Anchor size, big is better?

big is better

Hi All.
Rex from Anchor Right Australia.
Doesn’t matter whether the anchor you are deploying is a Noah’s Ark job or the latest fandangle new design bigger will always be better, heavier anchors with blunt bulky toes will always work better than the smaller ones of the same brand with the same blunt toes.

Sharpen them and you will find an instant improvement on those anchors to set and penetrate. Bigger means more weight concentrated on the business end of your anchor, for instance, if you stand, present the normal weight of a garden spade to your lawn it will not penetrate, what happens when you stand on it.

So yes in areas that are hard to penetrate a heavier bigger anchor will have a better chance to set.

A much lighter modern anchor design will in most cases outperform many of the older designs simply because they penetrate so much better in a wider variety of substrates, this has been the WOW hype factor on new anchor technology, beware, this wow factor doesn’t mean to say all new designs will produce more holding power, any anchor design once buried is where all your holding power comes from, a well buried CQR is hard to beat and will normally be sufficient as long as you have the right size for the boat.

If you are anchoring overnight on slab rock you will have no trustworthy holding power regardless of anchor size and design. Heavier in this situation will simply mean you will fight resistance longer before you drag.

(Change of tide and the ability to reset in a shorter distance)

These are two of the largest improvements in modern anchor technology in many designs, the next line may upset some but it is not with malice but how it is, concave design with a hoop, don’t get to settled with this design in change of tide or wind shift ,although the elements can break any anchor design out, as Delfin said, mud and weed will build up and compress between the hoop and the fluke, this can give this design a shallow set, whilst this may or may not be a problem, it can ,does, make it very difficult for the anchor to reset should it break out, this was our very first patented design, we never produced it and redesigned to convex so we do have the knowledge.

Do your own research, the best facts to back this up are you, and a few years on the market with forums like these uncover the facts with a design. Believe me those facts are out there and from what I’ve seen you guys are onto it.

There have been many questions in relation to, if I go up a size will my winch handle it, in most cases yes but again depending on design you may be pulling up a load of mud, this mud may weigh four times more than the anchor. If you choose a concave design it is important you take this into account, this anchor has surfaced; imagine the volume when first broken out.

Sorry guys Icannot seem to load this picture.


Holding power
I am not talking how much Rhode, scope, snubbers these can all be an advantage, I am talking an anchors design, ( width versus depth) if an anchor design such as CQR or similar will penetrate 2 inches deeper than another design that relies on volume, then the broader anchor that sets shallower will to be at least four inches broader than a CQR or similar design to produce the same holding power.

So if you go for a broader anchor design check out the penetration depth ability, don’t be sold on the slogan (the widest fluke area of any anchor for improved holding) if it proves to bury deep you have the best of both worlds, depth can be more advantageous than width in most situations.eg weed, or weed and mud.

Of course how much scope, type of scope you put out will improve or reduce the holding power of all anchor designs, if you are ever caught in a situation that you would rather not be in then do not defy the actual physics, three to one for light anchoring, five to seven to one for overnight, everything you’ve got if needs be, the more you let out depending on design the deeper your anchor will go, the more rope or chain will also reduce impact and less chance of dislodgment, if you don’t agree then research what I say or somewhere down that track you will pay the price.

So what to look for in new anchor technology, a design that will penetrate deep in many types of ocean floor terrain, make sure the anchor is certified or at least meets simple standards, ask to see these test certs, are they legitimate, what type of steels are they made of, forget about glossy magazine tests, research designs, the company producing them and what your forums say.

Worth researching, design is a good place to start, look for a fluke design that has an excellent entry point followed by a fluke that doesn’t plough but allows movement of substrate whilst compressing, this encourages the anchor to dive, how does it respond in a wind shift or change of tide, a deep throat opening will always be an advantage in weed, other factors that are of importance to many, will it fit my arrangement and oddly how good it looks. It is not possible to have the perfect anchor, it will never exist, they are all a compromise, still heavier is better.

Best comment from rwidman
As for "the major consideration in anchoring safely", technique is up there with size. If you just drop the anchor off the bow, cut the engine, and go below to fix a drink, size isn't going to be that much help. Learn how to set an anchor correctly and you'll be ahead of the game.
__________________

The only thing I would add to that is if you cannot set your anchor after trying several areas then get rid of it and buy one that will.

Now I know many of you have many specialized professions from building air craft to saving lives but each to his own profession, I ain’t no Guru either but I have been designing testing anchors for the commercial pleasure boat and trailer boat industry now for the last twenty years so have some knowledge.
Some may appreciate my comments and obviously I will give some a heache,Just had to throw in my two bobs worth.

Regards to all, CEO of Anchor Right Australia.
Rex.

Rex, that's fine, but the original post assumes the same style of anchor, it's not asking if style "X" is better than style "Y".

I do have a related question though. You state "Sharpen them and you will find an instant improvement on those anchors to set and penetrate." If that is the case, why don't manufacturers sharpen their anchors during the manufacturing process?

Actually, he did answer that Ron. Rex said several times, irrespective of anchor type heavier is usually better, eg "It is not possible to have the perfect anchor, it will never exist, they are all a compromise, still heavier is better."
As to the tip sharpness..again, same answer..the newer generation anchors like Sarca, Rocna and Manson Supreme do have quite sharp tips, as do the old CQR & Danforth types that preceeded them. But weight plus sharpness work even better.

If anyone is interested in SIZE!

I have an 80KG real UK Bruce for half price.

bigger is better

Yes Ron you are correct the question was not necessary about style x is better than style Y.

I have to confess I am not good at sticking to a specific question, I should not read three or four threads with questions that around about way do relate, I then tend to summarise them in my own way without consideration to the original question, I do apologize for this but my passion for what I do I make no apology.

Ron wrote;

I do have a related question though. You state "Sharpen them and you will find an instant improvement on those anchors to set and penetrate." If that is the case, why don't manufacturers sharpen their anchors during the manufacturing process?

A good question and maybe that is where I should have started, most of our ship anchors are cast, pool anchors, navy anchors are just a couple that comes to mind, these anchors suspend just about all of their weight at the head-crown of the design, when these style anchors are deployed the two heavy flukes bite and then the crown weight drives directly through those flukes.


Because these are cast steel anchors, a very low resistance thin fluke toe will not do, it would be prone to snapping of on impact, to compromise when these anchors are new the pointy ends are proportioned within practical reason to give strenght, consideration to resistance and long service, Tip resistance is governed by these factors.


However they do get redressed -ground to improve penetration in ship rights yards as they become very blunt –worn down, how many times this can be done is simply governed by a surveyors hand book on the original specs of these anchors, throat opening is also measured, once it is worn over a specified measurement the anchor can be condemned.


I think the Chinese made Rocna is cast, but because it doesn’t suspend all of its weight through the toe the design gets a grind to the point where one could call it sharp without suffering the ware of Dreadnaughts, Navy, pool style anchors are subjected to.


Problem being most of us only see worn out ship anchors similar to the Navy ones that Eric posted, if you look closely you will find the flukes indeed are very blunt and worn, sure you could sharpen these anchors up for low resistance easy penetration for private use, improve their performance over a new one, I assure you, this will, but they will never be subjected to the rigorous dragging the commercial ships would put them through.


To answer the last part of your question, manufacturers do sharpen their anchors, take a look at the following, Fortress, Supreme, Super Sarca, Excel, Boss, Mantus the list goes on but these designs allow it as these toes are fabricated not cast, rather than snap of the toe, at the worst you could maybe bend it, but then again a heavy engineers hammer may straiten it without any repercussions that you would experience if you snapped of the toe.


To give a couple of examples on other cast toe designs, CQR struggle in firm or hard clay to penetrate, so does Delta ,well documented ,not theory, try sharpening these cast toes and they will snap of easily on impact, but in the meantime after the sharpen they will perform like they are on steroids as to their original performance, penetration that is.


Again I say, do the research it is there.


CEO of Anchor Right Australia.


Regards Rex.

Good Day Rex,
Hope you're still around.
I have a question regarding the original poster's size question.
You talked of big ships and Navy type anchors.
It's been my observation that larger yachts and to my eyes ships have very small anchors compared to their bulk and apparent displacement. Their anchors look to be much too small. Many on this forum are obviously buying into the "bigger is better" so to feel good and safe they get bigger anchors. They want to see that they have an anchor that's bigger than most all they see and given a high number of such blokes perhaps the yachtsman's anchor is too big and the bigger vessels and ships are sized properly. Since ships almost always use a Navy or Dreadnought type they could have an industry standard of so many pounds of anchor for so many tons of vessel.

Does such a standard exist and are ship anchors small per ton of vessel compared to small boats like ours?

bigger is better

Hi Eric,

Mate Like I said I am no guru, in the field of big ships their anchors are controlled by many variables but are still governed by classification societies such as the USL Code, DNV, Lloyd’s and the like, the best person to answer your question would be a survey officer, he could give it to you in an instant, but make no mistake, pool anchors, Navy and the like can weight five, six, 15 ton and still look extremely small when hanging from a large ship.

It would be easy to make the wrong evaluation comparing their anchor visual size to Yachts, motor boats and even trawlers, really need to check their weight.
But there is something you are missing, the anchors on these ships rarely hold them unless they are in protected waters, that is really all they are meant to do, if their anchors drag whilst waiting to dock they get assistance from tug boats.

Another equation is these vessels have so much weight and have a draft that you could build a house under, wind has very little influence on them when in protected waters, Something to remember, a ship under steam in the open sea has to travel at a safe distance, so many nautical miles of coast line and further depending on high seas and wind, dropping their anchors will never hold them if they are blown of course, this is why so many of them if they don’t follow the rules will end up going a ground.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia.

Regards Rex.

Thanks Rex.

I'm gett'in a smaller anchor now. What did you say was the phone # for doze tugs?

I have a new "old boat". It’s going to weigh 35 tons loaded. I inherited a 135 pound CQR and a nice piece of 1 1/8” 12-strand, along with a big fortress.
I want to add a primary anchor and am looking at
176 lbs Lewmar Horizon Claw for $750.
154 lb Rocna 70 for $2212.48
The price different is hard to understand
I ran this boat using the 135 pound CQR with no anchoring problems so it’s hard to spend the extra money on the Rocna.
Any advice?
al

99% of the fishermen in Alaska would get the Claw.

Now if it drags you can tell your lawyer about THEM .. not me.

It's very unlikely it will drag though.

One observation about big great holding anchors is they can be hard to retrieve.

The simple cure is a trip line.

We use a red floating ball with the line lead from the crown thru the ball eye and connected to a lead sounding weight .

Does fine before anchoring at deciding the actual depth weight , and if armed the bottom composition.

When the anchor is set the trip line / locator ball simply follows the anchor , and the ball because of the lead weight hanging is directly over the anchor.

Even a light 3/8 line will accept a ton of pull , so getting back that dumb chunk of iron that cost more per pound than a 787 is easy if needed..

FF

Boatgm said:

I have a new "old boat". It’s going to weigh 35 tons loaded. I inherited a 135 pound CQR and a nice piece of 1 1/8” 12-strand, along with a big fortress.
I want to add a primary anchor and am looking at
176 lbs Lewmar Horizon Claw for $750.
154 lb Rocna 70 for $2212.48
The price different is hard to understand
I ran this boat using the 135 pound CQR with no anchoring problems so it’s hard to spend the extra money on the Rocna.
Any advice?
al

Click to expand...

Advice? If it works, don't fix it.

My boat came with a Chinese claw anchor. It was rusty and a little bent, but I used it for four years. Before setting out on a month long cruise with several nights planned on the hook, I replaced it with a similar anchor, but the next larger size. Mostly just for peace of mind, I never had a problem with the old rusty and bent anchor.

Defender had the Lewmar claw anchor I wanted on sale so I took their ad to West Marine and got a price match. I paid sales tax but saved on shipping.

Boatgm said:

I have a new "old boat". It’s going to weigh 35 tons loaded. I inherited a 135 pound CQR and a nice piece of 1 1/8” 12-strand, along with a big fortress.
I want to add a primary anchor and am looking at
176 lbs Lewmar Horizon Claw for $750.
154 lb Rocna 70 for $2212.48
The price different is hard to understand
I ran this boat using the 135 pound CQR with no anchoring problems so it’s hard to spend the extra money on the Rocna.
Any advice?
al

Click to expand...

I have the same size Claw on a 65 ton boat, and it has never dragged an inch that I can tell, in wind gusts up to 60 knots. Either the Claw or the Rocna are a bit overkill for your boat, but when it comes to overkill in anchors, that's a good thing. An almost identical design to the Claw (Manson Ray) was tested in Tierra del Fuego against a Rocna and Manson Supreme in the kind of weights you're looking at and the Bruce type came out on top.

I'd get the Claw and spend what you saved on some decent chain.

The anchor test is in Practical Sailor mag Nov 08

surface. This was apparent in the first meter of the beach test where the roll- bar anchors hopped among the rocks before the tips managed to penetrate the frozen sand.
The Ray tends to scoop the loose rocks between two of its flukes, pile them up, and then snag a bigger rock. The Rocna and Supreme blade points will skate between the loose rocks, throwing them off to either side, until the anchor can jam on a big rock.
shOrt scOpe
In small, crowded, or deep anchor- ages, sailors occasionally have to anchor with shorter scope than they would prefer. In these situations, Leonard and Starzinger have used as little as 2:1 scope. To simulate this extreme for the evaluation, we held a second pull test, this time on a differ- ent beach with a much-better-holding gravel and mud, using a 2:1 scope, with and without chain, and with a more upward pulling angle. We were
surprised by the results. Given the loose bottom conditions,
we expected all the anchors to dig in easily and quickly. However, in the first pull, with only rope rode and no chain, only the Ray dug in. The Rocna and Supreme skated along the surface. The Rocna did dig a deeper trench than the Supreme, but neither showed any inclination to set.
In the second short-scope pull, we added 6 feet of chain to the rode. The Ray dug in almost immediately, as we had expected, but the Supreme took 6 feet to dig in, and the Rocna continued to drag. We repeated the Rocna pull three times, and it refused to bite each time.
Steve Bambury of Rocna Anchors said these results are not consistent with their experience and the results of other independent tests. He added that these have earned a solid repu- tation among experienced cruisers such as yacht designer and past PS contributor Steve Dashew.
If anchoring with short scope is unavoidable, Rocna recommends, using 3:1 scope to allow the anchor to dig in, then shorten scope as needed once the anchor has properly set.
We can conclude two things from this 2:1 scope test. First, sufficient scope and chain are critical to getting an anchor to set and hold. If you have to set with short scope, it’s best to do so very slowly and gently to give the anchor tip an opportunity to angle down into the bottom. Second, the Ray performs much better in short- scope conditions than either of the two roll-bar anchors, and produced a set that would have been adequate for anything less than gale conditions.

The above was part of it

Here are other interesting comments.

both the Rocna and Manson Supreme have a self-righting roll-bar design (photos 2 and 3). The feature is sometimes mistakenly credited to Rolf Kaczirek, designer of the Bugel anchor, but Peter Bruce, creator of the original Bruce anchor, actually invented it and included it in his 1973 patent. By eliminating the need for extra lead weight in the tip, the roll bar allows for a larger total blade area and for the use of heavier materials in the toe and shank, putting strength where it is needed. Both anchors also have chiseled tips (1 and 4) to easily cut through kelp and seaweed, and for penetrating hard bottoms. The Supreme was the only anchor PS tested with fully slotted shank.

FF said:

One observation about big great holding anchors is they can be hard to retrieve.

The simple cure is a trip line........

Click to expand...

Yes and no. The one time I used a trip line I had to estimate the length of the line and allow for the increase in the depth of the water due to tide. And of course, with tide comes current. Too short a line and the float will try to pull the anchor on its own.

By the time I was ready to leave the next morning, the boat had swung around the trip line and the float was on the other side of the boat. My fear was that it had, or would tangle in the running gear so I did my best to clear it and bring it back to the bow with a boat hook.

In the end, nothing bad happenedm but I've been wary of that technique ever since.

Boatgm said:

I have a new "old boat". It’s going to weigh 35 tons loaded. I inherited a 135 pound CQR and a nice piece of 1 1/8” 12-strand, along with a big fortress.
I want to add a primary anchor and am looking at
176 lbs Lewmar Horizon Claw for $750.
154 lb Rocna 70 for $2212.48
The price different is hard to understand
I ran this boat using the 135 pound CQR with no anchoring problems so it’s hard to spend the extra money on the Rocna.
Any advice?
al

Click to expand...

The QCR is still one of the most popular anchors used today, and 135 lb is heavy enough for your size boat. Many boats carry both kinds, plough and navy, which the Fortress is. I am a still a believer of having both kinds depending on the bottom, navy, sandy/mud/weed free bottom, plough, hard/rock/stone/weed bottom. The only question is the length and kind of rode?

I have wealked and look at the newer anchors that are said to quick set? All of them have sharp points and edges, so they will dig in easier/quicker. However, I still question is the max holding poower is better. So I ma going to sharpen the points and edges on your present anchors. However, the QCR and the Fortress are already pointed/sharp.

Play with the formula fine tuning an anchor rode http://alain.fraysse.free.fr/sail/rode/rode.htm has been interesting as by changing the size of the boat, size of the rode, weight of the anchor and the holding power of the bottom calculates the length of the rode required.

Thank you'll for the valued information.
I think I will get that 176 lb Claw and a barrel of chain for the primary and also keep the 135 lb cqr (on the bow roller) with 10 m of chain and the 1 1/8” nylon rode. The fortress lives in a locker with a short chain and a poly rode.
The trip/ retrieving line is standard for us. I do one thing I don’t often see. I braid a piece of poly in the first 10 meters or so of the nylon rode, so from the short chain the rode floats up instead of dragging around the coral heads. A few times during the morning swim I found the rode wrapped around coral. I started putting a float on the rode but this became a hassle particularly if a fast dark getaway was necessary. Braiding the poly in doesn’t affect handing and keeps the rode up for the most part.

One of the biggest advantages of the reel winch is that one can join 3/4" chain w 1/2" chain, cable and various kinds of line in any combination desired. The fishermen mostly use a few feet of super heavy chain then a long length of heavy chain and some or lots of nylon line. Some use three different sizes of chain. They join all these pieces of rode together w shackles and thimble eyes as appropriate w the line. Deployment and retrieval is fast. I post the pics to show how they use very heavy chain first and then lighter. I think 30 to 30% use all chain but over half have line in the 2nd half of their rode.

Eric, if you have a quick look at the Rode length thread recently started, I concede your favoured concept of mixed rode is probably correct, as well-explained by an excellent treatise on rode length FF put up a link to, but I can't retrieve. It all boils down to the weight of chain being enough and concentrated at the anchor end, so no matter how much pull is exerted, the different catenary characteristics of the different parts of the mixed rode make it almost impossible for the whole rode to be drawn straight and taught, all the way back to the anchor - ie there is always some laying flat.
I do still feel however, that you try to get away with too little chain. My overall impression is that about 100' would be an ideal minimum, such that in shallower waters, when chafing is likely to be more of an issue, one would essentially be using all chain, (preferably with snubber), but as the water got deeper, more rope rode comes out giving more shock resistance without the need for a snubber, but also at less weight cost.

Boatgm said:

I started putting a float on the rode but this became a hassle particularly if a fast dark getaway was necessary. .

Click to expand...

Doing a little smuggling with new/old boat?
Good decision,that Rocna sounded pricey, especially as it probably comes from China. I`d have suggested pricing a Sarca but shipping would be huge.

Actually Peter I think we talked about the catenary of anchor rodes and Marin (I think) found a study that pointed out that the ideal placement for the weight of an anchor rode is about 20% of the way up the rode from the anchor. Not at the end of the anchor shank as I had thought. With a short length of heavy to very heavy chain attached to the anchor shank the concentration of rode weight should be right about at the 20% mark .... IF my recollection is indeed correct.

I actually think weight in the upper half of the rode may increase the angle of the rode to the anchor shank pulling the anchor shank more up than otherwise would be. So I think weight in the upper part of the rode is disadvantageous.
Most of the fishermen probably haven't been to physics class but I think somehow they understand the physics of their anchor rode.

If it weren't for the expense and the complication of hydraulics I'd go this route for sure.

manyboats said:

Actually Peter I think we talked about the catenary of anchor rodes and Marin (I think) found a study that pointed out that the ideal placement for the weight of an anchor rode is about 20% of the way up the rode from the anchor. .

Click to expand...

The instructions for my "Anchor Buddy" are to position it on the rode just above sea floor at low tide, thus reducing upward pull on the anchor. How does that sit with the study, or is it a different concept altogether?

Peter writes:

"I do still feel however, that you try to get away with too little chain."

Indeed you do as most all on this forum do and I'm getting away w it very well. Still haven't dragged or pulled an anchor out. I don't think my modified XYZ anchor is going to set on rocky bottoms so in time I'll have to try the XYZ and then resort to my Supreme, Claw or Dreadnought. The latter would probably work best in rocks.

But whenever it blows Peter I do set the anchor alarm. Experimenters must ... no should be cautious.

The main reason I avoid too much chain is to keep my ground tackle light, simple and inexpensive. I now have a system that works very well but I'd rather have one a bit more convenient. Standing on the bow and pulling hard on the drum winch is bad (a bit) for my back. When I get to be 80 I'll probably go all chain ... or do a splice and a combo rode.

"The one time I used a trip line I had to estimate the length of the line and allow for the increase in the depth of the water due to tide. And of course, with tide comes current. Too short a line and the float will try to pull the anchor on its own."

This is why we thread the trip line from the anchor crown thru the eye in a float and let the end take care of it self with a sounding weight.

A 6 or 8 inch diameter float probably will not bother the set of a 40 to 60 lb anchor very much , if the float line is somehow too short.

A small ball also does not look like a mooring ball, so it unlikely to attract a would be tenant.

Unless you are a liveaboard world cruiser...or regularly cruise in areas of known wild weather (like williwaws in Alaska)...when was the last time you HAD to anchor in anything above 30-40 knots in an exposed anchorage? (thunderstorms don't count...been through hundreds if not thousands and just not the same due to duration)

Having ground tackle and a windlass geared towards surviving a hurricane to me seems pointless unless I'm going to rig my boat for serious long distance/long term cruising...and even then if you don't hang out in a hurricane prone area and areas with lousy hurricane holes...even then it seems ridiculous to me.

Sure there are cruisers here that may encounter storm force winds on a regular basis and need/want that kind of gear on board...but for most of us US continental cruisers....it's overkill (unless you just plain want all that heavy gear).

Otherwise...like Marin has posted many times...what's adequate and easy...lets you sleep at night...is all that is really required for most of us. The talk about bar tight chain is silly bravado (execpt for a few).

FF said:

"The one time I used a trip line I had to estimate the length of the line and allow for the increase in the depth of the water due to tide. And of course, with tide comes current. Too short a line and the float will try to pull the anchor on its own."

This is why we thread the trip line from the anchor crown thru the eye in a float and let the end take care of it self with a sounding weight.

A 6 or 8 inch diameter float probably will not bother the set of a 40 to 60 lb anchor very much , if the float line is somehow too short.

A small ball also does not look like a mooring ball, so it unlikely to attract a would be tenant.

Click to expand...

About the only way I will do it these days...makes way too much sense.

Eric--- Here's an anchor for you to try. It's the standard anchor used on the dhows I see here in Dubai. These all-teak boats are HUGE compared to our little recreational toys and they carry tons of all manner of cargo all over the Gulf between the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and even around to India. An this is what they all have for an anchor. You should try one out with your short scope-no chain theory.

First shot is the view from my hotel room this afternoon. The body of water is the Dubai Creek, which is not a creek but a dredged out inlet from the Gulf.. The big cargo dhows are the ones in the center of the frame with the predominantly blue trim on their aft cabins and pilothouses. Second shot is the anchor all these boats use. Some carry one, some two. No anchors on the stern.

FF said:

This is why we thread the trip line from the anchor crown thru the eye in a float and let the end take care of it self with a sounding weight.

A 6 or 8 inch diameter float probably will not bother the set of a 40 to 60 lb anchor very much , if the float line is somehow too short.

A small ball also does not look like a mooring ball, so it unlikely to attract a would be tenant.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll rig something like that up before the next cruise.

My "short scope no chain theory" is not a theory at all. I practice it regularly and w 100% success. I have never (that I know of) dragged an anchor and I almost never anchor at 5-1 scope. Don't need to as I have enough experience to know it's not necessary. Also I heard a comment a long time ago that most boaters in Puget Sound anchor at 3-1. They may say they anchor at 5 to 7-1 not to sound like a fool or a reckless person. I of course don't really know but there are lots of variables. First of all I doubt that many boaters have an accurate account of how much line/rode they actually have out there and secondly if one says he's anchored at 5-1 is that at low tide ... high tide or in between? Makes a huge difference and nobody ever says anything about that when talking about anchoring and scopes. Most boaters probably only have a vague idea about the specifics of their anchoring activities and want to look and sound knowledgable and responsible so they say they anchor at scopes that would take hugh areas of swinging room. I think that that guy that made that statement years ago was probably more right than wrong. I anchor at 3-1 ... it's no theory and it serves me well.

Re the Dhows w their Grapnel anchors I think it can be safely said they probably don't have high holding power per pound but in their defense they no doubt seldom have trouble setting those things. A guy could get hurt mess'in with them easily enough as well. There's probably a historical reason for them to have evolved into general usage perhaps traceable back to the days of wide spread piracy. People tend to do as other people do around them. Consider my last post about scopes and the fact that most AK fishermen use the Forfjord anchor. And about certain things people just use what others are using and if it works others follow. In the case of the Dhow's anchor selection it probably is a design that is easily made by anybody and hard to screw up by deviating a bit from the basic design. It makes us arguing about which one of our high tech anchors is better look pretty stupid when we see what is really required. And if there is half as many as Marin implies in the service he talks about they obviously are working.