# Boat Us conducts anchor tests



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

Interesting results conducted by Boat US on popular anchors. See Oct. issue of 'Seaworthy' as the results where not surprising...

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/assets/pdf/anchor-test.pdf


----------



## olddog60 (Oct 20, 2011)

Given a soft mud test the results are not surprising. That's why I have two anchors.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

As I dont live in that country... Do ya wanna spill the beanz?


----------



## olddog60 (Oct 20, 2011)

Not sure if links are ok. If not mods can take it down.

The Fine Art Of Anchoring Page 2 - Seaworthy Magazine - BoatUS

www.boatus.com/seaworthy/assets/pdf/anchor-test.pdf.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Based on the tests as an average I want to ony anchor on Day 4

But it was interesting how the old school anchor did pretty good against the new generation one.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

There was a long thread elsewhere. The area is known for layers of oyster shell and soft mud and is extremely variable. 

My only take away is that when you are anchoring over a layered bottom with shells, there's no telling what you've got, even after you back down (you will feel a 500# set, but perhaps that is ALL you've got). I think it might be over-examining the data to say much about winners and losers. 

Bigger is better and shock absorption helps, but moving is the only safe bet... if there is anything better nearby.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

Got to like these results if you make the Mantus. I would expect Fortress/Danforth to own a staight line pull test in mud, but if I was only looking at this chart, i would buy a Mantus.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Why a soft mud test alone? It is very common there? Not a bottom very usual in Europe: Most anchoring bottoms are sand, hard sand, normal mud, and sand with vegetation. As someone said, the best anchors on soft mud have not a very good performance on other bottoms.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

Nothing but soft mud around here. Same in the Chesapeake as I understand it.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Am I reading this correctly? This is a test of an anchor's ability to set itself? 

They lower the anchor, paid out 200 ft. of scope, (without having set it) then started reeling 100 ft in, at 10 ft./minute. 

I don't read this as a test of a properly set and scoped anchor's holding power 

It's a test of re-setting in a straight line..

or am I reading this wrong?


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

Even with a soft mud bottom, I was bit surprised by the following statements:

"The "next-generation" anchors did not perform any better than the older designs, and there was some speculation as to whether those anchors were landing upside down and not righting themselves."

"What was most striking was the lack of consistency in the results for the same anchor."


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

kwaltersmi said:


> "What was most striking was the *lack of consistency in the results for the same anchor*."


Which indicates poor methodology, which means the experiment was useless. A good test would return consistent results for the same anchor in the same class of bottom; then you test in a range of bottoms, and observe consistent results in those ... and THEN you publish. You don't toss a few anchors overboard in one notoriously variable soil type, *speculate* how well they landed, gather an utterly useless scatter of data points, and call it a scientific test. The lack of design and control in some of these 'tests' or 'comparisons' is frustrating. Because no clear patterns emerge, the authors sum up their article with a big shrug -- and we, the end user, are left no better informed than before we read the review.

All we learn is that, in thin shelley mud, it's hard to be certain _any_ anchor design will hold. No %#[email protected], Sherlock. How about you do your next test on a concrete boat ramp -- let us know which anchor type performs best on that.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

bobmcgov said:


> Which indicates poor methodology, which means the experiment was useless. A good test would return consistent results for the same anchor in the same class of bottom; then you test in a range of bottoms, and observe consistent results in those ... and THEN you publish. You don't toss a few anchors overboard in one notoriously variable soil type, *speculate* how well they landed, gather an utterly useless scatter of data points, and call it a scientific test. The lack of design and control in some of these 'tests' or 'comparisons' is frustrating. Because no clear patterns emerge, the authors sum up their article with a big shrug -- and we, the end user, are left no better informed than before we read the review.
> 
> All we learn is that, in thin shelley mud, it's hard to be certain _any_ anchor design will hold. No %#[email protected], Sherlock. How about you do your next test on a concrete boat ramp -- let us know which anchor type performs best on that.


Exactly&#8230; the supposed methodology of this one _IS_ a bit of a head-scratcher&#8230;

Hmmm, let's see&#8230; A Boat/US anchor test,_ "Sponsored by Fortress Anchors"_, just happens to be conducted in the soft mud of the Chesapeake, eh? Gee, what a shocker, talk about a home field advantage&#8230; 

In my opinion, any anchor test performed in water not clear enough to be able to actually observe the behavior of the anchor - either from the surface, or by a diver with a video camera - certainly has the potential to be pretty worthless&#8230; One can learn a great deal more by tooling around an anchorage like Elizabeth Harbor, Exumas, in a dinghy, looking at various anchors with a look bucket&#8230; Especially, after the passage of a front, when all the boats have swung close to 180 degrees on their hooks, and the handwriting is still visible in the sand...

Of course, "clear water" and "muddy bottom" rarely go hand in hand  Still, one has to be very skeptical about the tester's ability to drag everything from a Fortress, to a CQR, through the bottom at the steady rate of 10 ft/minute, as claimed&#8230;

That had to be one _seriously SOFT mud_ bottom, for certain&#8230;. Hell, I rode out Hurricane Arthur this summer in what I consider to be a pretty soft bottom in Lake Tashmoo, and while my Manson Supreme dragged slightly over the course of about 4 hours, it was nowhere remotely close to the distance they claimed to have dragged all these hooks&#8230;


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

To me I would hold anchor test results a lot higher if they were done in a test tank so that we knew every anchor was tested in the bottom conditions. Different results from the same anchor on different days just suggests "luck" is as important as the anchor.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, let's see&#8230; A Boat/US anchor test,_ "Sponsored by Fortress Anchors"_, just happens to be conducted in the soft mud of the Chesapeake, eh? Gee, what a shocker, talk about a home field advantage&#8230;


Despite that, Fortress does not come out looking too good. Terrible actually.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Having anchored in Chesapeake Bay thousands of times, I've always had the best holding with my Danforth, not my CQR. It holds fast, even after multiple tide changes. And yes, the mud here is very soft. However, the Danforth held very well in the sandy bottom locations down south as well.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

If you can get a Danforth well into a soft bottom it will hold well because it has a lot of fluke area. We have a 35H that has worked well on the rare occasions we have used it. There are other questions though about how easy it is to get to bury and what happens with a major wind shift.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bobmcgov said:


> Which indicates poor methodology, which means the experiment was useless...:


Yes. On an anchor test there are two fundamental things to test: Easiness to set the anchor and holding power on different bottoms.

For easiness to set you count the number of times you need to set the anchor and only then, with the anchor set, you measure the holding power. On those test they pull the anchors, being set or not and some just never set and just drag along, for instance, that happened several times with the Rocna.

Useless as you say


----------



## TropicCat (Oct 14, 2008)

Talking anchors on here is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Few won't defend the anchor they already own regardless of published data. 

Disclaimer.... I own 3 Fortress anchors, and they have never failed to set ..or hold ... in mud or soft sand. If my cruising area had dense sea grass, I'd own another brand of anchor. The Fortress is great... at what it's good at.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

I admit up front to be coming from the dark side - I use a CQR mostly.

But I find it astonishing that any test in any bottom would show a Fortress FX (basically a smartass Danforth) and a 21lb unit at that, outperforms a Manson Supreme, a Rocna and a Mantus all of twice the weight by *up to 250%.*

Best results (approx) from each graph:

Mantus @ 44lbs = 850lb pull
Rocna @ 44lbs = 750lb pull
Manson @ 44lbs = 810lb pull

Fortress FX35 @ 21lbs = 2050lb pull and rising! 

Really??? 

I gotta buy me one of those. Yeah, right!

I don't suppose there could be rock under the mud? Nah, you could never hook the same rock twice.

If the test results were any good it would be interesting to see the "best performance" of each anchor shown on the same graph.


----------



## TropicCat (Oct 14, 2008)

I know. But it's true and pretty much the same results in every anchor test published regardless of who was running the test. However, Fortress anchors aren't perfect, as these tests are run in the one sea bottom the Fortress anchors are good at. And you have to learn how to set them properly.

Rocky or grass bottoms they pretty much suck as you can bend them in rocks and they're too light to punch through grass easily. But set them in sand or mud and look out... I've had to dive on a Fortress more than once to bring it up but always on a monohull. Because as you motor up the anchor line in high winds (25 knots ++), the wind would always blow the bow off before I could get over the anchor. My catamaran, with 2 engines, there's no issue at all.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

I'm not surprised. Flune area usually beats weight in ultimate holding power tests. In soft mud nothing really works and fluke area is really important.

The 45deg "soft mud angle" of the fortress also helps in this circumstance. I don't think it is a gimmick but on the other hand I anchoed to a fortress exclusively for 4.5 months and used the 45deg feature exactly once. It was a pain to change back and forth. Maybe if you lived where it is all soft mud...

Medsailor


----------



## bvander66 (Sep 30, 2007)

Data, as presented, is worthless. 
-not independent
-no plan of test given
-no detailed description nor analysis of bottom.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

It is important to note the limitations of the test: this only proves that the Danforth-style anchor is the best anchor for the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay.

A next generation anchor might seem better somewhere else, like a boat show, if you are slightly intoxicated...

BTW, my thread has the better subject line: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-...-generation-no-better-than-older-designs.html


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

jameswilson29 said:


> this only proves that the Danforth-style anchor is the best anchor for the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay.


To the extent that it shows anything, it seems to me that it shows the Mantus is the bast anchor for the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

All I see is that there are 'horses for courses,' ergo, no one anchor does it all. But didn't we already know that?


----------



## Coquina (Dec 27, 2012)

I have a Fortress. The holding power is incredible ONCE SET. It is a light enough anchor that it will plane on the surface. I would NEVER leave a boat unattended on a Fortress. If the wind shifts and it pops loose it will soon be on the surface. I do love it as a lunch hook, second anchor, and kedge anchor. Also note the Danforth/Fortress types can end up with one oyster shell on each fluke and never ever set.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Hands down a properly set Danforth style anchor has the highest holding power of any anchor on the planet. Unfortunately there is more to anchoring than ultimate holding power. There is a reason just about every cruising boat in the world has one of these as a secondary anchor. I'm going to call total BS to this test based off of dozens of years of real world anchor testing. I have a Rocna and if you want it you will have to pry it from my cold dead hands, I'm sure all the new fangled anchors are just as good. I ended up with mine as a gift and was very skeptical till I actually used it. My first night on it was in a full blown gale, that night I coined the term Rocna'd to sleep


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Folks.. they didn't anchor, they lowered a bunch of anchors to the bottom, ran out 200 ft of line with no tension on it, and begin hauling it in. Perhaps if that is your anchoring technique..these results might be informative. Otherwise it seems like a total waste of time. How many boaters use wire cable as a rode?


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

Here's more information:

During August 5-8, 2014 Fortress sponsored an extensive anchor holding power test that was conducted aboard the Rachel Carson, an 81-ft research vessel that is owned by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and located near the Chesapeake Bay in Solomons, Maryland.

Chuck Hawley, formerly the long-time VP of Product Testing at West Marine, was aboard for all four days of this test and he served as the independent reviewer.

Additionally, Robert Taylor, a 45+ year US Navy anchor design and soil mechanics expert, consulted on this project as well.

The bottom condition was soft mud, which is common in the Chesapeake Bay and in other bays, lakes, and rivers throughout the USA and world.

A 21 lb (10 kg) Fortress model FX-37 was tested against ten competitive and much heavier steel anchors weighing 35-46 lbs (16-21 kg), several of which were "new generation" anchor imports from China, New Zealand, Tunisia, and Turkey.

This test was attended by the USA boating media who represented magazines which have a combined circulation of 1 million readers, and their stories are now being published and posted on the web sites below:

All at Sea:
http://www.allatsea.net/best-anchor-for-mud/

Boat US:
http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp

Boats.com:
http://blog.boats.com/2014/08/fortress-anchor-testing-good-stick-mud/#.VDLRsShi-0w

Additional stories are forthcoming in PassageMaker, Sail, and Soundings magazines.

There are also videos from each of the 4 testing days on our YouTube channel at the links below:

Day 1: Chesapeake Bay Soft Mud Anchor Testing - Tuesday 8/5/2014





Day 2: Chesapeake Bay Soft Mud Anchor Testing - Wednesday 8/6/2014





Day 3: Chesapeake Bay Soft Mud Anchor Testing - Thursday 8/7/2014





Day 4: Chesapeake Bay Soft Mud Anchor Testing - Friday 8/8/2014





You might find the last test from this day to be of interest (8:00 minute mark), as a 10 lb (4.5) kg Fortress anchor was tested @ the 45° angle for soft mud, and it hit higher peaks than all of the 44-46 lbs in the test, and was comparable to the larger Fortress FX-37 @ 32° and the 35 lb Danforth HT.


----------



## Coquina (Dec 27, 2012)

I *have a Fortess anchor*! I have no doubt it sticks better than anything in Chesapeake mud. I also found it behind me ON THE SURFACE when it failed to set and the boat took off downwind. I love it for kedging and once set on my heavier Danforth I run it out in the dinghy as a second anchor. It works fantastic for this because it is light (FX-16) and easy to retrieve. But NFW would I use that thing as an anchor while I was off the boat and it is just as useless as a Danforth on oyster shells.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Tempest said:


> Folks.. they didn't anchor, they lowered a bunch of anchors to the bottom, ran out 200 ft of line with no tension on it, and begin hauling it in. Perhaps if that is your anchoring technique..these results might be informative. Otherwise it seems like a total waste of time. How many boaters use wire cable as a rode?


That seemed dumb to me too. And it seemed dumb to them too, apparently. According to the All at Sea article:

"A great concern for all involved in the testing was that the anchors were not given a chance to set properly. "We haven't been following our own recommendations for setting a Fortress anchor in mud," said Brian Sheehan of Fortress Anchors in Fort Lauderdale. After great debate and careful consideration to all anchors in the test, Hawley agreed to a change in the protocol in round five. The anchors were launched with an initial scope of 2:1 then pulled in 20 feet at 30 feet per minute until a load of 200-300 lbs. of torque indicated the anchor was set."

So why didn't they do tests 1-4 like that?


----------



## bvander66 (Sep 30, 2007)

Not independant
no published plan of test nor detailed methodology.
no proof of a scientific test
at best anecedotal results


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

Coquina said:


> I *have a Fortess anchor*! I have no doubt it sticks better than anything in Chesapeake mud. I also found it behind me ON THE SURFACE when it failed to set and the boat took off downwind. I love it for kedging and once set on my heavier Danforth I run it out in the dinghy as a second anchor. It works fantastic for this because it is light (FX-16) and easy to retrieve. But NFW would I use that thing as an anchor while I was off the boat and it is just as useless as a Danforth on oyster shells.


Thanks for your input. It is certainly possible to foul a Danforth or Fortress with oyster shells, and it can happen as well to plow type anchors if a shell gets stuck on the end of their single narrow fluke, which occurred during preliminary testing.

The FX-16 was certainly the "star of the show" so to speak since this 10 lb (4.5 kg) anchor held to over 1,500 lbs during two pulls. Here's an image of the anchor after we finally were able to pull it back aboard.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

Further comments to the other posts:

Our protocol called for us to pay out a 5:1 scope, then add 100 feet to about 8.3:1, and then pull back the 100 feet to 5:1 at a rate of 10 feet per minute, giving each anchor 10 minutes / 100 feet to engage the bottom (or not).

This pull rate of speed for testing in soft mud was recommended to us by Robert Taylor, a retired US Navy soil mechanics and anchor design expert who consulted for us on this project.

By this setting method, we were ignoring our own advice in our "Safe Anchoring Guide" on how to initially set a Fortress in soft mud, which was to use a shorter scope of 2:1 or 3:1 to insure that the shank did not sink below the flukes. Image below.

After every anchor had been tested 4x (48x in total - 10 competitive anchors + FX-37 @ both 32° & 45°), and near the end of the third day, we decided to follow and actually try our own advice in soft mud by setting not just the Fortress, but all anchors, using a shorter initial scope.

Since many of the anchors had setting issues during the course of the previous 48 pulls, we thought that we might learn something which we could then pass along to owners of these other anchors.

For example, a shorter scope with Rocna might have kept the shank more vertical and allow the fluke to dig in first and orient in the downward position....but it didn't, nor did the shorter initial scope appear to help the other competitive anchors.

There were a total of 12 attempts with the initial shorter scope, one for each anchor, and it took us through until the end of the final day 4 for a total of 60 tests.

Regarding whether the tests were "independent," all I can say is that we spared no expense to conduct a fair, honest, controlled and repeatable test, and I would be glad to give you the contact information for the boating media who were aboard to verify this fact, which I think is indicated in their stories.

I would also be glad to give you the contact information for the crew and Chuck Hawley as well.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

My secondary anchor is a Fortress FX-16. I have used it many times and have had very good luck with it. I never have trouble getting it to set, but then I have been using Danforth type anchors for 40 years. Once set, holding is amazing in the typical mud bottoms we have here on Long Island Sound. As has been noted, every anchor has its strengths and weaknesses, so it's prudent to have at least two of different types on board. Hard to argue with a new generation as the primary and a Fortress as the secondary.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Every anchor test I have read about seems to have had some methodology shortfalls. I've been working on a testing protocol off and on for about five years - it's work to make something that is really scientifically valid. Unfortunately test costs are easier to swallow for the sort of exercises we have seen published.

Truly "scientific" or not most anchor tests are reasonably consistent. Fluke anchors like Fortress and Danforth have great holding power but don't reset reliably when veered. New generation anchors hold better than older designs.

To me, the biggest shortfall of the most recent round of tests held in Solomons is that when the results differed from expectations there was no numerical analysis or additional testing to develop explanatory data. Tests may always lead to results that differ from expectations - that is one of the virtues of empirical testing. However good practice requires looking closely when results do differ from expectations. Why are they different? Was their a methodology issue? Environmental conditions? Previous shortfalls that can be identified and explained?

Without the scientific method its just an exercise and a nice few days on the water.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

Actually, test results did not change expectations, we knew going in that this type of common soft mud would present a challenge and possibly inconsistent results for every anchor, including our own.

The testing methodology after 48 tests was only changed to try a shorter scope for initial setting, that's it. For all 60 tests, every anchor was tested 5X with the exact same starting scope and was pulled at the exact same speed, time, and distance.

For the most part, the "new generation" anchors did not distinguish themselves as better performers than the "old generation" models in this soft mud bottom. In fact, a serious concern was raised as to whether a new generation anchor would be able to orient itself, either at all or even slightly, if it landed on its side or upside down. Although we could not see the anchors, it seemed possible that the soft mud provided too little resistance for these anchors to correctly orient themselves in an upright position as they were being pulled along the bottom.

To calibrate what we observed with anchors that would not set, we “tested” a lead weight of approximately 45 lbs to measure its resistance when connected to the chain and wire rope. Interestingly, it developed about the same resistance as some of the roll bar anchors (about 130 lbs).


There can be no question that in soft mud, the Danforth-type anchor is superior. First, there is no "upside down" landing possibility, and the long stock (narrow round rod) insures that the anchor stabilizes quickly on the bottom.

Secondly, the larger surface area from two flukes will provide greater resistance and ultimate holding capacity. The Danforth HT, which weighed 35 lbs (20% lighter than the other 44-46 lb steel anchors), held more than 1,500 lbs, while a couple of the other steel anchor models had spikes of around 1,200 lbs, but they quickly broke free afterwards, likely due to their lack of surface area and instability in soft mud.

Additionally, getting the Danforth and Fortress anchors back aboard after the testing presented the greatest challenge by far. I have heard the comments about these anchors breaking free during wind shifts, but after burying them in this soft mud bottom, and seeing the difficultly getting them out at a 1:1 scope while directly above them, it appears impossible that they would ever break free at higher scopes, and no matter what the direction of pull. Period.

Further still, if any anchor cannot handle much of a straight line pull in a soft mud bottom (as many didn't) when the anchor should perform at its best, then it certainly is not going to perform better during an off-center pull.


Below is a chart from a Fortress FX-37 @ 45° pull in which the wire rope was snapped at 3,500 lbs during anchor recovery. This occurred after the test had been stopped and the wire rope had slid off one of the vertical rollers of our custom fairlead and grinded on a metal portion of the fairlead when the anchor was under the boat and off to starboard.

As evidenced by the literature that was shared aboard the testing vessel, Baldt, Bruce, Vryhoff, and the US Navy all manufacture anchors with wider shank / fluke angles for soft mud bottom conditions, and the 45° angle pulls with the Fortress (when the flukes engaged the bottom) served as further proof of this required configuration for superior anchor holding capacity in this type of bottom.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Most boaters seem to use their anchors within a few miles of home, so I guess testing anchors in one bottom may be valid for that particular area.
However, a few of us anchor in various bottoms and need an all around anchor that will not only work as set, but as conditions change. Nobody, as you mentioned, can afford to do testing under "real world" cruising conditions, but I'm surprised no one has ever done a comprehensive, well documented survey on anchors by those who use them. Or perhaps someone has, but I haven't seen it.


----------



## bvander66 (Sep 30, 2007)

aa3jy said:


> Interesting results conducted by Boat US on popular anchors. See Oct. issue of 'Seaworthy' as the results where not surprising...
> 
> http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/assets/pdf/anchor-test.pdf


To clarify, boat us dod not conduct the test, they wrote the article. Fortress coontracted a research vessel to conduct the test.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

That's correct, and below is more information about the 81-ft research vessel Rachel Carson that we chartered for the testing:

The R/V Rachel Carson | The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

RainDog said:


> Got to like these results if you make the Mantus. I would expect Fortress/Danforth to own a staight line pull test in mud, but if I was only looking at this chart, i would buy a Mantus.


Thats funny, because the anchor they made a photocopy of had the same results. I would buy the original out of those two, thou I plan to buy a danforth for soft bottoms.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Fortress Anchors said:


> That's correct, and below is more information about the 81-ft research vessel Rachel Carson that we chartered for the testing:
> 
> The R/V Rachel Carson | The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science


So fortress anchor paid for the test, and the test said fortress was the best anchor? Hmmmmm, is that like the local pizza place that claims best pizza, or the local wing place that claims best wings then? A simple advertizement? But disguised as a "legitimate test"

Tell you what fortress, send me your anchor, the same size as my danforth 90H, I will let you know if it pulls the same, or "breaks my line".


----------



## TropicCat (Oct 14, 2008)

UnionPacific said:


> So fortress anchor paid for the test, and the test said fortress was the best anchor?


If this anchor test occurred in a vacuum and it was the one and the only anchor test ever conducted, I think your concern would be justified. But .. it's not. Google anchor tests and you'll find a bunch. The results don't vary far from this test.

Or it it your contention that every anchor test ever conducted was paid for by Fortress anchors?


----------



## Puddin'_Tain (Feb 14, 2014)

Fortress set the location and basic parameters for the test. Not the most unbiased way of doing things.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

I appreciate the healthy skepticism. Yes, Tropicat there have been numerous tests conducted around the world (ex: Brazil, France, Holland, Norway, Sweden, UK, USA) over the past 25 years which we did not sponsor, and the results were similar. Here's a link to some of the comments made by independent publications after their tests:

Fortress Anchors ? The World's Best Anchors! ? Publications

UnionPacific, the Danforth 35 HT reached some impressive tensions and I am sure that your 90H is a beast and it performs well for you. The comparable Fortress model is the 47 lb FX-85, which is the primary anchor aboard the US Coast Guard's 87-ft Coastal Patrol Boat (73 in service).

Puddin'_Tain, yes we set the location, and the bottom conditions were identified as soft mud which is common throughout the Chesapeake Bay area. We have exhibited at the US Sailboat Show in nearby Annapolis for the past 15 years or so, and during that time we have heard ongoing reports from sailors about the anchoring difficulties they had experienced in the local soft mud.

We had sponsored tests in the soft mud bottoms of the SF Bay in 1990, and with our recent test we included anchor models from those tests (Claw-Bruce copy, CQR, Danforth, Delta) and the new generation models which are currently being manufactured and imported from China, New Zealand, Tunisia, and Turkey (Manson, Mantus, Rocna, Spade, Ultra).

Yes, we also set up the basic parameters, which were EXACTLY the same for each anchor, so no favoritism could be shown to any one anchor, and with the boating media present and large monitors aboard, the results were closely monitored throughout the duration of the testing.

If you read the Boat US story about the testing, you will note the author Charles Fort's comment:

_During the first test done with the Fortress 37, with its ideal 45-degree mud-bottom fluke angle, it failed to set during the entire 100-foot drag. Chagrinned, the Fortress representatives nervously joked that at least it was obvious the test wasn't rigged in their favor. _

I am sure glad that he did not overhear my comment about wondering whether a local bridge was high enough to jump off of! 

Brian


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Fortress Anchors said:


> If you read the Boat US story about the testing, you will note the author Charles Fort's comment:
> 
> _During the first test done with the Fortress 37, with its ideal 45-degree mud-bottom fluke angle, it failed to set during the entire 100-foot drag. Chagrinned, the Fortress representatives nervously joked that at least it was obvious the test wasn't rigged in their favor. _
> 
> ...


This is where the extra weight of the steel danforth I believe would come in handy. As well as any time it was not set, and simple drag was what kept you in place, such as volcanic rock under a few inches of sand.

I think I would use your anchor as a stern anchor, but not as primary.

Ideally you want a bridge at least 200' off the water, so you are killed on impact, and not by drowning.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Fortress Anchors said:


> Actually, test results did not change expectations, we knew going in that this type of common soft mud would present a challenge and possibly inconsistent results for every anchor, including our own.


The Fortress-sponsored tests did not start from scratch. The results build on a corpus of data from many previous tests. The small differences between newer and older designs does not align with previous test results or with experiential data from those of us who call the Chesapeake Bay home.

I've anchored in Chesapeake mud for very many years with CQR, Delta, Spade, and Rocna anchors. I have my favorite places so I anchor time and again in the same locations. Many others have similar experience. There is no question, even based solely on previous published tests, that Delta anchors should be expected to perform better than CQR anchors and that new generation anchors should be expected to outperform Delta anchors. Conventional wisdom (*grin* - I am always ready to question conventional wisdom) indicates fluke anchors like the Fortress have outstanding holding power at the expense of the ability to reset.

So when results of the Solomons tests did not show the differentiation that should have been anticipated between the various plow and spoon (new generation) I suggest that some preliminary analysis should have been done to drive additional exploratory testing to determine _why_ results were different than expected.

Similarly your findings on fluke anchors at very short scope should have led to additional exploration on veering of fluke anchors.

Instead, the tests just wrapped up and everyone went home.

Unless you plan to return in the Spring to follow up, in my opinion Fortress could have used a little more scientific method.



Fortress Anchors said:


> For the most part, the "new generation" anchors did not distinguish themselves as better performers than the "old generation" models in this soft mud bottom. In fact, a serious concern was raised as to whether a new generation anchor would be able to orient itself, either at all or even slightly, if it landed on its side or upside down. Although we could not see the anchors, it seemed possible that the soft mud provided too little resistance for these anchors to correctly orient themselves in an upright position as they were being pulled along the bottom.


Why? Why no differentiation? Why did someone think orientation would be an issue when anecdotal information provided no indication of that condition? Why not include underwater video in the protocol, admittedly hard in visibility measured in inches?



Fortress Anchors said:


> As evidenced by the literature that was shared aboard the testing vessel, Baldt, Bruce, Vryhoff, and the US Navy all manufacture anchors with wider shank / fluke angles for soft mud bottom conditions, and the 45° angle pulls with the Fortress (when the flukes engaged the bottom) served as further proof of this required configuration for superior anchor holding capacity in this type of bottom.


What literature? If it was US Navy, most of the work I'm familiar with doesn't scale well to small boats.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

No one ever debated the Danforth or Fortress straight line holding power. IMHO they simply can't be beat for straight line pulls, but, _in the real world_, we don't always have straight line pulls. In Maine we certainly don't... But to compare a _massive_ FX-37 to 45 pound anchors with far less surface area.....?? Fair????

This is a typical night for us:









And for those that don't think we get anchor testing weather in Maine, this is today's forecast:

*TODAY
NE WINDS 25 TO 35 KT WITH GUSTS UP TO 50 KT. SEAS 13 TO
18 FT...SUBSIDING TO 11 TO 16 FT THIS AFTERNOON. RAIN WITH ISOLATED
TSTMS THIS MORNING...THEN RAIN THIS AFTERNOON. VSBY 1 TO 3 NM.*

Yes our boat is still in the water...

Things to think about right, wrong or indifferent..

*Paid for by Fortress?

*Location chosen by Fortress?

*Anchors constantly dragging not set, then pulled?

*Anchors were not even set to Fortress instructions?

*Where are the veer tests _everyone_ wants to see on the Fortress that people have been demanding for years, and years and years....... ???

*Brian and Fortress had the perfect opportunity here to do veer tests but failed to do so. Why?

*Were core soil samples taken at each drop to ensure bottom consistency?

*Why no divers in the water taking videos regardless of how murky?

*Why all the "assumptions"? This can lead to coloring of the data set and abhorrent and misleading non scientific statements like we've seen by the authors of this test..?

*Why was this test not done "blinded" for the authors, data collectors and investigators. This takes about 10 minutes to set up. Number the anchors, two people on set & retrieve that are not involved and are not to talk about which anchor was which until after the data is digested. Then and only then the are the anchors identity is revealed. Anchors simply go in the water and come out of the water with the investigators being "blinded" at those times. The rest of the time they are free to watch...

Fortress had already won the hard bottom Sail mag tests years ago, for straight line pull, but like most of these studies the data set was corrupted by "color" by a rather unscientific community of investigators. I have that data set and the way it was represented is simply disgusting. There was good data in the set but it was _interpreted_ by a bunch of folks who treated it like a fourth grade homework assignment yet did first grade level work on it.... This set, IMHO, is no different and it too is loaded with bias and color......

I use the Fortress as our stern anchor. IMHO it is hard to beat a Fortress as a stern anchor...

However, it will never grace our bow after having UNSET on a wind shift which resulted in us coming inches from grinding up on solid Maine granite. This is simply the REAL WORLD.....

I discussed this dragging/unset incident with Brian of Fortress, quite at length. Brian's answer was that it was; _not well set to begin with_. He then went on to say (paraphrasing here) _many sailboats lack the power to adequately power set a Fortress_. This FX-16 was as well set as 35 - 40 knots can do, as well as _full reverse power_, on a SAILBOAT! Remember it survived a long period of 35-40 knots then on a 180 degree frontal shift it UNSET....

Problem is we had ridden out 35-40 knots the day before, had also backed down hard (_power set_ per Fortress instructions) and the anchor held fine in ONE DIRECTION yet it still unset when the winds veered 180 degrees and began blowing again. Where are these tests????? Why another straight line pull test???? They represent the real world not a _tug,_ in a straight line, behind the Rachel Carson.....

I like Brian, he's a very upstanding guy compared to shady, lying and sleazy characters, like CS, from some other Anchor companies. I also like the Fortress, a lot, but not as my _primary_ anchor. Brian and I have had this conversation face to face a number of times.

As I see this particular test the Mantus produced the most _consistent_ results so the title of _this version_ of the test is simply misleading. BTW at least three authors wrote about this testing all with differing views..

The question for me is do I want an anchor (FX 37) that failed to do anything on 2 out of 5 sets, 45 degree, then yielded wildly inconsistent results the rest of the time in 32 degree mode as my _primary_ anchor? Considering I own a Fortress, and just about every other decent anchor out there, which makes me about as unbiased as one can possibly be when choosing an anchor for my own bow, the simple answer for me is no, I do not...... Look out at the world cruising community and you will see I am not at all alone on this.

I have decent number of full time cruisers I know personally and as customers. Many live on-board the boats full time 24/7/365. I don't have a single one who uses a Danforth or Fortress as a primary anchor but nearly every one of them uses a Fortress as a stern anchor...

Why is this the case when Fortress does not market the anchor this way? It is because the _real world_ has decided _how_ the Fortress works best in the real world.

Sadly, this test, like most, failed to be done scientifically, or offer us any NEW insight into how the Fortress performs in _veering_..... To spend all that money on this testing and then not do the veer testing, which is the #1 concern for most boaters about the Fortress, is odd at best. It is beginning to look almost _suspicious..._ I mean really did we need another Fortress _straight line pull test_?????

What I would like to see is a test were a real sailboat is used to set a Fortress per the instructions. Straight line pull with in power set, full throttle reverse, with a strain gauge, that can measure initial set. The boat is then swung 180 degrees and pulled on. This is real world not loading a Fortress up with thousands of HP, driving it 10' into the bottom and claiming it held at 180 degrees... Course we all know that when or if veering tests occur they will NOT be done with a real sailboat and the available setting power it has and the testers will claim victor after sinking the anchor to China with the full power of a barge tug.......

Sorry, I am a bit jaded by the sheer lack of science in anchor testing....


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Well fortress, based on this thread alone I would include in your marketing, 
"The undisputed leader in stern anchors"
Seriously, I know your out to sell $1000 primaries, but this is a huge accomplishment, I mean not one person here said they would not use your anchor in an aft position.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

UnionPacific said:


> Well fortress, based on this thread alone I would include in your marketing,
> "The undisputed leader in stern anchors"
> Seriously, I know your out to sell $1000 primaries, but this is a huge accomplishment, I mean not one person here said they would not use your anchor in an aft position.


I agree 150% and if every boat had a Fortress as a stern anchor that is a 100% market position and 100% market share for stern anchors.. I don't know of a single sailboat over 27' that does not own or carry a stern anchor. heck most of my power boat customers even have stern anchors..

Instead they want to compete for a market (primary bow anchors) the market does not believe they are well suited for.

They push for this market in a heavy field of competition yet fail to do the tests in an attempt to show they may work there.... (head bang)

Ponder this:

*Stern anchors are used far less than bowers, this mean less potential for failures and "horror stories"

*If you get even 80% of the stern anchor market it is HUGE and you will clobber all competition

*This is a market that will yield little to no "horror" stories of unsetting etc. due to the straight line pull of the anchor being used as a sterner.

As I see it the Fortress as a _sterner_ is a win/win for everyone....

Perhaps one of the best threads on the net regarding anchors, to ever come along, is being done by full timer cruiser Nolex & a few others over on CF. He has been taking under water pictures of set anchors or real cruising boats now for nearly a year. It is worth checking out..

*







*

IMHO one of the best threads on anchors was started by full time cruiser Noelex over on CF. He and his "Mermaid" have been shooting underwater photos of real boats, really anchored and what that looks like ON THE BOTTOM. Anyone considering an anchor purchase should see this thread. Be aware this thread is 28 pages long at this point. There is NO BETTER collection, showing set anchors, in the real world, anywhere on the planet other than Noelex's thread...

*Photos of Anchors Setting*

And this is one of my favorite photos from that thread. Caternary?? Yeah right....


----------



## bvander66 (Sep 30, 2007)

TropicCat said:


> If this anchor test occurred in a vacuum and it was the one and the only anchor test ever conducted, I think your concern would be justified. But .. it's not. Google anchor tests and you'll find a bunch. The results don't vary far from this test.
> 
> Or it it your contention that every anchor test ever conducted was paid for by Fortress anchors?


There are tests, and then there are scientific tests. I have even seen "definative"tests dragging anchors behind a truck with a questionable scope. Take a look at practical sailor testing reports, much closer to what a valid test looks like.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

Gents,

Thanks for the input, it is greatly appreciated. Fortress is certainly a popular stern anchor for the cruising market. I would add to that it is a popular choice as a storm anchor given its incredible holding power at a fraction of the weight of steel anchors, and it can be neatly stowed below deck while taking up a minimal amount of space.

We can debate endlessly the value of the tests and the results, and why we didn't do this or do that.

The bottom line is: We spent a significant amount of money chartering the 81-ft Rachel Carson over four full days, not to mention the cost of the equipment we brought aboard, and we conducted 60 tests + a couple of tests with the 10 lb. FX-16 @ 45 degrees, which again, out-performed ALL of the 44-46 lb steel anchors during the test.

Every anchor was tested 5x, a minimal baseline for a comparison, and again, it took four full days just to accomplish that.

Veering tests would have obviously taken longer, and the fact is that many of the anchors dragged through the soft mud during a straight line pull with only minimal resistance, which I think is being overlooked here.

While many were surprised by these results, our US Navy consultant for this project, Bob Taylor, was not as he stated that anchors which are designed and optimized for harder soils will only have a holding ratio (Holding power divided by anchor weight) of 10-15x when they are used in a soft soil, which is almost exactly what we found.

The 44-46 lbs steel anchors for the most part only achieved tensions of 400 - 700 lbs, which per the American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) horizontal load tables, would fall far short of holding a 35-ft or 40-ft boat in 30 knots of wind (900 & 1,200 lbs).

The setting issues that we experienced with the 21 lb Fortress FX-37 would likely be resolved simply by using a shorter scope when initially setting the anchor, as we recommend.

During two tests of the FX-37 at the 45° angle, the tension was rising and exceeded 2,000 lbs when the test was terminated at 10 minutes / 100 feet of pull.

Another time the tension hit 1,800 lbs early in the test, and then it slowly fell back to 1,000 lbs when the test ended. The other time the tension began rising near the end of the test to 800 lbs, but the test was ended, and then in one test it did not set.

So in 4 out of 5 tests, this anchor engaged and held in this soft mud, and the tension was either rising or stable in this soft mud when the test was ended. Keep in mind, this anchor weighed less than HALF the 44-46 lb steel anchors, yet had 2-5x more holding power.

During preliminary testing, we also tested the 32 lbs FX-55 and it held to over 4,000 lbs several times and it tripped the aft winch in the process. The crew aboard the Rachel Carson can confirm this fact.

Comparatively speaking, most of the 44-46 lb steel anchors rarely broke 1,000 lbs, and when they did, they quickly broke free and then did not reset.

Here's Chuck Hawley's calculations of the average peak tensions for each anchor:

21 lb FX-37 @ 45 degrees: 1595 lbs (failed to achieve 300 lbs - 1x)
21 lb FX-37 @ 32 degrees: 980 lbs (failed to achieve 300 lbs - 1x)
35 lb Danforth HT: 896 lbs
46 lb Ultra: 762 lbs

45 lb Manson Boss: 675 lbs (failed to achieve 300 lbs - 1x)
45 lb Mantus: 646 lbs 
44 lb Delta: 600 lbs (failed to achieve 300 lbs - 3x)

45 lb Manson Supreme: 584 lbs 
44 lb Spade: 582 lbs (failed to achieve 300 lbs - 1x)
44 lb Rocna: 535 lbs (failed to achieve 300 lbs - 3x)
45 lb CQR: 522 lbs 
44 lb Claw: 515 lbs (failed to achieve 300 lbs - 1x)

So again, per ABYC tables, in soft mud most of these anchors would not hold a 35-ft or 40-ft boat (and many are recommended for much larger sizes) in 30 knots of wind (900/1200 lbs)......and barely a 30-ft boat in those winds (per ABYC - 700 lbs).

Concerning veering tests, once again, they have been conducted by the Sailing Foundation and Practical Sailor, and both times the Fortress performed superbly.

In the Sailing Foundation test, they had straight line, 90 degree, and 180 degree pulls and the FX-37 held to over 4,000 lbs (the max) in each direction. No other much heavier steel anchor came close.

If a properly-sized Fortress is power set, then it should be able to handle a wind or tidal shift, but we still advise for maximum safety that two anchors be used in those conditions.

We also clearly advise in our anchor recommendations:

_Boat size recommendations are for boats of average windage and proportions in 30 knots of wind, average bottom conditions, and moderate protection from open seas._

So if a Fortress anchor (ex: 10 lb FX-16) did break free after being power set in a wind or tidal shift, then it was either undersized for the boat, or the wind exceeded 30 knots, or the bottom was poor for holding (ex: soft mud).

Had a larger Fortress anchor been used, then there is no question or doubt that the results would have been different. We certainly have a clear understanding of this by the fact that we manufacture our product and are based in south Florida, and Fortress anchors are commonly sold along the east coast USA, Gulf, and Caribbean regions for use as a storm / hurricane anchor....and those winds cannot be relied on to hit the boat from only one direction!


----------



## bvander66 (Sep 30, 2007)

This thread has becoming a marketting venue.


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

As someone one pointed out Boat US didn't conduct these tests as my original title stated..then why where they invited as "observers"? 'Practical Sailor' comes to mind as a reputable (some what) impartial,independent testing/review of marine gear...


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

It is interesting that my 45# QCR that I had planned to replace with a ronca, held almost just as well. Maybe your test saved me $800


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

UnionPacific said:


> It is interesting that my 45# QCR that I had planned to replace with a ronca, held almost just as well. Maybe your test saved me $800


While it is being reported that the new generation anchors like the Rocna offer improved performance in harder soils over old generation models such as the CQR, I think that the jury is still out in other bottoms such as soft mud, grass, weeds, and rocks, and where the roll bar might be a "penetration inhibitor."

Brian


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

If I understand dynamic positioning correctly; on onboard computer provides additional directional engine power +perhaps bow thrust? as needed to maintain it's position over ground. 

Wouldn't you then need to be able to measure any additional (forward) thrust (or lack thereof) provided by the engines in order to maintain the platform position while simultaneously hauling in the anchor to determine the anchor's true holding power? 

If you're hauling the anchor in via the cable winch, and the engines engage more thrust to hold the platforms position ( from being pulled toward a set anchor) wouldn't the power required to do that be additive to the measurements recorded on the winch?

Unless the engine power to hold position remained constant throughout all the pulls, it would seem that there's an important data point missing.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Fortress Anchors said:


> If a properly-sized Fortress is power set, then it should be able to handle a wind or tidal shift, but we still advise for maximum safety that two anchors be used in those conditions.


But ours did not. We had a 30' footer at the time, used 80% of full throttle reverse to set it, and a Fortress FX-16 with mud palms on. Winds did go to 40 knots and the anchor never budged an inch, _in the original wind direction. 
_
When we talked face to face in Annapolis you told me that many sailboats simply don't have the power to properly _power set_ these anchors. So how does one properly power set a Fortress, on a sailboat, that may not have the available HP to do that?



Fortress Anchors said:


> We also clearly advise in our anchor recommendations:
> 
> _Boat size recommendations are for boats of average windage and proportions in 30 knots of wind, average bottom conditions, and moderate protection from open seas._


We had no seas, a light weight 30' sloop and an FX-16 that is rated for up to 38'... It was a moderate to soft upper layer bottom with thicker substrate. It held us to 40 knots no problem it was the re-set where it failed.



Fortress Anchors said:


> So if a Fortress anchor (ex: 10 lb FX-16) did break free after being power set in a wind or tidal shift, then it was either undersized for the boat, or the wind exceeded 30 knots, or the bottom was poor for holding (ex: soft mud).


The wind that morning, when it came back up in the opposite direction, initially 15, 20 then was gusting to about 25 and perhaps peaks to 30 knots (high pressure Canadian front moving in). So are you saying an FX-16 is too small for a 30' sloop?

What about what you told me about not being able to properly power set it with many sailboats? If I had gone larger I would have even less chance of burring that anchor deeply.



Fortress Anchors said:


> Had a larger Fortress anchor been used, then there is no question or doubt that the results would have been different. We certainly have a clear understanding of this by the fact that we manufacture our product and are based in south Florida, and Fortress anchors are commonly sold along the east coast USA, Gulf, and Caribbean regions for use as a storm / hurricane anchor....and those winds cannot be relied on to hit the boat from only one direction!


Brian with all due respect there is a good reason why your anchors are not en-mass primary bow anchors on cruising sailboats. You are bordering on sounding a little Craig Smith-ish here, and that is not your usual style...

If what you told me in Annapolis was true, that perhaps we did not have the power to fully "power set" our FX-16, and 40 knots was not enough either, a likely explanation in my mind, then how would going even _larger_ help a boat with limited setting power bury a larger surface area anchor any deeper??

I am NOT the only person to have ever had a Danforth or Fortress anchor fail to reset and it is, in my experience, the number one reason Fortress is used most often as a storm anchor (where two or more anchors are usually used) and stern anchor, but not a primary bower.

You have a great product but trying to make it something it is not with a poorly laid out test, like most are, tarnishes your good history IMHO.

And on that topic of you recommending larger why in your test did the FX-16 (the unpublished part) be the "star of the show" over the FX-37?

As I have said many times you would have to pry my Fortress from my cold dead fingers for my stern anchor, and supplementary storm anchor, but it will never, ever grace the bow of our boat as our primary.

And yes I have conducted my own veer tests, after our conversation, and my findings are very much in-line with your _hypothesis_ that many sailboats can't adequately power set the Fortress so it is more prone to un-setting if not adequately buried.

I also have piles of straight line pull data from my own personal testing, utilizing a digital strain gauge, which helps to lead me to my own choices for my own cruising grounds.

And why are we looking at just peak "blip" load holding? How about talking about repeatable sets, consistency, and anchor that will likely set first time nearly every time? If an anchor un-sets would not those findings be important when you may not be at the helm to physically re-set it. These other important aspects seemingly were ignored in favor of "blips" on the data logging screen...

Summarizing any test with "held to 300 pounds" or "held to 1500 pounds", when some of these are merely blips is absurd. How about averaging out that data set...? How about averaging out each drag, then averaging all five drags together for an "average holding power" recommendation.

Yep because the anchors that flat lined on one or two sets would KILL the peak "blip" data that looks so enticing to young skulls of mush or the naive.

My point here is you can _spin_ this data to make it look how you want, and that indeed has been done, just like in the Sail tests that you guys won and did not get credit for and were so angry at Craig Smith for _spinning_...

Spin away....


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

To Fortress Anchors – you will never win this argument, no matter how reasonable your methods.

You have run into the quadruple buzzsaw of undisclosed commercial interests/sock puppets for sponsors of this forum, members who are undisclosed investors in this forum protecting the sponsors, and highly suggestible/gullible consumption-oriented members who buy anything other members recommend based on personal anecdotes.

No tests, research, experiments or objective evidence will ever satisfy the supporters of the next generation anchors because forum sponsor money is at stake.

The other holy cows on this website are charter companies and sailing lessons. Any criticism of what the sponsors are selling will result in the appearance of the usual sock puppet circus.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

jameswilson29 said:


> To Fortress Anchors - you will never win this argument, no matter how reasonable your methods.
> 
> You have run into the quadruple buzzsaw of undisclosed commercial interests/sock puppets for sponsors of this forum, members who are undisclosed investors in this forum protecting the sponsors, and highly suggestible/gullible consumption-oriented members who buy anything other members recommend based on personal anecdotes.
> 
> ...


WOW, was 9/11 an inside job too?
No, really. who are you accusing of such non-sense?


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

jameswilson29 said:


> To Fortress Anchors - you will never win this argument, no matter how reasonable your methods.
> 
> You have run into the quadruple buzzsaw of *undisclosed commercial interests/sock puppets for sponsors of this forum, members who are undisclosed investors in this forum protecting the sponsors*, and highly suggestible/gullible consumption-oriented members who buy anything other members recommend based on personal anecdotes.
> 
> ...


Well come on then let's _out_ these "sock puppets"... Oh and please do tell me just where I fit into this, it would be amusing...


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

UnionPacific said:


> It is interesting that my 45# QCR that I had planned to replace with a ronca, held almost just as well. Maybe your test saved me $800


For the size of boat you have and the fact you want to visit some 'challenging' spots you will be doing some very serious anchor shopping. A 45 lb CQR is not nearly big enough for a heavy 48 footer.


----------



## Coquina (Dec 27, 2012)

Total complete utter bullcrap.
I have no financial interest in anything to do with forums or anchors.
I have owned an FX-16 for over a *decade.*
I know VERY WELL what it is good at and what it isn't.
I use it as a second anchor and lunch hook frequently. It does very well at both those jobs. I have used to to kedge off a sandbar and it did very well for that too.
I do not use it as a primary anchor because it is far worse than my Danforth at resetting itself. It might do better on heavy chain, but that totally negates the reason to have a light but strong anchor in the first place  
I also wonder about the Bruce types. These seem to be universally the biggest losers of anchor testing but well loved by their owners 
I also found out in the BVIs a big plow kind of sucked down there. It would not reliably set unless I dove on it 

EDIT: Veer testing:
I would love to know more about this. Sometimes my Danforth gets so far into the mud it presumably is in the clay that underlies it and it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get it loose. After a hurricane once the only way we got loose was getting a Coast Gaurd boat to pull us, full engine power on 1:1 scope wasn't even close to doing it. From the looks of the rode, the anchor was likely about 4-6 feet underground. OTOH if I have my bow awning up and a storm comes through, it seems a 30 degree offcenter yank on the rode and the anchor pops right out 
One reason I love my FX-16 is no matter how well yanked on overnight, when I take the dinghy out to collect it the thing pops right up when I get overtop of it. This is why it is great for my 2nd and not great as a 1st.



jameswilson29 said:


> To Fortress Anchors - you will never win this argument, no matter how reasonable your methods.
> 
> You have run into the quadruple buzzsaw of undisclosed commercial interests/sock puppets for sponsors of this forum, members who are undisclosed investors in this forum protecting the sponsors, and highly suggestible/gullible consumption-oriented members who buy anything other members recommend based on personal anecdotes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

Tempest, great question. The Dynamic Positioning (DP) system aboard the Rachel Carson was engaged once the vessel was positioned at the GPS starting point (datum), and then the aft winch began pulling in the anchors at the 10 feet per minute rate of speed.

The DP system then fired up the engines and thrusters to hold and maintain that position. Tensions for most pulls were under 1,000 lbs, which I don't think were very challenging for this system, as you might imagine, since the 81-ft vessel weighs 60 long tons (134k lbs).

Maine Sail, so the 10 lb FX-16 initially held a 30-ft sailboat in 40 knots of wind, close to what's considered "storm conditions." The load on this anchor (per ABYC charts) was approximately 1,400 lbs.

Meanwhile, during the recent testing, NONE of the 44-46 lb anchors would have held that same boat in soft mud and in that wind speed, during a STRAIGHT LINE PULL...._but that is not pertinent to THIS DISCUSSION....only that the FX-16 broke free one time during a wind shift?_

Simply stated, do you feel that here is the time and place to discuss wind shifts....when during this soft mud test so few anchors could hold the boats for which they are recommended in anything more than a gentle or light breeze....and during a straight line pull, at that? There is no alarm or concern for safety over that?

If you had loaded up the FX-23 or FX-37 with 40 knots of wind (and we clearly recommend going up one or two anchor sizes for storm conditions), then you might have a more positive result during a wind shift.

And yes, I did clearly say, and will repeat here, that many sailboats might not have the engine HP to properly bury a Fortress anchor with its two large massive flukes, which becomes a non-issue in high wind conditions, hence their use as a storm anchor.

Spin the data? You have access to the charts, interpret the numbers as you see fit. Chuck Hawley and Bob Taylor and I have spent hours pouring over and analyzing the data. Have at it. As always, I welcome your input.

While some anchors may have "set first time everytime" they broke free or dragged after reaching nominal tension, which in turn could lure boaters into having a false sense of security, so that fact has to be accounted for as well.

Bob Taylor, who spent over 45+ years with the US Navy in anchor design and soil mechanics, has his interpretation and it is to average the maximum peak tensions and then for a factor of safety, divide that by two, and correspond that remaining number with the ABYC charts (below) for anchor sizing.

On a separate note, one of the boating writers we had aboard is a long time cruiser and he is writing a book on anchoring.

He was with us for all 4 days, and suffice to say that he felt anchor manufacturers were irresponsible for giving size recommendations with no accounting for common soft mud bottoms, like where we tested, which are poor for holding and the performance of all anchors will be greatly diminished (including Fortress).

While we have soft mud ratings in our selection guide, this writer felt that we needed to closely incorporate that with the ABYC tables (image below), to which I agree.

Regarding the FX-16, the fact that it out-held anchors 4x heavier and was one of the most difficult anchors to bring back aboard was certainly the most impressive feats seen on the Rachel Carson during the testing.

Here's a link to a Dropbox folder with images taken during the testing:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vkl9ekrm55igmrb/AABWL0qViBF6zRICpxF4HhWqa?dl=0


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Fortress Anchors said:


> The DP system then fired up the engines and thrusters to hold and maintain that position. Tensions for most pulls were under 1,000 lbs, which I don't think were very challenging for this system, as you might imagine, since the 81-ft vessel weighs 60 long tons (134k lbs).


simple physics, 1000FTLBs of thrust on a 60ton boat is significant.....
Think in smaller numbers, what would 100FTLBs of thrust do to a 6 ton boat?
Think catalina. Think 10HP outboard moving it at 6kts, or a 20FTLB thrust from a inboard diesel in an 10 ton boat.
Shoot, my boat is under 20 ton, all I have is about 100FTLBs of thrust, and I can go 8 knots on that.

I am also betting the prop wash skewed the results.
I am not sure who planned this test, but I doubt it was a physics major.
If you guys ever get a hankering to do this again, give me a call, I will work the numbers for you, and tell you the best method to get accurate results.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

UnionPacific,

Thanks for your input and for your offer in the future, however, we are fully confident that with the crew, boat, and equipment used in this testing, we did an outstanding job in acquiring and logging accurate data.

Brian


----------



## Coquina (Dec 27, 2012)

My FX-16 is easy to recover. I just pull the dinghy along the line until I am exactly overhead and it pops right up every time. *This is why I bought it *

If 40 knots is near storm condition and you should have an anchor a couple sizes up, then EVERY ANCHOR SELECTION TABLE IS BS for the Chesapeake. Unless you never go out in the warmer 2/3s of the year, thunderstorms with well over 40 knots are not uncommon.

I think you also need to note that no one anchor is going to work for you everywhere. The Thimble Islands in Long Island Sound seemed to have a bottom with a lot of granite boulders. The best anchor would likely have been an old fashioned 19th century square rigger type or maybe a grappling hook. We dragged our Danforth around until it fell in a crack and then we almost didn't get it back 

OTOH Weems Creek (Annapolis) has so much silt from RT 50 road construction it is like trying to hook an anchor in thick chicken noodle soup. I think the best anchor there would be one of those helix drill bit anchors you need a diver to set.



Fortress Anchors said:


> Regarding the FX-16, the fact that it out-held anchors 4x heavier and was one of the most difficult anchors to bring back aboard was certainly the most impressive feats seen on the Rachel Carson during the testing.
> 
> Here's a link to a Dropbox folder with images taken during the testing:
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vkl9ekrm55igmrb/AABWL0qViBF6zRICpxF4HhWqa?dl=0


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

killarney_sailor said:


> For the size of boat you have and the fact you want to visit some 'challenging' spots you will be doing some very serious anchor shopping. A 45 lb CQR is not nearly big enough for a heavy 48 footer.


your very correct. In fact our boat came with a 35# QCR, lol. I traded up to a 45#. thats why we are looking for two 100# class anchors, and will be carrying 4 lenghts of 200' line to tie to shore as well


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Fortress Anchors said:


> UnionPacific,
> 
> Thanks for your input and for your offer in the future, however, we are fully confident that with the crew, boat, and equipment used in this testing, we did an outstanding job in acquiring and logging accurate data.
> 
> Brian


Data is evidence, and unless it is collected by a third party, double blind, and analyzed by a person not involved in the actual test, its very very relative, and highly inaccurate at best.

Leave science to the scientists, and stick with being a stern anchor, because I would not trust your FX-85 in place of a high-test danforth 85# in the same conditions.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

UnionPacific said:


> Leave science to the scientists, and stick with being a stern anchor, because I would not trust your FX-85 in place of a high-test danforth 85# in the same conditions.


Considering my neighbor had a nightmare of an event with a Danforth. If the choice was between a Fortress and a Danforth it is Fortress all the way for me.

His Danforth sitting in his garden, bent and twisted, as a reminder of the event. If that was a Fortress that bent, Brian would have sent you the parts to fix it FREE OF CHARGE for life.....

If the decision between Danforth and Fortress I pick Fortress every single time hands down. If the decision is between Fortress and other anchors then what the anchor will be used for comes into play for me...


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

UnionPacific said:


> simple physics, 1000FTLBs of thrust on a 60ton boat is significant.....
> Think in smaller numbers, what would 100FTLBs of thrust do to a 6 ton boat?
> Think catalina. Think 10HP outboard moving it at 6kts, or a 20FTLB thrust from a inboard diesel in an 10 ton boat.
> Shoot, my boat is under 20 ton, all I have is about 100FTLBs of thrust, and I can go 8 knots on that.


ft·lbs are not a measure of thrust.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

SVAuspicious said:


> ft·lbs are not a measure of thrust.


Sorry, I sometimes add FT in front of LBs, Its pounds of thrust.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Seems like the basic feelings about anchor tests haven't changed over the years:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/seamanship-navigation/5040-anchor-tests.html


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Maine Sail said:


> Considering my neighbor had a nightmare of an event with a Danforth. If the choice was between a Fortress and a Danforth it is Fortress all the way for me.
> 
> His Danforth sitting in his garden, bent and twisted, as a reminder of the event. If that was a Fortress that bent, Brian would have sent you the parts to fix it FREE OF CHARGE for life.....
> 
> If the decision between Danforth and Fortress I pick Fortress every single time hands down. If the decision is between Fortress and other anchors then what the anchor will be used for comes into play for me...


If the danforth was bent, imagine how much more the fortress would have been bent. Seems to me the danforth set and held until failure. That is a good testament to fluke designs in the right conditions.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

Years ago the US Navy was testing anchors for their new Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) and the 90 lb Danforth Hi-Tensile and 47 lb Fortress FX-85 models were both involved.

Comments from their test report under Conclusions:

_The Danforth Deepset Hi-Tensile steel anchors were all found to be structurally deficient, in that structural damage or failure limited the maximum holding force on each anchor. As a result of their structural limitations, the holding ratio of the Danforth anchors was less than 40 percent of that provided by the NAV-X (Fortress) models.

The structural limitations observed in Danforth's anchors were particularly interesting because the base material reportedly used for their anchors (4130 alloy steel) is considerably stronger than 6061-T6 aluminum alloy (up to 6 times the strength, depending on the heat treatment used).

Additionally, it was noted during the tests that greater care had to be taken to ensure setting of the Danforth anchors than was required for the NAV-X (Fortress) anchors.

The fact that the Fortress anchors incurred no significant structural damage at such high holding ratios suggests that the anchors have been extensively engineered from both the hydrodynamic and structural standpoints.

Under anticipated loading conditions, NAV-X (Fortress) has compensated for aluminum's susceptibility to deformations through careful structural design of their anchors._


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Fortress Anchors said:


> Years ago the US Navy was testing anchors for their new Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) and the 90 lb Danforth Hi-Tensile and 47 lb Fortress FX-85 models were both involved.
> 
> Comments from their test report under Conclusions:
> 
> ...


The Fortress is a good design and very, very strong for an aluminum anchor and you guys do stand behind it. Any anchor can bend, or drag. Fortresses have been bent in testing and in the real world just as just about every brand has been.

The difference for me is that you guys put your money where your mouth is when it comes to warranty, and you did so long before any of the others. Companies like Rocna were dragged kicking and screaming to match your warranty after their low grade steel debacle exposed their, shall we say, less than ethical nature.

The problem with my neighbors anchor is that when the shank bent it bent over the fluke and thus prevented the anchor from re-setting when the winds shifted.. It held through 90% of the storm but it needed to hold for 100%...


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

As anchor tests go this one seems as good as any and the data is clear and interesting. 

None of the tests I've read are perfect but they're all way more accurate than the nonsense you'll read from owners of anchors on forums. 

The test results agree with my anchor mantra: All anchors drag!


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Fortress Anchors said:


> Years ago the US Navy was testing anchors for their new Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) and the 90 lb Danforth Hi-Tensile and 47 lb Fortress FX-85 models were both involved.


Not relevant.

Context - in the 80s I worked for Advanced Marine Enterprises who held the Naval Architecture contract for NAVSEA (SEA-50) and the program management support contract for PMS-377. I did a LOT of work on LCAC. I was there at Bell-Halter for LCAC-1 turnover. I flew in several LCAC including from an LSD offshore into Little Creek. I did all the structural tie-down arrangements for cargo in LCAC, and for LCAC in amphibs. I did a lot of mechanical systems work. I reviewed for approval a lot of ancillary systems.

LCAC weighs over 180 LT. They don't anchor without a full-time anchor watch. They generally don't anchor at all, so the anchor is consider a contingency system. The windage is high and the water resistance is low.

All that said the Navy findings that the Fortress design is an improvement over the Danforth does seem to scale.

That still doesn't address resetting in a veering condition. The military doesn't anchor and send everyone to bed.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

UnionPacific said:


> If the danforth was bent, imagine how much more the fortress would have been bent.


I don't know what, structurally and design wise, you are basing this on?? Have you taken the measurements and run the programs or tests to know that the Danforth will be less resistant to bending failures than the Fortress? If so I would personally love to see that data.



UnionPacific said:


> Seems to me the danforth set and held until failure. That is a good testament to fluke designs in the right conditions.


The Danforth held until the winds shifted. The anchor apparently resisted rotation in the substrate and the shank bent in the direction of the new pull angle until it unset. Once the shank bent they think the anchor pulled out and then would not re-set due to the bent shank. Either way the boat wound up on the shore due to a wind shift and a bent shank..

An anchor that can rotate in a substrate without breaking free, or bending the shank while doing so, can be beneficial attribute.

I have known of Fortress anchors being bent, but not many, and even if they do the company stands behind the product with a lifetime guarantee. The Danforth Hi-Tensile has no such guarantee for bending or failure during use just _manufacturing defects_..


----------



## TropicCat (Oct 14, 2008)

UnionPacific said:


> If the danforth was bent, imagine how much more the fortress would have been bent. Seems to me the danforth set and held until failure. That is a good testament to fluke designs in the right conditions.


Ummm .... my experience is the same as Maine Sail's. I traded up to my Fortress anchors from a Danforth. Here in Florida, Fortress can't be beat.


----------



## bvander66 (Sep 30, 2007)

Been full time cruising for past 5 years, eastern seaboard and bahamas. 
Dont see many Fortress/Danforth as primary hook for serious cruisers.

Our primary used to be CQR, which did drag on occasion and in many places was hard to set. Past two years we have anchored over 400 nights and have not dragged in many different conditions and bottoms. Includes some exposed locations and places with 3kt reversing current. Of note as well this hook sets solid on first attempt repeatedly, first time so quickly that I almost fell off the bow. Not a scientific test, but certainly a personal testament and sound user trial of an anchor. 
We carry a Bruce as our secondary (havent used in past two years) and a Fortress as our stowed kedge/back up anchor, also unused past two years.
The anchor the admiral loves is a Rocna.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

I, for one, was happy to see the Mantus anchor in a big-named published test for once. Seems like they're catching on. 

I'm with everyone else. I'm a fan of the Fortress (I own THREE of them*) and I used it as my primary for 4.5 months of cruising BUT I often used a stern anchor back then (a bruce) and thus the pull was usually straight. Once in soft mud I did swing around and we scuba dove the next day for dungeness. I found my anchor laying flat on the mud.  Not cool. 

I'd also like to note that I REALLY APPRECIATE that Fortress was very upfront about sponsoring the event. Kudos for that! They may have picked a venue where they would shine, but they're not trying to hide anything.

I like it as a stern, a kedge, a second anchor for storm AND I like having a full size anchor that I COULD press into service as a primary that I can raise by hand (the FX-37). The FX-37, a little bit of chain, and a rope rode came in handy when the windlass (for my 66lb bruce with all 3/8 chain) temporarily stopped working. 

MedSailor

*I also own 3 Mantus anchors and 2 Bruces.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

FYI - here's a link to PassageMaker's new story about the testing which might be of interest:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lcypucilvzxt118/1114_SEAMAN.pdf?dl=0


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

Maine Sail said:


> Well come on then let's _out_ these "sock puppets"... Oh and please do tell me just where I fit into this, it would be amusing...


I was hoping it was me. I have always wanted to be a shadowy force serving the corporate hegemony.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

UnionPacific said:


> It is interesting that my 45# QCR that I had planned to replace with a ronca, held almost just as well. Maybe your test saved me $800


Somehow I had thought you intended to sail beyond the Chesapeake Bay, but perhaps I was mistaken. A 45# GENUINE CQR is a bit small for your boat anyway, don't you think?
But don't worry, 65# GENUINE CQR's (and above) are available all over the West Indies for a almost nothing, these days. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about people's faith in the new generation anchors, I don't know what does.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Maine Sail said:


> I don't know what, structurally and design wise, you are basing this on?? Have you taken the measurements and run the programs or tests to know that the Danforth will be less resistant to bending failures than the Fortress? If so I would personally love to see that data.
> 
> The Danforth held until the winds shifted. The anchor apparently resisted rotation in the substrate and the shank bent in the direction of the new pull angle until it unset. Once the shank bent they think the anchor pulled out and then would not re-set due to the bent shank. Either way the boat wound up on the shore due to a wind shift and a bent shank..
> 
> ...


Improper use. If someone is setting one bow anchor in a storm, they may well end up beached.
We can discuss all day the best storm setup, but rest assured, its more then one anchor.
My personal setup for a hurricane, ect will be two anchors, set 180 degrees off, ending in a super high strength swivel, then attached to the boat. at worst your pulling 45 degrees on two anchors, not trying to rotate on one.

All I know about the two anchors is one is high tensile steel, one is aluminum.
I don't need math to tell me a 40# aluminum anchor is not as strong as an 80 pound steel anchor. Aluminum is a great material, and yes, it can be engineered to be stronger, but weight is a factor, so is yield strength.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Let me follow this up by saying I give fortress props for standing by their anchors, and by making them here in the USA, and not in china like mantus.
They have my vote for best stern anchor of 2014.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

UnionPacific said:


> Improper use. If someone is setting one bow anchor in a storm, they may well end up beached.
> We can discuss all day the best storm setup, but rest assured, its more then one anchor.
> My personal setup for a hurricane, ect will be two anchors, set 180 degrees off, ending in a super high strength swivel, then attached to the boat. at worst your pulling 45 degrees on two anchors, not trying to rotate on one.


You seem to be assuming you are going to have the time and ability to set up for a storm. Most often, anchored in a lovely tropical bay, around 4AM, something steamrolls through the anchorage ripping boats from their anchored positions. That's when you had better have an anchor that will actually do the job without parameters. A bent stock or the inability to instantly reset could well be the end of your boat.
As for your personal setup for a hurricane, you must understand that tropical cyclones are cyclonic (circular) storms, which generally means there is a good possibility that the winds will do a 360 or nearly so. Should the eye pass over you, the wind will die off to nearly nothing, but resume at the full force of the eye wall but from the exact opposite direction that it was blowing from, when it stopped. That could mean sustained winds in excess of 100 knots instantaneously, with higher gusts. Anchors set at 180 degrees may not hold the boat when the wind is from the side of your spread. More than likely they will drag into a tangled mess. Each and every storm and anchoring situation for that storm is unique, so you must be more fluid and open to alternative possibilities.
We carry 5 complete set ups aboard and would put all of it to use should we find ourselves in the path of a named cyclonic storm. Over a thousand feet of chain and line and 5 completely different anchors. Even with all that, the most important thing is chafe gear. The biggest mooring and all the anchors and scope in the world won't do any good, if it all chafes through half way through the storm. Lots of bits of carpet remnants are a good thing to have aboard.
There's very little luck involved in surviving bad weather on your boat, at anchor.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

capta said:


> You seem to be assuming you are going to have the time and ability to set up for a storm. Most often, anchored in a lovely tropical bay, around 4AM, something steamrolls through the anchorage ripping boat from their anchored positions. That's when you had better have an anchor that will actually do the job without parameters.
> As for your personal setup for a hurricane, you must understand that tropical cyclones are cyclonic (circular) storms, which generally means there is a good possibility that the winds will do a 360 or nearly so. Should the eye pass over you, the wind will die off to nearly nothing, but resume at the full force of the eye wall but from the exact opposite direction that it was blowing from when it stopped. That could mean sustained winds in excess of 100 knots instantaneously, with higher gusts. Anchors set at 180 degrees may not hold the boat when the wind is from the side of your spread. More than likely they will drag into a tangled mess. Each and every storm and anchoring situation for that storm is unique, so you must be more fluid and open to alternative possibilities.
> We carry 5 complete set ups aboard and would put all of it to use should we find ourselves in the path of a named cyclonic storm. Over a thousand feet of chain and line and 5 completely different anchors. Even with all that, the most important thing is chafe gear. The biggest mooring and all the anchors and scope in the world won't do any good, if it all chafes through half way through the storm. Lots of bits of carpet remnants are a good thing to have aboard.
> There's very little luck involved in surviving bad weather on your boat, at anchor.


Storms are very scary things.
Hope the most I ever see is a hard squall.
I have watched this 5 times, and it still scares me every time.




I see how the boat is pushed sideways, and makes me want a 12 ton anchor


----------



## TropicCat (Oct 14, 2008)

UnionPacific said:


> Storms are very scary things.
> Hope the most I ever see is a hard squall.
> I have watched this 5 times, and it still scares me every time...


Kind of makes you wonder why that boat was in the hurricane belt during hurricane season, doesn't it?

I've prepared for many hurricanes but was only caught aboard just one time in hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Hurricane preparation is a complicated subject best left to it's own thread.


----------



## Coquina (Dec 27, 2012)

I was only on an anchor in a hurricane once. We had 200 feet of rode out in 12 feet of water. It was like being on a giant bungee and as I said before, we had to get the CG to help pull the anchor loose the next day. It was halfway to China.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

Here's a link to a reprint of the Soundings magazine cover story by noted author Tom Neale titled, "How to Survive a Storm at Anchor:"

http://www.fortressanchors.com/SSA.pdf

Below are images of an FX-37 anchor that was returned to our Ft. Lauderdale factory by the owner after it held their 42-ft Silverton during Hurricane Andrew that hit nearby in south Florida with 140+ knot winds which lasted for several hours.

Apparently, as the story goes they had deployed three anchors and two had broken free, leaving the 25k lb. boat to hang on this one 21 lb. anchor for the remainder of the storm. The owner said that it took almost a day to get the anchor back out, and evidently they bent the flukes in the process.

I have worked with Fortress for over 17 years and I handle all of our inquiries, and the most common issues I hear with our anchors are:

- Setting: which is commonly solved by simply installing the Mud Palms that are included inside the box with every anchor, and also using proper setting technique.

- Retrieval: The sharpened flukes and tapered shank usually insures that the anchor will bury deeply in most common sand, mud, or clay bottoms, particularly under a heavy load. Customers have commented (jokingly - I think) that they have pulled up dinosaur bones and fossils with their anchors, and one said after a heavy blow that he had pulled up a Chinese gardener, but I think he might have been exaggerating........:laugher


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

UnionPacific said:


> Improper use. If someone is setting one bow anchor in a storm, they may well end up beached.
> We can discuss all day the best storm setup, but rest assured, its more then one anchor.
> My personal setup for a hurricane, ect will be two anchors, set 180 degrees off, ending in a super high strength swivel, then attached to the boat. at worst your pulling 45 degrees on two anchors, not trying to rotate on one.


I prefer to avoid wrapped rodes, geometrically increased loads, and keeping the boat from ending up broadside to the weather (generally not an issue with the rig you describe, but definitely a factor with the bow and stern anchors you described earlier).



UnionPacific said:


> All I know about the two anchors is one is high tensile steel, one is aluminum.
> I don't need math to tell me a 40# aluminum anchor is not as strong as an 80 pound steel anchor. Aluminum is a great material, and yes, it can be engineered to be stronger, but weight is a factor, so is yield strength.


You do need math, or at least arithmetic. Aluminum has about half the strength of steel, depending on the particular alloy in question. On the other hand aluminum weighs 1/3 of what steel does. So for an aluminum anchor 1/2 the weight of an equivalent steel one, the aluminum anchor will be about 18% stronger than the steel one.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

There are so many variables in trying to come up with a fair test, it may be next to impossible. One of the variables that can be controlled is the mass of an anchor relative to the size of the boat. A larger anchor, it seems to me, will set more reliably than a marginally sized one. It will provide less initial slippage before setting and will have a larger fluke area once set. Gravity will be your friend. It is hard to carry a set of appropriately sized anchors for every specialized condition/bottom type so the "mass theory" makes sense to me regardless of anchor type. One type I have had on previous boats, the Luke/Fisherman's came in handy in may odd bottom types but they are heavy, and hard to store unless disassembled.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

smurphny said:


> There are so many variables in trying to come up with a fair test, it may be next to impossible. One of the variables that can be controlled is the mass of an anchor relative to the size of the boat. A larger anchor, it seems to me, will set more reliably than a marginally sized one. It will provide less initial slippage before setting and will have a larger fluke area once set. Gravity will be your friend. It is hard to carry a set of appropriately sized anchors for every specialized condition/bottom type so the "mass theory" makes sense to me regardless of anchor type. One type I have had on previous boats, the Luke/Fisherman's came in handy in may odd bottom types but they are heavy, and hard to store unless disassembled.


Excellent points. Anchor tests will always be criticized for not being "real world" enough for one reason or another, and we are fully aware of and are accepting of that criticism. During the recent Chesapeake Bay tests, we tried to provide ideal testing conditions, with a long starting scope (approximately 8.3:1), slow rate of pull speed (10 ft. per minute), and over a fair amount of distance (100 ft).

Vryhoff, a manufacturer of anchors for the offshore industry, has two large testing tanks, one with hard sand and the other with soft mud, at their Holland facility, and from recent contacts with them I know that have tested pleasure craft anchors in those tanks.

They have an very interesting manual on anchoring at this link:
http://www.vryhof.com/pdf/anchor_manual.pdf

Regarding mass being beneficial for performance, there was one anchor during the testing which had a huge surface area (it will go unnamed) and we expected that it would perform incredibly well given its size, but it basically skipped along the bottom during almost all of the preliminary and public tests.

When I mentioned this to Bob Taylor, our US Navy consultant, and sent images to him, he said quite simply that the anchor did not have an "effective fluke angle," meaning that the large fluke area did not aggressively engage the bottom in a downward position as it was being pulled along, and in turn, only minimal resistance was developed.

Additionally, the shank / fluke angle can have a huge role in soft mud performance, as evidenced by the fact that the smaller 10 lb Fortress FX-16 anchor, when set at the 45 degree angle, was able to develop comparable tension to the much larger 21 lb FX-37 when it was set at the 32 degree angle (which is optimal for harder soils).

I have attached an image below from Vryhof's anchoring manual (page 32-33) which explains the benefit of a wider shank / fluke angle for hard and soft bottom conditions.

I have also attached an image of a Fortress FX-55 and a Rocna 33 lb anchor, which are of a comparable weight. You would certainly expect that the much larger anchor, with its greater surface area, to perform better once set in penetrable common bottom such as sand, mud, and clay.

However, in grass, weeds, or rocks a much narrower and heavy / dense type of anchor should be better able to slice its way through or between, and into those bottoms.

So the "bottom" line (pun intended) is that no one single anchor will perform optimally in all conditions, and having the "right tool for the job," as in multiple anchors aboard of different types makes logical sense, if at all possible.

The vast majority of serious cruisers I have spoken with typically have a plow-type of anchor on the bow (oftentimes a massive one on an all-chain rode), and possibly a Fortress secondary anchor for the bow or stern for storms or to prevent swinging, or for kedging.

And if that set up keeps them safe on the water, then that is great by me.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Fortress Anchors said:


> Excellent points. Anchor tests will always be criticized for not being "real world" enough for one reason or another, and we are fully aware of and are accepting of that criticism.


True. Some of the criticism is unfortunately based on "common sense" which is not always helpful when the performance of systems is counter-intuitive.



Fortress Anchors said:


> Vryhoff, a manufacturer of anchors for the offshore industry, has two large testing tanks, one with hard sand and the other with soft mud, at their Holland facility, and from recent contacts with them I know that have tested pleasure craft anchors in those tanks.
> 
> They have an very interesting manual on anchoring at this link:
> http://www.vryhof.com/pdf/anchor_manual.pdf


It's a good document. Consider that for large differences in fundamental parameters (e.g. weight, surface area, strength) scaling is non-linear and differs from one parameter to another. That means really big anchor data doesn't apply to small anchors. It is apparent that what makes sense for your dinghy doesn't scale linearly to your boat. I don't think we really know how an anchor appropriate for a 30 foot sailboat scales to a 50 footer. Recreational anchor tests have historically not down a good job of examining the implications of anchor weight, projected area, boat length, boat displacement, and boat windage.

One of the elements of a good anchor test (or any test) not addressed in the Vryhoff document--perhaps because it is so obvious to those imbued with the scientific method--is sufficient cases. When there are stochastic parameters you must have enough test cases to be statistically significant. That means 30 or more tests of each anchor in each bottom. You also need to measure environmental conditions. That means soil samples before, during, and after tests.

Just to make things more challenging, we "know" that frequent anchoring in one place has an effect on the bottom structure. To my knowledge commercial and military research (where the money is) don't have quite the concern that recreational boaters do. For example, Back Creek in Annapolis gets it bottom chewed up regularly by anchors. Dragging is more common than not. Soil sampling would be interesting.

I do think it is laudable of Fortress to contribute to the body of knowledge. It could have been so much more.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Fortress Anchors said:


> FYI - here's a link to PassageMaker's new story about the testing which might be of interest:
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/lcypucilvzxt118/1114_SEAMAN.pdf?dl=0


So it seems that if you wish to become the primary anchor most cruisers turn to for sand, clay and soft mud situations, that you need to conduct one more set of tests, a test that determines an anchor's performance during a change in wind or current direction. I believe you call this veering and is not an uncommon event in a sailors life.
Based on your videos, it seems the Danforth style anchor would have a low probability of resetting if it broke free under the above scenario. This is evidenced by the mud packed between the flukes and the stock. 
John


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

If there is one thing to take away from this thread, it is this.










And I think I need about 7000# of anchor holding, and my chain breaks at 8000# so I think I am good, also if wind gets to 120knots, I need to run the engine full tilt


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Interesting concept...
Two to Tandem: Maximizing Holding Power by Tandem Anchoring


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

SVAuspicious said:


> True. Some of the criticism is unfortunately based on "common sense" which is not always helpful when the performance of systems is counter-intuitive.
> 
> It's a good document. Consider that for large differences in fundamental parameters (e.g. weight, surface area, strength) scaling is non-linear and differs from one parameter to another. That means really big anchor data doesn't apply to small anchors. It is apparent that what makes sense for your dinghy doesn't scale linearly to your boat. I don't think we really know how an anchor appropriate for a 30 foot sailboat scales to a 50 footer. Recreational anchor tests have historically not down a good job of examining the implications of anchor weight, projected area, boat length, boat displacement, and boat windage.
> 
> ...


Excellent points +1. It sounds like with your background and experience, you would enjoy conversing with Bob Taylor, who again, consulted for us on this project. We have known Bob since the early 90s when he was aboard for the SF Bay tests we sponsored, and our late owner kept a small library of his US Navy anchor reports. The brief version of his resume:

Robert Taylor, P.E.

Over 46 years experience in research, development and design of offshore systems. 
•	Conducted extensive research and development for determining the geophysical, geotechnical and engineering properties of marine sediments specifically for design of seafloor foundations, piling and anchors.
•	Developed drag and direct embedment anchors and anchor design, selection and rigging methods in use by the Navy and offshore industry. 
•	Conducted hundreds of instrumented drag anchor tests that provide the basis of understanding of anchor behavior necessary to design cable and pipeline protection systems and to create anchor performance specifications used in guides including API RP-2P, 2SK and 2FP1, the Navy Salvage Manual and Handbook, the Navy Underwater Construction and Repair Manual and the Navy Design Manual for Fleet Moorings. 
•	Participated in the design of many novel deep-water moorings for the oil industry.
•	Lectured extensively on anchors, seafloor soils, and proper design techniques. 
•	Author of more than 120 unclassified Reports, Journal Articles and Design Guides for anchors, breakwaters, soil testing and offshore installations. 
•	Holds 10 patents on anchoring and waterside security systems

Here's one of his most recent reports that you might find to be of interest:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqa2zyjn1nd95ay/OWET Anchor and Mooring Study Report 042810.pdf?dl=0

During the past several months in the lead up to the test, I communicated extensively with Bob, and I am sure that privately he refers to me as "the neophyte from Fortress" after I asked him numerous questions which he thought were dumb and the answers obvious.

There is infinitely more math and science involved in anchor design and soil mechanics than I had ever imagined, some of which I find fascinating, and some of which makes my brain hurt.

Of course, at Bob's urging we did take soil samples which I will have analyzed, and the local university who own the Rachel Carson were somewhat helpful in locating a soil with the shear strength of common soft mud.

The images below indicate the soil that we brought up with some of the anchors. Reading left to right, the first two images show the soft mud with a sticky consistency (which by the way, smelled horrible). The middle image shows the anchor caked with mud, and the next image shows oyster shells after the mud was power washed away.

The only anchors that came up with the shells were the Danforth and Fortress.

The final image on the right shows the soil from a deeper layer, which was more granular and sandy mud.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Also on the same site they have a list of previous tests.
Independent Anchor Performance Testing
Looks like I need to look at the ronca when I am ready for a main anchor.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

ccriders said:


> Based on your videos, it seems the Danforth style anchor would have a low probability of resetting if it broke free under the above scenario. This is evidenced by the mud packed between the flukes and the stock.
> John


John, thanks for your input. Actually, any anchor, no matter the size of the fluke or flukes, or the direction of the pull, might not re-set itself after breaking free from the sea bottom.

Our late owner, who was a very adventurous, live-long boater, and who conducted thousands of anchor tests with all models during the development of Fortress in the mid-late 80s, used to say that "when an anchor breaks free from a sea bottom, it might no longer be an anchor, it might just be a clump of sea bottom with no sharp points in which to re-penetrate the seabed."

So once soil is compressed hard against the fluke(s), then it might not wash off quickly and cleanly enough for the anchor to engage the bottom again as it is being pulled forward after it breaks free.


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

UnionPacific said:


> Also on the same site they have a list of previous tests.
> Independent Anchor Performance Testing
> Looks like I need to look at the ronca when I am ready for a main anchor.


For some mysterious and unknown reason, Peter Smith (more likely his son Craig) forgot to mention that in the Voile magazine test he references, the 15 lb (7 kg) Fortress FX-23 was called "The Champion of All Categories" after it held to 2,500 kg....over 350x its weight.

Maybe just an oversight.....

Here's a link to the video of that pull test, and if you know French and are offended by profanity, then please turn down the volume  :


----------



## Chris2880 (Oct 25, 2014)

I have a Spade anchor with my OVNI 445. Went to Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Norway and it held wonderfully in all circumstances. Best test to see if anchor holds, put it in place, motor full speed backward, and you see if the boat moves. If it does, anchor again.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Fortress Anchors said:


> Excellent points +1. It sounds like with your background and experience, you would enjoy conversing with Bob Taylor, who again, consulted for us on this project.


Thanks. I'd enjoy speaking with Bob. Conference call perhaps? Thanks for the link to his 2009 report. I'll read it.

I've been noodling on a SNAME paper for the Small Boats Committee on a repeatable and extendible anchor test protocol. He might be interested in participating in that. Fortress might as well.



Fortress Anchors said:


> Of course, at Bob's urging we did take soil samples which I will have analyzed, and the local university who own the Rachel Carson were somewhat helpful in locating a soil with the shear strength of common soft mud.


I'd be interested in that data.



Fortress Anchors said:


> The images below indicate the soil that we brought up with some of the anchors. Reading left to right, the first two images show the soft mud with a sticky consistency (which by the way, smelled horrible). The middle image shows the anchor caked with mud, and the next image shows oyster shells after the mud was power washed away.
> 
> The only anchors that came up with the shells were the Danforth and Fortress.


Interesting. I've pulled up shells all around the Chesapeake, including in Solomons (up Back Creek in Solomons, up the Pax by the NAS, and out by Cove Point), with fluke anchors, a Bruce, and a Rocna.



Fortress Anchors said:


> So once soil is compressed hard against the fluke(s), then it might not wash off quickly and cleanly enough for the anchor to engage the bottom again as it is being pulled forward after it breaks free.


Which is a likely contributor to reset issues. Some anchors seem to rotate in place on veering. Those that pull out and reset have more risk. Some serious video would be very interesting.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

SVAuspicious said:


> I've been noodling on a SNAME paper for the Small Boats Committee on a repeatable and extendible anchor test protocol. He might be interested in participating in that. Fortress might as well.
> 
> Which is a likely contributor to reset issues. Some anchors seem to rotate in place on veering. Those that pull out and reset have more risk. Some serious video would be very interesting.


Yes Sir, for sure. Who knows what lurks in the evil depths, or how do anchors really work and which design handles which situations best? I guess the big problem is how to get the money for test design as well as execution. 
John


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

ccriders said:


> I guess the big problem is how to get the money for test design as well as execution.


That in fact is the paper I'm working on - a protocol for testing that allows for apples to apples comparison of tests done at different times in different places with different bottom conditions. I have interest from at least one peer-reviewed journal, so this isn't just some magazine article.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

SVAuspicious said:


> That in fact is the paper I'm working on - a protocol for testing that allows for apples to apples comparison of tests done at different times in different places with different bottom conditions. I have interest from at least one peer-reviewed journal, so this isn't just some magazine article.


What journal?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

UnionPacific said:


> What journal?


JOURNAL of SAILBOAT TECHNOLOGY


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

SVAuspicious said:


> Thanks. I'd enjoy speaking with Bob. Conference call perhaps? Thanks for the link to his 2009 report. I'll read it.
> 
> I've been noodling on a SNAME paper for the Small Boats Committee on a repeatable and extendible anchor test protocol. He might be interested in participating in that. Fortress might as well.


Please send me a PM with your name and a short bio, and I will follow up with Bob's contact information.

I would like to give him a "heads up" and introduction so he can expect and be prepared for your call or message.

Thanks,
Brian


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

SVAuspicious said:


> JOURNAL of SAILBOAT TECHNOLOGY


I have never heard of it. Is it new?


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

SVA,
It seems to me that there are a number of engineers that participate here who might like to participate in a discussion with you on an anchor test design. I looked at two of the papers on the journal, looked at but do not know how to understand, and realized the scope of the problem you face in developing a standard test protocol for anchor performance.
It also seems that there will be significant difficulty in translating performance test data into useful information for the sailing public at large (given that this is an objective). 
So, maybe a whole new thread on anchor test protocol, limited to input but viewable by all, sort of a crowd sourcing but not mob ranting?
FWIW
John


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

UnionPacific said:


> I have never heard of it. Is it new?


JOURNAL of SAILBOAT TECHNOLOGY


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

UnionPacific said:


> I have never heard of it. Is it new?


No. See Home - SNAME



ccriders said:


> It seems to me that there are a number of engineers that participate here who might like to participate in a discussion with you on an anchor test design. I looked at two of the papers on the journal, looked at but do not know how to understand, and realized the scope of the problem you face in developing a standard test protocol for anchor performance.


Hi John,

I don't consider myself an anchor design expert. I have opinions. *grin* Scientific testing I can do. Performance evaluation I can do. I could really use someone (a civil engineer) with saturated soils experience. That may be Bob Taylor. We'll see. I'm happy to have other co-authors with suitable credentials.



ccriders said:


> It also seems that there will be significant difficulty in translating performance test data into useful information for the sailing public at large (given that this is an objective).


An excellent point.

My focus has been on repeatability and extensibility. Minimum expectations for analysis could be a useful addition. Thanks.

My priority is to develop a standard for testing so that anyone that chooses to do a compliant test can leverage previous work. That way the body of knowledge just gets greater and greater.


----------

