anchor question?
 

So, you disagree that the longer the chain the better the holding
power in an ideal bottom? 8^)

BB

(start with a friendly grin)
You've been taking lessons from the political threads here. (1) Make an absurd
statement. (2) Defend challenges to absurd statement by finding some safe haven
in closely related logic and claiming that was *really* what you meant all
along.

And of course you're right, the longer the chain the better the holding
power....although I think you can reach a point where additional scope becomes
more of a hassle than it's worth. Will 15:1 hold better than 7:1? Likely so,
but equally likely nobody would ever notice the difference.

I had to laugh at the original statement. "One minute of holding power for each
inch
of chain." Will two inches of scope hold a boat for two minutes? :-)

Now, when you're down on the dock next spring and two guys are debating anchor
rodes and one says "I read on the internet that you will hold one minute for
each inch of chain......" you'll have cause to feel just a bit guilty. :-)

anchor question?
 

"Ðon ßailey" wrote in message
...

"tgodiver" wrote in message
...
I have a 25 ft center console with a 13 lb. anchor. How much chain do
you
need for this anchor? and what size chain. I was thinking of using
5/16"
inch chain, can I get away with a smaller diameter to save cost?

Is there a standard length of chain for anchors?

thanks




The "G" man said "6 feet of chain for every 25 feet of water you
want to anchor in".

So,

If you usually anchor in say..40-50ft of water, get 12ft of chain.


Gotta call the "G" man on this one. That's an odd approach to the problem,
given that it doesn't give any consideration to the size of the vessel. It
suggests that the 12 ft. of chain in your example would be appropriate for
both an 18' Bayliner and a 72' Burger. I think the formula given earlier, a
foot of chain per foot of LOA makes more sense, assuming a rope/chain mixed
rode.

anchor question?
 

"RG" wrote in message news:JtVOa.26$lW1.13@fed1read07...

"Ðon ßailey" wrote in message
...

"tgodiver" wrote in message
...
I have a 25 ft center console with a 13 lb. anchor. How much chain do
you
need for this anchor? and what size chain. I was thinking of using
5/16"
inch chain, can I get away with a smaller diameter to save cost?

Is there a standard length of chain for anchors?

thanks




The "G" man said "6 feet of chain for every 25 feet of water you
want to anchor in".

So,

If you usually anchor in say..40-50ft of water, get 12ft of chain.


Gotta call the "G" man on this one. That's an odd approach to the
problem,
given that it doesn't give any consideration to the size of the vessel.
It
suggests that the 12 ft. of chain in your example would be appropriate for
both an 18' Bayliner and a 72' Burger. I think the formula given earlier,
a
foot of chain per foot of LOA makes more sense, assuming a rope/chain
mixed
rode.



I don't think the G-man is "talking" to anyone with a 72' Burger.
I think his show's target audience is the weekend boater.

I also think the primary variable here is more the depth of the water,
hence
the angle of the rhode(I think that's the correct word) more than the
size of the boat. (when your talking about boats between 14' - 32').
Anything larger would probably need a little more chain and a
larger anchor.



Btw,

I really like the work he's done on that 1984 228 Mako. I have
a 1984 254 Mako and would love to have a tower on mine like he's got.


db

anchor question?
 

I don't think the G-man is "talking" to anyone with a 72' Burger.
I think his show's target audience is the weekend boater.

I dunno, if I had a 72' Burger, you could bet your ass I'd be on it every
weekend, and would probably be watching "G" man on the weekends on a large
plasma screen in the salon being fed by the onboard sat TV system. But
alas, such is not my fate.


I also think the primary variable here is more the depth of the water,
hence
the angle of the rhode(I think that's the correct word) more than the
size of the boat. (when your talking about boats between 14' - 32').
Anything larger would probably need a little more chain and a
larger anchor.


Water depth is indeed a primary variable, and it dictates scope, the length
of total rode employed, expressed as a multiple of depth. Anchor size and,
in my opinion, chain length are driven primarily by vessel size.

anchor question?
 

I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW
wrote in message
...
On 09 Jul 2003 13:24:50 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

So, you disagree that the longer the chain the better the holding
power in an ideal bottom? 8^)

BB

(start with a friendly grin)
You've been taking lessons from the political threads here. (1) Make an
absurd
statement.

Of course it was absurd! It was meant to be... Meanwhile it has an
element of fact in it. A longer chain generally holds better than a
shorter chain. A Chain that is too short probably won't hold well at
all.

cheers
BB

anchor question?
 

"Michael Wright" wrote in message
...
I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

Well, you're on the right track, but I think your wording could use some
improvement. There are two purposes for adding chain to a nylon rode. The
first, which is very much related to your suggestion, is to lower the angle
of the pull of the rode on the anchor. Since chain is heavy, it tends to
lie on the bottom and stay there more so than straight nylon would. An
anchor will always take and hold a set much better with a horizontal pull,
rather than a vertical pull. In fact, the most common way to break the set
of an anchor for retrieval is to position the boat directly above the
anchor, thereby changing the pull to pure vertical. Generally, the more
chain that is added to the rode, the less scope is required for a given set
of conditions, because of the increased horizontal pull effect that chain
provides over straight nylon.

The second reason for adding chain is for chafe protection. It stands to
reason that the part of the rode closest to the anchor will be subject to
the most abuse from rocks, coral, or other items on the bottom that could,
over time, chafe nylon to the point of needing to be replaced. By
positioning a length of chain next to the anchor, the chain takes the
majority of such abuse rather than the nylon section of the rode, and the
chain obviously holds up much under such conditions than does nylon.

anchor question?
 

I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

The anchor rode, whether rope or chain, connects the boat to the anchor, but
the system really only works well (barring weird exceptions) when enough rode
is deployed to create adequate "scope".
Scope is the relationship between the length of rode deployed and the distance
between the bow pulpit and the sea floor.
In 20-feet of water, with a 5-foot clearance between the bow pulpit and the
surface, 75-feet of rode would create 3:1 scope- adequate to hold in
not-particularly challenging conditions. If there's enough space in the
anchorage, more boaters would prefer 5:1 for overnight moorage and
7:1 in a strong storm. In tidal waters, one has to consider the impending
changes in depth and allow for sufficient scope- particularly when anchoring at
or near low tide.

The greater the scope, the more horizontal the stresses on a set anchor will
be. Anchors are generally designed to "dig in" when pulled horizontally.

Chain is a "better" rode, in some ways, than rope. It is heavier, and can bang
up the foredeck worse than rope, but it tends to develop a heavy,
shock-absorbing belly between the anchor and the boat. It takes a lot more
pressure from wind or current to
straighten a chain rode than a rope in most situations. (Try stretching a
fathom of rope and then a fathom of chain. See how long you can hold your arms
out with one vs the other. Same thing goes on underwater) The chain tends to
lay flat along the bottom close to the anchor.

Boaters who routinely anchor in very deep water tend ot favor all chain rodes.
The chain rodes generally do not require as much scope to hold.

A combination rode is also a popular choice, with a length of chain
(traditionally equal to at least one boat length) spliced in between the rope
and the hook.

anchor question?
 

All correct. I've always used chain the length of the boat on combination
rodes; I now have the luxury of an all-chain rode, which I love! I can get
away with 3:1 scope where I'd have to use 5:1 to get the same effect with
chain/nylon. Of course, I add a nylon snubber when anchoring overnight or
for any extended period of time. I've also been using a Spade anchor for
awhile (in mud), and so far am very pleased with it.

--


Keith
__
Don't let your mind wander -- it's too little to be let out alone.
"RG" wrote in message news:Xi4Pa.506$Bp2.66@fed1read07...

"Michael Wright" wrote in message
...
I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to
initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

Well, you're on the right track, but I think your wording could use some
improvement. There are two purposes for adding chain to a nylon rode.
The
first, which is very much related to your suggestion, is to lower the
angle
of the pull of the rode on the anchor. Since chain is heavy, it tends to
lie on the bottom and stay there more so than straight nylon would. An
anchor will always take and hold a set much better with a horizontal pull,
rather than a vertical pull. In fact, the most common way to break the
set
of an anchor for retrieval is to position the boat directly above the
anchor, thereby changing the pull to pure vertical. Generally, the more
chain that is added to the rode, the less scope is required for a given
set
of conditions, because of the increased horizontal pull effect that chain
provides over straight nylon.

The second reason for adding chain is for chafe protection. It stands to
reason that the part of the rode closest to the anchor will be subject to
the most abuse from rocks, coral, or other items on the bottom that could,
over time, chafe nylon to the point of needing to be replaced. By
positioning a length of chain next to the anchor, the chain takes the
majority of such abuse rather than the nylon section of the rode, and the
chain obviously holds up much under such conditions than does nylon.

anchor question?
 

I see. I overlooked using all chain. I have set up about 5 feet of 3/4"
chain placed before a Bruce anchor. Mind you I don't need to use all chain
and the bottom around here is all mud and weeds making setting a lot easier
than in other conditions. Cheers MW
"RG" wrote in message news:Xi4Pa.506$Bp2.66@fed1read07...

"Michael Wright" wrote in message
...
I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to
initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

Well, you're on the right track, but I think your wording could use some
improvement. There are two purposes for adding chain to a nylon rode.
The
first, which is very much related to your suggestion, is to lower the
angle
of the pull of the rode on the anchor. Since chain is heavy, it tends to
lie on the bottom and stay there more so than straight nylon would. An
anchor will always take and hold a set much better with a horizontal pull,
rather than a vertical pull. In fact, the most common way to break the
set
of an anchor for retrieval is to position the boat directly above the
anchor, thereby changing the pull to pure vertical. Generally, the more
chain that is added to the rode, the less scope is required for a given
set
of conditions, because of the increased horizontal pull effect that chain
provides over straight nylon.

The second reason for adding chain is for chafe protection. It stands to
reason that the part of the rode closest to the anchor will be subject to
the most abuse from rocks, coral, or other items on the bottom that could,
over time, chafe nylon to the point of needing to be replaced. By
positioning a length of chain next to the anchor, the chain takes the
majority of such abuse rather than the nylon section of the rode, and the
chain obviously holds up much under such conditions than does nylon.

anchor question?
 

Just today, I saw several "ideal bottoms", but I confess that I did
not have one thought of "chain". At this rate, I'll *never* get my
Capt's License. :o)
noah

Yeah, but maybe the rule "one minute of holding power for every inch of scope"
might still apply.

anchor question?
 

On 10 Jul 2003 23:21:39 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Just today, I saw several "ideal bottoms", but I confess that I did
not have one thought of "chain". At this rate, I'll *never* get my
Capt's License. :o)
noah

Yeah, but maybe the rule "one minute of holding power for every inch of scope"
might still apply.

....but that only gives me 8 minutes. :o)

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

anchor question?
 

...but that only gives me 8 minutes. :o)

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

Que lastima!

(first liar doesn't stand a chance)

anchor question?
 

On 11 Jul 2003 00:26:51 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

...but that only gives me 8 minutes. :o)

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

Que lastima!

(first liar doesn't stand a chance)

Aliquantus falso pro veritas!!

(A good lie is as good as the truth!) :o)
noah


Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

anchor question?
 

I think you'll find that Bruce doesn't hold well in mud. If it drags around
on you, look at a Fortress or other Danforth type anchor. They hold best in
mud.

--


Keith
__
"A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank
her."--W.C. Fields
"Michael Wright" wrote in message
...
I see. I overlooked using all chain. I have set up about 5 feet of 3/4"
chain placed before a Bruce anchor. Mind you I don't need to use all
chain
and the bottom around here is all mud and weeds making setting a lot
easier
than in other conditions. Cheers MW
"RG" wrote in message news:Xi4Pa.506$Bp2.66@fed1read07...

"Michael Wright" wrote in message
...
I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to
initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

Well, you're on the right track, but I think your wording could use some
improvement. There are two purposes for adding chain to a nylon rode.
The
first, which is very much related to your suggestion, is to lower the
angle
of the pull of the rode on the anchor. Since chain is heavy, it tends
to
lie on the bottom and stay there more so than straight nylon would. An
anchor will always take and hold a set much better with a horizontal
pull,
rather than a vertical pull. In fact, the most common way to break the
set
of an anchor for retrieval is to position the boat directly above the
anchor, thereby changing the pull to pure vertical. Generally, the more
chain that is added to the rode, the less scope is required for a given
set
of conditions, because of the increased horizontal pull effect that
chain
provides over straight nylon.

The second reason for adding chain is for chafe protection. It stands
to
reason that the part of the rode closest to the anchor will be subject
to
the most abuse from rocks, coral, or other items on the bottom that
could,
over time, chafe nylon to the point of needing to be replaced. By
positioning a length of chain next to the anchor, the chain takes the
majority of such abuse rather than the nylon section of the rode, and
the
chain obviously holds up much under such conditions than does nylon.

anchor question?
 

Good thing you can use radar to get ACTUAL distances when navigating! ;)

--


Keith
__
Character is what you are. Reputation is what people think you are.
"noah" wrote in message
...
On 10 Jul 2003 23:21:39 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Just today, I saw several "ideal bottoms", but I confess that I did
not have one thought of "chain". At this rate, I'll *never* get my
Capt's License. :o)
noah

Yeah, but maybe the rule "one minute of holding power for every inch of
scope"
might still apply.

...but that only gives me 8 minutes. :o)

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

anchor question?
 

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:14:21 -0500, "Keith"
wrote:

Good thing you can use radar to get ACTUAL distances when navigating! ;)

GPS is less painful. No "microwave" effect. :o)
noah


Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

anchor question?
 

Michael wrote:
I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to
initially set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW
=================================
Sure is and you can get the same effect by attaching a small navy anchor
about 6 to 8 feet ahead of your main anchor. Its called "increasing the
apparent scope".
Most of my boating is in Lake St. Clair where the water is 10 to 15 ft.
deep. I carry 100 ft. of 1/2" line for the main 8 lb. anchor and 175
ft. for the emerg. 13 lb. anchor. I don't bother with a chain because
of the shallow water, but up in Lk. Huron, I carry the 6 lb. navy
anchor just in case.
==========
Norm

anchor question?
 

"Keith" wrote in message
...
.... look at a Fortress or other Danforth type anchor. They hold best
in
mud.

I believe the flukes of a standard danforth type only open to about 30
degrees, marvelous in a sandy bottom but less than optimal in mud. The
Fortress can be set to open to 45 degrees, which gives a much more effective
set in a muddy bottom.

JG

anchor question?
 

The Bruce will set and reset better than almost any anchor, but it's holding
power suffers greatly. In mud, it's holding power is only about 30% of a
Danforth's.

I've used my Fortress in mud for years, in it's standard 30 degree position
with no problems. I've never had to use the 45 degree position. That's what
they recommend for mud, but I've always got a good set with the standard
position, so I think the Danforth would do the same.

As always, YMMV (your mileage may vary). Anchor discussions are usually
almost as good as political ones! :)

--


Keith
__
Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.
"Michael Wright" wrote in message
...
Well I have both on board. What do you recommend the Bruce for? I find
the
danforth does not set in the weedy bottom here. Cheers MW
"Keith" wrote in message
...
I think you'll find that Bruce doesn't hold well in mud. If it drags
around
on you, look at a Fortress or other Danforth type anchor. They hold best
in
mud.

--


Keith
__
"A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank
her."--W.C. Fields
"Michael Wright" wrote in message
...
I see. I overlooked using all chain. I have set up about 5 feet of
3/4"
chain placed before a Bruce anchor. Mind you I don't need to use all
chain
and the bottom around here is all mud and weeds making setting a lot
easier
than in other conditions. Cheers MW
"RG" wrote in message
news:Xi4Pa.506$Bp2.66@fed1read07...

"Michael Wright" wrote in message
...
I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to
initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

Well, you're on the right track, but I think your wording could use
some
improvement. There are two purposes for adding chain to a nylon
rode.
The
first, which is very much related to your suggestion, is to lower
the
angle
of the pull of the rode on the anchor. Since chain is heavy, it
tends
to
lie on the bottom and stay there more so than straight nylon would.
An
anchor will always take and hold a set much better with a horizontal
pull,
rather than a vertical pull. In fact, the most common way to break
the
set
of an anchor for retrieval is to position the boat directly above
the
anchor, thereby changing the pull to pure vertical. Generally, the
more
chain that is added to the rode, the less scope is required for a
given
set
of conditions, because of the increased horizontal pull effect that
chain
provides over straight nylon.

The second reason for adding chain is for chafe protection. It
stands
to
reason that the part of the rode closest to the anchor will be
subject
to
the most abuse from rocks, coral, or other items on the bottom that
could,
over time, chafe nylon to the point of needing to be replaced. By
positioning a length of chain next to the anchor, the chain takes
the
majority of such abuse rather than the nylon section of the rode,
and
the
chain obviously holds up much under such conditions than does nylon.

anchor question?
 

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:17:21 -0400, "Michael Wright"
wrote:

I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

I thought the chain was to connect the anchor to the boat.

Casady

anchor question?
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:17:21 -0400, "Michael Wright"
wrote:

I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

I thought the chain was to connect the anchor to the boat.

Casady


The anchor chain (usually long as boat length), helps keep the anchor set
and makes it less likely to drag.

anchor question?
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:50:21 -0300, "YukonBound"
wrote:

The anchor chain (usually long as boat length), helps keep the anchor set
and makes it less likely to drag.

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

anchor question?
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:46:42 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:17:21 -0400, "Michael Wright"
wrote:

I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

I thought the chain was to connect the anchor to the boat.

Casady

I use rope to connect the chain to the boat. The purpose of my ten feet of chain
is to hold down the flukes, as stated.

anchor question?
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:46:42 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:17:21 -0400, "Michael Wright"
wrote:

I believe the purpose of the chain is to hold the flukes down to initially
set the anchor. Please correct me if I am wrong MW

I thought the chain was to connect the anchor to the boat.

Casady

although it's a bit lengthy, the USCG boatcrew seamanship manual is
available online. has great info for basic boating questions.

anchor question?
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:50:21 -0300, "YukonBound"
wrote:

The anchor chain (usually long as boat length), helps keep the anchor set
and makes it less likely to drag.

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage, so that
leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun intended).

anchor question?
 

On 13/06/2010 5:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:50:21 -0300, "YukonBound"
wrote:

The anchor chain (usually long as boat length), helps keep the anchor
set
and makes it less likely to drag.

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage, so
that leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun intended).

Depends where you lay anchor. But if you were a boater you would know
that. But as usual, just a dumb she-it ...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

anchor question?
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2010 5:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:50:21 -0300, "YukonBound"
wrote:

The anchor chain (usually long as boat length), helps keep the anchor
set
and makes it less likely to drag.

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage, so
that leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun intended).

Depends where you lay anchor. But if you were a boater you would know
that. But as usual, just a dumb she-it ...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Hey bozo... please tell us where you can put your anchor (assuming you had
one of course) on coral where you wouldn't damage it. I'm sure there are
some places where you wouldn't be caught or where the locals don't care, but
since you're not going to be going to any of those places...

As usual, you demonstrate just how asinine you really are.

anchor question?
 

On Jun 13, 5:51*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:50:21 -0300, "YukonBound"

wrote:
The anchor chain (usually long as boat length), helps keep the anchor set
and makes it less likely to drag.

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. *A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Wayne, concerning my pontoon boat anchor. Does that mean that I need
to put a chain on my cement block?

anchor question?
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:50:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage, so
that leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun intended).

Depends where you lay anchor. But if you were a boater you would know
that. But as usual, just a dumb she-it ...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Hey bozo... please tell us where you can put your anchor (assuming you had
one of course) on coral where you wouldn't damage it. I'm sure there are
some places where you wouldn't be caught or where the locals don't care, but
since you're not going to be going to any of those places...

As usual, you demonstrate just how asinine you really are.
le

It turns out that there are stray bits of coral in many, many places.
They are scattered around the bottom like small rocks, are very sharp
and abrasive, and impossible to avoid in some areas. Since they are
not part of a living coral reef there is no real need to avoid them.

You have much to learn and should avoid being overly critical of those
who try to explain things to you.

anchor question?
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:55:08 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Wayne, concerning my pontoon boat anchor. Does that mean that I need
to put a chain on my cement block?

Probably not if you only anchor in sand or soft muddy conditions. On
the other hand if you want to anchor securely in rocky conditions, the
chain is a good idea.

Can we assume that you don't encounter much coral in Illinois? :-)

I'm sure you're aware that a concrete block anchor is not likely to
hold in a major wind squall. If you can find an inexpensive 12 lb
Danforth type anchor, that's what I'd recommend. It would be easier
to haul up also.

anchor question?
 

On Jun 13, 10:16*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:55:08 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Wayne, concerning my pontoon boat anchor. Does that mean that I need
to put a chain on my cement block?

Probably not if you only anchor in sand or soft muddy conditions. *On
the other hand if you want to anchor securely in rocky conditions, the
chain is a good idea. *

Can we assume that you don't encounter much coral in Illinois? * :-)

I'm sure you're aware that a concrete block anchor is not likely to
hold in a major wind squall.

LOL! No I dont' think there is much coral to worry about where I'm
from, only an occasional sunk refrigerator or deep freezer


Nah, the pontoon is a lake/river queen and doesn't have to hold
much. A major wind squall? I've been in one of those before, and
unless I get caught in it, I won't be on the lake when that happens.

anchor question?
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:50:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm
these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage, so
that leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun intended).

Depends where you lay anchor. But if you were a boater you would know
that. But as usual, just a dumb she-it ...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Hey bozo... please tell us where you can put your anchor (assuming you had
one of course) on coral where you wouldn't damage it. I'm sure there are
some places where you wouldn't be caught or where the locals don't care,
but
since you're not going to be going to any of those places...

As usual, you demonstrate just how asinine you really are.
le

It turns out that there are stray bits of coral in many, many places.
They are scattered around the bottom like small rocks, are very sharp
and abrasive, and impossible to avoid in some areas. Since they are
not part of a living coral reef there is no real need to avoid them.

You have much to learn and should avoid being overly critical of those
who try to explain things to you.

I have no doubt that coral exists in lots of places. Seems to me that you
can almost always avoid them if you're careful.

You said that "there is no real need to avoid them," but in the previous
sentence said that they "are very sharp and abrasive." Seems to me that
there is a real need to avoid them.

As far as being overly critical, that's a reaction to the low-brow,
mean-spirited attitude of Canuck and a few others. I don't think I've been
overly critical of you or Greg or others who have been civil and helpful. If
you claim that I have "much to learn" (which I'm not disputing), then it
seems to me if you want to contribute to my learning, one should be civil
and not an ass.

anchor question?
 

On Jun 14, 12:18*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message

...



On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:50:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm
these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage, so
that leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun intended).

Depends where you lay anchor. *But if you were a boater you would know
that. *But as usual, just a dumb she-it ...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. *The loss of economic freedom.

Hey bozo... please tell us where you can put your anchor (assuming you had
one of course) on coral where you wouldn't damage it. I'm sure there are
some places where you wouldn't be caught or where the locals don't care,
but
since you're not going to be going to any of those places...

As usual, you demonstrate just how asinine you really are.
le

It turns out that there are stray bits of coral in many, many places.
They are scattered around the bottom like small rocks, are very sharp
and abrasive, *and *impossible to avoid in some areas. *Since they are
not part of a living coral reef there is no real need to avoid them.

You have much to learn and should avoid being overly critical of those
who try to explain things to you.

I have no doubt that coral exists in lots of places. Seems to me that you
can almost always avoid them if you're careful.

You said that "there is no real need to avoid them," but in the previous
sentence said that they "are very sharp and abrasive." Seems to me that
there is a real need to avoid them.

As far as being overly critical, that's a reaction to the low-brow,
mean-spirited attitude of Canuck and a few others. I don't think I've been
overly critical of you or Greg or others who have been civil and helpful. If
you claim that I have "much to learn" (which I'm not disputing), then it
seems to me if you want to contribute to my learning, one should be civil
and not an ass.

Between the two of you, Wayne B is not the ass.

anchor question?
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Nah, the pontoon is a lake/river queen and doesn't have to hold
much. A major wind squall? I've been in one of those before, and
unless I get caught in it, I won't be on the lake when that happens.

Everyone who does a lot of boating gets caught in a wind squall sooner
or later. A good anchor is your best defense whenevery thing else is
going crazy. Picture a scenario where you are anchored out on the
lake on a nice summer afternoon and you suddenly notice a line of
thunderstorms moving in from the west. You go to start the engine
and head for the dock but it doesn't fire up for some reason. Without
a good anchor you will end up where ever the wind wants to put you.

anchor question?
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:18:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I have no doubt that coral exists in lots of places. Seems to me that you
can almost always avoid them if you're careful.


Not always true, depends on where you are.

You said that "there is no real need to avoid them," but in the previous
sentence said that they "are very sharp and abrasive." Seems to me that
there is a real need to avoid them.

There is no need to avoid them for ecological reasons, and assuming
you have a decent length of chain attached to your anchor, as everyone
should, there is no reason to be concerned about abrasion either.

anchor question?
 

On 6/14/2010 6:41 AM, TopBassDog wrote:
On Jun 14, 12:18 am, wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:50:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm
these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage, so
that leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun intended).

Depends where you lay anchor. But if you were a boater you would know
that. But as usual, just a dumb she-it ...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Hey bozo... please tell us where you can put your anchor (assuming you had
one of course) on coral where you wouldn't damage it. I'm sure there are
some places where you wouldn't be caught or where the locals don't care,
but
since you're not going to be going to any of those places...

As usual, you demonstrate just how asinine you really are.
le

It turns out that there are stray bits of coral in many, many places.
They are scattered around the bottom like small rocks, are very sharp
and abrasive, and impossible to avoid in some areas. Since they are
not part of a living coral reef there is no real need to avoid them.

You have much to learn and should avoid being overly critical of those
who try to explain things to you.

I have no doubt that coral exists in lots of places. Seems to me that you
can almost always avoid them if you're careful.

You said that "there is no real need to avoid them," but in the previous
sentence said that they "are very sharp and abrasive." Seems to me that
there is a real need to avoid them.

As far as being overly critical, that's a reaction to the low-brow,
mean-spirited attitude of Canuck and a few others. I don't think I've been
overly critical of you or Greg or others who have been civil and helpful. If
you claim that I have "much to learn" (which I'm not disputing), then it
seems to me if you want to contribute to my learning, one should be civil
and not an ass.

Between the two of you, Wayne B is not the ass.

The little bitch wants us to be nice to her and teach her stuff? She
needs to do an attitude reversal before that will happen.

anchor question?
 

On 6/13/2010 8:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2010 5:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:50:21 -0300, "YukonBound"
wrote:

The anchor chain (usually long as boat length), helps keep the anchor
set
and makes it less likely to drag.

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage, so
that leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun intended).

Depends where you lay anchor. But if you were a boater you would know
that. But as usual, just a dumb she-it ...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Hey bozo... please tell us where you can put your anchor (assuming you
had one of course) on coral where you wouldn't damage it. I'm sure there
are some places where you wouldn't be caught or where the locals don't
care, but since you're not going to be going to any of those places...

As usual, you demonstrate just how asinine you really are.


Play nice with the boys and you won't get your ass handed to you 50
times a day.

anchor question?
 

"Wiley" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 8:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 13/06/2010 5:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:50:21 -0300, "YukonBound"
wrote:

The anchor chain (usually long as boat length), helps keep the anchor
set
and makes it less likely to drag.

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm
these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage, so
that leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun intended).

Depends where you lay anchor. But if you were a boater you would know
that. But as usual, just a dumb she-it ...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Hey bozo... please tell us where you can put your anchor (assuming you
had one of course) on coral where you wouldn't damage it. I'm sure there
are some places where you wouldn't be caught or where the locals don't
care, but since you're not going to be going to any of those places...

As usual, you demonstrate just how asinine you really are.


Play nice with the boys and you won't get your ass handed to you 50 times
a day.

You Dopers & wannabes can't find your own ass with both hands.... how are
you going to hand anyone else's??

anchor question?
 

On Jun 14, 8:00*am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Nah, the pontoon is a lake/river queen and doesn't have to hold
much. A major wind squall? I've been in one of those before, and
unless I get caught in it, I won't be on the lake when that happens.

Everyone who does a lot of boating gets caught in a wind squall sooner
or later. *A good anchor is your best defense whenevery thing else is
going crazy. *Picture a scenario where you are anchored out on the
lake on a nice summer afternoon and you suddenly notice a line of
thunderstorms moving in from the west. * You go to start the engine
and head for the dock but it doesn't fire up for some reason. *Without
a good anchor you will end up where ever the wind wants to put you.

That's true, wayne, and hopefully on the sandy shores. instead of the
huge rocks piled around the dam, or IN the dam.

anchor question?
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jun 14, 12:18 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message

...



On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:50:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Last but not least, chain provides abrasion resistance where it is
most needed. A nylon rode dragging on the bottom will not last
long,
particularly on a rocky or coral bottom.

Can't you be fined for damaging coral? I thought that was the norm
these
days. Seems like you shouldn't be anchoring where you can do damage,
so
that leaves sand, mud, and rocks (which sounds hard, no pun
intended).

Depends where you lay anchor. But if you were a boater you would
know
that. But as usual, just a dumb she-it ...

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Hey bozo... please tell us where you can put your anchor (assuming you
had
one of course) on coral where you wouldn't damage it. I'm sure there
are
some places where you wouldn't be caught or where the locals don't
care,
but
since you're not going to be going to any of those places...

As usual, you demonstrate just how asinine you really are.
le

It turns out that there are stray bits of coral in many, many places.
They are scattered around the bottom like small rocks, are very sharp
and abrasive, and impossible to avoid in some areas. Since they are
not part of a living coral reef there is no real need to avoid them.

You have much to learn and should avoid being overly critical of those
who try to explain things to you.

I have no doubt that coral exists in lots of places. Seems to me that you
can almost always avoid them if you're careful.

You said that "there is no real need to avoid them," but in the previous
sentence said that they "are very sharp and abrasive." Seems to me that
there is a real need to avoid them.

As far as being overly critical, that's a reaction to the low-brow,
mean-spirited attitude of Canuck and a few others. I don't think I've
been
overly critical of you or Greg or others who have been civil and helpful.
If
you claim that I have "much to learn" (which I'm not disputing), then it
seems to me if you want to contribute to my learning, one should be civil
and not an ass.

Between the two of you, Wayne B is not the ass.

You're unable to read? I never thought he was and never said he was, but you
are certainly one.