Anchor size?

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, LadyG said:

CRIKEY,  my anchor, chain and warp cost about £500 if I use it, I won't lose it.

 

 

My chain cost that much and my anchor considerably more, should, in an emergency I NEED to use than anchor and cannot recover it, I will consider it a good investment if it saved the life of me, or my family or even serious damage to the boat.

 

Emergency use is very different to the daily act of anchoring up in YOUR CHOICE of 'ground' in YOUR CHOICE of location, and if it goes wrong you can just pull it back in and try again, and again and again until you get it right.

Deploying an anchor in an emergency situation means it must be right first time and must set properly every time. NO practicing, no chance to go-around again.

 

If you cannot recover it, buoy it off and give the local subaqua club£100 to fetch it back for you.

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Summary :

 

It is not all about anchor weight - a 7Kg anchor of one design will perform better than a 25kg of another design.

If using 100% chain you need a minimum of 3x water depth and preferably 5 times water depth, using insufficient chain results in achieving  a very low percentage of the potential anchor holding power.

If using 100% rope then you need an absolute minimum of 10 x water depth. using NYLON rope (or preferably lead cored anchor rope) (not other synthetics as they float)

You need a dedicated anchor strong point - using the T-stud on the bow will (porbably) rwsuklt in it being snapped off. It is not designed for shock loads.

 

 

 

Edit to add

Scope =  measured in anchor chain used Vs water depth, so 5x water deoth equals a scope of 5:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only if the water is 2 feet deep.

Thanks. I was looking at the Danforth anchor as an option. If the Thames is 10ft deep or more then I doubt there will be room on the boat to store a 30-50ft chain!

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Philip said:

Thanks. I was looking at the Danforth anchor as an option. If the Thames is 10ft deep or more then I doubt there will be room on the boat to store a 30-50ft chain!

 

And, the Danforth is one of the worse performing anchors, but is commonly seen on NB's because it is cheap, folds flat and fits into lockers, it doesn't matter that it doesn't work very well, because, as you have been informed - you'll never need it anyway, and probably will never have even practiced deploying it (you don't just throw it overboard) but the fact you have an anchor means you are complying with PLA / Thames guidance.

 

You can easily get 100ft of chain in a bucket so storage in the bow should not be an issue for the time you are on a river.

 

The PLA Guidance for the Thames :

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A very dangerous assumption - maybe correct to say 'in the unlikely event' but to say never is very misleading & totally wrong.

 

I know of several who have had to deploy their anchor on a River due to engine or gearbox failure, and I also know of at least one who didn't have an anchor to deploy and was swept over the weir after rolling under the Dolphins.

 

Maybe you also follow the policy of "I won't insure my house, it will never burn down or get damaged in a storm"

Yes the OP should carry an anchor. And looking through previous discussions will give him a better idea of what might be suitable for his situation. But he can't assume that there is a 'right' answer, or that even the best anchor will actually be much help in a real emergency situation.

 

You say you know of several examples of anchor use, but every time the point is discussed here nobody comes up with a description of an actual deployment event (successful or unsuccessful). As previous discussions have shown there is no consensus on anchor type and weight for narrowboat use, other than that the ideal weight for larger boats is probably too heavy to lift, so pretty useless for those boats without an anchor winch. All the available evidence on anchor holding power relates to anchoring in open sea, where a certain amount of drag while the anchor sets is acceptable, and where the opportunity is there to go round again if it doesn't set first time. Neither of those is much help if your engine fails above a weir. In previous discussions some have insisted that the anchor must be attached to the bow, regardless of which direction the boat is travelling. But if I am travelling downstream on the Thames in my 71ft 6 in deep drafted ex working boat, then on much of the river that is going to result in the boat being swung around and very probably going aground at both ends broadside on to the current - not a  position I would want to be in.

Those who never go to sea have no experience of using an anchor, so are ill prepared to deal with an emergency situation - even if they have the 'right' kit.

 

And yes, I have experienced engine failure on the river. Dropping the mud weight (bucket of concrete) over the bow, attached to the bow rope was easier than dealing with yards of rope and chain and the anchor. While it didn't stop the boat completely, it slowed it sufficiently to allow for considered reflection on how best to deal with the situation.

 

As for insurance, yes I do have that (and more than the legal minimum for boat and car). And generally with a high excess to keep the premium down, since I am probably going to sort most things myself without claiming anyway.

[Alan de Enfield]

50 minutes ago, David Mack said:

You say you know of several examples of anchor use, but every time the point is discussed here nobody comes up with a description of an actual deployment event (successful or unsuccessful).

 

Every time this is discussed I have cited the example of where I was directly involved in recovering a boat 100 yards above the Cromwell Weir (the one where 10 soldiers died when their boat went over the weir) his Danfiorth anchor had failed to set several times and was just dragging but slowing him down.

This gave us enough time to effect a rescue.

There were two of us attempting to get a line aboard, because he was effectively anchored, allbeit slowly dragging, his boat was thrashing about from side to side and it was very difficult to get a line aboard, after about 6 attempts each the 'other boat' got a line aboard and we undertook the tow.

 

In another event, a boat got across the flow/current and did not have enough power to turn to head towards the lock, he did not have an anchor on board and was swept into the dolphins, his wife fell overboard, he grabbed her hand to stop her being swept over the weir, but now could no longer reach to switch off the engine, it was now leave the engine running and risk chopping up his wife with the prop, or let go of her and hope she survived going over the weir,.

 

He let go of his wife.

 

Shortly after that the boat rolled under the Dolphins, & he was swept overboard.

 

They both survived and were recovered.

The boat righted itself and was swept into the trees, the windows were smashed and the stern railings were snapped off.

 

The boat was eventually recovered and towed / driven into BWML Kings Marina at Newark by C&RT employees as the owner and his wife said "why did no one tell us about the dangers of Rivers", he was never going on the boat again.

 

 

 

 

A barge caught up in the Dolphins at Cromwell February 2021 - you can see that the barge is at and angle but due to its beam it will not roll under. A lower/smaller Narrowboat will be rolled underneath them.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Alan de Enfield]

54 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Those who never go to sea have no experience of using an anchor, so are ill prepared to deal with an emergency situation - even if they have the 'right' kit.

 

 

The answer to that is to practice.

 

 

It is regularly said that "anchoring at sea is no comparision to anchoring on a River" , and I fully agree.

 

Anchoring in an emergency on a River is far more 'frightening' and puts more stress on the boat :

 

I have replied previously :

 

 

There will shortly be a comment that 'anchoring at sea' is very different to anchoring on a River - and - yes I agree, it is.

 

Anchoring at sea is a normal practice undertaken most nights, it is planned and considered and a suitable spot chosen, the anchor is carefully, and correctly deployed, and the boat reversed to help the anchor set, if the anchor 'drags' you simply pull it back in, motor back to your chosen spot and repeat the process until the anchor sets properly.

 

Deploying an anchor on a river will generally be during a 'brown trouser' moment, the engine has stopped, gearbox not working (or whatever). You now need an emergency brake (to stop you going over a weir ?) and the anchor needs to work and set properly and be able to hold the boat to an emergency stop instantly, FIRST TIME, EVERYTIME, as there is unlikely to be time to pull it back in and re-set again.

 

So, yes anchoring on a River is different and actually is much more demanding than anchoring at sea.

[David Mack]

40 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Every time this is discussed I have cited the example of where I was directly involved in recovering a boat 100 yards above the Cromwell Weir (the one where 10 soldiers died when their boat went over the weir) his Danfiorth anchor had failed to set several times and was just dragging but slowing him down.

This gave us enough time to effect a rescue.

There were two of us attempting to get a line aboard, because he was effectively anchored, allbeit slowly dragging, his boat was thrashing about from side to side and it was very difficult to get a line aboard, after about 6 attempts each the 'other boat' got a line aboard and we undertook the tow.

 

In another event, a boat got across the flow/current and did not have enough power to turn to head towards the lock, he did not have an anchor on board and was swept into the dolphins, his wife fell overboard, he grabbed her hand to stop her being swept over the weir, but now could no longer reach to switch off the engine, it was now leave the engine running and risk chopping up his wife with the prop, or let go of her and hope she survived going over the weir,.

 

He let go of his wife.

 

Shortly after that the boat rolled under the Dolphins, & he was swept overboard.

 

They both survived and were recovered.

The boat righted itself and was swept into the trees, the windows were smashed and the stern railings were snapped off.

 

The boat was eventually recovered and towed / driven into BWML Kings Marina at Newark by C&RT employees as the owner and his wife said "why did no one tell us about the dangers of Rivers", he was never going on the boat again.

 

 

 

 

A barge caught up in the Dolphins at Cromwell February 2021 - you can see that the barge is at and angle but due to its beam it will not roll under. A lower/smaller Narrowboat will be rolled underneath them.

 

 

 

 

So in the first example, several attempts at using the anchor failed, and it was only the presence of you and others that prevented disaster. Had the other boats not been about his anchor would have made no difference to the outcome. That rather confirms my opinion as to the value of anchors.

In your second example "why did no one tell us about the dangers of Rivers" just goes to show that you can only do so much to help people prepare for what is clearly an activity which has some dangers. At least asking the question on here and seeing the range of answers should give the questioner something to think about.

 

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

So, yes anchoring on a River is different and actually is much more demanding than anchoring at sea.

 

Which is why I suggest it is almost completely doomed to fail in the hands of someone with no offshore experience.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Which is why I suggest it is almost completely doomed to fail in the hands of someone with no offshore experience.

 

Why not suggest that they go on a river and practice ?

Surely better to get relevant River practice than (as we both agree) irrelevant Offshore practice.

[David Mack]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Why not suggest that they go on a river and practice ?

Surely better to get relevant River practice than (as we both agree) irrelevant Offshore practice.

Fair point. But in 50+ years of boating, some on rivers, I have never practiced. Nor I imagine have many others.

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Fair point. But in 50+ years of boating, some on rivers, I have never practiced. Nor I imagine have many others.

 

 

I'm sure very few (if any) have, but it is something that we could, and maybe even should do, do it a few times, get the hang of it and then repeat maybe annually as a refresher.

 

We dont plan for accidents, they just 'happen' and being prepared can go a long way towards minimising their effect.

[PeterF]

My experience from around 35 years ago on my father in law's 45ft Springer on the Trent below Cranfleet cut heading towards Nottingham, perhaps 1 mile downstream of Cranfleet lock, summer time and low flow on the river. The engine blew a cooling water hose and overheated so we had to stop the engine pretty quickly. We could not moor to the bank so we turned into the current and dropped the mud weight, I can not recall if it was a bucket of concrete or a 56lb (25 kg) weight. Luckily it was enough to hold the boat against the limited current. We taped up the hose the best we could, connected the water filling hose to the kitchen tap, ran with the radiator cap off and kept a supply of fresh water into it to make up for the leaky hose so we could limp back to Cranfleet. My wife has not liked the Trent since.

[howardang]

Just now, David Mack said:

Fair point. But in 50+ years of boating, some on rivers, I have never practiced. Nor I imagine have many others.

I think you are absolutely right about lack of practise.  I am cynical enough to believe that a large proportion of boaters would not be capable of properly deploying an anchor in a situation of impending disaster such as approaching a weir. I am of the opinion  that the type of anchor carried on an typical narrowboat would make very little difference to the outcome. because I would suspect that in many, if not the majority of incidents, the boater would take far too long to think things through and get organised, for it to change the outcome. It is sad but I think realistic!

 

Having said that, of course, the other side of the coin is to ask how many times in reality does a boat get into such a pickle, and although I know Alan frequently cites the case of Cromwell Weir in my view that is fortunately a relatively rare case.

 

Howard

 

 

[IanD]

Like everything else in life, there's always a tradeoff between risk and the cost/effort to avoid it.

 

In an ideal world where every narrowboater was experienced and knowledgeable about anchors, every narrowboat that ever went on a river would have a high-quality anchor like a Fortress plus a long heavy chain and lots of rope, all secured to a heavy-duty fixing welded securely to the hull, and everybody would go out onto a river and practice using it, as would their companions/family and anyone else who might use the boat.

 

Cost per boat something around a grand, plus all the time and effort to train people and practice -- none of which would ever be done for hire boats and hirers, for obvious reasons, who are probably at the biggest risk of a disaster happening where they might need such an anchor (and knowledge).

 

Quoting one case every few years like Alan does isn't helpful -- how many people have drowned and how many narrowboats sunk over the years on canals/rivers due to lack of or inadequate anchor or training on using it? "Risk-benefit" decisions about whether money should be spent on "elf'n'safety" take the value of a life saved as a couple of million quid, and I think I can guarantee that posh anchors on narrowboats get nowhere near this, even allowing for the cost of refitting sunken boats.

 

Requiring narrowboats (including hire boats) which go out onto the river to be fitted with an anchor -- usually a Danforth for the reasons stated above -- is basically an insurance box-ticking exercise, as demonstrated by the number of hire bases which ask you if you know how to deploy it, never mind the number (zero) who require you to have practised doing it (or the number of boat owners who have ever done this). Everyone knows that the chance of you ever needing it is absolutely tiny, and the chance of it doing the job should that come to pass is smaller still.

 

If anyone like Alan wants to go to all the expense and bother of doing this then feel free to go ahead, but it's only "money well spent" if it gives you peace of mind, the actual benefit or risk from not doing it is tiny.

Edited May 10, 2021 by IanD

[howardang]

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

Like everything else in life, there's always a tradeoff between risk and the cost/effort to avoid it.

 

In an ideal world where every narrowboater was experienced and knowledgeable about anchors, every narrowboat that ever went on a river would have a high-quality anchor like a Fortress plus a long heavy chain and lots of rope, all secured to a heavy-duty fixing welded securely to the hull, and everybody would go out onto a river and practice using it, as would their companions/family and anyone else who might use the boat.

 

Cost per boat something around a grand, plus all the time and effort to train people and practice -- none of which would ever be done for hire boats and hirers, for obvious reasons, who are probably at the biggest risk of a disaster happening where they might need such an anchor (and knowledge).

 

Quoting one case every few years like Alan does isn't helpful -- how many people have drowned and how many narrowboats sunk over the years on canals/rivers due to lack of or inadequate anchor or training on using it? "Risk-benefit" decisions about whether money should be spent on "elf'n'safety" take the value of a life saved as a couple of million quid, and I think I can guarantee that posh anchors on narrowboats get nowhere near this, even allowing for the cost of refitting sunken boats.

 

Requiring narrowboats (including hire boats) which go out onto the river to be fitted with an anchor -- usually a Danforth for the reasons stated above -- is basically an insurance box-ticking exercise, as demonstrated by the number of hire bases which ask you if you know how to deploy it, never mind the number (zero) who require you to have practised doing it (or the number of boat owners who have ever done this). Everyone knows that the chance of you ever needing it is absolutely tiny, and the chance of it doing the job should that come to pass is smaller still.

 

If anyone like Alan wants to go to all the expense and bother of doing this then feel free to go ahead, but it's only "money well spent" if it gives you peace of mind, the actual benefit or risk from not doing it is tiny.

I was Interested in your comment about a “high  quality anchor “  in that, despite the disparaging comments made on this forum about Danforth anchors, a Fortress, which you cite as an example of a “high quality anchor”is very well regarded as an anchor despite it being a variant of the basic Danforth design. I have used a number of versions of Danforths  over many years and if deployed correctly they can be very effective. Anchor reliability and efficiency does  not always rely on just deep pockets.

 

Howard

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, howardang said:

I was Interested in your comment about a “high  quality anchor “  in that, despite the disparaging comments made on this forum about Danforth anchors, a Fortress, which you cite as an example of a “high quality anchor”is very well regarded as an anchor despite it being a variant of the basic Danforth design. I have used a number of versions of Danforths  over many years and if deployed correctly they can be very effective. Anchor reliability and efficiency does  not always rely on just deep pockets.

 

Howard

 

 

Indeed the Fortress is a development of the Danforth, just as a Bently Continental is a development of the Model T Ford, and the performance differences are similarly enormous.

 

Anchor design has turned into a science and the choices are now very confusing - it pays to do some research before parting with your hard earned pennies.

 

 

The Danforth is one of the original '1st generation' designs (along with the Fishermans Anchor), These were replaced by 2nd generation anchors by such as the CQR (Secure) and the Bruce which offered performances some 2x that of the 1st generation. Then came the 3rd Generation such as the Fortress, the Rocna,  Mantus, Manson and the Delta derivatives, these, in turn offered between 2x and 4x the performance of the 2nd generation anchors.

 

The 2nd generation of anchors meant that Lloyds had to introduce a new rating category for anchors and so the HHP (High Holding Power) rating was introduced.

To be rated as HHP the anchor performance must exceed 2x that achieved by the standard Navy pattern anchor.

 

 

As technology and design improved new, even higher performance, anchors were developed and yet again Lloyds were required to introduce another category of anchor the SHHP (Super High Holding Power) and the requirement was for the performane to exceed more than 4x the performance of the Navy pattern anchor.

 

Anchors can also be tested against others with the desired standard; should they hold at least the same load in comparison, this then is accepted as equivalent.

Its designer confident that superior performance would be displayed, the Rocna anchor was tested by RINA against a New Zealand built copy which already had SHHP classification from Lloyd’s Register. In clay, the Rocna 25 recorded pulls at an average of 6,250 kgf, while the larger Manson Supreme 27 kg managed an average of 4,665 kgf; in soft mud, the Rocna averaged 635 kgf versus the copy’s 560 kgf. In the same locations stockless anchors four times the weight were recording pulls a quarter of the Rocna’s results. Unfortunately such test results are rarely published so inspecting the basis of classification can be difficult.

The Rocna perfomed 16x better than the Navy pattern weight for weight.

 

Even identical 'looking' anchors can have enormously varying results dus to very small differences in angles, shapes and surface areas.

 

 

The Navy Anchor by which all others are compared in the Lloyds approvals and classifications.

 

 

 

I have several variants of 3rd generation anchors (and a shed 'full' of old generation 1 anchors from Grapnels to Danforth to Bruce)

The main ones I keep on the cruiser are the Bügel and the Kobra 2

 

The Bügel

 

 

 

The Kobra 2

 

 

 

 

 

On the Cat the main anchor is the Mantus 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

50 minutes ago, howardang said:

I was Interested in your comment about a “high  quality anchor “  in that, despite the disparaging comments made on this forum about Danforth anchors, a Fortress, which you cite as an example of a “high quality anchor”is very well regarded as an anchor despite it being a variant of the basic Danforth design. I have used a number of versions of Danforths  over many years and if deployed correctly they can be very effective. Anchor reliability and efficiency does  not always rely on just deep pockets.

 

Howard

 

I just picked Fortress as one of the ones that Alan had recommended, there are several others whose names I couldn't call to mind...

 

But the Danforth invariably seems to come close to last in all the tests.

[LadyG]

On 24/07/2009 at 15:15, WJM said:

It does not matter how 'good' your boat is - a weld is an unknown. I have steel U-shaped bolts drilled through the deck with a steel plate bolted underneath. They only cost a few pounds at a chandlers. The good thing about them is you can confidently predict their strength.

 

 

At the front, in addition to the T-Stud, I also run the anchor rope through and under the gas locker lid hinges. That allows the load to be spread over more points. One failure will not mean loss of the anchor.

But you would not want to leave the bow locker open would you? 

I could tie off the end of my rope to a big float, so I d be able to find it. 

I'm not sure about confidently predicting strength,  big, yes, bigger the better. 

I use Certified shackles, and calibrated chain, but the T thing is unknown. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by LadyG

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, IanD said:

But the Danforth invariably seems to come close to last in all the tests.

 

 

Indeed it does :

 

A review of anchor designs and performance :

 

Practical Sailor were quite explicit in their second round of testing, back in 1999. “Anchors that failed our 400-lb. minimum were the Bruce, Claw, Danforth…” they said. “Neither the Bruce, with an average holding power of 307 lbs, nor the Claw, which held to an average of 283 lbs, did anything to alter their reputations.” Poor holding power is the single most obvious potential issue with any anchor. (As an aside, although holding power is the ultimate factor, it is not the only one. An anchor with excellent holding power that never sets is of no use to anyone). Holding, or stopping, power mostly relates to a function of fluke surface area and configuration. All the old generation designs suffer from a basic lack of surface area – for any given anchor weight, there is simply not as much resistance as would be ideal. 

 

Compare that to the 'modern' anchor, such as the Rocna mentioned above which had figures as high as "In clay, the Rocna 25 recorded pulls at an average of 6,250 kgf", (over 13,500 lbs) some 33x the performance of the Danforth Claw or Bruce.

[IanD]

44 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Indeed it does :

 

A review of anchor designs and performance :

 

Practical Sailor were quite explicit in their second round of testing, back in 1999. “Anchors that failed our 400-lb. minimum were the Bruce, Claw, Danforth…” they said. “Neither the Bruce, with an average holding power of 307 lbs, nor the Claw, which held to an average of 283 lbs, did anything to alter their reputations.” Poor holding power is the single most obvious potential issue with any anchor. (As an aside, although holding power is the ultimate factor, it is not the only one. An anchor with excellent holding power that never sets is of no use to anyone). Holding, or stopping, power mostly relates to a function of fluke surface area and configuration. All the old generation designs suffer from a basic lack of surface area – for any given anchor weight, there is simply not as much resistance as would be ideal. 

 

Compare that to the 'modern' anchor, such as the Rocna mentioned above which had figures as high as "In clay, the Rocna 25 recorded pulls at an average of 6,250 kgf", (over 13,500 lbs) some 33x the performance of the Danforth Claw or Bruce.

All true. But there is a world of difference between a lumpy water boat like Alan's where you might use an anchor every single day in tides and currents -- sometimes strong -- and a narrowboat where you might literally need it once in a lifetime in an emergency -- or more likely, never.

 

In the first case it's a no-brainer to spend a four-figure sum on a good modern anchor and fittings, because you'll use it all the time and your life or boat may well rely on it working.

 

In the second case it's debateable whether there's any real safety point in having an anchor at all unless you also know how to deploy it and have the correct fittings, which would seem to apply to very few narrowboats and boaters.

 

In which case for the vast majority of narrowboats it's largely a box-ticking exercise, and even if you ever go on rivers (which many don't) you might as well save money and get a Danforth.

Edited May 10, 2021 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

In which case for the vast majority of narrowboats it's largely a box-ticking exercise, and even if you ever go on rivers (which many don't) you might as well save money and get a Danforth.

 

 

If you simply view it as a box ticking exercise then I guess you are correct, it doesn't matter - pretty much like having a BSS examiner sit in his car and complete your BSS documentation having never looked at the boat, its just as pointless,

If you want to be 'safe' then get an examiner who checks things are compliant, if you simply view the BSSC as an extra cost of getting your licence then get the examiner who will just issue your certificate,

 

Just as a matter of interest, I had exactly the same types of anchor(s) on my canal boats - yes even the steel Narrowboat, seems pointess in spending £100+ on a Danforth and rope knowing that its wasted money. I suppose I could always have swung it and hoped to catch a passing tree.

 

Just like all the other threads on the subject there will never be agreement whilst canal users view Rivers as 'just another canal' with no more risks or dangers, and those not prepared to spent money on something they hope will never happen.

[howardang]

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

If you simply view it as a box ticking exercise then I guess you are correct, it doesn't matter - pretty much like having a BSS examiner sit in his car and complete your BSS documentation having never looked at the boat, its just as pointless,

If you want to be 'safe' then get an examiner who checks things are compliant, if you simply view the BSSC as an extra cost of getting your licence then get the examiner who will just issue your certificate,

 

Just as a matter of interest, I had exactly the same types of anchor(s) on my canal boats - yes even the steel Narrowboat, seems pointess in spending £100+ on a Danforth and rope knowing that its wasted money. I suppose I could always have swung it and hoped to catch a passing tree.

 

Just like all the other threads on the subject there will never be agreement whilst canal users view Rivers as 'just another canal' with no more risks or dangers, and those not prepared to spent money on something they hope will never happen.

I agree that there may well be no agreement about this subject but I can only speak from my own practical  experience which is reasonably extensive both professionally and in recreational sailing and boating, inland and offshore. I can only say that although I do  respect the fact that you hold strongly held views you do express your opinion as if there is no room for any alternative views. I have no particular brief for or against Danforth anchors, and undoubtedly there are many others on the market which can offer superior performance, but having used Danforths and some of their derivatives over the years among other different types, in my opinion they can offer perfectly adequate performance if used correctly. 
 

We’re just going to have to differ on this particular subject.

 

Howard

[LadyG]

Size is in the title, and I was thinking about it last week as I manoevered my Mantus out of the bow locker, it was not something I thought about when buying it, but it does come in two pieces, so would fit almost anywhere.

I sat the anchor on the bow seat, chain on the bow deck, warp on the forward bow deck, with a weight on top to prevent it blowing away.

There seems to be quite gusty winds on the Trent.

I chose the Mantus because it digs in and holds quickly, according to tests. It's a modern anchor, but not four £ figures

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

53 minutes ago, howardang said:

We’re just going to have to differ on this particular subject.

 

 

I guess we will.

 

My experience of Danforth anchors is that they are overall very poor, if you can get it to set then its holding is good, but it can roll out far too readily, and, this is reinforced by a large number of tests by boaty magazines and test houses that invariably put the Danforth near the bottom of their test results.

 

I'll leave it at that.

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Size is in the title, and I was thinking about it last week as I manoevered my Mantus out of the bow locker, it was not something I thought about when buying it, but it does come in two pieces, so would fit almost anywhere.

I sat the anchor on the bow seat, chain on the bow deck, warp on the forward bow deck, with a weight on top to prevent it blowing away.

There seems to be quite gusty winds on the Trent.

I chose the Mantus because it digs in and holds quickly, according to tests. It's a modern anchor, but not four £ figures

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Mantus 30kg came in 3 pieces + nuts and bolts is quite big even when disassembled, but it normally lives on the bow anyway so not a problem.

 

I brought it from a dealer in the Orkneys, it was 'on clearance' so negotiated the price down to £600 inc delivery. Current price is around £800

 

Mantus Marine USA anchors are world renowned for their outstanding setting and holding properties

Digs like no other anchor
Mantus Anchors are designed to penetrate dense grassy bottoms and set with unparalleled holding power.
When tested, Mantus Anchors set faster and deeper than any other tested anchor, including Rocna, Manson Supreme, Bulwagga, Fortress, Bruce, CQR and Danforth anchors.

Easy to stow
Mantus Anchors break down for tidy storage, so you can stow one or two as spares without taking up much needed locker space.

Strong Design and Manufacture

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Richard10002]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

My chain cost that much and my anchor considerably more,

 

 

Which of your anchors are you referring to?