# Proper ground tackle for long island sound and new england



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

Was going to take a few weeks and go sailing on my boat i got last year, was hoping to hit ports such as shelter island and the area, block island, new port, niantic, cutty hunk, upper cape and boston. Was wondering what would be considered the best or at least good ground tackle for the areas. I have a 37 morgan (9 tons) I have on board, a 45 cqr, a 35 cqr and a 55 fortress aluminum anchor and about 12 ft of chain and 500 feet of line. Just bought a sentinel and will be using a 20 to 30 lbs weight off of that. 
Is this sufficient? I hope to be anchoring a lot and going into land and exploring areas with the dinghy so i want to be sure the boat will be safe and secure. I dont want to be worring about it all the time. 
What do you experienced crusiers recommend and why?


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Jason it depends on what type of weather you expect the system to be able to handle; a CQR is hardly the best type, but it will probably not give you much in the way of setting problems around the area. However, it is a touch small for your boat in terms of holding power, particularly in softer stuff.

I must also pick up on your mention of the sentinel; do not be under the illusion that this in any way will help your anchor. Kellets do not increase the ultimate holding power of any anchor; they are not something to be used in the context of performance, particularly a weight of only up to 30lb.

We have cruised through the area, and frankly I would not be happy with that set-up overnight, let alone leaving the boat. I would upgrade the anchor to a new generation design of similar size, up the chain to at least 50', and put the sentinel somewhere out of the way for the rare occasion I might want it. The existing tackle would make an acceptable 2nd anchor system.

I would keep the Fortress as a kedge or stern anchor, but not the 35 CQR.

Probably not what you wanted to hear but there you have it.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I don't see the point in having both the 35 lb and 45 lb CQR anchors. I'd also agree that a kellet really doesn't do much when it comes to ultimate holding power, and that what you've got seems a bit undersized for a boat your size. I'd also have to agree that 12' of chain is a bit light on chain. I carry 30' of chain and have long felt that the minimum was at least the length of your boat in chain—even more so in a monohull, which generally has significantly more draft than a multihull. 

In New England, the anchorages aren't generally all that deep, and 500' of nylon rode is pretty much overkill. Unless you're going up as far north as the Bay of Fundy, which has a tidal range of 30' or so, you really should get more chain and less rope. 

Personally, I'd switch out the two CQRs for a single 45 lb. Buegel, Rocna, Spade or Manson Supreme with 40' of chain.


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

I am kind of supprised at your mention of the 45 cqr being too small, actually up till now i have been told to take it off and put on the 35 lb cqr and that would be sufficient. i have all three anchors because the boat came with them. so i keep them on just in case. Same thing with the 500 ft of line. Came with the boat so i am not gonna cut it off since it is in great shape. I was considering more chain though. If i had to buy just one anchor what would it be and what size


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

45lb is a good size, just not with a CQR, not in soft ground. Anyone telling you a 35lb CQR is adequate as a primary anchor on your boat in that area is rather optimistic, frankly. You will find that most on this site, particularly the long term cruisers, will agree with the "your anchor can't be too big" philosophy.


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

Ok this is some good information. The weight is good but my anchor style is bad for the area, is what i am getting from this. Well may be the best course of action is to discuss bottem types in these areas. Anybody familiar with the areas i have mentioned before and their bottems? Then we can pick the best anchor for the combination of areas.


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

Craig the other thing i should mention is that i dont have a windlass, i haul this up by hand and 45lbs and 12 feet of chain is almost all i want to do by hand. i am not a small guy so i can handle a little more but that factor should be considered.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Jason-

I have a much lighter displacement boat-a 28' trimaran-and I'm using a 15kg Ronca as my primary anchor. I bought mine on the recommendation of a Kiwi friend and have been very happy with it.

One major problem I see with a lot of people is that the ground tackle on their boats is sized for fair weather only... not for the worst of what you may experience when out cruising.

I sail in Buzzards Bay and have sailed in much of New England. it is one reason I decided to go with a Rocna, rather than an older design for my primary anchor.

Given the size of your boat, you really do want to have a windlass, even a manual one like the one I just finished installing. Without it, resetting the anchor can become a nightmare, especially if it drags in the middle of the night. You can see the way I setup the new ground tackle handling system on this thread.

I am always amazed at the people I see that will spend $1000 on a new GPS Chartplotter, but can't be bothered to spend the same amount of money on proper ground tackle and handling equipment. In many ways, if you are a cruiser, your safety often rests on the ability of your ground tackle to hold the boat, and your ability to recover it and reset it quickly.

One of my favorite quotes about anchors is _"I generally size my anchor so that people are laughing about how big it is.. then at least I know I'm in the ballpark"_ or something to that effect.

The anchorages up around here have grass, mud, and rocky bottoms for the most part. Very few are nice sandy bottoms. Block Island has grassy bottoms, the areas off of Narragansett Bay are rocky or muddy bottoms, the areas off of much of Buzzards Bay are rock, rocky or muddy bottoms. Some areas along Cape Cod are sandy, but not as many as you'd think. The areas off of Cuttyhunk Island are rocky, as are much of the coastline of Nantucket Island and Martha's Vineyard.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I would consider adding a Bruce anchor in replacement of your smaller CQR. The Bruce seems to do well in many situations and can give you holding where the CQR may fail. Having the CQR, a Bruce and the Fortress, you have three separate holding systems that should cover all your bases.

I firmly agree with the 10' of chain being totally inadequate. In my old Pearson 33, I had 90' of 3/8 high tinsel chain followed by 250' of rode. This worked very well for us as in many cases, we were anchored with chain only, paying out 60 to 90 feet in anchorages of up to 20' of water depth. When the winds really piped up, we then let out as much rode to provide the scope we needed. 

Our greatest test was anchored in Solomons' MD when a micro burst hit the anchorage. I had my 90' of chain out and added about another 100 of line. Our boat was bounced around when the winds hit 70 knots, but we held and MANY other vessels around us broke loose. 

I would modify your current rode to have 30' of chain with the rope rode behind it and then purchase an new rode of 90' of chain followed by 200 to 250 nylon.

If you talk to many sailors about strong anchor gear, you will quickly learn they believe in it more than insuring their vessels.

Also, with the size anchors you have, a windlass may be prudent not for your back but for safety in the event you need to quickly reset. My Pearson did not have one but she displaced only 11,000 pounds and her anchors were smaller. I have a 44# CQR and have pulled it up by hand but now use the Simpson Lawrence manual windlass to get it up.


----------



## svsirius (Jan 14, 2007)

Jason -- non withstanding some of the new anchor designs are better than old what you have [45 CQR] will work just fine. Also given Craig from Rocna's statements everywhere that anything other than a Rocna is not good -- if you want a new one buy a Spade.  The 35 is OK for settled weather but for example in Block Island when it blows it might be a tad light.

The only change I would suggest is a longer section of chain on your primary anchor assuming it is one of the CQRs. At a minimum I would get 50 ft and you should be good to go. Yes I know it is heavy. For weight savings I would suggest using 5/16th G4 chain.

The chain you have is fine for the Fortress which like less chain -- FWIW the 55 is a really big anchor for that boat -- I have one as a storm anchor on my 47.

It's all about technique -- make sure you lightly set the anchor first then slowly slowly increase power in reverse till it's holding.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

Jason,
We have been cruising for the past 15 years in Narragansett Bay, RI Sound, Block Island and Long Island Sounds, extensively throughout the Elizabethan Islands, all Martha's Vineyard ports and Nantucket. The bottom types for these areas described by sailingdog are fairly accurate, but I feel the sentiments towards Rocna anchors to be strongly biased.

Our current 33 ft boat is 36 ft LOA, displaces 18,000 lbs (similarly to your Morgan), but only carries a 35 lb CQR as a primary anchor. However, we do use 150 feet of 5/16" G4 chain and 200 ft of 9/16" rope. A Simpson Lawrence Sprint 1500 windlass does the grunt work. We also have the original Nauticat equipped Danforth mounted at the stern - which we've never used.

Aside from gunkholing and overnighting, quite often our purpose for anchoring is to scubadive - usually dropping anchor and then motoring to the dive spot in the tender. Typically, I descend the anchor chain first to check the set. The CQR has always dug in and held; we of course though, do not dive in rough conditions. 

If we were full time cruisers, I would upgrade to a heavier storm anchor to mount alongside a secondary - such as a Bruce. I would also second the sentiments expressed regarding chain. But as was mentioned above - it's all about technique. Keep the 45 lb CQR, add a Bruce and much more chain, powerset the ground tackle and get a good night's sleep.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

TB-

I have no financial interest in Rocna Anchors, and do own one... and am basing my opinions on the Rocna on my experiences with it. The only real complaint I have with the Rocna is that it generally brings up about its own weight in bottom and cleaning it off is a royal pain. 

I do not believe my statements about the Rocna are biased in any way. 

Also, having 150' of G4 chain and the 35 lb. CQR is a far different story from having a 45' CQR with almost no chain. Twelve feet of chain might be suitable for a lunch hook, but is far too little for a primary anchor IMHO. I would like to go up to 60' of chain, but don't know how well my fairly light boat would handle the additional weight forward.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

SD,
The chain does make all the difference with ground tackle. I should have added, the biased comment was not directed toward you, but Craig - who is relentless in his pursuit to market his Rocna anchors on sailing BBs. You must admit that his hype does get a bit tiring.


----------



## gc1111 (May 13, 2004)

Anchoring discussions are always interesting. Everyone has strong (and different) opinions. Rather than saying what is best for you, I will simply recite my experience.

I have been cruising these waters for about 40 years. First in a 24 ft. boat, then a 28 ft., and now in a 39 ft. ketch. My experience covers LI South shore, LI Sound, and the coast from LI to Maine. I have also been south.
The anchorages and summer weather in this area are pretty much ideal. The anchorages are well described in cruising guides and you can always find one in moderate depths with good holding (usually moderately firm mud/clay). The summer weather is almost always moderate, thunderstorms being the worst but they usually blow over quickly.

I have used Danforth-type anchors with rope/chain rode as well as plows with all chain. They have all worked well if I was sufficiently careful in setting them. Here technique is probably more important than equipment.

One problem you might have is that some anchorages are crowded. Here the kellet can be useful since it allows you to shorten your scope for moderate weather. Just remember that once the rode straightens out you are back to the basic scope and the kellet does no good. However the weather forcasts for this area are excellent and you know when it might blow hard.


----------



## christyleigh (Dec 17, 2001)

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


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Jason..I have cruised extensively in all of those areas and here are my thoughts. 
1. The Fortress is a good secondary anchor in softer bottoms but will not do you much good on the hard bottoms and kelp beds of New England.
2. The 45 CQR is adequate for the boat as a primary but I would add 50' of chain. Get rid of the kellet. Useless. 
3. I don't like CQR's as mine have frequently required multiple sets to hold properly. Without a windless...they would be a real pain. They work best with a combination nylon/chain rode so you are ok on that score.
4. I would not consider the 45lb. CQR as a storm anchor so if you are looking for a single bulletproof solution...I would move to a Delta,Rocna,Spade or Manson Supreme in the 50-60lb range and consider adding a windlass as you're gonna get awfully tired hauling chain, anchor and garbage off the bottom.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

I certainly agree with Jon, TrueBlue, qc111, and Cam. With the addition of more chain, what you already have is more than enough.

I have a 27,500lb sloop. The 45lb CQR has been my primary anchor for the past 18 years of sailing from Maine to Grenada (except for the Chesapeake Bay area where I prefer Danforths and Fortresses). It has held through every kind of weather, including a very nasty 50-55kt night anchored in the lee of Saba in the Caribbean.

The CQR has been the standard anchor of long-distance cruising boats for many, many years. Used intelligently, it will do what you ask of it. It is good in most bottoms EXCEPT soft mud and silt where it has very little holding power. But in thick mud, sand, coral, clay, rock, and many grassy bottoms it does just fine.

As others have said, the important thing is technique. Drop your anchor slowly while stopped or moving back slowly, pay out plenty of chain, take a slight strain on the rode until you feel it grab, pay out more chain/rope, take an increasing strain, then let it sit for awhile before taking a real strain on it. Don't try to set it initially with a strong pull using your engine. Be a bit patient. It will grab and it will hold.

Bill


----------



## Brezzin (Dec 4, 2006)

I have used plows (delta’s) and have used Danforths in LI Sound with good success. However with my new boat (it came with an Delta 44) I felt that the Delta 44 was simply too small. After following anchor posts on several different forums, I decided on a new generation anchor. I have on order a Rocna 40 (88lbs). I believe that the difference between the new Gen anchors is probably pretty small but the difference is much greater when compared to the older anchors. Would I replace a CRQ or Delta with a new gen anchor, No way, but since I’m going to spend the money anyway, why buy old technology. 

The truth is that when Graig posts on any forum, even when he does not even mention the Rocna, and he gets the snot beat out him (every time) made me want to buy a Rocna. He either really believes in his product or ………


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

TrueBlue said:


> SD,
> The chain does make all the difference with ground tackle. I should have added, the biased comment was not directed toward you, but Craig - who is relentless in his pursuit to market his Rocna anchors on sailing BBs. You must admit that his hype does get a bit tiring.


True, it does... Alain is just as bad...


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

jasonr575 said:


> Ok this is some good information. The weight is good but my anchor style is bad for the area, is what i am getting from this. Well may be the best course of action is to discuss bottem types in these areas. Anybody familiar with the areas i have mentioned before and their bottems? Then we can pick the best anchor for the combination of areas.


Jason, it should be clear from my affiliation with Rocna what my recommendation would be, so I will avoid making it.

If you do a little more research you will find that newer designs will deal with a combination of bottoms very well. It is not true, as some will suggest, that you need specialist anchors for specific bottoms (although it used to be).

To start you off, you can find the two most comprehensive tests of recent years on our website under "independent reviews" (SAIL and Yachting Monthly) which are up-to-date but focus on hardish sand, so raising the bar a little high in terms of setting ability (you will not likely find the CQR _quite_ as bad as they report, for example ).
Overall comments here.

This is an extensive review of the Delta which is tested in grounds a little farther south than New England, but the bottoms are probably fairly similar: The Delta Anchor- A cruising test report on the Delta anchor
Not a direct comparison with any other types, but since it talks about the CQR you should find it interesting.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I have no doubt Craig makes a fine product, but I have never used it. I have used the following and place them in my order of preferce:

Delta. Great in most bottoms. Will set where other anchors will not. Resets on tide shift pretty well. Expense is pretty good. Fits on a roller pretty good.

Danforth style. Pretty good in most bottoms, except sand. Not real good in sand and sometimes has trouble setting in mud. Anchor roller, pretty good. Strength, pretty good. Expense, really good. Fortress breaks down and will stowe well.

CQR. Good on first set. Sand, ok. Anchor roller, ok. Strength to hold, ok. Expense, sucks. Questionable reset.

Mushroom Anchor. Sucks in everything above, but is good as a paper weight so I put it ahead of the Claw.

Claw Anchor. On the anchor roller, sucks. Expense, sucks. In sand, really sucks. Reset, sucks. Paper weight, sucks... it tears up the papers. As a vacuum cleaner, it would seem it sucks bad enough to replace it, but it sucked at that too.

- CD


----------



## christyleigh (Dec 17, 2001)

Cruisingdad said:


> Claw Anchor. On the anchor roller, sucks. Expense, sucks. In sand, really sucks. Reset, sucks. Paper weight, sucks... it tears up the papers. As a vacuum cleaner, it would seem it sucks bad enough to replace it, but it sucked at that too.
> - CD


Hey CD ..... Finally something we dis-agree 100% on  Oh well... just have to get you set up with some anchor setting training..... Duckin and Runnin.....


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Christy,

What? You got it to work as a Vacuum Cleaner? I never could preperly position the shank. Becuase, other than as a vacuum cleaner, it is worthless!! (smile) Glad it worked for you.

- CD


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

Because of Craig's posts I will never buy a Rocna. My CQR has held fine everytime and even in 65 mph winds. My friend's Delta dragged on reset a number of times and he often had problems on initial sets. I think real life experience is sometimes more reliable than artificially set up tests.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Ebs-

Just remember, even the best anchor, improperly set, is not going to hold worth a damn... User skill and experience counts for quite a bit too.


----------



## AlainPOIRAUD (Jun 18, 2005)

Westsail32 said:


> I would consider adding a Bruce anchor in replacement of your smaller CQR. The Bruce seems to do well in many situations and can give you holding where the CQR may fail. .


Well, except that it is nearly impossible to find a genuine Bruce to sell, as Bruce went out of the anchor market.. 

As usual, I fully agree with Craig's comments ". *I would upgrade the anchor to a new generation design of similar weight*" 



SailingDog said:


> _Craig - who is relentless in his pursuit to market his Rocna anchor on sailing BBs - _True, it does... Alain is just as bad...


Sorry Sailing dog, but please tell me in which forum you see any post from me promoting one of the anchors I have designed?? 

Do I sign all my posts with: Alain POIRAUD - Spade Anchor - www.spade-anchor.com ?? Do I continuously post any link to any page of the Spade Web page??

As I've sold the Spade company, I do not have any reason to make any promotion for a product which will not make one single penny .

Go back to my posts and you will see, that they all fight against salesmen who _are relentless in their pursuit to market their anchors.._ and they do not promote any anchor brand

Alain
www.Idonotsellanyanchor.com


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I agree Alain...you do NOT promote the Spade. 
You do as you say always counter any post by Craig which makes it doubly tiresome since when Tweedledum appears it is only a matter of time till we hear from Tweedledee. Thank god I don't have to moderate this AGAIN!


----------



## labatt (Jul 31, 2006)

Oh man.. I'm so tempted to post a "Which anchor is best for a Macgregor?" question!!!!!!


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

Arguing about promotion is not what i asked for so lets please stay on the subject but a good point was made, there may be some bias there. Non the less he did provide some info to me which i appreciate. 
Sounds to me that people say because of a cqr's design it is not a good anchor, but the people who have had experience with is have great things to say about it. 
A bruce anchor seems to be a good one to have on board. what size is suggested for the boat? (look at first post for boat details). Also since they are not in business any more what is a comparable brand/model?
I now have questions about chain but will make another thread as i feel that may be appropriate. Anyone with advise please look for it.
My intentions now are to keep the 45 cqr and fortress 55 (hope everyone realizes the number is not the weight of the anchor). i intend on increasing my chain length by at least 30 ft if not more. Will search for a bruce or similar anchor (depends on what info i recieve after this post)

Jason


----------



## Newport41 (Jun 30, 2006)

Jason,
We have a 45Lbs Bruce and I've used them on previous boats with great results. They set easily and hold well. In soft mud or sand your fortress is probably a better option but that's just an opinion. We have a very large fortress style anchor as our storm anchor and a bruce for daily coastal cruising. I've also found that you can find a bruce used fairly easily if you know where to look. I think you'll find that more chain is going to help with any anchor. I'm not sure if anyone told why you want more chain or if you've figured out the concept on your own but if you don't understand why you need more chain you should ask. I would also say 50ft would be a minimum amount of chain for a 38ft monohull like yours. Our entire rode is chain which we use with a high strech nylon snubber. I doubt our anchor has ever been pulled any direction but horizontaly due to the weight fo the chain. Having said that, all chain rode is heavy, expensive, and totally unneccessary. What can I say, it came that way. And by all chain I mean 250 ft so in many anchorages we don't get to the nylon rode. 
Some mistakes I see made all too often:
1)People buy "high strength low weight chain", the whole point of chain is that it's heavy. Buy the cheap heavy stuff
2)People are to worried about weight. This I can understand, so maybe only get 50ft of chain but you should put up with the extra 10lbs to get a slightly bigger anchor than is recommended
3)People neglect to get a windlass due to cost. Get a manual one. They're cheap adn it could save your boat some day, I can think of dozens of times that it could be important.
4)When people say back down on your anchor once it's set, really back down on it hard, especially if you're expecting a blow. If it won't hold, try the fortress. Better to find out on your own terms.
5)Think about the tides, if you set a scope of 6:1 at low tide it might be a lot less at high tide (or break free in the Bay of Fundy). Remeber, the idea is to pull horizontaly on the anchor, thus the need for more heavy chain.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

jasonr575 said:


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


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



jasonr575 said:


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


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

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

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



sailingdog said:


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


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


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Craig-

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

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


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

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


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Craig-

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


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

christyleigh said:


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


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

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

The Sail Magazine tests had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were.

People on other forums have made ridiculous claims that Sail gave preference and may have "fixed" the results to satisfy advertisers. Using this logic Sail magazine really cut off their supply of ad money. It seems three of the anchors that got beat up the worst were the Lewmar Claw (Bruce Copy), the CQR (also Lewmar) and the West Marine Performance 20. Lewmar is one of Sails larger advertisers! In this months issue they have one full pager and one quarter page ad alone. West Marine's VP of product development Chuck Hawley was actually involved in the testing and WM also spends huge ad money with Sail. Three of the best performers the Manson, Hydrobubble & Rocna have no advertising in Sail Magazine at all and West Marine does not sell any of those anchors! I have heard rumors though that they just picked up the Manson.

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

This test was a very "biased" test when it came to the CQR & Claw but not their competitors. They went so far as to have in-depth discussions to figure out a way to get the Bruce (Claw) and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results. Now this test was only a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were hard sand tests. Hell even a brick can set in the soft mud..

Here's a direct quote: "The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom."

This to me sounds like they perhaps had to give the CQR (ie: Lewmar ad money) a little "extra" by going slower than with other anchors and trying to manually coax it to set. How can anyone claim bias against the CQR or the Bruce (Claw) when they potentially gave it preferential treatment? This seems a little unfair if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors to make it as fair as possible. The results don't surprise me as I own a Bruce (genuine) and a CQR and though they perform ok they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion that 80% of boaters never actually set an anchor and get very lucky using basically a "rope on a rock" seems more true than ever.

Last summer on a friends boat he left me at the helm while he went to drop his CQR. I backed down, like I always do, gradually increasing to 80% throttle and the anchor dragged!

Here's how the conversation went "Geez that's never happened before","Really? Lets try it again",.

On the second attempt it had an initial bite (starting to burry) but when I applied power it broke free. "Your giving it to much throttle and ripping it out of the bottom", "it's an anchor!", "let me try", "ok".

So I now go up to let the anchor down & he puts the boat in reverse gets it moving and then puts it in neutral and we get an initial bite. "There see it's set", "No it's just starting to dig in it now needs to be set", "It's always held me before", "Have you ever experienced a 30 knot blow on the hook?", "No" "Well a 30 knot blow on your boat is the equivalent of roughly 900 pounds of pull on the anchor did you know that?", "No", "Did you know that the motor on this boat can barely re-produce 350 pounds of pull wide open?" "No", "Well let's let it set your way and in a couple of hours we'll simulate 20 knots of wind with the motor and see and happens", "You're on". You can probably guess what happened. Because we never properly set the anchor it dragged! We did get it to set that day using a 10:1 scope then shortening to 5:1. My friend could not beleive that the CQR could hold his boat using 80% throttle and was totally surprised by it! Scary I know.... From my experience I find a CQR likes a minimum of a 7:1 to set but it sometimes prefers more. The Bruce can set on less scope and is a decent setter. It's still not great when compared to the newer anchors but better than the CQR by a long shot but if the wind picks up be prepared to let out more scope and still potentially drag..

My friend understands that an anchor should hold your boat at wide open in reverse without moving. This is a guy who has been sailing for 25 years and admittedly dragged "perhaps 20 times but never with my CQR"! Once is to much! It's imperative the anchor gets "set" properly. Yes the CQR & Bruce set better in soft bottoms than in sand but not all boaters are lucky enough to always drop the hook in a soft bottom. So if you're in a hard bottom make sure to get it set. I suggest some of you begin diving on your anchors in a shallow spot to see what's going on down there I think you'd be surprised...

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

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

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

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


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

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

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


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*True Blue..*

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


----------



## christyleigh (Dec 17, 2001)

halekai36 said:


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


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


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Just one quick comment on setting an anchor: You better get good at it and learn to feel it without diving it. Diving it is fine in clear, warm water. However, much of your cruising will be in mangroves or brackish water that will not allow you to dive your anchor. A trick we use is to back down hard (after we have set it) and hold the chain. It takes a little getting used to, but you can feel it bite or drag. Takes practice, but worth it.

- CD


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

Newport, the chain is to make for a heavier anchor roe which will sag more and pull the anchor horizontal. Do i have it?


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

i have a 50 hp perkins on the boat, i would imagine that would help set and anchor fairly well or pull it out if it is not set right. 
What is a next generation anchor? is it just referring to new models?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Just one quick comment on setting an anchor: You better get good at it and learn to feel it without diving it. Diving it is fine in clear, warm water. However, much of your cruising will be in mangroves or brackish water that will not allow you to dive your anchor. A trick we use is to back down hard (after we have set it) and hold the chain. It takes a little getting used to, but you can feel it bite or drag. Takes practice, but worth it.
> 
> - CD


Or in the case of the Acushnet River, a superfund site, laden with PCBs that you wouldn't want to go diving in... 

Jason-

The next generation anchors are the newer designs that include the Rocna, Spade, Manson Supreme, Buegel, Bulwagga and XYZ anchors... most of which are far more resistant to moving through the seabed than the more traditional designs.

The chain is to make the rode heavier and force it to hang in a catenary curve, so that the pull against the anchor is almost horizontal, rather than upwards. It is also good to have chain since it is much less susceptible to chafing-which is particularly important in rocky or coral-laden areas.


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

have been reading about the xyz anchors, seems impressive if true. Anybody have any experience with these, do they reset themselves when the wind shifts?


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

The claims on their website are slightly, ahem, exaggerated. The XYZ was tested in those tests above... West Marine found "Could not get anchor to work. One pull at 900lb, but mostly dragged on the bottom."
But no experience for my part.


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

Ok i am starting to pinpoint what i need. What is an anchor that is good in most conditions or at least in the conditions around long island sound up to boston that will reset itself if it breaks free from wind shifts. My goal is to be able to leave the boat withought worring about it or be able to sleep at night in ease. i will be alone for some of the time. Resetting the anchor in the middle of the night alone without a windless is my concern and i dont what to have to worry about it.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

WASI, Spade, Bulwagga, Rocna. Research those. You will be okay with one of them.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Craig,

What is the cost of one of your anchors for a 22-24k boat (40-42 feet)?


----------



## c2cSailor (Feb 17, 2002)

*Locations (Cuttyhunk)*



jasonr575 said:


> Ok this is some good information. The weight is good but my anchor style is bad for the area, is what i am getting from this. Well may be the best course of action is to discuss bottem types in these areas. Anybody familiar with the areas i have mentioned before and their bottems? Then we can pick the best anchor for the combination of areas.


I just finished moving my boat up from CT to Boston this past weekend. I'll tell you that Cuttyhunk normally has several moorings in the pond, but as of April 29th, the winter sticks were still in. I'm on a 27' sailboat with a fortress knock off brand called Viking with a working load of 2,000 lbs. If you compare that to Fortress FX charts, that's comparable to the FX23 which is 3 sizes larger than necessary for general anchoring. This anchor came with the boat.

The point I want to make is that with the eel grass in Cuttyhunk, no anchor works well and I dragged twice before it finally set. I'm assuming I must have found a bare patch of mud.

To be totally unbiased, weighting the opinion of somone in the anchor selling business might not give the whole picture as compared to those of us who actually own boats and sail in the area you are referring to. I agree with 500' rode is overkill, but I wouldn't cut it either if it was in good shape. More power to you. I would consider cutting it if you don't have a secondary rode of at least 150'. I anchor in 10-20' water with a 4' draft.

Sleeping or leaving the boat unattended I wouldn't use less than 7:1 scope (that includes waterline to your bow roller factored in). Having at least 2 different anchor types is beneficial, and if cruising, the largest anchor you can physically handle or winch up with the windlass. Anchors are like tires- you have so much riding on them. How much are you willing to risk?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd avoid the Bulwagga...even though by all accounts it is a very solid anchor. If you haven't seen the design... it is a nightmare to stow... it has three large flukes set 120˚ apart from each other... and the stock connects to the middle of the three flukes... so it looks a bit like a three-pointed star. Doesn't sit on a bow roller well, and takes up much more space than the Spade, WASI, Rocna or Buegel do. 

The XYZ is almost as bad IMHO, since it has as extremely oversized fluke, which is shaped like a delta kite.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Craig, What is the cost of one of your anchors for a 22-24k boat (40-42 feet)?


We'd size a 20 (44lb) or 25 (55lb) for your boat. Refer to "where to buy" on our website for pricing & availability.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Rocna: ~$650 US. Delta SPade (the only other anchor worth considering): ~450. That is not a significant price difference. If the Rocna was better, I would give it definite consideration. However, I have never had my spade drag. I use all chain and have been through VERY strong storms. My daily scope is 5:1, typical night about 8:1. POssible storm or if I have the room, 10:1 or more.

I honestly do not think anyone would be unhappy with a spade. I have no experience with Rocna, but have heard good things. Ground tackle is one of your most important investments, don't skimp... but that does not mean the most expensive is the best.

- CD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

What is really worrying are the boaters who don't seem to think good ground tackle is all that necessary...they'll blow money on a new chartplotter but not on a good anchor and rode. All chain helps, and I'd use it if my boat could stand the weight....it can't so I don't.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Sd,

Sell your boat and buy a catalina. The weight of the chain will be offset by the very large solar array in the back!!!

- CD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

CD-

No thanks, I prefer to sail...


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

The rocna and manson supreme seem to look like the same but the manson is more economical, is there any difference between them?


----------



## Sialia (Feb 14, 2006)

You mentioned that you do not have a windlass. I singlehanded a Tartan 41 without a windlass for a couple of years and the only anchor I used was a Fortress FX37 ( I had 3 other anchors with a lot more chain on board for storms). I used 40 feet of 3/8 inch chain and 300 feet of 3/4 inch nylon rode. A recent study, posted on Sailnet by one of the members, showed the Fortress to be one of the better anchors available. And without a windlass, it is easy to bring back on board. I loved this combination and I still do - it's a great ground tackle set-up.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Yes..*



jasonr575 said:


> The rocna and manson supreme seem to look like the same but the manson is more economical, is there any difference between them?


yes there is a difference. the construction quality of the Rocna is far higher and the performance in numerous tests shows the Rocna as a slightly better performer.

I actually own a Manson Supreme and I just ordered a Rocna. I'm not saying the Manson is a poor anchor but there were enough differences that I ponied up and bought the real McCoy. I can't wait till it arives to test it out! For me I think an anchor is cheap insurance and want the best anchor money can buy. Through my thorough testing of all my anchors so far the Rocna design concept has been best!

Here's a link to a home made video I made one day while I was waiting for sailing season. It shows a Manson setting inless than four feet even when reversed to pull direction in a very, very hard packed intertidal zone. My guess is the Rocna sets in two feet....

DropShots Day


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

jasonr575 said:


> The rocna and manson supreme seem to look like the same but the manson is more economical, is there any difference between them?


Manson build copies - they do CQR, Bruce, etc. Copies typically have to be cheaper in order to compete; it is their sole point of distinction. Unfortunately this usually necessitates construction short-cuts and other compromises. As you might expect we don't think much of this. Take a look at this page about the Manson Supreme anchor.


----------



## jasonr575 (Sep 12, 2006)

I am the person who started this post. i did make it to block island and flet it is only right for me to share my experience with those who took the time to give me advice. Due to lack of time and funds i did not yet get more anchor chain or buy a new anchor. I have two cqr (35 and 35) and a 55 fortress. this is what i experienced. 

After a great sail from mystic river we arrived a great salt pond and knowing there were no morrings we tried anchoring. It took us a total of 1.5 hours to set an anchor. i was there a year prior and used my main anchor a cqr 45 and after 2 attempts it held fast and stayed till we fought to pull it up. so i arrived confident that it would hold again. This time we dropped and pulled it up 6 times, couldnt get it to set. tried different areas with not luck. This was a tedious task as i do not have a windless. My anchor man decided he needed a break. i decided to get my 55 fortress out of the closet, assemble it and give her a try. at the second attempt she set and held strong. i stayed up till 230 am that night on anchor watch and watched as 2 other boats hit. In that time we did swing 360 degrees due to wind gusts. From what i hear that is when a dansforth style anchor will break free and need to be reset. We held secure!!! the next day i got a moorning but was thankful and felt lucky. When i pulled up the anchor there was lots of hard black clay on it. No wonder it is hard to set an anchor. i have to say the 55 fortress was an invaluable asset that night.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*A Rocna would have set...*

I have yet to find a spot that I can't set my Rocna on the first try & according to my anchor log I have 52 sets 100% first try. I'm sure I eventually will but hell even if I need to try twice it's a lot better than NO set with a CQR. Heck I even tested my Rocna on my very thick, dense and health lawn with my car. Although my wife was not happy with me the lawn healed up just fine. It set and buried in 3.5 feet.

By the way my CQR did not even damage the surface of the lawn so I don't get how they call it a plow cause I tried plowing my lawn and it didn't work. For sh&t's & grins I tried it with both my 25lb CQR and my 35lb CQR & both had the same peformance with not even a scratch or divit in the lawn.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I am gonna get of the which anchor is best theme for a moment and partially disagree with CD's anchoring technique of using his motor to back down on his anchor hard. 
I've seen lots of people doing this making multiple stops and hauls before their anchor sets. I think a hard backing can tend to pull out a lightly set anchor in softer bottoms. 
Our preferred method is to let out 1/3 of our planned rode and then snub up, letting the wind/current drive the boat back on the rode OR in the absence of current...to lightly back down until the bow snubs up in line with the anchor. After we feel the boat catch on the anchor, we let out the remainder of the rode and again let the wind and current do their work in setting the anchor or lightly back down until the rode comes in a straight line to the bow. Our experience is that it takes time for an anchor to fully bury and applying too much force too early just makes for multple attempts. This is the way we anchor in all bottoms...but find it to be particularly helpful in soft mud.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd agree with Halekai... I have a Rocna too... my only real complaint with the beast is how much of the bottom comes up with it every time I retreive it. At least 15-25 lbs. of mud or sand usually ride the anchor up...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Sd..*

SD..

I have the same problem! I usually just cleat it off with the anchor about three feet below the surface and tow it at a knot or two for a little while then finish hauling it up once it's clean!

I've been messing around, and doing a lot of experimentation with mine, and I can get this thing to set hard at a 2:1 and I've never owned an anchor that would set at less than 3:1 not even the Manson. It is a beast and I feel very secure but pulling up sea bed the size of Mini Cooper's is not much fun. If it can set in my lawn it can set just about anywhere!!!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

halekai36 said:


> SD..
> 
> I have the same problem! I usually just cleat it off with the anchor about three feet below the surface and tow it at a knot or two for a little while then finish hauling it up once it's clean!


LOL... the Rocna is the main reason I spent a week installing all upgraded ground tackle on my boat.










I just got tired of hauling it and 30' of 5/16" G4 chain by hand... with a huge pile of mud on top...



> I've been messing around, and doing a lot of experimentation with mine, and I can get this thing to set hard at a 2:1 and I've never owned an anchor that would set at less than 3:1 not even the Manson. It is a beast and I feel very secure but pulling up sea bed the size of Mini Cooper's is not much fun. If it can set in my lawn it can set just about anywhere!!!


If I could set it in my lawn, I could set it anywhere... since my lawn is an asphalt parking lot...  However, I think that's a bit beyond even its capabilities.


----------



## donradclife (May 19, 2007)

New England has pretty good holding ground and shallow anchorages, but can still test your anchor system. I was in Atlantic Highlands this week when a nasty frontal thunderstorm hit. The wind reversed direction and the first blasts were probably 35 to 40 knots. The boat next to us was on a rope-chain rode with a danforth type anchor, and was unattended. It immediately started dragging, fortunately away from us and out of the harbor. Amazingly the anchor reset, even though the boat was doing about 4 knots, and when the rain let up, it was sitting about 200 yards further away, and about a boatlength in front of a power boat. The owner came back in his dinghy about an hour later, and you could see him looking at his boat, then the other boats, and then at his boat... 

The holding was good, and the water was only 15 feet deep, so we and the other anchored boats had no problems, but that reversing gust is why you don't leave your boat unattended unless you have some serious ground tackle. If you have danforth or fortress type anchors where the chain can foul on the bar when the current or wind reverses, it eventually will and the anchor will never reset (Note--this comes from sad personal experience).


----------

