Bruce Anchors

[Norman_E]

Cast iron is not just a single product. In the case of the broken anchors it is quite obvious that what we are looking at is poor quality flake cast iron. To explain, cast iron is composed of iron, carbon and silicon, and can be subdivided into white cast iron and grey cast iron, both contain graphite in the form of flakes which can allow the propagation of cracks, but in white iron much of the carbon has been converted into carbides with potentially disastrous results in terms of brittle fracture. White iron tends to fracture fairly easily and has a white appearance at the break. When iron is cast from new pig iron its quality can be controlled, but cheap castings are made from iron with a variable proportion of iron and steel scrap. Such castings are likely to suffer from poor quality control and if insufficient steps are taken to reduce impurities, particularly sulphur, the sulphur content will prevent the formation of graphite. Buying a cast anchor of unknown provenance is just asking for trouble.

The picture of the broken shaft appears to show a chill cast product, where rapid chilling has produced a hard but brittle surface of white iron, with a grey iron core. Such a casting method (if intentional) might be appropriate for hardening the claw end, but not for the shank, as it became too brittle.

I think that the genuine Bruce anchors were almost certainly made from pig iron with a carefully controlled mix of additives to give a dense and tough iron, and probably heat treated to give a spheroidal graphite structure, as malleable cast iron.

 

[Dipper]

I think that the genuine Bruce anchors were almost certainly made from pig iron with a carefully controlled mix of additives to give a dense and tough iron, and probably heat treated to give a spheroidal graphite structure, as malleable cast iron.

As far as I recall from their original sales literature, Bruce anchors were made from a steel alloy and heat treated.

 

[Norman_E]

As far as I recall from their original sales literature, Bruce anchors were made from a steel alloy and heat treated.

That is an even better reason to avoid cast iron copies. Even the best cast iron never approaches the tensile strengths obtainable by cast steels, where chromium and nickel are the main alloying components to toughen and harden the material. In sufficient quantity the same metals can add considerable corrosion resistance.

 

[cowpat]

I've used a genuine 20kg Bruce for the last four years, on the West Coast of Scotland, and am delighted with it. The only (one) time That I had a problem with it was when it came up clutching an enormous round granite boulder to its bosom.
Are you allowed to say that here?
It was in a silly place to try to anchor, and was only going to be a temporary stop to explore an unusual bit of shoreline.

And another one. This time one caught in the Isles Of Scilly. Good old Bruce.

 

[Bru]

Have you had any bad experience using a Bruce?

The missus commented that after 28 years of using a Bruce she generally felt a Bruce to be satisfactory overall. Sometimes, apparently, a Bruce can be somewhat slow to deploy and on occasions she has had difficulty getting a Bruce to go where she wants it to go but she feels this is probably not specific to any one model of Bruce or similar items whatever they are called.

She would prefer it if there was a Bruce available which actually did everything claimed in the advertising and better yet it would be most useful if there was an operators manual for a Bruce as sometimes she cannot understand why she is unable to get a Bruce to behave in the way she expects.

I am pleased to report that, on balance, she is inclined to stick with the Bruce she's got rather than trade it in on a newer model although there is, I am told, a significant element of "better the devil you know" involved in this decision.

I hope this helps ...
Bru(ce)

PS. I'm not entirely sure that the present Mrs P. has quite got this sailing lark sorted out in her head yet!

 

[jordanbasset]

The missus commented that after 28 years of using a Bruce she generally felt a Bruce to be satisfactory overall. Sometimes, apparently, a Bruce can be somewhat slow to deploy and on occasions she has had difficulty getting a Bruce to go where she wants it to go but she feels this is probably not specific to any one model of Bruce or similar items whatever they are called.

She would prefer it if there was a Bruce available which actually did everything claimed in the advertising and better yet it would be most useful if there was an operators manual for a Bruce as sometimes she cannot understand why she is unable to get a Bruce to behave in the way she expects.

I am pleased to report that, on balance, she is inclined to stick with the Bruce she's got rather than trade it in on a newer model although there is, I am told, a significant element of "better the devil you know" involved in this decision.

I hope this helps ...



PS. I'm not entirely sure that the present Mrs P. has quite got this sailing lark sorted out in her head yet!

Provided you have not got a 'Bruce' in which the end falls off she should be alright, you would probably feel reassured as well

 

[PetiteFleur]

My twopennorth - after having poor results from my copy Plough Anchor, a Sowester, which never seemed to set correctly and was aways dragging - unlike my Fortress kedge anchor which always held and a genuine CQR on a previous boat which was excellent.
I've now bought a Manson Supreme......... and will report back after testing during the summer.

 

[craigsmith]

I think that the genuine Bruce anchors were almost certainly made from pig iron with a carefully controlled mix of additives to give a dense and tough iron, and probably heat treated to give a spheroidal graphite structure, as malleable cast iron.

Oh for god's sake. "You think" and "almost certainly"? I don't know why I'm defending a competing product but the genuine Bruce was NOT made from "cast iron".

 

[vyv_cox]

Cast iron is not just a single product. In the case of the broken anchors it is quite obvious that what we are looking at is poor quality flake cast iron. To explain, cast iron is composed of iron, carbon and silicon, and can be subdivided into white cast iron and grey cast iron, both contain graphite in the form of flakes which can allow the propagation of cracks, but in white iron much of the carbon has been converted into carbides with potentially disastrous results in terms of brittle fracture. White iron tends to fracture fairly easily and has a white appearance at the break. When iron is cast from new pig iron its quality can be controlled, but cheap castings are made from iron with a variable proportion of iron and steel scrap. Such castings are likely to suffer from poor quality control and if insufficient steps are taken to reduce impurities, particularly sulphur, the sulphur content will prevent the formation of graphite. Buying a cast anchor of unknown provenance is just asking for trouble.

The picture of the broken shaft appears to show a chill cast product, where rapid chilling has produced a hard but brittle surface of white iron, with a grey iron core. Such a casting method (if intentional) might be appropriate for hardening the claw end, but not for the shank, as it became too brittle.

I think that the genuine Bruce anchors were almost certainly made from pig iron with a carefully controlled mix of additives to give a dense and tough iron, and probably heat treated to give a spheroidal graphite structure, as malleable cast iron.

Sorry, don't agree. Grey cast iron is brittle. If you don't believe me, try bending a piston ring. Both anchors appear to me to be perfectly ordinary grey cast iron that has fractured due to mechanical overload. They have the appearance (and cost) of ordinary sand cast products, so cannot be white iron.

Grey cast iron is an excellent material for many purposes but it has almost zero elongation in tension. So it is perfect for keels, engine blocks and relatively massive structures but not for much else.

 

[cowpat]

I am not a metalurgist so unfortunatly cannot follow this thread in the detail that some can. I am never-the-less enjoying it so much.(especially after the last comment) Please keep it up and perhaps I can learn something.

 

[Stork_III]

Sorry, don't agree. Grey cast iron is brittle. If you don't believe me, try bending a piston ring. Both anchors appear to me to be perfectly ordinary grey cast iron that has fractured due to mechanical overload. They have the appearance (and cost) of ordinary sand cast products, so cannot be white iron.

Grey cast iron is an excellent material for many purposes but it has almost zero elongation in tension. So it is perfect for keels, engine blocks and relatively massive structures but not for much else.

Lack of elongation is not the problem. the almost zero, well very small, tensile strength is.

 

[CAPTAIN FANTASTIC]

Cast iron anchors fail catastrophically (as show in broken anchor the picture) unlike steel which is more ductile and therefore when fails under load, it will bent well before it breaks; therefore it will fail in a safe mode.

I will start using my old tested and trusted plough (CQR) anchor; I will keep the Bruce as a spare.

 

[Norman_E]

I did not say that grey cast iron was not brittle, though white cast iron is generally worse in that regard. Spheroidal graphite irons are less brittle, because the graphite is not in flakes, but is distributed through the structure as tiny spheres which do not act as stress raisers. As I said, no cast iron can get close to the tensile strengths achieved by cast steels. I have and use a genuine 60 lb CQR, which I hope is cast steel, though I know that many of the copies are cast iron.

 

[Shuggy]

After 5 years with my CQR I sold it. It came with a free boat which its new owner is no doubt enjoying. I then bought a Bruce anchor (genuine) which also came with a free boat. Despite spending all my spare money on the Bruce I gave it away but retained the boat. This was because the Bruce was inferior to the CQR and would not hold in places where the (genuine) CQR held, even thought the CQR was lighter yet the boat had reduced in weight from 13 to 9 tons.

In short, I thought the Bruce to be vastly inferior to the CQR. I have quite an aggressive anchoring technique (always 2000 rpm astern for 1 minute so boat weight probably not relevant) and the Bruce was a disaster in that regard.

Just to add fuel to the fire, I sold my daughter and bought a Rocna. It trumps both.

No connection - just fed up with the Rocna bashing that seems to be of the same status as Bavaria bashing on this forum. Bruce = bad experience. CQR = good experience. Rocna = superb experience. New generation anchors are expensive but IMHO worth it.

I anchor everywhere so speak with some conviction. I believe me, anyway.

Oh God - I've responded on an anchor thread three times in two days. I'm away to get my pills.

 

[NormanS]

I have quite an aggressive anchoring technique (always 2000 rpm astern for 1 minute so boat weight probably not relevant) and the Bruce was a disaster in that regard.

.

Your technique explains all.

 

[vyv_cox]

I have and use a genuine 60 lb CQR, which I hope is cast steel, though I know that many of the copies are cast iron.

A genuine CQR is forged steel, which is a different material altogether. It helps to explain the horrendous cost of the real thing - probably nowadays the most expensive anchor you could buy.

 

[doug748]

Caramba.

Good anchor thread. I never really thought that Chinese anchors were cast out of Iron, which is only marginally better than polystyrene for the job. Now I know.

That anchor seller can stick his Rocna where the holding is best, I won't be funding his early retirement. The sad thing about giving these commercial people a free shot is that people who know no better believe the hyperbole.

 

[Tom Price]

Anchoring

Have a Bruce with 30m chain and 30m warp available.
A Danforth is used as kedge, Fisherman's for rocky terrain.

The Bruce is very good at acquiring things, like a tyre or even a 7ft ladder, but takes several attempts to dig in,often dragging when the tide turns. But my favourite anchorage is in a shallow but fast-flowing river with long grass over mud. And turning with the tide means drifting right over the anchor because there is no room to swing, thus capsizing it.

Que faire?

 

[Norman_E]

A genuine CQR is forged steel, which is a different material altogether. It helps to explain the horrendous cost of the real thing - probably nowadays the most expensive anchor you could buy.

Mine came with the boat, which was ex charter with a German company, who had fitted it out regardless of cost, evidenced by the fact that all of the equipment was the best quality. Genuine CQR, Vetus Bowthruster, comprehensive VDO Siemens instruments including a 10 inch colour chart plotter (I wonder what that cost in 1998?) Simrad Robertson autopilot, the largest engine option, and ever a pair of Steiner binoculars. I am just glad I did not have to pay the new cost of all the kit, which must have added very considerably to the bare boat price.

 

[vyv_cox]

Anchor test analysis

That anchor seller can stick his Rocna where the holding is best, I won't be funding his early retirement. The sad thing about giving these commercial people a free shot is that people who know no better believe the hyperbole.

There have been anchor tests since the late 1990s that I know of. I try to collect them and have about ten of them on file. The earlier ones were done before either Rocna or Maxwell Supreme were marketed. Many have been done on sandy bottoms but I know of at least two that were done on mud. Many posters like to assume that testing has no relevance to the real world of anchoring but I believe thay have to at least give a guide to performance.

Almost without exception Spade came out best in the earlier tests. Once the other two 'new generation' anchors were introduced results were divided amongst the three, although few tests that I know of tested all of them. Differences in performance between them and the rest are marked, with Delta often coming out as a good also-ran. CQR and Bruce, sometimes copies but sometimes not, rarely came out even close to the rest. The French test printed in YM said 'The CQR's performance in these tests was so astonishingly poor that we wondered if they had sent us a faulty one. It's the most expensive anchor tested.'

It could be argued that measurement of ultimate holding power is not very meaningful and I would prefer to see tests that measured set efficiency. Later tests, such as the Sail/YM/West Marine one, attempted to do this. Again, the old anchors languished at the bottom of the list and the new ones were placed at the top.