Are my anchors obsolete? CQR 60 Lbs, Delta 55 Lbs, Bruce 20 kg

[Fortress]

The sharpness of the Fortress results in a deeper burying capability. This is clearly visible on the two flukes and the shank, which gives the anchor a razor-like effect when penetrating common sea bottoms.

While the physical size and weight of an anchor are important components as to how it performs, weight on top of the anchor from being buried deeply into a seabed is more likely to determine how well it stays embedded during pulls from any direction.

As previously mentioned, during the Chesapeake Bay testing we had great difficulty retrieving the FX-37 at a 1:1 scope when it was buried 13 feet into the mud. The thought that we might've been able to get this anchor out easier if we had only pulled on it from a side direction seems unimaginable, maybe even comical.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Polux]

Originally Posted by sailorF54

HEAVY Fortress anchors are superb anchors because they are HUGE,
(see pic# 1 for dimensions of the 69 lbs / 31 kg model)
Compare with the size of the S140 Rocna anchor of similar weight (pic #2)
...

It seems to me that you are comparing not anchors for the same size of boat. The one that you Fortress you posted is the one adequate for boats from 69 to 150ft. The comparable anchor from Spade (indicated by the manufacturer for the same size of boats) is the S200, not the S140.

Yes the Fortress is a bit bigger but it has to do mostly with the size of the Shank (142cm versus 115). The stock is only bigger if we consider the big lateral bars that come out on the sides that can be not very aesthetically pleasing but that on most bow rollers will not cause any problem. And of course it is much lighter: 31 kg to 55kg.

[sailorF54]

Originally Posted by Polux

It seems to me that you are comparing not anchors for the same size of boat. The one that you Fortress you posted is the one adequate for boats from 69 to 150ft. The comparable anchor from Spade (indicated by the manufacturer for the same size of boats) is the S200, not the S140.

Yes the Fortress is a bit bigger but it has to do mostly with the size of the Shank (142cm versus 115). The stock is only bigger if we consider the big lateral bars that come out on the sides that can be not very aesthetically pleasing but that on most bow rollers will not cause any problem. And of course it is much lighter: 31 kg to 55kg.

I beg to differ...1 - The ability of an anchor to penetrate the bottom (then set) depends on the pressure (% of WEIGHT on the tip / surface area of the tip). Hence my comparison of anchors having the same WEIGHT (we have no reliable figure of the % of weight on the tip on F. anchors, so I assume they are as good as Spade anchors which have an impressive 50% of their weight bearing on the tip, due the arched design of the shank).

2 - Re your recommendations: I have a 36' (38' with scoop platform) 7t boat
I cannot imagine having a 10 lbs / 5 kg anchor (or even a 15 lbs / 7 kg good to 39-45 ft according to you) as my primary anchor. I have a 15 kg / 32 lbs Rocna (plus a 10 kg / 21 lbs lunch hook and a stowed 20 kg / 45 lbs 'last-ditch' anchor). I think I have a much better chance of having my anchor setting reliably in hard bottoms. I agree such F. anchors would be fine in soft mud (The Vryhof anchor manual uses a ratio of 2 between te holding power in very soft clay / mud vs hard clay / sand for their smallest (1t !) anchor)

3 - I am not too much concerned about ultimate holding power (I don't want to go here into the experimental data there now exists on the wind and yaw (feathering) shocks to argue this point - The ABYC values are widely off the mark) but I want my anchor to reliably SET in every kind of bottom (especially true in Western Europe where having to anchor in hard sand, gravel and sand or weed and sand seems much more frequent than in the US). A conservative 30 to 1 holding to weight ratio gives me (at least) 450 kg / 1000 lbs) of holding power, which should see my boat through (at least) 45 knots of wind (including sailing to the anchor)
A featherweight Fortress would also do fine, but I would not trust it to SET reliably.

4 - I'll leave mechanical resistance out of the picture...

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I think this is a valid concern. It is not just the Fortress, but all the Danforth style anchors. Sometimes they develop a very high list and breakout, or almost breakout when changing direction.

As others have said, my opinion is that this style of anchor is best suited when there is little chance of the diricection of pull changing significantly. Fortress anchors are good stern/kedge anchors and I would suggest every cruising boats purchases one for this purpose.

As a liflelong lover of the Danforth, I AGREE, the Danforth or Fortress should not be used if you'll be swinging around. It will bend or pop out may or may not re-set. BUT 2, fore and aft, excellent. IMO

[rognvald]

[QUOTE=ingrid75;2088130]YES! Your anchors are obsolete. Since all of the ocean bottoms were changed last year and the 'law of gravity' amended at the same time and the co-efficient of friction of wind on boats was tripled this year, all old anchors are obsolete. Anchors that have served cruisers for decades will NOT work now. Rush to your local chandlery and buy the very latest anchor and you will be safe until the next big change next year.

Ingrid,
I thought I was the only one who noticed! Your point is well taken and I am even concerned about my boat's safety on the hard until Spring launch. There is just something insidious about a well-used CQR mounted on a well-found, travelled boat. It smacks of carelessness, inexperience and lack of technological superiority. It is said in life that all Men have a burden to bear . . . perhaps mine is anchor envy . . . but then again, that's never been a problem in my life. Good luck and safe sailing. Captain Rognvald--immersed in primordial shame.

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It's certainly not just somebody's brother in law etc. It is the firm belief of practically the whole community of cruisers, and for decades by now.

But as I said, I don't know whether it's really true or not. I've anchored overnight with the Fortress in a changing current, and didn't have any problems. Which of course doesn't prove anything by itself, but it's one data point.

I am agnostic -- and curious -- on this question.

I's agnostic/curious too, but... part of my point it that lots of folks talk about the Danforth-style "reputation" (and extending that to include Fortress)... or talk about what a community has said for years...

But I don't remember seeing too many "it happened to me" stories, with follow-on discussion about that episode, contributing factors, etc.

Not that there aren't any, I just don't remember seeing too many first-hand report.

Which just leads me to wonder whether this is just a thing that's been repeated so many times, that the 'net now considers it to be a truism.

???

We've had our Fortress completely buried before -- although I didn't measure whether it was as far down as 13' into the mud or not -- and it's difficult for me to imagine it could have unset/reset in circumstances like that.

-Chris

[Tayana42]

Perhaps there is a business opportunity here. How about a retirement home for obsolete anchors? Full care could be provided for outmoded CQR anchors including nursing them into setting firmly and watching them to be sure they don't wander off unsupervised. Intermediate care could be available for Bruce's and Deltas that could be given more scope to care for themselves. Can it qualify for AARP long term care insurance?😀😇


S/V B'Shert

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

Intermediate care could be available for Bruce's and Deltas that could be given more scope to care for themselves.

Hahahahahaa!

Choked on my coffee, but worth it

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

Perhaps there is a business opportunity here. How about a retirement home for obsolete anchors? Full care could be provided for outmoded CQR anchors including nursing them into setting firmly and watching them to be sure they don't wander off unsupervised. Intermediate care could be available for Bruce's and Deltas that could be given more scope to care for themselves. Can it qualify for AARP long term care insurance?😀😇


S/V B'Shert

I think melting them down would be more humane

Then maybe they can be reincarnated as something useful, like soup cans

[Polux]

Originally Posted by sailorF54

I beg to differ...1 - The ability of an anchor to penetrate the bottom (then set) depends on the pressure (% of WEIGHT on the tip / surface area of the tip). Hence my comparison of anchors having the same WEIGHT (we have no reliable figure of the % of weight on the tip on F. anchors, so I assume they are as good as Spade anchors which have an impressive 50% of their weight bearing on the tip, due the arched design of the shank).

2 - Re your recommendations: I have a 36' (38' with scoop platform) 7t boat
I cannot imagine having a 10 lbs / 5 kg anchor (or even a 15 lbs / 7 kg good to 39-45 ft according to you) as my primary anchor. I have a 15 kg / 32 lbs Rocna (plus a 10 kg / 21 lbs lunch hook and a stowed 20 kg / 45 lbs 'last-ditch' anchor). I think I have a much better chance of having my anchor setting reliably in hard bottoms. I agree such F. anchors would be fine in soft mud (The Vryhof anchor manual uses a ratio of 2 between te holding power in very soft clay / mud vs hard clay / sand for their smallest (1t !) anchor)

3 - I am not too much concerned about ultimate holding power (I don't want to go here into the experimental data there now exists on the wind and yaw (feathering) shocks to argue this point - The ABYC values are widely off the mark) but I want my anchor to reliably SET in every kind of bottom (especially true in Western Europe where having to anchor in hard sand, gravel and sand or weed and sand seems much more frequent than in the US). A conservative 30 to 1 holding to weight ratio gives me (at least) 450 kg / 1000 lbs) of holding power, which should see my boat through (at least) 45 knots of wind (including sailing to the anchor)
A featherweight Fortress would also do fine, but I would not trust it to SET reliably.

4 - I'll leave mechanical resistance out of the picture...

Differ in what? I was only saying that that (according do Spade recommendations) you were comparing the wrong Spade with that Fortress and that if you look at the right Spade to compare the dimensions are not that different and the Fortress is way lighter.

What is that rambling all about? my recommendations? I did have not have recommended anything specifically.

I only said, on other posts, that any of the good anchors from the new generation, Mason, Rocna, Spade Mantus and some others are the best in what regards a main anchor and that the Cobra is probably the best buy for the price (it is cheap, at least in Europe) and that is not nothing new.

Saind also, like several others, that probably the Fortress is the best secondary anchor one can have because it is complementary with the anchors of the new generation, having a very good performance in thin clay, that is the situation where modern generation anchors have a poor performance and also a top performance in sand.

Sure, it has a poor performance in hard sand as all aluminium anchors but I thought everybody knew that, so why make such a fuss about that?

Regarding stowing anchors away the fortress takes less space since it lay flat on the bottom of the locker while any of the other mentioned anchors take a lot of volume. Yes most can be disassemble but I am not a fan of storing disassembled anchors since you never know when you are going to need them.

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think melting them down would be more humane

Then maybe they can be reincarnated as something useful, like soup cans

wasn't such reconstituted metal used in some Rocna shanks made in China a while back?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Your opinion corresponds to what "everyone says", which I have heard all my life, which is why I've always assumed it's true.

But do we have any actual data? When you were doing your epic study of anchor behavior, did you actually observe this happening?


By the way, I'd like to take this opportunity to complement you on the superb work you did on anchor behavior. You should publish it.


This is why your anchor study is so great: it's all direct observation.

Thanks Dockhead.

I have seen Fortress and Danforth style anchors rotating underwater. On some rotations the long stock digs in and the anchor develops a very high list. When this happens on most occasions the anchor will reset so the owner is unaware of any problem but the appearance is disconcerting to see and fits in with the user reports of instances of dragging as the direction of pull is changed.

The only rotating anchor of this type I have managed to see since getting the underwater camera in the "Photos of anchors setting" thread was a small Guardian (the slighly simpler and cheaper version of the Fortress). See posts 1713 & 1732. The anchor did not do well. But this was primarily because it never managed to set properly in the hard sand. An anchor needs to first set well to rotate well.

I have experimented with my small Guardian dinghy anchor. I might try to find the time to sort out these images.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

Makes you wonder how boats stayed anchored before the current G2 anchors came on the market ... Poor buggers must have been dragging all over the place!

Hi Liz,

As one of those "poor buggers" who were cruising long before the new anchors became common, or even available, I can say with some certainty that there were a fair number of folks who were indeed dragging all over the place. I was occasionally one of them, especially as a cruising newbie who had yet to learn his trade very well.

We've lived primarily at anchor for 30 years come October, and I'm happy to say that dragging is far less common than in t he past... at least in the venues we've been in (California to Mexico to the South Pacific islands and Oz). Now, this could be due to folks being smarter about their anchoring practices, or it could be better anchor gear. You guess... I know what I think!!

It seems that with care, most appropriately sized anchor types will USUALLY hold just fine. It's just that the new style hooks have fewer failure modes and endure poorer practice without the dread midnight shuffle. I love 'em!

Jim

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The only rotating anchor of this type I have managed to see since getting the underwater camera in the "Photos of anchors setting" thread was a small Guardian (the slighly simpler and cheaper version of the Fortress). See posts 1713 & 1732. The anchor did not do well. But this was primarily because it never managed to set properly in the hard sand. An anchor needs to first set well to rotate well.

I have experimented with my small Guardian dinghy anchor. I might try to find the time to sort out these images.

As I recall, this Guardian anchor was the G-5, the smallest of the 17 anchor models that we manufacture. It weighs barely 2 lbs / 1 kg.

[Fortress]

During Steve / Panope's recent video series, he tested a 10 lb (4.5 kg) Fortress FX-16 at a 3.9 to 1 scope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHxO8mbAyk

After the initial set, he shifted his boat 150 degrees (per the screen shot below), and then using his boat engine he loaded the anchor up again to 3,000 RPM. It didn't budge and after his testing he ended up buying the anchor (see his comments).



Years ago, Practical Sailor found similar superb results from a Fortress FX-16 during their anchor reset tests, as per the other image below.