Rocna's new anchor/ Hey, Anchor thread!!!

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by colemj

Like I said in my post, a Fortress is a good primary anchor only in a specific and invariable bottom type. The Chesapeake mud fits this perfectly. However, outside of the Chesapeake and some other near-by East Coast places, soupy mud is not the bottom one encounters.

Etc.

Yep, fair enough, just meant to voice -- agree, really -- that there are some areas where the Fortress can make sense as a primary.... and that since there are a bazillion boats here on the Chesapeake (for instance) it makes sense to me that Fortress would woo (?) that market for primary anchors.



I should add I don't have as much experience with our current primary (and it's immediate slightly smaller version predecessor) in anything other than Chesapeake mud, so don't know how "buried" it might get in some other substrate... We always had good success with the earlier version when we lived in FL, earlier/smaller boat, but I didn't dive on it to see. IOW, I wasn't meaning to suggest an anchor always has to be completely buried in any bottom to be effective. Just seems deeper would usually be better.

-Chris

[Fortress]

Mark,

As I am sure you know, any anchor with a fluke or two can break free and bring up sediment from a sea bottom, regardless of the pull direction.

Our late founder was a lifelong and very adventurous boater, as he once took his boat 1,000 miles up the Amazon River, he crossed the Atlantic several times, and he completed a circumnavigation in his early 70s.

He used to say that once an anchor breaks free from a sea bottom, then it is oftentimes no longer an anchor, it is likely to be a massive ball without any sharp edges in which to re-penetrate the bottom, and so for maximum safety, setting two anchors is advisable if a wind or tidal shift is expected.

In addition to soft mud, Fortress anchors perform superbly in clay and sand bottoms, where they might not bury as deeply as in soft mud, but they will bury deep enough once loaded up to still provide tremendous holding capacity.

I am not aware of Alain Poiraud's analysis about roll stability. Years ago before his passing we shared some good-natured and respectful "my anchor is better than your anchor" type of correspondence. I will always consider Alain to have been a modern day pioneer in anchor design.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If you will look at the large selection of photos in Noelex's anchoring thread, you'll see that setting "in a shank length" is not at all a fiction. If good technique is used, and the seabed is suitable for the particular anchor, the anchor goes right in. Particularly in good bottoms like sand.

I also don't agree that the right way to set an anchor in soft mud is to drag it through the mud until it sets. Soft mud is in fact the case where if you want any hope of setting the anchor, you have to let it settle and sink in before you start to pull on it. If it starts moving a significant distance, then it won't set, and will likely get fouled. That's the whole challenge of anchoring in soft mud in my experience.

I do, however, believe your statement about ultimate holding force mostly being proportionate to mass of the anchor. With some exceptions like Fortress and Aluminum Spades which hold above their weight class.

In my opinion ultimate holding force is not the most important quality of an anchor, and maybe it's even trivial. What we care about rather is how reliably and easily it achieves a set in a variety of bottom types.

Shank length setting. I was specific about soft mud. I have done a fiar amount of instrumented anchor testing, and obviouly, we all agree that in good sand a shank length or 2 is practical.

Soaking. I've sailed in this soft mud area for 3o years. Yes, soaking helps. But it only takes you so deep and has little AFFECT on ultimate holding power or drag-in distance to ultimate holding power in very soft mud areas. The anchor will soak in a few feet deep, and that does allow you to get a better initial bite, but a typical sail boat doesn't have the engine to reach more than 30% of storm loads, so the balance of the setting happens later. It should be mathematically obvious that for a Fortress to dive 13 feet or a Mantus to dive 6-8 will take >30 in most conditions. There is a glide slope to consider. In sand the anchor will only need to bury2-3 feet, and that will be much faster.

My point was to make people understand that in soft mud you need to allow for a 40' setting /drag in process if a severe storm is required.

---

Obviously "typical bottoms" and a "variety of bottom types" is the challenge when choosing or evaluating a general purpose anchor. The truth is that we all that "one size fits all" is never true. There is no anchor (at what most think is a reasonable size) that will hold in 60 knots over pudding mud and loose rocks. "One size fits most" is a worthy goal, and when we consider the progress over the years, I would say the anchor makers have been trying.

We shouldn't bash anchor testing that favors one situation. We should get off our bums and tests what we think matters. It is a LOT of work. A whole lot.

I've got a series of articles coming out soon (PS) focused not on brands, but on veering and multiple anchor rigs (some work, some don't, and the best rig depends on the bottom type). I thought it made sense to explore how a cruiser can best use whatever he had on board. I'm sure not everyone will agree with the findings, but the data is the data, and I hope it adds something thought provoking to the knowledge base.

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by ranger42c

I should add I don't have as much experience with our current primary (and it's immediate slightly smaller version predecessor) in anything other than Chesapeake mud, so don't know how "buried" it might get in some other substrate... We always had good success with the earlier version when we lived in FL, earlier/smaller boat, but I didn't dive on it to see. IOW, I wasn't meaning to suggest an anchor always has to be completely buried in any bottom to be effective. Just seems deeper would usually be better.

Ooops! Hold the phone!! I mis-reported. Memory is a transitory thing...

I forgot, we didn't put the Max16 on the previous boat until after we moved back to the Chesapeake from FLL. Down there, and on the trip up, we used a Delta, and it worked fine. And our back-up Fortress (smaller than the current one) also worked fine as a kedge once, but didn't really get a lot of action as a normal anchor. And during that time, we never really anchored in "sporty" weather conditions.

I had already had prior experience with a Delta up here, and while it worked OK, I preferred to aim for better performance in mud... so that's when we changed to the first pivoting SuperMax. Good performance.

When we moved to the current boat, we upsized the Fortress and used the new one as primary because it was still light enough so that we could handle it manually. Good performance.

And then more recently, we had a surprise chance to easily upsize to the correct (recommended) pivoting Max17 for this boat.

Sorry for boo boo earlier.

-Chris

[Spade Anchor]

Thank you Fortress for your kind words about Alain Poiraud!

[cwyckham]

I'm totally with Mark on this one. The Fortress is the best stern/secondary/kedge anchor in the world and is present on a huge proportion of cruising boats (including mine).

The fact that the flukes can jam and it can end up totally stable on its back with the pointy bits sticking up is a problem on a primary anchor in any condition except deep mud. I just can't get past that.

I've also had a bad drag where we set the anchor as well as we could with a 30hp engine but the stock was still sticking up. We looped the anchor in light winds and the chain caught on the stock yanking it out when the wind came back up.

Some small boats have no room for a larger anchor and the incredible straight line holding power per pound trumps the other issues, but for a boat that can hold a Rocna, Spade, Mantus, etc. I don't see a Fortress as a good choice for the bower anchor.

[Spade Anchor]

To address the issue of roll bar stability. The Spade does not need the roll bar due to its lead filled ballast tip and side wings/ears that are on the fluke.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

I'm totally with Mark on this one. The Fortress is the best stern/secondary/kedge anchor in the world and is present on a huge proportion of cruising boats (including mine).

The fact that the flukes can jam and it can end up totally stable on its back with the pointy bits sticking up is a problem on a primary anchor in any condition except deep mud. I just can't get past that.

I've also had a bad drag where we set the anchor as well as we could with a 30hp engine but the stock was still sticking up. We looped the anchor in light winds and the chain caught on the stock yanking it out when the wind came back up.

Some small boats have no room for a larger anchor and the incredible straight line holding power per pound trumps the other issues, but for a boat that can hold a Rocna, Spade, Mantus, etc. I don't see a Fortress as a good choice for the bower anchor.

Chris,

Thanks for your insights. We know that any anchor can get a fluke jammed on a clam shell or a rock and be rendered useless, so fouling on a sea bottom is not exclusive to only the Danforth / Fortress anchor-types.

Additionally, from the Chesapeake Bay testing we also saw firsthand that if some anchors landed upside down in soft mud, then they would simply sink and slide along the bottom in that position. The single fluke would not turn over and orient into the correct downward position.

By contrast, a pivoting fluke Danforth/ Fortress-type does not have a right side up, it will work perfectly fine landing on either side and be ready to engage the soft mud bottom.

I have often stated that if a boat lacks the engine power to properly bury a more massive Fortress, then a heavy plow-type with a single narrow fluke might be a better anchor choice.

However, to totally dismiss it as being a possible excellent bower / primary anchor for other boats is simply not representative of the over 500k customers who have owned and used our anchors during the past 25+ years, nor the significantly greater number of Danforth customers who have used their anchors as primaries for decades beforehand.

All the best,
Brian

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Chris,

Thanks for your insights. We know that any anchor can get a fluke jammed on a clam shell or a rock and be rendered useless, so fouling on a sea bottom is not exclusive to only the Danforth / Fortress anchor-types.

Additionally, from the Chesapeake Bay testing we also saw firsthand that if some anchors landed upside down in soft mud, then they would simply sink and slide along the bottom in that position. The single fluke would not turn over and orient into the correct downward position.

By contrast, a pivoting fluke Danforth/ Fortress-type does not have a right side up, it will work perfectly fine landing on either side and be ready to engage the soft mud bottom.

I have often stated that if a boat lacks the engine power to properly bury a more massive Fortress, then a heavy plow-type with a single narrow fluke might be a better anchor choice.

However, to totally dismiss it as being a possible excellent bower / primary anchor for other boats is simply not representative of the over 500k customers who have owned and used our anchors during the past 25+ years, nor the significantly greater number of Danforth customers who have used their anchors as primaries for decades beforehand.

All the best,
Brian

Hi Brian, thank you for your response.

I wan't referring to the tip of a fluke getting jammed on something (I agree that any anchor is prone to this), but rather mud, weed, or an object jamming the hinging action so that the anchor ends up on its back and can't hinge to get the pointy bits down.

I also agree that in soft mud, the other attributes of the anchor far outweigh this problem and in a soft mud situation, the Fortress is probably the best anchor for a primary. I just wouldn't extend that statement to other bottoms.

I am one of the 500k plus satisfied Fortress owners. I used it two weeks ago to orient my boat into the swell on a windless night and slept much better for it. I will always have one strapped to my pushpit for emergencies and as a stern anchor. I just don't agree that it's the right choice as a good all around primary anchor.

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Chris,

Thanks for your insights. We know that any anchor can get a fluke jammed on a clam shell or a rock and be rendered useless, so fouling on a sea bottom is not exclusive to only the Danforth / Fortress anchor-types.

Additionally, from the Chesapeake Bay testing we also saw firsthand that if some anchors landed upside down in soft mud, then they would simply sink and slide along the bottom in that position. The single fluke would not turn over and orient into the correct downward position.

By contrast, a pivoting fluke Danforth/ Fortress-type does not have a right side up, it will work perfectly fine landing on either side and be ready to engage the soft mud bottom.

I have often stated that if a boat lacks the engine power to properly bury a more massive Fortress, then a heavy plow-type with a single narrow fluke might be a better anchor choice.

However, to totally dismiss it as being a possible excellent bower / primary anchor for other boats is simply not representative of the over 500k customers who have owned and used our anchors during the past 25+ years, nor the significantly greater number of Danforth customers who have used their anchors as primaries for decades beforehand.

All the best,
Brian

I met two of your customers on Cuttyhunk, when a light + variable wind caused them to pop loose. Our SW wind temporarily became NE. Less than 5kt, but enough to cause our boats to move 180 degrees.

Thanks to CF I've become an anchor nerd, and I watched everyone next to me come in that day. Everyone set under power. 2 plows, 2 fortress danforths, and me with a shiny new Rocna. Come 11PM, the two guys with danforth's were dragging, one of whom I caught alongside me and had to wake up. As he drove away, he asked "what kind of anchor do YOU have?" :-) " ROCNA!!!!"

I think its a useful anchor technology but not a good choice for a PRIMARY.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

To address the issue of roll bar stability. The Spade does not need the roll bar due to its lead filled ballast tip and side wings/ears that are on the fluke.

We are discussing roll stability, not roll-bar stability. Given your pedigree with Alain Poiraud, I would expect you to be up on that. Roll stability was one of his pet points and he went to lengths to describe and demonstrate the physics behind this aspect of different anchor designs.

Roll bar anchors like the Rocna, Supreme and Mantus are roll-stable designs, as are Spade, Ultra, and others of this ilk. Danforth designs are not roll-stable, although Bulwagga was a stable design derived from the best aspects of a Danforth.

Mark

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by chris95040

I met two of your customers on Cuttyhunk, when a light + variable wind caused them to pop loose. Our SW wind temporarily became NE. Less than 5kt, but enough to cause our boats to move 180 degrees.

Thanks to CF I've become an anchor nerd, and I watched everyone next to me come in that day. Everyone set under power. 2 plows, 2 fortress danforths, and me with a shiny new Rocna. Come 11PM, the two guys with danforth's were dragging, one of whom I caught alongside me and had to wake up. As he drove away, he asked "what kind of anchor do YOU have?" :-) " ROCNA!!!!"

I think its a useful anchor technology but not a good choice for a PRIMARY.

Chris,

I don't know from your post whether they had Danforth or Fortress anchors in use. In either case, there is always the possibility, and maybe even the likelihood, that they were undersized for the application.

That has been the reason for failure in vast majority of cases I have heard about during the past 18+ years while working with Fortress, and sometimes with competitive anchors as well.

If you know any specifics about the above, they would be interesting to know.

Another reason for a failure, and a commonly overlooked one, can simply be poor setting technique.

Safe anchoring,
Brian

[downunder]

Originally Posted by thinwater

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

Soaking. I've sailed in this soft mud area for 3o years. Yes, soaking helps. But it only takes you so deep and has little AFFECT on ultimate holding power or drag-in distance to ultimate holding power in very soft mud areas. The anchor will soak in a few feet deep, and that does allow you to get a better initial bite, but a typical sail boat doesn't have the engine to reach more than 30% of storm loads, so the balance of the setting happens later. It should be mathematically obvious that for a Fortress to dive 13 feet or a Mantus to dive 6-8 will take >30 in most conditions. There is a glide slope to consider. In sand the anchor will only need to bury2-3 feet, and that will be much faster.

My point was to make people understand that in soft mud you need to allow for a 40' setting /drag in process if a severe storm is required.

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

Obviously in soft mud we hear of anchors diving completely below the surface.

From the underwater photo anchor thread seems in normal anchoring roll bar anchors rarely bury.

Does anybody have any knowledge of anchors burying completely in normal anchoring by sail boats?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by impi

Hey Downunder ... being brave on a Rocna post huh

Was really hoping to catch up with you in Oz mate - we have delayed the visit a bit as circumstances have moved us in the direction of NZ for now ... will catch up when we next pass there though ..

Make sure you catch up. I will be somewhat incapacitated from 30th Nov for a period following 2X total knee replacements.

Cheers

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by downunder

Does anybody have any knowledge of anchors burying completely in normal anchoring by sail boats?

Maybe not "normal" but I have seen a Fortress FX-11 completely buried in sand during a kedging operation. Took one hell of a lot to get it out. I recall we used a 45 foot twin engine cruiser and there was great concern about pulling a cleat out of the transom.