Any real world problems with a genuine Bruce?

[Neeves]

Noelex, either you need to try and actually use a Kobra and Excel or stop making general statements, based on minimal information, that 'convex ploughs' can be inadequate. Your information, based on my experience and the experience of thousands in Australia and New Zealand (and a few in France, UK and America) and the experience of the many in the UK and Europe who use a Kobra says your statements are simply wrong and based on prejudice or inadequate experience. Your statements would have credibility if you actually used 'convex ploughs.

As far as I can make out from your reply the Bruce 'works' no differently to any other anchor, except it might develop some hold lying on its side. Most anchors will set at a 3:1 scope and hold. I would not highlight the Bruce, or at least the clones I have actually tried, as being any different. No-one who actually uses one has suggested they are exceptional in this respect. Not quite what you originally said And for developments on the Bruce, maybe consider The Boss or Scoop - both from Manson.

But to the OP, you appear to have already concluded that you will stick with your Bruce , with the danforth back up, and make a further decision once you have some nights under your keel. Based on the responses I think that financially sound (does a Rocna really cost that much?!) - its exactly what I would do. It is far too easy to think you must have a spanking new design - Bruce have been used for 45 years - most of the new designs would struggle to get 10 years under their belt - being fashionable is not necessarily right (it just lightens your wallet). For the first few 'new' anchorages I might have my Danforth (and spare rode) on the foredeck ready to deploy (though I do not think you will need it - but you might sleep better knowing you are prepared, with a torch at your pillow). I might also power set the Bruce and use an anchor alarm (such that you can hear it in whichever berth you sleep). There have been comment made of setting a Bruce in weed - I would not get too concerned about this - most anchors struggle in weed so the Bruce might not be quite as good, or it might be better, than others - the best solution is to find a place with less, or no, weed and anchor there. Its also environmentally friendly (not to disturb the weed). Our anchor wardrobe is totally defeated by thick weed - we simply avoid such anchorages as we do not carry a Marsh nor Fisherman's/Luke.

If in the fullness of time you decide to look at a another design I'd plan on keeping the Bruce - there are too many positive comments here to necessitate it being discarded (and its 'worth' more than its second hand value). If weed is a worry for you then a Kobra is cheap and effective (and will work in , upto, medium weed) and a different style to both your danforth and Bruce. We carry 3 or 4 different styles of anchor, all are of a size to be used as a primary - carrying more than one anchor and being able to deploy it is prudent.

In the fullness of time come back and tell us how you fared - it is interesting to see how the collective wisdom stands up to real world experience!

Sleep well and best wishes for Christmas and the the New Year.

Jonathan

 

[DennisF]

Noelex, either you need to try and actually use a Kobra and Excel or stop making general statements, based on minimal information, that 'convex ploughs' can be inadequate. Your information, based on my experience and the experience of thousands in Australia and New Zealand (and a few in France, UK and America) and the experience of the many in the UK and Europe who use a Kobra says your statements are simply wrong and based on prejudice or inadequate experience. Your statements would have credibility if you actually used 'convex ploughs.

As far as I can make out from your reply the Bruce 'works' no differently to any other anchor, except it might develop some hold lying on its side. Most anchors will set at a 3:1 scope and hold. I would not highlight the Bruce, or at least the clones I have actually tried, as being any different. No-one who actually uses one has suggested they are exceptional in this respect. Not quite what you originally said And for developments on the Bruce, maybe consider The Boss or Scoop - both from Manson.

But to the OP, you appear to have already concluded that you will stick with your Bruce , with the danforth back up, and make a further decision once you have some nights under your keel. Based on the responses I think that financially sound (does a Rocna really cost that much?!) - its exactly what I would do. It is far too easy to think you must have a spanking new design - Bruce have been used for 45 years - most of the new designs would struggle to get 10 years under their belt - being fashionable is not necessarily right (it just lightens your wallet). For the first few 'new' anchorages I might have my Danforth (and spare rode) on the foredeck ready to deploy (though I do not think you will need it - but you might sleep better knowing you are prepared, with a torch at your pillow). I might also power set the Bruce and use an anchor alarm (such that you can hear it in whichever berth you sleep). There have been comment made of setting a Bruce in weed - I would not get too concerned about this - most anchors struggle in weed so the Bruce might not be quite as good, or it might be better, than others - the best solution is to find a place with less, or no, weed and anchor there. Its also environmentally friendly (not to disturb the weed). Our anchor wardrobe is totally defeated by thick weed - we simply avoid such anchorages as we do not carry a Marsh nor Fisherman's/Luke.

If in the fullness of time you decide to look at a another design I'd plan on keeping the Bruce - there are too many positive comments here to necessitate it being discarded (and its 'worth' more than its second hand value). If weed is a worry for you then a Kobra is cheap and effective (and will work in , upto, medium weed) and a different style to both your danforth and Bruce. We carry 3 or 4 different styles of anchor, all are of a size to be used as a primary - carrying more than one anchor and being able to deploy it is prudent.

In the fullness of time come back and tell us how you fared - it is interesting to see how the collective wisdom stands up to real world experience!

Sleep well and best wishes for Christmas and the the New Year.

Jonathan

Thanks for this. I'm going to try to use the early part of the season getting nights on the pick in places with no rocks to hit, but a reasonable stream, such as the river Cleddau. If the Bruce sets well overnight in that, I will try it for the long trip with the Danforth rigged to go as a backup. I spent 2 seasons sailing this boat as it was before starting to alter anything, mostly to avoid spending money that I didn't need to spend, and I'm continuing this approach with the anchor. I'll let you all know how I get on in due course!

 

[Neeves]

You appear to live in Wales, sorry but my geography is a bit hazy (but anchoring in rock free places, wise). But your approach looks to be based on Scots frugality, of which I can totally relate and approve. It has nothing to do with the music hall jokes on meanness - its all about not spending money unnecessarily! Much better to define the problem first rather than throw money at a problem that does not exist!

I'm glad the collective wisdom has reassured you.

Jonathan

 

[DennisF]

You appear to live in Wales, sorry but my geography is a bit hazy (but anchoring in rock free places, wise). But your approach looks to be based on Scots frugality, of which I can totally relate and approve. It has nothing to do with the music hall jokes on meanness - its all about not spending money unnecessarily! Much better to define the problem first rather than throw money at a problem that does not exist!

I'm glad the collective wisdom has reassured you.

Jonathan

Close: I am Welsh and the boat is currently based in West Wales, but I live in the Midlands - hence the move to the East Coast next year

 

[noelex]

Noelex, either you need to try and actually use a Kobra and Excel or stop making general statements, based on minimal information, that 'convex ploughs' can be inadequate. Your information, based on my experience and the experience of thousands in Australia and New Zealand (and a few in France, UK and America) and the experience of the many in the UK and Europe who use a Kobra says your statements are simply wrong and based on prejudice or inadequate experience.

I have not owned either a Bruce or one of the multitude of fixed convex plough anchors, but I believe by observing how these anchors perform underwater I can offer some insight into how they behave.

Here are a couple of examples of Claw anchors (not even genuine Bruce anchors) doing well on a short scope. The first was set on a very scope of around 1.5:1. You can see the limited amount of chain as the boat drifts over the anchor. The anchor was obviously struggling as it was set at this very short scope, but it has managed to bury in a convincing fashion. A great performance considering the scope:

The second is small claw that was valiantly remaining buried (although it was slowly moving) at 2:5:1 in 5m of water and 20 knots of wind:

I don't believe the convex plough anchors handle these short scopes as well. You have singled out the Kobra as one of the good performers. Here is a Kobra slowly dragging due to the short scope. It is completely on its side with no sign that it is likely to set reasonably. You can see the puffs of sand given off as the anchor was dragging. The fish love this, the owners perhaps not so much .

This anchor was in a good substrate, but on a short scope. This was at little bit less than 3:1 in 5m of water. This is an example of a reasonably poor short scope performance. Overall I think the Kobra is a superior general purpose anchor to the Bruce, but it needs a reasonable scope to start to set, especially in harder substrates.

These are only a small number of photographic examples, but I have been observing anchors underwater for a long time and these photographs are quite typical of the very good short scope performance of the Bruce and the relative poor short scope performance of the convex plough anchors.

You might also like to read the account of Steve Dashew who places considerable emphasis on the ability to anchor at short scopes (down to 2:1 on occasions). He has championed the use of a large Bruce (on his early boats) and later a large Rocna/ Manson Supreme (later boats). Beth Leonard and Evans Starzinger have also mentioned the excellent short scope performance of their Bruce anchor and have published some formal tests done at 2:1 where in gravelly substrate the Bruce was superior to the Rocna and Manson Supreme.

Rather than personal attacks on people that express opinions you disagree with it would be much more interesting to read evidence to support your viewpoint. That way we all have a chance to learn something.

 

[NormanS]

I think the only thing that these photos show, is the peculiar way in which some people choose to connect their anchors to their chain! Apart from that, the first photo tells us nothing at all. It's an anchor, sitting on the bottom, with no load on it whatsoever. Wow!

 

[Neeves]

The best short scope performers appear to be the concave roll bar anchors, the Bruce and the Spade. The worst performers in my view are the fixed convex plow anchors. Most anchors are somewhere in between.


.

This appear to be contradictory. You suggest convex roll bar anchors are the best - the Bruce and Spade (and I have seen neither with roll bars). Then based on the experience of someone else, who only uses anchors much larger than recommended, its then Bruce (dscarded?) and Rocna and Supreme. Dashew anchors NOW at 2:1 scope -but I'm not aware he did when he used a Bruce - as you obviously have chapter and verse - maybe you can provide that he used Bruce (and Supreme) at 2:1 scope.

Dashew's choice of anchor is very largely dictated by the availability of a Lloyds certification. Manson's Supreme meets that specific need, as does Fortress which he also carries) which is why he appears to have switched to Supreme. I know he used very large Rocna at short scope but am not aware he has published any record of having used the Supreme. I'm not sure if other leisure anchors are approved, by Lloyds - which will restrict his choice - to anchors from Manson.

I use an Excel, it sets and holds at short scope.

Two simple questions

Have you ever seen an Excel in use?

Have you ever tried a Kobra or Excel yourself to substantiate your pretty damning comments?

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

I think the only thing that these photos show, is the peculiar way in which some people choose to connect their anchors to their chain!

Very true

Apart from that, the first photo tells us nothing at all. It's an anchor, sitting on the bottom, with no load on it whatsoever. Wow!

You can see the Claw has managed to set, burying its central fluke. This was done under engine force at the very short scope.

As you correctly point out the anchor is under very little force when the photo was taken, but the photo shows the anchor has managed to set (under engine force) at this very short scope.

The anchor will not have much grip at this very short scope, but to set at all is a great achievement. Some designs will not start to set until the scope is much greater.

 

[GHA]

Have you ever tried a Kobra or Excel yourself to substantiate your pretty damning comments?

What damning comments about an Excel?

 

[Seajet]

Short scope with Bruce
Further to my post #40 I'll just add that whenI bought my genuine Bruce, some of the advertising ( yes I remember the little sand pits and model Bruces at Earls Court ! ) did mention holding on a much shorter scope than normal.

I always regarded this as ' maybe a feature nice to have in extremis but I'll stick to normal scope ' and this is generally how I operate.

On the odd occasion though I've had to use a very short scope, say barely twice the depth, for short periods but in significant currents, for instance when anchored for lunch at crowded places like East Head, before I discovered better places I'm keeping quiet about.

The Bruce did indeed seem to hold well in conditions I'd have thought unfair on any anchor, though I would never dream of leaving the boat or sleeping with such a set-up.

I have tried the same sort of thing with genuine CQR's on other boats and been very unimpressed, but then the overall performance of CQR's didn't impress me and Danforths even less.

All inc my Bruce in soft mud conditions.

I have also tried a Rocna on short scope in mud and that seemed very good too, still with the proviso I'd want to be aboard and alert.

 

[Neeves]

Noelex,

I have to think this actually some form of perverse humour to entertain us until Christmas.

In post #28 you have an excellent image of a Bruce (or copy) partially well set. The flukes have an aggressive angle to the seabed, the shackle is buried along with some shank and chain. It looks - if the load, from say wind, increases the anchor is well on it way to burying itself. This attitude, shackle and toe and some or most of the fluke buried is typical of most anchors on their way to setting well. For the Bruce types the last piece of the anchor to disappear will be that top corner of the shank. For most other anchors it would be the 'top' of the shank. Furthemore all anchors commence their set the same way, toe (of fluke) and shackle end of the shank burying together - and then getting progressively deeper - until they reach the atittude in the image. The image might represent the limit of burying in this seabed with the engine on the yacht above (further a fuller setting would need some strongish wind). The anchor is at a slight angle - that would even out with increased depth.

For those who have this 'sort' of anchor and have sufficiently clear water to view the anchor in the seabed - this is the sort of attitude to look for.

In contrast the more recent images, #45, show to me excellent examples of a poorly set anchor (or not set at all) - and illustrate exceptionally well what happens when the scope is too short. The fluke is parallel to the seabed and the anchor is sitting shackle well clear of the seabed. Becuase the fluke is parallel to the seabed there is no aggressive attack angle, commonly 30 degrees, and if any load is applied the fluke will skim through the seabed like a snowboard in powder. Without increased scope the shank will not 'tip' the fluke to an increased angle - the anchor is designed to have the weight of the chain tip the anchor such that toe and shank end touch the seabed at the same time. With short scope - this is impossible in shallow water.

If you see you anchor like this extend the scope, get some weight on the shank end.

My conclusion is therefore the complete opposite to yours - these images in #45 show what not to see and if this is a typical example of short scope setting then steer clear of such practice. As Seajet suggests maybe alright in some situations but not in any way sufficient to be reliable.

The images in post #45 look as if anchors have simply been tossed or dropped without any intent to develop hold. Possibly the owners were stopping for a very short period and simply intended to drift slowly. If they were 'deployed' (I use the word loosely) then they can know little about anchoring and the 'set' is not one, by any stretch of the imagination, to quote as an example of excellence. Little can be said of the Kobra as we can see no chain and have no idea of what is actually happening.

So tell us that your suggestions that the anchors in Post #45 being set is some grand prank on you part. I simply cannot believe you want anyone to consider you think these anchors are set. Nor can I think you want anyone to ever consider setting anchors at short scope. This is only but a lunch time 'type' stop (I have heard it described as anchoring Mediterranean style - though usually with a big pile of chain) and cannot be supported, in any way, as a standard nor reliable practice - and frankly is downright dangerous and irresponsible.

If this is a Bruce, or clone, at short scope - do not do it - the anchor will not set sufficiently to hold the yacht in anything over about 15 knots.

So tell its some form of prank

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

What damning comments about an Excel?

I'm surprised you asked this question and I'll be even more surprised if you really want a reply

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

Jonathan I realise you are poking fun (is this really necessary?) but you have actually raised a very good point.

It is my hope that by looking at these images people can learn how there anchors behave underwater. As you correctly point out the end of the shank (where the anchor chain is attached) normally penetrates the seabed quite early on in setting process when normal scopes are used. This applies to the Bruce and in fact to most other anchors.

Here is a Bruce that at this stage has only had a light/moderate force applied and is in the early stages of setting at a normal scope. You can see how the end of shank has already buried:

As more force is applied the anchor will bury deeper at roughly the same attitude ending up looking the Bruce in post #28.

At short, or very short scopes this does not happen as you have correctly picked up from the photos. Once again this applies to virtually all anchors (providing they can set at short scopes). The upward force on the end of the shank means the shank is held up and the fluke will typically completely bury before any of the shank. The anchor will adopt a different attitude to the way it works at higher scopes.

The holding at short scopes will be considerably less than at higher scopes. Nevertheless, if the anchor can bury its flukes it will hold reliably in light to moderate wind. This is all you can hope for at these very short scopes, although if you are prepared to oversize your anchor the larger fluke area will mean the wind range can be extended so the anchor may become reliable in moderate (but not strong wind).

An anchor with poor short scope performance will just lie on side without burying its flukes at all. This is illustrated by the Kobra in post #45. Without any burial of the flukes the anchor has almost zero grip.

To illustrate that this "shank in the air with the fluke buried" is how nearly all anchors that set at a very shallow scope (providing they set at all), here is photograph of my Mantus following a test I did at 2:1 (I think from memory this was in about 5m of water). The anchor is obviously in some distress with this brutal treatment, but is doing a great job. The setting distance was longer than normal with much more heaping up of the sand. Nevertheless, the anchor has completely buried its fluke and did manage to hold an extended pull of full reverse without moving. On my boat this is equivalent to close to 30 knots of wind. The anchor is oversized and I would certainly not recommend relying on anchoring at this short a scope in 30 knots of wind. Nevertheless, this good short scope ability is a nice property for an anchor to possess.

This is the photo after setting with the engine:

It is not commonly appreciated how the effects of bottom slope and local obstructions can raise the angle of the chain relative to seabed. These factors can significantly reduce the "effective scope". Even if you always anchor at say 5:1 the upward angle of the chain relative to the seabed (which is what is important for holding) can, on rare occasions, be the same angle as a scope of less than 3:1 on a uniformly flat seabed.

So an anchor with good short scope performance (like the Bruce) is not essential but provides some protection from these situations. It is also occasionally useful to deliberately anchor at short scopes. This needs to done with due caution and a realisation of the reduced holding power.

Setting the anchor at a longer scope and then shortening scope can also be a useful technique if there is room to do this.

 

[Neeves]

Noelex,

I'm not poking fun. People might start to believe some of your comments - which you are now qualifying. I simply wish you had done this from the outset. Instead of guessing how the anchors of others are set - just leave them out. Instead of guessing how 'convex ploughs' perform - talk about what you know, not what you want us to read.

If you want to compare anchors - then do it, do not take the lazy option and guess. You have a Rocna, use it. Don't keep repeating and posting images of how good your Mantus is - you sound, or look, like a salesman.

Be selective - tell us something new and we, or I for one, will listen.

Is it really necessary that I have to keep being your antagonist to force a more reasoned and balanced post?

Jonathan

 

[GHA]

I'm surprised you asked this question and I'll be even more surprised if you really want a reply

Jonathan

As there are no damning comments about Excel then hardly surprising.

 

[Iodine]

Noelex, either you need to try and actually use a Kobra and Excel or stop making general statements, based on minimal information, that 'convex ploughs' can be inadequate. Your information, based on my experience and the experience of thousands in Australia and New Zealand (and a few in France, UK and America) and the experience of the many in the UK and Europe who use a Kobra says your statements are simply wrong and based on prejudice or inadequate experience. Your statements would have credibility if you actually used 'convex ploughs.

I'm confused, from my reading of the thread He suggested that the Kobra's the better all-round anchor. He was just pointing out his observations that seem to confirm the fairly common belief that the Bruce does a pretty decent job on a short scope….

I'm a little bit mystified as the Excel is at all relevant to this thread. Even if you go to the antipodes (where I spent 20 odd years) I didn't see too many. (except on the west island maybe)
Likewise I don't recall seeing too many Kobras. That said, Lewmar Deltas style plows (original and copies) quite common, maybe I'm just blind then….

That said, if anyone in the UK has seen the light and realizes that the one true anchor is the Excel, you don't have to spend a fortune to acquire the divine anchor! Actually, you don't even need a miracle! or even spend a small fortune! For a limited time, all you need is an ebay account and 25 quid: "http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/321952985584?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fsch

For some strange reason, it's been relisted at least once......

Strange that none of the northern hemisphere heathens doesn't seize this chance to enter anchoring Nirvana....

 

[Neeves]

That said, if anyone in the UK has seen the light and realizes that the one true anchor is the Excel, you don't have to spend a fortune to acquire the divine anchor! Actually, you don't even need a miracle! or even spend a small fortune! For a limited time, all you need is an ebay account and 25 quid: "http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/321952985584?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fsch
/QUOTE]

I was obviously interested - but the anchor being sold, to my very untrained eye, is a copy of a SARCA not an Excel.

The rescue boats at Auckland Airport, use Excels, the SA Police use Excels. If you spent your 20 years in Austrlalia pre 2006 - no you would not see Excels, but then you would not have seen Rocna, Supreme, Spade, Kobra, Mantus, Vulcan, Boss either. I wonder why.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

As there are no damning comments about Excel then hardly surprising.

You really are a glutton

Noelex has made comments about 'convex plough' anchors - most, if not all of, them disparaging. He makes no concessions and simply lumps them all together. Now he has never used a SARCA, Excel nor Kobra. And the few Kobra he shows may not be typical, might be 5kg or 10kg (which he then compares to his 58kg Mantus), might be set by neophytes etc. The Kobras might also be bent, an issue to which they are prone of might have a damaged hinge - which will impact performance.

So the question has to be - what does he have against these anchors - it cannot be technical, because he has no experience.

Arguably Kobra, Excel and SARCA are not ploughs (as they do not 'plough') - but Noelex, and the people who read his comments, will not know. If they are 'convex' then they must be ploughs?

If Noelex wants to limit his comment to specifics - fine - but he doesn't.

To comment on anchors you do not see, have never used, to compare an anchor of 20kg with one of almost 60kg, to extrapolate perfomance seen in clean soft sand to every other seabed - it all looks a bit questionable.



Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

It is my hope that by looking at these images people can learn how there anchors behave underwater. As you correctly point out the end of the shank (where the anchor chain is attached) normally penetrates the seabed quite early on in setting process when normal scopes are used. This applies to the Bruce and in fact to most other anchors.

Here is a Bruce that at this stage has only had a light/moderate force applied and is in the early stages of setting at a normal scope. You can see how the end of shank has already buried:

As more force is applied the anchor will bury deeper at roughly the same attitude ending up looking the Bruce in post #28.

.

Noelex,

Taking you at your word, learning from what we see -

You agree that all, or nearly all, anchors bury the same way, shackle end of shank and toe are the first to bury and then the fluke and shank disappear together. The longer they can retain this attitude the longer the fluke has an aggressive angle to the seabed. The longer it maintains that aggressive angle the deeper it can potentially dive. Sadly the combination of resistance of shank, shackle (swivel if its there) and chain slowly resist being dragged into the seabed and the anchor loses, incrementally, its aggressive angle of attack.

I hope you are still with me and still in agreement

Now I want you to look at your video, or the one made by John Smith (maybe you can re-post the link for the benefit of others). The anchor starts off fine, sitting on its sole. When load is applied it tips over, shackle on seabed, fluke edge and toe ready to engage.

Then something strange happens - as load is applied the toe and increasingly the fluke engages - but the shackle never once looks to have any intention to bury - and in fact never does.

What appears to happen is the toe never engages, the fluke does dive but because the toe never buries the angle of attack reduces. In fact by the end of the video the shank is still not buried, but is horizontal, and to adopt this attitude the fluke must be pretty 'flat' nearly horizontal - with no angle of attack left. If the anchor has been set by engine then it has achieved maximum hold, or almost, under engine power alone and has no potential - even if the wind gets up - to dive further (and develop more hold).

I looked back at a few of your images and your video is pretty representative of what your Mantus looks like - shank showing, one can guess the fluke has a shallow attack angle. So there is nothing unusual about the video, it appears to show 'normality' - for you and your anchor.

The question is - why.

I can confirm that I have a Mantus and I can have my Mantus perform 'correctly'. I can also confirm that I have contacted other Mantus owners and they advise their anchors perform 'correctly'. We all find our Mantus shank disappears along with the fluke, as you describe in the portion of your reply I quote. I have also checked the Mantus video, the adverts - they show the shackle end disappearing. We also confirm that we can, many times have our anchors completely disappear - shank, roll bar - the lot. I am in no way suggesting there is anything wrong with the Mantus design, nor your setting technique. There is nothing wrong with the seabed it looks pretty good, sand like sugar. Other people who set their anchor in similar seabeds do think your 'set' unacharacteristic

I suspect you might think your anchor 'normal' - but it contradicts what you say, so its not normal.

But to have an anchor that can be set to near maximum capacity, and one that is so large (almost 2 times the size recommended), with engine power alone looks a worry.

So - why is your anchor unusual.

Its a technical question, no need for GHA to get upset. GHA - its about learning from what we see as Noelex has said!

Jonathan

 

[GHA]

- it all looks a bit questionable.

Plus he gets youtube to play videos after his...

In your mind anyway...