Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

[markpierce]

Could use the "next size up" but haven't yet the need.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Brian that was very enlightening about the anchor market.

That puts those of us w new gen anchors in the same category as Lexus and Jaguar owners. Don't tell anybody that I drive a VW.

I knew old school anchors were very much a majority of anchors on/in boats. But I had no idea that edge carried over into manufacturing. And I'm part of it. I just recently bought a new Claw .. Lewmar by the way and that fits neatly into your remarks.

Again thanks for the 20/20 report. Anything similar you wish to share?

 

[Djbangi]

I would second the comment from Fortress. The current sales of 'new gen' anchors is tiny in the grand scheme of things and the disciples suggesting their new gen anchor is better than another new gen anchor - completely miss the point. Most people blindfold cannot tell the difference when set in 'sand' and most people only anchor in 'sand'. its those peripheral seabeds where the differences emerge - and most people simply do not go there. Those who anchor in mud vote with their feet, and already use a Fortress or Danforth, those who anchor in weed use a Marsh or fisherman's - its those of us who anchor everywhere who need a cross section.

And anchors are a compromise - there is no one anchor that suits all seabeds and Fortress have updated the information (showing that many 'new gen' anchors are actually not as good as 'old gen' in thin mud). Fortress have an advantage - not only good in mud but good in sand.

The big market for any anchor is 'attacking' the old ten market - which is huge.

 

[sunchaser]

The biggest obstacle the new gen anchors face is the success of the "old style" anchors oh so many of us have hanging from our bows. Maybe paraphrasing Marin, but if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I freely admit I have as a spare, a Fortress - never used.

 

[eyschulman]

I appreciate your input, but no, we are not alarmed. For a large part of our business, we are not competing for the same customers, as they have virtually no penetration into the small boat market, nor will they ever due to their pricing.

Additionally, we have a niche product with features and benefits they simply cannot offer.

Old generation anchors such as the Bruce (or Claw), CQR, Danforth and copies (particularly in overseas markets) still have a huge market share advantage, and the new generation models are all competing for a very small slice of the pie.

Lewmar, manufacturers of the Claw, CQR, and Delta, probably sell more anchors than all of the new generation anchor manufacturers combined in the USA and world market. Maybe even 2-3x. Lewmar certainly has vastly superior distribution.

Regarding the soft mud testing, I guess you have to identify what constitutes being a "good performer." If you are referring to the Ultra, it did have a couple of good spikes during the testing of over 1,000 lbs, but then it broke free immediately afterwards and never reset.

All of its pulls ended at less than 900 lbs (what is needed to hold a 35-ft boat in 30 knots of wind per ABYC table) and 4 of 5 pulls ended at less than 600 lbs.

Well that marketing information does help explain why I am seeing so few fortress-Danforth type anchors on bows. I am looking mainly at trawlers and medium to larger boats. Come to think of it when I inspect older and smaller boats that is where I see the Danforth and other price driven anchors . Concerning the inability of the ultra or any of the other anchors that did not shine in soft mud; does that make them poor anchors? Since the narrow nature of the Fortress test does not address other bottoms and conditions we do not know if the fortress would fail in hard mud-weed gravel etcetera. The only way to pick out the best all around performer is to do a better designed test. The Fortress test is too narrow and it asks a question the answer to which was known before the test. Danforth type anchors do well in soft mud others do not. Therefore to me more marketing than science.

 

[sunchaser]

Well that marketing information does help explain why I am seeing so few fortress-Danforth type anchors on bows. I am looking mainly at trawlers and medium to larger boats. Come to think of it when I inspect older and smaller boats that is where I see the Danforth and other price driven anchors . Concerning the inability of the ultra or any of the other anchors that did not shine in soft mud; does that make them poor anchors? Since the narrow nature of the Fortress test does not address other bottoms and conditions we do not know if the fortress would fail in hard mud-weed gravel etcetera. The only way to pick out the best all around performer is to do a better designed test. The Fortress test is too narrow and it asks a question the answer to which was known before the test. Danforth type anchors do well in soft mud others do not. Therefore to me more marketing than science.

Ed

Has your anchor let you down yet? Lord knows you are out there using it so an objective point or two from you may be a good supplement to the referenced anchor test.

 

[eyschulman]

Ed

Has your anchor let you down yet? Lord knows you are out there using it so an objective point or two from you may be a good supplement to the referenced anchor test.

In two Summers of North West cruising my present New Gen anchor has never failed to set first time and hold firm. Truth be told I can say that about a few anchors I have owned including two Spades and a Manson. Have I had anchor failures? As much as I have anchored over more than 50 years the answer is yes. They were rare. Two I can remember involved a 180 degree veer with a Danforth and a drag in Chesapeake mud with a Bruce. There have been a few times in the past where my choice of anchor site was poor ( rock bottom)and that became apparent on setting but that has not happened yet with my new anchor.

 

[eyschulman]

I would second the comment from Fortress. The current sales of 'new gen' anchors is tiny in the grand scheme of things and the disciples suggesting their new gen anchor is better than another new gen anchor - completely miss the point. Most people blindfold cannot tell the difference when set in 'sand' and most people only anchor in 'sand'. its those peripheral seabeds where the differences emerge - and most people simply do not go there. Those who anchor in mud vote with their feet, and already use a Fortress or Danforth, those who anchor in weed use a Marsh or fisherman's - its those of us who anchor everywhere who need a cross section.

And anchors are a compromise - there is no one anchor that suits all seabeds and Fortress have updated the information (showing that many 'new gen' anchors are actually not as good as 'old gen' in thin mud). Fortress have an advantage - not only good in mud but good in sand.

The big market for any anchor is 'attacking' the old ten market - which is huge.

Just a minor correction to the statement about most people anchoring in sand. When I did my boating on east coat and VI that could be pretty much true. Now that I boat in the north west along with a lot of other boaters I can tell you we hardly ever see sand on our anchors or on a beach. What we have is variations and mixes of mud-shale-gravel and lots of rock. A Danforth type would not be my first choice for many of the harder bottom types where I boat.

 

[markpierce]

...
I freely admit I have as a spare, a Fortress - never used.

Ditto.

 

[eyschulman]

The biggest obstacle the new gen anchors face is the success of the "old style" anchors oh so many of us have hanging from our bows. Maybe paraphrasing Marin, but if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I freely admit I have as a spare, a Fortress - never used.

I also carry an aluminum spare used only once this past year a spade its what I had left over from my last boat. If I had to buy new I might have gone with a Fortress it folds tighter and easier to store.

 

[Rex]

Pter B Posted:

Ranger42...I think you've got it, when you said..


"I wonder if a concave design eventually collects enough weight toward the back of the fluke such that the tip no longer points downward..... so the direction of pull becomes more or less horizontal from that point on?
Whereas a convex surface maybe never collects enough weight toward the back so that the tip always still points downward... and the direction of pull continues to dig deeper?"

Exactly. The so-called streamlined shape of the convex fluke, which in essence is not a plough shape, but more like one side/half of an arrow head split longitudinally, parts the substrate, and the net vector forces are such as to drive it deeper, something only really possible because of the material shedding shape. Concavity would just result in it filling up, then at that point, max holding power and depth is largely reached, (quite considerable, I might add), but if it's holding power is exceeded, all it can do is pop out, or hopefully perform a controlled drag digging a deep trough in the sea bottom. The convex fluke can continue to go down deeper, and if it then dragged, it is a controlled drag, with the substrate filling in over and behind it. Only when being pulled vertically, as in retrieval, will it then shed the material more easily than concave, and come up cleaner.
The above is my personal experience with a Super Sarca.
__________________
Pete

Peter you are so on the money, yes we all know that story Eric. the frenchmen that proved out concave was the ducks guts, did he not also go on to market his anchor bending lots of sugar spoons, great evidence with spoons but was never confirmed scientifcitally, any way it worked as he went on to sell many anchors. In actual fact his thoughts on concave are still the flavour with some anchor designers, yet another frenchmans copy launched here today.


We will stick with old school convex without the plough sheers, so far all of our testing by Robertsons for type approval has shown we are matching it with the best and then some.

Regards Rex.

 

[ranger58sb]

Concerning the inability of the ultra or any of the other anchors that did not shine in soft mud; does that make them poor anchors? Since the narrow nature of the Fortress test does not address other bottoms and conditions we do not know if the fortress would fail in hard mud-weed gravel etcetera. The only way to pick out the best all around performer is to do a better designed test. The Fortress test is too narrow and it asks a question the answer to which was known before the test. Danforth type anchors do well in soft mud others do not. Therefore to me more marketing than science.

Interesting take on it...

I look at the Fortress tests as being useful because they're specific to a certain type of holding ground. We've got mud around here, so I appreciate a test that suggests which anchors do better in mud. Especially soft, slimy mud.

That in no way leads me to leap to conclusions about all-round anchors, nor would I have expected a "mud test" to test any substrate but mud. Given the results, I don't onclude anchors that did poorly in mud are "poor anchors" -- the results in mud don't suggest that to me at all.

If we had a lot of grass around here, I might be interested in tests about anchors in grass. I wouldn't expect those tests to lead to conclusions about best all-round anchors either.

IOW, I don't find the Fortress tests to be "too narrow" at all. I didn't notice (?) anything in their original remit that said they were testing to determine which was the best all-round anchor. They tested in mud, I care about mud, so I appreciate the results.

I can't see anything that there would cause me disappointment because they didn't test in (fill in your favorite substrate here).

I just with they had been able to include the SuperMax in this round of testing as well, but Brian already knows that

-Chris

 

[psneeld]

I second that people only anchor in sand...heck for about 10 pages it seemed like people only anchor in mud.

Also the comments that the new/nexgen anchors are only a small segment of the boating population...I agree...but so are serious cruisers that depend on their anchor more than just a little and many use their anchors nearly every day.

Whereas a HUGE segment of the boating population have never even used their anchor or have used it for a couple hours a year off a sandy beach on a nice day. Again making argument wit statistics that need a lot more modification or just a dose of common sense.

 

[Peter B]

Ranger, for what it's worth and not wishing to hijack the thread, but seeing you raised the issue of grass, it was when my (admittedly knock-off) CQR dragged about 6 times in a couple of hours in an anchorage known for seagrass bottom, that I gave up, and pulled out of there, saying I need a better anchor. The next boat show I saw a demo of the Super Sarca, was impressed with its form, function, and more importantly, how it achieves the superb quick setting and holding performance that it does have, and ordered one on the spot. Well, the next day actually. It has set first time, every time, in that same anchorage, (except for the time it picked up a volleyball sized rock), as well as all the other bottoms we encounter. That's just some real life info re the bottom type you mentioned. Weed or grass is quite a challenge for many anchor types.

PS, thanks for confirming I was not hopelessly off track there Rex.

 

[Djbangi]

New threads, growing like weeds, of the new 'non roll bar' Rocna are producing some real gems:

Someone with time on their hands but completing a public service has abstracted from Peter Smiths patent application for the new Rocna.

I quote, and hand on heart I'm not making this up

quote:

Close reading of PK Smith's patent application shows his recognition of a common criticism of the Rocna Original, to wit:

"[0009] Existing anchors that self-right by way of a roll-bar
have hitherto made use of solid round bar or hollow tube.
Solid bar is either too thin to reliably keep the rear of the
anchor when upside-down from sinking into a soft seabed, or
unnecessarily heavy if made of larger bar diameter. Alternatively
a hollow tube may fill with mud entering by way of the
openings which cannot be sealed if the anchor is to be hot dip
galvanized. Neither method provides any further benefit once
the roll-bar has performed its function of orienting the anchor
to the correct attitude for setting. This is disadvantageous.

unquote.

You could not make it up, no-one would believe it.

Very confused - but does make me wonder why Fortress went to all that trouble when Peter Smith knew all along!

 

[Rex]

Djbangi Wrote:

New threads, growing like weeds, of the new 'non roll bar' Rocna are producing some real gems:

Someone with time on their hands but completing a public service has abstracted from Peter Smiths patent application for the new Rocna.

I quote, and hand on heart I'm not making this up

quote:

Close reading of PK Smith's patent application shows his recognition of a common criticism of the Rocna Original, to wit:

"[0009] Existing anchors that self-right by way of a roll-bar
have hitherto made use of solid round bar or hollow tube.
Solid bar is either too thin to reliably keep the rear of the
anchor when upside-down from sinking into a soft seabed, or
unnecessarily heavy if made of larger bar diameter. Alternatively
a hollow tube may fill with mud entering by way of the
openings which cannot be sealed if the anchor is to be hot dip
galvanized. Neither method provides any further benefit once
the roll-bar has performed its function of orienting the anchor
to the correct attitude for setting. This is disadvantageous.

unquote.

You could not make it up, no-one would believe it.

Very confused - but does make me wonder why Fortress went to all that trouble when Peter Smith knew all along.

Rex comments:

WELL WELL, why am I not surprised, the large tube roll bar is a huge restriction on deep penetration, that’s why with the Super Sarca we went thin with solid round bar, being thin it allows the Super Sarca to penetrate with far less resistance, goes deeper than the Rocna, as the roll bar is thin we incorporated –patented the secondary fluke, when upside down it lifts the anchor and allows the centrifugal force needed to right itself.

Given the importance of the roll bar function I find it disturbing.


Regards Rex.

 

[Rex]

I can not belive anyone would make an admition as such, basically Smith is saying the Rocna is unreliable, not safe, oh well maybe you could ask for a new hooples one in exchange for your unreliable old model if your not happy.

Happy days.
Regards Rex.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Rex wrote;

"yes we all know that story Eric. the frenchmen that proved out concave was the ducks guts, did he not also go on to market his anchor bending lots of sugar spoons, great evidence with spoons but was never confirmed scientifcitally, any way it worked as he went on to sell many anchors. In actual fact his thoughts on concave are still the flavour with some anchor designers, yet another frenchmans copy launched here today."

The concave fluke is so basic I don't see how you can drop "another Frenchman's copy" on the concave anchor manufacturers. And I don't see how you can pretend the concave shape isn't superior in resistance. When I see people w shovels inverted I'll talk about it again. But you know I think I remember the spoon experiments he did. Trying to eat cereal for breakfast w your spoon inverted should end the need for more experiments.

I did learn something from this. Concave fluked anchors aren't the majority. I would have guessed otherwise. However in the Fortress test there were more than twice as many concave as convex anchors. Anyway there's lots of both so the question of concave or convex is washed over by many other more important considerations. And then there's flat. You predicted there was lots to learn in the results of this test and you were right. Still learning.

 

[Rex]

Eric Wrote:

The concave fluke is so basic I don't see how you can drop "another Frenchman's copy" on the concave anchor manufacturers. And I don't see how you can pretend the concave shape isn't superior in resistance. When I see people w shovels inverted I'll talk about it again. But you know I think I remember the spoon experiments he did. Trying to eat cereal for breakfast w your spoon inverted should end the need for more experiments

Yes Eric I should correct myself, when I say a frenchmans copy what I meant was it looks like a spade, as far as convex- concave goes we will just have to agree to disagree, thats anchor talk.

Regards Rex.

 

[Delfin]

I can not belive anyone would make an admition as such, basically Smith is saying the Rocna is unreliable, not safe, oh well maybe you could ask for a new hooples one in exchange for your unreliable old model if your not happy.

Happy days.
Regards Rex.

Separating what is truth from what the Smith's say has always presented a challenge, but occasionally writing the truth must have utility for them, as this statement is right on. And you're quite correct, Rex. What Smith is saying here is that the roll bar is needed to overcome a design flaw in the Rocna, but once it has served the purpose of keeping the thing from dragging upside down has a negative impact on the anchor's primary function. That's always been my understanding of it as well, which is why I prefer a burying hook to one whose ability to bury is inhibited by the hoop. Reminds me a bit of his insistence that the shank of the Rocna absolutely positively had to be made of Bisalloy to be safe. Until it wasn't anymore, of course.

Although this statement in the patent is correct, in reading the press release on his new product it's hard not to notice the usual Smith practice of saying whatever they need to sell anchors, regardless of how silly it is. I especially like the comment about the "inefficiency of tip weight". Seems a bit like the inefficiency of a bucket with no holes in it since you have to tip the hole less bucket over to empty it. I gather this non sequitur is to justify the notion that by not having a weighted tip you can have a larger fluke area than otherwise. True, no doubt, and if a larger fluke area where the optimum design feature of a good anchor it would always be a virtue, but the larger the fluke area, the more resistance there can be to burying deeply, and once buried fluke area ceases to matter as much in holding since what holding there is is in denser material. And tip weight certainly seems to be a benefit to burying, so I'm marking this one up as more market hype than fact. It is also worth noting that my Ultra has a bit more than 90% of the fluke surface area as a comparable Rocna, so the comment is b.s. for another reason.

In looking at the pictures, it appears that the new hook has the same chamber for tip ballast, but they are avoiding the cost of actually installing the ballast. I would imagine that this feature will not do much to enhance burying and might be an impediment, although the balance point a la the Boss might help overcome that deficiency. All I know is that whatever Rocna says has to be filtered just like taking on a load of bad fuel. The good stuff may be in there, but you have a lot of crud to sift through to find it.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Rex'
HaHa I was going to ask you if you've eaten your cereal yet.

The Spade .. yes .. I admire the Spade. I have the feeling it could be modified slightly to be even considerably better. And that would move the Spade from just another HP anchor to "Dancing w the Stars".

 

[ranger58sb]

Ranger, for what it's worth and not wishing to hijack the thread, but seeing you raised the issue of grass....

Thanks for comments, Pete. Agree about not wandering off on that tangent here. I truly did mean the "grass" thing just as example in that context of some other substrate.

-Chris

 

[ranger58sb]

The Delta design is a convex flute, and our experience with it was generally positive. In soupy mud, I think I remember the whole shank showed evidence of having been buried... suggesting it at least keep digging further downward until we finally gave it a rest.

That was the time we did drag, during a raft-up when I had about 10 sailboats on our 35-lb Delta... Don't know overall weight, but we were a 14K-lb 34' powerboat, the shortest sailboat was about 25,' and most were in the neighborhood of 34-38'. Tidal current and a light breeze interrupted our happy hour for a bit, but one of the sailors came to the rescue... with a bigger/heavier CQR. The guys who came back in the dinghy from setting the replacement were pretty much all covered in muck. Yuck! Glad they offered to solve the issue, so I didn't have to go out there

In any case, I didn't fault the anchor; I think we just overloaded it beyond it's size/weight capabilities. And I always appreciated the "no moving parts" design.

Oh, dear. I find myself (yet again) afflicted by selective memory... Mea Culpa.

More disclosure: I remember now that there was actually another time we had a Delta drag, followed by an episode where our previous Fortress dragged.

The backstory is that it happened just shortly after we got this current boat, which came with a seriously undersized Delta mounted. I think it must be a 22-pounder, but I'm a bit too lazy just this minute to open hatches and look in the lazarette to confirm that. I know for sure it was smaller than the 35-pounder in my previous anecdote (on an earlier boat).

Also, we brought aboard our better anchors from the just-previous boat, a Fortress FX-23 and a 44-lb SuperMax... both smaller than recommended for this current boat.

Anyway, we anchored one evening in a nearby creek that we'd not overnighted in before, using the mounted Delta. Bad! We found ourselves halfway across the creek by the time we woke. Turns out to be soupier than usual mud in that creek, possibly augmented by an overbed of fall leaves at the time. The movement seemed to be completely tide-related; no wind to speak of.

A few weeks later, we tried again with the FX-23. NOT on the 45° setting, and WITHOUT the mud palms attached. (I think we had some difficulty setting, leading to the leaf theory.) We dragged, although not as dramatically. Might not have dragged if I had used the mud angle and the mud palms.

The boat didn't come with a windlass (!!), so we didn't mount the SuperMax until much later, and that's why we were using the smaller anchors in the first place. It's just too much work to lift and clean the SuperMax (including the chain) and so forth without a windlass.

In the meantime, we upgraded to an FX-37 -- which I can at least raise by hand -- problem solved. We used that successfully until we added the windlass, mounted the SuperMax, and turned the Fortress into an easily-stowed spare.

Our SuperMax is still lighter than recommended, and I keep intending to upgrade.... but that project hasn't bubbled up to the top of my wallet yet. Largely because the one we have seems to work fine around here, anyway.

-Chris

 

[eyschulman]

Who needs to argue about religion when we have anchors?

 

[ranger58sb]

I dunno. I think I'm generally anchor-agnostic. I can only comment on those I've used, and I think I'd change in a heartbeat if something proven to be better comes along. Although "proven" is probably too firm a word for it...

I hope that doesn't actually make me an anchor slut.

-Chris

 

[angus99]

I hope that doesn't actually make me an anchor slut.

-Chris

Just perfect!

Hey, mods. What about changing "Anchors and Anchoring" to "Anchor Sluts"? A great way to increase viewership with all the mis-directed Google hits you'll get.

 

[Djbangi]

Separating what is truth from what the Smith's say has always presented a challenge, but occasionally writing the truth must have utility for them, as this statement is right on. And you're quite correct, Rex. What Smith is saying here is that the roll bar is needed to overcome a design flaw in the Rocna, but once it has served the purpose of keeping the thing from dragging upside down has a negative impact on the anchor's primary function. That's always been my understanding of it as well, which is why I prefer a burying hook to one whose ability to bury is inhibited by the hoop. Reminds me a bit of his insistence that the shank of the Rocna absolutely positively had to be made of Bisalloy to be safe. Until it wasn't anymore, of course.

Although this statement in the patent is correct, in reading the press release on his new product it's hard not to notice the usual Smith practice of saying whatever they need to sell anchors, regardless of how silly it is. I especially like the comment about the "inefficiency of tip weight". Seems a bit like the inefficiency of a bucket with no holes in it since you have to tip the hole less bucket over to empty it. I gather this non sequitur is to justify the notion that by not having a weighted tip you can have a larger fluke area than otherwise. True, no doubt, and if a larger fluke area where the optimum design feature of a good anchor it would always be a virtue, but the larger the fluke area, the more resistance there can be to burying deeply, and once buried fluke area ceases to matter as much in holding since what holding there is is in denser material. And tip weight certainly seems to be a benefit to burying, so I'm marking this one up as more market hype than fact. It is also worth noting that my Ultra has a bit more than 90% of the fluke surface area as a comparable Rocna, so the comment is b.s. for another reason.

In looking at the pictures, it appears that the new hook has the same chamber for tip ballast, but they are avoiding the cost of actually installing the ballast. I would imagine that this feature will not do much to enhance burying and might be an impediment, although the balance point a la the Boss might help overcome that deficiency. All I know is that whatever Rocna says has to be filtered just like taking on a load of bad fuel. The good stuff may be in there, but you have a lot of crud to sift through to find it.

Delfin,

You completely miss the point. They know the roll bar can, with time, fill with mud. A mud filled roll bar upsets the balance. You use this to effect, you learn from your mistakes, let the customer fill the balast tip himself, with mud, hey presto - a self ballasted anchor (which will then probably rust preferentially).

 

[psneeld]

Any roll bar anchor users out there with these problems?....

Haven't heard of any....not my roll bar so far....anyone else think this is the problem it's being presented as?

 

[N4712]

Any roll bar anchor users out there with these problems?....

Haven't heard of any....not my roll bar so far....anyone else think this is the problem it's being presented as?

No, but what I do know is ours works and we sleep well. That's all that matters. First Time everytime thus far.

 

[Djbangi]

Any roll bar anchor users out there with these problems?....

Haven't heard of any....not my roll bar so far....anyone else think this is the problem it's being presented as?

You are quite right, not a problem at all - only the designer of the anchor thinks so and he has put his money where his heart is, designed an anchor without a roll bar and denigrated his original design - you are right, just a fairy tale.

Either you think the designer great (as he designed your anchor) or you think him an idiot because he now says the design is flawed - you have chosen your route, we have the message, the designer thinks otherwise.