[Rhodes22-list] Go-To Anchor

[Rik Sandberg]

Bill,

You said:
"This bunch is willing to get passionate about anything--even issues 
directly related to sailing. "

Huh ???? The only one ranting here IS YOU

You said:
"We tend to all read the same sources, and we tend to pass information 
back and forth between ourselves."

Sure, except most of us don't just assume that the "source" is an idiot, 
whether they agree with our thinking or not, when we have read similar 
information from other unconnected sources.

You said:
"By the time a late-comer like me gets into the discussion"

Sorry Bill you weren't a "latecomer" to THIS discussion.

You said:
"This anchoring discussion illustrates this point.  The underlying 
reason for using huge anchors and heavy chain is that this allows for 
less scope in calm conditions in crowded anchorages."

NOBODY here has ADVOCATED USING HUGE ANCHORS you brought the huge 
anchors into the disscussion ...... and the PS test you ranted about, as 
I recall (and I have not read the PS anchor test recently) chose anchors 
that were similarly *sized* for similar designs, NOT necessarilly 
similar in weight. All Fortress anchors are aluminum which most of us 
know, weighs roughly 1/2 as much as steel with the same dimension. So, a 
15 lb Fortress tested against a 15 lb steel WM danforth knock off, for 
instance, is not going to be a realistic comparison. The fortress will 
be nearly twice as big for the same weight. The FX-37 @ 21 lbs. you 
refer to would be probably equivalent (in size) to a 42 lb steel danforth.

Sorry Bill I'm not going for your conspiracy theories ......

Rik

PS: who pissed in your wheaties this week???

Bill Effros wrote:

> Wally,
>
> I noted your silence, and I know your position.  This bunch is willing 
> to get passionate about anything--even issues directly related to 
> sailing.
>
> We tend to all read the same sources, and we tend to pass information 
> back and forth between ourselves.  Things get lost in the pass-offs 
> like the kid game of "telephone".  By the time a late-comer like me 
> gets into the discussion I'm talking only to people who have never 
> tried the advice they are giving, and who have never personally 
> experienced the problems they are advising against.
>
> It takes a while before you come to realize that you are getting 
> advice from people who "don't know what they are talking about" in a 
> literal sense.
> This is particularly true with regard to the R-22.  The boat is unique 
> in many ways, and conventional wisdom does not apply.  Every now and 
> again Stan pops up into a discussion and says "that is not true with 
> this boat" but most people ignore his opinion and go right back to 
> what they read 2 years ago in Sail Magazine talking about a completely 
> different boat in a completely different situation.  Stan seems to 
> have tired of straightening out misconceptions, and he just doesn't 
> have the time to pop up every time someone takes a position based on 
> knowledge that does not apply to this boat.
>
> This anchoring discussion illustrates this point.  The underlying 
> reason for using huge anchors and heavy chain is that this allows for 
> less scope in calm conditions in crowded anchorages.  The 
> original-source anchoring information generally explains that this is 
> the reason for the thrust of their recommendations.  But these 
> explanations tend to get lost during the exchange of information.  In 
> this last anchoring test, for example,  PS tested at the recommended 
> 7:1 scope and then at 3:1 saying that no one actually anchors at 7:1.  
> But I never saw a break-out explaining which anchors performed better 
> at the longer scope.
>
> I always anchor at a 7:1 scope when I'm serious about anchoring.  In 
> my opinion, scope is the best anchoring protection you can get when 
> you need it.
>
> Most anchoring advice is based on the assumption that the boat is more 
> than 30 feet long, weighs over 15,000 pounds, and has an 8 foot keel.  
> If you weigh 15,000 pounds, 600 pounds of anchor chain is no big 
> deal.  If you have an 8 foot keel you won't anchor in less than 10 
> feet of water at low tide--which around my neighborhood means 19 feet 
> of water at high tide.
>
> Soooo...7:1 scope means that your anchor rode + boat length will be, 
> at a minimum, (22X7)+30=184 feet; and you will need twice that amount 
> of room so your boat can swing.  All boats must stay a football field 
> apart to avoid the illusion that they are "dragging anchors" when in 
> fact they are swinging at different speeds due to current and windage 
> variables.
>
> Even if that amount of room were available (which it is not) boaters 
> don't give each other that amount of room--they drop anchor much 
> closer than a football field away, and they reduce scope to avoid 
> hitting each other when they swing.  At 3:1 scope (which is completely 
> unreliable as the wind picks up) these boats still require 96 feet of 
> rode --200 feet between boats.
>
> But a Rhodes 22 doesn't need to be a football field, or even 200 feet 
> away from the next boat.  Our keel is only 2 feet deep.  So we can 
> anchor in 11 feet of water + 3 feet of freeboard--(14X7)+22=120 feet 
> of rode at 7:1 scope.  By using Bahamian anchoring or even 3 anchor 
> techniques, the R-22 will swing in slightly more than 150 feet, always 
> maintain at least 7:1 scope, and be more reliably anchored in any wind 
> conditions than larger boats on chain rodes with much heavier anchors 
> on shorter scope.
>
> Your actual experiences on the water prompted me to start testing 
> these theories in the first place.  This exchange has pointed me to 
> many people, far more knowledgeable that I, who confirm that chain 
> anchor rode does not confer most of the benefits commonly attributed 
> to it, and that in almost all situations, an all rope rode is safer 
> than either an all chain rode or a rope/chain rode in the waters I 
> where I anchor.
>
> Thanks for speaking up.
>
> Bill Effros
>
> Wallace Buck wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I have kept quiet on this go around because the last anchor thread 
>> got out fo control. :-)
>>
>> If you remember I said then for my conditions (muddy clay bottom) I 
>> found chain was not needed and more trouble than it was worth. I use 
>> an anchor that recommends no chain with nylon rhode...I can't 
>> remember the brand and it works well. I also have a small mushroom 
>> for lunch hook but usually we just drift for lunch so it doesn't get 
>> used much. I have a danforth knockoff with chain in laz but I haven't 
>> used it in over 3 years.
>>
>> Different conditions call for different techniques. It helps to be 
>> prepared and understand the various anchoring techniques. Some 
>> conditions don't require chain. I hate dealing with the red clay. 
>> Dipping rhode doesn't get all of the mud off.
>>
>> Wally
>>
>>
>>> From: Bill Effros <bill at effros.com>
>>> Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>>> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Go-To Anchor
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:54:05 -0500
>>>
>>> Dennis,
>>>
>>> No need to state you're not an expert around here--we don't take 
>>> expertise in anything too seriously.  You just take a shot and then 
>>> duck.  Someone will soon tell you, in no uncertain terms, that 
>>> you're no expert.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the tug-test site (even though it didn't come through 
>>> until the next post).  I've seen the tug test before, but I forgot 
>>> where it was.  (I had to put the address back together to get to the 
>>> site.)
>>>
>>> For those who didn't go to the site, please note that several of the 
>>> anchors obtaining the highest ratings did so with all rope rodes, 
>>> and that the 21 lb. Fortress failed to set at all with a Rope/Chain 
>>> rode.
>>>
>>> The 25 lb. WM did not set either, with an all chain rode.
>>>
>>> Nor the 16 lb. Spade with all chain rode.
>>>
>>> Out of 17 anchors tested, only 4 set.  3 of the 4 that set had all 
>>> rope rodes.  The 4th was all chain.  The most powerful set was 
>>> obtained with an all nylon rope rode.
>>>
>>> The tug came to a stop; dropped the anchor and rode overboard, 
>>> drifted in the wind to set the anchor, and then gradually powered up 
>>> to test the power of the anchor, and when it would start to drag.  
>>> This is exactly the way I learned to set an anchor, as opposed to 
>>> the PS test method, except that our boat can't generate enough power 
>>> to drag a properly set anchor.  (The tug had a 1200 hp engine and a 
>>> 72 inch propeller.)
>>>
>>> It turns out Creative Marine didn't care much for the PS tests, 
>>> either.  Quoting from the site Dennis pointed to:
>>>
>>> "Tests previously made by Practical Sailor and Powerboat Reports in 
>>> purported mud were admitted to have been in 18 inches of soup over 
>>> gravel. This turned out to be a gravel test. The PS/PBR tests have 
>>> all been flawed in that the anchors tested were always set and 
>>> pulled with the rode leading ashore where it was attached to a 
>>> dynamometer. The scopes as a result were equivalent to 100 to I 
>>> since the rodes were laying on the bottom. The Bruce, CQR, Delta and 
>>> Danforth types had not been designed as penetrating anchors. Their 
>>> purpose is to penetrate the bottom on more than two feet. The rodes 
>>> laying on the bottom favor this type of anchors, and thus the PS/PBR 
>>> tests showed these anchors to good advantage.
>>>
>>> Boaters however seldom extend their anchor rode's scopes to as much 
>>> as 7 to 1, let alone 100 to 1. More likely it is 5 to1 or less. The 
>>> Max and Super Max anchors were designed to set and penetrate deeper 
>>> and deeper as more strain is applied. When they are set with a 100 
>>> to I scope as in the cases of the PS/PBR tests, they will not 
>>> perform as they were designed to do. That is why the ABS tests from 
>>> an actual tugboat showed the true characteristics and capabilities 
>>> of the anchors tested. The scopes of 6 to I were used for anchors 
>>> whose manufacturers recommended 7 to 1, since it was the medium 
>>> between what boaters normally would use, 5 to 1."
>>>
>>> Thanks, Dennis.
>>>
>>> The prosecution rests.
>>>
>>> At least for tonight.
>>>
>>> Bill Effros
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dennis McNeely wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't claim to be an expert - but ran across this link for soft mud
>>>> anchoring. The site is commercially sponsored, but gives a link to the
>>>> actual test results for a variety of anchors set and dragged behind 
>>>> a 1200
>>>> hp tug.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the anchors weighted from 16.5 to 52 pounds, but 
>>>> apparently the
>>>> manufacturers recommend those respective sizes for a boat 33 to 38 
>>>> feet in
>>>> length (!)
>>>>
>>>> Dennis
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>>>> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Bill Effros
>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:07 PM
>>>> To: R22 List
>>>> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Go-To Anchor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I set up my anchor rodes with and without chain.  As noted last 
>>>> year I had more than a dozen anchors on board at one point.  I set 
>>>> up hardware so that I could quickly snap things together and take 
>>>> them apart.  I expected to be mixing and matching all summer.  I 
>>>> have anchors and rode all over my boat.
>>>>
>>>> I was very surprised, at some point roughly half way through the 
>>>> summer, to discover that I kept coming back to the same set-up over 
>>>> and over.
>>>>
>>>> My Go-To anchor is a 2 1/2 pound Guardian (made by Fortress, but 
>>>> the less expensive model), fully assembled, with floating anchor 
>>>> rode (3/8"? 1/2"? -- I'm not sure), no chain, pre-spliced eye, 
>>>> stored in a Rubbermaid container under a cockpit seat, not fastened 
>>>> to anything at the bitter end, deployed from the stern, tied off on 
>>>> a stern cleat, set from the stern, then walked to the bow.
>>>>
>>>> I have removed all vinyl clad anchors from my boat except for the 
>>>> "bullet" anchors which are essentially nothing more than shaped 
>>>> lead covered with vinyl.  They weigh 15 lbs each, and can be used 
>>>> as kellets or paper weights.  So far they have only been tested as 
>>>> paper weights and they are more than adequate for this task.  The 
>>>> cladding completely defeats the design of pointy or sharp edged 
>>>> anchors by blunting the points and the edges.
>>>>
>>>> My Go-To anchor is always on board, and always at the ready.  It is 
>>>> easy to deploy and easy to retrieve.  It always sets properly, and 
>>>> has been tested in the most extreme conditions I would ever use an 
>>>> anchor.  It has never come close to starting to deform, and has 
>>>> always been more than adequate for holding our boat.  It often 
>>>> comes up clean, but if not, a couple of dunks is all it takes to 
>>>> make it like new.  There hasn't been any corrosion.  I don't take 
>>>> the time to wash it off after use, I just put it back under the 
>>>> seat.  I have 2 guardians; the Go-To, and another, disassembled, in 
>>>> the Laz. and a Fortress FX-7 on the bow, detached from anchor line 
>>>> in the bow tray.
>>>>
>>>> I also have 3 folding grapnels of different sizes, and a "sand 
>>>> screw" for beaches.
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned previously, I have never had the need for anything 
>>>> more than the Go-To, and doubt I ever will.  I plan to experiment 
>>>> next summer with variations on "Bahamian" anchoring where you set 
>>>> multiple anchors at different angles from a single point on board 
>>>> so that when the wind shifts you drop off one anchor and pull on 
>>>> another.  I believe this set up is stronger both in terms of rode 
>>>> and ground tackle than a single anchor and rode with the same 
>>>> rating.  From Ben and Bob's accounts of hurricane anchoring, and 
>>>> what I have read, I think I would set multiple anchors in 
>>>> hurricanes and then quickly get off the boat.
>>>>
>>>> I kept going for the Go-To because it is so easy to handle.  I 
>>>> still have plenty of anchor rode with chain, but it always comes up 
>>>> dirty, so I pick the all rope rode, given my druthers.  The only 
>>>> thing I like about the chain is that it provides a warning before 
>>>> the anchor breaks out of the water.  What I don't like is that you 
>>>> can't "feel" the bottom the way you can with an all rope rode.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Effros
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>