CQR any thoughts?

[rslifkin]

I've always heard that the hinge was to help keep it set with veering loads. If that aspect works, it's probably a good thing, as the CQR isn't exactly known as the best setting anchor out there.

 

[menzies]

When anchoring in the Bahamas you can snorkel or dinghy over the anchor and see how it is set. In all the times I have done this I found the CQR set nose in on a side fluke, not as a plow would go through the earth. This means that the shank design allows it to flip over on a current/direction change.

 

[Codger2]

In 5 years of owning my OA 42, I never anchored! In Socal the options for finding a slip or a mooring are great so no need to lose a nights sleep worrying about dragging down on someone. The boat has a CQR and when I bought it (the boat) one fluke was severely bent, indicating that a previous owner was using it. I had it straightened and put back on the bow where it still lives today!
I've had a lot of compliments on that anchor and wonder if it will set and hold in any conditions. I hope the new owner will test it other than admiring the beauty of the thing!

 

[mvweebles]

I guess the issue is the same as with all technologies. Just because the next one along is "better" do you throw out thousands of dollars worth of equipment to upgrade. Then when the next generation comes along where the "science" proves it better do you cycle again?

I guess it depends on where and how often you anchor. If you're cruising the boat in less than ideal/predictable locations and weather conditions, then yes, I'd toss an old anchor out in a heartbeat even if it had served me satisfactorily. In the big scheme, its relatively inexpensive - $100's, not $1000s.

The CQR drags. Because of it's size and heft, I wouldn't even keep it as a lunch hook.

Peter

 

[caltexflanc]

See my comment and some others on the "anchoring and shifting winds" thread.

 

[menzies]

In the big scheme, its relatively inexpensive - $100's, not $1000s.

The CQR drags. Because of it's size and heft, I wouldn't even keep it as a lunch hook.

Peter

Really? Where will I find those prices?

I have a 60k pound boat. Never dragged the CQR. During a typical three months in the Bahamas I anchor out all but three or four nights.

I also just read on that other thread that people are setting scopes of 3:1 and 5:1.

The minimum scope we set is 7:1, with snubber, and a back down to set using deck snubber. 3/8 chain.

Just not seeing an issue with our 75# CQR. So will gladly stay right with it.

 

[rslifkin]

Typical scope depends a lot on depth and anchor type. CQRs and some other types need fairly long scope and performance falls off quickly at shorter scope. Other types lose less performance with shorter scope (up to a point, of course). Deeper water also typically goes hand in hand with shorter scope.

As an example, one of my most common daytime anchorages near home puts me in 45 - 50 feet of water. During the day, I'll typically throw out 200 feet, which gets me between 3.5 and 4:1 (including freeboard) depending on the exact spot I drop. If we stay there overnight, I'll typically increase to 5:1, but sometimes a little less depending on weather.

The swing circle starts to get pretty big at longer scope in deeper water. And holding wise, with a large enough anchor of a design that performs well at short scope, it's not needed a lot of the time. Keep in mind, up-sizing an already big enough anchor means you can go shorter on scope, as you can afford to lose more of its holding power.

In the above mentioned anchorage, I've sat through many hours of 25 gusting to 35 on 5:1 scope and felt perfectly secure. During the day, I've sat through 20 gusting to 30 a couple times with less than 4:1 out and had no issues. But I'm also using not only a modern anchor but a big one. 73 lbs on a boat much smaller and lighter than Menzies (38 feet / 26k lbs). It's only 1 size up from the fairly conservative recommendations from Rocna though.

 

[firehoser75]

I owned a CQR years ago and had great trouble setting it. It often took several attempts, and even when it did, it seemed to take a fair distance to "finally grab". This led me to worry that it might be very difficult for it to reset if there was a reason to do so (like a current or wind shift). I had little to no confidence in it.
I switched to a Rocna and never looked back. It set quickly (don't back down too quickly as it will stop you, hard), and I only dragged anchor with it once (in a very rocky bottom on a reversing current - so really my fault).

For my powerboat, I wanted a larger anchor (the Rocna was for my smaller sailboat) so I decided to go with the Vulcan. After 2 season with it, I am very happy. It sets quickly and holds.
My advice, do not go with the CQR, go with a "modern design" anchor, and ensure that it is adequately sized for your boat. Consider this analogy: For commuter transport, would you choose a bi-plane or a Lear jet?
I know, silly, but you get the point.

 

[mvweebles]

Really? Where will I find those prices? [$100s not $1000s]

I have a 60k pound boat. Never dragged the CQR. During a typical three months in the Bahamas I anchor out all but three or four nights.

Defender of course! $978.99 for 33kg sized to 72-feet. Next size up (40kg) is $1389.99

https://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1&id=3297248

Glad you're happy with your CQR. I tolerated mine for years when there were few other choices. Interesting story: I was anchored overnight near Angel Island, SF Bay. There can be very strong currents and I dragged my CQR about 75-feet or so. When I weighed anchor, I brought two fouled anchors and rode that had apparently been cut and abandoned. I guess it pays to drag anchor sometimes! Thank goodness for my CQR!

Peter

 

[dhays]

The CQR drags. Because of it's size and heft, I wouldn't even keep it as a lunch hook.

Peter

My issue with the CQR was the difficulty in setting, not dragging. Once set, it holds well. I always did worry a bit with reversing currents however.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

Perspective

I've updated the Earl Hinz' chart to include important contemporary anchors. He published the chart in his book.


Contrasting anchors to the others yields interesting insights - e.g. Danforth Hi Tensile & Folding s/s Northill are without equal in terms of holding power per anchor weight. Personally, Danforths or Fortress worry me since witnessing beer cans and tree trash foul them, although I did carry an FX-37 for 25 years as a serious mud solution.


My Spade & Rocna purchases made me realize the relative inferiority of the CQR I sailed with for 20 years prior. Yet, even the 'New Generation' designs keep evolving. Rocna never failed me, but, the roll bar made it nearly impossible to stow 2 anchors on the bow of my 42' sloop. Additionally, it prevented the anchor from burying deeply in eel grass. Thus, I reverted to the Spade, quite contentedly, from which it was copied.


The 35# Delta that came with my Sabreline 34 fit beautifully in the bow sprit/pulpit, however, it dragged one too many times. Therefore I replaced it with a 47# SARCA Excel which incorporates both convex and concave surfaces. Both it and my Spade 44# fit as nicely as the Delta. Both of these owe their superior performance to tip weight, which Rocna hasn't successful replicated in their Vulcan.


The chart also reminds that "hooking" anchors are superior for kedging. Hence I carry a 18# folding Northill that is easily carried to the stern if anchoring fore & aft, or transported via dinghy, or deployed from the bow in a 'hammerlock moor'. Additionally note that its' holding power is comparable to 33# Spade or Rocna, which is what the US Navy required for their seaplanes under contract.


Don
Semper Paratus

 

[rslifkin]

In my mind, Danforth types are their own category and separate from the rest of the old or new gen anchor types. They have their flaws and don't work under all conditions. But in the conditions / situations where they work well, they work *very* well. Which is why they're so common as a second anchor.

 

[Brooksie]

My kids took a 4 year trip from Cape Cod to Trinidad and back, always anchoring and never docked. Danforth High Tensile accept no substitutes.

 

[MikeQi]

I'm no expert, but I will share my experience. We have a Vulcan on our Nordic Tug 54 and have anchored in many conditions and many bottoms from Glacier Bay to Ensenada, MX. It's always held like a champ, including in some hard blows and sketchy bottoms. For what it's worth.

Mike

 

[Bigsfish]

My simple stupid opinion which isn’t worth much.

I have a Spade (my primary anchor) and a CQR both mounted on the bow. Both have served me well but like others I make sure my anchor is set well. I sleep well with either. So my conclusion is most any anchor will do a good job if it is the correct size , the correct scope that is set well.

I also use 300 ft of 3/8 chain on both anchors.

Another anchor thread, will they ever end? LOL

 

[Bryant]

Cqr

I was reading the thread about Ronca vs Mantus M1 and decided to order a Rocna Vulcan then I was reading about a CQR and its holding power. If given the choice what would you guys go with? Thanks for all of your wisdom.

I spoke directly with the designer of the M1 (and part owner) of MANTUS prior to buying my Mantus M1 after I saw their exhibit at the St Pete Boat show. I have a GB 36 Classic (26,000) lbs. I have 150' of 5/16 chain. He recommended the 45 lb M1. It has set first time, every time (just as they advertise) and has never dragged. Full disclosure, I typically anchor in a protected anchorage and have never been anchored during more than a pretty strong Florida Thunderstorm but it has always held and does so on changing tides and pretty high winds. If you have a Rocna, I'd back it up with a Danforth or a Mantus. If you haven't received your Rocna , just want 1 anchor and are asking, I'd cancel the order and get a Mantus.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

I'm no expert, but I will share my experience. We have a Vulcan on our Nordic Tug 54 and have anchored in many conditions and many bottoms from Glacier Bay to Ensenada, MX. It's always held like a champ, including in some hard blows and sketchy bottoms. For what it's worth.

Mike

That's easy to believe Mike. Vulcan is a good anchor because it employs the revolutionary concave fluke first introduced by Spade's inventor and copied by Peter Smith for the original Rocna. For those of us that closely observed those earliest evangelists, we find it ironic that after denigrating the Spade for not featuring a hoop, Peter's appetite to sell more anchors, to those who couldn't tolerate a hoop, led him to further emulate the Spade, by eliminating his hoop and copying the arched shank Alain Poiraud used in sequels to his Spade, like the Sword, pictured below.


Most anchor tests have recognized that these two anchors exhibit comparable holding power, however the Spade almost always sets quicker due to the substantial weight of the lead poured into its tip. Minor tweaks to new generation geometry cannot overcome this advantage that is also a disadvantage in terms of initial fabrication costs or when an owner wants to re-galvanize. In such a case, the lead must be removed and then re-installed after galvanizing the steel.


Vulcan has not achieved a tip design yielding a comparable 'unfair advantage', which merely means it may not set as well as the Spade or others in certain bottoms, perhaps hard packed sand. Manufacturer's like SARCA and Mantus claim to have paid special attention to their tip designs. I can attest to the fact that Mantus' 2.5# dinghy anchor sets faster than I can believe. My SARCA Excel features a special stainless steel knife point welded into the tip along with lots of molten steel for weight. I haven't used it long enough to opine relative to my Spade, which only disappoints in thin mud.



Yet another important metric is shank strength. Because new generation anchors generally bury deeper, wind/current shifts can exert severe side pulls on shafts. Practical Sailor's findings prompted Mantus to upgrade the steel used in their unusually thin shank a few years ago. SARCA employs a very high grade Australian steel in their shank and Spade's shank is fabricated from three pieces of metal welded together, triangularly. And Rocna's shanks were only questionable in 2010 when Rocna declared that a Chinese manufacturer, employed an inferior grade of steel for their shanks, which resulted in a recall.


The endless anchor debates persist because there are very many variables. IMO, the big mistake to avoid is believing that only one or two anchor designs will satisfy all your needs over years and many cruising destinations. I've never felt prepared with less than five anchors aboard.


Don
Semper Paratus

 

[Peter B]

I guess the issue is the same as with all technologies. Just because the next one along is "better" do you throw out thousands of dollars worth of equipment to upgrade. Then when the next generation comes along where the "science" proves it better do you cycle again?

With anchors, quite simply - yes. Because compared to the price of the boat that is solely relying on it to keep safe, it is a minuscule cost to upgrade to the best you can get, is it not..?

 

[Rosborough 35]

I used a 45# CQR on a Bristol 40 sailboat for more than 20 years. I would rate it as a good anchor, but not a great anchor compared to the Rocna that I have now on my Rosborough 35 Trawler. I tried a 44# Bruce anchor on the Bristol 40 and it didn't set or hold nearly as well as the CQR.

When I bought the Rosborough 35 Trawler, it came with a 35# Delta. When we were relocating the boat from Cocoa Beach, Florida to Galveston, Texas, we got caught in a November norther with 45-50 mph winds, just off of Carrabelle, Florida. The 35# Delta would set, but would not hold in those conditions. We tried a bunch of times and finally gave up and motored all night. We knew the 35# Delta was too small when we bought the boat and planned to replace it ASAP. We ended up replacing it with a 55# Rocna when we got to Pensacola, Florida. I've had the Rocna for 8 years now and it is definitely the best anchor that I have ever owned.

 

[rsn48]

Rocna on the Hinz chart looks off. On my 28 foot boat which I took as 30 on the chart and a 22,500 pound boat (mine is 1450) Rocna suggests 15 kilograms, 20 kilograms is listed in the Hinz chart for my boat.

https://rocna.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/09/pounds.gif

 

[ranger58sb]

My SARCA Excel features a special stainless steel knife point welded into the tip along with lots of molten steel for weight. I haven't used it long enough to opine relative to my Spade, which only disappoints in thin mud.

Don, when you get more time with the SARCA, a review about performance here in the Chesapeake's "thin mud" (aka slime, ooze, slop, jelly, etc.) would be useful.

Perhaps even a side-by-side comparison to the Spade in the same substrate.

FWIW, I've had excellent results around here with an adjustable SuperMAX and with a Fortress. Decent results with a Danforth, except for some setting issues in probably leaf-covered bottom. Spotty results with Delta.

Cheers, -Chris

 

[angus99]

Why is the metric for sizing anchors LOA? Wouldn’t weight or displacement mean more? There’s probably a 15,000-20,000-lb difference between a 40-ft displacement cruiser and a comparably sized express cruiser.

 

[rslifkin]

Why is the metric for sizing anchors LOA? Wouldn’t weight or displacement mean more? There’s probably a 15,000-20,000-lb difference between a 40-ft displacement cruiser and a comparably sized express cruiser.

Windage typically matters somewhat more than weight, but ideally, you'd size by a combination of weight, LOA, and then high/medium/low windage. My boat needs a lot more anchor than, say, a 40 foot express cruiser. But it's not from the 6000 lbs of extra weight I've got, it's more from the large amount of extra windage.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

Rocna on the Hinz chart looks off. On my 28 foot boat which I took as 30 on the chart and a 22,500 pound boat (mine is 1450) Rocna suggests 15 kilograms, 20 kilograms is listed in the Hinz chart for my boat.

https://rocna.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/09/pounds.gif

Rocna's Size Chart (enclosed) illustrates alternatives within ranges. I had coxswain candidates fill in the data as an exercise in our Boat Crew Academy and they tried to portray the range of alternatives.

The updated Hinz chart is most useful to ponder anchors relative to other manufacturers/types. Each manufacturer's advice must be considered for more granular decisions, however.

 

[Pete Meisinger]

Hmmmmm, I thought we had agreed to not discuss anchors anymore here.

But since you brought it up..

I have a CQR and it has never failed me. I usually anchor in weed free sand but I don't always know what is on the bottom.

pete

 

[koliver]

Someone earlier observed that you don't buy a CQR, it comes with the boat.
That has been my experience on my present and immediately previous boats. Consequently I have lots of nights bobbing to a CQR. The only dragging I have done is when we unwisely had far too much weight for a 20kg CQR, which is designed appropriately for my 44000 lb boat. Our usual habit is to cruise with others and anchor together, in a raft. When hanging on my anchor, with double boats, both the size of my own, no dragging, with triple, and a good wind pipes up, occasional dragging, so we set an alarm.
This summer, we hung on the more modern anchor of a 58' with 2 boats the size of my own, so maybe double the weight the anchor was properly sized for. We dragged one night, though, to be fair, we were at Rebecca Spit, a known silky smooth bottom.

If my boat had not come with its anchor, I may have researched the market before buying, but if the CQR was near the low end of price, I most likely would have bought it.

If it had come with a Bruce, I would have replaced it for sure. Though the second most popular anchor locally, I have heard so many talk about how much better than the Bruce, the (insert name here) is. Also, I read in Practical Sailor that the Bruce, though first to set, is also first to drag.

The CQR performs well enough in these waters to remain the most common find on the bows in the local marinas.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

Don, when you get more time with the SARCA, a review about performance here in the Chesapeake's "thin mud" (aka slime, ooze, slop, jelly, etc.) would be useful.

Perhaps even a side-by-side comparison to the Spade in the same substrate.

FWIW, I've had excellent results around here with an adjustable SuperMAX and with a Fortress. Decent results with a Danforth, except for some setting issues in probably leaf-covered bottom. Spotty results with Delta.

Cheers, -Chris

Roger, Chris. Although I've used Deltas satisfactorily for years aboard mine and other CGAUX boats, I was amazed at how ineffective it was with my Sabreline 34. After much pondering, I suppose it's due to the Sabreline's flat bottom as versus my sailboats and other power boats with at least moderate keels.

I'm willing to believe the Max Marine Products - Super MAX Anchors is the best anchor available for mud, having owned one for a while. It was designed for Chesapeake workboats whose travels are constrained and who don't hesitate to physically modify their boats to suit their needs. My 42' sloop (pictured) was outfitted for distance cruising, so, I carried 5 anchors chosen to suit the bottoms I was most likely to encounter. Two big league anchors had to amicably live together on the slender bow. Roll bars (aka hoops) and the massive fluke of the Super Max definitely don't live amicably with a bow mate. Thus I would cruise either: with my Spade snubbed slightly lower than a Delta (thus easily dropped or re-secured), or, my Rocna by itself if I was confident I wouldn't need an instantly deployable 2nd anchor on that cruise. I kept an unassembled FX-37 under the forward V-Berth for use in soupy place like Albemarle Sound. A large Aluminum Spade was also stowed disassembled for use in a multi-anchor storm mooring.

Selecting my Sabreline 34's ground tackle has required me to cope with much less storage space and a bowsprit designed to accommodate plows so long as they're not too large. Of the general purpose anchors available, my estimate is the SARCA Excel will best deal with Chesapeake & Albemarle bottoms (fingers crossed). Although I believe the steel Spade to be the best general purpose design available, it fails to do well in thin mud just like most others.

Super Max' hinged shank, Fortress' adjustable flukes and the arched shanks used in the Vulcan & Sword are obviously employed to improve holding in mud. I'm curious to learn the degree to which Excel's complex fluke geometry achieves success. As to leaves, I purposely take crew candidates deep into Chesapeake creeks to practice anchoring evolutions aboard typical CGAUX boats; i.e. 19' to 28' outfitted with Fortress anchors. After failing to set an anchor a dozen times, I'll move them to a sandy bottom where they achieve sets 1st try every time. During the debrief we discuss the consequences of anchor weight, and examine the tip designs of various anchors. Great fun.


Don
Semper Paratus

 

[angus99]

Rocna's Size Chart (enclosed) illustrates alternatives within ranges. I had coxswain candidates fill in the data as an exercise in our Boat Crew Academy and they tried to portray the range of alternatives.

The updated Hinz chart is most useful to ponder anchors relative to other manufacturers/types. Each manufacturer's advice must be considered for more granular decisions, however.

That chart makes a lot more sense.