 |
|
|
| More About Anchoring
|
|
June 14, 2004
|
|
|
|
Bob:
I love your book. Never leave the dock for a trip without you as companion. Thanks for all the great info. I envy your career.
Here's the anchor question. I decided I wanted a bigger, stronger anchor. You are a very enthusiastic proponent of the Bruce. I have used Danforth-style anchors for 30 years, but wanted to seriously consider your recommendation. In various retail/catalog specification charts, the Bruce is shown as optimal for sand and rocks, and the Danforth for Mud and Sand. I pulled out some charts of the San Juan and Gulf Islands and find most bottom conditions at anchorable depths to be sand and mud.
What's your view of the Bruce in mud and other typical local bottom surfaces?
Thanks for the help. Your guidance and insight has helped a lot.
David E. Isett
|
|
|
Response
|
|
|
|
Hi, David,
After being the Northwest Bruce sales representative for more than 15 years, I guess it's only natural that I'm a Bruce fan. Year after year at the Seattle Boat Show I dragged a Baby Bruce through the sand, demonstrating anchor behavior and anchoring techniques, and helping people put the right size anchor on their boats. My Bruce association ended a few years ago and I could change to any other design without being disloyal to an employer. But Bruce is the anchor that's on our boat and I'm not about to change.
There are other good anchors, though. The Danforth design certainly has proven itself, and CQR and Delta are excellent.
Okay, now down to your questions. I think most of the anchor information in most of the catalogs misses the point. Here is what is important, as I see it. For a straight-line pull in sand or mud, Danforth is the anchor of choice. It wins all holding power contests in those conditions. In rock or weed, however, Danforth definitely is not the anchor of choice. Weed will foul the Danforth fairly easily, and because of its design the Danforth will bend if wedged in rock. In your 30 years of boating, I'm sure you've seen many bent Danforth design anchors.
Resetting is another problem. Imagine storm winds clocking around as a low passes through, with the anchor pulling out of the bottom, flopping over, then resetting in the new direction. A piece of bark caught between the Danforth's shank and flukes can prevent the fluke assembly from hinging, and result in a Danforth skating, flukes upward, across the bottom. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
For Northwest cruising, I think we're better off with an anchor that performs satisfactorily in a wider variety of conditions rather than excelling in just one. You want an anchor that's strong, sets quickly, either remains buried when veered or sets reliably after veering, resists fouling in weed, hangs on in rock (although I'd rather find a different anchorage if possible), and breaks out easily.
Bruce does all these things. Furthermore, it does them on shorter scope than the other popular designs. Let's face it: despite Chapman's instructions, most of the time you can't lie on a scope of 5-7 times the water's depth without bumping into something or somebody. Most boats lie on 3:1 scope. Bruce performs well on 3:1, where other designs (especially Danforth) are getting a little iffy.
All this ink about which design is best suited to which bottom does nothing but mislead. All-around performance is what I'm after, and I'll size the anchor to be large enough to do its job in any kind of bottom. How big should the anchor be? Steve Dashew, a very creative and competent guy, is supposed to have said that if people walking down the dock point and laugh at your anchor, it's big enough. That may be overstating it a little, but the idea gets across.
Or maybe Dashew doesn't overstate. Don and Red McVittie, who are extremely competent Northwest cruisers, carried an 80-pound Danforth on the bow of their 38-foot powerboat. That anchor was huge. It dominated the front of the boat. It also bent, twice, and this year was replaced by a big Bruce. The McVitties anchor out in very lonely and storm-swept places. They want an anchor they can depend on. We'll get a report from Don when they get back from the northern B.C. coast at the end of summer.
James and Jennifer Hamilton, who have made a number of excellent contributions to the Waggoner, carry a 66-pound Bruce on their 40-foot tri-cabin Bayliner. They cruise year-round, even to the top of Vancouver Island at Christmas, and stay at marinas as seldom as they can. They anchor, thank you. James and Jennifer sat in on my north coast of B.C. presentation at the recent Trawler Fest in Poulsbo, and I mentioned their anchor choice in answer to a question from one of the other people in the audience. Jennifer broke in. "We don't move," she said with conviction.
Summing up, I think all-around performance is far more important than which anchor is "best" in certain bottoms. Then size the anchor to hold the boat. When in doubt, think bigger, not smaller. Our Tolly 37 is at the top of the 33-pound Bruce range, and we installed a 44-pounder. A friend on the dock just brought home a 25-year-old 32-foot Uniflite, with full canvas enclosure on the flying bridge. Without the enclosure, the boat was at the top of the 22-pound Bruce range; with the enclosure a 33-pounder was called for. The 33 looks perfect. The Grand Banks 32 next to us has a 33-pound Bruce, even though it doesn't have a bimini, much less a full enclosure on the flying bridge. The 33 looks proper as can be on that boat.
I hope this helps. We leave tomorrow for our annual research cruise north, and will be gone for several weeks. I'll be in touch with the office regularly, though, so if you have further questions, write back.
-- Bob Hale
|
|
|
Back to Readers Write In |
|
|
|
