Your wisdom is needed

[Mike Banks]

A LIGHT anchor? That makes as much sense as a lead balloon.

[MicHughV]

I've used a Bruce for nigh on 35 years now.....I love it, never had a problem with it, never dragged, never fouled, never broke, set in every type of bottom I ever came across..why mess with it ??
Setting it correctly is the trick, but that could be said for most anchors...

If I were to make any suggestion, it would be to lengthen the upper arm a tad...right now the anchor chain shackle dangles pretty close to the fluke tips, especially laying on the bottom, and were one to drop a lot of chain, the chain could wrap around the flukes...

my understanding of people that have a problem with a Bruce anchor, is chain interference, too much dropped too quick.

[zstine]

balast is a relative thing... keep the shank light by using Aluminum and make the fluke out of steel. bolt them together, but watch out for corrosion... you may need an anode

[zstine]

Originally Posted by Mike Banks

A LIGHT anchor? That makes as much sense as a lead balloon.

not really.. look at Fortress type anchors. if I had a fast light catamaran, its probably what I'd carry

[billgewater]

Originally Posted by goeasy123

This guy thinks a roll bar is a bad idea. I like a contrarian!

IMHO... the market is now looking for a 'next generation' anchor at the lowest price, delivered.



What do you think?

OK. So where is the old fashioned Fisherman's anchor? Many had a removable cross member to improve storage. I had one but gave up on it as it was often described as "hernia material". but it worked well.

[contrail]

Bruce explained that their low holding power IN TESTS was due to the fact that it took awhile (maybe a day) to wiggle its way into the bottom and really set. I used a Bruce for almost 20 years, in which it always set, never dragged, and held through the eye passage of a hurricane in which many other anchors dragged. 33 foot boat, 33 lb anchor. I never had much doubt about their explanation.

[Celestialsailor]

I'll be glad when they bring out the "next" generation anchor, so i can afford the current generation anchor...

[jjt5795]

I carried a supermax on my 32 foot sailboat and love it. It never drug, i slept well. On my Columbia 45 i have a big Rocna. It has never drug, i slept well and i love it. Both anchors are rated for at least the next sized boat. Common thread, heavy works. Just my comfortable opinion.

[TorronnaPwr]

Hollow form with internal heavy weighted ball which falls backward as anchor is pulled forward to dig it in?

[LarryDW]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

An anchor thread! How refreshing. But a Bruce??

I busted out laughing, Thanks Thumbsup!

[Izikalvo]

Did any of you use this anchor? I believe it was made by Manson for west marine.

[David Mathis]

For many years, I've used a Bruce anchor and will likely continue to use one. My 43' boat uses a 44 pound Bruce without problems but I accept that it isn't the best in light thin mud as it seems to penetrate but have difficulty holding if the pull is strong. (To anchor in soft mud, use a Danforth.)

The only modification made was to sharpen the leading edges and tips (only butter knife sharp, you're not going to shave with it) after experiencing difficulty penetrating hard packed sand, the really hard stuff that feels more like a sidewalk than a beach. A few minutes with an angle grinder solved the problem, now it sets quickly at that location. One advantage of the Bruce is the ability to cope with changes in direction of pull. Late night storms have come up bringing a strong pull at perpendicular or opposite to the original setting direction. The boat has always stayed within its radius with no detected drag.

A few rumors indicate that some of the new designs work well on short scope. Perhaps, but why would you want to anchor with a 2:1 scope? The Bruce works well with the traditional 4:1 or 5:1, a little more if a nasty blow is coming. Some of the new designs may be better in certain bottoms but if I need more holding, the boat will have the 20kg Bruce replaced with a 30kg. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Mike Banks]

I think the later Bruce anchors did have a longer shaft--that is the genuine Bruce--not the countless knock-offs, some of which are OK--but the genuine Bruce is a fine anchor--as is the CQR or Manson ploughs--both when made to the correct dimensions and having the right weights for the weather and vessel weight and type.

There may be better anchors than these, but by how great a margin, and under what conditions? Of the modern types the Manson Supreme is hard to beat--but in the area of tropical storms and fierce currents one needs a HEAVY anchor with HEAVY chain if using a nylon cable after the 5:1 scope has been paid out in that heavy chain. If using less chain, then one needs a heavy kellet, before the join to a 20mm diameter or so NYLON rode--with a protector over the rode where it comes aboard through a polished fair lead.

I find the Danforth types most choose are too light--Danforths need to be HEAVY. A heavy Danforth in sand is hard to beat--in gravel nothing is much good at all. One of my friend's vessel went ashore when he was using his NEW Danforth type some clown had sold him--and he should have known better anyway. It was made of Aluminium--and when we lifted the rode to use it as a tow, the shaft was at right angles to the twisted blades--my guess is it caught under a rock, distorted, then came free--and dragged all the way on to a mud bank--fortunately not rocks--so we were able to refloat the vessel using some air-filled bags and dragging it sideways.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Mike Banks

I think the later Bruce anchors did have a longer shaft--that is the genuine Bruce--not the countless knock-offs, some of which are OK--but the genuine Bruce is a fine anchor--as is the CQR or Manson ploughs--both when made to the correct dimensions and having the right weights for the weather and vessel weight and type.

There may be better anchors than these, but by how great a margin, and under what conditions? Of the modern types the Manson Supreme is hard to beat--but in the area of tropical storms and fierce currents one needs a HEAVY anchor with HEAVY chain if using a nylon cable after the 5:1 scope has been paid out in that heavy chain. If using less chain, then one needs a heavy kellet, before the join to a 20mm diameter or so NYLON rode--with a protector over the rode where it comes aboard through a polished fair lead.

I find the Danforth types most choose are too light--Danforths need to be HEAVY. A heavy Danforth in sand is hard to beat--in gravel nothing is much good at all. One of my friend's vessel went ashore when he was using his NEW Danforth type some clown had sold him--and he should have known better anyway. It was made of Aluminium--and when we lifted the rode to use it as a tow, the shaft was at right angles to the twisted blades--my guess is it caught under a rock, distorted, then came free--and dragged all the way on to a mud bank--fortunately not rocks--so we were able to refloat the vessel using some air-filled bags and dragging it sideways.

I had a Danforth that was cast. I don't recall what they called the model. It was hard to beat.

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It seems, to me, you want to design an anchor that is not form stabilized (no roll bar), therefore, ballast stabilized, but lightweight.
Hmmmm.
How about going to an inflatable/de-flatable roll-bar, to eliminate the interference problems, you cited?

Maybe get a Sarca Excel, no roll bar. Sets fast. doesn't act like a shovel.