Anchor Swivel

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

That's rubbish, I can show any number of counter examples. Swivels have several possible and perfectly valid functions, depending on the set-up, and quality examples are perfectly reliable and safe. The comment on variety of anchors is nonsense too. Quit with the FUD.

I carry a Bruce, Plough and a Fishermans.... what do you carry..... FUD..??
or have we a 'ROCNA' with swivel coming up...

[craigsmith]

Kiwi Roa carries four Rocnas and nothing else, considered perfectly adequate for any seabed including some of the harshest environments on the planet. The old trinity of a plow, a claw, and <a Danforth or fisherman> is a typical fallacy of the old generation - each anchor supposedly present to address the flaws of the others. You don't have a good "balanced" set-up as you may imagine, but rather three anchors that aren't particularly good at being anchors, period.

Kiwi Roa doesn't use a swivel on any of her rodes because none are needed, but that's not to say that others don't have good reasons to do so. Furthermore good quality swivels are entirely reliable, and stronger than the chain. There is no reason whatsoever to avoid them. How arrogant to claim they're the domain of the naive and uninitiated.

[capnorv]

I carry a 20kg Bruce with 340" of 3/8 chain, attached with a high grade ss encapulated swivel, which I use most of the time. A 45# CQR with 320' 3/8 chain w/o swivel, either can be lengthened with 300' 1" rode hanging in the chain locker. I also carry a 20# danforth on the stern with 30' chain and 250' 1/2" rode for a lunch hook. And 600' of 5/16" nylon on a spool for stern tie, since a lot of our shores are steep to, often comes in handy. fyi, I guess I'm happy with the generation I grew up in and don't feel I need to prove myself as part of the new one. But those Rocna's sure do look pretty, I'll have to look at them at the boat show next week, but just look.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

Kiwi Roa carries four Rocnas and nothing else, considered perfectly adequate for any seabed including some of the harshest environments on the planet. The old trinity of a plow, a claw, and <a Danforth or fisherman> is a typical fallacy of the old generation - each anchor supposedly present to address the flaws of the others. You don't have a good "balanced" set-up as you may imagine, but rather three anchors that aren't particularly good at being anchors, period.

Kiwi Roa doesn't use a swivel on any of her rodes because none are needed, but that's not to say that others don't have good reasons to do so. Furthermore good quality swivels are entirely reliable, and stronger than the chain. There is no reason whatsoever to avoid them. How arrogant to claim they're the domain of the naive and uninitiated.

I do wish you'd restrain from putting words in my mouth...
Ones merely stated that for different folks its different strokes... horses for courses and other cliches
Having made a living working with ground tackle and seeing the wear and tear season by season as one services them each winter... I choose not to use one and have stated why.. from a simple visual perspective... not some fancy standard, stress test whatever...
As for anchors... I would not touch a Danforth with a barge pole..
The Bruce its a damn good anchor (Primary), as is the plough (Secondary)... and the old fashioned Fishermans is a great kedge.... lays flat in the dinghy, easy to handle and drop over the side... and I'm sorry if I'm old... but don't worry mate... I'll soon be dead..
Then its your turn to have some self righteous tradesman try to chew you out...
And 4 ROCNA's.... don't you trust them....

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

Kiwi Roa carries four Rocnas and nothing else, considered perfectly adequate for any seabed including some of the harshest environments on the planet.

Considered perfectly adequate for any seabed by whom? I think that the 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association would disagree with you after the "2 out of 5 star" performance of the Rocna anchor in the clay bottoms off of their coastline:

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

Best regards,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Considered perfectly adequate for any seabed by whom? I think that the 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association would disagree with you after the "2 out of 5 star" performance of the Rocna anchor in the clay bottoms off of their coastline:

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

Best regards,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

Glad to have you join in here. 40,000 members or not, it's just another anchor test done by a few individuals with many unknowns about the testers and testing methods/controls.

I don't understand the text of that article (would be nice if you can point us to a translation) but clay bottom generally offers great holding, unless it is so hard the anchor can't penetrate. I can't imagine an "equal" situation where a Rocna wouldn't do better at penetrating than a Fortress, and especially at resetting in event of a reversal to the direction of pull.

I carry a Fortress as secondary because of it's light weight, and when it sets it has great holding -- It offers superior holding/weight ratio when set but I would not sleep well or be comfortable leaving the boat with only one Fortress down. It makes a good kedge and would great in a Bahamian-style config. I have seen a Fortress flip over on more than one occasion when the pull was reversed, and if there is anything trapped between the fluke and shank (like any other Danforth style) they can't reset with flukes-up. In the most recent situation the boat went adrift in less than 10 knots of wind. Fortunately a few people in dinghies nearby were to get the boat tied safely to another boat until the owner returned.

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by squarerigger

Zeehag:
I have a #66 genuine Bruce i'm not using any more, don't want 80 gazillion bucks for it and I'm just up the bay from you if you're interested.
Ray

i am in lust with your anchor, squarerigger-i pm'd ye!!!

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by boatman61

.... and I'm sorry if I'm old... but don't worry mate... I'll soon be dead..
Then its your turn to have some self righteous tradesman try to chew you out...
And 4 ROCNA's.... don't you trust them....

I guess when your anchor is 'made in China' you are gonna carry some back ups.

[zeehag]

ANYTHING made in china needs multiple backups.....

[Fortress]

SailFastTri,

Thanks for your worthwhile comments. I have been trying to get a translation of the complete test, and now I only have what they said about each anchor. I learned that this association has been testing anchors for 20 years, so they are not novices. 1 in 7 Swedes owns a boat, so they take anchoring very seriously over there.

I recently discussed Rocna with Robert Taylor, formerly of the US Navy and one of the world's foremost experts on soil mechanics & anchor design. Bob holds degrees in civil and ocean engineering, and he has designed anchoring systems for the Navy and offshore industries for decades.

Bob's comments about the Rocna: "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."

I suspect that is what happened in the clay bottoms of the Swedish anchor test. You can understand how the concave Rocna fluke would ball up with clay, which would then gather around the big roller bar and inhibit further penetration.

Regarding the wind shift capabilities, you might have an interest in an independent test that was conducted awhile back where veering was done. Check out tables 2 and 3:

http://offshore.ussailing.org/Assets...chor+study.pdf

Additionally, 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.

A short while ago I discussed the wind shift and anchor re-setting issue with Bob and 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.

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°.

Respectfully,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

[lancelot9898]

Originally Posted by Fortress

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°.

Even though I think anchor prices are inflated, your posts to me seem a lot more reasonable than the Rocna guy. Thanks for your input.

A couple of questions about the testing. When the 180 degree test was preformed was (1)the force exerted continuously from from one direction and then continued until at 180 or (2)the worse case situation would be applying force in one direction and then go slack and reapply the force at 180 degrees? There should be some additonal shock loading from this situation. The eye of a storm can do this so it's not an unreasonable request.

The fortress lets you set at two different angles depending on the bottom. Are there test results showing the relative holding at these two different setting for the various bottoms? That would be interesting to see if one setting was more appropriate to use full time. For example maybe the larger angle setting gives 30% better holding in soft mud, but is only 10% less effective in hard sand. That would be interesting data to see.

[zeehag]

hoooyaaahhh!! found anchor of my dreams!!!!!! thanks to this thread!!!! (happy dance)
is a nice huge bruce..... perfection when added to my cqr ... am always in search of better and more tackle, especially as i am voluntarily leaving earthquakeville and entering hurrycamespot..... cant have enough or heavy enough or......

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by lancelot9898

Even though I think anchor prices are inflated, your posts to me seem a lot more reasonable than the Rocna guy. Thanks for your input.

A couple of questions about the testing. When the 180 degree test was preformed was (1)the force exerted continuously from from one direction and then continued until at 180 or (2)the worse case situation would be applying force in one direction and then go slack and reapply the force at 180 degrees? There should be some additonal shock loading from this situation. The eye of a storm can do this so it's not an unreasonable request.

The fortress lets you set at two different angles depending on the bottom. Are there test results showing the relative holding at these two different setting for the various bottoms? That would be interesting to see if one setting was more appropriate to use full time. For example maybe the larger angle setting gives 30% better holding in soft mud, but is only 10% less effective in hard sand. That would be interesting data to see.

Thanks for the kind words. One thing that I will never do is disparage "old generation" anchors as Rocna so infamously does. I have too much respect for Bruce, CQR, Danforth & Delta and their customers, no matter what is written in any anchor test.

Those are great questions about the test I referenced in regards to veering and shock loading, but I am sorry to say that I do not know the specifics of this test. I suspect that they started out with a straight line pull and then the force was exerted continuously as the boat moved around to 90° and then 180°.

Again, being here in south Florida, I sure know about getting hit with a right hook and then a left hook after the eye passes.

The Fortress does have the adjustable fluke angles, which are 32° for harder soils and 45° for soft mud, which will dramatically improve the holding power in this type of difficult bottom.

However, if you try and use the 45° angle in harder soils, the anchor will have difficulty setting, and so we recommend never using the 45° angle unless you are certain about the bottom being soft mud. The Chesapeake and San Francisco Bays immediately come to mind, as well as some areas along the NC and Gulf coasts in the USA.

I have attached a spec sheet which will give you hard sand / soft mud holding power information.

This leads me to another point that Bob Taylor of the US Navy brought up about the Rocna:

"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. They 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 the anchor won’t penetrate sand and hard seabeds."

I welcome your thoughts.

Thanks again,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by Fortress

SailFastTri,

Thanks for your worthwhile comments. I have been trying to get a translation of the complete test, and now I only have what they said about each anchor. I learned that this association has been testing anchors for 20 years, so they are not novices. 1 in 7 Swedes owns a boat, so they take anchoring very seriously over there.

I recently discussed Rocna with Robert Taylor, formerly of the US Navy and one of the world's foremost experts on soil mechanics & anchor design. Bob holds degrees in civil and ocean engineering, and he has designed anchoring systems for the Navy and offshore industries for decades.

Bob's comments about the Rocna: "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."

I suspect that is what happened in the clay bottoms of the Swedish anchor test. You can understand how the concave Rocna fluke would ball up with clay, which would then gather around the big roller bar and inhibit further penetration.

Regarding the wind shift capabilities, you might have an interest in an independent test that was conducted awhile back where veering was done. Check out tables 2 and 3:

http://offshore.ussailing.org/Assets...chor+study.pdf

Additionally, 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.

A short while ago I discussed the wind shift and anchor re-setting issue with Bob and 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.

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°.

Respectfully,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

Technically, in your last sentence you carried it too far by writing 180. There is a big difference between a "veering" pull 180-degrees (where the rode has constant tension and the shank is veering around the radius) and an opposing pull where the rode goes slack during the period when the boat drifts over the anchor followed by a pull in the opposing direction. Bottom condition is also a factor. In the latter scenario the anchor is likely to be pulled out and must re-set reliably, and this is not something the Fortress can do as reliably as many other designs.

I also noted that the test you cited showed a "no-set" for the Fortress. The only other anchor that "no-set" did not rate well. Is there a difference between a "no-set" and a re-set? Yes, because a no-set starts with a clean anchor and crew decisisons, whereas a re-set is uncontrolled -- the anchor might be fouled with bottom material and the crew might be off the boat or sleeping.

Any anchor can foul under some circumstances in a manner that can interfere with a reset. The "balling" you referred to with anchors that have a hoop is no different than the clump of weed/mud or even shells that can keep a Fortress (or any other Danforth-style) from resetting. Any anchor that sets will bring up a ball of mud and weed in certain bottoms, whether Rocna, Spade, Manson, claw or plow. However, the Fortress and other Danforth styles are the only anchors that will not assume a setting position due to such a clump (or even due to a single small shell/stone lodged between fluke and shank) if the anchor rests with flukes "up". (that's a 50/50 chance). I do agree that the hoop can add resistance to penetration depth, but only after a good set.

It is well-known among Fortress owners that (because it lacks the density of steel anchors) the flukes "fly" when the anchor is suspended in a current. Therefore it is imperative to get the anchor to lie near-still on the bottom before backing down, and you have to be careful not to back down too fast to let the flukes settle. A Fortress would not be my preferred choice to save the boat when being blown by a storm onto a lee shore, as it would require the anchor be deployed and set immediately. The best for that are Rocna, Manson Supreme, Delta , Steel Spade (not aluminum Spade) or Bulwagga (some people might add claw type anchors, but most tests don't show them to be as strong as others in ultimate holding power). Those are the best all-around primary anchors, IMHO.

I trust a Fortress when I know that I have a good set and the direction of pull won't change.

[s/v 'Faith']

Fortress,

Glad to have you in the discussion. Welcome aboard, you really do make a great product. I use an FX-7 as a kedge, and can not think of a better stern anchor / kedge imaginable.

Zee,

Congrats on your new anchor! I love your earlier statement;

i am in lust with your anchor, squarerigger-i pm'd ye!!!