Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: on the boat - Chesapeake
Thanked 158 Times in 141 Posts
Rep Power: 9
Re: Let's talk about anchors some more
I agree. E.S. "Mac" Maloney, 90+ years young and long time author of Chapman's, has used a CQR successfully for decades. Tom Neale, another noted boating author, has cruised and lived aboard since the late 70s, logging several thousand miles per year, and he has also used a CQR successfully during that time.
If I were to suggest to them that their CQR was a bad anchor because it performed poorly in a controlled anchor test with 5 or so pulls, then I suspect their response would be one of disbelief, and possibly even hysterical laughter.
I have heard similar accolades from Bruce owners as well.
Do the "new generation" anchors offer improved performance over the older models? I believe so, but those older models certainly have earned a loyal following over the years....even up to this day. I still see them mounted on the bows of many different types of boats by a vast majority at the shows.
I think Brian makes THE
fundamental point. The availability of better anchors doesn't make older anchors less good. It simply gives those of us in the market for an anchor better performing alternatives.
I've spent a lot of nights hanging on a CQR or a Bruce and many many nights on a Delta. I'm much more comfortable now hanging on a Rocna. I'd be just as happy on a Spade or Raya. Although I haven't used one, I'd probably be just as content on a Mantus or Manson Supreme.
If I had a 1964-1/2 Ford Mustang I'd be content with the drum brakes. If I was buying a new vehicle I darn well would be sure to get four wheel disc brakes. CQR = drums; Rocna/Spade/Mantus/et al = disc brakes.
sail fast and eat well, dave
beware "cut and paste" sailors.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.