Mudweights and anchors

[Guest]

I realise most Broads boats have mudweights. I'm buying a boat with an anchor - and I suspect this might do more damage than a mudweight. I'll probably change it anyway but what is the general feeling on this one?

Tony

[marshman]

Mudweights are aptly called and work in mud!!! Anchors in the Broads do work but primarily by their weight alone - generally speaking the suction effect of mudweights in Broadland mud is more effective lb per lb. Thats of course why boats have them, not because we cannot think of anything else

[senator]

wouldn't a suitable anchor properly set outperform a mud weight by a sizeable margin?

The thing is do you need as much holding as an anchor will give if you are only intending to stop for sandwiches ans a spot of fishing?

anchoring is a skill mudweighting involves throwing a lump of metal with a rope attached off the bow.

if I was overnighting in the middle of a broad with a bit of breeze I would feel a lot safer with an anchor as long as I had space to set it.

[Guest]

Yes, I thought (but it's only IMHO), that most anchor designs (plough, bruce, cqr, or even danforth) would dig in the more they were pulled.

and therein lies (so I thought), the problem with using them on the Broads, the danger of snagging tree roots and sunken vegetation/debris.

I would be nervous of deploying £100+ worth of anchor without a tripping line.

(I know a lot of people shackle them to the tripping eye and then lash them with a breakable "fuse" to the pulling eye, but then I'd be nervous about using it as an emergency handbreak on Breydon !)

[Antares_9]

Simple answer is you really need both, a mudweight is easy and simple to deploy in a silty broad, not as effective as the appropriate anchor and chain, but adequate to the extent of it not being worth the effort of setting an anchor. This is from deliberate experiment not conjecture. However if you are going to venture into the faster flowing rivers and Breydon you will need a “proper†anchor in case of breakdown or other emergency as all a mudweight will do there is ensure you crash into stuff or go aground stern first.

[mbird]

I have both an anchor and mudweight. My own opinion is like Strowager says, I'd be a bit worried about tree roots, gas pipes and electirc cables when using an anchor, coupled with the fact that the soft silt at the bottom of a lot of broads can be 3-4' deep. A mudweight will drop straight through and be held by the suction, whereas an anchor would need to be "set" properly and have about 20' of chain trailing from it.

I was swapping from anchor to mudweight on the windlass depending whether I was going out to sea or not, but I have now left the anchor fixed to the chain on the windlass and will just manually deploy the mudweight on a peice of rope when needed.

[Antares_9]

(I know a lot of people shackle them to the tripping eye and then lash them with a breakable "fuse" to the pulling eye, but then I'd be nervous about using it as an emergency handbreak on Breydon !)

I wouldn't worry too much about that, properly done that arrangement works very well in a decent sea when fishing rough ground so I doubt breydon or the lower stretches would present much of an issue.

[Guest]

Thanks everyone. Both seems to be the right answer. A couple of rhond anchors and I'm set to go.

Tony

[marshman]

Rhond anchors too? Perhaps we can differ on those as well???? A nice straight spike about 2' long with either a ring or an eye on the top is much more secure - rhond anchors as supplied are in my view next to useless and will always pull out if someone nips past a bit quick - you try and pull out a stake set in at an angle.

All you guys are right about anchors to a point but up North cannot ever really see the need for them and when I venture South I will rely on my two mudweights - but then I only have a normal Broads cruiser with a bit less windage than some of our Southern cousins. I think that anchors are a tad unnecessary except if you want holding as you race downstream at Yarmouth and whilst I like to think of and prepare for most eventualities, its almost impossible to prepare for every one!!!

As they say each to their own....!

[Guest]

We used the anchor on Silver Dream on the broads just once as a test. It worked fine but was a complete PITA to deploy and retrieve, plus it brought with it a far greater quantity of South Walsham's finest mud than the mud weight ever did resulting in huge amounts of cleaning afterwards. Subsequent to that we used only the mudweight on the broads and if it was extremely windy, well we tied up somewhere!

The anchor was only ever used one other time, moored out a sea watching the power boat racing off Lowestoft. It held us easily in a 2kt+ tide but SWMBO turned green within minutes of deploying it.

Even so, I always felt better for the fact that it was there.

[senator]

we have anchored Clanny a few times in fast flowing water through tide changes but without the expirience that others have it is a long proccess and one that results in much nail biting when leaving the boat.

As I said before it is a skill that requires both learning and practice.

We have used the anchor on the broads but only as a weight with a load of chain dumped on top and do carry a mud weight as well.

As to rhond anchors if you can lay your hands on some reinforcing bar about 2' long it will do the job just fine, agree with Marsh man as to the Rhond anchors that are normaly supplied, very easily pulled out.

[Antares_9]

What the Sam Hill is a Rhond Anchor? just a name some PB made up for a bank hook so they can claim they are “unique to the broadsâ€.

I agree, a spike into the ground vertically serves much better.

[pks1702]

On the Broads we carried an anchor on the bow and two mud weights now we catty two anchors and a mud weight as an 'angel'.

I always felt these would be a fair compromise between the two on the slower area's of the Broads