Danforth vs Fortress vs WM Performance

[CSY Man]

G'day again CSY. There was an amount of sarcasium in my last post, poorly done by the looks as well sorry

I would have been very surprised if you said you did have only one anchor, you certianly don't appear to be that stupid.

Uh, thanks, I guess

Sarcasm no good when talking about anchors...serious subject.

What do you need for a hurricane? Luck and plenty of it. I doubt very much any boat could carry a hurricane proof system and still float. You could put a 200lber on and you still won't sleep. Hurricanes are one of those do your best and hope like hell events. If it goes real real bad any anchor won't help you really.

Don't plan to sleep during a hurricane.

yes, luck is a big part of hurricane protection. The other part is big anchor.

Never met one guy or girl in my life that ever complained about having too big of an anchor in a storm..Never....

You have great snubbers even though you never mentioned them,

No snubbers...Doing something else..Long story.
Snubbers are for taking the load of the windlass.
I installed BIG cleats behind the windlass and let it free-wheel with the chain over the gypsy...15 degree angle, max load on the chain will be less that max load on windlass considering sine and co-sine.

Catenary on the chain will take the shock load.
That being said, I DO have a couple of short 1/2 Inch nylon snubbers onboard (15 feet). but never used them.
Should get longer ones, like 30 feet for more stretch.

For hurricanes I have 250 feet of 3/4 inch nylon rope spliced to the 215 feet of chain..Total of 465 feet of rode.

And 2 more similar, but shorter rodes for the other anchors.

I just don't want you ending up with a monster that is a pain to use 98% of the time for the 2% when it's a bit of a crap shot anyway.

Thanks for the concern, but have been using my Delta 55 lbs for 6 years and have found it to be a moderate to easy pain 98% of the time, never a BIG pain..Seriously.

Measured my anchor and the 55 lbs Rocna today..Just may order it...50 % more holding power for the Rocna and no more pain in the butt: Hurricane hook for everyday use..Why not?

A 10 KG anchor would be easier to launch and retrieve, but..even more so for a 5 KG..Not sure that going down in size would make me sleep better.
Sleep is important, so is the boat.

[GMac]

Thanks for the concern, but have been using my Delta 55 lbs for 6 years and have found it to be a moderate to easy pain 98% of the time, never a BIG pain..Seriously.

Measured my anchor and the 55 lbs Rocna today..Just may order it...50 % more holding power for the Rocna and no more pain in the butt: Hurricane hook for everyday use..Why not?

Could never argue anything against that statement. I like the "a moderate to easy pain 98%", nicely put.

The 1st bit was a convoluted good comment

I'm sure you'll sleep well, sail safe and enjoy.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

No snubbers...Doing something else..Long story.
Snubbers are for taking the load of the windlass.
I installed BIG cleats behind the windlass and let it free-wheel with the chain over the gypsy...15 degree angle, max load on the chain will be less that max load on windlass considering sine and co-sine.

Catenary on the chain will take the shock load.

Interesting. I am getting used to our new-to-us used boat. We have 250' of chain with a manual windlass, both of which are new toys for me. (My old boat was equiped with nylon anchor line and a stronger, younger back.) The foredeck is set up so that we can take the chain off the gypsy and hook the chain to the boat behind the windlass. (We hook the chain to a special chain hook welded to the inside of the locker for the windlass, which is below deck.)

But I still have snubber line because if the wind ever takes the catenary out of the chain, the shock loads skyrocket. Is this something you don't worry about? I admit, I only use the snubber when I don't know what the weather is going to do. When the weather is good, I pass on the snubber. But the rest of the time, I snubber even though the chain is off the windlass. I never leave the chain on the gypsy at anchor.

I don't have enough experience with all chain to know how much wind is needed to take out the catenary, which I would guess is partly a function of depth.

[CSY Man]

But I still have snubber line because if the wind ever takes the catenary out of the chain, the shock loads skyrocket. Is this something you don't worry about?

Yeah, I am aware of it: If indeed I expect extreme conditions, I have the snubbers ready, but in reality I just let out more chain..Say in 10 feet of water depth, I can let out 100 feet or more. With that kind of scope, I have never seen the chain straight.

As I said earlier, should I find myself in harms way, I can always let out all the chain and some nylon, then the nylon will act as a snubber.

To avoid chafe I had a machine shop make me a SS anchor roller for the Port side. If and when I use the snubber, it goes over the SS roller.

The Starboard side roller is for the chain, it has a nylon roller, made for boat trailers, but modified to fit my anchor platform.

I never leave the chain on the gypsy at anchor.

No, ya shouldn't unless the gypsy can be released to "free-wheel".

(I have 555 Sea Tiger manual windlass)

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

But I still have snubber line because if the wind ever takes the catenary out of the chain, the shock loads skyrocket. .

I don't have enough experience with all chain to know how much wind is needed to take out the catenary, which I would guess is partly a function of depth.

Hi Hiracer,

From a purely mathematical point of View, to have the chain perfectly straight.. you need an infinite load.. but from a practical point of view, if using "normal" sized chain and scope, with as few as 25 to 30 knots of wind, your chain will be nearly taught with no catenary shock absorbtion effect (see on: rode body)

Except on very settled weather an all chain rode should be avoided.. or used with a good ELASTIC snubber, to absorb the sharp shock loads given by the dynamic load on the anchor.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Alain d'HYLAS

but from a practical point of view, if using "normal" sized chain and scope, with as few as 25 to 30 knots of wind, your chain will be nearly taught with no catenary shock absorbtion effect.

Alain:

Thanks. That's not much wind, really. In deeper water, with more chain and therefore more weight in the catenary, I assume the wind force would have to be higher. But I can see that the better practice is to automate the snubber business, which we shall do from now on.

* * *

Speaking of thread drift, I've been meaning to ask you how the Sword is performing relative to the Spade. I haven't seen any anchor tests with the Sword. If I were to ever design an anchor, my first try would be along the lines of the Sword. I read elsewhere the Sword, not the Spade, is your main anchor these days.

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

I've been meaning to ask you how the Sword is performing relative to the Spade.

Hi John,

The Sword anchor is a slight variation over the “Spade” ideology..

The concept is that the anchor holding is more related to the surface area of the fluke, than to the total weight of the anchor..

Therefore, we have suppressed the heavy lead ballast of the Spade and for the same total weight, we have increased the total fluke surface area.. Just to give you an example, the "blade" surface area of the 20 kg Sword is the same than the one of the 30 kg Spade.. (= same holding)

But if weight is not important for holding, it is very important for the first phase of anchoring.. anchor penetration. Then, we have used an original idea.. moving the shank fixation from the usual place at the back part of the fluke.. toward the anchor tip.

If you look carefully at the Sword, you will see that the shank is welded in the first half (tip side) of the fluke, not at the back, like most other anchors.

It is not the place where the shank is welded which is important, but the angle between the fixation of the chain and the center of gravity of the fluke? and this angle is still the same.

By moving the place where the shank is welded, and although we don’t have any more ballast, we use the weight of the shank as a ballast and therefore we can still achieve a weight distribution at the anchor tip of about 30% of the total anchor weight (to be compared for example to 18% for the CQR)

As the Sword is a well balanced anchor, it doesn’t need a “roll bar” at the back of the fluke to adopt the right setting position.. an inefficiency common to several “new technology” anchors

Last point, as for the Spade I have tried to make the best possible product, regardless of the price; for the Sword, we have tried to make the product as cheap as possible, using the same manufacturing process than our competitors.

Now why to chose as Spade?? If you are planning to make some “exotic” anchorages, in difficult sea grounds, weed, hard sand, coral etc.. then the Spade has about 50% of its weight on the anchor tip and will penetrate where no other anchors will.

Its holding is one of the highest and the look of the anchor is simply beautiful.. but the price is also more expensive..

[Hiracer]

Alain:

I understand the theory behind the Sword, but I haven't seen much--if any--reports on its actually setting ability. Moreover, I haven't heard of a direct comparison of the Spade to the Sword, except at a theoritical level. This is probably because virtually nobody has used both.

I was wondering if you could comment on your experience, since you have used both. Given the difference in tip weight, I would expect the Spade to set more dependably. The question is, how much a difference is there in the setting performance between the two?

The reason I ask is actually related to the scope of this thread. If one is looking for a lightweight back up anchor, the Fortress is regularly recommended. Should the Sword be put in that category too? It is also lightweight back up anchor?

It is inherently efficient in term of weight for surface area, even though it is not an alloy anchor. Yet for just a little more weight over the Fortress, perhaps one may posess a back-up anchor that sets more dependably than the Fortress and doesn't have the tendancy to fail to reset during a 180 degree veer.

Hence, my inquiry about comparing the Sword's setting to the Spade. The Fortress would in no way be in the same league, setting-wise, as the Spade. Where does the Sword fit in, in terms of setting dependability? More like a Spade, or more like a Fortress?

Or perhaps the thrust of my questioning here would be better served if I were to compare the steel Danforth, Spade, and Sword. The ratio of weight per surface area for the Danforth and the Sword would be roughly similar, I assume.

You see where I'm going with this?

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Hi John,

Yes I have used both, and the Sword mainly in South America, Brazil, Uruguay in sand and mud (river mouths) but never in difficult sea grounds, hard sand and weed.. I never had problem setting the Sword at the first attempt.

Now, although the weight on the Sword tip is lighter that the one of the Spade.. it is slightly higher than the one of the Delta, and (up to my knowledge) I never heard anybody complaining about the setting ability of the Delta.

Yes I agree with you, the Sword can be considered as a lightweight back up anchor, as the 20 kg Sword has the same surface area (holding) as the 30 kg Spade

And yes again, the ratio of weight per surface area for the Danforth and the Sword would be roughly similar, but I will never suggest to use the Danforth (or Fortress) as a Main anchor


Alain
http://www.idonotsaleanyanchor.com

[clsailor]

To go back to your orginial question. Wset Marine performed test on the fluke anchors they sell and the Fortress out-preformed them all including there own model. Results published in the 2007 West marine catalog.

[Tropic Cat]

Fortress anchors hold very well in sand, of that there's no question. But.. (isn't there always a 'but'?), this style anchor is very sensitive to direction. Set it in one direction in sand and it will bury itself deep and bend or break before releasing, (this is a good thing) however, change the direction of pull from the 'set direction' and whoops, a whole new set of problems.

In a hurricane, the wind is never from one direction, and this anchor will break out with a direction change.

Now, before you jump on me for this comment. I'm a big Fortress fan. I carry 3 of them on my boat. I think it's a great anchor, hurricanes not withstanding, and I wouldn't use anything else where I cruise. Florida is mostly sand bottoms and in my opinion this is a great sand anchor.

It's just a matter of knowing the strengths and weaknesses of my ground tackle.

In a (near miss) hurricane, I use 3 of them spaced 120 degrees apart attached to a bridle which in turn is attached to each of my hulls. This solves the direction problem and they work well. I thank Charles Kanter for describing the 3 anchor set.

Rick in Florida

[Maine Sail]

First;

Craig I love, love, love my Rocna 33lb!!!!!!!!!

Second;

Hiracer,

You want a Fortress hands down over the other two & yes I have bent a Fortress but they replaced the part with no questions asked....

[Alain d'HYLAS]

Our indiscreet camera came unexpectedly upon this new version of the Rocna anchor..



As you can obviously see, this Rocna anchor is now copying the slotted shank of the Manson Supreme anchor!..


Copying would seem ethically wrong. . If a manufacturer can only copy the developments of others, what else is he not capable of? Building a knock-off anchor is not like copying a music CD; there are subtle but very important aspects to the original anchor which are critical but may be ignored by the copier.

From my own point of view, the slot is a fundamental problem that apart from being a bad idea in the first place, creates all sorts of complications including:

• reducing the weight-on-tip of the anchor because extra steel needs to be added to reinforce the shank
• adding an extra two lengthy profile cuts to the shank, which is bad because the heat of the gas profile cutter can destroy the tensile strength of the metal.
• increases the height of the shank which creates problems on bow-rollers; if it comes up upside down or sideways, it may not right itself, balancing on the side of the shank, and so jamming, or if it does right itself it does so violently. If you look at the older popular anchors like the CQR and Bruce, you'll see they have relatively shallow profile shanks – for a reason.
• Rocna themselves even admit the slot is less than useful, but now, after copying from the Supreme the fixation of the roll bar on the side of the fluke, they also adopt the slotted shank!…

Where will they stop their copying process and how long before the Rocna will be a genuine… copy of the Supreme??

[Keegan]

Originally Posted by Alain d'HYLAS

Where will they stop their copying process and how long before the Rocna will be a genuine… copy of the Supreme??

Spade vs. Rocna....you guys are funny (Alain and Craig), sometines you act like you are aligned with each other and then you post stuff like this to start a war of words.

Anyway, I enjoy reading the debates between you and the others.

I did purchase my anchors for my new Catamaran over the last two weeks and I chose the following:

Rocna 33 got the award of PRIMARY ANCHOR
Spade A140 Got the award of Secondary or Stern
Fortress FX 55 Got the award of Storm/Stowed/backup anchor.

This will be the pecking order on my boat. Sorry Alain that I could not put you as PRIMARY.

I will report on how they all work for me after I use them for awhile.

Keegan

[craigsmith]

Our indiscreet camera came unexpectedly upon this new version of the Rocna anchor..

A brief refutation.

This post is completely false and clearly intended to disparage the Rocna product and defame the people associated with it. Rather than expressing the valid opinion of the author, it makes use of false accusations and fraudulent material.

As Poiraud is the designer of a product which competes with the Rocna, it is assumed that motive and intent is obvious and easily demonstrable. It is regrettable that a competitor would need to resort to fabricating stories in order to pursue their agenda, rather than providing valid and honest arguments -

Actually scratch all that, we may as well admit it. Poiraud, in his full-time quest for dirt on us, has managed to dig up the designs for our prototype “Rocna Supreme”. In order to avoid lowering the tensile strength of the shank by profile cutting a slot, we intend to just use wood, instead of steel. Hey, if it was good enough for the ancient Romans... In the pursuit of finding a novel and hence patentable design, we will also be using glass for the fluke (just try copying us now Manson!). Beta testers for this prototype are invited to submit requests!