Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-15-2014, 01:56 PM   #421
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonstruck View Post
Eric, the sand we anchor in does not behave like mud. It can allow an anchor to bury, or there can be rock under it. As far as the mud we have in the southeast, the Chesapeake mud is in an estuary where currents don't usually run fast. The sediment there is much softer than some mud we encounter. In Georgia and South Carolina the currents can run very fast.
As a result in some channels the bottom can be scoured to a hard clay. Just about every situation is different.
Thus - See posts: 364, 418, 420!

Far as I can tell... no really comprehensive anchor test has ever been provided by any manufacturer... or cooperating group of manufacturers.
__________________
Advertisement

Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2014, 02:11 PM   #422
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post
Its simple show me similar results in honest testing in the other common bottoms and I put a Fortress on the bow.
In addition to the recent Chesapeake Bay testing, Fortress also sponsored tests in the soft mud bottoms of SF Bay and in the hard sand bottoms of Miami in 1990. Since then a wide variety of tests have been held throughout the world in which the Fortress has been a top performer, including tests written about or conducted by independent magazines / authorities in:

Brazil (Nautica)
France (Bateaux, Neptune Yachting, Voile, Voile et Voiliers)
Holland (Vryhof, Waterkampioen)
Italy (Vela e Motore)
Norway (Praktisk Batliv)
Sweden (Pakryss)

USA (Cruising World, Motor Boating & Sailing, Multihulls, Pontoon & Deck Boat, Power & MotorYacht, Powerboat Reports, Practical Sailor, Sail, Sailing Foundation, US Navy, Trailer Boats, Yachting)

UK (Practical Boat Owner, Yachting Monthly)

Below is a PDF file with comments from some of these tests.

Brian
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Fortress testimonials.pdf (49.1 KB, 38 views)
__________________

Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2014, 05:10 PM   #423
Guru
 
HopCar's Avatar


 
City: Miami Florida
Vessel Name: Possum
Vessel Model: Ellis 28
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,489
Back in the days when I did outside sales calls, I was in the Miami Coast Guard base often. I noticed that all of the Island Class ships carried Fortress FX-125 anchors. These are 110 foot ships.

Brian, are your part numbers what the anchor would weigh if it was made from steel? For instance would the FX-125 weigh 125 pounds if it was steel?
__________________
Parks Masterson
www.hopkins-carter.com
HopCar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2014, 08:05 PM   #424
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors View Post
In addition to the recent Chesapeake Bay testing, Fortress also sponsored tests in the soft mud bottoms of SF Bay and in the hard sand bottoms of Miami in 1990. Since then a wide variety of tests have been held throughout the world in which the Fortress has been a top performer, including tests written about or conducted by independent magazines / authorities in:

Brazil (Nautica)
France (Bateaux, Neptune Yachting, Voile, Voile et Voiliers)
Holland (Vryhof, Waterkampioen)
Italy (Vela e Motore)
Norway (Praktisk Batliv)
Sweden (Pakryss)

USA (Cruising World, Motor Boating & Sailing, Multihulls, Pontoon & Deck Boat, Power & MotorYacht, Powerboat Reports, Practical Sailor, Sail, Sailing Foundation, US Navy, Trailer Boats, Yachting)

UK (Practical Boat Owner, Yachting Monthly)

Below is a PDF file with comments from some of these tests.

Fortress testimonials.pdf (49.1 KB, 8 views)

Brian
Hi Brian, although we're in no rush...

Linda and I look forward to when we test FX-23 at its 45 degree angle in SF Delta mud-bottom. Our comparisons are 30 lb Danforth, 20 + lb Danforth, and lightweight (12 lb?) Viking anchor with substantial fluke area (just a bit more area than your FX-16). All three were at 33 +/- degree angle fluke to shank.

We found that each of the three would hold OK once set. We also found that the Viking was easiest/fastest to set. Goes to show that weight isn't everything.

We will use same anchor to chain to rode set up on the FX-23 as we did on the first three. Tests will be in an exact same spot.

Due to my decades od successes using Danforth design anchors, as soon as I learned of Fortress anchor's 45 degree capability I immediately realized that the FX models are basically Danforth on steroids! And, the lighter weight will be well appreciated.

Plan to let you know results... eventually!

BTW: Testimonial link you provided sure provides plenty of thumbs-up comments!

Art
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2014, 09:04 PM   #425
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
A minor thought I had,

In chandlers, as far as I can make out in most places round the world, they stock things that look, ostensibly, like Danforths. The current test regime clearly points out (or I think it clearly points out) that anchors of similar designs have wildly different performances, viz Ultra vs Spade and Mantus vs Rocna vs Supreme (and maybe Boss vs Claw - less sure that anyone would mistake one for the other). I think there is grave danger that people (not the educated here) will think that the Fortress results mean that any cheap danforth like thing will perform like the one in the Fortress tests.

With safety at the top of the priority it is important we differentiate exactly what it is we are talking about, a real Danforth, or a cheap copy.

In the same way - not all convex will perform in the same way the Delta has done - and anyone trying to categorise convex together simply does not understand the significance of the testing.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2014, 10:48 PM   #426
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,701
Again I think some anchors that appear to be "cheap copies" may in fact be an improvement. One could have said about the Rocna that it was a cheap copy of a Bugel. Or that a Delta was a cheap copy of the CQR. You could say the Mantus was a cheap copy of the Rocna ..... but it out-performed the Rocna in this mud test. Most all anchors are copies basically of some other previous product. Many or probably most Claws are probably cheap imitations of the Bruce. The Bruce was forged and thought to be superior to all the cast Claws that evolved but all seem to be slightly different in shape and could have better performance than the Bruce. More often than not products down the road are better.

And I've been fooled many times re the look of an anchor. I still can't believe the Spade anchor dosn't perform supremely. It seems so perfect to me. And the Boss from Manson also looked like it was going to blow the socks off most all other anchors but I've seen no spectacular performances at all. I even recommended it (more or less) to Don (moonstruck) and now I'm glad he didn't buy one. Never been sorry I recommended the Supreme though.

Djbanji,
The concave shape has been proven to be better for resistance but there are so many variables that it's not a sure thing at all to think a convex anchor fluke will be inferior or a concave to be superior.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2014, 11:13 PM   #427
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Manyboats, my post obviously lacked clarity!

I was not referring to Rocna being a copy of a Bugel, or a Spade. Most anchors take some characteristic from the previous models.

I was trying to differentiate between cheap unbranded copies from branded versions (or copies if you like). I was specifically thinking of the 'fluke' anchors in chandlers that originate cheaply from "Asia' which may bear some resemblance to the original but have probably never been tested and if you buy one and I buy one the chance that they are exactly the same is non-existent.

I expect a Danforth, or Fortress, or Mantus to be the same (identical) wherever it is bought - I do not expect the copy CQR or Danforth to be the same, even in the same chandler.


And I think it remains debatable that Concave is better than Convex and until you try a Kobra, Excel or SARCA - you simply do not know.

The Fortress tests, show so much, and another thing is 'expect the unexpected' Unless you try you cannot guess.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2014, 11:50 PM   #428
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,701
Djbangi,
Don't need to try Kobra ect re the concave/convex issue. I only have 7or so anchors and a Kobra is not one of them. Would like one though. Very good performer.

The man that designed the Spade first thoroughly researched the concave/convex issue. Also there is the dihedral anhedral wing difference and anemometers always face the convex side into the wind. Almost everywhere you look there is evidence that convex surfaces present less drag.

And of course it's not hard to identify a cheap anchor and most are inferior but I'm making the point that it's not always the case. Some are better.

And of course guessing or simply observing an anchor won't reveal it's performance as I found out.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 03:45 AM   #429
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
MANY BOATS WROTE:


The man that designed the Spade first thoroughly researched the concave/convex issue. Also there is the dihedral anhedral wing difference and anemometers always face the convex side into the wind. Almost everywhere you look there is evidence that convex surfaces present less drag.


Rex Wrote:


When you are talking air—water Eric you are probably right, the super Sarca is of convex and like everything else about it the convex is unlike any other design, extremely shallow convex, it has cutting edges all round, most important it has slots in its fluke to help reduce compacting, clogging, by introducing water over its fluke even when severely under load, good deep penetration in thick clay and muddy bottoms is the result.


When the Sarca was (originally of concave shape) in sand it worked fine, in mud it would clog, once clogged would not go any deeper, the mud once compressed inside the concave simply packs very hard, soft , hard , sticky oozy mud with weed, slots in the concave configuration made absolutely no difference, regardless once the concave section Is full and compressed that’s all she wrote.


The Excel is another unusual design, it is a combination of convex and concave, the convex section this time instead of being shallower like the Sarca is marginally steeper than any convex design before it, this steep convex separates, pushing out ward, the next extreme difference it is being accompanied with concave cutting edges, these start of as a turned down toe, the cutting edges lead into concave single plain flukes, to prevent clogging, the name Excel cut into its fluke and rear single plain flukes is again designed to create water flow under all compression to keep the Excel diving.

End result is it doesn’t plow, it compressors the substrate at the rear and sides then feeds it over its back in a central position driving down the anchor.

Check out the very high Shank, in thick weed this is a great advantage in helping the Excel to achieve deep penetration before the weed starts to restrict it’s shank, as the turned down toe is of Stainless steel you can keep it very sharp if you wish.


Our anchor designs are very different, simply there have been nothing before them with their configuration, our patents are very strong, together with those approved claims maybe gives you some inclination that just maybe our designs are very – very different.


Any way away we go again, best way is to down load our( environmental destruction video,) and( Excel to the test) to see what it is I am talking about, only of course if anyone is interested.


Regards Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 06:33 AM   #430
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,668
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Peter It's hard for me to believe you don't think compaction or interplane drag dosn't even exist and of course the viscosity is way different but air and the sea bottom are fluids and the sea bottom is saturated w a low viscosity fluid .. water…..
One last attempt. Think of a bridge w big piers for support. Imagine high water and the water surging through two piers. The water being pushed aside from one pier in the direction of the other is met by water being pushed toward it from another pier adjacent to it. The water is being jammed between the two piers. The jamming is the source of the interference drag. There's more impedance to the water flow than w two piers the same size standing alone w/o water being pushed toward it from another.
Eric, I do get it. I am very aware of the principle you are referring to, but I still maintain the situations are not comparable. The piers of the bridge you speak of are substantial, with a large surface area for the water to be 'squeezed' between, and also water is incompressible, and flowing reasonably swiftly compared, so yes, there will be a drag effect. This compares to a small bar, about 3/4 inch in diameter, encompassing an area of about 1 sq ft, and mud is not pure water, and is compressible, (just squeeze a handful), so I still maintain the 'interference drag', as you call it, between the two surfaces would be negligible. I think you are blinding yourself with science…just kidding…but seriously...
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 10:33 AM   #431
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,701
Peter,
Perhaps my word "interplane drag" wasn't the best ... got this on a web search.

"The Pander E showing its sesquiplane configuration in flight
Variations on the biplane concept include the sesquiplane, where one wing (usually the lower) is significantly smaller than the other either in span, chord or both. The name means "one-and-a-half wings." The arrangement reduces interference drag between the wings whilst retaining some of the biplane's structural advantage. The 1920s Pander E is an example of an aircraft with a lower wing of exactly half the span and nearly one quarter (23%) of the area of the upper one. Some designs keep the upper and lower spans nearly equal for structural optimization, whilst reducing the lower chord, allowing near vertical interplane struts; probably the best known examples are the Nieuport military aircraft — from the Nieuport 10 through to the Nieuport 27, all designed by Gustave Delage during the Great War. The later Waco Custom Cabin series proved to be a popular example in general aviation."

They use the expression "interference drag" .... same thing. It's not even high tech much less deep science. It's a fact of physics.

Rex,
Thanks for the interesting discussion on the Excel. But just for holding power the concave fluke has the advantage. Just like airplanes the anhedral wing is more efficient but there are far more dihedral wings than anhedral. Stability ect ect just like the convex anchors there are compelling advantages to a convex fluke. But the greatest amount of effective surface area w the least amount of steel and weight is not convex or concave but flat. Many anchors could probably benefit from flat flukes.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 10:56 AM   #432
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Peter,
Perhaps my word "interplane drag" wasn't the best ... got this on a web search.

"The Pander E showing its sesquiplane configuration in flight
Variations on the biplane concept include the sesquiplane, where one wing (usually the lower) is significantly smaller than the other either in span, chord or both. The name means "one-and-a-half wings." The arrangement reduces interference drag between the wings whilst retaining some of the biplane's structural advantage. The 1920s Pander E is an example of an aircraft with a lower wing of exactly half the span and nearly one quarter (23%) of the area of the upper one. Some designs keep the upper and lower spans nearly equal for structural optimization, whilst reducing the lower chord, allowing near vertical interplane struts; probably the best known examples are the Nieuport military aircraft — from the Nieuport 10 through to the Nieuport 27, all designed by Gustave Delage during the Great War. The later Waco Custom Cabin series proved to be a popular example in general aviation."

They use the expression "interference drag" .... same thing. It's not even high tech much less deep science. It's a fact of physics.

Rex,
Thanks for the interesting discussion on the Excel. But just for holding power the concave fluke has the advantage. Just like airplanes the anhedral wing is more efficient but there are far more dihedral wings than anhedral. Stability ect ect just like the convex anchors there are compelling advantages to a convex fluke. But the greatest amount of effective surface area w the least amount of steel and weight is not convex or concave but flat. Many anchors could probably benefit from flat flukes.
e.g. - Fortress and Danforth

IMHO - Fortress' claim to fame that I believe supersedes/improves Danthforth's old-school design:

1. 45 degree shank to angle capability for better set in lose-mud bottom with standard 33 +/- degree capability also available for setting into other bottom surfaces, and;

2. Considerably lighter weight for handling while providing as much or better strength of material... with same or increased fluke sq. inch areas
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 11:01 AM   #433
Guru
 
Moonstruck's Avatar
 
City: Hailing Port: Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Moonstruck
Vessel Model: Sabre 42 Hardtop Express
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,847
Eric, I have the benefit of looking at a 30 kg EX-CEL as I write this. It seems to me that if at the proper angle the EX-CEL would push the soft stuff aside until it could maybe find harder, better holding. Where as the concave anchor may load up, and possibly be ineffective at digging deeper. I would be interested in Rex's take on this theory.
__________________
Don on Moonstruck
Sabre 42 Hardtop Express & Blackfin 25 CC
When cruising life is simpler, but on a grander scale (author unknown)
http://moonstruckblog.wordpress.com/
Moonstruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 01:32 PM   #434
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,701
Hi Don,
Yes that's basically what I think is happening w the roll bars. But w the RB the compaction gives them enough holding power to be a top performer despite a lack of penetration. Come to think of it so goes it for the Fortress. A lot of anchors can develop a lot of holding power just barely submerged. And some (like a Navy) are just bull dozers. But I know a chap that goes to Alaska regularly w an average size Navy and seems very happy w it.

And as for holding power pushing straight up would be best. Not aside. That's for farmers. However there's a lot more substrate to each side than there is straight up. So a flat fluke may need a bit more penetration to utilize the flatness of it's fluke since it's dependent considerably on the weight of the substrate on top of the fluke. And the same would apply to a concave anchor.

I think your Excel is so big your using it won't reveal much about it's holding power. A Navy or Kedge would probably hold as well. You could always turn into a storm chaser ... and bring us some Vid Don.

Don as to your post a Delta should do basically the same. Penetration is good, joke or no but we sat in a 50 knot gale for a day and a half hang'in on a 13lb XYZ. I think it performed for us because it went deep. Or as you say ... found good holding deeper. But ??? That first XYZ won top spot in a mud anchor test. Too bad it would'nt set on other bottoms.

Art,
As I see it the problem w the adjustable fluke is that most of the time most of us won't have any way of telling what kind of bottom is down there. And I would imagine a slightly different fluke angle would be optimum for light and heavy Danforth types. Like 35 degrees for the steel and 30 degrees for the aluminum anchors. Perhaps they are and I just don't know it.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 07:56 PM   #435
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Here is an observation I have made. I went through recent boating magazines and tried to identify the general type of anchor on boats of moderate and larger size wherever there was a picture (add or article) including the bow (try this). What I noticed is the following. Rarely a Danforth no less a Fortress. The ratio to other anchors relative to the good old Danforth type is huge. Also The more pricy and larger boats are not sporting Fortress. I also have the same impression from walking the docks at Elliott Bay and Shillshole two large marinas in my area. Many racing sailboats have no anchor on the bow, and many carry Fortress for the same reason I used to carry one(light and breaks down). Many of these boats rarely if ever anchor. Since the Fortress has repeatedly shined in holding power and MY personal experience with fortress confirms that, why not more Fortresses on the bow? I know why I don't use it as my primary. For easy setting it was the worse anchor I ever had experience with. Steel Danforth's and all manner of plows concave or convex were much easier for me to set. I have no problem with setting my primary plow type anchor and then if wind or trouble is expected setting form my Dinghy a aluminum break down secondary either a Spade or a Fortress . I just don't want to mess around in a crowded anchorage trying to get a fast set with a Fortress.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 08:36 PM   #436
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post
Here is an observation I have made. I went through recent boating magazines and tried to identify the general type of anchor on boats of moderate and larger size wherever there was a picture (add or article) including the bow (try this). What I noticed is the following. Rarely a Danforth no less a Fortress. The ratio to other anchors relative to the good old Danforth type is huge. Also The more pricy and larger boats are not sporting Fortress. I also have the same impression from walking the docks at Elliott Bay and Shillshole two large marinas in my area. Many racing sailboats have no anchor on the bow, and many carry Fortress for the same reason I used to carry one(light and breaks down). Many of these boats rarely if ever anchor. Since the Fortress has repeatedly shined in holding power and MY personal experience with fortress confirms that, why not more Fortresses on the bow? I know why I don't use it as my primary. For easy setting it was the worse anchor I ever had experience with. Steel Danforth's and all manner of plows concave or convex were much easier for me to set. I have no problem with setting my primary plow type anchor and then if wind or trouble is expected setting form my Dinghy a aluminum break down secondary either a Spade or a Fortress . I just don't want to mess around in a crowded anchorage trying to get a fast set with a Fortress.
If I may as: What size Fortress and what angle do you have it at...32/33 or 45 degrees?
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 09:14 PM   #437
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Moonstruck Wrote:


Eric, I have the benefit of looking at a 30 kg EX-CEL as I write this. It seems to me that if at the proper angle the EX-CEL would push the soft stuff aside until it could maybe find harder, better holding. Whereas the concave anchor may load up, and possibly be ineffective at digging deeper. I would be interested in Rex's take on this theory.



Rex Wrote:

Don you are exactly right, you will further find the attributes of just how well the EXCEL can handle many substrates, enough said as from here on with Eric’s comments I will always look like I am defending, I respect Eric’s comments but no one anchor design should be lumped into a category and judged, he is purely speculating when it comes to the Anchor Right Designs.

Don is a great example of putting his money where his mouth is, Don has purchased on the bases of what he sees, what others are reporting, and my( integrity) the latter being of most importance to me, if Don is not happy then he will be fully refunded, end of story.

Dons anchor size was based sensibility, Understand this Eric, if you want to make an anchor way undersize based on your own personal performance then you are a gamer man than me, we are certified so we do have guide lines to follow, if those guide do not fall in with your expectations then so be it, your guide lines indicate your recommendations are yours, nothing wrong with that when it is only you deploying your home made or modified anchor.

As I suggested on this padge, upload the recomended very short videos from our web site.

Regards

Rex
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 10:52 PM   #438
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post
Here is an observation I have made. I went through recent boating magazines and tried to identify the general type of anchor on boats of moderate and larger size wherever there was a picture (add or article) including the bow (try this). What I noticed is the following. Rarely a Danforth no less a Fortress. The ratio to other anchors relative to the good old Danforth type is huge. Also The more pricy and larger boats are not sporting Fortress. I also have the same impression from walking the docks at Elliott Bay and Shillshole two large marinas in my area. Many racing sailboats have no anchor on the bow, and many carry Fortress for the same reason I used to carry one(light and breaks down). Many of these boats rarely if ever anchor. Since the Fortress has repeatedly shined in holding power and MY personal experience with fortress confirms that, why not more Fortresses on the bow? I know why I don't use it as my primary. For easy setting it was the worse anchor I ever had experience with. Steel Danforth's and all manner of plows concave or convex were much easier for me to set. I have no problem with setting my primary plow type anchor and then if wind or trouble is expected setting form my Dinghy a aluminum break down secondary either a Spade or a Fortress . I just don't want to mess around in a crowded anchorage trying to get a fast set with a Fortress.

The current Volvo Race, I think it commences Nov '14) specifies and is supplying as standard equipment FX 85 anchors. 2 will be carried. They do use the anchors, as a tactical measure to stem tide in light winds, and the 'fleet' anchored in the previous race using Fortress anchors after leaving Cape Town. The same anchors were carried in the last Vendee Globe (and the one prior to that) and again were used in both races, to stop (coincidentally in the same place) to effect repairs. To suggest they are not used is wrong and Volvo use them - because they have found from experience - they work. They cannot carry them on deck (on a bow roller they are a hazard in case of collision) because they would hinder performance (or ability to change sails etc).

Maybe if they were one piece they would be housed on deck (an assembled FX 85 would be major task to get up from down below) - consequently maybe their ability to be disassembled is the very reason we do not see more of them.

We carry ours, slightly smaller FX 23, ready assembled, in a bow locker, shackle attached and the rode in an adjacent crate. - and I guess no-one sees it either. Ours is not on the bow roller because the anchor (FX 23) simply does not fit but being light 9kg it can be deployed by hand - in seconds.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2014, 06:01 AM   #439
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopCar View Post
Back in the days when I did outside sales calls, I was in the Miami Coast Guard base often. I noticed that all of the Island Class ships carried Fortress FX-125 anchors. These are 110 foot ships.

Brian, are your part numbers what the anchor would weigh if it was made from steel? For instance would the FX-125 weigh 125 pounds if it was steel?
Parks, the FX-125 is also the primary anchor aboard the new 154-ft Fast Response Cutter (FRC), and the FX-85 has been on the 87-ft patrol boat since the early 2000s when they were first delivered, and 73 are currently active.

The Fortress model number corresponds to the approximate weight of a steel anchor which is of a comparable physical size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post
Here is an observation I have made. I went through recent boating magazines and tried to identify the general type of anchor on boats of moderate and larger size wherever there was a picture (add or article) including the bow (try this). What I noticed is the following. Rarely a Danforth no less a Fortress.

I just don't want to mess around in a crowded anchorage trying to get a fast set with a Fortress.
To your first point, I think there is general consensus that plow type anchors might be better "all-purpose" anchors than Danforth models. One other consideration I think has to do with appearance, as a narrow plow-type anchor simply looks better and more streamlined on the bow than the gangly Danforth-type with its two big flukes and long protruding stock (narrow round rod).

That said, Viking is a large boat builder and they have been a sizable Fortress OEM customer for years, which wouldn't be possible if there were customer objections concerning the above.

Regarding any setting issues, we have found that a high percentage of them can be solved simply by permanently installing the Mud Palms which are provided inside the box with every Fortress anchor.

The Mud Palms are two metal plates which bolt on the the crown (center piece), and they lift the back end of the anchor up so that the flukes take a more aggressive angle into the bottom.

If you don't have the Mud Palms, then I would be glad to send them to you gratis.

Of course, as previously mentioned, there are bottom conditions where a Danforth/Fortress-type anchor is likely to be challenged, which could be a cause for setting issues as well.

Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2014, 07:46 AM   #440
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post


Since the Fortress has repeatedly shined in holding power and MY personal experience with fortress confirms that, why not more Fortresses on the bow?

Our FX-37 simply doesn't ride as calmly in our pulpit/roller, compared to our main anchor. Lashings can solve that, but the whole thing ends up looking goofy, wobbling around a bit, etc.

And it breaks down for storage, and it's light enough so I can shift it when necessary.

So normally no one sees that we have it...

I don't remember any particular problem setting it...

-Chris
__________________

__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012