# Not Getting the All-Chain Thing



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

WLL and UBL for most all materials and components are published by reliable sources all over this great Internet.

Assuming cruising....all over this flat planet...to the edges....
Why are some boats hauling around 250' of steel chain?
Then they have a snubber system made of rope to subdue shock loads....well promoted as a must-have...

The steel chain is fairly abrasion resistant, provides catenary, but when it's straight on...it's what its strength is.
Your rope snubber may be weaker than the chain, allowing more give, or it could be equal to and even greater strength than the chain's limit. 

If gnarly coral heads and and great whites with a nylon/poly appetites are below the limit of the chain, why would you want to carry that extra weight?

No anchors were harmed or mentioned. This is not anchor fight.

Does 250+ lbs of chain make for better dreams?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I've never bought into the all-chain mantra. We've got ~60' of chain, then 300' of 3/4" nylon 3-strand spliced into that. The 3-strand is stronger than the chain. You just have to take at least some modicum of care to make sure your rode doesn't get fouled on sharp stuff...but you don't have to use snubbers. I've slept very well at anchor.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

A boat with all chain will not 'sail' around the anchorage as much as one with chain & rope, so there's some security in that (but that is also problematic for those of us without all-chain trying to anchor nearby)

The weight of the chain is disadvantageous on smaller boats, for sure.. and all chain would be overkill.

Our boat could probably handle all chain (might even improve trim overall ) but without a windlass it's a non starter....

I think, besides the caternary/stability of chain, you also eliminate one transition/attachment point (i.e potential failure point) in the entire system, and in certain areas coral heads are definitely a concern - hard to be certain that you don't end up with rope on the bottom at some point.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I think the attached picture says it all when deciding whether to use chain or rope! The picture is of a rusty 200#plus anchor fouled our chain about half way from the anchor to the bow. Just how long would a bit of rope have held up? 
If one is day to day anchoring on rocky or coral bottoms without chain, it is almost a certainty that the rope will wrap around something or rub on the bottom and chafe through, sooner or later. Chain just won't do that. I've even seen line chafe through on a perfectly clean seeming sandy (or mud) bottom, because there was something (a steel I beam, a bit of an old wreck, an anchor, etc) down there, unknown to the anchorer. 
For my taste, on any boat under 60', I think 200 feet is sufficient quantity of chain to carry. Most of us do not have a windlass strong enough to pull chain up from much deeper, and I would hesitate to anchor a small craft in water over 75' for any length of time anyway. With our Rocna, we've found she'll hold pretty darn well at 2:1 in a good bottom, by the way.
As discussed in so many threads, a snub line is a great addition to all chain, but it is mostly to silence the chain and give some elasticity to an all metal system, until things get really hairy. Then the snub is what keeps the chain from breaking, once it is tight from the bow to the anchor. None of us can afford to carry chain strong enough to actually hold the weight of our boats, so the catenary and snub make the BBB chain just as strong as the expensive HT chains.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

I have 272 feet of chain.
Yep, I know the exact length.

All chain really is good.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I caught a crusty bike with our rode once. That was cool.


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

I have 230 ft of chain on my best bower and 210 ft on my second anchor.

When the squall hits at 4 am and it is pitch black raining hard and blowing 50 knots I sleep better on chain. Although I do go up for a look 

I have had a rope rode on a stern anchor chafe through in 3 hours. The culprit being a lump of coral.

I am a long term cruiser. I would guess that 95% + of my fellow cruisers are on all chain


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

It really depends on where you're anchoring. If, like us, most of your anchoring is in 10'-20' of water, 60'-80' of chain and the rest rode is a good combo. If you're doing 5:1 - 7:1 scope you'll have mostly chain out in the crusties anyway with the rode just coming up to the boat - essentially acting like the snubber. And you'll be WAY lighter than having 200'+ feet of chain.


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

If you are going to anchor regularly like on a cruise, chain is the only way to go. If you are just going to anchor intermittantly like weekend or short vacation cruises, rope rode will suffice IF you can find a place to tie up at a dock should it get nasty. Line's weak point is chafe. Get caught out in 30mph plus winds and you'll need to constantly work the line to prevent chafe from severing it. With high winds, the stretch of the line will pull the typical chafing gear through a chock leaving the line unprotected. Won't take more than an hour or two to have you sailing onto a downwind shore. I've had the pleasure of depending on line during a blow. Was forced to spend hours on the foredeck in really nasty conditions to constantly let out line to change chafe points. Fortunately didn't run out of available line. The force on the line was so strong could not get chafing gear back into position where it would do some good.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

True, Rover, good point.... the best ground tackle available won't help if the rode parts at the deck.. I remember a series of photos that MaineSail posted years back of anchors sawing through rope mooring pennants in short order.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I don't know where you get all that rover. We've had none of those problems in conditions like you mention in years of anchoring with rode. 

I mean, though I'm not a fan of the Uma kids, you can watch their video where he rides out a strong tropical storm on rode and dopes fine - no chafe, no severed lines, nothing. And it was WAY more than 30 mph winds.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> It really depends on where you're anchoring. If, like us, most of your anchoring is in 10'-20' of water, 60'-80' of chain and the rest rode is a good combo. If you're doing 5:1 - 7:1 scope you'll have mostly chain out in the crusties anyway with the rode just coming up to the boat - essentially acting like the snubber. And you'll be WAY lighter than having 200'+ feet of chain.


So when your line "essentially acting like the snubber." does part in the seas generated by a sudden onshore squall, you have no chain to fall back on until you can power up, relieving the pressure on the chain while you rig another snub line?
Sounds like a recipe for a lost anchor, lost chain and a lost boat, to me.


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

Also would add that with a windlass, either electric or manual, retrieving the rode is way easier. That is if the stowage system is adequate so the chain self stores. 

The chain is heavy and will affect windward performance especially on a smaller boat. 120' of 5/16" chain is no problem on my Pearson 35 but could be if I had 200' plus. On a smaller boat, even if using 1/4" chain, the weight could make hobby horsing an issue. Still, if I was going cruising, would sleep way better with all chain rode.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Then you should stick with chain cap.


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

Chain is very heavy but the major advantage is the excellent chafe protection.

Even in relatively deserted anchorages it sad to see how much rubbish is on the seabed. Old moorings, engines, sewing machines etc etc. When encrusted with sea growth this type of debris is sharp enough to cut through rope quickly. Then there are natural hazards. It is not unusual to see isolated patches of rock in predominant sand or mud anchorages. Coral areas are particularly bad. Naturally you want to avoid anchoring in areas of live coral, but there are frequently large sharp lumps of dead coral on the bottom of many anchorages, so cruising in coral waters is difficult without a reasonable amount of chain.

The other problem is encountered in very crowded anchorages with other cruising boats. Nearly all long distance cruising boats will be using an all chain rode and if you want to use predominantly rope rode you will swing significantly differently.

This does not mean that you need a long length of chain to cruise, but it does make things safer by largely eliminating any concern about chafe.

If you are managing with only a smallish amount of chain one option that can be used is to adjust the length of rode as the wind strength changes so the rope portion is always above the seabed where it safe from chafe. If you have a small amount of chain this will mean adjusting your scope to quite low values if the wind is light. Providing there is some chain on the bottom this will not have much impact on the holding ability, but you need to prepared to let out more scope as wind rises.

The other option is to use G7 chain, which enables a smaller size to used for the same strength, but this has some other drawbacks. There is also the possibility of using Dyneema or Acera that have much better chafe resistance that other fibres that are traditionally used for rope rode, but once again these are not without problems. The chafe resistance is still significantly worse than chain.

In this type of situation rope rode will not last long:


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

RegisteredUser said:


> WLL and UBL for most all materials and components are published by reliable sources all over this great Internet.
> 
> Assuming cruising....all over this flat planet...to the edges....
> Why are some boats hauling around 250' of steel chain?
> ...


There's a practical part of the all chain that led me to go that way. It's that you don't have to deal with the rope to chain transition in the windlass. I got tired of that being hard to make the turn and go down in the the locker. In the past I had 375' of chain as that was the most I could put in the locker, and the weight didn't do anything to the boats ride. I since aren't as deep an area and only have about 200' because that allows a longer drop into the locker for the mostly 100' that gets used (the rest is in a stern locker for the backup anchor).

And I a use a snubber because that's about shock loads and I can tell you that in bad nasty conditions the longer the snubber is the better the life down below is because of the shock absorption that snubber provides. It doesn't really matter that the snubber isn't as strong as the chain, the strength of the snubber is enough to rip the boat apart.


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

We used to do the 50'(chain)/250'(rope) thang, 'till our anchor rode got fouled once. Not wanting to lose the anchor, I dove to retrieve it. The rode had fouled on a 1000 year-old, 100 lb fisherman type anchor (OK, I'm probably exaggerating a bit). We had been anchored up there for four days, with one of our nights seeing 30 plus kt winds. Upon inspection, my 5/8" three strand had chaffed nearly halfway through on the derelict anchor. We are now ALL chain with a snubber bridle.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

The only reasons not to go with all chain are you don’t anchor much or only anchor in well known areas, OR the added weight in the bow really does make a significant impact on your boat’s performance. Otherwise, it’s pretty much a no-brainer. 

It’s not just the much stronger catenary effect and chafe protection, and simplicity on the windlass, but also fact that the chain weight ensures the necessary horizontal force vector on the anchor happens over a much wide range of wind conditions. 

Yes, once chain is bone-hard it doesn’t really matter. At that point it’s all up to scope, anchor quality, and how well it has been set. But with all-chain, we rarely ever see zero catenary. In most cases the weight and friction of our chain means we aren’t even testing the anchor much; we just sit on the chain.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

RocketScience said:


> We used to do the 50'(chain)/250'(rope) thang, 'till our anchor rode got fouled once. Not wanting to lose the anchor, I dove to retrieve it. The rode had fouled on a 1000 year-old, 100 lb fisherman type anchor (OK, I'm probably exaggerating a bit). We had been anchored up there for four days, with one of our nights seeing 30 plus kt winds. Upon inspection, my 5/8" three strand had chaffed nearly halfway through on the derelict anchor. We are now ALL chain with a snubber bridle.]


Burned a fair few credits from the black box that time, eh?


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

RegisteredUser said:


> ...
> 
> Assuming cruising....all over this flat planet...to the edges....
> Why are some boats hauling around 250' of steel chain?
> ...


If you plan to cruise extensively beyond your home area you will experience a lot of varied anchoring scenarios. In the South Pacific there are many places where you anchor in 60 to 80 foot depths. The bottoms often have coral bommies and boulders. You need all chain and a lot of it to deal with these situations.

I spent 30 minutes this morning unwrapping chain from bommies in 40 ft of water in an anchorage in Vanuatu. Rope could easily have chafed over night as we circled around the anchor.

Paul


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

capta said:


> Burned a fair few credits from the black box that time, eh?


To be exact, six. 

EDIT: I believe my black box came with ten credits.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

want to lose your boat? use mixed rode at anchor in a bouncy anchorage. chafe happens fast. both ends--boat end and anchor end.. rocky bottoms and sandy bottoms are rough and cause chafe. all chain does not chafe. boats with all chain also donot waltz allover an anchorage preventing others from anchoring due to massive swing.
all chain does not drag anchor as fast as does rope rode.
yeah it weighs in at ten more tons, but most heavy cruising boats are good with that weight. 
i only keep rope rode for kedging off a shoal..ever try that with all chain hahahahahah yup i did that. not even my boat..damn i am a good friend..hahahahaha


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Futile exercise into what should have been obvious.
Yeah. Not racing. Protecting. Already been invented...


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

You can cruise just fine with chain and rope, provided the chain part is long enough so that only it is on the bottom in rocky and coral areas. We meet many people cruising in the same areas of everyone posting above that use mixed rode, and we have yet to meet anyone who has lost a boat or had problems with it.

This type of rode is very common on multihulls and smaller boats, although less common now than in the past. We used a mixed rode for 16yrs coastal cruising in two different 40' boats, but switched to all chain when we left cruising full time.

Like Don mentioned above, our decision to go all chain was more for convenience than anything else. It is much easier to just push the switch and have the windlass handle the chain smoothly. Also, when on the rope part, a boat does swing a lot more, as well as wiplash back and forth in gusts because of the elasticity. This is more pronounced the deeper the anchorage.

If you will be cruising only the US East Coast and Bahamas, having a lot of dead chain doesn't make sense if your boat is weight sensitive or shallow draft. We are often anchored in 5-10' of water in these places, where 200' of our chain is always dead weight. A 100'/100' mixed rode, or even a 50'/150' is fine in these places.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

zeehag said:


> yeah it weighs in at ten more tons, but most heavy cruising boats are good with that weight.


Our entire boat, including our chain, doesn't weigh that much. I don't know of any reasonably sized cruising boat that can handle that much weight.

Mark


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

colemj said:


> Our entire boat, including our chain, doesn't weigh that much. I don't know of any reasonably sized cruising boat that can handle that much weight.
> 
> Mark


y'alls take everything tooo literally. dang.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

This has been a good thread/info for me because sometimes I tend to s t r e t c h and question what's been 'proven' a little to far.

Draft is a little under 5'.
My original thoughts were 90' chain and whatever rope...
Boat has a 3/8 BBB windlass I'm now changing to a new 5/16 G4 iso windlass.
Converting to 5/16 on current 30 y/o Ideal windlass (now Schaefer) 65% of a new one...
1.1lb vs 1.6lb per ft

I'd never thought having rope on the bottom would be OK. I was being overly concerned with weight. But my original 90' might be just fine..and safe...for the Bahamas and Carib...
The post about 40-60' anchoring depths in the Pacific kinda slammed me back down to earth. I remembering reading reports on this....duh.

Maybe reconfigure west of the canal is what you do...

I really want to avoid massive (subjective) dead weight doing nothing.

A funny....
At one time I thought about going with 1/4 70 and ditching the windlass. Sure, on a good day...no problem. But all days won't be good...

Gravity is good


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

colemj said:


> we have yet to meet anyone who has lost a boat or had problems with it.Mark


Do you think that could possibly be because those that have lost their boat with that system aren't out cruising any more, so you wouldn't have met them?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

capta said:


> Do you think that could possibly be because those that have lost their boat with that system aren't out cruising any more, so you wouldn't have met them?


Yes, they are probably on land with all the people who lost their boats with an all chain system - I haven't met those people yet either.

You do realize the logical fallacy of your statement?

Mark


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Weight aside, I think the overriding 'disadvantage' of all-chain is the difficulty of retrieval in the (inevitable??) event that the windlass fails - especially if that occurs in more than 20-30 feet of depth.

As a side comment to this thread, of late any time we're swinging free (as opposed to the common local practice of a stern line ashore) we've been adding a 20 pound kellet. Works great when anchoring around all-chain vessels and absent any real pressure (wind or tide) tend to simply sit on the kellet if in shallow water. Very pleased with that setup (no windlass so handbombing everything).

A friend we often cruise with (all chain) routinely adds a kellet as well,FWIW.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

I think a grab hook or 2 would be smart to carry in case the windlass takes a dirt nap.
Run line to a big winch.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Most windlasses have a manual retrieval mode.

Mark


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Winch handle
If they aren't jammed


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Personally, I don't trust the connection splice between my 50 feet of chain and 250 feet of rode - maybe it's just me, but when I had to go on to the rode and chain combination, I did not really sleep all that well. I'm going to add another 100 feet of chain this winter if the boat doesn't sell, and I will splice the two chains together with a monkey link, which will not only go through the windlass, but I also have a lot of confidence it, having used them in the past.

Good luck,

Gary


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> Yes, they are probably on land with all the people who lost their boats with an all chain system - I haven't met those people yet either.
> 
> You do realize the logical fallacy of your statement?
> 
> Mark


And yet, I suppose, if we were to actually meet both groups, I'd be willing to bet the failed rope guys will outnumber the failed chain guys.


----------



## PaulBKal (Oct 6, 2017)

I f you're sailing a 40-odd foot vessel, which is probably as big as most of us do, weight becomes a real issue, especially weight for'ard. My personal preference is for the windlass to be well back from the bow, closer to the mast, with a 3" stainless strip from it to the bow and for the chain locker to be somewhere just for'ard of the mast step. If you do that you can probably afford to carry several hundred pound of chain, as it's at least in a position that will least effect your sailing performance, especially if you have to claw your way off a lee shore at some stage. 
But I'm with smackdaddy on this largely. 60' of chain is truckloads if you're anchoring in anything less than 20' (or even 30') of water. Nylon line is so strong and so much lighter than chain.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

RocketScience said:


> And yet, I suppose, if we were to actually meet both groups, I'd be willing to bet the failed rope guys will outnumber the failed chain guys.


There is no basis for that statement. It is a logical fallacy born from stating an unknown and untested premise as truth, then proceeding from there to drawing a conclusion that fits that truth.

If you care to produce actual members of either group, I'd be more inclined to support your premise.

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Like I said, the only reasons NOT to have all chain is:


If you don't anchor out that much, or for very long, or 
If you only anchor in know areas with known depths, or
If your boat is significantly negatively impacted by carrying all that chain weight in the bow.

In these circumstances going with a good length of chain, and lots of rope is going to be fine _most of the time_. It certainly can work. But except in these kinds of circumstances, all-chain is superior for long-term cruising in varied locations.


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> There is no basis for that statement. It is a logical fallacy born from stating an unknown and untested premise as truth, then proceeding from there to drawing a conclusion that fits that truth.
> 
> If you care to produce actual members of either group, I'd be more inclined to support your premise.
> 
> Mark


It was a supposition (_"...I suppose..."_), a hypothesis, a theory. You did see that, right?


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Always luv these conversations re anchors and rode.........At the end of the day, there is NEVER a correct ALL AROUND answer!

The're some like me with a 9 lb anchor, 6' of 3/8BBB and 200' of 7/16 rode on my 30' LOA boat. Did I mention I race a majority of the time or do day sails?!?!?!? Yes I have anchored with said anchor doing race duty one night, with winds into the mid upper teens! Held fine! Would not have wanted to be in much more wind, as that is about all that anchor was rated for per Lewmar's Fast-set anchor specs.

I do have a 16.5 Lb Bruce, ie real version.....~15' of 1/4 HT and 200' of 9/16" rode, that was used be OE anchoring from the South Puget Sound relm, to Desolation and back a number of times over the 20 Yrs they had the boat. I've used in doing race duty to mid 30's, no issues!

With this said, If I did anchor more. for around here, 50' of 1/4 HT would be a better chain length etc, as would 300-350' of rode for those days one is in 30-50' of water which could happen twice in the same day with some of the larger 15' tides which occur here in the salish sea..........Oh, a 22-30 lbs anchor would be better too.......

I can see where all chain could be better, then again......I recall someone wanting a 100 lbs anchor for a kedge in a boat my size too. My gut says the dude did not know the difference between a Kedge and a permanent style anchor! A kedge should be reasonably throwable IMHO! All rope should be on said Kedge/anchor too!

My 02 on said subject!

marty


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

RegisteredUser said:


> WLL and UBL for most all materials and components are published by reliable sources all over this great Internet.
> 
> Assuming cruising....all over this flat planet...to the edges....
> 
> Does 250+ lbs of chain make for better dreams?


Yes it's at these edges where chain really comes in handy. Not very handy in the middle.

I never questioned having all chain or lots of chain as an advantage as long as you boat can handle the storage and weight in the bow, I can't see the disadvantage. Having cruised the PNW recently, I can't imagine not having all chain in some locations. When the depth drops down to 50 feet 30 feet from the shore. Chain allows for lesser scope when anchoring. If I had to anchor in 60 feet of water a 5:1 ratio would be easier to achieve than 7:1.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

RegisteredUser said:


> Why are some boats hauling around 250' of steel chain?
> Then they have a snubber system made of rope to subdue shock loads....well promoted as a must-have


Yes, you are absolutely right. You do not need all chain. In 40 years of anchoring in probably a thousand different anchorages and winds exceeding 50, I have never chaffed through an anchor line. You need to put that line through a good anchor roller.

Anyone that says you can short scope because they have chain is living in a dream world. If you are in 40 mph winds, you will have the same scope with either line or chain. So catenary or whatever is a non-issue as far as I see.

Here is a reality.. The winds are 40 mph. It's 2 am in the morning. Raining so hard it hurts when it hits your face. The winds will swap 180. You are not in the best anchoring conditions.

You will have to get on deck and retrieve your anchor. God forbid you are in 60 feet of water, all chain with a 75 pound Rocna and your windlass stops working. These are the conditions that you will lose your boat.

Rather now suppose you have an equivalent holding 35 pound Danforth Hi tensile with 40 feet of chain and 300 feet of 3/4 line.

Under the same conditions, you can easily lift the line and anchor by hand in an emergency.

This was the criteria I used to chose my anchor/line. I often find I need to manhandle the line and anchor. You will never manhandle a heavy anchor with chain. My aft anchor is a similar size with no chain. This anchor must be retrieved by hand. So forget about chain.

Just another way to look at the same problem..
Bryce


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

travlin-easy said:


> Personally, I don't trust the connection splice between my 50 feet of chain and 250 feet of rode.....


+1

This is the technical issue with rope rode. The splice will reduce the strength of the rope to somewhere between 30% and 60% of its rated loads, so bragging about the strength of the rope is uninformed and misleading. Further, that's when it's brand new at the chandlery! That splice then begins to chafe against the chain link or shackle it's connected to.

You don't read about as many failures, because most folks either don't anchor or only anchor overnight, when conditions are fairly tame. If you're really out cruising, which very few are, you need to be more prepared, IMO.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> +1
> 
> This is the technical issue with rope rode. The splice will reduce the strength of the rope to somewhere between 30% and 60% of its rated loads


This is wrong. By a lot. It is more applicable to knots, while splices retain 80-95% of the rope strength (depending on splice).

If the above had any truth to it, nobody would be using splices on their boats anywhere.

Mark


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

40 knot winds, 60 feet of water, 75 lb Rocna and you can retrieve it "easily" by hand. :facepalm


----------



## PaulBKal (Oct 6, 2017)

Minnewaska said:


> ...The splice will reduce the strength of the rope to somewhere between 30% and 60% of its rated loads, so bragging about the strength of the rope is uninformed and misleading. Further, that's when it's brand new at the chandlery! That splice then begins to chafe against the chain link or shackle it's connected to.


Seriously? If splices were that bad, why are they used to secure boats in marinas, where they spend 80 or 90% of their time? Each boat in a marina is secured by at least 4 lines, usually with two splices in each. Your argument is patent nonsense.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## darc (Nov 1, 2016)

I myself like a chain to rope rode just for the privacy factor alone. When you anchor with like 200' of rope and the wind picks up you do a lot of swinging and it clears out all those who dared anchor close especially if you have like a j boat that always wants to race even at anchor. You get respect also from those who are in the know. They see that shinny white line out giving you plenty of birth.
I like a bow up boat especially if you have a short lwl (29') and you sail the north atlantic in Nov/Dec. For the fifty years I've been sailing I'm the one pulling the beast up so less weight is a big factor for me though when you're thinking about it when you anchor in lets say 15' of water you're only pulling up 15' foot of chain at a time right? Still I like the hand on rope over muddy rusty old chain any day.
Chafe to tell the truth I'm a little surprised at all the talk how people have chafe through their rode in matter of minutes myself haven't witness anything near that. Me, just this last refit and excepting the fact of my age I put a windlass on and replaced my rode and after 17 years it really didn't need replacement it showed wear but really didn't need the toss. But I have to admit in that 17 years I was only on the hook a year of it, from Maine to Granada and all points in-between. And a year on the hook I'm pretty shore I've seen all the conditions the nay sayers have seen.
Maybe I'm more selective where I put my hook and tell the truth I don't know a place in this civilized world where anchoring in coral is acceptable or even allowed especially in the Caribbean. And shame on you who do, we are supposed to be the guardians aren't we?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> Here is a reality.. The winds are 40 mph. It's 2 am in the morning. Raining so hard it hurts when it hits your face. The winds will swap 180. You are not in the best anchoring conditions.
> 
> You will have to get on deck and retrieve your anchor. God forbid you are in 60 feet of water, all chain with a 75 pound Rocna and your windlass stops working. These are the conditions that you will lose your boat.
> 
> ...


This doesn't seem like reality at all -- at least not in my experience. If your anchor can't hold in 40 mph (35 knots) then you've got the wrong anchor/rode, or have set very poorly. I have often swung within 10s of feet of shore in those kinds of wind using my 50# Rocna and 3/8" chain.

A Danforth is a great anchor in very specific bottoms: sand, mud, softish clay. It is poor in hard bottoms, and very problematic in thick weeds. It is not what I consider a general-purpose anchor.

I'm sure there are any number of scenarios one can construct where rope is better than chain. Doesn't change the reality that all-chain is going to be the better choice most of the time UNLESS your boat can't manage the weight.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> +1
> 
> This is the technical issue with rope rode. The splice will reduce the strength of the rope to somewhere between 30% and 60% of its rated loads, so bragging about the strength of the rope is uninformed and misleading. Further, that's when it's brand new at the chandlery! That splice then begins to chafe against the chain link or shackle it's connected to.
> 
> You don't read about as many failures, because most folks either don't anchor or only anchor overnight, when conditions are fairly tame. If you're really out cruising, which very few are, you need to be more prepared, IMO.


May I ask where you get the 30-60% figure? Knots typically greatly reduce line strength but splices typically retain nearly the breaking strength of the line itself. Cite: Splicing Three-Strand Rope - BoatTECH - BoatUS

I use a metal thimble in my splice. Why is the rode going to chafe against the shackle when the metal thimble is there to protect it?
I can see a potential problem if the rope is spliced directly to the chain, but that's not something I do.


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

BryceGTX said:


> Here is a reality.. The winds are 40 mph. It's 2 am in the morning. Raining so hard it hurts when it hits your face. The winds will swap 180. You are not in the best anchoring conditions.
> 
> You will have to get on deck and retrieve your anchor. God forbid you are in 60 feet of water, all chain with a 75 pound Rocna and your windlass stops working. These are the conditions that you will lose your boat.
> 
> Bryce


I have had exactly that happen to me. Which is why I my boat has a second anchor with 200 ft of chain on a second bow roller.

No panic. Buoy the chain on anchor 1 and cut the bitter end leaving the anchor and chain behind. . Re-anchor using anchor 2. When things calm down fix the windlass and retrieve anchor 1. [ Damn Lofrans foot switches. ]

It is worth noting that Amel who built what were the best off the shelf long distant cruising boats fitted as standard equipment on the Maramus two anchor winches two anchors two lots of chain and two chain lockers. Henri knew what real cruisers need.

BTW I am in my 15th year of living on the hook in different parts of the world.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

TQA said:


> Henri knew what *real cruisers* need.


What does that even mean? Seriously.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

darc said:


> Maybe I'm more selective where I put my hook and tell the truth I don't know a place in this civilized world where anchoring in coral is acceptable or even allowed especially in the Caribbean. And shame on you who do, we are supposed to be the guardians aren't we?


When people talk about anchoring in coral, they aren't saying they literally anchor on a live reef. Anchoring in "coral" means anchoring where the bed has a lot of old, dead broken coral, maybe a dead coral shelf, and perhaps some small live bombies scattered about. These are widespread anywhere there is coral because the waves pound the live reef outside the anchorages and broken bits of it get swept into otherwise sandy anchorages.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> +1
> 
> This is the technical issue with rope rode. The splice will reduce the strength of the rope to somewhere between 30% and 60% of its rated loads, so bragging about the strength of the rope is uninformed and misleading. Further, that's when it's brand new at the chandlery! That splice then begins to chafe against the chain link or shackle it's connected to.
> 
> You don't read about as many failures, because most folks either don't anchor or only anchor overnight, when conditions are fairly tame. If you're really out cruising, which very few are, you need to be more prepared, IMO.


My brain fart. I was quoting strength off the top of my head for knots, not splices. Some of you were very sweet in how you pointed out the mistake. 

I will go look up specs for anchor splices to chain or thimble. I'm certain they are not full strength. It's likely a factor of point loading the metal on the rope, as much as the stregnth of the splice itself.

Ultimately, you can't get away from the chafe around metal, dirt, salt, etc. All chain does away with the concern, which is the query of the OP. I'm not suggesting it's crazy to have a mixed rode. If you want to inspect it frequently, knock yourself out.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Literally the first google hit. USSailing/WestMarine answer is a 12% to 25% reduction in strength and a warning to examine for chafe, as I read the attached.

Found it interesting that NER publishes base strengths that assume an eye has been spliced into it.

http://www.ussailing.org/wp-content...AS Studies/1994_Rope_to_Chain_Splice_Test.pdf


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Was sitting with friends in the cockpit in culebra waiting for a window. They were anchored next to us. Big center console with three outboards came barreling through and just missed their bow. Could see their 15 ton boat jerk forward and back. Dinghied over. No damage not even a nick in the chain. Galvy still intact. Get chain. Don?t worry as much about the cowboys.


----------



## heading168 (Sep 27, 2017)

Boy reading this seems you need an armored car for a boat and chain made of criponite (is that spelt right) to protect against what you guys seem to come against. I know I'm looking up the names of you all's boat so I can run the other way when I see you in the anchorage.
Biggest threat I ever seen in Culebra was a pelican hitting the water to close to the boat but I think he got the worst out of the deal...;-)


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> Literally the first google hit. USSailing/WestMarine answer is a 12% to 25% reduction in strength and a warning to examine for chafe, as I read the attached.
> 
> Found it interesting that NER publishes base strengths that assume an eye has been spliced into it.
> 
> http://www.ussailing.org/wp-content...AS Studies/1994_Rope_to_Chain_Splice_Test.pdf


I was polite and merely asked where you found your figures. I also posted a link that described splices as stronger than your original figure rather than just pulling something out of my behind.

As far as "examining for chafe," you can do that while you retrieve the rode each time. This doesn't seem like a lot of effort to me.

I would agree that a mixed rode with a short chain segment (one boat length) is probably not sufficient for anchoring in rocks and coral. I'd probably increase my chain segment to 100-110 feet. I'm not totally sold that everyone needs to carry a full chain rode.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

heading168 said:


> Boy reading this seems you need an armored car for a boat and chain made of criponite (is that spelt right) to protect against what you guys seem to come against. I know I'm looking up the names of you all's boat so I can run the other way when I see you in the anchorage.
> Biggest threat I ever seen in Culebra was a pelican hitting the water to close to the boat but I think he got the worst out of the deal...;-)


I think we should just stop sailing and take up golf or bowling before it's too late.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> Literally the first google hit. USSailing/WestMarine answer is a 12% to 25% reduction in strength and a warning to examine for chafe, as I read the attached.
> 
> Found it interesting that NER publishes base strengths that assume an eye has been spliced into it.
> 
> http://www.ussailing.org/wp-content...AS Studies/1994_Rope_to_Chain_Splice_Test.pdf


You left out one important and very relevant fact from that article when you point to the splice weakening the rope 12-25%. The important fact was that when the splice broke, the shackles and chain had elongated way past their working limits and were on the verge of breaking themselves.

So it doesn't matter if the splice weakened the line because the breaking load of the splice was the same as that of the chain.

And that is all that matters.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Ajax_MD said:


> ....I'm not totally sold that everyone needs to carry a full chain rode.


I'm not going to re-read, but I don't think anyone said that everyone needs full chain. Actually, the OP can be read to suggest that no one should. To that I disagree.

There are circumstances where there is little difference and perhaps most boaters qualify for those, because most boaters are weekend warriors who carefully plan when and where they will anchor at all. Cruising ups the ante, IMO. Personally, I don't want to worry about the risks with nylon, but it's a viable anchoring system.

For what it's worth, my boat couldn't care less that it has 300ft of 1/2" G4 chain in the locker. I added 100ft a couple of years back and wondered if I would see it at the water line. I did not.

Like most of these kind of issues, I suppose this one qualifies for......... it depends.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

colemj said:


> ....So it doesn't matter if the splice weakened the line because the breaking load of the splice was the same as that of the chain.


I read it to say that the shackles elongated, but the rope broke. That's not the same.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Ajax_MD said:


> I think we should just stop sailing and take up golf or bowling before it's too late.


Have you seen the new blue water golf cart by CC?

No compromises, all chain drive belt and 3 watertight beer compartments.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> I read it to say that the shackles elongated, but the rope broke. That's not the same.


From the article: _"all anchor shackle pins were bent, shackle bodies were elongated, and the chain was stretched so that some links would no longer move relative to one another. This indicates that each assembly was close to the failure point of other components."_

So the entire anchor gear was right at the breaking point, and well beyond the usable point, when the splice broke. If this was a rode in use, all of it would need to be replaced because it has all failed. And you would be hauling it up by hand because it isn't going through a windlass anymore.

Even if it was just elongating the shackles, that would be a failure of the anchor gear - you might have survived it by the skin of your teeth, but it can never be used again, and you will need all new anchor gear.

Yes, it is the same. Niggling about whether the splice broke after complete rode deformation and just before the entire chain and shackle system is meaningless.

Mark


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Faster said:


> Weight aside, I think the overriding 'disadvantage' of all-chain is the difficulty of retrieval in the (inevitable??) event that the windlass fails - especially if that occurs in more than 20-30 feet of depth.
> 
> As a side comment to this thread, of late any time we're swinging free (as opposed to the common local practice of a stern line ashore) we've been adding a 20 pound kellet. Works great when anchoring around all-chain vessels and absent any real pressure (wind or tide) tend to simply sit on the kellet if in shallow water. Very pleased with that setup (no windlass so handbombing everything).
> 
> A friend we often cruise with (all chain) routinely adds a kellet as well,FWIW.


I routinely use a kellet as well. We get some wind blowing opposite the tide conditions that can make a boat seemingly sail around in circles. I sometimes lower the kellet so it just touches the bottom and prevents the line from sliding against the hull and underbody.

To address a number of other points raised, I set and haul anchor without a windlass. Most times I simply hand over hand the line and chain until the anchor is vertical and break it it by sweating it up tight and allowing wave action to pull it out of the bottom. I have around 40 feet of chain and a 20 something pound anchor. The few times that I have anchored in really deep water it was a real bear to haul up the vertical load of 60-70 pounds of anchor and chain. There have been times when the forces are too great to do by hand. If I need to bring the boat up on the anchor without the engine, I throw the anchor line on a winch in the cockpit. When I get to the chain, I tie a line to the chain with a rolling hitch and winch in the line to bring the chain aboard and break out the anchor.

Jeff


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Jeff_H said:


> I routinely use a kellet as well. We get some wind blowing opposite the tide conditions that can make a boat seemingly sail around in circles. I sometimes lower the kellet so it just touches the bottom and prevents the line from sliding against the hull and underbody.
> 
> To address a number of other points raised, I set and haul anchor without a windlass. Most times I simply hand over hand the line and chain until the anchor is vertical and break it it by sweating it up tight and allowing wave action to pull it out of the bottom. I have around 40 feet of chain and a 20 something pound anchor. The few times that I have anchored in really deep water it was a real bear to haul up the vertical load of 60-70 pounds of anchor and chain. There have been times when the forces are too great to do by hand. If I need to bring the boat up on the anchor without the engine, I throw the anchor line on a winch in the cockpit. When I get to the chain, I tie a line to the chain with a rolling hitch and winch in the line to bring the chain aboard and break out the anchor.
> 
> Jeff


We're in the same boat, so to speak, Jeff. But using a 35# Mantus, about 40 ft chain.

Typically hand-over-hand, when we get to vertical often the boat's momentum is sufficient to trip, else we engage gear to break the anchor out (had one particular set this past summer where it took 1500 rpm to break free - must have been under a large rock or ledge) We studiously avoid anchoring in depths greater than 30-40 feet when we can, much prefer when we've gotten to chain before we need to break out the hook.

The setup works for us where we sail.. I can certainly see the desire for all-chain in other circumstances. As so often, the answer is indeed 'it depends'....


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

colemj said:


> ......Niggling about whether the splice broke after complete rode deformation and just before the entire chain and shackle system is meaningless.....


I see your point, but the study still concluded a 12%-25% reduction in the breaking strength of the rope, on average. Some attempts must have been worse. Could you know which is on any given boat?

Most importantly, this was on brand new rope. If the splice has chafed or point loaded, it may indeed be even weaker. Also, as pointed out at the end of the study, they did not test the repeated shock loading from a sustained storm.

If you're not concerned with it, that's your right. As is my right, if I am.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> .....
> 
> If you're not concerned with it, that's your right. As is my right, if I am.


Aren't you now carrying many yards/meters of chain, so no rope-to-chain connection is used?


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> This doesn't seem like reality at all -- at least not in my experience. If your anchor can't hold in 40 mph (35 knots) then you've got the wrong anchor/rode, or have set very poorly. I have often swung within 10s of feet of shore in those kinds of wind using my 50# Rocna and 3/8" chain.
> 
> A Danforth is a great anchor in very specific bottoms: sand, mud, softish clay. It is poor in hard bottoms, and very problematic in thick weeds. It is not what I consider a general-purpose anchor.
> 
> ...


If you have never dragged with your Rocna and chain, you just have not yet the experience. I have read numerous posts where Rocna and chain has dragged. Invariably in good bottoms, my anchor has no issue with 40 mph winds.

As a test, I put my bow anchor out. Then put my stern anchor out which is a 25 pound Danforth. Put my small aft anchor on a Lewmar size 58 winch. 5000 pounds of force. Neither anchor budged. Had to get the aft line above 45 degrees which is a 1:1 scope to pull it out. Did the same in sand and mud.

I sleep well at night. However, eventually all anchors will drag in the right conditions. Do not fool yourself into thinking you will never drag.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

TQA said:


> I have had exactly that happen to me. Which is why I my boat has a second anchor with 200 ft of chain on a second bow roller.
> 
> No panic. Buoy the chain on anchor 1 and cut the bitter end leaving the anchor and chain behind. . Re-anchor using anchor 2. When things calm down fix the windlass and retrieve anchor 1. [ Damn Lofrans foot switches. ]
> 
> ...


Sounds simple.. I solve the problem with one anchor, one rode. Living on the hook is a bit different than raising and dropping an anchor every day for a year. Which Perhaps we might call cruising.

Most "living on the hook" guys set their anchor and stay for a month or often longer. Much different issue than dropping the hook in a different spot every day.

Dealing with heavy chain and anchor gets old on a daily basis.
Bryce


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

If you're following this debate, this really should be your takeaway from those who actually have the knowledge:



> If the chain splice is examined for chafe on a regular basis, we find no objections to the rope to chain splice from a strength reduction standpoint, as it appears close in strength to other components in the system and to commonly available nylon line.


'Nuff said. It sure works for us.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> If you have never dragged with your Rocna and chain, you just have not yet the experience. I have read numerous posts where Rocna and chain has dragged. Invariably in good bottoms, my anchor has no issue with 40 mph winds.
> 
> As a test, I put my bow anchor out. Then put my stern anchor out which is a 25 pound Danforth. Put my small aft anchor on a Lewmar size 58 winch. 5000 pounds of force. Neither anchor budged. Had to get the aft line above 45 degrees which is a 1:1 scope to pull it out. Did the same in sand and mud.
> 
> ...


Bryce, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about who has more anchoring experience. I've got more than enough to make reasonable comments on what works. If you insist, we can line up our anchoring resume, but I'd rather not get that childish.

I did not say I _would_ never drag. I said I _have_ never dragged with the Rocna once set. It may happen someday &#8230; probably will. I've certainly dragged with older-style anchors like Danforth.

In my experience, the reason most people drag is b/c they don't know how to set their anchor properly. But the new-generation anchors are simply better in a wider range of conditions compared to older plows and Danforth-style. Danforth are excellent in specific conditions. If you don't know this, then "you just have not yet the experience."

I'm glad your anchor system can hold in 35 knots (40 mph). It better. But you are the one who presented this scenario as the scary 'Gotta Go Now!' event. I just pointed out that a bower that is properly sized, typed and set, should have no issue with 35 knots. This should not result in a 'Go Now!' event where you have to worry about hauling up rode in a hurry. It's not, as you call it, "reality."


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

The gotta go scenario outlines what typically happens in serious conditions. That is, it is not one single issue that results in an emergency. Rather it is a cascading series of events that is most dangerous. An anchor dragging on a shore in these conditions is about as bad as it gets. Eventually this will happen to every one as time goes on. This happened most enlightening to me with my old 44 pound True Bruce.

By the way.. as I write this I'm anchored on the Danforth in 70 mph gusts in the Mississippi River.

No pissing here.
Bryce


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

Put me in the all chain group. Good night.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

RegisteredUser said:


> Aren't you now carrying many yards/meters of chain, so no rope-to-chain connection is used?


That's correct. No more concern here.

While one could continually inspect the rope-chain splice, how realistic is it that anyone is going to cut if off and re-splice it as soon as they note chafe? Can you actually see the chafe at the mating surface, before it's gets very bad? Most boaters put off 5 min maintenance tasks, due to the shear volume of them. I'll also bet that most don't know how and never have spliced three strand. I do know how and I would never want to have to drop what I'm doing to re-splice the rode.

Rope-chain is all my family had for decades. 90% of the anchoring we did, just didn't put all that much stress on the anchoring system. If it was forecast to, I doubt we would have gone out in the first place. I'm sure the vast majority of boaters do the same. Now that I cruise more frequently, I'm happier with all chain. Indeed, there are some boats that can't take the weight. Your call what makes you happy.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

To avoid the characteristic cherry picking that happens, here's the full conclusion of the study I posted. The rope is weakened at the splice, with steady load, and its anyone's guess what happens during cyclical loads of a sustained storm, which is really when this matters anyway. The conclusion that finds no objection, if inspected for chafe, is not actually supported scientifically. It's just a subjective conclusion. IOW, what is the inspection protocol, does salt have to be rinsed from the splice, etc.

I'm certainly not concluding it's a death trap or inappropriate. I'm only saying its a point of potential failure and I very much doubt that any of us would actually re-splice at the first signs of wear and tear.



> Conclusions
> 1. The chain used in this test is conservatively rated, and withstood loads at least 5-50% above its stated
> ultimate strength. The shackles also exceeded their ultimate strength ratings by 10-30%. Both products
> have a high ratio of ultimate strength to working load limit.
> ...


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> I see your point, but the study still concluded a 12%-25% reduction in the breaking strength of the rope, on average. Some attempts must have been worse. Could you know which is on any given boat?
> 
> Most importantly, this was on brand new rope. If the splice has chafed or point loaded, it may indeed be even weaker. Also, as pointed out at the end of the study, they did not test the repeated shock loading from a sustained storm.
> 
> If you're not concerned with it, that's your right. As is my right, if I am.


The chain was also new. You are missing my point - my point is that it doesn't matter that the splice reduced the breaking strength of the rope because even at that reduced breaking strength (all of the range), the chain and shackles were also failing.

In other words, all of the components in that anchoring system were matched for working loads, and even breaking loads. You see this happen with all chain rodes also, where shackles are matched to the chain strength, not the chain size, because there is a reduction in breaking strength for shackles vs. chain. Would you point that fact out with alarm like you do with a splice?

This all ignores the other point that this was a destruction test, not a working load test. How many here have been in real live situations that destroyed their anchor chain and shackle? We never have. These are rare, rare, rare conditions indeed. Probably not even survivable, on average. I know that by the time conditions are such that our anchor chain is destroyed, there is nothing we will be able to do to save the boat.

The chafe is a red herring. Up until we left for full time cruising, I've anchored my entire life on a mixed rode and have never experienced chafing at the splice.  Since most people who use mixed rode pull the anchor by hand, they are looking at that splice every single time it comes aboard.

Saying that people don't know how to splice is silly. It isn't any different than anything else on a boat - if it is important/safety, you learn to use/fix it or don't have it. Even if one couldn't splice, it isn't like chafe happens immediately on a back splice or thru-link splice, and doesn't happen at all on a thimbled eye splice. It happens so gradually and gracefully, that one could get someone to redo it for them at leisure.

Some here are creating "what if" demons out of thin air without providing a bit of critical thought around the issue.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> The conclusion that finds no objection, if inspected for chafe, is not actually supported scientifically. It's just a subjective conclusion.


As are your conclusions. This line of reasoning is a logical fallacy.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

All over “it depends”
Once you need a 75lb. anchor there’s no chance you’re going to pull it up on a routine basis without a windlass.
Once your boat weighs enough or has enough windage if you’re by yourself you won’t be always straight up and down so pulling up the anchor before it puts some tension on the windlass won’t always occur. We go over the anchor a bit and still occasionally drift back enough to slightly tension the windlass.
Switching from line to chain is a PIA. I have to get enough chain up to put a rolling hitch on it so there’s no tension on the windlass. Then rework the windlass so it’s pulling on chain not rope. Then get the rolling hitch off. I’m doing all this on a very short rode dramatically increasing risk of dragging while this is all going on. Do this on a windy day with a chop running is a scary business.
So if you need a windlass you need all chain. If you don’t mixed rode is fine and perhaps better as you can avoid the PIA of snubbers.
Loose mud and next gen anchors don’t get along. The kind of stuff you see in the Chessie or Blocknew harbor. Practical Sailor had a nice article showing this. Only thing that works well is the old time Danforth or a fortress type in that kind of soup. Have dragged my Rocna in loose mud. Have learned to drop and wait even if it means inching forward on engine so there’s no rode tension. That way the anchor can settle through the loose mud and get something to grab on to. Also don’t backdown for at least 15 minutes and then very gradually.
Talking about strength is silly now there are several types of line stronger than steel. Chafe is the enemy of any line anywhere on a boat. On a rode by the time you wake up and sort things out you can be in big do do. Yes I know you have the anchor alarm on but if on the pad is it still charged. If on the multi system display can you hear it loud enough to wake you.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Both our previous Simpson-Lawrence (Lewmar) and current Maxwell windlasses handle the rope/chain transition flawlessly. Just like all chain. So the windlass issue you state isn't a universal truth, and depends on the gypsy design. If one is getting a windlass and mixed rode, they will make sure the windlass will handle it.

We have no problem with our Rocna in soupy mud from Block Island and Chesapeake. Just wait a bit for it to settle, gently back down a couple of times, and after a period of time, back down hard. Took 50kts in New Harbor BI, and several strong blows in the Chessie (including Back Creek) with no issue. 

Yes, I have been saying "it depends". Certainly, there are advantages to all chain, but those are generally only convenience ones, not safety ones. We switched to all chain purely for convenience when we left cruising. What is not true, is that a mixed rode is not a viable anchoring solution. It certainly is. Permanently and for cruising. The choice has more to do with things like if the boat can't handle extra weight, or can't fit a windlass, etc - generally a boat size issue. Chafe and splice strength has nothing to do with it, and you aren't going to lose your boat.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

colemj said:


> .... You see this happen with all chain rodes also, where shackles are matched to the chain strength, not the chain size, because there is a reduction in breaking strength for shackles vs. chain. Would you point that fact out with alarm like you do with a splice?.....


First, have you interpreted my comments as alarm? Disagreeing with you is not alarm. I've also explicitly stated that rope to chain is a viable system.

As to your question above, of course one should pay attention to this point as well and go one size up on the shackle. Isn't that common advice?

Listen, if we're going to debate a difference of opinion on which system we would respectively sleep better upon, that's fine. If you have to be right, that's futile.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> ...Yes, I have been saying "it depends". Certainly, there are advantages to all chain, but those are generally only convenience ones, not safety ones. We switched to all chain purely for convenience when we left cruising. What is not true, is that a mixed rode is not a viable anchoring solution. It certainly is. Permanently and for cruising. The choice has more to do with things like if the boat can't handle extra weight, or can't fit a windlass, etc - generally a boat size issue. Chafe and splice strength has nothing to do with it, and you aren't going to lose your boat.


In general I agree Mark. As with all things in sailing/cruising, there is no one right answer for everyone. It certainly "depends" on the situation and the boat. Our previous boat used chain/rope for rode, and it worked fine. I had no windlass, but I was younger then . My current boat has all chain and a (manual) windlass. Works great.

I still think chain has some advantages when it comes to maintaining the proper horizontal force vector on the anchor, but sufficient length of chain, then rope, could accomplish the same task. The other advantage to chain in tight or busy anchorages is the rode lays below the waterline most of the time. Helps when the resident zippy-boater goes roaring through the anchorage, cutting close to your bow.

Chafe is always an issue when dealing with any rope, but I never had an issue with our previous boat. Like anything on a boat, it's a maintenance and vigilance issue. And one significant advantage to rope/chain is you don't have to set up snubbers; they're built into the system.

All in all, I'd much rather have all chain. It's simpler, safer over a wider range of conditions, and comes with significant advantages. But if my boat were a lot lighter, or I was only anchoring in known safe waters, I'd be fine with rope/chain. It certainly can and does work fine.

I've never anchored in the Chesapeake, so can't say what that's like. I've certainly had to deal with soupy mud. As Mark says, I find if I let the anchor (Rocna in my case) settle, and slowly/gently dig it in, I can usually get a solid set. A Danforth might be superior in these conditions, but it too needs to be set slowly and properly.

BTW, we almost never settle for less than a full set. If the anchor won't hold under full cruising throttle for several minutes, we haul up and try again. If I can't get a set we're happy with, we move on. Perhaps this is why I've never (yet ) dragged once set with my Rocna. Certainly have dragged with older anchors. In fact I know one time was due to soupy mud conditions, and that was with a Danforth.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I've been following this thread for entertainment, anchor and blue water boat threads are always entertaining. I don't think anybody is going to change my mind. I have done my fair share of anchoring, all rope, rope and chain, all chain, wire rope. From my observations they all have pros and cons.

Personally, I hate windlasses. They're heavy, they're expensive and they always seem to work until you really need them to work. For sure, on boats over a certain size, you need to have a windlasses because you need a certain amount of weight in your ground tackle to hold a boat if x displacement and y windage. Necessary evil on bigger boats.

But I wouldn't have a windlass on a small boat that didn't need one (maybe under 15000 lbs, as an arbrtrary number). I find all rope and a good heavy anchor works for me, sometimes with a mushroom anchor fixed part way up the anchor line. 

I try to find anchorages where I can tuck well up in sheltered shallow water. I wouldn't own a boat that couldn't withstand regular contact with the bottom, so I look for really shallow waters. I'm happyiest if I can get a line ashore, to a tree or something. Not always going to be possible.

I understand, for folks anchoring in places with stalactite, junkyard and coral bottoms, a fibre rode might saw through in the night. That would suck. I would want chain or wire rope in a place like that. I don't anchor in places like that though, so I don't worry about it.

The other thing I get about all chain is the holding and dampening effect of having lots of chain on the bottom. Excellent. Holding power is good.

Chafe. If your talking about sawing motion with bottom debris, yes. For routine anchoring though? I don't see a huge advantage for chain. I couldn't count the number of shackles and links I have seen that were worn down to a fraction of there original thickness or worn through. Chain chafes. Chafeing isn't a feature that's unique to fibre line. Anybody anchoring frequently with chain thinking they don't need to check for worn links and shackles, might be in for a surprise. But, in a rolly, surgey anchorage, chain won't heat up like synthetic fibres, so it has an advantage there.

Where people have really lost me, is the concern about fibre rode breaking due to load. Where are you people anchoring, what kind of anchors are you using and what kind of rope are you buying that you're concerned about your fibre rode pulling itself apart?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

It sure seems like we have beat this one to death! I think that ArcB has summed this up pretty well but the short version: 

All chain rode is better in terms of resisting chafe, cushioning shock loads until fully stretched, offer a better catenary action, works well with windlasses and is the most reliable solution in pretty much all anchoring situations. 

Chain with rope rode is more convenient especially for smaller boats and particularly for those which do not have a windlass, or are intolerant of weight. Chain with rope rode comes with greater risk of damage due to chafe or being cut if the conditions warrant it, and costs less. 

Properly sized and maintained, neither have inherent strength advantages. 

Some of us prefer all chain, some of us prefer rope and chain, most of us prefer our current choices for what we do. 

Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Let me try to state the conclusion of the report more clearly when we're talking about "strength" of these systems so there is no more confusion...

Splicing the appropriate size of 3-strand nylon rope into chain, "reduces" the strength of the rope *at that connection* - but only to just about *the same strength of the steel components themselves* (chain, shackle, etc.). You get that? *The rope is only as strong as the chain* in this situation - *and only at that point of connection*. The rope itself was shown stronger than the steel components as those components were all showing deformation and damage in the test while the rope was not.

So, *an all chain rode in this strength test fails* as both sets of test samples deformed beyond usability and/or showed signs of breaking at the welded links. This really should be no surprise to anyone if you simply look at the load ratings of each component.

So, in terms of strength, our chain/rode set-up is *just as strong as the all-chain crowd's set-up*. In fact, due to the dynamic nature of the rope, it will take far more force on the boat to introduce those loads at the connection point than the all-chain will. And, like anything else on your boat - all you have to do is take care of the gear. It's that simple.

So, I think we can dispense with this strange strength argument and trust exactly what the report concluded.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

At best, the conclusion that the rope just as strong is only if one sized the rope properly to accommodate the reduction in strength from the splice. Still, I've found no testing on cyclical storm impact on the splice. There is some data on strength weakening for a tight bend radius on rope, which would be more an issue for rope to chain than for rope to thimble. Issue remains unresolved. All will carry on with their stubborn opinions, including me.

p.s. Mantus anchors suck.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Here's a pic from earlier this season where we're anchored up the Saguenay fiord off the St. Lawrence. Steep rocky inclines with ~12-foot tides. We were swinging within 15 feet of rocky shore at times in this anchorage, and winds piped up to ~40 knots overnight.








Not really making any point, just saying I sleep well with our 25kg Rocna and all 3/8" chain, even in these tight quarters :laugh.

(Truth be told, I was up quite a bit, checking through the night. But we never budged.)


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Mike, I would think a 55-pound anchor would hold your boat securely if the wind were twice that velocity, especially if you had a pile of chain out as well. I once saw a great video on chain V/S rhode for holding ability - the chain won hands down, even during tidal changes. Most of the time, the anchor never even flipped during the tide change, because the chain was doing 90-percent of the holding. I was going to add another 100 feet of chain to my rig, but my wife reminded me that maybe I should stop buying things for a boat I intend to sell. She's a pretty smart lady! 

All the best,

Gary


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> In general I agree Mark. As with all things in sailing/cruising, there is no one right answer for everyone. It certainly "depends" on the situation and the boat.


This is exactly right - as is Mark above as you say. The ridiculous thing on forums is when people start saying things like if you don't do it this way or that "you're not a real cruiser" or "you're just a weekend warrior". And/or throw out wildly inflated or erroneous claims and/or stats to try to prove a point. That's when you should just stop listening.

The thing we ALL know is that rope can be cut and can chafe through if you're negligent. So, as Jeff and Arc and Mark and others have already said, you have to be prudent about its use. Obviously. But it also provides A LOT of strength, weight, and loading advantages that all chain does not.

This debate really doesn't have be any more complicated than that - even in the face of hysterical claims of lost boats littering mangroves, beaches, and rocks all over the world because "the rope broke". In that regard, Arc's question above is right on.

*Real cruisers* can use either.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Mike, I totally understand why you have a heavy duty, reliable (manual windlass) anchoring set up. A nearly 30000 lb boat in strong tidal conditions in remote country side. Definitely. 

I've been up the Saguaney as far as Port Alfred a couple of times. Might be one of the most beautiful places I've been on the water. The density of the whale population is intense.

If I recall correctly, there are several very deep protected fjords and anchorages that a boat with a lighter set up could probably spend the night.

But definitely, your set up will give you many more options.

Edit:. The Saguaney is actually on my short list for my Bay Hen in the next two or 3 years. Figure I'll just beach at high tide and tie up to a tree or something.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Its ironically hysterical to claim that anyone said boats were littering the beaches.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

travlin-easy said:


> Mike, I would think a 55-pound anchor would hold your boat securely if the wind were twice that velocity, especially if you had a pile of chain out as well. I once saw a great video on chain V/S rhode for holding ability - the chain won hands down, even during tidal changes. Most of the time, the anchor never even flipped during the tide change, because the chain was doing 90-percent of the holding. I was going to add another 100 feet of chain to my rig, but my wife reminded me that maybe I should stop buying things for a boat I intend to sell. She's a pretty smart lady!
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gary


With enough chain, you don't need an anchor at all.

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

travlin-easy said:


> Mike, I would think a 55-pound anchor would hold your boat securely if the wind were twice that velocity, especially if you had a pile of chain out as well. I once saw a great video on chain V/S rhode for holding ability - the chain won hands down, even during tidal changes. Most of the time, the anchor never even flipped during the tide change, because the chain was doing 90-percent of the holding. I was going to add another 100 feet of chain to my rig, but my wife reminded me that maybe I should stop buying things for a boat I intend to sell. She's a pretty smart lady!


Very true Gary. My view of a bower and anchor system is that it should manage up to around 60 knots. I've tested our system to near that a few times (not really intentionally &#8230; just happened). Has always held (so far). But it's not just about the anchor. Proper rode length is equally important. Chain weight and friction really helps. But most importantly is getting the proper set and location.

I think you should keep buying stuff. Price the boat way too high, and make sure you keep it well maintained by sailing as much as you can 



Arcb said:


> Mike, I totally understand why you have a heavy duty, reliable (manual windlass) anchoring set up. A nearly 30000 lb boat in strong tidal conditions in remote country side. Definitely.
> 
> I've been up the Saguaney as far as Port Alfred a couple of times. Might be one of the most beautiful places I've been on the water. The density of the whale population is intense.
> 
> ...


Full agree. It depends on your boat, and your cruising area. My previous boat was fine with rope/chain. Not this one, although I do carry 250' of nylon that I can shackle to my 250' of chain if I ever needed it. So far, has never happened.

You should definitely get your boat up the Saguaney. It is stunningly beautiful and the belugas are fascinating and plentiful. Had a number of large pods swim quite close to our anchored boat. Not sure if you could beach your boat though. The shorelines I saw were all pointy rock. Don't think I saw any soft shores, but you could certainly get in close with a bow anchor and stern tie-off.



smackdaddy said:


> This is exactly right - as is Mark above as you say. The ridiculous thing on forums is when people start saying things like if you don't do it this way or that "you're not a real cruiser" or "you're just a weekend warrior". And/or throw out wildly inflated or erroneous claims and/or stats to try to prove a point. That's when you should just stop listening.


Yup, drives me batty to see some people demand that _My Way Is The Only Way!_ In cruising, as in all life, there is rarely only one right answer to any question.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Faster said:


> Weight aside, I think the overriding 'disadvantage' of all-chain is the difficulty of retrieval in the (inevitable??) event that the windlass fails - especially if that occurs in more than 20-30 feet of depth.


What difference does that make whether you have a mixed rode or all chain assuming you have the 20-30' of chain in the water even if it was a mixed rode?


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Mike, the way things are going, I will still have the boat until the day I die - only 3 folks interested thus far, so who knows, if I am still alive when you get to the Chesapeake's Upper Reaches, I may still be sailing that old tub around. This weekend I will be scrubbing down the topsides and airing out the cabin. Not likely sailing the way the weather forecast looks - no wind, but mild temperatures. Guess after I clean her up, I'll just sit in the helm seat and sip Jim Beam Honey Bourbon. 

All the best,

Gary


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

MikeOReilly said:


> You should definitely get your boat up the Saguaney. It is stunningly beautiful and the belugas are fascinating and plentiful. Had a number of large pods swim quite close to our anchored boat. Not sure if you could beach your boat though. The shorelines I saw were all pointy rock. Don't think I saw any soft shores, but you could certainly get in close with a bow anchor and stern tie-off.


Good tip. This got me to pontificating. A little bit off topic, but not too far, since it kind of illustrates there is more than one way to skin a cat, even in a challenging location like the Saguenay Fjord.

I pulled out google satellite and my charts of the area on Plan2nav (I already have the charts, because I might do this trip as early as next summer).

Basically what I did was look for feeder rivers into the Fjord. I have identified 3; Baie St Margurite, Riviere Petite Saguenay, and Anse St-Jean. Each of these rivers appears to have deposited enough sediment at their mouths to allow for the formation of sand beaches or tidal flats.

Plus at the mouth of the Saguenay you have the tidal flat at Tadoussac Harbour, which would keep Ms. Arcb happy with shopping and nice restaurants.

I have no idea how the locals would respond to me driving my boat up on the beach at night, my guess is though, folks in that part of the country are pretty laid back about that sort of thing.

So, I think if I were to spend 5 days, 4 nights cruising the Fjord (this hypothetical trip would be combined with a longer trip on Bras D Or Lake)I could find a different beach to anchor at each night. If not, I might try your idea of kedge anchor tree combination.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> To avoid the characteristic cherry picking that happens, here's the full conclusion of the study I posted. The rope is weakened at the splice, with steady load, and its anyone's guess what happens during cyclical loads of a sustained storm, which is really when this matters anyway. The conclusion that finds no objection, if inspected for chafe, is not actually supported scientifically. It's just a subjective conclusion. IOW, what is the inspection protocol, does salt have to be rinsed from the splice, etc.
> 
> I'm certainly not concluding it's a death trap or inappropriate. I'm only saying its a point of potential failure and I very much doubt that any of us would actually re-splice at the first signs of wear and tear.


Perhaps you need to understand better the connection point between chain and rode for most all line type systems. The line is not simply wrapped around a link and spliced. Rather it is spliced around a heavy metal anti-chafe loop. So there is no chafe!!!

This just sounds like an over zealous argument from an all chain fanatic. No doubt, you just didn't know the proper way to attach rode to a chain.

As a fatigue test on this connection (sustained storm), two years ago, our last great loop to the Bahamas, I was anchored off of Daulphin Island over night in 40-50 mph winds in 6 foot seas for about 14 hours. As you might imagine, the boat swung and rocked viciously the whole time.

I still have the same line connection. No significant chafe, as expected because it can't chafe. This line is 20 years old.

This morning after the 70 mph winds last night, the windlass had fun pulling the anchor out of the Mississippi sand. The chain was vertical and stalled the windlass because the anchor was so dug in. Finally a bit of rocking and the anchor let lose. No significant chafe as expected.

Bryce


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> ...I have no idea how the locals would respond to me driving my boat up on the beach at night, my guess is though, folks in that part of the country are pretty laid back about that sort of thing.
> 
> So, I think if I were to spend 5 days, 4 nights cruising the Fjord (this hypothetical trip would be combined with a longer trip on Bras D Or Lake)I could find a different beach to anchor at each night. If not, I might try your idea of kedge anchor tree combination.


I'm sure the locals would be fine. Many marinas dry out in that area of the St. Lawrence. We encountered areas where the locals would anchor in tidal dry zones at high tide and then dry out at low and have a party in the middle of the river. Looked like some decent sized sailboats even doing it. I never had the guts to do it, but if we had more time, and a local guide, I'd love to give it a try.

Our 6' draft means we can't explore too close to the shallows. This is where a small boat would be ideal. You should start a thread if you make the trip. And let us know if you anchor with all-chain, or rope/chain


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

travlin-easy said:


> I'll just sit in the helm seat and sip Jim Beam Honey Bourbon.


You know what Gary? Sometimes that's better than just about anything on your own boat.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

Well,,,, this went downhill faster than a ski jump......


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

BryceGTX said:


> The line is not simply wrapped around a link and spliced. Rather it is spliced around a heavy metal anti-chafe loop.


An eye splice around a thimble and connected to the chain with a shackle is one way to make the connection, but the other two common ways to connect rope to chain do involve either a back splice directly on the end link or a woven splice through several links. Both of those are rope in direct contact with chain.

Both of those are also pretty much free of chafe in practice, and easy to inspect.

Mark


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

3 pages, 60 posts ago, someone said this.....

"Always luv these conversations re anchors and rode.........At the end of the day, there is NEVER a correct ALL AROUND answer!"

Now many of you are saying the same thing, after arguing for what ever you use.......

Marty


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> Perhaps you need to understand better the connection point between chain and rode for most all line type systems. The line is not simply wrapped around a link and spliced. Rather it is spliced around a heavy metal anti-chafe loop. So there is no chafe!!!
> 
> This just sounds like an over zealous argument from an all chain fanatic. .....


Wow. Talk about a comeuppance. Your face slap is flatly wrong, many do spice directly to the chain. This is done, in some circumstances, so the splice will go through the windlass.

As for being branded an all-chain fanatic, you're welcome to whatever criticism you like. However, I've never said one should only have all chain. I misstated and acknowledged the impact of the splice (thinking knots), but still correctly identified that the splice weakens the line. There has been no study of cyclical chafe at the splice that I've identified, but the few I've now read all acknowledge the likelihood.

The topic of this thread is "Not Getting the All-Chain Thing", so I've offered a reason to "get it". I don't insist you or anyone actually get it. I think I was the first in this thread to say "it-depends" on which system one should choose for there specific circumstance.

If we wanted to have a rational discussion, I have found an article on testing used three strand line.

First, which I didn't realize in precise terms, it says that wet line decreases in strength by 15%. Has every rope to chain rode setup considered this?

More to the point, they tested old, used three strand and found......."Even so, the best showing was only 51 percent of the lines' original tensile strength, and some samples of the dock lines broke at only 25 percent of the original rating!"

These were old lines, so not indicative of ones' first outing, but my point has been that rope is degrading over time and I doubt anyone really knows what the strength of their system really is. Chain actually degrades too, but I do not believe it is at this rate. Again, offered in the light of not getting why some choose all chain (if they can).


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Right on Marty!!!!
As usual “it depends” is the right answer. So real issue is learning how to use the system you have out. From what I’ve seen and experienced chafe on rope/chain not only is a concern at high wind but also little or no wind. Chain falls down. Line goes every which way. Chafes on keel, bow, bobstay even chain if they wrap on each other down by the anchor. Once spent a miserable evening in Maine. Anchored and after a few hours got off the boat. Came back to find rope around keel. Didn’t want to risk wrapping it into running gear. So no engine. Did use dinghy to try to push boat around but wasn’t enough. Boy Maine water is cold. Even in August. Now take a fender or two and tie it to rode at strategic spot(s).
Do this last thing after good set and only if no wind and no steady tide/current. 
Same thing with chain/ next gen. Just know how to set in soupy mud, have multiple strong snubbers, don’t use your windlass to move your boat you have an engine for that.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> ....but still correctly identified that the splice weakens the line. There has been no study of cyclical chafe at the splice that I've identified, but the few I've now read all acknowledge the likelihood.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


Nobody is debating whether the splice weakens the line. We all knew that from the beginning. The point is that the rope size recommended for each size of chain is matched to that chain in terms of working load and breaking strength _including the splice_. It simply doesn't matter if the splice weakens the line.

Lost in all of this is the point I made earlier that these tests are destructive tests and not working load tests. To a first approximation, the line will never fail in normal anchoring conditions - even more extreme ones. To reach the failure point, the chain and shackle have also failed (or within a hair's breadth of doing so), and one has almost assuredly lost their boat for other reasons. It would appear that some here are thinking in terms of a 30kt blow causing rope to fail. Failure is going to occur in hurricane force winds and resulting fetch - same as chain.

Yes, nylon loses 10-20% of its strength when wet. This too is well-known and taken into account when matching rope to chain.

There have been lots of cyclical loading data collected - the data set is described by the many, many boats anchoring on mixed rode around the world. Certainly, if failure was a common issue, or even a rare-ish issue, it would have been brought up and well-known. Just like swivels and stainless shackles breaking - rare-ish, but well-known. Yes, it is prudent to "acknowledge the likelihood", but that is a weak statement to take into account a variable that was not specifically tested.

As for chain, most of us using it full-time have to replace it every 5-7yrs (or at least the part exposed all of the time; end-ending it to expose the least used part gives a couple more years with a small risk). This is generally because it has become rusty and/or no longer going through the windlass well. I haven't seen any studies on strength loss during this period, but I'll bet a donut it is at 50% strength or less by the time it no longer fits the gypsy well. This would be comparable to the rope studies you point to.

If splices, wetness, and age mattered in a matched mixed rode system, then boats on moorings would be going walkabout constantly. Mooring nylon size is matched to the underlying chain size, and the nylon is not even given the benefit of using its stretch characteristics in the system. Yet, boats do ride out extreme weather on moorings without the nylon parting or the splice or wetness mattering. The mooring failures I've witness have all been shackles, not the nylon.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

If you're going to use rope and want avoid it wrapping around your keel, rudder, etc. - just learn to use a kellet. It solves all those problems.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Mark,

I get your point, but take issue with some of the specifics. 

First, the study I posted did show deformation in the chain, but the rope broke first. This was with new dry rope. Wet it and reduce strength. Age it and reduce strength again. I do not believe those tests would be as close, with wet, old rope.

Again, I am not saying one should never consider rope-chain. However, the absense of boats littered in the beaches isn't the point. The vast majority of anchoring situations are far below the limits of even old, wet rope. My point was there is a reason for some to chose all chain. I think you have a better idea of what you have. Some just can't afford the weight or are able to haul it up, I get it.

If you can point to a study that shows chain, with reasonable wear and tear, not rusted and pitted, is at 50% of its original strength, I would be very interested and acquiesce to your point. Until then, it sounds like an exaggeration. 

On the flip side, I still believe that folks see a few fibers chafed on their old anchor rope and give it little concern. There is a PS study that shows that becomes a significant degradation over time. That study also pointed out that chafe at the splice was the most common failure point in old line. Specifically, the point at which the individual strands where rubbing against the line at the beginning of the splice. I think that makes intuitive sense.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I doubt that for the most part on cruising boats that chain/rope losing half its strength is really a problem. I have been reading forums for years haven't seen a story about say a 3/8" chain or 5/8"rope rode break. A chain/rope that is rated at 6,000 lbs but is weaken to only only 3,000 lbs is still a lot of capacity. This is oh strong/weaken stuff is meaningless, all that matters is whether it is strong enough.

Now before everyone goes crazy I'm not saying that it is good to use weaken rode or that about applies to a hurricane (nothing applies to a hurricane other than the boat stops once it is ashore).


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Deformation of the chain is failure of the chain. You seem to be stuck on the knife edge between failure and dissociation of the chain as being meaningful. The rope and the chain failed at the same time. That one broke just before the other is meaningless, unless you count on being able to precisely take your chain right to the very edge in extreme conditions before dissociation as meaningful. I don't seem to be able to make this point clear.

No, the tests wouldn't be close with wet, old rope because they were done with new chain.

I already said I haven't seen a study (don't think one has been done), but I can assure you that every time we have needed to change our chain, the old chain was not more than 50% of the strength of new. By the time chain no longer fits a windlass gypsy (particularly ours, which takes a very wide tolerance of chain dimension), it has not only changed dimensions considerably, it is most likely rusted and pitted. I stand by my estimate that at this point, the chain and rode have aged similarly in strength.

To give meat to the estimate above, the difference between breaking load of 5/16" and 1/4" new chain is 35%. Now consider that 5/16" chain needing replacement because it no longer fits the gypsy has probably at least been worn down to 1/4" interlink to make the length dimension not fit the gypsy. Add rust and pitting to that, and consider that the entire chain is dependent on the weakest single link, and I think 50% is a good estimate.

If you think otherwise, you probably sleep better than I do when your chain is reaching its EOL.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I do understand that the chain was failing and would have been unusable in those circumstances. The nuance is that the rope would have let the boat go first, when it was brand new. Add it being wet and aged and it would have let go much sooner. As one study showed, as much as 75% sooner, assuming the chain retained most of it's original strength.

I do not have the same intuition as you as to the degradation of chain vs. rope over time. After a couple of years of soaking the rope and cycling it, my intuition is that the rope has degraded at a much faster rate than the chain it was originally matched to. That study also talked about a polymer coating that simply wears off the nylon strands over time. Unavoidable.

Not sure how to settle that one. I'm good with agreeing to disagree. I'm certainly not worried about you anchoring upwind of me with your rope-chain rode. That was never my assertion. Only that there are reasons to get all chain.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

It's funny, this thread really reminds me of the many steel boat threads that I've graced over the years. A certain purveyor of such technology made arguments that were essentially the same as those being made for all-chain. Both lines of argument, obviously, are all about the superiority of steel...and bringing up all these crazy edge-case scenarios in the attempt to make the case for steel over any other material. The problem I always saw with that mindset is that the argument is about dumbing everything down. If you have a steel boat you don't have to worry about hitting stuff or ending up on the rocks/reef/beach. If you have all chain you don't have to be prudent about your anchoring spot, or technique, or even your gear. It's the same argument.

Mark has raised many, many good points in this debate - but one that I think tells much of the story here is where he talks about "end-ending it to expose the least used part" of the chain. What this means is what I think everyone here understands but haven't really said...that is that a large part of your all-chain setup simply sits at the bottom of your locker...completely unused. Sure, if you're in the South Pacific or Norway you're likely using much, much more scope - but if you aren't you are likely simply ALWAYS carrying the weight of "all-chain" while NEVER, EVER using "all-chain". How does that make sense?

Back to the steel boat argument - for the steel boat over all else to ever really make sense you HAVE to hit stuff. But if you're hitting stuff, you're obviously not a very prudent mariner.

So, as we've discussed, this "weak rope" argument is the same kind of thing a certain steel boat advocate would always argue. But, as Mark alludes to above, the real question is do you want to make steel the over-arching security blanket for your lack of prudence? If you do that's fine. It will probably work most of the time. But being a prudent mariner is a good thing.

If you insist that all-chain is the *only* solution, then carrying that logic out - I can point you to a certain boat builder that will help you replace your fragile fiberglass hull.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Here is our old chain. From what I see around yards and other cruisers, this is the condition when chain is usually replaced. It began jumping out of our gypsy 6 months before we got rid of it, so perhaps it is a little worse than normal.

I'll bet a donut the strength of this chain is >50% of new. I'll also bet a donut that people using chain never think about this point - intentionally, or not.

The fact is that chain starts degrading in strength as soon as it is used. You can quibble about the shape of that degradation curve, whether it is linear or not, but the end result is a much weakened chain at the end of its life.

No different than rope. Except that new rope will only set you back some pocket change, while you will need to bring the big purse for chain. And quality rope is far easier to find and purchase than quality chain (a whole 'nother thing most people intentionally don't think about).

For the record, we have all chain - I'm not arguing these points from a mixed rode bias. It was a convenience decision for us, and we know we are carrying around a couple hundred pounds of dead weight. 

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I tend to agree with Mark about the degredation of chain over time. I'm by no means a metallurgist or engineer, but when I was in my 20's I worked for a few years as a labourer inspecting, repairing and replacing moorings and their various parts; rode, counterweights, anchors, shackles etc. The moorings we're of various types, ODAS, scientific etc. 

Chain is more common on year round moorings, but on deep water moorings, you see a lot of fibre, because chain would sink a deep water buoy. So ironically, the bouys that you see in the most exposed portions of sea: ODAS for example, may well be on fibre, not chain moorings.

I don't know which lasted longer, like I mentioned, I was a labourer, not an accountant. However, I did see a lot of badly degraded chain and shackles, including links, shackles and pins that wore right through. Chain is a harsh material. Yes, it's strong stuff, but it cuts, and when chain works, it does cut into itself and shackles over time.

Not saying it's bad stuff for a mooring, it's probably the best option for most people on larger boats, but it's not a miracle material and isn't without flaws.

Smack, I love steel boats, not because of strength, but I like their ductility and abrasian resistance. Steel is just too heavy for small sailboats imo though. The bigger the boat, the more sense it makes I think.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Mark - I've got my timer set. Counting down the seconds to someone telling you your boat will be in the trees in a 30mph inshore squall because of this little ditty...










PS - I also use a swivel. So I'll see you in trees. Of course, mine is "double action" so you'll be there first.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

I have a small boat with a small anchoring system that has no relevance here. However I had an interesting experience on a recent charter trip.

I think this was the first boat I've chartered that came with all chain. It was also the largest boat I've chartered (49') so that might have something to do with it.

The area is the Apostle Islands of Lake Superior. Generally sand, a little clay, and the occasional well-rounded rock. 

Both from the helm and up at the anchor locker the feel of anchoring is a bit different with all chain. When setting you don't get that stretch; you're hard stopped. That made it easier to feel if you were set or dragging.

A friend's charter right next to me had nylon spliced directly to the chain so it'll go through the windlass, which is the norm up here. On the second day he was setting the anchor for lunch, and while backing down at about 1500 rpm the nylon snapped. It wasn't at the splice, it was just out in the middle of the nylon.

It's a charter boat, so who knows what it had been through. Maybe a previous charterer wrapped it wrong and let it chafe on the roller. Maybe it got nicked by a prop. Maybe if found the one sharp rock up there.

I suppose in theory the first time you let the rode out on a charter you should do it very slowly and inspect it all as it went down, but jeez, it's pretty easy to just hit the button on the remote and watch the rode fly out. A small area of chafe would be easy to miss.


My small boat has nylon spliced to chain, and when / if I move to a larger boat I imaging I'll stick with nylon and chain. But I will be sure to inspect everything carefully….


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I had two pictures - one of the chain only, and the one I posted. I posted that one on purpose.

That little ditty is the strongest part of our anchoring setup. Strange how many undersized shackles are in use. I don't think many realize that the size of shackle that fits in a given size normal chain end link is weaker than the chain for most of the shackles being sold. Even worse for HT chain.

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnesail, I think the anchoring set up on your boat is actually fully relevant.

I think the OPs boat is only about an 11000 boat.

If owners of boats nearly twice the size and complexity give their all chain is a must have answers, why is it any less relevant if folks with boats half the size respond and say I use a mixed rode?

Boat size doesn't necessarily make somebody more correct, it just makes them on a bigger boat, imo.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

smackdaddy said:


> It's funny, this thread really reminds me of the many steel boat threads that I've graced over the years.
> 
> So, as we've discussed, this "weak rope" argument is the same kind of thing a certain steel boat advocate would always argue. But, as Mark alludes to above, the real question is do you want to make steel the over-arching security blanket for your lack prudence? If you do that's fine. It will probably work most of the time. But being a prudent mariner is a good thing.
> 
> If you insist that all-chain is the only solution, then carrying that logic out - I can point you to a certain boat builder that will help you replace your fragile fiberglass hull.


I am not sure this really is all that similar. The issues with the steel hulled boat advocate was two fold: the advocate for that boat sailed in areas where there were routinely inherently higher risks than where most of us sail. He talked about poorly marked rocks, and a rocky bottom, strong currents, floating logs, whales and ice. He often tied up to old damaged commercial docks as well. Plus he was sailing in colder water where survival was more difficult if something did go seriously wrong. I completely understood that part of his argument.

The issue that I had with the steel hull arguments being made were related to a lack of understanding of the materials and engineer principles involved and a near religious belief in the power of steel no matter what the science and engineering practice indicated.

I think that this is a different issue in many ways. The similarity is that we all use our boats in different venues and manner and for those of us who cruise more casually or who sail in gentler venues, rope and chain rodes may work adequately.

But for those who cruise in less developed areas, who sail on coasts with predominantly rocky or coral bottoms, own a larger or heavier boat, and/or who need to be self reliant for longer periods of time, there is no doubt that an all chain rode will perform better, be more durable, and way more reliable.

The issues raised regarding the changing strength of a rope-chain rode is a real one. The issue of rope to chain splices failing are very real. Boats do go ashore when their anchor lines part whether through chafe, aging or getting cut on a sharp object on the bottom (as well as dragging). The arguments in favor of all chain are not in error, even if they are not compelling for any one of us who chooses to live with any shortcomings that rope-chain may have.

I also want to point out that the issue of wear on rope is not simply a maintenance issue because you cannot inspect rope as it moves across the bottom of the water to see where it is dragging. And bad things can happen down there.

Years ago I anchored in a creek down on the Eastern Shore. When I went to leave I was pulling up my anchor rode with the bow aimed directly down the rode with perhaps 100 feet of rode left to haul to the anchor, when suddenly the rode pulled sidewards and past perpendicular to the boat to the right. The boat overshot and pivoted and I pulled some more line until the bow was again aimed at the rode. But maybe 15-30 feet later, the rode turned 90 degrees to the right again. Again the boat overshot and pivoted and again as I followed the rode, after maybe 25-30 feet, the rode again turned 90 degrees to the right. After several turns the rode was clear of whatever I lasso'd on the bottom of the creek and I was able to follow the rode all the way to the anchor and get out of there. I was told it was the wreck of a crab shack, but whatever it was, it was not on the chart, I did not notice it on my depth sounder, and it had made a serious mess of my anchor rode, slicing through whole strands in so many places that it needed to be replaced. If it had blown up that night, rather than been an evening with light air, I have no doubt it would have cut through, and that chain wouldn't have been affected. On the other hand I could buy 3-4 nylon rodes for what a chain rode cost, but maybe a dozen or more chain rodes for what my boat cost.

Jeff


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

smackdaddy said:


> ...The thing we ALL know is that rope can be cut and can chafe through *if you're negligent*...





smackdaddy said:


> ...So, as we've discussed, this "weak rope" argument is the same kind of thing a certain steel boat advocate would always argue. But, as Mark alludes to above, the real question is do you want to make steel the over-arching security blanket for *your lack of prudence?*...


But let's not forget, that there are scenarios, as was with mine, where negligence, or lack of prudence, had nothing to do with a rope rode failure. I have no doubt, that had I'd stayed on that anchorage, and endured another 30 kt blow, my boat would have been on the beach. Rope, in this scenario, will never have this added safety factor.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Jeff_H said:


> On the other hand I could buy ... a dozen or more chain rodes for what my boat cost.
> 
> Jeff


You must have a really cheap boat, or a really expensive chain :devil


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Jeff, as always I think the heart of the matter is in the details. And that's exactly why I never buy these ill-conceived "conclusive" arguments, and try to point out their fallacies. I do this because it's important to understand that nuance. 

These kinds of arguments typically get WAY overblown when one is trying to prove a singular point. In the case of our steel-shelled friend, steel was the only logical choice - period. The generous and respectful nuance you list above was never really part of his ongoing arguments - otherwise those threads (and his unique reputation) would not have endured as they did and do across many forums. In his world, if you didn't have a steel boat you were a fool - you were not a "real cruiser" - or you were just a "weekend warrior", etc. Some of those same things have been said in this thread regarding all-chain. And that's my point.

Let's take your example above of the crab shack. As we've already discussed, regardless of your set-up, you should ideally have enough chain to deal with sharp crusties in your anchoring area. No question. But that brings up the question of how much chain that is?

Take my example of our system I posted early on in this thread. We have ~60' of chain. Most all the areas in which we have anchored over the years from Texas to Florida has been less than 20' of water - usually around 10'-12'. At ~5:1 scope in these areas we are all-chain. As I said, after that 60' I have another 300' of rope, and usually let out a fairly generous amount of that rode to act as a "snubber" in those circumstances.

So, even in your case of the crabshack (you don't mention the depth there) - if the depth were around the same as my example above, I'd be on "all-chain" and not facing an issue in your scenario - even though I don't have the touted "all chain" setup on my boat. Even so, as I showed above, I caught an uncharted bicycle once just off Redfish Point near Panama City when I got a bit too generous with the rode. So nothing is perfect. Yet it didn't convince me to go all-chain.

But let's flip that around - if 250' of chain is all you have and you're anchoring in relatively deep areas, you're definitely limited on scope if things get really nasty.

So, again, it's about the details. As for the strength issue, I think we've gone over that pretty well. And I don't disagree that it is a factor - it is just not a driving factor in this debate because the breakage described in that report is a serious edge-case in relation to actual conditions - unless you are seriously not taking care of your gear. I think the report makes this very clear.

So, as the inimitable SailingDog once said on every single thread across the Sailnet universe - "It depends on where you sail."


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

There is no comparison between this discussion and the steel boat discussion, other than one who is trying to gin up the same kind of emotional confrontations around here. Again. There has been virtually no one insisting that chain is the only way to go, but that is what is claimed. Along with other misrepresentations. The discussion is around "Not Getting the All Chain Thing" and giving reasons to get it. Not insist upon it. 

The cruising vs weekend warrior thing is very relevant. If you only go out for one night at a time (weekend warrior), you can insure you never anchor in spirited conditions, if you choose. In tame conditions, where it really doesn't matter if your rope has weakened, you'll get away with a lot (let's say both aged rusted chain and aged wet rope). If you're cruising, you can't be so sure of tame conditions or bottom conditions. That doesn't mean you have to have all chain, but it does mean there are some reasons to Get why people do.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Ya, I actually think I might have gotten my anchor chain threads a little mixed up. I was partially thinking about the all chain on an F24 in sheltered water thread while I was making some of my answers.

I had images of PDQs new Corsair turning into a nose down submarine at 18 knots, possibly leading to a complete yard sale.

For cruising boats with windlasses, all chain makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Faster said:


> Weight aside, I think the overriding 'disadvantage' of all-chain is the difficulty of retrieval in the (inevitable??) event that the windlass fails - especially if that occurs in more than 20-30 feet of depth.





Don0190 said:


> What difference does that make whether you have a mixed rode or all chain assuming you have the 20-30' of chain in the water even if it was a mixed rode?


My comment was referring to anchoring in more than those depths - ie more than the depth of the average mixed rode chain length... yes, once you get to the chain there's no difference to the weight of whatever vertical chain (plus anchor). But I think a windlass (and sufficient chain) can make one think that anchoring in 70-80 feet is going to be OK, and it is, until the windlass fails.

Again.... all 'depending' in the size/weight of the ground tackle.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Windlass fails. Most have place to fit winch handle. Some allow insertion of a long handle to crank. It would be a chore but doable. Alternative I used in past is put rolling hitch on chain. Now run the attached line to primary winch ( protect the deck first) then pull chain up. Secure chain and repeat. In short you should always be thinking through the what ifs.

90% of the time we anchor in 20-30’. But when it’s stinky and you’re tired and there’s no where else to go you may be forced to anchor in 50-60’ or turn around and keep sailing. Don’t know about you but that extra “unused “ chain is worth every penny to me. 90% of the time we’re at 5:1 but when it’s blowing dogs off of chains that extra “unused chain” is worth every penny.
We do not reverse our chain nor replate. I want to be able to trust every link of that chain. Especially when there’s a need to put all of it out.
Biggest mark against chain is getting good chain at reasonable cost. If anyone knows a good source please share.

What I wonder is there are now multiple fibers that are multiples of the working and breaking strength of any steel. The heavy construction, rigging and cranes have started to move away from steel. Putting fiber on a drum allows the mechanical advantage of the drum if geared utilizing the diameter of the drum to your advantage. Big diameter thin drum to take load. Smaller diameter drum to take up tail and store line. Anti-abrasion coatings are available. Don’t understand why this isn’t applied to cruising boats. A reasonable sized drum below deck with a modest energy source wrapping coated fiber multiple times stronger than chain at a tenth of the weight and taking up the same or less volume.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

OB, I have worked a bit with wire rope. It is very difficult to use effectively. Unless kept under constant tension it has a tendency to birds nest. It needs a heavy tension on a short scope.

I've only seen it used on vessels that work their anchors hard under tension. Don't think it would work well on cruising boats sitting casually at anchor unless they had massive anchors and self tensioning winches. Not sure though.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

The crabbing vessels used in Alaska use a combination of heavy chain and wire rope that is usually stored on the winch drum, so birds nest tangles are never a problem. Personally, I would never consider this stuff because it is really nasty to work with. We used to splice wire rope in the Navy and had to wear welders gloves to do the job or you would have shredded your hands on the fish-hooks that were sticking out of every strand. Fish hooks are not real fish hooks, but instead, shards of wire that were broken during the manufacturing process and protrude from the wire segment. 

All the best,

Gary


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Faster said:


> But I think a windlass (and sufficient chain) can make one think that anchoring in 70-80 feet is going to be OK, and it is, until the windlass fails.


From the length of chain people are talking about in this thread - none of them CAN anchor in water that deep unless they are happy with less than 3:1 scope in nasty conditions. That certainly doesn't sound prudent to me.

Think about it, if people are carrying around 200' of chain - and that's it - their limit is less than 40' depth at 5:1. And if things kick up hard, like the loads being discussed around this breakage report, they're screwed. They're stuck at 5:1 with something that is completely unworkable - and failing - in those conditions. This is good?*

I still have another 160' of rode to play out if need be. Whose boat is in more danger?

_*PS - Yes I understand that the weight of chain can reduce the need for scope. But that is a *serious* gamble in the conditions suggested by the strength study - if that's going to be our standard._


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Paul_L said:


> If you plan to cruise extensively beyond your home area you will experience a lot of varied anchoring scenarios. In the South Pacific there are many places where you anchor in 60 to 80 foot depths. The bottoms often have coral bommies and boulders. You need all chain and a lot of it to deal with these situations....
> 
> Paul


Paul - I'm curious, how much chain do you carry for this type of anchoring? And what is your "trusted scope"?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I'll leave you with this. If you don't believe me, at least believe Spade. They seem to have some knowledge in this arena.



> Anchor Chain
> 
> The main and ONLY advantage of the anchor chain line is that it is the only and perfect mean to avoid chafing of the anchoring rode on aggressive sea beds. *Except for this point, anchor chain has all the disadvantages.*
> 
> ...


It's a good read.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Uhm Smack, isn't this what snubber are for? Good snubbers &#8230; not the pretend ones I sometimes see people use that are a couple of feet long and thin as string. Properly sized snubbers take the shock load. Simple.

So, according to this article, chain is best for up to moderate winds. And chain with good snubbers deals with the problem of shock loads at higher speeds. So as I read it, chain is best *as long as* your boat can manage the added weight in the bow. If not, this becomes a greater negative, which is why smaller and lighter boats are better off with rope/chain.

I don't know why this is such an issue...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I don't know Mike. They don't mention snubbers anywhere in the article. Instead they specifically talk about the chain/rope combination we've been discussing. And as they say, *elasticity is the key* - which you won't get much of with a snubber because that comes with length and rope make-up and size.

(I deal with and rely on rope quite a bit.)









So, you'd need to ask them on that.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Geez smack. You know Mike just took a 27000 pound boat from the upper St Lawrence to Newfoundland, right?

If we wanted to talk to a guy with modern, relevant anchoring experience, couldn't we just ask Mike?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Snubber are used with chain for exactly this reason. No one who is sensible anchors with chain only for exactly the reason cited; that, and it's damn noisy riding directly on chain-only. Good sized snubbers are an essential part of the anchor system when using chain.

Yes, all rope will provide the most elasticity, but it does not produce the best horizontal angle for most conditions. Rope/chain is possibly second best _if_ there is enough rope out.

I use two 30' lengths of 1.5" 3-strand nylon. I've never broken one yet, although I do replace them every few seasons, depending on usage. I view snubbers as consumables on my boat. Easier to replace my snubbers than the whole rope rode, which I presume also gets stretched out and 'consumed' over the same few seasons.

This really isn't that complicated. Chain is best in the widest range of anchoring conditions but only if your boat and retrieval systems can manage the weight. Rope/chain also does a fine job, and is best option for smaller/lighter boats. I'd also add that if you only anchor in well-known areas, where you know the depth and holding, then probably rope/chain is the best option as well.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> Geez smack. You know Mike just took a 27000 pound boat from the upper St Lawrence to Newfoundland, right?
> 
> If we wanted to talk to a guy with modern, relevant anchoring experience, couldn't we just ask Mike?
> 
> Like, that is pretty advanced stuff.


Thanks Arcb. That is high praise indeed coming from you (whom I know to have tons of experience in all sizes of boats).

P.S. Our Rafiki actually weighs in at 30,000 pounds. The previous season in Belleville we lifted in/out with a crane with a scale attached. We actually started to tip the crane over during lauch - that was fun


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

colemj said:


> An eye splice around a thimble and connected to the chain with a shackle is one way to make the connection, but the other two common ways to connect rope to chain do involve either a back splice directly on the end link or a woven splice through several links. Both of those are rope in direct contact with chain.
> 
> Both of those are also pretty much free of chafe in practice, and easy to inspect.
> 
> Mark


I agree, you can attach a line any way you like. However, if you go buy a precut anchor line at any marine outlet, it will have a splice around a thimble specifically to avoid any chafe issues.
Bryce


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

One day in the near future, I will produce a video of how I bring in the anchor with my power winch. Essentially, I use about 50 feet of chain in most anchorages, and when I retrieve the anchor, I bring in the chain in short spurts, just enough to lift the chain from the bottom, and make it taught with the windlass. Of course, I continuously wash down the muck from the chain as it comes out of the water using my saltwater washdown system. After the chain is taught, the weight of the chain pulls the boat forward, though t the winch is not running at this point. When the chain is straight down beneath the bow, I fire up the winch until the chain is taught again, stop the winch and the boat moves forward. Eventually, within a few minutes, the anchor is directly beneathe the bow while the boat is still moving forward, the anchor breaks free of the bottom and I haul it in with the winch to the bow chock and blast the mid off with the washdown hose.

Video to come,

Gary


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Wow. Talk about a comeuppance. Your face slap is flatly wrong, many do spice directly to the chain. This is done, in some circumstances, so the splice will go through the windlass.


Yuk.. a good windlass will have a separate line drum. This is an incredibly bad idea to run either the line or the splice through the same path as the chain. But I suppose you can do anything you like.



Minnewaska said:


> There has been no study of cyclical chafe at the splice that I've identified, but the few I've now read all acknowledge the likelihood.


So basically, you have no experience.



Minnewaska said:


> First, which I didn't realize in precise terms, it says that wet line decreases in strength by 15%. Has every rope to chain rode setup considered this?
> 
> More to the point, they tested old, used three strand and found......."Even so, the best showing was only 51 percent of the lines' original tensile strength, and some samples of the dock lines broke at only 25 percent of the original rating!"
> 
> These were old lines, so not indicative of ones' first outing, but my point has been that rope is degrading over time and I doubt anyone really knows what the strength of their system really is. Chain actually degrades too, but I do not believe it is at this rate. Again, offered in the light of not getting why some choose all chain (if they can).


Now you change the subject from splice.. perhaps you need to put this in perspective. My 3/4 line is rated new at 17,000 pounds. Who cares if I lose 50% due to age or other questionable reasons you have stated. It's still rated to hold my boat in a hurricane!!!

Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> I'll leave you with this. If you don't believe me, at least believe Spade. They seem to have some knowledge in this arena.
> 
> It's a good read.


I think this presents an excellent point about shock loads. Clearly a long nylon line provides much better shock resistance than a chain or Chain with snubber.
Bryce


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Bryce, My windlass was designed to handle both 1/4-inch BBB chain and 1/2-inch three strand nylon. It works best with chain, but it still quite effective with the 1/2-inch nylon.










Gary


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes, all rope will provide the most elasticity, but it does not produce the best horizontal angle for most conditions. Rope/chain is possibly second best _if_ there is enough rope out.


There is no horizontal angle in 40 mph winds. So who cares? The anchor is going to set with or without chain.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

travlin-easy said:


> Bryce, My windlass was designed to handle both 1/4-inch BBB chain and 1/2-inch three strand nylon. It works best with chain, but it still quite effective with the 1/2-inch nylon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have seen them, I just don't agree it's a good idea. I expect The chain shackle and thimble must really like to jam in this setup.

I have a completely open chain ratchet and separate line drum on my windlass. It doesn't jam. With the line drum, the line wraps around about three times providing a huge pulling power similar to a winch. Quite usefull in really heavy winds.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> This really isn't that complicated. Chain is best in the widest range of anchoring conditions but only if your boat and retrieval systems can manage the weight. Rope/chain also does a fine job, and is best option for smaller/lighter boats. I'd also add that if you only anchor in well-known areas, where you know the depth and holding, then probably rope/chain is the best option as well.


Yes.. it is that complicated and no you are completely wrong.. chain is not the best. That's why we are having this discussion.

And absolutely not.. line is not only for small boats.

Your statement about knowing depth and bottom in well known areas as criteria for line only seems to have no basis in fact.

You really need to be challenged in your anchoring skills. The fact you have never dragged a Rocna indicates this. Take your anchor and chain to Chesepeake, I'll show you a number of places it will drag.
Bryce


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> I have seen them, I just don't agree it's a good idea. I expect The chain shackle and thimble must really like to jam in this setup.
> Bryce


I wonder, if you had a jam. Do you think it would be possible to run a temporary snubber to the jammed line, then back down 6 inches or so, clear the jam, and continue heaveing?


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> I wonder, if you had a jam. Do you think it would be possible to run a temporary snubber to the jammed line, then back down 6 inches or so, clear the jam, and continue heaveing?


Man..... you guys must really be anchoring in really tame conditions. I can only imagine doing this in light wind an no where near a shore.

So another real scenario, you are anchored in a river or tidal current near the ocean. Safe anchorage, but if you fumble too much with retrieving the anchor, you might find yourself in shallow water. Tidal currents can easily exceed 5 mph. In 12 minutes you drift a mile. You are 0.25 miles from a sand bar, you have 3 minutes.

Can you clear the jam in 3 minutes?
Bryce


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> Yuk.. a good windlass will have a separate line drum. This is an incredibly bad idea to run either the line or the splice through the same path as the chain. But I suppose you can do anything you like........


Nice try, Bruce. You incorrectly claimed that everyone uses a thimble. I did not suggest running the splice through the windlass, I only pointed out that some do, thereby splice directly to the chain.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Again, use whatever you want. In the spirit of the thread, I'm offering reasons some choose chain. Let's use my setup as an example and I have a serious question at the end.

I have 300ft of 1/2" chain and a windlass. With one or two long cruises and 25ish weekends, I find myself putting it all out on 3 or 4 occasions each season. We have a few 50ft anchoring holes that will naturally be the last available, if we arrive late. Takes all the pressure off by having enough scope of any form. More often I can simply have excess scope, if the wind is going to pipe up, but especially if the fetch is going to pipe up when the anchorage may become exposed to the wind.

First, I have to wonder just how much wind it would take to pull 300ft of 1/2" chain to bar straight. From the surface, it take 15-20kts, to look like it is being pulled straight, but I'm sure there is still a lot of catenary. Anything under 10kts and we swing around a line that does go straight down. That same 15-20kts has certainly pulled a rope all straight, but the amount and weight of a chain segment by the hook is variable. 

I sleep like a baby, when I put out excess scope on this heavy chain. Nothing can chafe, I don't have to ask myself how old the rope is and my chain isn't rusty. 20kts overnight is unlikely to yank a well set anchor, but if it did, I would have to drag all that weight, giving me more time, when the anchor alarm sounds. Break a rope at the splice and you're off with nothing slowing you down.

So, how much wind before I've pulled 300ft of 1/2" chain to bar tight? That has to be wind that no one is sleeping soundly in, period. You'll be on watch with both rope and chain. At least I will. 

So here's my serious question. My boat can take the weight of this chain setup without concern. If you owned her tomorrow and don't get the all chain thing, would you cut off the chain and replace all but some initial segment with rope? Assume the rope is free. I'm trying to understand whether folks really are zealots when it comes to advocating for rope.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I don't see how one could think the Spade article fully defends the point of this thread.

First, it specifically declares that chain is actually superior in both light and moderate wind. The conditions most anchoring is done in.



> With light wind, it gives a perfect horizontal pull to the anchor and the best holding. With moderate wind, its weight and catenary effect give a perfect shock absorbing effect.


They only take issue with a bar tight chain and ignore the snubber. Just because they make anchors, doesn't mean they didn't screw up this article. Somehow, I think they would agree.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> Man..... you guys must really be anchoring in really tame conditions. I can only imagine doing this in light wind an no where near a shore.
> 
> So another real scenario, you are anchored in a river or tidal current near the ocean. Safe anchorage, but if you fumble too much with retrieving the anchor, you might find yourself in shallow water. Tidal currents can easily exceed 5 mph. In 12 minutes you drift a mile. You are 0.25 miles from a sand bar, you have 3 minutes.
> 
> ...


I don't understand the scenario well enough to respond. My current boat has 100' of quarter inch nylon spliced onto a little fisherman. I also have a mushroom that I use as a "kellet" ( a word I learned from JeffH on this thread. Good word). If I am for some reason weighing anchor without my engine running and no sails set, I land on the sandbar.

Guess we can't use my current boat. I'm going to use my last boat instead. Fantasia 35. Electric windlass with a solid old school manual back up. Port side has a gypsy with 3 shots of all chain and a plow anchor. Starboard side has a horizontal drum with 300 feet of all nylon and a Danforth (lunch hook). Stern has no windlass but 500 ft of nylon kedge line on a reel, ready to go and a Danforth. Also had a big fisherman on board.

So, for some reason, your real world scenario has me weighing anchor on a 5 knot ebb tide 1/4 mile upstream of a sandbar. Doesn't really sound like a decision I would make, but I'm going to roll with it. Lucky for me it's sand, and I've got a crab crusher keel in case this thing goes south, I can just wait for the flood.

So, in your scenario, my plow is off the bottom, but not all the way up? Windlass is working but jammed? I can't get the plow back down?

First thing I'm going to do is put the engine in gear and set the autopilot to hold me while I get things sorted out. If for whatever reason that doesn't work, why can't I throw out my Danforth and a couple hundred feet of line? Even if it doesn't stop me, it will slow me down while I clear the jam.

To clear the jam, I have a pry bar, hammer and Marlin spike in my anchor locker.

I don't see how your problem is a problem as presented.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I don't understand why people have all chain rode, but only use a 20 lb mushroom anchor and carry a rusty old .22 on the boat for protection.








Lets kick this thread into gear!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

What I was thinking was not wire rope but high strength synthetic like dyneema with a uv blocking and abrasion resistant coating. Issue with rope, especially nylon, is dirt and salt crystals cut the fibers over time. If you anchor in clear waters uv degrades it as well. We change out our dinghy pedant yearly for that reason. New high strength fibers don’t like sharp bends. Hence, both for convenience and that was thinking about a drum.
Recently bought a property on a pond in a town park. Had the shack on it knocked down and a bunch of trees cleared. Talking with those pros find in that industry around here they are moving away from wire rope when they can. On this job,given it was small, they used hydraulic cranes. They do use some chain but treat it as disposable. Apparently chain is still often the best to wrap around a limbed tree when dragging it out to the road as it digs into the tree. But dragging in a long distance of chain or wire rope can be very difficult. Rope is light. A big advantage when walking over broken ground. 
Be interested in hearing from a crane operator about whether using high tech materials would be practical in anchoring systems. Interestingly today taking the chain out and laying it out to repaint the 25’ marks and give it a close look see.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> Again, use whatever you want. In the spirit of the thread, I'm offering reasons some choose chain. Let's use my setup as an example and I have a serious question at the end.


Your position seems to have evolved a bit as facts got in your way. If you go back to your first post on this subject, you were pointing out how dangerous a mixed rode is, and that it should only be used for boats who only anchor a single night in calm conditions - and that cruising boats must use all chain. Now, your position is to just offer reasonings why some people use all chain, while admitting that others (even cruising boats) get by fine on mixed rode.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Unlikely an all Dyneema or similar rode will be practically useful, even though it has an advantageous strength/abrasion/weight profile. If sized appropriately, it is very thin and floats. I could imagine all sorts of tangling issues. On the other hand, this is probably just an engineering issue, and small weights could be inserted, or similar.

I don't understand your concern about sharp bends and how that applies here? Also, sharp bends are defined by the diameter of the line, not the angle of bend. Small diameter lines can have small radius bends without worry. For example, our tramps are laced with 3/32" dyneema that takes 340* bends around 1/8" slug wires. A bend diameter of 1:1 is generally acceptable.

So for an anchor rode example, 1/4" dyneema has approximately the same breaking strength as 5/8" nylon or 3/8" chain. This dyneema can safely take a bend of 1/4" radius - anything less is difficult to find in an anchoring setup.

BTW, I love dyneema and use it everywhere - particularly for soft shackles and connectors.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

colemj said:


> Your position seems to have evolved a bit as facts got in your way. If you go back to your first post on this subject, you were pointing out how dangerous a mixed rode is, and that it should only be used for boats who only anchor a single night in calm conditions - and that cruising boats must use all chain. Now, your position is to just offer reasonings why some people use all chain, while admitting that others (even cruising boats) get by fine on mixed rode.
> 
> Mark


I misstated the weakening factor and admitted it (there is still weakening due to age, chafe and wetting), but I'm afraid you read the rest into it, my friend. I was giving a reason one would get the all chain thing, due to rope weakening and chafe. I never said "it should only be used for boats who only anchor a single night in calm conditions". I said calm conditions are not going to test the difference.

We can agree to disagree, but please keep it to what we've actually said.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> There is no horizontal angle in 40 mph winds. So who cares? The anchor is going to set with or without chain.
> Bryce


Even at 35 knots (no cruiser I know uses mph&#8230;?) my 3/8" chain is not hard-set. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know the boat might go hard briefly, then catenary action pulls it forward, slackening the load and bringing it back to a more horizontal vector against the anchor shank. Rope won't do that.

You really show your lack experience with much of your comments


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Most tests I have seen, a 5-1 all chain and 7-1 mixed at 35-40+ knots of wind speed, the anchor is the only thing holding you. In less than 30' IIRC, one is better off if you have the space etc to do mixed at 10-1 is best option in these 40+ winds. 

With this in mind........while growing up on Lake Washington, we had to replace the all chain mooring from anchor to buoy we tied up families 21' trailer sailor every 2-3 years, or it would wear the links down in size, and break. We had to chase that boat a few times!

About a year ago, former poster on here "Art by Jody", living full time in his boat, his all chain rode broke in the middle. Boat is now total and scrapped after going ashore and getting beat up in some 50+ winds. 60 lb mantus held fine.......2nd or 3rd time in 5-7 years an anchor drug or equal that the boat went ashore.

All chain systems do break! as do all or mixed rope......again, it depends upon situation as to what is the best rode option. If bass fishing along a smooth shoreline, hold the boat while you cast to the shore looking for fish hiding under docks or fallen logs etc.....a 5 lb coffee can filled with concrete, big eye bolt and fender washer in concrete, attached with some 1/4 or 3/8" polypropylene is enough to hold you in this instance. Hurricane force winds, one may need many feet of chain or rope, to get to 8 or 10-1, a 2lb per foot anchor to get thru the storm............

I've done some research looking at different anchor brands. generally speaking. An anchor that is 1/4 lb per foot in iron/steel will get you to 20 knots of wind, 1/2 lb to 40, 1lb to 60 knots. Aluminum is lighter of course, by 1/3 to 1/2 of iron/steel anchors.......

There is no right or wrong, only what works for instance you are in!

marty


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

blt2ski said:


> Most tests I have seen, a 5-1 all chain and 7-1 mixed at 35-40+ knots of wind speed, the anchor is the only thing holding you. In less than 30' IIRC, one is better off if you have the space etc to do mixed at 10-1 is best option in these 40+ winds.


This is exactly what the Spade article advocates. And it's good advice.



blt2ski said:


> About a year ago, former poster on here "Art by Jody", living full time in his boat, his all chain rode broke in the middle. Boat is now total and scrapped after going ashore and getting beat up in some 50+ winds. 60 lb mantus held fine.......2nd or 3rd time in 5-7 years an anchor drug or equal that the boat went ashore.


Jeez I'm sorry to hear that about Jody. He was one of my favorites from the FightClub daze.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> I use two 30' lengths of 1.5" 3-strand nylon. I've never broken one yet, although I do replace them every few seasons, depending on usage.


Wow! There is definitely some strength in those snubbers! I have no doubt you've never broken one. I think the breaking strength of that rope is around 47K pounds. You could pretty much hang your entire boat off of one.

But as the Spade article says, make sure that you are using line that is sized to give you enough elasticity. That is the key. A 47K# snubber is going to transfer most all that load to the chain anyway, which will be FAR weaker. How do you attach the snubbers to the chain? That can have a negative impact as well.

BTW - how long was your trip? I assume your write up of it is in your blog link?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)




----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Jeff_H said:


>


Heh-heh. Dude! It's an anchoring thread!

Sincerely,


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

My reasons for all chain for both 'gunk holing' and long distance sailing"

pro
1. coral heads, etc. (abrasion)
2. I usually anchor in relatively shallow water
3. hands off rode retrieval via a powered gypsy/windlass .... potentially saves fingers on a bouncing bow.
4. The added chain weight causes a 'catenary sag' in the rode ... strain impact is lessened due to the catenary (going up and down). 
5. Ability to use a (two rope) bridle, with the bridle held fast 'under' the bow --- stops or dampens the boat from 'swinging' while at anchor.
6. A powered windlass implies a hefty wash down pump.

cons
1. extra weight in the bow promotes hobby-horsing and 'plunging bow'.
2. more expensive than mixed rode.

FWIW - My 'secondary' is a lightweight Fortress with 35ft. of chain and 200+ foot of heavy DACRON three strand. Nylon (nylon6, etc.) can weaken significantly when in long term wetted usage due to 'hydrolysis' of the long chain polymer structure. I only use the secondary when Bahamian-moored.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Know line takes up shock load but think without snubbers you are still loading the windlass. It’s been drilled into me the windlass is only for picking up the chain. It’s not for moving the boat nor for breaking the anchor free. Boat’s engine or chop is for that stuff. Been told overloading the windlass sooner or later leads to failure. Even tie anchor to bow cleats (run is outside the boat) and dont depend on windlass to keep it in position for anything beyond reasonable coastal hops. With my luck failure will occur when I’m by myself so want to avoid it at all costs.
Just wondering if anyone takes the effort to get rode load when using rope off the windlass and if so how? Could see putting on a cleat but if blowing getting it off the cleat might result in a sudden jerk and getting a chafe free run might be difficult on some boats. Looking at my boat run from roller to windlass is chafe free but if I go over roller to a bowcleat it isn’t. Thoughts?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

In relatively shallow water, chain is actually a disadvantage because there will be no catenary and the strain will go straight to the boat in even moderate winds. If anchoring in shallow water, say 10', one should use a very long snubber, because that is the only part of the system that can provide any shock dampening.

So your points 2 and 4 are counter to each other.

It all depends on one's definition of shallow. We are often anchored in 5', while some consider 25' shallow.

As for point 5, why can't this also be the case with a mixed rode?

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

10ft would be the absolute min we anchor in, but there are several anchorages around here that apply. Most would consider that a fairly shallow anchorage. 

10ft, plus 4 to the bow, is 14ft, times 5 is 70 feet minimum. Why no catenary? 

I would more likely put out 7x or 98ft, since the rope folks will be doing that anyway. If I have the room, I will put out even more, 150 ft usually. The Cuttyhunk anchorage is famous for this. 

Granted, if one could fit in 5ft of water and say only had a 2ft freeboard, 5x scope would be 35 feet of rode. Still, that's got to have some catenary. It's still 7ft down to the bottom and 28ft of chain to lift. I'm sure I would put out more anyway.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

outbound said:


> Know line takes up shock load but think without snubbers you are still loading the windlass. It's been drilled into me the windlass is only for picking up the chain. It's not for moving the boat nor for breaking the anchor free. Boat's engine or chop is for that stuff. Been told overloading the windlass sooner or later leads to failure. Even tie anchor to bow cleats (run is outside the boat) and dont depend on windlass to keep it in position for anything beyond reasonable coastal hops. With my luck failure will occur when I'm by myself so want to avoid it at all costs.
> Just wondering if anyone takes the effort to get rode load when using rope off the windlass and if so how? Could see putting on a cleat but if blowing getting it off the cleat might result in a sudden jerk and getting a chafe free run might be difficult on some boats. Looking at my boat run from roller to windlass is chafe free but if I go over roller to a bowcleat it isn't. Thoughts?


Depending on the sea state and when using a mixed rode, I will attach a two leg rope 'bridle' to the rope rode with a 'many turn' (~6-8 turn) prusik knot. Prusik Knot | How to tie the Prusik Knot | Knots.
My boat has 'hawse holes', one each side and well back from the bow, so there's no concern about chafing the topsides with a 2-leg bridle; that prusik knot on the rode positioned 'under' the bow.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

BryceGTX said:


> You will have to get on deck and retrieve your anchor. God forbid you are in 60 feet of water, all chain with a 75 pound Rocna and your windlass stops working. These are the conditions that you will lose your boat.Bryce


You see Bryce, as I'm sure you knew but have apparently forgotten, anyone using all chain has a line from the end of the chain that is secured in the chain locker and will allow this line and the chain end to reach the anchor roller. Then, given that for *any* reason the chain cannot be retrieved, one can secure a buoy to the end of the chain, cut this line and chuck the chain over the side for retrieval once the weather abates. So, in fact one will not lose the boat, but just clear the area until the weather abates.
As for you hauling aboard an anchor hand over hand on primarily line in winds that cause the rain to hurt when it hits your face, even on your 40 footer, unless you have the strength of the terminator, you aren't going to be pulling a pick (I'd guess 40 pound minimum), some chain and rope up all that successfully, never mind doing so in any seas.
Secondly, any proper electric marine windlass I've ever seen has a manual back up should the electrics fail.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

colemj said:


> In relatively shallow water, chain is actually a disadvantage because there will be no catenary and the strain will go straight to the boat in even moderate winds. If anchoring in shallow water, say 10', one should use a very long snubber, because that is the only part of the system that can provide any shock dampening.
> 
> So your points 2 and 4 are counter to each other.
> 
> ...


ummmm .....
Those methods, for me, have been quite successful for the past ~45-50k nMi. Also remember what I stated: "my method", not a one-size fits all/everyone.
If you'd notice my avatar you'll see a bowsprit and with the anchor roller about 6-6.5' off of the water, so that normal catenary in the chain will be over 12 ft. (vertical) even if Im grounded - plenty of up/down catenary movement for shock loads in most normal cases. In 'heavy' anchoring conditions one would expect that a longer scope run of chain would be normally encountered; thus, a greater _length_ of catenary and mass of chain for that longer scope.
My points 2 & 4 are not counter for me on my boat or any other similar boat design.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

colemj said:


> In relatively shallow water, chain is actually a disadvantage because there will be no catenary and the strain will go straight to the boat in even moderate winds. If anchoring in shallow water, say 10', one should use a very long snubber, because that is the only part of the system that can provide any shock dampening.
> 
> So your points 2 and 4 are counter to each other.
> 
> ...


This is why I think the best take-away from the Spade article is their recommendation of 25 meters of chain, then rope rode spliced in thereafter. And the writer, though perhaps not perfect in the grammar department, seems to have enough experience to be considered a "real cruiser"...



> During the last seven and half months, I spent 129 days anchored (out of 228) in 61 different anchorages. The mean water depth was 6.50 meters and the scope 5/1. The total length of the anchor chain was about 30 meters, of which 23.5 meters was lying on the bottom (30 - 6.50 m) Therefore, I believe a length of about 25 meters is perfect. If the water depth(sic) is less, then you will be anchoring with an all mooring chain line&#8230;.


So, if you're a diehard all-chainer, you'll be on all chain in most anchorages you're in with this amount of chain. And that's been my point from the beginning. BUT then you have the significant added safety factor of the additional rope rode Spade recommends in this same article.

It really comes down to the length of chain you want based on your anchoring area. But the *chain-only* arguments for *NOT* going with a spliced rope rode behind whatever length of leading chain you set just aren't compelling from a strength or seamanship perspective. You're severely limiting your options and safety factors.

Convenience? Okay sure. But that's never been much of a factor in good seamanship in challenging conditions.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Wow! There is definitely some strength in those snubbers! I have no doubt you've never broken one. I think the breaking strength of that rope is around 47K pounds. You could pretty much hang your entire boat off of one.
> 
> But as the Spade article says, make sure that you are using line that is sized to give you enough elasticity. That is the key. A 47K# snubber is going to transfer most all that load to the chain anyway, which will be FAR weaker. How do you attach the snubbers to the chain? That can have a negative impact as well.
> 
> BTW - how long was your trip? I assume your write up of it is in your blog link?


I forget what the working strength is, but it wasn't 47K &#8230; I doubt if my standing rigging is that strong, let alone my chain. All I can tell you is they're stretchy, but damn strong. I don't want the snubbers to be the weak point in the system, after all. But they definitely take the shock load well.

We took about 60 days to go from Lake Ontario to Newfoundland. Most people do it in less than 1/2 that time. But trust me, my tag line is not simply aspirational. I live it 

BTW, we only saw two docks the whole time. Anchored out the rest of the time, sometimes in rather tenuous locations.

Mark, your comment about shallow water and no catenary is true. At that point though, it is the friction of the chain on the bottom that provides the shock absorption and gentle loading. This is assuming you've got out the appropriate rode length (at least 5:1, and I usually go for more).

I like anchoring in shallow water b/c I prefer being close to shore. We draw 6' so I'm fine with 8' at low tide if seas are no issue, and as long as I can get a good set. Below 8' I get nervous.

ADD: I'm not trying to argue everyone should be on all-chain. Rope/chain is clearly a fine choice, and is the best choice for some boats and/or some anchoring conditions. It was the best choice for my previous boat: a 34' cruiser.

My experience has taught be all-chain is best for the widest possible range of conditions, but only _IF_ your boat can reasonably manage the weight and the retrival. If it can't, then it's not the best choice.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Not to quibble too much Mike, but the snubbers *should* be the weak point in the system. Otherwise, you're making the chain/shackles/etc. the weak point. If a snubber parts because of load, you can fix that pretty easily. If the chain parts because the snubber won't, you're screwed.

And don't forget that chain-hooks on snubbers *can* also weaken links. It looks like Practical Sailor now has some fairly good info on this - now far more accurate than what they first put out. They published some seriously flawed initial tests implying that the Mantus hook was bad, for example, then (likely thanks to my gentle questioning of the results) they tested again - correctly this time - and reversed their flawed findings on the Mantus hook. I even wasted $20 or something signing up to review their initial flawed article. The things I do for the sailing community. Heh-heh.

Anyway, their tests showed that this connection method is another potential weakening factor on the chain. So be careful!


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Not to quibble too much Mike, but the snubbers *should* be the weak point in the system. Otherwise, you're making the chain/shackles/etc. the weak point. If a snubber parts because of load, you can fix that pretty easily. If the chain parts because the snubber won't, you're screwed.
> 
> And don't forget that chain-hooks on snubbers *can* also weaken links. It looks like Practical Sailor now has some fairly good info on this - now far more accurate than what they first put out. They published some seriously flawed initial tests implying that the Mantus hook was bad, for example, then (likely thanks to my gentle questioning of the results) they tested again - correctly this time - and reversed their flawed findings on the Mantus hook. I even wasted $20 or something signing up to review their initial flawed article. The things I do for the sailing community. Heh-heh.
> 
> Anyway, their tests showed that this connection method is another potential weakening factor on the chain. So be careful!


Oh come on &#8230; you're just quibbling. Something has to be the weakest point. I don't think it should be the snubbers. And yes, you can have elasticity and strength.

I went through a lot of chain hooks. None of them performed to my satisfaction, although I never did try the Mantus hook. I've used rolling hitches for years now. Simple, direct. The only issue I have is that, b/c of my propensity to get in close and shallow, they very occasionally come loose due to rubbing on the bottom. I always use two in a bridle though, as backup.

BTW, I didn't answer your blog question. Yes, the journey is all there. It's really written for friends and family, and mostly just an excuse to post pics, but we're all friends here, right .


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> Mark, your comment about shallow water and no catenary is true. At that point though, it is the friction of the chain on the bottom that provides the shock absorption and gentle loading. This is assuming you've got out the appropriate rode length (at least 5:1, and I usually go for more).


You will have to explain that to me - I don't see how in, say, 20kts of wind, the friction with the bottom is providing any shock absorption or gentle loading. Generally, with moderate wind, the boat is riding straight on the chain, and the chain is stretched out on the bottom.

Alain Fraysse and Alain Poiraud (inventor of Spade anchor) did a mathematical and practical treatise on chain catenary. Peter Smith of Rocna has also done a practical study of it. All three show that in theory, as well as in practice, all catenary is lost quickly in depths shallower than ~20'. So if you are in <20', including freeboard, you have no catenary left capable of absorbing any significant loads in just moderate winds.

For example, the projected force on a typical 40' boat in 30kts of wind is 1,200lbs. The force it takes to completely remove catenary from a 7/16" chain in 15' (depth+freeboard) at 4:1 scope is 220lbs. This example is taken from their studies.

The takeaway is that the shallower the water is, the MORE scope you need if you rely on catenary. In 10', this is on the order of 10:1. The alternative is to have a long snubber to absorb loads. Not a few feet, though - more like 30'. And at this point, you are on a mixed rode.

Catenary is over-rated in any water <30', and a fantasy in water <10'. Between those depths, it is just faith.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> Oh come on &#8230; you're just quibbling. Something has to be the weakest point. I don't think it should be the snubbers. And yes, you can have elasticity and strength.
> 
> I went through a lot of chain hooks. None of them performed to my satisfaction, although I never did try the Mantus hook. I've used rolling hitches for years now. Simple, direct. The only issue I have is that, b/c of my propensity to get in close and shallow, they very occasionally come loose due to rubbing on the bottom. I always use two in a bridle though, as backup.
> 
> BTW, I didn't answer your blog question. Yes, the journey is all there. It's really written for friends and family, and mostly just an excuse to post pics, but we're all friends here, right .


Actually, Mike, having the snubber be the weakest part of the system is pretty much universally recommended practice. For the reasons Smackdaddy listed.

Last year, I got rid of our Mantus hook (hated that thing) and started using a soft shackle. Wish I had done that years ago. Slip it through a link and connect to the bridle eye - easy on, easy off, never slips off, and comes right up over the roller.

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> You will have to explain that to me - I don't see how in, say, 20kts of wind, the friction with the bottom is providing any shock absorption or gentle loading. Generally, with moderate wind, the boat is riding straight on the chain, and the chain is stretched out on the bottom.


Yes, in high winds the snubber gets let out further. That's why our snubbers are 30' long. They are set to the appropriate length for wind and seas conditions. A good snubber is essential to an all-chain rode. I wrote this many posts ago. I also wrote that this is where rope rodes have one up over chain b/c they have their snubber built in. Rope/chain can also be better IF enough rope is let out.

Our chain is not bone hard in 20 knots. It's just not. I can guarantee it b/c I just experienced many days like that. The chain drags around slowly on the bottom until it is lifted at high winds. Until then this dragging is an effective shock absorber.

Gotta try the soft shackle idea. The rolling hitch has worked well for years, but this sounds like it could be even better.

Hmmm, and I thought having all-chain was also universally recommended. So much for universal recommendations .


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Bought a mantus hook last year. Have used it a lot and so far have liked it. Don’t like the design of their anchors but thought the hook clever. Hated untying two knots after they received days of high loading. Wife can undo the mantus but couldn’t undo the knots. Doesn’t have enough finger strength. Have a bunch of dyneema shackles already made up and not doing anything. Really appreciate your sharing that idea. Worry about chipping the gelcoat with the hook as it lies on the deck before we’re sorted out and it gets put away.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> I've used rolling hitches for years now. Simple, direct. The only issue I have is that, b/c of my propensity to get in close and shallow, they very occasionally come loose due to rubbing on the bottom.


This is likely what has been helping you not transfer too much load into your chain. Please feel free to ask around to confirm, Mike, but you really should downsize those snubbers IMO. Knot and Rope Supply lists the breaking strength of that size line at 47,000 pounds - and you're using 2. Maybe you're using 1" GR80 chain, I don't know...but think about that rope strength in relation to the WLL of your chain and the shock-loading snubbers are supposed to absorb to protect that chain.

I'll leave it there. It's your call.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> The chain drags around slowly on the bottom until it is lifted at high winds. Until then this dragging is an effective shock absorber.


Maybe the difference is boat type. Being a catamaran, we are bridled to the chain with the legs 20' apart - so in any wind, we are pointed straight at the anchor and don't yaw or move around at all. So it doesn't take much wind to straighten the chain on the bottom to a straight line between the boat and the anchor. That was where I wasn't understanding the dragging bit about absorbing load. If your boat hunts at anchor, then I see how that could work.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


> Bought a mantus hook last year. Have used it a lot and so far have liked it. Don't like the design of their anchors but thought the hook clever. Hated untying two knots after they received days of high loading. Wife can undo the mantus but couldn't undo the knots. Doesn't have enough finger strength. Have a bunch of dyneema shackles already made up and not doing anything. Really appreciate your sharing that idea. Worry about chipping the gelcoat with the hook as it lies on the deck before we're sorted out and it gets put away.


To be fair to Mantus, their hook does exactly what they claim it does. I hate it for all other reasons. It is big, clunky, and heavy. I've had two plastic gates snap on me in the 1.5yrs we used it (Mantus sends new ones for free). Without the gates, the hook often falls off because much of the time it is on the bottom in lighter winds. It will not come up over our bow roller, so I have to lean over the bow to unhook it before bringing the bridles in. We have two big gelcoat chips on deck where it accidentally got dropped a very short distance - like <2'. I've never found it all that easy to put on and get off. It is a clever design, but if in the dark or needing to move quickly, or when bouncing around, it is often tricky to do the "up one link, across one link" thing.

Now I just bring the bridle and soft shackle right over the roller, where I can easily unhook it on deck. No chance of chipping gelcoat, but they can blow away if you accidentally leave them laying around! Luckily, they are dirt cheap, simple, and fast to make.

For us, the soft shackle is the answer to bridle/chain connection. Everything else looks so primitive and complex now.

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> Maybe the difference is boat type. Being a catamaran, we are bridled to the chain with the legs 20' apart - so in any wind, we are pointed straight at the anchor and don't yaw or move around at all. So it doesn't take much wind to straighten the chain on the bottom to a straight line between the boat and the anchor. That was where I wasn't understanding the dragging bit about absorbing load. If your boat hunts at anchor, then I see how that could work.


I've never sailed, let alone anchored, a cat Mark, but I suspect it behaves quite a bit differently than my very traditionally monohull. We don't hunt around a lot &#8230; at least not compared to most monohulls. And our motion tends to be quite slow. Perhaps the full keel keeps our motion easy on the chain. My boat also doesn't have a lot of windage, so again, perhaps that explains why I don't experience the same forces as others here seem to report.

Smack, thanks for the thoughts. I'll think about it. I really don't see how making snubbers the weak point is a good idea. If my snubbers snapped under that kind of load it would probably wreak havoc on the foredeck attachment, and the chain would likely snap under the shock load.

My Plan A is to not have anything break. So far (after 17 years of cruising Lake Superior, including 4 of the 5 Great Lakes, and now Newfoundland), I've never broken anything. But I do replace the snubbers every few years, and closely inspect the rest of my anchoring system. I'm a bit of a fanatic when it comes to proper anchoring. So far, so good...


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> To be fair to Mantus, their hook does exactly what they claim it does. I hate it for all other reasons. It is big, clunky, and heavy. I've had two plastic gates snap on me in the 1.5yrs we used it (Mantus sends new ones for free). Without the gates, the hook often falls off because much of the time it is on the bottom in lighter winds. It will not come up over our bow roller, so I have to lean over the bow to unhook it before bringing the bridles in. We have two big gelcoat chips on deck where it accidentally got dropped a very short distance - like <2'. I've never found it all that easy to put on and get off. It is a clever design, but if in the dark or needing to move quickly, or when bouncing around, it is often tricky to do the "up one link, across one link" thing.


I've never used a Mantus hook, but my complaints about others are similar. They are heavy, not that easy to hook and unhook, and they often fall off when the load loosens. A rolling hitch passes over my roller so it can be tied/untied on deck without any need for acrobatics. It is easy to tie and to remove, even after 50+ knot blow (those are the 'fun' nights).

But I'm going to give the soft shackle idea a serious look. It sounds potentially better than the rolling hitch. I've never used any of this new stronger-than-steel line yet. This is good excuse to play with the stuff. Thanks!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Mark - which soft shackles do you use? And what size chain do you use?

Any photos of the set-up? It sounds pretty damn cool.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Mark - which soft shackles do you use? And what size chain do you use?
> 
> Any photos of the set-up? It sounds pretty damn cool.


I was just going to ask&#8230; can you post a pic of how you rig the soft shackle Mark? Does it feed through a link? I'll show my ignorance here, but does it never come apart? Any chafe issues against the rough chain?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I make the soft shackles. We have 5/16" chain. I don't have any photos, but they would be pretty boring. Imagine a soft shackle opened up, passed through a link, and closed around the thimble of a bridle eye.

Making anything out of dyneema is so easy. Just made a couple of these low friction ring tweakers to improve our reefing system sitting here having a G&T. Got both done on the first drink, and I was thirsty. A brummel splice around the ring and a end-end splice to form a loop. They make fancy names for doing this, but it is only passing the line through itself under the ring and making a Chinese finger trap with the ends.

I'm sure someone here will jump on me about how that isn't the correct way, and I've weakened the splice, etc. But the great thing about dyneema is that by the time you get a diameter large enough to work with, it is 10x stronger than what you need in the application. So a bit of fudging or shortcut brings it down to only 5x stronger than needed.

Racers, of course, have a different approach because they are using gossamer diameters and matching it exactly to a load. But keep a roll of 1/4" around and you can be as sloppy as you want...

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> I was just going to ask&#8230; can you post a pic of how you rig the soft shackle Mark? Does it feed through a link? I'll show my ignorance here, but does it never come apart? Any chafe issues against the rough chain?


Open the shackle up, pass it through a link, close it up over the bridle eye thimble. It never comes apart - it can't. We have been using one for a year of constant anchoring and there has been no chafe at all. The color faded out of it (shouldn't have used red), and it is slightly "fuzzier" than new, but other than that it is good. It spends a lot of its time rolling around in the sand and scrabbly bottom.

But these are very simple and cheap to make, so can be replaced any time you feel the need. Whenever I'm in any chandlery, I just scoop up any short cut offs of dyneema. They usually sell them for pennies, and I have even had stores give me short 2-3' lengths.

That is how I ended up with some red dyneema. Even though it was free, that stuff stains everything it touches and fades instantly to a sick pink color, so I don't think I will take any more free red dyneema. I had red palms for days after making a couple of shackles out of it.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Attaching pictures seems to rotate them 90*. Is this just my computer/browser/whatever?

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

colemj said:


> Attaching pictures seems to rotate them 90*. Is this just my computer/browser/whatever?
> 
> Mark


I had the same thing happen yesterday when I posted the climbing photo. It happened both here and my blog. I had to output it again from an image processor to fix it. I don't know what's up with that, but I suspect it might be metadata from my iphone trying to figure out the orientation.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

I'm an old boy scout guy and have always loved rope work, but have been away from it for many years.
I heard about this so-called soft shackle a few years ago. 
Bought a small bit of dyneema at west and thought I would check it out.
First shot out I had it done right...amazing.
Really, other than the button/stopper knot, it's as simple as you could ask for.
And it's fast...like a couple of minutes fast...after you've done one.

Idyllic anchorage, postcard perfect conde nast cover shot, lobsters gathered earlier, iced drink in the cockpit...while you are mindlessly replenishing inventory for your online softshacklecity business....


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I think you are correct, because it just happened to me again posting a picture on eBay. All of these were imported from an iPhone. Strange, because they show up on my computer in the correct orientation.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

colemj said:


> I think you are correct, because it just happened to me again posting a picture on eBay. All of these were imported from an iPhone. Strange, because they show up on my computer in the correct orientation.
> 
> Mark


I think it might also have to do with the digital zoom. I've not had the problem with non-zoomed images. But I really don't know.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

None of these were zoomed.

Mark


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

travlin-easy said:


> Bryce, My windlass was designed to handle both 1/4-inch BBB chain and 1/2-inch three strand nylon. It works best with chain, but it still quite effective with the 1/2-inch nylon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Likewise, my Lewmar V2 windlass handles my chain-rope rode via a gypsy that handles both the 30 ft of chain and the 8-plait braid that is spliced to the chain. I also have a vertical drum that allows me to handle a second anchor that has 12' of chain and three-strand nylon connected with a shackle and thimble. For the second anchor, you have to manually haul the metal parts up.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Guess we can't use my current boat. I'm going to use my last boat instead. Fantasia 35. Electric windlass with a solid old school manual back up. Port side has a gypsy with 3 shots of all chain and a plow anchor. Starboard side has a horizontal drum with 300 feet of all nylon and a Danforth (lunch hook). Stern has no windlass but 500 ft of nylon kedge line on a reel, ready to go and a Danforth. Also had a big fisherman on board.
> 
> So, for some reason, your real world scenario has me weighing anchor on a 5 knot ebb tide 1/4 mile upstream of a sandbar. Doesn't really sound like a decision I would make, but I'm going to roll with it. Lucky for me it's sand, and I've got a crab crusher keel in case this thing goes south, I can just wait for the flood.
> 
> So, in your scenario, my plow is off the bottom, but not all the way up?


This was a quite explicit question to a very specific windlass. Clearly one pulling up line and some chain.

If you favor placing your engine in forward while hauling line in a 5 mph current, we can pretty much guarantee you will wrap the line in your prop. I guess you lose.

Anchoring in the inter coastal .25 miles off of any shore is so common that it is probably the rule rather than the exception.

It is incredibly common to leave on an out going tidal current if you are leaving through an inlet. I did this every time I left any of the eastern sea board inlets. And furthermore timed my entrance into the next inlet on the incoming tidal current. Perhaps add.. any gulf intercoastal inlet.. any Bahamas inlet..

Perhaps you have yet to find use for these techniques.. it seems so common, that I suppose I expected everyone understood.. perhaps not.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Here are what I hate about my chain:

1) It is heavy. Heavy chain, heavy anchor means less likely to pull and anchor on a daily basis.
2) Draging a chain across the muddy bottom embeds muck in the chain links that must be removed with the wash down.
3) All this weight only adds benefit in benign anchoraging situations where holding power of the anchor is not required.
4) I hate it when the chain runs up the side of my boat in a heavy current while bringing up the anchor. Although I can minimize this.

I made these points on this thread..

1) Pound for pound nothing holds better than a "true" Danforth (excepting a fortress.. that is lighter) This is a given and cannot be disputed. A 25 pound Rocna will never achieve the holding power of a 25 pound Danforth. So if you are looking for light ground tackle, you will not look at a Rocna.

2) Pound for pound the holding power of chain will always be heavier than line. This is a given and cannot be disputed.

3) You will never increase the holding power of an anchor by simply adding chain. That anchor will have a holding power independent of the line it is connected to.

Seems to me, the conclusion is if you want the highest holding lightest weight, you will never chose chain and Rocna. This was the interesting agonizing decision I made when I replaced the Bruce. Interesting enough, The anchor tests never compared a true Danforth to a Rocna. They always compared the fortress and non-Danforths. I found one u-tube video where someone actually compared them.

I have seen a number of sailors that litter their boat with every anchor possible. I am not interesting in carrying a multitude of anchors any more than I want to carry a multitude of sails. There just is not enough room on the boat. So my anchor must hold in at least 80 mph winds. And it does.

I suppose if you set the anchor for a month, it is no big deal that I carry a 75 pound Rocna to equal my 25 pound (aft) anchor. And who cares if the chain weighs 500 pounds if you only move the boat every month.

A great loop cruise with a two month cruise through the Bahamas in one year amounts to about 8000 miles and about 200 anchorages. Every anchoring situation will present itself in this cruise. Even those that you have never even imagined. Sand, rock, mud, clay seaweed, logs, wrecks, tidal currents, river currents any number of things that could cut a line.

Oh, and everyone must experience wrapping a line around the keel. It's a great lesson to experience. Preferably in a 5 mph tidal current.

The argument that you are dragging a line across coral in virtually any country in the world amounts to an illegal anchorage. Enough said.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> This was a quite explicit question to a very specific windlass. Clearly one pulling up line and some chain.
> 
> If you favor placing your engine in forward while hauling line in a 5 mph current, we can pretty much guarantee you will wrap the line in your prop. I guess you lose.
> 
> ...


I thought I was out of this thread. You know I don't live anywhere near the ICW, correct?

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Walk me through the problem. In your scenario, I am using a mixed rode with a windlass. I have chosen to anchor in the main channel, which experiences a 5 knot ebb. Instead of leaving at slack water, I decide to wait 3 hours to leave when the ebb is at it's strongest, there is a sandbar directly downstream of me 1/4 of a mile. In your scenario, my screw is not turning, so I am using my windlass to pull my boat towards the anchor.

In your scenario, the windlass jams at the splice, so all the rode forward of the windlass is either chain or anchor.

I am not clear on water depth and the length of the chain. Throw me a bone. Is the anchor that was heavy enough to hold the boat in a 5 knot current still in the mud? Keeping in mind, I'm not allowed to use my engine to break it free in your scenario.

Or, have I broken this anchor free of the mud, using my windlass and I now have 20 feet or so of chain and heavy anchor hanging from my roller? At what point am I allowed to engage my engine in this scenario. When the anchor is clear of the surface? I still might not clear the sandbar in this scenario even without the jam.

You're the skipper who put me in this jam, you're the one who's going to have to get me out of it.

I have done my fare share of station keeping and boat handling in strong currents. A lot really. I don't think this is really a situation I would put myself in.

I guess if it's something you do on a regular basis, good for you?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

I sincerely hope you guys are doing this exercise downwind, as if you are pointed upwind the discharge is going to blow back in your face! Now, go to your corners and plant your anchors any damn way you please with your choice of connecting material. The first one to drift off is the loser. It doesn't matter what the other guy uses to attach his anchor unless his boat breaks free and drifts into yours, in which case he had better hope that (A) his insurance is paid up or that (B) you are not a believer in carrying a firearm.......


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> If you favor placing your engine in forward while hauling line in a 5 mph current,
> 
> ...snip
> 
> ...


Bryce, I found a little clip of my last boat transiting through a channel with about a 3 or 3.5 knot current. This is my home waters.

As you can see in the video, there aren't a lot of sandbars around, so because the bottom type I encounter is a little bit less forgiving than the bottom type you encounter, I try to get some protection from the current using an island or a bay when I'm anchoring.

Even in this 3-3.5 knot current, my 24000 lb full keel boat is getting thrown around pretty good, so I don't know how you manage to get your anchor up in this type of current and even stronger without using your engine on a 40 foot boat.

I think it would be fantastic if you uploaded a Youtube video or a webinar so we can see how you folks in the ICW work an anchor with no engine in a 5 knot current in confined waters on a good sized boat.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> Bryce, I found a little clip of my last boat transiting through a channel with about a 3 or 3.5 knot current. This is my home waters.
> 
> &#8230;
> 
> Even in this 3-3.5 knot current, my 24000 lb full keel boat is getting thrown around pretty good, so I don't know how you manage to get your anchor up in this type of current and even stronger without using your engine on a 40 foot boat.


Currents were probably the most challenging aspect of our recent season down the St. Lawrence. The unusually high waters in Lake Ontario last season resulted in unusually high water outflows, which of course produced unusually high currents down stream past Quebec City. And this doesn't begin to include the tidal currents, which we measured at over 7 knots in places. Anchoring in these places felt like dropping the hook in a rushing river rapid.

There were a quite a few anchorages between QC and Sept-Iles where we had to either wait till slack, or use the engine just to haul up. And in two of those anchorages I thought we were going to have to abandon the Rocna b/c it was so well buried after a day or two of holding against these fast, and twice-daily, reversing currents.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Arcb said:


> my 24000 lb full keel boat


One of those boats in your signature line weighs 24,000lbs?

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

No Mark. That's why I said "my last" boat. 

I upgraded to a trailer sailor in March of this year, because I was tired of farting around with a big boat in strong currents and confined, shallow waters.


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

BryceGTX said:


> ...Seems to me, the conclusion is if you want the highest holding lightest weight, *you will never chose chain* and Rocna...


That is of course, if you're lucky enough to never ever, ever never, ever, ever, foul your *rope* rode on a uncharted derelict anchor or crab shack, or a multitude of other uncharted sunken derelicts I've dived on in anchorages. Yep, the rope/chain combo works great (used it myself for years), until something like Jeff's and my incident (rare I will admit) rears its ugly head. Like Capta said earlier, it's all about that "black box," and maintaining as many credits as you can.

Now if you'll excuse me as I head over to resurrect the _'Wheel vs. Tiller Steering,'_ and the _'What's the best Anchor?'_ threads.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

BryceGTX said:


> Here are what I hate about my chain:
> 
> 1) It is heavy. Heavy chain, heavy anchor means less likely to pull and anchor on a daily basis.
> 2) Draging a chain across the muddy bottom embeds muck in the chain links that must be removed with the wash down.
> ...


I apologize as I don't have the multi-quote thing down yet.
*1) Pound for pound nothing holds better than a "true" Danforth (excepting a fortress.. that is lighter) This is a given and cannot be disputed.* I certainly dispute this statement. It greatly depends on the bottom if a Danforth will even hold as a lunch hook. I have yet to find a bottom my Rocna won't hold in, often at 2:1, though I try for at least 3:1.
*2) Pound for pound the holding power of chain will always be heavier than line. This is a given and cannot be disputed.* Chain has no holding power at all! It provides a better angle of pull on the anchor.
*3) You will never increase the holding power of an anchor by simply adding chain. That anchor will have a holding power independent of the line it is connected to.* As above, adding chain will lessen the angle of pull on the anchor, increasing the chances it will not unset.
*Seems to me, the conclusion is if you want the highest holding lightest weight* Who but a racer is that concerned about the weight of the most important piece of safety gear on your boat?
* There just is not enough room on the boat. So my anchor must hold in at least 80 mph winds* There's always enough room on my boat for as much of the most important piece of safety gear on my boat as I can possibly fit.
*I suppose if you set the anchor for a month, it is no big deal that I carry a 75 pound Rocna to equal my 25 pound (aft) anchor. And who cares if the chain weighs 500 pounds if you only move the boat every month.* We anchor at least once a day and often several times. I can leave the boat to go snorkeling, go ashore or just sleep soundly without worrying on my 88# Rocna and ½" chain, no matter how strong a squall comes through. We have basically anchored for over 1000 days consecutively in various anchorages throughout the West Indies without dragging once.
*Oh, and everyone must experience wrapping a line around the keel. * I have *never* wrapped my anchor line or chain around my keel in well over 50 years of continuously voyaging on numerous vessels around the world. That includes places like Thursday Island in Torres Straights where the currents can be strong enough to completely submerge navigation buoys!
*The argument that you are dragging a line across coral in virtually any country in the world amounts to an illegal anchorage. * This is perhaps the most surprising and telling thing in this whole post. Many, many anchorages around the world are in coral areas. It might not be a coral garden of National Geographic fame, but they are none the less coral infested anchorages. Many countries around the world are not as ecologically hip. Many do not even *recycle* (oh the the horror of it) and don't care where you anchor, unless they can make a buck. Heck, the president of one modern western country (that shall remain nameless), does not accept climate change as a reality because it is economically unprofitable. Go figure! Every government has their priority and many just don't care very much about the environment.
I've used genuine Danforths (they and Northill were pretty much the only 'modern' anchor available for the yacht market back when), genuine CQR's and a myriad of other anchors, most slightly oversized for the boat, all over the world. I've been anchored in over 50 tropical cyclonic storms of one strength or another and uncountable squalls (most often hitting in the wee hours) with winds well in excess of 65 knots, and would not hesitate to recommend the Rocna as best all around anchor I have ever used. However, it is not my only anchor, just my go to #1 with 200 feet of ½" chain. We also have a genuine Danforth which is unwieldy and hard to stow, a large Fortress, a folding SS Northill and what I like to call my tree anchor, though most would call it a grapnel with the line and/or chain to go with each. Carrying all that is obviously a personsal preference that I would never suggest is necessary for anybody else to have aboard. It all stems from a statement made by Spike Africa to me as a 15 year old novice crew member aboard the schooner Wanderer, "Any idiot can make a boat go, but it takes a sailor to stop one", and my desire to sleep soundly when I am anchored.
Occasionally, we do not have the luxury of choosing a preferred bottom to anchor on and having a variety of anchors and rodes gives those that have them the very best chance of not dragging.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

capta said:


> [/B] Chain has no holding power at all! It provides a better angle of pull on the anchor.


With enough chain, you don't even need an anchor.

A successful anchoring is one in which the friction of the gear on the bottom is greater than the load put on it by the boat. With this in mind, chain does provide some holding power, and does more than just getting a small angle of pull on the anchor (which disappears quickly in wind).

I'm sure there have been many times when the wind has changed direction on you, but wasn't enough to pull your chain all the way around to be straight with the anchor. Yet your boat stopped and stays still in the new orientation. This happens to us often in up to 15kts wind in shallow water. This is the chain providing all of the holding power.

One could imagine 100' battleship chain on a 8lb anchor holding fast in high winds in 8' depth...

Mark


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

colemj said:


> With enough chain, you don't even need an anchor.
> 
> A successful anchoring is one in which the friction of the gear on the bottom is greater than the load put on it by the boat. With this in mind, chain does provide some holding power, and does more than just getting a small angle of pull on the anchor (which disappears quickly in wind).
> 
> ...


I hardly think this discussion is about swinging in a pleasant anchorage in 15 knots of wind, but if that is your take then you are correct. We do not drag our ½" chain around the bottom in light winds. We swing around he chain in place.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

capta said:


> I hardly think this discussion is about swinging in a pleasant anchorage in 15 knots of wind, but if that is your take then you are correct. We do not drag our ½" chain around the bottom in light winds. We swing around he chain in place.


Most of our anchoring time is spent hanging from our chain.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

If you are dragging the line around to a new heading you better hope it's chain .Funny how sharp stuff can slice the pretty nylon .Or poly, once put a bowline in a line at a depth of 20' in 40' of water to recover really good storm anchor on a severed rode. Off Tobago. TT.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

colemj said:


> With enough chain, you don't even need an anchor.
> 
> A successful anchoring is one in which the friction of the gear on the bottom is greater than the load put on it by the boat. With this in mind, chain does provide some holding power, and does more than just getting a small angle of pull on the anchor (which disappears quickly in wind).
> 
> ...


Not so fast. There are logical failings in the above analysis.

a. In an honest 15 knots on sand the chain pulls around. In mud, perhaps not so much.

b. This is a bit like saying you could stop tailing a winch because the rope friction is holding it. Obviously not.

c. Finally, it should be obvious by now that the only reason the chain appears to be holding the load is because it is wrapped around a large bollard of soil.

Take a length of chain and drag it in a straight line. You will find the holding friction is a rounding error, unless the amount and size of the chain is absurd. Remember that under meaningful load, no more than 20 feet or so of chain will be on the bottom. A toddler could drag that.

Sorry Mike, but you're not hanging from the chain unless there is practically no wind. And if ANY of you believe that, remove the anchor and just use a chain a few nights. I don't think you actually believe it that much. And yes, I've tested this with a load cell. Perhaps 15-25 pounds of holding, which in light winds might be enough.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

Capta: You should make your anchor rode arguments without bringing in climate change. Do you mean anthropogenic climate change or the ordinary fluctuations in climate that have been occurring since day one? If you believe in AGW, please provide evidence other than the computer models, as they have been proven to be inaccurate since the output is dependent on the input and ignores a whole lot of atmospheric variations. You destroy your credibility by attaching yourself to the AGW politically correct argument, very similar to Troy 2000. I heard on a local radio broadcast this week that the California fires were the result of climate change followed immediately by a report that the A-Basin ski resort was opening a week earlier than ever in Colorado. Explain that please, along with the 12 year hiatus in major hurricanes before this year when the AGW " experts all predicted increased hurricane activity 20 years ago. Be very careful to the wagon you are willing to hitch yourself to as the weight could drag you down..... I think Pink Floyd had a song warning about the hazards of the weight you need to throw around.......


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

pdqaltair said:


> Take a length of chain and drag it in a straight line. You will find the holding friction is a rounding error, unless the amount and size of the chain is absurd.


I did say "with enough chain". 

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Only issue I see is regardless of amount of chain (that a boat can carry) once you get load some of the chain picks up. Friction decreases and a bit more chain picks up. Even if still on the ground once moving the amount of friction developed decreases dramatically if its moving. No thank you. Much happier with my Rocna buried and the chain doing what’s it meant to do. BTW due to depth have had occasion to need to go as low as 3:1. Will only do that with a benign forecast and not overnight.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> Sorry Mike, but you're not hanging from the chain unless there is practically no wind. And if ANY of you believe that, remove the anchor and just use a chain a few nights. I don't think you actually believe it that much. And yes, I've tested this with a load cell. Perhaps 15-25 pounds of holding, which in light winds might be enough.


I'd happily run that experiment &#8230; with your boat 

Most of my time spent on anchor is spent swinging at a range which is not the full length of my set rode. We ALWAYS stretch the rode out fully and dig in the anchor well, but in light to moderate winds we usually hang at less than the full radius.

Obviously the anchor is holding the chain in place. The point is, the chain IS providing holding through weight and friction. Rope provides a lot less.

I'm not arguing against rope/chain rode. It's the best choice for some. All chain is the best choice for others.


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

MikeOReilly said:


> I went through a lot of chain hooks. None of them performed to my satisfaction, although I never did try the Mantus hook. I've used rolling hitches for years now. Simple, direct. The only issue I have is that, b/c of my propensity to get in close and shallow, they very occasionally come loose due to rubbing on the bottom. I always use two in a bridle though, as backup.


I used to go with hooks too and then changed over to a rolling hitch. They also can be problematic because they do tighten when under load. I have gone to 3 loops prior to where the line first touches the chain with another loop behind then the hitch. It helps some but it still gave me a problem when I was anchored a few months back and had a squall (50+ kts) in the wee hours of the morning. With the wind change the boat swung to a lee shore and I then had 1.8 metres of water depth with 1.5m of draught and had 7:1 scope. I got the engine started and pulled ahead to where I could untie the hitch but it took me over 5 minutes to get it loose while the bow bounced from the enlarged swell. It did seem like an eternity to get away.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Scott you picked up on the big weakness of rolling hitches. We’ve had occasion to be in one spot for a week with Xmas winds blowing. It took a pair of pliers and a screwdriver to untie the knots. As been mentioned what you use for a snubber is supposed to stretch over time it stretches inside the knot and is sometimes a bear to undo. Really like the idea of dyneema soft shackles. Will give it a go. Leaving New England on the 24 so may not get back to you for sometime on it. Still wondering what the biggest loop you can jam through a chain link? Will fool with it when I get a chance. Or whether looping the dyneema around the chain a few times will serve? Details please.


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

outbound said:


> Really like the idea of dyneema soft shackles.


Been thinking of giving that a go in some type of configuration as you mentioned.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> ...A-Basin ski resort was opening a week earlier than ever in Colorado.


Oh man you're killing me. That's my favorite hill in the US. I lived in Denver and worked in Evergreen for a couple of years and spent many, many weekends there.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

ScottUK said:


> I used to go with hooks too and then changed over to a rolling hitch. They also can be problematic because they do tighten when under load. I have gone to 3 loops prior to where the line first touches the chain with another loop behind then the hitch. It helps some but it still gave me a problem when I was anchored a few months back and had a squall (50+ kts) in the wee hours of the morning. With the wind change the boat swung to a lee shore and I then had 1.8 metres of water depth with 1.5m of draught and had 7:1 scope. I got the engine started and pulled ahead to where I could untie the hitch but it took me over 5 minutes to get it loose while the bow bounced from the enlarged swell. It did seem like an eternity to get away.


I don't mind swinging close to shore, but that depth, especially in rolling seas, would have me hauling up pretty fast as well. 

I too use at least three wraps before adding the locking wrap/hitch. If I think it's going to blow hard I'll add one or two more. I've not had a big problem breaking it, but our line is quite thick. When I used thinner line it sometimes would lock up harder though.

When we have to haul up under load we use the engine to move forward while hauling in on the windlass. Once the snubbers are on board I hook the chain off the windlass (on a well-backed thru-deck fitting) and then remove the snubbers. Never fun, but works.

BTW, I use one of the dysfunctional boat hooks as my on-deck link. It is attached to a well-backed, heavily bolted fitting in front of my windlass. I use it to ensure the windlass never feels any load while anchored. It's our third line of defence. I used to take the chain off the windlass, but I admit I now only do that if I expect it to blow hard.

This is the one:


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

outbound said:


> Or whether looping the dyneema around the chain a few times will serve? Details please.


Not sure if you are asking about the modified rolling hitch?


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

MikeOReilly said:


> I too use at least three wraps before adding the locking wrap/hitch. If I think it's going to blow hard I'll add one or two more. I've not had a big problem breaking it, but our line is quite thick. When I used thinner line it sometimes would lock up harder though.
> 
> When we have to haul up under load we use the engine to move forward while hauling in on the windlass. Once the snubbers are on board I hook the chain off the windlass (on a well-backed thru-deck fitting) and then remove the snubbers. Never fun, but works.
> 
> BTW, I use one of the dysfunctional boat hooks as my on-deck link. It is attached to a well-backed, heavily bolted fitting in front of my windlass. I use it to ensure the windlass never feels any load while anchored. It's our third line of defence. I used to take the chain off the windlass, but I admit I now only do that if I expect it to blow hard.


The rolling hitch can't make it through the bow roller so I have to lean over the pulpit to undo the rolling hitch. It does allow me to stretch my hamstrings though. It doesn't bother me working like that on the bow in rough conditions after being a bowman for a quite a few years racing.

A thing I have done in the past with the chain was cleat it off and lead it around the opposite cleat then slide it under the chain between the bow roller and the first cleat and lead it back and tie off at the second cleat. The chain forms a triangle with the load being taken by both cleats.


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> ...BTW, I use one of the dysfunctional boat hooks as my on-deck link. It is attached to a well-backed, heavily bolted fitting in front of my windlass. I use it to ensure the windlass never feels any load while anchored. It's our third line of defence. I used to take the chain off the windlass, but I admit I now only do that if I expect it to blow hard.
> 
> This is the one:


Hah! I use that same hook in the same fashion, to cleat off the chain as a back-up to the snubber. Worthless though as a snubber hook (as you may have discovered yourself), as it is near impossible to remove if the chain is even the slightest bit loaded.

I'm diggin' Mark's dyneema soft shackle idea on the snubber/chain attachment (currently using a Suncor SS chain hook with zip tie). Funny I didn't think of the dyneema shackle before, as I'm using them elsewhere on the boat, and heck, I got the stuff (Dynex Dux) holding up the rig for crying out loud!


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

outbound said:


> Scott you picked up on the big weakness of rolling hitches. We've had occasion to be in one spot for a week with Xmas winds blowing. It took a pair of pliers and a screwdriver to untie the knots. As been mentioned what you use for a snubber is supposed to stretch over time it stretches inside the knot and is sometimes a bear to undo. Really like the idea of dyneema soft shackles. Will give it a go. Leaving New England on the 24 so may not get back to you for sometime on it. Still wondering what the biggest loop you can jam through a chain link? Will fool with it when I get a chance. Or whether looping the dyneema around the chain a few times will serve? Details please.


Not being crumby, just curious. What do you have against a proper chain hook (none of those fancy yachtie things) with a thimble for your snub line? I've been using them for a long long time and never had one fail or fall out of the chain, once we are set at anchor. I've also never had a problem popping it off the chain, even in 60+ knots pitching in 5 foot seas, when we needed to get our gear up in a hurry.
Should you get caught in such a situation, would any knot you have used go by the gypsy and down into the chain locker without fouling, or would you be required to halt your anchor retrieval operation to remove the line?


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> . I used to take the chain off the windlass, but I admit I now only do that if I expect it to blow hard.


Mike, what is the rational of taking the chain off the windlass, especially if it is going to blow? It's at that point that I am preparing to either let out more chain or pull up the gear and head for a calmer anchorage. I certainly couldn't get my chain back in the gypsy if the snub failed in a blow.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

RocketScience said:


> Hah! I use that same hook in the same fashion, to cleat off the chain as a back-up to the snubber. Worthless though as a snubber hook (as you may have discovered yourself), as it is near impossible to remove if the chain is even the slightest bit loaded.


Yup, locks up under load, but falls off when it's slack. PITA, but works great on deck.

You're a lot more flexible than I . Our snubbers fit through the roller &#8230; just. In that position it's pretty easy to tie or untie them.



RocketScience said:


> I'm diggin' Mark's dyneema soft shackle idea (currently using a Suncor SS chain hook with zip tie). Funny I didn't think of the dyneema shackle before, as I'm using them elsewhere on the boat, and heck, I got the stuff (Dynex Dux) holding up the rig for crying out loud!


Ditto. Seems like it should be a good idea, although I really do find the rolling hitches to be quite easy and secure.



capta said:


> Not being crumby, just curious. What do you have against a proper chain hook (none of those fancy yachtie things) with a thimble for your snub line? I've been using them for a long long time and never had one fail or fall out of the chain, once we are set at anchor. I've also never had a problem popping it off the chain, even in 60+ knots pitching in 5 foot seas, when we needed to get our gear up in a hurry.


A simple chain hook worked the best of all, but it still fell of at times. A rolling hitch is just so easy on our boat.



capta said:


> Should you get caught in such a situation, would any knot you have used go by the gypsy and down into the chain locker without fouling, or would you be required to halt your anchor retrieval operation to remove the line?


I definitely have to remove the hitch first. No chance of it passing through the windlass or down the hawsepipe, but like I say, it's not that hard to do on our boat.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


> Scott you picked up on the big weakness of rolling hitches. We've had occasion to be in one spot for a week with Xmas winds blowing. It took a pair of pliers and a screwdriver to untie the knots. As been mentioned what you use for a snubber is supposed to stretch over time it stretches inside the knot and is sometimes a bear to undo. Really like the idea of dyneema soft shackles. Will give it a go. Leaving New England on the 24 so may not get back to you for sometime on it. Still wondering what the biggest loop you can jam through a chain link? Will fool with it when I get a chance. Or whether looping the dyneema around the chain a few times will serve? Details please.


Since the shackle diameter will be about 2x the line diameter, that will guide you on how big the line can be to fit a link.

For our 5/16" chain, I use 3/16" dyneema. The breaking load of the shackle will also be double that of the single line (actually more than double, but that is a good rule of thumb).

So maybe 1/4" or 5/16" for 3/8" chain? A shackle from 1/4" dyneema is going to have a breaking strength of ~16,000lbs.

Easiest thing is next time you are in a chandlery, grab some dyneema, double it on itself and see if it goes through the link of your chain size. Make sure it is a bit more than doubled, because it will come out a bit thicker after splicing the shackle.

Looping the dyneema around the chain isn't going to work because it is too slippery. Maybe if you got a cowhitch capturing a link just right, but it is easier to just put it through a link.

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

capta said:


> Mike, what is the rational of taking the chain off the windlass, especially if it is going to blow? It's at that point that I am preparing to either let out more chain or pull up the gear and head for a calmer anchorage. I certainly couldn't get my chain back in the gypsy if the snub failed in a blow.


I was wondering this too. Id rather a bit of strain on the windlass in the event of a snubber failure than the rest of my chain free falling. Especially with a manual windlass.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> BTW, I use one of the dysfunctional boat hooks as my on-deck link. It is attached to a well-backed, heavily bolted fitting in front of my windlass. I use it to ensure the windlass never feels any load while anchored. It's our third line of defence. I used to take the chain off the windlass, but I admit I now only do that if I expect it to blow hard.


We do the same thing with a grab hook attached to a dyneema loop (attached to a strong point in front of the windlass) as a backup to keep the load off the windlass should the bridles break. We never take the chain off the windlass, though. Don't really see the point of that.

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

capta said:


> Mike, what is the rational of taking the chain off the windlass, especially if it is going to blow? It's at that point that I am preparing to either let out more chain or pull up the gear and head for a calmer anchorage. I certainly couldn't get my chain back in the gypsy if the snub failed in a blow.


Agreed. It would be hard to get it back on the windlass at that point, although not impossible I don't think. Add another rolling hitch and take up the load, then take the chain off the horn cleat. Seems doable to me.

My rational was that if both snubbers failed, then the chain hook failed, then it's very unlikely my windlass is going to hold. When that happens I've possibly got a big hole in my deck, or a destroyed windlass, which would turn a bad situation into a worse situation.

But like I said, I've stopped taking the chain off the windlass b/c I figure three levels of protection (two snubbers and then the well-backed chain hook) is enough. I now almost always leave the chain on the windlass with the lock on.

Hmmm, now that you've got me thinking about this, maybe I should just leave the chain on, but held with a lightly tightened clutch. If everything else failed (which is highly unlikely) that should just allow the rest of the chain to pull out till we got to the safety line at the end. Hopefully by then I'd be able to do something&#8230;


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

You might have a big hole in your deck whether the windlass pulls out or not if you let 150 feet or so of chain free pay unchecked through your spurling pipe.

Out of control chain can be pretty out of control.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, I'm just thinking out loud. I'm used to dealing with heavier chain, so maybe the same rules don't apply.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> You might have a big hole in your deck whether the windlass pulls out or not if you let 150 feet or so of chain free pay unchecked through your spurling pipe.
> 
> Out of control chain can be pretty out of control.
> 
> I'm not sure what the right answer is, I'm just thinking out loud. I'm used to dealing with heavier chain, so maybe the same rules don't apply.


Yes &#8230; it's not an experiment I ever want to try. It would be a bad day indeed, no matter what. This is why I used to remove the chain and put it on the cleat. But like I say, I've mostly stopped doing this b/c I've learned to trust my snubbers and chain hook.

However, I'm now thinking that a snug, but not locked windlass clutch might be the best option. It would allow the chain to pull through the hawsepipe, but keep some force on it so as to limit the uncontrolled escape of the chain. This might be a better option &#8230; might.

Either way, it would be a hard scenario. Happily, not one I've ever faced.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

The previous owners of my Fantasia had both deck cleats tear out in a hurricane when the snubbers held but the deck hardware didn't. The windlass held them until they were able to get the Perkins rolling. She still had the battle scars when I sold the boat.

The windlass saved the boat, and possibly there lives.

PS, I've been around out of control chain a few times and it's scary. Think giant bullwhip crossed with a chainsaw.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> The previous owners of my Fantasia had both deck cleats tear out in a hurricane when the snubbers held but the deck hardware didn't. The windlass held them until they were able to get the Perkins rolling. She still had the battle scars when I sold the boat.
> 
> The windlass saved the boat, and possibly there lives.
> 
> PS, I've been around out of control chain a few times and it's scary. Think giant bullwhip crossed with a chainsaw.


You've experience way more than me, for sure. I've seen some videos of big-ship chains getting out of control - scary indeed.

This past season - actually the very first anchoring of the season - we had to drop in 29 knots. My partner was on the helm and I was on anchor duty that day. I thought I had things under control, but didn't. I start letting things out, but the chain got rolling too fast and I couldn't get the chain hook on. Now the chain is roaring out, the boat is falling back, and we're about to either loose our chain/anchor, or perhaps the windlass when it comes up at the end.

I somehow get a hold of the chain and am trying trying to hold onto it with bare hands, in 29 knots of wind and 30,000# boat. All I can do is start calling for help!!! Luckily my partner figured out the dilemma and took up the slack with the engine pretty quick. Scared me pretty good.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> If everything else failed (which is highly unlikely) that should just allow the rest of the chain to pull out till we got to the safety line at the end. Hopefully by then I'd be able to do something&#8230;


Yeah, if things were that bad then I'd be buoying my chain, cutting the safety line and getting the heck out of Dodge. lol That's always a really good option, *before* the boat starts taking damage.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> However, I'm now thinking that a snug, but not locked windlass clutch might be the best option. It would allow the chain to pull through the hawsepipe, but keep some force on it so as to limit the uncontrolled escape of the chain. This might be a better option &#8230; might.


Check your windlass manual. I know ours specifies how tight the clutch should be, and that is so that it brings up the chain/anchor, but slips if something gets stuck. They warn about it being too tight. Set like this, the clutch will slowly slip if the boat is backing down with only the windlass holding the chain. It also slips just before the motor locks up, which is what I think the manual instructions are really trying to accomplish.

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

MikeOReilly said:


> You've experience way more than me, for sure.


I actually doubt this very much, it sounds like you, and a number of other posters have much more sailboat anchoring experience than me. Most of my experience comes from big steel tugboats and workboats that actually have very different anchoring systems than the typical fibreglass sailboat. I have actually learned a fair bit from this thread.

In terms of sailboat anchoring. I get too claustrophobic to anchor out over night and rarely make over night passages for the same reason.

I will go to pretty extreme lengths to tie up, bow up, dry out or beach at night, hence my slightly idiosyncratic boat choices. Most of my sailboat anchoring is just day anchoring. Lunch, repairs, etc.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> Check your windlass manual. I know ours specifies how tight the clutch should be, and that is so that it brings up the chain/anchor, but slips if something gets stuck. They warn about it being too tight. Set like this, the clutch will slowly slip if the boat is backing down with only the windlass holding the chain. It also slips just before the motor locks up, which is what I think the manual instructions are really trying to accomplish.


Exactly my thoughts Mark. My old ABI/Plath bronze windlass manual has long ago disappeared. But it being a fully manual windlass, I can pretty easily adjust the clutch so, as you say, it just slips under heavy load. This should act as the final protection if all else fails (which is highly unlikely).

Here a poor pic of our windlass and snubbers:








This has actually been a great anchoring thread. I'm going to change how I leave my windlass, and I'm going to look into the soft shackles. So thanks!


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Those aren't snubbers - those are tow lines!

Mark


----------



## heading168 (Sep 27, 2017)

outbound said:


> Scott you picked up on the big weakness of rolling hitches. We've had occasion to be in one spot for a week with Xmas winds blowing. It took a pair of pliers and a screwdriver to untie the knots. As been mentioned what you use for a snubber is supposed to stretch over time it stretches inside the knot and is sometimes a bear to undo. Really like the idea of dyneema soft shackles. Will give it a go. Leaving New England on the 24 so may not get back to you for sometime on it. Still wondering what the biggest loop you can jam through a chain link? Will fool with it when I get a chance. Or whether looping the dyneema around the chain a few times will serve? Details please.


I'm wondering are you headed for newport news on the 24th? You might want to wait a day maybe more of a sleigh ride.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Heading -leaving for Antigua ~2Nov. Depending on weather may just go barrington to Newport on 24. Or if reasonable make the right into L.I. Sound. Prefer to go outside L.I. but this year looks like the Sound- East River- Hampton. Hardest part of this trip is always getting past N.J. so want to time that right if possible. Unfortunately Chris Parker says end of this month and beginning of next won’t be good for travel. Seems our movement will be on the backside of a front.


----------



## heading168 (Sep 27, 2017)

outbound said:


> Heading -leaving for Antigua ~2Nov. Depending on weather may just go barrington to Newport on 24. Or if reasonable make the right into L.I. Sound. Prefer to go outside L.I. but this year looks like the Sound- East River- Hampton. Hardest part of this trip is always getting past N.J. so want to time that right if possible. Unfortunately Chris Parker says end of this month and beginning of next won't be good for travel. Seems our movement will be on the backside of a front.


I think I'd have to agree with him all these highs and they just seem to sit there. Like me waiting for a good low pattern to take me from Cutty all the way. But for you for now I'm looking at that low that looks to sit over the middle of Mass after the 24th would be nice to leave from block or cutty head little south of course until you pick up the .5knt current turn towards newport news . That should put the wind a bit aft of the quarter pop like a A3 and a jib. Your boat should do about 10+ and in 30 hours you'd be drinking beers and chasing hookers with the rest of the Navy boys down there.
The key though is to wait for that low to be like in mid NY and it be traveling west that should give you that 30 hour window.oops I mean east yikes!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Sounds good. Thanks


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> I thought I was out of this thread. You know I don't live anywhere near the ICW, correct?
> 
> I have no idea what you are trying to say.
> 
> ...


Perhaps if you are dragging towards any shore, your anchor cannot be set correct?

I have not put you in this jam, you are simply presented with a scenario, perhaps you have no solution. Rather you insist to complain that it is not realistic in your area. Perhaps go to an area in the world where it is real.

I did not specify weather it jamed at the splice or not. And you suggesting you have never jamed a windlass? Really...

The scenario is clearly meant to illustrate how dangerous situations come about. It is not the jam, or the current or the close shore that individually creates the issue. Rather it is the combination of many issues that causes the problem.

If you do not know that you cannot engage your engine because your anchor will be dragged under by the current, you are in trouble.

If you have never experienced the scenario, then you have not the experience.. just say so.

Anchoring in tidal currents in the ICW is such a common situation, we can only come to a conclusion you have no experience doing this. So how can you argue this is not realistic.

Just because you are anchored in a tidal current, does not mean you are anchored in a main channel. Quite the contrary, the ICW looks like Swiss cheese in many places, so you are not in any main channel. Furthermore, the ICW itself can have huge tidal currents due to all the inlets having different high tide times.

Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

capta said:


> I apologize as I don't have the multi-quote thing down yet.
> *1) Pound for pound nothing holds better than a "true" Danforth (excepting a fortress.. that is lighter) This is a given and cannot be disputed.* I certainly dispute this statement. It greatly depends on the bottom if a Danforth will even hold as a lunch hook. I have yet to find a bottom my Rocna won't hold in, often at 2:1, though I try for at least 3:1.
> *2) Pound for pound the holding power of chain will always be heavier than line. This is a given and cannot be disputed.* Chain has no holding power at all! It provides a better angle of pull on the anchor.
> *3) You will never increase the holding power of an anchor by simply adding chain. That anchor will have a holding power independent of the line it is connected to.* As above, adding chain will lessen the angle of pull on the anchor, increasing the chances it will not unset.
> ...


Please look at the term "pound for pound". If you think that a 25 pound Rocna will hold my boat you are quite wrong.

Please look at the term "pound for pound" for chain/line. If you think that a 50 pound chain of 200 feet will hold my boat the same as my 50 pound 3/4 in nylon, you are quite wrong.

It is fine that you are happy to deal with a 88 pound Rocna with incredibly heavy chain. I am not interested. and your ground tackle will not hold better than mine in every situation.

To suggest that you are loading your boat with all this weight and you are safe and I am not is obsurd. And no, I do not race.

If you consider your anchor the most important safety equipment, why not chose a 150 pound Rocna.. 88 sounds kinda small.. as you say, weight is no issue. BTW, I have a friend with an 88 Rocna and chain... he has dragged.

BTW.. check out that extra hole on the end of your Rocna.. That's to double end a Danforth when you need extra holding power.
Bryce


----------



## Deina (Aug 28, 2017)

BryceGTX said:


> Perhaps if you are dragging towards any shore, your anchor cannot be set correct?
> 
> I have not put you in this jam, you are simply presented with a scenario, perhaps you have no solution. Rather you insist to complain that it is not realistic in your area. Perhaps go to an area in the world where it is real.
> 
> ...


Bryce, you're all over the place! Originally your hypothetical was a windlass jam while retrieving the anchor, now it's a dragging anchor?

When presented with reasonable questions seeking clarification of your scenario all you can do is modify the conditions and hurl insults?

I suspect you're the one lacking in experience here.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Deina said:


> Bryce, you're all over the place! Originally your hypothetical was a windlass jam while retrieving the anchor, now it's a dragging anchor?
> 
> When presented with reasonable questions seeking clarification of your scenario all you can do is modify the conditions and hurl insults?
> 
> I suspect you're the one lacking in experience here.


No specifically, you have 3 minutes because you are dragging toward shore. This dragging could be the result of retrieving or the anchor lets loose. If you were not dragging, you would have more than 3 minutes correct? And no this is not an insult..

Just because one does not have experience, is not an insult..

From my standpoint, the scenario was a rhetorical question and did not require an answer. Rather it was meant to show how things can quickly go wrong.. it takes me about 45 seconds to bring up the anchor and stow it. So I would have about 2 min, 15 seconds to clear the jam.

Perhaps if I had to use the engine, I would reverse it and spin the the boat away from the line. No chance to wrap the line in the prop.

And yes.. there are all kinds of things I have not experienced..
Bryce


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I guess I'm in the ancient mariner category, which is kinda neat. Fortunately, I've never experienced a jammed windlass, never fouled my prop on the anchor line, but I have managed to drag anchor more than I would like to admit - even with more scope out than necessary - $hit happens! 

I sincerely hope that everyone here gets to join the Ancient Mariners Sailing Club, for which I have a neat Tee shirt that barely fits anymore because of the medications ancient mariners sometime have to endure. My loving wife, however, said it's all that Jim Beam Honey Bourbon I consume, which reminds me, I have to stop at the local liquor store tomorrow - 15 percent off on Tuesdays.

Have a fun night, everyone,

Gary


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> Paul - I'm curious, how much chain do you carry for this type of anchoring? And what is your "trusted scope"?


325 ft of 10m(3/8) chain. I never anchor in those depths if there is a good alternative. Many areas in the South Pacific there is no alternative. You take the scope that you can get. Scope rules for 10ft depths really do not apply to 50ft depths.

I haven't had a chance to read this whole thread, but another reason for all chain is when you are forced to use a short scope due to obstructions like close packed boats or reefs or in the case we are anchored in now: 47ft of water with 150ft out, 25kt wind, and unable to let anymore out because the harbour patrol will not let you go any further back into the ship channel. Again, there's no alternative here right now.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> Perhaps if you are dragging towards any shore, your anchor cannot be set correct?
> 
> I have not put you in this jam, you are simply presented with a scenario, perhaps you have no solution. Rather you insist to complain that it is not realistic in your area. Perhaps go to an area in the world where it is real.
> 
> ...


Your scenarios just keep getting more outrageous with every post. Now you've got me dragging anchor at 5 knots in a 5 knot current with a sandbar 1/4 mile downstream of me and my anchor and chain are so light they are going to get sucked right off the bottom into my screw as soon as I put the engine in gear.

Your solution to this problem (yes, this is your problem, because I wouldn't put myself in this situation, but obviously you would), is to spin your anchored Catalina 40 around 180 degrees through a 5 knot current and back the boat through the current.

You are saying you have had this experience? What kind of propulsion did you have to get your stern swung around against that current? How did your boat respond when she was beam to the 5 knot current with an anchor hanging off the bow? Were you single handed? Were you able to leave the helm unattended while backing through a 5 knot current so you could go forward and clear the jam? That's some fancy boat driving.

Yes, I say so, I have never experienced this scenario.

By the way, if my anchor is dragging with the boat, along the bottom at 5 knots, then as soon as I bring the boat up to 5 knots through the water (0 over the ground), my motion relative to the anchor will be nil. I'll just be holding station, as will the anchor.

Edit: if these are just rhetorical questions and you don't want me to actually respond to them, it probably isn't necessary to quote me in your post and pose the question directly at me.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

BryceGTX;2051248153
If you consider your anchor the most important safety equipment said:


> An anchor, as with many other items on a sailboat including the mast, standing rigging, the running rigging and the sails must be a complete system, matched to give maximum performance versus weight and ease of handling. A 150# Rocna would require 3/4" or larger chain and a suitable windlass. My #1 anchoring system, is a complete unit with all parts of relatively equal breaking strength and holding power.
> As for "that extra hole on the end of your Rocna", I'm afraid you've got that all wrong Bryce old buddy, way, way wrong. That extra hole on the end of my Rocna" is for a line to extricate the Rocna should it get stuck under a rock or ledge. Since I rarely anchor in that sort of bottom, I do not often secure the release line, but we do have one onboard should we wish to use it. If you look closely at your Danforth, *if* it is a *genuine* Danforth it should have a similar hole or fixture point.
> You can argue till you are blue in the face that your way is better and that all the weight I carry is pointless, but I challenge you to anchor for some 1000 days consecutively all over the eastern Caribbean with your system and then get back to me about how successful it is.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Paul_L said:


> 325 ft of 10m(3/8) chain. I never anchor in those depths if there is a good alternative. Many areas in the South Pacific there is no alternative. You take the scope that you can get. Scope rules for 10ft depths really do not apply to 50ft depths.
> 
> I haven't had a chance to read this whole thread, but another reason for all chain is when you are forced to use a short scope due to obstructions like close packed boats or reefs or in the case we are anchored in now: 47ft of water with 150ft out, 25kt wind, and unable to let anymore out because the harbour patrol will not let you go any further back into the ship channel. Again, there's no alternative here right now.


Got it. That makes sense.

On your second point, that's been one primary part of this discussion. A mixed rode with 25m of chain or so gives you "all chain" in many anchoring conditions with the advantages of rope rode behind that. So in this scenario you mention, you'd have all chain where it counts - and give your anchor less shock loading than a snubber would.

Just different ways to skin the turtle. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Your scenarios just keep getting more outrageous with every post. Now you've got me dragging anchor at 5 knots in a 5 knot current with a sandbar 1/4 mile downstream of me and my anchor and chain are so light they are going to get sucked right off the bottom into my screw as soon as I put the engine in gear.
> 
> Your solution to this problem (yes, this is your problem, because I wouldn't put myself in this situation, but obviously you would), is to spin your anchored Catalina 40 around 180 degrees through a 5 knot current and back the boat through the current
> 
> ...


Clearly if you power up your boat to hold zero speed over ground, your anchor is definitely forced under your boat by the 5 mph current. So yes, you are correct, you have no experience.

This 5 mph current I am experiencing every day. The current in the Mississippi averages about 5 mph. Sometimes more, sometimes less. During anchoring, my goal is always to anchor in much less current. Typically, I anchor in 0.5 to about 2 mph. At this moment I am anchored in 1.7 mph current. Even in 2 mph current, the anchor and chain get dragged under the boat as I pull it up. You NEVER put in forward once the anchor leaves its set in these conditions. Particularly critical with all line.

If my boat cannot power up in reverse or forward against a 5 mph current, it needs repair. And yes, I have had to reverse against a 5 mph current. I guess you have not..

If you want to gain this experience, drop your anchor with about 30 feet out but does not touch the bottom as you are cruising along at 5 mph. Ideally, use all line  Come back to this forum and tell us all what the anchor did.
Bryce


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Sure glad I like the taste of Jim Beam Honey Bourbon! 

Gary


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

capta said:


> An anchor, as with many other items on a sailboat including the mast, standing rigging, the running rigging and the sails must be a complete system, matched to give maximum performance versus weight and ease of handling. A 150# Rocna would require 3/4" or larger chain and a suitable windlass. My #1 anchoring system, is a complete unit with all parts of relatively equal breaking strength and holding power.
> As for "that extra hole on the end of your Rocna", I'm afraid you've got that all wrong Bryce old buddy, way, way wrong. That extra hole on the end of my Rocna" is for a line to extricate the Rocna should it get stuck under a rock or ledge. Since I rarely anchor in that sort of bottom, I do not often secure the release line, but we do have one onboard should we wish to use it. If you look closely at your Danforth, *if* it is a *genuine* Danforth it should have a similar hole or fixture point.
> You can argue till you are blue in the face that your way is better and that all the weight I carry is pointless, but I challenge you to anchor for some 1000 days consecutively all over the eastern Caribbean with your system and then get back to me about how successful it is.


No, you are incorrect. Most all anchors Bruce, Delta and of course Rocna have a large hole to double end. Some have two holes at different height one for a trip line that you refer and another lower hole to double end.

And again, you are wrong True Danforths have no hole!

Ah.. so only in the Caribbean.. The fact that you never dragged a Rocna means your experience in the Carib is far from all encompassing.

All Rocnas will drag in hard clay bottoms. I would like to introduce you to the Chesepeke. Your opinion will change about your ground tackle.

And no I am not arguing my way is better, I am arguing my way is just as good.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Paul_L said:


> 47ft of water with 150ft out, 25kt wind, and unable to let anymore out because the harbour patrol will not let you go any further back into the ship channel. Again, there's no alternative here right now.


3 feet line for every 1 foot of depth scope is not particularly difficult for either of my anchors. Aft anchor all line. Bow anchor chain and line. I don't see this scope as difficult for any good anchor after it sets.
Bryce


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

BryceGTX said:


> 3 feet line for every 1 foot of depth scope is not particularly difficult for either of my anchors. Aft anchor all line. Bow anchor chain and line. I don't see this scope as difficult for any good anchor after it sets.
> Bryce


Do you know your anchor works well in this bottom? My neighbor here who likes to use less chain and much more line dragged in a gust.
If we were not restricted by the fairway I would definitely let out more chain in this situation, especially considering the gusty winds .


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> Clearly if you power up your boat to hold zero speed over ground, your anchor is definitely forced under your boat by the 5 mph current. So yes, you are correct, you have no experience.
> 
> This 5 mph current I am experiencing every day. The current in the Mississippi averages about 5 mph. Sometimes more, sometimes less. During anchoring, my goal is always to anchor in much less current. Typically, I anchor in 0.5 to about 2 mph. At this moment I am anchored in 1.7 mph current. Even in 2 mph current, the anchor and chain get dragged under the boat as I pull it up. You NEVER put in forward once the anchor leaves its set in these conditions. Particularly critical with all line.
> 
> ...




Okay, so help me to understand my imaginary scenario. We have changed locations, correct? I am no longer on the ICW, I am now on the Mississippi. 40 foot keel boat that is maneuverable enough to swing itself stern first into the current around a mooring in a 5 knot current is dragging anchor in 30 feet of water with exactly 30 feet of chain out. My windlass is jammed at the chain rope splice. If I put my engine in gear, my 30 feet of chain and anchor will be instantly sucked into the propeller of my 40 foot boat. Is that before or after it wraps around my keel? The sandbar is still a quarter of a mile behind me. I assume from reading how you like to keep your scenarios realistic, this isn't a gradual decrease in depth but this will be an abrupt sand bar ledge. Is that correct? Will the current that is 5 knots in 30 feet of water still be travelling at 5 knots when it hits the sandbar? I am picturing a large haystack and significant amount of white water as the river passes over the sand bar ledge. Is that correct?

I am curious how the facts in your imaginary scenario are going to change in your next response. Will there be unicorns and care bears for crew?

Also, while you are researching your next post from questionable sources on the internet, can you provide me with a link to a reputable source that says it's not possible to put a few revs on an engine to take the strain off a dragging anchor? Something other than your experience would be nice.

I do enjoy reading some good fantasy while I drink my morning coffee.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> ...I am curious how the facts in your imaginary scenario are going to change in your next response. Will there be unicorns and care bears for crew? ...


+1

It's clear from the banter here who has actual experience anchoring in the real world.

Fun fun though&#8230; carry on :devil


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

BryceGTX said:


> All Rocnas will drag in hard clay bottoms.


I would not recommend anyone to anchor with just line attached to a Danforth (or any anchor for that matter). I have experimented and it does not work for long.

If I can't anchor with my Rocna on a clay bed then I would consider that bed a sedimentary rock untenable for any anchor. I would reconsider my position if presented with empirical data to the contrary.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Scott agree with you. Rocna does just fine in clay. Much better than prior cqr. Have had it skip on occasion and needed a second try to get it it to dig. But once point is in it buries real nice. Problem I find is loose mud and grass. It’s particularly bad in grass. Seems to need a patch 3 or 4 times the area of the anchor to gain purchase. This is a problem in the Caribbean. You really need a person on the bow looking down for a big grass free spot. I’m by myself on occasion so this deficit makes anchoring difficult.


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

outbound said:


> Scott agree with you. Rocna does just fine in clay. Much better than prior cqr. Have had it skip on occasion and needed a second try to get it it to dig. But once point is in it buries real nice. Problem I find is loose mud and grass. It's particularly bad in grass. Seems to need a patch 3 or 4 times the area of the anchor to gain purchase. This is a problem in the Caribbean. You really need a person on the bow looking down for a big grass free spot. I'm by myself on occasion so this deficit makes anchoring difficult.


I do like clay due to its plasticity to dig in the point and its blocky substructure to hold the anchor.

I try, but not always successfully, to avoid grass too. I try for even larger areas devoid of grass so the chain does not act as a mower. The nice thing about anchoring in grassy areas is the higher probability of seeing turtles.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

ScottUK said:


> I do like clay due to its plasticity to dig in the point and its blocky substructure to hold the anchor.
> 
> I try, but not always successfully, to avoid grass too. I try for even larger areas devoid of grass so the chain does not act as a mower. The nice thing about anchoring in grassy areas is the higher probability of seeing turtles.


Scotty, Your not ruining the turtles habitat are you? :grin:grin


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

aeventyr60 said:


> Scotty, Your not ruining the turtles habitat are you? :grin:grin


A guy has to eat too and in some anchorages it can get competitive!


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

outbound said:


> Problem I find is loose mud and grass. It's particularly bad in grass. Seems to need a patch 3 or 4 times the area of the anchor to gain purchase. This is a problem in the Caribbean. You really need a person on the bow looking down for a big grass free spot. I'm by myself on occasion so this deficit makes anchoring difficult.


One of the things I like about my cheap little Lowrance chart plotter is that I can set the screen to fish finder mode and it gives me a good view of the bottom, including plants.

Once this summer I thought I had my danforth set, but it was mostly just hooked on plants. They eventually uprooted I started to drag.

The visibility was only a couple feet so even having someone on the bow wouldn't have helped, but once I switched to fish finder mode I was able to drive around and find a clear spot and get a good set.

Different circumstance, obviously. I'm in a 22' boat on a freshwater lake.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

In reality, my bit old danforth with just 20 feet of chain and the rest rode, digs into the soupy mud on the bottom of Chesapeake Bay and it's tributaries better than my plow that is all chain. It did a much better job on the sandy bottom of the Florida Keys as well. When the plow began to drag, I tossed out the danford and the boat stopped dead in it's tracks. The danforth weighs 22 pounds, while the plow is twice as heavy, but never seems to hold as well. If the danforth would fit on my anchor chock, it would be there as my primary anchor. 

Good luck,

Gary


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Nothing like bc cabbage to foul an anchor. Getting it set takes finess. Anchor hits the bottom, let out chain faster than you fall back. Not in a clump. Then stop the chain with somewhat less than appropriate scope. You can feel if it has set.Then let out to suitable scope. Bottom texture has much to say about the learning experience. On the Kenai a set was only good for a couple of hours before the kelp had to be cut off.Fun in a gale. Once anchored behind a drill island in the Beaufort. Come morning it was many miles to windward. Mud like molylube doesn't grip too good.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Okay, so help me to understand my imaginary scenario. We have changed locations, correct? I am no longer on the ICW, I am now on the Mississippi. 40 foot keel boat that is maneuverable enough to swing itself stern first into the current around a mooring in a 5 knot current is dragging anchor in 30 feet of water with exactly 30 feet of chain out. My windlass is jammed at the chain rope splice. If I put my engine in gear, my 30 feet of chain and anchor will be instantly sucked into the propeller of my 40 foot boat. Is that before or after it wraps around my keel? The sandbar is still a quarter of a mile behind me. I assume from reading how you like to keep your scenarios realistic, this isn't a gradual decrease in depth but this will be an abrupt sand bar ledge. Is that correct? Will the current that is 5 knots in 30 feet of water still be travelling at 5 knots when it hits the sandbar? I am picturing a large haystack and significant amount of white water as the river passes over the sand bar ledge. Is that correct?
> 
> I am curious how the facts in your imaginary scenario are going to change in your next response. Will there be unicorns and care bears for crew?
> 
> ...


Your specific words were "hold zero speed over ground in 5 knot current". If you are holding zero speed in 5 mph current, yes your free anchor and line will be dragged under your boat.

BTW I specifically used the speed of 5 mph, not 5 knots.

Now you can rattle on and on about the details. But this is what you said.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Paul_L said:


> Do you know your anchor works well in this bottom? My neighbor here who likes to use less chain and much more line dragged in a gust.
> If we were not restricted by the fairway I would definitely let out more chain in this situation, especially considering the gusty winds .


I said "after it sets". Most every anchor test includes a test at 3:1 scope. So this is not unusual.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

ScottUK said:


> I would not recommend anyone to anchor with just line attached to a Danforth (or any anchor for that matter). I have experimented and it does not work for long.
> 
> If I can't anchor with my Rocna on a clay bed then I would consider that bed a sedimentary rock untenable for any anchor. I would reconsider my position if presented with empirical data to the contrary.


THere is no doubt that there are more boats anchored with only line and a Danforth than any thing else in the US. Millions of little power boats have been using this solution for decades. And still do to this day. These boats do not run amuck in the anchorages just because a breeze comes up.

And no doubt, Chesepeake with some of its clay bottom anchorages will cause your Rocna to drag. Other areas in the Chesepeake hold fine.

On the flip side, I agree softer clay makes an ideal bottom.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

travlin-easy said:


> In reality, my bit old danforth with just 20 feet of chain and the rest rode, digs into the soupy mud on the bottom of Chesapeake Bay and it's tributaries better than my plow that is all chain. It did a much better job on the sandy bottom of the Florida Keys as well. When the plow began to drag, I tossed out the danford and the boat stopped dead in it's tracks. The danforth weighs 22 pounds, while the plow is twice as heavy, but never seems to hold as well. If the danforth would fit on my anchor chock, it would be there as my primary anchor.
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> Gary


I absolutely agree with this.. soupy mud is great for a Danforth. Bahamas is also ideal for my Danforth.
Bryce


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

BryceGTX said:


> THere is no doubt that there are more boats anchored with only line and a Danforth than any thing else in the US. Millions of little power boats have been using this solution for decades. And still do to this day. These boats do not run amuck in the anchorages just because a breeze comes up.
> 
> And no doubt, Chesepeake with some of its clay bottom anchorages will cause your Rocna to drag. Other areas in the Chesepeake hold fine.


Still waiting for that empirical data to support your claims.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> THere is no doubt that there are more boats anchored with only line and a Danforth than any thing else in the US.......


No doubt? Prove it then. I don't believe there is a single example in our entire marina. Maybe there is an exception or two that I haven't noticed, but you have a long way to go to get to the most common.

I would agree it's common for little power boats (your description) to have a danforth and rope, but they would be the primary dragging concern in any anchorage around here, in my experience. Not that the danforth isn't a good anchor for certain conditions, but this argument fell flat.

If your objective is to get everyone to agree that the danforth is the best anchor, you must be delusional. That never happens on an internet forum. Ever.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I don't really understand the dispute that BryceGTX thinks he is having. A Danforth is a great anchor - for the right conditions. Mud, sand, soft clay&#8230; basically any substrate where it can penetrate and set its flukes is where it will outperform most others.

But as anyone who has actual anchoring experience in a wide variety of locations, conditions and durations will tell you, a Danforth-style is NOT the best anchor much of the time. Harder bottoms, weeds, very soupy, or areas of rapid directional change &#8230; these are areas the danforth-style will struggle with.

I used (and still carry) a Danforth. I used it as a bower for many years, but did so in combination with a bower CQR. I carried both off the bow holder and would switch between them depending on my assessment of the bottom. This combination worked great.

A few years ago I moved to a new-gen style anchor (Rocna in my case, but I put them all in the same category). This single anchor covers pretty much the same range of bottom conditions as my previous danforth/cqr combo did. This is why it is a better anchor for those of us who cruise in varied locations and spend a lot of time swinging from our own hooks.

I also carry a large Danforth, a Bruce, and a large Fortress (as my storm anchor). All are great anchors, but the Rocna is best as a bower. If I was only cruising in areas of sand/mud bottoms with little debris or weeds, a Danforth could be the best choice.

And yes, always anchor with plenty of chain. Rope/chain is fine as long as you have enough chain. All-chain is best for the widest range of conditions as long as your boat can manage the weight. If it can't, then all-chain is NOT the best choice.

In my observation, most small to mid-sized powerboats do use danforths as their bower. In my observation, most of these boats rarely anchor at all. The few that do, spend small amounts of time anchored.

Actually, it's been a source of concern and sometimes amusement to watch some of these power boaters try to anchor with their tiny danforths in conditions that simply aren't appropriate. I can't tell you the number of power boats I've seen drag away, and this includes whole rafts them (why do powerboats love to raft so much??).

Here is a group of four that let loose on our recent cruise. The whole group was headed out to sea. Luckily there were a few people on board that sorted things out. I didn't have to go rescue this group (as I've done a number of times).


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> (why do powerboats love to raft so much??).
> 
> G]


Why because they carry those little tiny Danforth type anchors and don't know how to use them so it is better for all of them to raft up together to boat the with the less small tiny Danforth anchor


----------



## neeqness (Jan 31, 2017)

Minnesail said:


> One of the things I like about my cheap little Lowrance chart plotter is that I can set the screen to fish finder mode and it gives me a good view of the bottom, including plants.
> 
> Once this summer I thought I had my danforth set, but it was mostly just hooked on plants. They eventually uprooted I started to drag.
> 
> ...


Were you able to see what kind of bottom there was too in fishfinder mode? I've been considering getting a fishfinder too lately but it's hard to narrow down which one I want to get...

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

We see hundreds of power boaters anchored alone and rafted. I can't remember the last time I saw one dragging the anchor.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> Your specific words were "hold zero speed over ground in 5 knot current". If you are holding zero speed in 5 mph current, yes your free anchor and line will be dragged under your boat.
> 
> BTW I specifically used the speed of 5 mph, not 5 knots.
> 
> ...


Show me the math I don't believe you. In my response I specifically said I was using chain, you have switched to line in a desperate attempt to dig yourself out of a credibility hole. Go back and read my post. Quote me, don't paraphrase.

If I power up on a dragging anchor and chain until neutral speed over the bottom is acheived, all I have done is take the strain off the anchor chain. There might be some chain under the bow, but unless you're using a planing or displacement anchor, it's not flying flat out behind me.

If you're so certain I'm wrong, show me the math. Show me how the drag on the anchor chain has lifted the anchor off the bottom and flung it out behind me like a kangaroo playing leap frog. Your physics are broken.

Yes, I said 5 knot current, that's because I'm a sailor not a trucker.

If you say I'm using all line and no chain it means I'm on a tiny 2000 lb or less boat (like my Bay Hen) and there is no windlass to jam, I just hand bomb the anchor because I'm not frail.

By the way, I'm practicing my anchoring techniques right now. Sand Bottom, all line


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

paulinnanaimo said:


> We see hundreds of power boaters anchored alone and rafted. I can't remember the last time I saw one dragging the anchor.


It is not the type of boat but the anchoring system in the present discussion. Of those you have seen how many do you think would be using a Danforth anchor with an all line rode? I take it the boats you refer to are located in the PNW.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

neeqness said:


> Were you able to see what kind of bottom there was too in fishfinder mode? I've been considering getting a fishfinder too lately but it's hard to narrow down which one I want to get...


You can easily see plants and rocks. You can see soft mud. Clay and sand look the same though. It also looks ahead and behind so you can see if the bottom is flat or inclined.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

ScottUK

You are right, I was not staying on topic. I thought that I was perceiving a bias against power boaters, a couple of posters seem to be suggesting there are lots of them around who don't have the knowledge or equipment to anchor properly. I was simply stating that I see many power boats and they are not dragging their anchors all over creation. I am not trying to start an argument.


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

BryceGTX said:


> I said "after it sets". Most every anchor test includes a test at 3:1 scope. So this is not unusual.
> Bryce


Agreed, a lot of anchors work really well if you assume that they set properly, at least until the current or wind change.


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

Small power boats are relatively light displacement and small wind profile. They just don't need much of an anchor. More importantly, they almost never anchor 24/7/365 and beat it to the trailer or marina if conditions are not bright, sunny, and low winds. 

Danforths are great anchors in many conditions but I hate the damn things. They are a real PITA if you have to move them off the anchor roller. The bar or the flukes grab onto you, the boat or anything they can to make life difficult. The damn hinged flukes have a voracious appetite for fingers that can range from a nasty pinch to amputation. Have had a Danforth break loose with a change in the tide and wind and skip along the bottom not resetting. Have also had them bury so deep they had to be pulled out backwards by a diver, me. Still carry a broken down Fortress FX 23 as a back up anchor and FX 16 as a stern/lunch hook. Give me a New style Non hinged folding anchor any day.

Anchored 24/7/365 on all chain including a tropical storm passage with 50 plus winds and never a problem. Always used a snubber tied to the anchor with rolling hitches and didn't have much of a problem getting it undone including the before mentioned storm. Tried a chain hook but it kept coming detached and very soon committed it to Poseidon. 

Rope road works just fine till you really need it. For the real cruiser who lives or dies with his anchor, rope is just too prone to failure from chafe. If you can set up the rode so it makes no bends greater than say 30 degrees and there is nothing that the line will come in contact with and there is nothing on the bottom that the rope will foul then rope could be a 24/7/365 solution. Have had the unfortunate experience of having to rely on rope during the passage of a downgraded former hurricane. Being stuck on the foredeck for a night periodically releasing the line to be sure the line didn't chafe and change the wear point as it passed through the chock is not something I ever want to do again. The only good thing was I had plenty of tail on the line so didn't run out of line to let out.

So Danforths are good, in fact great, anchors on some bottoms but they are still a PITA to handle they I'll avoid unless absolutely unavoidable. Small power boats can get by with POS anchors because they only anchor occasionally and almost never in less than ideal conditions. Rope rode will work fine IF it doesn't chafe through on something like a chock on board or a foul bottom. It is rude for someone with rope road to drop their hook on a 7-1 scope and wipe out half the anchorage for other boats that don't require such excessive swinging room. A rollling hitch works just fine for a snubber and the price is right.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

roverhi said:


> For the real cruiser who lives or dies with his anchor.


Everyone who's anchored lives or dies with his anchor. This "real cruiser" thing just doesn't exist. Real cruisers use all chain. And Real cruisers use mixed rode. So let's not get carried away. This is all about preference - not dogma.



roverhi said:


> Being stuck on the foredeck for a night periodically releasing the line to be sure the line didn't chafe and change the wear point as it passed through the chock is not something I ever want to do again.


Knowing how to use good chafe gear cuts way down on this problem...pardon the pun.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

smackdaddy said:


> This "real cruiser" thing just doesn't exist.


Yes it does - they are all on Blue Water Boats...

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> Yes it does - they are all on Blue Water Boats...
> 
> Mark


and armed to the teeth


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

colemj said:


> Yes it does - they are all on Blue Water Boats...
> 
> Mark


Exactly, Mate! Why is that hard for some to comprehend?


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

ScottUK said:


> Still waiting for that empirical data to support your claims.





BryceGTX said:


> THere is no doubt that there are more boats anchored with only line and a Danforth than any thing else in the US. Millions of little power boats have been using this solution for decades. And still do to this day. These boats do not run amuck in the anchorages just because a breeze comes up.
> 
> And no doubt, Chesepeake with some of its clay bottom anchorages will cause your Rocna to drag. Other areas in the Chesepeake hold fine.
> 
> ...


I think there is little doubt that Bryce is correct.

(a) He is not talking about sailing marinas. I stay in a power boat marina (cat has wide beam and shallow is OK), and ALL of the powerboats have pivoting fluke anchors. Not sure they they use them much. About half have chain. If we add trailer boats he is clearly correct. That is not to say many do not have other anchors types, but "most" is a safe bet if you count all powerboats.

(b) There was a large test in the Chesapeake Bay, Solomons Island 2-3 years ago that showed that no new gen or conventionally sized anchor OTHER than a pivoting fluke anchor could hold in severe conditions in the local soft mud. Over many, many trials, holding of 45-pound anchors was 500-700 pounds, which is not enough for a boat that carries a 45-pound hook. Only pivoting fluke anchors held over 1000 pounds, and they held much more.

So yes, there is empirical evidence. You need to look for it. I don't feel that this makes the Fortress the best anchor for all purposes, but the "empirical evidence" in this specific case is irrefutable. I have also tested anchors for magazine articles in various Chesapeake locations, and the trends shown in this study for soft mud are correct. Period. Hard bottoms, rocks and weeds are a separate subject. In most places a NG anchor is excellent in the Bay, and that is what I use 95% of the time.

The Fine Art Of Anchoring - Seaworthy Magazine - BoatUS

https://www.allatsea.net/best-anchor-for-mud/


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

pdqaltair said:


> I think there is little doubt that Bryce is correct.
> 
> (a) He is not talking about sailing marinas. I stay in a power boat marina (cat has wide beam and shallow is OK), and ALL of the powerboats have pivoting fluke anchors. Not sure they they use them much. About half have chain. If we add trailer boats he is clearly correct. That is not to say many do not have other anchors types, but "most" is a safe bet if you count all powerboats.
> 
> ...


Aw...no. Both of your citations appear to use chain and that was not the parameter as quoted below. The "evidence" presented is anecdotal and, at least for me, would not qualify as empirical.

"THere is no doubt that there are more boats anchored with *only line* and a Danforth than any thing else in the US. Millions of little power boats have been using this solution for decades. And still do to this day. These boats do not run amuck in the anchorages just because a breeze comes up.

And no doubt, Chesepeake with some of its clay bottom anchorages will cause your Rocna to drag. Other areas in the Chesepeake hold fine."


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

ScottUK said:


> Aw...no. Both of your citations appear to use chain and that was not the parameter as quoted below. The "evidence" presented is anecdotal and, at least for me, would not qualify as empirical.
> 
> "THere is no doubt that there are more boats anchored with *only line* and a Danforth than any thing else in the US. Millions of little power boats have been using this solution for decades. And still do to this day. These boats do not run amuck in the anchorages just because a breeze comes up.
> 
> And no doubt, Chesepeake with some of its clay bottom anchorages will cause your Rocna to drag. Other areas in the Chesepeake hold fine."


What? It was a large test witnessed by numerous independent experts. I repeated many of the test. This is empirical evidence for the type of mud Bryce referred to. No one has refuted the accuracy in that mud. You are simply refusing ignoring hard data you don't like. And no one said that NG anchors are not very good, just that they are not all things. There is also no reason that a NG maker could not sponsor a test in weeds and over hardpan. Yes, Fortress sponsored a test in A Chesapeake river where they knew they could excel. Isn't it smart to show your strength?

Part (b) did not refer to chain one way or the other. At the high load and long scope of these tests the effect is probably neutral or minor; chain lowers the lead angle just a little, though at over 1000 pounds it is clearly off the bottom, but chain also reduces the ability of an anchor to bury deeply (this has been proven empirically by many sources), which soft bottoms require. So the issue is really off the point.


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

pdqaltair said:


> You are simply refusing ignoring hard data you don't like.


You are using narrow parameters unlike the poster you have quoted. I do not like or dislike hard data. I am judging the data on the merits as it applies to the example it is compared. I find the comparison dubious to what was originally presented. The links you supplied were informative but still are anecdotal and could not, in my opinion, be called definitive.

The phrase "no doubt", which I did not introduce, is a high standard and would not applicable here.

It would seem from your last post we are in agreement about NG anchors, however it would appear the poster whose position you have been defending is of a differing opinion.


----------



## donradclife (May 19, 2007)

A lot of people who have seen only one side of the elephant. In their experience, their particular anchor held. I'm not going to say that they are wrong, I'm just going to say that real cruisers don't always to get to pick their anchoring conditions. Here's my experience.

I started my first long (13,000 miles, 12 months) cruise on a 10000 pound boat with no windlass. We decided on a mixed rode with 40 ft of5/16 HT chain, with Fortress FX23 as the bower anchor.

That choice proved wrong the second time we tried to anchor in firm sand on the West Coast of Mexico. The Fortress would not set after repeated attempts. We went with the backup Danforth, which set immediately and held well.

The next notable anchoring failure was two nights off the west side of Pitcairn in 35 ft of water, variable winds in the lee of the small island. We set in a sandy patch, but could see rocks on the bottom. On departure we pulled the Danforth to find that two of the three strands of rode had chafed through. Thanking our lucky stars that we had not had to spend a few months on Pitcairn waiting for the next supply ship, we shackled another 40 ft of chain onto the original and respliced the remains of the nylon to it.

That got us to an anchorage in the Marquesas, where we anchored in 20 ft and backed down with a good set. The wind died in the night and the boat wandered. The next morning we were having coffee in the cockpit when we noticed were were dragging past the other boats in the gentle morning breeze. We brought up the Danforth to find that the chain had wrapped around the bar.

For the rest of the trip to NZ, we had to be extremely careful anchoring around bommies, trying to keep the rope off the rocks. One night I had to anchor in 90 ft in Raitea, and spent the night on anchor watch.

After that cruise, we decided that our next boat would have a windlass and an all chain rode, and something besides a Danforth as a bower anchor. The new boat was 30,000 pounds loaded and came with a 20kg genuine Bruce. Chafe was not a problem, but the Bruce proved undersized and too many times we had to set a Danforth Hi Tensile as a second anchor in softer ground or high winds or reversing current. We carried a Fortress FX 37 as a storm anchor, but never assembled it in 15 years and 100,000 miles. In Turkey we upgraded the Bower to a 60 lb Buegel, which was much better setting in weed, but still occasionally dragged. Given my more recent experience with a Manson 60 and a large Spade, I wouldn't hesitate to switch to a Rocna, Spade or Manson, which not only have high holding power, but reset quickly and reliably on current or wind shifts.

One last data point was last month, where I had to park a 70 ft raceboat for a couple of days in 20 ft in a narrow channel with reversing current and wind against tide. Being a raceboat, all it had was a Fortress FX 85, so I borrowed a 40 lb Danforth. I set the Danforth off the bow and the Fortress of the stern. It took 3 tries to get the Fortress to set, which biases me a bit more against it as an all round anchor.

Almost any anchor and rode will work in good holding without sharp rocks, and the pull in one direction If that's all you have to anchor in, most times you will be fine (although one time in Cabo I set an anchor to keep off the fuel pier, and dragged into it because I had hooked a short piece of drainpipe). Its when you have soupy mud (of the Naval Academy), heavy weeds (in a lot of the Med), coral rubble (the Saints), or a strong reversing current (the Hudson river off the 79th st boat basin), and wind against tide that you will challenge your anchoring system.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

donradclife said:


> .....two nights off the west side of Pitcairn in 35 ft.....One night I had to anchor in 90 ft in Raitea.....


Good post.
Thanks.
How did you like Pitcarin, and did you come from Easter?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

donradclife said:


> A lot of people who have seen only one side of the elephant. In their experience, their particular anchor held. I'm not going to say that they are wrong, I'm just going to say that real cruisers don't always to get to pick their anchoring conditions. Here's my experience&#8230;.


donradclife, excellent post. Parallels my more limited experience as well.

For those who actually cruise to their great beyond, NG anchors and lots of chain, is the best combo. Daforth's are great anchors for the right conditions. But they are not the best bower for the range of possible anchoring challenges cruisers face.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

The holding power of new generation anchors and the chafe resistance of chain are both very significant to the original post, but it seems to me this thread has covered a bit more than the scope of the original post.

One thing we have going on is this concept of a real cruiser. It's not something that has just popped up, it's been present throughout most of the thread in some form.

In my opinion, many (possibly most?) of us are not this idealised version of a real cruiser. We're day sailors, week enders, racers, voyagers and fake cruisers. If I was a new sailor and read and believed much of the content of this thread, I might be led to believe that holding power and chafe resistance are the only considerations in anchor selection, because that's what real cruisers are most concerned with.

But for practical day to day anchoring for an average sailor (like me), ease of handling, ease of stowage, weight, complexity of systems and cost are all going to be significant and competing concerns, which is likely why so many power boaters are using Danforth and fibre rode. They're not wrong, they just aren't anchored in a hurricane in a 5 knot current with an obstacle course down stream of them.

I anchor quite a bit, but not generally in the scenarios presented. I generally remove my engine and stow it when I'm sailing because it causes drag in a place where I don't want drag, I generally sail single handed, I don't have an autopilot, and I sail in confined waters, so my anchor comes out a lot.

I'll chuck an anchor over the side to shorten sail, place or remove my outboard, make tea, eat lunch or see if the fish are biting. A lot of the time I use my anchor, I don't even really care that much if it holds, as long as it slows me down and swings my bow into the wind. What I'm most concerned with, is ease of use. I don't want a process that is going to take more than 5 minutes, need electricity or an engine, takes up tons of space or is so heavy it weighs me down or messes up my trim.

My point here is that, while all chain and new generation anchors might be best in some situations, such as maximum holding power for real cruising, there are many situations where it might not necessarily be the most practical solution. If it was, you would see a lot more bass boats trimmed down by the head with giant windlasses, hundreds of feet of chain and Rocna anchors.

Some power boaters, especially the fishing crowd have possibly done as much anchoring as real cruisers and I doubt they are all wrong about their chosen anchoring set ups.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I don’t know what a “real cruiser” is Arcb. And there is definitely a wide range of boats, uses, areas and conditions that we could include here. Perhaps it would be more useful to have separate threads for them all.

I do know that when I anchor I want to stay put, whether it be for lunch, or for weeks at a time, or through a gale. To me, a good anchoring system is one that is matched to the boat and crew’s capabilities, and to the expect anchoring conditions. Ease of use is essential, otherwise it won’t be used properly. Storage of anchor/rode is part of that, as is cost. I don’t see any of these factors in conflict with much of the discussion here.

To me, a good bower (as opposed to a storm anchor system, which is a different beast) is one that can be easily deployed and retrieved. It is of sufficient size and design for the range of conditions that one can reasonably expect to encounter while “out there.” 

If “out there” is around the bay in known waters and bottoms, then it’s pretty easy to pick the perfect anchor/rode for the occasion. You can know how much rode (rope, chain or any combo) you need, and you can know what is the best anchor for the bottom. 

If “out there” takes you beyond the edges of your explored map, then you need to cover a much wider range of anchoring conditions. That still includes balancing all the factors you mentioned such as storage, complexity, and yes, cost. Same calculus, but with greater range or uncertainty. 

There’s no such thing as the perfect solution — for anything in life. But there are better and worse choices depending on the circumstances. Matching your anchoring system to your boat and crew is no different than carrying the right sail or engine for your boat. Carrying a 2-pound anchor on a 4000-pound boat is as foolish as using a handkerchief on a 25-foot mast as a sail. It’s simply a poor choice — unless you have no other option, or really don’t need to move the boat with the sail.

To be clear, I’ve repeatedly said a Danforth-style anchor is a great anchor for the right conditions. It’s why I carry two (a Danforth and a Fortress). And rope/chain rodes are also just fine when used correctly. My second and third rodes are rope/chain. To me, this discussion is not about finding some sort of universal BEST ANCHOR SYSTEM for everyone. It’s about understanding your needs based on the boat, the crew and the expected anchoring conditions.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Mike, that post wasn't aimed at you at all, it just happened to come after your post chronologically. 

I personally would look for very different features in a working anchor than I would look for in a cruising anchor, different again for fishing.

I also would look for different features in an anchor for an 80 foot steely than I would a 19' dinghy.

Maybe you missed them, but there were some comments that suggested that power boaters and fake cruisers didn't know what anchoring system was best for them, because it wouldn't work for a very specific type of boating that many boaters don't engage in and have no intention of engaging in.

I have travelled well off the known map and used a variety of anchoring methods ranging from steel anchors and steel chain, holes drilled in river rocks, concrete blocks, rope and navy anchors, intentional grounding, stopping in shore ice. They all work. 

For anchoring a mid size cruising yacht in an anchorage that is exposed to current, wind or swell, yes, I agree, a new generation anchor with chain will provide the best holding and lowest risk of chafe.

However, if some one chooses say rope -chain and a Danforth, and seeks out a more protected anchorage, especially on a smaller boat I don't think any one can call them wrong, or misinformed.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I didn’t take your comments as aimed at me in particular Arcb, nor do I take them negatively. I just thought you raised some interesting points that were worth exploring further. My comments are around principles, not specifics, when selecting an anchor system.

I don’t believe (or say) that everyone must have a NG anchor and chain rode. I do say NG anchors cover a wider range of bottoms than Danforth or old plow anchors, as do chain rodes. But if you’re only anchoring in substrate appropriate for Danforth-style anchors, then those are likely your best choice. 

Likewise weight, storage and ease of deployment/retrieval; all of these must be matched appropriately. It would be foolish for a 26-foot boat to carry my anchor system — not b/c it wouldn’t hold great, but b/c it can’t be carried or used appropriately.

My one assumption (and perhaps this is where we disagree…?) is that when anchoring, the point is to keep the boat from moving (very far ). You seem to be suggesting a fisher, or other boaters, don’t really care if their anchor actually holds them in place. That, to me, is not anchoring. It is dragging some weight to slow your boat down. This is a different application and my comments don’t really apply.

My observation is that most small to medium sized powerboats don’t spend much time anchoring. Hence, they don’t need a good anchoring system. That’s not a criticism. That’s matching systems to their needs and uses. It would be foolish to do otherwise.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I think we are mostly agreeing.

I'm not saying fishermen never care if their anchor holds, but there are situations where they might not care very much.

I'll give a sailing example rather than a fishing example, as this is a sailing site (although it would be better if it had a fly fishing section).  

Say I'm sailing in a wetland. Wind comes up, I need to reef, but I don't have the sea room to leave the tiller. I carry a steel grate for this purpose. No pointy bits or snags at all. The weight of the steel grate, swings the bow into the wind, taking the drive out of the sails, and slows the drift rate. I put in my reef and haul the anchor back in, unconcerned about snags and unconcerned about having to get my engine out of the locker to break the anchor free and unconcerned about my lack of winch or windlass on board. In short, due to boat design, I don't want my anchor stuck on the bottom.

In my observations, snag free designs are popular for working anchors, where the boats drift rate is observable and controllable. The better grapnel anchors have flukes that are designed to bend if the load gets too great on them. Once back on board, you just bend them back into shape. Some fishermen just use coffee cans filled with concrete, if they drift too far, they just haul it up with one hand, reposition and Chuck it over the side again.

Obviously, this isn't what you want for Pitcairn Island, which is really what this thread is about, but I am just illustrating why having some kind of snag free low holding power anchor might be preferable in certain situations. 

On the topic of Pitcairn, I wonder what kind of anchor and rode the bounty used?


----------



## Deina (Aug 28, 2017)

> On the topic of Pitcairn, I wonder what kind of anchor and rode the bounty used?


It looks like an early version of an admiralty anchor with rope rode.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

What cracks me up is that many of the "real cruisers" who insist that an electric windlass is critical kit to be considered "real" (so that all chain is doable), simultaneously decry electric furlers, winches, etc. Yeeeaaahhhh.

That's why I typically don't pay much attention to "real cruisers".


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

70 years of fishing under my belt and never, once, saw anyone use a coffee can filled with concrete for an anchor. I guess that must be an up north kinda thing. 

I have used homemade anchors made from welded rebar that we used to fish the ice breakers and jetties near the mouth of Delaware Bay for tautog. The beauty of these was that we knew they were going to snag the rocks and we could usually retrieve them by just backing down on the engine and bending the flukes till it broke free. However, if it snagged tight, it was not a big loss - we always had several spares onboard. 

I have a 6-foot nylon parachute on the boat, which I've only used once, that is probably the best sea anchor anyone could imagine - the boat damned near stops dead in it's tracks when it's deployed from the bow. This would allow you so easily put in a reef or two and during the time it takes, I doubt that the boat would move 20 feet.

Good luck,

Gary


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Up here on the left coast the deepwater may be moving 6 ,,8 knots, dead in the water may not mean much. If you can't get the hook into the substrate any drag means maybe half a ton of weed sliding along the bottom..And then there are big old tangled rolls of logging cables and sunken logs. If you haven't figured out how to upset and retrieve you just cut and go. the only advantage of rope rode.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I don't think the concrete can thing is an up north thing, I see folks from both sides of the boarder using them. However, where I see them used is primarily in swift flowing rivers. Almost like a poor man's trolling motor, except it's slowing you down instead of speeding you up, and providing directional stability (bow into the current) at the same time.

Another group of folks that like there concrete anchors are the CG. Basically, they pour a bunch of concrete into a ply wood form, stick a bar with an eye bent into it in the middle, then let the hole thing dry. Buoys, even in strong currents are often anchored using concrete blocks.

The key to me is, whatever anchoring system you use, you need to understand it's strengths and it's limitations. 

Most importantly, don't anchor over night anywhere that you doubt your ground tackles ability to stand up to the conditions. Same as you wouldn't carry too much sail in a blow, regardless of what boat you were sailing.

I'm of the opinion, the boat doesn't make the sailor, and I have never seen any convincing evidence to the contrary. Although choice of boat does seem to be very important to the cruiser.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

travlin-easy said:


> 70 years of fishing under my belt and never, once, saw anyone use a coffee can filled with concrete for an anchor. I guess that must be an up north kinda thing.


There's one in the community dock box on my little lake. I've never seen anyone use it, but it's there.

(Note: Minnesota probably counts as "up north")


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)




----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> I think we are mostly agreeing.
> ...
> Say I'm sailing in a wetland. Wind comes up, I need to reef, but I don't have the sea room to leave the tiller. I carry a steel grate for this purpose. No pointy bits or snags at all. The weight of the steel grate, swings the bow into the wind, taking the drive out of the sails, and slows the drift rate. I put in my reef and haul the anchor back in, unconcerned about snags and unconcerned about having to get my engine out of the locker to break the anchor free and unconcerned about my lack of winch or windlass on board. In short, due to boat design, I don't want my anchor stuck on the bottom.


Interesting scenarios Arcb. We aren't disagreeing. I just don't think what you're talking about is anchoring -- at least not in the way I understand anchoring. You're using a drag device to slow down or orient the boat. This, to my mind, is a different thing than anchoring.

BTW Smack, my windlass is manual. Guess I'm not a real cruiser either .


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Holy crap, I didn't realize the emphasis on manual/power winch qualifications .I had an single action ,3'handle, Lunenburg special. Traded it pound for pound for lead borrowed from a Navy dive team. Made 1 and a half links per stroke of 1/2" chain ,all 26 fathoms of it before the nylon rode. Made it safely up and down the coast Victoria/ Alaska for 40 years. Only got hydraulics a few years before I retired to the homestead. Does that mean I don't qualify for your brownie cookie award. Please, Smack I won't be able to sleep , knowing I don't measure up


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Hey - don't blame me fellas. I didn't set the requirement. My windlass is manual too.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Looks like the real cruisers here have manual windlasses...it's always the girls job anyway. So smakky where's yer skirt?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The only good definition of a cruiser, is one who spends more time on their boat than they do on their computer at home. The more defensive one is about it, they less likely they are one.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

aeventyr60 said:


> So smakky where's yer skirt?


Caught in my windlass.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Caught in my windlass.


See, that's the problem with the modern production skirts. Too long, too many dangly bits. Baubles galore. The real skirt wearers only have something that is mid thigh. Safer. Made to do the job properly. If you switch to a better version, don't go commando!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

isn't it "interesting" how all these posts started with basically "why all chain"?


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Yes, I said 5 knot current, that's because I'm a sailor not a trucker.


Perhaps you might qualify your sailing experience to a somewhat limited area.

Most all of the major rivers including the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee Have mile markers that are Statute miles, not nautical miles.

Oh.. and the Atlantic intercoastal water way from Florida keys to New York is marked off in Statute miles, not nautical miles.

Oh.. and the Gulf intercoastal water way from Texas to Florida keys are marked in Statute miles rather than nautical miles.

I suppose you could do all conversions to Nautical miles. But don't expect anyone you are taking to to understand what mile marker you are at!!!

On the other hand, when I use the explorer charts in the Bahamas, I have no issue using nautical miles from the Mercator charts.

As home work.. tell us why they are in Statute miles rather than perhaps your idea..

Good luck..
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Show me the math I don't believe you. In my response I specifically said I was using chain, you have switched to line in a desperate attempt to dig yourself out of a credibility hole. Go back and read my post. Quote me, don't paraphrase.
> 
> If I power up on a dragging anchor and chain until neutral speed over the bottom is acheived, all I have done is take the strain off the anchor chain. There might be some chain under the bow, but unless you're using a planing or displacement anchor, it's not flying flat out behind me.
> 
> If you're so certain I'm wrong, show me the math. Show me how the drag on the anchor chain has lifted the anchor off the bottom and flung it out behind me like a kangaroo playing leap frog. Your physics are broken


Oh.. you have yet to see what chain and an anchor does in 5 mph current.
Bryce


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> Perhaps you might qualify your sailing experience to a somewhat limited area.
> 
> Most all of the major rivers including the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee Have mile markers that are Statute miles, not nautical miles.
> 
> ...


No no. You are the expert, show me why the big rivers like the Congo, Nile, Amazon, Mckenzie, Yangtze and St Lawrence are measured in statute miles.

Please, enlighten me with your worldly view.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> I don't really understand the dispute that BryceGTX thinks he is having. A Danforth is a great anchor - for the right conditions. Mud, sand, soft clay&#8230; basically any substrate where it can penetrate and set its flukes is where it will outperform most others.
> 
> A few years ago I moved to a new-gen style anchor (Rocna in my case, but I put them all in the same category). This single anchor covers pretty much the same range of bottom conditions as my previous danforth.
> 
> In my observation, most small to mid-sized powerboats do use danforths as their bower. In my observation, most of these boats rarely anchor at all. The few that do, spend small amounts of time .


My most critical point in this discussion is the concept of weight. Rather than a 88 pound Rocna, consider an 88 pound Danforth. Such a Danforth would quite probably hold or out hold the Rocna in any condition.

One advantage these anchors typically have over a Danforth is weight. There is no doubt, a heavier anchor will tend to penetrate the bottom better than a light anchor. And pressure versus area will also be critical.

So if I want my Danforth to penetrate like a Rocna, I'll duct tape a size 27 battery to it and throw it over board. Typically, i will only need to do this in hard mud or clay.
Bryce


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> Oh.. you have yet to see what chain and an anchor does in 5 mph current.
> Bryce


Well, I certainly have, and your descriptions makes no sense whatsoever. And sailors use knots. Small powerboaters use mph &#8230; perhaps a small powerboat behaves in the odd way you're describing, but not cruising boats.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

```

```



Arcb said:


> No no. You are the expert, show me why the big rivers like the Congo, Nile, Amazon, Mckenzie, Yangtze and St Lawrence are measured in statute miles.
> 
> Please, enlighten me with your worldly view.


The difference is, I have actually travelled the rivers and intercoastal water ways.. My point clearly is there are places that miles are the appropriate measuring units and nautical miles are useless.

Do you also use knots when you rent a car in Europe because you do not like kilometers?
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> Well, I certainly have, and your descriptions makes no sense whatsoever. And sailors use knots. Small powerboaters use mph &#8230; perhaps a small powerboat behaves in the odd way you're describing, but not cruising boats.


I never associated knots with large or small boats. People use the appropriate units of measure for where they operate. Interestingly enough, Great Lakes charts never had a nautical mile scale on the charts until only a few years ago.

One of my biggest gripes about chain is that in heavy current, the chain/anchor drags under the hull.. I have already pointed this out earlier in this thread. This is such a common point, I am surprise anyone with any experience has not seen this.

Not sure I would call my 25000 pound 40 foot Catalina Sailboat a small boat. Perhaps your idea of large and small is a bit different.
Bryce


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> My most critical point in this discussion is the concept of weight. Rather than a 88 pound Rocna, consider an 88 pound Danforth. Such a Danforth would quite probably hold or out hold the Rocna in any condition.


Here is where you demonstrate your lack of experience Bryce. You are simply wrong to suggest a Danforth will out hold a Rocna (or any NG anchor) "in any condition." I don't need to re-write all the reasons why your statement is clearly false. Just re-read the many posts in this thread on this topic.

A Danforth-style anchor, no matter how big, will perform poorly in many conditions which are quite common (outside the Chesapeake and ICW I guess).


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> I never associated knots with large or small boats. People use the appropriate units of measure for where they operate. Interestingly enough, Great Lakes charts never had a nautical mile scale on the charts until only a few years ago.
> Bryce


This again demonstrates your lack of experience. I have dozens of old charts of the Great Lakes with nautical mile scale. I don't have any without such a scale. I don't recall if they have mph scales. Most of the new ones are Metric and nautical mile (no mph).

&#8230; I am Canadian and have sailed the Great Lakes for the previous 17 years.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> This again demonstrates your lack of experience. I have dozens of old charts of the Great Lakes with nautical mile scale. I don't have any without such a scale. I don't recall if they have mph scales. Most of the new ones are Metric and nautical mile (no mph).
> 
> &#8230; I am Canadian and have sailed the Great Lakes for the previous 17 years.


I have Great Lakes charts dated back to 1959.. no nautical miles. Your charts are relatively new. And yes, I have been cruising the Great Lakes that long.. you are a bit new at it.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> Here is where you demonstrate your lack of experience Bryce. You are simply wrong to suggest a Danforth will out hold a Rocna (or any NG anchor) "in any condition." I don't need to re-write all the reasons why your statement is clearly false. Just re-read the many posts in this thread on this topic.
> 
> A Danforth-style anchor, no matter how big, will perform poorly in many conditions which are quite common (outside the Chesapeake and ICW I guess).


Be careful to use "Danforth-style".. There is very much differences between true Danforths and "Danforth-style" anchors.

This is one of my biggest beefs with the anchor tests. Anyone with experience with a True Danforth, will never accept a "Danforth-style" anchor.

Bryce


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> I have Great Lakes charts dated back to 1959.. no nautical miles. Your charts are relatively new. And yes, I have been cruising the Great Lakes that long.. you are a bit new at it.
> Bryce


Maybe you just need to learn how to use a chart. Get any great lakes chart out.

On the left side of the chart, and on the right side, you will see a freaky concept- latitude. You can measure a minute of latitude any where in the world, with your dividers, and that minute of latitude will equal one nautical mile.

Brilliant, you have scale, and now know how to use nautical miles like a big boy.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Bryce, you might have difficulty finding a worse person to have this discussion with on this forum.
> 
> I assume you saw the little boats in my signature and decided to educate me, but its not really going so well.
> 
> Keep it up bud, I am having fun with this.


I don't have any clue what your boat is, and I don't really care. Your words speak for themselves.
Bryce


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> I don't have any clue what your boat is, and I don't really care. Your words speak for themselves.
> Bryce


For my next lesson, I will teach you depth!


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Maybe you just need to learn how to use a chart. Get any great lakes chart out.
> 
> On the left side of the chart, and on the right side, you will see a freaky concept- latitude. You can measure a minute of latitude any where in the world, with your dividers, and that minute of latitude will equal one nautical mile.
> 
> Brilliant, you have scale, and now know how to use nautical miles like a big boy.


Look very carefully at the Great Lakes charts.. they are polyconic charts.. you cannot use longitude and latitude on polyconic charts to get distance. That solution only works with Mercator charts..

For polyconic charts, you must use the scale like all us big boys. On the other hand, just recently Mercator charts have been released for the Great Lakes. Perhaps you might find them useful.
Bryce


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> Look very carefully at the Great Lakes charts.. they are polyconic charts.. you cannot use longitude and latitude on polyconic charts to get distance. That solution only works with Mercator charts..
> Bryce


Buddy, I think you are using a road map, or possibly a decorative place matt.

Buy nautical charts.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Buddy, I think you are using a road map, or possibly a decorative place matt.
> 
> Buy nautical charts.


Polyconic charts are used in the northern hemisphere because the longitude lines become so close together in the northern hemisphere as to make a Mercator chart useless. That makes measuring distances difficult. A polyconic chart solves this issue.

Perhaps you need to bone up a bit on your nautical charts.
Bryce


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> Be careful to use "Danforth-style".. There is very much differences between true Danforths and "Danforth-style" anchors.
> 
> This is one of my biggest beefs with the anchor tests. Anyone with experience with a True Danforth, will never accept a "Danforth-style" anchor.


My words apply equally to true Danforth. Bryce, with every word you demonstrate that you have very limited experience outside of your own area and with larger cruising boats.

And again, I really don't understand what it is you're beefing about. Danforth (and Danforth-style, which encompass other excellent anchors like Fortress) are excellent anchors in the right conditions. They are poor choices for many other conditions.

This is not an insult to Danforth anchors, or Danforth users. It's just reality.

As for the lack of nautical scale, I have yet to see a nautical chart that does not have a nautical mile scale. Are you sure you're using a nautical chart and not a topo map or a Bathymetric fishing map?


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Tell me that doesn't say projection: Mercator.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

:eek


Arcb said:


> Tell me that doesn't say projection: Mercator.


Yep.. that is a newer chart.
Bryce


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> :eek
> 
> Yep.. that is a newer chart.
> Bryce


That's an old chart on my wall from 1989 last updated in 1991


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Here is a link to all the NOAA Great Lakes charts. Show me one that uses a polyconic projection. And while you're at it, show me one that doesn't have a nautical mile scale:

Great Lakes NOAA Nautical Charts

The only references I can find to Great Lakes polyconic projection charts are in the historic archives that date back to the 1930s.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> My words apply equally to true Danforth. Bryce, with every word you demonstrate that you have very limited experience outside of your own area and with larger cruising boats.
> 
> And again, I really don't understand what it is you're beefing about. Danforth (and Danforth-style, which encompass other excellent anchors like Fortress) are excellent anchors in the right conditions. They are poor choices for many other conditions.
> 
> This is not an insult to Danforth anchors, or Danforth users. It's just reality.


My point about anchors is quite simple. And you seem to never endingly argue this. That equal weight anchors, the "true Danforth" with some exceptions always out holds the same weight Rocna.

Please look closely at the anchor tests, for a given size boat, the Rocna always outweighs the Danforth by a factor of two at least. Let's see a 25 pound Rocna against a 25 pound "True Danforth".

Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> Here is a link to all the NOAA Great Lakes charts. Show me one that uses a polyconic projection. And while you're at it, show me one that doesn't have a nautical mile scale:
> 
> Great Lakes NOAA Nautical Charts
> 
> The only references I can find to Great Lakes polyconic projection charts are in the historic archives that date back to the 1930s.


How about this one from your web site.. notice the words

"Polyconic projection"


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> That's an old chart on my wall from 1989 last updated in 1991


Lol... just because it has long/lat... does not mean you can use it for distance..

You really need to learn the difference between a polyconic projection and Mercator projection..


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> Here is a link to all the NOAA Great Lakes charts. Show me one that uses a polyconic projection. And while you're at it, show me one that doesn't have a nautical mile scale:
> 
> Great Lakes NOAA Nautical Charts
> 
> The only references I can find to Great Lakes polyconic projection charts are in the historic archives that date back to the 1930s.


How about thus one. No nautical miles on the scale!!!!


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> My point about anchors is quite simple. And you seem to never endingly argue this. That equal weight anchors, the "true Danforth" with some exceptions always out holds the same weight Rocna.
> 
> Please look closely at the anchor tests, for a given size boat, the Rocna always outweighs the Danforth by a factor of two at least. Let's see a 25 pound Rocna against a 25 pound "True Danforth".


I have never said anything about weight as the principle factor. Choosing an anchor based solely on weight is idiotic. I choose my anchor to match my boat, my systems, and my intended anchoring needs.

Obviously a Danforth is lighter. It's intrinsic to the design. A Fortress is even lighter than a Danforth. I haven't compared the weights of aluminum Spade anchors, but I bet they will come in close to, or lighter than, your Danforth of equivalent holding power. So what?

A 25-pound Rocna will usually hold far better in weedy or hard bottom than 25-pound Danforth. Why? b/c you won't be able to set the Danforth. In sand or clay, the Danforth wins hands down. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Your argument is like saying a hammer is the best tool for every job, from pounding in nails to planing a piece of 2x4.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> How about thus one. No nautical miles on the scale!!!!


Link to the actual chart. But if it's from the NOAA collection it's a Mercantor projection. It's intrinsic to the latitude range.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> Lol... just because it has long/lat... does not mean you can use it for distance..
> 
> You really need to learn the difference between a polyconic projection and Mercator projection..


Are you telling me I cant navigate, by measuring minutes of latitude off a Mercator projection chart, and using them as nautical miles.

Please expand. We already determined this is a Mercator projection chart.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> How about this one from your web site.. notice the words
> 
> "Polyconic projection"


You're right. I'm wrong. Good on you.

How many are Polyconic, and why the mix?


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Are you telling me I cant navigate, by measuring minutes of latitude off a Mercator projection chart, and using them as nautical miles.
> 
> Please expand. We already determined this is a Mercator projection chart.


If you carefully look at the chart I showed, you will notice the Lake Huron chart says polyconic projection. This was loaded by the web site provided.

Please look carefully at the longitude and latitude lines on the Lake Huron chart. They are curved!!! On a Mercator projection, they are straight.

This is charting 101..
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> I have never said anything about weight as the principle factor. Choosing an anchor based solely on weight is idiotic. I choose my anchor to match my boat, my systems, and my intended anchoring needs.


No kidding you are not arguing weight.. I AM!!

Sizing based on weight is idiotic????

Really... perhaps you forgot how you sized you Rocna!!!

A size 15 Rocna is 15 kg.. if that is not size based on weight.. I don't know what is.. are you saying your sizing is idiotic?
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> You're right. I'm wrong. Good on you.
> 
> How many are Polyconic, and why the mix?


They have been polyconic for as long as I remember. And all Great Lakes charts are traditionally ALL polyconic. I know there are a few Mercator.. but I don't use them because of the obvious problems.
Bryce


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> No kidding you are not arguing weight.. I AM!!
> 
> Sizing based on weight is idiotic????
> 
> ...


Yes... choosing an anchor based solely on weight is idiotic.

Each anchor has a set of design parameters, of which weight is one factor. They are often categorized by weight, but that's based on the DESIGN of the anchor. This is why a properly sized Bruce will be a different weight than a CQR, a Manson, and yes a Danforth. A properly-sized aluminum Spade is lighter than a steel Spade. Weight is only one factor in the design.

If all you do is buy based on weight, then everyone should buy that 2-pound mushroom to hold any size boat.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> If you carefully look at the chart I showed, you will notice the Lake Huron chart says polyconic projection. This was loaded by the web site provided.
> 
> Please look carefully at the longitude and latitude lines on the Lake Huron chart. They are curved!!! On a Mercator projection, they are straight.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree, you lack the basic knowledge to select the appropriate chart.

In Search and Rescue circles, they call people like you a statistic.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes... choosing an anchor based solely on weight is idiotic.
> 
> Each anchor has a set of design parameters, of which weight is one factor. They are often categorized by weight, but that's based on the DESIGN of the anchor. This is why a properly sized Bruce will be a different weight than a CQR, a Manson, and yes a Danforth. A properly-sized aluminum Spade is lighter than a steel Spade. Weight is only one factor in the design.
> 
> If all you do is buy based on weight, then everyone should buy that 2-pound mushroom to hold any size boat.


You are stating the obvious...

Now consider that someone may have to lift this anchor, perhaps everyday.. then weight will be important.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Yes, I agree, you lack the basic knowledge to select the appropriate chart.
> 
> In Search and Rescue circles, they call people like you a statistic.


In my years of boating.. I have towed numerous boaters to safety. Thankfully never have been a statistic.

However, let's get back to the discussion why all US water way mile markers and intercoastal mile markers are Statute miles rather than nautical miles..


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> You are stating the obvious...
> 
> Now consider that someone may have to lift this anchor, perhaps everyday.. then weight will be important.
> Bryce


Yes, of course it is important. You are stating the obvious &#8230; and it is what I've said over and over. Your bower must be matched to your boat and crew's systems and capabilities. AND it must be matched to your expected cruising ground.

As I've written here, it would be silly to put my anchoring system (55# Rocna and 250' of 3/8" chain) on a 26' boat. It would hold amazingly in most conditions, but is completely unusable for that boat and crew. Therefore, this would be the wrong choice.

So too with your anchor design choice. It would be silly to carry only a Danforth in an area of hard-packed bottom or one where it is very weedy. This would be the wrong choice.


----------



## Towguy (May 8, 2016)

Going back to those drag anchors Arcb talked about,,sounds like someone found a good ,,summer use for Jam-pot curling stones....also for a easy to use,temp anchor,I have been welding three cultivator shovels together,with a short length of chain( just to sorta get back on topic here) bigger shovels for heavier boat and smaller ones or canoes and such..great for fishing.. bin making these for for years....Ralph


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

It’s like reading an ass kicking contest between 2 one legged guys, while they of course are wearing anchor chain


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Surprised that nobody brought up the care and feeding of your anchoring system and the related components. This was the week or so to get the chain and rode off the boat and send the chain to the glavanizing shop.

Stretched out on the dock you can check out the various stages of wear on some Anchor brand G4 Hi Test chain. Last galavanizng was in January 12, and I'd guess the chain has 1500 nights in that time on various bottoms, sand, mud, rock, mixed broken coral and the like. The big wear factor hear, is that there were many tin mines in the area. Tin eats/reacts with the galvanizing and will turn the chain black and then accelerate wear. In the picture below you can see the black part of the chain which was on the bottom for 7 weeks, then the mid portion which sees little wear and then the bottom portion which sits in the chain locker.

Chain is 250' long, followed by 275' of 3 strand rode. Spiced eye with thimble connects the two. All the shackles came off easy as I had remembered to lube the threads with some grease. I stretched out the rope rode, inspected and then took the twist out.

I decided to retire my fancy Italian bullet swivel this year. Made the anchor come up over the roller nice and easy. Was never really that thrilled with having the swivel. Good service out of this kit, still looks good, but I can't see whats going on inside...who knows how much longer it will be good? 

Other items..I usually cut off the first link or two as this is where I see the most wear on the chain. There are considerable portions of the chain where the G4 stamp is showing. So think there is still a considerable amount of service life left in this chain. I've seen some pretty horrible looking chain out here. Think the key is end for ending every 2 years or so, get the chain regalvanized before the huge rust process starts...

Cleaned out the chain locker, repainted the sampson posts below, scarfed in a new piece of wood in the lower portion of the locker, tabbed and glassed that as well. Rewired the bow nav lights too. Gave the windlass a good cleaning and lube as well. A few more coats of paint on the chain as a marker and I'm good to go for a few years.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> As I've written here, it would be silly to put my anchoring system (55# Rocna and 250' of 3/8" chain) on a 26' boat. It would hold amazingly in most conditions, but is completely unusable for that boat and crew. Therefore, this would be the wrong choice.


Let's just look at your 55 pound Rocna and chain. Looking at manufacturers recommendations this would be appropriate for a 40 footer.

Now if we use a Danforth high tensile. The recommendation is a 12 pound anchor for your boat.

Perhaps you now see the issue with weight. A 12 pound anchor will not have the penetration of a 55 pound anchor. This is clearly is an issue with comparing anchors.

Rather than use a 55 pound anchor as you have, I just have a bit lighter anchor at 35 pounds.

The difference is my 35 pound anchor is rated for a 64 foot boat. Yours is rated for a 40 footer. If I had to replace my 35 pounder with Rocna, it would require either an 88 pound or 115 pound.

Now if you are suggesting that I have severely overrated my anchor and therefore unable to handle it, but somehow you can handle a heavier anchor because it is rated for your boat, perhaps you should explain.
Thanks,
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> So too with your anchor design choice. It would be silly to carry only a Danforth in an area of hard-packed bottom or one where it is very weedy. This would be the wrong choice.


So explain which type of weedy bottom are you talking about. Is it the type where an anchor gets to the bottom and easily holds in 60 mph winds.

Is it the heavy weed that easily holds to 30 mph winds.

Or is it the weed that has no strength and it lets loose in 10 mph winds because the weeds and roots provide no anchoring bite.

Now the mud. Is it hard mud that no anchor penetrates.

Is hard mud that a heavy anchor can just penetrate, but a light anchor doesn't?

Or is it hard mud that any anchor penetrates.

As far as I see, the penetration of an anchor is highly dependent on its weight and it is one reason I do not use a Fortress.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> AND it must be matched to your expected cruising grounds.


You sound like the type of guy that has littered his boats with anchors. A lot of anchors. It's doubtful that you will ever swap your 55 pound anchor for another. It is just to much of a pain on a day to day basis. So every day anchoring is a compromise.

However, tell me about your aft anchor. Because when an aft anchor is required, it must be at least as good holding as the bow anchor. Clearly you will never deploy a 55 pound anchor and chain from your stern. Which by definition means your aft anchor is a severe compromise in your discussion.

Perhaps your limited cruising grounds has never required an aft anchor?
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> No doubt? Prove it then. I don't believe there is a single example in our entire marina. Maybe there is an exception or two that I haven't noticed, but you have a long way to go to get to the most common.


The highest number of registered boats in the US is about 20 feet and under. I think this a well know statistic. You will not see these boats in your marina. And of course power boats outnumber sail by probably at least 10 to one in the US.

On the other hand, 20-30 foot power boats invariably come with Danforths and many 40 footers.

You no doubt will never see the hundreds of these boats even anchored because you will never make it into the shallow bays where these boats congregate. So you don't even know they exist!!!

However, on hot suny weekends these power boats from 15 to 40 feet head to their popular anchorages and amass by the hundreds. They will be out anchored in 20-30 mph winds and they won't even think twice about it.

So they are out running around anchoring in these winds when most sail boats don't go out due to winds!!!

No wonder you don't know about them.
Bryce


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Bryce think you analogy is not applicable. My other passion is fishing. So have owned several center consoles. Everything from trailer / rack storage boats to in water storage. Have also done transports for Grand Banks and cruised a friends Kady Krogan. 
Big divide is whether you sleep on the boat with the engine turned off. If you’re up and awake doing a reset is no biggy. Even if it means dropping the outboard(s) back down. If you’re asleep getting up, dressed, the snubbers off, the anchor up and resetting is a PIA. Once you see motor or sail sleeping at anchor the anchoring system and the anchors used are the same.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Bryce, with every post you simply illustrate how little you know about anchoring. All your questions/challenges have already been responded to by myself and others here, but you seem unable to comprehend. No point talking to someone like you (at least not about this topic).


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> ...when most sail boats don't go out due to winds!!!.....


This is all I needed to read to realize it's of zero value trying to debate this.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

BryceGTX said:


> On the other hand, 20-30 foot power boats invariably come with Danforths and many 40 footers.
> 
> You no doubt will never see the hundreds of these boats even anchored because you will never make it into the shallow bays where these boats congregate. So you don't even know they exist!!!
> 
> However, on hot suny weekends these power boats from 15 to 40 feet head to their popular anchorages and amass by the hundreds. They will be out anchored in 20-30 mph winds and they won't even think twice about it.


A couple months ago a freak weather system came through during the night in the Apostle Islands in Lake Superior. Eight boats broke free and ended up beached or against rocks. The Coast Guard reacted promptly and there were no injuries.

But&#8230;they were all power boats! And this is in an area that is predominately sailboats. I guess those undersized danforths and shallow bays don't make for such good anchoring.

Strong storm causes boats to wash up on Apostle Islands, strands boaters



BryceGTX said:


> So they are out running around anchoring in these winds when most sail boats don't go out due to winds!!!


???????????!


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Minnesail said:


> A couple months ago a freak weather system came through during the night in the Apostle Islands in Lake Superior. Eight boats broke free and ended up beached or against rocks. The Coast Guard reacted promptly and there were no injuries.
> 
> But&#8230;they were all power boats! And this is in an area that is predominately sailboats. I guess those undersized danforths and shallow bays don't make for such good anchoring.


Ah, I miss those Lake Superior storms :eek.

This past season, travelling ~1800 nm down the St. Lawrence, I helped save three large powerboats that were dragging to shore. And I watched two rafts of them drift out to sea (why do powerboaters love to raft so much??). I observed no sailboats dragging this season, although I certainly have seen my share over the years.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I was on a mooring once and a gale blew through at night and my lines started banging so I went outside to fix them. i couldn't believe my eyes watching the power boats swinging and doing the hula. So I'm less surprised that power boats break free more often.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Seen the same thing in a mixed field of power and sail. Think the behavior is more a reflection of displacement v. beam, gyradius and hull shape. Those vessels both power and sail which had slack bilges, relatively narrow for loa and centrally heavy with weight low didn’t move much. Those light beamy boats such as planing, semiplaning or the fast sailboats (not typical cruising moderate displacement monos/multis) regardless of mode of propulsion sure do dance at anchor in a blow. Was next to a norhvn. Inspite of the high bow and much more windage than us we skated more than them but less than the go fast sailboats. I’m sure JeffH can offer a more intelligent explanation. 
If I remember correctly Herreshoff said you could judge a boat by its behavior at anchor.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

outbound said:


> Seen the same thing in a mixed field of power and sail. Think the behavior is more a reflection of displacement v. beam, gyradius and hull shape. Those vessels both power and sail which had slack bilges, relatively narrow for loa and centrally heavy with weight low didn't move much. Those light beamy boats such as planing, semiplaning or the fast sailboats (not typical cruising moderate displacement monos/multis) regardless of mode of propulsion sure do dance at anchor in a blow. Was next to a norhvn. Inspite of the high bow and much more windage than us we skated more than them but less than the go fast sailboats. I'm sure JeffH can offer a more intelligent explanation.
> If I remember correctly Herreshoff said you could judge a boat by its behavior at anchor.


I think you're onto something OB. I do think most power cruisers have a harder time anchoring than cruising sailboats. One theory I have, based on many years of observations, is this is due (in part) to the typically-higher bows these boats have. This means most powerboaters should be letting out more rode to get the right angles, but too many do not appear take this into account.

Combine this with the typically higher windage (high freeboard, big bridges, etc.), and the lower lateral resistance these boats have, and it's a mixture that makes it harder to anchor these boats correctly.

Personal anecdote (which proves nothing, but is one data point): A few years ago I was anchored in a smallish nook when a cruising powerboat came in. He appeared to be of similar size to us, but with the typical high bow and larger windage. I noticed he was using similar anchor gear (55# Rocna, all chain), and they were anchoring in the same bottom and conditions as us.

I watched this boat try and anchor for over an hour. Each time they failed to set BECAUSE they were not letting out enough rode. After a while I _gently_ suggested they try letting out more rode before backing down. They did - and they held right off. Could have been luck, but I doubt it.

Later we got together, shared a drink and a few stories, and the fellow thanked me for the advice.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Mike have anchored in the same field as Flemings, Beowulf’s, Norhavns, and various steel long range cruisers. In many cases they are more stable at anchor than surrounding sailboats. Think you’re right a lot has to do with correct technique but also the near absence of roll when they put their flopperstoppers out. Still hope Jeff chimes in and gives us the real poop.


----------



## heading168 (Sep 27, 2017)

outbound said:


> Mike have anchored in the same field as Flemings, Beowulf's, Norhavns, and various steel long range cruisers. In many cases they are more stable at anchor than surrounding sailboats. Think you're right a lot has to do with correct technique but also the near absence of roll when they put their flopperstoppers out. Still hope Jeff chimes in and gives us the real poop.


Hey I thought you were headed south if memory serves the Salty Dawg thing right? Waiting for a window is all alright? Me sitting here waiting for my window looks like a sleigh ride might be on its way the 19th from the Sakonnet to Culebra. Anyone else up here looking at the same thing?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Got caught by life. Got as far as exit from NY harbor. Then weather and land obligations forced us to turn around. Couldn’t join sdr fleet before their departure nor switch crew for the more significant leg of the trip within their time requirements. Rather than being potentially unsafe will just ski/ snow mobile this winter. With a good attitude there’s always next year. Without you’re a statistic.
Thanks for asking.


----------



## heading168 (Sep 27, 2017)

outbound said:


> Got caught by life. Got as far as exit from NY harbor. Then weather and land obligations forced us to turn around. Couldn't join sdr fleet before their departure nor switch crew for the more significant leg of the trip within their time requirements. Rather than being potentially unsafe will just ski/ snow mobile this winter. With a good attitude there's always next year. Without you're a statistic.
> Thanks for asking.


Yeah you had to be on your toes and be ready to go too get to Norfolk this year. Honestly thats why I don't like those rally things leaving on a per-decided date. Me, like now boats loaded I wake up every morning look at Predict the wind and windy.com call my friend at NOAA sit down and consider them all liars and flip a coin!
Next Monday still has promise though.
Glad your safe.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Best of luck. Be safe


----------



## neeqness (Jan 31, 2017)

Minnesail said:


> You can easily see plants and rocks. You can see soft mud. Clay and sand look the same though. It also looks ahead and behind so you can see if the bottom is flat or inclined.


Nice! Thanks for the info and posting the pic!

Seems like some brands/models might be more clearer than others. Wonder which ones are the best "bang for the buck" when it comes to clarity. I like to get the clearest one I can afford without breaking the bank. May consider a used one too for now.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

RegisteredUser said:


> WLL and UBL for most all materials and components are published by reliable sources all over this great Internet.
> 
> Assuming cruising....all over this flat planet...to the edges....
> Why are some boats hauling around 250' of steel chain?
> ...


We carry 200' of chain and use a Maxwell VWC windlass with both foot swtches and cockpit remote switches.

The only mooring I use is my seasonal one... all cruising stops we anchor... Never use slips.

I got the boat with a plaited nylon rode... no windlass. I was quite a bit younger but even then anchoring "by hand" was an "effort" I could do without.

I then put on an SL manual windlass. Minor improvement, certainly cleaner hands! I was not pleased with the benefits of the SL... and when I decided to take off for 3 or 4 years of cruising... I got all chain and the Maxwell VWC. What a difference.. . more than night and day. No back strain...

I suppose chain can part if the load exceeds it SWL. I've never seen this.

I can use the VWC for line, but I have to tail it. Possible for a second anchor. I would probably use 2 anchors on the same chain... but haven't yet.

Windlass and chain was one of the best upgrades to the boat. Anchoring is easy and since installed 25 years ago I think I only dragged anchor a few... times... which is a good record...


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

300 ft of 3/8" G4 chain attached to a 44lb Spade using a Lofrans 'Tigress'..easy


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> Bryce, with every post you simply illustrate how little you know about anchoring. All your questions/challenges have already been responded to by myself and others here, but you seem unable to comprehend. No point talking to someone like you (at least not about this topic).


Just as an update on this thread...

So I spent the last 5 months going from Northern Florida to Keys, all though the Bahamas with only line, my little 25 pound Danforth, a kellet and NO CHAIN. Good god is that even possible????

In this trip, I added another 3000 miles to my already 30,000 miles on this boat.

Three 60 MPH storms with high speed 180 degree wind shifts, untold number of 30-40 mph anchorages, numerous tidal anchorages with 4 shifts per day. Somehow I did not drag in at least 100 different anchorages and some of the most crowded.. Alice Town Bahamas, George Town, North Lake Worth, Oleta Bay..

On the other hand, I have been doing this for 60 years.. No doubt I have been incredibly lucky...
:wink


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

That's a troll post, if I've ever seen one. Resurrect an 18 mo old conflict thread to claim an experience no one can confirm. 

Changes nothing. It's all been said.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> So I spent the last 5 months going from Northern Florida to Keys, all though the Bahamas with only line, my little 25 pound Danforth, a kellet and NO CHAIN. Good god is that even possible????


Of course it's possible. You did it.



BryceGTX said:


> On the other hand, I have been doing this for 60 years..


Voilá!

Hope you enjoyed your trip


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

At least 100 different anchorages in 150 days....
Thats moving on..eh


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

RegisteredUser said:


> At least 100 different anchorages in 150 days....
> Thats moving on..eh


He only planned on being in 50 of them but dragged overnight into the other 50 anchorages. 

Seriously I am a big fan of using a kellet. It really does make the near impossible seem to work.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> That's a troll post, if I've ever seen one. Resurrect an 18 mo old conflict thread to claim an experience no one can confirm.
> 
> Changes nothing. It's all been said.


Well I invite you to read our Blog at: confirm for yourself..

www.Sailbeauty.com

And then look closely at the 65 documented stops at track my tours..

Not all stops are shown because we often anchored twice per day for day stops..

Not bad for a troll eh??
:wink


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

According to your blog, in Andros you chafed through your anchor line and lost 60' of chain and the anchor. Your claim of not using any chain, not dragging, as well as being incredibly lucky is a bit strained...

But it does look like you had fun, which is the important thing.

Mark


----------



## makobuilders (Feb 7, 2014)

So the biggest issue stated above with using rope rode in a coral field is snagging and chafing through. Let me share my solution that I used on my small boat that I built here in Qatar. This is for day-anchoring but not long term cruising. Here all the coral is dead but we have limestone outcroppings down there and the bottom is littered with nylon lines everywhere.

So I decided to go with the "portable mooring" philosophy. My boat was 20ft, very light at maybe 1 ton loaded. I used a 22 lb Danforth copy, with 3ft of 3/8" chain and then polypropylene. I wanted short scope performance and a floating rode. The short scope helped to eliminate having boats run over it (but not those annoying jet skis). This system worked fantastic even in 30 knot winds and breaking surf (anchoring right off the beach at the islands).

In the future if I implemented this on a larger boat then I would switch to Lugger line instead of pure polypropylene. BTW, I chartered in HaLong Bay Vietnam and all those big 100ft boats were using floating line as well, with big Northill type anchors and no chain. 

As a solution to this specific situation, it worked great. Granted I don't recommend this for long term cruising, but a lot of sailers on this forum are day or weekend cruisers anyway. Might help.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> Well I invite you to read our Blog at: confirm for yourself..
> 
> www.Sailbeauty.com
> 
> ...


By definition, this post is trolling as well. Just trying to reignite a year and a half old debate.

Who would do that? That's right.......

I suspect you'll get some to analyze your claims, but I'll pass.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I forget the exact issue with regard to this fellow, but I recall the tenor of the interaction with him. I remember learning there was no value in having further discussion with this person, so it’s amusing he would quote me now.

I’m happy to discuss the relative value of all-chain vs rope-chain rode with those interested and willing to have an actual discussion.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Dear Friends,


If you are not a troll please don't feed the trolls.
If you are a troll please don't feed the non-trolls.

We now have very clear Non-Trolling rules and as I have been alerted to this thread I would gladly and happily exercise them by blotting out trollish activity so instantly that you will need to be in hyper-drive to cool your typing finger!

In simple words: Discussion is fine, one-upmanship will cop you a deleted post  


Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I’ve never understood how anchor chain discussions get so heated. I mean it’s not a complex thing for discussion like say, TP single or double ply?


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

colemj said:


> According to your blog, in Andros you chafed through your anchor line and lost 60' of chain and the anchor. Your claim of not using any chain, not dragging, as well as being incredibly lucky is a bit strained...
> 
> But it does look like you had fun, which is the important thing.
> 
> Mark


The only time I've lost an anchor was moving in the middle of the night, when while switching anchors (long story and off the topic) I attached the shackle to the wrong chain and lowered it, unattached. Plop and gone. The fundamental problem was that it was 3AM and I was not conscious--the rest of the errors grew from that. Not very funny at the time, but funnier when my daughter (10 at the time) wrote it up and sold the story to a sailing mag. Kids really enjoy satirizing their parent's foibles. Also funnier now, since that was ~ 20 years ago.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

colemj said:


> According to your blog, in Andros you chafed through your anchor line and lost 60' of chain and the anchor. Your claim of not using any chain, not dragging, as well as being incredibly lucky is a bit strained...
> 
> But it does look like you had fun, which is the important thing.
> 
> Mark


Yes you are right.. It is a bit confusing. We have had this boat for about 10 years. This boat came with chain.. So I used it.

All previous boats including the boats I grew up on only had line. So 50 years line only, 10 years chain. And our other boat in Michigan.. it has only line.

As a result of this thread, I decided to run a test on this last cruise specifically with this boat where I was familiar with chain. I decided to use only with my aft small anchor and line.

Anchoring in the reefs at the Tongue of the Ocean with increasing winds, rather than use the small anchor, I decided to use my big Danforth. My big Danforth is on chain. All chain was out and probably 50 feet of line.

I had not noticed (in the fading sun light) that the anchor hatch was resting on the line.

In the early morning, winds increased to 35 knots with 5 foot waves. Anchor hatch chafed the line and we lost line anchor and chain. My wife thought it was the anchor roller.. but it was actually the hatch.

Such is life.. we have two other anchors.

What I learned is I will never have chain again.. Line is so much easier. So much less weight.. no mud in the links.. no rust in the anchor locker..

In tidal conditions the kellet easily works as well as the chain. And other shifting wind conditions I saw no difference between the kellet and chain. Many of our more challenging anchorages were in the exact same spot where a year before we had anchored with chain. I specifically did this to compare how the kellet compared to the chain.

I actually expected the chain solution to work better in shifting tidal and wind areas. Particularly because I was relying on my smaller Danforth. But I saw no difference.

Most of the time I did not use a kellet. In the case of anchoring two or three times a day to explore areas, bringing up a line is really easy.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

The way I use a kellet is shown below. It results in the lowest angle of attack of for the line with the anchor in a resetting condition such as high winds. I position the kellet over the bottom, but not on the bottom.

The reason I keep the kellet off the bottom is to assure the line cannot be swept around the keel in wind against current situations. There is no way the line can wrap the keel because it is held on the bottom by the kellet and the line weight. Keel wrapping with line only is a very important reason to use a kellet.

The kellet is on a separate line with a loop over the anchor line so retrieval of the kellet takes only seconds. The kellet is actually a 44 pound delta anchor which I use with line only in heavy seaweed anchorages. So this anchor is always ready to use.

What I found is this solution resets as fast or faster than chain. And unlike chain, the line has no tendency to foul the anchor. I have had this issue with 3 different anchor designs with chain.

During this last cruise, the line did not foul the anchor once. Although fouling the anchor is not a common occurrence with chain.

The way I determined how well the anchor resets, I carefully place GSP waypoints each time the tidal current or wind causes the boat to change position. After a night of anchoring and storms, I will often have a nice circle of waypoints around the anchor.

I look for exact repeatability in positions over these waypoints and bread crumb. The GPS has a lowest resolution of 20 feet so I find this method of checking the anchor to be quite accurate.

I have used this solution to check for anchor drag for as long as I have owned a GPS map. So I am familiar with how to characterize a dragging anchor.

Those familiar with checking anchor drag will recognize the pattern I describe on the GPS plotter. 

The only thing I will change in this line only anchoring scheme is to add 6 inches of stainless chain at the line to keep the thimble off the bottom.
Bryce


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

I've used both all-chain and all-rope and written about the benefits and shortcoming of each. I'm not interested in that fight, here and now. Just a few clarifications.

a. 40 pound of kellet and 40 pounds of chain weight, well, the same amount. So other than a slight difference in leverage and keeping the rope away from the keel, 50 feet of chain is about like a 40 pound kellet. The reader can figure out the effect of weight location on rode lead angle using high school trig and physics. It's not hard to figure out that once the rode tension exceeds 500 pounds, which it will in a real storm, the kellet or 40 feet of chain get light in comparison.

b. You can use a chain as kellet. Why would I do that, you ask? Because I can recover it over the rollers, without even taking it off the rope. I can just pile it in the rope locker, as is. Pretty handy! I could use a spare anchor, but that's more work. I do this primarily when I want to swing like all-chain boats.










https://www.practical-sailor.com/issues/45_5/features/Assessing-the-Anchor-Kellet_12594-1.html

c. I like at least some chain for a chafe leader, though some of the chafe protection can be an some other form. Though I have never chafed a rope through, I've had them wrap around rusty metal and rocks. The ONLY time I go with no-chain is to kedge or lay a secondary; there is no swing, so chafe is a minor issue. In those cases, ditching the chain is a big help (easier to handle, and it added no value anyway).


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

My 1/2" 3-strand snubber looks and is worn..usually out 20ish ft and soon to be retired..but it has taken the load for the past year in all anchoring without failing so im certain rope will handle the stress.

I also think having all rope is hoping you will never find anything on the bottom that will chafe or cut it through. Introduce yourself as Mr Lucky...


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

pdqaltair said:


> I've used both all-chain and all-rope and written about the benefits and shortcoming of each. I'm not interested in that fight, here and now. Just a few clarifications.
> 
> a. 40 pound of kellet and 40 pounds of chain weight, well, the same amount. So other than a slight difference in leverage and keeping the rope away from the keel, 50 feet of chain is about like a 40 pound kellet. The reader can figure out the effect of weight location on rode lead angle using high school trig and physics. It's not hard to figure out that once the rode tension exceeds 500 pounds, which it will in a real storm, the kellet or 40 feet of chain get light in comparison.
> 
> ...


Its encouraging to see some positive agreement with chain versus line. So I pretty agree with you in general. As you point out the holding power is provided by the anchor not the chain or kellet.

Couple of points:

1) My 60 pounds of chain comes out to more like 90 pounds rather than 44 pounds. So I don't agree with the equivalence. Also, with the kellet so close to the bow of the boat, it has considerably less effect than chain at the anchor. The chain lays perfectly flat even as the strain rises on the rode. However, the kellet starts coming up immediately, raising the angle to the anchor immediately. So my kellet is much different than chain. My point about the kellet is not that it increases the holding power, rather, it enhances the resetting during a tidal shift. Although I have no hard proof that it works better than line only because I saw no issues with resetting with line only.

2) I only use the kellet in shifting conditions such as tidal anchorages to keep the line from wrapping the keel. I also used the kellet in crowded anchorages for safety.

3) Most of the time I used no kellet. ( as I pointed out)

4) I don't agree that a secondary anchor should be less holding power than the main anchor for the simple reason, the second anchor invariably becomes the primary holding anchor at some point.

The logical conclusion to this discussion is if one feels the requirement for chain on the primary anchor to achieve their hold power, they must have chain on the secondary anchor as well. The same issues come up with a rear (for instance anchor). If one is going to argue that something can chafe on the bottom, it does not matter if the line is on the bow or the stern. But like you, I agree that chain is not necessary on the aft anchor for the reasons you state.

And same as you, I have never lost an anchor due to chafe on the bottom with line only. And up until this trip, I have never lost any line anchor or otherwise due to chafe.

After using a kellet, I would not recommend hard tying the kellet to the line. This complicates the retrieval of the anchor untying the kellet. Also, different depths require the kellet to be positioned at different points on the line.

What I do is simply loop a line through the kellet hole around the anchor line and bring the kellet up with a separate line. Much easier when you have to pull up the anchor. And since the kellet happens to be my second anchor on the bow, I only need to loop the line through the double ending hole on the delta.

The other point about the kellet is that it typically only has 8-20 feet of line out, because that is the depth I often anchor in. So retrieving the kellet involves pulling up 8-20 feet of line. Takes about 10 seconds. Although it is not uncommon for us to anchor in 35 feet of water. Alice Town and one of the Keyhole anchorages north of Miami come to mind.

After using chain and anchor for 10 years on this boat, there is no way I would agree that chain is easier than line. Heck even my wife can retrieve the line manually if need be. No way can we do this with manually with chain. So I cannot agree chain is easier.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

RegisteredUser said:


> My 1/2" 3-strand snubber looks and is worn..usually out 20ish ft and soon to be retired..but it has taken the load for the past year in all anchoring without failing so im certain rope will handle the stress.
> 
> I also think having all rope is hoping you will never find anything on the bottom that will chafe or cut it through. Introduce yourself as Mr Lucky...


I agree with you that line needs to be watched for wear.

I have never had an issue with chafe on the line near the bottom. One reason I think is that line tends to stay off the bottom in very light winds of even 5 mph. Whereas chain requires much more wind to bring it off the bottom. So chain is constantly dragging on the bottom as the boat swings and sways in the wind. And for the same reason, chain is more likely to snag things on the bottom.

So any tension on the line always brings it off the bottom. And that is one reason I think line is less likely to foul the anchor than chain. Although I need a few more anchorages with this boat with line only to prove that.

The only thing I expect to change is to add maybe 6 inches of stainless chain at the anchor to get the thimble out of the mud/sand. Perhaps this goes to your thoughts about chafe on the line at the bottom.
Bryce


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Exactly why are we having the same discussion again? No one has changed their point of view on this.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I suspect most people start with nylon... and try to do some work arounds to reduce wear or add a kellet to make their line work better. 

Going to chain pretty much means a decent anchor locker with access from the deck and a windlass. Obviously there are boats which don't have this so they must use line.

Shiva has the architecture which works with chain... and so after 6 or 7 years with a nylon rode and deciding to take off for live aboard cruising I made the switch... It was expensive and a fair amount of work. Kept the same anchor however. My experience is that the all chain rode is superior and obviously easier with up & down switches... at the foredeck and in the cockpit.

But if you are not anchoring a lot... and or don't have the architecture for a chain set up... you will make line work... no real alternative.

I doubt that many if any who have switched to all chain would switch back to nylon rode. That is telling.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SanderO said:


> ...But if you are not anchoring a lot... and or don't have the architecture for a chain set up... you will make line work... no real alternative.
> 
> I doubt that many if any who have switched to all chain would switch back to nylon rode. That is telling.


My view as well Sander. Nylon or nylon-chain certainly can work. And there are some advantages over all-chain. But on balance most cruisers learn all-chain is the best overall option for the wide variety of anchoring situations cruisers encounter. The reasons not to use all-chain would be due to boat limitations around weight issues, or if you cruise in a known area where all-chain is not necessary.

But to each his/her own.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I suspect the vast majority of us who only cruise for a few days to a few weeks at a time would be served just as well by less system heavy (emphasize heavy) boats with mixed nylon and chain as bigger heavier boats with windlasses, chain lockers and all chain.

I know you wouldnt be able to sell me a boat that needed 250 ft of chain on board to go for a week long summer cruise.

Dont personally think all chain is any better, different application, personally would rather have a smaller and or lighter boat for many applications like day sailing, week ending and even longer vacations.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I don’t really disagree Arcb. That’s why I specified “cruiser.” To me, a cruiser is someone who lives on their boat for long periods of time (many months), and who travels to different places, encountering a wide variety of anchoring situations, many of which will be unknown until arrival. I’m thinking of boats in the 35-foot and up range, which will tend to be of higher volume and displacement.

Some people cruise in boats that don’t fit the above, but those are more the exception than the rule. And I admit that the whole catamaran thing is outside my experience.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

SanderO said:


> ...I doubt that many if any who have switched to all chain would switch back to nylon rode. That is telling.


Hmm. That is an interesting way to put it. One reason, of course, is that many boats come through from the factory with too little ground tackle, but none I've ever seen with too much. However, I have heard tales of people doing just that who had no windlass.

But yeah, if the conversion was done well, they don't go back.

I've used rope lots... but only on feather weight multihulls where a few hundred pounds really mattered, and not on larger multihulls and not for extended cruising. I could have... but I didn't.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

SanderO said:


> I suspect most people start with nylon... and try to do some work arounds to reduce wear or add a kellet to make their line work better.
> 
> Going to chain pretty much means a decent anchor locker with access from the deck and a windlass. Obviously there are boats which don't have this so they must use line.
> 
> ...


I think this is a fair statement, and most everything in this statement applies to me except the conclusion and the statement about "ease" and "superior".

The boat is a Catalina 400 which is almost 42 feet long.

This boat came with enough chain that for all practical purposes, I can view the line I put out as equivalent to the snubber put out by the others with chain only.

I have an excellent windlass that easily brings in the chain or line.

I have an easy to reach anchor locker that holds any combination of line, chain or multiple lines and chains.

I have cruised this boat for 9 years, 30,000 miles. This has included completely exploring the Lower great lakes, the Mississippi Water ways twice, Gulf of Mexico including the keys (twice) and Dry Tortugas, Eastern seaboard of the US and the Bahamas top to bottom twice.

It has included 1 year straight on the boat, 8 months straight on the boat and 5 months straight on the boat. And more weeks than I can list otherwise.

So I clearly meet the requirements as a "Cruiser".

Yet, I have made the switch exactly opposite going from chain back to line.

The overriding factor is ease of anchoring. And all things being equal, no difference in performance between chain and line.

PDQ sums it up when he says, when the forces get high, the line or chain stretches taunt so line and chain are equivalent.

If line and chain are the same in high winds, then the only difference between them by definition is in low winds. Low winds are invariably the least of our concerns because low winds are easiest to deal with.

I think that pretty much sums it up, the difference between line and chain occurs in benign conditions.
Bryce


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

BryceGTX said:


> ...PDQ sums it up when he says, when the forces get high, the line or chain stretches taunt so line and chain are equivalent....


No, that is not even close to what I said. I said that both a kellet and chain get light, in comparison to rode tension, when the wind really blows. I was implying that an equal weight of a kellet and a chain act in similar ways. That is all.

There remain significant differences. For example:
* Chafe. It only has to happen once. It does not concern me much on a lighter boat, because the cutting force is less, but I've snagged sharp stuff.
* Total weight. If 250 feet of chain are deployed, that is a LOT more weight and it will behave differently. It is quite difficult to lift the chain clear of the bottom AND relatively straight if enough chain is deployed. Possible, but difficult.
* Ease. Chain is easier to handle IF the windlass design is good. Rope is easier if it is not.
* Life expectancy. This is a tricky one. For everyday use, probably chain. For a weekend warrior or day sailor, probably rope, because it does not rust.
* Anchor holding. Also tricky. Many will argue for chain because of weight and reduced yawing, but the rode tension with rope is far lower. The answer depends on the anchor and yaw characteristics of the boat.

And then there is the age old question of whether weight is better in the anchor or the rode. I doubt anyone would argue that adding 100 pounds of anchor will hold less than another 100 feet of chain. But do you want a 135-pound anchor?

I'll just say they are different and avoid the debate today.


----------



## SeanM26 (Feb 18, 2018)

It is kind of hard to believe Bryce. 6 knot tidal current, 10 foot swells, and 30 knots breeze caused this damage. Let 7500 lbs of anchor, chain, and cable go in Bristol Bay. This is gear designed for this kind of weather and it failed spectacularly. 

If you had a 25 lb danforth and a kellet on line only in the breezes you claim, you have the most aerodynamic sailboat ever.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Obviously the windlass has to be matched for the job. Rust is not pretty and can be messy, but unless it's advanced some rust is not going to make much difference in the strength I suspect. I think one of the main advantages of chain is it does not chafe. Our windlass has a rope gypsy so we can deploy an anchor using rode of chain or both! I think electric windlass does make anchoring much easier than a manual windlass.

I can only report on my experiences over almost 30 years with all chain and a Maxwell VWC windlass. Fortunately I have never anchored in really nasty conditions... but only mildly nasty ;-).... and the system worked. You have to rely of the weight of the catenary to pull the boat forward... not the strength of the windlass to pull it forward to the anchor. In strong winds this is a slow process.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

The only reasons a cruiser would have a rope rode are:

1. They are super cheap! I say super because the cost of chain compared to the costs of cruising for all but the lowest budget cruisers is very very very low in the big picture (mine was like $350 and its been in use 6 years).

2. They are just stupid. This can take many forms and includes "it is too heavy for my boat", "someone else says", "I'm been getting away with it". We all know the ways to fix stupid.

That's my opinion and position.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I spent nearly a decade cruising (usually one to three months at a time) on our previous boat. I had no windlass on this 34-footer, so had a rope-chain configuration. It worked very well. I occasionally used a kellet arrangement (actually, a second anchor) when needed. And the built-in spring line was a nice benefit.

I’ve now cruised with all-chain on our current boat. She came with a stout manual windlass, with both chain and rope gypsies, but I’ve only ever had to deploy the chain (250’ of 3/8”). I have anchored in some really nasty conditions, including sitting through a three-day Newfoundland gale last season. 

I see plussed and minuses to both types of rodes. Overall, most cruisers (as per my definition a few posts back) learn that all-chain is superior in most cases. But if your boat is particularly sensitive to weight on the bow (as some are), or you don’t have a windlass, then the rope-chain rode probably wins out.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Don0190 said:


> The only reasons a cruiser would have a rope rode are:
> 
> 1. They are super cheap! I say super because the cost of chain compared to the costs of cruising for all but the lowest budget cruisers is very very very low in the big picture (mine was like $350 and its been in use 6 years).
> 
> ...


You "forgot" the price to add a windlass capable of handling chain to a boat not already equipped with one, the price of modifying a hull to include a chainlocker that isn't already equipped with one and the cost of the associated supporting equipment and systems.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Arcb said:


> You "forgot" the price to add a windlass capable of handling chain to a boat not already equipped with one, the price of modifying a hull to include a chainlocker that isn't already equipped with one and the cost of the associated supporting equipment and systems.


OK, add that to the "cheap" reasons. But if you can put up a rope rode by hand with 30' on chain and the anchor on the end without a windlass you can do it for an all chain rode (this fat man has done it with his 60# anchor in 20' of water)

Far as the locker, if your boat doesn't have room to store chain it does have room to store rope rode. Guess that probably goes back into "cheap".


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Don0190 said:


> Far as the locker, if your boat doesn't have room to store chain it does have room to store rope rode. Guess that probably goes back into "cheap".


My first live aboard cruiser was a Grampian 30. Pleanty big enough for one person to comfortably live aboard. No windlass, no chain locker. Just a danforth and 10 ft of chain with nylon rode.

It's not that hard for those of us who have actually tried it, you modify your anchoring habits to suit your ground tackle.

A boat that length is much cheaper to park in a marina for a few days if crap weather is coming in, than say a 40+ footer.

There really is more than just one cookie cutter "real cruiser" way of doing things. You just need to be a little bit creative. Of course, I am talking about continental cruising, not transoceanic, but I think that's what you are talking about too?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I don't care! Spin whatever story you want to, including "saving" $20/night in reduced dockage every couple of months when I go to a marina. (I just added up in my head and the past 12 months if I cruiser on a 30' and went to the same marinas it would have saved $290.)

If a 30' boat can have enough rope rode and a big enough anchor that you can pull it up by hand, you and it can handle an all chain rode just as well.

So it falls back into the "cheap" reasoning. If you want to "save" the money on the cheapest insurance on a boat just say so and stop looking to justify it to others.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Don0190 said:


> I don't care! Spin whatever story you want to, including "saving" $20/night in reduced dockage every couple of months when I go to a marina. (I just added up in my head and the past 12 months if I cruiser on a 30' and went to the same marinas it would have saved $290.)
> 
> If a 30' boat can have enough rope rode and a big enough anchor that you can pull it up by hand, you and it can handle an all chain rode just as well.
> 
> So it falls back into the "cheap" reasoning. If you want to "save" the money on the cheapest insurance on a boat just say so and stop looking to justify it to others.


Except your argument above was stupid. You consider frugal, adaptable and creative stupid?

I consider not adapting your anchoring habits to be less than stellar seamanship regardless of what that ground tackle is.

Here's the difference. My choices allowed me 4 years of live aboard cruising in my early 30s, your choices meant waiting until retirement. Sounds less stupid and cheap when framed like that, no?


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

This topic begs for an open view. Numerous experienced and well-financed cruisers use some portion of rope. For example, the inventor of the Spade anchor, Alain Poiroud, favored chain + rope, and wrote of this many times. I don't believe it is appropriate to call him either stupid or cheap. Also Donald Dodd (several books). You may not agree with them--I don't agree with them in all parts--but they are smart and make solid, well researched cases for their choices.

I've used all-chain and all-rope. I'm not going to make an emphatic statement.

Read their books (the _Complete Anchoring Guide _and _Modern Cruising Under Sail_). Good reads. I wouldn't complain if you read mine too (below)!


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Except for a very lightweight boat or one without room for a windlass or anchor locker, I can't see much advantage to not using all chain. On a typical cruising boat over 40' in length, the weight of 300' of chain isn't all that significant.

I once had a 35' boat and my only "windlass" was a pair of work gloves on my hands, and I managed to get by with about 25' of chain spliced to nylon rode. I had some good Kevlar chafe gear and managed to avoid problems with chafing. But the problem I did have was when I was shorthanded in an anchorage with other boats around, especially in strong winds, it takes longer to pull up the anchor and once the anchor is off the bottom and the boat starts to drift, I'd be frantically trying to get the anchor aboard and stowed before I drifted into another boat. A windlass generally gets the chain up faster and if the boat starts to drift I can just leave it hanging from the windlass while I run back to the helm or if there's a remote control at the helm it's even easier. 

One attractive feature of nylon rode is that it doesn't pick up copious amounts of thick mud like chain can. A big advantage of nylon rode is in strong wind conditions, its elasticity is both easier on the boat and on the anchor so it's more likely to stay set, but with an all chain rode you can achieve the same sort of effect by using a longer then normal snubber. IMHO most snubbers are way too short so in strong winds they quickly reach the limit of their elasticity so transmit almost as much shock loading onto both anchor and boat as chain alone would.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

pdqaltair said:


> No, that is not even close to what I said. I said that both a kellet and chain get light, in comparison to rode tension, when the wind really blows. I was implying that an equal weight of a kellet and a chain act in similar ways. That is all.


My two cruises anchoring with line only, line with kellet and chain in the same locations indicate no difference in holding nor resetting ability of the anchor in changing wind conditions.

So in my case neither the kellet nor the chain affected anchoring holding power of the anchor. I think this is quite well known as the rode is taunt in either case. The holding power is in the anchor, not the chain. You really can't dispute this.

For those not familiar with true Danforths, the 25 pound Danforth Standard is rated for a 40 foot boat. My big Danforth 35 high tensile is rated for a 64 foot boat.

I have actually held this boat with a 13 pound Danforth Standard in 20 knot winds. My big Danforth has held our boat in 80 mph winds.

So I think the anchors are up to the task for this boat.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

jtsailjt said:


> Except for a very lightweight boat or one without room for a windlass or anchor locker, I can't see much advantage to not using all chain. On a typical cruising boat over 40' in length, the weight of 300' of chain isn't all that significant.


The more interesting question, is why bother to deal with the incredibly heavy chain when only light line is needed.

When I talk about the weight of the chain, I could care less what weight I put on the boat. I am more interested in manhandling the heavy chain.

THAT IS ME LIFTING IT.

Keep in mind that was my major complaint about the chain from my very first post.

It is also the reason I have a 35 pound Danforth rather than an 80 pound Rocna. Which have similar holding power.

Now it is quite possible that many anchors cannot reset well without chain. However, my cruises with chain versus line versus line with kellet show no difference in resetting with my anchor in any case.

The kellet is definitely required in light winds in crowded anchorages for safety. The answer is quite simple. A boat with only line drifts much faster and easier with line only. Whereas, a boat with only chain may not move at all in a calm wind. This can cause the line only boat to drift too close to a chained boat.

The solution is to use the kellet and allow the kellet to drag on the bottom. This causes the line only boat to drift much slower because it now has a heavy weight dragging on the bottom same as the chain on the chained boat. This is what I found in the crowded anchorages.

The other solution I found that works well is to anchor at over two anchor line lengths away from the nearest boat and not use the kellet. This works great until a chained boat anchors too close.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

jtsailjt said:


> One attractive feature of nylon rode is that it doesn't pick up copious amounts of thick mud like chain can. A big advantage of nylon rode is in strong wind conditions, its elasticity is both easier on the boat and on the anchor so it's more likely to stay set,


Yes, you are absolutely right... I hated this about my chain. I have a quite good wash down and it still was a pain in the you-know-what to get the chain cleaned prior to dropping in the anchor locker.

This is part of the "ease" I refer to. Also the cleaning of the anchor locker.. again "ease".
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Arcb said:


> My first live aboard cruiser was a Grampian 30. Pleanty big enough for one person to comfortably live aboard. No windlass, no chain locker. Just a danforth and 10 ft of chain with nylon rode.
> 
> It's not that hard for those of us who have actually tried it, you modify your anchoring habits to suit your ground tackle.


I think this is an excellent point.. I invariably look for a spot to drop my anchor that is either sand or mud. In Alice Town, Bahamas, I had already read that this anchorage could be somewhat problematic. Lots of boats here. I tested two spots and did not like the heavy seaweed or sloping bottom. Finally dropped the anchor in the deepest spot.. 35 feet. Bottom was sand and shells.. best spot in Alice Town.. no one within 300 feet of me.. no kellet required. Held great in the 35 knot winds.
Bryce


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

jtsailjt said:


> Except for a very lightweight boat or one without room for a windlass or anchor locker, I can't see much advantage to not using all chain. On a typical cruising boat over 40' in length, the weight of 300' of chain isn't all that significant.


To put that into perspective, 300 feet of chain is about 90 metres and I think 10mm chain which would commonly be used on a 40 plus foot boat, weighs 2.25kg per metre. That's near enough 200kgs. My wife and I combined probably weigh that. So yes, it's not that significant. I carry 5 times that in my water tanks!

But when your anchoring in 20 metres of water, you're lifting 45kgs of chain and another 25kgs of anchor. No way I'm doing that without a windlass


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

If you have all chain you need a windlass... preferably electric.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Cassidy said:


> But when your anchoring in 20 metres of water, you're lifting 45kgs of chain and another 25kgs of anchor. No way I'm doing that without a windlass


20m of water (65 ft), do you normally anchor in such deep water?


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

BryceGTX said:


> I invariably look for a spot to drop my anchor that is either sand or mud.


Yes, me too. But I have observed that a lot of self identified cruisers in continental North America seem to congregate in crowded mooring fields, where maybe the good spots are taken and the sea floor is littered with cruiser junk and discarded anchors. The goal is to be as close as possible to the dinghy dock, tiki bar and Publix, more so than actually seeking out a decent anchorage in a sheltered cove.

Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

While the total weight of anchor and chain can appear relatively small compared to the displacement of a boat, it does matter where it is stowed. Think weight on a seesaw (cantilever). Weight near the centre is hardly felt, but move that same weight out to the end and you produce a large angular force.

Some cruising boats do appear to be more affected by weight on the bow (or stern) compared to others. Hobby horsing is a common complaint. I know my boat doesn’t seem to feel the weight, but mine is a heavy, full-keeler. One test to see if your boat is affected by the weight is to measure the waterline impact with the anchor gear loaded and unloaded. If the bow angles down with the gear in place then it might be an issue.

This is why I say all-chain is superior, but only if your boat, its systems, and the crew can manage it without experiencing other undue negative impacts. For example, having a windlass is pretty important (I like my manual ). I doubt I’d want all chain without it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb said:


> ......Different strokes for different folks.


Amen. Folks can say their system works for them, but they really need to stop telling everyone else they have to agree.

As to the reinvigorated debate, when I see a battleship or a car carrier dropping a danforth on all rope to hold in a gale, I'll reconsider. Too often, advice is limited to one's own vessel, their own needs and their most common seabed. The claim a few posts back that an anchor test was repeated in the same anchorage, with different rodes, is comical, if not simply unverifiable. Most anchorages I know, have different holding with the exact same anchor/rode, when dropped 50 ft apart.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> ... when I see a battleship or a car carrier dropping a danforth on all rope to hold in a gale....


Just for fun...

When was the last time you saw a ship with a Rocna or Spade? They ALL use pivoting fluke anchors, either stockless or a NAVMOR relative. Danforth has sold a LOT of anchors to the US NAVY, up into tons.










I'll give you the all-rope part:wink.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Further to PDQ's post, again, just for fun.

*Mooring details

The spar is moored by an 11-line taut mooring configuration. There are three mooring line groups - two with four lines and one with three.

The polyester mooring lines are attached to suction piles, resulting in a saving of around 1,000t of buoyancy over rope and chain systems. It is the first such use of synthetic moorings approved by the US Coast Guard or MMS.*

https://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/mad_dog/


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Arcb said:


> Further to PDQ's post, again, just for fun.
> 
> *Mooring details
> 
> ...


The USCG has many interesting studies re. fiber for moorings of buoys and platforms. Fatigue and corrosion are the big things. However, these are only for the sections not subject to chafe from yawing.

And of course, modern screw moorings don't use chain, only nylon pendants and composite down lines. They have proven huricane worthy in Florida. But again, no bottom chafe.

---

So who's going to bring up Dyneema? That's a dare.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> ....They ALL use pivoting fluke anchors, either stockless or a NAVMOR relative. Danforth has sold a LOT of anchors to the US NAVY, up into tons.....


Never said anything about Rocna or Spade and every single one of those Navy vessels stands on anchor watch 24/7. 

I know your comment was just for fun, but it did get me thinking about how they get comfortable with an anchor design that is not well known for resetting itself. It's not like a Danforth never will, but it will be circumstance specific. Then again, when you put a piece of steel that weighs tons on the seabed, it's propensity to settle beneath the bed is more like a mushroom mooring than an anchor fluke. It's this kind of relative scale that I think is often missing from those that insist their own experience is universally transferable.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Never said anything about Rocna or Spade and every single one of those Navy vessels stands on anchor watch 24/7.
> 
> I know your comment was just for fun, but it did get me thinking about how they get comfortable with an anchor design that is not well known for resetting itself. It's not like a Danforth never will, but it will be circumstance specific. Then again, when you put a piece of steel that weighs tons on the seabed, it's propensity to settle beneath the bed is more like a mushroom mooring than an anchor fluke. It's this kind of relative scale that I think is often missing from those that insist their own experience is universally transferable.


Actually, if you are bored, you can Google US Navy research into pivoting fluke anchors and moorings. Some of it is very interesting, and though you might not think it is applicable, you'll find many of the ratios are not that different. They are very deep embedment designs and perform very much like their smaller Danforth cousins. I'd have to re-read it, but I recall some of the anchors pulled 20 feet underground. Nothing at all, in anyway, like a mushroom anchor. Anyway, there are quite a few articles, offering a view into a different world.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a185351.pdf


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Let's not get too serious all of a sudden.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Let's not get too serious all of a sudden.


Good point.

I do like reading mega-scale studies and the like, through, just because they are interesting. The numbers are HUGE and they have handling concerns and methods that are so different. Just fun reading.


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

Don0190 said:


> 20m of water (65 ft), do you normally anchor in such deep water?


Not when I'm at home but we spend 4 to 6 months a year in places like Fiji and other island groups around us and in the islands, anchoring in 20 metres is not uncommon and it's sometimes deeper.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Cassidy said:


> Not when I'm at home but we spend 4 to 6 months a year in places like Fiji and other island groups around us and in the islands, anchoring in 20 metres is not uncommon and it's sometimes deeper.


You are a good candidate for dyneema then.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Cassidy said:


> Not when I'm at home but we spend 4 to 6 months a year in places like Fiji and other island groups around us and in the islands, anchoring in 20 metres is not uncommon and it's sometimes deeper.


Sounds like a place when chain is even more a plus

Yes sometimes the windlass breaks. I've been there and still got the chain and 60# anchor up while being single handing that trip.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Chain is good if you're not interested in boat performance, and a lot of cruisers aren't. If you are interested in performance then you won't be cruising in a barge that carries weight well. I get it about coral and rocks cutting anchor line but a little bit of light chain will prevent that. I like to go as light as possible with my ground tackle and I sleep just fine that way. I haven't used dyneema yet, but might replace the dacron with it and see how I like it. I have what a lot of people would call a marginal Rocna 15kg anchor and a 10 pound Fortress FX-16 on a 16500lb boat. (dry weight) I usually use the FX-16 off the stern and it's held in 45kt winds. Now the force on the anchor is much less when anchored from the stern than from the bow and sailing side to side.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

kmacdonald5 said:


> the force on the anchor is much less when anchored from the stern than from the bow and sailing side to side.


Is this true?

I know my little boat sails like crazy at anchor, I suppose that constantly changing force can be challenging for an anchor set.

I had never thought of a riding sail as helping with holding, but I suppose it could.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Gotcha...
Performance cruisers...and barge cruisers.....


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

If I wanted weight performance I would keep the chain, but throw my fat ass off the boat

Instead I like to sleep knowing my anchor is set and not going to to chafe through

But that’s just me


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Don youre this cruising thing all wrong


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

...doing...


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Minnesail said:


> Is this true?
> 
> I know my little boat sails like crazy at anchor, I suppose that constantly changing force can be challenging for an anchor set.
> 
> I had never thought of a riding sail as helping with holding, but I suppose it could.


It's true. Anchor from the stern when in a protected anchorage. (Almost always) The sailboat will not swing back and forth exposing its beam to the wind and thus higher loads. There will also be way less chafe.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

RegisteredUser said:


> ...doing...


I know, but don't really care and just keep cruising around.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

RegisteredUser said:


> Performance cruisers...and barge cruisers.....


Although. If you put a few hundred kilos of chain, windlas, backing plates and bulkheads at the least bouyant end of the boat, furthest from your centre of bouyancy(long lever)you will need a fuller, broader bow section to support the extra weight to avoid a change in trim. I think, if you are going to carry a lot of weight forward, the boat should be designed to carry a lot of weight forward. Some are, some arent. Mine certainly can't take weight in the bow, she starts to nose dive instead of plane. I like my bow up. I think of it like skiing fast, head up, butt down


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

When it shifts 90 play with you stern line. When it clocks 180....go find your released anchor after it calms.
🙂...in the name of reduced bow anchor loads..and chafe.
Sure...


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Lets look at the advantages of stern anchoring:
1) Don't have to go forward to anchor
2) weight out of the bow, the least buoyant end of the boat
3) doesn't sail at anchor exposing the beam to the wind and higher forces
4) less chafe
5) no more keel wrapped anchor rode
6) better ventilation down companion way
7) no mosquitoes (just kidding)

I know your diddy told you to anchor from the bow but diddy wasn't always right.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I am curious to hear other thoughts on anchoring from the stern. My current boat (Bay Hen 21) and previous boat (Fantasia 35) both anchored very nicely stern too in calm weather, both double enders. Until my rudder starts slamming. Then I panic and warp before my rudder shaft is destroyed.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Arcb said:


> I am curious to hear other thoughts on anchoring from the stern. My current boat (Bay Hen 21) and previous boat (Fantasia 35) both anchored very nicely stern too in calm weather, both double enders. Until my rudder starts slamming. Then I panic and warp before my rudder shaft is destroyed.


First off you should anchor in a relatively protected area. There will be less force on the rudder anchored from the stern because the boat isn't sailing at anchor. Lock the wheel midships and it will be parallel to the wind and waves. It's best of course to lock the rudder at the quadrant instead of the wheel to eliminate tension on the steering cable. That would only be necessary in storm conditions and the wheel lock could be used most of the time.
It's worth anchoring from the stern just to get the better ventilation down the companion way, like a wind sock over a hatch.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Ok. Protected area.
Gotcha


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

One very significant downside to stern anchoring and one that I am not prepared to live with is the wind, even a breeze, blowing directly into the cockpit, negating the dodger and if there is more than a gentle breeze life becomes untenable and you end up closing yourself in to avoid. OK if you’re in a quiet anchorage but if you are, your boat in any case wont be sailing at anchor.

Especially in the South Pacific, natural protection from wind is a luxury. Most anchorages are protected from swell/seas by coral reefs but often not from the wind and given that you’re in the trades, you will often be sitting anchored in calm water but in 20 to 30kn. You really don’t want this in your living area. Rarely see anybody stern anchoring anywhere we sail. No, scratch that. I’ve never seen it. Personally, I have never stern-anchored (other than a kedge to keep the bow into swells) and probably never would due to extensive changes to my boat needed to manage my ground tackle (windlass, chain storage, anchor storage, chain rollers, chain wash-down).


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Yes... and no. Depends on the boat. The below is my experience on 3 boats.



kmacdonald5 said:


> Lets look at the advantages of stern anchoring:
> 1) Don't have to go forward to anchor. That's a thing?
> 2) Weight out of the bow, the least buoyant end of the boat. Less stuff in the cockpit when anchored from the bow. The boat should have been designed for the weight of ground tackle, just don't go overboard.
> 3) Doesn't sail at anchor exposing the beam to the wind and higher forces. You need to control yawing, of course, but not a problem. Easy for multihulls. Others may need a riding sail.
> ...


There are many solutions to yawing, in no particular order:
* hammerlock mooring
* chain
* kellet
* riding sail
* bridle
* don't keep the dingy on the bow
* lift the rudder if applicable


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

kmacdonald5 said:


> Lets look at the advantages of stern anchoring:
> 1) Don't have to go forward to anchor
> 2) weight out of the bow, the least buoyant end of the boat
> 3) doesn't sail at anchor exposing the beam to the wind and higher forces
> ...


I'm intrigued:

2) the weight of ground tackle is generally relative to boat size. My ground tackle weighs about the same as two people. Two people standing on my foredeck hardly effective boat trim. I have a 600 litre water tank under the forepeak bunk! That's 3 times the weight of the ground tackle.

4) How does stern anchoring reduce chafe? Normally anchor rode goes over a bow roller or at least through a fairlead. There should be no chafe.

5) Also, how do you get an anchor rode wrapped around your keel? I've been sailing for 4 decades, never experienced nor seen that.


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

pdqaltair said:


> Yes... and no. Depends on the boat. The below is my experience on 3 boats.


Actually you make an excellent point I never even thought of and really should have. The wave slapping under the stern counter. Wow, on our boat even the ripples in a marina berth slap under the counter and make our stern cabin "un-sleepable". I can't even imagine the noise in a lumpy anchorage with wavelets approach from astern.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> I know your comment was just for fun, but it did get me thinking about how they get comfortable with an anchor design that is not well known for resetting itself. It's not like a Danforth never will, but it will be circumstance specific.


I have not seen the resetting issues you refer to.

Many of the anchor tests use Danforth look a likes.. These anchors are known to be poor anchors.. West Marine should be chastised for selling their incredibly bad Danforth Clones to unsuspecting buyers. On the other hand, the anchor tests that use true Danforths produce excellent results.

In tidal conditions, which is 4 resets per day, our anchor has worked fine with or without chain. Shifting wind conditions produce the same results. I am not sure that other anchor designs work well with line only.

The way I see it, the Danforth has a unique advantage over other anchors when used with line only. The flukes stay the same initial 6 degrees with the bottom no matter if the shank pivot point is zero degrees or 25 degrees. 25 degrees is equivalent to a 2.4 to one scope. Under three to one.

Now I typically anchor with 5 or 6 to one scope. A six to one scope results in a 9.5 degree angle of the line with the bottom. This 9.5 degree angle in scope results in 15.5 degrees of margin in the Danforth shank angle. (15.5 degrees margin = 25 degree max - 9.5 degrees)

This means, it does not require the rode to be on the bottom when it sets. That means it does not require a kellet nor a chain to set. I expect this is the reason we see no resetting issues with line only. And I see no difference between chain or no chain. Over the 60 years I have used Danforths with line only, it has pretty much been the same results.

Most other anchors have fixed shanks that perhaps do not have an optimal angle with the bottom if the line lifts the shank during setting. Perhaps that why most guys insist on using chain to set their anchors.
Bryce


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

BryceGTX said:


> The more interesting question, is why bother to deal with the incredibly heavy chain when only light line is needed.
> 
> When I talk about the weight of the chain, I could care less what weight I put on the boat. I am more interested in manhandling the heavy chain.
> 
> ...


. 
I think the biggest reason to bother with chain is chafe avoidance. If you have nylon all the way down to the anchor and there are sharp rocks or sharp trash or sharp coral on the bottom, you might suddenly find yourself adrift.

I can understand why, for a cruiser without a windlass, having to manhandle a heavy chain is no fun, but for any cruiser I think it's hard to not justify using some small length of chain, both to help the anchor set and reset if necessary, and to avoid chafe on nearby sharp objects. Anyone can "manhandle" 20' or 30' of chain and if that amount of chain stored in the bow of a boat is going to adversely affect performance, then I don't know why that boats skipper would be posting on a cruising forum.

Your 35# Danforth has the same holding power as a much heavier Rocna but only when anchored in certain bottom conditions. But the Rocna or similar anchor will do much better in a greater variety of bottoms such as hard packed gravel or thick kelp. Danforth type anchors offer huge holding power for their weight but they do have their limitations. That's why most cruisers have one to use in bottom conditions where they excel or as a kedge, but their go to anchor for most anchoring conditions is a heavier anchor that penetrates better and fits well on a bow roller, such as a Rocna, Manson, or Spade.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I’ve never solely stern-anchored. Have only done this to achieve a specific purpose, always in conjunction with bow anchor or land tie. But I have heard from others who do it. Mostly it seems to be a practice for smaller boats run by solo sailors.

I’m curious what your boat is kmacdonald5. On mine, I don’t yaw much at anchor. Her motion is generally pretty gentle and gradual. I almost always use a bridle snubber attachment, so that probably helps, but I think it’s mostly hull shape and displacement (full keel, double-ender, 15 tons). 

Again, speaking from my boat’s perspective, we are designed to carry plenty of tackle weight on the bow. I’ve got over 300’ of 3/8 chain up there, plus two anchors (rocna & danforth), and another 250’ nylon, plus a windlass. No effect on the waterline angles. But as I said, not all boats can manage this arrangement without suffering.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Actually, the biggest upsides is less chafe and way less holding power needed. A violently yawing boat will quickly chafe thru the anchor rode. The wind load on the beam is much greater than from the bow or stern. Point being, if you want to survive a violent storm at anchor, anchor from the stern.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

kmacdonald5 said:


> Actually, the biggest upsides is less chafe and way less holding power needed. A violently yawing boat will quickly chafe thru the anchor rode. The wind load on the beam is much greater than from the bow or stern. Point being, if you want to survive a violent storm at anchor, anchor from the stern.


Not all boats yaw violently when anchored from the bow. If yours does, then perhaps a stern anchor is superior, but I would try a long bridle first. Perhaps a kellet or riding sail. Maybe even look at how the helm is locked.

Except with small boats, managing an appropriate-sized anchor and chain from the stern will mean a lot of heavy manual lifting. It will mean launching from an awkward location. And in my case, with a barn-door rudder, it would put the rudder at risk.

I do occasionally use a stern anchor in conjunction with a bow anchor/tie-off. I use my kedge anchor in this case, which is smaller than my bower. Even here it is no small task to launch and retrieve. But again, my boat is 15 tons, and does not suffer from the issues you identify - some of which are very real on some boats.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Cassidy said:


> I'm intrigued:
> 
> 5) Also, how do you get an anchor rode wrapped around your keel? I've been sailing for 4 decades, never experienced nor seen that.


It happens when the wind, waves, and current are in different directions. It happened to my Capri 22 quite often.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Yes Mike, stern anchoring won't be best for all boats or conditions. Stern anchoring is just another method or tool to consider and shouldn't be dismissed as crazy. Anchoring from the stern can be just as easy as anchoring from the bow, the boat just needs to be outfitted to do so.

Heavy lifting? I just toss a Fortress FX-16 (10 lbs) off the stern of my Bristol 35.5 and it holds great. It's been tested in 45 kt wind and no drag. I see people with the same anchor in their dinghys.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

kmacdonald5 said:


> Yes Mike, stern anchoring won't be best for all boats or conditions. Stern anchoring is just another method or tool to consider and shouldn't be dismissed as crazy. Anchoring from the stern can be just as easy as anchoring from the bow, the boat just needs to be outfitted to do so.
> 
> Heavy lifting? I just toss a Fortress FX-16 (10 lbs) off the stern of my Bristol 35.5 and it holds great. It's been tested in 45 kt wind and no drag. I see people with the same anchor in their dinghys.


I don't dismiss it, although I don't think it's necessarily the best option for most boats in most conditions. It is a useful anchoring method to be used given certain circumstances.

A Fortress is a great anchor, but I wouldn't use it as my bower. It is awesome in the right substrate, but has a narrower range of effectiveness than a spade-style. From tests and experience it also sets and resets less well.

I carry a F37. Great anchor in the right conditions.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

I've pulled up too many pivoting fluke (genuine) anchors that were locked in place by oyster shells to consider reliable resetting to be anything more than a pleasant fiction. If it is not oysters, they are too clogged with sticky mud to flop over, as required. More likely, the anchor was well-set and did not break out during any of the tide swings. They are perhaps the only anchors that can reliably do this, if deeply set. 

But I have also had both trip on a change; one reset several hundred feet away, the other was recovered in less distance than that.

---

As for Kmac, I think it is clear that stern anchoring works on his boat. Cool.


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

One thing that appears missing from this discussion is the matter of catenary. Perhaps it was discussed earlier in the thread than I’m prepared to go.

Irrespective of what anchor is used, if the shank is lifted enough the anchor will break out and drag. In order to keep the shank down there has to be weight on it either in the form of a kellet or chain. The more tension on the rode, the more weight is required. When the boat pulls on the rode, the rode is lifted - this is known as catenary. Not only does it keep the shank down, the process of lifting the chain softens shock loads on the ground tackle.

Lightweight rodes (full rope) cannot do either of these functions and the combination of lifting and shock loading will seriously reduce the anchor’s ability to do its work. I have never used a kellet so won’t comment but there is no question that chain provides adequate catenary and keeps an anchor firmly in the ground. Harder pulls on the boat are fixed by adding chain thus weight thus catenary. Adding more rope doesn’t do this. It may reduce the angle of pull on the anchor but one will need to put out a whole lot of rode to be effective.

I guess if one is anchoring in local protected waters then just rope may work but in deep water or strong winds or current, if a boat anchors upwind of me with just rope, I’ll move somewhere else.

Note I haven’t gotten into discussions about anchors. I’m not that dumb 😉. Awe the heck with it. The only use for a Danforth anchor on my boat is for the dingy and only because I don’t want a decent anchor to be nicked from the dink on the beach 😁


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Cassidy said:


> I have never used a kellet so won't comment


Quite a few years ago on this boat I was on Australias Great Barrier Reef when we were forced to anchor out during a Catagory 5 Cyclone in a place 13 people had been killed a dozen years before.

I was not happy.

I had made 2 kellets out of a large bucketfuls of cement.

I laid out my 2 anchors at 120 degrees to each other, put a kellet down each and tied them both off; put my 2 snubbers out.
Lets count: 2 anchors, 2 kellet ropes and 2 snubbers... Total 6 things going over the bow.

I was *patiently* explaining to my (then) girlfriend what each of the 6 things over the bow was. She innocently asked: "So if we have to move in an emergency which of the 6 do I pull up first????????????????"

Now I use one whopping great long heavy chain and 1 snubber. 

Mark
PS The boat swung through 360 degrees a few times. It took about 4 hours to finally sort that mess out.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

This boat was dug in hard on a Fortress until a sudden and hard wind shift came with a squall - at which point the boat was flying across the anchorage. Like PDQ, we have had single small shells or rocks lock the flukes.

I know, I know - a "true Danforth" operates completely differently...

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

The second most common distress calls to the Coast Guard in the area around Mystic/The Race/Watch Hill CT/NY/RI is from people anchoring by the stern and getting swamped in adverse current/wind conditions, and unable to extract themselves because of the forces.

The most common calls are people who forgot to put the plug in their boats and are sinking.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

kmacdonald5 said:


> It's true. Anchor from the stern when in a protected anchorage. (Almost always) The sailboat will not swing back and forth exposing its beam to the wind and thus higher loads. There will also be way less chafe.


As others have mentioned, our sugar scoop will slap with just a few inches of disturbance coming from behind. Your method may work for you, but like most anchoring religions, it's not universally applicable.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

BryceGTX said:


> I have not seen the resetting issues you refer to......


Yes, we know Bryce. You seem to have restarted this thread to try to get everyone to agree with your approach. It simply isn't going to happen. A danforth on all rope rode is not and will not be most cruisers first choice. Most don't want to give a second thought to chafe anywhere on their rode. Your unverifiable experience won't change that. Danforths can and do jam, from rocks, shells or a clump of grass. Your unverfiable experience won't change that. No anchor type is perfect in all conditions.

You're welcome to your opinion, as are others. Unless you own Danforth or a rope company, I don't really understand the mission here.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Now I use one whopping great long heavy chain and 1 snubber.


My second/backup anchor has never been in the water because my everyday anchor is my ANCHOR for everything.

One of the main reasons I went to all chain instead of just 100-125' (covers the "normal" amount out) is that there is not a connection point in the system that needs to go around the windlass.

[Bit edited out by Moderator.]

:crying
Multiple lines, kellets, stern anchors, pails of concrete, 2-3 anchors, geez can people people make it harder to do a simple thing?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Got me thinking further about this aft-anchor technique &#8230; Anchor rode is attached to the boat via stout, well-backed cleats, or even a samson post. They are purposely designed to take anchoring loads. Unless your boat is rigged to manage a drogue, it is unlikely your stern cleats are designed with anchor loads in mind. So where does one attach a stern anchor?

Off the main winches? This should work, but since the rode angles are now different than intended, you have a greater chance of encountering chafe issues. And I'd want to be careful not to be loading/unloading the winch drums as the boat moves at anchor. If not the mains, then where? Maybe forward to the intended attachment points, but this would introduce a lot more chafe potential, along with a lot more complexity. Other options?

I know some boats yaw or sail around a lot at anchor. This is indeed a serious problem in high winds. It puts tremendous shock loads and strain on the rode and anchor, and certainly promotes chafe issues. Anchoring from the stern may be an effective way for _some_ boats to deal with this, but unless the boat is rigged appropriately, I think it introduces a host of other potential problems.

There are other techniques to address anchor yawing. Every boat is different, so there's no one right answer, but I would definitely try those first before resorting to this kind of approach for regular anchoring.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I agree most boats are not well set up for stern anchoring. But mine is. Cleat, fairleads, backing plate, fantail, stern anchor locker\buoyancy tank, double ender. Like I mentioned, she does not tolerate weight in the bow. Some would argue she is not a cruising boat because she is too small, but what else do you call a boat you take off exploring for a month at a time in. I have never been good at understanding the rules and entry requirements for membership in the cruising club.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

my stern cleats are at least as strong as the bow cleats (POS production boat  )

but I would never put the boat's butt into the wind on anchor and take it up the ass with wind, rain and wakes

if your boat experiences high stress at anchor from yaw and sailing back and forth it's time for you to learn what and how to use a snubber

everything has a use at sometime, but ...................... it's just something to be aware of in case the "sometime" happens


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Stern cleats are usually plenty strong to attach the anchor rode to. It wouldn't concern me except in the most extreme conditions. If your boat isn't built to decent standards, it's not hard to reinforce a stern cleat or add a new one specifically for anchoring. Remember, the forces on a stern anchored boat will be significantly less than an bow anchored boat dancing in the wind.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

kmacdonald5 said:


> Stern cleats are usually plenty strong to attach the anchor rode to. It wouldn't concern me except in the most extreme conditions. If your boat isn't built to decent standards, it's not hard to reinforce a stern cleat or add a new one specifically for anchoring. Remember, the forces on a stern anchored boat will be significantly less than an bow anchored boat dancing in the wind.


I would not assume stern cleats, that were not designed for anchoring, are as strongly backed as cleats that were designed to take the anchor loads. And the angles are likely not optimal either since they were likely designed as dock cleats, so the force vectors would be different. But yes, they can be modified and reinforced if need be.

If a boat dances significantly on a bow anchor, then the forces _may_ be less when anchored from the stern. But many boats will encounter greater forces with this arrangement.

Again, I think this is a solution for a rather narrow range of boats/situations. It may be the best solution for some, but I'd be cautious about applying it widely.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

The higher performance sailboats tend to sail at anchor the most from what I've observed. My Capri 22 was really bad, its would swing 120 degrees each way. The Bristol 35.5 isn't as bad but still swings significantly.
I don't think I'd ever anchor a powerboat from the stern.

The angle of pull on bow cleats by the anchor rode is constantly changing as the boat swings. Mooring cleats may have to withstand greater loads than anchor cleats since the boat could be moored with the beam taking the full wind force. When anchored into the wind, a lot less area is taking the wind and therefore less force. The force of the wind is a function of the wind speed squared and directly proportional to the area.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

kmacdonald5 said:


> The higher performance sailboats tend to sail at anchor the most from what I've observed. My Capri 22 was really bad, its would swing 120 degrees each way. The Bristol 35.5 isn't as bad but still swings significantly.
> I don't think I'd ever anchor a powerboat from the stern.


Agreed. From observation I'd agree that more high performance, dare I say modern, designs tend to dance more at anchor compared to my old slug of a boat . I'm somewhat surprised to hear your Bristol suffers from this problem, but I guess the 35.5's were quite a different design than the traditional Bristols.



kmacdonald5 said:


> The angle of pull on bow cleats by the anchor rode is constantly changing as the boat swings. Mooring cleats may have to withstand greater loads than anchor cleats since the boat could be moored with the beam taking the full wind force. When anchored into the wind, a lot less area is taking the wind and therefore less force. The force of the wind is a function of the wind speed squared and directly proportional to the area.


Yes on the physics. I just don't think one should make assumptions about cleats without checking. A dock cleat may, or may not, deal with greater forces. It's all circumstantial. But one thing is certain, the design force vectors are very likely different.

This is why I don't think it wise to simply assume your stout looking stern cleats are up to the task. It's specifically why, when rigging a drogue, that the stern cleats on most boats need to be enhanced so as to withstand this new load. Anchoring could produce similar forces.

I really don't mean to belabour this discussion. I do think the stern anchor idea is a useful one for certain boats in certain situations. If your boat wonders and yaws significantly at (bow) anchor, and other solutions haven't helped, then it might be worth giving it a try. But it's not a general purpose approach, and it comes with significant challenges.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

K, I know that anchoring off the stern works nicely for some boats. Mine has a very specific reason for the stern anchoring set up, and that is that it is a beachable boat. The idea being that you drop your anchor 50 or a 100 feet off the beach, then use your anchor as brakes as you work your way into the beach. Next morning, when its time to go, you start hauling on the anchor to pull yourself off the beach. That may include backing into a surf or whatever is being thrown at the beach, so I have a high rounded stern with lots of buoyancy. 

But... I just cant see it with a sugar scoop. Another place I cant see it working is places with abrupt shorelines where there some times just aren't that many good headlands and bays to hide behind, so you kind of get what you get. Or rivers/areas of strong tidal currents where you can get trees and other floatsam banging into your rudder. I just think there are too many situations where it doesn't work for it to be a primary anchoring method for most people. Even my boat, after I cleat the rode off to my stern cleat, I continue to run the anchor line outboard of my cockpit all the way to my bow cleat so that if the waves come up all, I need to do is release the stern cleat and the boat will naturally swing around head to wind (at which point I would very likely set sail and move on to a better spot).

Also, not sure I would ever lock my rudder at the quadrant, too much to remember if you need to fire up and get out of there in a hurry. I just lash my tiller midships at anchor, regardless of which way I am pointing.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes on the physics. I just don't think one should make assumptions about cleats without checking. A dock cleat may, or may not, deal with greater forces. It's all circumstantial. But one thing is certain, the design force vectors are very likely different.
> 
> This is why I don't think it wise to simply assume your stout looking stern cleats are up to the task. It's specifically why, when rigging a drogue, that the stern cleats on most boats need to be enhanced so as to withstand this new load. Anchoring could produce similar forces.
> 
> I really don't mean to belabour this discussion. I do think the stern anchor idea is a useful one for certain boats in certain situations. If your boat wonders and yaws significantly at (bow) anchor, and other solutions haven't helped, then it might be worth giving it a try. But it's not a general purpose approach, and it comes with significant challenges.


I wouldn't suggest that anyone assume their bow or stern cleats and attachments are up to the task of holding in extreme conditions. A lot probably wouldn't and most weren't designed to. That's not to say they can't be used for the purpose of anchoring in anything but extreme conditions. You just don't want the cleats to be the "weakest link".

The rigging of a drogue is a completely different than rigging for anchoring. The drogue will experience MUCH greater loads that an anchor rode would. A drogue has to deal with the boat surfing down large waves where the anchor attachment point deals mainly with wind induced forces.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

kmacdonald5 said:


> You are a good candidate for dyneema then.


I would be curious to try dyneema anchor line. There don't seem to be many online resources for anchoring with it, but I have been using it for more and more stuff lately. Its really hard to cut, so I am guessing that its way better than nylon for chaffe resistance. It weighs next to nothing it's strong.

It floats though, so I guess you would need a length of chain attached to the anchor shaft and a kellet to keep it from floating up. I am okay with kellets though. I can see them being a pain with a windlass, but when hand bombing the line they really don't seem to be a problem. I just use a 5lb mushroom anchor. Works great.

If I ever get around to buying a new gen anchor I might try it with dyneema.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb said:


> .... Its really hard to cut, so I am guessing that its way better than nylon for chaffe resistance......


Doesn't dyneema usually have a cover for chafe resistance, because the product itself is not all that resistant? I made my own davit bridle with dyneema and didn't find it difficult to cut at all.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

I think every post on anchoring technique should be preceded by a brief description of what you’re anchoring, and where. Otherwise the information isn’t terribly useful.

So I have a Catalina 22, a 2,300 lb boat that I mostly anchor in protected lakes. Sometimes high winds, but never big waves. I use a 13 lb faux-danforth (oversized for this boat) with 20’ of chain and the rest 3-strand nylon.

1. My boat swings like a motherf***er. It’s pretty light weight and the stack pack acts like a small sail, so in any kind of wind I am all over the place. I should build a riding sail, but this idea of stern anchoring is also appealing.

2. I have wrapped my rode around the keel a few times. Again, a small light boat that spins easily. However I don’t see how stern anchoring would prevent that.

3. I’ve never had my fake danforth drag. But I have pulled it up completely jammed with mud and weeds, such that there is no way it could have reset had it needed to.

4. Even though I’m in lakes with only small waves, they’re still annoying when they start slapping. That could be a real downside to stern anchoring. I could see that if it was really hot and I was trying to sleep having the companionway open straight to the wind would be nice, and since the slap would be at the back and I’d be sleeping up front maybe it wouldn’t be too bad? But mostly, if the wind is strong enough that I’m worried about swinging, then it’s also strong enough that it’d be uncomfortable to have it blowing straight into the cockpit.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> Doesn't dyneema usually have a cover for chafe resistance, because the product itself is not all that resistant? I made my own davit bridle with dyneema and didn't find it difficult to cut at all.


I made my lifelines out of dyneema (no covering) and I found it quite challenging to cut. Certainly easier than wire or chain, but definitely harder than nylon.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

If you use dyneema for anchor rode will you need a nylon snubber?


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

kmacdonald5 said:


> Actually, the biggest upsides is less chafe and way less holding power needed. A violently yawing boat will quickly chafe thru the anchor rode. The wind load on the beam is much greater than from the bow or stern. Point being, if you want to survive a violent storm at anchor, anchor from the stern.


 I can't imagine anchoring from the stern in a violent storm. First, since there isn't a chock in the middle of my boats stern, I'd have to use one of the cleats/chocks that are located along the side which would result in being cocked off to one side, or I'd have to fabricate quite a big harness, similar to what multihulls use, Also, since I have no windlass on my stern, if I wanted to shorten the rode during this violent storm I'd have to do it by hand while backing towards it. Since my boat is not a double ender, the waves generated by this violent storm would be smashing into my transom, and since it's a sugarscoop type quite a lot of force would be exerted as each wave broke against my transom and then was blown up onto the deck. My dodger would act as a big wind scoop and the whole cockpit would be exposed to rain and windblown seawater and as soon as I cracked open the companionway, that water would immediately find its way below. If the waves are big and the boat is pitching, my rudder would be exposed to the force of the waves breaking against it so I would worry about it being damaged.

My boat doesn't yaw violently at anchor anyway, especially with my snubber lead over the bow roller but I have chafe gear permanently on my snubber and once the anchor is set I secure it in position so that any chafe would occur to the chafe gear rather than to the snubber itself. If chafe somehow does occur, it's not difficult to fasten a new snubber to the chain and then let out another 30' or so of chain until the new snubber takes the load. I can't say that I've ridden out what I'd call any violent storms at anchor because I always seek a sheltered anchorage in bad weather, but with the precautions I've mentioned, routing the snubber over rollers on centerline of boat and that snubber having chafe gear located at point where it contacts the roller, I've never had any chafe issues at all. Stern anchoring might work in some situations but I think it's a very bad idea for most boats during a violent storm, or even in 2'-3' whitecaps if your boat has a sugarscoop or wide, flat transom. There are lots of very good reasons why the anchors on most boats all around the world are located on or near the bow.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Minnesail said:


> I think every post on anchoring technique should be preceded by a brief description of what you're anchoring, and where. Otherwise the information isn't terribly useful.
> 
> 1. My boat swings like a motherf***er. It's pretty light weight and the stack pack acts like a small sail, so in any kind of wind I am all over the place. I should build a riding sail, but this idea of stern anchoring is also appealing.
> 
> ...


If you think wrapping your rode around your keel wasn't fun, just imagine what excitement you'd have had if it had been wrapped around your rudder or propeller instead. 

I agree wholeheartedly that all our boats have different characteristics so it would be helpful to understand different techniques and opinions if we are told on what boat the incident occurred and under what conditions.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Arcb said:
> 
> 
> > .... Its really hard to cut, so I am guessing that its way better than nylon for chaffe resistance......
> ...


dyneema is very chafe and uv resistant. Much more so than nylon.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Great stuff...but doesnt stretch


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

RegisteredUser said:


> Great stuff...but doesnt stretch


Nor does chain


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Yep...ditch weight of chain...ditch stretchy snubber...go dyneema.
Become performance cruiser...on the internet...

Horse long dead...still being beaten


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnesail said:


> I think every post on anchoring technique should be preceded by a brief description of what you're anchoring, and where. Otherwise the information isn't terribly useful.


Very true, with a few exceptions the dividing line between mixed rode and all chain seems to be very much related to displacement.

Which makes sense. Heavy, boats with lots of systems will barely notice windlas, chain, batteries, generators etc.

Smaller, lighter boats will notice not only the extra weight but the lost space associated with additional systems.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Cassidy said:


> Irrespective of what anchor is used, if the shank is lifted enough the anchor will break out and drag....


Holding capacity only begins to decline significantly with a scope less than about 10:1. Same with the chain coming off the bottom; not critical unless significant lift.

[This table is for large anchors, but I have tested and published data for many common anchors.]









Of course, once the cable lifts, the anchor also becomes for vulnerable to yawing, which is not often reported. It is probably the greater risk.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

First, I only mentioned Dyneema for fun. That said, I have used it as a chafe leader on a kedge.

a. Dyneema is very wear resistant end-to-end, but most weaves are s__t side-to-side. Abrasion resistance, it turns out (much testing) has more to do with weave than material. That is why most mooring pendants and chafe gear use nylon or polyester webbing; different weave. Only a few covered Dyneema ropes are optimized for side-to-side (NER WR2).

b. To corollary is that the cover must move freely. It is hard to cut or chafe something that is not tensioned and is free to rotate.

My Dyneema leader had a free floating webbing chafe guard. VERY hard to chafe.

And curiously, I use a Dyneema bridle (the rode is nylon). I want the rode to stretch, but I would rather the bridle did not. Think about that.


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

pdqaltair said:


> Holding capacity only begins to decline significantly with a scope less than about 10:1. Same with the chain coming off the bottom; not critical unless significant lift.


I assume when you say "scope", you mean rode length to water depth ratio.

I have always subscribed to a scope of 5:1 unless the weather turns nasty when I will sometimes go out to 7:1. Anchoring at 10:1 in many places I sail would require a rode of 200 metres (650ft). I seriously doubt there are many boats with that sort of rode aboard. As an aside, with my 10mm all-chain rode, that would weigh nearly half a ton. The wind would have to really scream for my boat to lift that much chain 

Effectively what you're saying is that anyone anchoring with 5:1 has significantly declining holding capacity? I would venture to suggest this would be a substantial proportion of sailors. It's a very commonly used scope.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> ...And curiously, I use a Dyneema bridle (the rode is nylon). I want the rode to stretch, but I would rather the bridle did not. Think about that.


I am curious. Love to know your thinking.

BTW, I mused about needing a snubber on a Dyneema rode. I assume it would be required since Dyneema would behave like chain.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Cassidy said:


> ...Effectively what you're saying is that anyone anchoring with 5:1 has significantly declining holding capacity?...


Yes, obviously. If they are using chain, the affect depends on wind strength and water depth (in shallow water, using chain does not actually help, in >20 feet, it helps a lot--it's about the pounds). If they are using rope, it depends on those factors and how much chain leader.

But my point was that this does not happen "when the chain leaves the bottom; there needs to be a >10 degree angle.

Additionally, it depends a GREAT deal on the type of anchor. Fortress, for example, if well set, is affected to a much lesser extent than shown on the graph. Even at VERY short scope (4:1) there is little reduction in holding. Just ask someone who tried to recover one after a 60 kt storm; it's epic.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> I am curious. Love to know your thinking.
> 
> BTW, I mused about needing a snubber on a Dyneema rode. I assume it would be required since Dyneema would behave like chain.


At high load, a nylon bridle stretches, and is no longer an isosceles triangle. This can result in increased yawing. Yes, I have measured it. Additionally, if you are using all-rope, you arguably have too much stretch already.

BTW, if I were using chain (last boat) it would be nylon, of course, and long. Totally different case.

----

Dyneema would be much worse than chain. I tried it once, during testing. Without a snubber you might break a cleat off. I blew a 2-ton load cell when a wake hit me in about 10 knots, but shallow water. BAM. Probably saved my cleats.


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

MikeOReilly said:


> BTW, I mused about needing a snubber on a Dyneema rode. I assume it would be required since Dyneema would behave like chain.


Maybe my thinking is skewed - I always use a snubber to damped the noise of the anchor being dragged over the bottom and transmitting the noise up into the boat. For me it's not about improving the integrity of the rode. My chain is way stronger than the snubber.

This noise transfer would not be evident using dyneema or any other form of rope so why add a snubber?

I just read pdqaltair's post. Is the fact that light-weight dyneema provides no catenary and also no stretch that caused it to break your load cell? Maybe the springy nylon snubber would improve the quality of the rode in this case. Score a negative for dyneema as ground tackle potential.


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

pdqaltair said:


> Yes, obviously. If they are using chain, the affect depends on wind strength and water depth (in shallow water, using chain does not actually help, in >20 feet, it helps a lot--it's about the pounds). If they are using rope, it depends on those factors and how much chain leader.
> 
> But my point was that this does not happen "when the chain leaves the bottom; there needs to be a >10 degree angle.
> 
> Additionally, it depends a GREAT deal on the type of anchor. Fortress, for example, if well set, is affected to a much lesser extent than shown on the graph. Even at VERY short scope (4:1) there is little reduction in holding. Just ask someone who tried to recover one after a 60 kt storm; it's epic.


Wow, talk about a smoke screen. I have read this post over and over and can't see the message. I must be really dumb. If you're saying that 10:1 scope is less likely to drag than 5:1 then I agree, obviously that is correct. But that's like saying is a Volvo boat going to get there before my boat? Well, obviously.

Oh, never mind. ?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Cassidy said:


> Effectively what you're saying is that anyone anchoring with 5:1 has significantly declining holding capacity? I would venture to suggest this would be a substantial proportion of sailors. It's a very commonly used scope.


I don't think that is what he meant. Because of catenary, the relationship between the scope and the angle on the bottom is not linear. 10:1 is the point where the end of the chain lies on the ground no matter what load is on it. There is no practical difference between 10:1 and 100:1.

Between 7:1 and 10:1 for almost all anchoring situations, there is only a little difference in this regard. Not really enough in a practical sense to matter much at all. Maybe the angle increases a degree or two in this range.

5:1 starts to become significantly different from 10:1 wrt to the rode/anchor angle, but again, is still a useful practical scope for ideal setting, holding, and resetting an anchor. However, there is enough of a difference that most people intuitively let out a bit more scope for major weather.

As scope gets shorter than 5:1, the angle to the bottom increases exponentially (actually as a hyperbolic cosine), until at 1:1 it is to a first order 90* and linear.

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Cassidy said:


> Maybe my thinking is skewed - I always use a snubber to damped the noise of the anchor being dragged over the bottom and transmitting the noise up into the boat. For me it's not about improving the integrity of the rode. My chain is way stronger than the snubber.
> 
> This noise transfer would not be evident using dyneema or any other form of rope so why add a snubber? ...


Noise dampening is one useful aspect of a snubber, but I view this as secondary to the real benefits. The major reason one needs a snubber with all-chain rode is to act as a shock absorber. Another vital aspect of a snubber is to take the load off the windlass. I would never anchor for more than a few hours without deploying my snubbers (I almost always use a bridle arrangement).

This is why I asked about a snubber with dyneema. Since it doesn't stretch, I assume one would need a snubber of some sort if it was used as a rode.

I always try and deploy as much scope as possible. If I can get to 10:1 (or more), I do. It's all about angle to the anchor shank/sea bed. The smaller the angle the better. I view 5:1 as minimum for overnight anchoring.

With regard to the benefits of chain in shallower waters, it's true catenary doesn't come much into play. Rather, the range of wind speed/rode angles are much narrower for the effect. But one one benefit of all chain in shallow waters is simple rode weight and friction.

As anyone who anchors in shallow waters with all-chain knows, most of the time we swing from our chain, not the anchor. Dragging around all that bumpy chain creates a significant drag which also acts as a dampener. While not the same as catenary, it is similar in effect.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Cassidy said:


> Maybe my thinking is skewed - I always use a snubber to damped the noise of the anchor being dragged over the bottom and transmitting the noise up into the boat. For me it's not about improving the integrity of the rode. My chain is way stronger than the snubber.
> 
> This noise transfer would not be evident using dyneema or any other form of rope so why add a snubber?
> 
> I just read pdqaltair's post. Is the fact that light-weight dyneema provides no catenary and also no stretch that caused it to break your load cell? Maybe the springy nylon snubber would improve the quality of the rode in this case. Score a negative for dyneema as ground tackle potential.


A snubber is not just to preserve the ingetrity of the rode or reduce noise. Assuming it is long enough it:
* Reduces the load on the ground tackle by 3-5 times (based on testing by numerous researchers. Rember that the ABYC table is designed to stress the tackle to the WLL in a worst case situation unless a snubber is used.
* Increase anchor holding in worse case. The anchor will only hold peak loads IF the sand is perfect and the boat doe not yaw, if there is catenary in the chain, or if there is some other shoc absorption. Otherwise, dragging is probable.

If you have not seen these extreme loads, it is probably because you have not experienced a worst case (shallow water, steep waves, relatively short scope).

---

And no, I was not suggesting Dyneema rode. That was just for fun. Yes, Dyneema just transfers the impact, like hitting a brick wall. I can see the use for VERY long rodes, like platforms. Ships use it for dock line, BUT they have either hydraulic winches that constantly maintain tension, OR they use nylon snubbers on the ends.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Cassidy said:


> Wow, talk about a smoke screen. I have read this post over and over and can't see the message. I must be really dumb. If you're saying that 10:1 scope is less likely to drag than 5:1 then I agree, obviously that is correct. But that's like saying is a Volvo boat going to get there before my boat? Well, obviously.
> 
> Oh, never mind. ��


No smoke screen. The math gets complicated, because the effect of the chain catenary is a function of the weight of chain out. In fact, the formulas are not that complex, but there are many variables. It's really to much to post in a forum. It's more like a chapter, with graphs.

As a rule, as the water gets deeper, there is more chain, and thus the catenary is more effective. Over 20 feet, catenary works very well even in strong winds; it's hard to lift that much chain if the scope is at least 7:1. Under 5 feet chain doesn't work differently than chain once the wind hits 25 knots; it lifts off the bottom in under 15 knots. In between, it is, well, in between. I've spent a LOT of hours on the bow with a load cell, and a lot of hours diving, checking theory against data.

What is critical is the angle at the bottom. Less than about 10 degrees, not much change, more than 10 degrees anchor holding drops off (except for Fortress, which drops very slowly). Finally, all anchors are more vulnerable to weakening due to yawing when the chain is off the bottom, which is probably the actual cause of most dragging of well-set anchors.

---

I do a lot of anchoring testing. This spring I did a series of test on riding sails (3 designs). Rode types, kellets and yawing. Just yesterday I was testing several variations on bridles, though that was probably trimaran-specific. It is not a simple topic, though most of the time you can just chuck the anchor and 5:1 scope and all is well. But optimizing is complicated. You could say to same of sailing, of course. That Volvo crew could make any boat go faster!


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

pdqaltair said:


> This spring I did a series of test on riding sails (3 designs).


Could you share any of that with us?

I'm thinking I need to make a riding sail.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnesail said:


> Could you share any of that with us?
> 
> I'm thinking I need to make a riding sail.


That was for Practical Sailor. I just mailed one of the test sails back to the vendor yesterday. I don't know when the article will print.

There is no 1-paragraph answer. It depends on the boat and what fits. However, I suggest one of the twin luff V-shaped sails; they outperformed traditional single luff sails in every way and are much more stable in a strong wind. My personal choice, if I were going to make my own, is diamond of fabric laid over the end of boom, with the boom then elevated. Paratech designed it, but never marketed it. The Fin Delta is a neat commercial option, more suitable if you have a bimini, but far more complex to build.

See top of page 29. https://www.seaanchor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5928/2017/10/sea_anchor_instructions.pdf

A few of my notes, just as I began testing. Sail Delmarva: Riding Sails

They really do help, even more than chain, once the wind gets up. Yawing has always scared me, since it loosens the anchor.

Note for single luff riding sails: They are NOT set on the center line. The front corner should be offset at least 4-6 feet from the leach.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

That fabric laid overt the boom looks interesting. It'd be really quick to rig, so if that works at all it'd be pretty slick.

I'm curious why lifting the rudder would help. I would think the rudder would resist side-to-side motion.

Like I said, my boat swings all over at anchor. The stack pack acts like a quadruple reefed sail, so once it gets moving it really goes. It can be quite alarming when you're swimming off the back of the boat...


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnesail said:


> I'm curious why lifting the rudder would help. I would think the rudder would resist side-to-side motion....


Yawing is cause by the center of windage being farther forward than the center of lateral resistance. Adding a riding sail moves the windage aft. Lifting the rudder moves the CLR forward.

Yes, it really helps. A lifting rudder should always be raised. A lifting centerboard can go either way (some times up is better, sometimes not). The absolute WORST is CB up and rudder down.


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

pdqaltair said:


> If you have not seen these extreme loads, it is probably because you have not experienced a worst case (shallow water, steep waves, relatively short scope).


Quite right, I would not anchor in those conditions and if conditions changed while I was anchored, I would leave. Shallow water, steep waves implies long fetch, we're talking lee shore, no one should stay anchored in such a situation.

There is now a theory on the table that "scope" means chain that's lying on the ground. So I'm leaving that discussion behind. Let's discuss how a snubber reduces load on the rode.

I suppose when the chain is a straight line between anchor and bow roller, then the spring in a snubber would offer protection, but let's be fair, how many times would any sailor allow that condition to occur? Any catenary, no matter how small, offers protection/cushion.

In 5 metres of water at 5:1 scope, the chain I have out weighs 70-odd pounds, much more, I suspect than the average kellet that is deemed to provide adequate catenary.

The snubber would also need to have at least the same tensile strength as the chain otherwise it represents a weak link. That's a big piece of rope in a 10mm all-chain rode.

If there is rope in the rode (not Dyneema) the rope cushions the load and no snubber required.

Finally, given that the majority of sailors anchor anchor on 5:1 scope (at least they do where I sail), boats anchoring on 10:1 scope cause a lot of angst as their swing circle in a busy anchorage will cause all kinds of problems when the wind shifts.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

pdqaltair said:


> Yawing is cause by the center of windage being farther forward than the center of lateral resistance. Adding a riding sail moves the windage aft. Lifting the rudder moves the CLR forward.
> 
> Yes, it really helps. A lifting rudder should always be raised. A lifting centerboard can go either way (some times up is better, sometimes not). The absolute WORST is CB up and rudder down.


Huh. I understand the concept of moving the CLR forward, but...

My boat spins like a top without the rudder. I've driven it around without the rudder, steering with the outboard, and it's very hard to control because it just wants to spin. It would seem like this tendency to spin would add to the yawing.

I believe you, you certainly know more about this than I do, but it is counterintuitive.

Anyway, thanks for the info on riding sails. I think I'm going to play around with those a bit this summer.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

I have a riding sail that we made years ago. It was not very useful. If the wind was blowing straight on the bow the boat was fine, but it was fine without the sail in those conditions. When the wind shifted, which it often does in an anchorage near the shore, it would of course blow at the exposed face of the riding sail and push the stern over...and then it would shift back and shove the bow even harder in the opposite direction.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Without arguing, there are a number of assumptions here that are probably not universal. My comments in RED.



Cassidy said:


> Quite right, I would not anchor in those conditions and if conditions changed while I was anchored, I would leave. Shallow water, steep waves implies long fetch, we're talking lee shore, no one should stay anchored in such a situation. First, I was simply stating the basis of the ABYC standard. You are right, open rodesteads are hazardous. That said, I've seen conditions change pretty fast, and there many examples of boats being lost in such conditions. I tested on one such local area, where folks have been caught before.
> 
> There is now a theory on the table that "scope" means chain that's lying on the ground. So I'm leaving that discussion behind. Let's discuss how a snubber reduces load on the rode.
> 
> ...


My point is that standards are developed for all users, and defining normal in terms of your personal experience is slightly arbitrary. I have used the example of extreme shallow water, but there was a famous disaster in Cabo San Lucus, I believe, that involved many cruising boats dragging on shore.

So most certainly you have avoided "worst case" anchoring. Good. That shows seamanship and good sense. I have done so intentionally a few times, always in the name of testing, and I can confirm that the ABYC values are accurate. With good anchoring practice (protection from steep waves and either deep water or a long snubber) the loads will be 3-5 times less. Thank goodness, because the ABYC numbers would be VERY difficult for an anchor to hold unless the bottom is perfect. By all means, get a load cell and measure them.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

jtsailjt said:


> .
> Your 35# Danforth has the same holding power as a much heavier Rocna but only when anchored in certain bottom conditions. But the Rocna or similar anchor will do much better in a greater variety of bottoms such as hard packed gravel or thick kelp.


I based my first post on the comparison of a two anchors of the same weight for the simple reason I prefer to limit the weight of the anchor.

So if I compare a 35 Danforth to a 35 Rocna, your argument starts to lose its merit.

I anchor every time as if I will be subjected to 60 mph winds. For the simple reason that it has happened a number of times.

If I anchor in marginal anchorages, I may not hold with any anchor. Chain or not.

There is an anchorage near the bottom of Detroit river where we anchor any where from two to 8 times a year. Long heavy stringy seaweed. Pull up any anchor, it comes up with 100 pounds of seaweed. In a changing wind, the Rocna is useless in this anchorage as many have found. And the Danforth is useless as a Rocna.

Chesapeake bay has some challenging anchorages. Very hard clay bottoms. Every anchor drags.

So as far as I am concerned a significant point of anchoring is how to pick an anchorage where your anchor holds. So we should not encourage people to anchor in poor conditions. Or worse yet, give them false hope that some anchor/chain combination solves all problems.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

pdqaltair said:


> Holding capacity only begins to decline significantly with a scope less than about 10:1. Same with the chain coming off the bottom; not critical unless significant lift.


You are sounding a pretty big alarm for an insignificant issue. Its always useful to look at hard numbers to get a good perspective.

At just under 9.5 degrees the anchor (6:1 scope) hold value is still 70% of its maximum in sand. My small 25# Danforth can conservatively generate 5000 pounds in such a case. So 70% of of 5000 is 3500...

At 3500 pounds, that anchor is not going to drag.
Bryce


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

BryceGTX said:


> You are sounding a pretty big alarm for an insignificant issue. Its always useful to look at hard numbers to get a good perspective.
> 
> At just under 9.5 degrees the anchor (6:1 scope) hold value is still 70% of its maximum in sand. My small 25# Danforth can conservatively generate 5000 pounds in such a case. So 70% of of 5000 is 3500...
> 
> ...


I posted quantitative data. They are what they are, they are provable, and nothing to argue over.

I never said this was a huge factor, and in fact, I made it clear that it is a very small issue for pivoting fluke anchors. I specifically pointed out that the angle at the bottom and scope are different; they are ONLY the same if all-rope is used. Finally, I said that holding capacity would be reduced; however, if the anchor is properly sized, this is taken into account, as part of the selection safety factor.  Manufactures know this and factor it into their recommendations. Same with a moderate amount of yawing. This is all part of normal anchoring. This is just one of many reasons you don't use the smallest possible anchor.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

pdqaltair said:


> I posted quantitative data. They are what they are, they are provable, and nothing to argue over.
> 
> I never said this was a huge factor, and in fact, I made it clear that it is a very small issue for pivoting fluke anchors. I specifically pointed out that the angle at the bottom and scope are different; they are ONLY the same if all-rope is used. Finally, I said that holding capacity would be reduced; however, if the anchor is properly sized, this is taken into account, as part of the selection safety factor.  Manufactures know this and factor it into their recommendations. Same with a moderate amount of yawing. This is all part of normal anchoring. This is just one of many reasons you don't use the smallest possible anchor.


Apparently your post was a response to my discussion about the moving shank of Danforth compared to the fixed shank of other anchors. My post was specifically related to setting and resetting as opposed to pure holding power. My discussion pointed out that other anchors may reset different with line only because they had fixed shanks.

Now perhaps your post would have been more useful if you showed the same chart for a Danforth and then a second chart for say a fixed shank anchor like a Delta or Bruce. Then we might at least compare how a fixed shank compared to a pivoting shank in holding power. But perhaps nothing about the ability to set.

Instead, your chart showed the obvious.. the steeper the angle, the less the holding.. yep.. everyone knows that.
Bryce


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

BryceGTX said:


> Apparently your post was a response to my discussion about the moving shank of Danforth compared to the fixed shank of other anchors. My post was specifically related to setting and resetting as opposed to pure holding power. My discussion pointed out that other anchors may reset different with line only because they had fixed shanks.
> 
> Now perhaps your post would have been more useful if you showed the same chart for a Danforth and then a second chart for say a fixed shank anchor like a Delta or Bruce. Then we might at least compare how a fixed shank compared to a pivoting shank in holding power. But perhaps nothing about the ability to set.
> 
> ...


If I post everything that I have published, the publishers will shoot me. However, a few are useful for learning. (This, along with more, is in _Practical Sailor_, Nov 2017, and in _Rigging Modern Anchors_, below).

The brands are not listed because the scatter in the data was so great that the information might unfairly prejudice the reader. It was off the point. The pivoting fluke anchor was Fortress. Also note that the Claw was the only other design that continued to function at very short scope. Also remember that these figures were normalized to equal holding at long scope; the claw does not hold as much at a given weight, and the Fortress holds a great deal more. Finally, notice that the multi-ton stockless design has a similar change with scope. I found that very interesting.

We also tested in fine sand. The curves were a little different, but the pattern was the same.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

BryceGTX said:


> I based my first post on the comparison of a two anchors of the same weight for the simple reason I prefer to limit the weight of the anchor.
> 
> So if I compare a 35 Danforth to a 35 Rocna, your argument starts to lose its merit.
> 
> ...


It may be your preference to limit the weight of your anchor but comparing a Danforth of the same weight as a Rocna isn't a very valid comparison. Certainly an extra 50 lbs of anchor weight in your bow rollers isn't an issue to be concerned with unless you're a professional racer in a world class racing sailboat, and if you have a windlass, neither is 50lbs of anchor to retrieve from the bottom.

The Chesapeake is one of those places where a Danforth is probably as good a choice as any, but that's not true in many other places.

Yes, there are places where neither a Rocna or a Danforth will hold, but in those places, maybe a third option is a better choice, such as a Spade with its weighted tip or even a Fisherman?

Nobody is encouraging anyone to anchor in poor conditions OR saying that any one anchor will work well in all conditions, but some anchors have a wider range of conditions where they are useful than others and the Danforth is one of those that is more limited than some other choices such as a Mantus, Rocna, Spade, or similar. Also, if you are taking care to anchor in good conditions, how did you happen to get stuck anchored in 60 knot winds "a number of times?" Couldn't you find a more sheltered spot?


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

pdqaltair said:


> I posted quantitative data. They are what they are, they are provable, and nothing to argue over.
> 
> I never said this was a huge factor, and in fact, I made it clear that it is a very small issue for pivoting fluke anchors. I specifically pointed out that the angle at the bottom and scope are different; they are ONLY the same if all-rope is used. Finally, I said that holding capacity would be reduced; however, if the anchor is properly sized, this is taken into account, as part of the selection safety factor.  *Manufactures know this and factor it into their recommendations*. Same with a moderate amount of yawing. This is all part of normal anchoring. This is just one of many reasons you don't use the smallest possible anchor.


Good to know. We can use smaller anchors with more scope in questionable weather. Toss the hook off the stern to prevent sailing at anchor and chafe. Life is good!


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

pdqaltair said:


> If I post everything that I have published, the publishers will shoot me. However, a few are useful for learning. (This, along with more, is in _Practical Sailor_, Nov 2017, and in _Rigging Modern Anchors_, below).
> 
> The brands are not listed because the scatter in the data was so great that the information might unfairly prejudice the reader. It was off the point. The pivoting fluke anchor was Fortress. Also note that the Claw was the only other design that continued to function at very short scope. Also remember that these figures were normalized to equal holding at long scope; the claw does not hold nearly as much at a given weight, and the Fortress holds a great deal more. Finally, notice that the multi-ton stockless design has a similar change with scope. I found that very interesting.
> 
> We also tested in fine sand. The curves were a little different, but the pattern was the same.


I thought this would get more feedback.

One more bit of data. The Northill curve is between the scoop and the Fortress curves; it withstands uplift reasonably well, and as a result, can be harder to recover from a good bottom. But nobody uses Northill anymore.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> I thought this would get more feedback......


If you insist.

The chart seems confusing. The Y axis is defined as the percent of ultimate holding capacity, but how does one know what ultimate holding capacity is for each anchor represented.

Further, doesn't that homogenize varying holding capacities. Just because one anchor type falls off the curve faster, doesn't make clear whether it's remain holding capacity may still be greater than another that started with less capacity and lost less. I'm not saying that's true, but I found the chart less than clear.


----------



## Cassidy (Apr 13, 2019)

pdqaltair said:


> I thought this would get more feedback.


If you insist 

Let me understand lead angle. Is this the angle of the rode on a straight line from the end of the anchor to the bow roller measured against horizontal?

If it is then as I have alluded to in earlier posts, it would be a very severe condition a sailor using any amount of chain finds himself in where all of the rode is lifted off the sea bed. And until that condition occurs the lead angle at the anchor is zero because the chain is pulling horizontally. The start of the lead angle would be the point where the chain leaves the ground and not the end of the anchor.

Yes, I know that test results can't be tailored to my specific sailing habits or conditions but my habits/conditions are similar to many thousands of sailors, at least they were when I still bothered to read sailing magazines.  For me, test results that are based on extremes are less valuable.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> If you insist.
> 
> The chart seems confusing. The Y axis is defined as the percent of ultimate holding capacity, but how does one know what ultimate holding capacity is for each anchor represented.
> 
> Further, doesn't that homogenize varying holding capacities. Just because one anchor type falls off the curve faster, doesn't make clear whether it's remain holding capacity may still be greater than another that started with less capacity and lost less. I'm not saying that's true, but I found the chart less than clear.


Exactly. You would have to go to a different chart to get baseline holding capacity for each anchor, and there you would learn that the baseline value for each anchor varies with the bottom type, and every test program comes up with different values. It's like herding cats. In fact, most of the scoop types are reasonably similar (without picking a fight), pivoting flukes hold more, and claw-types hold less.

Why was it done this way? To make a single message crystal clear; holding capacity declines with angle at the bottom in a fairly consistent way, for nearly all anchor types, regardless of size or substrate.

Is the ratio of mass to holding capacity the be all and end all of anchors? That is a different debate and I'm not going there.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Cassidy said:


> If you insist
> 
> Let me understand lead angle. Is this the angle of the rode on a straight line from the end of the anchor to the bow roller measured against horizontal?
> 
> ...


Lead angle is the angle between the rode and the bottom. If you used nylon with no chain at all, it would be the angle between the bottom and the roller, but with chain it will be less than that.

In fact, it takes only 25-30 knots in 10-15 feet, depending on scope and chain grade (low grade chain is heavier for the same strength). In my mind, standard anchoring practice should allow for up to 60 knots, since many thunderstorms can deliver that.










Each person will define "extreme" differently. For me it would be strong winds or bad bottoms. For another it might be shallow water. Certainly the middle range--17 feet with 35-40 knots--would be considered normal and commonplace. For me, 6 feet with 60 knots is commonplace in the summer (though never in an open roadstead... although mistakes can happen, and squalls pop up fast).

What do we believe is normal? Water that is 15 feet deep, 7:1 scope, and wind no stronger than 35 knots? If so, then yes, your chain will stay on the bottom. That is what the data say. In fact, that is the whole point; to help sailors understand the boundries of "extreme," so that they can avoid them.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

pdqaltair said:


> Why was it done this way? To make a single message crystal clear; holding capacity declines with angle at the bottom in a fairly consistent way, for nearly all anchor types, regardless of size or substrate.


It does that, but it still is a confusing presentation, unless it is more of a sidebar addendum to a description about bottom angle effect in anchor design in general.

As a standalone, it sends a different message to people without a lot of experience with graphs and datasets. For example, one anchor could lose 50% of its holding power at a certain angle compared to another anchor. But if that anchor has the same holding power at that higher angle as the other, then the loss of 50% isn't meaningful in comparing the anchors suitability.

This is just feedback based on a single graph, because I haven't read the article and the context in which the data are presented.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

pdqaltair said:


> Lead angle is the angle between the rode and the bottom. If you used nylon with no chain at all, it would be the angle between the bottom and the roller, but with chain it will be less than that.
> 
> In fact, it takes only 25-30 knots in 10-15 feet, depending on scope and chain grade (low grade chain is heavier for the same strength). In my mind, standard anchoring practice should allow for up to 60 knots, since many thunderstorms can deliver that.
> 
> ...


Again, these are nice data, but cannot stand alone in presentation without more perspective. Taken with your previous graph, it is clear that the rode does not have to be on the bottom to retain much of the holding power of the anchor. So the question becomes, how much rode at which depths is required to maintain an angle at or below that which preserves (say) 80% of the holding power of the anchor.

Again, I suspect the story is more fleshed out in the article context than I am seeing in two graphs.

Mark


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

colemj said:


> Again, these are nice data, but cannot stand alone in presentation without more perspective. Taken with your previous graph, it is clear that the rode does not have to be on the bottom to retain much of the holding power of the anchor. So the question becomes, how much rode at which depths is required to maintain an angle at or below that which preserves (say) 80% of the holding power of the anchor.
> 
> Again, I suspect the story is more fleshed out in the article context than I am seeing in two graphs.
> 
> Mark


Yes, that is a good way of stating the question. For any give set of conditions (wind and bottom type) and depth, how much scope (length) do I need to maintain enough holding capacity? In shallow water, over soft mud, with a less efficient anchor and thunderstorm coming, you probably need 10:1 and a long snubber, even with chain. You only have 70' of chain out, and with 1000 pounds of tension, it's going to get pretty darn straight. In 20 feet, over sticky mud, with just a little blustery weather and an oversized NG anchor, 5:1 and a short snubber is more than enough. The chain might come off the bottom, but probably not, and not enough to matter.

It's not something you describe in a few posts. But if you follow the math, the folks that say all-chain, use conservatively sized anchors, and anchor in deeper water, and the people who say rope can work and use pivoting fluke anchors in good bottoms, are both right. The people that say you need a long snubber are right in some conditions, and the folks that claim 6' is enough are right in some conditions. Obviously, members of both groups have practiced their craft for many years. In fact, my anchoring practices with my trimaran (rope) are quite different from those when I had the cruising cat (all chain). The math is different and both are correct.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Perhaps the question to explore is what arrangement of rode/anchor and snubber has the widest range of effectiveness over the gamut of anchoring environments typically encountered? 

For greater granularity we could include some broad categories such as: known vs unknown areas, differing categories of boats, expected weather extremes. Others?


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> Perhaps the question to explore is what arrangement of rode/anchor and snubber has the widest range of effectiveness over the gamut of anchoring environments typically encountered?
> 
> For greater granularity we could include some broad categories such as: known vs unknown areas, differing categories of boats, expected weather extremes. Others?


Oh no!!

Abandon all hope of a usable answer!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

MikeOReilly said:


> granularity


Hmmmmmmm

Checks Forum rules.

Checks dictionary.

Checks thread title....

....... goes out for a beer. :grin

:captain:


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> Oh no!!
> 
> Abandon all hope of a usable answer!


Yes&#8230; probably best not to take this all too seriously. .

But I do think most cruisers have learned what the best _usable answer _really is.

Now &#8230; where's that beer


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes&#8230; probably best not to take this all too seriously. .
> 
> But I do think most cruisers have learned what the best _usable answer _ in their opinion really is.
> 
> Now &#8230; where's that beer


Of this, I have no doubt.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

I had some problem getting my anchor to set, but I don't think it'll happen again. It was just a fluke.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

Minnesail said:


> I had some problem getting my anchor to set, but I don't think it'll happen again. It was just a fluke.


What kind of fluke anchor? Garden variety or Fortress?


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

It seems that regardless of chain or rope, NG or fluke, light or heavy, deep or shallow, short or long scope, we have all found the sweet spot for what we use and made it work in our location and conditions. And yes, all of us use the BEST method.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Minnesail said:


> I had some problem getting my anchor to set, but I don't think it'll happen again. It was just a fluke.





kmacdonald5 said:


> What kind of fluke anchor? Garden variety or Fortress?


Sorry, I was trying to make a joke on dual meanings of "fluke." Not a very good one, I'm afraid.

Here's hoping my anchors always stick better than my jokes!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Minnesail said:


> Sorry, I was trying to make a joke on dual meanings of "fluke." Not a very good one, I'm afraid.


It was a good one. Everyone got it :grin


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

pdqaltair said:


> If I post everything that I have published, the publishers will shoot me. However, a few are useful for learning. (This, along with more, is in _Practical Sailor_, Nov 2017, and in _Rigging Modern Anchors_, below).
> 
> The brands are not listed because the scatter in the data was so great that the information might unfairly prejudice the reader. It was off the point. The pivoting fluke anchor was Fortress. Also note that the Claw was the only other design that continued to function at very short scope. Also remember that these figures were normalized to equal holding at long scope; the claw does not hold as much at a given weight, and the Fortress holds a great deal more. Finally, notice that the multi-ton stockless design has a similar change with scope. I found that very interesting.
> 
> We also tested in fine sand. The curves were a little different, but the pattern was the same.


Now this is a particularly cool graph!!! It doesn't really show how well an anchor resets, but it does indicate the difference between fixed shank and moving shank anchors. (Ignoring the Stockless for a moment).

It clearly shows the Danforth style anchors are much more resistant to pulling out at high angles of line. This is pretty much what I have seen between the Danforth and a Bruce.

I could probably extend the blue line out to nearly 45 degrees. I was one time anchored for a tropical storm. I anchored off Wilmington behind the island. Facing up/down stream. Front and rear Danforths. During retrieval of the anchors, I winched in the aft anchor on my Size 58 Gen winch. At 45 degrees I could not pull the aft anchor with the Gen sheet winch. That about 5000 pounds of force.

Boy I'll bet the Rocna fanatics will not like the implications of this graph. This seems to justify why a Danforth can easily run without chain but a Rocna would require chain to get the same results.

It also seems to justify why most people run with chain. If you use anything other than a Danforth, you probably should use chain or you should run a long scope.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

pdqaltair said:


> What do we believe is normal? Water that is 15 feet deep, 7:1 scope, and wind no stronger than 35 knots? If so, then yes, your chain will stay on the bottom. That is what the data say. In fact, that is the whole point; to help sailors understand the boundries of "extreme," so that they can avoid them.


This graph is interesting in that it implies the requirement for chain and a fixed shank anchor. If the rode cannot be keep at a low angle, the fixed shank anchor's holding power will be reduced.

The Danforth anchor will be much more resistant to these changes because of its insensitivity to the rode lifting off the bottom.

A interesting issue is the complexity of balancing fixed shank anchor with the amount of chain required to achieve a particular holding force. Clearly not an issue with a Danforth.

The graph shows the issue of higher winds bringing the chain off the bottom easier as we expect.
Bryce


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

The CG uses Fortress anchors on all their rescue boats. They probably spent tens of millions testing anchors to make that choice. They don't anchor out overnight so they may have been looking strictly at holding power and not other criteria such as resetting ability. They also use rope rode on a spool in the anchor locker forward. The anchor is stored on the cabin side without the rode attached.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

^^^I dont think the 47's have windlas's either. But, they do have big strapping sailors for crew and skippers that know how to get the best out of their anchors. They don't really anchor much. 

But still.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

kmacdonald5 said:


> The CG uses Fortress anchors on all their rescue boats. They probably spent tens of millions testing anchors to make that choice. They don't anchor out overnight so they may have been looking strictly at holding power and not other criteria such as resetting ability. They also use rope rode on a spool in the anchor locker forward. The anchor is stored on the cabin side without the rode attached.


I am not sure I understand the idea that a fluke style anchor can set incredibly well, but for some magical reason is unable to reset. I understand the arguments why anchors may not reset. However, it is not my experience that Danforths don't inherently reset.

On the other hand, the more significant issue that I see is the problem that chain wraps the anchor, fouling it causing it not to reset. When I anchored in tidal areas or with wind changes, this was always my biggest concern with chain. And this has happened with chain and Delta, Bruce and the Danforth.

I don't remember a case where line only has wrapped my Danforth perhaps for the simple reason that any force on the line lifts the line off the bottom preventing the line from wrapping the anchor.

Chain drags on the bottom picking up everything off the bottom and wrapping anything in its path. This is the number one reason I don't use chain in sea weed. Where wind is against the current, chain rips the sea weed off the bottom and current drags the sea weed between the chain and bottom. On a reset, this big glob of sea weed invariably prevents the anchor from resetting. Been there done that.

This last 5 month cruise without chain has convinced me that chain causes more problems than it solves. And the graphs PDQ provided indicate that even a fix shank anchor can run without chain as long as it uses at least a 6 to one scope.
Bryce


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Why continually repeat yourself? I hope you’re not waiting to win an internet argument. That would be either narcissistic or insane. 

I was on the hook for three days this past weekend. One night gusting 30 kts in the anchorage. My all 1/2” chain and anchor stuck like glue. I run a graphic anchor monitor 24/7 and can see the swing. When the wind swung 180 degrees to the original set, we never even pulled back over the initial anchor set in 10-15 kt winds. 

I was very happy. You do you.


----------



## kmacdonald5 (Aug 16, 2011)

n=1. I guess that proves it!


----------

