Anchoring a Grand Banks Europe 52

[jimL]

This is also posted on FB Grand Banks Forum - but still looking for advice.

Let's talk anchors: We have a new to us GB Europa 52 with a CQR 75 pound anchor, galvanized. The PO had issues anchoring and decided that wasn't for him.

Looking at the reviews I see comments such as:
From a modern perspective, performance issues with the CQR are evident in all metrics which define a good all-round anchor, including inconsistent setting performance (commonly not setting at all), poor holding in soft bottoms, and failure to penetrate in hard ground.

For those of you that have a 43'+ GB or similar weight, mass and windage, what do you use? and is it effective? We have (unverified) 220' of chain.

Thanks, - Jim

 

[Peter B]

From personal experience, added to the feed-back from many other owners, I think the general view would be that the CQR type anchor is way past its best by date, in spite of it still being commonly used.

As the saying goes, 'an anchor never fails...until it does', and so many make dead sure they are seldom exposed to anything near to a potentially extreme situation, they never experience such a failure, so often continue to swear by them. But, the deficiency of design compared to the new generation anchors is present - always..!

My recommendation is you explore the evidence now available regarding the new generation, (sometimes called next-gen), anchors, and look to get the recommended size by one of those manufacturers for your vessel, which surely deserves good gear.
In no particular order one could consider...

Manson Supreme (including their Boss)
Sarca Excel (including their Super Sarca)
Rocna, (including their Vulcan)
Spade
Mantus

...just to name a few of these. Also I urge your to look up the 'anchor testing videos' down by the owner of the Yacht 'Panope', which can be accessed here...

Above all, make this search fun...

 

[BrisHamish]

Posting about anchors is always potentially contentious, but here goes...

On our GB46eu (with extended bimini and flybridge clears, so lots of windage), we use a stainless steel Ultra anchor and 100 metres of stainless chain.

Never dragged anchor once in the 7 years or so of ownership.

Expensive set up, but it works every time.

H.

 

[Cigatoo]

“I think the general view would be that the CQR type anchor is way past its best by date, in spite of it still being commonly used.”
So whats changed?
The CQR seems to work just fine when properly set. As do most anchors. Yes there may be a particular location / holding ground where one anchor works better than the other. The CQR has been around for quite some time and performs well. It’s a new boat to you. I would concentrate On being sure the anchor is the recommended size for your boat, you know how to properly set the anchor, you are taking the type of holding ground into account, and you are using the proper amount of scope. I’d be willing to bet that most anchoring failures are do to the above / operator error as opposed to the actual type / brand of anchor. Any anchor is nothing more than a tool and must be properly used as per its design characteristics.

 

[backinblue]

Posting about anchors is always potentially contentious, but here goes...

On our GB46eu (with extended bimini and flybridge clears, so lots of windage), we use a stainless steel Ultra anchor and 100 metres of stainless chain.

Never dragged anchor once in the 7 years or so of ownership.

Expensive set up, but it works every time.

H.

I have a much smaller boat but also have an Ultra and recommend it. I also have their flip swivel and SS chain/nylon. Expensive yes, but probably among the best anchors you can buy. I notice they are becoming very popular on high-end boats. There are others of similar design that I would think work similarly well. People like to joke about the Ultra saying "it sets when it hits the water."

 

[BruceK]

There is a TF member with extensive GB52 handling experience, incl anchoring, who may contribute.
It`s not all anchor & rode, technique is important too.
Anchor design has moved on since the venerable CQR and as PeterB says above, there is more than one good anchor. Sarca have a deserved reputation as high holding modern anchors.

 

[FF]

"Looking at the reviews I see comments such as:
From a modern perspective, performance issues with the CQR are evident in all metrics which define a good all-round anchor, including inconsistent setting performance (commonly not setting at all), poor holding in soft bottoms, and failure to penetrate in hard ground."

For decades the CQR , and H series Danforth has been the anchor of choice for world cruisers.Of course if its undersized , there will be more hassles than if the correct one was used.

Most of the "opinions" spouted about early anchors are from folks that never lived with the style.


Caviat Emptor of BS still is valid.

 

[rslifkin]

"Looking at the reviews I see comments such as:
From a modern perspective, performance issues with the CQR are evident in all metrics which define a good all-round anchor, including inconsistent setting performance (commonly not setting at all), poor holding in soft bottoms, and failure to penetrate in hard ground."

For decades the CQR , and H series Danforth has been the anchor of choice for world cruisers.Of course if its undersized , there will be more hassles than if the correct one was used.

Most of the "opinions" spouted about early anchors are from folks that never lived with the style.


Caviat Emptor of BS still is valid.

In general, the CQR is still a serviceable design, but plenty of the ones out there have worn out pivots, which makes them work a whole lot worse. And most of the newer designs do work better and more easily. So while I wouldn't necessarily rush to replace a generously sized CQR (which 75 lbs is not on a 50 footer in my opinion), I'd at least consider an upgrade, and if it proved to work less than great or needed replacement for any reason, it's time to go for something of modern design. It's not like a new CQR is any cheaper than some of the modern designs anyway.

The Danforth (and good copies including the Fortress) is a unique class. There are situations it's not well suited to (so it's not ideal as a primary anchor in most places), but for the things it does well, it works extremely well. In terms of straight line holding power in a bottom where a Danforth will set reliably or for holding in really soft mud, nothing will beat it, not even the fanciest, newest designs.

 

[ranger58sb]

My recommendation is you explore the evidence now available regarding the new generation, (sometimes called next-gen), anchors, and look to get the recommended size by one of those manufacturers for your vessel, which surely deserves good gear.
In no particular order one could consider...

Manson Supreme (including their Boss)
Sarca Excel (including their Super Sarca)
Rocna, (including their Vulcan)
Spade
Mantus

I'd add the SuperMAX to that list. And Hamish added the Ultra, and RSL added the Danforth (Fortress) option.

FWIW, I've had best luck with SuperMAX and Fortress... but our conditions here are very mud-, soft-mud-, soup-, and slime-centric so our anchor choices have been focused heavily on that.

-Chris

 

[Group9]

The CQR was an okay anchor in it's day, but the new scoop anchors are far better. Our boat is only 42 feet and 40,000 pounds and we carry an 88 pound Mantis and 250 feet of 5/16 G4 chain (and about 400 feet of 3/4 inch 3 strand nylon for backup (with a large Danforth (can't recall the weight).

We don't drag.

 

[koliver]

A walk along the docks in any marina will allow you to see how many of each type of anchor mentioned here, are in use by mariners of every level of experience.
As I do this where I boat, the most common anchors that are in use are the older designs, CQR, Bruce, Danforth. Then in much reduced numbers the Delta style and last, the ones with a roll bar, like Rockna.
That tells me that very few people are dissatisfied with the performance of their old style anchors, so those remain on bows.
In your area, results may vary.

 

[rslifkin]

A walk along the docks in any marina will allow you to see how many of each type of anchor mentioned here, are in use by mariners of every level of experience.
As I do this where I boat, the most common anchors that are in use are the older designs, CQR, Bruce, Danforth. Then in much reduced numbers the Delta style and last, the ones with a roll bar, like Rockna.
That tells me that very few people are dissatisfied with the performance of their old style anchors, so those remain on bows.
In your area, results may vary.

At least in my area, this isn't even remotely a good test. The vast majority of boats have whatever undersized anchor the boat came with when it was built. The vast majority aren't cruisers and rarely anchor, or only anchor for a few hours during the day in near perfect weather, so they could probably get adequate performance from a small rock with a string tied to it.

 

[Redhook98]

49ft MT. I boat in the Potomac and Chesapeake areas. 50ft of chain and a 45lb fluke is all I use. Also grabs right away. Mud bottom though. That is only a day or simple overnight anchor. By no means a storm anchor. I carry two more just like it.

 

[Xlantic]

Ditch the CQR (old fashion design, drags) and get a Spade (tried and tested and one of Panope's Steve favourites).

 

[backinblue]

At least in my area, this isn't even remotely a good test. The vast majority of boats have whatever undersized anchor the boat came with when it was built. The vast majority aren't cruisers and rarely anchor, or only anchor for a few hours during the day in near perfect weather, so they could probably get adequate performance from a small rock with a string tied to it.

I agree with this assessment. Most boats at most docks are fairly older to begin with and most probably have whatever anchor came with the boat. Also, many boaters never anchor anyway, or very seldom, so I wouldn't assume they are satisfied with their anchors.

I've cruised many years with a Danforth and never had a real problem. As someone said, in ideal conditions and with a straight pull, it holds better than anything and I have experienced that. However, I have also had it pull out from a sideways force and sometimes they will drag some before resetting, especially if the wind changes in the middle of the night. I did not have any issues with another boat that came with a good sized plow anchor. My latest boat which is relatively new (2012) came with a Danforth that I thought was marginal in size at best and did have it drag more than once in the first season. I soon upgraded to an Ultra which has yet to set instantly whenever I use it and I always wake up in the same spot I went to sleep.

 

[gsholz]

Owned a 52 GB. We used a 65lb CQR with 300 feet of chain. Never had a problem.

 

[Flatswing]

A walk along the docks in any marina will allow you to see how many of each type of anchor mentioned here, are in use by mariners of every level of experience.
As I do this where I boat, the most common anchors that are in use are the older designs, CQR, Bruce, Danforth. Then in much reduced numbers the Delta style and last, the ones with a roll bar, like Rockna.
That tells me that very few people are dissatisfied with the performance of their old style anchors, so those remain on bows.
In your area, results may vary.

This is Bias masquerading as fact. Most of those boats never leave the dock let alone anchor. A more accurate test would be to look at anchors of boats rigged for extended cruising- the “active” cruisers carry modern design anchors incl. Rocna/Vulcan, Ultra, Mantus, Spade etc. or original “Bruce” with a surprising number of Fortress as primary if sand is most common.
Personally, I think Steve’s (SV Panope) vids tell a compelling story.
One caveat, if you have a vertical capstan windlass (as I do) when you upgrade, look carefully at the shank length relative to the distance from bow roller to capstan -especially if you do not have a chain stopper. The longer shank can lift the chain from the vertical Gypsy and relaunch the anchor just prior to full retrieval!

 

[rslifkin]

This is Bias masquerading as fact. Most of those boats never leave the dock let alone anchor. A more accurate test would be to look at anchors of boats rigged for extended cruising- the “active” cruisers carry modern design anchors incl. Rocna/Vulcan, Ultra, Mantus, Spade etc. or original “Bruce” with a surprising number of Fortress as primary if sand is most common.

Exactly. I always say it's easy to tell the cruising boats apart from the rest. The anchors are (relatively speaking) twice the size and they're far more likely to have things like solar panels.

 

[Group9]

A walk along the docks in any marina will allow you to see how many of each type of anchor mentioned here, are in use by mariners of every level of experience.
As I do this where I boat, the most common anchors that are in use are the older designs, CQR, Bruce, Danforth. Then in much reduced numbers the Delta style and last, the ones with a roll bar, like Rockna.
That tells me that very few people are dissatisfied with the performance of their old style anchors, so those remain on bows.
In your area, results may vary.

A walk along our docks and a look at the anchors immediately tells me who anchors out a lot on all conditions, and who doesn’t.

We were anchored at a Blue Angel show a few years ago when a strong front came through. 95 per cent of the boats anchored were dragging. Not us.

Look at the anchors of those who cruise a lot. That tells the story.

 

[rgano]

GB42 and used CQR for years, rather variable experience - I never trusted it. Replaced with a big Fortress and a 72-pound Rocna. The Fortress on mud setting was for real sloppy bottoms, although the Rocna was fine there too.

 

[Peter B]

At least in my area, this isn't even remotely a good test. The vast majority of boats have whatever undersized anchor the boat came with when it was built. The vast majority aren't cruisers and rarely anchor, or only anchor for a few hours during the day in near perfect weather, so they could probably get adequate performance from a small rock with a string tied to it.

This post basically sums the situation up. Those who anchor occasionally, and choose ideal, or near ideal conditions before they do, will never have a failure, even if the anchor is not properly set. But having had a CQR, which was not undersized, and came with our boat, fail to set properly so many times, I replaced it with a Super Sarca the minute I saw how they perform on a video, and never ever regretted it.

Yes, virtually all types will have a bottom condition that suits them, and they perform well in it. But often poorly in others. Or, as in the case of the CQR, with long experience with them and skill thus gained, as long as the shank to fluke hinge connection is not too worn, they can be set, and once set, do perform quite well. However, what most folk want is a good all-rounder, right..?

Most boaters do not now have that kind of experience and skill with a CQR like say FF above no doubt has, so do find them quite tricky to set. The hinged shank, all too often, allows them to just lay on their side, and bounce along the bottom. Steve's videos done on Panope show this very clearly.

The beauty of the next-gen anchors is their quick and reliable setting in the majority of bottoms and conditions, and this is what you really want, at the end of the day - literally and figuratively. A true all-rounder..!

As others have said. Look on the bow of those who anchor out a lot. You won't now see a CQR, or Danforth, as their primary anchor, I'm willing to bet.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter B wrote;
“As the saying goes, 'an anchor never fails...until it does',”

And if an anchor fails is it a failure?
I think not.

A good skier falls down ... now and then.
A good Bike rider falls down ... now and then.
And for most products an occasional failure means they have been tested. A perfect score or record is fine. But dosn’t necessarily measure how good the product is. And if performing in/on an extremely variable medium like the sea bed the recorded performance may reflect the sea bed more than it does the anchor.

If I go to Juneau and back using a different anchor every day on my 6 knot boat I may record more about the sea bed than the anchors.

But when another skipper says his anchor has never failed he may have gone w an oversized anchor and encountered fair weather.

If another skipper did the same trip running 18 knots and anchored only in average weather .. it may only involve 4 anchorings and could be an undersized anchor.

And there’s lots of variables I didn’t mention like the skills and experience the skipper had or the rode used or how much chain.

Scanning the above one can see how easily information could lead one astray.
So many variables.

And I myself know that bias is standard equipment. I have considerable anchoring experience and have numerous attitudes, feelings and notions about many anchors and have observed that at times I’ve been inaccurate in my attitudes about several anchors.
The worst one is forming an opinion about a key person involved in the evolution, manufacture, design or marketing of a certain kind of anchor. Then more or less allowing that bias to transfer to the anchor. This happened to me re both the Rocna and the Mantus. I wouldn’t buy either of those anchors because of the way they are marketed.

Re the anchoring videos by Steve they are great and a good study in preparation to buying an anchor. But for the most part what most regard as the #1 bit of information in an anchor test is maximum holding power. Steve tested mostly 35 to 45lb anchors so little of their maximum holding power was revealed having only a 40hp engine. But he titled his thread “Anchor Setting Videos”. So there was no pretense to defend. But also the sea bed was close to bullet proof for setting being soft mud/sand bottom w some seaweed.

But while studying the vids one sees the anchors doing things that one wouldn’t have imagined them doing. I remember a Danforth standing up on it’s edge for a great distance dragging along. I Never could’a imagined that.
I love Steve’s vids and consider watching them a tool of learning about the dynamics of anchor behavior.

 

[Peter B]

Eric, mate, I just mentioned you over here...

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums...ton-problem-my-perkins-58358.html#post1011665

...we have another Willard aboard.

 

[rslifkin]

Re the anchoring videos by Steve they are great and a good study in preparation to buying an anchor. But for the most part what most regard as the #1 bit of information in an anchor test is maximum holding power. Steve tested mostly 35 to 45lb anchors so little of their maximum holding power was revealed having only a 40hp engine. But he titled his thread “Anchor Setting Videos”. So there was no pretense to defend. But also the sea bed was close to bullet proof for setting being soft mud/sand bottom w some seaweed.

But while studying the vids one sees the anchors doing things that one wouldn’t have imagined them doing. I remember a Danforth standing up on it’s edge for a great distance dragging along. I Never could’a imagined that.
I love Steve’s vids and consider watching them a tool of learning about the dynamics of anchor behavior.

That's why I love Steve's videos. They're not just a "how hard can I pull on this?" test, but a "what will these do under abusive or worst case situations so we can see their failure modes?"

 

[firehoser75]

My first boat came with a CQR. I had great trouble getting it to set!! Very hit and miss, probably due to bottom type. I never trusted it, so until I changed anchors we did not anchor out much.
Since then I have used both the Rocna and the Vulcan and cannot say enough good things about them. Bottom types around here vary, and they have proven over many years of use and many, many nights at anchor to be easy to set (almost always first attempt) and I have only experienced dragging once (on a rocky bottom with a reversing tidal current, so location was the real issue). Many nights anchored were during 40+ knots of wind.

IMHO there are much better choices than the CQR when it comes to anchors. There have been many, many studies and experiments (like Steve's) that show this over and over. Why use something that is known to be a "poorer performer" when the fate of your boat is potentially at risk??

 

[Bendit]

My first boat came with a CQR. I had great trouble getting it to set!! Very hit and miss, probably due to bottom type. I never trusted it, so until I changed anchors we did not anchor out much.
Since then I have used both the Rocna and the Vulcan and cannot say enough good things about them. Bottom types around here vary, and they have proven over many years of use and many, many nights at anchor to be easy to set (almost always first attempt) and I have only experienced dragging once (on a rocky bottom with a reversing tidal current, so location was the real issue). Many nights anchored were during 40+ knots of wind.

IMHO there are much better choices than the CQR when it comes to anchors. There have been many, many studies and experiments (like Steve's) that show this over and over. Why use something that is known to be a "poorer performer" when the fate of your boat is potentially at risk??

We had CQRs on our first three boats. The fourth came with a Delta. I could not believe how much better it was in every respect.

I have used Deltas ever since. Some of the new designs are probably better than the Delta but they also tend to bring up a lot of seabed which can make a mess of the foredeck.

 

[Peter B]

We had CQRs on our first three boats. The fourth came with a Delta. I could not believe how much better it was in every respect.

I have used Deltas ever since. Some of the new designs are probably better than the Delta but they also tend to bring up a lot of seabed which can make a mess of the foredeck.

Which is why Sarca stuck with the convex fluke, rather than concave like the Mansons, Rocnas, and Spade types. Brings up less seabed, so ipso facto, damages the seabed less - but also means better re-setting with tide/current/wind changes, because tends to not get clogged with bottom substrate. Whereas the anchor setting videos, mentioned above, do show this is a bit of a weakness of the concave flukes, even though when well set, they have a slightly greater max holding power.

 

[rslifkin]

Getting the seabed off my Vulcan usually takes a minute, but with a good washdown pump it's easy enough. Just rinse the chain as it comes in, get the anchor to the surface and blast water between the fluke and the mud clump. Sometimes I'll dunk it with the windlass once or twice and between that and rinsing, the clump falls off. But it depends on the bottom. In some types of mud it brings up a lot, in others or in non mud bottoms it'll bring up little to nothing.

 

[Xlantic]

My prior boat, a GB42, came with a CQR which I hated. It was hard to set and I had no confidence it would re-set in a wind shift in the middle of the night. I also replaced it with a Delta which set quickly and easily.

For my current GB50 I bought a 40kg Rocna which has been reliable. But, from what I have read and seen in Panope's videos, I wish I had forked out a little bit more money and bought a Spade.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Much talk of the Delta anchor.

The’ve never been on my go to list but re the talk about seabed coming up on the anchor PeterB write’s “Which is why Sarca stuck with the convex fluke, rather than concave like the Mansons, Rocnas, and Spade types. Brings up less seabed”.

There are anchors w extremely convex flukes like Delta. But I’m sure the’re not perfect in this regard either as substraight from the seafloor could very certainly get compacted on the flipped up fluke ends. But they may still be largely free of seabed compaction .. ? Never used one so I can attest to nothing.
I always wondered why they didn’t make the fluke tip sharper?

Re Xlantic wrote;
“For my current GB50 I bought a 40kg Rocna which has been reliable. But, from what I have read and seen in Panope's videos, I wish I had forked out a little bit more money and bought a Spade.

Most here seem to think if it’s over a year old in design it’s gotta be old school and not worth looking at. Not so IMO
When reading the many hundreds of anchor performance posts and carefully considering all that’s presented it looks to me like the Spade has every single duck in line. I’ve thought for a long time the Spade was the best anchor possible .. re all available theory. Other than expense how can you criticize it?

1. Not one piece. I write this off as paranoia. I trust bolts. Especially certified bolts. I really don’t think the two piece construction is a weak link.
2. Hollow shank. Never heard of one bending. And it almost certainly improves setting performance.
3. Concave fluke. A plus for holding power but a minus for messy retrieval. The designer of the Spade first researched the ideal fluke shape for anchors before continuing w his design. Scientific method can hardly be discounted. But it was discovered (later) that the concave fluke can easily compact many kinds of seabeds and thus degrade performance up to and including a complete loss of holding power as demonstrated in Steve’s Vids. All it took was a high energy reversal have that result.
So unless one boats over sand bottoms that almost never result in fluke compaction I’d be inclined to use a convex fluke anchor.