Why are some anchors better than others?
QKen Endean's anchor tests in Practical Seamanship ( Understanding anchors and
their bad habits, YM, Aug 2017) is a good example of YM's commitment to readers’ needs for information. I have a query, though. I had three identical CQR anchors, which I bought as a job lot when fishing trawlers were culled in the UK. I used all three on all types of ground over the years. One stood out; unlike the other two it never let go, regardless of conditions. I could never fathom it out and I twice had to haul up and change anchor in less than ideal conditions.
The three anchors were not drop-forged, so they may not be genuine, as shown by comparison to the drop-forged one in the photo. The ‘fake’ pictured sometimes locks up on the pin, making it ineffective. Frustratingly, I sold the one that was very loose around the pin and worked fine every time. Someone did a fine job on the shaping and welding, but they weren't a patch on the original. What I don't understand is how can three identical anchors can have such differing performance. Can you shed any light on the issue? Paul Christie
AKen Endean replies: If one of Paul’s anchors was consistently better, that would suggest that they were not absolutely identical, as confirmed by his photos. The original CQR anchors were made by drop-forging but many imitations were formed by casting or fabricated from welded plates. The flukes, their edges, the moving pivot, the weight of the anchor, and subtle differences in shape can all have an impact on performance.
The originals were drop-forged, which can be a less-than-precise process, and I once had a genuine CQR in which the hinge pin or its collar must have been malformed, because the fluke sometimes refused to rotate. It would then jam so that the anchor was then useless and wouldn't dig in.
Anchor tests have shown that minor differences in anchor shape may have a dramatic effect on performance, and in some cases the imitations have given better results than the genuine CQRs.