Fortress anchor - why did you buy one?

Neeves said:
The fact Fortress and Danforth are more popular on American vessels does not mean Americans don't know what they are doing as Britany anchors are common on French leisure vessel - but seldom seen in other parts of the world
Click to expand...

Brittany anchors are popular on French vessels, but the point you are trying to make here was rather lost on me.

Concerning the Fortress anchor, it is very justifiably popular all over the world, and for good reason. A high proportion of long distance cruising boats of all nationalities carry a Fortress anchor.

However, I find it uncommon to see a Fortress, or a Danforth as a primary, or bower anchor on a long distance cruising boat, and once again, in my view, this is for good reason. It is commonly used as a secondary anchor. This is especially true in more recent times, as the very versatile new generation anchors have become available.

If I understand correctly you feel this is different on American vessels. When reading sailing forums with many American members, the same concerns are expressed about the limitations using a Fortress anchor such as in conditions where the direction of pull may change, so they are aware of the issues. It is nice to support a manufacturer making products in your own country, so It will be interesting to see see if more American cruisers are using a Fortress as a primary.

One nice thing about cruising is there are always little surprises that you were not aware of before you visited.
 
The point I tried to make, obviously unsuccessfully, was that Americans seem to find Fortress a successful or good anchor - in the same way that some of the French seem to find Britany a good anchor.

I travelled down America's East coast a couple of years ago. In Europe, Australia and Asia I simply do not see Fortress, with one or 2 exceptions. They might be carried - but its down below or in a deck locker. I do see Fortress occasionally in brackets, primarily on or around transoms.

I was surprised to find significant Fortress (and Danforth) on bow rollers of sail yachts on, East coast US, (I've never seen a Fortress on a bow roller outside America, looking in my mind - uncomfortably, as primary anchors). It was an eye-opener. But then in France (Med) and to a lesser extent the rest of the Med I see Britanys (and on some new, French built, yachts at boat shows in Australia - as commissioning anchors) and in the Eastern Med I see notable numbers of Bugels (copies as they are rusting). These are regional, or national, choices - in the same way I see lots of Anchor Right products, Excel, SARCA in Australia and New Zealand and more Spades or Kobras in French speaking areas, France or French Pacific.

I guess costs comes into the decisions - but in general no-one is going to carry a particularly ungainly Fortress, which must be a real hazard if you fly a spinnnaker - unless it has other attributes (and I suspect beauty is not a major consideration).

Whether these are considered cruising yachts, I don't know - but as some of the Fortress had signs of mud on the flukes - they have obviously be used (and some looked well worn). Painted anchors, many of the Bugels, suggests they have been well used (even if really not seen in other locations) - unless they are sold ungalvanised - which is a possibility.

It is dangerous to extrapolate from a narrow view, and my view has hardly been wide-ranging.

In Sweden I was equally surprised to see yachts with no anchor, at all, on bow rollers - but they did have anchors on 'stern' rollers. In Patagonia I was surprised by the lack of NG anchors (on foreign vessels) but copious lengths of shore lines, and whether they are cruising yachts or not - ground tackle MUST be adequate (and its the only location I've been where yachts all sprouted chimneys, except one rather large cat). Again in Patagonia yachts carried copious number of anchors, 2 on bow rollers and more than one attached somewhere on the transom - these latter commonly smaller. I accept this latter observation will not curry much favour - but any foreign yacht must be considered a 'cruising yacht' as Patagonia is miles from anywhere. Oddly in my forays around the world the yachts I see that 'might' be cruising yachts, spare jerry cans lashed, shore lines on reels, windgens, etc - often have twin bow rollers with 2 different styles of anchors.

Locally to us in Oz there is a chandlery on the site of a local marina who stock CMP product - guess which is a prominent anchor on new yachts - but its is a different dominance on the marina less than a mile away.

When we anchor in a 'V' we often use Fortress as one of the primaries (with either our Excel or Spade), we cannot use it as THE primary it will not fit on our bow roller. Fortress develop amazing hold in clean sand and mud, their weakness is weed and stones and most good anchorages seem to have been defined as 'good' by the absence of weed and stones - so they are, for us, a good choice (and by some responses here - also a good choice for others).

The comment is oft repeated that a Fortress will not adjust, very well, to a change in wind direction. Having read the same sort of comment I have tested this out and my view is that Fortress oversize their anchor size recommendations. A, any, large anchor is difficult to set deeply and may trip and may not re-set for a variety of reasons. A smaller anchor well set, may not reset in a change of wind direction - because it is so deeply set - the downside is that a deeply set small Fortress can be a real struggle to retrieve - but knowing these little foibles it is easier to anticipate issues. Anchors are compromise - don't damn a product by those foibles - all anchors have them, to a greater of lessor extent. All anchors have strengths - use those strengths, don't dismiss them.

There is no right way to anchor, but lots of variations. Anchors are a compromise - there is no one anchor suiting all environments. And there is no answer to regional or local preferences, for whatever reason.

I don't think sailing forums are necessarily a true reflection on the views of Mr or Mrs Average. A case in point - there is a current thread on location of anchor lights - my summation on reading the thread is that most ti=hink an anchor light in the foretriangle a good idea, and some go as to suggest lighting the foredeck is advantageous. When we go into an anchorage we either see no, lights at all (yachts but no lights, ,maybe an unseen solar garden light) or masthead anchor lights.

I think you may be surprised when you extend your wings in the new yacht.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
Neeves said:
Following on from my thread on 'hard seabeds' I wondered why people had bought a Fortress.

It has a number of attributes and some are: dismountable, light weight, ability to alter the fluke angle and optimise for mud or sand and it does have an amazingly high hold to weight ratio. It does have some weaknesses, anchors ARE a compromise - there is no perfect anchor - but if you bought one I assume you did the research and know its weaknesses - so no need to reiterate :)

I just wondered why people bought.

And leading on from this - how many bought because of the variable fluke angle and how many actually make the alteration?

We are acknowledged believers in alloy, or light weight. Our three, now 4, anchors are demountable - but we carry them all assembled. We do (or did) alter the fluke angle of the Fortress, for thin mud. We have recently bought an FX 16 and intend carrying it, assembled for 30 degrees, and also carry the older FX23 assembled for 45 degrees (I cannot be bothered with the faffing around to alter the angles). We do anchor in mud - of varying consistency. We often anchor in a fork or V and would now use the FX 16 in sand as one of the 2 anchors but use 'another' anchor for weed, stones etc

Jonathan
Click to expand...

Bought because hoiking a 35lb iron anchor out of the locker and through the pulpit guard rails was becoming dodgy in my old age. So light weight. And no I never alter the fluke angle.
 
Neeves said:
The point I tried to make, obviously unsuccessfully, was that Americans seem to find Fortress a successful or good anchor - in the same way that some of the French seem to find Britany a good anchor.

I travelled down America's East coast a couple of years ago. In Europe, Australia and Asia I simply do not see Fortress, with one or 2 exceptions. They might be carried - but its down below or in a deck locker. I do see Fortress occasionally in brackets, primarily on or around transoms.

I was surprised to find significant Fortress (and Danforth) on bow rollers of sail yachts on, East coast US, (I've never seen a Fortress on a bow roller outside America, looking in my mind - uncomfortably, as primary anchors). It was an eye-opener. But then in France (Med) and to a lesser extent the rest of the Med I see Britanys (and on some new, French built, yachts at boat shows in Australia - as commissioning anchors) and in the Eastern Med I see notable numbers of Bugels (copies as they are rusting). These are regional, or national, choices - in the same way I see lots of Anchor Right products, Excel, SARCA in Australia and New Zealand and more Spades or Kobras in French speaking areas, France or French Pacific.

I guess costs comes into the decisions - but in general no-one is going to carry a particularly ungainly Fortress, which must be a real hazard if you fly a spinnnaker - unless it has other attributes (and I suspect beauty is not a major consideration).

Whether these are considered cruising yachts, I don't know - but as some of the Fortress had signs of mud on the flukes - they have obviously be used (and some looked well worn). Painted anchors, many of the Bugels, suggests they have been well used (even if really not seen in other locations) - unless they are sold ungalvanised - which is a possibility.

It is dangerous to extrapolate from a narrow view, and my view has hardly been wide-ranging.

In Sweden I was equally surprised to see yachts with no anchor, at all, on bow rollers - but they did have anchors on 'stern' rollers. In Patagonia I was surprised by the lack of NG anchors (on foreign vessels) but copious lengths of shore lines, and whether they are cruising yachts or not - ground tackle MUST be adequate (and its the only location I've been where yachts all sprouted chimneys, except one rather large cat). Again in Patagonia yachts carried copious number of anchors, 2 on bow rollers and more than one attached somewhere on the transom - these latter commonly smaller. I accept this latter observation will not curry much favour - but any foreign yacht must be considered a 'cruising yacht' as Patagonia is miles from anywhere. Oddly in my forays around the world the yachts I see that 'might' be cruising yachts, spare jerry cans lashed, shore lines on reels, windgens, etc - often have twin bow rollers with 2 different styles of anchors.

Locally to us in Oz there is a chandlery on the site of a local marina who stock CMP product - guess which is a prominent anchor on new yachts - but its is a different dominance on the marina less than a mile away.

When we anchor in a 'V' we often use Fortress as one of the primaries (with either our Excel or Spade), we cannot use it as THE primary it will not fit on our bow roller. Fortress develop amazing hold in clean sand and mud, their weakness is weed and stones and most good anchorages seem to have been defined as 'good' by the absence of weed and stones - so they are, for us, a good choice (and by some responses here - also a good choice for others).

The comment is oft repeated that a Fortress will not adjust, very well, to a change in wind direction. Having read the same sort of comment I have tested this out and my view is that Fortress oversize their anchor size recommendations. A, any, large anchor is difficult to set deeply and may trip and may not re-set for a variety of reasons. A smaller anchor well set, may not reset in a change of wind direction - because it is so deeply set - the downside is that a deeply set small Fortress can be a real struggle to retrieve - but knowing these little foibles it is easier to anticipate issues. Anchors are compromise - don't damn a product by those foibles - all anchors have them, to a greater of lessor extent. All anchors have strengths - use those strengths, don't dismiss them.

There is no right way to anchor, but lots of variations. Anchors are a compromise - there is no one anchor suiting all environments. And there is no answer to regional or local preferences, for whatever reason.

I don't think sailing forums are necessarily a true reflection on the views of Mr or Mrs Average. A case in point - there is a current thread on location of anchor lights - my summation on reading the thread is that most ti=hink an anchor light in the foretriangle a good idea, and some go as to suggest lighting the foredeck is advantageous. When we go into an anchorage we either see no, lights at all (yachts but no lights, ,maybe an unseen solar garden light) or masthead anchor lights.

I think you may be surprised when you extend your wings in the new yacht.

Jonathan
Click to expand...

I sail in the US a good deal more (Chesapeake Bay and Mid-Atlantic native, for those who have not worked this out).

The east coast has a lot of very soft mud. Think lots of rain and larger rivers, due to being a large land mass. When I started sailing you had a choice between anchors that didn't hold (plows) and pivoting fluke anchors. With the spread of NG, pivoting fluke anchors are rapidly being consigned to secondary duty. Second hand stares are of Danforth, CQR, and Bruce anchors for really cheap. Commercial fishing boats still like Northill knockoffs; good in mud, sand, and shell, and secure if you are not sleeping through a tide change, which they arn't.

Also remember that the vast, vast majority of boats never anchor. Most never go out, some day sail, a few marina hop, and some tiny number actually anchor out. The last group has few Fortress anchors on the bow. However, they are not unheard of, and in deep mud, actually quite secure. Dragging a properly set Fortress on a shift is nearly unheard of. However, their weakness on other local bottoms is well understood, and NG anchors have become the best all-around answer. But if a storm is coming, the Fortress anchors come out, since even NG holding is poor in many areas.

Many of the Fortress anchors you see in the US are on the small side of the recommendation, even for storm anchors. Word is out that smaller sizes hold plenty even in mud.

Yes, Fortress, Danforth, and Northill are local brands, but nearly all of the NG are imported and that has not stopped anyone from buying them. Mantus is gaining ground in the US, but Rocna, Spade, and Manson are far more common, and may remain so due to better reputations for strength. Who can say.
 
Last edited:
thinwater said:
Yes, Fortress, Danforth, and Northill are local brands, but nearly all of the NG are imported and that has not stopped anyone from buying them. Mantus is gaining ground in the US, but Rocna, Spade, and Manson are far more common, and may remain so due to better reputations for strength. Who can say.
Click to expand...

There was never a suggestion that people would actively not buy an imported brand - but as you say all tested NG anchors ARE imports for Americans - they have little choice - but buy import, or anchor unfashionably.

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
There was never a suggestion that people would actively not buy an imported brand - but as you say all tested NG anchors ARE imports for Americans - they have little choice - but buy import, or anchor unfashionably.

Jonathan
Click to expand...

Oh no! You don't want to be seen anchoring unfashionably - or worse, I suspect, to have an unfashionable anchor on show in the marina. :(
 
NormanS said:
Oh no! You don't want to be seen anchoring unfashionably - or worse, I suspect, to have an unfashionable anchor on show in the marina. :(
Click to expand...

There is the thought that being unfashionable might mean you actually know what you are doing (accepting this does necessitate that you anchor frequently).

Jonathan
 
Graham376 said:
Bought our Fortress as kedge, light and easy to launch and recover with a tripping line from the dinghy. Also used to shackle it and lay in tandem with CQR lookalike in strong winds. No need to do that now with Manson.
Click to expand...

I bet dinner you can't lay the CQR and Fortress out and get both to set if there is even a 20 degree shift. The Fortress will set and the CQR will be pulled on its side and pinned there by the tripping eye. Try it, and then post pictures.

I wished that would work, it would be so handy. I tested it many dozens of times in many combinations. Sure, one of the anchors will hold, but it NEVER does what you think it is doing. Test and then dive and observe.
 
Last edited:
thinwater said:
I wished that would work, it would be so handy. I tested it many dozens of times in many combinations. Sure, one of the anchors will hold, but it NEVER does what you think it is doing. Test and then dive and observe.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, it's no longer a problem with the Manson. What happened on the bottom with the Fortress shackled to the CQR type I don't know but, do know the combination never dragged and reset OK after tide change. Could sometimes be a bugger to haul in though, depending on the depth the CQR could be on the roller with the Fortress still dug in.
 
Graham376 said:
Thankfully, it's no longer a problem with the Manson. What happened on the bottom with the Fortress shackled to the CQR type I don't know but, do know the combination never dragged and reset OK after tide change. Could sometimes be a bugger to haul in though, depending on the depth the CQR could be on the roller with the Fortress still dug in.
Click to expand...

I am NOT trying to be negative with question. Just collecting data.

Did the anchors reset? Did you dive on the anchor and confirm this visually? Did both reset? Without visual confirmation, we don't know that what held or that the second anchor actually helped in any way. No information.

Whan using tandems you rig a recovery line from the secondary to above the primary so that they can be handled separately. Otherwise, the secondary can make getting the primary on the roller pure hell.
 
thinwater said:
Did the anchors reset? Did you dive on the anchor and confirm this visually? Did both reset? Without visual confirmation, we don't know that what held or that the second anchor actually helped in any way. No information.
Click to expand...

As I said above, I have no idea what was happening on the bottom. What I can say is that the Harbourfast (CQR lookalike) frequently dragged but, with the Fortress shackled to the tripping eye with about 10 ft of chain, we never dragged even after swinging on change of tide and gusty winds so obviously one or both reset.
 
Graham376 said:
As I said above, I have no idea what was happening on the bottom. What I can say is that the Harbourfast (CQR lookalike) frequently dragged but, with the Fortress shackled to the tripping eye with about 10 ft of chain, we never dragged even after swinging on change of tide and gusty winds so obviously one or both reset.
Click to expand...

My guess is that the Fortress set and the CQR acted as a simple dead weight. The image earlier, from Noelex, shows what happened to a Rocna, when used as the intermediate anchor - it simply lifts.

The problem is that if the furthest away anchor holds, and does not move, then the chain can go taut and the intermediate anchor is subject to constant vertical 'lifts' - very similar to the tugs you impose when you want to retrieve the anchor, it eventually pops out. The lifts are caused by yawing, horsing and the yacht moving back a forth. It illustrates the dangers of movement of a yacht, and why reducing veering is a sensible objective (and underlines the dangers of reliance on a single anchor in boisterous conditions - if the chain is thrashing the seabed - you are constantly twitching the anchor). The intermediate anchor cannot reset, if the further away anchor holds - because it is never subject to tension to allow it to re-set. It needs about 1m of slack between the unseated anchor and the further away anchor - and you cannot achieve that if the further way one holds.

It possibly shows the power, or reliability, of the Fortress (and as I note - the Manson (Supreme?).


Graham,

It can be very difficult to dive on an anchor - unless you are lucky and located in clear (and warm) water. In mud you will not see the anchor anyway (and can probably never find it by feel). Here you would not dive on an anchor, unless in desperation, as sharks can be a large, literally, deterrent (and I take my observations and photos from a dinghy - its not worth the agro to dive).

The places where you can dive are limited - so our window on what happens down below is equally limited.

My conclusion on tandem anchors is - don't. A 'V' offers a more reliable (and easily applied, option) and I see that you are happy with the Manson anyway.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
Graham376 said:
As I said above, I have no idea what was happening on the bottom. What I can say is that the Harbourfast (CQR lookalike) frequently dragged but, with the Fortress shackled to the tripping eye with about 10 ft of chain, we never dragged even after swinging on change of tide and gusty winds so obviously one or both reset.
Click to expand...

Basically, what Neeves said. This is an example of assuming we know things for which we actually have no direct evidence.

If the Fortress was well-set, it could easily withstand a reversal without unseating. The CQR would have been dragged around on its side. Alternatively, the CQR may have rotated without the Fortress ever having taken a set. All we know is that something held.

An obvious short coming of in-line anchoring is that there is no way to test the anchors individually when set, and no way to test them later. I dived on many sets. Either only one set (80% of the time, no matter how careful) or the primary rolled out within a few hours (the other 20%).

In fact, if you look at the famous Rocna pics of in-line tandems, notice that the anchors are NOT set deeply, that the primary looks like it is lifting, and that there is zero veer. In a nutshell, the pictures were staged for advertising purposes. No other anchor vendor supports the practice. Even oil platform anchors are moving away from it (they are now joined at the shackle, not nose-to-tail, which is quite different). Finally, rig anchors are placed by a tender and there is no veer.

In-line can work if the anchors cannot bury, but the holding will still be poor.
 
Re: Fortress anchor - why did you buy one

Neeves said:
Here you would not dive on an anchor, unless in desperation, as sharks
Click to expand...

I have found the sharks in Australia give you a free pass if you are diving to inspect your anchor :).
 
Re: Fortress anchor - why did you buy one

noelex said:
I have found the sharks in Australia give you a free pass if you are diving to inspect your anchor :).
Click to expand...

This is only to encourage a free meal. A Navy diver in Sydney Harbour lost an arm a couple of years back, surfers seem to be fair game, and of course further north there is the additional issue of crocs. It might have a well earned reputation as 'the lucky country' (its the first day of winter in a couple of days, its forecast to be a chilly 23 degrees, C, today :) ) but its full of hazards :(

Jonathan
 
Re: Fortress anchor - why did you buy one

The cheapest way to buy a new Fortress is in America where West Marine, were, or are, discounting smaller sizes (along with I believe other designs, Rocna springs to mind). Fortress have the advantage that if you are directed to the US as part of your career function they are light enough (that's the anchor), if you plan, to fit into your luggage allowance and especially so if you fly Business. Your wife and kids might not be so keen on your choice of booty - but that is another issue.

Sadly the prices do not quite match Stg40 :(

We bought our Kobra, from the UK to Oz, this way - and it was a bit heavier than a decent sized Fortress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top