Nomad Willy—— your thoughts

Eric-

I have a brand new Fortress sitting in its original shipping box that I might try this coming season in place of my 80# Manson Supreme. It is a large anchor, their FX55. If I were purchasing this today, I probably would select their Guardian or a factory refurbished for greater bang for my money.

But the question I have is do you think this is a satisfactory anchor for general use rather than my Manson? I am just not satisfied with the Manson. Might put it up for sale along with an 88# Delta.

Thx

Foggysail

I will tell this story (again) about the Fortress/Danforth anchor. FWIW the Fortress has the best straight ahead holding power per lb of any anchor.


Some years ago I was well anchored at Jewell Island in Maine with my 55# Rocna and 125' of chain out in 10-16' of water. Jewell has a reversing current 2-3 times a day due to the tides.


After a day or so a bigger trawler than mine pulled up its anchor next to me. When it broke the water it was a big gob of chain wrapped around a Fortress/Danforth type anchor after 2-3 days in that reversing current. The only thing holding him was the weight of that mess. It took him almost an hour to unwind it all.


David

David why did you have so much rode out? 60 to 75 feet of rode would be 4-1 plus and unless a big blow was coming? You may have had 10-1 scope.

No Danforth clone including Fortress is a good general purpose anchor compared to many available, particularly the Manson Supreme.


Not in my experience and the general consensus of many mariners I have taught or worked with.

Foggysail,
Just my opinion but it’s all about the seafloor.
Some bottoms give danforth types trouble or downright fits. Grass and coarse rocky bottoms. Rocky would be more likely in Maine I would think.
And I’d sure want to know why the Supreme didn’t work well for you. The Fortress may scumb to the same problem.
The Dans (aluminum or steel) prefer soft bottoms. We have (in the PNW) almost universally mud bottoms and a Fortress would work fine here as long as you have a back-up anchor easy to deploy. A big Claw would work .. if it was a good Claw.

But I don’t know what the bottom’s like in Maine. You may not know someone w a Fortress but finding another boater w longtime Danforth experience should be easy. You could mount and use the Fortress while you do the research.

I know a cruising guide that very often tests the bottom w a very small Danforth before anchoring w the working anchor. And if you don’t foresee reversals and get a good set the Fortress should be fine .. or better than fine.

Nomad Willy said:

Foggysail,
Just my opinion but it’s all about the seafloor.
Some bottoms give danforth types trouble or downright fits. Grass and coarse rocky bottoms. Rocky would be more likely in Maine I would think.
And I’d sure want to know why the Supreme didn’t work well for you. The Fortress may scumb to the same problem.
The Dans (aluminum or steel) prefer soft bottoms. We have (in the PNW) almost universally mud bottoms and a Fortress would work fine here as long as you have a back-up anchor easy to deploy. A big Claw would work .. if it was a good Claw.

But I don’t know what the bottom’s like in Maine. You may not know someone w a Fortress but finding another boater w longtime Danforth experience should be easy. You could mount and use the Fortress while you do the research.

I know a cruising guide that very often tests the bottom w a very small Danforth before anchoring w the working anchor. And if you don’t foresee reversals and get a good set the Fortress should be fine .. or better than fine.

Click to expand...

The Claw! I enjoyed many many years anchoring my old sailboat with Bruce anchors UNTIL our harbors were overcome by ell grass. Then I found that in setting, one could get a false sense of being secure......... until more engine power was applied. It would rip the Bruce out along with a minimum of 50#s of ocean ell grass infested bottom stuck to it. This was true with both my Bruce 33# and my 44# anchors

The condition I described is that found in southern Massachusetts waters. My advice to those using claws where ell grass dominates is to be careful.

Nomad Willy said:

David why did you have so much rode out? 60 to 75 feet of rode would be 4-1 plus and unless a big blow was coming? You may have had 10-1 scope.

Click to expand...

Maybe 10:1 at low tide but not at high.


I had 16' at high tide plus at least 3' to the bow roller gives me 6.5:1 scope. I always anchor with at least 5:1 scope and preferably more.

David

What is the reset ability of the Fortress/Danforth type?

That was a featured test on Steve`s(SV Panope) series. We almost always rotate 180 degrees overnight,maybe everyone does,I don`t know,but it`s important to me.

Foggysail,
Well the grass is not good.
Don't think many anchors will do well in grass. It's probably just a matter of what anchors do "better" in grass.
These are just guesses ..
Max. Setting on it's side it may present a near knife like fluke to the seafloor and cut through the grass.
Ballasted fluke tip anchors.
Spade, Vulcan, Excel and there's others. I'm usually not fond of ballasted tip anchors because the weight if spent on the fluke would produce more blade area. But if you have grass you've got to penetrate the grass to anchor well. Percent of weight on the fluke tip may be a deciding factor getting through the grass. If a Claw had a sharp tip it could (maybe) penetrate grass. But there's nothing sharp about the rest of the anchor either. Grass is something I'd not dealt with. Only once. It was blowing 20 and rather cold and nothing was working. I think I used my go-to anchor when nothing else works .. a Dan w a forged shank and (S) rating. 13lbs.
Another possibility would be the Excel. Has a nicely bent down and appearently sharp toe. And some ballast.

David,
Try running out 5-1 or a bit more. Set the hook hard. Then shorten up rode to a little less than 3-1. Or 2-1 if it’s a crowded anchorage and very little wind. If the wind gets near 15 slack off to a bit over 3-1. And if it blows 25-30 .. 4-1 and over 40 5-1.

In one of my anchor tests Smith (Rocna) was called upon to explain why his Rocna didn’t do better at short scope. He said he tells his customers to set hard w lots of scope and “shorten up”. He couldn’t offer an explanation for the substandard performance but his advice was excellent IMO.

"What is the reset ability of the Fortress/Danforth type? "

Mr Ogg the inventor of the much copied Danforth suggests the use of two anchors for tidal reverses.

The stern anchor is only a min. or two to set and as its usually smaller, so not much effort to bring aboard.

The stern anchor line is lead outboard to the bow , a side deck is very useful.

All explained in the Danforth literature.

C'mon. I've been hauling around this 80# Paul Luke anchor for years in anticipation of anchoring in grass. Your not even going to mention it as the greatest anchor ever for use in these conditions?

Nomad Willy said:

Foggysail,
Well the grass is not good.
Don't think many anchors will do well in grass. It's probably just a matter of what anchors do "better" in grass.
These are just guesses ..
Max. Setting on it's side it may present a near knife like fluke to the seafloor and cut through the grass.
Ballasted fluke tip anchors.
Spade, Vulcan, Excel and there's others. I'm usually not fond of ballasted tip anchors because the weight if spent on the fluke would produce more blade area. But if you have grass you've got to penetrate the grass to anchor well. Percent of weight on the fluke tip may be a deciding factor getting through the grass. If a Claw had a sharp tip it could (maybe) penetrate grass. But there's nothing sharp about the rest of the anchor either. Grass is something I'd not dealt with. Only once. It was blowing 20 and rather cold and nothing was working. I think I used my go-to anchor when nothing else works .. a Dan w a forged shank and (S) rating. 13lbs.
Another possibility would be the Excel. Has a nicely bent down and appearently sharp toe. And some ballast.

Click to expand...

Nomad Willy said:

Foggysail,
Just my opinion but it’s all about the seafloor.
Some bottoms give danforth types trouble or downright fits. Grass and coarse rocky bottoms. Rocky would be more likely in Maine I would think.
And I’d sure want to know why the Supreme didn’t work well for you. The Fortress may scumb to the same problem.
The Dans (aluminum or steel) prefer soft bottoms. We have (in the PNW) almost universally mud bottoms and a Fortress would work fine here as long as you have a back-up anchor easy to deploy. A big Claw would work .. if it was a good Claw.

But I don’t know what the bottom’s like in Maine. You may not know someone w a Fortress but finding another boater w longtime Danforth experience should be easy. You could mount and use the Fortress while you do the research.

I know a cruising guide that very often tests the bottom w a very small Danforth before anchoring w the working anchor. And if you don’t foresee reversals and get a good set the Fortress should be fine .. or better than fine.

Click to expand...

So right. The type of bottom, and how it will be used, means everything as to which anchors are best.

Stripper,
HaHa .. but I thought about it.
I support old things often on TF and know there are members that think that’s ridiculous. But the Luke anchor has such a small amount of fluke area it’s effectiveness would be questionable.

Group9,
I must have said the seafloor/bottom is the greatest variable in anchoring several hundred times. Especially when guys crow loudly about their brand of anchor. Thanks for mentioning though as it can’t be said too often.

But I would say some anchors do well in all kinds of bottoms, thus a main go to or general purpose anchor....while some have traits that excel in some bottoms and fail miserably in other bottoms. Thus they will never be my primary anchor.


Part of that doing g well in all kinds of bottoms is being heavy enough to penetrate, or parts large enough to not jamb easily with debris, so the same design in small sizes may be lacking in the all purpose arena.

psneeld said:

But I would say some anchors do well in all kinds of bottoms, thus a main go to or general purpose anchor....while some have traits that excel in some bottoms and fail miserably in other bottoms. Thus they will never be my primary anchor.


Part of that doing g well in all kinds of bottoms is being heavy enough to penetrate, so the same designinsmall sizes may be lacking in the all purpose arena.

Click to expand...

In the PNW with mostly mud-bottom anchoring, I've arrived at a 66 lb claw as my go-to hook, with 3/8" all-chain rode. It is rare that I need more than 3:1 scope unless the wind
Is 20+ kts. It has never failed me on this boat, 15 seasons in BC and SE AK and always sets on the first try. Friends have switched to Rocnas the past few years but I really can't see how I could get better performance than I'm currently getting with a claw.

Ken, what kind of Claw ya got there mate?

I have two Fortress 38s and a 55. The 55 was the primary. I changed it out for a 85# Mantus. I have only used it a couple times. It sets softer than my old CQR from my previous 47' boat. I know it is great in a variety of conditions but for sand or mud, the Fortress 55 would provide better holding power but not reverse well. I figured the 85 would be fine but I may have to go up to 105 to get that hard set. In any case I still have the Fortresses. I chose to change the Fortress because it works best at 5:1 or more. In our tight anchorages that is a luxury I don't frequently have. Mantus still does well at 3:1. Maybe even a little shorter.

Nomad Willy said:

Ken, what kind of Claw ya got there mate?

Click to expand...

Eric, It's a Lewmar claw. I have followed your posts for a long time and I know you are of the claw-on-short-scope school like me. I did go to 5:1 once last summer, though. Anchored in Port Refugio behind the island, south of Craig AK. Dixon was blowing a full gale through the night and a lot of spurious wind gets in there over the lowlands. I was concerned enough to stay up all night, but we never moved. We were in 35', mud bottom. Big white caps next to the boat. I took a nap the next day!

foggysail said:

I have a brand new Fortress sitting in its original shipping box that I might try this coming season in place of my 80# Manson Supreme. It is a large anchor, their FX55. If I were purchasing this today, I probably would select their Guardian or a factory refurbished for greater bang for my money.

Click to expand...

Before you get the FX55 wet... you could do a trial mount on your bow, see how you like that part of it.

Our FX37 naturally rests with the shank "way up in the air" -- higher than the windlass -- so the chain runs a little goofy, and the anchor wangs around up there a bit unless secured from a couple different directions.

-Chris

Ken,
Thanks for the following.
The Lewmar Claw has a wide throat angle. As per my observations. For years I thought this was a feature that gave the best short scope performance. The Supreme also has a wide throat angle and it has supreme short scope ability.

Your post also makes me wonder. Another poster commented that the Lewmars had metal or casting problems. In case you haven’t noticed I’ve said the best claws have a narrow throat angle. I still think I may be right but your input makes that at least I could be very wrong. An interesting element of this is that the Bruce Claw has a narrow throat angle. And Bruce users have raved about how much superior the Bruce anchor is to other makes. Of course there are other reasons the Bruce should have better performance. Stronger metal and thinner flukes much more tapered than other anchors.

When I read your post I immediately assumed you had a Bruce. So it was a bit of a shock to hear you have a Lewmar. My 33lb Claw is also a Lewmar. Never used it. I ground the leading edges (see Anchor Setting Vids. Post #51) to make them much sharper or tapered so to say. Planed on putting all my experimental anchors in the scrap metal bin and using the Lewmar on Willy when I exit trawlering.

Anyway thanks very much for the confusing input. HaHa.
And happy hooking

ranger42c said:

Before you get the FX55 wet... you could do a trial mount on your bow, see how you like that part of it.

Our FX37 naturally rests with the shank "way up in the air" -- higher than the windlass -- so the chain runs a little goofy, and the anchor wangs around up there a bit unless secured from a couple different directions.

-Chris

Click to expand...

I believe it will be OK, nothing like giving it a try though. When it attaches to my windlass, it is going to stay there unless there is a major ‘’awe shucks!’’

Most likely I will put both my Mason Supreme and my 88# Delta up for sale. They’re do provide ECELLENT holding sitting on my basement floor. Wish that was the case when sitting on ocean bottoms.

foggysail said:

I believe it will be OK, nothing like giving it a try though. When it attaches to my windlass, it is going to stay there unless there is a major ‘’awe shucks!’’

Click to expand...

You might not have to completely install it to test; maybe just get your existing anchor out of the way for a few minutes, run the FX55 through the slot with a temporary rope to retain, check out the angle of the dangle that way...

In any case, it would be useful to hear your thoughts after mounting. I could see using an FX55 as our backup bow anchor, in place of our current backup FX37 -- which doubles as a potential kedge if necessary. (I suspect an FX55 would be too heavy/large/awkward to use in the kedge role...)

-Chris

Sure, let you know. Boat will not be splash from its winter rest until early-mid May. Still shrink wrapped.

Nomad Willy said:

Just my opinion but it’s all about the seafloor.

Click to expand...

Eric, I've been reading your posts on various types of anchors for years and am wondering what you think of my one and only anchor. It is heavy but I don't actually know the weight & I refer to it as a "plow." (I'm well over 21 so don't mince with words with your reply.)

Codger2 that looks like a CQR plow anchor. I had one on my Lien Hwa 47. it worked great everywhere I used it here in Southern Cal. But......With my new 55 I did some research and decided that the Mantus was a better design. Mantus is about the only company that posts videos on their website showing comparisons to other designs and it out performed the Plow. Now that I have the Mantus, I find is sets very softly. Maybe its because my new boat is much bigger and heavier and it feels different. But I don't seem to get a hard stop in reverse that I typically got with the CQR. In any case be happy with what you have as it worked great for me.

Walt,
Like Ricky says ... a CQR. Holds well if set but can be very stubborn about setting. I have never used one but in the worst gale I‘ve been in there were three boats. Our little Willard, a 42 Krogen and a 45’ sailboat. The sailboat had a big old CQR and he held through the screaming winds all through the night. Over 50 knots.
The Krogen had a Claw and dragged slowly.
We anchored and reanchored as the Krogen was dragging down on us and he seemed not interested in trying for a better hookup.
We had the 18lb XYZ with a larger toe or forfront.

We didn’t drag at all nor did the sailboat.

About the CQR it’s got a fairly passionate following mostly on sailboats. Don’t ever recall a CQR in an anchor test but if you have good luck w it in your locale you probably should keep using it. And if you feel like spending a few bucks a Spade or a Vulcan would undoubtedly replace the CQR w an anchor of slightly similar design. And they would also fit the size and weight of your boat nicely.
Another thought is that I suspect you seldom anchor so most likely it would be be a waste of money.

Now that I’ve posted I’m uneasy about something. It’s the looks of the fwd end “toe” of the fluke. I suspect it may not actually be a CQR. Perhaps it’s a
Lewmar CQR copy. If it’s a CQR it will be there on the shank in raised letters part of the casting.
If it’s not a CQR I’d get another anchor in view of the fact you’ll not need to save up for it.

If you look at the Mantus website they tested against the plow and others on hard wet sand at the shoreline. The mantus always dug in first because 80% of the weight is pressing on the point. The facts for me remain that I don’t anchor on shore. On Aquarius I chose to replace its existing Fortress as the Fortress starts to lose traction shorter than 5:1 scope. The mantus did ok at 2:1 before breaking out. Of coarse Mantus is going to show their products in the best possible conditions, but I could not find any other company doing comparison videos. Maybe they were scared.

RickyD,
I’m not impressed with the vids showing the Mantus product.
I remember distinctly a Mantus employee pulling a small Rocna along a beach holding the “rode” just high enough so it had no chance of setting or doing anything but following along. Clearly misrepresenting the anchor’s performance. If the same thing was done w a Mantus anchor the same thing would have happened.

The Mantus perform’s well if used properly but I don’t think it performs quite as well as other leading and similar anchors.
A big and rather obvious flaw in the Mantus is it’s long skinny shank. Unless it’s made out of very expensive and unusually strong metal .... it’s weak. Especially if it’s made out of the same metal as Supreme, Spade, Boss, and probably Rocna it would still be weaker than those other anchors that can be taken as a standard.
So I think the anchor is weak ... but not very weak. Many here on TF have a Mantus anchor and I have not heard of any failures of any kind.
One more thing. The shank to fluke attach w a welded flange, bolt holes, bolts and nuts is probably strong enough but the shank flange, nuts and bolts not only cause drag but (far worse) present protrusions to catch mud and other debris so I’m sure this anchor very regularly plugs the top center of the fluke. This is entirely my personal projection and I have no experience w the product.

But there’s nothing hugely wrong w this anchor and there have been many happy guys here w this anchor. But I think my comments are well founded .. mostly on a theoretical level. But with so many other seemingly better products I’d pass.