Another round of anchor controversy

I lived and boated on the East Coast for over thirty years. Mostly gunk holing with a good deal of it on the muddy tributaries of the Chesapeake. For some of those years as live aboard (not at a dock)6 months out of the year. I did not use a Fortress anchor and like Nigel Calder I did not miss it nor did I feel the need for it. There were numerous typical thunderstorms with their veering high winds. The only times I dragged were once on Barnegat bay when a Danforth encountered a 180 degree wind shift with moderate gusts causing a complete break away with no reset a clogged anchor and once at Annapolis inner harbor on a Bruce in a thunder storm. Neither incident was catastrophic. As said here by others I think many anchors can be set in mud provided proper seamanship and for most anchors the Danforth excepted a constant hall in or back down as done by this test is probably not the way to do it. the Calder cup of tea method is more like my personal experience suggests. Because of my experience I doubt the full relevance of the Fortress test regarding the poor performance of the Spade types. I have no argument with the good performance of a Danforth type in mud and sand but I and most knowledgeable boaters have known that and the foibles of the type for very many years. With my limited engineering ability I probably could design a test to embarrass the Fortress by cherry picking the bottom and method of setting. In the end I think the Spade type or a variation of it is in the ascendancy among anchors and the Fortress test will not change that, though it might buy them a little bigger piece of the market. I just received three more boating magazines in the mail and surely there will be few if any pictures of Fortress anchors on the many boats and very many new Gen spade types surely something the people at Fortress must have also noticed over that last few years. I do think the Fortress makes a fair secondary anchor to set from a dinghy and store below but not one to sit out on the bow pulpit of boats that anchor in varied and sometimes unknown bottoms..

Here is an anchor test in mud made in 06 when the Rocna was a new thing.

The best performers were XYZ, SARCA, Fortress, HydroBubble, Super Max and Bulwagga.

From a group of 12 anchors only one or two did more poorly than the Rocna. I was impressed w the Davis but not sure if I've ever seen one.

One test produces data...not ultimate proof of anything.

Shouldn't be ignored....but shouldn't be chiseled in stone either...

This one really didn't prove much more than any experienced cruiser either didn't know or could guess.

manyboats said:

Here is an anchor test in mud made in 06 when the Rocna was a new thing.

The best performers were XYZ, SARCA, Fortress, HydroBubble, Super Max and Bulwagga.

From a group of 12 anchors only one or two did more poorly than the Rocna. I was impressed w the Davis but not sure if I've ever seen one.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the correlation means but most of the anchors that did well have either disappeared or are very niche, Fortress excepted. And of the latter - they must be doing something right even if they are not on a bow roller near you, they have sold over 500,000 units.

The XYZ is available on-line, SARCA is available in Oz, Fortress at WM, HydroBubble, Super Max and Bulwagga .... I don't know. But if you have any faith in Practical Sailor their performance has been tested in some mud bottom somewhere. I don't think the XYZ tested in this test is available now. It was the first of a number of XYZ's. Here is a good picture of it. It's performance in mud is spectacular but won't usually set in anything else.

manyboats said:

The XYZ is available on-line, SARCA is available in Oz, Fortress at WM, HydroBubble, Super Max and Bulwagga .... I don't know. But if you have any faith in Practical Sailor their performance has been tested in some mud bottom somewhere. I don't think the XYZ tested in this test is available now. It was the first of a number of XYZ's. Here is a good picture of it. It's performance in mud is spectacular but won't usually set in anything else.

Click to expand...

I believe the Super Max is still made, in America, and thus available, the Hydrobubble and Bulwagga I believe are not available.

I think one of the big points made here by others is as there is no one type of boat to take to sea there is no one anchor to use. Also as with boats it is more often important who uses them and how they are used than who designed and built the product. If I had to use a common anchor type by drawing straws I probably would do fine in the locations I usually pick to anchor in so long as I understood the nature of the anchor and how best to use it.

Djbangi said:

The issue really is what else works in soft mud and this seems to be totally ignored, or there is a deathly silence. None of the champions of other anchors or the anchor makers put their hands up and say 'ours works in soft mud but you need to do this to enjoy a reliable hold'.

Click to expand...

We've used our rollbar anchor in very soft mud a few times with 100% success. I have no idea how these mud bottoms compares with the mud bottom used in the Fortress test, but they were the same locations where our Bruce failed to hold on previous occasions. We used the same deployment and setting processes we use everywhere else. The rollbar anchor held where the Bruce didn't. How our Fortress would have fared is unknown; since the rollbar anchor always performed as advertised we had no reason to try the Fortress.

Marin said:

We've used our rollbar anchor in very soft mud a few times with 100% success. I have no idea how these mud bottoms compares with the mud bottom used in the Fortress test, but they were the same locations where our Bruce failed to hold on previous occasions. We used the same deployment and setting processes we use everywhere else. The rollbar anchor held where the Bruce didn't. How our Fortress would have fared is unknown; since the rollbar anchor always performed as advertised we had no reason to try the Fortress.

Click to expand...

Right and it fits on your bow looks good cleans easily needs no adjustment of fluke angle for different bottoms and will set and hold where a Fortress will not. And that is why so many spade type anchors are being sold and are highly visible in boating magazines, and probably why Fortress needed a new INDEPENDENT anchor test.

Marin you forgot to mention that the roll bar anchor of yours is quite a bit heavier than the old Claw you replaced it with. And that that Claw was undersized for your boat. Not much undersized probably as my new Claw for Willy ... a boat half the size of your GB 36 is the same size as your old Claw that you criticize so much.

Djbanji,
I'm disappointed the Bulwagga is no more. I think I could have used one on Willy. Nowdays I'm rather busy think'in about my mods for the Manson Supreme.

The Bulwagga has never crossed my path, I have never seen one here nor in Europe (and they have some really obscure anchors in Europe). Why do you want to modify a Supreme? What do you want it to do that necessitates an angle grinder

manyboats said:

Marin you forgot to mention that the roll bar anchor of yours is quite a bit heavier than the old Claw you replaced it with. And that that Claw was undersized for your boat. .

Click to expand...

We've discussed this before. No, our Bruce was sized correctly for our boat according to Bruce.. And.... the folks we boat with a lot and who have a lobsterboat that weighs only slightly more than half the weight of our boat but use the same weight/size of Bruce as we used to have have had even worse experiences with their anchor dragging than we did.

And... other friends who have exactly the same boat as we do but used to have a Bruce one size up from ours had so many problems with it dragging that they dumped it a few years after we dumped ours, went with the same weight rollbar anchor and have never dragged since while anchoring in the same places. (So they've told us, anyway).

Sorry, Eric. In small sizes (less than 100 pounds) the Bruce/claw sets great but is so unreliable in terms of holding that we cut ours in half and sent it to the landfill rather than risk some unsuspecting boater getting hold of it.

You will never convince me it's an anchor worth having, not with the far superior designs available on the market today.

eyschulman said:

Right and it fits on your bow looks good cleans easily needs no adjustment of fluke angle for different bottoms and will set and hold where a Fortress will not. And that is why so many spade type anchors are being sold and are highly visible in boating magazines, and probably why Fortress needed a new INDEPENDENT anchor test.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your ongoing and interesting comments about our company, product and the Chesapeake Bay testing.

First of all, as evidenced by this recent testing, a much lighter Fortress anchor will out-perform "spade" type anchors, as you call them, that are more than 2x heavier in soft mud at the 32° angle, and exponentially more so at the 45° angle.

So one does not "need" to change the shank/fluke angle of the Fortress to have better performance than a "spade" type anchor in soft mud....either angle will accomplish that.

Further still, if a boater decided to use a Fortress anchor that was more comparable in weight to a "spade" type anchor, on a lb for lb, or kg for kg basis, then the holding capacity difference would be far greater and even more dramatic....and not just in soft mud, but in ANY kind of common penetrable bottom such as sand, clay, or harder mud. The much larger surface area of the two precision-machined Fortress flukes will insure that.

Secondly, you questioned "how many Fortress anchors were on the boats in the marina?" in the storm video that was posted, and my answer would be "hopefully all of them," as there is no back up storm anchor in our local USA and Caribbean hurricane regions that is relied upon and proven to perform in the worst of conditions more often than a Fortress.

So while a Fortress might not adorn the bow of the boats you see in the magazines, rest assured, if there's a likelihood of encountering heavy weather conditions, then there's a strong possibility that a large Fortress is being stored below deck and at the ready.

If a prudent boater is given the choice between deploying 50 lb or 75 lb (23 or 34 kg) "spade" type anchor, or a significantly more massive Fortress of a comparable weight in those dire circumstances, such as the FX-85 or FX-125....then there's not a difficult decision to be made.

Additionally, Fortress are commonly used in other secondary roles, as noted in this thread by other posters.

Thirdly, as far as the number of "spade" type anchors being sold, in most cases they have very limited distribution and they are typically being sold direct from the manufacturer to the boater, while our product is stocked and sold by every major marine accessories retailer and distributor in the USA.

So if they are making any inroads into the market here, it is certainly not at our expense.

We also have manufacturers of some very fine boats who put a Fortress on the bows right from their factories, check out Viking for an example.

Lastly, Nigel Calder also wrote in the PassageMaker story "I love our Fortress and always carry one on board. I recommend it to other cruisers." For your awareness, I will be writing a commentary to this story in an upcoming issue, so stay tuned.

Thanks,
Brian

>then there's a strong possibility that a large Fortress is being stored below deck and at the ready.<

Size counts , it surface area that holds the vessel in place so an aluminum storm anchor makes sense.

At my age a 60# anchor is hard to get up from storage below , and a 90 or 100 would take lots of effort .

The area of a 90# Danforth can be had with the aluminum knock off with out the problem of getting it on deck.

Much storm anchoring is done in advance of the storm , the harbor is selected for protection and bottom holding , so bringing the survival storm gear up and rigging it on deck is common.

Brian here in Seattle Fisheries supply is one of our biggest and most respected suppliers of marine gear. I counted approximately 30 spade type anchors on display and only a handful of fortress. Maybe you should be talking to them. Also I, like Calder , see use for your anchor but it seems evident to me that there is an ongoing move toward spade types on the bows of newer boats. That they may or may not carry a Fortress below is not my point it is what is on the bow for daily use that is my point. There must be a reason for this and I don't think its because experienced boaters are being hood winked by spade type anchor advertising. I hope a truly independent organization like practical sailor responds to the Chesapeake test with modifications that come closer to how boats actually set anchors as suggested by Nigel. Any anchor testing should include comparisons with as many techniques and bottoms as possible. It is difficult for a single test do that. The Fortress test is one relatively narrow look at anchors. While it demonstrates the strength of a Fortress deep digger it may not have given the other forms of deep diggers a fair shake relative to the method of set and pull in. Having used Fortress and Danforth's and the Spade types both PNW and many years on the East Coast including 10 years on the Chesapeake I choose to carry a Spade type(Ultra ) on my bow for every day use. My aluminum anchor is in the bilge and rarely sees daylight.

manyboats said:

Here is an anchor test in mud made in 06 when the Rocna was a new thing.

The best performers were XYZ, SARCA, Fortress, HydroBubble, Super Max and Bulwagga.

From a group of 12 anchors only one or two did more poorly than the Rocna. I was impressed w the Davis but not sure if I've ever seen one.

Click to expand...

I've seen this before, but apparently forgot some details

I hadn't remembered or noticed before that SARCA is an acronym (Sand and Rock Combination Anchor). Given the descriptive name (now that I know what it is) I'd probably not think of it immediately as a mud anchor.

That's not a complaint or a criticism; more of an expectation-guiding thing. it helps me to know the design substrate.

The PS tests often take cost into account more than sometimes do. That's not a horrible thing, but...

Note that their test identified three anchors with 500-lb "holding power" at 7:1 scope. They only recommended one of those. Possibly influenced not just by cost, but also by "holding power" at 3:1 scope. Still...

Generally speaking, I don't think of factors like cost having much to do with picking which substrate an anchor might (or might not) work in. Not that cost is completely unimportant -- can't be cutting into my beverage fund -- but it's just not always a criterion I think of first.

-Chris

eyschulman said:

Brian here in Seattle Fisheries supply is one of our biggest and most respected suppliers of marine gear. I counted approximately 30 spade type anchors on display and only a handful of fortress. Maybe you should be talking to them.

Also I, like Calder , see use for your anchor but it seems evident to me that there is an ongoing move toward spade types on the bows of newer boats. That they may or may not carry a Fortress below is not my point it is what is on the bow for daily use that is my point. There must be a reason for this and I don't think its because experienced boaters are being hood winked by spade type anchor advertising.

Click to expand...

Only a handful of Fortress? Aside from different sizes, what more would you expect? I'd have thought the chandlery could replace their stock easily enough as it sells... so additional inventory doesn't always seem like a virtue.

I don't think I get your point about what's installed for daily use.

??

The Fortress tests suggest they work in soft mud. Their tests also suggest some other anchors may not work all that well in soft mud. We've got soft mud. What's not to like?

And what has that got to do with what boaters in other areas with different substrates choose as their primary anchor?

??

Other brands show test data that suggests their anchors works well in (you pick the substrate)... but those aren't overly useful for me right now. That doesn't mean I think their test are invalid, or not useful for other folks. Nor do I expect their tests to identify an "all round" (i.e., non-Fortress?) anchor that would work for us.

I don't think I understand the nature of your criticism...

-Chris

Ranger; one can not please all the people all the time. What I and Nigel Calder note about the Fortress test is that it contradicts our personal anchoring experiences and we are not alone in that matter. We don't deny the soft mud ability of Fortress and Danforth types we just feel the Spade types are much more adequate than the Fortress test demonstrated. Further Calder offers some possible explanations why and if they are on the mark then that part of the test damming the spades is erroneous. You use your fortress in mud and are happy with it I use my Ultra in mud and it works for me along with a large variety of bottoms. If I only anchored in soft mud I might use a fortress.

Djbangi said:

The Bulwagga has never crossed my path, I have never seen one here nor in Europe (and they have some really obscure anchors in Europe). Why do you want to modify a Supreme? What do you want it to do that necessitates an angle grinder

Click to expand...

Dbangi,
The Bulwagga's flukes may fit on a bow as it's flukes are rather spread eagle. Like the Forfjord straddles the bow ... also w spread eagle flukes. The Bulwagga may .. IMO .. have structural weakness's in the shank or/and shank limiters.

Re the Supreme it's already performed well above "the pack" for short scope abilities and I think I can make it better. Getting rid of most of the roll bar will significantly reduce the tendency to pitch up from it's drag while advancing through the bottom. So it should have better penetration and that should make up for the small amount of holding power created by the roll bar's cross sectional area. The "interplane drag" from the substrate forced through the RB and fluke will be largely lost and if I'm right (as per previous discussions) that this drag is what makes the RB anchors have high performance then my mods may not work better than the stock anchor. I plan to use a "horn" similar to the XYZ to keep the anchor right side up. Should present far less impedance to penetration than the RB. Considerable cutting and grinding will be necessary and I'll use cold galvanize to cover my tracks.
Just say'in because you asked.

eyschulman said:

Ranger; one can not please all the people all the time. What I and Nigel Calder note about the Fortress test is that it contradicts our personal anchoring experiences and we are not alone in that matter. We don't deny the soft mud ability of Fortress and Danforth types we just feel the Spade types are much more adequate than the Fortress test demonstrated. Further Calder offers some possible explanations why and if they are on the mark then that part of the test damming the spades is erroneous. You use your fortress in mud and are happy with it I use my Ultra in mud and it works for me along with a large variety of bottoms. If I only anchored in soft mud I might use a fortress.

Click to expand...

Once again, every anchor was pulled using the exact same starting scope, speed, distance and time in a controlled, repeatable manner, which was also completely transparent to all those who were aboard.

Nigel's method of letting the anchor "soak," so to speak, before pulling on it would simply be too time-consuming, as one might imagine, when you are trying to conduct a total of 60 pulls (5 per anchor / configuration).

What Nigel does not mention is that the Fortress might have also benefited from being allowed to soak initially as well. Simply stated, if that was beneficial for the other anchors, then why not the Fortress?

I asked Bob Taylor, our US Navy anchor design / soil mechanics consultant about this, and here is his reply:

[FONT=&quot]"Soaking may, and I stress the word may, have a minor effect on helping an anchor trip and initiate penetration but it won’t have any effect on its performance during drag.

The soil that may have been affected at the spot where the anchor was dropped is long gone and now the anchor’s performance depends on its configuration and its interaction with the seabed.

From experience I know that once an anchor has been pulled into the seabed and then it sits for a while, it will take a higher load to initiate movement, by as much as 20%, but that extra capacity dissipates as soon as the anchor starts to move again.[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][/FONT]

So Nigel might be correct with his initial setting method, but only minimally.

The only thing an anchor could do of benefit "soaking" is to sink or settle down in the bottom and a Fortress being so light would benefit much less that other heavier anchors ... it seems to me.
Soaking may also mean putting the anchor out there on the bottom and letting the action of the yawing and pitching boat to set the anchor by small jerks on the rode from the boat motion. This is probably the best way to set an anchor lightly. Backing down would generally come later. And of course the aluminum Fortress should respond to "boat motion soaking" almost as well as heavier anchors.
But probably hardly anybody would take the time to "soak" an anchor. I almost never do and I'm more serious than most about anchoring.

Ranger,
Yes SARCA was a top gun in that test. They never seem to fail. And about the short scope ... I don't take an anchor seriously unless it performs well at 3-1 scope.

I think the term soaking may not fully explain what is meant to be a slower gentler set. By taking tea I do not believe we are talking about zero tension on the anchor line It would be the way my boat reacts to being on its anchor without me applying a large constant reverse thrust.. Actually I don't let the anchor just sit but apply light reverse until I have a bite then let it sit for the boat to do its own tuging and later check with more pull when I feel it is necessary.

I've asked this before without success.

So you do not like the Fortress Chesapeake protocol, you and Nigel think there is a better way and you think (as long as the results agree with your thinking?) you would be happy if Practical Sailor took it all on board. I confess that I have noted some partisanship. Complaints seem to be raised not because of the overall results but because that favourite anchor was shown wanting, this is true of Nigel (whose favourite is a Rocna) and here in this thread, where favourites are Rocna and 'spade' type (why not just call it an Ultra and then we would all know!?)

Please then consider and post a test procedure that would satisfy your criticisms bearing in mind the amount of time it is going to take the numbers of people involved and the capital expenditure (or cost).

Unless you can come up with sensible procedure your criticisms are a bit unfair, let me re-phrase that, totally unfair.

So maybe quit complaining and get positive.

Every magazine out there would love a sensible test that has good acceptance and is cheap. So consider previous tests, Sail magazine 2006, the current Fortress tests, what PS has done in the past, what Anchor Right do, what John Knox has done - and come up with something on which there is some agreement.

Eric,

I do not know but you might find that the Supreme will self right, on a firm substrate, without the roll bar. It looks as though this might be the case, but until you chop it up you will not know. Of course once you chop it up you will have something that will look like a Boss - and you might have been better with a Boss to start with!. I think I previously mentioned that on a bow roller near me someone has chopped the roll bar off, he left about 1.5" protruding on each side. I assume it still works, unless he has not used it since, as its been on the bow roller now for at least 2 years.

Certainly if you remove the roll bar, of a roll barred anchor, and set it up correctly so that it can set - then it sets more deeply, significantly so, without the roll bar. But this is in sand. The big issue with mud is you cannot see what is going on and if someone suggests use of a diver - he could only check by feel.

In soft sand it is quite possible to set a roll bar anchor 'upside down' (actually many anchors) and the roll bar and shank will sink into the soft substrate (some non roll bar are equally prone - they surf, shank submerged sitting on their fluke) and you can pull it forever - or until it hits a harder patch, when it might roll over and 'set'. So the issue of remaining upside down is not a function of mud only, it can happen in soft sand.

I do not know how common soft sand is, as a seabed, I happen to know one location (which is used as an anchorage (Jimmy's Beach Port Stephens for those local)) but am not aware of many, or any more (Great Sandy Strait?).

Why not just call it an Ultra? Mainly because I am not in advertising or anchor sales. The same reason I did not make a big deal of the fact my second aluminum anchor was a spade purchased from Tunisia many years ago. I am not trying to support a given brand. My problem with the Fortress test is as stated previously the results regarding the spade type anchors strongly conflict with my own experience and so many others who have come to rely on the type. My training and background is such that when I run into such a conflict my natural reaction is to question the results and do more testing. This personal reaction runs deep in all scientific endeavor. If results don't seem right retest take a new tack accept when and if the proof is overwhelming. Apparently I am not yet overwhelmed by the fortress findings regarding the spade types.

ey,

Sorry but when you referred to a 'spade' type I was unsure if perhaps you did not mean a Rocna, which has a 'spade type' fluke.

But I can admire your reticence - other people could learn from you.

But personally I'd prefer you mention the anchor type specifically and I for one would not think you were advertising - unless you made 500 posts in the same thread each praising your Ultra - I'd then say, as would others, you were advertising. But 5 or 10 mentions - not an issue

Djbangi said:

I've asked this before without success.

So you do not like the Fortress Chesapeake protocol, you and Nigel think there is a better way and you think (as long as the results agree with your thinking?) you would be happy if Practical Sailor took it all on board. I confess that I have noted some partisanship. Complaints seem to be raised not because of the overall results but because that favourite anchor was shown wanting, this is true of Nigel (whose favourite is a Rocna) and here in this thread, where favourites are Rocna and 'spade' type (why not just call it an Ultra and then we would all know!?)

Please then consider and post a test procedure that would satisfy your criticisms bearing in mind the amount of time it is going to take the numbers of people involved and the capital expenditure (or cost).

Unless you can come up with sensible procedure your criticisms are a bit unfair, let me re-phrase that, totally unfair.

So maybe quit complaining and get positive.

Every magazine out there would love a sensible test that has good acceptance and is cheap. So consider previous tests, Sail magazine 2006, the current Fortress tests, what PS has done in the past, what Anchor Right do, what John Knox has done - and come up with something on which there is some agreement.

Click to expand...

Your comments remind me of what our late company founder, who was involved in thousands of tests, used to say concerning any anchor holding power test, and that was given the complexities, you should always compliment those who attempt to conduct a fair and honest anchor test, no matter what the methodology or the results.

Regarding Fortresses on the bow, I have a substantial windlass (Ideal) on my boat pulling 3/8" chain. There is absolutely no advantage to a light weight anchor as my windlass could likely lift a thousand pound anchor off the bottom. If I were of a mind to have a Danforth style anchor as my primary or secondary on my boat, it would be the largest steel one that I could fit in the bow roller. No reason to compromise with aluminum if your not trying to save weight.

That having been said, I do have a Fortress FX-11 on my boat. I use it on the dinghy. When beaching the dinghy, it's much easier to carry a 7 pound anchor and 100' of 3/8" rope up the beach. For that application, I consider the trade off of aluminum versus the extra weight acceptable.

Ted

Mostly all sticky/heavy mud here. Hard to think any anywhere-near-properly-sized anchor wouldn't hold in these protected waters. I'm mostly concerned with the anchor holding with the frequent 180-degree current changes, which Bruce knock-offs handle satisfactorily.