Is this a trick question? If you don't include factors that are against heavy gear, what
you're left with are the factors in favor. Yes, in general, with two similar designed
anchors, the heavier/larger will hold better. But holding power is only part of the
story. For instance, in certain consistencies of mud, a smaller anchor will dig in
quicker. The large shank of the CQR can work against it in this situation.


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

But all other factors being equal, and space not being an issue, is there not a
clear advantage for the heavier hook?

RB

Yes, in general, with two similar designed
anchors, the heavier/larger will hold better.

It's not a trick, Jeff. I was trying to isolate the wisdom of Neal's comment
about weight.
Neal said there's no subsitute for weight and he's correct. You'd have have to
install factors that this statement did not contain to find it in error.


RB

You miss the point - while it is generally true the a heavier anchor of the same type will
hold better, it does not mean that using heavier gear leads to more secure holding than
lighter gear. The Reductio Ad Absurdum is this: would a 20,000 pound Bruce anchor be
better for your boat than a 60 pound Bruce? Clearly not - weight is not always better.

The "old wisdom" is to use a heavy CQR - usually 45 pounds or more for a cruiser often
with all chain. Indeed, many cruisers will say they feel quite secure with this heavy
setup. The new wisdom is a lighter Delta or Spade, with lighter chain on a chain/nylon
rode. It holds better, is easier setup, and much easier to recover. Thus, using a more
modern anchor is a good substitue for weight.


"CANDChelp" wrote in message
...
Yes, in general, with two similar designed
anchors, the heavier/larger will hold better.

It's not a trick, Jeff. I was trying to isolate the wisdom of Neal's comment
about weight.
Neal said there's no subsitute for weight and he's correct. You'd have have to
install factors that this statement did not contain to find it in error.


RB

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

Is this a trick question? If you don't include factors that are against
heavy gear, what you're left with are the factors in favor. Yes, in
general, with two similar designed anchors, the heavier/larger will hold
better.

The point is that, if you start including 'factors', you start comparing
apples with oranges. To make a valid comparison, you have to compare anchors
that are within the practical weight-carrying range for your boat.


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

And your point is what?

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

Is this a trick question? If you don't include factors that are against
heavy gear, what you're left with are the factors in favor. Yes, in
general, with two similar designed anchors, the heavier/larger will hold
better.

The point is that, if you start including 'factors', you start comparing
apples with oranges. To make a valid comparison, you have to compare anchors
that are within the practical weight-carrying range for your boat.


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

"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

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