Photos of Anchors Setting

[Panope]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The biggest concern with so called "fluke anchors" like the Danforth, Fortress, Brittany and Jambo is that this sort of design is often poor retaining grip if it is required to rotate around to new direction of pull.

Originally Posted by Fortress

I can't speak for the Danforth, Brittany, or Jambo, but I am wondering if there will ever be enough evidence presented to the contrary about the Fortress which will dispel this myth in your mind, or will you continue to try and present it as being factual no matter what?

Noelex's comment is right on the money. The only question is how we define his word "often".

There is not a doubt in my mind that many other anchors will handle new directions of pull better than a fortress.

Steve

[a64pilot]

Everybody needs a Fortress in their inventory, heck I have even acquired one myself, just it's not the anchor I intend to use for my primary day to day anchoring.
But it does have its strengths that my primary does not, so in those instances I will use it.
There is I don't think one superior anchor that works best in all conditions, I've come to believe that maybe, having a couple of types is the best course of action

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Panope

Noelex's comment is right on the money. The only question is how we define his word "often".

There is not a doubt in my mind that many other anchors will handle new directions of pull better than a fortress.

Steve

And you learned this how Steve....by testing a 10 lb aluminum-alloy anchor with a minimal scope while driving a boat over this anchor with equipment that was pulling up on it....and then comparing the performance against steel anchors that were 4x heavier?

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Fortress

And you learned this how Steve....by testing a 10 lb aluminum-alloy anchor with a minimal scope while driving a boat over this anchor with equipment that was pulling up on it....and then comparing the performance against steel anchors that were 4x heavier?

No.

I learned it by comparing a 10 lb. Fortress anchor to an 11 pound Bruce anchor, using the exact scope that you recommend.

I stand by by offer to test FOR YOU any sized Fortress anchor that you send to me.

As Noelex as stated countless times (and A64pilot, above), I think fortress anchors are brilliant pieces of equipment and I will always have one on my boat.

Steve

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNcFSZ3thpM&t=161s

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Panope

No.

I learned it by comparing a 10 lb. Fortress anchor to an 11 pound Bruce anchor, using the exact scope that you recommend.

I stand by by offer to test FOR YOU any sized Fortress anchor that you send to me.

As Noelex as stated countless times (and A64pilot, above), I think fortress anchors are brilliant pieces of equipment and I will always have one on my boat.

Steve

Steve, thanks for your kind words, but that is it...the opinion that you are promoting to the public....from a test that is based on the results of one 10 lb anchor that is clearly put a huge disadvantage with "only 11 oz of buoyancy" as you described, and this lone test encompasses the performance capability of our entire product line that has been well-established over the course of 30 years, such as here in our local hurricane region, where Fortress is often referred to as "the ultimate storm anchor?"

I guess in "real world" high wind conditions, the winds never change directions, right?


On a separate note, Noelex has been promoting the Mantus anchor through this thread and on YouTube with images and videos showing the huge oversized 125 lb / 57 kg model that he has aboard his boat.

A recent Practical Sailor article has drawn serious attention to the fact that this brand has a lower shank/ fluke - penetration angle than other anchors, the result of which is faster setting in harder soils (which they promote in their unprofessional homemade videos - where the anchor are pulled by hand or truck on dense brick hard wet sand beaches), but also this design insures the high likelihood of poorer ultimate holding capability.

As his images and videos has have clearly shown, the Mantus anchor never really buries very deeply into the pristine sand bottom conditions where he is typically anchoring, which obviously makes it much easier for the anchor to turn, so to speak, with a directional change of pull.

[Panope]

Brian,

I'll just stick to my one and only negative statement about Fortress anchors: "They do not handle re-setting as well as some others". Talking about the Fortress' exceptionally High holding power only distracts from this.

I have posted numerous videos of my Fortress anchor being fouled, and with it's pivot mechanism being defeated by mud, rock, and sticks with subsequent inability to reset (I have not yet tested in an area of shell).

I make no attempt to predict how often these failures occur in real world anchoring. Certainly it is "rare" as evident by the thousands of people that "swing" to your anchors. However, it is also "rare" that people drive their cars into telephone poles. This does not prevent many people from seeking a car with the best airbags.

I am fully aware that the most common outcome with a change of direction pull, is that the Fortress will pivot and remain engaged. I have posted numerous video's of the anchor doing just that.

Once again. My only statement on the matter is that some other anchors will handle re-setting better than a fortress.

Note: I've never anchored in the Chesapeake soupy mud, but I am open to the idea that the Fortress may be best anchor for that bottom type (even swinging) as other reputable anchors may not work at all. I'd still set two anchor alarms.

Steve

[chris95040]

Plus fortresses kinda look silly up there on the bow roller.

[Panope]

I don't know, Chris. I thought it was not half bad looking on the roller.

If it was not subject to a higher frequency of fouling, I would have a Fortress there permanently, I love the holding power, love that it is aluminum. Strength is no issue has you can just get a bigger one with nice beefy scantlings. It's light. It does not need re-galvanizing. Fantastic warranty.

Perfect. Almost.

Steve

[Ryan H]

I don't really understand the back and forth that seems to occasionally happen between the anchor manufacturers and the real world testers here...

For instance, it seems like half the time fortress admits their main advantage is their straight line of pull, weight savings, and setting ability in mud. When I read those posts it all makes perfect sense and I want to get an oversize fortress as a secondary/extra major storm anchor.

The other half the time it seems fortress tries to argue the point of the whole rotate/reset issue and belittle the work and effort our resident anchor testers have put into providing fair, unbiased, real world anchor tests. The only thing that seems to accomplish is that a half dozen or so posters crawl out of the woodworks with either anecdotes or picture evidence that show what the independent anchor testers are saying does actually happen....

Even from a basic marketing perspective it sort of has the opposite effect of what fortress was looking for, it highlights the weaknesses of their product even more and makes it look like they're ignoring a really possible safety concern for us boaters (ie. Doesn't fill your possible future customers with confidence.)

I mean, it's nowhere NEAR as bad as the mud slinging that will exist forever online that Rocna used to do (which is why I personally will not EVER do business with that company...not ever)... but it does sort of appear to just about always have the opposite effect from what the anchor manufacturer actually intended....

[sanibel sailor]

Originally Posted by Ryan H

I don't really understand the back and forth that seems to occasionally happen between the anchor manufacturers and the real world testers here...


Even from a basic marketing perspective it sort of has the opposite effect of what fortress was looking for, it highlights the weaknesses of their product even more and makes it look like they're ignoring a really possible safety concern for us boaters (ie. Doesn't fill your possible future customers with confidence.)

I mean, it's nowhere NEAR as bad as the mud slinging that will exist forever online that Rocna used to do (which is why I personally will not EVER do business with that company...not ever)... but it does sort of appear to just about always have the opposite effect from what the anchor manufacturer actually intended....

I agree. Big turn-off

And I own a two Fortresses and would replace it with another if lost. I love its strengths and these tests help me be more aware of its weaknesses.

For instance- Watching the anchor test video on Fortress's website ( Videos - The World’s Best Anchors! ) shows that the Fortress kicks butt on holding power... but often comes up with the flukes jammed with mud- great for holding but I now suspect that this carries the downside of inhibitng reset if it flips. Of course if it is buried halfway to China, that may be less of an issue.

I did not watch all the Fortress videos but they seem to focus on straight line pull. Fortress might want to prove the testers wrong with some video showing it handling direction change and resetting well.

[Munoz]

Originally Posted by Ryan H

I don't really understand the back and forth that seems to occasionally happen between the anchor manufacturers and the real world testers here...

I mean, it's nowhere NEAR as bad as the mud slinging that will exist forever online that Rocna used to do (which is why I personally will not EVER do business with that company...not ever)... but it does sort of appear to just about always have the opposite effect from what the anchor manufacturer actually intended....

Having a good anchor you can count on is basically having good insurance for your boat. So at the end of the day the product they are selling is basically insurance..... (or at least, thats how I see it).

While most of the manufactures seem fairly honest (if a little one eyed at times), the behavior/morals of one or two companies* have displayed is probably only to be expected for insurance salesmen....

*just to clarify, I'm NOT referring to Fortress here.....

[Fortress]

I appreciate the kind words and I fully accept the criticism for my posts. For the most part, it is my intention to only get involved in threads to offer product information or for defensive reasons, which typically occur after I have viewed repeated comments and testing that I believe are unfair.

An example would be a comment such as "this sort of design is often poor retaining grip if it is required to rotate around to new direction of pull." A blanket statement like that is nonsensical when you consider that there are many different factors which will determine any anchor's ability to rotate in a sea bed (anchor size, soil type, depth it is buried, etc.).


As an example, many of you know from the stories written about the Chesapeake Bay soft mud testing that a 21 lb (10 kg) Fortress FX-37 was lost after it had achieved 2,000 lbs of tension and during the attempt to retrieve it, the wire rope broke at 3,500 lbs.

While at a 1:1 scope, the winch operator aboard the 81-ft test vessel estimated that the FX-37 was buried 13 ft (4 meters) into the mud, and the thought that this anchor had a "poor retaining grip" and could have been pulled out easier with a change of pull direction is almost comical.

Additionally, I rarely comment about other anchor manufacturers' products unless it is to offer praise, the exception being when one of them includes our product in a test that is clearly bogus in nature.

Safe anchoring,
Brian

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by Panope

I don't know, Chris. I thought it was not half bad looking on the roller.

Really I was just being a smart ass , but I have seen a lot of danforth style anchors really clumsily wedged into the roller in a way that just didn't look right. Your photo is certainly evidence to the contrary.

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by Fortress

While at a 1:1 scope, the winch operator aboard the 81-ft test vessel estimated that the FX-37 was buried 13 ft (4 meters) into the mud, and the thought that this anchor had a "poor retaining grip" and could have been pulled out easier with a change of pull direction is almost comical.

I'd say sighting an example in extremely, famously soft mud to argue the point that an anchor design can handle changes in direction is "almost comical".

Show people data in firm, weedy mud (with *realistic* setting forces applied) that your anchor isn't more likely to foul as directions change. Or accept the anecdotal evidence that it is. Just piling on more anecdotal evidence (but from the perspective of a salesman rather than someone with no conflicts of interest) does very little to sway my opinion.

I certainly don't have the data, and don't mean to imply I know one way or the other how fortresses compare to others in direction changes. I just have a 'k.i.s.s.' philosophy that by having moving parts this anchor has introduced additional failure modes, and I have heard plenty of examples of it failing in the way you'd expect.

I'm surprised by how sparse the data is in this industry. I think it would be pretty straightforward, given a month or two of fulltime testing, to get some statistically relevant data. There are so many variables, the only useful way to think about anchor performance is probabilisticly. A day or two of testing is absurdly inadequate coverage. I think this is another reason I trust the opinion that emerges from the fulltime cruiser community more than anything you've presented.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by chris95040

I'd say sighting an example in extremely, famously soft mud to argue the point that an anchor design can handle changes in direction is "almost comical".

The point about soft mud was simply to illustrate an example of a bottom condition in which a comment about a Fortress having "a poor retaining grip" is grossly inaccurate. This might also hold true in other common bottom conditions as well after the anchor has been properly set and loaded to insure that it is embedded into the sea bottom, and the soil is hard compressed against the anchor's surface area.

Originally Posted by chris95040

I'm surprised by how sparse the data is in this industry. I think it would be pretty straightforward, given a month or two of fulltime testing, to get some statistically relevant data. There are so many variables, the only useful way to think about anchor performance is probabilisticly. A day or two of testing is absurdly inadequate coverage. I think this is another reason I trust the opinion that emerges from the fulltime cruiser community more than anything you've presented.

That's an interesting point. Our late founder was a lifelong and very adventurous boater who once took a boat 1,000 miles up the Amazon, he crossed the Atlantic several times, and he completed a circumnavigation in his early 70s. I know that he conducted thousands of tests during the design phase of our product in the nearby south Florida coastal ocean sand bottoms and inland mud swamps.

He was also willing to make a serious investment and invite the boating public aboard to witness and independently-verify holding power tests in Miami and San Francisco during one of the first years of our inception (1990).

The Chesapeake Bay public tests in 2014 ran 4 full days and 60 pull tests (5x per anchor) were conducted, and this was certainly the most extensive test ever conducted in one location on pleasure craft anchors.

But further to your point: I totally agree that the word of a full-time cruiser who is well-experienced in anchoring in multiple areas and bottom conditions holds greater value. Only a fool argues with someone with such experience and success.