New Generation Anchor

[ebb]

A nice person has slipped me a contraband copy of P.S. February 2015.
Where-in a six page article called 'Anchoring in Squishy Bottoms' appears.

It reports on a year old comparison test, sponsored by Fortress, of about a dozen 40-45lb
popular anchors and a 45lb mooring mushroom as 'control' in Chesapeake Bay soft mud.
P.S. was invited to witness the testing first hand, but were busy with their own testing at the
time. They were subsequently given what they call 'well documented' results and videos of
the procedure by Fortress, and that is the basis of this report. It's still second hand.

The Squishy Bottom report by P.S. should be read first hand...to see if you can get a handle
on whether the methods used (static dragging) with a powerful winch is actually comparably
experienced by a yacht. And how do you read the data gained for each anchor for your and
my particular little ship.. by the method used? Big problem is how to read the chart as to
what the hook is up to... most times seems to be just flying through the pudding.
Look at the Chesapeake Bay Soft Mud Anchor Testing Thursday 8/7/2014 on
YouTube. There are 4 VIDEOS hosted by ChuckHawley "Independent Reviewer"
with straight forward you-are-there info and opinion on the difficulty of coming to
conclusions about all the other anchors but the Fortress FX...that wins the contest
anchors down! (not always, see 1st video.) The constant drag procedure bothers P.S..
All anchors preceded by 20' of 3/8" chain and 100' of wire cable rode for a 5to1 scope, but
the pulls added an extra 100' of cable to drag the anchors up to the 5to1 set norm...NUTS.
You get to see the graph, and Mr Hawley's explanations. Constant dragging 10 fpm doesn't
reflect any actual setting of an anchor. Graphic readout invents as many mysteries as facts.

Three prominent spot-light photos of an aggressive claw type anchor called SuperMax*
.. seeming to support the P.S. article is evidently never mentioned in the final Fortress test
documentation. P.S. also mentions other notable omissions from the Fortress line up.
Manson's aluminum Danforth-style 'Racer', Plastimos's 'Kobra", the Kaczirek 'Bugel', and
the 'XYZ' anchor. (in P.S. words: "an odd shaped and relatively obscure anchor that
excelled in Practical Sailor's 2006 soft-mud testing").

Notable and unfortunate, as it leaves the spirit of Fortress' intent wide open to criticism. And
since a comparison test made public is obviously targeted at buyers in the marketplace -
and certain competitors are excluded... for whatever excuse - you have what everyone sees is
B ad S cience.

Fortress Anchors (Don Hullerberg, inv) are aluminum. The ones tested (FX37) against the steel
45 pounders were less than half the weight at 21lbs. Were adjustable to two angles: one at the
more-or-less common new-gen angle of 32degrees, and a second 'mud setting' at 45degrees.
These danforths held twice as well in mud as the best of the steel at 32degrees....and 3times
as well at the 45degree setting. A smaller Fortress (FX16) assembled at 45degrees nearly
matched its big brother in holding.... "Up to 30 knots, but set anchor alarm."
Also showing well was a WetsMarine 35lb Danforth HT, at about half the FX37 Fortress max
holding...."If any wind is forecast, seek shelter." These tests were conducted in dead calm.

We must not forget these are danforth-style anchors tested in mud. That is this style anchor's
strong suit. Danforths in other bottoms at times have performed miserably. What FX has going
for it is its ajustability, its take apart for storing, its lightness, and its price. Price is arguable,
considering its 'limited' use. Questionable, as P.S. mentions, is the way a danforth is constructed,
how the flukes are hinged to the shank makes it a vulnerable design. NO VEERING TESTS DONE!

JUDGED AS UNRELIABLE.....Specifically in Chesapeake Bay mud - Fortress test procedure style.
Lewmar Claw (Bruce, Manson Ray) unreliable, low holding power, does not set.
(A point well taken is that this strange three BLUNT toed hook has many cruising fans. When it
finds bottom it lies on its side, and one of its 'toes' is positioned straight down. So it will catch on
rocky seabeds and penetrate certain bottoms enough to hold - and often better than the touted
rollbar anchors.. The claw is reliably consistent 'but not a lot of holding power'. )
Unreported but prominently displayed SuperMax (adjustable to 32 and 45) is also three toed,
but more like a paw or a giant hoe with a couple radius bites removed from the blade front.
Hard to imagine this anchor excelling in anything but a muddy 'substrate.' Interesting omission!

Spade (single weighted wedge point scoop fluke) does not set. unreliable in soft mud.
Spade also has an aluminum version of the anchor. NOT tested.

Lewmar Plow (CQR) does not set.

Lewmar Delta (plow) does not set.
{Rex's Anchor Right Excel (NOT tested, but this look-alike Delta with angles that make it act
differently than a plow IN SAND, certainly should have been included. However, in mud, imco
it would have faired as well as the Delta.}

Ultra (stainless single point scoop fluke) unreliable, sometimes sets but pulls out easy.
Here's an anchor that advertises its tip weight & downturned tip. It's not turned down enough!
This non-danforth might be reconceived to work equally well in mud as sand As in a diving-style...

Rocna (single point scoop with hoop) does not set.

Supreme (curved single point with hoop) and
Manson Boss (curved single point no hoop) 'good for lunch' - after lunch they are marginal.

Mantus (tested with its hoop - NOT tested without hoop) 'good for lunch' marginal.

P.S. calls Mantus a 'diving-type' anchor. Have not run into that epithet before, as it implies
other non-diving-type anchors. Suspect P.S. got that from Mantus hype rather than proof.
"On one occasion, the (45lb) Mantus hit a snag, but then pulled free. Although the load was
not high, the anchor's roll bar bent at one of the attachment points. This vulnerability was
pointed out in our review of Mantus (see Practical Sailor April 2013 online). No other anchor
suffered any damage during testing."
Rollbars are not useful when anchoring in mud. A professional would have removed it
(couldn't find the crescent wrench) for the test.
One can imagine that welded on rollbars on Supreme and Rocna, if caught on something, will
cause major problems to anchor, windlass, or rode... rather than bending at an attachment
point, as stated, on the Mantus - which 'pulled free'... we might assume still performed as an
anchor should (in another bottom, no doubt). Rollbars should be accessorized, not permanent.
Perhaps made breakaway, or fold back, after an amount of pressure, still attached to the fluke.
.................................................. .................................................. .........................................

Nothing in this flawed Fortress test changes my previous conclusions. Each current new-gen
style has some seafloor-dynamic changes to make, imco. They are a sad disappointment here,
made to seem completely useless. Ariels & Commanders headed for uncertain cruising grounds
might pack a smaller disassembled FX16 as a kedge. And a 35lb take-apart Mantus for a storm
anchor. More uncertain is the efficacy of permanent rollbar anchors. Primarily it's their lack of
tip weight. Littlegull now has a bowsprit and no place to mount a roller for a hooped hook.
Lean toward diving-type Mantus because its hoop is an accessory. However, the anchor itself,
rather than being versatile, appears too funky, maybe kinky is the word ...to rely on as a best
primary. In a non moral sense: the devil is in the details. New anchors for awhile seem to
perform well. Owners learn to use them. Venders learn to hype them, buy them third party
certification. Sailors learn to depend on them .... but disappointment sets in when they don't
set so well, or inconveniently pull out....and the sloop drags to hell.
The devil is in the details of the anchor's designer: what's there, what's missing, what's wrong.

Quite obviously it never has been my intention to hyjack this thread. I have felt, in fact, I
seem to be dragged along by some imperitive, or frustration with so-called new perfection
anchors. Most skippers seem most impressed with how cheap or expensive an anchor is.
Most skippers go with anchors their friends use. Most consumate skippers have learned to
set their favorite anchor with care and practice, because it's not really a well designed
natural. Some skippers don't want to change because their cruising grounds don't change.

.................................................. .................................................. .....................................
*SUPERMAX (Andrew Peabody, inv) -- http://www.creativemarine.com/
In an ABS Gulfport tug boat soft-mud certification (comparison test) SuperMax beat Spade,
XYZ, Digger, Fortress (at 6to1 did not set and had no measurable tension on rode while
dragging), WM danforth, Bullwagga, aluminum Delta, CQR...Supermax tested with an all
nylon rode,set at 570lbs and began dragging at 700lbs, best of the lot. Other past tests
mentioned on site seem to show SuperMax consistently out-performing Fortress in soft mud.