Another round of anchor controversy

I wait for my Bruce to let me down, so I can then use my FX55 that remains neatly stowed in its lovely red bag. Heck I'd like my Bruce to get stolen so I could install a SARCA or Rocna or Manson so I could join the current decade. But alas, to no avail. the Bruce keeps on soldiering.

I think the tests on hand have revealed enough to kind of sort out the basic differences of most anchors. I've got a sack full of favorites and a few I wouldn't bother with. But there's only one that I drag out when it's really going to blow. My favorite of course. And of course one could say that's not totally objective and be correct. But I may have come to have that favorite through objective observations and experience. Marin's experience leading him to the Rocna as he relates it sounds very logical and even objective. And now he's probably upset that the Rocna isn't perfect ..... all our favorites are perfect of course .. until they are not. In this case Marin predicts that ahead of the dawn of reckoning. Interesting that we're all being so objective and choosing different anchors. Yup anchoring and anchors must be Voodoo.

Results

I've seen quite a few tests typical of this one. What do you choose to believe? This test shows the Claw and CQR doing so poorly one would question if using one of these anchors is actually safe. Then you read about very experienced trawler skippers on this forum cruising SE Alaska for many years regularly using these anchors.

What input should you rely on?

By the way if you're presenting this test in support of your favorite anchor it would help your cause if you'd provide at least a hint of what this test is and who conducted it.

Windmill, that chart doesn't reflect my experience. The anchors I deployed always worked.

markpierce said:

Windmill, that chart doesn't reflect my experience. The anchors I deployed always worked.

Click to expand...

I never owned a Ronka but did own a Manson-many Danforths-Fortress-delta-genuine CQR-genuine Bruce-aluminum spades(2)-and an ultra. I can remember only a few anchor failures in my 50+ years of gunk holing. In Annapolis harbor on short scope in a thunder storm. my Bruce with all chain holding a 40 ft Pilgrim(fair amount of wind age) had moderate but not dangerous dragging. The application of a little motor thrust until the peak winds subsided handled that situation. I experienced two full blown anchor failures with Danforth and Fortress where 180 degree clocked wind in T storms broke anchors loose with no reset plenty of room and good anchor watch so no real problem. Both times anchors in relatively soft mud and Barnegat B and Chesapeake). My CQR on short scope all chain I suspected minor drag on occasion. With all those anchoring's not a perfect score but pretty dam good for 50+ years. I know its not just the anchor its the effort I put into picking my spot and my judgment on the set which I repeat or back up with the #2 anchor if in doubt. Yes as said by others I think too much emphasis on the anchor type its only part of the equation.

manyboats said:

Marin's experience leading him to the Rocna as he relates it sounds very logical and even objective. And now he's probably upset that the Rocna isn't perfect .....

Click to expand...

I've never said our anchor is perfect. I said-- and still say-- it's the best all-round anchor on the planet. And based on all the user testimonials I've read over the last eight or nine years, I have a whole lot of company around the world.

Claiming it's perfect would be stupid. No anchor other than a Cat D-10 buried in the mud can be perfect. The fact our anchor isn't perfect is why we carry a totally different type of anchor on board, a Fortress in our case.

But based on the user testimonials we've berm reading for years, and on direct testimonials we've heard from people in our marina who've used the same anchor in extreme conditions in open anchorages in the southwestern Pacific, we remain convinced that when we bought the first of our anchor brand sold in the PNW we bought the best all-round anchor available today.

In our opinion, all other anchor designs are inferior for recreational cruiser use in the sizes most of this type of boat uses. And in the eight or nine years we've had our anchor, we have seen no reason whatsoever to change our minds.

Perfect? Of course not. Better than all the other so-called all-round anchor designs? Absolutely. It's why we kep ours locked to the boat: we can't replace it.

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.

Click to expand...

eyschulman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ah. Got it.

Yes, testing methodology/technique/execution can be difficult to design, fund, control, and evaluate.

I tend to see the "glass is at least half full" results, so I've been looking at the results as a positive for Fortress (in this case) and not as a negative for other brands.

-Chris

Greetings,
Mr. 42. "...glass is at least half full...". Maybe someone started with too big a glass.

Speaking of glasses, maybe anchors are like wine glasses, one for every type bottom or situation....

Yes Marin I probably over expressed myself on my post. The Rocna isn't perfect as time has shown and I won't claim any of my seven or so anchors to be perfect either. But all of mine and all of yours are perfect in our minds as none have ever failed. My first XYZ failed with big time setting problems and it's now in a small land fill in Alaska. But if we have no anchor failures when we hang up our prop for the last time we can then say they are perfect. But for now if several anchor tests find an anchor that performs below the pack that hook is at least suspect at best and probably worse.

But it's hard to believe anchor tests that show the most common anchors having extremely low performance. The only way I can explain that is to point out that anchor tests subject the anchors to extremes .. such as 5000lbs of tension on the rode. Most of us probably go for years w/o even coming close to those extremes. We went on a 2000 mile trip w our Albin 25 using a smallish Claw and probably saw no more than a 15mph breeze as the weather was very nice and of course had no problems w the anchor. I've never been in a gale w anything but an XYZ and reach for that anchor when over 40mph winds are predicted or I think may happen. And how much tension was on my rodes in the three gales I've been anchoring out in? Perhaps I'd have been fine w any of my other anchors. I've talked to fishermen that do fine w a Dreadnought anchor. One commented "It does fine in 50knot summer gales but drags in the 60 knot winter storms". I have a Dreadnought sized for my boat and consider it the lowest holding power anchor I have and would not put it out in a gale but until I've done it I won't know. Most any anchor seems to work fine for most of us and the reason may not be that they all have good or high performance but that we don't make high demands on them. That's the beauty of the anchor test in that they DO put high demands on the anchors.

I've read stuff about air drag over the years and suspect that most or all the predictions are not true. But it would seem to me that if one was to predict error it would be less drag rather than more. I've never had to increase rpm in 40 knot winds.

So I suspect the unknown factor in anchoring may be the low level of performance we actually need to keep our boats off the beach. I wonder if I tethered my Willard on a line in a 40mph breeze how hard it would be to hold it? After doing that I may come to the conclusion that the 13lb Danforth that came w my boat was plenty big enough.

I've noticed for years that bigger vessels have comparatively small anchors. And lots of them (perhaps most) are not high performance anchors. Perhaps that's the reason anchoring usually goes quite well .... we don't need much of an anchor. If we started using smaller instead of bigger anchors we may be very pleasantly surprised how well it goes. Perhaps a 10 or 12lb Supreme would do fine on Willy.

windmill29130 said:

Results

Click to expand...

For the sake of accuracy, the chart posted is one of three that were published in the October 2006 issue of Sail magazine which had the story about the West Marine anchor tests.

Unfortunately, this chart included a false pull with a >5,000 lb tension spike which inflated the numbers of the Rocna 35, as noted in the test report below, and this information was not used or reported by the other magazines who attended the testing.

The other two charts from the Sail magazine story are below as well.

My recently purchased 28' Cape dory came with a 7.5 kg Stainless Trefoil (Bruce clone) on the rollers...
Seems a might small to me for serious and regular anchoring out. For years (on the Chesapeake), I used a 22lb Bruce on my (15,000lb) Bristol 35/5 and never had an issue...
I rooted around in the attic for old boating gear and came up with an FX11 and FX16 fortress. I'll be adding both these to the on board inventory and suspect I'll be covered well!!

I knew the regular Spades had a short scope problem but this is the first time in a test that I've seen that the Rocna did well at short scope. Not in chacter but a welcome sight to see.

But here the same trend seems to prevail. The newer anchors do well, as generally expected (probably) and the older anchors that huge numbers of very experienced skippers do use currently do terrible. Not just poor but terrible. Most every test looks like the results have been cooked to make make an advertiser happy. So much so that I wonder and wonder. How can these newer anchors do so spectacularly and the old standbys do so so poorly.

And here the short scope performance indicated by the Wasi is really super. Wonder how they arrived at that. Makes me think of one of the new Spades that looks very much like a Wasi.

Could anyone post a link to this entire Sail Magazine test?

Here is a link to that article posted on the Rocna site.........

Eric-- I think your post 131 is very well thought out and is probably spot on.

Every time we go out we pass the Vendovi Anchorage which is one of the places tankers hang out waiting to load or unload at the Anacortes refineries. Their anchors weigh tons, but in comparison to the size of the ships they seem ridiculously tiny. Yet they hold those tankers in the same windstorms that come blasting through Bellngham Bay with 50-80 mph gusts.

So far our rollbar anchor has performed flawlessly in every bottom in which we've used it. We hope and expect this performance will continue. But... if it should let us down in a big way under conditions we think it should have done well, which is what our Bruce did one too many times, it will get the same treatment as the Bruce. We will go in search of something more reliable and our current anchor will go off to the landfill.

manyboats said:

Could anyone post a link to this entire Sail Magazine test?

Click to expand...

There is another write up of the same data in Yachting Monthly here:

http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/Anchor Tests/Yachting Monthly 2006.pdf

When looking at anchor tests you really need to read a large number to gain some perspective. This link from Manson lists some of the independent tests and is a good starting point :

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

Most anchor tests, in those Manson links etc, are conducted in sand - and largely come to the same conclusions - that the newer anchors are better - in sand.

Few anchor tests are conducted in mud (except Practical Sailor) and very few in thin mud. I do not think there are any in weed.

The Fortress tests cannot be extrapolated to a medium to hard sand seabed, but might have relevance in very soft sand. The Fortress tests cannot be extrapolated to weed.

But the Fortress tests are indicative of performance in thin mud - and it is difficult to refute the results - as no-one else has bothered (possibly because their anchors have never been tested in thin mud).


I note that despite the volume of criticism of Fortress tests - no-one can come up with a better protocol. It is shame we can be so negative.

I'm not sure why they ran the test...they could have polled a bunch of experience cruisers who probably would have said the Fortress would do well...I was one that predicted it as well as others here....

While I doubt it was true that Fortress started with the premise...yet the test was almost guaranteed to make others look really bad...even if the fortress didn't look too good either. Anchoring in soft mud isn't high on my list of things to do..but nice that fortress proved it's merit IN THIS CASE.

Good in mud doesn't mean anything more than that...doesn't mean good on my pulpit 24X7...unless I only boat over thin mud.

Throw in the debate of reversing and yawing and yanking..sure there are variables...but not many I know would have bet against the fortress in that test..whether it is relevant or not.

There's a lot of going back and forth here and I don't see people understanding other's positions....by reading a bit between the lines.

Djbangi said:

I note that despite the volume of criticism of Fortress tests - no-one can come up with a better protocol. It is shame we can be so negative.

Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read post #12. As others have stated, most of us can likely get whatever anchor we have on our boat to set in most any bottom. The more important question is what will happen when wind and / or current reverses. IMO, without this part, the test isn't terribly useful if you like to get a good nights sleep on the hook.

Ted

psneeld - I would have expected the Fortress to do well though I had not appreciated how much better it would be when set at 45 degrees - so this was news to me. I would have thought 'better' but I would not have guessed that much better.

So from Fortress point of view they have educated me, accepting I'm pretty ignorant of this topic.

But I equally would never, ever, have guessed that other anchors would be so poor, not much better than dragging a mushroom weight along. Nor would I have ever thought that the Ultra would be that much better then a Spade, or a Mantus that much better then a Rocna. I note others do not accept the results based on their own experiences but I'm sufficiently comfortable with what Fortress have done to 'ignore' those anecdotal comments and when in thin mud I'll not deploy my Spade or (rush off and buy a Mantus) I'll simply deploy my Fortress at 45 degrees (and if asked I'd suggest others rush off and buy a Fortress (if they do not already have one).

If you sail Australia's east coast, from all the way north to all the way south, you will encounter a huge cross section of seabeds, coral (calcium) sand, pure silica sand, clay, weed of various types and densities and mud of varying consistencies (many of the anchorages are in very slow moving rivers). Many make the passage north in the winter, from Sydney (or Melbourne) to The Reef, and slightly less many make the passage south to Tasmania in the summer (there are possibly 60-70 vessels visiting Tas as I type - there is a 2 yearly circumnavigation in 2015).

Anyone cruising up and down the coast needs an anchor armoury to suit this cross section, so unlike you they will need to be able to anchor in thin mud and a Fortress looks dependable and has other positive characteristics to make it a 'must have'. Relying on another type of anchor, in thin mud, looks questionable - yes (according to some) it might work - but you would look very, very stupid if you have looked at the Fortress results and then ignore the lessons.

O C Diver said:

Apparently you didn't read post #12. As others have stated, most of us can likely get whatever anchor we have on our boat to set in most any bottom. The more important question is what will happen when wind and / or current reverses. IMO, without this part, the test isn't terribly useful if you like to get a good nights sleep on the hook.

Ted

Click to expand...

I had read #12, if that is the only alternative then my comment is - its unrealistic.

Who is going to lend the equipment? How are you going to ensure each seabed is the same, each enjoys the same flow of current etc.

You arrange it and I am happy to write it up and I will ensure it is published in a reputable American magazine.

Djbangi said:

I had read #12, if that is the only alternative then my comment is - its unrealistic.

Who is going to lend the equipment? How are you going to ensure each seabed is the same, each enjoys the same flow of current etc.

You arrange it and I am happy to write it up and I will ensure it is published in a reputable American magazine.

Click to expand...

My point exactly! If you can't or won't conduct the test to reflect what are clearly the most important characteristics in the consumers mind, then the tests are............wait for it..........UNREALISTIC!

Ted

Hi Ted,

We try our best! And we do it with the best intentions. We try to make the tests as real as possible (and its the same type of test that is used t classify oil rig, commercial vessel and Navy vessel anchor so lots of credibility behind it all).

Oddly so many people were persuaded by the 2006 Sail results

Misguided, perhaps?

Just another observation. I scanned the new copy of Yachting magazine I just received with magnification. Did not include the adds in back. I found 28 anchors I can see well enough to say with fair accuracy that only one might have been a Danforth or Fortress and all the others definitely not. Spade type anchors dominate the 27. I have been doing this with multiple boating magazines for more than a year and this result is typical. Where I see more Danforths and fortress in my area is when I walk the docks or examine boats(CGAUX safety examiner) which I do often. My general impression is that older and smaller boats tend to have more of these anchors while newer and larger boats tend to have other than Danforth types. I leave it to whoever reads this to draw what conclusions they will. Does anyone think that the magazines and boat builders won't put Fortress on the bow because they are ugly??

Djbangi said:

psneeld - I would have expected the Fortress to do well though I had not appreciated how much better it would be when set at 45 degrees - so this was news to me. I would have thought 'better' but I would not have guessed that much better.

So from Fortress point of view they have educated me, accepting I'm pretty ignorant of this topic.

But I equally would never, ever, have guessed that other anchors would be so poor, not much better than dragging a mushroom weight along. Nor would I have ever thought that the Ultra would be that much better then a Spade, or a Mantus that much better then a Rocna. I note others do not accept the results based on their own experiences but I'm sufficiently comfortable with what Fortress have done to 'ignore' those anecdotal comments and when in thin mud I'll not deploy my Spade or (rush off and buy a Mantus) I'll simply deploy my Fortress at 45 degrees (and if asked I'd suggest others rush off and buy a Fortress (if they do not already have one).

If you sail Australia's east coast, from all the way north to all the way south, you will encounter a huge cross section of seabeds, coral (calcium) sand, pure silica sand, clay, weed of various types and densities and mud of varying consistencies (many of the anchorages are in very slow moving rivers). Many make the passage north in the winter, from Sydney (or Melbourne) to The Reef, and slightly less many make the passage south to Tasmania in the summer (there are possibly 60-70 vessels visiting Tas as I type - there is a 2 yearly circumnavigation in 2015).

Anyone cruising up and down the coast needs an anchor armoury to suit this cross section, so unlike you they will need to be able to anchor in thin mud and a Fortress looks dependable and has other positive characteristics to make it a 'must have'. Relying on another type of anchor, in thin mud, looks questionable - yes (according to some) it might work - but you would look very, very stupid if you have looked at the Fortress results and then ignore the lessons.

Click to expand...

You keep saying what others have been saying all along...yet in a way with a final twist people are compelled to challenge not the bulk...but the final twist...so it all just keeps going on......

And your bottom material list can pretty much be found in the Chesapeake Bay alone except for coral sand but coarse sand is certainly similar....certainly he same as if anyone does the US East Coast. No surprises for the average cruiser.....

Is it possible that the folks who have spent big boat buck for the new bow bling anchors cant accept that a cheaper ugly anchor could perform well. Maybe it stings a little after spending $2K on an Ultra.

In Sydney and Brisbane the bigger and flashier motor vessels all have Ultra's on the bow, at boat shows - its a deal (and a clever marketing ploy that I can admire) done by the Ultra importer. Most of the other new boats have Deltas (except more recently - some of the French imports have sported Kobras or Spades).

I like the Kobra.

I cannot believe we have been through Charismas, topics on anchors have taken over, seemingly - supposing the greatest day of rejoicing; I can see no evidence of anyone taking a break from this ongoing discussion.

Anchor manufacturers, designers, we are the few driven by passion to do better, maybe in time we can better convince some that we have made a difference. Unfortunately in the marketing world, anchor testing, you are likely to be given even more ammo from the big retailers for discussion in the following year other than from anchor designers, easy to figure out.

Low and behold on another forum we had anchor discussions taken to a new level, we had a topless mermaid photographing anchors, the Mermaid belonged to a moderator just to make a point, the mermaid; is a moderator also, extraordinarily lengths some go to as 90 percent of the photos are taken of the one anchor design, what is going on - WHY ? I think as a result there will be many opposition anchors shown in poor light, new inventive ideas are exposing new tactics by some wanna bees, create more attention than others, surely that’s all it can be? If they were independent no problem, Moderator Mermaid anchor inspectors—what next?

Just maybe some are trying to impress each other, is it the need to be heard; challenge the writer, maybe I have had too much of the grape juice recently, NAHHHH I’m just in search for an answer as to why time stands still when it comes to forum anchor discussions, from personal insinuations to anchor testing, types, material, old school designs, maybe even beauty contests now?

Oh well I suppose there is always a humbug, carry on its enjoyable, I understand most of it is just good fun. merry Christmas to all.

Regards Rex.