"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