flukey winds
 

I had considered that, especially if the wind had picked up.

Scotty

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
Some folks claim two anchors at 45 degrees ... but I firmly believe one
anchor with sufficient rode and scope is the best method. Just the way you
did it.

CM

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
| The other night, NOAA was predicting 'light & variable winds'. When I
| anchored it was blowing (barely) E. by the time I got the grill going
it
| was NE. Till I finished my steak it was N. wind. By dessert it was
Westerly.
| It went like that all night, every time I woke to check I was pointed
| different. The wind was light enough that the anchor (Danforth, 15'
3/8''
| chain) didn't drag.
| How would you anchor in this?
|
|
| --
| Scotty
| S/V Lisa Marie
| Balt. MD USA
|
|

flukey winds
 

It *was* that light and sandy shore to the W+S, and open water to the N+E.
Still, in hindsight I should not have been so lazy and set another, even the
lunch hook(?).

Two nights later it was blowing 12-16kts in a different anchorage. One boat
dragged some and they reset, looked like a plow anchor with lots of chain. I
held OK.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville PA __/)__/)__


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
If the wind is really light, you're probably just sitting to the anchor
chain. Before I
switched to the "anchor smarter, not heavier" philosophy, I used 90 feet
of chain; it took
a significant wind to stretch that out. A problem with this is that
everyone else would
move 150 feet with a wind shift, while we moved 20 feet.

In the Chesapeake soft mud is the typical bottom, and the shores are
relatively benign, so
the Danforth is probably the best anchor. But in a harsher environment I
wouldn't trust
the Danforth to handle major shifts. I've had too many occurrences of a
Danforth or
Fortress totally releasing and failing to reset. I use a Delta, with a
Fortress as a
lunch hook or second anchor.


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
The other night, NOAA was predicting 'light & variable winds'. When I
anchored it was blowing (barely) E. by the time I got the grill going
it
was NE. Till I finished my steak it was N. wind. By dessert it was
Westerly.
It went like that all night, every time I woke to check I was pointed
different. The wind was light enough that the anchor (Danforth, 15'
3/8''
chain) didn't drag.
How would you anchor in this?


--
Scotty
S/V Lisa Marie
Balt. MD USA

flukey winds
 

The reason I use 3/8'' chain is, I get it for free.

Scotty

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Sorry about another blank post - too much coffee again ...

I'm not a fan of a single small Danforth, but I will explain why I would
favor a 35# Delta
with 5/16 chain and /16 nylon, over a 45# CQR with 3/8 chain and 5/8
nylon.

First of all, the Delta has been shown to set faster and hold better than
the larger CQR,
but assuming that their holding abilities are roughly the same, I favor
the lighter gear
because its easier to set and easier to retrieve. I've found that most
people, myself
included, tend to leave a heavy anchor where it is first deployed, even if
the situation
is not ideal. With light gear, I'll often reset if I'm not happy with the
result, or if
the situation changes.

So to answer your question, heavy gear deployed in a marginal position is
not as desirable
as lighter gear deployed in an optimal location.

Since I sail a lightweight boat, I have no desire to load it with
oversized gear; I'd
rather use the extra weight to carry multiple anchors and rodes, to use
when the situation
gets more complicated.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Also, using two lighter anchors is not the "heavier is better"
technique, that
would
advise using a single large CQR and a heavy chain.

Please indicate a situation where a lightweight danforth would do better
holding than a heavier danforth.

RB

flukey winds
 

I had considered that, especially if the wind had picked up.

Considered what? Calling the coast guard for anchoring tips?
Good christ!

RB

flukey winds
 

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

flukey winds
 

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

flukey winds
 

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

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.


No, YOU are wrong. The Rules state vessels must operate at a safe speed for the
conditions at hand. Power boats cruising along at speeds too high for the conditions
must slow down but displacement sailboats are already going slow so they are not
required to proceed at a safe speed because they are already proceeding at a safe
speed. Why you refuse to understand this concept is hard to understand. "Every
vessel" means every vessel that needs to slow down. It does not mean every
vessel otherwise vessels anchored would have to slow down, and vessels engaged
in underwater operations would have to slow down, and vessels hove-to would be required to slow down. See how stupid your
argument is?

flukey winds
 

No Scott... you did it right. One properly set hook is sufficent. The only
time I use 2 hooks is when in an exposed anchorage with storm forecast or
strong winds. In shifting winds you will end up with twisted rode the next
day if you deploy two hooks.

CM

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
| It *was* that light and sandy shore to the W+S, and open water to the N+E.
| Still, in hindsight I should not have been so lazy and set another, even
the
| lunch hook(?).
|
| Two nights later it was blowing 12-16kts in a different anchorage. One
boat
| dragged some and they reset, looked like a plow anchor with lots of chain.
I
| held OK.
|
|
| --
| Scott Vernon
| Plowville PA __/)__/)__
|
|
| "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
| ...
| If the wind is really light, you're probably just sitting to the anchor
| chain. Before I
| switched to the "anchor smarter, not heavier" philosophy, I used 90 feet
| of chain; it took
| a significant wind to stretch that out. A problem with this is that
| everyone else would
| move 150 feet with a wind shift, while we moved 20 feet.
|
| In the Chesapeake soft mud is the typical bottom, and the shores are
| relatively benign, so
| the Danforth is probably the best anchor. But in a harsher environment
I
| wouldn't trust
| the Danforth to handle major shifts. I've had too many occurrences of a
| Danforth or
| Fortress totally releasing and failing to reset. I use a Delta, with a
| Fortress as a
| lunch hook or second anchor.
|
|
| "Scott Vernon" wrote in message
| ...
| The other night, NOAA was predicting 'light & variable winds'. When I
| anchored it was blowing (barely) E. by the time I got the grill going
| it
| was NE. Till I finished my steak it was N. wind. By dessert it was
| Westerly.
| It went like that all night, every time I woke to check I was pointed
| different. The wind was light enough that the anchor (Danforth, 15'
| 3/8''
| chain) didn't drag.
| How would you anchor in this?
|
|
| --
| Scotty
| S/V Lisa Marie
| Balt. MD USA
|
|
|
|
|
|

flukey winds
 

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

flukey winds
 

The 100 feet of heavy chain makes it hard to tell if you're set. Even with the engine,
you won't be able to feel it hook in some situations. I always power-set, otherwise its
hard to tell if you're really set.

A Fortress, on the otherhand, will grab so quickly (when it grabs) that the rode will get
jerked out of your hand. But on a hard bottom, I wouldn't be confident that it would
reset on a shift.

This is one of the issues with larger boats - Neal's smaller boat can be anchor under sail
with fair confidence; on a larger boat power-setting is the only way to be sure.

BTW, I'm sure you already know this, but your 100 feet of 3/8 weighs in at 150 pounds.
And the 3/4 nylon isn't that light either, and won't supply much shock relief. What size
is your boat and do you have a windlass?


"Marc" wrote in message
...
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