On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:38:47 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
rOn Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:32:57 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:26:09 +0700, Bruce in bangkok
wrote:

But Gregory, a 30 lb. danforth will hold a boat perfectly well. It
depends on the anchorage and the weather and water.

===

We have used a 30 lb Danforth as a day anchor in some pretty severe
conditions. With enough scope and a good bottom it holds our 70,000
pound trawler just fine (30 kt winds, exposed anchorage with 3 to 5 ft
seas).



LOL! There's a man confident in his luck!

Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for the
heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a 45-pounder
would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use two of them
Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any normal weather.
(Not talking tropical storms here!)


Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

The Mont, later renamed several times and last named the Seawise
Giant, claimed to be the largest ship to ever sail the seas, had a
gross weight of 825,614 tons and used a 86 ton anchor. i.e. the ship
was 22,937.7 times the weight of the anchor.

The Trawler you describe is 1,555.5 times the weight of the anchor
that you mention.

Or perhaps a better way to describe it is the trawler gross weight to
anchor ratio is far higher then that of what is said to have been the
largest ship in the world.

Using your criteria of gross weight to anchor weight the trawler
should be using an anchor of 3.05 pounds.

Or, to put it another way... you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.

Did I not also mention windage? Weight is of less consequence
in smaller private yachts than is windage. So your diatribe has
little actual meaning when it comes to smaller recreational craft
as it's not the weight that breaks them loose but the force of
the wind acting upon their surface area exposed to the wind.

Ah, windage... I can only assume that you somehow believe that a
70,000 pound trawler has more windage then a 1,651,228,000 pound
tanker.

As was previously mentioned, you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.


Get a clue, dock boy! If you had a BILLION pound ship but
no wind or current you could anchor it with a ten-pound rock
and it would stay put.

And you prove your brilliance yet again. "If you had a BILLION pound
ship but no wind or current". Would you care to elaborate on these
conditions and where one might encounter them..... other in your
fevered dreams.

--
Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:38:47 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
rOn Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:32:57 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:26:09 +0700, Bruce in bangkok
wrote:

But Gregory, a 30 lb. danforth will hold a boat perfectly well. It
depends on the anchorage and the weather and water.

===

We have used a 30 lb Danforth as a day anchor in some pretty severe
conditions. With enough scope and a good bottom it holds our 70,000
pound trawler just fine (30 kt winds, exposed anchorage with 3 to 5 ft
seas).



LOL! There's a man confident in his luck!

Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for the
heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a 45-pounder
would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use two of them
Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any normal weather.
(Not talking tropical storms here!)


Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

The Mont, later renamed several times and last named the Seawise
Giant, claimed to be the largest ship to ever sail the seas, had a
gross weight of 825,614 tons and used a 86 ton anchor. i.e. the ship
was 22,937.7 times the weight of the anchor.

The Trawler you describe is 1,555.5 times the weight of the anchor
that you mention.

Or perhaps a better way to describe it is the trawler gross weight to
anchor ratio is far higher then that of what is said to have been the
largest ship in the world.

Using your criteria of gross weight to anchor weight the trawler
should be using an anchor of 3.05 pounds.

Or, to put it another way... you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.

Did I not also mention windage? Weight is of less consequence
in smaller private yachts than is windage. So your diatribe has
little actual meaning when it comes to smaller recreational craft
as it's not the weight that breaks them loose but the force of
the wind acting upon their surface area exposed to the wind.

Ah, windage... I can only assume that you somehow believe that a
70,000 pound trawler has more windage then a 1,651,228,000 pound
tanker.

As was previously mentioned, you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.


Get a clue, dock boy! If you had a BILLION pound ship but
no wind or current you could anchor it with a ten-pound rock
and it would stay put.

And you prove your brilliance yet again. "If you had a BILLION pound
ship but no wind or current". Would you care to elaborate on these
conditions and where one might encounter them..... other in your
fevered dreams.


Bruce, how come you often argue like a girl? Like a girl,
you don't seem capable of embracing an absolute that
demonstrates a point and demonstrates it well.

A billion pound ship that can be anchored by a ten-pound
rock is an absolute that proves it's not the tonnage that
drags anchors but the force of the wind and current acting
upon that tonnage, which is represented by surface area
upon which the wind can act, that causes anchors to drag.

This all goes to prove that your assertion that one requires
X pounds of anchor to properly anchor XY pounds of vessel
is deeply flawed.

It's a flawed formula because as I have proven, using an
absolute, that it's the windage that matters as much or more,
in real life conditions than the weight and your dumb formula
complete ignores the wind and windage. In other words, you
tried to sound like an expert but you failed.

--
Sir Gregory

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:18:14 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:38:47 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
...
rOn Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:32:57 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:26:09 +0700, Bruce in bangkok
wrote:

But Gregory, a 30 lb. danforth will hold a boat perfectly well. It
depends on the anchorage and the weather and water.

===

We have used a 30 lb Danforth as a day anchor in some pretty severe
conditions. With enough scope and a good bottom it holds our 70,000
pound trawler just fine (30 kt winds, exposed anchorage with 3 to 5 ft
seas).



LOL! There's a man confident in his luck!

Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for the
heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a 45-pounder
would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use two of them
Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any normal weather.
(Not talking tropical storms here!)


Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

The Mont, later renamed several times and last named the Seawise
Giant, claimed to be the largest ship to ever sail the seas, had a
gross weight of 825,614 tons and used a 86 ton anchor. i.e. the ship
was 22,937.7 times the weight of the anchor.

The Trawler you describe is 1,555.5 times the weight of the anchor
that you mention.

Or perhaps a better way to describe it is the trawler gross weight to
anchor ratio is far higher then that of what is said to have been the
largest ship in the world.

Using your criteria of gross weight to anchor weight the trawler
should be using an anchor of 3.05 pounds.

Or, to put it another way... you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.

Did I not also mention windage? Weight is of less consequence
in smaller private yachts than is windage. So your diatribe has
little actual meaning when it comes to smaller recreational craft
as it's not the weight that breaks them loose but the force of
the wind acting upon their surface area exposed to the wind.

Ah, windage... I can only assume that you somehow believe that a
70,000 pound trawler has more windage then a 1,651,228,000 pound
tanker.

As was previously mentioned, you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.


Get a clue, dock boy! If you had a BILLION pound ship but
no wind or current you could anchor it with a ten-pound rock
and it would stay put.

And you prove your brilliance yet again. "If you had a BILLION pound
ship but no wind or current". Would you care to elaborate on these
conditions and where one might encounter them..... other in your
fevered dreams.


Bruce, how come you often argue like a girl? Like a girl,
you don't seem capable of embracing an absolute that
demonstrates a point and demonstrates it well.

A billion pound ship that can be anchored by a ten-pound
rock is an absolute that proves it's not the tonnage that
drags anchors but the force of the wind and current acting
upon that tonnage, which is represented by surface area
upon which the wind can act, that causes anchors to drag.

This all goes to prove that your assertion that one requires
X pounds of anchor to properly anchor XY pounds of vessel
is deeply flawed.


You can't read?

Above someone wrote:

"Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for
the heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a
45-pounder would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use
two of them Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any
normal weather."

How soon they forget.... even what they themselves said.

It's a flawed formula because as I have proven, using an
absolute, that it's the windage that matters as much or more,
in real life conditions than the weight and your dumb formula
complete ignores the wind and windage. In other words, you
tried to sound like an expert but you failed.

But it is a formula that you dictated. After all you stated, in the
above, a very specific ratio of a 45-pounder anchor for a 70,000 pound
trawler.

Are you now saying that is incorrect? Or that you told a lie?

Or, is it just a simple matter of you not knowing what you were
talking about?

So I'm not really being "girlish" am I? Or do you feel that being
required to admit that you are a liar, or that you simply don't know
what you are talking about, is a "girlish" requirement.

--
Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:37:14 +0700, Bruce in bangkok
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:18:14 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:38:47 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
m...
rOn Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:32:57 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news:m9ca29dsbg75nlfbc151s173die229i1u3@4ax. com...
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:26:09 +0700, Bruce in bangkok
wrote:

But Gregory, a 30 lb. danforth will hold a boat perfectly well. It
depends on the anchorage and the weather and water.

===

We have used a 30 lb Danforth as a day anchor in some pretty severe
conditions. With enough scope and a good bottom it holds our 70,000
pound trawler just fine (30 kt winds, exposed anchorage with 3 to 5 ft
seas).



LOL! There's a man confident in his luck!

Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for the
heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a 45-pounder
would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use two of them
Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any normal weather.
(Not talking tropical storms here!)


Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

The Mont, later renamed several times and last named the Seawise
Giant, claimed to be the largest ship to ever sail the seas, had a
gross weight of 825,614 tons and used a 86 ton anchor. i.e. the ship
was 22,937.7 times the weight of the anchor.

The Trawler you describe is 1,555.5 times the weight of the anchor
that you mention.

Or perhaps a better way to describe it is the trawler gross weight to
anchor ratio is far higher then that of what is said to have been the
largest ship in the world.

Using your criteria of gross weight to anchor weight the trawler
should be using an anchor of 3.05 pounds.

Or, to put it another way... you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.

Did I not also mention windage? Weight is of less consequence
in smaller private yachts than is windage. So your diatribe has
little actual meaning when it comes to smaller recreational craft
as it's not the weight that breaks them loose but the force of
the wind acting upon their surface area exposed to the wind.

Ah, windage... I can only assume that you somehow believe that a
70,000 pound trawler has more windage then a 1,651,228,000 pound
tanker.

As was previously mentioned, you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.


Get a clue, dock boy! If you had a BILLION pound ship but
no wind or current you could anchor it with a ten-pound rock
and it would stay put.

And you prove your brilliance yet again. "If you had a BILLION pound
ship but no wind or current". Would you care to elaborate on these
conditions and where one might encounter them..... other in your
fevered dreams.


Bruce, how come you often argue like a girl? Like a girl,
you don't seem capable of embracing an absolute that
demonstrates a point and demonstrates it well.

A billion pound ship that can be anchored by a ten-pound
rock is an absolute that proves it's not the tonnage that
drags anchors but the force of the wind and current acting
upon that tonnage, which is represented by surface area
upon which the wind can act, that causes anchors to drag.

This all goes to prove that your assertion that one requires
X pounds of anchor to properly anchor XY pounds of vessel
is deeply flawed.


You can't read?

Above someone wrote:

"Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for
the heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a
45-pounder would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use
two of them Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any
normal weather."

How soon they forget.... even what they themselves said.

It's a flawed formula because as I have proven, using an
absolute, that it's the windage that matters as much or more,
in real life conditions than the weight and your dumb formula
complete ignores the wind and windage. In other words, you
tried to sound like an expert but you failed.

But it is a formula that you dictated. After all you stated, in the
above, a very specific ratio of a 45-pounder anchor for a 70,000 pound
trawler.

Are you now saying that is incorrect? Or that you told a lie?


====

Frankly I don't think there'a any prevarication involved, just
differences of opinion, perhaps stretched a bit in the interest of a
"lively" discussion. And there's no end to the lively discussions
about anchors and anchoring. It's a favorite topic where ever
cruisers congregate. There are some good formulas for wind loading
that take vessel size and shape into account. Some have atttempted
to throw in a fudge factor for sea state and accompanying surge loads
but those are guesstimates in my opinion. Almost all reputable
anchor manufacturers publish a table of recommended anchor size based
on boat length but those are also little better than guesstimates
since they don't comprehend weight, windage or sea state, and only
rarely is an assumed wind speed stated. My personal preference for an
all around working anchor is to get the heaviest one that your
windlass can handle and that your boat can carry comfortably. I
select type based on testing and for the widest possible range of
bottom conditions since you don't always get to pick an ideal spot.

We were carrying a 125 pound Spade anchor for a while because it got
great test results by just about everyone, and because we had a 45
pound Spade on our previous boat that was arguably the best all around
anchor I'd ever used. The 125#, although a very good anchor, was
right at the upper limit of what we could deal with, and eventually it
started to show some signs of structural rust after 8 years of serious
cruising and a *lot* of time at anchor. We replaced it last year with
the 88 pound Rocna that we are using now. It doesn't set quite as
fast as the big Spade bit it's plenty fast enough under most
conditions. We usually back down hard with both engines to test the
set and it has never dragged after passing that hurdle. It's the
kind of anchor where you can get a good night's sleep no matter what.
My goal when sizing the anchor and related components is to survive a
50 knot thunder squall without dragging and we have done exactly that
on several different occassions.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:37:14 +0700, Bruce in bangkok
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:18:14 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:38:47 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
om...
rOn Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:32:57 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news:m9ca29dsbg75nlfbc151s173die229i1u3@4ax .com...
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:26:09 +0700, Bruce in bangkok
wrote:

But Gregory, a 30 lb. danforth will hold a boat perfectly well. It
depends on the anchorage and the weather and water.

===

We have used a 30 lb Danforth as a day anchor in some pretty severe
conditions. With enough scope and a good bottom it holds our 70,000
pound trawler just fine (30 kt winds, exposed anchorage with 3 to 5
ft
seas).



LOL! There's a man confident in his luck!

Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for the
heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a
45-pounder
would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use two of them
Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any normal weather.
(Not talking tropical storms here!)


Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

The Mont, later renamed several times and last named the Seawise
Giant, claimed to be the largest ship to ever sail the seas, had a
gross weight of 825,614 tons and used a 86 ton anchor. i.e. the ship
was 22,937.7 times the weight of the anchor.

The Trawler you describe is 1,555.5 times the weight of the anchor
that you mention.

Or perhaps a better way to describe it is the trawler gross weight to
anchor ratio is far higher then that of what is said to have been the
largest ship in the world.

Using your criteria of gross weight to anchor weight the trawler
should be using an anchor of 3.05 pounds.

Or, to put it another way... you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.

Did I not also mention windage? Weight is of less consequence
in smaller private yachts than is windage. So your diatribe has
little actual meaning when it comes to smaller recreational craft
as it's not the weight that breaks them loose but the force of
the wind acting upon their surface area exposed to the wind.

Ah, windage... I can only assume that you somehow believe that a
70,000 pound trawler has more windage then a 1,651,228,000 pound
tanker.

As was previously mentioned, you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.


Get a clue, dock boy! If you had a BILLION pound ship but
no wind or current you could anchor it with a ten-pound rock
and it would stay put.

And you prove your brilliance yet again. "If you had a BILLION pound
ship but no wind or current". Would you care to elaborate on these
conditions and where one might encounter them..... other in your
fevered dreams.


Bruce, how come you often argue like a girl? Like a girl,
you don't seem capable of embracing an absolute that
demonstrates a point and demonstrates it well.

A billion pound ship that can be anchored by a ten-pound
rock is an absolute that proves it's not the tonnage that
drags anchors but the force of the wind and current acting
upon that tonnage, which is represented by surface area
upon which the wind can act, that causes anchors to drag.

This all goes to prove that your assertion that one requires
X pounds of anchor to properly anchor XY pounds of vessel
is deeply flawed.


You can't read?

Above someone wrote:

"Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for
the heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a
45-pounder would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use
two of them Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any
normal weather."

How soon they forget.... even what they themselves said.

It's a flawed formula because as I have proven, using an
absolute, that it's the windage that matters as much or more,
in real life conditions than the weight and your dumb formula
complete ignores the wind and windage. In other words, you
tried to sound like an expert but you failed.

But it is a formula that you dictated. After all you stated, in the
above, a very specific ratio of a 45-pounder anchor for a 70,000 pound
trawler.

Are you now saying that is incorrect? Or that you told a lie?


====

Frankly I don't think there'a any prevarication involved, just
differences of opinion, perhaps stretched a bit in the interest of a
"lively" discussion. And there's no end to the lively discussions
about anchors and anchoring. It's a favorite topic where ever
cruisers congregate. There are some good formulas for wind loading
that take vessel size and shape into account. Some have atttempted
to throw in a fudge factor for sea state and accompanying surge loads
but those are guesstimates in my opinion. Almost all reputable
anchor manufacturers publish a table of recommended anchor size based
on boat length but those are also little better than guesstimates
since they don't comprehend weight, windage or sea state, and only
rarely is an assumed wind speed stated. My personal preference for an
all around working anchor is to get the heaviest one that your
windlass can handle and that your boat can carry comfortably. I
select type based on testing and for the widest possible range of
bottom conditions since you don't always get to pick an ideal spot.

We were carrying a 125 pound Spade anchor for a while because it got
great test results by just about everyone, and because we had a 45
pound Spade on our previous boat that was arguably the best all around
anchor I'd ever used. The 125#, although a very good anchor, was
right at the upper limit of what we could deal with, and eventually it
started to show some signs of structural rust after 8 years of serious
cruising and a *lot* of time at anchor. We replaced it last year with
the 88 pound Rocna that we are using now. It doesn't set quite as
fast as the big Spade bit it's plenty fast enough under most
conditions. We usually back down hard with both engines to test the
set and it has never dragged after passing that hurdle. It's the
kind of anchor where you can get a good night's sleep no matter what.
My goal when sizing the anchor and related components is to survive a
50 knot thunder squall without dragging and we have done exactly that
on several different occassions.


Bingo! A most excellent assessment.

Here at my home port my anchors stay on the bottom because they
are too heavy to pull up by hand and I don't have a windlass. The only
way I can pull up the two 300 pound circular cast iron anchors is
to use one of the genoa winches with the line lead over the side
with a piece of stainless steel between the edge of the GRP and
the line.

The anchors are unique in that they are circular. They started life
as manhole cover rings. They are the frame, so to speak, into
which a manhole cover fits. These are three feet inside diameter
and about 14 inches deep. They sink down into the mud/shells and
grass so nothing drags them no matter the direction or strength
of the wind. I sleep very comfortably even through the occasional
hurricane as long as I don't have anybody upwind to drag down
on me to worry about.

When out and about, for overnighters, I always use two anchors
set Bahamian style in case of wind and/or current shifts. My
bowers consist of two 25 lb Danforth Hi-Tensile Deepsets.
They are attached using about 12 feet of 3/8" stainless steel
chain shackled to eye spliced 9/16" nylon three-strand.
I sometimes use a 20lb CQR and/or 20lb Herreshoff fisherman
anchor in rocky conditions where the Danforths can't be trusted
to hold well.

I have NEVER dragged in my entire 30 some odd years of
cruising. I don't allow dragging even if it means snorkeling
down and setting the anchors by hand or assuring they
are well-dug in. I can't abide the sloppiness and negligence
of today's so-called sailor who tosses a tiny anchor over
the side and doesn't even bother to back down on it.

You've seen these idiots, I'm sure. When the wind pipes
up and they commence to drag they pop their head out
of the accommodation with a shocked look on their face
as if they've never dragged before. We all know they drag
all the time. One time one of these jerks was dragging
down on me and I blew the horn at him and told him he
was dragging and he had the nerve to say he wasn't
because I was dragging. Like any vessel is able to
drag up against the wind.

--
Sir Gregory

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:15:40 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:37:14 +0700, Bruce in bangkok
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:18:14 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:38:47 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Bruce in bangkok" wrote in message
om...
rOn Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:32:57 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·"
åke wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news:m9ca29dsbg75nlfbc151s173die229i1u3@4ax .com...
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:26:09 +0700, Bruce in bangkok
wrote:

But Gregory, a 30 lb. danforth will hold a boat perfectly well. It
depends on the anchorage and the weather and water.

===

We have used a 30 lb Danforth as a day anchor in some pretty severe
conditions. With enough scope and a good bottom it holds our 70,000
pound trawler just fine (30 kt winds, exposed anchorage with 3 to 5 ft
seas).



LOL! There's a man confident in his luck!

Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for the
heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a 45-pounder
would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use two of them
Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any normal weather.
(Not talking tropical storms here!)


Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

The Mont, later renamed several times and last named the Seawise
Giant, claimed to be the largest ship to ever sail the seas, had a
gross weight of 825,614 tons and used a 86 ton anchor. i.e. the ship
was 22,937.7 times the weight of the anchor.

The Trawler you describe is 1,555.5 times the weight of the anchor
that you mention.

Or perhaps a better way to describe it is the trawler gross weight to
anchor ratio is far higher then that of what is said to have been the
largest ship in the world.

Using your criteria of gross weight to anchor weight the trawler
should be using an anchor of 3.05 pounds.

Or, to put it another way... you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.

Did I not also mention windage? Weight is of less consequence
in smaller private yachts than is windage. So your diatribe has
little actual meaning when it comes to smaller recreational craft
as it's not the weight that breaks them loose but the force of
the wind acting upon their surface area exposed to the wind.

Ah, windage... I can only assume that you somehow believe that a
70,000 pound trawler has more windage then a 1,651,228,000 pound
tanker.

As was previously mentioned, you have proven, yet again, that you
don't know what you are talking about.


Get a clue, dock boy! If you had a BILLION pound ship but
no wind or current you could anchor it with a ten-pound rock
and it would stay put.

And you prove your brilliance yet again. "If you had a BILLION pound
ship but no wind or current". Would you care to elaborate on these
conditions and where one might encounter them..... other in your
fevered dreams.


Bruce, how come you often argue like a girl? Like a girl,
you don't seem capable of embracing an absolute that
demonstrates a point and demonstrates it well.

A billion pound ship that can be anchored by a ten-pound
rock is an absolute that proves it's not the tonnage that
drags anchors but the force of the wind and current acting
upon that tonnage, which is represented by surface area
upon which the wind can act, that causes anchors to drag.

This all goes to prove that your assertion that one requires
X pounds of anchor to properly anchor XY pounds of vessel
is deeply flawed.


You can't read?

Above someone wrote:

"Myself, I'd rather rely on using an anchor that is appropriate for
the heft and windage of the vessel. For a 70,000 pound trawler, a
45-pounder would be the absolute minimum. Even so, I'd be sure to use
two of them Bahamian-style so I could feel secure through most any
normal weather."

How soon they forget.... even what they themselves said.

It's a flawed formula because as I have proven, using an
absolute, that it's the windage that matters as much or more,
in real life conditions than the weight and your dumb formula
complete ignores the wind and windage. In other words, you
tried to sound like an expert but you failed.

But it is a formula that you dictated. After all you stated, in the
above, a very specific ratio of a 45-pounder anchor for a 70,000 pound
trawler.

Are you now saying that is incorrect? Or that you told a lie?


====

Frankly I don't think there'a any prevarication involved, just
differences of opinion, perhaps stretched a bit in the interest of a
"lively" discussion. And there's no end to the lively discussions
about anchors and anchoring. It's a favorite topic where ever
cruisers congregate. There are some good formulas for wind loading
that take vessel size and shape into account. Some have atttempted
to throw in a fudge factor for sea state and accompanying surge loads
but those are guesstimates in my opinion. Almost all reputable
anchor manufacturers publish a table of recommended anchor size based
on boat length but those are also little better than guesstimates
since they don't comprehend weight, windage or sea state, and only
rarely is an assumed wind speed stated. My personal preference for an
all around working anchor is to get the heaviest one that your
windlass can handle and that your boat can carry comfortably. I
select type based on testing and for the widest possible range of
bottom conditions since you don't always get to pick an ideal spot.

We were carrying a 125 pound Spade anchor for a while because it got
great test results by just about everyone, and because we had a 45
pound Spade on our previous boat that was arguably the best all around
anchor I'd ever used. The 125#, although a very good anchor, was
right at the upper limit of what we could deal with, and eventually it
started to show some signs of structural rust after 8 years of serious
cruising and a *lot* of time at anchor. We replaced it last year with
the 88 pound Rocna that we are using now. It doesn't set quite as
fast as the big Spade bit it's plenty fast enough under most
conditions. We usually back down hard with both engines to test the
set and it has never dragged after passing that hurdle. It's the
kind of anchor where you can get a good night's sleep no matter what.
My goal when sizing the anchor and related components is to survive a
50 knot thunder squall without dragging and we have done exactly that
on several different occassions.

I tend to agree with you, use the heaviest anchor you can, if you have
a windless :-) I had a 45 lb. and a 50 kg. anchor on the sailboat.
When I bought the boat the lighter anchor as shackled onto the anchor
chain and I never changed it in the more then 10 years I sail the
boat.

My mention of "if you have an anchor" was very much influenced by the
fact that we set off for Malaysia one time and discovered the first
morning that the windless didn't work and for a number of reasons we
had to get to Malaysia :-( Hardly my most memorable trip :-)

--
Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok