Anchor Poll

[stillbuilding]

There may be peripheral reasons for the demise of Bruce anchors for oil rigs - I can imagine it was a pig of a shape to be handling in heavy weather. The flatter replacements might have an advantage in that respect.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Anchor manufacturers would like us believe that all anchors scale up and down without change in behaviour. I don't believe this is always the case.

You're absolutely right. In fact, I believe that it's seldom the case that anchors can scale up and down without a change in performance.

[stillbuilding]

Originally Posted by Bash

You're absolutely right. In fact, I believe that it's seldom the case that anchors can scale up and down without a change in performance.

This brings up the issue of which is more important in scaling an anchor - mass, surface area or design.

I have known experienced sailors who thought it did not matter a damn as long as there was a minimum effective mass. Modern anchors obviously place greater accent on design and surface area.

It would be interesting to see some trials in scaling those elements.

[JonJo]

Stillbuilding,

Go to vryhof.com and you will find a rather large document on oil rig anchors. There is a table in the document showing surface area vs holding capacity. You could also look up John Knox' articles in PBO in one of which he shows exactly the same thing, though his might be weight vs holding capacity. Its a well researched subject and there have been a number of theoretical studies at Universities - its surface area that is important, weight is only relevant in that as the design gets bigger it gets heavier. If you did not need weight to impart strength (thicker steel is stronger than thinner steel) you could have very lightweight anchors.

Its not a fair comparison but a Fortress has the same holding capacity as a similar sized Danforth (actually the Fortress will be better) but the Fortress weighs half that of the Danforth. Equally an alloy Excel, or Spade has a similar holding capacity to its same sized steel and galvanised Excel or Spade - the alloy weighs less than half the gal version - but in terms of holding capacity you cannot tell the difference

Its not weight - its surface area (and design).

[JonJo]

Noelex,

I have heard the same comment on Bruce anchors, bigger ones work better than smaller ones. I'd suggest that the toes of the smaller ones are 'too blunt' to penetrate some seabeds. I have no experience but a naval Commander, who had responsibility for landing craft, suggested that the breakpoint was 70kg - above which they worked satisfactorily but below that weight they were questionable. But this is anecdotal and should be treated as such, I'm not too supportive of relating another persons experience as fact - can lead toward trolling.

[ranger58sb]

Can the poll results be restructured to show answers for both primary, secondary, and "other" anchors?

-Chris

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by ranger42c

Can the poll results be restructured to show answers for both primary, secondary, and "other" anchors?

-Chris

It would be two much info.
Best to just start a new thread for secoundary and other

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Yes, but your first may be your last.
Bruces are popular because they are cheap
Bruces were designed for anchoring in rock, just where most cruisers do not anchor.

A Bruce would be my last choice

Bruce anchors were not always cheap. I purchased my first Bruce second hand some 25+ years ago before the cheap knock offs arrived. Mine was a 33# anchor and I paid the bargain price of $300 for it. And it performed extremely well here in Massachusetts.........that is until our harbors filled with ell grass.

IMHO a Bruce today is not going to reliably hold anything around here where ell grass proliferates.

[foggysail]

My experience with the Bruce after hundreds of anchoring with them, is I found them to be far, far more predictable than a Delta.

I found that IF the Bruce is going to fail, it will fail immediately when put under engine powered strain. I never had it fail AFTER setting! My problem was that I could never get it to set in ell grass and withstand the strain placed on it will backing up under full power with my 15HP Kubota diesel in my Hunter 30.

Not so with the #$%& Delta and I mean huge Deltas such as an 88#. I could pull on that thing with my twin Crusaders. IT WOULD SET most times. Sure enough, under a steady wind/current load it would slowly slip. I don't dive, I believe though, it was plowing up the bottom. Unreliable! I do not recommend them. Anybody who wants to sleep at night should consider one of the many modern anchors offered today.

Foggy

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by ranger42c

Can the poll results be restructured to show answers for both primary, secondary, and "other" anchors?

-Chris

Its an interesting question and as Cotemar says difficult to re-arrange the current poll without ambiguity. Reading some of the answers and comments in this (and other CF anchor threads) a surprising number of people appear to carry a Fortress (or Guardian?), which is not stated as a primary anchor, and thus goes completely unreported. The popularity of the Fortress is not reflected in the poll. Many people who have bought newer anchors simply retire their old model to become their second anchor. The second anchor is thus chosen by default and surely would not be the choice if starting with a bare bow and locker.



The other problem with the poll, and any poll, is that it actually does not reflect usage by contributors to the CF. If you read the SARCA Excel thread from the beginning, the timing of the poll and the Excel thread are similar, you will find that the number of people using an Excel exceeds by a long way the numbers in the poll. People have contributed to the SARCA EXCEL thread but not the poll and this anomaly presumably extends to other anchor designs (its difficult to tell as there are no other design specific threads current). Why this happens is most odd.

[Kettlewell]

The other problem with the poll, and any poll, is that it actually does not reflect usage by contributors to the CF. If you read the SARCA Excel thread from the beginning, the timing of the poll and the Excel thread are similar, you will find that the number of people using an Excel exceeds by a long way the numbers in the poll. People have contributed to the SARCA EXCEL thread but not the poll and this anomaly presumably extends to other anchor designs (its difficult to tell as there are no other design specific threads current). Why this happens is most odd.

Internet polls are notoriously unreliable for a variety of reasons. Fun to read, but I wouldn't put any meaning in them.

[wolfenzee]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Five boats ago is a long time and Bruce anchors where at the top of the food chain then.

Now a new 44lbs Bruce is $133 usd. Not sure how they can even make them for that price.

Lewmar Horizon Claw Anchor

Does that mean that over the years the Bruce has lost it's holding power.

On another note I know some people who swear by Bruce and would not allow a CQR on their boat, and people that swear by CQR and would not allow a Bruce on their boat, then again people with one of each (the people I know with that anchor combination are experienced cruisers). I have been told the weak point of the CQR is the strong point of the Bruce and the weak point of the Bruce is the strong point of the CQR.

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by wolfenzee

Does that mean that over the years the Bruce has lost it's holding power.

On another note I know some people who swear by Bruce and would not allow a CQR on their boat, and people that swear by CQR and would not allow a Bruce on their boat, then again people with one of each (the people I know with that anchor combination are experienced cruisers). I have been told the weak point of the CQR is the strong point of the Bruce and the weak point of the Bruce is the strong point of the CQR.

One of each! Like this?


Hard to tell the Manson from the Bruce except for the $$$. Looks like you could hammer the Bruce flukes a bit flatter and turn it into a Manson Ray.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by wolfenzee

Does that mean that over the years the Bruce has lost it's holding power.

On another note I know some people who swear by Bruce and would not allow a CQR on their boat, and people that swear by CQR and would not allow a Bruce on their boat, then again people with one of each (the people I know with that anchor combination are experienced cruisers). I have been told the weak point of the CQR is the strong point of the Bruce and the weak point of the Bruce is the strong point of the CQR.

It just means that back then Bruce and CQR where the best you could buy and it was exceptable to drag and drag again until it holds. And well if it dragged again in a few days you just reset it. Was par for the course. If the wind kicked up at night you got up and kept a night watch and set the anchor alarm.

Today it just not exceptable to drag at all. You want the new generation anchor to bite in the first time and back down hard on it. Then sleep good for the few days your in that beautiful harbor. No worries mate.

[HorizonMarine]

Amen Paul... All the Bruce bashing comes from non users. We love our Bruce. 66 pounds set first time every time. Every person who uses the Bruce swears by it, is what I have found. Tried bigger CQR and danforth style each for a season, issues with both. We anchor 90 nights a year. It did not drag with gusts over 80 knots, when 90 percent of the boats nearby did. (see last months cruising world article) But I never stop being amazed at how poorly many people anchor. Bottom line is its really only 50% the anchor, the rest is technique. Choose a good spot, lots of scope, use chain, back down hard and long, put a nylon snubber on it and sleep well.