Which type anchor?

So Eric, what do you think about power poles for anchoring a small boat to stop and fish?

Dumb when an anchor is much cheaper and will hold in a blow better.....maybe.

Convenience you say?

Well yes of course.....and thus why cruisers with bigger boats that have a windlass ( silly luxury) and heavy tackle including all chain....CONVENIENCE for all but storm anchoring where parts of your theories then become more important.

In 50 plus years of boating, I have never had to anchor in gale plus force winds other than thunderstorms. So other than CONVENIENCE in anchoring...all else has not been needed but I was prepared with additional tackle. I will bet many others are set up the same way...as all I did was learn from acknowledged successful cruisers and copy their convenience and success.

Are you yelling when you use upper case letters?

The convenience is an element of Ak fishboats and rec trawlers both.

“Power poles”? What are you talking about?

Let's not calling it yelling...just emphasis...



......power poles are part of the whole topic of anchoring.

Don’t respond to my posts in the future psneeld.

Nomad Willy said:

Don’t respond to my posts in the future psneeld.

Click to expand...

Remember post #20 back in the Honda generator thread where you decided out of the blue to make a personal observation of my posting habits?

I doubt it.

So ya think I will stop posting when I don't think your posts should be taken as fact by new boaters?

Had you only said please .....

I will keep my posts civil and as factual as possible....stop?..... No I don't think so.

psneeld said:

Remember post #20 back in the Honda generator thread where you decided out of the blue to make a personal observation of my posting habits?

I doubt it.

So ya think I will stop posting when I don't think your posts should be taken as fact by new boaters?

Had you only said please .....

I will keep my posts civil and as factual as possible....stop?..... No I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Please was the main word in beginning of the 1st "Terminator" movie.

Go Arnie!!... Please!! LOL

I did the ignore thing.
Bye

Nomad Willy said:

I did the ignore thing.
Bye

Click to expand...

Aaaw, c'mon Eric, don't be like that. Old psn was just yanking your chain, and for someone who swears by not using chain, your rope rode does tend to rattle a tad - just sayin'... No offence...still luv yah man...

Good decision Eric.
Isn`it wonderful, there are people infected, sick and dying, but anchor choices still create interest.
Peter,I don`t think the S/Sarca will fit the Integrity bowsprit. May have to trade it for an Excel. I saw so many boats with different setups, hard to remember which was which. The CQR on the Integrity is bling stainless.

Peter B said:

Aaaw, c'mon Eric, don't be like that. Old psn was just yanking your chain, and for someone who swears by not using chain, your rope rode does tend to rattle a tad - just sayin'... No offence...still luv yah man...

Click to expand...

I will “be like that”.
That guy has been coyly yanking my chain for years, years! I’m though being nice and tolerant. If I ignore he can insult others. And I will have no reason to be less than a happy camper.

Nomad Willy said:

I will “be like that”.
That guy has been coyly yanking my chain for years, years! I’m though being nice and tolerant. If I ignore he can insult others. And I will have no reason to be less than a happy camper.

Click to expand...

Sure, you can do that Eric, but occasionally psn comes up with a bit of a gem. Besides, the way to discourage him yankin' your chain is to not respond - simple..!

Peter B said:

Sure, you can do that Eric, but occasionally psn comes up with a bit of a gem. Besides, the way to discourage him yankin' your chain is to not respond - simple..!

Click to expand...

1.Best way would be for the "yankin" to stop.
2.Second best way is Eric using "Ignore".
3.Eric "seething but not responding" comes well down the list of remedies.

Has Anyone An opinion on CQR’s?

David Burgess said:

Has Anyone An opinion on CQR’s?

Click to expand...

I have a Delta. I walked our dock and found one CQR on a sailboat. anyway i looked it over and looked at others comparing them all. The plows that is.
If I needed an anchor it would be one to consider, then price.

David Burgess said:

Has Anyone An opinion on CQR’s?

Click to expand...

David, they are quite an old design. They are still quite popular, because they are quite heavy, and if they are set properly, (one of the weaknesses of the type - getting it to dig in - hopeless in weed), then they hold fairly well.

One of their weaknesses is, strangely enough, the feature they used to plug as a plus, a hinged shank which theoretically allowed if to veer with direction of pull changes. Unfortunately, it is this feature, which, if the fluke is not engaged with the bottom quickly and well, allows the whole fluke end to just bounce along the bottom on it's side.

Their popularity nowadays is perpetuated beyond what their actual performance would justify, because they sit so nicely, and look so nice, (especially if in stainless steel), on most bow arrangements. Because of this they are often still sold as the anchor provided on new vessels.

Later plough type anchors did away with the hinge, and concentrated on getting a quicker set, and better holding power. This move lead to what we are now tending to call the next-gen anchors. These tend to set easier and quicker, and hold better than the CQR. I doubt there are many on TF who would recommend a CQR over one of these later designs. I know from personal experience, I wouldn't. I hope that helps..?

IF only a single anchor is being carried the CQR is a great choice. Many are forged not cast.

They lack a bit in area so the size for ooze/soft mud is a bit heavier (to get it bigger) than say for a Danforth or Bruce.

They sometimes come up clean and are perhaps the simplest to get to sit comfortably on a bow roller.

Peter B said:

I doubt there are many on TF who would recommend a CQR over one of these later designs. I know from personal experience, I wouldn't. I hope that helps..?

Click to expand...

Even as I typed the above comment, I immediately thought of you FF as the one person on here that would.

FF said:

IF only a single anchor is being carried the CQR is a great choice. Many are forged not cast.

Click to expand...

My friend I just have to dispute the above comment. And from bitter experience. You see, for the first year we owned our boat, a CQR was our only anchor, and it failed to set time and time again. So, when I saw the impressive demo of the Super Sarca anchor at a boat show, I ordered one, and never had a moment's worry anchoring in the next 15 years until we sold her.

Peter,
How long has the SARCA been on the market?

Nomad Willy said:

Peter,
How long has the SARCA been on the market?

Click to expand...

Eric, I got mine about 2004, and we one of the quite early uptakers, but it had been available for some time before that, so not exactly sure. That info is probably there on their website however, but I've not specifically looked for it.



http://www.anchorright.com.au/products/sarca-anchors/

#107,, My friend I just have to dispute the above comment. And from bitter experience. You see, for the first year we owned our boat, a CQR was our only anchor, and it failed to set time and time again.

AS the CQR has been made for about 7 or 8 decades there have been many knockoffs.

It is also an anchor that is set , not just kicked over the side and 1500RPM in reverse applied.

Ask someone that is cruising , with a CQR on the bow , what his technique for setting is.

Perhaps we can hear from some other CQR users. There must be a bunch in that there’s so many old sailboaters here.
I anchored in Patterson Inlet and rode out a 50K gale there w two other boats. One was a KK42 w a Bruce. The other was a good sized sailboat that deployed a CQR. The sailboat and us both re-anchored once during the ordeal. After reading numerous accounts similar to Peter’s on what a poor anchor the CQR was I fully expected w that big mast sticking up into the fairest of winds to drag. But if it did it must have been a very small amount as we couldn’t tell. The KK dragged so much we had to get out of his way and re-anchor at the mouth of a small river.

Then it was the long night standing watches and staring at what we could see of the other two boats. Mostly very dim lights in the heavy rain. But the CQR put on a fine anchoring performance IMO.

Peter it’s been some time since I’ve browsed the ARA website. I’d like to know what change was made to the SARCA to make it a Super Sarca? Do you know? Other than weight the trailing edge of the SARCA is the only difference that I see. I know it is said that the anchors w the different trailing edges are supposed to perform the same. I would think the up-turned TE like your bigger anchor would perform better re holding power. So it’s hard to think of them as performing the same. Whaddua know Peter?

Nomad Willy said:

Perhaps we can hear from some other CQR users. There must be a bunch in that there’s so many old sailboaters here.

Peter it’s been some time since I’ve browsed the ARA website. I’d like to know what change was made to the SARCA to make it a Super Sarca? Do you know? Other than weight the trailing edge of the SARCA is the only difference that I see. I know it is said that the anchors w the different trailing edges are supposed to perform the same. I would think the up-turned TE like your bigger anchor would perform better re holding power. So it’s hard to think of them as performing the same. Whaddua know Peter?

Click to expand...

Eric, this abstract from their website answers both your earlier question of when the Sarca was first developed, and your last question re the 'super' bit.

[Rex (Francis, of AnchorRight) first launched his original Sarca design in 1996, by the turn of the 21’st century the Sarca anchor had built such a reputation for its unique ability and exceptional holding power, over seemingly regardless of the sea floor substrate types, other anchor manufacturers were now being forced to rethink their anchor technology, further, Rex has gone on to win innovation awards and his input is valued throughout the marine industry.

Keeping ahead of the competition is an ongoing Research and Development program, more performance in any field comes from better and more accurate methods of testing, during the development of the Excel anchor they revisited the performance of the Sarca anchor, with the aid of TATS (a special testing apparatus) they were able to gain an incredible 3o% increase in holding power from Sarca, So they decided to rename Sarca, as Super Sarca. Rex says there will never be the perfect anchor, but we have a range of anchors good as, if not better than the world has to offer.]

Why Anchor Right Australia is set apart from the rest - Anchor Right Australia

FF said:

#107,, My friend I just have to dispute the above comment. And from bitter experience. You see, for the first year we owned our boat, a CQR was our only anchor, and it failed to set time and time again.

AS the CQR has been made for about 7 or 8 decades there have been many knockoffs.

It is also an anchor that is set , not just kicked over the side and 1500RPM in reverse applied.

Ask someone that is cruising , with a CQR on the bow , what his technique for setting is.

Click to expand...

FF, I'll happily admit that the CQR was probably better than those which had gone before it, and for quite some time would have legitimately been called the Next-gen anchor. Sadly, as you say, many copies emerged which were not as good. I suspect the one I had was one of those. The Manson long-shanked version was probably the best performer. However, the weedy bottom in many of the best anchorages where we cruised did make setting the CQR quite a lottery, even using every trick in the book.

The contrast in how immediately the Sarca set in those same anchorages was impressive to say the least, and sort of catches the attention. As in all things of a technical nature, necessity is the mother of invention, and improvements appear as a consequence. The car we just bought is significantly improved in so many ways, especially re safety features, over the 10 year old car it replaced. It's kinda like that with these newer anchors, is all. Doesn't mean the older anchors stopped working. There are just more variables in getting them to work.

Had Manson ploughs on several boats.
All dragged when i needed them most
Even an oversized one on a lightweight low windage cat with about 20:1 scope (10m chain, 30m nylon) dragged and dragged and dragged again on sand bottom in only 35 knots.

I reckon any of the new gen, sarca, Rocna, supreme, blah blah would be light years in front.

Peter B said:

FF, I'll happily admit that the CQR was probably better than those which had gone before it, :

Click to expand...

Before that being essentially an undersized house brick
Yes, the plough was better.

Simi 60 said:

Before that being essentially an undersized house brick
Yes, the plough was better.

Click to expand...

The yachtsman style that came before the CQR had only 2 flaws.

It was big and hard to deploy and stow and needed to be heavy .

The fluke that was not buried stuck up and could be pulled by the boats anchor line if there was many tidal reversals.

So "better " can equal lighter and easier to handle , but perhaps not better at keeping the boat in place.

Simi 60 said:

Before that being essentially an undersized house brick
Yes, the plough was better.

Click to expand...

The yachtsman that came before the CQR had 2 flaws.

It was big and hard to deploy and stow and was heavy .

The fluke that was not buried stuck up and could be pulled by the boats anchor line if there was many tidal reversals.

So "better " can equal lighter and easier to handle , but perhaps not better at keeping the boat in place.

The older CQR are forged and have the hinge and can frequently be found for $2.50 a pound, used.

FF said:

The yachtsman that came before the CQR had 2 flaws.

It was big and hard to deploy and stow and was heavy .

The fluke that was not buried stuck up and could be pulled by the boats anchor line if there was many tidal reversals.

Click to expand...

I sorta liked my fisherman. My old boat had a cathead davit on the front and I liked playing with it. The one thing that I thought would improve that heavy anchor would have been to weld on much larger flukes. Sorta like a Northill. I never did that though, but it would be worth playing around, perhaps we can hire Eric to experiment!



I didn't have problems with the rode wrapping around the extended fluke, but I believe the heavy chain (or a very heavy leader) helped.

Nomad Willy said:

To use a 45 degree throat angle you need a very soft bottom. Quite likely the usual “mud” bottom is probably too hard. One should try the standard 32 degree fluke angle or throat angle .... that of course varies w each brand of anchor.
But the Danforth types are more sensitive to throat angle than other anchor types.
I’ve seen some old cheapie Danforth that are so worn that the throat angle is more that 45 degrees.
I found my picture of the Dan w an extremely open throat. This may have been done on purpose or it could be from long term wear.
I think Chris has an interesting take on this that could finally explain this anchor. She's thinking the guy did it to keep the anchor from hitting the bow of his boat. I would think most anybody would see that the function of the anchor would change. And most likely for the worst. Took the pic in Prince Rupert.
jclays I think this is over 45 degrees.

Click to expand...

Yes it is way over 45 degrees.
I modified mine for the specific purpose of being only a mud anchor. In our bay the mud is very soft to almost soupy. This modification is to copy the angle of the mud setting of the Fortress. And yes it sets and holds very well in the mud in my neighborhood.

Because something works is not necessarily a great argument for using it. Back in 1970, my at the time girlfriend bought a new Corolla, Honda cars were still relatively new to the market back then. And I drove it frequently. It was pretty clear the car was ahead of its time in terms of driveability and durability.

We broke up and sadly I had to waive goodbye to the Corolla, not sure what or who I missed most. But after that experience it was pretty clear to me that America would be going Japanese. So every used car I purchased was a big American honker of a car because I knew eventually they would go the way of the gooney bird. And I was right.

And those beautifully restored cars you see being sold at Barrett-Jackson Auctions, you know those great old Chevys, the old Vets, etc. drove like pigs and the restored ones will drive like an old not fun car that loves to go in a straight line but doesn't like to turn. The reason the early BMW 3's became so popular were because they drove like go carts on the road. I have a buddy who has some Mopar muscle car he has restored and been offered amounts up to $100,000. The thing is when I had a similar conversation with him as I am offering here, he agreed - says he doesn't like to drive it. He just drives it in the local show and shines.

But those cars work and provide transportation, but everything is dated about them except for the wonderful styling, eye candy but you can't take it anywhere.

The old anchors worked most of the time, literally hundreds of thousands of people have used all the old style anchors and they worked the great majority of the time, but the newer stuff is better. Because something works isn't a deal breaker argument, how much better or worse does it work compared to new models.

Anyone want to buy an XT computer - still works?