Bruce Anchors

[peasea]

I have a 29 ft sloop and having dragged at anchor off Sark using a 25lb plough I am looking at changing to a Bruce. the company claims on its website that a 7.5kg
Bruce is o.k. up to F7 as a working anchor for up to and including a 39 ft. boat.
This seems a bit optimistic --- Any experience please?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldharry]

Who says you will never anchor in more than F7! Genuine Bruces do have a very good reputation for holding on most surfaces, but ground tackle weight is something that should never be compromised, and I always go for at least the next weight above the recommended. And there have been times when I have been thankful for good ground tackle that has stayed put when others are in trouble.

I have dragged a 5Kg Bruce with a 24 footer - but I strongly suspect that no equivalent design/weight would have held either.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[gunnarsilins]

In my experience...

...the Bruce has a tendency to drag very slowly in soft bottoms, like mud, even at quite modest pulling forces.

The reason must be the relative small area it shows in the direction of pull.

I would certainly look at the Spade anchor, or if it´s to expensive, the second best, a Delta.
I´ve tried Bruce, CQR as main anchors and I´ve found the Delta beeing superior.

Of course it´s all written IMHO!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[claymore]

We went for the next size up but have it shackled to 10mm chain. Seems bombproof.

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

 

[vyv_cox]

My rule of thumb would be that a 25 - 30 ft boat needs a 25 lb anchor and a 31 to 36 ft boat needs a 35 lb. I read only a couple of days ago that there was a 'rule' that the weight in lbs should equal the length in ft. This sounds like an old rule, so the user would benefit as the efficiency of anchors may have improved since the rule was formulated.

There is endless discussion on these forums about the advantages and benefits of various anchor types. Many tests have been printed, showing off certain characteristics of them. The truth is that anchors, like so many other aspects of sailing, are a compromise. Not only do they have to hold in a blow, in bottoms ranging from soft mud to hard rock, they also have to bed efficiently, rebed when the tide turns, be handleable and stow on the boat.

My own opinion of the better ones, based upon my experience, reading and these forums, is that the likely order of preference is:
1. Spade. But expensive and not ideal to stow, unless disassembled.
2. Delta. What I have and my experience of it is excellent
3. CQR. Probably just as good overall but its hinged construction makes it awkward to handle
4. Bruce. Some doubts about its bedding capability but I know many satisfied users.

The new Oceane is supposedly a cheaper version of the Spade. I have yet to see one but the pictures suggest it to have an exceptionally long, curved stock, perhaps making it cumbersome.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

you dont say what size or length of chain that you have. This is as important as the anchor in the ability to stay hooked to the bottom. if you are using a short piece of light chain, the anchor will never stay on the bottom, regardless of how much you pay out in rope. I use a fairly light anchor, but 20m of 10mm chain and it works for me!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Samphire]

What weight is your boat? If a light racy modern boat 7.5kg may be ok but as someone else commented the chain size is important too.I'd go up a size to the 10kg.
Have to say that i swear by the Bruce and totally disagree with its poor performance in mud.It is excellent in everything except stony/rocky bottom where the only thing that works anyway is the good old fisherman.
We use a 20kg with 10mm chain on a 9 ton displacement boat and usually a min of 30m,but we are in a very exposed and generally windy west of Ireland.
Samphire

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

"the anchor will never stay on the bottom regardless of how much line you let out"..................that's fighting talk to many in here!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

Intended to stimulate a brisk discussion, but appears to have fallen onto mostly deaf ears, or everyone is to busy playing the mdl game to check out the posts!!!!
I have a danforth as my main anchor which has never given me problems. I also have a bruce as a lunchhook an 5/16" chain, but I am about to upgrade that to 3/8". However my boat is a cat so has a tendency to swing around a bit more than you poor people that can only afford half a boat, and the heavier chain definetely has an impact on this ungentlmanly behaviour. (I think I am using my dyslexic keyboard again) - maybe this post might wake someone up!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

The type of bottom you normally anchor on I think makes a difference to the type of bower anchor.. one option to increase holding is to add a weight or anchor weight to the chain.. this has advantages as if windlassless you can raise the weight indepentdantly of the anchor.. you can either buy swish gizmo friends for a fortune or make your own.. anything from lengths of chain bound by rope and then attached to the anchor line with a line to pull it up.. others are hunks of heavy substances clad in plastic piping and attached length ways onto the anchor chain..

In addition there is also a gizmo called an <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.anchorwatch.co.uk/>anchorwatch</A> which means that you are theoretically able to sleep at anchor even whent he wind gets up!... Has anyone any experience of using this bit of kit?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[peasea]

Further to my initial Post I should add that the boat is around 10000lbs. and I use the plough on 25m of 5/16chain plus rope as required. We circled through three tides o.k. but then the anchor must have been hooked out by the chain and didn't re-set itself .
- I have a 7.5kg. Bruce as a kedge but have thought it to be to small as a main anchor -- but having seen the rating on the Bruce website I wonder..........

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

The Bruce anchor has a main advantage.. it is surely one of the best to digging in very fast.. from the "Practical Sailor" (U.S.A.) anchor test this is the one which came FIRST..

It is also a STABLE anchor that will not break up suddently.. unlike "fluke" anchors

These two points are VERY important when selecting one anchor..

Unfortunately.. (nobody is perfect) the Bruce is also one of the anchors which have the worse Holding to weight ratio.. (Very poor performances not only in mud
but also in sand as tested by PBO, Voiles Magazine, Voiles & Voiliers) then if you want to have a BRUCE you should OVERSIZE it..

"ground tackle weight is something that should never be compromised"
"My rule of thumb would be that a 25 - 30 ft boat needs a 25 lb anchor and a 31 to 36 ft boat needs a 35 lb. I read only a couple of days ago that there was a 'rule' that the weight in lbs should equal the length in ft. This sounds like an old rule, so the user would benefit as the efficiency of anchors may have improved since the rule was formulated."

Sorry once more if I have a radically different theorie about holding and weight..
On my own boat, 12 meters and 14 tons.. my MAIN anchor is now a 16 kilos (SIXTEEN) Oceane.. with a tremendous holding.. (I'm a full time liveaboard)

Holding is not related to the weight of the anchor but to its surface area and to the shape of this surface area.. and this is why the BRUCE anchor has such a low holding: very low ratio surface area / Weight..

Regarding the anchor wrap.. I believe we should open a different thread, as it is a very different question.. unless most poeple in this forum, I believe in SCOPE and absolutely NOT in weight of the chain,,
Chain has one and ONLY advantage. to avoid the wearing of the rode on the sea bottom.. therefor, about 10 to 20 meters of chain should be used first and then a NYLON rope spliced onto the chain.. (elasticity..)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

you might get away with the lighter anchor on heavier chain,

It was asking a lot after 3 circuits. I expect that if yould have been able to see the anchor on the bottom, the chain would have been wound round it and this is what stopped it biting back in - sods law, and the reason why longer term connection to the bottom is best using a proper mooring.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Quiet

Can't you see we're trying to sleep.

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

 

[Twister_Ken]

Anchors - a mystery

I've not done loads of anchoring in cruisy mode, but have kedged plenty when racing. OK, so if you kedge when racing it's because there's not a whole lot of breeze. But we used to kedge a 12 ton boat on a pretty small danforth (can't remember exact weight, but it was a one-hander), with five metres of chain and whatever rope we could find. And it always held. Even in mid-channel close to CH1, in a roaring tide, with everything we could find tied on (inc spinnnaker sheets), when we can't have had more than about 1.5x scope.

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

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Quiet

Spoil sport Ken.

The best part about having a chain anchor warp is to be able to rattle it on here! Do our catandcanarys have to keep quiet too?

Sleep tight

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[gunnarsilins]

Bruce in mud!

I have made direct comparisons between a 15 kg Bruce and a 16 kg CQR as a kedge when cruising the archipelagos in the Baltic sea.
In this non-tidal area you normally drop you kedge from the aft in the lee of an island and go ashore by tying your bows to a suitable rock. In these sheltered waters the bottom is mostly mud or clay.

I´ve found a noticeable difference between the Bruce and CQR, the Bruce digs in more easy, but has a tendency to 'creep' slowly when the mud is soft and the pulling force is high.

Samphires experience with Bruce vs. mine and other contributions regarding anchors on various forums, the contradicting results you sometimes get from various tests done in different areas makes me think that sand in one area does not have the same properties as sand in another, that the Irish variety of mud does not behave as the mud in Stockholm area.

I begin to doubt if the results/experiences from a particular anchor in one area freely can be transfered to another.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

Re: Bruce in mud!

Anyone who has tried to anchor around the world will know that your comment is correct. Most people think that mud is the best holding, but I know of one place (portland harbour, s. coast UK) where anchors tend to pull through the mud even on big ships, yet seems to stick to the anchor like glue when trying to clean it. That is why I have a danforth and a bruce, if one doesnt work then the other normally will.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Roberto]

Re: Bruce in mud!

<<I begin to doubt if the results/experiences from a particular anchor in one area freely can be transfered to another.>>

I agree absolutely !
Not only about bottom characteristics but about almost everything is said about anchors. Name one type of anchor and you alwasy find 100000 people liking it and as much hating it, and even if that proportion is different I would listen with nothing more than a theoretical interest. Too many variables involved, I think this is one case where the marginal efficiency of one hour of practice is much higher than the same hour of theoretical vivisection of an anchoring system.

Learn one hundred tricks to improve anchoring and sure you will use each one of them, it will work one time and will not at least another time.

Sailing in one's boat, a few friends boats, charter boats, etc every one with a different anchor (and variations of anchoring techniques) provides a wide sample of mistakes and nights awake upon which a very personal opinion can be shaped.
The average consensus I am afraid is of little help when it is clearly not functioning in the middle of the night, even if only that night.
If others sleep soundly when at anchor in tough conditions, so much the better for them...

It is like a parent wanting to "teach life experience" to his children instead of letting them make their own, IMHO of course.



<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Roberto on 25/09/2003 09:48 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

These theories and controlled tests are all very well but anchoring is usually a compromise taking into account swinging room, seabed, weather conditions, depth etc. etc. etc.

If you're anchoring is a crowded anchorage then you will benefit from having a really heavy anchor and chain and can use a short scope. If you have to manhandle the anchor to drop it you will appreciate a lighter anchor.

The best compromise I have found on my boat is a hefty CQR, which stows itself in the bow roller, with equally hefty chain. This arrangement is far easier to use than the kedge, so even when anchoring for lunch we always use the main anchor with as much chain as swinging room will allow, regardless of the depth.



<hr width=100% size=1>