FYI - Vulcan Anchor Test (S/V Panope)

Steve Goodwin posted a test of a 20kg (44lb) Rocna Vulcan Anchor. Top honors in the weight class is shared between it and the Viking 20kg. At the end of the video he does caution that while he has found varied sea bottoms to test, his PNW testing grounds may not be representstive of all seabottoms. For soft mud, he continues to state the gold standard for holding to be Danforth style broad fluke anchors.

Screen shots of his comparison charts attached.

Many thanks to the good work by Steve Goodwin. Great service to the boating community

Peter


https://youtu.be/cPSQxoRVrIw

Thanks for posting. Yesterday, I was just going through Steve's review #100, where the galvanized steel Excel came first, Vulcan second... and I don't remember a Viking in there at all... so maybe that's from one of his newer tests as well.

The mud thing is important for us here on the Chesapeake. I've been shopping, because this new-to-us fixer-upper came with a ~55-lb stainless Lewmar Delta, no lead in the tip that I can tell... and I already know a Delta isn't great for soft mud (aka slime, ooze, soup, etc.).

So far, our best choices around have been Fortress -- larger flukes are better, weight not so important -- and SuperMAX.

Fortress conducted some tests near here back circa 2014-ish, and of course Fortress did well... as they have for us. They don't hang all that well on our pulpit, though, and re-configuring for hard bottom or soft mud means completely dismantling the thing on deck and putting it back together again at the other angle. Because of that, we think it makes a great back-up and kedge here in our area. And it'd be a good primary, left on the mud setting all the time, if it hung nicely on our pulpit.

(Some have argued that resets don't work great when currents change directions. Our experience is that the anchor is apparently usually completely buried, no reset necessary. Retrieving is often an issue.)

Cap'n Wil Andrews published some mud tests on one of the trawler-related listservs back in the late '90s (IIRC) and SuperMAX came first in his tests. Reconfiguring the adjustable version can be done on the pulpit; one bolt out, back into a different adjustment hole, easy. Hung well on our previous pulpit, but...

But now I need to go larger and I'm not yet sure whether the MAX-20 will fit our pulpit or not.

Doesn't look to me like the Vulcan would hang very well, but I'll have to look more closely at that. And I guess I have to go learn what a Viking anchor is...

-Chris

Thanks for sharing, I was impressed by vulcan 20kg that came with my parent's Mainship 390 so I bought one for my boat last year. The only time it has struggled to set was a sea bottom covered with decaying leaves from the surrounding trees.

Viking is apparently built in Israel but has a distributor in New Jersey so may be available somewhat locally. If you look at Panope test, performance is excellent but he finds significant fault with galvanizing - he is able to flake away some of the coating with a utility knife. He also notes the Mantus has nice chamfered edges vs sharp edges of the Viking. Like the Vulcan, the Viking self-launches very well.

I have never cruised the Chesapeake but understand soft mud is common. SF Bay has thick, stinky, heavy mud in most parts but is decent holding. A Fortress/Danforth would be preferred except for the tide-induced strong current reversals that have been known to foul a Danforth style anchor and set the boat adrift. I watched a boat fail to reset after reversal off China Camp while the owner was ashore hiking (I too was ashore). I don't know the anchor they used, but would not be surprised if a Danforth style.

Sounds like the Chesapeake is unique for soft mud. If you look at the screen shot I attached, some anchors do better in mud than others, but none are nearly as good as they are in sand except (presumably) the fortress

One of the really interesting parts of Panope tests is anchors perform differently depending on their size. He loved the 17 lb Mantus. But didn't like the construction on the 44 lb. Similar with the 20-lb Vulcan which was decent, but he really preferred the Viking. That reversed in the 44-lb test. I find his bench-discussions at the beginning and end of the videos much more interesting than the actual tests

Please update with whatever you decide.

Peter

I watched that yesterday too.

The interesting thing about his tests over time is how the rankings change over time. To me, the conclusion is there is no "best". And that perhaps the experience seen is affected by a few number of tests per anchor.

Another conclusion is, what is important to YOU? Like the Chesapeake conditions. The ratings in cobblestone are not of concern, so throw out that category and re-rank.

The Bruce designs are ones he throws a lot of shade on, but then you see in his chart they do well in soft mud. One good test example?

I had about decided to bite the bullet for an Ultra some months back when it was rated close to the top. Its now fallen back. Which rating and batch of tests are the most valid?

Note he did have concerns about how the Vulcan moves around a lot on the roller. A legitimate concern for more than this design? Worthy of its own rating scale? Fixable? Seems like shaft SHAPE has an impact but I have not heard him discuss that.

There was a thread on here maybe 6 months ago. A member had purchased a boat where the anchor simply didn't fit well, and caused all sorts of issues. The shaft length was long, and the room between the roller and windlass was short. The conversation began with questions about surgery to the roller. If one has this issue with the roller, shaft length alone could rise to a level of an important metric to consider. In that case, just throw out the longest shafts from consideration and re-rank what's left, in the conditions that matter.

Analysis paralysis sets in, on an important choice.

I keep hoping to convince Steve Bedford to send a SuperMAX out for Steve Goodwin's testing... but there are a few other SuperMAX tests out there in the web-i-verse, and realistically I don't think Steve Goodwin has somewhere available to him for testing with the kind of soup/ooze/slime we have here.

As I understand it, or at least according to the MAX website, Andy Peabody -- SuperMAX inventor -- was originally experimenting someplace in Louisiana... so presumably that means they have some slime/ooze/soup around there somewhere too.

I had also hoped to influence Fortress to include a SuperMAX during their Chesapeake Bay tests... even offered to lend them ours... but Brian told me at the time that they thought the SuperMAX probably wasn't commercially viable, might not last much longer... since Andy was at the time either ill or looking for a retirement plan or some such. (I'm unclear about all that, though.)

We'll see how it goes. If the MAX-20 will hang on our pulpit, problem solved. If not, I guess I'll figure out an OK Plan B.

-Chris

FWT said:

Note he did have concerns about how the Vulcan moves around a lot on the roller. A legitimate concern for more than this design? Worthy of its own rating scale? Fixable? Seems like shaft SHAPE has an impact but I have not heard him discuss that.

Click to expand...

Steve Goodwin's review #106 addresses some of that "how does it fit in the roller" issue, if you haven't seen that.

-Chris

The sudden loss of holding and trouble resetting is said to be a down fall for Rocna and similar roll bar designs. We full time cruised the Carib and New England using a Rocna as primary and a fortress as secondary. The fortress wasn’t needed and the performance of the Rocna simply amazing even in storm force at 5:1. But yes needed to let the Rocna settle with no or little force on it for as long as you could to have success in the loose chessie mud soup.
Still other than rare anchoring in tidal rivers never had 180 shifts. Please read Attainable Adventures. They make a compelling case for the Spade. Particularly if 180 shifts are in your future. On the new to us boat there’s a Delta. It will be replaced with a galvi Spade.

ranger42c said:

Steve Goodwin's review #106 addresses some of that "how does it fit in the roller" issue, if you haven't seen that.

-Chris

Click to expand...

Thanks, will check that out

I guess one other metric to look at is avoiding anchors that do really poorly in some conditions, since most want something that will do at least "pretty good" just about anywhere. Such as, throw out anything with a 1 or 2 rating in any conditions you are likely to ever see.

My own experience agrees with Steve's showing that in many substrates, the Vulcan will just bury itself well out of sight. In what I'd consider to be a medium mud (a bit soft on top, but firmer underneath and provides good holding), I've seen mud all the way up the shank and the first few feet of chain on mine after some decent wind. Based on what it took to retrieve it (and how much chain I pulled up in the process), I'd say the thing was a good 4 - 6 feet into the mud in my case.

ranger42c said:

(Some have argued that resets don't work great when currents change directions. Our experience is that the anchor is apparently usually completely buried, no reset necessary. Retrieving is often an issue.)

Click to expand...

In a really soft bottom, a Danforth / Fortress shouldn't have the resetting problems it can in firmer bottoms. If it's fully buried, that'll soften the impact of a direction change, and there's nothing sticking out for chain to snag on and trip the anchor.

I have seen haystacks of Danforth styles with very bent shafts.

Sure some might have hooked something not natural to the sandy or muddy bottoms...but I believe the vast majority were from being deeply set, and not breaking out when being pulled from way different directions. Some by weather, some by power.

I just won't use one as a primary because of all my experiences and reported experiences of them not catching and setting quickly...so not great to be the emergency anchor.

psneeld said:

I have seen haystacks of Danforth styles with very bent shafts.

Sure some might have hooked something not natural to the sandy or muddy bottoms...but I believe the vast majority were from being deeply set, and not breaking out when being pulled from way different directions. Some by weather, some by power.

I just won't use one as a primary because of all my experiences and reported experiences of them not catching and setting quickly...so not great to be the emergency anchor.

Click to expand...

Shank strength is one of the big differences between the cheaper Danforths (and cheap copies) vs the higher quality ones. There's a reason the Fortress or the high tensile Danforth cost a multiple of what the cheap ones do.

I absolutely agree on not liking them for a primary though. For the conditions where they're good, nothing will beat them. But they're not great across a wide range of conditions.

I don't remember having too much troubles getting a Danforth or a Fortress to set around here.

The one time I remember having difficulty with an actual, relatively small, Danforth was when we turned out to be over a bottom covered with downed leaves. Skatey, skatey, no setee. A different location in the same creek worked OK.

I also only remember a Fortress breaking out unexpectedly once. That was directly related to some kind of cyclonic event that spun the boat in a 360° over about 2 minutes. We'd seen the storm coming, but didn't expect the corkscrew effect. I didn't try to reset; we were anchored so close to our home marina it was easier to just beat feet back to our slip. We arrived, walked the dog, deluge began just as wifey and critter came back aboard.

I THINK that might have been an FX-23, brought over from the earlie 33' boat to our then-new-to-us 42' boat... before I'd had time to source a larger and more appropriate FX-37.

Otherwise, our Adventures in Anchoring have mostly been successful with the Danforth design.

Delta? Not so much, around here.

-Chris

So OK, here is some analysis paralysis fodder.

Throw out cobblestone. Average the 3 ratings each for soft mud and sandy mud.

Soft mud (average of 3), ratings of 4 or better, in order

Viking - 5
M1 - 5
Knox - 5 (discard because of awful clean sand ratings, and weak sandy mud)
Vulcan - 4.7
Rocna - 4.7 (ditto Knox comments)
Bruce - 4.7 (ditto Knox)
Ultra - 4.3
Spade - 4 (discard because of poor clean sand ratings)

Sandy Mud (average of 3)

Spade S100 - 5 (discard due to poor soft mud)
Viking - 4.8
Spade A100 - 4.7 (discard due to poor clean sand)
Vulcan - 4.3
Excel - 4.3
M2 - 4.3 (discard due to poor soft mud)
M1 - 4

Discard everything with a poor rating on something (other than cobblestone which I just flat ignore for my purposes), and you are left with just 5 to consider, ranked by the average of soft and sandy mud

Viking - 4.9
Vulcan - 4.5
M1 - 4.5
Excel - 3.9
Ultra - 3.8

So from that short list one can look at fit, build quality, price, etc. That will throw out the Viking and M1 on build. Leaving Vulcan, Excel, and Ultra to look at fit and price.

Until the next batch of tests which scramble the ratings yet again.

It is interesting to note that despite the fairly similar basic design, the Vulcan outperforms the Spade. And it's a sturdier design (my 73 lb Vulcan gives the impression of being nearly indestructible), plus it's much cheaper.



I wouldn't necessarily toss the Viking and M1 on build quality, but I'd definitely give some thought to the limitations of their construction. The Viking in particular seems to be a very good performer (although it seems like anything bigger than the 60lb Viking 25 is a special order). And it's in line with some of the other less expensive new gen anchors for price as well.

rslifkin said:

Shank strength is one of the big differences between the cheaper Danforths (and cheap copies) vs the higher quality ones. There's a reason the Fortress or the high tensile Danforth cost a multiple of what the cheap ones do.

I absolutely agree on not liking them for a primary though. For the conditions where they're good, nothing will beat them. But they're not great across a wide range of conditions.

Click to expand...

Had a high tensile Danforth what had a slightly bent (unusable) shaft given to me.

Luckily we had a good hydraulic press at work.

My point was, yes they hold very well, so well they won't breakout well enough to keep from destroying them more than one would think.

ranger42c said:

I keep hoping to convince Steve Bedford to send a SuperMAX out for Steve Goodwin's testing... but there are a few other SuperMAX tests out there in the web-i-verse, and realistically I don't think Steve Goodwin has somewhere available to him for testing with the kind of soup/ooze/slime we have here.

As I understand it, or at least according to the MAX website, Andy Peabody -- SuperMAX inventor -- was originally experimenting someplace in Louisiana... so presumably that means they have some slime/ooze/soup around there somewhere too.

I had also hoped to influence Fortress to include a SuperMAX during their Chesapeake Bay tests... even offered to lend them ours... but Brian told me at the time that they thought the SuperMAX probably wasn't commercially viable, might not last much longer... since Andy was at the time either ill or looking for a retirement plan or some such. (I'm unclear about all that, though.)

We'll see how it goes. If the MAX-20 will hang on our pulpit, problem solved. If not, I guess I'll figure out an OK Plan B.

-Chris

Click to expand...

The anchor test on the SuperMAX website is from 2003 and compares against Delta, Spade, WM Danforth style, and Bulwagga. None of the modern generation except Spade. Like all anchor manufacturers, SuperMAX claims superior holding in all bottoms. Like many/most manufacturers, a lot of anecdotal testimonial statements which unfortunately mean very little to me which is why I'm so thankful for Goodwins testing. They also seem to state that unless the anchor is used according to their instructions, you can draw no conclusions on how well it works. Odd statement, especially since it isn't immediately followed up with what that means.

One of the interesting things in Panope tests is the Viking significantly out-performs all other anchors. However it loses a lot of points on galvinizing quality and self-launch capability. I could live with the latter shortcoming, but not the former. I would definitely be interested in Goodwins evaluation of build quality of SuperMAX, especially the hinged shank model. I realize shipping an anchor is expensive, but for the most part, I think many/most people in groups like TF end up shipping as part of purchase to get the anchor they feel best meets their needs. If the SuperMAX was the right anchor, so be it. Surprised they use wide availability as a reason not to have Panope test it. Certainly the Viking - made in Israel - has managed to find benefit in providing a sample anchor for testing.

Peter

rslifkin said:

It is interesting to note that despite the fairly similar basic design, the Vulcan outperforms the Spade. And it's a sturdier design (my 73 lb Vulcan gives the impression of being nearly indestructible), plus it's much cheaper.

Click to expand...

Vulcan is only better in mud, and both anchors perform poorly there compared to a danforth style. In the overall ratings, Steve continues to ding the Spade heavily for corrosion/galvanization. This is based on there being dissimilar materials (lead) in it. Yet after 13 years the Spade on my sailboat has no issues with corrosion or the galvanizing. I think I'd consider the Vulcan if I ever need another though, based on price.

Either the Spade or Vulcan can be stabilized nicely in the bow roller, you have to be willing to alter the roller or sprit a little to do it. On the sailboat the sprit was made to accommodate the Spade and it does not move. I did not want to remake the sprit on the trawler so I made a new roller for it, again Spade does not move. The flukes just need to pull up against something to keep it from rocking.

I suppose it does not fit a very broad cross section of the boating community, but it surprises me a little that Steve has not tested anything that fits a nest through a hawse as far as I can tell.
Walking docks, there are quite a few of these.
Here is an example of something that is common internationally and seems to have good credentials though I do not find tests.

https://www.posidonia.com/images/anchor-yacht/PTWplus-web.pdf

mvweebles said:

They also seem to state that unless the anchor is used according to their instructions, you can draw no conclusions on how well it works. Odd statement, especially since it isn't immediately followed up with what that means.

Surprised they use wide availability as a reason not to have Panope test it. Certainly the Viking - made in Israel - has managed to find benefit in providing a sample anchor for testing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, old tests... and I dunno about that statement... although their setting instructions are explicit, so maybe it's about that.

Will Andrews was sorta like an earlier version of Steve Goodwin.

I wasn't clear. It was Fortress who declined to test the SuperMAX -- apparently because of that market viability thing.

klee wyck said:

I suppose it does not fit a very broad cross section of the boating community, but it surprises me a little that Steve has not tested anything that fits a nest through a hawse as far as I can tell.
Walking docks, there are quite a few of these.
Here is an example of something that is common internationally and seems to have good credentials though I do not find tests.

Click to expand...

I'd expect to see tests somewhere, but that particular one might not bubble up to the top of Steve's list simply 'cause it's perhaps uncommon on smaller boats. Have to admit, I've never heard of that particular one... and then also, I've not ever looked at pocket anchors 'cause all I've ever had is a pulpit.

-Chris

klee wyck said:

I suppose it does not fit a very broad cross section of the boating community, but it surprises me a little that Steve has not tested anything that fits a nest through a hawse as far as I can tell.

Walking docks, there are quite a few of these.

Here is an example of something that is common internationally and seems to have good credentials though I do not find tests.



https://www.posidonia.com/images/anchor-yacht/PTWplus-web.pdf

Click to expand...

Not a test, but Goodwin walks the commercial docks and surveys anchors. I have not watched video

https://youtu.be/GGZ_eiYY8NE

Review of a large Forfjord anchor that is the go-to anchor of the PNW fishing fleet. I've seen some similar ones, but this style is virtually always the one on pacific commercial vessels.

https://youtu.be/621mkTG-_iU

Peter

I think the Fortress mud tests pre-dated the Vulcan... probably as well as more current version of Mantus, Manson, etc. Also didn't include either of the SARCA styles (which of course don't include any "mud" letters in their acronyms). No mention of Viking, Knox...

https://fortressanchors.com/news/chesapeake-bay-anchor-test/

https://fortressanchors.com//wp-content/uploads/2019/01/chesapeake_bay_performance_chart.pdf

I'm kinda surprised the Ultra did as well as it did, first behind Fortress and Danforth HT.

-Chris

klee wyck said:

I suppose it does not fit a very broad cross section of the boating community, but it surprises me a little that Steve has not tested anything that fits a nest through a hawse as far as I can tell.
Walking docks, there are quite a few of these.
Here is an example of something that is common internationally and seems to have good credentials though I do not find tests.

https://www.posidonia.com/images/anchor-yacht/PTWplus-web.pdf

Click to expand...

I don't think he is equiped to test the size of anchor that boats with hawse arrangements would carry.

FWIW we anchored for 4 days in good mud bottom in West Palm Beach in reversing current. When it was time to leave it broke out with normal difficulty but it came up sideways with the chain wrapped 3 times around the shank at the big bend. Still pondering whether that’s good or bad.

FWT said:

Discard everything with a poor rating on something (other than cobblestone which I just flat ignore for my purposes), and you are left with just 5 to consider, ranked by the average of soft and sandy mud

Viking - 4.9
Vulcan - 4.5
M1 - 4.5
Excel - 3.9
Ultra - 3.8

So from that short list one can look at fit, build quality, price, etc. That will throw out the Viking and M1 on build. Leaving Vulcan, Excel, and Ultra to look at fit and price.

Until the next batch of tests which scramble the ratings yet again.

Click to expand...

I think it's a reasonable way to proceed with analysis... for a given situation.

Given almost all anchors seem to be OK in almost everything BUT soft mud -- slime, ooze, soup -- I've even begun to ignore almost all that other stuff too... focusing only on soft much info, at least for the first level.

And then I've been binging on Steve's video tests... including a re-watch of the Vulcan test. Looks to me like the rode needs to be at least horizontal with the shank, to get the fluke point started. His test boat has preety locw freeboard, at least compared to ours. I think our bow is probably 6' or maybe 7' off the water... and I'd think that would make it more difficult for us to get the rode to pull right at Steve's typical 3.5:1 scope. Not a huge problem maybe; more scope while setting isn't necessarily horrible...

Then some subjectivity creeps in. I'm not attracted to roll bar anchors. Except for SuperMAX and Fortress, I'm not attracted to anchors that have separable and/or moving parts. IOW, I always though the Delta was a pretty good idea, except it ain't great in soupy mud. (Worked fine when we lived in Florida, works OK here in the Chesapeake sometimes... except when it doesn't...)

But then anyway, my third level analysis begins to focus on which actual anchor is recommended (40/88 Vulcan or 36/79 Excel #7, for example -- to replace our existing 25/55 Delta) and how those might fit on our existing roller.

Of course everyone measures differently, so from vendor pictures and numbers it's like comparing apples to pears to diesels to thermometers...

But it looks like the 40/88 Vulcan wouldn't really ride all that nicely on our existing roller. The Excel #7 looks like its very similar in shape and some of the Delta dimensions, at least from roller pocket to shank connection. Primarily longer and heavier, possibly in dimensions that run the other direction from our windlass. I can't yet perfectly visualize how it can be 7" longer all ahead of the bow roller, and being almost 25 lbs heavier is equally difficult for me to see.

Still, if it turns out the SuperMAX won't fit, maybe an Excel can be OK.

Oh. A stainless Excel for our size is even more $$$$ than a stainless Ultra. I wasn't all that attracted to stainless anyway, but did do some analysis with an Ultra in the picture. Then compared prices. Woof!

And for folks elsewhere, when I say soft mud aka slime, ooze, soup, I mead mud you can SWIM through. Mud where you can go waist deep and haven't found a "bottom" yet.

-Chris

FWIW, I've set my Vulcan in mud at 3:1 scope (accounting the roller being 6 feet off the water) several times and had a good set. In one case, in about 18 feet of water, I stopped at just over 50 feet of chain out to attach a snubber and the anchor set just from the wind and current pushing me back, despite being at approximately 2:1 scope (5/16" chain). After letting out 3:1 with a snubber, it held my usual 900 - 1000 RPM reverse test just fine.



In general, I don't worry too much about performance in really soft, soupy mud. That's the edge case in most ways. I figure if I get into something so soft and soupy that my regular bower won't hold enough, it's time to toss out the Fortress (as nothing will out-perform it in soupy mud).


Fitment-wise, the Vulcan has a slightly shorter roller to tip length than the Excel and some other options, so if hull clearance is an issue, it may allow going up 1 more size than some other designs (that was the limiting factor on my boat, for example).



Ranger42c, for your boat I'd be looking bigger than an 88lb unit regardless of design. Especially with soft mud being a concern. I'd be looking at 100 lbs minimum for a primary. You've got 20 feet and 30k lbs on my boat and I'm running a 73 lb (one size above recommended).

Fitment: As junkies for Panope videos and ratings, be sure to look at the anchor roller test. Some details of fit may not be obvious. But in that video you can compare such things as how high the top of the shank rises above the roller as it pulls up. Some models, like the Vulcan, rise pretty high. If you have a rod or bail above the roller some designs might get hung up. You can also observe how far toward the hull the tip of the anchor goes, which may be an issue. Looking at specs some of that was not obvious in the spec measurements in part because of where along the shank it wants to rest when fully aboard.

Price: Older models that don't rate as well are a lot cheaper than newer models that rank high. Funny how that works.

rslifkin said:

In general, I don't worry too much about performance in really soft, soupy mud. That's the edge case in most ways. I figure if I get into something so soft and soupy that my regular bower won't hold enough, it's time to toss out the Fortress (as nothing will out-perform it in soupy mud).

Ranger42c, for your boat I'd be looking bigger than an 88lb unit regardless of design. Especially with soft mud being a concern. I'd be looking at 100 lbs minimum for a primary. You've got 20 feet and 30k lbs on my boat and I'm running a 73 lb (one size above recommended).

Click to expand...

I admit I'm a bit overly harsh when it comes to the Delta. Our first experience with soup was with our yacht club, and we were the anchor boat. Relatively new 35-lb Delta that I was pretty proud of (hadn't had it long) on our 34 Mainship... and we were seemingly well set. But then of course we did have 7 sailboats eventually rafted up to us, and we discovered during Happy Hour that we were making about 2 kts upstream with the tide. Hmph! At least that one, though, was semi-understandable.

But since then, we've also had a couple other specific incidents when an appropriately sized Delta wouldn't hold us in place with soup involved. Worked great everywhere we anchored in Florida when we lived there, but back up here? Not so much...

Hence the switch to Fortress, and MAX. The Fortress doesn't really hang well. And putting it together, with spare rode, is sort of a pain in the neck, not my favorite solution.

About 6' of our "boat length" is really just swim platform. I only did a very quick check on the Vulcan, Excel, Ultra, MAX sites and all put their 73-80-ish lb anchors as being their recommendation for our length/weight/shape. And the lighter Delta is also the recommended size for our length (displacement not addressed on their site, that I can find). I do generally like both bigger and heavier as our preferred solution, but then I'd also like to not have to change rollers or move the windlass and so forth.

-Chris

ranger42c said:

Hence the switch to Fortress, and MAX. The Fortress doesn't really hang well. And putting it together, with spare rode, is sort of a pain in the neck, not my favorite solution.

About 6' of our "boat length" is really just swim platform. I only did a very quick check on the Vulcan, Excel, Ultra, MAX sites and all put their 73-80-ish lb anchors as being their recommendation for our length/weight/shape. And the lighter Delta is also the recommended size for our length (displacement not addressed on their site, that I can find). I do generally like both bigger and heavier as our preferred solution, but then I'd also like to not have to change rollers or move the windlass and so forth.

-Chris

Click to expand...

To me, the inconvenience of deploying the appropriate size Fortress for your size boat is a good reason to go big on the primary (up to the point of what the roller will hold, of course). Might be worth using the templates a few of the manufacturers offer to make some cardboard anchors to assist in measuring for fit. The bigger you can go, the less often you'll need to use the Fortress.