Secondary anchor question - serious.

[Brian@Fortress]

Craig,

Not to get personal....well maybe a little, and I might get banned forever from this forum, but you truly are a nauseating human being.

When Fortress anchors have bent in any independent test or real world application, it has occurred at incredible loads when no other anchors, even much heavier steel models, have remained set in a sea bottom....they broke free long before!

So, young man, if a boater had a choice between:

1. Having an anchor that would save his boat during horrific winds, but the anchor might get bent in the process, or...

2. Having an anchor that will not hold anywhere near as much when the wind is howling and sounding like a freight train, and afterwards his boat will be in splinters on the shoreline, but his anchor will be pristine and undamaged......which do think he would prefer?

I think our customers know the answer and prefer choice 1.

And by the way, we offer a Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty in the event that an anchor part does get damaged in an ungodly blow.

Please don't tell me that Rocna is the ultimate anchor answer. In the West Marine test, which you love to claim that Rocna won, the 22 lb. FX-37 had more holding power than the 33 lb Rocna in two out of the three bottoms. Further still, the Rocna was an embarrassment in the clay bottom test that was conducted by the 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association last summer, achieving only 2 stars vs. the much lighter Fortress (once again) which achieved 5 stars.

And the experts I have referred to who own CQRs, Tom Neale who has written books, lived aboard since 1979, & cruised in the range of 100k - 150k miles.....or 91 year old E.S. "Mac" Maloney, who wrote the Chapman's Piloting & Seamanship book for decades......because they have successfully used CQRs they are both just dopes, right Craig?

And all of our hundreds of thousands of customers we have earned over the past 20 years.......are all just "silly" according to the all-knowing 27 year old or so Craig Smith?

Get real. Sorry forum administrator, but this guy is a looney.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

Final thought for dear Craig before they put the straight jacket on him and put him to bed for the night:

Craig insulted our product's material and manufacturing process. This is the word for word write up from the US Navy after their extensive anchor test. Of course, Craig knows more about anchoring than them:

"The fact that the Fortress anchors incurred no significant structural damage at such high holding rations suggests that the anchors have been extensively engineered from both the hydrodynamic and structural standpoints."

 

[fireball]

We do welcome industry experts on here - and I personally would regard both of you as industry experts - after all I don't make or design anchors - but please remember to play nicely ... we have to and so should you! - that's BOTH of you!

Anyway - I've got the bestest anchor anyone can ever have - it's a sodding great big ROCK, weighs in at a few billion tons and if I attach my boat to it the boat ain't moving .. granted I can't shift the thing, but I just move the boat around the anchor and reattach somewhere else ... it is getting a bit manky in recent years and could probably do with a good clean up or just get a new one ... what do you recon? Clean the Earth or throw it away?!

 

[craigsmith]

When Fortress anchors have bent in any independent test or real world application, it has occurred at incredible loads when no other anchors, even much heavier steel models, have remained set in a sea bottom....they broke free long before!

That's not the point at all, and besides you have no data on when the anchor actually broke. As to the heavier steel alternatives, if they don't hold at the requisite force level, for any given application simply need to be up-sized until they do. Result: an anchor that holds and doesn't fail (break). This is the sensible design decision - when your metal anchor is weaker than the mud or sand it's set in, you've really got things wrong.

So, young man, if a boater had a choice between:

1. Having an anchor that would save his boat during horrific winds, but the anchor might get bent in the process, or...

2. Having an anchor that will not hold anywhere near as much when the wind is howling and sounding like a freight train, and afterwards his boat will be in splinters on the shoreline, but his anchor will be pristine and undamaged......which do think he would prefer?

I think our customers know the answer and prefer choice 1.

I think, and would hope, that your customers are smart enough to recognize a false choice fallacy when they see one.

The third choice you're deliberately omitting is to have a suitably sized anchor which is also strong enough to be fit-for-purpose.

Which of course is precisely what most boats have, from CQR to Delta to Rocna.

And by the way, we offer a Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty in the event that an anchor part does get damaged in an ungodly blow.

So do most respectable anchor manufacturers, including for example Delta (Lewmar) and Rocna. The difference is: you're not likely to need it with those.

Please don't tell me that Rocna is the ultimate anchor answer. In the West Marine test, which you love to claim that Rocna won, the 22 lb. FX-37 had more holding power than the 33 lb Rocna in two out of the three bottoms.

The FX-37 would weigh over 25 kg in steel. Against 15 kg steel anchors. That's apples and oranges and you know it. Would you like us to send an aluminium Rocna of the same weight to the next test? It'd be interesting to say the least. Of course Rocna stick to steel for good reason...

Further still, the Rocna was an embarrassment in the clay bottom test that was conducted by the 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association last summer, achieving only 2 stars vs. the much lighter Fortress (once again) which achieved 5 stars.

This is the one amateur test I mentioned above. I know you've seized on the opportunity to attack that oh-so-irritating competitor, but using totally invalid useless data to do it really makes you look a little desperate. Magazines can't get anchor testing right, and I guess a few club commodores mucking about on a small boat can't either. Single trials, no controls on seabed consistency, the Buegel is rated above a Spade copy and the Rocna? Give me a break.

And the experts I have referred to who own CQRs, Tom Neale who has written books, lived aboard since 1979, & cruised in the range of 100k - 150k miles.....or 91 year old E.S. "Mac" Maloney, who wrote the Chapman's Piloting & Seamanship book for decades......because they have successfully used CQRs they are dopes, right Craig?

No, but to claim CQRs are the best (or even a good) choice in light of the clearly superior (by far, in every respect) alternatives that have been around for over 30 years would definitely make them "dopes" in this regard. Anyone recommending a CQR as a primary anchor these days has no credibility on the topic of anchoring.

And all of our hundreds of thousands of customers we have earned over the past 20 years.......are all just "silly" according to the all-knowing 27 year old or so Craig Smith?

Hey I was only 20 last week according to you, I was rather happy with that idea, what happened? If you want to resort to implied slander or condescension, you should be careful whom you trust for your source of dirt!

Craig insulted our product's material and manufacturing process.

No I didn't, why would I insult aluminium? What a bizarre allegation. Why, Kiwi Roa is built from several tonnes of the stuff. I rather like it.

As to Fortress' manufacturing process, I have not insulted nor see any reason to impugn it either. By all accounts the Fortress is a high quality product. The issue with it lies in its design choices - placing it way too far along the spectrum of strength-vs-size, resulting in a delicate easily damaged anchor.

"The fact that the Fortress anchors incurred no significant structural damage at such high holding rations suggests that the anchors have been extensively engineered from both the hydrodynamic and structural standpoints."

Did they test veering loads? In clay substrates? Even if so, does this make the above test failures somehow invalid or disappear, not to mention all the real-world examples - many of which Fortress themselves seem to like to point to?

More, just going off the testing Fortress themselves quote:

Biscayne Bay Sand Bottom Test / Miami, 1990
Test by Fortress themselves
Loads on the Fortresses arbitrarily capped to avoid damage

THE SAILING FOUNDATION ANCHOR TESTS / PUGET SOUND, 1995
Fortress 37 - veer test x 2, first anchor bent shank and testing aborted, second anchor bent fluke and testing aborted.

West Marine / SAIL / Yachting Monthly 2006
California hard sand
Fortress 37, fluke or shank (depending on which magazine you believe) bent

etc

 

[TamarMike]

Judi Spiers did warn us on the radio this morning that Feb 2 is Groundhog Day!

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Thanks for all the comments and advice guys.

Of course I am completely independant to all of this so I have a solution.

If you would both send me one of your anchors I will conduct a proper test over the summer and publish my results here.

Can't say fairer than that.

 

[Twister_Ken]

So I'm going to take my CQR, weld the hinge locked, add a roll bar and some wing extensions, paint the tip of it yellow (coz that makes a difference), give it a lick of galvanising paint. Hey presto, and no silly money.

 

[craigsmith]

So I'm going to take my CQR, weld the hinge locked, add a roll bar and some wing extensions, paint the tip of it yellow (coz that makes a difference), give it a lick of galvanising paint. Hey presto, and no silly money.

But the CQR is about the most expensive anchor you can buy, to start with... you already have "silly money" tied up in it

Try red for the painted tip, the Spade guy might accuse you of infringing his patent if you dare yellow.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

No time for your further nonsense Craig.

I could refute every point you made, one by one, but it is clear that anyone who has a differing view of anchors from yours will be subject to insults and mindless banter.

After almost 25 years in business, we proudly stand by our product and our hard earned reputation, and you cannot write anything that will disparage or discredit us in the eyes of the boating public, although you will certainly try given your character.

You remind me of a heckler at a soccer or sporting event: Full of hot air who after a short time, gets very annoying and no one listens to.

Take care,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

 

[TamarMike]

If it's possible to return tothe OP's original question .... if stowage is an important consideration rather than weight then I would think that a heavier but similarly sized Danforth might be better than the Fortress, assuming it will be stowed as a backup rather than regularly used. In these debates the only thing I can usually agree with the experts is that the CQR's day is long past (unlike the fisherman's )

 

[craigsmith]

A good Danforth would make a stronger solution for sure, but in the straight-line pulls which Danforth types in general are only suited to, the Fortress is okay. Plus for stowage as you say it disassembles so tends to win there. Depends on the OP's boat and preferences.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

A good Danforth would make a stronger solution for sure, but in the straight-line pulls which Danforth types in general are only suited to, the Fortress is okay.

The bullsh*t never ends. I guess Craig should read our hurricane testimonials, where the wind clobbered the boat in one direction .....and then the other, and the Fortress held firm.....but knowing him, he will find some nonsensical way to discredit them.

 

[TamarMike]

... it disassembles so tends to win there.

I hadn't realised that, learn something new on this forum every day.

 

[craigsmith]

A good Danforth would make a stronger solution for sure, but in the straight-line pulls which Danforth types in general are only suited to, the Fortress is okay.

The bullsh*t never ends. I guess Craig should read our hurricane testimonials, where the wind clobbered the boat in one direction .....and then the other, and the Fortress held firm.....but knowing him, he will find some nonsensical way to discredit them.

Oops.

Oh you replaced it with the correct account. Carry on. Is the sock puppet account reserved for less noble purposes?

I hadn't realised that, learn something new on this forum every day.

www.fortressanchors.com/fortress_anchor_assembly.html

 

[Brian@Fortress]

I hadn't realised that, learn something new on this forum every day.

TamarMike,

Please see below image of disassembled Fortress.

Thanks,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

 

[Brian@Fortress]

Oops. Oh you replaced it with the correct account. Carry on. Is the sock puppet account reserved for less noble purposes?

Browser mistake. Safari defaults to different name than Firefox, which was set up long ago and rarely used. Didn't notice. Sorry for confusion.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

SolentBoy,

Pardon my intrusion, but I think that a Fortress will offer you an unbeatable combination of high holding power and easy to manage weight.

I would recommend the well battle-tested 22 lb Fortress model FX-37 for your 44' boat. For years the FX-37 has been a top performer in every anchor test, it is used by the US Coast Guard on their 40' range of patrol boats, and we even have one here in our company lobby that held a 42' Silverton during Hurricane Andrew's 140 mph winds that lasted several hours.

Even with a small measure of chain, the FX-37 will still be light enough to heave overboard when needed.

Your spine will thank you!

Be safe,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

Thanks Brian,

A question if I may.

Why do you recommend the FX37? The chart on the website shows the FX23 as correct for up to 45 foot. Is it a displacment issue? we are about 18,000kg.

I ask this question as these things are not cheap in the UK. My first web search came up with about £450. Thats about 50% more than the primary anchor. Perhpas that just means the Delta is good value.

Incidentally, we had an FX16 on our previous boat as a secondary anchor (to our CQR, sorry everyone) and it performed very well. I liked the fact that it was light and easy to row out. I only came close to puncturing the dinghy once. We also used it as a stern anchor in the Baltic.

 

[Spuddy]

Well, it all got a bit like one of those shouting competitions outside Wetherspoons. I'd put them both on "ignore" but there was a bit of sense in there.....trouble is I don't know what it was.
Solent Boy, did you ask about a different type of anchor because of different bottoms? I too am headed north this year and anticipated having to cope with kelp and rock as well the familiar mud and sand. I already have a Delta and added a Bugel to that because it looks to have a pointier end. The other reason was that I like the name. Thirdly that I was put off some of products above by the representatives ranting. Irrational, I know. Let us know what you finally decide on!

 

[Sybarite]

Two leading architects : Michel Joubert in France and Steve Dashew USA both come up with the same answer :

Double the recommended size of your primary anchor and have chain and windlass in proportion.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

Thanks Brian,

A question if I may.

Why do you recommend the FX37? The chart on the website shows the FX23 as correct for up to 45 foot. Is it a displacment issue? we are about 18,000kg.

I ask this question as these things are not cheap in the UK. My first web search came up with about £450. Thats about 50% more than the primary anchor. Perhpas that just means the Delta is good value.

Incidentally, we had an FX16 on our previous boat as a secondary anchor (to our CQR, sorry everyone) and it performed very well. I liked the fact that it was light and easy to row out. I only came close to puncturing the dinghy once. We also used it as a stern anchor in the Baltic.

SolentBoy,

Yes, displacement was an issue, and it sounded as though the anchor might be used in potentially rough winds on the west coast of Scotland, and you mentioned muddy bottoms which usually mean reduced holding power for any anchor.

If you could be more specific as to when you plan on deploying this anchor, i.e. lunch hook or stern anchor or storm anchor, then I can re-assess my recommendation.

I can also put you in contact with a local UK distributor who should be able to direct you to a retailer who is not asking a king's ransom for a new Fortress.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors