Nomad Willy
Guru
On observation I have to share only because it is interesting.
The shank of most anchors is angled such that when the anchor is at work the shank presents itself to the sand, mud or rock ... at an angle. A bit like a planing boat in the act of going "over the hump". The shank attach point at the fwd end is usually about 4 to 12" above the other end at the anchor. As the anchor moves (is pulled) fwd toward the boat and rode the shank, because of it's angle of attack tries to ride up and out of the bottom. Very few anchors lack this negative feature. Danforth, Buglel to an extreme extent, Delta, Spade, Supreme, and Rocna all have shanks that have a considerable angle of attack that would apparently tend to make the anchor rise up and out of the bottom.
Not so the Bruce and it's descendants. Most modern anchors appear to address this issue by being hook shaped (moderately or greatly (or at least to some degree)) reducing the riding up factor. The Claws, the SARCA, the Oeeane and the XYZ (see pic) basically are void of this riding up tendency from the angle of attack of the shank.
The Claws have always had such a great reputation for fast and dependable setting and I think the shank angle as I have presented it plays a very prominent role in that reputation. The vertical part of the Claw's shank is long (tall) and allows the fluke to be buried very significantly before the upper part of the shank enters the bottom.
I offer the side view of a Claw for reference. The shank of the Claw and the XYZ is similar but the Claw is about twice as tall. That may seem as an advantage until you consider the fact that the upper part of the shank on the XYZ is probably the world's smallest.
The shank of most anchors is angled such that when the anchor is at work the shank presents itself to the sand, mud or rock ... at an angle. A bit like a planing boat in the act of going "over the hump". The shank attach point at the fwd end is usually about 4 to 12" above the other end at the anchor. As the anchor moves (is pulled) fwd toward the boat and rode the shank, because of it's angle of attack tries to ride up and out of the bottom. Very few anchors lack this negative feature. Danforth, Buglel to an extreme extent, Delta, Spade, Supreme, and Rocna all have shanks that have a considerable angle of attack that would apparently tend to make the anchor rise up and out of the bottom.
Not so the Bruce and it's descendants. Most modern anchors appear to address this issue by being hook shaped (moderately or greatly (or at least to some degree)) reducing the riding up factor. The Claws, the SARCA, the Oeeane and the XYZ (see pic) basically are void of this riding up tendency from the angle of attack of the shank.
The Claws have always had such a great reputation for fast and dependable setting and I think the shank angle as I have presented it plays a very prominent role in that reputation. The vertical part of the Claw's shank is long (tall) and allows the fluke to be buried very significantly before the upper part of the shank enters the bottom.
I offer the side view of a Claw for reference. The shank of the Claw and the XYZ is similar but the Claw is about twice as tall. That may seem as an advantage until you consider the fact that the upper part of the shank on the XYZ is probably the world's smallest.
