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

[daydreamer]

Let's compare the slowest dragster to the fastest minivan. That will prove all dragsters are the same.

[MultiCountryDon]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Sounds like the OP is making the argument for the nautical statement:

Anchors A Weigh.

+1

[Craig_B]

Originally Posted by smj

What if we welded a hoop on an old CQR?..........

I know a Ding Dong who did that with a Danforth anchor. Most silly thing I have ever seen.

[malbert73]

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.

That's a silly answer
We all carry the amount of chain we think we'll need. Losing 5 m of chain to accommodate a heavier old gen anchor to get the same holding performance as a lighter new gen anchor is not good advice.
The correct answer is cut out any extra weight in the ends of the boat (particularly the bow) - whether extra chain or an inefficient overly heavy anchor

[s/v Jedi]

For world cruising you need a minimum of 300’ chain, in which case you need 100-200’ of rope spliced to it. There will be 70’ deep anchorages.

So if that 300’ of chain weighs too much then you have two options: select a smaller chain link from a stronger grade or bring the chain locker further aft. Or both, like we have.

We use a 3/8” chain for our 176lb anchor and 55,000lb boat. But it is grade 70 chain. We also have the chain locker 15’ aft of the bow.

You may have 3/8” grade 30 chain and be able to go to 5/16” grade 43. Or you have 3/8” grade 43 and can go to 5/16” grade 70. The weight differences are huge. The Sundeer 56 and 60 came with a 110lb anchor and grade 70 5/16” chain.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

For world cruising you need a minimum of 300’ chain, in which case you need 100-200’ of rope spliced to it. There will be 70’ deep anchorages.

So if that 300’ of chain weighs too much then you have two options: select a smaller chain link from a stronger grade or bring the chain locker further aft. Or both, like we have.

We use a 3/8” chain for our 176lb anchor and 55,000lb boat. But it is grade 70 chain. We also have the chain locker 15’ aft of the bow.

You may have 3/8” grade 30 chain and be able to go to 5/16” grade 43. Or you have 3/8” grade 43 and can go to 5/16” grade 70. The weight differences are huge. The Sundeer 56 and 60 came with a 110lb anchor and grade 70 5/16” chain.

Agreed. The biggest challenge comes at the smaller end of the spectrum. In my case, I'm using 5/16" G43 chain currently. Strength-wise, I could likely get away with 1/4" G70 (working load is higher than 3/8" BBB, but lower than 5/16" G43, but G43 is often rated at a lower safety factor). However, there aren't many adequately windlasses that can handle 1/4" chain, so 5/16" G43 is pretty much as lightweight as I can get (about 1 lb / ft, while 1/4" G70 would be 0.7 lb / ft).

[Fuss]

The reason we have long drawn out anchor threads is because so many of you can’t analyse data, don’t understand basic physics and can’t accept that anchor weight is important not lightness.
This thread discussing the 44 pound Bruce is the perfect example of this. It was fine against extreme high holding power 22 pound anchors.
So…to make it even more clear…
The heavier the old style anchor the better it performs against the new generations.
An 88 pound Bruce would perform even better against a new generation 66 pound in a test similar to what Panope made with the Bruce 44. If Panope was to test this it would be even more uncomfortable for the new generation brigade.
And once more..if you have a heavy Bruce and you want to go down a size in new generation as you want higher holding power and you care about weight on the bow, then just cut 5m off your chain as your method of weight saving fwd.
It works the same for the Buegel btw

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Fuss

The reason we have long drawn out anchor threads is because so many of you can’t analyse data, don’t understand basic physics and can’t accept that anchor weight is important not lightness.
This thread discussing the 44 pound Bruce is the perfect example of this. It was fine against extreme high holding power 22 pound anchors.
So…to make it even more clear…
The heavier the old style anchor the better it performs against the new generations.
An 88 pound Bruce would perform even better against a new generation 66 pound in a test similar to what Panope made with the Bruce 44. If Panope was to test this it would be even more uncomfortable for the new generation brigade.
And once more..if you have a heavy Bruce and you want to go down a size in new generation as you want higher holding power and you care about weight on the bow, then just cut 5m off your chain as your method of weight saving fwd.
It works the same for the Buegel btw

You're also utterly incapable of reading anything that's being written here or understanding what the data means. IT DOES NOT MATTER if a crappy old anchor works as well as a new one when the old one is twice the size. NOBODY wants to compare anchors of such drastically different size. Almost nobody is trying to find the lightest anchor they can get away with. Instead, they're trying to find the best anchor they can reasonably fit on their boat.

If I can fit a 100 lb Bruce, for example, I would NEVER try to replace it with a 50 lb something else. Instead, I'd be replacing it with the best 100 lb anchor I can get and fit on the bow, which will make the Bruce look like a worthless lump of scrap metal performance-wise.

The 88 lb Bruce vs a 66 lb new gen is a far smaller size difference than 22 vs 44 lbs, so I would expect the Bruce to be outperformed in every category when it's only 1.33x the size instead of 2x.

Just stop with the "well if you make it twice as big you can use this old, discontinued hunk of junk instead of something readily available and better." Absolutely nobody is going to benefit from this awful suggestion. If the old junk was so incredible, nobody would have bothered developing newer, better stuff. And some of the old stuff like the Bruce wouldn't be discontinued (and only available as even worse knock-offs), but would be selling like hotcakes for big money.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Fuss

The reason we have long drawn out anchor threads is because so many of you can’t analyse data, don’t understand basic physics and can’t accept that anchor weight is important not lightness.
This thread discussing the 44 pound Bruce is the perfect example of this. It was fine against extreme high holding power 22 pound anchors.
So…to make it even more clear…
The heavier the old style anchor the better it performs against the new generations.
An 88 pound Bruce would perform even better against a new generation 66 pound in a test similar to what Panope made with the Bruce 44. If Panope was to test this it would be even more uncomfortable for the new generation brigade.
And once more..if you have a heavy Bruce and you want to go down a size in new generation as you want higher holding power and you care about weight on the bow, then just cut 5m off your chain as your method of weight saving fwd.
It works the same for the Buegel btw

So for me the Vulcan is a problem as their biggest size is 120lb which is a full size under my 176lb (50 vs 80kg)

[Fuss]

The Bruce was never a bad anchor, just 22 pounds worse than a new generation, and this goes away the heavier up the scale we go…I know you want to use the double the weight rhetoric it looks better right!!

[Jammer]

Mod Hat On

On behalf of the site team, I would like to ask everyone participating in this thread to maintain the high standard of respectful discourse for which Cruisers' Forum is famous. Question the idea rather than attacking the person and all that.


Carry on.

[Fuss]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Mod Hat On

On behalf of the site team, I would like to ask everyone participating in this thread to maintain the high standard of respectful discourse for which Cruisers' Forum is famous. Question the idea rather than attacking the person and all that.


Carry on.

Great thanks, there is some interesting information to be learned in these old style vs new style threads. I’ll also try to be a little more diplomatic…
So far great responses…in my opinion!

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Fuss

The Bruce was never a bad anchor, just 22 pounds worse than a new generation, and this goes away the heavier up the scale we go…I know you want to use the double the weight rhetoric it looks better right!!

We don't have enough data to determine if a steady 22 lb difference is all it takes, or if that scales up and maintains the 2x difference. So unless someone comes up with that data, the only safe thing to do is assume the worst. But it's kinda a moot point, as the Bruce is long discontinued and larger sizes of them are rather hard to come by. So that alone makes it a poor choice to install on a boat that doesn't already have one.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Fuss

An 88 pound Bruce would perform even better against a new generation 66 pound in a test similar to what Panope made with the Bruce 44.

Not true for the Sandy Mud Seabed.

118lb Genuine Bruce:
Pull # 1 = 4,370 lbs. Peak. Then rolled out, reset at new peak of 2550lbs.
Pull # 2 = 2300 lbs. Peak. Then popped out, reset at new peak 2200lbs.

51lb Viking:
5,300+ lbs. Max unknown. Test equipment could not pull any harder. Consistent over multiple pulls. No Releases. Bent Rollbar.

43lb Mantus M1:
Pull # 1 = 2600 lbs Peak. No Release.
Pull # 2 = 4100 lbs Peak. No Release.

44lb Mantus M2:
Pull # 1 = 4000 lbs Peak.
Pull # 2 = 4100 lbs Peak.
Pull # 3 = 3700 lbs Peak.
Pull # 4 = 5000 lbs Peak.

45lb Spade:
4800 lbs Peak. One long pull with multiple peaks in the 4000's. No Release.

47lb Vulcan:
Pull # 1 = 5300+ lb Peak. Max Unkown. Test equipment could not pull any harder. No release.
Pull # 2 = 5000 lb Peak. No Release.

44lb Rocna:
Pull # 1 = 660 lbs Peak. Then another Peak at 400. Then Release.
Pull # 2 = 660 lbs Peak. Then Release/Reset 560 lbs. Then release - no reset.

[Kettlewell]

But it's kinda a moot point, as the Bruce is long discontinued and larger sizes of them are rather hard to come by. So that alone makes it a poor choice to install on a boat that doesn't already have one.

This is an important point, but the OP started out praising a larger Buegel compared to modern hoop anchors. Frankly, I'm not sure larger Buegels are available in the USA either. So for the sake of those who want to purchase a big version of these anchors are they actually available? Is there a Bruce copy that is any good? Are Beugels in bigger sizes still available?