|
flukey winds
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
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
The wind was light enough that the anchor (Danforth, 15' 3/8''
| chain) didn't drag. | How would you anchor in this? Holy halibut. RB |
flukey winds
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
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 Great ceasar's Ghost. RB |
flukey winds
If you have to ask you probably won't take good advice
anyway. 1) there is NO substitute for weight when it comes to anchoring 2) combination rodes consisting of three-strand nylon and chain are the best choice. 3) two anchors placed so they pull against each other are always better than one. 4) one anchor in light and fluky winds especially if there are currents can and often do 'trip out' and don't reset because the chain is wrapped around the shank or crown. 5) if one wishes to have a good night's sleep in the event of a squall or frontal passage, two anchors set pulling against each other is the only way to ensure it. 6) One should always consider that conditions change and one should anchor for the maximum likely conditions of wind and current. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... OK, so what's your advice? Chrome his anchor? "CANDChelp" 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 Great ceasar's Ghost. RB |
flukey winds
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
... If you have to ask you probably won't take good advice anyway. I don't have to ask, and I probably wouldn't take RB's advice. Your's, as usual, is a bit flawed. 1) there is NO substitute for weight when it comes to anchoring Sure there is. Anchors have evolved considerably from rocks tied to vines. Might I remind you that the Danforth anchors you seem to favor are called "lightweight" anchors. Also, using two lighter anchors is not the "heavier is better" technique, that would advise using a single large CQR and a heavy chain. 2) combination rodes consisting of three-strand nylon and chain are the best choice. I agree - that's why I cut my 90 foot chain rode in half to make two chain-nylon rodes. This also is part of the "anchor smarter" approach. 3) two anchors placed so they pull against each other are always better than one. I often use two, but they don't "pull against each other." Usually they are placed the 45 degree double anchor configuration, where they share the load and limit the swing. Sometimes I use a Bahamian Moor, up current and down current, where only one is under tension at any time........ 4) one anchor in light and fluky winds especially if there are currents can and often do 'trip out' and don't reset because the chain is wrapped around the shank or crown. True for many bottoms, but those that anchor in the soft mud of the Chesapeake say this doesn't happen. 5) if one wishes to have a good night's sleep in the event of a squall or frontal passage, two anchors set pulling against each other is the only way to ensure it. OK - but what's this "pulling against" thing you have? 6) One should always consider that conditions change and one should anchor for the maximum likely conditions of wind and current. Duh. |
flukey winds
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... If you have to ask you probably won't take good advice anyway. 1) there is NO substitute for weight when it comes to anchoring Total BS. The appropriate anchor and techique is the no-substitute option. 2) combination rodes consisting of three-strand nylon and chain are the best choice. Depends on the length of chain for the conditions. 3) two anchors placed so they pull against each other are always better than one. Huh? Like 180 degrees?? 4) one anchor in light and fluky winds especially if there are currents can and often do 'trip out' and don't reset because the chain is wrapped around the shank or crown. In light and fluky winds, one anchor is probably fine unless the bottom warrants something more. 5) if one wishes to have a good night's sleep in the event of a squall or frontal passage, two anchors set pulling against each other is the only way to ensure it. Again... 180 degrees?? Total BS. 6) One should always consider that conditions change and one should anchor for the maximum likely conditions of wind and current. This is Horey's theory. Let's see, I'm on a lake with no water movement unless they open up the dam. Ok, I guess I have to plan for that, so what size anchor do I need????? "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... OK, so what's your advice? Chrome his anchor? "CANDChelp" 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 Great ceasar's Ghost. RB |
flukey winds
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
"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
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
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 |
flukey winds
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 |
flukey winds
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 |
flukey winds
"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 |
flukey winds
Very sticky mud, light wind, not much current or tidal change.
It would be better, because holding is only part of it. You also have to retrieve it. A light DF is easier to retrieve and in those conditions appropriate. "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
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 |
flukey winds
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 |
flukey winds
"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
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 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 |
flukey winds
I have a Freedom 36 and yes , it came with a windlass. The reason I
continue with the existing primary system is one of utility and compromise. The F 36 has no deck accessible anchor locker and it is difficult to stuff a rope down a chain pipe. The windlass is as much a convenience for stowing the rode as lifting it. I am considering using the Fortress as my primary anchor, changing out the gypsy for a smaller high tensile chain, and since most of my anchoring is in 25' or less, shortening the chain to 50' and adding a kellet to the inventory. On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:44:09 -0400, "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote: 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 |
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. Maybe, but it sounds like you didn't set it right. Let out too much rode before being sure it was set. |
flukey winds
Having a windlass helps a lot, it was a high priority on my new boat. However, consider
what a pain it would be to haul you anchor by hand, if it failed. Worse, what if you lost the electrical and couldn't start the engine either? My choice of 50 feet of chain (5/16) was based on the maximum depth I expected to anchor in - I wanted to be able to hook a link on the gypsy. As for kellets - a small mushroom dinghy anchor will serve as a kellet, a hammerlock anchor, and a dinghy anchor. I've always been skeptical of Danforth & Fortresses as a primary. I've had several occurrences of the anchor releasing on a shift, and then failing to reset. The FX23 might be heavy enough to fight through a clump of mud, but it can still be fouled by a piece of weed, or a beer can. For soft mud bottoms this might not be that much of a problem. I trust my Fortress as a second anchor, but I keep my eye on it when I use it as a lunch hook. "Marc" wrote in message ... I have a Freedom 36 and yes , it came with a windlass. The reason I continue with the existing primary system is one of utility and compromise. The F 36 has no deck accessible anchor locker and it is difficult to stuff a rope down a chain pipe. The windlass is as much a convenience for stowing the rode as lifting it. I am considering using the Fortress as my primary anchor, changing out the gypsy for a smaller high tensile chain, and since most of my anchoring is in 25' or less, shortening the chain to 50' and adding a kellet to the inventory. On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:44:09 -0400, "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote: 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 |
flukey winds
How do you make sure its set if you deploy under sail in light air? In fact, the dead
weight of the anchor and half the chain would be enough hold the boat in a 5 knot breeze - its not clear the anchor would ever feel the load at all. I have seen people throw the anchor out going a full speed down wind - it looks nice when it works! "SkitchNYC" 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. Maybe, but it sounds like you didn't set it right. Let out too much rode before being sure it was set. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com