BRUCE ANCHORS

[dina]

I know that there was a lot of correspondence here in December following the anchoring tests in YW, and I know the (not genuine) Bruce didn't come out very well. But since then a number of people have written saying how wonderful their Bruce's are. Our problem is we have a 75lb genuine CQR with 80m of 10mm chain, which won't get a grip on the thick weed found in places like NW Spain (where we are heading this summer again). We also carry two Danforth type anchors, a fishermans and a chum. Any suggestions on how to get the CQR to hold? Or should we bite the bullet and change to a genuine Bruce? I didn't think they were renowned for their holding power on weed but Harold S seemed to think his cut through weed quite well (albeit it is 100lbs on a 49 ft boat) Our boat is 46 ft by the way.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[snowleopard]

i had a few problems with weed in the rias including an uncomfortable night when it took half a dozen attempts to get the anchor down through the weed. our anchor is a delta so i imagine you'd have exactly the same problems with a cqr. the danforth type would be even worse. i don't think any anchor would fare too well if it's choked with weed, the only hope is a heavy anchor that digs in rapidly before it has a chance to clog.

i have no experience of the bruce but it's probably as good as any.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ric]

You could try one of those Wasi Bugelankers which cut through weed reasonably well. But why not just attach your fishermans to your CQR with a short length of chain? When I am on weed I attach my big 15kg grappling anchor to my 12kg Delta with a short chain and it works fine.

Finally, I'd be amazed if you got good results from a Bruce on weed.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AndrewB]

I carry both Bruce and CQR anchors. Both are fine on your average mud and sand. The Bruce is better on really light holding ground such as powdered coral. The CQR is better on harder surfaces like sea-grass. To get that all important initial grip it helps to sharpen the tip, if you can see the bottom try to spot a place like a small pit of sand to drop it in, lay out a decent length of chain and reverse very gradually to pull the anchor in. The best on really dense weed is a Fisherman's pattern anchor, but I've not had any problems with a 45 lbs CQR around any of the rias.

 

[duncan]

Although a die hard Bruce (or copy!) fan I will admit that it suffers in most weeds and is prone to getting easily clogged in sea grass.
If the CQR or Delta aren't doing the job under those conditions Wasi or SARCA have a greater angle of attack and sharp points! The latter having a better change of being recovered if it lodges in rocks. <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.anchorright.co.uk>http://www.anchorright.co.uk</A>

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by duncan on 15/03/2004 16:41 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[chrisb]

genuine cqr and bruce both excellent anchors. i have found neither of them like thick weed. certainly when i have had problems gettig the anchor to bite weed has been the cause. this year i will take my bruce plus a danforth type. possibly there is a case for a heavy fishermans but we dont have the space to carry one. if you se us dragging past you in spain this summer do give a wave

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ric]

If you don't have room for a fishermans, why not get a big grapnel anchor? I have a 15kg one as my storm anchor. It works superbly and is much easier to store and handle than a fishermans. You can buy them for peanuts from www.svb.de

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

surely a grapnel works by getting caught on something? It follows that a really big grapnel on sea grass will be on a par with anything of the same weight attached to your anchor line (better than a smooth ball though I admit).

I stand by the good angle of attack, sharp entry point for sea grass. Fishermans is such an anchor but suffers from relatively poor holding relative to weight once dug in.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ric]

Maybe I didn't use the right term. It is like a fishermans except with four blades, and they fold into the stock for storage. It doesn't need to catch on anything. When deployed at least one of the spikes cuts straight through the weed into the sand below, like a fishermans. Works very well.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Ric,
You used the right term, or at least you description matches my mental picture!
As you say one (or even 2) 'spikes' will dig in to the sand but the actual holding power would be really small. Try it - set up a 5:1 scope, motor gently back and it will drag out and along. It just doesn't have the holding power unless one of the prongs catches on something. At that sort of scope you should struggle to be able to pull out the hook once 'set'.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AndrewB]

Grapnels

My experience too with a grapnel has been very unsatisfactory. Unlike a fisherman's, they land on TWO of their blades, as these start to bite they tend to pull apart, with the result that the grapnel simply doesn't dig in properly. Moreover, the ones with the folding blades don't hold the blades firmly at the correct angle to enable the yacht to pull it home. The solid ones with curved blades are good for a temporary hold on rocks, wreck fishermen round my way like them.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[HaraldS]

Just saw your post and that you quoted my post on Bruce vs. CQR and thought I'd clarify some more. I don't think a Bruce anchor is generally better cutting into weed, compared to a CQR. Looking at them I'd think it should be the other way round.
I ended up with the Bruce, not because the CQR wouldn't work in weed, but more because I found the CQR would break out under heavy load and then your off moving fast. On a previous boat , a Rival 41, we had a CQR as primary and this happened twice. This was a 60 lbs CQR.
Another experience I had, was that absolute weight does matter when it comes to quick penetration of the ground.
In addition most tables say that you should take Bruce anchors one size up and thus my 11lbs Bruce rates the same in as your 75lbs CQR in those tables. Both are listed for boats between 60-70ft.
So you obviously have a good size anchor for your boat.
Not able to sleep well with a CQR, I went for the Bruce but was quite worried about using the Bruce in weed. I was then astonished that it did quite well and attributed that behaviour to absolute weight.
After 4 years with the Bruce, I have a very good feeling about and so we will start our open ended trip this year with this setup.
In your case however, I'd try something more modern like a Spade or Buegelanker and make us all wiser after a season in weed.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.taniwani.de>http://www.taniwani.de</A>

 

[ean_p]

Harald is that a typing mistake '11lbs'........? if so what should it read please?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[HaraldS]

ooops, should read 110 lbs or 50kg

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.taniwani.de>http://www.taniwani.de</A>

 

[Gypsy]

My 44' 9/10tonne yacht had a 22kg plough (CQR Style) anchor with 70m of 10mm chain. I had constant difficulty getting it to "bite' through weed and hard sand. Once it did, it held tight. After being "earbashed" about Bruce anchors I bought a 24kg CopyBruce but was disappointed. Sometimes it bit into the weed but then proceeded to pull out like rolling up turf. It just could not keep digging in. I take the point about the benefit of sharp flukes and also sharp edge to the shaft but I could never develop enough confidence in it. After looking at every anchor I could in every port we called (eastern Med) I was going to try the Bugleanker but found the shaft was too long to stow properly at the bow of my boat without significant modification.

After much pondering I developed the theory that the problem with the plough was that it was not heavy enough at the tip to cause it to get it's sharp tip down into the weed. Further looking at more modern anchors such as Delta, Spade and some other CQR copies I saw they had weight in the tip of the anchor. So I commissioned the yard I was at in Turkey to add lead the tip of my plough which stretches back from the tip about 15cms and probably adds 5kg at the pointy end. With this modification my plough worked brilliantly in all anchorages last summer including plenty with weed. My Bruce is resting in the f'ward locker.

Other posters suggestions about choosing sandy or lighter weed patches where possible and dropping the anchor to the bottom while paying out 20m of chain before trying to make it set are valid methods in my experience.

Happily we are sleeping soundly with our modified plough.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[charles_reed]

I fear you are probably in for a disappointment if you're hoping to cure your anchoring in weed problems with a Bruce.

In most (mainly in the States) the Bruce seems to come out the as having less holding power than the CQR but having the benefit of better resetting. Where it does seem to be the anchor of choice is when you are in thin sand over rock (coral).

I bought a replacement genuine CQR for the So'wester lookalike which suffered a shattered stock and found it had a longer shank, slimmer profile plough and a better performance digging through weed. The most significant factor I've found is how sharp the anchor might be, before re-galvanising every 5th year I actually sharpen the point and find an immediate improvement.

I found the best tactics when I was in the Rias Biaxas was to choose a weed-free patch or to anchor using a Delta on 10m of chain in tandem with the CQR.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ric]

The reason your CQR in original format did not set properly in weed is because the shank is heavier than the plough, causing it to settle upside down in weeds (I have seen upside down CQRs many times scuba-diving in popular anchorages). By weighting the plough, you will have largely rectified the problem. I would do the same if I had a CQR.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AndrewB]

Helpful.

Thanks Ric, Gypsy, those are really helpful tips which confirm my own suspicions.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BigART]

We are looking for alternatives for our 41 ft steel boat. We have a CQR and a Danforth and will probably get a Fisherman as well for weedy areas. A number of sources recommend 4-5 anchors so we are thinking of getting a Spade. Has anyone any thoughts/experience?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

I apologize, I was wandering in the beautiful bay of Todos os Santos, Salvador de Bahia and I was not connected to Internet..

It has been quite a lot of different tests, both with copies of the Bruce anchor but also with the genuine one..
All results are coherents to give the Bruce one of the lowest holding power..

In the January 1; 1999 issue, the very well kown US magazine "Practical Sailor" gave the 22 lbs genuine Bruce an average holding of 307 lbs, this is to compare with the holding of the 35 lbs CQR : 583 lbs or with the holding of the 16.5 lbs SPADE: 1000 lbs..
Yes the Bruce anchor hold, but you have to oversize it by tree time if you want to come near the results of modern anchors..

But one big advantage of the Bruce anchor is its ability to dig in (in third position behind the "Bulwagga" and the Spade) ..

Then if you use it as a kedge anchor in settled water, or if you have to anchor in hard or weedy sea bottoms and if you are wise enough to largely oversize it.. it would be a good choice.

There is no way to get the CQR to hold in thick weed.. the design (penetrating angle) is wrong and there is not enough weight onto the tip of the anchor (18 %) .. (and too much on the shank..62%) the CQR is well known for not working in hard sea bottoms and weed.. Neither of the Danforth nor the Fisherman are well adapted for weed and a chum is useless.. (see the very good web page: http://alain.fraysse.free.fr )

The "Bügel" anchor will be a good choice (but also the Spade or the new Océane anchor) but the Fortress is also performing poorly in weed.. (again a question of penetrating angle and weight repartition onto the tip)



<hr width=100% size=1>