# Anchor talk - Old vs. New Generation



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

It might be fair to say that nothing stirs up more controversy and differing opinions in boating forums around the world than a discussion about anchors.

The most heated of all topics appears to be when the "old" generation anchors are compared with the "new" generation models.

The "old" generation CQR seems to take the worst beating from those who are touting the "new" generation models.

As a competitive anchor manufacturer, I'd like to toss in my two cents worth:

Yes, the CQR did not perform admirably well in two extensive and independently verified tests that Fortress was involved with years ago in the sand bottoms of Miami and in the soft mud bottoms of San Francisco Bay.......

*BUT*

I have personally spoken with hundreds, if not thousands of CQR and other "old" generation (i.e. Bruce, Delta, Danforth) anchor owners who have been very satisfied by the performance of their anchors in a wide variety of wind & bottom conditions that they have encountered all over the world.

In fact, two widely respected boating experts, Elbert Maloney and Tom Neale, have both successfully used CQRs aboard their boats for decades.

Elbert Maloney, 91 years young, was the long time author of Chapman Piloting & Seamanship, and Tom Neale is also a noted author who has lived aboard since 1979 with his wife Mel, and they log 3,000-5,000 miles per year.

I suspect that based upon their first hand "real world" experiences, both of these gentleman would take issue with anyone who disparaged the CQR anchor.

With the above in mind, I have nothing but a deep respect for ALL of the "old" generation anchors.

May I humbly suggest to the "new" generation anchor manufacturers that they offer the same?

Be safe,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## WanderingStar (Nov 12, 2008)

I'm on the "old" side, using a Fortress and a CQR, with a fisherman third. Some of the new anchors are interesting, but most are very expensive. I looked at the website of one highly touted high tech anchor. They recommend a 60+ lb anchor for my boat (39'). That's no advantage over the fisherman.


----------



## marianclaire (Feb 4, 2010)

Talk: On my 30 ft sailboat I have a 15# danforth, fortress 16 and 37, 15 kg bruce and a 15 kg rocna. I also own a 35# CQR. For my area, super soft mud off the Neuse River, the 37 is my storm anchor. I have helped anchor and recover many boats for storms. I have seen different types fail due to, IMHO, operator error. Learning what a well set anchor feels like is hard to describe, it must be learned. I have also anchored 100’s of times from the Chesapeake to Key West. The bruce has been the best all around anchor I have used. Easy to deploy, easy to feel, not perfect but what anchor is? I have not used the rocna yet but will be using it on my up coming trip south and will evaluate its performance. 
I have found the CQR to be hard to feel. I believe an anchor can be to large/heavy. Gasp. Maybe the issue here.
In general the shape of the new generation anchors, and for that matter the danforth/fortress and bruce, just make more sense to me than the plow, CQR/delta. The CQR is staying home for this next trip. Everyone’s experience is different but how will we ever know unless we try some of the new designs?
Dan S/V Marian Claire


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out that if the CQR, Bruce, Claw, etc., were all that effective, there would have been no need for the newer, more effective designs. I'd also point out that given the very wide breadth of boat designs, anchoring philosophies and requirements, that what may be perfectly satisfactory for one person may not suit another at all. 

For instance, I don't believe in the idea that you should be carrying a "storm" anchor. I believe that your primary anchor should be sufficient for any reasonable, or even slightly unreasonable, storm condition you might run across. The reason I don't believe in carrying a storm anchor, is that by the time you realize you may need to deploy it, the conditions have usually deteriorated to the point where deploying it could present a risk to you or your boat. If the primary anchor is properly sized to handle storms, then you don't need to deploy one if the weather turns for the worse.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

The CQR was at one time the standard anchor for an offshore cruiser. Compared to its competition at that time it stood out. But times change and at this time there are new generation anchors like the Rocna, its Manson copy, and others that do a better all around job. Anchors like the Fortress or Danforth are great as stern anchors but as many have experienced they often don't reset properly on a tide change. 
Many experienced cruisers have not used a new generation anchor yet. While they may love their CQRs, without trying a Rocna or similar their statements aren't that valid. 
As far as the new anchors being more expensive, price a Lewmar CQR. Copies are less expensive but never as good as the original. A modern anchor like a Rocna is competitive. And if you read their sizing recommendations you will also find that they need not be quite as heavy as some of their competition.
No affiliation - just a happy customer.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

If I am not mistaken it it the third generic thread about anchors on two years or so. Modern testing made by European magazines and some American ones had done everything to clarify the issue:

They have tried all the anchors, in all the seabeds, noted the pressure that was necessary for each type of anchor to come lose in different seabeds with different chain lengths, they dived just to see what happened and to separate the ones that slowly moved under extreme pressure from the ones that come lose and didn't hold again. They tested to pull from opposite sides simulating a wind rotation to see what happened and they have put everything in black and white.

So, why talk more about it, at least before a new generation of anchors appears to be tested against the better ones?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## marianclaire (Feb 4, 2010)

Sorry for the slight hijack but I want to clarify my “storm anchor” comment. I spend the hurricane/storm season near the Neuse River. The fortress is IMO the best anchor for the soft mud found in that area. The fact that you can disassemble and store the anchor makes it easy to keep on the boat. We have plenty of warning and time to anchor for a named storm. This has been very handy when other boats have drug down and my anchoring system has ended up holding both boats.
I think if you look at the size of my other anchors, bruce, FX 16, rocna you will see that they are all slightly over sized. The 16 and bruce have proven capable of handling sustained blows and squalls. Will be testing the rocna soon. When I travel I anchor out 99% of the time. I am the windlass so having all my anchors sized for hurricanes would be very hard on my back. Dan S/V Marian Claire


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd be surprised if you need the FX37 for very much, given how much holding power the Rocna 15 (33 lbs) has. BTW, I'm very familiar with the Rocna 15, as that's the primary anchor on my boat. 



marianclaire said:


> Sorry for the slight hijack but I want to clarify my "storm anchor" comment. I spend the hurricane/storm season near the Neuse River. The fortress is IMO the best anchor for the soft mud found in that area. The fact that you can disassemble and store the anchor makes it easy to keep on the boat. We have plenty of warning and time to anchor for a named storm. This has been very handy when other boats have drug down and my anchoring system has ended up holding both boats.
> I think if you look at the size of my other anchors, bruce, FX 16, rocna you will see that they are all slightly over sized. The 16 and bruce have proven capable of handling sustained blows and squalls. Will be testing the rocna soon. When I travel I anchor out 99% of the time. I am the windlass so having all my anchors sized for hurricanes would be very hard on my back. Dan S/V Marian Claire


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

I have used both old and new generation anchors. I have also observed anchors performance on the sea-bed. There is no doubt in my mind that the new generation anchors are superior, in some bottom types vastly superior to the old generation anchors.

Yes we managed with the old generation anchors in much the same way cruisers managed without GPS, LED lighting and (a bit before my time) reliable diesel auxiliary engines. However these additions and others like them, have made cruising safer and easier.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

PCP said:


> So, why talk more about it, at least before a new generation of anchors appears to be tested against the better ones?
> 
> Regards
> Paulo


Paulo,

Good point. I just posted the below on a different forum in response to a "new" generation anchor manufacturer. This holding power test pitted "new" vs. "old" generation anchors:

The 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association has been conducting anchor holding power tests off of their coast for over 20 years. They take boating very seriously over there, as 1 in 7 Swedes owns a boat.

Below is a link to a page with the results of a test that they conducted this past summer in a clay bottom near their shoreline:

http://www.watski.se/mail/anp/ankartest.pdf

As you will note, the new generation Ultra and Rocna anchors only achieved 2 stars out of a possible 5.

The other roll bar anchor, a Bugel, which I guess is an old generation anchor since its design has been copied, achieved 3 stars, as did the old generation Danforth anchor.

You might find the results of the other anchors tested to be of interest as well. I am working on an English translation and I hope to provide one shortly.

Safe boating,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

As a boat owner who owns just about every anchor made and one who has physically & thoroughly tested my anchors, more so than probably any other sailor I know, including the use of a digital load cell. I know why I use the anchor I use and why I don't use many of the others I own. I not only dive on my anchors but have physically and set them in shallow water monitored the behavior I have also set them in very challenging hard sand intertidal areas and load cell tested them on my own vessel in mud hard sand, eel grass & kelp. I don't know too many other boaters who go to that level of testing to make sure they are using the right product for themselves.

With 80% reverse thrust on our motor I can drag my 35# CQR around nearly every mud cove I have tried and this is AFTER it has been properly set. It has also un-set and not reset on us numerous times as my Fortress has too but I still use it as the stern anchor and there is no better anchor for a stern anchor IMHO.

Many of my other anchors, some old & some new, including the Fortress & Bruce, hold the entire 300-700 pounds of measured reverse thrust in nearly every bottom, the CQR does not. I my CQR's, I currently own two, had been great performers I would have never spent a dime trying to find a better anchor.

I have been meaning to do some more extensive holding tests with my digital load cell, which reads from 2 pounds to 5000 pounds, but have not had the time to do it.

I started doing this stuff, & invested in my own load cell, because I felt I could not trust any of the manufacturers or any of the tests I saw & read which were mostly pathetic in terms of any sort of scientific & fair comparisons. I also find I can't trust the manufacturers to be honest.

The Sail magazine tests were about the most fair except they gave some preferential treatment to a few of the products and not to others, so again, flawed. No anchor should have had ANY preferential treatment. PS is a joke when they compare a 22 pound plow to a 35 etc. etc.. Where are the 180 veering tests in difficult or hard bottoms??

Many folks think that their anchor holds well but may not have experienced loads greater than a few hundred pounds. I know one 40 year 100k+ nautical mile boater who still high tails it for a mooring every time winds are predicted above 25 yet he still uses a CQR. He does not trust his anchor in winds much over 25, pretty sad.....

The video below is just 17-20 knots and the loads are just a few hundred pounds on a 36 footer. The anchor I use has been tested to hold 5000 pounds in a hard bottom but I don't have many areas of real hard bottoms where I anchor on a regular basis. I do have them but soft mud is more common. I have been able to measure a peak surge load of 1.6k on it in very soft mud and she held great. I jsut don't have the ability to load her up any more than that unless we get a hurricane or I borrow my buddies lobster boat.

Digital load cell:
YouTube - Anchor Loads In 17-19 Knots On A 36 Foot Sloop

Reverse thrust for anchor setting:
YouTube - What Happens When I Back Down on My Anchor

P.S. The anchor I have been dragged down on most by is the CQR, like this guy in just 15 knots.....


----------



## labatt (Jul 31, 2006)

We carry a Rocna as primary and a Fortress on a stanchion as a secondary. Below we have a Delta, a CQR and a Bruce. We carry a Fortress on our dink. I don't think we'll ever be at a loss for having an anchor to choose from, although a fisherman would be good if we were in a boulder based bottom. I'm sure that the CQR was one of the best anchors of its generation, but just like everything else anchors have evolved. Will the CQR work well 99.2% of the time? Perhaps. But the newest generation was designed to work well 99.4% of the time (statistics are just being used for example purposes and are not real) - and I'll take that extra 0.2% when I have my kids onboard, the wind is blowing 50kts+, we have an opposing 5kt current from the rain, and we're anchored in its full force just off the beach at the Ponce de Leon inlet (like we had happen to us). It's OK for products to evolve, but even the prior generation solutions have their place.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

*Anchor Veering tests*



Maine Sail said:


> Where are the 180 veering tests in difficult or hard bottoms??


Maine Sail,

Excellent input. Please check out Table 2 and Table 3 of a completely independent anchor test with veering results that simulate a wind shift:

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anch....htm#Table 3

Thanks,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

BrianFortress said:


> Maine Sail,
> 
> Excellent input. Please check out Table 2 and Table 3 of a completely independent anchor test with veering results that simulate a wind shift:
> 
> ...


If that is the Puget sound tests I have seen it but the current link you gave is dead. Again, if my memory serve me correctly, that was a soft bottom test. Pretty easy for just about any anchor to re-set in soft mud. I am looking for hard bottom tests?

Here's a hard sand observation I just happened to video. 
YouTube - CQR vs Rocna - Hard Sand Setting Comparison

And here's a Manson Supreme video underwater with a 180 veer:









And a Manson Supreme riding out 80 knots:
YouTube - windy anchorage


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Try this link instead, his is borked.

Results 1-3



BrianFortress said:


> Maine Sail,
> 
> Excellent input. Please check out Table 2 and Table 3 of a completely independent anchor test with veering results that simulate a wind shift:
> 
> ...


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

*Anchor veering tests*

Maine Sail,

Sorry for the dead link. Have a look a this one, Table 2 and Table 3:

http://offshore.ussailing.org/Assets/Offshore/SAS+Studies/anchor+study.pdf

I think the bottom was sand.

Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

One issue is that test is 15 YEARS OLD, and the next gen anchors that you're talking about weren't tested then, since they (the Rocna/Manson Supreme) didn't come onto the market until about ten years after that test was done.



BrianFortress said:


> Maine Sail,
> 
> Sorry for the dead link. Have a look a this one, Table 2 and Table 3:
> 
> ...


----------



## capnorv (Jan 6, 2011)

My primary anchor is 2000# of concrete, and I have less confidence in it than my 20kg Bruce. I guess thats because when shes on the mooring, I'm probably in the house, and on the hook I, as captain have the confidence in my ability to alleviate danger as it presents itself. I have tripple anchored in 60kt winds, and slept, though restlessly, but I'd rather not be exposed to them. I believe skills and experience are more important to anchoring than equipment, within limits.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

That's a mooring, not an anchor. Also, concrete is a lousy material for moorings, since it is relatively low in density. Your 2000# block of concrete has an effective weight of 1100# or so once submersed, less in salt water.



capnorv said:


> My primary anchor is 2000# of concrete, and I have less confidence in it than my 20kg Bruce. I guess thats because when shes on the mooring, I'm probably in the house, and on the hook I, as captain have the confidence in my ability to alleviate danger as it presents itself. I have tripple anchored in 60kt winds, and slept, though restlessly, but I'd rather not be exposed to them. I believe skills and experience are more important to anchoring than equipment, within limits.


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> I'd point out that if the CQR, Bruce, Claw, etc., were all that effective, there would have been no need for the newer, more effective designs.


Really? There are a lot of things people buy that they have no need for (like yachts). Not saying anything here about next-gen anchors, but this logic is pretty flawed


----------



## IslanderGuy (Apr 26, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> I'd point out that if the CQR, Bruce, Claw, etc., were all that effective, there would have been no need for the newer, more effective designs.


I am not saying new is not better then old, but I do have to disagree here. Simply because something is new, shiny, different and "next generation" does not make it better. New manufacturers come out with new designs because they want a piece of the market so they can make money. If they can convince you that there product is "next generation" and therefor better by default, they will get more money. It's the capitalistic way. 

Are they better? Perhaps, and perhaps they are better for certain hull shapes, bottom types and anchoring tactics, but possibly not for others, but they are certainly not better just because they are newer designs.


----------



## capnorv (Jan 6, 2011)

To Sailingdog, yes it is a mooring. Your math seems a little off to me, but then maybe the water on the East Coast has less salinity. It has an effective submerged weight of 600#'s. FYI


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

BrianFortress said:


> Paulo,
> 
> Good point. I just posted the below on a different forum in response to a "new" generation anchor manufacturer. This holding power test pitted "new" vs. "old" generation anchors:
> 
> ...


Fortress worked well on most bottoms on most tests I have read, and believe me they were a lot, in several languages. I find the Aluminum ones particularly interesting as second anchors (I like fast and light boats ).

But that seems to me quite an incomplete test. They have tested only on clay? That is only a kind of bottom and an anchor can be good on clay and bad on other kinds of bottoms (and vice versa). And they only tested those anchors? Where are the Spade that is the reference in most anchor tests?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

Dave Thomas of Wendy's fame was a genius for taking a 2 cent baked potato and adding a few ingredients and whola...a several dollar item on the menu. To me that's not unlike the anchor makers who take a lump of iron and through their magic are able to sell them for hundreds of dollars. This isn't rocket science but to hear their claims it surely is.  More power to them, but let the competition flurish to hopefully bring the prices down!


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> One issue is that test is 15 YEARS OLD, and the next gen anchors that you're talking about weren't tested then, since they (the Rocna/Manson Supreme) didn't come onto the market until about ten years after that test was done.


Another good point. There are recent tests, i.e. the test in Sweden that I referenced earlier in this post, in which the new generation anchors were represented....and they did not fair well. There are other independent tests that I would be glad to send you.

But you lead me to another issue: _*Where is the holding power test data from the new generation anchor manufacturers? *_

When you are manufacturing as an important piece of safety equipment as an anchor, which could save a boat or even a life, should you not have tested your anchor in the best and worst of bottom conditions, i.e. hard sand and soft mud, and then made the results public????

Also, rather than rely solely on independent test data, shouldn't the "new" generation anchor manufacturers have proven through their own extensive tests in various bottom conditions that their anchors offer superior performance?

Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

PCP said:


> Fortress worked well on most bottoms on most tests I have read, and believe me they were a lot, in several languages. I find the Aluminum ones particularly interesting as second anchors (I like fast and light boats ).
> 
> But that seems to me quite an incomplete test. They have tested only on clay? That is only a kind of bottom and an anchor can be good on clay and bad on other kinds of bottoms (and vice versa). And they only tested those anchors? Where are the Spade that is the reference in most anchor tests?
> 
> ...


Hi Paulo,

I am sorry that I can't offer you answers to your questions. I suspect that the bottom conditions there in Sweden are predominantly clay, and maybe they did not have easy access to a Spade anchor for the test.

In the holding power tests that I have seen, the Spade has always performed well.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

All i can say is on Long Island we have anchored everywere from the Toys are US in Brookyln during a 50 knot storm to places all over the east end and north shore in 24' to 35' boats and never had a problem holding with and old school sand anchor


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

My Swedish is not so good, so I'm not entirely sure what's being tested in that Swedish test. I'm guessing it's the ratio of ultimate holding power to weight, in which the Fortress and other aluminum fluke anchors seem to generally take the top spot.

Personally I care very little about ultimate holding power, and a lot more about the anchor's ability to reset after a wind or tide shift. My aluminum fluke anchor fails miserably at that; I don't bother with it for anything except kedging and emergencies nowadays. Whenever I have the option, I go with my 22 lb. Claw. Never had it fail to set on the first try, and never broke out and failed to reset (and we have big tides here). Never dragged significantly, even in conditions when other boats ended up on the beach.

I have zero confidence that an aluminum fluke would do the same for me, after a small number of pretty astonishing failures.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Not many anchor tests or information about it on the net. Just some that I have found out:

Boat Anchor Review - Power & Motoryacht - Anchors Aweigh

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf

Voiles et Voiliers : Recherche Par Tag

The ultimate anchor test?..


----------



## Argyle38 (Oct 28, 2010)

AdamLein said:


> My Swedish is not so good, so I'm not entirely sure what's being tested in that Swedish test. I'm guessing it's the ratio of ultimate holding power to weight, in which the Fortress and other aluminum fluke anchors seem to generally take the top spot.
> 
> Personally I care very little about ultimate holding power, and a lot more about the anchor's ability to reset after a wind or tide shift. My aluminum fluke anchor fails miserably at that; I don't bother with it for anything except kedging and emergencies nowadays. Whenever I have the option, I go with my 22 lb. Claw. Never had it fail to set on the first try, and never broke out and failed to reset (and we have big tides here). Never dragged significantly, even in conditions when other boats ended up on the beach.
> 
> I have zero confidence that an aluminum fluke would do the same for me, after a small number of pretty astonishing failures.


Fluke anchors are designed to provide strong holding on a light frame, in one direction. I'm not sure if they were designed then, but their first widespread used was during WWII on landing craft. They would deploy the anchor on the way in to the beach, and if they hit a reef or were beached, they would pull themselves back off with a windless.

Strong hold, light weight, one direction. They are good as river anchors, stern anchors (when used in fore and aft anchoring) and any other situation where the force will all be in one direction, but they will never be as good as others in re-setting, it's just not what they are made for.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

AdamLein said:


> I have zero confidence that an aluminum fluke would do the same for me, after a small number of pretty astonishing failures.


Hi Adam,

I don't know if the aluminum anchor you have is one of ours or maybe an old Viking, but I can tell you this with full confidence:

If you power set the anchor by backing down hard until the water boils to insure that the anchor is well buried in the sea bottom and on its way to China, and you keep a horizontal pull on the anchor with a decent scope, i.e. 5:1, then the anchor should remain there regardless of a wind shift or high tide.

We use precision-machining to sharpen our anchors so that they will just dig and keep digging, past dinosaur bones and the core of the earth, so after a heavy blow, your issue is more likely to be pulling the anchor out!

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out that holding power is only one facet of the functions of a good anchor. The ability to set well in a wide variety of conditions is another. The ability to reset if the current or wind has reversed is yet another. Stowability is another important aspect, as is durability.

The fluke type anchors, including the Fortress tend to do very well if the conditions aren't very variable. However, a big problem with them, especially in sticky mud or clay bottoms, is that the flukes can jam and if the wind or current reverses, the anchors can pull up and not reset.

This is even more so the case with the aluminum anchors, which have a lot of surface area to not much weight. Given how fast a multihull can accelerate when the anchor pulls free, the fluke type anchors often will "kite" and never touch bottom long enough to reset properly, even if the flukes don't jam. That's one major reason I never use a Danforth or other fluke type anchor as my primary by choice. I will use them as a stern anchor or a tandem anchor, since another anchor will be helping keep the loads on the Danforth from shifting too radically.

The "claw" type anchors often hop and skip and in many cases don't really set solidly. I've used a Bruce and almost always had the anchor drag under higher loads. The plough types will sometimes move under high loads, but generally do a better job of setting and more importantly, resetting, especially the Delta.

Some anchors, like the Bulwagga and the XYZ fail as good general purpose anchors because they're really unwieldy in nature. I have yet to see someone come up with a good way to stow a Bulwagga or an XYZ. Also, the Bulwagga's exposed fluke always struck me as a good place for the anchor rode to snag or chafe against. The fact that all of the loads on the Bulwagga are concentrated on the ball at the end of the rudder stock also struck me as making it less than robust in construction and design. The swiveling of that ball is sure to wear the galvanization, leading to fairly early corrosion problems in that critical area of the anchor.



















The newer designs, like the Manson Supreme and Rocna, tend to have more holding power for the same weight and a larger fluke than older designs, while not having so much fluke area to prevent them from settling to the bottom and setting.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Argyle38 said:


> Fluke anchors are designed to provide strong holding on a light frame, in one direction. I'm not sure if they were designed then, but their first widespread used was during WWII on landing craft. They would deploy the anchor on the way in to the beach, and if they hit a reef or were beached, they would pull themselves back off with a windless.
> 
> Strong hold, light weight, one direction. They are good as river anchors, stern anchors (when used in fore and aft anchoring) and any other situation where the force will all be in one direction, but they will never be as good as others in re-setting, it's just not what they are made for.


Argyle,

I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment. We are located in south Florida and in a hurricane region, and we regularly hear from our customers in the Caribbean, east coast, and Gulf coast areas with incredible stories regarding how well their Fortress anchors performed in horrific wind conditions, which have included dramatic wind shifts.

Further still, a short while ago I discussed the wind shift and anchor re-setting issue with two very knowledgeable anchoring experts:

1. Don Hallerberg, inventor and designer of the Fortress anchor. Don was a very experienced and adventurous boater, as he once took a boat 1,000 miles up the Amazon River, he crossed the Atlantic several times, and he completed a circumnavigation in his 70s.

Don had an extensive engineering background, which included manufacturing ejector seat propulsion systems for fighter planes, and quite obviously another very important piece of safety equipment.

2. Bob Taylor, formerly of the US Navy, one of the world's foremost experts on soil mechanics and anchor design.

Robert holds degrees in civil and ocean engineering, and he has designed anchoring systems for the Navy and offshore industries for decades.

Their opinions are not based on theory, but on long time, first hand experience.

Don and Bob offered the same conclusion: _*There is no logical reason why a fluke anchor would perform poorly or inferior to a plow anchor in these conditions.*_

If the fluke anchor did perform poorly, then it was simply not properly "power set" by backing down hard on the anchor to make sure that it was well buried.

In fact, it was duly noted that because Fortress anchors are precision-machined to be so sharp, they are able to bury much deeper into a sea bottom versus heavier, dull-edged steel anchors.

Additionally, with the wide surface area of the flukes, there is far greater resistance to the Fortress anchor pulling out, regardless of whether the pull was from a straight line, 90°, or 180°.

Please see the link below to independent anchor testing information confirming this assessment, which was provided earlier in this post:

Results 1-3

Respectfully,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> I'd point out that holding power is only one facet of the functions of a good anchor. The ability to set well in a wide variety of conditions is another. The ability to reset if the current or wind has reversed is yet another. Stowability is another important aspect, as is durability.
> 
> The fluke type anchors, including the Fortress tend to do very well if the conditions aren't very variable. However, a big problem with them, especially in sticky mud or clay bottoms, is that the flukes can jam and if the wind or current reverses, the anchors can pull up and not reset.
> 
> This is even more so the case with the aluminum anchors, which have a lot of surface area to not much weight. Given how fast a multihull can accelerate when the anchor pulls free, the fluke type anchors often will "kite" and never touch bottom long enough to reset properly, even if the flukes don't jam. That's one major reason I never use a Danforth or other fluke type anchor as my primary by choice. I will use them as a stern anchor or a tandem anchor, since another anchor will be helping keep the loads on the Danforth from shifting too radically.


SailingDog,

Good points all. Some further thoughts:

1. Obviously the most important issue is for the anchor to not break free from a sea bottom in the first place. The sharpened flukes and wide surface area of the Fortress should insure that Fortress is less likely to break free versus other anchors which cannot bury as deeply, due to their dull edges, and which have less surface area.

2. No matter the anchor, Don Hallerberg of Fortress and Bob Taylor of the US Navy also concluded the same on another point: Oftentimes when an anchor breaks free, it is no longer an anchor. Depending on the sea bottom, it is likely to be a giant gob of mud and clay, with no hope of re-setting into the sea bottom.

In Bob's words: "A typical problem that can occur with any anchor embedded in mud or clay has to do with balling up the fluke with a consolidated "ball" of soil that stays with the anchor after it is pulled out. That "ball" can prevent the anchor from re-embedding."

Thanks,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> A typical problem that can occur with any anchor embedded in mud or clay has to do with balling up the fluke with a consolidated "ball" of soil that stays with the anchor after it is pulled out. That "ball" can prevent the anchor from re-embedding."


We anchored with our Manson Supreme one time and pulled the anchor back up because I wasn't satisfied with the set. There was a glob of mud on the flukes. I put the anchor back down, figuring that as it buried itself on the next set, it would displace the mud currently on the anchor. I was wrong. The anchor didn't even come close to setting the second time. So we pulled it back up the second time, washed off the mud and got it set to our satisfaction the third time. I was surprised an how much that glob of mud degraded setting performance.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> The newer designs, like the Manson Supreme and Rocna, tend to have more holding power for the same weight and a larger fluke than older designs, while not having so much fluke area to prevent them from settling to the bottom and setting.


SailingDog,

The newer Manson Supreme and Rocna anchors might have a larger fluke than the older designs, but the roll bar is an issue. I asked Robert Taylor, the former US Navy soil mechanics and anchor design expert, for his thoughts on the roll bar design:

"The big roll bar is their means of orienting the anchor to engage the fluke, and it has a similar influence to that of the wings on the Bruce anchor for causing the anchor to roll towards the flukes, *but the big roll bar might inhibit penetration in mud."*

Thanks again,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I've had a Rocna on my bow since 2006... and haven't seen that to be an issue.


BrianFortress said:


> SailingDog,
> 
> The newer Manson Supreme and Rocna anchors might have a larger fluke than the older designs, but the roll bar is an issue. I asked Robert Taylor, the former US Navy soil mechanics and anchor design expert, for his thoughts on the roll bar design:
> 
> ...


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> I've had a Rocna on my bow since 2006... and haven't seen that to be an issue.


Good, but it is certainly understandable how that big roll bar could be an issue.


----------



## niebur (Aug 14, 2003)

sailingdog said:


> I've had a Rocna on my bow since 2006... and haven't seen that to be an issue.


You may not have had the need for a truly embedded anchor since 2006.

I remember when we had to seek refuge in a bay in the Aegean during a Meltemi that howled with Beaufort 9 for 3 days INSIDE the bay (measured with anemometer). When it subsided, there was nothing to be seen from the Delta but the chain going straight into the sand. It was "interesting" to get it out.

I wouldn't want to have one of these thingies with a 'roll bar' that prohibits the anchor to REALLY dig in. By their very design, they can only grip onto the surface, the top foot or so. I am sure they are convenient for nice to moderate weather but when the excrement hits the propeller, I want an anchor that does not rely on the surface layer but one that is physically capable of digging in.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> I wouldn't want to have one of these thingies with a 'roll bar' that *prohibits* the anchor to REALLY dig in.


Good point, although *prohibits* is probably a strong word. I have personally dove on my roll bar anchor to see how it set, and the anchor was completely buried, roll bar and all. I do not know to what degree the roll bar *inhibits* digging really deep though.


----------



## Argyle38 (Oct 28, 2010)

BrianFortress said:


> Argyle,
> 
> I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment. We are located in south Florida and in a hurricane region, and we regularly hear from our customers in the Caribbean, east coast, and Gulf coast areas with incredible stories regarding how well their Fortress anchors performed in horrific wind conditions, which have included dramatic wind shifts.


I was responding to a poster who was explaining that his fluke anchor was decidedly not good in shifting conditions, which is exactly the reputation of that design. I wanted to supply some background in that you might not expect a particular type of anchor to operate outside of it's design envelope.

I also haven't seen or heard from very many cruisers who use a fluke style anchor (of any brand) as their primary.

All that said, I certainly can't argue that the Fortress is not a considerable improvement over a traditional Fluke. I don't really have any experience with them.

Perception might make these a tough sell as a primary. When I (and a lot of others like me, I suspect) look at a Fortress, I see a fluke anchor. So it's aluminum (it is right?), great it's light weight. If I ever lose my stern anchor, it might be great to replace it with something lighter, but as a primary, I don't know. People will see it as a fluke and think that it has all of the flukes weaknesses. Tough to overcome. I guess that's why you are here.


----------



## johnnyandjebus (Sep 15, 2009)

Great thread and I want to give kudos to Brian from Fortress for jumping in to add to the discussion. I would love to see more of this on the internet, company reps joining in on discussions about their products.


John

p.s No, I don't know Brian, and don't own or have used the Fortress.


----------



## niebur (Aug 14, 2003)

erps said:


> Good point, although *prohibits* is probably a strong word. I have personally dove on my roll bar anchor to see how it set, and the anchor was completely buried, roll bar and all. I do not know to what degree the roll bar *inhibits* digging really deep though.


Point well taken. I can believe that the bar does not completely prevent the anchor from digging in, at least in a soft bottom, but I also believe that we agree that it is a major hindrance for that.


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

BrianFortress said:


> It might be fair to say that nothing stirs up more controversy and differing opinions in boating forums around the world than a discussion about anchors.
> 
> The most heated of all topics appears to be when the "old" generation anchors are compared with the "new" generation models.
> 
> The "old" generation CQR seems to take the worst beating from those who are touting the "new" generation models.





BrianFortress said:


> As a competitive anchor manufacturer, I'd like to toss in my two cents worth:
> 
> Yes, the CQR did not perform admirably well in two extensive and independently verified tests that Fortress was involved with years ago in the sand bottoms of Miami and in the soft mud bottoms of San Francisco Bay.......


*BUT*


BrianFortress said:


> I have personally spoken with hundreds, if not thousands of CQR and other "old" generation (i.e. Bruce, Delta, Danforth) anchor owners who have been very satisfied by the performance of their anchors in a wide variety of wind & bottom conditions that they have encountered all over the world.
> 
> In fact, two widely respected boating experts, Elbert Maloney and Tom Neale, have both successfully used CQRs aboard their boats for decades.
> 
> ...


I started the original thread relating to some comments made by an editor of Practical Sailor regarding the CQR not because I wanted to debate the relative merits of a particular anchor but because I had a problem with anecdotal comments made by an editor of a magazine which should be evaluating products based on unbiased tests not subjective personal experience especially without mentioning a lot of objective tests and evidence.

In the early 1900's I am sure I could have found hundreds of horse users who had logged thousands of miles on their horses to rave about the virtues and reliability of horses in spite of a lot of people beginning to see the advantages of cars over horses. No doubt CQR's of sufficient weight have performed to their owner's satisfaction over the years but that does not infer that it performs as well or better than more recent designs. That should be done with head to head tests.



BrianFortress said:


> With the above in mind, I have nothing but a deep respect for ALL of the "old" generation anchors.
> 
> May I humbly suggest to the "new" generation anchor manufacturers that they offer the same?
> 
> ...


I don't see how "respect" plays into it. Something either works better than another product or it doesn't. As compared with other activities, the romanticism of sailing often discourages advancement of technology in favor of the "old" ways. I can appreciate the warm glow of varnished wood but that does not mean I want to navigate using a magnitized needle floating in water.


----------



## Windwardbow (Jan 6, 2011)

This thread is interesting to me as a new cruiser, and as one who uses a fluke anchor as my primary anchor. We have not been in any blows more than about 35 to 40 mph winds, but we didn't drag, even with the wind shifting about 120 degrees. I use two sizes larger than what the chart recomended with 65' of 5/16 chain and various amounts of line depending on the depth. I also always back down on the anchor with 2/3 to full throtle to set it.

Part of this discussion that intrests me is that people say the fluke anchors don't set easily or consistently. I have found the oppisite to be true, but I do have limited expirence (we have only been living on the boat for a couple of months now). Maybe a year from now I will feel differently.


----------



## Nitro (Feb 4, 2009)

Good, quality discussion guys. I too give Brian/Fortress kudo's for jumping in and appreciate the respect shown him.

This is a timely discussion. I'm refitting a 32,000# 46' aluminum ocean racer for cruising/racing in primarily, southern New England and LIS. The boat never had a bow roller so we fabricated one and I'll likely add a windlass. But she'll be on a mooring or visiting moorings 80% of the time so I don't want to keep an anchor permanently on the bow (chafe, weight, etc.). That darn nears rules out a 45-60# CQR as something I want to lug around. Plus, I too have had dubious experience with a 45# CQR setting/re-setting in these muddy waters on a previous 30,000# cruiser.

I've toyed with the idea of a Fortress as a 'compromise' primary (I used one just fine in ME for a season on a 33' boat). I've wondered if its relatively light weight and portability is worth the trade off to say, a Racnor. Is it possible, as Brian points out, if exceptional care is taken to set it deep, that it's viable for routine overnight gunkholing across a range of wind and sea conditions?


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> I use two sizes larger than what the chart recomended with 65' of 5/16 chain and various amounts of line depending on the depth. I also always back down on the anchor with 2/3 to full throtle to set it.


That already puts you way ahead of most other boaters I encounter, no matter what anchor you use. I have some video of a fellow that I watched anchor up in Squirrel Cove who pitched his Danforth over board, back down about a 2:1 scope and then set his anchor by jerking the line three times with his hand.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Argyle38 said:


> Perception might make these a tough sell as a primary. When I (and a lot of others like me, I suspect) look at a Fortress, I see a fluke anchor. So it's aluminum (it is right?), great it's light weight. If I ever lose my stern anchor, it might be great to replace it with something lighter, but as a primary, I don't know. People will see it as a fluke and think that it has all of the flukes weaknesses. Tough to overcome. I guess that's why you are here.


Argyle,

Very well stated post. Hey, people still have another perception that aluminum is only good for beer cans!

And yes, the Fortress anchor is made from an aluminum-magnesium alloy that is commonly used in the aircraft, construction, and of course, the marine industries.

I think that there is another rarely spoken issue among boaters concerning the use of a fluke type as their primary anchor: aesthetics, or the appearance.

Let's be frank, a gangly fluke anchor on the bow simply does not look as streamlined or as sleek as a snug-fitting plow anchor like the CQR, Delta, or Bruce.

I hope that we have customers out there who will vehemently argue this point with me, and who will say that their anodized aluminum Fortress is a thing of beauty on their bows....but I won't hold my breath!

Thanks!

Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

LinekinBayCD said:


> *BUT* I don't see how "respect" plays into it. Something either works better than another product or it doesn't. As compared with other activities, the romanticism of sailing often discourages advancement of technology in favor of the "old" ways. I can appreciate the warm glow of varnished wood but that does not mean I want to navigate using a magnitized needle floating in water.


LinekinBayCD,

I appreciate and understand your point. After all, we are talking about safety equipment here, so we should always be carefully considering new products that might better insure our safety.

The respect that I am referring to is in regards to the insults that have been hurled by a new generation anchor manufacturer at an old generation anchor. When a CQR is said to be worth nothing more than a "lawn ornament," in a boating forum, that is obviously disrespectful, and in my humble opinion, unacceptable.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

johnnyandjebus said:


> Great thread and I want to give kudos to Brian from Fortress for jumping in to add to the discussion. I would love to see more of this on the internet, company reps joining in on discussions about their products.
> 
> John
> 
> p.s No, I don't know Brian, and don't own or have used the Fortress.


John,

Did you get that check I sent you?

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Windwardbow said:


> Part of this discussion that intrests me is that people say the fluke anchors don't set easily or consistently. I have found the oppisite to be true, but I do have limited expirence (we have only been living on the boat for a couple of months now). Maybe a year from now I will feel differently.


Windwardbow,

I can tell you where fluke anchors might run into trouble setting: soft mud. If you try and set the anchor with a recommended scope of 5:1 or so, the heavy weight of the chain can sink the shank down below the flukes, which then stick up instead of down and into the bottom.

To prevent this occurring in soft mud, we recommend:

• Set the anchor initially at a shorter scope, i.e. 2:1 or 3:1. This will keep the shank up and give the flukes a chance to dig in first.

• Once the anchor sets, then let out your scope to 5:1 and "power set" the anchor, as you normally would.

With all Fortress anchors, we include "Mud Palms" which will lift the back end of the anchor up and force the flukes to take a more aggressive angle into the sea bottom. The "Mud Palms" will dramatically improve setting performance in all bottom conditions, and not just in soft mud.

I have attached an image which should be more descriptive.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

BrianFortress said:


> When a CQR is said to be worth nothing more than a "lawn ornament," in a boating forum, that is obviously disrespectful, and in my humble opinion, unacceptable.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> ...


As a non manufacturer and current owner of two genuine CQR's I feel I can say confidently, after many years of CQR use, that when compared to some other anchors I own, new and old gen, the CQR is a lawn ornament.

For years I used CQR's and most of this time was without a windlass. Once set I usually did okay, still dragged more times than I would have liked pre-anchor alarm days. It was the back breaking work of sometimes six or seven tries to get it to get a good hold where I could back down and power set it. I tried letting it set on its own or as my salty old buddy used to say "ya gotta let them CQR's steep like tea before you can set em'" I tried every scope combination imaginable, all chain, partial chain etc. etc. on and on and still sometimes it never set to a satisfactory level and I could still break it out with the engine.

There were places we never could get the CQR to set at all, that we really loved, and just wrote off as bad holding. We now anchor in those areas again and find them to be great holding. Our CQR's robbed us of experiences we could have had but never got to because we had to go anchor somewhere else! There have been many times diving and snorkeling where I have watched a CQR slide along the bottom, on it's side, and never set.

As I began to try new anchors, like the Bruce (considered "new-ish" back then), I was amazed that I could drop it back down and it was set. No re-setting multiple times. Without a windlass setting is as important to me as holding and re-setting on wind and tide shifts. People talk of 180 wind shifts but I have many GPS cookie trials that are full circles. My Fortress never liked that, and I did try it for a while as my primary. Even with "power setting", which I always do, she still broke out and failed to re-set on me on multiple occasions. I still love it and think for straight line pull it is the king of holding power but I can no longer trust it as my primary after having a very close call with it after a storm when the wind clocked 180 and went back up to over 30 knots. Still my favorite stern anchor though..

BTW if you think the Fortress is ugly than what does that make the Rocna or Manson Supreme or Supermax or Bullwega. Talk about ugly! I still think the CQR has the best classic "salty" look, too bad it is such a poor setting and re-setting anchor. I can still remember being a kid and watching boats pull in with CQR's thinking they were the coolest anchors. I now own two and still think they are cool.....to look at...

Interestingly enough I own and aluminum Spade and a steel Spade and in that design the steel anchor out sets the aluminum one. But between my Danforth's and Fortress the Fortress sets better..


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

BrianFortress said:


> The respect that I am referring to is in regards to the insults that have been hurled by a new generation anchor manufacturer at an old generation anchor. When a CQR is said to be worth nothing more than a "lawn ornament," in a boating forum, that is obviously disrespectful, and in my humble opinion, unacceptable.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> ...


I have always felt that talking bad about your competition reflects badly on you. Likewise when I hear or read where someone talks badly about their competition I make a mental note to not do business with them.

Thanks for your open and honest contributions to this thread Brian.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

I'm certainly not as experienced as some who have posted but I have had good success in SW Florida waters with fluke anchors and I think it has alot to do with the long rod at the bottom which keep the fluke-type from flipping up on it's side like the claw can do...They can slither around fairly well in hard sand to handle winter cold-front type wind shifts which are generally" slow-release" and involve a 180 degree shift (usually SE to NW where I am) over a 12-24 hour period (here in SW Florida). 

Summertime T-storm outflows are also a big anchoring issue and can cause 180 degree from what you had only a New York minute before and upset/ pull out ANY anchor IMHO....I'm fairly confident that if my danforth pops out she will re-set going the other way rather quickly... 

Flukes do not like grass but we should all try to avoid anchoring in sea grass if possible for that reason and damage to grass flats. I hope to soon carry a claw ( CQR,etc,) for a back-up primary anchor in case I get in a pinch in deep grass because a claw seems to slice through grass well .

"Mucky-muck is mucky- muck "and If you get stuck in it I think you hope your chain and whatever anchor you have holds though I'd favor the danforth/fluke type.


I think a fluke is the best primary anchor to have here in Florida at least...but that's one man's opinion. That's me .02 cents...Anchors away!...I'm done weighing in...


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

niebur said:


> You may not have had the need for a truly embedded anchor since 2006.
> 
> I remember when we had to seek refuge in a bay in the Aegean during a Meltemi that howled with Beaufort 9 for 3 days INSIDE the bay (measured with anemometer). When it subsided, there was nothing to be seen from the Delta but the chain going straight into the sand. It was "interesting" to get it out.
> 
> I wouldn't want to have one of these thingies with a 'roll bar' that prohibits the anchor to REALLY dig in. By their very design, they can only grip onto the surface, the top foot or so. I am sure they are convenient for nice to moderate weather but when the excrement hits the propeller, I want an anchor that does not rely on the surface layer but one that is physically capable of digging in.


I have endured similar conditions with our Rocna. As you note in these sort of condition an anchor will typically bury, completely disappearing. I have seen the Rocna do the same thing. The roll bar does not stop this happening.
Here is some video of exactly the conditions you describe Force 9 in the Aegean, with a Rocna on the end.

YouTube - 45 knots full.wmv


----------



## john1066 (Feb 4, 2006)

What a civilised anchor thread. Most of them end up like this:


----------



## niebur (Aug 14, 2003)

noelex77 said:


> I have endured similar conditions with our Rocna. As you note in these sort of condition an anchor will typically bury, completely disappearing. I have seen the Rocna do the same thing. The roll bar does not stop this happening.
> Here is some video of exactly the conditions you describe Force 9 in the Aegean, with a Rocna on the end.
> 
> YouTube - 45 knots full.wmv


What you say confirms what erps already pointed out: my wording that a roll bar prohibits an anchor from burying was too strong, it only inhibits it. I did not know that with enough force, even a roll-bar anchor can bury itself in, this is interesting.

I still prefer an anchor that can dig in deeply without this handicap...

Thanks for the video, it very well shows the conditions we had for several days.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

niebur said:


> What you say confirms what erps already pointed out: my wording that a roll bar prohibits an anchor from burying was too strong, it only inhibits it. I did not know that with enough force, even a roll-bar anchor can bury itself in, this is interesting.
> 
> I still prefer an anchor that can dig in deeply without this handicap...
> 
> Thanks for the video, it very well shows the conditions we had for several days.


I have also witnessed both my Rocna and Manson Supreme buried out of sight. Interestingly enough the fluke anchors have round stock sticking out the sides of the anchor. I bet if you bent them up into a loop they might be 65-75% as long as the "hoop".

So why is it that when the same or similar round stock is bent into a hoop some manufacturers will suggest that this could inhibit deep setting performance, when said manufacturer still has 75% of this same type of stock on their own anchor..?? I find that a little amusing...

Never mind guessing I just measured it:

Fortress 7.25" X 2 = 14.5" of round stock

Manson Supreme = 19.5" of round stock

We are arguing about a 5" difference in round "extra" stock....

I have seen my Fortress, Manson Supreme and Rocna all bury out of sight. The toughest anchors I have ever owned to break free from the bottom have been the Manson Suprme and the Rocna. That to me is the real test of how well they had set, how hard they were embedded into the substrate.


----------



## niebur (Aug 14, 2003)

Maine Sail said:


> I have also witnessed both my Rocna and Manson Supreme buried out of sight. Interestingly enough the fluke anchors have round stock sticking out the sides of the anchor. I bet if you bent them up into a loop they might be 65-75% as long as the "hoop".
> 
> So why is it that when the same or similar round stock is bent into a hoop some manufacturers will suggest that this could inhibit deep setting performance, when said manufacturer still has 75% of this same type of stock on their own anchor..?? I find that a little amusing...
> 
> ...


Always good to have data.

Two things, though.

First, you only measured the length of the stocks. What about their thickness? I don't have my Fortress ready (it's on the boat where it belongs  ) but the stock can't be more than a third of an inch thick. On the Manson Supreme, the roll bar seems massive. Resistance is probably more related to cross section than to length, and there the Manson and its ilk loose massively...

Second, you only compared roll bar type anchors (Rocna/Manson Supreme) with fluke anchors which, indeed, all have some kind of stock.

What about stockless designs, like the Delta, Bruce/Claw and, dare I mention it, CQR? They can plow right into the ground without any hindrance, and they do!


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> So why is it that when the same or similar round stock is bent into a hoop some manufacturers will suggest that this could inhibit deep setting performance, when said manufacturer still has 75% of this same type of stock on their own anchor..?? I find that a little amusing...


Maine Sail,

Good points, as always. It would stand to reason that in a sticky bottom, such as clay, the concave shape of the Rocna or Manson fluke would continuously collect and compact the clay as it balled up in the fluke.

The roll bar would then, in effect, be a hindrance to the anchor continuing to bury as this compacted clay balled up around the roll bar.

I suspect that this might be why the Rocna did not perform well in the Swedish Cruising Association's clay bottom holding power test.

I cannot think of any other reason why the Rocna did not perform better.

Much appreciated,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

AdamLein said:


> Whenever I have the option, I go with my 22 lb. Claw. Never had it fail to set on the first try, and never broke out and failed to reset (and we have big tides here). Never dragged significantly, even in conditions when other boats ended up on the beach.
> 
> I have zero confidence that an aluminum fluke would do the same for me, after a small number of pretty astonishing failures.


I'm going to begin by conceding, right off, that my limited experiences, following, are not necessarily applicable to those "real boats" might realize. That being said...

So a couple seasons ago we bought a small powerboat to "compliment" our sailboat, as it were. Specifically: An 18' Mariah 182 Barchetta bow-rider. Weighs around 2300 lbs. (1045kg) dry. It came with a little baby Danforth with a laughable anchor rode. Upon my noting this, the seller told me to go out behind his garage and take my pick of anchors. Well, there was this little baby claw back there, so I took that. Re-rigged both anchors with more suitable rodes, and gave the claw about 10' (3m) of chain. Thinking was I'd use the Danforth for a lunch hook and the claw for more serious anchoring needs and in deeper water.

In bottoms ranging from muck to hard-ish sand, the Danforth has been a disappointment. Difficult to get set and sometimes not holding well. The couple times I've used the claw, tho (neither time in sand, yet): Set right off with no fiddling, _stayed_ set, and took some effort, relatively speaking, to get loose.

All of this was in waist-deep water with varying scope--anywhere from 3:1 to well better than 5:1.

I've likewise not been impressed with the much bigger Danforth (which has 12-15' [4-5m] of chain) on Abracadabra. Only had cause to anchor a couple times, so far, both times in a muddy bottom in calm water, with light wind, but it was also difficult to get properly set.

I've got a 10kg Delta for Abracadabra. Before we ever do anything with her that'll result in over-nighting on the hook, that anchor will get outfitted and placed aboard.

Jim


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> BTW if you think the Fortress is ugly than what does that make the Rocna or Manson Supreme or Supermax or Bullwega. Talk about ugly! I still think the CQR has the best classic "salty" look, too bad it is such a poor setting and re-setting anchor. I can still remember being a kid and watching boats pull in with CQR's thinking they were the coolest anchors. I now own two and still think they are cool.....to look at...


Maine Sail,

I am sure glad you said that first and I didn't. I was exhibiting last year by one of the docks at the US Sailboat Show in Annapolis, and nearby there was a sailboat for sale with a big galvanized Rocna on the bow.

An old salt in the booth next to me commented: "You outta tell the guy who is selling that boat to take that ugly anchor off his bow if he hopes to sell it."

That said, I think the stainless models are spiffy, but a stainless Delta....now that's a trophy!

Brian Sheehan
Fortress Marine Anchors

P.S. Maybe it is all a matter of the type of boat where the Fortress is mounted on the bow as to how well it looks???

Have a looksy at a couple of US Coast Guard boats with a Fortress on the bow....is that a thing of beauty or what?


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

BrianFortress said:


> Maine Sail,
> 
> Good points, as always. It would stand to reason that in a sticky bottom, such as clay, the concave shape of the Rocna or Manson fluke would continuously collect and compact the clay as it balled up in the fluke.
> 
> ...


I have not seen it ball it in either underwater observations or intertidal. It spits it out through the hoop and continues to bury. Both of these anchors have set where other anchors just don't or can't. If you can't even get an anchor to set how do you even begin to compare it?  I suppose that could potentially happen, or a rock could get jammed in there, like I had happen with my Bruce, or a stick could get stuck in there like I have had happen with my Fortress but both of these anchors have still performed better than any other anchor I own. There is no perfect anchor! Seeing as I don't trust manufacturers, magazines or other tests, all I can go buy is extensive personal testing including diving, physical load cell testing, re-set tests and intertidal setting observations that I have conducted with my own anchors.

I own five anchors that would be considered "new gen" and I only use two of them. I am not biased towards new or old ONLY on my personal expereinces, tests and observations.

Anchors I own or have owned (* denotes anchors I still physically own):

Genuine Bruce*
Fortress*
Danforth
CQR*
Delta 
Manson Supreme*
Spade (aluminum* & steel*)
Rocna*
Supermax*

I own all these and none are for sale. I can use any of them I want to keep my boat safe which is the ONLY reason I choose an anchor. No biases just thorough testing and real world use for our cruising grounds. I spent and entire day two years ago with a center console setting and testing re-setting capabilities of my anchors. There were only a few that never once failed to re-set on 180 swings. The Manson Supreme, Rocna, Steel Spade & the Bruce was next closest. Only the Manson, Rocna and steel Spade did it perfectly every time. The CQR only re-set once and the Delta, even though similar, was better.

Despite Craig's instance that his product is the better built mouse trap I have not personally witnessed that, from a performance stand point, & both have performed virtually identically. All the other fall in behind these two including the Spade's another very well regarded "new gen" anchor. BTW my Supermax performs about as bad as the CQR so again not a bias of new vs. old, just performance for my cruising grounds.


----------



## niebur (Aug 14, 2003)

BrianFortress said:


> Maine Sail,
> 
> I am sure glad you said that first and I didn't. I was exhibiting last year by one of the docks at the US Sailboat Show in Annapolis, and nearby there was a sailboat for sale with a big galvanized Rocna on the bow.
> 
> ...


Nice plug, Brian


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> There is no perfect anchor!


Amen brother, amen.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

niebur said:


> Nice plug, Brian


Was it too subtle?


----------



## goincruisin (Jan 7, 2011)

Hi Brian

I enjoyed reading this thread - and you were right at the outset, there are always good discussions when it comes to anchors.

Btw: we are working on the next edition of "_Happy Hooking - the Art of Anchoring_", which is now available on Amazon.com. Though we have spent the past three years cruising pretty much full time, which equals anchoring a lot in a lot of different bottoms, and have had loads of discussions with fellow long term cruisers, we are always looking for more comments...

Happy New Year & Happy Hooking!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Maine Sail said:


> ...Seeing as I don't trust manufacturers, magazines or other tests, all I can go buy is extensive personal testing including diving, physical load cell testing, re-set tests and intertidal setting observations that I have conducted with my own anchors.
> 
> I own five anchors that would be considered "new gen" and I only use two of them. I am not biased towards new or old ONLY on my personal expereinces, tests and observations.
> 
> ...


You don't trust magazine tests, but they say and show (there is one that has the movies on internet) what you are saying, and the best anchors on tests are just the ones that you have mentioned. I don't know if you have tested in all kinds of bottoms, some test on magazines have and from several tests I would say that the conclusion is that the Mason and Supreme are marginally easy to set than the Spade (less rode) but that in some bottoms there is none that can surpass the holding power of a Spade.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> What about stockless designs, like the Delta, Bruce/Claw and, dare I mention it, CQR? They can plow right into the ground without any hindrance, and they do!


The shank on our CQR is considerably thicker (cross section) than the shank on our Manson Supreme. It would be interesting to measure and compare the cross sections of different anchor designs though.

It would also seem that there would be software around today involving fluid dynamics and all that other scientific crap that could model each anchor's performance in varying mediums.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

PCP said:


> You don't trust magazine tests, but they say and show (there is one that has the movies on internet) what you are saying, and the best anchors on tests are just the ones that you have mentioned. I don't know if you have tested in all kinds of bottoms, some test on magazines have and from several tests I would say that the conclusion is that the Mason and Supreme are marginally easy to set than the Spade (less rode) but that in some bottoms there is none that can surpass the holding power of a Spade.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


They may have come to similar conclusions but I bought my Manson and Rocna before those tests were published and had to come up with my own findings. The Spade is a good anchor but it has a tougher time punching through hard bottoms than my Manson & Rocna do.. Also pound for pound, Rocna 33 & Spade 35 steel, I get a lot more raw holding surface area out of the Rocna tha I do for a Spade that weighs 2 pounds more.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

*Soft Mud Anchor Test*



PCP said:


> I don't know if you have tested in all kinds of bottoms, some test on magazines have and from several tests I would say that the conclusion is that the Mason and Supreme are marginally easy to set than the Spade (less rode) but that in some bottoms there is none that can surpass the holding power of a Spade.
> 
> Regards
> Paulo


Over the past several years, the anchor holding power tests that I have read about were all conducted in firmer bottoms, such as sand, clay, or hard mud.

What I would like to see is another test conducted in a horrible bottom for holding, which is soft mud, where the performance of all anchors, including ours, falls right off of a cliff.

Years ago we were involved in a test conducted in the San Francisco Bay, which has very soft, soupy mud types of bottoms. The site was where the US Navy also tested anchors.

You want a bottom type that will really test the design of an anchor, that's it.

Regards,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

BrianFortress said:


> Over the past several years, the anchor holding power tests that I have read about were all conducted in firmer bottoms, such as sand, clay, or hard mud.
> 
> What I would like to see is another test conducted in a horrible bottom for holding, which is soft mud, where the performance of all anchors, including ours, falls right off of a cliff.
> ....
> ...


No, not always, I remember testing in hard sand, pebbles and over a "green" bottom. I remember testing in mud, but soft mud? I don't remember to anchor on something like that. I guess there are particular bottoms all over the world, but at least in Europe that is not a very familiar one, unless you are talking of the "normal" river mud and in that bottom the Spade works well (at least to my experience).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Maine Sail said:


> They may have come to similar conclusions but I bought my Manson and Rocna before those tests were published and had to come up with my own findings. The Spade is a good anchor but it has a tougher time punching through hard bottoms than my Manson & Rocna do.. Also pound for pound, Rocna 33 & Spade 35 steel, I get a lot more raw holding surface area out of the Rocna tha I do for a Spade that weighs 2 pounds more.


Probably you are right about hard bottoms, I have said that one of the conclusions were that the Spade on hard ground needed more rode to bite, but in what regards holding power it has nor to do mainly with the difference in area but with the way the anchor dig in and the Spade is the best at that (probably had to do with the different angle of attack). I am not being speculative I am talking of test results with a dynamometer. I remember that on one of the tests they could not measure the holding power of the Spade because she broke the machine (with way more holding power that was measured on the Rocna).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

wider, larger surface area anchors( danforth,fortress,spade and maybe even rocna with that arch and all that surface area)) be better for the firmer (less gushy) stuff for initial holding if your caught out in a mucky spot .

Those anchors would also suffice if you have room and time to slowly cross the mooring area and yield distance...

.heavy plow/claw-types would seem better for seriously gooshy stuff so it could sink and slice its way through to the harder holding substrate stuff deeper down...so in other words... a plow or claw-type " would " get thru the "goo" more quickly and into the deep firmer good-holding substrate IMHO....


----------



## goincruisin (Jan 7, 2011)

PCP said:


> I don't remember to anchor on something like that. I guess there are particular bottoms all over the world, but at least in Europe that is not a very familiar one, unless you are talking of the "normal" river mud and in that bottom the Spade works well (at least to my experience).


It has been our experience having anchored almost daily over the fast few years of nearly full time cruising that:

a: Soupy mud may be a lot more common than you think - for example in any very protected harbor or inlet.

b: In our experience, the modern scoop type anchors (Rocna, Spade, Ultra, Supreme) will hold just as well as the Fortress, as they all go very deep into the mud until they bite into something a little firmer.

The worst bottom we recently experienced was in Falmouth Harbor, Antigua. As it was a very tight anchorage, I chose to dive down to check our anchor. There was no visibility and while swimming down the "water" started to feel thicker / more viscous. I quickly realized I was swimming in mud. I came up showered and then we power set our hook.

Happy Hooking


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Just a few thoughts:

* The Fortress hold like mad in soft mud, pound for pound, no question. It's light and is great for a second anchor or kedge for that reason.
* The Fortess will hold on a wind shift IF it has been set deeply. I have had the wind shift after a blow, and she stays in fine. But I only have little outboards and cannot really power set. Sorry. If the wind goes from light south to hard west (thunderstorm) it is somewhat vulnerable. That said, I have used it MANY times as a second anchor where it took some shift and it is NEVER moved. It can also be a bugger to get up, which tells me there was some considerable holding left in reserve. 
* IF the Fortess is lightly set and the wind shifts ~ 90 deg and comes up hard, the anchor can veer and dig in deep in soft mud. I've seen it. In a hard bottom it might come out. But it is not completely correct to state that a Fortress can't veer. They certainly can. It's just not what they do best.
* My Delta is fine in a firm bottom. It does everything well. In soft mud it just drags. IF it was bigger, I think all would be well... but it may be as cost effective to buy the Rocna smaller than the size Delta I would need to do the same work.
* Danforth is not as good as the Fortress, even when the same physical size (and heavier). They just haven't got the geometry quite right.
* A Fortress reset on a multihull? Of course not.

Those were primarily my own observations. My opinions? Fortess and Rocna have it right at this time, though for different applications. I don't know enough about a Spade and its cousins to say anything. Delta does fine if it's bigger, obviously a transitional design between CQR and Rocna.

CQR and Danforth, deserve proud retirements; they were stepping stones and the art has progressed. What is so wrong with that? My old engineering designs are not as good as the next generation, and it doesn't bother me. It is the goal.


----------



## goincruisin (Jan 7, 2011)

souljour2000 said:


> wider, larger surface area anchors( danforth,fortress,spade and maybe even rocna with that arch and all that surface area)) be better for the firmer (less gushy) stuff for initial holding if your caught out in a mucky spot .
> 
> Those anchors would also suffice if you have room and time to slowly cross the mooring area and yield distance...
> 
> .heavy plow/claw-types would seem better for seriously gooshy stuff so it could sink and slice its way through to the harder holding substrate stuff deeper down...so in other words... a plow or claw-type " would " get thru the "goo" more quickly and into the deep firmer good-holding substrate IMHO....


I am sorry Souljour, the Scoops dig deep, as does the Fortress and in soft stuff both types hold very well. Plows plow well - and farmers still use them to good purpose. Most instances of dragging anchors we have seen over the past few years have been with plow anchors. Claws need to hook into something, otherwise they will slide under it - not the greatest for holding - certainly not in goo.

Happy Hooking


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

*Soft mud bottom story*

The US Navy has conducted anchor holding tests in the soft mud off Hunter's Point in San Francisco Bay since World War II. In the mid-eighties they wanted to mark the area by driving in a 65 foot (20 m) long steel piling.

They lowered the piling into the water, whose depth had been measured at 18 feet (5.5 m).

Fully expecting to hammer the piling firmly into the bottom, the crew was astonished when all 65 feet (20 m) sank and disappeared into the ooze under its own weight.

That's soft mud, and one of the most difficult sea bottoms to get good holding power.

Brian
Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

goincruisin said:


> It has been our experience having anchored almost daily over the fast few years of nearly full time cruising that:
> 
> a: Soupy mud may be a lot more common than you think - for example in any very protected harbor or inlet.
> 
> ...


Ahh, that's what he meant with soft mud? Than in that kind of stuff you have a problem with a Spade (if there is enough wind) and that's taking it out of the bottom It buries itself so deep that in more than one occasion I had to take it out with the boat, pulling on the other side because it would not come out with the winch (it was a powerful winch, but I was just digging the bow in).

I am not saying bad things about the Fortress. In my next boat I will have a Spade as primary (because for the same weight is smaller than a Rocna) and a Fortress as a secondary anchor. On those occasions when you know that a very strong wind is coming and you have no choice to endure it, the Fortress will be the ideal anchor to reinforce the first one, unless, like Mainsail, you have a boat big enough and heavy enough to have a full collection of anchors.

The Fortress would also be an ideal anchor to lay in a two anchor set up, one on the front, other on the back of the boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

goincruisin said:


> I am sorry Souljour, the Scoops dig deep, as does the Fortress and in soft stuff both types hold very well. Plows plow well - and farmers still use them to good purpose. Most instances of dragging anchors we have seen over the past few years have been with plow anchors. Claws need to hook into something, otherwise they will slide under it - not the greatest for holding - certainly not in goo.
> 
> Happy Hooking


Good to hear from the Blackwells!

More soft mud bottom info:

According to Robert Taylor, the former US Navy anchor design and soil mechanics expert that I referenced earlier:

"A real disadvantage of a fixed fluke (angle) anchor is that it has to be configured for hard soil penetration, which means that performance will suffer in softer soils. You can't change the fluke angle.

From my own experience there is about a 40% reduction in performance in mud for an anchor optimized for sand and harder soils. If you optimize for soft soil, then the anchor won't penetrate sand and hard seabeds."

This is what led Fortress to design and patent the adjustable fluke angle, whereby you can change the angle from 32° for hard soils to 45° for soft mud, which will result in a dramatic improvement in holding power.

I apologize for that shameless plug, but if you are anchoring in a noted soft mud bottom area, like the San Francisco or Chesapeake Bays, and you spend time on the hook with your fixed fluke (angle) anchor, then I have two words of advice: Size up.

Be safe,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## goincruisin (Jan 7, 2011)

*Anchor hard to pull up*

Hi PCP

Well, in my book if an anchor digs so deep that it is hard to pull up, it is about the best thing I can say, and a very desirable trait. We too have a strong windlass, and need it too. However, we always let the boat pull up the anchor. All it takes is a little patience: just bring in the rode til it is straight up and down. If you have a rope rode, cleat it off. Now let the boats motion in the waves lift it a bit. If there are no waves, back down gently (never go forward, as you may damage your anchor). Then pull in the slack rode and repeat.

About the only thing we do not like about a deep digging anchor is the much on the chain and anchor itself. Because of this we have installed a wash-down pump, which was an easy job, and well worth the effort

Happy Hooking


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

*Soft mud bottom image*

This image, which I posted earlier, illustrates how by opening up the fluke angle, the flukes are then able to provide greater resistance in a soft mud bottom and improve the holding power.

*Normal anchoring* in the illustration is at the *32°* fluke angle

*Wide angle mud anchor* is when the fluke angle is adjusted to *45°*

I hope this illustration helps!

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## johnnyandjebus (Sep 15, 2009)

BrianFortress said:


> John,
> 
> Did you get that check I sent you?
> 
> ...


Check? I thought we agreed on an anchor?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

BrianFortress said:


> The US Navy has conducted anchor holding tests in the soft mud off Hunter's Point in San Francisco Bay since World War II. In the mid-eighties they wanted to mark the area by driving in a 65 foot (20 m) long steel piling.
> 
> They lowered the piling into the water, whose depth had been measured at 18 feet (5.5 m).
> 
> ...


Twenty-five (or so) years ago, I helped do some elevation surveys of the mudflats and shallow subtidal off the Corte Madera/Greenbrae marsh (North SF Bay, near San Quentin). In some places, the bottom was so soft as to be difficult to define when the tide was in. We had to put a pie tin on the bottom of the stadia rod to keep it from sinking in. On the other hand, the oyster flats near the San Mateo Bridge form a nice hard substrate a half a mile or more from the MHHW mark on shore.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

johnnyandjebus said:


> Great thread and I want to give kudos to Brian from Fortress for jumping in to add to the discussion. I would love to see more of this on the internet, company reps joining in on discussions about their products.
> 
> John
> 
> p.s No, I don't know Brian, and don't own or have used the Fortress.





BrianFortress said:


> John,
> 
> Did you get that check I sent you?
> 
> ...





johnnyandjebus said:


> Check? I thought we agreed on an anchor?


Dammit John, I must have confused you with another guy I was also paying to say nice things about us. Sorry!

Would our largest anchor, the 70 lb FX-125, suffice??? That anchor is a beast, and it will either hold your boat...._or sink it!_ 

Apologies,
Brian


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

goincruisin said:


> Btw: we are working on the next edition of "_Happy Hooking - the Art of Anchoring_", which is now available on Amazon.com. Though we have spent the past three years cruising pretty much full time, which equals anchoring a lot in a lot of different bottoms, and have had loads of discussions with fellow long term cruisers, we are always looking for more comments...
> 
> Happy New Year & Happy Hooking!


And a Happy one right back to you!

In thinking further about your new book, there are *3* guys I would certainly contact to get their insights on anchoring:

1. *Robert Taylor*, who I referenced a few times earlier in this post. Bob has designed anchoring systems for the US Navy and offshore industries for decades. The anchor performance guides in the American Petroleum Institute RP's have his fingerprints all over them.

He also wrote: _"Interaction of Anchors with Soil and Anchor Design"_ which you might find on the internet.

I would dare to call Bob, the "Einstein of Anchors", but he would quickly figure out a way to have me buried deep into a sea bottom among the fossils.

2. *Jet Matthews*, owner of Matthews Point Marina, a 100+ boat slip off the coast of North Carolina.

When a hurricane approaches their coastline, Jet has had the incredible responsibility of anchoring the boats at his marina in those horrible soft mud bottoms that we have discussed in this thread.

As you may recall, years ago North Carolina had the bulls eye on it for hurricanes, and Jet got experienced real fast in what works for anchoring in those conditions.

For example, Jet learned that cable is far more effective in slicing through the soft mud, and in turn allowing the anchor to bury more deeply than chain with its links.

3. *Tom Neale* - I suspect that you already know Tom, a fellow author who has written for a wide variety of boating magazines and columns for years.

Tom and his wife Mel have lived aboard since 1979 and they log 3,000 - 5,000 miles per year, so some quick math would calculate that they have circled the Earth 4-6 times during their travels.

Best wishes,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

And Steve Dashew now uses a Rocna and John Harries uses a Spade. John & Phyllis spend more time significantly off the beaten path in high latitudes than any cruisers I know of and the CQR flat out does NOT work for them.

I spent over an hour talking anchors with John three years ago when he was admiring my Rocna and when he also noticed that I had a Spade. We had a great conversation and his expereince with his CQR echoed mine..

As John stated to me he chooses equipment that works and he spoke very highly about his Spade and Harken furler which he & Phyllis have over 100k nautical miles on. He's not one to choose a new gen on "looks" just performance..

This is a EXCELLENT read on John's experiences with his CQR:

*CQR ANCHOR PROBLEMS*
Problems With The CQR Boat Anchor


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

• Tom Neale has a CQR and a couple of Fortress anchors aboard his boat.

• 91 year young Elbert Maloney, long-time former author of Chapman's Piloting & Seamanship, has a CQR and a couple of Fortress anchors aboard his boat.

_*So many anchors, so many differing opinions.........*_

Be safe,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## sidmon (Aug 2, 2009)

Is the evidence compelling that the Rocna and siblings are more effective anchors than the "previous generation" anchors?
Yes.

Does this render anchors like the CQR immediately worthless?
No

I for one, am not going to throw out my CQR any time soon. It works well *enough* for me here on the Gulf coast (I had one for years on a previous boat...Was looking to get a Delta for this boat, but found a CQR for a song -likely because of the bad press they get here and elsewhere).

Am I mindful of its limitations? 
Yes.

Would I like to get a Rocna? Probably...but it simply will not fit without crafting a bowsprit for it. The anchor I have now fits fine.

If I get another boat....Perhaps.

I also have a large Danforth...Another anchor which has performed well for me in this region.

Of course...If it gets lost...I'll be lookin' at a Fortress ;-)


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

BrianFortress said:


> • Tom Neale has a CQR and a couple of Fortress anchors aboard his boat.
> 
> • 91 year young Elbert Maloney, long-time former author of Chapman's Piloting & Seamanship, has a CQR and a couple of Fortress anchors aboard his boat.
> 
> ...


Brian,

I don't think the above helps prove your point. Do I have anyway of knowing whether they have ever tried newer generation anchors? If they wrote a paper or an article comparing their tests of different anchor types I'd be very interested in reading it but if they are just continuing to do what they been have doing for the last 40 years it does not persuade me in any way.

I found Taylor's paper on the internet. It dates to 1981. Forget the Rocna and Manson Supreme, was the Delta even around then? Having a list of guys who use CQR and Fortress anchors on one side and guys who use Delta, Rocna, Manson Supremes or what ever on the other does not help. In making this kind of decision you need data and unbiased tests or Mainesails real world videos of anchors setting.

Does Fortress have any videos comparing different anchor types setting under water? I'd like to see them.

BTW I have a 33 lb Rocna on my roller with 250' of chain as my primary and a 10 lb FX-16 Fortress as a lunch hook and a quick deployment option on the bowpulpit with 12' of chain. The is on a 10,500 lb Cape Dorey MS 300. (30')


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

LinekinBayCD said:


> Brian,
> 
> I don't think the above helps prove your point. Do I have anyway of knowing whether they have ever tried newer generation anchors? If they wrote a paper or an article comparing their tests of different anchor types I'd be very interested in reading it but if they are just continuing to do what they been have doing for the last 40 years it does not persuade me in any way.
> 
> ...


LinekinBayCD,

Excellent points, as always. Further thoughts:

• I do not believe that the two well-experienced gentlemen I referenced have used the "new" generation anchors for one simple reason: No compelling need.

I believe that their experiences have been so positive with the anchors they now have that they have not seen any reason to change or even try something new.

I suspect that the vast majority of boaters feel the same way about their anchors.

• Robert Taylor's 40+ years of expertise is in anchor design and soil mechanics. He has no manufacturer affiliations, and he is exactly the type of unbiased technical guy with whom you would want to discuss the potential strengths and weaknesses of any anchor.

Believe me, Bob has the "dirt" on all of them, including ours, which I would be glad to share.

His quick thoughts on the roll bar anchors, as previously posted: The big roll bar might inhibit soil penetration, and since the fluke cannot be adjusted to a wider angle, i.e. 32° to 45°, performance will suffer in softer soils.

• Regarding whether we have underwater video, yes we do. Quick story:

A few years ago, an Italian boating magazine conducted an extensive anchor test and they sent a diver down to film the performance of the anchors on the sea bottom.

When I finally was able to get a copy of the footage, I was elated. The performance of many of our well-known competitive anchor brands was so devastating and the performance of the Fortress so positive that I wanted to immediately publish it all over the world.

I showed the footage to our company owner, Don Hallerberg, to let him know that we had struck gold and to get his final approval.

I was absolutely floored by his response. Don said that under no circumstances could I share this video with anyone!

His feeling was that the millions of owners of those competitive anchors, many of whom were likely to have had decades of positive experiences using them, would feel as though the footage was some type of trick, and it would be highly insulting to them.

After much heated debate, Don would only agree to allow me to publish the video of the Fortress, which again, was very impressive.

Take away from that what you may, but it taught me a great lesson about respecting competitors and their customers, which was the original reason for me posting this thread.

Best regards,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

Why don't you post a translation of the Italian test and at least the video of the Fortress if you cant post the other makes. What year was the test? That is the type of info that whould be helpful for people making anchor decisions.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

As valuable as testing is I think real world experience is more valuable. Some tests are well done and some are suspect - I wouldn't trust any test that determined the CQR placed best for example.

Has anyone who uses a Rocna, or Manson Supreme for that matter, have any criticism of their abilities?


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> Has anyone who uses a Rocna, or Manson Supreme for that matter, have any criticism of their abilities?


I've had problems setting my Manson Supreme in two places locally. In one of the spots, we consistently had problems unless we moved to deeper water. I dove the problem area and found the bottom littered with sticks and bark. The anchor couldn't get down into the bottom.

I also had problems setting it on the south side of Spencer Spit, a popular state park. The anchor came up clean each time. We moved somewhere else. I don't know what that problem was. I'm wondering how well the Manson Supreme will do on sandy bottoms. Anyone have any experience with it in that type of bottom?


----------



## capecapt (Sep 1, 2008)

I have just purchased a Manson Supreme, 100lb for my 62' cutter. 
I have had a CQR 60lb on 1/2 inch G4 chain, handled by a Lewmar 3500 hydraulic windlass. I have found that the CQR needed to be set several times almost every time I used it except for in areas of soft mud. I needed to run a 4-5 to 1 scope in order to ensure it held, and on numerous occasions, it would drag, requiring me to haul and reset.
I have only used the Manson on four occasions. It set immediately, and held firm, even in twentyfive knot winds with building seas. I did haul and move on this occasion, but not because the anchor was pulling. I have been able to shorten scope to 3 to 1, and therefore reduce my swing in crowded areas.
I know this is premature, but I am quite happy with it so far. I know it is heavier, and possibly the CQR was lighter than needed, but it has been with the boat since it was new in 1986. 
I will keep testing, and post my own review at a later date.

Happy Hooking, and Sleep Well!


----------



## Windwardbow (Jan 6, 2011)

Brian,
I have a lot of respect for you, your company, and the type of anchor you sell. As I mentioned earlier, I use a fluke anchor as my primary anchor. That said please do not take offence at my questions. I use a 17lb. Danforth style anchor on a 4500lb 25' sailboat (I know it's overkill, but I like overkill). I paid $70 for it at a local boat dealer. Why does yours cost five times that? I am not trying to be a butt, is there that much difference in the type of material or design? They look very similar. Defender has your 15lb for $324.99, and Defender is usually the cheapest place for almost anything that has the word "marine" (which is code for really expensive) on it.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

BrianFortress,

Apart from the different angle of attack settings, why does the Fortress of a given/same size as a Danforth or WM Performance have so much more holding power. They look very similar in dimensions and design.

On the Fortress, the anchor can be disassembled for storage (good), but you have only one little aluminum strap holding the outer edge of each fluke to the round/straight righting bar. Somehow that just doesn't look right to me, yet people claim the Fortress will hold when the welds on the Danforth types fail. Also, that aluminum righting bar is bent on several boats in my marina, which is kind of what I would expect vs. a steel bar of the same size on the Danforth. Not saying your anchor isnt a really good one, but I'd feel better about buying one if I understood these things.

All:

Brian mentioned using a steel cable to attach to the anchor vs. chain in huricane conditions at Matthews Point in NC as being better at cutting through mud vs. the chain that everyone uses. I tend to agree with that based on a Hunter 340 in my marina that had a Danforth with short chain that went ashore in one huricane, but the following year, the owner used a loop of stainless cable between the chain and anchor, and the anchor buried itself so deep they almost couldn't get it up after the next hurricane (the boat did not drag). Why isn't the cable a standard feature on all anchor set-ups?


----------



## marianclaire (Feb 4, 2010)

I think it has to do with the unique bottom we have around Matthews Point. Most places you do not need for the anchor to dig down so deep to get to something solid. I have had the opportunity to work with the marina for several storms both setting and recovering boats. I have been in the water and found only a few feet of a 12 foot cable above the bottom and the rest heading straight down. The cables work but are a PITA to recover. When muddy they are very hard to grip and even clean you can not cleat them off or use the windlass to pull them up. I anchor in about 4 to 5 feet of water so when the end of the cable gets on deck the anchor is still several feet in the mud. Even in deeper water just lifting the anchor and all the mud on it with the cable by hand is hard and a good way to bang up the boat. So I never use the cable except for there and for a storm. I have added a piece of ½ inch line slightly longer than the cable from eye to eye on my set up. A muddy line is much easier to handle and you can cleat it off. Dan S/V Marian Claire


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> I have been in the water and found only a few feet of a 12 foot cable above the bottom and the rest heading straight down. The cables work but are a PITA to recover.


I don't believe I've ever seen cable attached to an anchor around here (Puget Sound) Sounds like it might be worth considering. What about shortening the cable to about 3 feet so it won't interfere with retrieval so much?


----------



## LinekinBayCD (Oct 19, 2009)

mitiempo said:


> As valuable as testing is I think real world experience is more valuable. Some tests are well done and some are suspect - I wouldn't trust any test that determined the CQR placed best for example.
> 
> Has anyone who uses a Rocna, or Manson Supreme for that matter, have any criticism of their abilities?


Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. What real world experience information have we received in this discussion? What use are second hand comments about someone using a CQR for a long time without knowing where it was used, what scope was used, what was the force exerted when the anchor draged or was damaged? And without being able to compare the one anchor being used with others and how they would perform in the same conditions.

Why do you think the tests are not "real world?"All the tests I have read are "real world" tests, real anchors. real water, real bottoms, real boats pulling on the anchors, repeated over and over with many types of anchors. Its is just that the objective results are measured and recorded. They are not hypothetical mathamatical exercises. Its prety hard to measure the fifference between subjective comments. That is why I believe controled tests are far more valuable. That is why they crash test cars, have test pilots test planes, do drug tests and studies. Real world comments while of value cant be controlled or measured.

BTW never saw a test where the CQR was even close to the top.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Windwardbow said:


> Brian,
> I have a lot of respect for you, your company, and the type of anchor you sell. As I mentioned earlier, I use a fluke anchor as my primary anchor. That said please do not take offence at my questions. I use a 17lb. Danforth style anchor on a 4500lb 25' sailboat (I know it's overkill, but I like overkill). I paid $70 for it at a local boat dealer. Why does yours cost five times that? I am not trying to be a butt, is there that much difference in the type of material or design? They look very similar. Defender has your 15lb for $324.99, and Defender is usually the cheapest place for almost anything that has the word "marine" (which is code for really expensive) on it.


Windwardbow,

Thanks for your kind words, and you are not being a "butt" for your fair question.

The anchor we recommend for a 25' sailboat in normal wind and bottom conditions is the 4 lb. FX-7, which costs $109.99 at Defender.

Danforth makes 3 different anchor model versions: Standard, Deepset II, and High Tensile, which basically translates to good, better, best.

If you compare recommended anchors for specific boat sizes, you should find the Fortress to be in the ballpark price-wise with the Danforth Deepset II and High Tensile anchors.

I could not find a 17 lb model in their charts, and I suspect that you have a 16 lb Standard model, which sells for $79.99 at Defender.

The closest Fortress anchor in size to that 16 lb Standard model is the 10 lb FX-16, which sells for $212.99 at Defender.

While Danforth and Fortress share a similar anchor design (fluke type) and have similar dimensions, their differences are significant:

1. Danforth anchors are made from steel and are galvanized, while Fortress anchors are made from an aluminum alloy and are anodized, so the Fortress is obviously much lighter and it will not rust.

2. Danforth anchors are welded permanently together, while Fortress anchors are made from aluminum extrusions, so Fortress anchors can be disassembled for easy storage or for parts replacement.

3. Danforth anchors have a 32 degree shank / fluke angle only, while the Fortress has an adjustable 32° or 45° shank / fluke angle. The 45° angle will dramatically increase the anchor's holding power in soft mud, and it is an exclusive & patented feature with the Fortress.

4. Danforth anchors are dull-edged, while the Fortress anchors are precision-machined to be very sharp for faster and deeper soil penetration. Kind of like a dull knife compared to a razor.

This is absolutely one of the key reasons why a lighter Fortress aluminum anchor will out-perform a heavier Danforth steel anchor. The weight that is on top of the anchor from being deeply buried, rather than the weight of the anchor itself, is what will determine the anchor's holding power.

5. Danforth anchors have some form of a limited warranty, while Fortress anchors offer what I believe is the most painless warranty in the marine industry. It is called a Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty, and we never require the customer to produce a sales receipt or to register the purchase with us, or even send back the damaged anchor parts.

If a customer damages an anchor part, no matter what the circumstance, we send them a new anchor part for free, they just pay S & H. Since the parts are light and we ship via the US Postal Service, this cost is usually nominal, and likely to be minimal.

I hope that this information has been helpful.

Thanks again!

Brian Sheehan
Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

NCC320 said:


> BrianFortress,
> 
> Apart from the different angle of attack settings, why does the Fortress of a given/same size as a Danforth or WM Performance have so much more holding power. They look very similar in dimensions and design.
> 
> On the Fortress, the anchor can be disassembled for storage (good), but you have only one little aluminum strap holding the outer edge of each fluke to the round/straight righting bar. Somehow that just doesn't look right to me, yet people claim the Fortress will hold when the welds on the Danforth types fail. Also, that aluminum righting bar is bent on several boats in my marina, which is kind of what I would expect vs. a steel bar of the same size on the Danforth. Not saying your anchor isnt a really good one, but I'd feel better about buying one if I understood these things.


NCC320,

Thanks for your inquiry. I think I covered the answers to most of your questions with my reply to Windwardbow.

Regarding the bent bars you have seen, which we call the stock, let me say this:

• The good news about Fortress anchors is that since they are so sharp, they will bury deeper than steel anchors for incredible holding power.

• The bad news about Fortress anchors is that since they are so sharp, they will bury so deeply that they sometimes get stuck in rocks, dinosaur bones, fossils, etc. and the stock might get bent during retrieval.

We have fattened up the stocks and tapered them to add strength over the years, but bending a stock is still not impossible.

By the way, we drill a hole in the crown (center piece) for which you can attach a separate line for a buoy, which would then enable you to pull the anchor out from behind in case the anchor gets stuck.

• Regarding the two aluminum straps, they keep the stock from moving. Once they are tightened, the stock is not moving anywhere.

The flukes slide into slots on both sides of the re-enforced crown, and they are not moving anywhere either once they are tightened to the stock with those wide clips.

• Fortress does have a weld-free design, and during the US Navy tests, not only did the Fortress anchors provide far greater holding power than the Danforth anchors tested, but they held up better structurally as well.

Geez, I am really starting to sound like a commercial.

Apologies,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Note: If you decide to use wire rope for an Anchor Rode then you should have a drum to wind that cable onto. This is the best way to stow wire rope _(the only way)_ and the easyest way to pay it out on a brake. Electric or hydraulic motor for the operation of that winch. You don't want to do it by hand. But that would be a back up if you lose power.


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

BrianFortress said:


> If a customer damages an anchor part, no matter what the circumstance, we send them a new anchor part for free, they just pay S & H. Since the parts are light and we ship via the US Postal Service, this cost is usually nominal, and likely to be minimal.


I have spoken to other cruising sailors who have been amazed that that Fortress have sent out parts for an old anchor at no charge, when it was purchased by a PO and damaged because it got caught under rocks. 
Fortress are the only company (anchor or otherwise) that stand by there product like this.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

LinekinBayCD said:


> Why don't you post a translation of the Italian test and at least the video of the Fortress if you cant post the other makes. What year was the test? That is the type of info that whould be helpful for people making anchor decisions.


LinekinBayCD,

I found the test online and it provided only a summary and no video. It was conducted in 2001, and I will see if I can get it translated and the Fortress video portion posted.

A quick glance at what happened: The diver was standing on the sandy bottom near the anchors being tested. He zoomed in with his camera so you could clearly see the name of each anchor.

Apparently, a signal was given to the testing boat above to motor forward at idle speed. The flukes of the Fortress immediately engaged the bottom, and the anchor & chain were completely buried within seconds. The bottom rumbled like there was an earthquake as the anchor buried deeper and deeper.

The plow types performed quite differently, as they initially flopped to one side and kicked up a dust storm as the boat idled forward. The single fluke finally engaged the bottom off in the distance.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

LinekinBayCD said:


> Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. What real world experience information have we received in this discussion? What use are second hand comments about someone using a CQR for a long time without knowing where it was used, what scope was used, what was the force exerted when the anchor draged or was damaged? And without being able to compare the one anchor being used with others and how they would perform in the same conditions.
> 
> Why do you think the tests are not "real world?"All the tests I have read are "real world" tests, real anchors. real water, real bottoms, real boats pulling on the anchors, repeated over and over with many types of anchors. Its is just that the objective results are measured and recorded. They are not hypothetical mathamatical exercises. Its prety hard to measure the fifference between subjective comments. That is why I believe controled tests are far more valuable. That is why they crash test cars, have test pilots test planes, do drug tests and studies. Real world comments while of value cant be controlled or measured.
> 
> BTW never saw a test where the CQR was even close to the top.


I am dumbfounded by the fact that these other anchor manufacturers provide little, if any, of their own test performance data on their anchors. I cannot comprehend manufacturing such an important piece of safety equipment as an anchor, and not provide the public with this critical information.

I shudder to think that they have not provided it because maybe they don't even have it.

As an example, we provide hard sand and soft mud holding power numbers. This will give you a responsible "best case, worse case" performance scenario.

Regards,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

Referring to "real world" or "real life" examples of what readers might want to see when considering an anchor, may I humbly submit the following e-mail message that I received a few years back:

From: "[email protected]" 
Date: 06 Apr 2004 23:30:00 -0000 
To: "[email protected]" 
Subject: Testimonial

TESTIMONIAL - FORTRESS ANCHOR

I was sailing into Conch Cut leading into Georgetown, Exumas in the Bahamas. Just as I was passing over the reef bar, I switched off my autopilot to hand steer over the bar and into the deeper channel when I heard a "pop" and my wheel steering spun freely. 

I had the full Genoa out, and without rudder steering, the bow fell off heading straight for the nearby island of Channel Cay. I immediately diagnosed the problem of a failed steering cable and released the jib sheet and cut the motor. 

In my horror, I realized that my boat, an Irwin 37 foot ketch, my only home, was completely out-of-control and headed for the rocks in just seconds. As a matter of routine I always keep at least one anchor ready to go, but in 30 years of sailing experience I had yet to do an emergency anchor deployment. 

I raced forward, terrified as the island cliff was rising before me, and immediately released my Fortress FX-23 with 50 feet of new stainless steel chain and about ten feet of 5/8" nylon rode that was already secured to a cleat.

As the chain was rapidly running out I said a quick prayer that the anchor would bite first time, there would be no time for a re-set before the impending shipwreck disaster! My heart was pounding! 

I gripped the bow pulpit and braced, watching the rapidly approaching cliff which was now a mere 100 feet away, as the chain ran out. Suddenly all 22,000 pounds of my sailboat came to a stop and executed a 180 degree turn in 2 seconds. 

We were now safely at anchor in 15 feet of water in a 3-4 swell with the stern of my boat JUST 30 FEET FROM THE CLIFF!

The Fortress anchor had saved my life and my boat!

Several passing boats radioed and offered assistance. After letting my heart rate come back down to normal range. I was able to motor up and retrieve the somewhat bent anchor, and used the autopilot (which attaches directly to the rudder quadrant) to "fly by wire" to a safe anchorage in Elizabeth Harbor, Georgetown.

I have returned this beloved anchor to Fortress in Ft Lauderdale and they have replaced it with no hassle. 

Sincerely, Capt Joe Greno - s/v SAGA Georgetown., Bahamas


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

Cable on Anchor: In the case that I saw it used, the boat owner simply put a loop of cable perhaps 6 feet long (end to end of loop) with the stainless steel cable passing through a shackle at the anchor and shackled at the other end to the chain (chain and rope rode). I've only known him to use it in named storms. It's easy to remove and or re-install for storms, but is a real bear (according to him) to get up as the anchor is totally buried when the cable is used. It held in at least one major storm when the same anchor allowed the boat to drag ashore in the previous year's storm. As reported for Matthews Point, the bottom is very deep soft mud or mud/sand mixture.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I"d point out that while an aluminum anchor may not rust, it can corrode. This would especially be the case if someone were to use a stainless steel shackle or swivel on it.


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> I"d point out that while an aluminum anchor may not rust, it can corrode. This would especially be the case if someone were to use a stainless steel shackle or swivel on it.


True. Extremely rare, but not impossible.

Thanks,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

*Sorry!*

Gents,

My sincerest apologies for spewing Fortress commercials in a couple recent posts on this thread.

I think I got into trouble when asked for the differences between Danforth and Fortress, as it was hard for me to discuss differences without also mentioning what I believe are advantages, and I think I got a little carried away from there.

Sorry again!

Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

*Thank You!*

Gents,

As it appears that this post has wound down, I would like to thank you all for taking the time to read and respond to it.

I believe that many worthwhile insights and opinions were shared, and I wish you the best in fun & safety on the water.

Enjoy,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## BrianFortress (Nov 20, 2010)

*Final note*

I thought you guys might to see the very first Fortress anchor.

Ain't she a beauty?

Take care,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## Windwardbow (Jan 6, 2011)

Thanks Brian for your reply. It was very informative. Now I know the difference.


----------

