Thus - See posts: 364, 418, 420!
Far as I can tell... no really comprehensive anchor test has ever been provided by any manufacturer... or cooperating group of manufacturers.
Last edited:
Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test
- Thread starter Anchor Brian
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Thus - See posts: 364, 418, 420!
Far as I can tell... no really comprehensive anchor test has ever been provided by any manufacturer... or cooperating group of manufacturers.
Anchor Brian
Senior Member
In addition to the recent Chesapeake Bay testing, Fortress also sponsored tests in the soft mud bottoms of SF Bay and in the hard sand bottoms of Miami in 1990. Since then a wide variety of tests have been held throughout the world in which the Fortress has been a top performer, including tests written about or conducted by independent magazines / authorities in:
Brazil (Nautica)
France (Bateaux, Neptune Yachting, Voile, Voile et Voiliers)
Holland (Vryhof, Waterkampioen)
Italy (Vela e Motore)
Norway (Praktisk Batliv)
Sweden (Pakryss)
USA (Cruising World, Motor Boating & Sailing, Multihulls, Pontoon & Deck Boat, Power & MotorYacht, Powerboat Reports, Practical Sailor, Sail, Sailing Foundation, US Navy, Trailer Boats, Yachting)
UK (Practical Boat Owner, Yachting Monthly)
Below is a PDF file with comments from some of these tests.
Brian
HopCar
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,366
- Vessel Name
- Possum
- Vessel Make
- Ellis 28
Back in the days when I did outside sales calls, I was in the Miami Coast Guard base often. I noticed that all of the Island Class ships carried Fortress FX-125 anchors. These are 110 foot ships.
Brian, are your part numbers what the anchor would weigh if it was made from steel? For instance would the FX-125 weigh 125 pounds if it was steel?
Brian, are your part numbers what the anchor would weigh if it was made from steel? For instance would the FX-125 weigh 125 pounds if it was steel?
Hi Brian, although we're in no rush...
Linda and I look forward to when we test FX-23 at its 45 degree angle in SF Delta mud-bottom. Our comparisons are 30 lb Danforth, 20 + lb Danforth, and lightweight (12 lb?) Viking anchor with substantial fluke area (just a bit more area than your FX-16). All three were at 33 +/- degree angle fluke to shank.
We found that each of the three would hold OK once set. We also found that the Viking was easiest/fastest to set. Goes to show that weight isn't everything.
We will use same anchor to chain to rode set up on the FX-23 as we did on the first three. Tests will be in an exact same spot.
Due to my decades od successes using Danforth design anchors, as soon as I learned of Fortress anchor's 45 degree capability I immediately realized that the FX models are basically Danforth on steroids! And, the lighter weight will be well appreciated.
Plan to let you know results... eventually!
BTW: Testimonial link you provided sure provides plenty of thumbs-up comments!
Art
A minor thought I had,
In chandlers, as far as I can make out in most places round the world, they stock things that look, ostensibly, like Danforths. The current test regime clearly points out (or I think it clearly points out) that anchors of similar designs have wildly different performances, viz Ultra vs Spade and Mantus vs Rocna vs Supreme (and maybe Boss vs Claw - less sure that anyone would mistake one for the other). I think there is grave danger that people (not the educated here) will think that the Fortress results mean that any cheap danforth like thing will perform like the one in the Fortress tests.
With safety at the top of the priority it is important we differentiate exactly what it is we are talking about, a real Danforth, or a cheap copy.
In the same way - not all convex will perform in the same way the Delta has done - and anyone trying to categorise convex together simply does not understand the significance of the testing.
In chandlers, as far as I can make out in most places round the world, they stock things that look, ostensibly, like Danforths. The current test regime clearly points out (or I think it clearly points out) that anchors of similar designs have wildly different performances, viz Ultra vs Spade and Mantus vs Rocna vs Supreme (and maybe Boss vs Claw - less sure that anyone would mistake one for the other). I think there is grave danger that people (not the educated here) will think that the Fortress results mean that any cheap danforth like thing will perform like the one in the Fortress tests.
With safety at the top of the priority it is important we differentiate exactly what it is we are talking about, a real Danforth, or a cheap copy.
In the same way - not all convex will perform in the same way the Delta has done - and anyone trying to categorise convex together simply does not understand the significance of the testing.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Again I think some anchors that appear to be "cheap copies" may in fact be an improvement. One could have said about the Rocna that it was a cheap copy of a Bugel. Or that a Delta was a cheap copy of the CQR. You could say the Mantus was a cheap copy of the Rocna ..... but it out-performed the Rocna in this mud test. Most all anchors are copies basically of some other previous product. Many or probably most Claws are probably cheap imitations of the Bruce. The Bruce was forged and thought to be superior to all the cast Claws that evolved but all seem to be slightly different in shape and could have better performance than the Bruce. More often than not products down the road are better.
And I've been fooled many times re the look of an anchor. I still can't believe the Spade anchor dosn't perform supremely. It seems so perfect to me. And the Boss from Manson also looked like it was going to blow the socks off most all other anchors but I've seen no spectacular performances at all. I even recommended it (more or less) to Don (moonstruck) and now I'm glad he didn't buy one. Never been sorry I recommended the Supreme though.
Djbanji,
The concave shape has been proven to be better for resistance but there are so many variables that it's not a sure thing at all to think a convex anchor fluke will be inferior or a concave to be superior.
And I've been fooled many times re the look of an anchor. I still can't believe the Spade anchor dosn't perform supremely. It seems so perfect to me. And the Boss from Manson also looked like it was going to blow the socks off most all other anchors but I've seen no spectacular performances at all. I even recommended it (more or less) to Don (moonstruck) and now I'm glad he didn't buy one. Never been sorry I recommended the Supreme though.
Djbanji,
The concave shape has been proven to be better for resistance but there are so many variables that it's not a sure thing at all to think a convex anchor fluke will be inferior or a concave to be superior.
Manyboats, my post obviously lacked clarity!
I was not referring to Rocna being a copy of a Bugel, or a Spade. Most anchors take some characteristic from the previous models.
I was trying to differentiate between cheap unbranded copies from branded versions (or copies if you like). I was specifically thinking of the 'fluke' anchors in chandlers that originate cheaply from "Asia' which may bear some resemblance to the original but have probably never been tested and if you buy one and I buy one the chance that they are exactly the same is non-existent.
I expect a Danforth, or Fortress, or Mantus to be the same (identical) wherever it is bought - I do not expect the copy CQR or Danforth to be the same, even in the same chandler.
And I think it remains debatable that Concave is better than Convex and until you try a Kobra, Excel or SARCA - you simply do not know.
The Fortress tests, show so much, and another thing is 'expect the unexpected' Unless you try you cannot guess.
I was not referring to Rocna being a copy of a Bugel, or a Spade. Most anchors take some characteristic from the previous models.
I was trying to differentiate between cheap unbranded copies from branded versions (or copies if you like). I was specifically thinking of the 'fluke' anchors in chandlers that originate cheaply from "Asia' which may bear some resemblance to the original but have probably never been tested and if you buy one and I buy one the chance that they are exactly the same is non-existent.
I expect a Danforth, or Fortress, or Mantus to be the same (identical) wherever it is bought - I do not expect the copy CQR or Danforth to be the same, even in the same chandler.
And I think it remains debatable that Concave is better than Convex and until you try a Kobra, Excel or SARCA - you simply do not know.
The Fortress tests, show so much, and another thing is 'expect the unexpected' Unless you try you cannot guess.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Djbangi,
Don't need to try Kobra ect re the concave/convex issue. I only have 7or so anchors and a Kobra is not one of them. Would like one though. Very good performer.
The man that designed the Spade first thoroughly researched the concave/convex issue. Also there is the dihedral anhedral wing difference and anemometers always face the convex side into the wind. Almost everywhere you look there is evidence that convex surfaces present less drag.
And of course it's not hard to identify a cheap anchor and most are inferior but I'm making the point that it's not always the case. Some are better.
And of course guessing or simply observing an anchor won't reveal it's performance as I found out.
Don't need to try Kobra ect re the concave/convex issue. I only have 7or so anchors and a Kobra is not one of them. Would like one though. Very good performer.
The man that designed the Spade first thoroughly researched the concave/convex issue. Also there is the dihedral anhedral wing difference and anemometers always face the convex side into the wind. Almost everywhere you look there is evidence that convex surfaces present less drag.
And of course it's not hard to identify a cheap anchor and most are inferior but I'm making the point that it's not always the case. Some are better.
And of course guessing or simply observing an anchor won't reveal it's performance as I found out.
Last edited:
MANY BOATS WROTE:
The man that designed the Spade first thoroughly researched the concave/convex issue. Also there is the dihedral anhedral wing difference and anemometers always face the convex side into the wind. Almost everywhere you look there is evidence that convex surfaces present less drag.
Rex Wrote:
When you are talking air—water Eric you are probably right, the super Sarca is of convex and like everything else about it the convex is unlike any other design, extremely shallow convex, it has cutting edges all round, most important it has slots in its fluke to help reduce compacting, clogging, by introducing water over its fluke even when severely under load, good deep penetration in thick clay and muddy bottoms is the result.
When the Sarca was (originally of concave shape) in sand it worked fine, in mud it would clog, once clogged would not go any deeper, the mud once compressed inside the concave simply packs very hard, soft , hard , sticky oozy mud with weed, slots in the concave configuration made absolutely no difference, regardless once the concave section Is full and compressed that’s all she wrote.
The Excel is another unusual design, it is a combination of convex and concave, the convex section this time instead of being shallower like the Sarca is marginally steeper than any convex design before it, this steep convex separates, pushing out ward, the next extreme difference it is being accompanied with concave cutting edges, these start of as a turned down toe, the cutting edges lead into concave single plain flukes, to prevent clogging, the name Excel cut into its fluke and rear single plain flukes is again designed to create water flow under all compression to keep the Excel diving.
End result is it doesn’t plow, it compressors the substrate at the rear and sides then feeds it over its back in a central position driving down the anchor.
Check out the very high Shank, in thick weed this is a great advantage in helping the Excel to achieve deep penetration before the weed starts to restrict it’s shank, as the turned down toe is of Stainless steel you can keep it very sharp if you wish.
Our anchor designs are very different, simply there have been nothing before them with their configuration, our patents are very strong, together with those approved claims maybe gives you some inclination that just maybe our designs are very – very different.
Any way away we go again, best way is to down load our( environmental destruction video,) and( Excel to the test) to see what it is I am talking about, only of course if anyone is interested.
Regards Rex.
The man that designed the Spade first thoroughly researched the concave/convex issue. Also there is the dihedral anhedral wing difference and anemometers always face the convex side into the wind. Almost everywhere you look there is evidence that convex surfaces present less drag.
Rex Wrote:
When you are talking air—water Eric you are probably right, the super Sarca is of convex and like everything else about it the convex is unlike any other design, extremely shallow convex, it has cutting edges all round, most important it has slots in its fluke to help reduce compacting, clogging, by introducing water over its fluke even when severely under load, good deep penetration in thick clay and muddy bottoms is the result.
When the Sarca was (originally of concave shape) in sand it worked fine, in mud it would clog, once clogged would not go any deeper, the mud once compressed inside the concave simply packs very hard, soft , hard , sticky oozy mud with weed, slots in the concave configuration made absolutely no difference, regardless once the concave section Is full and compressed that’s all she wrote.
The Excel is another unusual design, it is a combination of convex and concave, the convex section this time instead of being shallower like the Sarca is marginally steeper than any convex design before it, this steep convex separates, pushing out ward, the next extreme difference it is being accompanied with concave cutting edges, these start of as a turned down toe, the cutting edges lead into concave single plain flukes, to prevent clogging, the name Excel cut into its fluke and rear single plain flukes is again designed to create water flow under all compression to keep the Excel diving.
End result is it doesn’t plow, it compressors the substrate at the rear and sides then feeds it over its back in a central position driving down the anchor.
Check out the very high Shank, in thick weed this is a great advantage in helping the Excel to achieve deep penetration before the weed starts to restrict it’s shank, as the turned down toe is of Stainless steel you can keep it very sharp if you wish.
Our anchor designs are very different, simply there have been nothing before them with their configuration, our patents are very strong, together with those approved claims maybe gives you some inclination that just maybe our designs are very – very different.
Any way away we go again, best way is to down load our( environmental destruction video,) and( Excel to the test) to see what it is I am talking about, only of course if anyone is interested.
Regards Rex.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,124
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Now boatless - sold 6/2018
- Vessel Make
- Had a Clipper (CHB) 34
Eric, I do get it. I am very aware of the principle you are referring to, but I still maintain the situations are not comparable. The piers of the bridge you speak of are substantial, with a large surface area for the water to be 'squeezed' between, and also water is incompressible, and flowing reasonably swiftly compared, so yes, there will be a drag effect. This compares to a small bar, about 3/4 inch in diameter, encompassing an area of about 1 sq ft, and mud is not pure water, and is compressible, (just squeeze a handful), so I still maintain the 'interference drag', as you call it, between the two surfaces would be negligible. I think you are blinding yourself with science…just kidding…but seriously...
Nomad Willy
Guru
Peter,
Perhaps my word "interplane drag" wasn't the best ... got this on a web search.
"The Pander E showing its sesquiplane configuration in flight
Variations on the biplane concept include the sesquiplane, where one wing (usually the lower) is significantly smaller than the other either in span, chord or both. The name means "one-and-a-half wings." The arrangement reduces interference drag between the wings whilst retaining some of the biplane's structural advantage. The 1920s Pander E is an example of an aircraft with a lower wing of exactly half the span and nearly one quarter (23%) of the area of the upper one. Some designs keep the upper and lower spans nearly equal for structural optimization, whilst reducing the lower chord, allowing near vertical interplane struts; probably the best known examples are the Nieuport military aircraft — from the Nieuport 10 through to the Nieuport 27, all designed by Gustave Delage during the Great War. The later Waco Custom Cabin series proved to be a popular example in general aviation."
They use the expression "interference drag" .... same thing. It's not even high tech much less deep science. It's a fact of physics.
Rex,
Thanks for the interesting discussion on the Excel. But just for holding power the concave fluke has the advantage. Just like airplanes the anhedral wing is more efficient but there are far more dihedral wings than anhedral. Stability ect ect just like the convex anchors there are compelling advantages to a convex fluke. But the greatest amount of effective surface area w the least amount of steel and weight is not convex or concave but flat. Many anchors could probably benefit from flat flukes.
Perhaps my word "interplane drag" wasn't the best ... got this on a web search.
"The Pander E showing its sesquiplane configuration in flight
Variations on the biplane concept include the sesquiplane, where one wing (usually the lower) is significantly smaller than the other either in span, chord or both. The name means "one-and-a-half wings." The arrangement reduces interference drag between the wings whilst retaining some of the biplane's structural advantage. The 1920s Pander E is an example of an aircraft with a lower wing of exactly half the span and nearly one quarter (23%) of the area of the upper one. Some designs keep the upper and lower spans nearly equal for structural optimization, whilst reducing the lower chord, allowing near vertical interplane struts; probably the best known examples are the Nieuport military aircraft — from the Nieuport 10 through to the Nieuport 27, all designed by Gustave Delage during the Great War. The later Waco Custom Cabin series proved to be a popular example in general aviation."
They use the expression "interference drag" .... same thing. It's not even high tech much less deep science. It's a fact of physics.
Rex,
Thanks for the interesting discussion on the Excel. But just for holding power the concave fluke has the advantage. Just like airplanes the anhedral wing is more efficient but there are far more dihedral wings than anhedral. Stability ect ect just like the convex anchors there are compelling advantages to a convex fluke. But the greatest amount of effective surface area w the least amount of steel and weight is not convex or concave but flat. Many anchors could probably benefit from flat flukes.
e.g. - Fortress and Danforth
IMHO - Fortress' claim to fame that I believe supersedes/improves Danthforth's old-school design:
1. 45 degree shank to angle capability for better set in lose-mud bottom with standard 33 +/- degree capability also available for setting into other bottom surfaces, and;
2. Considerably lighter weight for handling while providing as much or better strength of material... with same or increased fluke sq. inch areas
Moonstruck
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 8,276
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Moonstruck
- Vessel Make
- Sabre 42 Hardtop Express
Eric, I have the benefit of looking at a 30 kg EX-CEL as I write this. It seems to me that if at the proper angle the EX-CEL would push the soft stuff aside until it could maybe find harder, better holding. Where as the concave anchor may load up, and possibly be ineffective at digging deeper. I would be interested in Rex's take on this theory.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Hi Don,
Yes that's basically what I think is happening w the roll bars. But w the RB the compaction gives them enough holding power to be a top performer despite a lack of penetration. Come to think of it so goes it for the Fortress. A lot of anchors can develop a lot of holding power just barely submerged. And some (like a Navy) are just bull dozers. But I know a chap that goes to Alaska regularly w an average size Navy and seems very happy w it.
And as for holding power pushing straight up would be best. Not aside. That's for farmers. However there's a lot more substrate to each side than there is straight up. So a flat fluke may need a bit more penetration to utilize the flatness of it's fluke since it's dependent considerably on the weight of the substrate on top of the fluke. And the same would apply to a concave anchor.
I think your Excel is so big your using it won't reveal much about it's holding power. A Navy or Kedge would probably hold as well. You could always turn into a storm chaser ... and bring us some Vid Don.
Don as to your post a Delta should do basically the same. Penetration is good, joke or no but we sat in a 50 knot gale for a day and a half hang'in on a 13lb XYZ. I think it performed for us because it went deep. Or as you say ... found good holding deeper. But ??? That first XYZ won top spot in a mud anchor test. Too bad it would'nt set on other bottoms.
Art,
As I see it the problem w the adjustable fluke is that most of the time most of us won't have any way of telling what kind of bottom is down there. And I would imagine a slightly different fluke angle would be optimum for light and heavy Danforth types. Like 35 degrees for the steel and 30 degrees for the aluminum anchors. Perhaps they are and I just don't know it.
Yes that's basically what I think is happening w the roll bars. But w the RB the compaction gives them enough holding power to be a top performer despite a lack of penetration. Come to think of it so goes it for the Fortress. A lot of anchors can develop a lot of holding power just barely submerged. And some (like a Navy) are just bull dozers. But I know a chap that goes to Alaska regularly w an average size Navy and seems very happy w it.
And as for holding power pushing straight up would be best. Not aside. That's for farmers. However there's a lot more substrate to each side than there is straight up. So a flat fluke may need a bit more penetration to utilize the flatness of it's fluke since it's dependent considerably on the weight of the substrate on top of the fluke. And the same would apply to a concave anchor.
I think your Excel is so big your using it won't reveal much about it's holding power. A Navy or Kedge would probably hold as well. You could always turn into a storm chaser ... and bring us some Vid Don.
Don as to your post a Delta should do basically the same. Penetration is good, joke or no but we sat in a 50 knot gale for a day and a half hang'in on a 13lb XYZ. I think it performed for us because it went deep. Or as you say ... found good holding deeper. But ??? That first XYZ won top spot in a mud anchor test. Too bad it would'nt set on other bottoms.
Art,
As I see it the problem w the adjustable fluke is that most of the time most of us won't have any way of telling what kind of bottom is down there. And I would imagine a slightly different fluke angle would be optimum for light and heavy Danforth types. Like 35 degrees for the steel and 30 degrees for the aluminum anchors. Perhaps they are and I just don't know it.
Last edited:
eyschulman
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,288
Here is an observation I have made. I went through recent boating magazines and tried to identify the general type of anchor on boats of moderate and larger size wherever there was a picture (add or article) including the bow (try this). What I noticed is the following. Rarely a Danforth no less a Fortress. The ratio to other anchors relative to the good old Danforth type is huge. Also The more pricy and larger boats are not sporting Fortress. I also have the same impression from walking the docks at Elliott Bay and Shillshole two large marinas in my area. Many racing sailboats have no anchor on the bow, and many carry Fortress for the same reason I used to carry one(light and breaks down). Many of these boats rarely if ever anchor. Since the Fortress has repeatedly shined in holding power and MY personal experience with fortress confirms that, why not more Fortresses on the bow? I know why I don't use it as my primary. For easy setting it was the worse anchor I ever had experience with. Steel Danforth's and all manner of plows concave or convex were much easier for me to set. I have no problem with setting my primary plow type anchor and then if wind or trouble is expected setting form my Dinghy a aluminum break down secondary either a Spade or a Fortress . I just don't want to mess around in a crowded anchorage trying to get a fast set with a Fortress.
Last edited:
If I may as: What size Fortress and what angle do you have it at...32/33 or 45 degrees?
Moonstruck Wrote:
Eric, I have the benefit of looking at a 30 kg EX-CEL as I write this. It seems to me that if at the proper angle the EX-CEL would push the soft stuff aside until it could maybe find harder, better holding. Whereas the concave anchor may load up, and possibly be ineffective at digging deeper. I would be interested in Rex's take on this theory.
Rex Wrote:
Don you are exactly right, you will further find the attributes of just how well the EXCEL can handle many substrates, enough said as from here on with Eric’s comments I will always look like I am defending, I respect Eric’s comments but no one anchor design should be lumped into a category and judged, he is purely speculating when it comes to the Anchor Right Designs.
Don is a great example of putting his money where his mouth is, Don has purchased on the bases of what he sees, what others are reporting, and my( integrity) the latter being of most importance to me, if Don is not happy then he will be fully refunded, end of story.
Dons anchor size was based sensibility, Understand this Eric, if you want to make an anchor way undersize based on your own personal performance then you are a gamer man than me, we are certified so we do have guide lines to follow, if those guide do not fall in with your expectations then so be it, your guide lines indicate your recommendations are yours, nothing wrong with that when it is only you deploying your home made or modified anchor.
As I suggested on this padge, upload the recomended very short videos from our web site.
Regards
Rex
Eric, I have the benefit of looking at a 30 kg EX-CEL as I write this. It seems to me that if at the proper angle the EX-CEL would push the soft stuff aside until it could maybe find harder, better holding. Whereas the concave anchor may load up, and possibly be ineffective at digging deeper. I would be interested in Rex's take on this theory.
Rex Wrote:
Don you are exactly right, you will further find the attributes of just how well the EXCEL can handle many substrates, enough said as from here on with Eric’s comments I will always look like I am defending, I respect Eric’s comments but no one anchor design should be lumped into a category and judged, he is purely speculating when it comes to the Anchor Right Designs.
Don is a great example of putting his money where his mouth is, Don has purchased on the bases of what he sees, what others are reporting, and my( integrity) the latter being of most importance to me, if Don is not happy then he will be fully refunded, end of story.
Dons anchor size was based sensibility, Understand this Eric, if you want to make an anchor way undersize based on your own personal performance then you are a gamer man than me, we are certified so we do have guide lines to follow, if those guide do not fall in with your expectations then so be it, your guide lines indicate your recommendations are yours, nothing wrong with that when it is only you deploying your home made or modified anchor.
As I suggested on this padge, upload the recomended very short videos from our web site.
Regards
Rex
The current Volvo Race, I think it commences Nov '14) specifies and is supplying as standard equipment FX 85 anchors. 2 will be carried. They do use the anchors, as a tactical measure to stem tide in light winds, and the 'fleet' anchored in the previous race using Fortress anchors after leaving Cape Town. The same anchors were carried in the last Vendee Globe (and the one prior to that) and again were used in both races, to stop (coincidentally in the same place) to effect repairs. To suggest they are not used is wrong and Volvo use them - because they have found from experience - they work. They cannot carry them on deck (on a bow roller they are a hazard in case of collision) because they would hinder performance (or ability to change sails etc).
Maybe if they were one piece they would be housed on deck (an assembled FX 85 would be major task to get up from down below) - consequently maybe their ability to be disassembled is the very reason we do not see more of them.
We carry ours, slightly smaller FX 23, ready assembled, in a bow locker, shackle attached and the rode in an adjacent crate. - and I guess no-one sees it either. Ours is not on the bow roller because the anchor (FX 23) simply does not fit but being light 9kg it can be deployed by hand - in seconds.
Anchor Brian
Senior Member
Parks, the FX-125 is also the primary anchor aboard the new 154-ft Fast Response Cutter (FRC), and the FX-85 has been on the 87-ft patrol boat since the early 2000s when they were first delivered, and 73 are currently active.
The Fortress model number corresponds to the approximate weight of a steel anchor which is of a comparable physical size.
To your first point, I think there is general consensus that plow type anchors might be better "all-purpose" anchors than Danforth models. One other consideration I think has to do with appearance, as a narrow plow-type anchor simply looks better and more streamlined on the bow than the gangly Danforth-type with its two big flukes and long protruding stock (narrow round rod).
That said, Viking is a large boat builder and they have been a sizable Fortress OEM customer for years, which wouldn't be possible if there were customer objections concerning the above.
Regarding any setting issues, we have found that a high percentage of them can be solved simply by permanently installing the Mud Palms which are provided inside the box with every Fortress anchor.
The Mud Palms are two metal plates which bolt on the 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 bottom.
If you don't have the Mud Palms, then I would be glad to send them to you gratis.
Of course, as previously mentioned, there are bottom conditions where a Danforth/Fortress-type anchor is likely to be challenged, which could be a cause for setting issues as well.
Brian
Last edited:
ranger58sb
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,349
- Location
- Annapolis
- Vessel Name
- Ranger
- Vessel Make
- 58' Sedan Bridge
Our FX-37 simply doesn't ride as calmly in our pulpit/roller, compared to our main anchor. Lashings can solve that, but the whole thing ends up looking goofy, wobbling around a bit, etc.
And it breaks down for storage, and it's light enough so I can shift it when necessary.
So normally no one sees that we have it...
I don't remember any particular problem setting it...
-Chris
On vessels with a low freeboard I would have concerns on the negative impact of a monster anchor (of any sort) on a bow roller if the vessel is susceptible to taking water on and over the bow in 'weather'. Sadly a big Danforth, Fortress or any other anchor with a big fluke might not be the best - and if its a Fortress it would certainly be better kept somewhere more sheltered (a big Danforth might have weight issues to keep anywhere than on a bow roller).
The Fortress I see are commonly lashed, fully assembled, amidships, or on the stern. But as many people claim to have one (and Fortress have sold over 0.5 million) I assume most are in deck lockers, or under the pillow in the master cabin?
The Fortress I see are commonly lashed, fully assembled, amidships, or on the stern. But as many people claim to have one (and Fortress have sold over 0.5 million) I assume most are in deck lockers, or under the pillow in the master cabin?
Brian - TY for clearing up my confusion as to why the light weight Viking aluminum anchor we've been using (testing against) two steel Danforths sets better in the extreme silt mud of SF Bay Delta. I.e., the heavy ol' steels sink their back end into the mud before flukes get chance to dig in for a set. Whereas the light weight aluminum allows its flukes to dig before its back end settles into mud. Even so... the old-school Viking has no mud palms such as your FX anchors do and therefore its flukes also do not always set too easily because its back end may have already settled into mud. Mud palms and the 45 Degree angle on your FX should make for better mud-setting conditions in the region we sometimes anchor.
As items evolve I will report my experiences. Testing will take some time to have happen as other obligations have reduced our times per year aboard boat and anchoring in the mud bottom areas.
Cheers! Art
Nomad Willy
Guru
Art,
Speaking of the anchor's heinie sinking into the mud first reminds me of Danforth types I've seen that had something on the heinie or aft end where Fortress attaches their mud Palms that are very different.
There are two types. The first resembles what is seen there on a Navy or Dreadnought. It's like a flat plate that sticks down vertically (at right angles to the flukes) about 2or 3". I assume they act as levers turning drag into a down force on the fluke tip.
The other type that I've only seen once or twice is in the same spot but is shaped more like a hook. Looks like it would kinda gouge the bottom like the fluke of a Kedge anchor to have basically the same effect as the little flat plates described above.
With my strong tendency to modify things I would be inclined to weld on a little extension to the "mud Palms" (down turned a bit) strongly resembling flaps on a wing. The "flaps" would not only get the heinie up a bit more but would act somewhat as a lever increasing the down force on the fluke tips .. a bit.
Art could you post a pic of the "Viking" anchor you refer to?
Speaking of the anchor's heinie sinking into the mud first reminds me of Danforth types I've seen that had something on the heinie or aft end where Fortress attaches their mud Palms that are very different.
There are two types. The first resembles what is seen there on a Navy or Dreadnought. It's like a flat plate that sticks down vertically (at right angles to the flukes) about 2or 3". I assume they act as levers turning drag into a down force on the fluke tip.
The other type that I've only seen once or twice is in the same spot but is shaped more like a hook. Looks like it would kinda gouge the bottom like the fluke of a Kedge anchor to have basically the same effect as the little flat plates described above.
With my strong tendency to modify things I would be inclined to weld on a little extension to the "mud Palms" (down turned a bit) strongly resembling flaps on a wing. The "flaps" would not only get the heinie up a bit more but would act somewhat as a lever increasing the down force on the fluke tips .. a bit.
Art could you post a pic of the "Viking" anchor you refer to?
Nomad Willy
Guru
The CQR has a strange set of results. It looks tike the graph lines are reversed. All the other anchors achieved best results in the later half of the drag. The CQR just petered out before half time. Was the long shank preventing performance as the scope decreased?
The Delta finished very close to where it started.
Looks like the Boss flipped over and failed to recover in the second half.
I'm still amazed at the consistency of the Mantus. Only the Spade came fairly close.
It looks like many drags resulted in fair holding and later in the drag a sudden large drop in resistance. I tend to think the drop off curves represented breakouts w some resetting but most not. A good example would be the blue line for the Claw (day one test one). Looks like the Boss had three breakouts without recovering. Unless it's scope related in mud I have a hard time relating to anchors breaking out. I agree w the magazine text that a photo account would have been extremely helpful.
The Delta finished very close to where it started.
Looks like the Boss flipped over and failed to recover in the second half.
I'm still amazed at the consistency of the Mantus. Only the Spade came fairly close.
It looks like many drags resulted in fair holding and later in the drag a sudden large drop in resistance. I tend to think the drop off curves represented breakouts w some resetting but most not. A good example would be the blue line for the Claw (day one test one). Looks like the Boss had three breakouts without recovering. Unless it's scope related in mud I have a hard time relating to anchors breaking out. I agree w the magazine text that a photo account would have been extremely helpful.
Brian
I watched the video last week and moments ago read the story. Results experienced in that mud bottom where test was performed are so very similar to experiences I get in SF Delta mud bottom... with reversing position, dual fluke, single shank anchors that is. I've never used the other type anchor designs. Not that there are not some good "alternative" anchor designs available, just that I did not feel the need to switch. My engineering brain (mind's eye), as well as decades of successful anchoring experience on East and West U.S. coasts, has always told/shown me that reversing position, dual fluke, single shank anchors with no roll bar (such as Danforth and your Fortress FX series) would act best in setting and holding capabilities throughout a relitively broad spectrum of bottom conditions/properties.
As I've mentioned before and will say again... your Fortress FX anchor design 45 degree fluke to shank angle and mud palms appear to me to be the best current design for really muddy bottoms. As time progresses I plan to test an FX-23 myself and look forward to learning the results.
Carry On! - Art
The link and post seems to have subsequently disappeared before I had time to look in detail but what I noticed was that though some anchors appeared to develop a hold they were never good enough for a reliable overnight. In fact an anchor that holds, apparently, on the engine(s) but is not able to develop sufficient hold for a 25 knot wind is simply an accident waiting to happen. Really its providing a consistent false sense of security.
The only anchors that worked were the Danforth and Fortress and the Fortress excelled with the 45 degree fluke angle - leaving little argument - in this seabed it was superb and unchallenged.
The only anchors that worked were the Danforth and Fortress and the Fortress excelled with the 45 degree fluke angle - leaving little argument - in this seabed it was superb and unchallenged.
psneeld
Guru
Assuming you believe the test over thousands of cruisers who would disagree that their Non-Danforth style or Fortress has failed them in 25 knots of wind while anchoring in the Chesapeake...ME included.
I don't doubt that a properly set Danforth or Fortress would out hold almost everthing else...I said that BEFORE the test like others with a bare minimum of experience with anchors..or maybe even a bit more experience than that......that the Fortress's/Danforth's will always win the max holding tests....if you can get the SOBs to grab exactly when you want them to.
But to assume the test proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt...well it prove one thing to me...those that believe the test results 100% need to buy everything out of my shed because it's the best boat junk in the land!
Which study did you believe 100%...the margarine or the butter tests that said it would kill you in no time?????
I don't doubt that a properly set Danforth or Fortress would out hold almost everthing else...I said that BEFORE the test like others with a bare minimum of experience with anchors..or maybe even a bit more experience than that...
...that the Fortress's/Danforth's will always win the max holding tests....if you can get the SOBs to grab exactly when you want them to.But to assume the test proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt...well it prove one thing to me...those that believe the test results 100% need to buy everything out of my shed because it's the best boat junk in the land!
Which study did you believe 100%...the margarine or the butter tests that said it would kill you in no time?????
Last edited:
Assuming you believe the test over thousands of cruisers who would disagree that their Non-Danforth style or Fortress has failed them in 25 knots of wind while anchoring in the Chesapeake...ME included.
I don't doubt that a properly set Danforth or Fortress would out hold almost everthing else...I said that BEFORE the test like others with a bare minimum of experience with anchors..or maybe even a bit more experience than that...
But to assume the test proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt...well it prove one thing to me...those that believe the test results 100% need to buy everything out of my shed because it's the best boat junk in the land!
Which study did you believe 100%...the margarine or the butter tests that said it would kill you in no time?????
We know you do not agree with anchor tests, or any other type of test. As has been said - if we strip out the tests all we are left with is the view of the boater next door and anecdotal comments - like yours. The tests add background and in some cases detail to the comments made by the guy next door. You then weight it all up - but if the guy next door says a Fortress and Danforth are good and the tests say the Fortress and Danforth are good I, contrary to what you might think, would tend to look very seriously at the Fortress and Danforth.
Maybe if you had read a few more tests your shed would not be full of junk?
Edit, Oddly - many of the boaters I see dragging are doing so in winds less than 25 knots.
psneeld
Guru
You can sound cute..but it doesn't work...my junk is as good as the tests show or better...
I knew what the tests would show and they did...go back and look to the posts before the tests...not everyone here is inexperienced in maritime matters.
I don't disbelieve the tests..I put them into real world perspective...what you are ignoring is thousands of satisfied boaters all to blindly affirm some test?
I'm not...I'm using my real world experience in the maritime profession and having studied anchor tests over the decades and the rebuttals by acknowledged cruisers from all over the world about those tests...I make my own judgments on the worthiness of anchors...not just based on some charts that were produced under "test" conditions.
I have a danforth in my arsenal...it's just not my "go to" anchor as my experience has show me not to trust it in an emergency...a storm anchor yes or a bottom where my other 2 anchors won't hold...but not my primary.
Last edited:
