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

[smj]

Originally Posted by 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!!

Obviously, since you left most the details out?

[Kettlewell]

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.

Why not get into "fine details" when they matter a lot! Using your own logic, if you can fit the 44lb Bruce why not go for the 45lb. modern anchor and probably double your holding power? But, I think everyone of us has no need of changing what we are doing if we are happy with the performance we are getting. It is very easy to get lured by the latest, greatest and you have proven to yourself that a Bruce or a Buegel is good enough in the sizes you are using. OTOH, maybe you should just try one of the hoop types to see what you think! I too was skeptical until I tried a Mantus.

[Fuss]

It performed fine in the circumstances....it was not totally beaten by all the others.
If my thread had been about the Bruce instead of the Buegel, you all would have reacted the same way saying that new generation anchors are far superior and they are not just 10kgs better.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Fuss

It performed fine in the circumstances....it was not totally beaten by all the others.
If my thread had been about the Bruce instead of the Buegel, you all would have reacted the same way saying that new generation anchors are far superior and they are not just 10kgs better.

It basically underperformed anchors half its weight, maybe that’s fine for you but not for me.

[s/v Jedi]

The Bruce was beaten by all the new gen anchors half it’s weight… or so most of you claim.

See below for Steve’s comment with all the data.

Sandy mud the Bruce beats the Rocna and is on par with the Viking

Clean sand the Bruce beats the Rocna but the Spade and Viking hold 1.5x as much. However, the Bruce holding power is consistent with the sandy mud seabed type.

Soft mud the Bruce beats them all with mkre than double the holding power of the Spade which essentially disqualifies itself right here.

Cobblestone the Bruce is top of the line but all are comparable.

So the Rocna and the holy Spade are real disappointments. The Viking clearly outperforms for holding power, it would be a clear winner if a better quality production was used. The Spade is also of questionable production quality.

So yes, overall the Bruce is the winner for performance in all seabeds combined with it’s quality of construction. It’s mind boggling to read others stating that the Bruce only held half of what the others did… like if the data showed that.

Originally Posted by Panope

Holding data for a 44lb Genuine Bruce, 22lb Rocna MK1, 21 Spade (Steel), and a 21lb Viking in 4 different seabeds:

SANDY MUD:

44lb Bruce --- 700lbs.
22lb Rocna --- 440lbs.
21lb Spade --- 1,325lbs.
21lb Viking --- 750lbs.


CLEAN(ish) SAND:

44lb Bruce --- 750lbs.
22lb Rocna --- 535lbs.
21lb Spade --- 1,150+lbs. (Maximum Unknown. Boat could not pull any harder).
21lb Viking --- 1,150+lbs. (Maximum Unknown. Boat could not pull any harder).


SOFT MUD:

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


COBBLESTONE:

44lb Bruce --- 150lbs.
22lb Rocna --- 180lbs.
21lb Spade --- 150lbs.
21lb Viking --- 140lbs.

[Kettlewell]

It performed fine in the circumstances....it was not totally beaten by all the others.
If my thread had been about the Bruce instead of the Buegel, you all would have reacted the same way saying that new generation anchors are far superior and they are not just 10kgs better.

One of the underappreciated characteristics of modern anchors is the sharpening of the point or points, promoting quick and deep penetration of the bottom. Same goes for why Fortress anchors outperform Danforth anchors most of the time. The hoop gets all the talk because it is the most visible thing, but that sharp point with lots of weight on it is super important. Note too how many have sharpened the edges on their Bruce anchors. Back in the day I know that some did the same with their CQR anchors. Isn't the Buegel's point somewhat blunt?

[Kettlewell]

So yes, overall the Bruce is the winner for performance in all seabeds combined with it’s quality of construction. It’s mind boggling to read others stating that the Bruce only held half of what the others did… like if the data showed that.

When comparing a Bruce that is twice the weight of the others...That to me disqualifies the Bruce.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

When comparing a Bruce that is twice the weight of the others...That to me disqualifies the Bruce.

Ah, lost the argument so move the goalposts

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

When comparing a Bruce that is twice the weight of the others...That to me disqualifies the Bruce.

Agreed. If I had to trade my Vulcan in for a Bruce and I needed to double the weight for equivalent performance, we'd have a problem. I'm pretty sure that a 150 lb Bruce won't even come close to fitting on my bow...

[smj]

It tells me that a Bruce has to be twice the weight to even come close to comparing to a new gen anchor. And at that, it didn’t compare that well.

[Kettlewell]

Ah, lost the argument so move the goalposts

Not me. All along I have been arguing that I prefer an anchor that is heavy enough to do what I need it to do, which I prefer to using a heavier anchor needed to compensate for its inferior holding power.

[Fuss]

Originally Posted by smj

It tells me that a Bruce has to be twice the weight to even come close to comparing to a new gen anchor. And at that, it didn’t compare that well.

And at that, it compared Admirably. Look at the data!!



Its only 4 meters of chain heavier, its nothing, cut this off your 100m length.

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

When comparing a Bruce that is twice the weight of the others...That to me disqualifies the Bruce.

Its only 4 meters of chain heavier, its nothing, cut this off your 100m length.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Fuss

And at that, it compared Admirably. Look at the data!!



Its only 4 meters of chain heavier, its nothing, cut this off your 100m length.





Its only 4 meters of chain heavier, its nothing, cut this off your 100m length.

I looked at the data and obviously we have a different definition of admirably.
I could probably attach a chunk of concrete twice the weight of the Bruce to some chain and it would have the same holding characteristics, but would that make it a good anchor?

[Kettlewell]

Its only 4 meters of chain heavier, its nothing, cut this off your 100m length.

It's more like 6-7 meters of chain with my chain and the Bruce example above, but that doesn't make any difference when I am manually hauling the anchor straight up from the bottom. Plus, on my boat the chain is piled several feet back from the bow and much lower down. The weight of an anchor is perched at the furthest extremity of the boat. The longer the lever, the greater the force. And, the heavier anchor is more expensive, requires a larger shackle that might or might not work with my chain, has a longer shank that on my boat is problematic, etc. But, again, if you can fit two anchors of similar weight, why not choose the one with better performance?

[anacapaisland42]

I have 100 feet of 3/8 BBB chain with 300 feet of 1" rode on a 32 foot boat, who cares about the anchor, a brick will do unless it's a real blow
Bill