All modern anchors with loop, based on the Bugel are the same in performance

[Kettlewell]

But once you get beyond fairly small boats, manhandling the anchor shouldn't be a concern, as you won't be able to manhandle any anchor that isn't undersized without some form of assistance.

I manually haul up a 45lb anchor on all chain frequently, though I do have a manual windlass too. I don't consider my anchor undersized. I just don't see the point in dealing with a significantly heavier anchor than the one that does the job.

[Panope]

To me, oversize anchors are like seatbelts and airbags in cars.

Rarely, if ever needed. Brilliant to have if they are.

[thinwater]

Interesting is the difference between a Bruce and a Lewmar Claw. You might say that the Claw is a no-name copy of the Bruce. They are very similar but differ in very important details.

Panope has tested them side by side. I have both. It's not close. I have a tiny Claw I use on my kayak when fishing. It's nice because it's cheap, I had one, and there are no sharp corners to jab your legs. Other wise ... better than a brick on a rope, but that's about it.

A case study in how copies are often not faithful.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by thinwater

.......copies are often not faithful.

For me, copies have been 100% not faithful.

I have tested copies of: Danforth, Bruce, Luke, and CQR. None were nearly as good as the Genuine versions.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Panope

For me, copies have been 100% not faithful.

I have tested copies of: Danforth, Bruce, Luke, and CQR. None were nearly as good as the Genuine versions.

Can you say anything about why? Surely it's not hard to reverse-engineer the designs. Is it cheaper materials? Cheaper constructions?

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Jammer

1933 CQR
1971 Bruce
1986 Bügel
1990 Delta
1999 Spade
2004 Rocna
2006 Sarca, Sarca Excel
2008 Manson
2013 Mantus M1
2014 Vulcan

The Bruce is a good anchor but inefficient in terms of holding power for its weight; to the OP's original point a larger Bruce will underpeform smaller, newer anchors.

Performance of the major-brand anchors introduced after the Delta is all roughly similar with most of them having unique drawbacks of one kind or another.

I don't see much replacement of one modern anchor (in good condition) with another. What I see is replacement of undersized anchors, no-name clones, and obsolete Delta and CQR anchors.



Technique does matter less with the better anchors.

Agree with the last point. I changed from Rocna to Mantus M1 and would never go back. I really don’t know why people still buy the original Rocna when the Mantus is so much better overall

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Can you say anything about why? Surely it's not hard to reverse-engineer the designs. Is it cheaper materials? Cheaper constructions?

Yes, Cheap materials and manufacturing.

Also, probably some laziness and perhaps being ignorant that small details can make a big difference.

I reckon that some know full well that their product sucks, but they sell it anyway because they can.

A million years ago, my father bought a knock-off Simpson Lawrence 555 windlass. Looked just like the real thing but was a total Piece-of-$hi+. Never could get the "double action" to work properly. He eventually threw it away and got the real deal. Expensive lesson.

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

I personally think the ability to manhandle your anchor onboard every day is a huge safety factor, so that is another disadvantage of going too big. After busted refrigeration, broken windlasses were the #2 item being repaired in Cartagena when I was down there. Also, it is not just how the bigger anchor fits on the bow roller, but shank length, hoop size, and other dimensions can be limiting factors.

Also, there is not a single boat that isn’t affected by extra weight in the bow- the worst place possible. So why on earth would you want an anchor that weighs significantly more for the same holding power? If you really think the weight doesn’t matter, get a new gen anchor at that weight and you’ll never ever drag

[MicHughV]

Besides all the above, I find that the Bruce stows well on the bow roller, even two side by side seem very happy there.
Additionally, they can be cinched up tight so that they don't move much.

[s/v Jedi]

The original Bruce has compound curves in the flukes that the knockoffs dont have. I think it also has thinner flukes. Completely different.

The problem with Viking is manufacturing quality. It looks rough and cheap.

[Fuss]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Also, there is not a single boat that isn’t affected by extra weight in the bow- the worst place possible. So why on earth would you want an anchor that weighs significantly more for the same holding power? If you really think the weight doesn’t matter, get a new gen anchor at that weight and you’ll never ever drag

Or cut 5m off your chain and stick with what you've got.


So there we have it ...a Bruce holds its own in the smaller sizes and pleasantly surprises. No point in changing and, as as I said, cut 5m off the chain if you're so worried about it.

[KeelsonGraham]

Originally Posted by Sos

Well glad you cleared all that up - no need for never ending anchor discussions !

😂😂😂😂😂🍿🍿🍿🍿

[Kettlewell]

I was anchored next to a similar sized boat in the Keys and we went through a pretty good blow next to each other, complete with 180-degree wind shifts. We both held in sandy mud, but after the blow the other guy pulled up his Bruce anchor knockoff (I think it was a Claw) and the anchor was severely bent. It held, but he had to junk the anchor after that. Whatever it was made out of wasn't strong enough for the job. Similarly, I have a photo collection of bent and broken anchors I saw down in the Caribbean. For the most part, the damaged anchors were knockoffs, not originals. Though I have also seen many bent Fortress and Danforth anchors, usually small ones on the bows of power boats that often go for the smallest anchor that fits. That's an advantage of going way big on your anchor--extra strength. I would seriously avoid most Bruce knockoffs, and I suspect originals are getting harder to find.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Fuss

Or cut 5m off your chain and stick with what you've got.


So there we have it ...a Bruce holds its own in the smaller sizes and pleasantly surprises. No point in changing and, as as I said, cut 5m off the chain if you're so worried about it.

The Bruce seemed to have less holding power than newer anchors half its weight, and that’s a good thing?

[Fuss]

SOFT MUD:

44lb Bruce --- 790lbs.
22lb Rocna --- 580lbs.
21lb Spade --- 335lbs.
21lb Viking --- 690lbs.


Lets not get into fine details here ...the Bruce did fine under the circumstances...the same happens with the loop anchor comparison that I originally (before the huge thread drift) suggested.


Cut 5m off your chain!!