Proper ground tackle for long island sound and new england

[sailingdog]

One thing to remember is that if you have a windlass—you have to get chain that fits the windlass. If you don't you're going to be hauling up the anchor and rode by hand.

Also, backing down on an anchor isn't really going to tell you if it will hold in a really bad storm... most boats just don't have the horsepower to really test the anchor's set.

I would highly recommend getting a windlass, even a manual one. They really do make resetting or retreiving the anchor much simpler. If you get a powered windlass, make sure you can't accidentally step on the foot switches while working on the rode—lots of people have gone to the hospital for that...some have even lost fingers.

Also, get an anchor the size up from what is "recommended" for your boat. Most anchors are sized for relatively benign conditions, and won't really hold your boat in a blow. Going up a size usually remedies that.

Finally, as Newport41 said...don't forget to include the tidal range in your scope calculations, and don't forget to add the freeboard of your boat to the distance to the bottom for scope calculations.

For example—If the tidal range is 8', like it is around much of Cape Cod, your boat has 4' of freeboard to the bowroller, and you're in 10' of water at low tide, and want to have 5:1 scope—you have to let out 110' of chain, not the 50' that the depth would tell you to use. 110 = **10 (depth of water) + 8 (tidal difference) + 4 (freeboard)} * 5.

If you forgot to add the freeboard of your boat, you would be at 90' of rode, which would be about 4:1 scope.

If you forgot the tidal range, you'd be letting out 5*(10+4) or 70' of rode, which would leave you with a scope of 3.18:1 at high tide.

If you forgot both the tidal range and the freeboard, you'd be at 50' of rode, which would leave you at 2.27:1 scope at high tide.

[Craig Smith]

Originally Posted by jasonr575

Sounds to me that people say because of a cqr's design it is not a good anchor, but the people who have had experience with is have great things to say about it.

You will always find this. Most people do not have a wide range of experience with anchors, as they tend to make what they have work to an acceptable degree, and that generates contrary "results". What you will find is anyone with good experience with "new" vs "old", to generalize, will expound the benefits of the new over the old - but never vice versa.

Originally Posted by jasonr575

A bruce anchor seems to be a good one to have on board. what size is suggested for the boat? (look at first post for boat details). Also since they are not in business any more what is a comparable brand/model?

It isn't... only an alternative to the CQR. You have taken one step forward in the history of anchor development and are now in the 1970's instead of the 1930's.

The Bruce in general terms sets better than the CQR, but holds worse on a weight-for-weight basis. Since setting isn't your problem (I assume, given your intended cruising grounds), going to the Bruce is leaning the wrong way unless you massively oversize it, and what's the point of that... find something more efficient. Frankly you shouldn't consider anything older than the Delta.

The final nail in the Bruce's coffin is that you can no longer buy the genuine version, and what Bruce say on their website about the copies is pretty well right. Knock-offs are always much worse, as they typically need to be cheaper than the original in order to compete. The Lewmar copy, the Chinese built "Claw", is in that testing above.

Originally Posted by sailingdog

Also, get an anchor the size up from what is "recommended" for your boat. Most anchors are sized for relatively benign conditions, and won't really hold your boat in a blow. Going up a size usually remedies that.

True but not universally if I may sing my tune briefly; we size with 50 knots in mind, together with surge, and moderate holding.

[sailingdog]

Craig-

Actually, I went up a size from what your site would have recommended for my boat.

It had recommended a 10 kg Rocna, for a 30' long boat up to 5 tons. My boat is 28' and considerably less than 5 tons, but I went with the 15 kg Rocna, which you recommend for boats up to 9 tons in displacement. My boat only displaces about two-and-half tons, but I felt that due to the extra windage present by a trimaran, going up a size would be prudent.

[Craig Smith]

That's fine SD, we would advise the same. Our chart is for monohulls. A 15 on your boat is still very conservative.

[sailingdog]

Craig-

You might want to either publish a chart for multihulls or make a note about the recommendations are for monohulls, somewhere on the site.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by christyleigh

Ahhh..... it's a good day to argue Religion/Anchors I'm a Bruce fan because on my 13,000 lb c320 the 33 with only the minimum 30' of chain held me for days of 360 degree shifting winds, underscoped at crowded Block Island RI, in the 'hard pan' of Martha's Vinyard - Vinyard Haven's outer harbor, etc..... and most other places in the area for 6 years with 100% first time set and hold. That same 33 Bruce now has held my 18,000 lb. NC 331 with the same chain/rope setup for 1 year in 20kt wind etc.... with 100% satisfaction.
As for the Rocna testing ******** - Yes... you can lie with pictures They couldn't make the Bruce hold at all - Gee.... I've tried to make it fail for 7 years underscoped, shifting winds, now undersized and all... and haven't succeded yet. .

Wo tell us how you really feel! As a former Bruce user and still a Bruce owner I can say with 100% certainty that a Bruce does not set or hold nearly as well as my Spade or my Manson Supreme. Until you've used one of the new generation anchors don;t make blanket statments that hold no water like the "Rocna testing ********"!

The Sail magazine test results were about as unbiased as you can get unless you consider that they actually gave preferential treatment to the Claw and the CQR! The Practical Sailor (the bible of sail product testing) tests compared 33# anchors to 25# anchors?? How is that a fair comparison..

The Sail Magazine tests 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.

People on 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. It seems three of the anchors that got beat up the worst were the Lewmar Claw (Bruce Copy), the CQR (also Lewmar) and the West Marine Performance 20. Lewmar is one of Sails larger advertisers! In this months issue they have one full pager and one quarter page ad alone. 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 the Manson, Hydrobubble & Rocna have no advertising in Sail Magazine at all and West Marine does not sell any of those anchors! I have heard rumors though that they just picked up the Manson.

Biased when based on ad money? I think so! With the preferential treatment of the Claw & CQR this bias is clear but it still did not help either of those anchors perform better! The top performing anchors data speaks for its self..

This test was a very "biased" test when it came to the CQR & Claw but not their competitors. They went so far as to have in-depth discussions to figure out a way to get the Bruce (Claw) and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results. 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. Hell even a brick can set in the soft mud..

Here's a direct quote: "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."

This to me sounds like they perhaps had to give the CQR (ie: Lewmar ad money) a little "extra" by going slower than with other anchors and trying to manually coax it to set. How can anyone claim bias against the CQR or the Bruce (Claw) when they potentially gave it preferential treatment? This seems a little unfair if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors to make it as fair as possible. The results don't surprise me as I own a Bruce (genuine) and a CQR and though they perform ok 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" 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 did you know that?", "No", "Did you know that the motor on this boat can barely re-produce 350 pounds of pull wide open?" "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 beleive that the CQR could hold his boat using 80% throttle and was totally surprised by it! Scary I know.... From my experience I find a CQR likes a minimum of a 7:1 to set but it sometimes prefers more. The Bruce can set on less scope and is a decent setter. It's still not great when compared to the newer anchors but better than the CQR by a long shot but if the wind picks up be prepared to let out more scope and still potentially drag..

My friend 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 & Bruce set 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. 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...


"Indoor plumbing is a passing fad the outhouse is much more reliable!"

The nay sayer types kill me! "Nothing is better than what I'm currently using!" Heck I own a Fortress, two Spades (steel and aluminum), two CQR's, a Bruce, a Fast Set, a Manson Supreme and I just ordered a 15kg Rocna from Suncoast because I truly want the BEST anchor money can buy. It's cheap insurance! So far that best has been the Manson Supreme but I do beleive the Rocna is a better performer so I put my money where my mouth is and stepped up to the plate so to speak and ordered one! Yes I was skeptical about Craigs incessant touting but the data does speak for itself if you do your research. There is NO doubt that the new generation anchors such as the Spade, Manson Supreme and Rocna blow away the Bruce and CQR. It's not to say the Bruce and CQR don't work they do but not nearly as well as a Rocna, Spade or Manson. One word of caution on Spades though is DON'T buy the aluminum version it's set rate on hard surfaces is abysmal and comparable to a CQR. It's far to light underwater to get a good set in a hard bottm...

Just for grins taker a look at the surface area comparison of a few of my anchors and you'll see why the Rocna or Manson types win.

From L to R - CQR 25Lb, Manson Supreme 25Lb, Spade 35Lb. The Manson or a Rocna for that matter has as much surface area as a 35lb weighted tip anchor and perhaps 40% more than the same weight CQR.

[TrueBlue]

As mentioned earlier, I quite often dive down to check my 35# CQR set and have never seen it skip or drag on a hard sand bottom - the bottom type we usually anchor over when scuba diving, due to better visibility.

Of course, having a 22" three blade prop and a 90 hp superturbo diesel engine on the boat, allows for superior powersetting. So I suppose my test results are biased. < G >

[Maine Sail]

The key here is that you are actually setting your anchor something 80% of boaters never do properly! I'd rather have a boater upwind of me in an anchorage with a properly set CQR than a sailor who did the Holywood toss with a Spade. With both properly set I'd still rather have the Spade guy upwind of me though!

[christyleigh]

Originally Posted by halekai36

Until you've used one of the new generation anchors don;t make blanket statments that hold no water like the "Rocna testing ********"!

Too Late.... I already did and will again. If you notice in my posting the 'Rocna testing ********' is in a paragraph referring to their testing of Bruce anchors and I backed it up with my 7 years of testing with opposite results. I made no reference to the quality of the Rocna Anchor anywhere in my post.

[sailingdog]

The other thing I don't see being addressed in this conversation so far is an anchor's ability to reset once it had been pulled out. In my experience, the fluke designs, like the Danforth and the Fortress tend to plane and have a very difficult time resetting, especially if the boat is moving at all.

The plough-type anchors seem to have some trouble resetting...and unless the bottom is the right consistency will either skip over it—if it is too hard; or plough through it—if it is too soft.

The claw type anchors seem to like to grab and skip and then grab and skip... but never really seem to reset.

The newer designs, like the Rocna, which I use on my boat, the Manson Supreme, the Buegel and the Spade seem to do much better at resetting themselves.

A lot of this may be more of an issue with a multihull, due to the increased windage and reduced inertia. A monohull takes a bit more time to get any speed on if the anchor drags, but a multihull, which has much less mass and a bit more windage can start moving pretty quickly once the anchor lets go.

One reason I don't particularly like the CQR is the hinged design. The hinge seems to be a possible weak point in the anchor's design. This is also the reason I don't like the Bulwagga anchor much. It has a single strut that connects the three flukes to the rode, and the strut seems to be a likely point of failure. The Bulwagga also has the problem of being difficult to stow and not really bow-roller friendly.

If the next-generation anchor manufacturers are really confident in their product, I think they should offer a 30-day no-questions-asked return policy on their anchors. That is, that if you were to use their product for 30-days, and if it didn't live up to their claims and didn't set faster, hold better than what you had been using, that you could return it for a refund.

In some ways, anchors are kind of like buying software.... you can read about all that the manufacturer claims it will do, and you can read all the reviews about it, but until you actually get to try it out on your system, you can't really ever be sure that it will work as promised with the hardware you have for the purpose you have. Unfortunately, the analogy continues in that most anchors, not being available at chandleries, are difficult to get and difficult to return if they don't perform as claimed.