What happened to Bruce almighty?

[bobconnie]

I will never forget the first time I spent BIG Boat Bucks, at least big for us LOL we bought a 65 lb Bruce anchor! Boy I thought my problems were over with !! No more 75 lb Danforth, no more 60 lb CQR Boy I would never have anchoring problem again !! Well ya know I never found the right way to set this darn anchor!! I tryed the let her sit awhile, and the half scope and set her hard! I tryed them all ! And I ended up going back to my danforth,( hardly ever used the CQR) Im sure that there must be something to them as folks who's judgement I value use them and love them ! But I was never able to trust my boat to this anchor, like I was to my danforth. Im sure it was my problem not the anchors! I was able to sell it for as much as it cost us, so can't complain about the value LOL but the Old Bruce, right from the manufacturer just would not work for us !!

[Andrew Troup]

I wonder if there's an analogy in the case of the Bruce with a tradesman who does a good job, even a great job under some circumstances, but can't pass his exams.

Whereas the CQR is possibly a bit like a person with some sort of issue, like autism maybe, who needs careful management but is also capable of doing good work and very occasionally will really shine.

If we judge based on actual performance in the field, it often gives a different answer from performance under the standardised and somewhat artificial conditions of an examination.

And people who were worth their weight in gold under the "old regime" are routinely put out of work with the modern emphasis on credentials, academic qualifications, and training outcomes.

I once worked on a cruising yacht with an undersized genuine CQR as a main anchor (45lb on a 52 foot alu hulled, light-to-moderate, narrowish beam, 'proper yacht' sailboat)

The skipper was the owner's son, early to mid twenties, with some great qualities but little experience. He had an aversion to setting the anchor properly: he was convinced that the big Hundstedt variable-pitch prop could pull harder in reverse than any wind we would ever encounter, so he refrained from putting any sort of pull on the anchor at all.

Where possible, I would wait until he was safely ashore and then fire up the Mitsubishi diesel again, and gently work the anchor into the bottom. The times I was able to do this, I was generally able to persuade it to handle full thrust in reverse, but never immediately. And we never dragged on occasions where I'd had this opportunity.

The Bruce, in my experience, is much more straightforward and reliable, but it still needs to be set properly and with regard to its particular needs, generally at shortened scope, before putting it under a heavy load.

[sabray]

Most boats here have cqr. Given the bottom it's a poor choice. I suspect they are not using them though. The chain is probably rusted up and they think a snubber is an insult.
Somehow they lived through the anchor revolution.
For us that anchor my Bruce has always set.
Because its been set in ground that it can set in.
The one time it would not set was in hard pan. Nothing was setting in that. Except maybe a fishermen.

[markpierce]

Same here, Sabray. A common combination:

[Kettlewell]

Anybody know exactly what the original Bruce anchors are made out of? Some sort of cast steel, or is it iron? Whatever, they have a certain hue after awhile, sort of rust reddish, but not really rust. Whatever it was it couldn't stand regalvanizing apparently. Beth and Evans had one come back with cracks after the regalvanizing process.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Anybody know exactly what the original Bruce anchors are made out of? Some sort of cast steel, or is it iron? Whatever, they have a certain hue after awhile, sort of rust reddish, but not really rust. Whatever it was it couldn't stand regalvanizing apparently. Beth and Evans had one come back with cracks after the regalvanizing process.

It's cast steel, not iron. (Refer Bruce Anchor Group)

Reputedly it's high-alloy steel (usually the case for steel castings in demanding applications -- which they are well suited to if the process is well controlled, including lifting hooks for heavy lift cranes, lashing hooks for railway wagons on RoRo ships, bogie frames for railway locos, nozzles and deflectors and blades for hydro electric turbines, etc etc)

however this is anecdotal, and I'm unable to track down a spec, even on the literature which came with a genuine Bruce anchor.

Cast iron is a different kettle of fish entirely: strong in compression but unreliable and weak in tension, especially in thin sections, except in the case of nodular (aka SG or malleable) iron castings, which see service as crankshafts, but would still I think be questionable for anchors.

With high-alloy steels, there is potentially a problem with regalvanising causing one or another (or several!) sorts of embrittlement, potentially resulting in cracking: refer this recent thread among others:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ain-91379.html

The problems they had on Hawk suggest to me that the steel used is likely to be high alloy. Having said that, I've anchored many times with a genuine Bruce which was regalvanised twenty years ago with no problems, as I'm sure many others will have - the specific procedure used on Hawk's anchor may have been the problem.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by sabray

But you say the chain was wrapped. Then you say you would use one anyway. Hard to find the case against a Bruce with that argument.

Yeah, up in the PNW anyway.... because the problem bottoms up here are rock, and an anchor just needs to hook on one! I doubt I would go out and buy a bruce, but if it came on a boat up here I would use it... until convinced otherwise. It would be a compromise for sure, as many boat things are. We have a lot of current and reversals, so It might be a great choice for rocks, but a poor one for tide changes. OTOH, I get the feeling a Bruce isnt too bad at rehooking once it's out... so not sure. But I tend to avoid rock bottoms anyway... so maybe I would choose not to use a bruce... On the fence I guess!

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Still, you would think they could have sold the trademarked name to a major anchor company, like say Lewmar or Manson, who would then use it like companies have done with the names CQR and Danforth. ...
Maybe it just comes down to Bruce himself not wanting his name associated with any other anchors.

Peter Bruce is still actively designing and marketing novel anchors and associated technology and improvements, and filing patents, up to the present day, in his company's key market (oil rigs).

So it makes sense to me he would not want to take risks with licensing the name to a provider who might have quality issues, which would in turn damage his name.

I'm guessing the small anchors were always a sideline, and decreasingly profitable .... especially for an anchor which has trouble passing tests.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Peter Bruce is still actively designing and marketing novel anchors and associated technology and improvements, and filing patents, up to the present day, in his company's key market (oil rigs).

So it makes sense to me he would not want to take risks with licensing the name to a provider who might have quality issues, which would in turn damage his name.

I'm guessing the small anchors were always a sideline, and decreasingly profitable .... especially for an anchor which has trouble passing tests.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Peter Bruce is still actively designing and marketing novel anchors and associated technology and improvements, and filing patents, up to the present day, in his company's key market (oil rigs).

So it makes sense to me he would not want to take risks with licensing the name to a provider who might have quality issues, which would in turn damage his name.

I'm guessing the small anchors were always a sideline, and decreasingly profitable .... especially for an anchor which has trouble passing tests.

Joining Boatman with popcorn which tests did it fail?

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Joining Boatman with popcorn which tests did it fail?

As many experienced sailors have pointed out, Bruce anchors consistently do poorly in comparative anchor tests by sailing magazines.

Which is curious, considering how well they seem to work for most experienced sailors in actual anchoring situations.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

As many experienced sailors have pointed out, Bruce anchors consistently do poorly in comparative anchor tests by sailing magazines.

Which is curious, considering how well they seem to work for most experienced sailors in actual anchoring situations.

Now that's funny because this is exactly what we discussed is the reason Bruce stopped producing them

In case you don't realize this: those are not Bruce anchors

[Andrew Troup]

Jedi: I don't think you understood what I wrote (I wasn't clear) and I certainly don't understand what you have written. Never mind; I don't think we disagree, and I don't think it matters if we do.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by bobconnie

I will never forget the first time I spent BIG Boat Bucks, at least big for us LOL we bought a 65 lb Bruce anchor! Boy I thought my problems were over with !! No more 75 lb Danforth, no more 60 lb CQR Boy I would never have anchoring problem again !! Well ya know I never found the right way to set this darn anchor!! I tryed the let her sit awhile, and the half scope and set her hard! I tryed them all ! And I ended up going back to my danforth,( hardly ever used the CQR) Im sure that there must be something to them as folks who's judgement I value use them and love them ! But I was never able to trust my boat to this anchor, like I was to my danforth. Im sure it was my problem not the anchors! I was able to sell it for as much as it cost us, so can't complain about the value LOL but the Old Bruce, right from the manufacturer just would not work for us !!

That's amazing to me. I had virtually the opposite experience. First time I replaced the old CQR with a Bruce, I dropped the anchor, backed up letting out chain, then locked up the windlass, expecting to see the chain bumping up and down as the anchor tried ( usually with little success) to set in the gravelly bottom, like the CQR would do. The chain went TWANG! and I nearly fell on my arse! Never saw an anchor set so hard and fast.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Jedi: I don't think you understood what I wrote (I wasn't clear) and I certainly don't understand what you have written. Never mind; I don't think we disagree, and I don't think it matters if we do.

Hmmm, I thought you were joking okay these test you talk about: do you realize thatthey are never about the Bruce anchor, but about the claw orhowever they call their latest & cheapest knock-off? That is what explains your question: those who arehappy, are using genuine Bruce anchors.