Both of my Rhodes, Wind Lass (1991) and, previously Shanghai'd Summer
(1981), spend their summers, when not under sail, in the Nissequogue River
on a 250 lbs. mushroom anchor mooring.  To properly set the anchor and
provide ample scope, the anchor has 35' of 1/2" chain from the mushroom
"eye" to the mooring float with a swivel located 10' below the surface.  The
mean low water in the mooring basin is 8' and we experience a 8+' tidal
change.

The chain is brought through the float and connects to a pair of 12' x 5/8"
double braided nylon mooring pennants using a 6" shackle through the spliced
stainless steel thimbles and the top link of the chain.  The mooring
pennants are run through the bow chocks (on the toe rails) to the two
docking cleats in the center of the bow deck.  The soft eyes are run under
the center of the cleat and secured over the ears of the cleats.  It doesn't
matter which line (port or starboard) is routed to each cleat (fore or aft).
This gives me double connection to the mooring, at least above the
waterline.  The only issue is some twisting as the boat sails around the
mooring.  If it is significant, it means that I have not been sailing
enough.

Since the mooring basin contains mixed craft, power and sail, and has a 5
know current at peak tidal flow, the boats "sail" quite a bit.  The
interesting thing is that the power boats seem to be affected by wind and
currents in opposite manner to the sailboats, much of the time.  For this
reason, the moorings need to widely spaced to avoid collisions when moored.

I prefer the double braid lines to the three strand braids.  They both
stretch about 15% to take up shock but the double braids seem to last
longer.  The triple braids sometimes "open up" or unbraid as the loads
change during tides.

The mooring anchor was only moved a couple of times while the boat was
moored and that was during hurricanes when I was unable to retrieve the boat
due to travel plans.  No serious damage resulted, fortunately.  I am happy
that BoatUS insurance will pay the retrieval costs in the event of a storm
if I am unable in an effort to mitigate risk.

After nearly 40 years, I prefer the mooring over the slip for security and
ease of sailing.  I can sail right off the mooring and back on to it if the
winds and currents are favorable.  I use a pickup buoy with a 6' flag which
is easily retrieved at the bow by hand or with a pole. 

Mike
s/v Wind Lass ('91)
Nissequogue River, NY

-----Original Message-----
From: Rhodes22-list <rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org> On Behalf Of ROGER
PIHLAJA
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 9:29 AM
To: The Rhodes 22 Email List <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Swinging at anchor?

Hi All,

By the time I put up the pop top + enclosure and the cockpit boom room
enclosure, S/V Dynamic Equilibrium has so much windage aft of the center of
buoyancy; that, the bow always points strongly into the wind, like a big
weather vane.  This weather vane tendency is so strong it overwhelms any
effect that the off center pull from using the bow chock/bow cleat vs. the
bow eye might cause.  Yes, in theory, the off center pull does generate a
torque that might cause the boat to sail around its anchor.  But, the
weather vane effect from the excess windage aft completely dominates the
boat's response to a wind shift.

We don't have tidal current shifts here on the great lakes and rivers always
tend to flow in the same direction.  I'd be interested in hearing from ocean
sailing Rhodies regarding whether anchoring from the bow eye vs. bow
chock/bow cleat makes any difference in the way the boat lies to a current
vs. the way it lies to the wind.  My expectation is that there is very
little difference; but, I'd like to hear from people that have actual
experience.

Regarding the question about using the bow eye vs. the bow chock/bow cleat
when tied up to a mooring - Commercial moorings usually have a huge mushroom
anchor or engine block buried in the mud and all chain rode up to the
mooring ball.  This setup has little, if any, shock absorbing properties.
But, isn't the pennant from the mooring ball up to the boat usually nylon?
Isn't that where the shock absorbing is supposed to occur?  If so, you
definitely wouldn't want to use chain here.  Given the huge size of the
mooring anchor and all steel chain rode, I don't think it makes much
difference whether you use the bow eye or the bow chock/bow cleat when tying
up to a mooring.  That huge, deeply set, mooring anchor is not going to move
no matter how much or how little scope you let out.

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
10

From: Peter Nyberg<mailto:peter at sunnybeeches.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 9:40 PM
To: The Rhodes 22 Email List<mailto:rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Bow Eye vs. Bow Cleat?

I am in total agreement with Roger on the benefits of anchoring from the bow
eye rather than the bow cleat.

My approach to doing so is a little different.  I have 10' of 3/8" line with
a thimble in one end permanently attached to the bow eye with a shackle.  I
refer to this line as my 'painter'.  When I'm not anchored, the painter is
looped over and tied off to the pulpit.  After I've anchored, I attach the
painter to the rode, and let out more scope so that the painter takes the
load.

In addition to effectively increasing your scope, this approach eliminates
any chafing that might occur where the rode comes over the toe-rail.

I originally tried this approach because someone way back in the archives
suggested that it would reduce the tendency of R22 to swing on its anchor.
Unfortunately I did not find this to be true to any significant extent.

Peter Nyberg
Coventry, CT
s/v Silverheels (1988/2016)


> On Apr 23, 2020, at 5:51 PM, ROGER PIHLAJA <roger_pihlaja at msn.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> There is a real advantage to rigging the anchor line thru the bow eye vs.
directly to the bow cleat.  The choice of the bow eye vs. the bow cleat has
a significant effect on the anchor scope.  This is because the bow eye is
~1.5 ft closer to the water vs the bow cleat.  For example, suppose we are
anchoring in 7 feet of water.  The bow eye is ~2 feet above the water and
the bow cleat is ~3.5 feet above the water.  Suppose we let out 65 feet of
anchor rode.  The scope using the bow eye is 65 / (7 + 2) = 7.2  The scope
using the bow cleat is 65 / (7 + 3.5) = 6.2  A scope of 7.2 is sufficient
for decent overnight holding with a minimum 65 foot radius swing circle.  A
scope of 6.2 is marginal for an overnight night stay.  Sometimes, there
isn't sufficient swing room to let out more anchor rode, say if you are the
last boat to drop the hook in a crowded anchorage.  In addition, it's
considered bad anchoring etiquette to use up all the swing room in an
anchorage even if you are the first one there.
>
> Fortunately, you don't have to tie off to the bow eye in order to get the
scope advantage of using it.  Simply run the anchor rode thru the bow eye
first, then up to the bow cleat, and cleat it off.  This will give you all
the scope advantage of using the bow eye and all the ease of tying off to
the bow cleat.  When departing, reach down and hook the anchor rode with a
boat hook below the bow eye.  Pull the anchor rode on board, hang on to it,
and then uncleat the rode from the bow cleat.  Easy peasy and no stress on
the knees!
>
> I always use the bow eye in the manner described above.  There is just no
reason not to, the extra safety margin on scope helps me sleep better, and I
don't annoy my fellow boaters.
>
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
>