Upsizing the Fortress for spare anchor

[Manateeman]

We are 60’ . On the bow, 120 lb Rocna, + 120 lb Bruce. Maxwell reversible . On deck stern under Trinka 10’ one Fortress FX 85. Just in case something bad happens. On deck stern, Fortress FX 55. with its own windlass.
Hurricane in bilges. Two FX 120 .which are the largest they make.
Chain, braid on braid, windlass, dyneema, rollers and bits to match above.
Paul Luke senior (still sailing in the above) made it simple. 1 pound per foot waterline length for day, 2 pounds per foot, storm.
Pick a Fortress too small and not enough chain and it will fly like a kite.
I sleep well except when the manatees bang my hull looking for pizza.
Happy trails to you.
Captain Mark and his off gassing, beer buzzed manatee friends

[David B]

Originally Posted by SV_Lusca

Hello everyone, new to the forum here but been search and reading through post for a while.

Im looking to buy a Fortress anchor as my spare anchor, my boat is a Beneteau 36cc. Per Fortress recommendation for a 36 feet on their website they state that the FX-16 is good for 33 to 38 feet. Knowing that my boat has more windage due to being a center cockpit and having solar panels to name few things hanging out, Id like to know if I should go with the FX-23.

My main anchor which is already oversized, went from a 15kg Rocna to a 25kg should be enough for most situations. The Fortress would be used as a spare, stern anchoring when required, and or Bahamian mooring.

(For my main anchor the difference between a 15kg and 20kg wasn’t enough to justify an upgrade, but seems much more of a jump from 20kg to 25kg for some reason on Rocna anchors)

As a matter of principle and safety, I always go up at least one size from the manufacturers recommendation if it will fit. Look at the fine print of the recommendations - that should convince you.

[SV_Lusca]

Since its the end of the season, (actually no season for me at all) most Chandeliers are making sales. Probably order the FX-23, just hope it fits at the same place my old danforth type anchor is placed. I can’t access my sailboat for now.

[Phyrcooler]

Originally Posted by SV_Lusca

Since its the end of the season, (actually no season for me at all) most Chandeliers are making sales. Probably order the FX-23, just hope it fits at the same place my old danforth type anchor is placed. I can’t access my sailboat for now.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well said. I've tried to respond to the OP's narrow question, but honestly, if I were choosing a new spare anchor I'd probably pick a Mantus, or a Spade (if I could afford one). They both break down so can be stored below. Either would be a better choice as a bower than a Fortress (in my opinion). SNIP

To the OP, and maybe others - I guess I’m curious - why a fortress? And in answering, understand, I’m not trying to start an anchor wars discussion. It seems that most anchor tests consistently note that the “new generation” anchors are better. Yet, over and over I see that folks carry Fortress or Danforth style anchors as a stern or back-up anchor. Yet, I’ve not seen any reports that details that there are any situations where its a better anchor. So why? I used to think it was a storage issue. I actually had two Fortresses as backups (in storage!) on my Mainship 390 - bought by the PO. Never used either. But with anchors like the Mantus breaking down if storage is an issue - why go with fortress? Are there situations where you feel it’s better? Maybe lighter and able to dinghy out?

It’s an honest question, as I am looking for a new primary AND secondary/backup anchor for our new-to-us sailboat. Like most of us boaters, I’ve watched the tests, read the study’s, and read more than a few flaming anchor threads! Just curious on why the Fortress is the perceived “standard issue” for a backup anchor?

Thanks!

[Cheechako]

I'd probably go with the FX-23, not heavy, but the Danforth design holds like 2-3x the straight line pull of any other anchor, so... maybe not. The big IF is IF the bottom will allow it to dig in like mud or sand.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Phyrcooler

To the OP, and maybe others - I guess I’m curious - why a fortress? And in answering, understand, I’m not trying to start an anchor wars discussion. It seems that most anchor tests consistently note that the “new generation” anchors are better. Yet, over and over I see that folks carry Fortress or Danforth style anchors as a stern or back-up anchor. Yet, I’ve not seen any reports that details that there are any situations where its a better anchor. So why? I used to think it was a storage issue. I actually had two Fortresses as backups (in storage!) on my Mainship 390 - bought by the PO. Never used either. But with anchors like the Mantus breaking down if storage is an issue - why go with fortress? Are there situations where you feel it’s better? Maybe lighter and able to dinghy out?

It’s an honest question, as I am looking for a new primary AND secondary/backup anchor for our new-to-us sailboat. Like most of us boaters, I’ve watched the tests, read the study’s, and read more than a few flaming anchor threads! Just curious on why the Fortress is the perceived “standard issue” for a backup anchor?

Thanks!

I think it's a "weight and ability to store unassembled" thing. But the Danforth/Fortress design holds far more pull than even modern types. In a straight pull, IF dug in. Last I saw. Wind shift though is another thing entirely. ..

[SV_Lusca]

Guess for me its becuase its light, different type than my main if the bottom is not adequate for it, can be launched easily and when assembled takes less space.

[Don C L]

Yes, get the 23. It is light enough to handle and you may really need or want it someday for something much bigger than kedging or a stern.
I know I wrote elsewhere that I was using my smaller anchor this summer, but you'll not wrest my larger one from my cold dead claws!

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

I think it's a "weight and ability to store unassembled" thing. But the Danforth/Fortress design holds far more pull than even modern types. In a straight pull, IF dug in. Last I saw. Wind shift though is another thing entirely. ..

Yes, another story. Stories come and go just as anchors. I purchased my Manson Supreme 80# after a telling story of their fine holding and resetting properties. Turned out to be just another story.

Mine is a big PITA!!! Would not set on a hard weed covered bottom but certainly did set in soft mud. Yes indeed held well until a 180 wind shift occurred. Fortunately for me .... along with other anchored boats that I happened to be at teh helm when the wind shift came along. Reset??? Maybe...if not in a crowded anchorage. We just gently sailed along with the wind until I could get the engines started. I had to pull the POS and clean all the mud from it before I dared to reset it.

Now I have a new FX55 still in its shipping container and am not sure when I will use it. Wifey demands I pay fo moorings now after my Manson’s failure. And yes, I had the maximum scope out there that the closeness of others would permit. No novice here when it comes to anchoring after years of anchored enjoyment. Just my humble thoughts.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Phyrcooler

...It’s an honest question, as I am looking for a new primary AND secondary/backup anchor for our new-to-us sailboat. Like most of us boaters, I’ve watched the tests, read the study’s, and read more than a few flaming anchor threads! Just curious on why the Fortress is the perceived “standard issue” for a backup anchor?

It's a good question. I can tell you I bought my FX-37 so I could have a storm anchor that has great holding, but could also be stored down below easily. In other words it broke down into components, and was relatively light.

I bought this anchor well over a decade ago, but if I was buying one today I would more likely look at a Mantus or a Spade. The Spade even comes in aluminum, so can compete on weight.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Phyrcooler

...I wonder if there are any validated tests of the linear pull of various sail and powerboat configurations?

Having done the testing, I can tell you that this is a trick question. The answer depends on...
* Exposure to waves.
* Rode type.
* Snubber type.
* Depth of water.
* Scope.
* Yawing.

The answer can vary over a range of about 200% without including large waves.

Likewise, bottom types have a huge effect on holding capacity.

This is why we go with rules of thumb and argue a lot.

[thinwater]

Two more thoughts:

a. I never thought of an anchor as a "spare." They all have purposes.

b. Excel is another break-down anchor option. Lots of fans, just not in the US. Also available in aluminum.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Phyrcooler

To the OP, and maybe others - I guess I’m curious - why a fortress? And in answering, understand, I’m not trying to start an anchor wars discussion. It seems that most anchor tests consistently note that the “new generation” anchors are better. Yet, over and over I see that folks carry Fortress or Danforth style anchors as a stern or back-up anchor. Yet, I’ve not seen any reports that details that there are any situations where its a better anchor. So why?

There are two main advantages to Fortress anchors. The first is that, for their holding power, they are lighter than other designs. This is important in any situation where the anchor must be handled or transported manually -- dinghy anchor, kedge, spare, or any smaller vessel lacking a windlass and bow roller. Even if a heavier anchor is usually within the capabilities of usual crew, there is a safety benefit when weather, illness, or fatigue are factors, or a less muscular person has to handle the anchor.



The second benefit is that they are generally easier to store. Being flat they do not tend to roll around the bilge when tacking and in many cases can be stored without disassembly. If disassembled they are generally smaller than the few modern anchors that come apart. There are several choices for brackets to keep them on a bow or stern rail. This makes them work well for boats without a bow roller.


The disadvantages are: they do not reset as reliably on a wind shift as Rocna etc, they do not set as easily in some bottoms, notably weedy bottoms, and they are susceptible to damage if placed under a heavy load while one fluke is set and the other is not.

[rslifkin]

The Fortress also works very well in soft mud compared to most anchors. Mostly due to its very large size relative to weight. And it's also very different from most people's primaries, so it serves the purpose of "if the primary isn't adequate in this bottom for whatever reason, try something significantly different".

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Phyrcooler

Just curious on why the Fortress is the perceived “standard issue” for a backup anchor?

Thanks!

Yeah, my first thought was that as a secondary anchor, probably as a stern anchor, it will likely only be used in situations of one direction pull, so its light weight and holding power make it a good design choice.