Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

Fortress Anchors said:

psneld,

Thanks for your input. We have set up testing parameters and rented equipment which insures that each anchor will be pulled starting with the exact same scope, and then by the exact same pull speed and total distance.

Below is an image of the anchors that will be tested.

Brian

Click to expand...

This is going to be great, Brian. A really good selection of modern anchors and some not so modern but still very widely in use. Thanks to Fortress for undertaking the test.

Would you be willing to include a Sarca Excell if one could be sent to you?

Delfin,

I will reserve comment about Peter Smith, the Rocna designer's Independent Anchor Performance Testing, only to say that he mysteriously left out that in Voile magazine, the Fortress FX-23 model held to over 350x its weight and was touted as "the Champion of All Categories." Just a minor omission.

Regarding the Excel, I have heard that it is a terrific anchor but we wanted to only include anchors which are readily available in the USA.

Thanks,
Brian

HopCar said:

Hey, it looks like there is a Claw / Bruce hanging on the bow of the Rachel Carson!

Click to expand...

My guess is that it will still be hanging off the bow of the Rachel Carson after the tests are completed as well.

As Rex noted, there are a lot of variables to which anchors look to be suited for cruising. The new designs seem to eliminate a lot of the skill required to set, say a CQR or perhaps a Bruce/Claw design so have that advantage. However, I think one of the biggest issues is that the forces put on an anchor are a whole lot less than people think they are and of course these have been measured. When you get into 50 knot winds, sure, the loads increase and increase fast, however if an anchor is set well it doesn't matter whether the surface area presented perpendicularly to the sea bed is from manufacturer A vs. manufacturer B. The Fortress/Danforth types generally win in that category simply because I would imagine they present the highest surface area to oppose the direction of drag. Add to that that some anchors - especially those without an obstructing hoop - are better at diving to conditions denser that at the surface and you have another variable to consider. Again, Fortress/Danforth types do well in this category because they present few obstacles to burying themselves, as does the Spade, Ultra, and Sarca.

Further, with a proper snub line or mixed rode, every foot of stretch induced reduces the final load on the anchor proportionally because the force of the wind and wave is dissipated over a distance, not all at once as is the case with anchor tests. I think all of that explains why so many people use Bruce/Claw or CQR designs so successfully for so long and why you still see them on the bows of so many boats. If they were dragging all over the place wouldn't ya think they would have been replaced? Mine never dragged except as noted - once in soupy mud and once because of careless stupidity, so it doesn't surprise me that theirs don't either.

But I do like my Ultra. With it, I can be as brainless in anchoring technique as I like and still get a good result!

Fortress Anchors said:

Regarding the Excel, I have heard that it is a terrific anchor but we wanted to only include anchors which are readily available in the USA.

Thanks,
Brian

Click to expand...

Well, anybody could order one and have it arrive if they wanted one.....

There has just been so much speculation on this design and so much sturm und drang generated on other forums it just would be nice to have some more objective data on which to make a comparison. But you certainly can't walk in and buy one off the shelf, so I see your point.

Daddyo, What size danforths are you using as I am considering up sizing & up grading my anchors on my similar size 48 ocean alexander as Grace. Thanks

Brian,
I'm wondering mostly about what scopes will be used. As I recall Fortress and the Manson Supreme have done very well at 3-1 scope in past anchor tests. And other new gen anchors not so well.

Since I know little about the CQR I'm glad it's in the test.

And I'm very glad The Boss, Ultra and Mantus will be in the test. I don't recall that any of them have been tested.

Will the Spade be steel?

Brian I hope consideration has been given to the fact that the test boat is absolutely huge compared to the appropriate boat for the anchors. Setting an anchor is best done slowly and doing it slowly w a test boat that large may be problematic for linear test results. Some anchors may set and hold better if set carefully by a smaller boat. I see tests that say "no mater how hard we tried we couldn't get this anchor to set". That to me is enough to write off the whole anchor test.

Too bad this Dreadnought won't be in the test. The skipper of this boat says it does well in 50 knot summer gales but drags some in 60 knot winter gales. If you could see aloft on his boat he has a lot of windage. Of interest note the offset hydraulic chain reduction drive w motor on top. Usually it's aft of the drum.

Delfin said:

Oh yes, Peter Smith has always been my "go-to" guy when it comes to independent anchor testing....

Click to expand...

Since he did not conduct any of those tests himself that I am aware of, just how would he have influence their out comes in a way that would negate the results?

Delfin,

It is my understanding that the Kobra, which is made by Plastimo in France, is also an excellent-performing, traditional plow type anchor, but again, not available here in the USA.

Eric, we will not be pulling with the research vessel: it is too big, the bottoms are too soft, and the anchors are too small to be able to get consistent results.

We will be using the aft winch to do the pulling, and we have rented a running line tensiometer that will be installed on the wire rope and is capable of measuring & logging the payout, tension, and pull speed.

The research vessel will be held in place during the pulling by its "state of the art" Dynamic Positioning System.

The plan is to pay out the chain and wire rope to a 5:1 scope + 100 feet (resulting in about an 8.3:1 scope) and then pull back the 100 feet at a rate of 10 feet per minute, so the pull duration will be 10 minutes.

This pull rate of speed was recommended by Bob Taylor, a retired US Navy anchor design and soil mechanics expert, who is consulting for us on this project.

We will be testing the steel Spade anchor.

Thanks,
Brian

So you are adjusting for surge and multiple angle pulls like a real boat at anchor?

While this will be interesting, let's everyone keep in mind that it will not be any sort of defining test as to the best anchor. When you get testing done by a brand, they're obviously smart enough to test in all conditions that show their product best. Yes, independent review of results, but not an independent choice of conditions. Still, I look forward to the results. Just won't read more into them than they are. They are a test of anchors in one specific setting chosen by Fortress.

Capt.Bill11 said:

Since he did not conduct any of those tests himself that I am aware of, just how would he have influence their out comes in a way that would negate the results?

Click to expand...

If you do a bit of research on the topic of how Rocna dealt with anchor tests and anchor manufacturing in the past, you will understand why I would not look to Peter Smith for an honest evaluation of anchors.

Water under the bridge, so to speak, that I doubt anyone wants to dredge up.

BandB said:

While this will be interesting, let's everyone keep in mind that it will not be any sort of defining test as to the best anchor. When you get testing done by a brand, they're obviously smart enough to test in all conditions that show their product best. Yes, independent review of results, but not an independent choice of conditions. Still, I look forward to the results. Just won't read more into them than they are. They are a test of anchors in one specific setting chosen by Fortress.

Click to expand...

I would say that there are manufacturers and there are manufacturers. Fortress has consistently shown themselves to be honest merchants of information about anchor design and functionality, so I look forward to their results with interest, while recognizing that it will be in one bottom type on one day.

Delfin said:

If you do a bit of research on the topic of how Rocna dealt with anchor tests and anchor manufacturing in the past, you will understand why I would not look to Peter Smith for an honest evaluation of anchors.

Water under the bridge, so to speak, that I doubt anyone wants to dredge up.

Click to expand...

I know the history. And I was not looking to him for his evaluation of anchors. Just showing that independent anchor tests have been done over the years.

And that does not answer my question to you. Nor change the results of the tests.

So are you in on the pool or not?

BandB said:

They are a test of anchors in one specific setting chosen by Fortress.

Click to expand...

Actually, we had help on selecting a soft mud bottom test location from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, along with the crew of the Rachel Carson research vessel which the university owns.

While exhibiting at the US Sailboat Show in Annapolis for the past 15 years or so, we have continuously heard stories about the difficulties anchoring in this common bay bottom-type, which sparked our interest in conducting a test here.

psneeld said:

So you are adjusting for surge and multiple angle pulls like a real boat at anchor?

Click to expand...

We certainly want to conduct multiple angle pulls, but we will need to first establish what loads an anchor can handle in soft mud when pulled in a straight line direction, which should be when it performs optimally.

If an anchor cannot achieve more than a minimal load during the straight pull test, then there is obviously no reason to believe that it will perform better when side loaded.

Capt.Bill11 said:

I know the history. And I was not looking to him for his evaluation of anchors. Just showing that independent anchor tests have been done over the years.

And that does not answer my question to you. Nor change the results of the tests.

Click to expand...

Please be advised that the presentation of the test report data is Peter Smith's (actually son Craig's, I'm sure) interpretation, and not the actual test reports. In addition to the omission I mentioned previously from the Voile test, there are other misrepresentations about our product and probably about others as well.

Delfin said:

I would say that there are manufacturers and there are manufacturers. Fortress has consistently shown themselves to be honest merchants of information about anchor design and functionality, so I look forward to their results with interest, while recognizing that it will be in one bottom type on one day.

Click to expand...

Nothing dishonest being implied. You just aren't going to choose to do the comparison in your weakest area or under conditions you know are not your strength. Look at all the comparative testing you see by brands in every field. All telling the truth but no one does tests or surveys in a manner they will lose or look bad.

I agree that Fortress is an excellent product and the company appears to be as well. But I also know if I was the CEO, I would already have enough tests under these conditions to know I would win. And, I know that no anchor is the best in every situation for every boat.

Capt.Bill11 said:

Just showing that independent anchor tests have been done over the years.

Click to expand...

Even independent tests will favor some over others. They don't test every type and size boat, every condition. The most famous independent tester of consumer products is Consumer Reports and, yet, I've found myself very happy with products they ranked down the line and not preferring their winners. They weigh factors differently than perhaps I would. I use to laugh at their old outboard tests. They'd test a certain hp range. One company would have a motor at the top of that range and another wouldn't. Then they'd score the first company higher because it had more power and speed. Well, yes, a 60 hp is more than a 50 hp.

I still think there will be great information from this test. Just don't think that will declare any brand best for all.

I think it's great that Fortress is doing this, being transparent about the test methods, and willing to share it all. I'm sure it will be very useful information for anyone selecting an anchor. But I think we all know that there are lots of considerations in anchor selection, and that no one test is going to provide all information needed to identify the one best anchor. Neither this test, nor any other test. But all are great input for a captain's thoughtful consideration...

To me the most difficult aspect of testing Fortress vs. Steel anchors is what sizes and weights you compare. Do you match size or weight? Or somewhere in between? And there is no right answer because on some boats the weight advantage of aluminum is a huge plus while on others weight is less of a consideration, but size is.

Brian wrote;
"While exhibiting at the US Sailboat Show in Annapolis for the past 15 years or so, we have continuously heard stories about the difficulties anchoring in this common bay bottom-type, which sparked our interest in conducting a test here."

A test site that boaters over time had "difficulties anchoring" in runs the risk of testing the bottom rather than the anchors.

Wouldn't a very uniform typical bottom be better for testing Holding power? Or is this really a test of setting ability? Or the ability to overcome the difficulty this bottom type is known for. May not reveal the king of the mountain but the king of that part of Chesapeake Bay or bottom type.

All things considered I'm looking fwd to it.

BandB,
Yes if I were Fortress I'd be mulling that over real hard.
One could say weight is the bottom line and all the anchors need to be the same weight.
However In the past most testers have used the size (weight) of anchor recommended by each manufacturer for a fictitious and fixed size boat. Obviously those manufacturers recommending large and/or heavy anchors would have a decisive advantage in the test. For high performance anchoring on my own boat I would expect to use a 22 to 33lb anchor. But a Fortress that heavy would be perhaps too big dimensionally to handle gracefully on my little boat. On the other hand a heavy Claw is easy to handle on the bow of most any boat. No doubt the primary reason they are so popular. A small (light) CQR may be very ineffective whereas the same size and weight Rocna at a scope of 8-1 may come off as a wonder hook.

Very good question BandB.

Fortress Anchors said:

Please be advised that the presentation of the test report data is Peter Smith's (actually son Craig's, I'm sure) interpretation, and not the actual test reports. In addition to the omission I mentioned previously from the Voile test, there are other misrepresentations about our product and probably about others as well.

Click to expand...

It was always my understanding that the graphs as shown accurately depicted the results from the tests discussed.

If they don't, and have been tampered with, then I stand corrected.

But that still does change the fact that several independent tests have been carry out. And that was the only question I was answering when I posted the link to Peters site. It was easier than posting multiple links to each test just to show there had been several conducted.

BandB said:

Even independent tests will favor some over others.

Click to expand...

Possibly. But just to be clear, I was only answering a question on whether anchor tests had been conducted independently of any anchor manufacturers. And that was all.

I was not commenting on the results of any of those tests in that context.

As to the results of all the different more recent anchor tests, I think they just reinforce what we all already know, that no one style of anchor is best for all conditions. And moving up a size or two in any anchor style will get you higher holding power. Which may help compensate for a particular anchors failings in the conditions you might be anchoring in at the time.

So I guess the short version is, as always, YMMV.

rking said:

Daddyo, What size danforths are you using as I am considering up sizing & up grading my anchors on my similar size 48 ocean alexander as Grace. Thanks

Click to expand...

We have a 75lb Danforth. I just had Mr Pettigrow do some welding on her to restore her and then had a triple dip galvanizing done. I think she earned it!

Dad,

How'ed the Dan earn it?

The Hurrycane?

manyboats said:

Dad,

How'ed the Dan earn it?

The Hurrycane?

Click to expand...

Two hurricanes, Irene and Sandy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors



Please be advised that the presentation of the test report data is Peter Smith's (actually son Craig's, I'm sure) interpretation, and not the actual test reports. In addition to the omission I mentioned previously from the Voile test, there are other misrepresentations about our product and probably about others as well.

Quote, Capt Bill:

It was always my understanding that the graphs as shown accurately depicted the results from the tests discussed.

If they don't, and have been tampered with, then I stand corrected.

But that still does change the fact that several independent tests have been carry out. And that was the only question I was answering when I posted the link to Peters site. It was easier than posting multiple links to each test just to show there had been several conducted.

Rex Wrote:

Two things,

Brian is correct with the Smiths interpretations, not trying for a thread drift but the point should be made as this has become part of the honesty bit, ( Re manufacturers having input with anchor testing.)

NOTICE THE LINK BELOW, LAST PHOTO.

You will notice the ( D shackle) is fitted to the underside of the Sarca anchors shank, clearly when fitted this way it will jam, it is also the wrong way around, the pin should be through the slot not the D section, this Sarca will never operate- hold as designed in this configuration, the Smiths are very familiar with our product and have done many tests and then published.

I have emailed Peter Smith on a number of occasions to have some conscious and remove this link as he knows himself the Sarca will never work hooked up like this, this was many years back now never the less it is still there, if it had been removed then I would not have mentioned it. Zoom up the photo.

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/distributable/sarca-anchor-magazine-reviews.pdf

Secondly this does nothing for the credibility of anchor Manufacturers, unfortunately customers sometimes tend to label us all the same, so throw this into the mix of anchor testing and you have a real potent brew.

Manufacturers, designers of anchors when having anchor tests done-- should always be present to prevent misunderstanding of product, as you see above, the tester must be overseen to make sure of correct interpretation of claims and application of each anchor design involved.

Capt Bill, we were involved in our tests,difference being they were done independently for certification, no influence from journo to the tester, the testers job was to present a set of figures from various sea floors for cetification to be scruitineerd by the N.M.S.C. National Marine Safety Committee, this was a part of the testing procedure for Super High Holding Power certification.

Because of our testing method the area was sought by a number of bodies to suit the testers, not just Anchor Right.
I notice you all have your shopping bags of ideas for Brian to apply for this anchor test, whew, I am glad it’s not me.

Robertson’s spent 8 months of testing, much of this we just could not be present at, over I think it was, 190 pulls with various anchors multiple times, at a price tag I am still trying to forget, and those shopping bags, we never half filled the requests.

Yes I took advantage of all of this testing, difference being the test was for certification, it cost me dearly, no different I suppose to Manson having their anchors tested by Lloyds for S/H/H/Power, surely, Rocna have the same, if so show us the holding power figures.

Show us the proof testing figures,? When we stated, then showed that some of our pulls recorded-- produced twice the holding power of a certain anchor brand in hard sand, we had to dodge the rocks , they weren’t our figures, they were Robertson’s.

How could this be? Delphin hit on it before, roll bars create drag-huge friction in hard sand, many types of hard sand will produce twice its holding power for every 5 inches, so if the Excel penetrated 5 inches deeper as it has no roll bar, surely it is not that hard to understand.

If they all produced a chart of holding power figures supplied from actual testing authorities then you would be able to see bench mark of holding, an untamperd with figure to start from to make comparrisons, this may police some sensibilty for all.

How much force is needed to bend an anchor, this test is just for a strength comparison, so as long as they are all tested by an authrity a proof test gives you a comparison in strength between the brands, I am happy to share our proof tests from Robertson’s, this is when the yield takes place, gets rid of one argument.

Just for the record, we had witnesses at our testing. Marine survey officers, boat builders, local councils, distributors, retailers, Journo’s, fisheries just to name a few.
Regards Rex.

>Could this mean no more anchor threads? Could the Great Debate be settled?<

YES!
For a boater that anchors in that same exact spot , and duplicates the anchor rode used.

NO for the rest of the world .

Different bottoms , different anchor rodes , different answers.

The religions will continue , and anyone with a welding set that wants to sell steel at $15 a pound , will continue to tout their latest creations.

twistedtree said:

I think it's great that Fortress is doing this, being transparent about the test methods, and willing to share it all. I'm sure it will be very useful information for anyone selecting an anchor. But I think we all know that there are lots of considerations in anchor selection, and that no one test is going to provide all information needed to identify the one best anchor. Neither this test, nor any other test. But all are great input for a captain's thoughtful consideration...

Click to expand...

Thank you, and I agree completely with your other points.

BandB said:

To me the most difficult aspect of testing Fortress vs. Steel anchors is what sizes and weights you compare. Do you match size or weight? Or somewhere in between? And there is no right answer because on some boats the weight advantage of aluminum is a huge plus while on others weight is less of a consideration, but size is.

Click to expand...

BandB, good point. The steel anchors are all very close in weight, 44-46 lbs (20-21 kg), with the exception of the Danforth which is 35 lbs (16 kg) and the Fortress FX-37 is 21 lbs (10 kg).

manyboats said:

Wouldn't a very uniform typical bottom be better for testing Holding power? Or is this really a test of setting ability? Or the ability to overcome the difficulty this bottom type is known for. May not reveal the king of the mountain but the king of that part of Chesapeake Bay or bottom type.

Click to expand...

Eric, we know that soft mud is common in bays, lakes, and rivers. We conducted extensive public tests in the soft mud bottoms of SF Bay in 1990 near a US Navy testing site, and this time around we are doing the testing in a similar bottom that is located in a very popular east coast boating area.

Anchor design will certainly be a determining factor in how well each anchor engages the bottom and develops holding power while being pulled through soft mud.

Bob Taylor, the US Navy consultant for us, has advised that "anchors which are optimized for harder soils are likely to only have a holding ratio (holding power divided by anchor weight) of 10-15 in a soft soil," and it will be interesting to see if this holds true in the Chesapeake Bay testing.

I look forward to seeing the results. It will be interesting to see which is the King of the Mud. Perhaps there could be a King of the Sand test next year. If done properly in an area with a homogenous bottom, I would think the results would be hard to dispute. It may reduce the number of posts on TF.

I may have to do my own testing to find out which is the King of the Weedy Limestone. There is not such thing as a homogenous bottom around here.

Fortress Anchors said:

Dwhatty,

Please see the below attachment.

Brian

Click to expand...

Is it possible to dig up a genuine Bruce for the tests?