Is 5/16" BBB Large Enough?

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by scoobert

wrong example for me :P
they are both beetles.
lol, i miss my viper.

OK, maybe I can explain in terms you will understand. Comparing a CQR (not QCR) to an Ultra anchor is like comparing a VW 5.0 V10 TDI Tuareg to a Dodge Viper. Both have V-10 engines, a steering wheel and four tires but since you have driven a Viper I think you will agree that they don't exactly perform the same.

[scoobert]

Originally Posted by skipmac

OK, maybe I can explain in terms you will understand. Comparing a CQR (not QCR) to an Ultra anchor is like comparing a VW 5.0 V10 TDI Tuareg to a Dodge Viper. Both have V-10 engines, a steering wheel and four tires but since you have driven a Viper I think you will agree that they don't exactly perform the same.

wow, thats funny, when looking at the viper i also looked at the V10 toerag.
decided on the viper because they could be upgraded. but yes, very different.

[scoobert]

is what they say about the fortress true? are they that many times better then a danforth of a similar physical size?

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by scoobert

is what they say about the fortress true? are they that many times better then a danforth of a similar physical size?

only once set...many have gotten rid of theirs because of getting it to set.

But I definitely see having one as a storm anchor where getting it set and checking it several times before it's truly needed would be smart...I don't think any other anchor come close in holding power..all things equal.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by scoobert

is what they say about the fortress true? are they that many times better then a danforth of a similar physical size?

No. The comparison that is often made is of anchors of equal weight, not size. With this sort of anchor the holding power is related to fluke area, not weight.

IMO, the main advantage of the Fortress is that it is more easily handled if one needs to carry it out in a dinghy to set as a second anchor. Their main disadvantage is price.

Jim

[scoobert]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

No. The comparison that is often made is of anchors of equal weight, not size. With this sort of anchor the holding power is related to fluke area, not weight.

IMO, the main advantage of the Fortress is that it is more easily handled if one needs to carry it out in a dinghy to set as a second anchor. Their main disadvantage is price.

Jim

thats what i thought, just wanted to make sure.
size for size, i will take the heavier one.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by scoobert

is what they say about the fortress true? are they that many times better then a danforth of a similar physical size?

The Fortress is designed for a different purpose; we have a Fortress 55 in the stern locker. It's designed for kedging, not to be used as a primary anchor. For a primary, you need a design along with the correct weight and chain which will set well in most bottoms you'll encounter. Now having written this, I'm sure there's someone out there who's using a Fortress as a primary who'll disagree. But I just can't imagine our Fortress setting well, if at all in a weed or grassy bottom, then re-setting following a wind or tidal shift.... there's just not enough weight behind it. And if we set the Fortress in a mud or sandy bottom and left it there for a week, I imagine it would be nearly impossible to pull it back up after it was dug in deep.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The Fortress is designed for a different purpose; we have a Fortress 55 in the stern locker. It's designed for kedging, not to be used as a primary anchor. For a primary, you need a design along with the correct weight and chain which will set well in most bottoms you'll encounter. Now having written this, I'm sure there's someone out there who's using a Fortress as a primary who'll disagree. But I just can't imagine our Fortress setting well, if at all in a weed or grassy bottom, then re-setting following a wind or tidal shift.... there's just not enough weight behind it. And if we set the Fortress in a mud or sandy bottom and left it there for a week, I imagine it would be nearly impossible to pull it back up after it was dug in deep.

Sounds about right...but I would add storm anchor beside kedge, emergency anchor...

I would not have one as a primary or secondary....but some do...

[Fortress]

Gents,

A couple of key points:

The most common comparison of Fortress to Danforth is made by size and not weight. For example, our model FX-37 is comparable in size to a Danforth Hi-Tensile 35 lb anchor, and yet the FX-37 weighs 22 lbs, about 37% less. The same holds true for the Fortress model FX-55, which is almost the exact same size as the Danforth Hi-Tensile 60 lb anchor, yet the FX-55 weighs 32 lbs, or about 47% less.

The lighter weight Fortress has consistently out-performed the much heavier Danforth in several anchor tests. Case in point would be the US Navy tests, in which the FX-55 provided far greater holding power than a 62 lb Danforth T-7000 "Deepset Hi-Tensile" model, which was also destroyed in the test.

In fact, all of the Danforth anchors were destroyed during this testing. The Fortress anchors suffered minimal damage while holding over 200x their weight, and in some pulls to over 300x. This prompted the US Navy to note in their summary report:

"The fact that the Fortress anchors incurred no significant structural damage at such high holding ratios suggest that the anchors have been extensively engineered from both the hydrodynamic and structural standpoints." And also:

"Under anticipated loading conditions, NAV-X (corporate name) has compensated for aluminum's susceptibility to deformations through careful structural design of their anchors."

The positive tests results of the Fortress led the US Navy to select model FX-125 for their Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) vessel, which is pictured below with the FX-125 in the lower right corner of the craft. This 1989 test was the beginning of independent proof and acceptance that a well-designed and engineered aluminum alloy anchor could replace traditional heavy steel anchors aboard a wide variety of pleasure, commercial, and military craft.

- On a separate note, after reading a recent article by Practical Sailor, I decided to do some research into our warranty card registration database, and these cards ask new owners a variety of questions about their boat and why they bought a Fortress. Here goes:

Own a sailboat: 30% of total
Main Anchor: 45%
Spare Anchor: 37%
Storm Anchor: 15%
Lunch Hook: 2%

Overnight & Cruising: 80% (of total Sailors)
Main Anchor: 40%
Spare Anchor: 44%
Storm Anchor: 17%
Lunch Hook: 2%

Note: More than one choice was allowed, which resulted in >100%. Ex: Some sailors checked off Spare and Lunch Hook.

- Regarding setting, most issues are solved by simply installing the Mud Palms, which we include in the box with every anchor. The Mud Palms are a set of two metal plates which bolt on to the crown (center piece) and they lift the back end of the anchor up so that the flukes take a more aggressive angle into the sea bottom.

Another issue could be having the anchor incorrectly set at the 45° soft mud setting when the bottom is a harder soil, which would cause the anchor to skip along the bottom.

Rocks are likely to be a problem as well, since the two massive flukes of the Fortress (or a Danforth type) might have a hard time sticking in between tight areas to get a firm grip. I think a plow anchor with a single narrow fluke with weight behind it would serve you better in rocks.

Grass and weeds are going to be iffy, as during my 16 years with Fortress I have heard mixed results. Some will say that the precision-machined Fortress is sharp enough to slice through the vegetation and find firmer soil below, while others have said that it will quickly foul once it penetrates and will pull the grass or weeds out in clumps. The only anchor I have heard that works reasonably well in this type of bottom is a Fisherman's, similar to the one pictured below with two of our old models from the early 90s.

Finally, 90+ year young Elbert S. "Mac" Maloney, a long time sailor who was the author of CHAPMAN’S PILOTING & SEAMANSHIP for several decades, once said: "I’ve used a Fortress as my primary anchor in sand and mud bottoms for more than 20 years. I have found the Fortress to be thoroughly dependable.” In other bottom types, he trusts his CQR.

Safe anchoring,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

[psneeld]

yeah...I just go by what I have experience by me, many of my friends, associates and other boaters I tow from real world experiences...not tests or polls....none of them are writers by the way....

Fantastic for a lot of things...but not a primary anchor.

[Fortress]

psneeld,

Our company founder was a fellow power boater. He crossed the Atlantic a couple of times and completed a circumnavigation in his 77-ft Hatteras with the FX-125 aboard as his primary anchor.

Go figure.

Brian

[psneeld]

go figure is correct..many boats and many anchors work for some but not all...I have no stake in the game....if you don't you would be pointing out a whole bunch of reasons why "joe boater" is gonna believe you and not someone else...and I won't list my credentials...the members here who care will find out or already know.

upon rereading your post...OK...I'll bite...

crossing the Atlantic doesn't involve much anchoring...and neither does a circumnavigation if you tie up all the time....

so specifically...where does that post leave us in convincing anyone a fortress is the anchor of choice? many entrepreneurs have died endorsing their product...ya gotta do better than that.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Fortress

psneeld,

Our company founder was a fellow power boater. He crossed the Atlantic a couple of times and completed a circumnavigation in his 77-ft Hatteras with the FX-125 aboard as his primary anchor.

Go figure.

Brian

To be fair, I RARELY see 77ft powerboats in anchorages. The occasional ones I do are only there for an afternoon stop. Are you in a position to state what percentage of time that boat spent at anchor vs a marina?

Likewise, I have NEVER seen Navy LAC's in an anchorage, and seriously doubt long-term anchoring is part of their standard operating environment.

I have debated this with you before - you make fantastic anchors and I will buy one as a secondary for every boat I ever own. But I won't use them as full-time primaries.

You should be happy about this, because it means your anchors get bought by the majority of boaters. I can't think of any other manufacturer of anchors sharing this fortunate situation.

But you really should stop making the case for using this style of anchor as a general-purpose primary. It makes you look bad. Particularly since very many of us have witnessed this type of anchor failing miserably because of weed or rocks stuck in the flukes during a reset situation, or just not resetting because the boat has too much speed when the unset occurs.

I meet very few boaters outside of specific bottom areas like the Chesapeake that feel differently.

Mark

[Fortress]

Mark,

Thanks for your input. Its hard not to make the case for using our anchor as a primary when so many of our customers do so.

That said, I have and will continue to readily acknowledge our product's shortcomings, as I did in an earlier post about it's difficulties in rocks and grass/weeds.

Much appreciated,
Brian

[scoobert]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Gents,

A couple of key points:

The most common comparison of Fortress to Danforth is made by size and not weight. For example, our model FX-37 is comparable in size to a Danforth Hi-Tensile 35 lb anchor, and yet the FX-37 weighs 22 lbs, about 37% less. The same holds true for the Fortress model FX-55, which is almost the exact same size as the Danforth Hi-Tensile 60 lb anchor, yet the FX-55 weighs 32 lbs, or about 47% less.

The lighter weight Fortress has consistently out-performed the much heavier Danforth in several anchor tests. Case in point would be the US Navy tests, in which the FX-55 provided far greater holding power than a 62 lb Danforth T-7000 "Deepset Hi-Tensile" model, which was also destroyed in the test.

i believe the weight has a setting advantage over fortress.
holding power, ok, size for size, but can you tell me an anchor weighing 32# sets just as fast as one that weighs 60#?