The Delta Anchor- A cruising test report on the Delta anchor

The Delta Anchor times 300

By Charles E. Kanter

When the Simpson-Lawrence's DELTA Anchor was first introduced, I looked at it, poked around it, laid it on the floor next its ancestor anchor, the CQR plow, fiddled with it next to a Bruce and the Danforth Plow and just generally messed with it. What I saw sure looked like the next anchor generation to me, so when Brian Baine, the Simpson Lawrence representative here in the colonies offered me the opportunity to test it, I leaped at the chance. Brian was familiar with the "Three Hundred Anchoring" test I had recently done for Fortress and how the published results of the tests had boosted user awareness. The basis of all testing that I have done for various manufacturers over the years is field conditions testing. Bending anchors in laboratory testing has its place. Pulling anchors with Jeeps, bulldozers, tugboats, etc. also has certain value.

What is missing from those tests is the broad spectrum of actual use by Mom & Pop as they adventure through the real world. Missing from all formalized tests is how the anchors work in various bottom conditions. How the various anchors handle the combinations of forces such as contrary winds and currents, the need to reset at a change of tidal current, how they handle grass, weeds, kelp, etc. Will they or won't they reset? Will they snag the rode as the boat drifts over top on a tide change? Therefore, the basis of our testing is a minimum of 300 different anchorages over at least a variation of 30 degrees of latitude, thus anchoring in a very large variety of bottoms depth, conditions, etc. As end-users, we also need to know such minutiae as, how easily does the anchor set? How easily does the anchor break out? Are the materials from which it is manufactured sufficiently rugged and rust resistant? What are the physical requirements of its use? How easily does it stow? What are the trade-off considering weight and bulk and the nee for special handling equipment.

Through the years I had built a love-hate relationship with the CQR plow. That relationship was based partly on observation, partly on experience, partly on the experiences of others. My own CQR 25, that I had inherited when I bought my boat, did exactly what most CQR owners admitted to, that is plow (drag) in winds over 15 knots. Other cruisers instructed me on the oath: "there is no CQR smaller than 35." Meaning, that a smaller CQR has no value. On the other hand, the sheer rugged features of the anchor, the way it snuggled so nicely in the bow roller chocks, the weight, oh yes, the weight, all conjure it an object of absolute power.

What was wrong with that picture? Why did I have a collection of underwater photos of CQRs not really set, but lying on their side with one "ear" sticking up from the bottom? Why was I paranoid about anchoring downwind from people using CQRs? I intended to find out.

Having the anchors together on the showroom floor provided the tentative answers. It is my opinion that there are two major reasons the old CQR is more difficult to set, requires a much heavier anchor to do the same job, and also will not work without a long heavy chain lead. The two reasons are the hinge and the massively heavy shank. The hinge allows the anchor to wander in a non-linear fashion and deflect the driving forces placed upon it by the pull on the rode. The massive shank prevents the anchor from burying. Neither of those conditions apply to the DELTA which has no hinge and has a blade-like shank, sharpened on the lower edge to aid in penetrating the bottom.

The first step in finding out was to do a simple finger-pressure test. Lay two equivalent anchors on the deck next to each other, on their side, in the position they would be on the bottom in order to set (a DELTA 22 and a CQR 45). Place your forefinger under the point of each and lift slightly. You will note that the DELTA exerts considerably more force on your finger. Since these anchors require weight to begin the penetration process, the first clue was obvious.

In addition, the DELTA has a much higher fluke area to weight ratio, greater fluke area, more of its fluke area in the rear quarter and more angle on the back of the flukes. This is exceptionally important as the DELTA, like the CQR and the Bruce, is a "stockless" anchor and needs positive turning moment to guide it into the bottom as opposed to a Danforth, Fortress or Admiralty which has a stock to keep it parallel to the bottom while it penetrates.

Based upon Simpson-Lawrence tables, a 22-pound DELTA has the same holding power as a 45-pound CQR. Reinforcing my thinking along this line are the several CQRs I have observed with extra-flat plate metal welded extending the back of the flukes and giving them a Delta-like appearance.

The three-hundred anchoring test for Fortress covered the cruising grounds between the northern end of the Chesapeake Bay, through all the intervening anchorages as far south as Georgetown, Exuma, Bahamas. That test spanned 20 months. Our DELTA test, covered the waters from Newport, Rhode Island to Harbor Island, Eleuthra, Bahamas and spanned 35 months.

Our Fortress test had been based upon standard practice developed over years of cruising, studying and experimenting. That practice included anchoring "Bahamian Moor" as a general rule, the only exceptions to that being made in locations where there were no currents and the bottom holds like crazy. One such locale is behind the outer banks of North Carolina, between Norfolk, Virginia and Moorehead City, North Carolina.

Pivoting-fluke lightweight anchors (Danforth, Fortress, West) are good at what they do but they only do it in one direction. If you want to wake up in the same place you went to sleep in, you had better not rely on an anchor to change direction, unseen, unaided and usually in the middle of the night. Remember Murphy's Law, "if it can happen it will" and the sequel to that law, "at the most inopportune time!"

Anchoring with multiple anchors is always a bother, no question about it. It is especially bothersome if you use additional anchoring aids such as a kellet on your rodes to prevent snagging the rodes on your underwater appendages or to protect them from the propellers of other boats, or just to increase the holding power and act as an aid to prevent anchor-sailing. It sure would be nice to anchor on a single anchor reliable enough for sleeping on, especially if it could be used on a short scope. On the other hand, Wayne Carpenter had told me that for his circumnavigation, even though he purposely equipped Kristina, his diminutive Nor'sea 27, with a 45- pound plow and all-chain 3/8 rode that he believed would be massive overkill just to avoid the multiple anchor problem, but he still dragged!

With much trepidation I slept my first night on the DELTA at 3: 1 scope. Short scope has considerable advantage, if the system is appropriate. When you anchor on short scope, it feels very similar to being on a mooring as it controls the tendency towards anchor-sailing. For the test and still in use unchanged, my total main anchor system consisted of the 22- pound DELTA, six feet of 5/16 chain (as recommended by DELTA) and 150 feet of 5 / 8 Nylon 3-strand and a 25-foot length of " Nylon three strand from which I form a bridle. No swivels, no gadgets.

The rode has a stainless thimble at each end, to facilitate switching ends, adding more rode when necessary, and fastening the bitter end.

Little by little, use after use, my confidence grew in this anchor. Anchoring in the Chesapeake is mostly a piece of cake. There are very few areas with poor holding. Most of those areas are places that have been dredged or are scoured current races. Currents are mild, usually not presenting a problem. Tidal range is moderate. The Northeast is pretty much the same except the bottom is more likely to be silica sand than mud. Currents get stronger as you go north, as do tidal ranges. This, of course, means paying a lot more attention to your anchoring.

From the southern terminus of the Chesapeake Bay, all the way to the terminus of the outer banks of North Carolina at Beaufort, the bottom conditions and current conditions are favorable to secure anchoring. Once you reach Beaufort, things begin to change rapidly.

The real test comes farther south. The closer you get to the tropics, the more irrational the bottom gets and the more likely you are to have difficulty in anchoring. Now you get only occasional mud bottom. Mostly it's rubble, shells, grass or hardpan. Currents pick up remarkably and tidal range peaks out at 13 feet on the Ogeechee River in Georgia. By the time you reach the Fabulous Florida Keys and the Bahamas you have to add coral and limestone rock to the bottom, as well as swift unpredictable currents.

Anchored for the night in any anchorage along the way you will go through one complete tidal cycle. That means you must prepare for two complete changes in direction. Lying to a Bahamian moor where you toggle back and forth between pre-set opposing anchors that do not move, you have little to worry about. Lying to a single anchor that is expected to migrate around under water is very scary. Aside from the potential of fouling the rode at slack tide when the boat just casually drifts over the anchor, there is the very real possibility (in many areas, probability) of pulling the anchor out and it's not resetting because of a big ball of mud attached to it or other debris on the bottom, interfering with it. This is axiomatic with pivoting fluke lightweights.

when you are anchored in a area like coastal Georgia, with exceedingly swift currents and very foul muddy bottoms, anchoring to a single anchor is a prescription for disaster. However, in Georgia, a dragging disaster simply puts you up on a mud bank or rice paddy. In the Bahamas, it puts you against a jagged coral outcropping! It takes lots of guts to lay to a single anchor in the Bahamas.

Time after time, where appropriate, we would launch our DELTA on about 3:1 scope figured from the actual attachment point plus the tidal range. That meant if the water was six feet deep and the tide range was four feet and our freeboard is four feet, then we would allow 45 feet of rode including the bridle. There were a few times, like the rivers in Georgia where ebb currents often reach seven knots that simply are not places to take a chance on a single anchor. In those locations, I used the DELTA to anchor against the stronger ebb current and one of my Fortress ones against the flood in a Bahamian Moor. In many locations, however, where previously I had routinely laid out multiple anchors, I used the single DELTA on 3:1 scope. After 35 months and well over 300 anchoring experiences in all kinds of weather and every conceivable anchoring circumstance, I am willing to state that the anchor is a superior technology that I have come to trust implicitly. These are features I found about the anchor from my 300 anchoring test.

1. Because of the large throat dimension and the linear nature of the resultant force on the tip, the anchor will penetrate weeds and grass (anchoring in grass beds is not recommended).

2. The DELTA set in its own length virtually every time. Because of the shape of the flukes the anchor always turned straight up and penetrated the bottom evenly.

3. Because of the sharpened bottom of the shank and the linear resultant force on the tip, the anchor completely buried without any hesitation. On several occasions, after lying to the anchor in strong breezes, the anchor had buried to a depth of three feet, measured by the chain.

4. The anchor was easy to handle. Absence of the hinge meant fewer dings in the deck and in my shins! The smaller shank dimension made it easier to stow. The anchor is positively self-launching.

It is over four years of almost continuous use that I own the anchor and it shows no signs of wear or deterioration. I also have observed others using this anchor and can report that they, too, are pleased with the results.

End.

Home Page