Anchors, anchors again, & more anchors....

[CharlieJ]

Now I may be all wet here, but I assumed his reference to "tandem anchoring" was meant for two anchors on one rode- one set, chain from it shackled to the next, who's rode led to the boat.

I don't think he was referring to setups like the Bahama Moor or the Vee set, which are pretty standard practices and are meant for specific situations.

I used the Bahama Moor quite frequently on the east coast, with it's fast currents due to serious tidal ranges- 5 to 7 feet or more over a 6 hour period. Any time you anchor for over night you're gonna see at least one and maybe two tide changes.

Here on the Texas coast with our normal 6 to 8 inches of tidal change, over a 12 hour period at that, we seldom use two, preferring to set the Claw, lay out enough chain and relax cause it will be a while before the tide change.

Oh- and when Laura was on her single hand trip, she was anchoring to ALL the chain, thinking we had 50 feet- she found out while almost done with the trip that there's 75 feet stowed up there. So she was usually laying to something like 10 to 1. :D

Which brings up another point- in many spots popular with the cruising fleet, you aren't gonna get more than 5 - 1 scope. You're gonna be very lucky to be able to get 3-1. So you need gear that will hold on less, just because there's no rooom to lay out more.

Also, if you come into an anchorage and every one is laying to a Bahama Moor, you'd BETTER do the same or they will NOT be happy when you foul other boats on tide swings. Same goes for places where they normally anchor to one anchor- again, you need to match that, or your boat will swing differently and foul up a bunch of other boats. Annapolis off the Naval Academy comes to mind.

[Captain Smollett]

Now I may be all wet here, but I assumed his reference to "tandem anchoring" was meant for two anchors on one rode- one set, chain from it shackled to the next, who's rode led to the boat.

I don't think he was referring to setups like the Bahama Moor or the Vee set, which are pretty standard practices and are meant for specific situations.

Yeah - that's probably what he meant.

But....are there really a LOT of people, ie cruisers, out there anchoring in tandem in order to use undersized gear?  A daysailor or power boat that does not really anchor that often is one thing, but I'd assume (I know, I know) that most cruising sailors would know better.

[CharlieJ]

[ but I'd assume (I know, I know) that most cruising sailors would know better.

One would certainly HOPE so, but in many many nights aboard, I have seen some real lulus of anchoring attempts, both on power AND on sail.

[Frank]

Charlie and I are usually in agreement on anchoring. I feel it is THEE most important part of cruising.I spend close to 4 months a year 'on the hook' and can say that both your best and worst times while cruising are at anchor.Nothing beats a beautiful night spent sipping wine in the cockpit after a meal and then turning in listening to water lapping on the hull. Some of those very nights turn into night mares at 3 am when the wind comes up at 25+ knots and shifts 180%. Your boat is your home out there and your anchor IS your security. I love Charlie's phrase "as big as you can haul up"....on those nights you will be glad for the overkill. An after thought possibly worthy of another thread is "what else". In my book, a proper dodger and easily reefed sails are the next 2.   PS...the most entertaining 'husband-wife bonding moments' are seen either anchoring or docking  ;D 

[AdriftAtSea]

Capn Smollett-

By tandem anchoring I meant two anchors on a single rode—not a Bahamian moor or three-anchor storm setups, which have distinct and very specific uses. 

One major problem with tandem anchoring is getting both anchors set properly... Another is the problems you can run into retrieving the tandem anchor setup.  A third is that the two anchors can foul each other if the tide or wind swings enough to pull the closer anchor out and it drags towards the  terminal end anchor. 

[Godot]

I'm curious, with the talk of tandem anchoring and short scope if anyone has anchored using a kellet (which, if I have my terminology right is a weighted object lowered partway down the rode to make the pull on the anchor more horizontal).  I've seen advertisements for specially designed kellets; but I have a thought...

Scenario: you pull into a moderately crowded anchorage at the end of the day and the best you can do is anchor at 5:1 scope in 15 feet of water.  Let's assume you have at least 50' of chain (which seems like a really good idea to me as 50' isn't all that heavy and would seem to be much better than the six feet or so which is becoming common) so you are anchoring to all the chain plus 25' of nylon.   Why not shackle a second anchor at  the high end of the chain, not so much to dig in and help hold mechanically, but instead to help the primary anchor set better?  Since most of us carry extra anchors this seems like a cheap way to increase holding.

A couple possible problems exist, of course.  It may be possible for the "kellet" anchor to snag the chain rode or anchor during a tide change.  I guess this would depend largely on the tidal range; but it seems to me that attaching it 2/3s up the rode would prevent this from being troublesome in most cases.

The second is that it could be difficult to set and retrieve.  To set, I think the best bet might be to set to a single anchor as normal, then once set pull in the rode until you get to the 2/3 range and then shackle on the anchor before letting out 5:1 scope.  To retrieve the biggest issue is probably going to be avoiding dinging your hull as you hang over the bow to unshackle the anchor (not to mention the care necessary to not drop it overboard).  I think technique could be worked out to reliably answer these questions.

And last, how would things work in varying depths?  For instance, given the same scenario but in 25 feet of water and 125' of scope necessary for the 5:1 scope (note that I am simplifying things intentionally here by not trying to factor in freeboard... the prudent seaman would naturally add the freeboard to the water depth), the "kellet" anchor would be at the 40% line instead of the 66% line.  Given a decent tidal drop this may allow the kellet to actually set or snag a line during a tidal swing.

Maybe a ten or fifteen pound mushroom would be a better non snagging, non digging in choice; plus it can double for a dinghy.

Just thinking...

[CharlieJ]

First, before anything else, your figures are wrong for how much rode you need to put out. A common error is not taking into consideration your heigth of bow over water. THAT is most definitely a part of water depth and MUST be considered when anchoring , as part of the needed scope. So on board Tehani, in your scenario we'd be thinking 18 feet of water, times 5 = 90 feet of rode. Makes a big difference.

Now that I've picked that nit,

Yes, that's exactly what a "kellet" is and how it works. An old old idea that still works very well.  And it's a quite useful thing. We don't have one aboard, but when we leave for longer cruising, we will.

Your idea would work of course, but it's more complicated than just using a proper kellet.

The beauty of a kellet is that you can adjust the set of the kellet without changing or messing with the anchor rode. So you could put it on the rode and lower it at 0200 without having to haul in rode if it bacame needed.  They are rigged with a light line that you let out as needed to adjust where the kellet rides.

You idea is certainly workable, but Id rather be able to add without moving the boat.

Oh- and onboard Tehani we have 75 feet of chain on the main anchor- I'd love to add more and I will as soon as I can find a chain connector rated for G4 chain. All I can find so far is rated for normal chain which has much less safe working load.  I also carry additional lengths to be added and or used as needed. I'd never consider anchoring with less than a boatlength of chain anyway.

And when anchoring with all chain, a 5-1 scope is pretty much considered normal.

And in several years of living aboard, mostly on our own anchors, and anchoring everywhere from Annapolis down to Dry Tortugas, and around to the Texas coast, I've never yet felt the need for tandem anchoring. In my opinion you should have large enough anchors to not need that, except in very unusual circumstances. But of course, that's just me and my boat. Your mileage may vary :D

[Godot]

First, before anything else, your figures are wrong for how much rode you need to put out. A common error is not taking into consideration your heigth of bow over water. THAT is most definitely a part of water depth and MUST be considered when anchoring , as part of the needed scope. So on board Tehani, in your scenario we'd be thinking 18 feet of water, times 5 = 90 feet of rode. Makes a big difference.

Just to protect my somewhat dubious honor a tiny bit...

...(note that I am simplifying things intentionally here by not trying to factor in freeboard... the prudent seaman would naturally add the freeboard to the water depth)...

Now I've never used a kellet before, and frankly I don't have anywhere near your sailing experience; but I rarely hear them mentioned and I was looking for a way to get the benefit using existing gear.   

Since reading your post I did start looking for a "proper" kellet for sale without much luck.  Perhaps they aren't sold that way or they are sold under a different name (like sentinel).  I did run across Rocna's page on kellets (http://www.rocna.com/boat-anchors/kellets.php) which claims they aren't quite as effective at increasing holding as I was led to believe.  I don't know.  They are trying to sell their anchors, after all.  Oh, well.

[CharlieJ]

OOPS- sorry. TOTALLY missed that line about free board. My bad!!

And yep- the term "sentinel" is also used, probably the more modern usage.

And Rochna's may be a really good anchor, but I do think Craig "doth protesteth too much" in his continually bashing of other anchors. It gets really tiresome and they are extremely expensive compared to even other of the newer generation of anchors.

I just happened on this article from Ocean Navigator on anchoring- I found it interesting, so might every one else.

http://www.tmca.nu/links.and.features/anchor.htm

[Frank]

Good read.Thanks Charlie       

[AdriftAtSea]

I see some problems with this...

First, kellets, while effective in light winds, really don't help in heavy wind conditions, where you really need to maximize holding power.  In storm conditions or even just heavy wind conditions, the rode will be fairly taught...and unless the kellet is exceptionally heavy, it will have little or no effect on the angle of the rode pulling on the anchor.  In light winds, they do allow you to anchor on relatively short scope and reduce your swinging circle.  However, when the wind picks up... you'll really need to let out additional rode and increase the scope.

Second, using an anchor as a "kellet" at the top end of the chain will expose the rope to much more chafe against obstacles on the bottom.   If there are any abrasive or sharp objects on the bottom, like coral heads, rocks or man-made objects, the nylon may be damaged enough to part under storm conditions.  If the nylon is connected to the chain, chances are that the nylon and the catenary curve may be enough to allow the chain to take the abrasion and chafe underwater, rather than the much less chafe resistant nylon portion of th rode.

Third, the "kellet" anchor isn't adjustable in position, which negates a big advantage of using a kellet in light winds. 

Finally, the "kellet" anchor may not help the primary anchor set better.  If the "kellet" anchor sets in a shorter distance than the primary anchor, the primary anchor may remain just sitting on the bottom, rather than being properly set.  This means that you're effectively being held by just the kellet anchor, rather than the primary anchor, which is presumably larger and of a more effective holding design.  If you swing, rather than drag, you may foul the primary anchor and leave your boat either dragging or held by just the smaller kellet anchor. 

IMHO, the best option is to get a larger primary anchor, that is heavy enough for even storm conditions and is of a design that will set in most bottom conditions and reset fairly quickly if it does pull free.

One other thing, some anchors are designed to set with only a very small amount of chain, and having more chain on the rode with them can reduce their ability to set properly.  This is the case with the Fortress anchors IIRC.  While some anchors are bothered by additional chain, most of the next generation designs, like the Rocna (which I have), the Manson Supreme, the Buegel, the Bulwagga and the Spade aren't bothered and having at least a boat length of chain makes much more sense IMHO. 

Most of the boats used by people on this forum can anchor in relatively shallow waters, being in smaller boats, and due to the reduced draft and reduced depth requirements, can use a shorter rode than larger boats might require. 

I have 75' of chain on my primary anchor and can anchor at 5:1 scope on basically all chain in 13' of water.  My board-up draft is 14"... which means I have 11'+ of water beneath my keel... and the tidal range in generally only about 4-5' in my neck of the woods.

BTW, my observation from using the Rocna for over a season is that it sets very hard and very quickly.  To give you an idea of how it sets... when I am backing the boat to set the anchor, it will often pull the anchor line line through the gypsy before I get a chance to throttle the engine down.  I've also never been able to pull it up without using the boat's motion to break it free...and it comes up with about 20-30 lbs. of the bottom with it every time.

I hope this helps.

I'm curious, with the talk of tandem anchoring and short scope if anyone has anchored using a kellet (which, if I have my terminology right is a weighted object lowered partway down the rode to make the pull on the anchor more horizontal).  I've seen advertisements for specially designed kellets; but I have a thought...

Scenario: you pull into a moderately crowded anchorage at the end of the day and the best you can do is anchor at 5:1 scope in 15 feet of water.  Let's assume you have at least 50' of chain (which seems like a really good idea to me as 50' isn't all that heavy and would seem to be much better than the six feet or so which is becoming common) so you are anchoring to all the chain plus 25' of nylon.   Why not shackle a second anchor at  the high end of the chain, not so much to dig in and help hold mechanically, but instead to help the primary anchor set better?  Since most of us carry extra anchors this seems like a cheap way to increase holding.

A couple possible problems exist, of course.  It may be possible for the "kellet" anchor to snag the chain rode or anchor during a tide change.  I guess this would depend largely on the tidal range; but it seems to me that attaching it 2/3s up the rode would prevent this from being troublesome in most cases.

The second is that it could be difficult to set and retrieve.  To set, I think the best bet might be to set to a single anchor as normal, then once set pull in the rode until you get to the 2/3 range and then shackle on the anchor before letting out 5:1 scope.  To retrieve the biggest issue is probably going to be avoiding dinging your hull as you hang over the bow to unshackle the anchor (not to mention the care necessary to not drop it overboard).  I think technique could be worked out to reliably answer these questions.

And last, how would things work in varying depths?  For instance, given the same scenario but in 25 feet of water and 125' of scope necessary for the 5:1 scope (note that I am simplifying things intentionally here by not trying to factor in freeboard... the prudent seaman would naturally add the freeboard to the water depth), the "kellet" anchor would be at the 40% line instead of the 66% line.  Given a decent tidal drop this may allow the kellet to actually set or snag a line during a tidal swing.

Maybe a ten or fifteen pound mushroom would be a better non snagging, non digging in choice; plus it can double for a dinghy.

Just thinking...

[s/v Faith]

While we are in a marina tonight, we have spent many nights over the last few months sleeping on our Manson Supreme.  My experience is much like Dan has posted with his Rocna.  The last two nights were in the anchorage in Titusville, where we picked a spot close in to the dingy dock so I did not have far to go.  I was surprised to find the spot open since it was so good.

  In talking to a couple on a bigger Irwin, they said it was because so many boats have anchored there the bottom is 'scrubbed'.  They anchored there the first night they arrived (they have now been there over 2 months) and they drug in light winds only stopping when the 'auxillary anchor' * dug in close to the bank. 

  * the keel.

The Manson Supreme has set and held fast, and consistently.

WRT tandem anchoring I think it is a sound practice, and it is my intended storm tactic.  Harold Grant, who we met at the Barefoot Landing marina has cruised and lived aboard for over 20 years.  His was the ONLY boat that held through hurricane Andrew, (I forget the location but I seem to remember him saying over 100 boats were lost in the location he was) and he wrote it for cruising world..? or was that the magazine?  I forget.  Anyways, that was back in the early 90's but his 'tandem' was a CQR, chained to not one, but 2 Danforths.  The CQR was closest to the boat since it was best able to reset. 

  I believe that there are many good options WRT anchoring, and there is likely no agreement in what is 'Best'.  I do believe that like many aspects of good seamanship, everyone has to consider and choose their own configuration.  I will say that it is probably best to avoid listening to marketing, and market driven articles in magazines. 


  Dan's comments;

[AdriftAtSea]

Not too surprising, considering that the Manson Supreme and the Rocna are very similar in design. 

There is a pretty interesting article on tandem anchoring on the Rocna website. You can read it here.

However, I still stand by my belief that if you're having to tandem anchor more than 10% of the time, chances are very good that your primary anchor is just too darn small.

[s/v Faith]

Dan said;

However, I still stand by my belief that if you're having to tandem anchor more than 10% of the time, chances are very good that your primary anchor is just too darn small.

  I agree.  I will add that if your cruising area requires you to need to use your storm rode more then 10% of the time you need to find yourself a better cruising area.  ;D

[CharlieJ]

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Got THAT right!!!!

[AdriftAtSea]

No argument from me... ;)

I agree.  I will add that if your cruising area requires you to need to use your storm rode more then 10% of the time you need to find yourself a better cruising area.  ;D

[Captain Smollett]

[ but I'd assume (I know, I know) that most cruising sailors would know better.

One would certainly HOPE so, but in many many nights aboard, I have seen some real lulus of anchoring attempts, both on power AND on sail.

and

I've never yet felt the need for tandem anchoring. In my opinion you should have large enough anchors to not need that

Okey, dokey.  Well, while on our trip to Charleston this past week, we met a fellow named Jerry on his Cataline 30.  He's been cruising 22 months - left California, down the coast to Panama, across The Canal, then up to Florida.

We saw him pull his anchors - tandem anchors - and they were TINY.  They looked to be about 8 lb Danforths.  I cringed when I saw them, and the second thing I thought when I saw them was CJ's adjective quoted above.

The FIRST thing I thought was I am sure glad he asked us to move when we started to drop the hook behind him...glad that we moved to a different spot on the anchorage, no where near his boat.

By the way, the Manson grabbed quick and held fast on the entire trip.  Three days on the hook at the City Anchorage (with 4 kt currents), a few hours out by Ft. Sumter (in the sea swell making it through the jetties), one night at the mouth of Shem Creek and a few hours in the ICW current just North of Bulls Bay.  She's a beast to pull in (especially when tired), but as an anchor worth every penny.

[Lynx]

I have a Super Max 12. This is an 18 pound anchor and requires 4 to 6 inch bow roller clearance. This anchor holds and resets well. I have a 50 hp on my Mac and I can set it at 4200 RPM's with 3:1 all chain scope without dragging. If the bottom cannot hold this I MOVE. The 13 pound fluke would pull up at 2500 RPM's at 8:1 scope.

Buy 2 of these and you will sleep better.

[s/v Faith]

Don't forget the dingy anchor.

  I did, and regret it.  I want one of those little folding 'grapel' anchors for the dink.  I am using a 5# dive weight right now, not such a good substitute.  The little 4# danforth here is over $25 and not too friendly to an inflateable.

  Going ashore on a rocky bank it is good to hold the raft off a bit, as well as coming along a dock with lots of nail heads.  Not to mention the idea of being swept out to sea if the motor dies and one can not row against the current.....

[CapnK]

Craig -

Idea: look for a monster-sized treble hook for fishing or gigging, file the points a bit, attach to your dive weight. :)

Well, OK... maybe several in a row?  ;D

Maybe Connie can get you one stateside, and bring it over? I think she is heading back next Tuesday.