On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:40:15 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:16:59 +0000, Tony H wrote:

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:

SNIPPED

Anchoring has so many variables that any one test run means very
little in the overall art of anchoring. And, it is an art. The
sailor (artist) must have a variety of anchors at his disposal
and know how, when and where to use each one. About the only
thing that makes the sailor proficient is experience, experience
and more experience in all manner of holding grounds.

Expecting one particular anchor to work well or even adequately
in all holding grounds is folly.


That is about the first sensible thing the Craptain has posted; and that
is something I thought I would never write.

Most of the recent anchors like the Rocna are a gimmick and
not as reliable as the older patent anchors. That people pay
such exorbitant prices for these dubious anchors is folly.


That I cannot agree with. Understanding of how anchors 'work' has
developed over the years, as have manufacturing techniques.

To add to your experience, the Rocna and similar copies have been
thouroughly tested since their inception by many reputable boating
mags, websites and organisations. They continue to stand out among
the best. I'd love to try one vs my quite heavy Danforth - but they
are quite dear!


Sailing in NW Scotland and points further north, anchoring is the norm
for me. For my last boat (Nicholson 32) I got one of the first Rocna's
to be imported into the UK. I found it to be a significantly more
reliable than the CQR (15Kg both) and, contrary to Duncan McCormack's
experiences, set very quickly. It held in windy situations when I was
quite worried. When I changed boats last year (Rustler 36 now) I got a
Rocna 20Kg before I took the boat out.


I'm afraid I just do not understand those sailors who
willingly place all their eggs in one basket. I don't
see why a total reliance on one anchor is anything but
folly. Sooner or later such a practice will come back
and bite the sailor right square in his gullible arse.

Let me ask all those who rely on one anchor, in other
than a *lunch hook* situation, why?

When I see any sailor relying on one anchor, especially
when overnighting, I say to myself - "That's stupid and
irresponsible." It's stupid because two anchors work
better than one and it's irresponsible because the
stupidity endangers the vessels downwind of the one
where the sailor sleeps the night away on one hook
oblivious to the one anchor dragging and the vessel
potentially running afoul of another vessel.

That being said, how about tandem anchor tests that
might wake some oblivious sailors up to the fact that
two is better than one and how the two should be set
and what combinations in what conditions work the best.

Testing a single anchor tells me those doing the testing
simply have a product to hawk, the publicity of which
takes precedence over safe and sound seamanship.

===

Sir Gregory, I'm sure you'll be comforted to know that we do not rely
on just a single anchor. In fact, we have a whole bunch of them for
spares and special occassions. In addition to the big Rocna (our
primary), we also carry a Spade (from our old boat), A Bruce (which
came with our present boat), several Danforths of different sizes, and
a couple of small dinghy anchors.

Last winter down in the Carib we were in a situation at St Barts where
we wanted to keep the bow pointed into the prevailing swell, and the
stern facing the beach. I set a 12 lb Danforth from the stern on 150
ft of rode and took it towards the beach via dinghy. It was well set
in sand with an effective scope of over 12 to 1. It not only did an
admirable job of keeping the bow pointed into the swell but at certain
times of the day the wind would reverse and the entire boat would be
effectively anchored by the stern with the little Danforth. It never
dragged.