Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

[healhustler]

Good conversation, but I'm much more curious about something else. Given the complications expressed by Brian regarding the difficulty of retrieving the Danforth and Fortress, the obvious responses from the design and how that design can be tweaked to take advantage of the deep setting ability of a smaller, lightweight anchor while making it retrievable for the average joe. Could it be done without hurting it's performance elsewhere? I wouldn't be surprised if an improved Fortress is already being contemplated.

Think about it. If it were your anchor and the "problem" was that it penetrated too deep, would you want to prevent the problem, or take advantage of the problem. Is it a problem if one can retrieve it?

 

[Djbangi]

What is interesting about the Fortress is that though it was introduced around 1990 it has enjoyed few modifications (I think the mud palms came in the mid 90s?) but thereafter what you saw then is what you get now. They have also sold more than 500,000 units.

They obviously got something right! In fact they not only got something right - but a lot right. You do not sell 500,000 units of an anchor if it has major problems.

Digressing slightly - I believe the SARCA was introduced in the 90's and again you do not enjoy that sort of longevity unless you have a lot right.

But after only a few years that original batch of newer designs have already been updated - Supreme with the Boss and Rocna also with something without a roll bar (another exciting development to wait for!). And I wonder if they are selling at the rate per year that Fortress appear to achieve? One has to wonder if Fortress (and SARCA) bashing, from some of disciples of other designs, is actually based on any solid basis - or is it just sour grapes (if you shout loudly and often enough it must be right - there is no need to base negativity on fact or even having used one - just keep shouting).

 

[psneeld]

What is interesting about the Fortress is that though it was introduced around 1990 it has enjoyed few modifications (I think the mud palms came in the mid 90s?) but thereafter what you saw then is what you get now. They have also sold more than 500,000 units.

They obviously got something right! In fact they not only got something right - but a lot right. You do not sell 500,000 units of an anchor if it has major problems.

Digressing slightly - I believe the SARCA was introduced in the 90's and again you do not enjoy that sort of longevity unless you have a lot right.

But after only a few years that original batch of newer designs have already been updated - Supreme with the Boss and Rocna also with something without a roll bar (another exciting development to wait for!). And I wonder if they are selling at the rate per year that Fortress appear to achieve? One has to wonder if Fortress (and SARCA) bashing, from some of disciples of other designs, is actually based on any solid basis - or is it just sour grapes (if you shout loudly and often enough it must be right - there is no need to base negativity on fact or even having used one - just keep shouting).

Seriously?

Sour grapes?

Just the opposite...none of the new guys have really proven anything other than a slight majority think they work incrementally better.

Selling units has nothing to do with actual performance in the short run..long term different story and NONE of the new gen including the fortress have a "long term" rep yet.

 

[Djbangi]

25 years, still going strong and to (basically) the original design (for the Fortress) - not forgetting those 0.5 million units and around 20 years, still going strong and to (basically) the original design (for the SARCA) looks pretty good to me. But maybe I'm far too young to know better.

If its not sour grapes - why the constant negativity over a convex anchor, that most have never seen and few used - what's the basis for the criticism. If its not sour grapes what's the basis for the criticism of the Fortress that looks to be one of the best selling anchors today and Fortress seem to be indicating works superbly in soft mud.

Where's the humility - to admit maybe Fortress and Anchor Right (maybe others) have a point.

 

[Rex]

Hi Marin,

Good to see you back, well you know how to contact me when the inevitable happens.

Crikey psneeld, I have been selling the Sarca for twenty two years, surely longevity and around five thousand anchors a year counts for some recognition, should make me a local in anchor design at least.

Further we are accredited with Super high holding Power certification, so at the very least you can be sure it is made to a standard.

Regards Rex.

 

[Nsail]

Mr. Firefly,

Where are you when we need you?

Please insert head exploding video here!

 

[markpierce]

This something-like-a-relative-of Danforth is still "hanging in there." But what is it?

 

[psneeld]

25 years, still going strong and to (basically) the original design (for the Fortress) - not forgetting those 0.5 million units and around 20 years, still going strong and to (basically) the original design (for the SARCA) looks pretty good to me. But maybe I'm far too young to know better.

If its not sour grapes - why the constant negativity over a convex anchor, that most have never seen and few used - what's the basis for the criticism. If its not sour grapes what's the basis for the criticism of the Fortress that looks to be one of the best selling anchors today and Fortress seem to be indicating works superbly in soft mud.

Where's the humility - to admit maybe Fortress and Anchor Right (maybe others) have a point.

Seriously? Humility? again....

What are those numbers against total anchors sold?

Sure anchors have been around but even ones with crappy reputations with half the boating crowd are still around and being produced or slightly modified and called "new". It's called marketing and sales....which is what most businesses place pretty high in the business plan is I remember correctly.

The problem is...there's been no anchor test that has so far convinced a HUGE group of experienced cruisers that any one anchor is BEST for them Sure we all know certain anchors do better in certain situations...but those situations aren't ALWAYS experienced while cruising so many take their best guess.

I know Fortress and SARCA are good anchors...I just think there's many out there that are as or so close to being as good it's a funny to even try and discuss it in these threads.

I also have had students of mine have such dismal failures with their Fortresses in emergencies that they took them off their boats and called me remembering what I had passed along in class. So success can be measured in different ways...

Humility???? Read carefully and you'll understand that I'm NOT anti either of those anchors...just anti-salesmanship....humility is back in your court....

 

[Anchor Brian]

Unquestionably, there are bottom conditions such as grass, weeds or rocks where a different type of anchor, which is very heavy and has a narrow single fluke, will perform better than a Fortress.

I have certainly talked with enough boaters over the past 17 years while employed by Fortress to know that anchoring technique is an often overlooked component of anchor performance for all brands. Issues might have been resolved by simply using longer scopes, or power setting the anchor to insure that it had a good initial set, etc.

Additionally, what anchor + chain + rope that will fit in the anchor storage locker is sometimes the determining factor as to what type of anchor the boater will buy and how much ground tackle they will use, never the mind the bottom conditions or the proper scope that will be needed.

What we sought out to accomplish with our recent Chesapeake Bay testing was to take anchoring technique out of the performance equation, as every anchor was tested the exact same way.

What we learned was fully expected by our retired US Navy consultant Bob Taylor, as he stated prior to the testing that "anchors which are designed and optimized for harder soils will oftentimes have a holding ratio (holding power divided by anchor weight) of 10-15 when used in a soft soil," which is almost exactly what we found in the soft mud bottoms where we tested.

As an example, most of the 44-46 lb fixed shank convex/concave single fluke type anchors achieved holds of 450-700 lbs, or 10-15 times their weight, just as Bob had predicted. We had a few rare spikes among these anchors above 1,000 lbs, but most of the time they broke free shortly afterwards.

One of the media we had aboard was a very knowledgeable gentleman who was representing Sail magazine, and he is also writing a book on anchoring. He is an experienced cruiser and a liveaboard, and he was incensed that other anchor manufacturers make their size recommendations based on boat length and displacement, with unknown regard for the wind or bottom conditions, particularly in this common soft mud bottom, where holding power performance will fall off of a cliff for all anchors.

He felt that while Fortress has hard sand / soft mud holding power figures posted for each anchor, we should also post the ABYC horizontal loads table (image below) right nearby so that boaters can determine the anchor they will need by looking at their boat size, and then compare the potential wind conditions as well.

We will seriously take up his suggestion.

Brian

 

[Nomad Willy]

Brian everybody has their numbers, facts, assumptions topped of by the bigger is better philosophy. Mr Taylor leaves out the most important variable and that is the sea bottom. And lunch, main and storm anchors are .. well .. whatever. And air drag is probably the second variable next to the bottom and one 35' vessel may have 2 or 3 times as much air drag as other 35' vessels so the note at the bottom of the chart must be honestly considered. I assume one is to assume average amounts for vessel air drag and anchor size.

I usually use the same anchor all the time and it's the anchor that I use for a gale. So in Mr Taylor's scheme of things (old school it appears) I should be using a smaller anchor for usual anchoring. That would need to be 10 or 12lbs for my 30' boat since my storm anchor is 19lbs. And I'd stop for lunch w an 8lb anchor. If you're thinking there's something wrong w this picture you're right. Anchor performance has gotten good enough so we can use the storm anchor all the time. Also deploying, retrieving and storage gear has advanced to the point that it would be easier to deploy the storm anchor (it's the main actually in that it's permanently installed on the bow) than a lunch hook.

Mr Taylor is in the same mindset as FF. Wise and conservative. An anchor for all occasions. I have 4 or 5 anchors usually ready to go and using one is almost as easy as any other but I just like playing w anchors and I hand deploy. Most all here will use one anchor permanently installed on the bow for everything unless they (many do) have a special storm anchor for a serious blow ... almost always a Fortress. The holding power is unquestionable, the the lightness and take-apart feature makes it possible to have a huge anchor in this capacity.

But I like very much Taylor's reference to "holding ratios". If enough statistics on holding power in Average bottom conditions could be accumulated a skipper could choose an anchor w an excellent chance of getting what he needed and wanted. But such testing would require 10 times as much money as the typical anchor test and IMO probably won't happen. Too many different types of bottoms and the average trawler skipper wants an anchor that will NEVER drag. Some actually think they have achieved that. Anchor performance isn't up to that but it's far closer than in the past. But still the biggest variable .. the bottom, will keep anchors from even setting at times. Much less holding a boat in a blow. But on the positive side it appears a lot of skippers here fall into Mr Taylor's chart for a capability to hold fast in a 60 knot blow. And more at 50 knots. That says a lot for the new gear we've got but then there's the skipper skill factor along w that pesky bottom.

 

[Anchor Brian]

Brian everybody has their numbers, facts, assumptions topped of by the bigger is better philosophy. Mr Taylor leaves out the most important variable and that is the sea bottom. And lunch, main and storm anchors are .. well .. whatever. And air drag is probably the second variable next to the bottom and a 35' vessel may have 2 or 3 times as much air drag as other 35' vessels. I assume one is to assume average amounts for vessel air drag and anchor size.

Eric,

A large anchor that is designed and optimized for harder soils will not out-perform in soft mud a much smaller anchor that is, so "bigger is not better" in this bottom condition.

As an example, when set at 45° angle for soft mud, the 10 lb FX-16 achieved far higher loads than any 44-46 lb anchor in the test.

Conversely, if I set our largest anchor at the 45° angle and the bottom is NOT soft mud, then it is likely to not properly set and/or out-perform a much smaller anchor as well.

In fact, I would say that a fair percentage of Fortress owners who contact us with setting issues simply have it set at the 45° angle and they are in a hard soil, despite the "SOFT MUD ANCHORING ONLY" warning stickers we put on the crown (center piece) for this setting.

Regarding windage, please note in the chart that it states, * Note: This table assumes boats of average beam and windage. If your boat has above-average beam or windage, refer to loads for next larger size boat, so windage is considered a factor.

 

[Nomad Willy]

"Regarding windage, please note in the chart that it states, * Note: This table assumes boats of average beam and windage. If your boat has above-average beam or windage, refer to loads for next larger size boat, so windage is considered a factor"

Oops I missed that. Will edit.

An anchor that has appears to have great abilities to penetrate deep is the Claw. Perhaps that's why they are known for lower holding power pound for pound of anchor. I am wondering how the Claw actually did do in your test. The thought of actually using a small claw for blow is about as foreign a thought as could be conceived. But if it were buried 20' deep a lot of rode would need to be factored into ability to keep the boat from dragging. Assuming at least 30' of chain all those little links would become anchors.

 

[High Wire]

A typical sailboat has much less cross sectional area and therefore windage than a trawler, right. Please define what "average" is based on to determine if you are above or below.

 

[psneeld]

A typical sailboat has much less cross sectional area and therefore windage than a trawler, right. Please define what "average" is based on to determine if you are above or below.

In really high wind situations...wind speeds tend to climb rapidly even just a few feet above the surface.

Suprisingly the top of the mast and associated rigging often account for as much windage as a large front to a cabin.

While I have never seen definitive proof of this...and I'm sure the calculations are out there or could be done easily enough...several well known NAs have expressed this concept...the first time I read it I think it was penned by Phil Bolger.

 

[Djbangi]

"Regarding windage, please note in the chart that it states, * Note: This table assumes boats of average beam and windage. If your boat has above-average beam or windage, refer to loads for next larger size boat, so windage is considered a factor"

Oops I missed that. Will edit.

An anchor that has appears to have great abilities to penetrate deep is the Claw. Perhaps that's why they are known for lower holding power pound for pound of anchor. I am wondering how the Claw actually did do in your test. The thought of actually using a small claw for blow is about as foreign a thought as could be conceived. But if it were buried 20' deep a lot of rode would need to be factored into ability to keep the boat from dragging. Assuming at least 30' of chain all those little links would become anchors.

I might not get too excited about those little links, or even big ones, becoming anchors.

Those same links retard the ability of the anchor to bury itself, in fact the smaller the overall cross section of the length of the rode the deeper the anchor will bury. So think big chain, shackles and swivels - all have large lateral cross sections, all retard burying. Some of course are pretty essential. Its the same idea that once a roll bar rights the anchor it then acts as a hindrance to burying. Someone once said, not me, - use Kryptonite piano wire as a trace as this would have a minimum resistance to the anchor burying itself (and being the mythical Kryptonite it would have infinite strength). I agree with the idea (of piano wire) but actually cannot think how one can put it sensibly into practice, G70, G80, G100 etc come to mind (in a smaller cross section - so keeping the same strength).

 

[Nomad Willy]

Djbangi,
When I bought my first XYZ anchor they showed it w a 3' wire attached to the anchor shank and the rode end. I didn't get one w my anchor but I had one made up locally by people in the wire rope business. I've used it several times but not in the last 6 years or so. Also made a Kellet that would slide down the rode to a point 15' from the anchor. Never did use that.

Yes of course chain retards anchor penetration but if an anchor did penetrate 6 to 10' the chain would be oriented in a descending curve and tension on the rode would press the links into the undisturbed substrate probably helping the anchor do it's job. But a bottom that would allow an anchor to penetrate deep probably would be very loose mud and would'nt offer much resistance.

So no I'm not too excited about links. In fact most know me as being a bit anti-chain. It's just too heavy for the good it does .... IMO.

 

[Djbangi]

So no I'm not too excited about links. In fact most know me as being a bit anti-chain. It's just too heavy for the good it does .... IMO.

I'm with you on being anti-chain, but don't really know of an alternative. Obviously wire, and I've seen a number of larger boats (but only commercial boats) using wire cable. I floated, tongue a bit in cheek, the idea of Dyneema but abrasion is a big questionmark (and with wire its corrosion and/or life of the swage).

But XYZs idea of the wire trace seems an option, as long as one considers it a consumable. I was aware that XYZ did market with a trace - I did wonder why, because I do not recall them promoting the idea that it helped the anchor diving more deeply.

I wanted to change my metric 8mm G30 for a G70 (I need new chain) but the only smaller G70 is American (and there is nothing wrong with that) and getting an imperial gypsy to fit an imperial chain (in a location wedded exclusively to metric), guaranteeing (at a distance that) it matches and then plus freight reduces incentive.

More recently I have considered that G70 is simply an option of convenience (for chain makers) and a better bet would be G100 - but then I'm really stepping into the unknown.

It is possible to source quite HT alloy (I think Anchor Right use it in the shank of their alloy Excel) but maybe its too expensive to use for chain.

So I'm still pondering.

 

[HopCar]

When Danforth first came out with their Deep Set anchor, they recommended a length of wire between the anchor and rode to allow the anchor to penetrate better.

 

[Djbangi]

When Danforth first came out with their Deep Set anchor, they recommended a length of wire between the anchor and rode to allow the anchor to penetrate better.

There is real depth of background and knowledge in this Forum. Another overlooked gem (so thanks!) - and showing there is little new.

 

[Anchor Brian]

Here's a real world experience that will back up this theory:

During 1996-2006, North Carolina was hit by 11 hurricanes and several tropical storms. Jet Matthews, owner of Matthews Point Marina (as I recall it has 120 slips) in Havelock became very experienced in preparing boats under his care for the approaching storms.

He became a very strong advocate for using wire rope on the anchors, as he found that it had a knife like effect and it would allow the anchors to bury far deeper into the nearby soft mud bottoms.

Brian

 

[Bay Pelican]

Quoted in part.
-


For anchor out folks who stand to loose an anchor every so often this is great news.

.

How often do people loose anchors? (Am I tempting fate by asking that questions.). In decades I am only aware of one loss and that was on a sailboat underway. I am ignoring those that are lost in hurricanes etc.

For the record I have lost one on a pontoon boat but I don't show a lot of respect for $15 US anchors.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marty,
$15 anchors?
In areas where there was a lot of logging like the PNW Western Canada and South East Alaska anchors get caught on cable and much other debris on the bottom. I talked to a logger in Thorne Bay that claimed to know where several bull dozers and winches were just dumped in the bay. Exchange Cove on the north end of POW island is reported to be an anchor snatcher anchorage. And when you loose your anchor it remains there (and part of your rode) to add to the mess on the bottom. Most there eventually get loose but I'll bet a diver could fine many anchors.
Rivers often have sunken flotsam like trees, limbs, the remains of docks or old bridges and of course sunken logs. Frequently coming from many miles upstream.
I used a trip line about 25% of the time in Alaska and haven't lost an anchor yet. But that's kinda like "I've never run aground" as if that's for fools only.

But re the cable lead it dos'nt take a rocket guy to see that the cable will allow deeper penetration. I saw this boat near Seymour Narrows in Western Canada w all cable rode. There also were many other interesting features of his boat. A big advantage to cable is that much more will fit on a reel.

But the short cable link is easy to have made up and can simply be substituted for the first 3' of rode connected to the anchor shank.

Once an anchor has penetrated 15 to 18" it must drag chain down to go any deeper. Not much of a concern IMO as anchors usually don't go deeper than 12 to 14". But in the south and east ????

 

[Ted]

Tied in Brown's Bay Marina.
Beautiful spot
Ted

 

[Nomad Willy]

Ted,
Exactly .. re Brown's Bay.
I would dearly love to see pics of the boat in your avatar.
A big beautiful trawler indeed.

 

[Ted]

Eric
I'll try to get 1 or 2 on a new thread to not hi-jack this one.
Ted

 

[Djbangi]

My little knowledge of the Chesapeake is that the seabed is mud and the area is famous for its oysters. Sadly muds vary, so mud is not a very useful term - but muddy seabeds hosting oysters are more common.

For those of us who do not know the Chesapeake and to those of you that do - can you describe what the seabed is like. Might it is also be possible to indicate - is this seabed type unique or are there similar seabeds where, whatever Fortress demonstrate, similar issues might result. This needs people who know the Chesapeake and similar areas.

 

[ranger58sb]

My little knowledge of the Chesapeake is that the seabed is mud and the area is famous for its oysters. Sadly muds vary, so mud is not a very useful term - but muddy seabeds hosting oysters are more common.

For those of us who do not know the Chesapeake and to those of you that do - can you describe what the seabed is like. Might it is also be possible to indicate - is this seabed type unique or are there similar seabeds where, whatever Fortress demonstrate, similar issues might result. This needs people who know the Chesapeake and similar areas.

Mud. Sometimes hard mud, often middle-of-the-road mud, sometimes soft mud, sometimes slime mud. Did I mention mud?

I've never seen evidence of stumbling across oysters... likely since we just don't happen to anchor in the same kinds of places where the oystermen dredge. Casual observation suggests to me oysters are usually at the bends of a river or just off various points of land jutting out (albeit mostly under water) into the Bay. We tend to anchor in more sheltered coves, etc.

I've heard of sand around here, but don't remember ever anchoring in some. Mostly that seems to be at beach areas, not in the creeks and coves we've anchored in.

Did I mention mud?

It usually takes us 20 minutes or so with the washdown hose to bring the anchor and 25' of chain back aboard without making a mess of the foredeck. The chain is the worst culprit there since mud gets in all the nooks and crannies. The anchor itself isn't usually quite so bad, and I can often get big chunks of mud to slide off all at once.

FWIW, our FX-37 works great here... but it looks a little goofy on our pulpit and it wangs around a bit up there unless tied (due our pulpit/roller design)... and since it collapses easily and compactly for storage, we use it as our back-up.

-Chris

 

[psneeld]

Can't say for Fortress (haven't owned one" but oyster shell can wedge in or get impaled on smaller Danforth style anchors rendering them useless as the shank and flukes move in unison or the tip cant dig in and rides the surface of the bottom.

Same with large clam shells here in Jersey and along much of the ACIW.

Once the anchor get large enough, less of an issue...but I think we have covered upsizing and at some point all anchors work.

 

[Djbangi]

psneeld,

The trouble is I cannot find much info on how anchors work in mud- lots, if not endless stuff, on anchors in harder bottoms - but mud (and weed) appears to be something that has been ignored - though Chris (ranger 42c) seems to suggest its not very nice to work with. So maybe anchor makers do not like to get their hands dirty - or maybe their products do not work. So, personally, I find it refreshing that Fortress have bit the bullet (chartered the wash down hoses) and might be filling a gap in our knowledge base. I hope I can see through any hype and from the content I read on this forum - I think most will also point out sensibly and with reason anything that smacks of 'spin'.

 

[Bay Pelican]

Eric
My 18 foot pontoon boat in front of my house doesn't require much when we anchor out in order to read the paper or have coffee. I replaced my expensive $15 mushroom with a danford style used.