Best Claw type anchor

All the claws I've ever seen look almost alike. It appears the present manufacturers of the Claw think as most boaters do that the Bruce anchor posses some kind of magic perfection that if deviated from would result in failure. Look where we'd be if car manufacturers thought that in 1929. We'd still be driving black model A's.

The following is part of an anchor test that included Claws.

"We were surprised it was one of the worst performers in our tests. The maximum resistance at 5:1 scope was 886lb – for a brief moment before breaking out. The tension graphs showed that the anchor never penetrated properly, setting and
releasing rapidly or simply scraping the bottom. Is this because the Claw doesn’t share the original geometry of the Bruce design? Were the Claw’s flukes simply not sharp enough to penetrate the harder clay-like sand?" We recorded similar results at 7:1 scope. The beach trials showed the Claw ploughing a longer trench down the beach than most. Our conclusions were that the flukes of the Claw weren’t sharp or weighted enough to penetrate"

In their pictures the Claw dragged along like this: Can't seem to copy and paste the pic. It was dragging along w only three flukes berried and one sticking up. The top of the shank was laying on it's side. Only two flukes penetrated. The third was pushing along a lot of mud and sand and it looked that the ploughed mass kept the third fluke from rotating downward to bury all three flukes.



The anchor tester showed his ignorance by stating that there may not have been enough weight on the fluke tips to penetrate. Most people that know anchors know that the Claws are one of the very best anchors in this regard. They present a very high percentage of their total weight on the fluke tips during the initial setting process. I've always thought this helped explain the reputation Claws have for setting fast.


Others feel the flukes aren't sharp enough. Me included.


A few Claws have slightly different looking flukes and perhaps different length shanks both lengthwise and vertically. Some have the short stubby and thick flukes characteristic of the original Claw. But some have slightly longer, narrower and thinner flukes. I'm wondering if these differences or any other difference makes a difference in the performance of the anchor. What's the difference between the Lewmar, Sea Dog or other Claws?
OR ... what is your opinion?

I had a heavy Bruce with all heavy chain and used it in mud on Chesapeake and ICW mid Atlantic. It tended to drag badly in thunder storms. I think it acted more like a plow then a digger.

I have a Lewmar claw and it works for me. In my opinion, that is good.

Claws drag and are consistently at or near the bottom as far as holding power goes in pretty much every anchor test I've ever seen. About all they do well is set fast.

Personally I would not waste my money on one. Even if they are one of the cheapest anchors you can buy.

The newer breed of spade type anchors are just far superior in my opinion.

I think it depends on whether or not you are anchoring in reversing currents. If in a reversing current, I'd use a CQR which has a hinge. Claws also work OK in that situation, but not as good as a good heavy CQR. Danforths are useless in reversing currents, but hold better than any if you use two.

Eric, as a general rule of thumb, (and you will not be surprised when I say I share the reservations re claw types many above expressed), I think of all the manufacturers who produce examples of the various types, the Manson (NZ) version will be the best. (They appear to have worked out the best compromise for each type that gives the best performance, be it a CQR, Claw, or Danforth types, because they value their reputation so much).
In this case, the Claw, the best of a not that great type - but hey, they appear to be adequate for many on here...

I like my genuine Bruce, we have had a good relationship for 30 years and has never failed us yet. But if Rex sold his anchors in Canada then maybe I could see retirement for the old girl........

I used a Bruce a few times but went back to my TRUSTY 45 lb CQR and all chain. I think that the type of bottom plays a more important role than the anchor design and once the anchor drags we tend to not TRUST it again, confidence is lost. I think setting an anchor is a art and some folks just don't no how to do it correctly. There used to be guide books that pointed out good "holding ground" in different anchorages. Example Black Sound off Green Turtle in the Abacos very poor holding while White Sound has excellent holding ground. Wind, water depth, current, lee shores, etc and the list goes on and on.
For 18 years I maintained a hurricane style mooring consisting of three 22 lb Danforth anchors with fifty foot long 3/8 chain rodes spread out equally around a 360 degree circle and a 20 foot 3/8 chain lead to the mooring ball. The anchors and rodes where set in a mud/sand bottom and it held thru near hurricane strength winds. I'm sure the composition of the bottom and the fact that this method always has two anchors and rodes worked together made it hold a 12 ton displacement full keel sailboat without dragging.

Bill

I know a few habitual anchorers along the eastern seaboard who swear by their Bruce, though in each case they use a very heavy version. So much of anchoring is technique.

I also dispute the idea that Danforth type anchors don't work in reversing currents, and I sa this as someone who switch to a Delta from a Danforth in anticipation of anchoring in a large number of reversing current locations. 1) the old Danforth held fine in a couple of clocking wind situations before I made the switch 2) I have seen plenty of boats with Danforth/Fortress anchors hold fine in the same reversing current locations as I was anchored in. A few observations as to how your boat actually behaves as the current gradually slows, slacks, reverses, and picks up speed can help you visualize how a well set will work its way around. Do I sleep a whole lot betterin clocking situations in a boat with something like a Delta or CQR or Rocna or Supermax? Why sure I do!

I agree that Danforths can and do work in reversing current situations within certain paramaters. I use one exclusively, and we have 10-16 foot tidal swings two times a day. No problems to date.

caltex,
In reversing currents I think you have a point. From what I've seen, heard and experienced the Danforths set dependably on a bottom that they perform well on like a soft bottom. In those conditions I think they can be depended on to reset. I would'nt trust them on hard bottoms though.

HiDHo,
You wrote "I think that the type of bottom plays a more important role than the anchor design". ........ Can't agree more.

Peter,
I assume you're talking about the Manson Ray. The most expensive Claw by far. I think a 33# Ray costs $950.00. Too expensive for me.

In starting this post I wanted to learn about the differences between the various Claws. It's commonly thought they are all the same but they are not. People think the original Claw (Bruce) can't be improved upon. That's not the way product evolution usually works. Products over time usually are improvements over their predecessors. The assumption is, of course that the later Claws that came along were just rough copies made w no research and development done. I don't think any of us know and there's a good chance one or more Claws are considerably better than the original Bruce.

One Claw that I can clearly see that the flukes are narrower and longer the the others. That's what I see in the pics of a Claw made by Plasimo or Manta. Don't know if there's any connection between Mantus and Manta. But in the pics on the WM catalog the flukes are definitely of a higher aspect ratio .... narrower and longer. Other Claws probably have differences that I can't see in the pics.

Has anyone used the Manta/Plastimo Claw? Anyone noticed a different performing or shaped Claw? Any Claw differences?

http://www.westmarine.com/lalizas-usa-inc--manta-anchors--P0085020
www.westmarine.com/lalizas-usa-inc--manta-anchors--P0085020tr

The edit window sure disappears fast

<//www.westmarine.com/lalizas-usa-inc--manta-anchors--P008502007>

What do you think? The flukes are very much sharper. I think the sharper flukes would penetrate better but still maybe the anchor wouldn't rotate so all three flukes get buried. I think the Claw needs a design update that will insure all three flukes get into the act w the shank up on top.

Anybody seen one of these? Used one?

manyboats said:

Peter,
I assume you're talking about the Manson Ray. The most expensive Claw by far. I think a 33# Ray costs $950.00. Too expensive for me.

In starting this post I wanted to learn about the differences between the various Claws. It's commonly thought they are all the same but they are not. People think the original Claw (Bruce) can't be improved upon. That's not the way product evolution usually works. Products over time usually are improvements over their predecessors. The assumption is, of course that the later Claws that came along were just rough copies made w no research and development done. I don't think any of us know and there's a good chance one or more Claws are considerably better than the original Bruce.

Click to expand...

That's why I suggested the Manson in answer to you query, because I suspect they have developed the claw type as far as it realistically can go. Next comes the question - ok, that being the case, why bother taking it further when it has gone about as far as it can go..? Just accept it is as good as it will ever be, and move on. Much like we do with much of what we buy. Eg, no-one will develop a better iPhone 3G, (son's handmedown), because they are currently up to 5S, and about to launch an iPhone 6. Anchors are no different. Each design reaches max potential, then just hangs around. As most do what they are meant to do most of the time, and are not cheap items, hence we have the plethora of different designs out there still being used. As Marin used to love to quote - "no anchor fails, until it does"
The search goes on...

why bother taking it further when it has gone about as far as it can go..? Just accept it is as good as it will ever be, and move on.

New guys with a welder look at existing anchor PRI$E$ , and decide to get into the market.

A 60 lb hunk of welded steel that retails for $700 is too good a deal to pass up.

Find a beach , rig a test and video it and voilla , you are an anchor maker.

The claw has been updated, it's called a Rocna

It's as simple as this:

The best anchor is the one that never fails you and costs the least. If a one hundred dollar anchor sets easily and doesn't break out on its own, the only real difference between it and a five hundred dollar anchor is four hundred dollars in someone else's pocket.

Good point Ron.

Capt.Bill11,
Here is an anchor test performed on a mud bottom. Lots of popular and some not so popular anchors were in this test. In the PNW the most common type of bottom by far is mud. As you can see only one anchor did worse than the Rocna at 7-1 scope. At 3-1 also only one anchor had less performance. The SARCA, Bulwagga, Danforth, Davis, Fortress, Hydrobubble, Super Max and the XYZ anchors all outperformed the Rocna.

This shows what myself and others have been saying all along that the bottom is the greatest variable in anchoring. And no anchor can do everything. The Claw wasn't represented here and they seem to do poorly in mud but if the Claw was here Rocna's status would have only improved slightly. If the Delta, Manson Supreme, the steel Spade and the SARCA Excell had been tested here also Rocna's status would probably been even more dismal.

The SF Bay area is also mostly mud and I'll bet most of the NE US is also mud. I see Mr Smith is still serving up propaganda on the web that I discovered searching anchors. I think Mr Smith and his marketing skills are far better than the Rocna anchor.

That said I can truthfully say the Rocna is a good anchor.

I find those Practical Sailor tests , and tests that merely measure straight line holding power to be of little value in the real world. Primarily, because they do a poor job of testing clocking conditions, and the methodology of setting the anchor varies. Maybe one data point of interest, but not something to make decisions on.

I've pretty much come to conclude that about all PS tests over the years.

caltexflanc said:

I find those Practical Sailor tests , and tests that merely measure straight line holding power to be of little value in the real world. Primarily, because they do a poor job of testing clocking conditions, and the methodology of setting the anchor varies. Maybe one data point of interest, but not something to make decisions on.

I've pretty much come to conclude that about all PS tests over the years.

Click to expand...

George,
Here's a test for you if there is one.

Why I do like that a little better of course, because it agrees with me! And they like my anchor! Still, it doesn't really speak to how well the anchors were set in the first place, and even they note it was a fairly superficial sampling.

I never meant to say the Rocna is the end all be all of anchors. And in that test the differences in holding power between the different anchors is not that great in most cases. Soft mud is a tough bottom for most any anchor to hold well in.

I fully agree that what type of bottom you anchor in can make a difference in which anchor you should use. I've just found that the spade type anchors perform very well in many different types of bottoms.

Soft mud is a tough bottom for most any anchor to hold well in.

Soft mud requires either big surface area , Danforth

Or an anchor that will go down thru the soft goop, old Herrishoff yachtsman.

manyboats said:

Good point Ron.

Capt.Bill11,
Here is an anchor test performed on a mud bottom. Lots of popular and some not so popular anchors were in this test. In the PNW the most common type of bottom by far is mud. As you can see only one anchor did worse than the Rocna at 7-1 scope. At 3-1 also only one anchor had less performance. The SARCA, Bulwagga, Danforth, Davis, Fortress, Hydrobubble, Super Max and the XYZ anchors all outperformed the Rocna.

This shows what myself and others have been saying all along that the bottom is the greatest variable in anchoring. And no anchor can do everything. The Claw wasn't represented here and they seem to do poorly in mud but if the Claw was here Rocna's status would have only improved slightly. If the Delta, Manson Supreme, the steel Spade and the SARCA Excell had been tested here also Rocna's status would probably been even worse.
That said I can truthfully say the Rocna is a good anchor.

Click to expand...

I suspect the reason why certain anchors perform poorly in mud, is buildup of bottom substrate just clogs those with a concave fluke arrangement, eg Rocna, Manson Supreme, and claws, stopping them from digging deeper, so they just pop out, often filled with a great gob of mud. This is why Rex of Sarca abandoned concave and went back to convex, plow-like flukes, as that shape can still keep digging in in soft bottoms, shedding mud build-up as it goes due to it's streamlined shape. Something Marin never seemed to get, when we got discussing fluke shapes. He always felt streamlined meant it would come out easier. Not so in a soft bottom.

Peter B said:

I suspect the reason why certain anchors perform poorly in mud, is buildup of bottom substrate just clogs those with a concave fluke arrangement, eg Rocna, Manson Supreme, and claws, stopping them from digging deeper, so they just pop out, often filled with a great gob of mud.

Click to expand...

Maybe. But I can't really see mud building up in front of a claw due to the angle and shape of the claws flukes. I think they just slide through the mud like they do once they start to drag in sand.

I think if I was going to be anchoring in mud bottoms a lot I'd use as large a Super Max as I could accommodate on the bow roller.

Cap.Bill,
Look at how poorly the 47lb Super Max did against the 13lb XYZ. Looks like there's more to it than surface area. One would think anything would set in mud but the difference in holding power between a big anchor in mud and a small one would be a no brainer due to the huge difference in surface area but the little XYZ created or developed more resistance in the test and once for me in a 50 knot gale.

Peter,
The convex/concave thing is always interesting but the concave surface creates more resistance in a fluid. Look at anhedral and dihedral wings. Clearly the anhedral (concave) wings have more lift. Winglets up or droop tips the droop tips win hands down. But the French anchor designer, the one that designed the Spade, addressed the convex/concave issue as his first step in designing the Spade. BUT .... when I rode out my first 50 knot gale at anchor I was using this convex 13lb XYZ anchor. The same as was on the anchor test in post #17. But my later model XYZ has a flat fluke. But then the original (this pic) wasn't very convex either but it was and it held. Personally I think the XYZ13 won that test and held in my 50K gale was because it was not encumbered w big shanks, roll bars or any other appendage except it's very small shank. XYZ must have got the shank angle right as it seemed to be the best digger ever. XYZ even provided a 30" cable to help in keeping the chain from impeding the anchors downward plunge. Most anchors are burdened by the necessity of having to fight against the chain and large shank to dig very deep. Roll bars insure that an anchor won't dig very deep but most dig deep enough to perform very well.
Lastly it would seem spilling mud off the top of a convex fluke would reduce "clogging" but also holding power .. and it does but there is much more to it.

So much depends on how, and how well you set an anchor in the first place. Do you go slow and let it "soak", as a friend of mine puts it, sinking it in deeper and deeper. Many's the time I had a long hard time getting my Delta back up after a few days on a mud bottom, and when it finally did, covered in mud up the shank, chain encased in the stuff. That high pressure raw water wash down was one of the very best additions I made to the boat.

I think some of these tests, be they formal in a magazine, or informal done by cruisers like us, start out be defining "set" as the anchor being mostly buried, but not all buried, for example, the plow section on a Delta, but not the ears. I may well be wrong about that. But in personal experience, always did better taking it slow.

caltex I think you are very right about;

"So much depends on how, and how well you set an anchor in the first place. Do you go slow and let it "soak", as a friend of mine puts it, sinking it in deeper and deeper."

Soaking the anchor is the very best way of setting them. And I learned that believe it or not reading an anchor test. Also "laying out the rode". I lower my anchors by hand and can tell immediately when it contacts the bottom. Then I signal my wife (at the helm) to start backing. When we start halving way only then do I slowly lower more rode. Then I signal her to stop and I pull gently on the line in pulses until the boat is mostly stopped. I enjoy the view for a minute (unless it's terrible weather) and then pull gently some more. Soon I give it more pull until We're up to 1400rpm if there is wind in the forecast or just above a idle if not.

In some or most of the tests they probably just drop the anchor down and probably a bunch of chain. Throw the boat into reverse and see how it goes. I may be overly critical but several anchor tests have comments about not being able to get some anchors to set. Could be that they were dragging the anchors across the bottom at 4 knots.

So far I've set my anchors carefully and never had one drag. I do it on the bow where I can feel and see what's going on.

And your comments about anchors not burying very well is also spot on. VERY few anchors get buried below the shank. Most are lucky to get the shank down to the surface of the bottom. Most probably just dip their flukes. They should never have coined the expression "burying type anchors". Makes it sound like they go 3' down. I think most all anchors most of the time go just a little deeper than the "non burying types" like a Navy anchor or my Dreadnought.

manyboats said:

Cap.Bill,
Look at how poorly the 47lb Super Max did against the 13lb XYZ. Looks like there's more to it than surface area. One would think anything would set in mud but the difference in holding power between a big anchor in mud and a small one would be a no brainer due to the huge difference in surface area but the little XYZ created or developed more resistance in the test and once for me in a 50 knot gale.

Click to expand...

But look how good it did against the XYZ in this test in Mississippi soft mud.

"16.5 pound aluminum SPADE anchor with a 6-1 scope with chain did not set and had a maximum pressure on the rode of 130 pounds. 17 pound XYZ prototype steel anchor with a 5-1 scope with all-nylon rode set with 200 pounds pressure and dragged at 400 pounds.
17 pound steel alloy DIGGER anchor with a 5-1 scope and all-nylon rode did not set and had no measurable pressure on the rode while dragging.
21 pound aluminum FORTRESS FX37 anchor with a 6-1 scope and chain did not set and had no measurable pressure on the rode while dragging.
26 pound WEST MARINE Danforth steel anchor with a 6-1 scope and chain did not set and had a maximum of 200 pounds pressure on the rode while dragging.
29.5 pound steel BARNACLE anchor with a 6-1 scope and with chain had no set and no measurable pressure on the rode while dragging.
29.5 pound steel BULLWAGGA anchor with a 5-1 scope and all-nylon rode had a set at 300 pounds pressure on the rode, and was dragging at 390 pounds pressure.
35 pound aluminum DELTA anchor with a scope of 6-1 and with chain had a set of 400 pounds pressure and dragged thereafter. A maximum pull pressure while dragging was experienced of 900 pounds momentarily which was thought to be due to an underbottom obstruction.
48 pound steel CQR anchor with a 6-1 scope with chain never set but dragged with a maximum pressure of 575 pounds on the rode.
46.5 pound steel BRUCE anchor with a 6-1 scope and chain never set but had a maximum pressure of 400 pounds while dragging.
52 pound steel SUPER MAX 17 Pivoting Arm anchor with a 5-1 scope and all-nylon rode set at 570 pounds and began dragging at 700 pounds pressure on the rode."




But as you and George pointed out, what you do at the beginning of your anchor set can have a big effect on how well your anchor ultimately sets and how well you sleep.

Yes Capt.BillII,
The early XYZ (bottom pic) was fantastic once it set but I only occasionally got it to set and then only very very carefully laying it out. In the end I decided it was strictly a mud anchor. It needed more weight in it's tail to put pressure on the fluke tip to bring about a set. See the second pic (top) of the later model XYZ. Much longer fluke. Much more weight further back. When the rode was pulled the tip dug in a little and would pop out but the tail of the fluke would bear down and transfer the force to the tip and setting would occur. The later type XYZ does set dependably. I used a modified version of that on our trip down from AK (see top ctr pic w wide chisel tip) and even the very wide fluke tip set every time. The weight in the back of the fluke seemed more effective than cast right into the tip as the pull on the rode added to the force at the tip. Note the side edge of the chisel tip is well positioned to cut right into the bottom w the center edges of the sides of the fluke not getting in the way (as many anchors do). Once the anchor is set there is considerably more fluke surface area at the tip that should reduce the tendency to break out and give better short scope performance.

But yes I'm a firm believer in laying out the rode so the whole rode is ideally set up to penetrate the bottom.

Cap is the Super Max's secret no chain? There was another TF member in the Puget Sound area that did very well w a Super Max. They look to be unbeatable in mud. At least soft mud.

Well in my experience from MD to FL, I have only used Danforth type anchors. I never had any real issues, other than that in swift currents I had a Fortress that would "fly" sometimes. With the Californian I have switched out my Danforth for a 60lb CQR. I still have the 43 pound Danforth and a 23 pound Danforth as spares. I have not anchored yet with the CQR but am looking forward to see what kind of performance it has.(all chain rode) In NE FL we have some swift reversing currents in popular anchorages and using Danforths I had never had a problem of dragging or losing it's set. I am hoping with the CQR it is the same. Anchors, unfortunately are one of those items that when asking 50 people you get 60 opinions.