All modern anchors with loop, based on the Bugel are the same in performance

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

This is an important point, but the OP started out praising a larger Buegel compared to modern hoop anchors. Frankly, I'm not sure larger Buegels are available in the USA either. So for the sake of those who want to purchase a big version of these anchors are they actually available? Is there a Bruce copy that is any good? Are Beugels in bigger sizes still available?

Buegel anchors are often diy welded because the design is so simple.

[Fuss]

Originally Posted by Panope

Not true for the Sandy Mud Seabed.

118lb Genuine Bruce:
Pull # 1 = 4,370 lbs. Peak. Then rolled out, reset at new peak of 2550lbs.
Pull # 2 = 2300 lbs. Peak. Then popped out, reset at new peak 2200lbs.

51lb Viking:
5,300+ lbs. Max unknown. Test equipment could not pull any harder. Consistent over multiple pulls. No Releases. Bent Rollbar.

43lb Mantus M1:
Pull # 1 = 2600 lbs Peak. No Release.
Pull # 2 = 4100 lbs Peak. No Release.

44lb Mantus M2:
Pull # 1 = 4000 lbs Peak.
Pull # 2 = 4100 lbs Peak.
Pull # 3 = 3700 lbs Peak.
Pull # 4 = 5000 lbs Peak.

45lb Spade:
4800 lbs Peak. One long pull with multiple peaks in the 4000's. No Release.

47lb Vulcan:
Pull # 1 = 5300+ lb Peak. Max Unkown. Test equipment could not pull any harder. No release.
Pull # 2 = 5000 lb Peak. No Release.

44lb Rocna:
Pull # 1 = 660 lbs Peak. Then another Peak at 400. Then Release.
Pull # 2 = 660 lbs Peak. Then Release/Reset 560 lbs. Then release - no reset.

Ok, then my statement does not seem to be true according to the tests here.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Fuss

Ok, then my statement does not seem to be true according to the tests here.

Yes.

However, in your defense, for the SOFT MUD testing, your statement (that a 88lb Bruce would be as good as 66lb newer anchors) is probably accurate.

In fact, even your outlandish statement made in the title of this thread is probably accurate for the SOFT MUD (only). I have never tested a Bugel, but all of the larger "rollbar" anchors (Viking, M1, Rocna MK I, Knox, and Super Sarca) performed within 20% of each other in the Soft Mud.

And because the Soft Mud has generally much lower holding power than the other seabed types, a good argument could be made that the Soft Mud is the more important data.

------------------------------


However, there is another very important seabed type that is missing entirely form my testing: HARD SAND. Apparently, this stuff does not exist in my area (PNW).

As we all saw in Noelex's 'Photos' thread from his travels in the Medeterainian, Many anchor types had serious trouble penetrating even the first couple inches.

I can easily imagine smaller Bruce anchors (with rounded fluke tips" having trouble with this. Whereas the larger Bruce anchors are likely able to "smash" their way through (brute weight).

It is this Hard Sand where anchors like a Mantus M1 with its extremely high tip weight ratio, very sharp tip, and favorable "setting angle" might have the greatest gains over older designs.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Panope

Yes.

However, in your defense, for the SOFT MUD testing, your statement (that a 88lb Bruce would be as good as 66lb newer anchors) is probably accurate.

In fact, even your outlandish statement made in the title of this thread is probably accurate for the SOFT MUD (only). I have never tested a Bugel, but all of the larger "rollbar" anchors (Viking, M1, Rocna MK I, Knox, and Super Sarca) performed within 20% of each other in the Soft Mud.

And because the Soft Mud has generally much lower holding power than the other seabed types, a good argument could be made that the Soft Mud is the more important data.

------------------------------


However, there is another very important seabed type that is missing entirely form my testing: HARD SAND. Apparently, this stuff does not exist in my area (PNW).

As we all saw in Noelex's 'Photos' thread from his travels in the Medeterainian, Many anchor types had serious trouble penetrating even the first couple inches.

I can easily imagine smaller Bruce anchors (with rounded fluke tips" having trouble with this. Whereas the larger Bruce anchors are likely able to "smash" their way through (brute weight).

It is this Hard Sand where anchors like a Mantus M1 with its extremely high tip weight ratio, very sharp tip, and favorable "setting angle" might have the greatest gains over older designs.

Hard sand is a problem for many anchors but not for the new gen anchors. I think CQR is the worst or maybe Fortress takes that place. Neither will penetrate: the CQR isn’t pointy enough (I have seen cruisers grind to sharpen it) and while the Fortress is very sharp pointed, it lacks the weight and end up with the points straight down, wiggeling like a drunk sailor towards the boat that’s pulling the rode.

The knock off Bruce anchors are a close third in worst performance in hard sand. Their flukes are way too thick. Original Bruce has much thinner, sharper flukes which their forging process allows without becoming weak and they outperform Delta but not anything designed later than those.

My system is to drop the Bruce in freefall (it’s only 10-20’ depth in most places with hard sand) so that it craters the seabed for easy setting.

Edit: I observed bad performance of the Rocna in (hard) sand with grass. Even when the sand isn’t that hard like in Marsh Harbour, the Rocna anchors aren’t reliable unless oversized.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Panope

And because the Soft Mud has generally much lower holding power than the other seabed types, a good argument could be made that the Soft Mud is the more important data.

Possibly, but soft mud is also where nothing will match a Fortress / Danforth type, so I figure that I'll accept mediocre soft mud performance on the primary anchor if it's good at everything else (and well enough behaved in soft mud). If I find something soft enough that the primary is inadequate, then it's time to break out the Fortress, as that will improve holding in that scenario far more than a different primary anchor might.

[Kettlewell]

Hard sand is a problem for many anchors but not for the new gen anchors. I think CQR is the worst or maybe Fortress takes that place. Neither will penetrate: the CQR isn’t pointy enough (I have seen cruisers grind to sharpen it) and while the Fortress is very sharp pointed, it lacks the weight and end up with the points straight down, wiggeling like a drunk sailor towards the boat that’s pulling the rode.

Haven't been to the Med, so can't compare, but in the hard sand I have found in the Bahamas and in parts of the Caribbean I have often been able to dive on the anchor and manually drive the sharp flukes of a Fortress into the bottom. Anchored off of Tulum on the Mexican coast the bottom was hard like a runway. I spent an hour walking around with anchors on the bottom trying to find spots for the points to dig in and was basically unsuccessful. Eventually, I put out lots of chain and multiple anchors in various directions with nothing by their points penetretating slightly. Our main anchor then was a 45lb. Bulwagga, and no matter how you drop those at least two pointy flukes are on the bottom. Held us overnight through 20+ knots, but wasn't confidence inspiring. Still, knowing the Bulwagga I knew that we wouldn't drag fast if it came to that. My guess is there are some bottoms that almost nothing will penetrate sufficiently to develop good holding. A heavy anchor and heavy chain would be the best in those spots, or maybe something like a traditional Herreshoff anchor. I have not tried a Mantus in really soft mud, but I have found the initial set of most heavy anchors can be helped by dropping the anchor as fast as possible, to promote it penetrating further down into the ooze. However, I have found, like others, that a Fortress with mud palms is often the best in soft bottoms. Just have to know how to work it in, first using short scope and some jerks until it bites.

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

Possibly, but soft mud is also where nothing will match a Fortress / Danforth type, so I figure that I'll accept mediocre soft mud performance on the primary anchor if it's good at everything else (and well enough behaved in soft mud). If I find something soft enough that the primary is inadequate, then it's time to break out the Fortress, as that will improve holding in that scenario far more than a different primary anchor might.

Except those fluke anchors don't reset reliably- so again having a "1 size fits most" approach is the best. Also, will you always change anchors and fish out your fortress when you think you are in a muddy substrate? What if a sudden squall comes up and you're on your primary anchor?

For example, my boat lives on Chesapeake and our extended cruises take us to New England. So, I chose a Mantus M1 because it's quite good in mud (compared to Spade, eg) and also excels in sand and firmer substrates we can see in NE. Since high latitudes aren't in our cruising grounds the theoretical concerns about strength aren't anything for me to be concerned about. (I also question these concerns more broadly since it seems far more boats end up in danger due to dragging rather than structural anchor failure.)
I can see why folks may choose a spade if they don't spend much time in soft mud. I will say that my Mantus M1 held a 3 boat raftup in 55-60 knot winds in a summer squall that surprised us, in a soupy mud location. I think the M1 may be even better than Panope's tests indicate once it's been set for a few hours and has a chance to dive deep. In that squall, the mud caking on the chain suggested the anchor may have been 3-4 feet below the surface by the end.

In any case, want to call out Steve/Panope's tests again for the granular information they provide on mixed substrates. Many folks may take the lazy route and just look at the overall ratings, but I think the wise choice is to make an informed choice based on primary cruising grounds.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Except those fluke anchors don't reset reliably- so again having a "1 size fits most" approach is the best. Also, will you always change anchors and fish out your fortress when you think you are in a muddy substrate? What if a sudden squall comes up and you're on your primary anchor?

For example, my boat lives on Chesapeake and our extended cruises take us to New England. So, I chose a Mantus M1 because it's quite good in mud (compared to Spade, eg) and also excels in sand and firmer substrates we can see in NE. Since high latitudes aren't in our cruising grounds the theoretical concerns about strength aren't anything for me to be concerned about. (I also question these concerns more broadly since it seems far more boats end up in danger due to dragging rather than structural anchor failure.)
I can see why folks may choose a spade if they don't spend much time in soft mud. I will say that my Mantus M1 held a 3 boat raftup in 55-60 knot winds in a summer squall that surprised us, in a soupy mud location. I think the M1 may be even better than Panope's tests indicate once it's been set for a few hours and has a chance to dive deep. In that squall, the mud caking on the chain suggested the anchor may have been 3-4 feet below the surface by the end.

In any case, want to call out Steve/Panope's tests again for the granular information they provide on mixed substrates. Many folks may take the lazy route and just look at the overall ratings, but I think the wise choice is to make an informed choice based on primary cruising grounds.

The Fortress / Danforth are less likely to pull out and reset or otherwise misbehave (vs rotating in place or staying put) when buried deeply in a soft substrate. I worry far more about that in harder bottoms, which is why I don't consider those an acceptable primary anchor.

I'm on a powerboat, so I have quite a bit of thrust on hand to test the set with the engines. My normal good weather test is the equivalent of at least 30 kts of wind judging by rode tension, so I generally have a reasonable idea of whether I'm in a decent bottom or not. I've pulled my Vulcan up with mud to the top of the shank and a couple feet up the chain a few times after being in a medium to soft mud bottom with some wind. As you mentioned, if it's being pulled on for a while, the anchor should continue to dive deeper into denser mud and produce better holding than it did right after setting.

So far, I haven't found a bottom soft enough that it didn't produce adequate holding (generous sizing probably helps here), but if anything led to me doubting yet, yes, I'd swap to the Fortress. I don't currently cruise in areas with frequent soupy bottoms, so swapping should be a fairly infrequent need. Mud doesn't automatically drive the need to swap, it's really soft, soupy mud like some parts of the Chesapeake get that present a challenge for many anchors.

[Fuss]

Originally Posted by Panope

Yes.

However, in your defense, for the SOFT MUD testing, your statement (that a 88lb Bruce would be as good as 66lb newer anchors) is probably accurate.

In fact, even your outlandish statement made in the title of this thread is probably accurate for the SOFT MUD (only). I have never tested a Bugel, but all of the larger "rollbar" anchors (Viking, M1, Rocna MK I, Knox, and Super Sarca) performed within 20% of each other in the Soft Mud.

And because the Soft Mud has generally much lower holding power than the other seabed types, a good argument could be made that the Soft Mud is the more important data.

------------------------------


However, there is another very important seabed type that is missing entirely form my testing: HARD SAND. Apparently, this stuff does not exist in my area (PNW).

As we all saw in Noelex's 'Photos' thread from his travels in the Medeterainian, Many anchor types had serious trouble penetrating even the first couple inches.

I can easily imagine smaller Bruce anchors (with rounded fluke tips" having trouble with this. Whereas the larger Bruce anchors are likely able to "smash" their way through (brute weight).

It is this Hard Sand where anchors like a Mantus M1 with its extremely high tip weight ratio, very sharp tip, and favorable "setting angle" might have the greatest gains over older designs.

Thanks, thats good to know.
I see that Jedi commented on his anchoring style just above.


My Buegel sets in 1 meter leaving just the top of the loop exposed.
I always use the same anchoring technique which is even easier if its windy, say 30kts.
Boat completely stopped or starting to blow backwards. Dump the anchor and chain, clutch on at the required scope, then short mini snubber on.
Wait till bow comes into the wind, give it 1500 rpm, bow drops a bit, have a bit of a look around, give it nearly 2000 and look around some more, wander up to the bow and look around some more. After another minute or so, take the revs off slowly and then into neutral. Max rpm is 2300 which I normally never do but perhaps I better start doing this again for testing the 135 hp against the anchor.

The anchor sets so reliably that I would be shocked if it started to pull out using this uncaring method. Anchor like its an emergency every time and when there is one, you'll be prepared. No slowly and carefully and let the anchor settle for me. Chain never ends up on top of the anchor because anchor flies forward a bit.

[rslifkin]

As long as you don't end up with chain piled on top of the anchor, I don't see any problem with that technique. It's pretty close to what I do, other than I usually power drop as I have a fairly fast windlass. Get the anchor on the bottom, gently stretch the rode, then once it's stretched pull on it to make sure the anchor will set acceptably in the current bottom and hasn't landed on a pile of tarps or something stupid. The few times I've had the anchor not set and dig in deeper as I increased power, it turned out either the bottom was unexpected cobblestone (happened once) or in a couple of cases, I snagged some debris on the bottom that prevented a good set. Even in soft-ish mud as long as tension on the rode is brought up somewhat gently it sets just fine and more pull just keeps digging it in deeper.

[Kettlewell]

The anchor sets so reliably that I would be shocked if it started to pull out using this uncaring method. Anchor like its an emergency every time and when there is one, you'll be prepared. No slowly and carefully and let the anchor settle for me. Chain never ends up on top of the anchor because anchor flies forward a bit.

Where do you do this and what is the bottom like?

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Panope

Not true for the Sandy Mud Seabed.

47lb Vulcan:
Pull # 1 = 5300+ lb Peak. Max Unkown. Test equipment could not pull any harder. No release.
Pull # 2 = 5000 lb Peak. No Release.

44lb Rocna:
Pull # 1 = 660 lbs Peak. Then another Peak at 400. Then Release.
Pull # 2 = 660 lbs Peak. Then Release/Reset 560 lbs. Then release - no reset.

Wow, that's a huge difference for what is similar weights of anchors

[Kettlewell]

Maybe we could find a big Bugel (or is it Buegel) and send it to Steve (Panope) for testing?

[JBP]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Maybe we could find a big Bugel (or is it Buegel) and send it to Steve (Panope) for testing?

Bügel

"The Bügel is a simple fabricated anchor design developed by a German in the 1980's. It features a flat triangular fluke with a straight shank, and a roll-bar to orient the anchor correctly. German steel firm WASI produce a stainless steel version, and other Bügels are produced in amateur capacities."

From https://kb.rocna.com/kb/Buegel_anchor

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Maybe we could find a big Bugel (or is it Buegel) and send it to Steve (Panope) for testing?

Buegel is used when the ü can’t be found on the keyboard