Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

Marin said:

UNLESS--- the bottom is so mushy and oatmeal-like that it presents no surface against which the anchor can develop that sideways slicing force (leverage) that knifes the fluke into the bottom.

Since Peter Smith was not anchoring over an oatmeal bottom down in the southwest Pacific, he wasn't concerned with developing an anchor for his boat that would work in mush.

Click to expand...

Marin, actually he was concerned, as per this write up from the "Meet the Designer" page on their web site:

"Pete, together with Jo and their son Craig, sailed Kiwi Roa from England to New Zealand during the period 1994 – 1998. Although extremely well set-up, Kiwi Roa experienced frequent problems when anchoring. Soft mud areas such as the English East Coast, the Chesapeake, and the Delaware Bay presented particular problems.

Pete had used every type of anchor known to man. Kiwi Roa carried a 110 lb CQR, an 88 lb Delta, and a 110 lb Bruce, but there was always a feeling of insecurity."

Early in the thread I believe it was established that a lot of people anchored in Chesapeake Bay and a lot of people found it to have a troublesome bottom for anchoring. Not a place that boaters don't go because it has an oatmeal bottom. I think Fortress established the fact that their anchor is not only superior to all others that have been tested in firm bottoms but in very soft bottoms as well.

Now if I can figure out how to pay for it and mount it on my bow ...

Most bottoms are mud so why not have a Fortress as a primary and a rock anchor like a Claw for other occasions?

Marin I think everyone knows what the roll bar is for. At least what it was designed for but after this test we now know that in real soupy bottoms it dosn't work.

manyboats said:

...but after this test we now know that in real soupy bottoms it dosn't work.

Click to expand...

No two anchoring situations are the same. So our single experience with our Rocna in a very soft bottom most likely bears no resemblance to the Fortress test.

But soon after we removed our Bruce and replaced it with the Rocna, we tried it out in the softest mud bottom we know of in our area, which is the north end of Chuckanut Bay near Bellingham. This bottom routinely defeats anchors like the Bruce (including ours), CQRs, etc.

We had almost lost our boat to a lee shore when strong winds arrived hours earlier than forecast and our Bruce had failed to hold us. So we were very keen to learn how our new anchor would do in the kinds of situations in which the Bruce had done poorly.

This was purely a test to see what would happen with our new anchor-- we weren't staying the night or trying to ride out a storm.

We set the anchor on a 7:1 scope in about 25 feet of water. Once we had established that the anchor had set and was holding we put both transmissions in reverse and, after taking the slack out of the chain, slowly ran the engines up to about 1400 rpm, all the while watching the shoreline for signs of movement. The all-chain rode was snubbed via nylon V-bridle to our two foredeck cleats; no strain was put on the pulpit or windlass gears.

We held this power in reverse for three or four minutes. The boat did not move, so we went to idle, broke the anchor out with the boat, retrieved it along with half the bottom of the bay and went home.

As far as we were concerned, the Rocna did just great in the soft mud of this particular bay.

Again, I don't intend this one-off, unscientific, uncontrolled, undocumented "test" to refute the findings of the Fortress test. It's just a single, anecdotal experience. But the fact it was a real experience in a real and specific bottom that had given us problems in the past with a different type of anchor was sufficient to verify to our satisfaction that we had, indeed, graduated to a vastly superior anchor.

And to date, we have had no reason to change our belief.

Still trying to figure out why "most bottoms are mud" has become the theme here when in reality (after perusing the Chesapeake nautical charts for awhile) many places that I have anchored and plan to anchor are actually something "else" than soupy whatever that has become the Chessie Devil.

If I have a choice in survival tools...the one that is in my pocket...why would I pick a "hammer" or a "screwdriver" or a "hacksaw"...when I can chose a swiss army knife or a leatherman tool?

Sure if building a deck and my job is to hammer...carry a hammer....

So IF ...I need MAXIMUM holding power in just ONE of the bottom types in the Chesapeake...then I would hang a fortress/deanforth on my bow...but that just ISN'T the case..

Marin,,

Sometime I reaaly do wonder

This is on the Rocna website

Quote

Pete, together with Jo and their son Craig, sailed Kiwi Roa from England to New Zealand during the period 1994 – 1998. Although extremely well set-up, Kiwi Roa experienced frequent problems when anchoring. Soft mud areas such as the English East Coast, the Chesapeake, and the Delaware Bay presented particular problems.

unquote

They not only encountered soft mud many, many times it was such a problem and stuck in their memories sufficient that it deserved a special mention. Its not even as if the geographical areas are small - but it appears now to have fallen outside the safe design perameters of the anchor.


Now, to add to the problems these quotes appeared on another forum but you can check the link.

quote


http://www.morganscloud.com/2011/11/...spade-anchors/

Author: Don Joyce
Comment:
We have a 100 kg Rocna on our catamaran and have experienced dragging on two occasions: Both involve being set directly over the anchor by a thunderstorm related sudden wind shift, while being anchored in very thick mud. Apparently the anchor tripped and wouldn't reset because the center of balance was shifted back by the hoop-trapped mud. On both occasions, we could only reset the anchor after hauling it up and clearing all the mud off with our boat hook. Listening to the windlass as the anchor was being hauled convinced me that the mud and anchor together were on the order of 200 kg....yet we "sailed" through the anchorage…



Here is an additional comment received today:

Author: Don Joyce
Comment:
To be fair, we were on short scope around 4:1 to 5:1 due to limited swinging room. We usually have what late comers to an anchorage call "excessive" scope of at least 10:1. The excessive scope held us firm on the Rocna in Maine during Irene when several of the complainers around us dragged.

I did write to Rocna to suggest they need more weight in the tip. I will add some weight myself when we get the anchor galvanized.

A response to this comment:

http://www.morganscloud.com/2011/11/...spade-anchors/

Author: John
Comment:
Hi Don,

Thanks very much for coming up with that vital information. We are hearing of an increasing, albeit still small, number of these incidences with the Rocna. It's particularly disturbing that this happened with such a large anchor.

I think this danger is something that every Rocna owner needs to be aware of, so thanks again.

See all comments on this post here:
http://www.morganscloud.com/2011/11/...hors/#comments

unquote

I went to the website and the TOTAL reference to the DelBay and Chesapeake was that those areas presented their own special problems. Is there a another reference to those areas that I missed?

It DID NOT say that they encountered mud many times and that was an issue...in fact it's a stretch to infer much out of such a simplistic statement.

In MANY areas in the Chesapeake if you move closer to a "bar" and away from the middle of a silted in area...the bottom becomes "sticky" as noted on the charts and my experience. Even my low holding power Bruce did fine when I used my "nautical chart reading knowledge".

Now with my "even better according to the tests" anchor I should have nothing to worry about.

As far as an anchor type needing to be "unfouled" at some point in their life...I've used many but the unusual...and they all have an Achilles heel or two.

psneeld said:

I went to the website and the TOTAL reference to the DelBay and Chesapeake was that those areas presented their own special problems. Is there a another reference to those areas that I missed?

It DID NOT say that they encountered mud many times and that was an issue...in fact it's a stretch to infer much out of such a simplistic statement.

In MANY areas in the Chesapeake if you move closer to a "bar" and away from the middle of a silted in area...the bottom becomes "sticky" as noted on the charts and my experience. Even my low holding power Bruce did fine when I used my "nautical chart reading knowledge".

Now with my "even better according to the tests" anchor I should have nothing to worry about.

Click to expand...

Regarding Anchors: When you least expect it - Expect IT!

Jus Sayen...

psneeld said:

I went to the website and the TOTAL reference to the DelBay and Chesapeake was that those areas presented their own special problems. Is there a another reference to those areas that I missed?

It DID NOT say that they encountered mud many times and that was an issue...in fact it's a stretch to infer much out of such a simplistic statement.

In MANY areas in the Chesapeake if you move closer to a "bar" and away from the middle of a silted in area...the bottom becomes "sticky" as noted on the charts and my experience. Even my low holding power Bruce did fine when I used my "nautical chart reading knowledge".

Now with my "even better according to the tests" anchor I should have nothing to worry about.

As far as an anchor type needing to be "unfouled" at some point in their life...I've used many but the unusual...and they all have an Achilles heel or two.

Click to expand...

Scott,

its a quote, no more, no less. But it was suggested the Smiths did not encounter mud, this was not correct - they encountered mud and the experience was sufficiently important they made mention.

How you want to interpret what they said is up to you.

You can equally draw you own conclusions as to the quotes on the Morgan's Cloud website. If you want to ignore it fine, if you want to consider it fine. Its unto you to interpret not to complain when someone draws it to your attention.

Complain? That's only your interpretation of my pointing out how much info in this thread is taken out of context or in one beyond what is actually made.

Where is it said they never encountered mud?

Not from me...but it also doesn't say they encountered it many times...only when they did it presented "particular" problems.

After living and boating a long time on the Delaware bay...I would love to know where they encountered their problems because many know that there's not many places a person is going to anchor in Delbay if there's more than a gentle blow. Maybe at best hiding behind a lee shore (even that's rare).... if that goes to what "particularl" circumstances they encountered too...

Scott,

Did I misquote:

This was quote I posted

quote

Pete, together with Jo and their son Craig, sailed Kiwi Roa from England to New Zealand during the period 1994 – 1998. Although extremely well set-up, Kiwi Roa experienced frequent problems when anchoring. Soft mud areas such as the English East Coast, the Chesapeake, and the Delaware Bay presented particular problems.

unquote.

The second word of the last sentence mentions 'mud' and also, previous sentence - 'frequent'.

If you are not sure and need clarification (and feel the need to belabour your point), please contact them direct and let us all know. It seems clear to me and I am more than happy with my interpretation, wrong though it might be.

That's the trouble with sloppy English, prone to an interpretation by the reader.

I believe the voyage on which the Smiths encountered mud problems on the Chesapeake occurred prior to Peter's developing the Rocna. Not positive, though.

Marin said:

I believe the voyage on which the Smiths encountered mud problems on the Chesapeake occurred prior to Peter's developing the Rocna. Not positive, though.

Click to expand...

Since it is clearly spelled out in Smith's bio that he had problems with the Bruce, CQR, and Delta anchors aboard his boat, and notably while anchoring in soft mud bottoms, then it is not much of a stretch to think that he would have later designed the Rocna, and tested it thoroughly, to resolve those problems.

And even if he hadn't, then why not? It is not as though soft mud is difficult to find in bays, lakes, rivers, seas, etc. around the world.

Brian

Here is an interesting observation for all to interpret as they will. I just went through the October issues of passage maker and Yachting magazines. I ticked off the type of anchors I could identify on the bows of boats ,articles and all adds new and used. I classified anchors in groups #1 plow and spade or shovel type. #2 Bruce #3 navy or variation. #4 Danforth type which would include Fortress. Here is what I found. Yachting 30 type ones(plough-spade)-six #2 Bruce-five #3 Navy and ONE Danforth seen on back page in a picture of a costa Rica marina. Passage Maker 36 #1 plough-spade. 9 #2 Bruce. 4 #3 navy. ONE #4 Danforth on a George Buehler Diesel Duck. Where I do personally see Danforth anchors is at local marinas in the northwest usually on older boats some not so well maintained. My impression is that in general where people are putting money into their boats the primary anchor on the bow is not a Danforth type and I have no idea how many boats have a fortress in the bilge or anchor locker. I certainly get the impression that valuable medium and larger boats certainly the types that would fit the categories of trawler - motor cruiser and express are not sticking fortresses on the bow as primary anchors not in my area nor in Yachting or Passage Maker. I have owned and used Danforth anchors including the Fortress and consider them very good but not as a primary. Setting and resetting is my major complaint. If I have a good all around primary out an aluminum fortress or spade as a secondary set from my dinghy works for me. If I anticipate a hurricane three Danforth anchors set as a Port Washington mooring with lots of scope, otherwise the Danforth stays out of the water and off the bow. So what would I do in soft mud. Same as I did for 15 years when I gunk holed on the Chesapeake two anchors if I expected TS or significant wind.

I Think the whole anchoring thing is driven by cruising area. In my region we anchor in the Pacific off an Island. We don't have mud bottoms, we don't have protected waters like the PNW or SF. We have the Pacific Ocean and a sand bottom. Our tidal range is from 6 to 8' depending on time of year and we anchor with a 3 to 1 scope. We get close to each other and anybody thinking 5 or 7 is going to collect boats on the swing.

Looking at the boats in any marina here you'll see CQR on sailboats and mainly Danforth types on power. I don't use all chain I carry 100' and I have anchored outside the Avalon harbor where the shelf has a very steep drop off. It's 100' where they start the anchorage and goes deep fast past that area. I anchored in 100' plus with my danforth and ony 100' of chain and I never moved with a 3 to 1 scope. I did a 180 swing and back, It held.

I'm reading all kinds of stories and can't relate. Like I reported earlier my friend on a 50 plus Pathfinder broke his bowsprit with a Fortress and when he got it up it looked right out of the box. That's a tough anchor. I can say, the way they made his bowsprit was cheezey. You can cover cheap crappy plywood with FRP and gelcoat.

It's great read though. I'm ready

Here is what I posted from a similar thread a couple months ago. Also in the same thread I had the same observations in mud. The anchor I believe kept digging and with much effort I had to break it out. I really don't know why you wouldn't want to use a anchor that sets well, takes abuse, is lite weight, etc.

We cruised for two months this Summer in Northern BC and we set in rock, mud, short scope situations etc. I pulled up bottom debris and was thankful I could manipulate the anchor to deal with it. The anchor is getting pretty scratched up from the abuse and I wonder what the Fortress warranty covers.




With mild amusement I have been enjoying the banter regarding this topic. For many years I had a fantastic Danforth type for my large (65 foot) boat. We cruise extensively throughout Washington and BC. About 10 years ago during a refit this heavy anchor disappeared. Needless to say I was heartbroken that the anchor I had come to know and trust was gone. The yard said to purchase any anchor I desired and that they would pay for it. I researched, called people that had different styles suitable for my vessel. I ending up going with a Fortress FX-85



I was concerned with something this light holding me in the rocky grounds we are often in. Fortunately I found a lot of my concerns to not be. The anchor has performed how it should and I couldn't be happier. The lightweight design makes it easier to clear if it comes up fouled with a log or cable.



In mud I have held easily in current and wind. Even when they are opposing. Often we are the only boat in the group to have a hook down and I have slept comfortably. One weekend we had almost ten boats all good size safely secured.

Not sure if this came through but here's the anchor

Bigsalmonfish,

Great image, great looking boat!

And that looks like a real anchor!

edit, Do you have another anchor on the other side?

People are saying they would not use a Fortress nor Danforth because the fluke might 'lock' and that this would be a danger in a change of tide (or change of wind). Strangely some of these same people will quite happily use a roll bar anchor that Morgan's Cloud are finding will clog and not reset on a change of tide (or change of wind direction).

Do people have selective memories.

One thing the Fortress tests underline is that if their product is well set, and maybe the same is true of a Danforth, the problem is not the change of tide - but retrieval. And if they are so difficult to retrieve (actually only needing patience) why are they going to pull out on a change of tide (or wind).

Bigsalmonfish said:

View attachment 33194

Not sure if this came through but here's the anchor

Click to expand...

Bigsalmonfish

If you haven't already... Show us an array of picts of your boat. I really like her snoot!

That Fortress F-85 anchor is one Big Mama Jammmma, I can see why you hold so good on the hook. I am sorry you lost your beloved Danforth... but, looks like you've done one better.

With size of anchor you carry... must have been a front end loader to place the heavy ol' Danforth into a sizable truck.

I know my concern with danforth/fortress style anchors is their inability (in my experience) in smaller sizes to penetrate grass, seaweed and shell jams where I have done the majority of my anchoring for the last 50 years.

Now...maybe I need to rethink all that now that I have graduated to larger vessels that would be using 100 or so pound danforths /fortress equivalents that may penetrate better and the average clam/oyster shell is just too small to clog it up.

That's a distinct possibility...but then again I have read several tests and many opinions that state there are still better all around anchors out there for daily use .

So....there I go...wandering off into the cruising grounds...happy that I have chosen an anchor that makes me feel secure...fully knowing that if a real blow comes on...I can shackle a Danforth up ahead of it and maybe survive the big one.

But I sure as heck don't have a selective memory any more than others and I know what I have experienced on many a pleasure and commercial vessel when it comes to anchoring and know whose opinions I trust and those I really don't.

Scott, its refreshing to hear of anyone realising that their pre-conceptions are possibly no longer valid as those concepts were based on characteristics that have changed with time. It is even more unusual for anyone to say so publicly. I do not think your ideas are unusual, with regard to small anchors struggling in many situation where their larger brethren work perfectly, and we tend to pontificate forgetting that the anchor we use is completely different in size to others with whom we are communicating. But I'd guess that in general larger anchors might set more easily, especially in weed, and (for example) I have heard it often said that large Bruce, say 50kg or more, work much better than smaller ones. I have a friend who says larger Bruce need to be 70kg to work properly!

But when i consider the sheer volume of individual reports of increasing frequency complaining of roll bar anchors clogging and with anchors of any size and relate this to the Fortress testing where some roll bar anchors simply did not set, at all - then I think I need to take notice. But then I anchor in mud and weed, as well as sand and small, loose, rocks so I need ground tackle that must be versatile.

its all about where we anchor and if anchoring in nice clean sand then I actually do not believe that, blindfold, anyone can tell the difference between a correctly sized Fortress, Ultra, Excel or Rocna - its when you get into more marginal areas that anchors tend to more easily differentiated (and Fortress seem to show that in the extreme).

My test is straightforward:

Which anchor(s) would you rather have - the scenario is, you have the 3 grandchildren on board, aged 2, 4 and 6. You and your wife/partner are the grandparents and for reasons outside of your control you are forced to anchor 'now' and the weather is closing in (its going to be awful - and for those reasons outside of your control - no marina to escape to). The seabed can be soft mud, or sand, or weed or pebbles - which anchor do you want to use for each of these 4 seabeds - you are the skipper and you are responsible (and the grandmother and mother when she hears about it will never, ever, forgive you if you are not prepared and put the welfare of those grandchildren in any risk at all)! I'm allowing you (anyone), in order to answer the question, to have any anchor(s) you want. But I'll give a virtual beer to anyone who can minimise their anchor wardrobe

Now sand is easy - any decent anchor will do - but what about the other 3 seabeds?

Can't minimize my wardrobe and will continue to carry at least two anchors.. But under the conditions posted ,my all around on the bow anchor an ultra with plenty of chain and if possible scope goes in first. When that is set depending on where I expect the wind and waves my light weight secondary aluminum anchor is placed with short chain and plenty of scope from my dinghy. In my 60 years of gunk holing East coast and Northwest this has always worked for me. Before the Ultra there was the Spade-Manson-CQR-Bruce-Fortress-Danforth-Delta. I owned and used them all. they all worked for me and with a second unit out I pretty much always weathered the blows. In Annapolis harbor I did once neglect the secondary and a TS hit so I dragged a few hundred feet in the mud on a big Bruce with all chain. I like the Fortress it does hold very well(more than necessary) in sand and certain mud bottoms. I look upon it as a high performance specialist as compared to the Ultra a good all around athlete. If I anchored in soft mud and sand all the time it could be my primary.

Give me a really huge Super SARCA.

Fortress Anchors said:

Since it is clearly spelled out in Smith's bio that he had problems with the Bruce, CQR, and Delta anchors aboard his boat, and notably while anchoring in soft mud bottoms, then it is not much of a stretch to think that he would have later designed the Rocna, and tested it thoroughly, to resolve those problems.

And even if he hadn't, then why not? It is not as though soft mud is difficult to find in bays, lakes, rivers, seas, etc. around the world.

Brian

Click to expand...

Yes, it is my understanding it was those experiences which prompted him to undertake his exercise of making a better anchor, from which the Rocna evolved. I suspect he was inspired to some extent by the Sarca which preceded the Rocna, and was already in production . However, to make it sufficiently different he eschewed the slotted shank, (until recently putting one out for reef fishing, I understand), and went for a concave fluke. There are pros and cons for both approaches.

Djbangi said:

Now sand is easy - any decent anchor will do - but what about the other 3 seabeds?

Click to expand...

Very interested in this issue as to the other three seabeds, rock, vegetation, and mud.

The mud has been explained by the Fortress test, but the rock and vegetation?

Current primary anchor is a Rocna which holds very well in my current cruising area, but the day may come when we move and I will then replace my secondary anchor (Bruce) with something to fit the most seabed types between the two.

Bay Pelican

In setting my 'problem' - it was based on what we have experienced. We have anchored in areas of coral where the seabed might be sand but with lumps of varying sizes of dead coral, sometimes these lumps are numerous (and large). We have moved out of the balmy waters of coral where we 'started' our cruising (they have become too popular) and now find anchorages where the seabed is sometimes simply composed of stones and pebbles (anything from 1" to 1') These latter anchorages are in bays fed by fast flowing mountain streams and rivers. Weed occur everywhere and is more common. We found one lovely sand anchorage, that on closer investigation was 2" of sand over 2" pebbles.

Fortress have made a very good attempt at 'quantifying' mud, once in SF in the early 90's and the recent tests in Chesapeake. The superiority of the Fortress was not a surprise (the advantage of the 45 degrees was still stunning) but it was the inadequacies, in some cases total, of others that was startling

But to us - sand is easy, its the peripheral seabeds that simply do not enjoy and have the background knowledge. The Morgan Cloud reference suggests clogging can be a real issue for roll bar anchors in clay or maybe weed growing in sand/mud.

But what are other persons experience of rock, coral and pebbles, how do others find weed?

So my post was to gain some 'user knowledge' and to suggest that maybe anyone extolling the virtues of their favourite might, in view of Fortress recent revelations and the comments from Morgan's Cloud, like to think "'outside' the box"


We do not carry oversize anchors, they are the size recommended by the anchor makers. But we carry 'lots' but all can act as the primary as they are 'correctly' sized. We have Excel (as a primary in steel) and a disassembled alloy Excel, Spade and Fortress. The Fortress does not fit on our bow roller but assembled stores flat in a bow locker. The Spade, as it can be disassembled, packs easily. We have a rode on a windlass and a complete spare mixed rode. We have no pride and will tie to trees and rocks (and have cordage to do so)! In iffy weather one anchor and rode sit on the foredeck 'in case' and if the forecast is awful will already have been deployed (by dinghy).

The Fortress results, I'm sure it was not the intent, do show the Ultra as being more flexible than many other anchors (including our Spade) though the cost and brashness/glitz are not 'us'. We have been waiting for the gal version

Wow what an easy test...

I'll stick with with my newgen roll bar anchor beyond a shadow of a doubt...because I have none. I'm not gonna buy a massive (heavy) Danforth or fotress and have that monstrosity on the bow (no need to)

I have a Danforth stowed below for when I need it....but I may someday get a larger fortress when and if I ever start more remote cruising.

I have NOT heard an alarming number of people saying roll bar anchors clog...what I hear is more people are using nexgen anchors than ever before and are perfectly satisfied by them.

I'm with the general crowd that have been using all kinds of anchors for years and are happy with their results and are satisfied with the reports of their cruising friends....as they haven't heard any alarming news either that their anchors are a danger to themselves or a boatload of grandkids.

(and if I was ever in a situation as you described, I'd give up that kind of boating because I never WANT to be in a situation I don't have better control over...there's almost always better options than sitting someplace at the mercy of the weather unless to are really out there someplace far from where I cruise)

psneeld Wrote:


I'm with the general crowd that have been using all kinds of anchors for years and are happy with their results and are satisfied with the reports of their cruising friends....as they haven't heard any alarming news either that their anchors are a danger to themselves or a boatload of grandkids.


Gee Scott, I though you were solid and would never move, does this mean you would give me some consideration, 22 years the Super Sarca has been around, deployed on all types of water born craft from private to commercial use as a multi purpose anchor, in its time this design was a world first, is it possible that you may now accept me as a local.

Kind Regards.
Rex.

Rex said:

psneeld Wrote:


I'm with the general crowd that have been using all kinds of anchors for years and are happy with their results and are satisfied with the reports of their cruising friends....as they haven't heard any alarming news either that their anchors are a danger to themselves or a boatload of grandkids.


Gee Scott, I though you were solid and would never move, does this mean you would give me some consideration, 22 years the Super Sarca has been around, deployed on all types of water born craft from private to commercial use as a multi purpose anchor, in its time this design was a world first, is it possible that you may now accept me as a local.

Kind Regards.
Rex.

Click to expand...

Never move from what???

I'm not one of the ones that are all of a sudden pushing the Danforth types because of one test. Goes to show how close these posts are really read.

I think there are several newgen anchors that deserve consideration..not necessarily a "run out and replace your anchor" endorsement..but when the time comes..look them all over and consider what they claim to do and how others that use their anchors many nights a year think of them.

I was a huge Bruce/Delta fan....every cruiser around me had that combo on their bow. When I needed a different anchor..I did my homework and bought a nexgen anchor design. Was I sold on any particular design or brand several years ago? Nope..so I picked one. 3 years later of anchoring with it I'm happy and have not seen or heard any reports or tests that suggest I should change because there's a clear winner of "the best anchor" title.

I also have agreed like others that there are specific anchors that out perform others in certain situations. Just like engines...but I only keep one handy in the engine room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex
psneeld Wrote:


I'm with the general crowd that have been using all kinds of anchors for years and are happy with their results and are satisfied with the reports of their cruising friends....as they haven't heard any alarming news either that their anchors are a danger to themselves or a boatload of grandkids.


Gee Scott, I though you were solid and would never move, does this mean you would give me some consideration, 22 years the Super Sarca has been around, deployed on all types of water born craft from private to commercial use as a multi purpose anchor, in its time this design was a world first, is it possible that you may now accept me as a local.

Kind Regards.
Rex.

Never move from what???

I'm not one of the ones that are all of a sudden pushing the Danforth types because of one test. Goes to show how close these posts are really read.

I think there are several newgen anchors that deserve consideration..not necessarily a "run out and replace your anchor" endorsement..but when the time comes..look them all over and consider what they claim to do and how others that use their anchors many nights a year think of them.

I also have agreed like others that there are specific anchors that out perform others in certain situations. Just like engines...but I only keep one handy in the engine room.
__________________


Come On scotty lighten up a little. Just a little humor?

Kind Regards.

Rex.