I have a great respect for Steve and the amount of time and effort he has put into his anchor testing project. Truly admirable!
This was not the first time that our anchor didn't performed admirably in an anchor test and it will certainly not be the last with all of the variables involved with setting techniques and bottom conditions.
On the very first day and test of the Fortress anchor in the Chesapeake Bay test, and under the very watchful eyes of the boating writers aboard, the anchor just flat-lined right across the bottom and did not set.
One of the boating writers mentioned in his story that he overheard a Fortress rep say,
"Well, at least no one can say that the test was rigged." I am glad that the writer did not hear me wonder aloud about whether a nearby bridge was high enough to jump off of!
In soft mud we recommend setting our anchor at a short scope to insure that the shank does not sink below the flukes, but since no other anchor manufacturer makes this recommendation, we did not include it in our testing protocol.
Regarding Steve's very difficult test for the 10 lb FX-16, I sent a link of the video to our US Navy anchor design / soil mechanics expert and consultant, Bob Taylor, for his opinion.
Among his comments, he expressed a concern for the negative upward affect on this light anchor from the two attached lines, particularly when the boat was moving with some speed, and it appeared that one of the lines was under a fluke which would have prevented it from pointing down.
Add to this a short testing scope of 3.5 to 1, which would also create a vertical pull on the 10 lb anchor, plus a moving 34-ft / 15k lb boat and the word "challenging" immediately comes to mind for a description of the test for this light anchor!
But I encourage Steve to keep up the good work and maybe we should all create a site for donations?
Safe anchoring,
Brian
Thanks, Brian
Regarding Mr. Taylor's comments: His labeling of the test as "strange" and subsequent warning (to you) that "When non-scientists get involved you’re in trouble" cast some doubt about his objectivity.
Let's dig a little deeper (no pun intended) into the "camera tether-pull factor" that Taylor (and myself in the video) brought to our attention. In the above video, I conduct Three separate deployments of the anchor, let's call them #1, #2, and #3.
Deployment #1. The camera tether (one line, not two) is attached to the crown of the anchor and is pulling upward with less than 1 pound of force. During the initial set (attempt) the chain is pulled back underneath one of the stocks/fluke and lodges against the side of the shank, perhaps being somewhat captured by the mud palm. The anchor dragged backwards continuously for many, dozens of feet without re-orienting. The anchor was always laying flat on the bottom and I cannot imagine how the "camera tether pull" was negatively affecting this outcome. In the video, I give this failure "a pass" as careful setting technique would alleviate this problem. BTW, I wonder if the initial "flat lining" of the Fortress during the Chesapeake test was a result of this same "backward dragging" phenomena?
Deployment #2. The camera tether is still attached to the crown of the anchor. During the initial set, the anchor is laying flat on the bottom and sets immediately. Let's all agree that the "camera tether pull" did not negatively affect this initial, perfect set. The anchor was then "power set" with 3000 rpm reverse power for 20 seconds resulting in a completely buried anchor. I then drive the boat up and over the anchor at 2 knots on order to simulate a wind or current reversal. As the slack is removed from the chain, the anchor rotates (and that's good) but unfortunately the anchor also develops a significant list. The anchor then disengages from the bottom and is dragged for many dozens of feet and does not re-set. Yes, the one pound "camera tether pull" was contributing to this listing and (I acknowledge that possibility in the video).
However, I believe this upward pull is a tiny fraction of other upward forces (like chain catenary removed/lifting) acting on the anchor. Looking back a couple months, to my Video #60, I bent the shank of my Fortress anchor by executing a 180 degree pull on the anchor in a similar condition (buried). Mr. Taylor commented on that video as well:
"The FX 16 is high efficiency and will penetrate deeply to deal with the load. The steel anchors or larger FX anchors will not penetrate as deeply as the FX 16 nor will they develop as high a percentage of their ultimate capacity so the heavier anchors will turn much more easily since they won’t be embedded much in comparison. To be fair he would need to adjust the rpm so that each anchor developed a similar percentage of its ultimate capacity."
I agree completely with the above statement and conclude that the side force needed to bend this anchor's shank must have been many hundreds of pounds. Yes, the force needed to LIFT this fully buried anchor perhaps is less than that needed to bend it. However, it will still be many, many times greater than the 1 pound of force pulling upward on the anchor. In-spite of this, in the interest of fairness, I acknowledge the possibility of "camera tether pull", and conduct a final deployment with the tether attached to the chain shackle:
Deployment #3. The camera tether is now attached to the chain shackle. I mention that the weight of this chain (3/8" BBB) is greater than what is normally used (or recommended) and is certainly enough to counter act the 1 pound of upward "camera tether pull". The anchor has a perfect initial set within one anchor length. I think we can all agree that the "camera tether pull" did not negatively affect this textbook set. The anchor was then "power set" in the normal 3,000 rpm fashion. I then drive the boat up and over the anchor in order to simulate a 180 degree wind or current reversal. The anchor rotates, remains buried in the sea-bed and stops the boat abruptly. I then drive the boat up and over the anchor again but this time I happen to nail the path over the anchor perfectly resulting in the anchor not rotating, but being flipped up over backward. Yes, the camera was pulling 1 pound upward on the end of the shank but again, this heavy, all-chain rode is many times heavier than the rode recommended by Fortress and is certainly negating the tiny upward tether pull. The anchor then drags continuously for many dozens of feet and does no re-set. The video clearly shows that the flukes are not able to pivot downward. At first, the camera tether is positioned directly adjacent to and touching the fluke and at that point even I thought that the tether might be somehow (it is just a single strand of 1/8" parachute cord) preventing the fluke from pivoting. However, as the boat is allowed to slow, the tether drifts away from the fluke completely while the fluke remains jammed in it's incorrect position. Upon retrieval a blob of seabed (sandy mud) is impacted between the flukes and is most certainly the culprit in the defeat of the pivot action.
Mr. Taylor goes on to say "Any anchor can ball up with soil or kelp and not be able to re-embed" as if to give a pass to this occurrence (after saying it was all fault of the camera tether). While I agree with this statement in a fundamental way, It appears that Taylor did not watch my numerous videos where I subject other anchors to repeated re-set testing in this exact area with three examples (Sarca, Sarca Excel, and the Spade) performing absolutely perfectly 100% of the time. It did not matter how they were deployed. It did not matter whether they rotated, listed, disengaged from the sea-bed, or were flipped over on their back, They all re-set perfectly every time.
Frankly, I do not see how the Fortess anchor company can be "in trouble" given it's fantastic high quality products, wonderful customer support, and dominance in the market it enjoys.
However, if problems do arise, I will accept no blame.
Steve