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

[gsuescum]

This one is going to be good. 😁😅

I predict 15-16 pages of comments before it peters out

[merrydolphin]

Loose the hoop!

I prefer the Spade. Have had great anchoring with it all over much of the world. The hoop can get fouled. I think that the Ultra has had good results too. High tip weight is a critical component. No need for hoop if you have Hi tip weight. It seems that the Rockna is the best “bang for the buck” anchor today. And I do agree. I always go at least another size up than recomended no matter the anchor. If also like the Spade because of the way in deploys and retrieves. So clean and no hands necessary. No twists either. Always comes up and seats itself correctly every time. And no cumbersome clumsy hoop in the way.

[mikereed100]

I don't get it. The original Bruce is a great anchor. A game changer when it came out. I used one for years. But anchor design evolved and a whole lineup of superior anchors became available with twice the holding power. If your bow configuration permits it why would you not mount a new generation anchor of the same weight that offers twice the holding power? The whole question is a moot point as it is becoming harder and harder to even find an original Bruce bigger than 20kg.

[gsuescum]

Originally Posted by merrydolphin

Loose the hoop!

I prefer the Spade. Have had great anchoring with it all over much of the world. The hoop can get fouled. I think that the Ultra has had good results too. High tip weight is a critical component. No need for hoop if you have Hi tip weight. It seems that the Rockna is the best “bang for the buck” anchor today. And I do agree. I always go at least another size up than recomended no matter the anchor. If also like the Spade because of the way in deploys and retrieves. So clean and no hands necessary. No twists either. Always comes up and seats itself correctly every time. And no cumbersome clumsy hoop in the way.

Aye! Agree with you completely.

Dragged on a delta - last generation of anchor. Replaced it with a regular Rocna. Great performance.

Bought another new to me boat that came with a Delta and I dragged the first windy afternoon (almost lost my boat). Got a Rocna Vulcan (no hoop). No dragging.

Bought another new to me boat… came with a CQR (dragged again on a lunch hook so not bad). Bought another Rocna Vulcan and no dragging.

And like you I went a size over what was recommended. A little more weight = a better night’s sleep 😴😎👍

P.S. when I tried to sell the Deltas and the CQR no one wanted them. Had to give them away

[OneBoatman]

No Fuss, Too smaller anchor what? Something got lost in translation. Speakum bigger English or get um help.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by mikereed100

I don't get it. The original Bruce is a great anchor. A game changer when it came out. I used one for years. But anchor design evolved and a whole lineup of superior anchors became available with twice the holding power. If your bow configuration permits it why would you not mount a new generation anchor of the same weight that offers twice the holding power? The whole question is a moot point as it is becoming harder and harder to even find an original Bruce bigger than 20kg.

Well maybe the new gen anchor does not perform well in muddy sand or in soft mud, while the Bruce performs in all seabed types.

Or maybe because the Spade or Viking quickly lose their galvanize and rust, or construction isn’t as strong as one would wish.

A winning anchor design needs to excel in all bottom types, it needs to be very strong and it needs adequate level of finishing and not too expensive. That’s a tough call because we see Spade failing for a bottom type and so-so quality of construction and Rocna failing for multiple bottom types and Viking doing good at all bottom types but lacking in construction quality.

A Vulcan? Maybe, but I remember some off putting info during Panope’s testing.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

A Vulcan? Maybe, but I remember some off putting info during Panope’s testing.

Steve's testing showed pretty good results for the Vulcan. Not the top performer in any one seabed, but really good consistent results across a range which is good for the huge range of different sea beds in the English Channel.

It was one of the reasons we switched from a Mk 1 Rocna (10kg) with roll bar to the Vulcan (12kg). A nearly half price offer by Amazon UK if we pre-ordered was also a major incentive. Several of us jumped at the offer. In use it just works.

Pete

[Panope]

[rslifkin]

I'll also agree with the Vulcan being a good, but not necessarily perfect choice. My 33kg / 73lb example has been a good performer, but it's not the top mark in the SV Panope testing. It definitely shows a couple of weak points, mostly in soft mud. Personally, I haven't found a bottom soft enough for setting behavior or holding power to be an issue, but based on the testing, they do exist out there. That said, by the time things get that soft, nothing is going to out-perform a big Fortress or Danforth.

Based on the tests, the updated Rocna MKII looks like a good performer, and like the original Rocna and the Vulcan, it's a sturdy build (and all 1 piece). The Mantus (both models) and Viking also test very well, but they're all multi-piece construction and don't have the same "bulletproof strong" impression to the design. The Sarca Excel is a sturdy build and generally a good performer, but it doesn't appear to test any better than the Vulcan in the soft mud scenarios.

Note that in the most recent test results charts from Panope, soft mud is the only place where the Bruce tests close to the better new gen anchors. It's only a little worse in cobblestone, but it's significantly worse both for holding power and behavior in the other bottoms tested. It's certainly far better than the claw knockoffs and tested overall better than a Delta as well.

[s/v Jedi]

So what did put me off on the Vulcan? Was it the veering test, not resetting? I guess I’m gonna have to rewatch the video. The Vulcan looksike it will fit the roller that was designed for a Bruce?

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

So what did put me off on the Vulcan? Was it the veering test, not resetting? I guess I’m gonna have to rewatch the video. The Vulcan looksike it will fit the roller that was designed for a Bruce?

The Vulcan does have a significantly shorter shank than some of the rollbar options, so if that's one of the fit constraints, it'll definitely do better than some others.

The Vulcan scored ok, but not great in the soft mud holding and not so good in the soft mud reset test. And it was a bit worse for both in the other soft mud seabed Panope tested (listed as Sucia Island). It wasn't great in the "cobble sand" either, but other than the Mantus M2, nothing rates particularly well there. The rest of the categories for the Vulcan paint it in at least a fairly favorable light.

Now, in your case, I remember you having a particularly large Bruce. The Vulcan tops out at the 55 kg / 121 lb size, so it might not be a good option for you just because you can't get one that's as big as you might want. But some of the other well rated options do come in larger sizes. The end of the Rocna MKII video has the most current charts in it (which are the ones I was referencing here).

[Roux]

You are wrong. Mine is better and bigger than yours! ;-)

[Kettlewell]

Maybe irrelevant, but I have found the rollbar fantastically handy for moving the anchor off the roller and around the boat. I take my main anchor off the roller whenever I tie to a mooring, and the rollbar makes the process of moving the 45lb anchor much easier. That's another place where a normal-sized (not excessively heavy) anchor wins out. Here in New England many of us keep our boats on swinging moorings and they are available in many harbors for overnight rentals, so we are constantly moving the anchor off and to a spot where it can't chafe the mooring pendant.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

A winning anchor design needs to excel in all bottom types, it needs to be very strong and it needs adequate level of finishing and not too expensive. That’s a tough call because we see Spade failing for a bottom type and so-so quality of construction and Rocna failing for multiple bottom types and Viking doing good at all bottom types but lacking in construction quality.

A Vulcan? Maybe, but I remember some off putting info during Panope’s testing.

After listening to everyone a year ago, reading thinwater's comments, reading Panope's comments, and watching his videos, I concluded that a Vulcan was the best choice in my situation. There are other good choices, Sarca Excel, Mantus M2. The available reports suggest that anchors without a roll bar ("loop" in the OP), reset somewhat more reliably.

[donradcliffe]

Anchors I have dragged:

60 lb CQR (drags on its side)
40 lb Danforth (current change)
44 lb Genuine Bruce (dozens of times--no weed penetration, low holding power)
60 lb Buegel (fluke area too small)
60 lb Manson )hoop clogged with weed)
FX-37 Fortress (wouldn't set in firm sand)

There have been other dragging incidents due to t-shirts, pieces of pipe, etc.