Anchor choices

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by thinwater

This is from a 1967 Danforth brochure. Just a vintage reference for your pleasure.

Two anchors to cope with changes in direction of force is still (and I think sensibly so for this design) the recommendation in the Fortress anchor guide. So there is no need to go back to 1967.

Meanwhile, as Dockhead suggests, anchoring technology has improved. We now have anchor designs that shuffle reliably. By maintaining high levels of grip during the rotation, the need to routinely deploy two anchors has thankfully passed into history.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Captn_Black

I'm amazed this thread hasn't been declared a war-zone yet! Good job!

We always try and keep it civil.😉

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

It's on the Bristol 35.5

OK, then FX-16 is not that big. Sorry. But it will be hard to set.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

...So there is no need to go back to 1967....

Of course not. But Fast Fred asked and I had it!


It's been years since I've set two, other than something related to testing. I'm pretty sure the reason was a tiny creek with no room.

[Captn_Black]

Originally Posted by thinwater

There is a "bigger is better" mentality with anchors, but it does not really apply to Fortress.

Yea, surface area is all they need to do the job in the ground they are designed for. But 22kg was what I could find, and $80 was a good price
And with the occasional 60+knot gust here I would rather ere on the side of caution.

[Captn_Black]

Originally Posted by thinwater

It's been years since I've set two, other than something related to testing. I'm pretty sure the reason was a tiny creek with no room.

Here in Cape Verde (Sal), the locals decided that two was too many as well, for a Dutch friend of mine, so they relieved him of one of them Right out of the water!

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by thinwater

It's been years since I've set two, other than something related to testing. I'm pretty sure the reason was a tiny creek with no room.

This has been my experience as well, two anchors are very rarely needed.

[Captn_Black]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

This has been my experience as well, two anchors are very rarely needed.

When I was engineless I would have diagreed...

[wingssail]

I'm really happy to stick with my 20kg Bruce and all chain (5/16 HT).

For the last week we were anchored in a vary deep small cove where the only place to set a hook was in 70' of water in a very small patch about 50'x50' about 150' from a rocky shoreline. Inshore it was deep right up to the shoreline and away from shore the bottom dropped off to 100-200' quite quickly.

I knew it was doubtful but I wanted to try to stay in that place.

We dropped the bruce with 150' of chain. Yes, 2:1 scope! But more scope than that would have permited us to swing into the shoreline. We DID NOT set it hard as would be our normal practice, due to the limited scope.

The wind shifted two times every day: Afternoons were SW winds up to 12 knots and lots of swell and wind waves rolling in from the open bay outside. Not pleasant. Nights, after midnight, the wind switched to the NE up to 15kts, with no waves. Mornings and evenings were calm and peaceful. Not your ideal anchorage, but it was beautiful and had a quaint village.

So, for seven days our anchor, the 20kg Bruce, switched directions twice a day. The bottom was rocky, we could hear the chain dragging over rocks as we swing around each time. But the anchor never moved as our ranges ashore showed.

We kept shallow and deep water alarms running every night but the anchor never dragged. The ranges and GPS showed us in exactly the same position every day. We never moved other than to swing on about a 75' radius.

This is not the first time we have had good results with the Bruce. We've used it for over 20 years. It has virtually always held and it always resets immediately after a wind direction change. The shape of the fluke area causes it to roll in and dig in when pulled from the side. AND it is a light anchor compared to todays standard. It is 44lbs for a 43' boat (we also carry a 30kg-66lb Bruce as a storm anchor, but it is VERY rarely needed).

No, it is not trendy or a new design, but it works without resorting to doubly heavy anchors.

[Captn_Black]

Originally Posted by wingssail

We dropped the bruce with 150' of chain. Yes, 2:1 scope! But more scope than that would have permited us to swing into the shoreline. We DID NOT set it hard as would be our normal practice, due to the limited scope.

I read actually that the scope ratio is a slightly exponential curve, so you can get away with less scope in deeper water.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Captn_Black

When I was engineless I would have diagreed...

We had complete engine failure in our old yacht. No marinas were available so we spent a few months at anchor and then had a complicated passage to reach an area where engine replacement was possible.

This gave me a lot of respect for those who do this routinely. It sounds romantic but it is mostly hard work mixed with a little terror .

A good, lightweight kedge anchor (the Fortress is the best) becomes especially important, but this is different to overnight anchoring.

If I understand correctly, you prefer deploying two anchors overnight when engineless. This complicates leaving the anchorage rapidly, which seems a major drawback.

However, while everyone occasionally practices dropping and raising the anchor without the engine, my real life engineless experience is limited. Could explain the logic of deploying two anchors overnight in this situation?

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Captn_Black

When I was engineless I would have diagreed...

True. In light to no wind a second anchor can be the only way to set an anchor, particularly with a light boat. Otherwise, you are just hoping that it will dig in when the wind comes up. My first boat was like that, only 1200 pounds, and I frequently used two anchors. This was acceptable because I nearly always anchored in shallow water, out of everyone's way (I considered 4' deep).


No single answer.

[Captn_Black]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

We had complete engine failure in our old yacht. No marinas were available so we spent a few months at anchor.

This gave me a lot of respect for those who do this routinely. It sounds romantic but it is mostly hard work mixed with a little terror .

A good, lightweight kedge anchor (the Fortress is the best) becomes especially important, but this is different to overnight anchoring.

If I understand correctly, you prefer deploying two anchors overnight when engineless. This complicates leaving the anchorage rapidly, which seems a major drawback.

However, while everyone occasionally practices dropping and raising the anchor without the engine, my real life engineless experience is limited. Could explain the logic of deploying two anchors overnight in this situation?

Yup, we lived without it for 4 years fixing numerous problems and eventually learning how to service an injector pump. Have kedged myself out of an anchorage a few times. Invaluable learning experiences. In an overnight sitiuation? No, can't help you there. When you're engineless you can't afford such luxuires as daysailing.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Captn_Black

Have kedged myself out of an anchorage a few times. Invaluable learning experiences.

A good kedge anchor is essential, obviously even more so when engineless. But when engineless and overnight anchoring did you routinely prefer using one anchor or two and why?

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

It's a Fx16. I know I'm not able to set it well because of the prop walk. It's like others have said, it's a limitation of the design. There are several. I dont want to come across as trashing a Fortress because it's a great anchor in the right conditions.

How does your prop walk prevent deeper setting?

-Chris