Bye Bye XYZ

[Nomad Willy]

Marin wrote:
"Eric--- If you look at a rollbar anchor from the side--- and I can only relate to the Rocna on this since that's what we have--- the fluke is at quite an angle to the shank, much more so than on our previous Bruce or anchors like the CQR or Danforth. So I would think this would encourage the anchor to dig in deep, which is what it seems to do based on the videos and photos I've seen." If I read "quite an angle" to mean wide or higher numerically I personally perceive that this wider angle would inhibit the anchor's ability to set for somewhat complicated reasons I talked about in my previous post. Once the anchor is set and upright a shallower F/S angle (like I think the Rocna and Delta have) would tend to allow the rode to turn the fluke upward at a shallower scope angle as the rode is set for less and less scope. Then the fluke is levered up and out by the shank. The wider F/S angle would permit the anchor to hold at a steeper rode angle ...shorter scope. Visually from the pictures it looks like the Rocna has a fluke that is closer to being parallel to the shank than the Manson and I attribute that feature to be responsible for the alleged tendency for the Rocna to have a bit better holding power at long scope and for the Manson to work better at short scope.
The sudden setting you describe is a feature of my older XYZ. There's no doubt about when it sets but the Manson (in my limited experience) seems to be the opposite. Frequently I'm not sure if it's set. I'll work with it on the way down. Slow setting may not be an indication that the anchor is inferior or would have less holding power. But there are many more things that are more important than holding power in an anchor but it still must hold. So I have renewed interest in my Manson Supreme.

 

[Anode]

 

[Larry H]

My perception of anchoring is that it is an 'art' not a 'science'. Those that like a CQR most likely have perfected the 'art' of using one. I have seen boats drag a CQR long distances and not get a set. I tried one way back on my sailboat, and never got a good set. I gave up and used my stern anchor, a Danforth, to anchor that night. I finally gave the CQR to a guy that no one liked. I don't know if he got it to work or not!

Practicing with the anchor you have, until you can get a good reliable result, may be the best choice.

 

[Marin]

Eric--- Here is the closest thing I have to a photo of our anchor from the side. (I have since made and installed a taller pulpit bail so the anchor does not sit with the end of the shank in the air anymore.) But the fluke angles down more in relation to the shank than the center fluke of the Bruce that we had previously. I have not measured the angles, I'm just comparing them from seeing both anchors on the same pulpit.

 

[Peter B]

My perception of anchoring is that it is an 'art' not a 'science'. Those that like a CQR most likely have perfected the 'art' of using one. I have seen boats drag a CQR long distances and not get a set. I tried one way back on my sailboat, and never got a good set. I gave up and used my stern anchor, a Danforth, to anchor that night. I finally gave the CQR to a guy that no one liked. I don't know if he got it to work or not!

Practicing with the anchor you have, until you can get a good reliable result, may be the best choice.

Larry, I think that's why the search for a better anchor, in terms of quick and reliable setting went on. No-one had got it quite right the bulk of the time, and what we want when we anchor for a night, and we want to sleep, is we do want it to be a scientifically proven anchor that works, by setting quickly and holding. We don't want to to be a damned art which we may or may not have got quite right that night - because Murphy's law says, that's the night it will blow up....

 

[FF]

"I think that's why the search for a better anchor, in terms of quick and reliable setting went on."

Nice but the sales price of what amounts to a couple of pounds of welded or cast steel is the REAL temptation .

$15.00+ a pound for steel, WOW!

FF

 

[Peter B]

"I think that's why the search for a better anchor, in terms of quick and reliable setting went on."

Nice but the sales price of what amounts to a couple of pounds of welded or cast steel is the REAL temptation .

$15.00+ a pound for steel, WOW!

FF

I wasn't going to bother responding to that FF, but it's such arrant nonsense I couldn't let it go. I don't know of anyone but you who maintains the absolute peak of anchor technology has already been achieved....especially by a Danforth, Fortress, CQR, or whatever. Everything on this earth made by man gets improved over time. But if you want to continue maintaining that with anchors this is not the case, and that all people who develop better gear are interested in is money, then fine...hold to that, but you might find it a rather lonely position over time.

 

[FF]

I don't know of anyone but you who maintains the absolute peak of anchor technology has already been achieved....especially by a Danforth, Fortress, CQR, or whatever. Everything on this earth made by man gets improved over time.

The last improvement was DANFORTH , with his light weight anchors during WWII.

Since then , no one has come as far in reducing weight with the required holding power . Since most folks do not match the anchor to the usual conditions , "Gee I can use a really great 5.6lb anchor tonight) ,and simply drop what is on their bow pulpit, 35, 45 or 60 as carried "efficient" is BS as most are total overkill , but work as planned to simply stop for the night.

I hardly care about some claim of "efficiency" in a blow a pair of 60lbs forward and a 3rd 60 aft takes care of my desire to sleep thru the night.

There are times when "size does count" , especially in heavy surge conditions.

Good luck with "improved" anchors at Boeing prices per pound , please just never anchor up wind when a blow is on the way.

FF

 

[Marin]

The last improvement was DANFORTH , with his light weight anchors during WWII.

Since then , no one has come as far in reducing weight with the required holding power .

FF

I think the Fortress proves you wrong here. In anchor tests--- which I realize can be biased to a desired outcome--- the Fortress is consistently near or at the top of the list in terms of holding power. Granted the design is Danforth but the weight is way, way less for equal or better holding power.

 

[FF]

Granted the design is Danforth but the weight is way, way less for equal or better holding power.

But then there is the problem with a bit of grass in the anchorage.

Perhaps as the price of titanium keeps going down , and robot welding gets cheaper , the new kid on the block will be a titanium Danforth knock off, with snap on lead to aid setting as required??

I would gladly swop my old 100 lb Herrishoff folding steel anchor for a titanium knock off.

Might even be worth aircraft fabricator pricing !

FF

 

[Peter B]

The last improvement was DANFORTH , with his light weight anchors during WWII.

Since then , no one has come as far in reducing weight with the required holding power . Since most folks do not match the anchor to the usual conditions , "Gee I can use a really great 5.6lb anchor tonight) ,and simply drop what is on their bow pulpit, 35, 45 or 60 as carried "efficient" is BS as most are total overkill , but work as planned to simply stop for the night.
I hardly care about some claim of "efficiency" in a blow a pair of 60lbs forward and a 3rd 60 aft takes care of my desire to sleep thru the night.
There are times when "size does count" , especially in heavy surge conditions.
Good luck with "improved" anchors at Boeing prices per pound , please just never anchor up wind when a blow is on the way.
FF

Ok...right...so your point appears to be everyone should carry a different weight/shape/size/type of anchor to suit each condition, but when the crunch really comes, hopefully trumpeted loudly ahead of time instead of unexpectedly, (which is when I find crunches seem to arrive), then it's weight that really matters. And off both ends to boot. Well good luck with all that weight - let alone the rotten job of what it takes to switch anchors, especially in the dark, which if fitted properly and used a few times are NOT that easy to get off - I know - I just end-for-ended my chain last weekend. So for me, I reckon all that is just too hard, and that's why I still maintain, surely a better design that copes in nearly all conditions is a good way to go...why is that concept so hard to grasp? Why not watch the DVD again...maybe with a more open mind this time...? Just sayin'

 

[Nomad Willy]

FF is right weight matters. If one can't get the flukes to penetrate the bottom one's anchor wo'nt be much better than a concrete pier block. One of the first improvements on anchors was to make the flukes pointed (assumably) and that (no doubt) made the anchor work better. Anchors have been around for several hundred years and perhaps thousands of years and it's hard to imagine that we can still improve on them but as time goes on the degree of improvement (it would seem) should get smaller and smaller. Every anchor designer and marketer claims to have made a hugely better anchor but for those whose anchor has been serving them for some long period of time are'nt emotionally or otherwise highly moved to buy the new improved anchor.......like FF. And every anchor has advantages and disadvantages like penetrating hard bottoms, holding well in mud, short scope performance, fit/storing conveniently on the bow roller, extraordinarily high holding power ect ect. No car, boat, house, place to live or anything else is perfect but it's almost everyone's dream. Not FFs. But if we ever manage to make/design a better anchor it's improvement will probably be small but a big advance is always possible.......and that's what drives the dreams and wild claims. But even if we make a giant leap forward like going from paddle wheels to screw propellers that hugely better anchor will still be imperfect in some ways. I agree w FF in that no anchor will ever do all things supremely. A sack full of anchors is obviously best from a standpoint of anchoring. Consider the Danforth and the Claw. But some anchors come much closer to doing all things well than most others. SARCA seems to be such an anchor. And any anchor that excells supremely in any task also is very likely to or certain to be lacking in other ways. Cadillac's do'nt get good millage and smaller cars are'nt as comfortable. There are laws to physics and all things physical are subject to them. Weight matters. Downward force from weight is extremely important for penetrating the bottom but that's not all. The Claw's have 70% of their weight on the fluke points and I'm sure that contributes tremendously to their well found reputation to set dependably and fast. But the shape of the fluke and the way it is presented to the bottom could make or break an otherwise great performance. And once an anchor is set (buried deep enough to give a good account of itself) weight hardly has any effect on performance at all w some exceptions like the Navy anchor and other non-burrying types. So when an anchor is buried it's holding power and other performance factors are controlled by design/shape. There's no free lunch in physics so FF is right...... size matters..... but he's wrong in that his implication that that's all that matters is very short sighted. When I was in Craig yesterday I saw lots of CQRs and while I was surfing the archives in Willard Owners Group on yahoo (I serched the word anchor) I found 159 posts and many Willard owners posted saying their CQRs were 100% satisfactory and they had little or no inclination to get a newer anchor w promise of better performance. But one has to look far and wide to find an anchor w no weak links and if I was to pick one now I'd choose a SARCA. But the SARCA is'nt perfect either in that stuff can get jammed in the roll bar hole like a rock can get jammed between the flukes of a Danforth. So I think all anchors work well like all cars work well and all outboard engines work well. So even though FFs example of deploying 180lbs of anchor to get the job done is ridiculous he has made a very good point. In our culture the old ways and things are cast away far to often and soon. A 1952 Chris Craft or a CQR anchor can give many years of satisfaction and service despite the lack of advances and new features found on the latest products. But the laws of evolution dictate that we will not stand pat and refuse to change so men like Marin will have their way and have new things that are usually in most ways better and the old ways and things can usually be adhered to or used to the satisfaction of men like FF.

 

[markpierce]

Eric, instead of changing your moniker to "manyboats" you should have adopted "manyanchors."

 

[Tom.B]

Or... "fewparagraphs" *grin*

 

[Nomad Willy]

Gonzo and Mark,
Like other "P" type personalities we like to "keep our options open". And of course anchors and such are options. "J" type people are only happy when things are decided. Most marriages are an interesting study in this regard. It's best to travel w like types. But John when are we going to leave, and how much is it going to cost, and where are we going to stay, and how much money should we take ............I'd bet most on this forum are J types. Would'nt bet a lot on it though. I can't buddy boat w J types as they have all these waypoints and other ridged things that are all decided. No fun and are'nt necessary for me ......most of the time.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Gonzo,
As soon as I posted that I looked at it and said to myself "holy cow did I do that!!!". The edit time slot is so short I can't go back and break it up into paragraphs but I'll try do take my writing more seriously. Once I get started I just ramble on and on. But don't look for miracles as I view this forum stuff as a bunch of guys constantly launching their ideas, opinions and observations and reading the ideas, opinions and observations of others. I think psneeld may think what is presented on this forum should be backed and supported by references to establish unquestionable authenticity to what is presented. If that were to be so I'd have to leave as most all of what I present is opinions derived from facts, other opinions and observations. Unless otherwise stated most of this forum is based on a platform of "as far as I know" ........Is it not so?

 

[Portuguese]

You are albsolutely correct Larry

...When I asked to the Rainha Jannota's designer what anchor should I buy and how big he replyed:
..." Get the type and the size that I recommend, multiply by 2 buy it and be happy"...

.

 

[psneeld]

Gonzo,
As soon as I posted that I looked at it and said to myself "holy cow did I do that!!!". The edit time slot is so short I can't go back and break it up into paragraphs but I'll try do take my writing more seriously. Once I get started I just ramble on and on. But don't look for miracles as I view this forum stuff as a bunch of guys constantly launching their ideas, opinions and observations and reading the ideas, opinions and observations of others. I think psneeld may think what is presented on this forum should be backed and supported by references to establish unquestionable authenticity to what is presented. If that were to be so I'd have to leave as most all of what I present is opinions derived from facts, other opinions and observations. Unless otherwise stated most of this forum is based on a platform of "as far as I know" ........Is it not so?

People seem to come to forums looking for all sorts of stuff...most of the time, people want factual answers to a question (outside the OTDE type forums)...not just "some guy's opinion lest he's a recocnized expert in the field.

That's not to say there's plenty of subjects like "one engine or two" or "which anchor" that are at best opinions based on a collection of what I would hope to be facts. There's no right or wrong answer....but if you are gonna say one or the other based on incorrect info...that's what the forum is good for...for people to chime in and point out generally accepted "truths" or point out that someone is misinformed or just plain old raise the BS flag.

So please don't think for me...I have my hands full doing it for myself...

 

[Nomad Willy]

psneeld,
You're free to think I'm sling'in BS but it's not polite to announce that opinion to everyone else. When you use the expression "BS flag" I do'nt know any other way to take it.

 

[psneeld]

psneeld,
You're free to think I'm sling'in BS but it's not polite to announce that opinion to everyone else. When you use the expression "BS flag" I do'nt know any other way to take it.

Sorry... I was speaking in the generic "you".... not YOU specifically but people in general.

If I think you are BSing us...I'll be specific...and as far as being polite...that's not a stong point of this or darn near any other forum..

Remember...you pointed ME out of the crowd in that post.

 

[Marin]

But the laws of evolution dictate that we will not stand pat and refuse to change so men like Marin will have their way and have new things that are usually in most ways better and the old ways and things can usually be adhered to or used to the satisfaction of men like FF.

That's a fair summary I think. I prefer new ideas and designs to old ideas and designs but that does not mean that the use of the word "new" automatically means "better." There are zillions of examples of this, one of the more recent being Micrsoft's Zune that was going to render the iPod obsolete.

The thing that intrigued me immediately about the rollbar anchor when I first heard of them and started reading about them was their principle of operation. To me up until then an anchor was something that landed on the bottom, you pulled on it, and it slid along until the fluke or flukes started to dig in and then they'd dig in deep enough to hold the boat. Pretty simple principle but it depends on the fluke catching the bottom as it's pulled along and digging in. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't you try again until it does.

What intrigued me about the rollbar concept is that it's a "pro-active" anchor. Instead of simply sliding along until a fluke hooks into the bottom and digs in , the rollbar anchor is forced to land on the bottom every time in a position that pulling on it doesn't just slide it along on the hope it will dig in at some point, but instead forces the blade to pivot down right now and slice its sharp-edged fluke and top into the bottom like a knife blade. At that point the design is such that the fluke turns to present its flat face toward the direction of pull.

So it's that "first we dig in fast, then we resist the pull" concept of the rollbar anchor that sets it apart from all the drag-and-dig anchors---- Danforth, Bruce, CQR, etc.

So this is a new idea and design that I am convinced--- so far--- is indeed better than the old designs. But that doesn't mean the old designs don't work. They've been holding boats successfully for far longer than the rollbar anchors.

But to me the rollbar anchors represent what thinking "outside the box" (I hate that term because I'm sick of hearing it) can accomplish. And because I prefer a new idea that is based on a sound concept and good execution and is proving to perform as advertised to an old albeit still functional idea, we bought a rollbar anchor.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marin,
I'm glad you made that post as I can relate to you're intrigue and how you considered it outside the box. A "proactive" anchor that did'nt just wait for things to happen. I actually like that cliché probably because I like think'in out of the box. Anyway I now understand you and the Rocna thing enough to be at ease w it. You may not want to admit it but the Claw seems to be a fairly clever anchor too. At least if my theories about how it works and what the intentions of the designer was. Well there's sleep in's, fly in's, cruise in's and this thread must be a drag in......"we bought a rollbar anchor." We/I did too. Still have the Manson Supreme. Have you ever brought up a huge mass of mud on your Rocna?

 

[Marin]

Have you ever brought up a huge mass of mud on your Rocna?

Absolutely. Every time it sets in mud it brings up a ton of it. Our Bruce also brought up a lot of mud although not near as much since it's three smaller flukes vs. one real big one. But I don't view this as a detriment, I view it as proof the thing did what it was supposed to do and dug in deep.

We have a good windlass so it's not like I'm having to haul that mud up by hand. If I had to do that I would probably be Not Happy. And we have a very powerful washdown system courtesy of a previous owner who put the thing in. A 1 hp AC Westinghouse motor driving a big impeller pump at about 25 gpm (at the pump, not at the hose nozzle). So blasting that mud off is no big deal. Actually it's kind of fun---- you know how boys love to blast things with water.

It think the Bruce/Claw is a good design for what I understand was its initial purpose, which was to secure North Sea oil rigs. But I think the basic design is dependent on it being real big. Like tons big. I don't think it scales down to sizes like 44#, 33#, etc with the same performance. That's what I like about the rollbar concept--- it's a design that performs as advertised in the sizes and weights that most of us are limited to on our cruisers.

By the way, in that last post it's supposed to read "....slice its sharp-edged fluke and TIP into the bottom like a knife blade, " not "top."

 

[Peter B]

The thing that intrigued me immediately about the rollbar anchor when I first heard of them and started reading about them was their principle of operation. To me up until then an anchor was something that landed on the bottom, you pulled on it, and it slid along until the fluke or flukes started to dig in and then they'd dig in deep enough to hold the boat. Pretty simple principle but it depends on the fluke catching the bottom as it's pulled along and digging in. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't you try again until it does.

What intrigued me about the rollbar concept is that it's a "pro-active" anchor. Instead of simply sliding along until a fluke hooks into the bottom and digs in , the rollbar anchor is forced to land on the bottom every time in a position that pulling on it doesn't just slide it along on the hope it will dig in at some point, but instead forces the blade to pivot down right now and slice its sharp-edged fluke and top into the bottom like a knife blade. At that point the design is such that the fluke turns to present its flat face toward the direction of pull.

So it's that "first we dig in fast, then we resist the pull" concept of the rollbar anchor that sets it apart from all the drag-and-dig anchors---- Danforth, Bruce, CQR, etc....... And because I prefer a new idea that is based on a sound concept and good execution and is proving to perform as advertised to an old albeit still functional idea, we bought a rollbar anchor.

Well put, Marin, and whilst the old adage of think of the weight you need, then double it might have an element of truth in it, one thing I don't need references or journal articles to prove is anyone who tries to gain peace of mind by deploying 2 x 60lb anchors off the bow, and a 3rd off the stern is going to have so many ruptured discs in no time flat, they will never be comfortable sleeping in a boat bunk again - ever....

 

[FF]

so your point appears to be everyone should carry a different weight/shape/size/type of anchor to suit each condition,

NO the "My chunk of iron is more 'EFFICIENT' , than your hunk of iron ", would be the folks that would use the "efficiency" of some light weight sales pitch.

"Efficiency" is getting higher holding power with less weight, hardly what any cruiser I know of does.

MY point is most folks have an anchor that is over sized (not as "efficient" ) that is mounted and simply deployed.

Bigger is better (if you have the ability to recover the set) for most folks.

The only time "efficiency" comes into play is using undersized , under weight "efficient" watch fobs in a blow.

Good luck , I sleep far better with a 60# (most brands)than with a more "efficient" 12# in most anchorages.

"anyone who tries to gain peace of mind by deploying 2 x 60lb anchors off the bow, and a 3rd off the stern is going to have so many ruptured discs in no time flat,"

This is out HURRICANE procedure , not simple O'night anchoring.

There usually ONE anchor 60# (or perhaps with second a 20lb stern anchor for a tidal river) which does the task, sans flyweight "efficiency".


Sorry if you have never been aboard a properly rigged boat with a hyd windlass..

As we are 98% rope folks my bride ( ex sailor) handles tailing any anchor , and simply laying out the rode in a figure 8, as the gear comes up.

The anchor is held on bow rollers , with line coiled on deck , no washing , cleaning , pressure washing is needed. No smelly chain in a pile below.

The coiled line is far more positive in deploying , either for a normal O'nite set , or in an emergency.

The most difficult part of anchor recovery is bending down to pull the knob in the deck to have the windlass turn, when finished stepping on the knob turns it off.

So the discs are at risk 1/2 time bending over.

Thanks for caring,



FF

 

[Peter B]

NO the "My chunk of iron is more 'EFFICIENT' , than your hunk of iron ", would be the folks that would use the "efficiency" of some light weight sales pitch.

"Efficiency" is getting higher holding power with less weight, hardly what any cruiser I know of does.

MY point is most folks have an anchor that is over sized (not as "efficient" ) that is mounted and simply deployed. Bigger is better (if you have the ability to recover the set) for most folks.
The only time "efficiency" comes into play is using undersized , under weight "efficient" watch fobs in a blow. Good luck , I sleep far better with a 60# (most brands)than with a more "efficient" 12# in most anchorages.FF

FF, I think you might be under some misunderstanding here. I have a very effective winch, as does anyone trying to weigh/retrieve any decently weighted anchor. And I have no problem with the anchor being adequately heavy. However, if it is designed more 'efficiently' in terms of its setting and holding characteristics, in as many bottom types as possible as well, (which is what I call efficiency), so it does not have to be hugely heavy, then surely that is the best of both worlds..?
My boat weighs ~ 8 tonne, and my Sarca is 22kg. At 2.2 lbs per kg with my math that = ~49lb, for a 34 foot boat, wouldn't you say that is a fair weight..? It is certainly no 12 lb watch fob. I am not an advocate of overly light anchors or short scopes. Just the best all round effective compromise, where the compromise bit is kept to a minimum as well.
And I'm relieved to hear you discs are ok. You gave the impression you thought using over-weight anchors for normal anchoring was over-kill, and that one should adjust the weight and choice accordingly. Having to take two vice-grips to my anchor shackles recently to swap the chain round, this seemed a rather hellish option in my view, especially if they are 60lbs to move.
After all , you did say in a previous post...

"Since most folks do not match the anchor to the usual conditions , "Gee I can use a really great 5.6lb anchor tonight) ,and simply drop what is on their bow pulpit, 35, 45 or 60 as carried "efficient" is BS as most are total overkill , but work as planned to simply stop for the night."

Maybe I read that the wrong way. If so, I'm glad we are not that far apart in views after all it would seem.

 

[psneeld]

Here's "more research" and a white paper on anchoring...enjoys shooting holes in this one...

http://northpacificresearch.com/downloads/anchor_selection.pdf

 

[Nomad Willy]

Seems like really excellent material w very little bias. He does mention CQR anchors numerous times. Perhaps w good reason other than his sailboat background.
He makes some very important points like the bottom is the weakest link for most of us and nylon line is better for short scope work.

But the information he presents, especially the "different anchors for different bottoms" approach is not practical for most Trawler Forum members. Most TF guys adhere to at least a significant extent on the "bigger is better" theory and have an anchor that is very difficult to handle relative to changing from a Claw to a Max, Danforth or whatever. Anchors are stored on the bow and the act of removing one anchor and substituting another is not practical. If Marin was anchoring in a mud bottomed bay I can't imagine him swapping out his present anchor for a Super Max. Just too much work. So most of us gravitate toward an anchor that performs well on all bottoms (utopia) and mounting on the bow an anchor big enough to make up for any discrepancies in it's inability to perform on certain bottoms or at certain scopes. Mix and match or switch and swap is thrown out for bigger is better but it's not ideal at all. Fishermen do it w monster Forfjord's and Claw's for the same reason yachtsmen do it.......convince.

Thanks psneeld for presenting this and I intend to refer to it in the future.

 

[Anode]

Just surfin' the channels....

 

[Peter B]

Seems like really excellent material w very little bias. He does mention CQR anchors numerous times. Perhaps w good reason other than his sailboat background.
He makes some very important points like the bottom is the weakest link for most of us and nylon line is better for short scope work. But the information he presents, especially the "different anchors for different bottoms" approach is not practical for most Trawler Forum members. Most TF guys adhere to at least a significant extent on the "bigger is better" theory and have an anchor that is very difficult to handle relative to changing from a Claw to a Max, Danforth or whatever. Anchors are stored on the bow and the act of removing one anchor and substituting another is not practical.

Good article certainly, but often these are limited by almost ignoring - or not being aware of - later anchor designs, something this article almost cried out to explore. I thought your above points spot on, Eric, however I had to laugh at the place where he states....(take note FF)...

"Anchor systems rarely fail because loads are considerably less than commonly estimated, but when they do, the most common failure is dragging. When most people drag an anchor, they instinctively think the solution is a larger anchor. Ninety-nine percent of the time they are wrong. This has led to some ridiculously large anchors on some very small boats. If I were dictator of the world, I would imprison people for saying, “get the largest anchor you can carry.”