Rev. 2-12-2017
Rev. 6-10-2016
Rev. 9-19-2016
For the primary rode the conventional answer is chain. Strong, cut-proof, fits a windlass, well proven. It requires a snubber to keep the load reasonable if you are in shallow water (not enough centenary), but other wise, pretty fool proof, and we can all use that.
But the requirements of a secondary rode are different:
- Chafe protection counts, but since the boat will not swing if set in a V, the problems are far less. It is also not our sole source of security, should it fail.
- I primarily use a secondary in very soft mud; low cutting hazard, but it must set deeply.
- Light. Must often be set from dingy or kayak and I have carry it around the boat.
Hybrid Rode, Trial I
a Dyneema leader, then chain, then rope
Anchor + 20' Dyneema + 10' chain + nylon to boat
The advantages are:
- Anchor sets deeper. The Dyneema is much thinner than chain, presents less setting resistance, and results in a stronger set with the same force. Limited Practical Sailor testing (February 2014) suggests going to wire or Dyneema increases holding about 25%. Thus...
- A smaller anchor may be feasible. I'm not suggesting tiny, just eliminating ridiculous up-sizing of storm anchors.
- Better strength in wind shifts. A deeper anchor is more reliable.
- Less weight on shank. Fortress states that excessive chain weight on the shank can press the shank down into the mud, impairing setting (I've experienced this and discussed it with the factory). A pivoting fluke-specific problem, but Fortress is probably the most common secondary on the Chesapeake, since it is great in soft mud.
- Better catenary efficiency. The chain can't serve as catenary once it is underground, can it? Thus, from a catenary viewpoint, the first 10-20 feet are completely wasted in soft mud. Instead, the chain weight is place 20-30 feet from the anchor, where it can do some good. I save the weight of 20 feet of chain, which is a bunch when you are carrying the anchor in one hand and sloppy loops of chain in the other. Which brings us to...
- No need to carry the chain at the same time as the anchor. This will save a lot of scratched decks and some backs. Carry the anchor, and then make a second trip for the chain.
- Less weight to lift out of the locker. And instead of lifting with 2 hands and nothing for balance, you can lift with one and hold on with the other.
- Better safety on-deck. Instead of having both hands full, one hand is free for balance.
- Less weight when lowering. Just the anchor.
- Less weight when raising. Just the anchor.
- Less mud to clean up. Dyneema does not bring up mud.
- No additional fittings. Splice eyes in both ends (Brummel for chafe), luggage tag it to the last link of chain and use the existing shackle on the anchor (seems like a chafe point other wise). The rode can be spliced to the rode as well, if desired.
The Caveats? I don’t think this is
for everyone or for every situation. It makes sense if:
- Secondary anchors deployed as a V (limits yawing, which causes causes chafe).
- Anchor deployed by hand (easier to handle).
- Soft bottoms with no large rocks (shells and small mobile rocks are OK).
- Chain still must be cleated during break-out.
- Still have chain to carry, although considerably less.
It does not make sense if:
- Single anchor .
- Deployed by windlass. Chain is better and the gypsy will not handle Dyneema.
- Anchor is too heavy to deploy by hand.
- Rocks or coral. All chain is best.
- Strong tide. A Fortress needs the weight of chain to get it down if there is a strong tide. May be applicable by lengthening chain section.
Threading webbing over the splice (the Dynema is inside) or even whole leader) would make it as cut resistant as steel cable. Because the webbing is thick, floats, and is not under load, even a sharp knife can't hurt it. If it rubs on a rock, it moves with the rock. I have tested this combination side-by-side with steel cable and found the cut resistance to be better in most scenarios. Even more important, when the webbing gets scruffy, it is $0.25/foot to replace, keeping underlying the Dyneema good as new.
Hybrid Rode, Trial II
a 20-foot Dyneema leader, no chain
If the chain only gets in the way, do we need it at all? We don't need the catenary weight with this anchor, the way I use it. Covered with a loose-fitting webbing chafe guard, the cut resistance is more than sufficient for soft bottoms.
How long does the leader need to be?
- Long enough to reach from the set anchor to a cleat to break it out. I really don't like chain grinding against the hull during recovery. That means 3(underground) + 4(freeboard) + 7 (water depth) + 2(cleating) + 4(allowance) = 20 feet. In fact, this is the thing that always limited my leader chain to 6-8 feet before; the chain need to end before the cleat, or start after the cleat, and 8-20 feet is the scrape-the-hull range.
- Long enough to extend above the ground and cover the high-chafe range where the rode will move on the bottom. Again, 20 feet seems sufficient
Just try this with a chain rode, or even a heavy chain leader.
I still prefer chain with a good snubber for the main rode; it's durable, handles well with a windlass, and is easy to connect to other lines. But I no longer use any chain with my secondary. It serves no purpose in the Chesapeake, Dyneema is easier to work with, and the set is better. Nice.
ould it be an alternative to skip the chain comletely? To induce a gravity based dampener, a weight like riding weight, but at a fixed and optimized for the water depth position, could be added. Just a theoretical idea... And thank you very much fo your blog and your shared insights!!!! Pierre
ReplyDeleteI thought about that. See new comments added to the text, above.
DeleteThe first word should be "Could" and not "ould"... Pierre
ReplyDeleteDrew, two questions: 1) Do you recommend a specific type of Dyneema? (Amsteel?) and 2) Is there any way to get a hard copy of the Circumnavigating the Delmarva book? I'd like to have it on hand while I'm sailing (splashy open boat).
ReplyDeleteSR Wood: I used Amsteel Blue, since I had that pre-spliced from another project. I will report back in a few months, but I doubt that will change.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I'm out of hard copies of the book. It is only Kindle.
Hi Drew,
ReplyDeleteDyneema makes sense on a Fortress given how it performs better with less weight on the shank. I will follow your experiences with interest.
My only concern is whether we can trust our mud to be free of sharp rocks and shell fragments [which are included in the samples the anchor brings to the surface...] and how much of a threat they might be to a reasonably sized Dyneema line....
I guess that would be less of a concern in the twin anchor scenario you proposed since the rode wouldn't be moving much once the anchor is set..
Thanks for the inspiration.
Cheers! Bill Wakefield SV Denali Rose
Yup, I have the same concern, but it is moderated by a few observations. First, I doubt most Chesapeake rock (mud rock) or shells have the stuff to cut into Dyneema. In a serious way. Even when present in soft mud, they will be mobile; they will not be held firmly against the rope. Finally, as you say, the rode will not be moving.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I will monitor this closely.
The greatest danger, in my opinion, is some bit of sharp steel trash, always a possibility, though not common.
Personally, I'm sick of lugging chain on deck and banging stuff up. I'm willing to do the expereiment. And at the end of the day, there is still the primary rode, which was probably enough anyway; most often the 2nd anchor was belt and suspenders. Making the second anchor easier to use might make us more likely to use it.
Hi Drew,
DeleteI understand. In our case, we usually deploy a Fortress either as a kedge or as the stern anchor in a deep, steep slope anchorage.
I wonder if a tubular nylon sheath over the Dyneema might be useful short term for providing tell tale signs of chafe during the experimental process? [And a modicum of chafe protection as well...] It would make that portion of the rode a bit trickier to grip during deployment, but might be a useful tattle-tale...
I'll do some experimenting as well next time the opportunity presents itself and report back. [It may be a while before I have an opportunity, however.]
Cheers! Bill Wakefield SV Denali Rose
PS: I guess one could always substitute steel cable for Dyneema in the static anchoring scenario you describe if worried about chafe in a particular area...
DeleteIn fact, some folks do just that (use steel cable for hurricane moorings).
DeleteI also believe the tubular webbing gives pretty staunch protection. The trick is the the webbing grabs on to the sharp spot and stops sawing, while the line is free to move.
A lot of the smaller commercial fishing boats up here have a hydraulic powered horizontal spool on their bow in leu of a windlass. I see some with chain and some with steel cable, and some with a combination of the two. I wouldn't be surprised if some are using UHMWP line as well.
DeleteI wonder how they might attach a snubber to a steel cable or HiMod line... I guess a Prusik knot with several turns might work. But upon reflection, I don't recall ever seeing a snubber on an anchored fishing vessel. [But we don't see that many at anchor either....]
I still like your idea with the UHMWP line and look forward to learning more and experimenting myself... I will need to acquire more line first, however...