Great test nice to see the old CQR doing well. Most of the modern fancy anchors are just a CQR with no hinge. Apparently the CQR was developed for the early British flying boats.
I had a 35 lb CQR on a 30k lb 41 ft. sailboat for 29 years. I dragged twice, once when i dropped on a heavy clump of grass at dusk and didn't check to see if it was set (cocktails were probably involved) and once when the tip dropped on a piece of plastic. It may take a few feet of dragging before it sets but with time and a heavy boat tugging slightly it digs deeper and deeper particularly in deep mud. At first in deep mud it "plows" but after a few hours it's in China. An indestructible general purpose anchor. Danforth type fluke anchors are probably better in one direction and go deeper but then become very difficult to break out.
I have a 45 lb. CQR on my sailboat. I dragged one evening- the bottom was covered with "newspaper kelp" (thick, brownish wide bands). When I pulled the anchor up it had 25 lb. of seaweed attached! I pretty much trust my CQR but always set an anchor alarm.
Eric Hiscock reported that the hinged angle stop between the shank and the palm was critical and that there were a bunch of CQRs produced by Simpson Lawrence ( the original manufacturer) that we’re incorrect and performed poorly.
The very first version was made of poor steel and badly plated, so they rust. The anchor weight has 1/2 pounds in it for some odd reason. They are very rare and definitely worth avoiding. Lewmar now make a genuine galvanised and stainless steel CQR and it was slightly better in most tests than the Delta.
I had a 30 something lb cqr that I bent the shank on in the canaries.. Used my secondary Bruce for a few months. No complaints for either. Both are original not copies. Bought a used 60lb cqr in Grenada.. Using it currently in Curacao. So far so good. My boat is only 34ft on deck coming in at around 13 ton.
I think the reason some anchors don't dig down so deep, is that they are already set, and the forces needed to dig them down deeper are just too high (I can't imagine it has anything to do with the shank thickness, but maybe its to do with its angle).
I'm amazed by your results. My experience with genuine 25lb CQRs matches your memories., though on different sea beds, hard sand gravel etc. but with a long chain rode typical in 20ft plus of water.
I never had a problem with CQR in Irish mud😃 the boat is 1939 and I suspect the anchor is too it actually has lead in the tip! I regalvanised in the late 1980s
We had one on our Cat when in the Med, we used it for a year before we gave up. It never set once, just sat on it's side and dragged along the sand. Changed it for a Delta, this set first time every time. We never looked back.
Thank you this research. Am constantly cruising from anchorage to anchorage. Would be interested to the weight question for getting past heavy weed and initial digging :)
We've got a 35lb CQR on our CD30. Anchored about 100-150 nights in many types of New England seabeds. The only place we had a problem was heavy weed off Long Island, Maine (near Mt Desert). Interesting that lines up with your thoughts. Thanks for the work documenting these!
In the UK galvanizing used to be done to a British Standard (BS). I don’t know much about it but I know the item being galvanized had to be left in the tank until the substrate ( anchor) was the same temp. as the molten zinc. I believe the zinc had to be a certain thickness too but perhaps someone who knows more can comment.
I have a 15ft half cabin .CQR PLOUGH ANCHOR .ON A WINDLASS ANCHOR WINCH .Works great so far .I just wonder if these types of Anchors. Wont work very good on large boats that drag the anchor from a high standing point .Mine works great in all conditions so far.
I spent 3 days on anchor in a storm in a bay with 50knts and over 65knts gusts on a 57lb Lewmar cqr with 50m 12m chain in 20m depth. It didn't move and held us steady in some very scary conditions. The waves were 3m+ rolling in. Everyone said get rid of it they are useless. Having experienced extreme conditions I think they are great (I can't comment on smaller sizes/chain and ither brands)
I'd had gone for 100m chain or more if available, it's really amazing the anchor held, as 2.5:1 scope in hard winds (or even favorable conditions) means too much pressure is given on chain and bow. I'm glad nothing bad happened in such scary conditions with so little chain!
I just purchased a 145 pound CDQ Anchor..... it was being used as a Artist Backdrop ? They just wanted to get rid of it when they were finished using it...... my cost to just take it off their hands was only $70. So now all I have to do is find a boat that requires that heavy of an Anchor.... Lol
It might be that the real problem with anchors is the poor quality copies. From memory of your tests, (almost) all the genuine anchors work quite well.
I have short but bad experience with an CQR. Had to have several tries before it got hold. The boat did drag about 50 m during the night. Not much wind but heavy current. I suspect that the hinge could be an area giving different performance and hence different experience. The hinge seems to be roughly made and could case different angles between shank and fluke?
Interesting but I think you should find a hard compacted sand or clay substrate to test in as you may find Spade, CQR and even the Excel struggle in. That is of course if such a substrate is near to you and you have the time. Just suggesting.
SV Panope - why not do land tests, you can use a grassy area after a long rain shower (for wet ground) to mimic sea grass and a land based clay substrate to mimic an at sea hard substrate. Not a perfect solution but much better than just having tests in soft to medium substrates which could mislead.
@@MrAthlon4800 I share your concern for "mislead'. However, I believe a land test on dirt or other non-aquatic substrate is too abstract. A better alternative would be a "beach test". I could drive to the Pacific coast and test on broad, hard sand beaches with a truck. Beach tests are frequently criticized for "not being real". I might do it anyway.
SV Panope - not sure how far away the Pacific coast is, I am in the U.K., maybe you could make a holiday out of it... If you did the test at low tide below the high tide mark you could come close to a boat test in terms of the sea water soaked substrate.
I am quite certain that the hinge is critical to this design. Welding rigid will decrease performance. Drilling some holes in the fluke MIGHT help in some circumstances by keeping mud from sticking. On the other hand, this anchor does not have that problem to begin with - so nevermind. Ok, here is something that will almost certainly help: Bore a large cavity in the underside of the fluke and fill with iridium, tungsten, uranium, gold or some other ultra heavy metal.
I've never considered a CQR, but it seems like the key might be the initial set. On reset, it's hard to tell, but perhaps the hinge makes it so that the fluke never comes up so it it resets better than it would if the initial set had a bit of seaweed at the tip preventing it from digging in. For those that have use a CQR, are the problems on set or reset, both, or neither?
Back in the day (1980's) our trouble was the initial set. Sometimes it set right away. Sometimes it set after long drags. Sometimes it never seemed to 'bite' into anything.
The shank of a CQR is very heavy. Maybe the most heavy shank of all tested anchors. My guess is that it is designed so heavy that it can act like a kind of anchor weigh. Maybe this serves two purposes, namely counteracting the upward pull of the chain and compensating for the lower tip weight. Producing such a shank is costly. The designer must have had a good reason to justify these higher costs. Gerard Versluis, Netherlands
What if we modify it: 1. immobilise the hinge by welding. 2. Make shank shorter to increase angle of attack. BTW, what is the angle fluke to ground for different anchors?
Such fantastic reviews! So good.
Great test nice to see the old CQR doing well. Most of the modern fancy anchors are just a CQR with no hinge.
Apparently the CQR was developed for the early British flying boats.
I had a 35 lb CQR on a 30k lb 41 ft. sailboat for 29 years. I dragged twice, once when i dropped on a heavy clump of grass at dusk and didn't check to see if it was set (cocktails were probably involved) and once when the tip dropped on a piece of plastic. It may take a few feet of dragging before it sets but with time and a heavy boat tugging slightly it digs deeper and deeper particularly in deep mud. At first in deep mud it "plows" but after a few hours it's in China. An indestructible general purpose anchor. Danforth type fluke anchors are probably better in one direction and go deeper but then become very difficult to break out.
That’s a beautiful example of a cqr
I have a 45 lb. CQR on my sailboat. I dragged one evening- the bottom was covered with "newspaper kelp" (thick, brownish wide bands). When I pulled the anchor up it had 25 lb. of seaweed attached! I pretty much trust my CQR but always set an anchor alarm.
Eric Hiscock reported that the hinged angle stop between the shank and the palm was critical and that there were a bunch of CQRs produced by Simpson Lawrence ( the original manufacturer) that we’re incorrect and performed poorly.
The very first version was made of poor steel and badly plated, so they rust. The anchor weight has 1/2 pounds in it for some odd reason. They are very rare and definitely worth avoiding. Lewmar now make a genuine galvanised and stainless steel CQR and it was slightly better in most tests than the Delta.
I woke up one morning after a reasonable blow and my boat had dragged about 150 foot! Mud bottom.
I had a 30 something lb cqr that I bent the shank on in the canaries.. Used my secondary Bruce for a few months. No complaints for either. Both are original not copies. Bought a used 60lb cqr in Grenada.. Using it currently in Curacao. So far so good. My boat is only 34ft on deck coming in at around 13 ton.
I think the reason some anchors don't dig down so deep, is that they are already set, and the forces needed to dig them down deeper are just too high (I can't imagine it has anything to do with the shank thickness, but maybe its to do with its angle).
Well i was considering abandoning the spare cqr anchor that my boat has (spade as main bow anchor)
This video might just make me reconsider
I'm amazed by your results. My experience with genuine 25lb CQRs matches your memories., though on different sea beds, hard sand gravel etc. but with a long chain rode typical in 20ft plus of water.
I never had a problem with CQR in Irish mud😃 the boat is 1939 and I suspect the anchor is too it actually has lead in the tip! I regalvanised in the late 1980s
A video comparing the geometry of a genuine CQR with a copy CQR would be of interest. :-)
I'll keep my eye out for another copy CQR. The copy CQR that I tested 5 years ago was borrowed.
We had one on our Cat when in the Med, we used it for a year before we gave up. It never set once, just sat on it's side and dragged along the sand. Changed it for a Delta, this set first time every time. We never looked back.
Thank you this research. Am constantly cruising from anchorage to anchorage. Would be interested to the weight question for getting past heavy weed and initial digging :)
We've got a 35lb CQR on our CD30. Anchored about 100-150 nights in many types of New England seabeds. The only place we had a problem was heavy weed off Long Island, Maine (near Mt Desert). Interesting that lines up with your thoughts.
Thanks for the work documenting these!
I also have a CQR. I am happy to read your comment because I am on my first boat. A 1973 Alberg 30.
You need to use a traditional fishermans for rocks or heavy weed, BUT use it in addition to a CQR on a seperate scope.
In the UK galvanizing used to be done to a British Standard (BS). I don’t know much about it but I know the item being galvanized had to be left in the tank until the substrate ( anchor) was the same temp. as the molten zinc. I believe the zinc had to be a certain thickness too but perhaps someone who knows more can comment.
I have a 15ft half cabin .CQR PLOUGH ANCHOR .ON A WINDLASS ANCHOR WINCH .Works great so far .I just wonder if these types of Anchors. Wont work very good on large boats that drag the anchor from a high standing point .Mine works great in all conditions so far.
I spent 3 days on anchor in a storm in a bay with 50knts and over 65knts gusts on a 57lb Lewmar cqr with 50m 12m chain in 20m depth. It didn't move and held us steady in some very scary conditions. The waves were 3m+ rolling in. Everyone said get rid of it they are useless. Having experienced extreme conditions I think they are great (I can't comment on smaller sizes/chain and ither brands)
I'd had gone for 100m chain or more if available, it's really amazing the anchor held, as 2.5:1 scope in hard winds (or even favorable conditions) means too much pressure is given on chain and bow. I'm glad nothing bad happened in such scary conditions with so little chain!
could have hooked a rock? just thinking..
I just purchased a 145 pound CDQ Anchor..... it was being used as a Artist Backdrop ? They just wanted to get rid of it when they were finished using it...... my cost to just take it off their hands was only $70. So now all I have to do is find a boat that requires that heavy of an Anchor.... Lol
love my CQR
It might be that the real problem with anchors is the poor quality copies. From memory of your tests, (almost) all the genuine anchors work quite well.
Do you think a 62lb cqr will hold a 55ft catamaran?? With a stern anchor and possibly a 3rd lol.
Or is a 60lb undersize its probanly around 35000lbs
So what are your top three performers? That way we can pick from those based on budget and aesthetics...
I have short but bad experience with an CQR. Had to have several tries before it got hold. The boat did drag about 50 m during the night. Not much wind but heavy current. I suspect that the hinge could be an area giving different performance and hence different experience. The hinge seems to be roughly made and could case different angles between shank and fluke?
Interesting but I think you should find a hard compacted sand or clay substrate to test in as you may find Spade, CQR and even the Excel struggle in. That is of course if such a substrate is near to you and you have the time. Just suggesting.
I'd love to find a hard sand substrate. Will keep looking.
SV Panope - why not do land tests, you can use a grassy area after a long rain shower (for wet ground) to mimic sea grass and a land based clay substrate to mimic an at sea hard substrate. Not a perfect solution but much better than just having tests in soft to medium substrates which could mislead.
@@MrAthlon4800 I share your concern for "mislead'. However, I believe a land test on dirt or other non-aquatic substrate is too abstract. A better alternative would be a "beach test". I could drive to the Pacific coast and test on broad, hard sand beaches with a truck. Beach tests are frequently criticized for "not being real". I might do it anyway.
SV Panope - not sure how far away the Pacific coast is, I am in the U.K., maybe you could make a holiday out of it... If you did the test at low tide below the high tide mark you could come close to a boat test in terms of the sea water soaked substrate.
Would you recommend WELDING the hinge part so it becomes rigid ??? Anything else for improving the CQR ? Rollbar ?
I am quite certain that the hinge is critical to this design. Welding rigid will decrease performance.
Drilling some holes in the fluke MIGHT help in some circumstances by keeping mud from sticking. On the other hand, this anchor does not have that problem to begin with - so nevermind.
Ok, here is something that will almost certainly help: Bore a large cavity in the underside of the fluke and fill with iridium, tungsten, uranium, gold or some other ultra heavy metal.
I've never considered a CQR, but it seems like the key might be the initial set. On reset, it's hard to tell, but perhaps the hinge makes it so that the fluke never comes up so it it resets better than it would if the initial set had a bit of seaweed at the tip preventing it from digging in. For those that have use a CQR, are the problems on set or reset, both, or neither?
Back in the day (1980's) our trouble was the initial set. Sometimes it set right away. Sometimes it set after long drags. Sometimes it never seemed to 'bite' into anything.
The shank of a CQR is very heavy. Maybe the most heavy shank of all tested anchors. My guess is that it is designed so heavy that it can act like a kind of anchor weigh. Maybe this serves two purposes, namely counteracting the upward pull of the chain and compensating for the lower tip weight. Producing such a shank is costly. The designer must have had a good reason to justify these higher costs.
Gerard Versluis, Netherlands
I agree, I think the heavy shank is part of the design.
@@GTyoutube I have a CQR. Do you think filling the tip with lead helps a CQR to perform better?
Masqued😅
This anchor was originally made for seaplanes in Britain
What if we modify it:
1. immobilise the hinge by welding.
2. Make shank shorter to increase angle of attack.
BTW, what is the angle fluke to ground for different anchors?