hook?", "No" "Well a 30 knot blow on your boat is the equivalent of roughly 900 pounds of pull on the anchor were you aware of that?", "No", "Did you know that the motor on this boat can barely re-produce 350 pounds of pull wide open from a stop?" "No", "Well let's let it set your way and in a couple of hours we'll simulate 20 knots of wind with the motor and see and happens", "You're on". You can probably guess what happened. Because we never properly set the anchor it dragged! We did get it to set that day using a 10:1 scope then shortening to 5:1. My friend could not believe that the CQR could hold his boat using 80% throttle and was totally surprised by it! Scary I know especially from a "seasoned" sailor.... From my experience I find a CQR likes a minimum of a 7:1 to set but it sometimes prefers more.. He now understands that an anchor should hold your boat at wide open in reverse without moving. This is a guy who has been sailing for 25 years and admittedly dragged "perhaps 20 times but never with my CQR"! Once is to much! It's imperative the anchor gets "set" properly. Yes the CQR sets better in soft bottoms than in sand but not all boaters are lucky enough to always drop the hook in a soft bottom. So if you're in a hard bottom make sure to get it set. The CQR will set well but it may take more than one attempt. Don't ever be fooled by the "initial bite". With a CQR this is a situation where the anchor is laying on it's side with the tip just starting to dig in. Like the picture at the beginning of Sail Magazines article. If you stop there on any sort of wind or current shift the anchor will twist out. A CQR needs to be vertical and burried to the shank or it's not properly set! If it's properly burried it can sometimes survive a 180 shift without "breaking free". I suggest some of you begin diving on your anchors in a shallow spot to see what's going on down there I think you'd be surprised... By the way the folks at West Marine were so impressed with the test results (they were involved first hand) they are now selling the Rocna. They are selling it even though they make far less margin on it than they can on any of the Lewmar anchors like the Delta, CQR or the Claw! There doing it because it clearly is the best all round performer regardless of the margin they make! _________________ -Maine Sail CS-36T Broad Cove, Maine
Maine sail Your experience with CQR parallels
mine. I always have use a large scope because I have always had room. The CQR seems to hold well on a scope of 8:1 or more. Nancy gets as fierce as the weather if we have to anchor in those conditions.
mine. I always have use a large scope because I have always had room. The CQR seems to hold well on a scope of 8:1 or more. Nancy gets as fierce as the weather if we have to anchor in those conditions.
Bruce?
A very interesting thread. I sail a C30 MKIII in Northern Lake Michigan. Our ground tackle is a 33lb Bruce with 50 ft. of 1/4" high test and 250 ft. of 1/2" nylon rode. I was surprised by the test results for Bruce anchors. My experience over 5 years has been very consistant. We anchor out overnight 15-25 nights a summer. We always use 5-1 to 7-1 scope and set it with full power on our 23hp Universal. I frequently dive down or look down and the Bruce ALWAYS sets in about 2 anchor lengths. We have had blows up to 40knots and have NEVER dragged even a anchor length. Most of the bottoms are sand, sand and small rocks, sand and clay, and some of all of the previous with some weeds thrown in. Agree with Maine Sail, many, many people do not know how to anchor properly. My experience over the last 5 years, tells me that MY set-up works well for me, so I am sticking with it. BTW, back-up is a 22lb Danforth style with 30 ft of chain and 200 ft of rode. Seldom if ever use it. Fair winds Dave
A very interesting thread. I sail a C30 MKIII in Northern Lake Michigan. Our ground tackle is a 33lb Bruce with 50 ft. of 1/4" high test and 250 ft. of 1/2" nylon rode. I was surprised by the test results for Bruce anchors. My experience over 5 years has been very consistant. We anchor out overnight 15-25 nights a summer. We always use 5-1 to 7-1 scope and set it with full power on our 23hp Universal. I frequently dive down or look down and the Bruce ALWAYS sets in about 2 anchor lengths. We have had blows up to 40knots and have NEVER dragged even a anchor length. Most of the bottoms are sand, sand and small rocks, sand and clay, and some of all of the previous with some weeds thrown in. Agree with Maine Sail, many, many people do not know how to anchor properly. My experience over the last 5 years, tells me that MY set-up works well for me, so I am sticking with it. BTW, back-up is a 22lb Danforth style with 30 ft of chain and 200 ft of rode. Seldom if ever use it. Fair winds Dave
Dave..
Dave you have had good results with your Bruce because it's properly sized for your boat. Most C-30 owners I know use a 22lb Bruce which is, by Bruce/Lewmars' suggestions, OK for a 30 footer. The reality, and numerous load tests, have shown that with a Bruce you need to go up one or even two sizes, as you've done, to get enough raw surface area. Bruce anchors have less surface area to weight than most other anchors and thus must be up sized to work safely and be effective in a blow. You will continue to be fine with a 33lb Bruce on a C-30. In the future, and when your back can no longer handle a 33lb anchor, you could down size, in weight, to a 25lb Rocna or a 24lb Manson Supreme yet still have better holding power and more surface area than your 33lb Bruce.
Dave you have had good results with your Bruce because it's properly sized for your boat. Most C-30 owners I know use a 22lb Bruce which is, by Bruce/Lewmars' suggestions, OK for a 30 footer. The reality, and numerous load tests, have shown that with a Bruce you need to go up one or even two sizes, as you've done, to get enough raw surface area. Bruce anchors have less surface area to weight than most other anchors and thus must be up sized to work safely and be effective in a blow. You will continue to be fine with a 33lb Bruce on a C-30. In the future, and when your back can no longer handle a 33lb anchor, you could down size, in weight, to a 25lb Rocna or a 24lb Manson Supreme yet still have better holding power and more surface area than your 33lb Bruce.
33# claw with Pearson 323
My CQR abd Danforth both drug on night as a storm passed through that changed the wind 180 degrees and back again. The Danforth speared a large conch and didn't reset and the CQR apparently was just sliding across the bottom. I bought a Claw (bruce knockoff) and have never dragged since. If is a pain in the back to lift off of the bottom. I want to get a second bow roller and use a second Claw but a 22# one. My CQR /plow came with the boat and may not be the real thing. It sets well in mud and sand but really didn't do well in grass. We anchored in an exposed area one night(no choice)with 15-25 knots of wind and by looking at lights on shore we were dragging. I let out some more scope and we held the rest of the night. The wind seemed to let up some so I can't swear that the extra scope is what stopped the dragging. I don't know it's weight but it's less than the claw. Two anchors on bow rollers is the way to go. One lighter and one heavier. As others have stated my Claw is one size larger than recommended.
My CQR abd Danforth both drug on night as a storm passed through that changed the wind 180 degrees and back again. The Danforth speared a large conch and didn't reset and the CQR apparently was just sliding across the bottom. I bought a Claw (bruce knockoff) and have never dragged since. If is a pain in the back to lift off of the bottom. I want to get a second bow roller and use a second Claw but a 22# one. My CQR /plow came with the boat and may not be the real thing. It sets well in mud and sand but really didn't do well in grass. We anchored in an exposed area one night(no choice)with 15-25 knots of wind and by looking at lights on shore we were dragging. I let out some more scope and we held the rest of the night. The wind seemed to let up some so I can't swear that the extra scope is what stopped the dragging. I don't know it's weight but it's less than the claw. Two anchors on bow rollers is the way to go. One lighter and one heavier. As others have stated my Claw is one size larger than recommended.
My experience CQR vs Rocna
I posted earlier that I was purchasing a Rocna 15kg (33 pounds) to replace my 35lb CQR for my C36 MKII. In the past I have strongly supported the CQR - I have never dragged with it once I set it at 2200rpm. However in some bottoms I had trouble setting - particularly hard sand or hard clay. I would have to try in different spots to get it to set. It was great in muds and weeds. (I agree completely with Maine Sail regarding setting - it is the only way that you can tell if your anchor will hold in that particular bottom under a blow). After this summers cruising and using the Rocna for almost 6 weeks and anchoring almost every night in a variety of spots - weeds, mud, clay and some hard sand, I have gained a healthy respect for the Rocna - there was not a single time that I had to try to set it more than once. It set in short order every time. It held in a gale - 30+ knots and a thunderstorm. I buried itself completely a number of times when it blew. When I brought the anchor up in weedy spots it had no more a ball of weeds than the previous CQR. Finally, in answer to the original poster's question - I wouldn't trust a 20 lb CQR on your boat in high winds - you should be using a 35 lb CQR (which I would trust if it set properly in the bottom of your anchorage - my experience has been if it sets OK at 2200rpm in a bottom, if the wind changes, the CQR will reset). Keep in mind, when I was doing research for my most recent anchor purchase, I read test results that indicate that some CQR knockoffs don't hold as well as a CQR - same goes for the Bruce and the Claw (which is a knock off). Finally, to the original poster, as you may gather, my experience this summer indicates to me that Rocna would be better than the CQR - my experience confirms to me that it sets very easily (as the tests showed) and when I put the two anchors side by side it is clear that the Rocna has a lot more holding area for the same weight as the CQR. Edit: my avatar is wrong! Will have to try to fix it. It should be a C36 lying peacefully at anchor (our favourite way to spend the night) with a cliff in the background. -- uploaded my correct avatar. rebooted my browser and still the wrong avatar!
I posted earlier that I was purchasing a Rocna 15kg (33 pounds) to replace my 35lb CQR for my C36 MKII. In the past I have strongly supported the CQR - I have never dragged with it once I set it at 2200rpm. However in some bottoms I had trouble setting - particularly hard sand or hard clay. I would have to try in different spots to get it to set. It was great in muds and weeds. (I agree completely with Maine Sail regarding setting - it is the only way that you can tell if your anchor will hold in that particular bottom under a blow). After this summers cruising and using the Rocna for almost 6 weeks and anchoring almost every night in a variety of spots - weeds, mud, clay and some hard sand, I have gained a healthy respect for the Rocna - there was not a single time that I had to try to set it more than once. It set in short order every time. It held in a gale - 30+ knots and a thunderstorm. I buried itself completely a number of times when it blew. When I brought the anchor up in weedy spots it had no more a ball of weeds than the previous CQR. Finally, in answer to the original poster's question - I wouldn't trust a 20 lb CQR on your boat in high winds - you should be using a 35 lb CQR (which I would trust if it set properly in the bottom of your anchorage - my experience has been if it sets OK at 2200rpm in a bottom, if the wind changes, the CQR will reset). Keep in mind, when I was doing research for my most recent anchor purchase, I read test results that indicate that some CQR knockoffs don't hold as well as a CQR - same goes for the Bruce and the Claw (which is a knock off). Finally, to the original poster, as you may gather, my experience this summer indicates to me that Rocna would be better than the CQR - my experience confirms to me that it sets very easily (as the tests showed) and when I put the two anchors side by side it is clear that the Rocna has a lot more holding area for the same weight as the CQR. Edit: my avatar is wrong! Will have to try to fix it. It should be a C36 lying peacefully at anchor (our favourite way to spend the night) with a cliff in the background. -- uploaded my correct avatar. rebooted my browser and still the wrong avatar!
anchor weight
Hi again Maine sail; You have not considered all of the alternatives of the fast approaching day when the 33LB and chain get to be to heavy. First alternative is for me to drive boat, and wife haul up anchor;-))) second alternative is smaller different style anchor! fair winds Dave
Hi again Maine sail; You have not considered all of the alternatives of the fast approaching day when the 33LB and chain get to be to heavy. First alternative is for me to drive boat, and wife haul up anchor;-))) second alternative is smaller different style anchor! fair winds Dave
Loop looks perfect to get fouled
The manson supreme looks perfect to catch assorted stuff on the bottom!!! It may not be a problem in reality but it looks like it has potential. Scuba diving I've found several small anchors caught on rocks logs etc. One I particularly liked was caught in deep water so I retrieved about 100' of rode along with the anchor. It had wedged into some rocks and would have been impossible to retrieve from the surface. The only reason that I found it was that they had used floating line. I saw the line and followed it to the anchor. Any anchor can get fouled but that loop gets my attention!!!
The manson supreme looks perfect to catch assorted stuff on the bottom!!! It may not be a problem in reality but it looks like it has potential. Scuba diving I've found several small anchors caught on rocks logs etc. One I particularly liked was caught in deep water so I retrieved about 100' of rode along with the anchor. It had wedged into some rocks and would have been impossible to retrieve from the surface. The only reason that I found it was that they had used floating line. I saw the line and followed it to the anchor. Any anchor can get fouled but that loop gets my attention!!!
THIS IS LIKE WHO HAS THE BEST BOAT?
This is informative but i cant seem to see how draging an anchor across the lawn tells me much, unless you pull it from the roof.. Then i cant help thinking that it took farmers a few hundred years to come up with a plow design that would cut thru the soil and make a furrow. now we are trying to get it not to pull thru the soil to stop a boat. interesting.. maybe its like a ford or a chevy.. i have an old wishbone anchor. ill bet it will grab sooner than any of these. i have used it when the cqr and the danforth were draging and we had reset both 5 or 6 times and could not get the anchors to hold, soo we hooked up the wishbone and it hooked up as it hit the bottom, and held thru the storm.
This is informative but i cant seem to see how draging an anchor across the lawn tells me much, unless you pull it from the roof.. Then i cant help thinking that it took farmers a few hundred years to come up with a plow design that would cut thru the soil and make a furrow. now we are trying to get it not to pull thru the soil to stop a boat. interesting.. maybe its like a ford or a chevy.. i have an old wishbone anchor. ill bet it will grab sooner than any of these. i have used it when the cqr and the danforth were draging and we had reset both 5 or 6 times and could not get the anchors to hold, soo we hooked up the wishbone and it hooked up as it hit the bottom, and held thru the storm.
discount Rocna?
I've been wanting to switch to Rocna, but I keep balking at the $900 WM wants for the 33kg model. Does anyone know a better source? (Perhaps we could talk Phil into carrying Rocna in the chandlery as a result of this thread.)
I've been wanting to switch to Rocna, but I keep balking at the $900 WM wants for the 33kg model. Does anyone know a better source? (Perhaps we could talk Phil into carrying Rocna in the chandlery as a result of this thread.)
John, try a Manson Supreme
That's what I got when I saw the price and distribution problems with Rocna. Used it six months last season and was very happy with it. Craig Smith (Rocna) will tell you it's his idea with minor variations but as far as I'm concerned it's the best anchor I've ever had.
That's what I got when I saw the price and distribution problems with Rocna. Used it six months last season and was very happy with it. Craig Smith (Rocna) will tell you it's his idea with minor variations but as far as I'm concerned it's the best anchor I've ever had.
- Status