Here are some thoughts on the subject of chain and weight posted by
Bob Perry on the Cruising World Bulletin Board a couple of months ago
that you might find thought provoking...

"The entire world of cruisers is chain manic. 250' of 3/8" chain
weighs 420 lbs. 5/16" chain 277 lbs.

As a kid in Seattle I sailed on well found boats where it was standard
to have 20' of chain. Bill black in his V 40 one the BWC award (I
forget the exact title) doing a circumnavigation with 90' of chain.

When I cruised my buddies 70'er we used 22' of chain. If I was nervous
about anchoring ( and you are always nervous about anchoring someone
elses 70'er) I sent a 40 lb. lead ball down on a messenger and let it
sit where the chain rode/shackle was. You can't imagine what this did
to the boat at anchor. I slept well. It did give me the creeps to walk
around the deck carrying the 40 lb. ball I kept imagining that if I
dropped it it would crash through the deck and the hull to plummet to
the bottom! It was a 24,000 lb. 70' boat.

It wasn't too long ago when boat under 40' seldom had windlasses. I
have never owned a boat with a windlass. I use a Danforth on my curent
boat with 20' of chain and a little plastic covered mushroom anchor on
a messanger if I need it.

I just can't see the reason for this mania for all chain unless you
are constantly anchoring around coral or in bays where the prevailing
breezes are 40 knots.

Weight is always the enemy. Say it ten times. "



On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:48:49 GMT, Marc wrote:

I , too, am rethinking my anchor system. The boat came equipped with a
33 lb. Bruce, 100 lf. of 3/8 chain,, 150 lf of 3/4 nylon and a
windlass as the primary system. I added a Fortress FX 23 , 30' of
chain and 200 lf of 5/8 rode as a second. I had occaision to sail into
an anchorage this trip and anchor under wind alone. Light air, so I
had to pay out the chain hand over hand to lay it down straught. Upon
retrieval the next morning, the chain was full of mud and the anchor
was clean. It had never set. This is not to say that had a wind piped
up, the Bruce woud not have set, but it was disconcerting. , The
Fortress would have been the better choice given the circumsstances.


On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:17:34 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote:

I've admitted up front that for a given design, a heavier anchor will hold better. And
that for those will to pay the price and accept the consequences, heavy gear may be
appropriate.

However, you said "there is NO substitute for weight." I'm claiming that for a given
situation, there is an easier way to achieve the desired holding power. As someone that
got rid of a 35# CQR in favor of 22# Delta, halved the chain, then replaced the Danforth
lunch hook with a Fortress, I stand by my words. Before I did this anchoring was rather
stressful, and I was not always happy with the results. With the lighter gear I anchor
faster, easier, with more safety and confidence.

When I had to chose for the new boat I went with the same gear, though upsized one level.
Careful consideration went into the sizing of the anchor and amount of chain, etc. Lest
you think I'm advocating using undersized gear, both my on deck anchors (even the lunch
hook) are one size larger than recommended for my boat. And down below I carry two extra
anchors, and three extra rodes.

The issue is not whether a large Danforth holds better than large Danforth, its whether
heavy gear, as represented by a big CQR or Bruce and all chain, is better than a lighter
Delta or Spade with a chain/nylon rode. Or (though we haven't discussed it much) whether
one large anchor is better than two smaller ones in nastier situations.

Like I said, I made my choice and stand by it. And now, when a bozo anchors next to me,
I don't mad, I just move.

-jeff
"Constant Vigilance!" - Frances W. Wright

P.S. Neal, you're dead wrong on the rules - Sailboats ARE required to slow down when
hearing an unidentified fog signal close on, forward of the beam. That is the meaning of
"every vessel" in Rule 19e. Unless you're claiming your boat is not a vessel, you are
bound by that.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Be a man and admit your response was more driven by
your desire to 'one-upmanship' me than it was an attempt
to present the facts.

You have allowed your defeats at my hand in the past to
cloud your judgment in the present. Will you never
forget and forgive the sound thrashing I subjected you,
Shen44 and otnmbrd fellow to in the Rules debate;
particularly with regards to the stand-on vessel in fog?


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
You would have a point if I had said that. There are a variety of factors influencing
the
choice of gear. Some factors are in favor of heavier gear, other factors favor
lighter
gear. If you only consider some of the factors, you arrive at faulty conclusions. If
you
measure the holding power of two anchors of identical design but different sizes, the
larger one will almost always hold better. This does not mean that the larger anchor
is
always desirable.

If "heavier is better" causes you to use gear that is hard to deploy, hard to set, and
hard to recover, you haven't increased your anchoring security. If "heavier is
better"
leads you using all chain and the shock loads pull the anchor out, you made the wrong
choice. If "heavier is better" led you to ignore recent advances like the Delta,
Spade
and Fortress then you're missing out.

And I'm not claiming that lighter is always better, only that it is a different,
equally
viable approach to anchoring. Neal stated "there is NO substitute for weight" and
then
listed several situations favored by the "smarted anchoring" approach.


"Wally" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message

And your point is what?

Eh? "Lighter is better, provided a whole bunch of other stuff is different
as well" is hardly a strong argument against the bare notion that "heavier
is better".


--
Wally
I demand rigidly-defined areas of uncertainty!
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk