Bruce Anchors

vyv_cox said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have done my own extensive experiments both above the water and below, and from a boat using a 225 HP center console fishing boat. We were able to rack up 80 sets, re-sets, 180 degree swings and pulls. Many of the pulls stalled the fishing boat dead in the water with some anchors and others just plowed through he bottom and never could stall the boat. We were able to do these 80 tests in just two days. All my anchors were all put through immense paces for my own personal curiosity. I can assure you that there are VAST performance differences across anchors. I've also spent time diving, dragging in intertidal areas etc. etc. until I satisfied my own curiosity for my own use.

I actually made a video of some of the set testing I did on some VERY hard intertidal sand. The outcome did not surprise me much.

I am NOT an anchor manufacturer not affiliated with one in ANY way. These are my own anchors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGAckf69pE
 
Last edited:
Maine Sail said:
I have done my own extensive experiments ......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGAckf69pE
Click to expand...

It seems to me that this is a very good point - it's all very well reading up a test report but it's much more helpful to see what your own anchors will do with your own boat in the achorages you normally use. Nothing too elaborate but you could try the effect of different scopes etc. At least you will know what to expect.
And, with luck, you might be able to borrow one of the more expensive anchors to see if it's worth the expense...

And it's always worth looking at actual experience, as well as at results of anchor tests. Even though no two boats seem to have quite the same experience even when using the same type of anchor ... that's life.
 
Last edited:
vyv_cox said:
....The French test printed in YM said 'The CQR's performance in these tests was so astonishingly poor ...
Click to expand...
Sorry Vyv. I don't necessarily disagree with your view on the CQR, but Blackbeard has been involved in one or two field trials (not on anchors) and the experimental technique and the standard of reporting on that French/YM test was bad ... so bad that I don't think any conclusion whatever can be drawn from it, other than to look at tests of anchors (or anything else) with a very critical eye.

The earlier YM report (Dec 2006) was much better run and much better reported, and also found poor results for the CQR. How then is it that the CQR is so widely used with many of its users proclaiming its virtues (as in this thread?). I'm still puzzled and have no explanation, but clearly anchor tests don't give the whole story ...
 
When I visually compare, the "old" designs such as CQR, plough, Delta, Fortress etc to the "modern" anchor designs, such as Rocna, Manson supreme, Spade, Sword etc, the modern shape looks so much more convincing mainly due to the shape of the blades. The various actual tests, whether, on sandy or muddy surface, have all concluded one way or another that the "modern" shape is quicker to set and holds better.

We need to move forward, and it appears to me that from now on, almost all anchors will have a shape similar to a Rocna or Spade. Lets hope that more manufacturers start producing these type of anchors so that the price will drop.

In the meantime, I have a genuine CQR, a fortress type and a Bruce cast iron copy. My CQR has never failed me but it takes too long to set in. So, I will be looking to buy a "modern" type of anchor sooner or later.
 
This post might really throw a monkey wrench in the gears of this discussion. Check out the test below that the 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association conducted in the clay bottoms off of their coastline last summer.

This association has been conducting anchor tests there for over 20 years, and among other anchors, they tested out a Bruce, a Bruce copy, and a Rocna. And one of the top performers was......

THE BRUCE COPY!

http://www.watski.se/mail/anp/ankartest.pdf

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors
 
Thats interesting Brian.
I cannot understand Swedish, but they use **** (no, not a YBW banned word) in the descriptions of the various different anchors - I guess the more stars, the 'better' the anchor is.
So the original Bruce gets 1 *, the Rocna and Ultra get 2 *, the Bugel and Danforth get 3 *, the Bruce copy gets 4* - and the Fortress is the only anchor with 5 *!!!!

Craig will be along soon I am sure....... :)
(or maybe not yet - I think it is about 0100 hrs now in Kiwiland, so give him another 6 or 7 hours unless he is insomniac tonight)
 
Last edited:
A Buegel out-performing a Rocna, a Buegel equal to a Danforth, a Bruce copy better (by a huge degree) than the genuine Bruce - where would you like me to start? The total lack of controls, the single pulls, or the corrupt motivations of Fortress in any desperate attempt to attack Rocna?
 
Talk about shooting the messenger. This was a totally independent test by a group of well-experienced sailors who have been testing anchors for over 20 years. Before ridiculing their results, why don't you contact them first and find out exactly what their test parameters were? How can you make a judgment without any facts.....and by only reviewing the results? What qualifies you as an expert?

You might just be surprised to find out that the Swedish Cruising Association was more thorough in their test than West Marine was in their 5 pull / 3 bottom test, for which Rocna has falsely claimed for 5 years now that they "won" and had "40% greater holding power than the next best anchor." What a steaming pile of ****!

And since that West Marine test, I have struggled to find one single test from anywhere else in the world in which Rocna did well. Rocna was one of the poorest performing anchors in the Yacht Skipper test (Germany) and in Practical Sailor's tests, which I am sure you will ridicule as well.

Have a nice day,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors
 
Brian@Fortress said:
Talk about shooting the messenger. This was a totally independent test by a group of well-experienced sailors who have been testing anchors for over 20 years. Before ridiculing their results, why don't you contact them first and find out exactly what their test parameters were? How can you make a judgment without any facts.....and by only reviewing the results? What qualifies you as an expert?

You might just be surprised to find out that the Swedish Cruising Association was more thorough in their test than West Marine was in their 5 pull / 3 bottom test, for which Rocna has falsely claimed for 5 years now that they "won" and had "40% greater holding power than the next best anchor." What a steaming pile of ****!

And since that West Marine test, I have struggled to find one single test from anywhere else in the world in which Rocna did well. Rocna was one of the poorest performing anchors in the Yacht Skipper test (Germany) and in Practical Sailor's tests, which I am sure you will ridicule as well.

Have a nice day,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors
Click to expand...

Brian,

Your beginning to sound a lot like Craig....:mad:
 
Brian@Fortress said:
[Text removed]

Have a nice day,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors
Click to expand...


Bogus Utube videos is a bit distressing. I view all these, especially for videos showing the Spade and the Stainless Ultra steel, anchors that are not on sale in Australia. I always thought that a video gives pretty much all the info required. I'm a fan of all modern anchors though I build them myself in stainless. I have a real CQR in the anchor well on my new yacht though at present.
Anchor wells are common on cruiser racers in this country but this limits the use of a decent sized roll bar anchor.
 
[text removed]

I'm interested to know why you consider it bogus? I have viewed it, and many other similar tests that they have carried out over many years, I see nothing different in the Sarca one to suggest that it was rigged in any way.

It can be viewed here
 
The suggestion is the Sarca was pulled too fast, in ignorance of the fact that a constant force with varying (less) resistance will result in (obviously) a faster drag rate. In any case, it was posted originally to serve as a counter to some really corrupt nonsense from an Australian manufacturer which Fortress was using to attack Rocna. It is out of context here. If you look at Rocna's marketing material they use only independent testing and third party feedback - it's much more credible and effective.

Fortress is just throwing what mud they can pull out of a hat to see what sticks. The slander above regarding West Marine & Rocna at the boat show is apparently typical of the drama they like to kick up, although I should say I don't go to the shows so wouldn't know.
 
Let the viewers be the judge on whether Sarca from Australia's beach test and Rocna's counter beach test were fair or not. Below is Sarca's video with a pull test against a Manson and a Rocna:



Now here is Rocna's counter video and see how SLOWLY they pulled the Rocna to give it a chance to sink in, versus the Sarca. The bottom under the Sarca even looks harder. Check the sand it kicks up:



Now, whose test was fair and whose wasn't?
 
Rocna's - because they're not using a gimmicky beam balance that allows easily concealed cheats/tweaks to give the desired results*. Rather, they're using a constant force pull with a load cell measuring the holding power on what is initially consistent ground.

* I guarantee I could prove that a Rocna 10 would out-perform by far a Rocna 10 (yes) using just such a set-up. Or I could demonstrate that a Fortress FX11 is twice the anchor that the FX11 is. Might be fun even.

Of course you don't have to believe any of this monkey business. But credible scientifically valid independent testing wouldn't suit Fortress' agenda.
 
Integrity

Rocna are repeatedly stating that in the West Marine tests in 2006 their anchor was 'voted' No 1. This is at best misleading and possibly a complete misrepresentation. The WM tests were reported by 2 prominent yachting journalists (who produced joint stories) that appeared in Sail and YM. The articles were similar and as you would expect came to the same conclusions. Of the Rocna they actually said 'The Rocna was a powerful impressive, performer .... but remained a consistent top performer'. Of the Anchor Right SARCA they said 'The ideal anchor will hold in any seabed and the SARCA certainly deserves credit for coming close. It may not have the holding power as other roll bar anchors but it was a consistent performer'.

Frankly I am not convinced by the 'my anchor has a higher holding power than your anchor'. I want an anchor that works and one described as coming close to the ideal knocks spots off Rocna's dubious claims.

Of course Rocna do not like SARCA to be mentioned too frequently in case anyone looks back and finds images of the original anchor Anchor Right started selling in the early 1990's. The original was almost identical to the current model except the fluke was reversed (which meant it looked as if it leant heavily on the Bruce). They apparently found that the concave fluke carried mud and we then had the basis for the current convex design. This original and rejected reversed fluke, concave, SARCA was sold in NZ and Australia and looks uncommonly like the later released 'invention' of Rocna - serendipity at its best!

In the final conclusions of the WM tests the authors 'lumped' the Manson Supreme, Rocna, Spade and Fortress together as showing high or extreme holding power. There was never a suggestion that the Rocna was number 1 and in fact numeerically the Fortress came out on top.

If you want to check the articles go to the Manson website - they have unedited pdf versions of most tests.

Interestingly if you wander round English and Welsh marinas you will see as many of the current model of the convex SARCA's as Rocna's copy of the original SARCA - and Anchor Right do not even have an agent here. Maybe people vote with their feet and wallets after all and the support Rocna drums up is simply 'noise', or mutiple replies from the same author?
 
vyv_cox said:
[text removed]

I'm interested to know why you consider it bogus? I have viewed it, and many other similar tests that they have carried out over many years, I see nothing different in the Sarca one to suggest that it was rigged in any way.

It can be viewed here
Click to expand...

Certainly not all videos can be dispatched as biased or bogus, but this comparison between the Sarca and the Rocna certainly can be. Two points. First, there is a significant speed difference in the two pulls. Put your vessel all astern at 6 knots and see how well any anchor sets. That is what the Sarca was subjected to, while the Rocna was allowed to set at drift speed. Second, they set the Rocna in wet mud/snad, the Sarca in dry. A anchor test that doesn't attempt to provide an apples to apples comparison is poorly done at best, or intentionally dishonest at worst. You decide.

This is what puzzles me about Rocna. They seem to have a product that is well liked by its users and may be viewed as a superior design by some. Why then associate themselves with so much mis-information, hyperbole, and distortion about their competitor's, and their own product? Always makes me suspicious about all underlying truth claims.
 
What I like about Sarca's testing approach is that it seems to be an honest attempt to provide an even playing field for comparisons of anchor performance. I share Craig's concern about gimmicky tweaking of variables to produce a desired result, which is why his defense of the Rocna/Sarca video posted seems, shall we say, a bit disingenuous?

If someone has a better suggestion on how to compare two anchors with a minimum of confounding variables than the balance beam developed by Rex Francis at Sarca, I'd welcome seeing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top