[Rhodes22-list] Go-To Anchor

[Arthur H. Czerwonky]

Bill,
Your credibility suffers greatly when you free-wheel on some of your passion subjects, especially people involved on this list.  For example, I do not believe intelligent subscribers to this list ignore Stan's advice or comments, only to read and heed Sail Magazine instead.  Even if it were true, what a shallow comment.  I really appreciate the insights from these postings, yours included, that is until you get carried away with yourself.
Art

-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Effros <bill at effros.com>
>Sent: Jan 16, 2006 1:05 PM
>To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Go-To Anchor
>
>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