Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

caltexflanc said:

Jeff if you read the thread from start Brian described the methodology and it's designers pretty thoroughly.

You bring up an excellent point others have made as well. About 80% of successful anchoring is technique, and that is is selling it short, especially if ground tackle is in specs for that size boat, regardless of anchor design. All these different tests by different people really tell you is how different anchors hold using one identical technique and tested in one particular manner. I find them interesting as a triangulation point, but not as sole the basis for decision making. In my now pretty extensive anchoring experience up and down both US coasts, in a a wide variety of conditions, using primarily CQR (many charter boats), Delta (main on my Hatteras, also charter boats) and Danforth (used as both main and backup on Hatt, also on many sailboats and charter boats and our Boston Whaler dinghy), I have found one constant in not getting a good set: my taking some kind of shortcut in the process.

I've posted this pic before, but I consider this type of situation to be an example one of my true tests of an anchor. This particular bottom was what I'd call "medium" mud. Clocking tidal current, residual winds maybe max 10 knots. Then, a sustained squall from out of the NW, max gust in the 40's, sustained maybe 25-30. Then after a few hours, back to normal.

Now, this is obviously a very hard thing to replicate in any kind of scientific study. Which why these types of controlled tests can only be used as one data point.

Click to expand...

I suspect with the vessel that Fortress used, the Rachel Carson, it is probably possible to develop a route and have the vessel follow that route precisely within + or - 4'-5'. You could then set an anchor have the vessel drive over the location of the anchor and then reload at 180 degrees to the set direction (on the assumption that is worst case scenario. However you need base data to start with, which is what Fortress have provided, and then you need a very large wallet.

Many are critical of the protocol - so come up with a better way, publish it here - let's see how we can improve on what has been done before. 'Real life' is not much use as no-one in real life has the cross section of anchors available (no-one has a large enough wallet) nor the motivation.

The test did not do 180 degree swings, but an anchor that has an approximate average holding capacity of 300lb in 5 pulls is unlikely to suddenly be better after a reverse of pull.

I accept the limitations - its a lot better, if not infinitely better, then it not being done.

But if you want a better test - make some suggestions.

Djbangi, actually, I believe we are in agreement. At least, I agree with your post and see it as restating the points I was trying to make.

If you think anchor testing a waste of time because it is conducted incorrectly - Manson, Rocna, Anchor Right, Mantus and Fortress have all conducted tests and published their results and often the tests being conducted. If they had a more acceptable way to test - one to which the boating public agreed - I am sure they would take notice.

I might venture a guess that Fortress might have encouraged other anchor makers to look at the performance of their product (and how the tests were conducted) and might consider it would be good marketing to respond in kind.

Think positive - maybe they can be persuaded by sound reason and healthy debate - here.

Caltexflanc,

I fully agree with you (and also agree its inordinately difficult to replicate real life conditions). I was not trying to be critical. I think you successfully demonstrate the weakness of anchor testing.

To me there are a number of worst case scenarios but up near the top is, will my anchor hold in the forecast storm (so does it have the holding capacity), will my anchor hold when the wind swings through a sudden 180 degrees when that tropical thunderstorm passes overhead (so if it pulls out - will it re-set) and will my anchor hold (in any case) in the cross section of seabeds I am likely to encounter.

Fortress have looked on part of this, will my anchor hold - in this case - in soft mud. Their tests, and they did the same in the early 90's, are the only tests in soft mud. Sadly there are a few more seabeds to look at, then we need add 180 degree wind shifts.

Its so easy to be critical of Fortress but I do not see it as being too helpful. If we suggest anchor testing, as has been done by Fortress and others in the past, is a waste of time and then strip the results of those tests out of the media I think you will find we have no data at all. That is apart from individual personal experiences - all of which are correct but do not compare to the wealth of information that is actually available (based on anchor tests many think are useless). Most would never have bought their Spade, Rocna, Supreme, Excel etc if there had been no anchor tests - and the controversy they develop.

But as we are inevitably to have anchor tests - its marketing - lets have tests that we might agree with.

Djbangi said:

Caltexflanc,

I fully agree with you (and also agree its inordinately difficult to replicate real life conditions). I was not trying to be critical. I think you successfully demonstrate the weakness of anchor testing.

To me there are a number of worst case scenarios but up near the top is, will my anchor hold in the forecast storm (so does it have the holding capacity), will my anchor hold when the wind swings through a sudden 180 degrees when that tropical thunderstorm passes overhead (so if it pulls out - will it re-set) and will my anchor hold (in any case) in the cross section of seabeds I am likely to encounter.

Fortress have looked on part of this, will my anchor hold - in this case - in soft mud. Their tests, and they did the same in the early 90's, are the only tests in soft mud. Sadly there are a few more seabeds to look at, then we need add 180 degree wind shifts.

Its so easy to be critical of Fortress but I do not see it as being too helpful. If we suggest anchor testing, as has been done by Fortress and others in the past, is a waste of time and then strip the results of those tests out of the media I think you will find we have no data at all. That is apart from individual personal experiences - all of which are correct but do not compare to the wealth of information that is actually available (based on anchor tests many think are useless). Most would never have bought their Spade, Rocna, Supreme, Excel etc if there had been no anchor tests - and the controversy they develop.

But as we are inevitably to have anchor tests - its marketing - lets have tests that we might agree with.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that to be true..once a small cadre of well respected people bought, tried and had success with each one and reported it one way or another....more and more bought into each type and the rest is history.

Many things in the boating world are bought or done because of the "old salt" on the dock or the wise old yardmaster. Rarely do I hear of someone making their final decision on a "consumer reports like test" over real boater's experiences.

I'll bet at first quite a few anchors were almost given away to start the momentum. Sure tests got people curious...and excited about those initial finding...but I didn't nor did anyone I know run out and buy an anchor due to an anchor test.

Even more so...so many anchor tests have been so inconclusive that I would be amazed anyone of significant enough reputation to sway others into buying would have run out and bought a particular anchor because of one or several tests. Oh I'm sure some did...maybe a few here...but I bought mine only after KNOWING I needed to upgrade from what the PO had and years of reading and word of mouth about what was going on in the "cruisers" anchoring world.

I don't think anchor tests are bad or worthless...they are what they are...a tiny piece of a very large puzzle.

For those interested, here are the figures obtained by an independent series of tests done by Robertsons using the TATS = Tidal Anchor Test Skid…

Naturally, Rex of Anchorright cannot and therefore would not post these links here, but as a Sarca owner/user I can, and I think they might be of interest. I suggest reading up re the TATS system from the link first, how it was developed and how it works, so one can the understand how the figures in the second link were obtained.

Tidal Anchor Test Skid T.A.T.S - anchorright.com.au

http://www.anchorright.com.au/certification/Robertsons-TATS-AnchorTestChart.pdf

Djbangi and psneeld,
"Most would never have bought their Spade, Rocna, Supreme, Excel etc if there had been no anchor tests - and the controversy they develop."
That is a very good question. But I fear we'll never have more than widely varying opinions. But I've often felt it's true.

The first bit of information to work with is probably to find out how many anchor tests there have been, where they have been and what would be the likelihood of boaters encountering the tests. I'd never heard of an anchor test until I came onto TF. Since then the've almost become a hobby for me and I have bookmarked 5 or 6 anchor tests.

The results were unbelievable for several tests as the newer anchors came out 20 to 30 times as good re holding power as the older anchors that are everywhere on boats there to be seen by all. This Fortress test has shown that most of the other tests have been done on hard surfaces (bottoms) that favor newer anchors. Hard bottoms ... soft bottoms. Both a challenge it seems and all the while I assumed they were trying hard to find a typical bottom. At this point I suspect this mud test is more typical of anchorage bottoms around the world. Get some darts and throw them at charts and I'll bet the ones that land on water will be predominately nearest a bottom symbol that indicates a mud bottom. I anchored many times on the BC coast w an anchor that had a 4" wide chisel like fluke tip. I assumed it would only set in mud. It set and held in all anchorages every time.

But if anchor tests aren't universally known they certainly didn't dictate what anchor we're using. Here on TF if there are still a majority of older anchors like Claws and Danforths on our boats then the tests haven't dictated what anchor we have and use. But if the're mostly newer anchors then there's a strong possibility the anchor tests are having an effect.

Manyboats,

When I last looked (which was a long time ago) Manson, I think on the section of their website for the Supreme, listed about a dozen anchor tests that had been published by magazines, I think they were all pdfs - so you could download them all. The list was not exclusive as it did not go back as far as Fortress' early tests in SF Bay in the early 90's and it possibly did not include the 4 or 5 articles written by John Knox in PBO as they were 1998-2003 (or thereabouts). He did publish some a bit later (which may or may not be included). It also did not include tests published in those magazines with a small readership. 2 or 3 tests were conducted by Voile et Voileurs and were published inconveniently for those of us linguistically handicapped in French but either Yachting Monthly or World carried English translations (which I think might be in the Manson references).

Interestingly some of the tests that Manson did include did not have the Supreme as 'the best' but as you point out newer anchors tend to come out better than older ones so it was always up there.

The tests cover a huge cross section of 'techniques', cover most of the anchors we see today (and some that did not last the rigours of the market place) but as you point out generally come to the same conclusion that newer anchors (the oldest perhaps being the Fortress) are better, commonly by a factor of 2, than the more traditional models. Most tests studiously did not look at mud, except Practical Sailor, nor weed and tend to focus on clean hard seabeds - and as Fortress might imply(?) developments or improvements appear to have looked at this part of the market as if 'build an anchor for a hard seabed to enjoy world domination' - hence the very sharp toes that are now 'de rigeur'

Practical Sailor has had many tests and they can be easily accessed through their archives - if you are a subscriber. A previous post did make me wonder - if no-one takes any notice of magazine tests who on earth are the gullible readership (wasting their hard earned cash) who buy Practical Sailor and read Panbo?

I would agree that 'penetration' of the overall results 'that newer anchors are better than older ones' has not been very deep or widespread as many of the old salts still appear to be perfectly happy with CQRs, Deltas and Bruces (and their copies), whether they have a little runabout, a monster plastic fantastic or even a Trawler..

In many respects I find the anchor industry fascinating and unique (for a whole variety of reasons) but I cannot get to grips with this idea of (some of them, current company excluded) in pursuing a vendetta against 'each other' when the main market is CQR, Bruce, Deltas - and worse thousands of copies, clones and knock-offs, of unknown steel and unknown origin.

And I reiterate, I think Fortress have done us a service as I was totally unaware at the weakness of many of the designs in soft mud. I had always assumed most anchored at least 'worked'. It now appears this was an illusion. It has made me wonder about the performance of some of these same anchors in soft sand - though to be honest I would now tend to extrapolate and question or be doubtful.


Edit:

For Mansons catalogue of independent tests look here:


http://manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/Sup_indept_test.htm

Djbangi said:

And I reiterate, I think Fortress have done us a service as I was totally unaware at the weakness of many of the designs in soft mud. I had always assumed most anchored at least 'worked'. It now appears this was an illusion. It has made me wonder about the performance of some of these same anchors in soft sand - though to be honest I would now tend to extrapolate and question or be doubtful.

Click to expand...

Back starting in probably the '90's sometime I remember "extensive" commentary about hurricane anchoring in soft mud by Cap'n Wil Andrews. Most of what I read then would have been on the Trawler World (I think?) listserv, run by Georgs (sic) Kol-something and company.

Cap'n Wil made a point of buying likely anchors and testing them in some kind of soupy mud in I think NC someplace. This would have pre-dated all the newer names, and I don't know if he's continued that reporting or not as newer anchors have been introduced...

But at the time, Fortress and SuperMax were the only anchors that "passed" his test in soft, soupy (slimy?) mud, and the latter was the one he gave best marks to. Some of that I think is still quoted on the Super Max site.

Anyway, all that -- and my own experiences here with a Delta -- partially 'splains why we use a Super Max and a Fortress here on the Chesapeake

(The Delta wasn't bad, just not as good. Here. Worked much better in other holding ground, as for example when we lived in FL.)

-Chris

For gosh sake folks... IMHO, after over 50 yrs of anchor usage and also by reading/watching anchor-test reports:

Seems clear that Danforth Anchor dual fluke design with full shank to fluke alternating position reigns pretty much supreme as time tested and "special test" winner. Fortress, with 45 degree angle capability of fluke to shank for mud-bottoms is simply Danforth design on steroids! That said, and with Fortress' lighter weight greatly appreciated for personal handling, extra weight in Danforth does help to penetrate into nearly any type sea bottom. I'd like to try a Danforth with 45 degree adjustment in muddy bottom... bet it would work quite well!

That said: I like the lighter handling weight and 45 degree features in Fortress design!

Art

Art said:

I'd like to try a Danforth with 45 degree adjustment in muddy bottom... bet it would work quite well!

Art

Click to expand...

Art, I bet it would too, if the Danforth had that feature.

As evidenced by the literature that was shared aboard the Rachel Carson testing vessel, anchor manufacturers Baldt, Bruce, Vryhoff, and the US Navy all make anchors with wider shank / fluke angles for soft mud bottom conditions, and the 45° angle pulls with the Fortress served as further proof of this required configuration for superior anchor holding capability in this type of bottom.

Brian

Djbangi said:

In many respects I find the anchor industry fascinating and unique (for a whole variety of reasons) but I cannot get to grips with this idea of (some of them, current company excluded) in pursuing a vendetta against 'each other' when the main market is CQR, Bruce, Deltas - and worse thousands of copies, clones and knock-offs, of unknown steel and unknown origin.

And I reiterate, I think Fortress have done us a service as I was totally unaware at the weakness of many of the designs in soft mud.

Click to expand...

Totally agree on the value of the Fortress tests, but it is also worth commending the way in which they present their information, and promote their product. Very professional, and in sad contrast to what other manufacturers have resorted to in the past, and still do. For every Anchor Right and Fortress that focuses on engineering and testing to perfect a product, there are those who promote their product by denigrating the competition. Case in point, there is currently on another site an interesting thread on photos of anchors setting. The value of the thread is diminished through its use by the OP of pretty shamelessly promoting one particular anchor design - a good one, no doubt - by comparing the setting of an oversized hook for the OP's boat (given to him by the manufacturer) to other designs of unknown sizing to the vessels deploying them, who used unknown techniques and skill for setting, which are then subtly trashed as inferior.

When the shank of the free anchor being promoted bent after a few weeks of usage, the OP assured us that the anchor was still superior and still performed flawlessly, simply driving home the commercial bias inherent in what was presented as unbiased information.

Like you, I have no clue why anchor promotion so frequently involves sleazy marketing, so I am doubly grateful for those manufacturers that don't play in that mud slinging pit.

There's a 50 something Pacemaker three slips from me that has an FX anchor. The last time he was out he broke the anchor pulpit almost off the boat and when he got the anchor up, it looked like new. No bends, scratches or blemishes anywhere.

Delfin said:

Totally agree on the value of the Fortress tests, but it is also worth commending the way in which they present their information, and promote their product. Very professional, and in sad contrast to what other manufacturers have resorted to in the past, and still do. For every Anchor Right and Fortress that focuses on engineering and testing to perfect a product, there are those who promote their product by denigrating the competition. Case in point, there is currently on another site an interesting thread on photos of anchors setting. The value of the thread is diminished through its use by the OP of pretty shamelessly promoting one particular anchor design - a good one, no doubt - by comparing the setting of an oversized hook for the OP's boat (given to him by the manufacturer) to other designs of unknown sizing to the vessels deploying them, who used unknown techniques and skill for setting, which are then subtly trashed as inferior.

When the shank of the free anchor being promoted bent after a few weeks of usage, the OP assured us that the anchor was still superior and still performed flawlessly, simply driving home the commercial bias inherent in what was presented as unbiased information.

Like you, I have no clue why anchor promotion so frequently involves sleazy marketing, so I am doubly grateful for those manufacturers that don't play in that mud slinging pit.

Click to expand...

CLUE:

Sleazy ads that car companies throw at one another, although more well financed and more profound than anchors regarding models' capabilities, basically come down to getting from point A to point B.

Sleazy ads that Anchor companies throw at one another basically come down to one item... staying at point A!

While most model autos can readily provide success in accomplishing getting from point A to point B needs, and, most anchor designs can provide success in accomplishing stay at point A need... then the promotion packages resorted to often become pissen on poles or shatten on heads... in attempt to keep sales growth!

Ah... Capitalism at its finest!

So here's the deal. As I've said before, every anchor sets perfectly until the day it doesn't, and no anchor drags until the day it does.

When the anchor we put on the boat when we bought it failed to hold when we really needed it to, we got rid of it, did a bunch of research, and bought an anchor that we thought would be more reliable.

We bought a Rocna back when hardly anyone in the US had heard of them. It was the first Rocna (we were told) sold to the PNW. We decided on the Rocna because we felt-- and still do-- that its design itself is superior to all the other anchors out there for the kinds of bottoms we encounter. This includes the Manson and Sarca, let alone the other, more established anchor types. Some of the design features are, in our opinons, only very slightly better than other anchors-- like the Sarca--- and other aspects of the design we feel are greatly superior to the design of other anchors like the Bruce or CQR.

So far, our anchor has never failed to set the first time. So far, it has never failed to hold in every type of bottom and condition we have encountered. The day may come when it fails to set properly, and the day may come when it drags under pressure. But until that day comes, it is the perfect anchor as far as we're concerned and the performance of other anchors is irrelevant to us.

If the day comes that our anchor lets us down, we will then repeat the process and see what anchor out there does better.

We know people with the exact same attitude as ours, only their perfect anchor is a Bruce, or a CQR, or a Spade, or.....

So the anchor tests, no matter who does them, may be of interest to read about, and in the case of someone shopping for an anchor, they may help form a purchase decision. But I suspect that, as a previous poster wrote, in the end they don't change anyone's mind if the anchor they have has been performing to their satisfaction. The tests and theories and speculation in threads like this do not make a dent in our belief that the anchor currently on our boats, regardless of what it might be, is in fact, the perfect anchor.

Until the day it isn't.

Marin said:

So the anchor tests, no matter who does them, may be of interest to read about, and in the case of someone shopping for an anchor, they may help form a purchase decision. But I suspect that, as a previous poster wrote, in the end they don't change anyone's mind if the anchor they have has been performing to their satisfaction. The tests and theories and speculation in threads like this do not make a dent in our belief that the anchor currently on our boats, regardless of what it might be, is in fact, the perfect anchor.

Until the day it isn't.

Click to expand...

If I had my way, the thread would/should end here. THAT is the best way to describe that there is NO right answer... there is NO right anchor... and there are too many different designs, conditions, techniques, and bottoms to say... This anchor is the best. It's an impossible question to answer (and I would love to see people stop asking it)

Once again Marin, you said it like it is.

My boat, a 1966 and probably launched in 67 still has the original Danforth anchors and it cruised Boston 10 years, then to Miami, then through the canal and to the Los Angeles area for the last 40 plus years. They have held.

I say it just like Marin. They are all good for certain bottom types and some for several bottom types.

Adding this, none for all bottom types.

Marin,

Many people have also bought a Rocna and you appear to have much company.

This was posted by a Moderator on another Forum, and I understand that Moderators are chosen because of their in depth expertise and high integrity - though other Forum seem to have different standards of what they consider 'high integrity'. In fact this Moderator is so highly regarded he Moderates on 2 different Forum.

It appears even a Rocna has (at least one?) achilles heel - which coincidentally is exactly, if not uncannily, the performance that Fortress have found in their tests of the Rocna. The quote is of a fairly heavy and highly regarded 54' yacht, not Trawler - but I do not think the vessel type significant - and I do not know the size of the anchor, but assume as he is a Moderator (and thus an old salt?) the anchor is of the size recommended or larger.

quote

Since I only have 100 meters of chain, if I end up 500 meters back from where I dropped the hook, it means the hook didn't go in, so I haul it back up and go around for another pass.

In fact, that determination is made far earlier than 500 meters from where the hook was dropped. A little off topic, but this is one place where a chart plotter, set on highest scale, and with tracks enabled, is incredibly valuable. You can see really well from your track whether and exactly where the hook set. If you are slowly dragging through soft mud (my previous bower anchor, a Rocna, used to love to do that), you can also see that clearly. Transits are all well and good, but you can't get all this information without a plotter.

unquote


Edit: If Fortress had read this post they could have discarded the Rocna from their tests - as so many would rather rely and trust 'real world experience' and could have tested the Super Max or Excel instead - what a wasted opportunity!
__________________

Like I said, no anchor works on all bottom types, sets quick1 and holds without dragging.

Pick an anchor for your cruising grounds or take two different anchor types.

Yep...better to believe "canned" tests than highly respected world cruisers and just about all other cruisers you meet....

All just pieces of the puzzle...no one test, one anchor, one cruiser, one bottom, one boat, technique, etc...is right or wrong.

For a tester to leave out ANY of the majors at any given time would be a waste...especially of their integrity.

Tom B
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s42/chesapeake-anchor-holding-power-test-15941-15.html#post265792
So the anchor tests, no matter who does them, may be of interest to read about, and in the case of someone shopping for an anchor, they may help form a purchase decision. But I suspect that, as a previous poster wrote, in the end they don't change anyone's mind if the anchor they have has been performing to their satisfaction. The tests and theories and speculation in threads like this do not make a dent in our belief that the anchor currently on our boats, regardless of what it might be, is in fact, the perfect anchor.

Until the day it isn't.
If I had my way, the thread would/should end here. THAT is the best way to describe that there is NO right answer... there is NO right anchor... and there are too many different designs, conditions, techniques, and bottoms to say... This anchor is the best. It's an impossible question to answer (and I would love to see people stop asking it)
__________________
Tom & Bess Beaty


Rex Wrote: I agree with most of what all say re anchor design, but is not all about who has the best, then again Marin is now a happy man with his anchor and believes it’s the best, one happy customer, Don is another for a different reason, ROLL BAR ANCHOR WOULD NOT FIT HIS Bow roller arrangement as it is a pull pit, because of the Excel he has now been able to upgrade with new technology that will fit, simply because it does not have a roll bar, is Don happy with the performance, we will just have to wait and see.

Now our testing and marketing is to let you guys know that this new technology is available, it hooked Marin and he is great full, Don is hooked as he has committed as well, a good performance will keep him that way, will he ever drag his Excel, of all the anchor types out there new or old design there is still no perfect anchor, Tom that is why technology continues to try and teach us a new way of tying our shoe laces. But I tell you our testing is not fake, what you see is what you get, if Don is not a happy man then he will be fully refunded, so it is not all doom and Gloom.

I do tend to think new anchor technology will now have a breather for a few years as it has been flogged with many different types, enough to dampen new anchor design enthusiasm, so Tom you may have your wish.

So Are our anchors perfect? “There is no perfect anchor” just better ones, and like Marin I believe ours are the better ones, just for the record, I have been testing Fortress anchors for over twenty years and found on 45 degrees nothing in soft mud to better their holding power.

Brian, I know my friend the difficulty you have faced in showing your lunch to all, it is a shame that some think it to be Shamash, unfortunately there are probably many that have good reason for how they see it, but that’s anchor technology, Many don’t believe it is possible, equally will never believe the testing. Why do we do it? Marin and Don have told you why, from their comments we are inspired, back down to the work shop!

Regards Rex.

Rex wrote;
"I do tend to think new anchor technology will now have a breather for a few years as it has been flogged with many different types, enough to dampen new anchor design enthusiasm."

Don't think so Rex. There's lots of imagination out there. I myself have two ideas for a serious modification of well established anchors. One newer and one 50 years old. If ever marketed properly the XYZ could perhaps rocket to the top and I think it will eventually be at least copied. That's just offshoots of present technology. Too much of all anchors are a waste of weight and things like unnecessarily long shanks and flukes. Undesirable and wasteful features are incorporated in most anchors to overcome problems that seem insurmountable but I think solutions will be found that will make anchors more efficient. That's exactly how the present anchors old and new came to be. And how the new anchors of the future will be created.

I think anchor design should be done in reverse. Exclude all elements of anchor design that don't lead directly to maximum holding power. Create the ultimate "thing" that will be most difficult to extract from being buried 1, 2 or 3' that is as small and light as can be. And exclude all anchor designs already in existence for consideration or inspiration. Maximize that part of the design and then consider variations that will overcome the fact that the ideal anchor won't set or stow handily on the bow of the typical boat. Obviously a perfect anchor that is 100% efficient will never come to pass but I remain convinced a significantly better anchor will happen. There is just so much room for improvement that it's unavoidable.

Marin said:

So here's the deal. As I've said before, every anchor sets perfectly until the day it doesn't, and no anchor drags until the day it does. ...

Click to expand...

It's comforting to know that a "better" anchor is available whenever my present claw fails (and the claw on my earlier sailboat hadn't failed and which was much hand's friendlier than the Danforth). For those already possessing the "ultimate" anchor, they would seem to have less confidence of finding a better anchor.

markpierce said:

It's comforting to know that a "better" anchor is available whenever my claw fails. For those already possessing the "ultimate" anchor, they would seem to have less confidence of finding a better anchor.

Click to expand...

Humorous - yet - Well put, Mark!

From the current Rocna home page


Our non-roll bar self-setting 3rd Generation Rocna Anchor is coming soon.
Please check back for more details and sneak peeks! Initial Size offering will be from 4kg to and including 55kg.


No new developments?

So, an upcoming anchor without roll bar will be superior? ... fascinating.

Djbangi said:

..... but this is one place where a chart plotter, set on highest scale, and with tracks enabled, is incredibly valuable. You can see really well from your track whether and exactly where the hook set. If you are slowly dragging through soft mud (my previous bower anchor, a Rocna, used to love to do that), you can also see that clearly. Transits are all well and good, but you can't get all this information without a plotter.

Click to expand...

Well, actually you can. One of our anchoring "teachers" is a fellow in our boating club with decades of experience (40' sailboat) in these waters from Puget Sound well up along the BC raincoast. He and his wife are still at it today, and the only electronics on their boat are a VHF radio and a depth sounder. No plotter, no radar, no RDF, no AIM, just the radio and the sounder.

He taught my wife and I to judge everything we need to know about our position relative to our anchor and whether or not we are set, staying put, or dragging by the trees along the shore. One can tell everything one needs to tell by watching the trees. And that's all we've been using for the past bunch of years.

Now if one boats in an area that does't have a forested shore, then perhaps a plotter would prove useful as described in the post I quoted above. But we have no shortage of trees up here.

The only electronic tool we have added to our anchoring arsenal of anchor, chain, windlass, trip line, and trees is the Drag Queen app from Active Captain. Clever thing, that, and we have it on our iPads and iPhone.

markpierce said:

So, an upcoming anchor without roll bar will be superior? ... fascinating.

Click to expand...

Mark I've been saying for a long time the roll bar isn't ideal. And now it seems to be (as I predicted) a fad of sorts. Gotta give them some credit though as they do tend to respond to market trends as in what's selling. They were quick to come out w the slotted shank (like the Supreme) but an extra anchor was needed to get it. However the only slotted shank worth having is the slot on the Super Sarca .. IMO. And if one did use the whole slot on the Rocna or the Supreme I think the probably of a reset even if it broke out is so high that it should'nt be a concern on a reasonably good bottom. But I still think the Supreme is probably the best over-all anchor and not that pricy. And available at West Marine.

And Oh Boy ... the Rocna people are going to offer us "sneak previews" WOW! I can hardly wait.

The "bottom" line is that no single anchor performs exceptionally well in all bottom conditions....and in those bottom conditions where it does not perform well.....will it be good enough to keep the boat safe and secure during adverse, unpredicted events?

The Fortress anchor will be challenged in grass, weeds, and rocks, possibly more so than other anchor types as it has two large flukes which might make penetration more difficult. No debate there.

We have heard that the Fortress is sharp enough to slice through grass and weeds and penetrate into firmer holding that is below, but I suspect that this is the exception, rather than the rule.


During the recent soft mud tests, we found a common bottom that was a challenge for ALL anchors, particularly those which are not specifically designed for this type of soil.

We saw several performances, some of which were from the highly-touted recent anchor designs, that were so shocking and disturbing that a comment was made among witnesses that these anchors should be sold with a warning label when used in soft mud.

Take from this testing what information you find helpful, or discard it as useless, its obviously your choice.


The ultimate goal is boater safety, and if that safety can be achieved using Brand X, Y, or Z anchors, which meet and exceed the boater's holding power needs in the wind and bottom conditions where they regularly anchor, then that's great.

Awareness and education are part of the keys to that safety, whether it be proper scope or anchoring techniques, or using the right anchor that is optimal for the specific bottom and wind conditions which the boater is likely to encounter.

And if we at Fortress can assist with this awareness and education, then great, once again, and maybe also sell a few anchors along the way as well, which help keep boaters safe and having fun on the water, then that's a bonus.

Personally, I think having a FX on your boat is a must do. If not for the stern anchor then the bow. As a stern anchor it stows away easily and can be set either from the boat or your dinghy. Most of my boating friends have them and rave about them. I don't own one yet but when I finish my restoration projects I'll have one.

Just my 2 cents.

On the anchor drag subject. I thought everybody had shore based markers they used to determine position set and if you were dragging. Relying on technology alone doesn't pass the smell test for me. You can always find a rock, tree or something on shore as a mark.