Bruce Anchors

[Miles]

On the way back from Paris tonight I picked up a french sailing comic that has done an apparently thorough test on 20 anchors. Without quoting directly it's hard to show quite how scathing they are about the 3 Bruce type anchors they tested but they compare the Bruce unfavourably with a block of stone, describe it as something akin to stemhead-candy and question whether it really bears any resemblance to the oil-rig anchors as is often claimed.

The CQR and Spade come out best though they don't offer a best buy. The testing is claimed to follow a rigorous procedure, measures holding in sand and gravel and is supported by underwater pictures.

Any scathingly anti-Bruce people out there ? We've used ours without probem but not yet under extreme conditions. Or is the clue that they say the Bruce is popular in the USA ?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

from your comments there is a lot of words and little scientific evidence in the article.
With all the variables you can probably get away with just about any general statement on anchors.
I have used various Bruces on my smallish mobos and am aware of 1 very serious limitation - any angle between the stock and the seabed is bad news! This means that you need a reasonable length of heavy chain and you need to put out a good (even excessive) scope to ensure the anchor is bedded in - although if condition 1 is met you can shorten up again to a 'normal' scope for the conditions.
No doubt Hylas will be able to comment on the wider aspects and more scientific approach to the bruce - I just kno the above works and have dived down to watch it 'in action' - lowered slowly it can just drag along without biting at all if there is any lift on the stock.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldsalt]

I have a Bruce and a CQR, and have used both in windy anchorages. Not a lot to choose between them in my opinion, although the Bruce seems slightly better on hard rocky bottoms.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

There's a thread on roughly this subject on PBO at the moment, where the same article is discussed. Without having read it, the problem with such articles seems to me to be that they only use a particular bottom for trials, maybe two, they measure pull by draw-bar and they rarely, if ever look at rebedding (although it seems that the French article may have done so).

It seems to me that the Bruce has been on sale for many years now. If it didn't work the company would have gone bust by now. I know many people who use these anchors, along with most other types. None that I know have thrown their anchors over the side in disgust. OK, some drag from time to time, maybe because the anchoring technique is not too good, maybe because of the bottom, maybe because the tide turned. It's all part of sailing.

One other point. When reading the results of tests that show the Plastihook anchor only held 1500 lbs pull whereas the Buttershank held 2000 lbs, it's worth remembering that the maximum pull that a 35 ft yacht can ever generate, in massive winds and heavy seas, is not much more than 600 lbs.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Inventor of the Bruce anchor?

Australian, or just a Monty Python fan?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[hylas]

I've tried to translate the comments of the Voiles & Voiliers magazine:
The Bruce anchors have a well establish reputation on the other side of the Atlantic. How is it possible to endorse such an tool?? if the figures are "edyfing" (?) of weakness, to see it in video making its rodeo on the sea ground lead you in between fear and amusement. Fear as a large quantity of boats are equiped with this anchor.. amusement as a bloc of stone will have the same effect. In sand they are laying on their side and plough weakly with a maximum of 200 kg of holding. nearly no holding.. To put to flight.. (sorry for the bad translation..)


Dear Miles,
I was rather surprised to read your comments about the 20 anchors test published in a French magazine..(Voiles & Voiliers) (qualified rather unfriendly as « French sailing Comic ! ! !)
This test was very interesting as it not only records the maximum holding, but shows also the holding curves.. and a video, as well as submarine photos have been taken to have the possibility to study more precisely the anchor behaviour..

I personnaly did, and have read quite a lot of anchor tests.. and up to my knowledge, although it could always be criticable.. this one is one of the most « professionnal » test I’ve seen..

It is not strange to me that the Bruce’s results are in perfect accordance with all tests previously done, either by the French (again) magazine « Voiles Magazine » in November 2001, by the British magazine PBO (July and August 2002) or by the « Practical Sailor » serie in the U.S.A.
Due to its design, (heavy weigth distribution and right penetrating angle) the Bruce is one of the anchor with the fastest penetration, in most sea ground.. but it has been proved to have a very poor holding (in last PBO test, about 1/5 of the Spade’s holding) and when looking at a Bruce in comparison with others.. it is very easy to see that the surface / weight ratio is very defavourable..

Bruce Cie did advertise a lot, comparing the Bruce anchor designed for sailing boats to the Bruce anchors manufactured and used for oil-rig platforms.. althout they carry the same brand name.. they are completely different models and can not be compared..

As for any product, there is always « pro » and « con ».. and for me, the main advantage of the Bruce anchor is the way it fits bow rollers.. and its nice look.. but I will never use one for anchoring..

You also say « the CQR and Spade come out best, though they don’t offer a BEST BUY ».. it would be interesting to know what is YOUR definition of a « Best Buy ».. If, as many poeple do, you are comparing price to weight.. then you should be right.. if, wisely, you compare price with holding (the main reason to buy an anchor !..) they both are « best buy ».. just a question of definition…

Dear Ducan. Just few words.. yes, it could help to have an excessive scope to ensure the anchor is bedded but if, to have good results with your anchor.. you need a reasonable lenght of heavy chain.. better change your anchor.. it is the anchor which should hold.. not the chain..

Dear Oldsalt, Rocky bottoms are not the best test ground for anchors.. on a flat rock surface.. even the best anchor will never hold, when any piece of metal wedged between two rocks will hold a huge boat..

Dear VyV-Cox, Yes the Bruce have been on the market for a little bit more than 20 years now and as soon as the patent came public.. several manufacturers speed up to make cheap copies..

Since I wander on pontons, I’ve seen strange and weird anchors.. The worst anchor tested by V & V with really NO holding is equiping more boats than the Spade anchor which was at the top of the list ? ?
Why ? ? for several reasons.. In one of the lastest issue of PBO, Andrew Simpson was telling the story of one of his friend who just buy a beautiful boat and who was very proud of showing all electronic gadgets he had on board.. and when Andrew asked for his ground tackle equipment, he discovered a very small low quality anchor..
- Very often poeple are buying on a « best buy » scheme.. but (see a few lines before) they dont take the price / holding good ratio..
- Also most new boats are delivered already equiped with their anchor.. manufacturers usualy select the cheapest anchors…

Talking about the maximum pull that a 35 ft yacht can ever generate, in massive winds and following the ABYC table.. at 42 knots the load is 1800 lbs and at 60 knots : 7200 lbs.. just slightly more than the 600 lbs you are talking about.. and this is only related to the wind effect.. in case of surge, the load can be much higher.. (several TONS..) That’s why a good anchor is so important…

Fair winds and peaceful anchorages..

Alain d’Hylas



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jacket]

You've just given the reason why I rely on my Bruce anchor, and will probably always carry one. The Bruce penetrates quickly and reliably in almost all bottoms. For me this is the most important point- after all, most cases of dragging are due to anchors not resetting afer a change in current or wind direction. OK, the holding power is a bit lower than some other anchors, but so what? Carry a slightly larger anchor.

I must have used my Bruce a couple of hundred times. Its only not set at the first attempt 4 or 5 times, and has never draged, including quite a few nights in rather exposed anchorages in gales.

Just a thought about anchor tests. they all use steady pulls in a straight line. This doesn't model whats really happening. In windy conditions a yacht sails around its anchor, snubbing hard at the anchor at the end of each 'tack'. So the anchor is subjected to a series of hard jerks in significantly varying directions- very different from the conditions applied by all the tests I've read. Experiments are a waste of peoples time and money unless they accurately model real life conditions.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

I don\'t think so!

There is loads of information available about the force generated by wind at various speeds. None comes anywhere near the values you quote.

For a start, Professor Knox's site <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.anchorwatch.co.uk/index-page04.htm>http://www.anchorwatch.co.uk/index-page04.htm</A> quotes 180 kg for a 30 knot wind for a 35 ft boat.

Many USA standards quote a range of pressures against wind speeds, the most extreme of which is 70 pounds/sq ft, that for the projected area of my 35 ft boat equates to 2800 lbs. This figure is for 110 mph wind speeds. For 70 mph the figure is a more reasonable 1120 lbs force. Oregon State University quotes 22.56 psf at 120 mph, a somewhat low figure, I would think, of only 902 lbs.

The 600 lbs figure I quoted previously comes from Alain Gree's book (are you and he the same person?) Anchoring and Mooring. Unfortunately I don't have the book here but the figure has remained in my head for many years. This is for a boat with beam of 3 metres and maximum deck height about 1.5 metres.

Turning back to the Bruce anchor, Professor Knox's article in PBO rated it (or actually the Claw, the same thing) as having virtually exactly the same performance as the Delta. Both were less good than the Spade but still rated pretty well. That's good enough for me and thousands of others. I have anchored in some pretty wild conditions on my Delta with a friend who used a Bruce and neither of us has experienced dragging or breaking out.

Finally, I don't disagree that the Spade has probably the best performance of all. I am intending to buy one when I find enough money!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Dear Alain,
I was trying, and obviously failing, to suggest that the bruces biggest practical weakness in day to day use is that it likes the anchor line to stay pulling close to horizontal to the seabed - equally it breaks out reasonably easily when pulled 'from above'! To apply effective force to bed in by motoring - rather than pulling it out - excess scope combined with the ususal rope/chain combination is beneficial and the combination can then stand being shortened up to a more normal scope. As you say it is the surge effect that does the damage - only a light swell can continually 'lift' the stock of a well bedded Bruce until it looses most of it's holding power - again a heavy length of chain helps avoid this (but all chain doesn't because of the lack of elasticity and direct transmisssion of 'jerks' as you are also at pains to point out to others!)
Happy anchoring

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldsalt]

Disagree

Hylas, the CQR is poorer than the Bruce on rocks in my experience, as I often anchor in rocky areas, then the Bruce may be the better anchor for me.THe Bruce sets before the CQR which is important, it also resets easily. The CQR often fails on a weedy bottom. I've ridden out gales with both types of anchor in sand and mud with equal success. The CQR seems to be harder to break out in mud suggesting that it is holding better.

I am happy with both anchors, but if I was buying anew I would probably prefer a Bruce over the CQR. However they are both old designs and one of the newer designs may be better.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[claymore]

Re: Disagree

I've never had a problem with the Bruce and much prefer its design to the CQR which seems to nip my fingers whenever it can.

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Samphire]

What would you expect from the French? Apart from using a 20kg bruce on a 9 ton boat for many years with great success ,I have watched so called French cruising boats mostly using Danforth type anchors dragging on a regular basis.
In addition most French boats I have come across dont use a chain rode which may go a long way to explain their flight across anchorages.
Samphire

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: Trying to answer..

In my position it is somewhat difficult to stay objective.. I’ll try.. :0)..

Jacke, I fully agree with you and the good setting characteristics of the Bruce.. and this is, I agree again, a very important point and the Bruce would be nearly a perfect anchor if it will also have a good holding.. for me, these two points are a MUST..
Practical sailor did also test the resetting and the only two anchors which did adjust themselves without breaking free have been the SuperMax (U.S. anchor..) and.. yes, again “the Spade”..
You also point out the solution.. with a Bruce, you should oversize it.. if for you this is not a problem to carry more weight on the Bow.. why not??..
As I said.. all tests methods are always open to criticism?? And about anchoring.. there is NO “real life conditions” as the conditions may widely vary : Boats, sea ground, wind, surge etc.. I don’t believe experiments are a waste of time and money.. I did quite a lot of experiments and from all of them I’ve learned more experience..
Like for most tests.. the conditions are standard and about the same for all anchors.. if from tests to tests, results widely vary then they are questionable?? But if they are always bad or always good.. you can expect a bad or a good product..
vyv_cox - The force generated by the wind I gave you are the ones given by the ABYC (American Boat and yacht Council) and these we use for our own anchor specifications..

Now, except that we carry the same name “Alain” (very French!!!) we are two different persons.. Alain Grée is very well known in France as a writer of children books.. but his book on anchor and anchoring has been written more than 30 years ago and his somewhat outdated?? I will also publish a new book about anchoring which is foreseeing to be launched next month (in French) and we are working at the English and the German translation..

About your future choice of the Spade!! I know that it is a quite expensive product.. but perhaps you would be interested to learn that Spade is launching a new anchor: the Océane which will have at least the same characteristics of the Spade or better, but at about half the price.. keep looking at your favourite magazine for the coming comparative tests.. (www.oceane-anchor.com)

Dear duncan I can’t agree more than 100% on your comments.. Happy anchoring to you too..


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[maris]

Re: Brittany anchors

I was given a brittany anchor at the weekend. Do they work? Are they dificult to break out?



Donnie

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: Brittany anchors

the Britany anchor is manufactured by Plastimo..
its main and only advantage is its cheap price.. under load it corkscrews and breaks free..
At both PBO tests (John Knox) and Voiles et voiliers last test.. its rating was very bad..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Miles]

Alain,

The term "comic" was not meant to be unfriendly but reflects my feeling that this is the better term for most magazines. In the UK most comics/magazines (not just sailing ones) are pretty bland, balance good and bad points and seem hesitant to criticise. There are often comments on this forum at the frustration felt by readers who believe (I am sure completely wrongly of course) that the power of the advertiser counts for more than the power of editorial judgement.

What I saw in Voiles et Voliers was an article that had clearly cost a lot to produce, had attempted to use scientific evaluation and recognised that there is no one right answer to doing this. They then go on to make extremely negative comments about the Bruce which simply do not accord with the fact that this product is widely visible in any marina that I have ever visited and has enjoyed a market share of perhaps 20-25% over many years. This would not be the case if the product is as bad as Voiles et Voiliers claim. I did not quote directly for copyright reasons but their comments were bluntly negative.

So my point in posting the orignal comment was to ask what is going on here ? The replies seem to be that practical experience over many years with the Bruce is pretty positive and on a par with the CQR thogh both have weaknesses ..etc. As a relative newcomer (with a Bruce as the bower anchor with plenty of chain attached to it) that's good enough for me.


<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Miles on 07/05/2003 09:43 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[steve_cronin]

The "Tale of Two Spoons" in YM also betrays...

that when folk talk about anchor performance they should consider TWO features in particular.

One, Holding Power YES

But


TWO : biting and digging in is MORE important.

The YM article on the holding power of two bent spoons, one bent so that the concave face os pulled against and the other so that the convex surface is pulled through the bed. Now they say (quite rightlyIMO) that some previously published research that a convex shape (a little like a CQR) is best for anchor design is wrong and that trying to pull an embedded bowl through mud or sand requires the greater force. Absolutely TRUE but, they were looking at two embedded "anchors" and I wouldn't deny that trying to pull a streamlined shape through a seabed medium is easier than pulling a sea anchor shaped structure through the same. However the streamlined shape will bite first AND bury itself far easier.

I use an anchor EVERY time I moor up ( we are in the Med) so an anchor that requires a diver to set but has the holding power of an Admiralty quarantine mooring is of little use to me. What I require is a hook that will hold first hit AND bury itself sufficiently to keep me off the concrete quays overnight but allow me to break it out in the morning without blowing the 150amp fuse in the windlass. Up to now, using a two stage mooring technique (anchor first then when satisfied it's secure, back up to the quay) my CQR hasn't let me down in this respect yet. In Aegina Harbour last weekend all the moored up craft were amused when a motorboat pulled up his Bruce to find a round lump of rock perfectly cradled in its claws. It took some really forceful leverage to dislodge it too! Luckily for him the skipper was moored on the upwind side of the harbour so his anchor power was of less importance than it was to us on the lee side.

Anchors? Horses for courses surely?

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[maris]

Re: Brittany anchors

Thanks for info. No wonder it was a freeby. Will stick to my anforth and cqr for a while longer.










Thanks Donnie



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

Re: Danforth and CQR?

Really sorry Maris.. but on the same article.. V & V shows some behaviours that as anchors manufacturer we perfectly know but we can't tell..

They didn't test the Danforth which is not popular on the south side of "the Channel". but they tested the Fortress.. and as on our side we have tested both.. we know that they have exactly the same behaviour (the Fortress is the aluminium copy of the Danforth..)

First these models have some difficulties to set.. (see comments from steve_cronin) too light flukes's tips and not the good penetration angle (rasor type)
When they finally dig in, in sand they have a very good holding (On the V & V tests in sand, about half the holding of the Spade) but their major drawback is that, up to a certain limit, they corkscrew on one side: lying on the tip of one fluke, on the extremity of the shank and on the extremity of the back strut.. and on this position, they slide hopelessly on the seaground.. not very safe.. (there is a nice photo showing the Fortress sliding on the sea ground..)

About the CQR.. it came at the top of the test.. but they also say that, after au certain limit, the CQR went up side down and there is a very nice photo showing the tip of the CQR playing the " submarine periscope" at the surface of the sea ground.. just because the shank and the strong hinge of the shank are by far too heavy..

I fully agree with Steve-Cronin when he is talking about first, the ability of setting.. the World best anchor is useless if it couldn't diggs in.. (and neither the CQR nor the Danforth have been designed for digging in..) But an anchor that will digg in very fast but doesn't hold (like the Bruce) or will sudently break free (like the Danforth, Fortress and CQR are also very dangerous..)

When making your choice of a new anchor.. look primarily at three points:
- the ability to digg in (in most sea bottoms)
- the holding
- the ability under strong pull to keep the holding constant and to NOT break free..

Safe anchoring..
Alain

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dipper]

Re: I don\'t think so!

I think you need to be careful if comparing a Bruce to a claw anchor. I have placed a 7.5kg Bruce next to a 10kg quality claw anchor and they are virtually the same size. The Bruce is obviously thinner but looks as strong, the flukes are slightly bigger and the edges much sharper. I would assume the sharper flukes would assist the initial bite.

It would probably be fair to assume that for the same performance a Bruce anchor could be one step lighter than a claw – but I have no evidence of this.

Bruce anchors are Lloyds and NATO approved and are commonly used on serious cruising boats so I agree with you, that’s good enough for me. However, it is obvious that there are other designs available that are also excellent anchors.


<hr width=100% size=1>