sailboat anchor test

Yachting Monthly

• Digital edition

Best anchors: 8 new generation designs suitable for every boat

• Rupert Holmes
• January 27, 2022

Most boats would benefit from upgrading to a better anchor for a host of reasons. We take a look at 8 of the best anchors on the market right now

Securing your anchor do it is ready to drop could get you out of a tight spot when you can't sail out of trouble. Credit: Theo Stocker

Good ground tackle and understanding how to anchor properly opens up the option to stay overnight in stunning bays and creeks, away from costly marinas and expensive harbour moorings. And picking the best anchors is essential in terms of safety too as you may well need it to hold you off a lee shore in the event of engine failure.

However, unless your boat’s anchor has been upgraded recently, the chances are it’s of a type that will not provide good holding power.

What to look for in a good anchor?

Much has changed in the world of anchors in the past 20 years, which led to classification societies such as Lloyds adding a new Super High Holding Power certification category for these anchors in 2008.

Most of the best anchors exceed the requirements for this by a wide margin.

These advances in anchor technology and different types of anchor mean older boats won’t have been equipped with what we would now consider to be decent ground tackle when they were new.

This is also true for most vessels built in the last 20 years. Until recently the latest generation of anchors was relatively expensive, so were generally only fitted as standard equipment to very high quality yachts.

The various brands of today’s very high holding power anchors share a number of key characteristics that make them more effective than older products.

The best anchors tend to have a concave profile akin to the shape of a shovel. This digs more firmly into the seabed without tending to act like a plough when under load.

Another important aspect to look for in a good anchor is the tip weight, as loading as much weight here as possible is a massive help in enabling it to penetrate weed and other difficult types of sea bed.

Typical new generation anchors have 35-45 per cent of their weight on the tip. Some also have roll bars that prevent the anchor landing on the seabed upside down.

Whatever anchor you choose, beware of cheap unbranded copies. These rarely have the precise geometry needed to maximise holding power. Some are also badly cast and therefore weaker than the original design.

At a glance:

Note: We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site, at no extra cost to you. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

7 of the best anchors on the market right now.

Rocna Galvanised Anchor

This was one of the first of the new generation of ultra high holding power anchors and quickly gained much acclaim, despite an initially high price tag.

The Rocna is well engineered and has an excellent reputation for digging in quickly and easily. Once set it then offers excellent holding.

A roll bar is incorporated, but a downside of Rocnas is they do not stow neatly on all bow rollers.

To solve this problem the company developed the Vulcan series, which doesn’t have the roll bar and is shaped to fit on a wider range of bow rollers.

Reasons to buy:

– Good quality anchor

– Excellent holding power

Reasons to avoid:

– It is expensive

– Do not stow neatly on all bow rollers

Specifications:

– Size: 96 x 41 x 39 cm

– Weight: Available in 10kg, 20kg and 25kg

Buy it now on Amazon.co.uk

Buy it now on Amazon.com

Buy a Rocna Vulcan on Amazon.co.uk

Buy a stainless steel Rocna Vulcan on Amazon.com

Lewmar Stainless Steel Epsilon Anchor

Read PBO’s Lewmar Epsilon review

The latest model from this UK company offers the benefits of a new generation anchor at very attractive prices.

It has a winged design with concave flukes to maximise holding power in a variety of sea beds, a ballasted tip that enables it to dig in readily and is self righting, even though the roll bar is optional.

The Epsilon is intended as a direct replacement for Lewmar’s long-running plough style Delta anchor.

Although the Epsilon’s shank is proportionately shorter, the two models share the same basic shank geometry. Therefore, if a Delta fits your bow roller then an Epsilon will also fit.

– Easy to handle

– Designed to fit any bow roller that works for the Delta

– It has a shorter shank

– Size: ‎55 x 35 x 30cm

– Material: stainless steel

– Weight: ‎6.1kg

Buy it now on eBay

Buy it now from Amazon

Buy it now from West Marine (US only)

Fortress FX-11

This aluminium anchor is an older design from more than 30 years ago, but still has a number of advantages that makes it an excellent choice in some circumstances.

It’s biggest feature is very light weight relative to the holding power the anchor provides. This makes it a perfect option for performance catamarans and trimarans, as well as for smaller fast motor boats.

The key downside, however, is that the holding power is achieved through the surface area of the flukes, not the weight of the anchor. This means it’s physically larger than other anchors, although it comes apart like the Spade for easier stowage.

A neat feature is that the angle of the flukes can be varied to suit different types of sea bed.

– Perfect for catamarans and trimarans

– Easy to manoeuvre thanks to its light weight design

– Flukes can be adapted to the type of sea bed

– Larger than other anchors

– Holding power is from the surface area of flukes

– Size: ‎73.66 x 15.24 x 7.62 cm

– Material: aluminium

– Weight: 8 pounds

Spade Anchor S series

This is another popular modern anchor, but with an important difference to other brands.

The hollow shank can be removed to make stowage easier. This makes it an excellent choice for racing yachts and other vessels that don’t permanently keep the anchor on the bow, or for occasional use as a kedge.

There’s no roll bar, but the tip loading is close to 50 per cent of the total weight, which helps it to dig in and set quickly.

The main drawback of the Spade is one of cost – it’s more complex to manufacture than other designs, so the price is relatively high.

– Good option for racing yachts

– The hollow shank can be removed

– No roll bar

– Expensive

– Size: S40 to S160

– Material: galvanised steel

– Weight: 6kg to 55kg

Buy it now from Jimmy Green Marine

Knox Anchors

Professor John Knox spent a great deal of his spare time researching the loads on anchors and rodes.

His work in this area over a period of 20 years contributed a huge amount to our understanding of anchoring and precise causes of anchors dragging or breaking out.

It also led him to develop his own design of anchor that would offer significantly better performance compared to the popular models at the time. It was therefore one of the first of the new generation designs.

The Knox anchor has a patented divided fluke with sharpened edges set at an angle that enables it to dig into the seabed quickly and efficiently.

It’s fitted with a roll bar and, while the shank is made of the highest tensile strength steel available.

– Made of the highest tensile strength steel

– Patented divided fluke with sharpened edges set at an angle to dig into the seabed

– We can’t find any

– Material: highest tensile strength steel

– Weight: 6.5kg to 27kg

Buy it now from Knox Anchors

Stirrup Anchor Bugel Anchor

The Bügel was one of the very first new generation anchors and quickly set a new benchmark in the industry.

It has a flat fluke with lower surface area than later designs, plus a roll bar and a shank made of thick plate.

This makes it a relatively inexpensive anchor, which is undoubtedly a key factor behind its enormous popularity, even though later products offer higher holding power.

– Good value anchor

– It features a rollbar and shank

– Other products offer higher holding power

– Size: 66 x 28cm to 86 x 38cm

– Material: Hot-galvanised steel

– Weight: 9 to 16kg

Buy it now from compass24.com

Manson Supreme Anchor

This was the first anchor to receive Lloyds Super High Holding Power certification when the classification was introduced in 2008.

It’s a fabricated design that uses two layers of steel for the fluke and relies on a roll bar, rather than a ballasted tip, to self-right.

The upper slot in the shank is intended for use in rocky sea beds, or anchoring in coral . The idea is that if the anchor becomes stuck the rode can be slid to the shank end of the slot, enabling the anchor to be retrieved without using a tripping line.

The shape of the anchor is designed to fit all conventional anchor rollers.

– Good for use on a rocky sea bed

– The anchor fits all conventional anchor rollers

– Other products offer innovative designs compared to this classical anchor design

– Size: 18′ – 30′ to 40′ – 45′

– Weight: 7kg to 20kg

Buy it now from Marinesuperstore.com

Ultra Marine Ultra Anchor

Read Yachting Monthly’s Ultra Anchor review

Our sister title Yachting Monthly recently tested the new 12kg Ultra Anchor from Ultra Marine over several nights at anchor.

Editor Theo Stocker said: “I was impressed with how quickly the anchor set.

“While our normal 10kg Bruce anchor can struggle in soft sand and weed, the Ultra anchor buried itself almost completely and refused to drag.

“The Ultra’s performance amply delivers on its maker’s promises as is comparable to other stainless anchors,” he concluded.

– Handmade and hand-polished stainless steel

– Ready to dig in

– Not the cheapest option on this list

– Weight: 5kg to 8kg

Rock Solid Credentials

Peter’s anchoring solution consistently returns top results in objective and independent testing. released to the market in 2004, the rocna has had a few years to amass independent testing results and real-world feedback..

The most significant and objective independent testing was done by West Marine testing of 14 different anchor types on three different sea beds, conducted by the US retailer and both monitored and reported on by SAIL and Yachting Monthly. The Rocna scored the highest in average holding power by far, some 40% in excess of its nearest competitor, the Spade. The testers commented that the Rocna exhibited “…superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500 lb and engaged immediately.”

Rocna Reviews and Testimonials

Approaching boat anchor testing is inherently complex. Such tests take place in controlled environments, which may not fully replicate the unpredictable conditions that arise when relying on an anchor in real-life situations. We recognize the value of real-life testimonials from a myriad of our customers worldwide, which provide valuable insights into the practical performance of our anchors in various situations and in comparison with both old- and new-generation anchors.

Rocna consistently returns top results in objective and independent testing. Since 2004, the Rocna has led worldwide anchor tests as published in the likes of SAIL , Yachting Monthly , Practical Boat Owner , Voile , and others. Because of the Rocna’s reliable and convincing performance against its competition, Rocna is trusted to be rock solid in the real world.

The moment I enter the cockpit, the wind increases heavily. It has turned westerly and is very loud. The rain begins. I hear a loud crack, and the anchor chain rolls rapidly and noisily out to its full length – and stops abruptly. Luckily, the end of the chain is attached to the ship.

I turn on the engine to be prepared for any eventualities. The waves are huge now, and the wind reaches 56 kts which means Beaufort 11 – Violent Storm. It starts hailing heavily. Lightning illuminates the rising sea in front of us and the coastline close behind us. I fear we will soon be on the hard. No anchor can win a fight like this against the elements, I reckon.

The wind has taken hold of our jib, and it flutters violently. The noise from wind, hail, and fluttering is so loud that we cannot hear the thunder rumbling above us. While trying hectically to stay calm and prepared, we keep up the spirit by singing old army songs. We sing very loud to drown out the noise of the elements.

This mayhem lasts for an hour and a half. Then it all stops as rapidly as it begins. The only evidence remaining is the waves.

It’s time to assess the damages: chain snubber shackles bent beyond recognition. Windlass gear system broken. Anchor Roller broken. The jib is shattered and needs to be taken down for a thorough inspection and repair. A narrow escape compared to what could have happened if the anchor had released or the chain broken. We feel humble and very grateful.

— Nicolas Boedker, Vulcan 40 on a 13.6 m Arne Borghegn steel sailboat

I replaced my previous CQR anchor on my Bavaria 38 monohull with a Rocna anchor last year. The Rocna has been reliably fabulous. Recently I had to anchor in 25m with only 60m of chain in the 25-knot wind in a sandy bottom. The Rocna did not move an inch for 8 hours.

What a comfort to have such a reliable anchor. Performing beyond the specs! Thanks, guys, I recommend your product to my sailing fraternity.

— Don Gadsden, Rocna on Bavaria 38

I just wanted to let you know how pleased we are with our Rocna anchor. We purchased it 2 years ago and couldn’t be happier. Since we have been raving about it there is 5 more just on our dock since then. It’s very nice to find a piece of marine gear that works as advertised without question. Thank you!

I am certainly a very happy customer so far. I will sleep good on the hook tonight because I feel confident my anchor will hold.

— Richard & Tonya White, Rocna Anchor

In 2016 we were in Squirrel Cove, Cortez Island BC on our Ranger R27, the Red Raven. We were traveling with our good friends Bonnie and Kevin Nasr in their 55ft Ocean Alexander, the Ocean Dream. The anchorage was filled with boats and so we decided to raft together with a stern tie to shore. High winds were expected overnight so for added insurance we used the dinghy to set our anchor as well.

The Ocean Dream had a 105 lb CQR and the Red Raven had a 33 lb Rocna 15. The winds howled all night and we stayed firm with no issues. In the morning we decided to make a run to the Squirrel Cove Public Dock for groceries and do laundry. We pulled the Rocna 15 and left in the Red Raven. The winds were still blowing but no worse than during the night. Several hours later we returned to find the Ocean Dream had dragged anchor and was perilously close to the rocks ashore. We quickly pulled the Ocean Dream anchor and re-anchored elsewhere in the cove.

Our conclusion was that the Rocna 15 had made the difference! The Ocean Dream now sports a new 121 lb Rocna 55!

— Curt and Tracy Johansen, Rocna 15 on a Ranger R27

Just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your product. I am in St Maarten on my Cheoy Lee 44′ and the boat just went through hurricanes Irma which was a direct hit with winds gusting to 250mph, and hurricane Maria right after with winds of 125mph.

I had my boat in a marina with my Rocna 44 set on 3/4″ anchor line in about 15 feet of water and that anchor never broke loose. It held through both storms and stopped the bow of my boat from moving in a lateral motion. This probably saved all my dock lines from breaking. As you may know about 90% of all the boats on the island sank, so I consider myself very lucky.

I have owned boats for 35 years and your anchor is the best I have owned so far. Keep up the good work guys.

— Rourke Henderson, Rocna 44

I purchased a Rocna Vulcan Stainless steel 25kg anchor. A rust blemish appear on the anchor, I polished it out but it returned. I contacted Rocna who organised a new anchor to be delivered to me and the old one was picked up by them. This process was done in a matter of days not weeks.

It was the smoothest process I had ever encountered. They are a company that stands by their product. I was very impressed with their after-market service. I am certainly a very happy customer so far.

I will sleep good on the hook tonight because I feel confident my anchor will hold.

—  Mark Portelli, Vulcan 25

Rubicon 3 heads off on sailing expeditions to some of the world’s more remote areas and having a top quality anchor is paramount for us. Anchored off somewhere like the coast of Greenland, we need to know that our anchor will penetrate and hold in almost any environment.

It sets well, has huge holding power and deals effectively with difficult seabeds such as kelp. This is a top quality anchor.

— Rubicon 3, Rocna on a Bowman 57

See Vulcan Anchor Independent Testing

Write a Review

We want to know what you think of the Rocna products you’ve tried. Fill in the form below to voice your opinions about your recent purchase. It’s pretty simple and we really value your feedback!

Email Address

Product Name

Privacy Overview

[ Placeholder content for popup link ] WordPress Download Manager - Best Download Management Plugin

Attainable Adventure Cruising

The Offshore Voyaging Reference Site

• Anchor Tests—The Good, The Bad, and The Downright Silly

I’m frequently asked what my opinion is of a given anchor, often of a new pattern.

And over the years I have developed a pat answer:

Sorry, I don’t opine on anchors unless I, or people I know well and trust, have used the anchor several hundred times in many different places over a period of several years.

At this point, almost invariably, the questioner adds that his or her interest was provoked by the anchor in question’s great performance in a test.

That would seem logical…except for the fact that most, maybe all, anchor tests are flawed and therefore should not be used, at least not in isolation, to determine what anchor we voyagers should use to keep our boats and loved ones safe.

Login to continue reading (scroll down)

Please Share a Link:

More Articles From Online Book: Anchoring Made Easy:

• Introduction
• 4 Vital Anchor Selection Criteria and a Review of SPADE
• SARCA Excel Anchor—A Real World Test
• SPADE, SARCA Excel, or Some Other Anchor?
• Rocna Resetting Failures and Evaluation of Vulcan and Mantus
• Some Thoughts On The Ultra Anchor, Roll Bars and Swivels
• Specifying Primary Anchor Size
• Kedge (Secondary Anchor)—Recommended Type and Size
• Third Anchors, Storm Anchors and Spare Anchors
• Making Anchor Tests More Meaningful
• We Love The Way Our Anchor Drags 
• Things to Know About Anchor Chain
• Selecting a Chain Grade
• Anchor Chain Catenary, When it Matters and When it Doesn’t
• Anchoring—Snubbers
• Anchor Rode Questions and Answers
• Q&A: Hybrid Rope And Chain Anchor Rodes
• Anchor Swivels, Just Say No
• A Windlass That Makes The Grade
• The Perfect Anchor Roller
• Install A Wash-down Pump—And Save Money!
• Anchoring—Kellets
• Anchoring—Chain: Stoppers, Termination and Marking
• 20 Tips To Get Anchored and Stay Anchored
• Choosing an Anchorage
• Choosing a Spot
• 15 Steps To Getting Securely Anchored
• One Anchor or Two?
• Two Anchors Done Right
• Yawing at Anchor, The Theory and The Solution
• Yawing at The Anchor, an Alternative Cure
• How To Use An Anchor Trip Line
• ShoreFasts—Part 1, When to Use Them
• ShoreFasts—Part 2, Example Setups Plus Tips and Tricks
• ShoreFasts—Part 3, The Gear

My professional career started with the test and evaluation of some very expensive stuff, satellites and the rockets to launch them. Test cost often reached 50% of the developmental cost. Unfortunately, some of the test ethic we applied in those days is no longer affordable. We designed tests along two axes — test to destruction and test to develop the perimeters of a performance envelope.

Most, OK all, of the anchor test results I have seen in 41 years of sailing have conflated the two testing regimes and have resulted in three fallacies, intended or not. Fallacy 1 = test conditions accurately reflect operational use. Fallacy 2 = enough testing has been done to produce statistically significant results. Fallacy 3 = test designs capture environmental variability. These fallacies are either derivative of tester bias or external ($$$) constraints on test design, execution, and interpretation.

Your case about soft mud is a good example. What is soft mud? What is the statistical distribution of particle sizes, what is the ratio of water to solids, are there lubricious deposits in the mud, etc, etc… We scooped up two equal measures of mud from a dive site several years ago (in preparation for hiding a weapon for recovery divers to search for). The first can weighed 20% more than the second can. The samples had been taken 2 feet apart. Overall, we found a 30% variability across the 1/2 hectare site. The site survey chart was labelled Sft Md over about 3 hectare.

We have come to rely on our SPADE a great deal more than any other anchor we have had, but we still won’t trust it during transitional events. We still set anchor watches and use anchor drag tools.

Thanks very much for the clear and experienced engineer’s read on this.

Thanks, John, Anecdotally, after one season of turtle grass in the Abacos we knew our anchor was destined for replacement on our return to the Chesapeake. Having anchored off Galesville, MD, we were later warned of the derecho heading for the DC area and had just enough time to run out more chain and add the second snubber. Winds were predicted to be 70 mph.

The first gust that hit us, registered 89 mph and nearby they saw 100 mph. The 70+ wind lasted for 15 minutes. We expected to be on the beach before it was all over, but amazingly the anchor, so irritatingly untrustworthy in the Bahamas, held. But Janet commented she didn’t think we were in the same spot. The GPS track showed our (power set) anchor on 175 feet of chain in 8 feet of water over hard mud had dragged 245 feet before stopping. We reset the alarm and racked out in total darkness.

The following morning on retrieval, we discovered that the anchor held because it was jammed in the throat of a knock-off seaplane anchor attached to a derelict boat that had sunk near our favorite spot during our absence.

We bought the SPADE several days later when the power finally came back on in Annapolis.

Hi. Great post, we all need to be reminded that modelling and testing are only ever an approximation or simplification of what will happen in the big, wild world. On another point the inuit have recently been found to have a specific genetic modification that allows them to tolerate their high fat diet with impunity- the rest of us may find it less healthy. The French appear to eat less than their anglo saxon cousins. (avoiding transfats is probably wise, though)Again , more research required and we’ll probably find that it’s a little more complicated than we first thought.

I think you make a great point: these things are far more complicated than many people recognize, whether it be anchors or heart disease. The problems come because it’s just human nature to gravitate toward a simple answer.

Hi Concur with your thoughts on spade. Using S120 on Malo 39 for last 5 years in UK and Medditeraen . Previous CQR and Bruce just don’t compare. Any suggestions foR a lovely 25kg Stainless steel Bruce sitting at home in Garage (UK) Fair winds Alan

When one reviews all the published research literature and testing on the new generation anchors versus the more traditional styles, (epidemiology?) and take all the data into perspective, then the summation of all the test data agrees with the real world experience. The new style -concave- anchors are much much better then the old styles. So, practical experience agrees with the science and testing. Whoopee!

Regarding that stainless steel Bruce anchor you have at home, I suggest it would make a nice lawn ornament. In a few years it will be as outdated as those huge cast iron fisherman and Navy anchors that institutions and municipal governments love to use for ornaments. Put that SS Bruce on the lawn I say, and get out in front of the curve!

I find anchor tests useful in the same way courtroom art is useful. They capture a moment in time, but they aren’t really evidence. That said, they do represent a start point in that they tend to weed out the less-useful anchor designs and *can* (but sometimes do not) point at anchor styles of good utility that aren’t always top of mind. Five years ago, I might have bought a Delta. Now I am, due not only to this site, but to testing I’ve seen, leaning toward the Spade and I like what I’ve seen of the Sarca Excel as well, save that it’s very difficult to obtain in Canada, whereas the Spade is not.

The fact that I know very good sailors who still swear by their Bruces and CQRs suggests to me that even a currently sub-par anchor can still hold given good technique and a proper watch. In that spirit, I do wonder if more effective anchors merely allow worse technique to be survivable, much as airbags keep bad or careless drivers alive to drive again another day.

Obviously, anchor testing is a contentious topic and yet we will always learn something from it….if nothing else, the tester’s analysis and reaction to the results.

Case in point: A Finnish boating magazine recently conducted a pull test on a brick hard gravel beach, and then on a softer beach using a four wheel drive 4 x 4 truck.

Unsurprisingly, our Fortress anchor, with its too large flukes had trouble penetrating the hard gravel beach, however in the softer soil it buried so deeply that afterwards they had to dig it out with shovels.

The conclusion they drew was that the Fortress was a risk to use in a softer (and more common) soil for anchoring, since in their words, “few people want to dive with the shovel in their hand prior to departure!”

That’s the first time in 18 years of observing anchor tests that I saw a model get scolded for performing too well…..

Wow, that needs to go under the can’t win category! I can verify that, although I’m a long time Fortress user, I don’t cary a shovel! In fact I have generally found my SPADE more difficult to break out than the Fortress, probably because the SPADE has no cross or roll bar to impede it and so in a long blow I’m guessing it just goes on and on digging deeper and deeper.

Be that as it may, I would rather have an anchor that dives deep into the seabed than one that doesn’t. And I have never had undue trouble getting either type out, unless stuck under a rock or obstruction. We just pull the rode tight with the windlass and then pause for a moment and let the boat’s movement work the anchor out—generally takes less than a minute and has always worked, even after being anchored in hurricane force winds.

Truck pull tests are, I think, pretty useless, although one can still learn a bit from them. For example watching a Bruce skip over the ground in a test of this nature got me asking around about, and verifying, that anchor’s tendency to drag very quickly if it does break out.

I handle all customer comments and inquires for our company, and by far the most frequent complaint I receive is retrieval after a heavy blow. As one might imagine, breaking free an anchor with two large flukes and a massive surface area can be very challenging once the sea bottom is tightly compacted and compressed against those two flukes.

Earlier this year, a sailor in the Caribbean wondered after a similar situation whether the Fortress was a “sacrificial anchor,” as he ended up cutting his line. Although loss is not covered by warranty, I sent him a new anchor.

Additionally, a short while ago I received a call from an 87-ft USCG patrol boat in the Gulf of Mexico, and they wanted to buy a new 47-lb FX-85, their primary anchor aboard this vessel. The “Coastie” told me that the seas were too rough for their patrols, and so they hung on this anchor for three days, and when it came time to retrieve the anchor, they could not break it free, and so they cut the line.

During the Chesapeake Bay soft mud testing, we lost a 21-lb FX-37 after the wire rope snapped at 3,500 lbs. We were directly above the anchor and we were trying to slowly break it free, and the winch operator estimated that it was buried 13 feet into the mud. The 81-ft research vessel shifted slightly from the waves of a passing boat, and the wire rope slipped between the horizontal and vertical rollers on the custom fairlead, and so there was metal on metal and the rope broke, sending everyone scattering on the aft deck.

I think the key here is PATIENCE, and a similar recovery method, as you described, is used where you stay in a position directly above the anchor with a tight line, and then let the movement of the boat slowly break the anchor free.

On a separate note, we drill a hole into the Crown (center piece) of the anchor, to which you can install a breakaway (trip) line or better still, a secondary line with a buoy that will bob along the surface, although few boaters want to take the time and trouble to install one and retrieve their anchor this way.

Brian’s point about triplines to the crown (or the equivalent circa 90 degrees from the fluke angle) attachment point is well made. Unless I have the sort of foresight to make a waypoint where I drop the hook, why would we not buoy an expensive anchor of any type? For one thing, it shows fairly closely (if you’ve make the trip line length close to the depth) where one’s hook is, which is going to suggest visually where your chain is likely to be laying, thus alerting other boats anchoring where to avoid. The “easier retrieval” aspect is just gravy. Even fifty feet of Spectra or Amsteel (a good choice for this job, I would think) is a fraction of the cost of a new anchor.

In general, I am not a fan of trip lines and try to avoid them if at all possible. I have seen many problems with them including a boat drifting over the anchor in a windshift, catching the trip line on the prop making the crew unwilling to motor and pulling the anchor out in the process. In something like 2000 anchor sets, I don’t remember ever having to abandon an anchor and I have never needed the trip line the few times it has been rigged. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t had issues with retrieving anchors but it has always been something that I can sort out sooner or later. Anchors that set quickly are much better as they cover less ground decreasing your chance of hooking a wire, chain, log, etc. If you do use an anchor buoy, make sure to put a “fuse” in the line as it could be a real mess if someone wrapped your amsteel up in their prop. I might go with a line that sinks so that you can have a fuse 5′ under the surface so that you can reach the line below the fuse by hauling up but other boats props will never come close. If the concern is a deeply buried anchor and not obstructions on the bottom, you might consider running the trip line along your chain with very light lashings that you could break if you needed to.

Hi Eric and Marc,

I share Eric’s reservations about trip lines. They sound great in theory, but the real world reality is not so good. More here: https://www.morganscloud.com/2011/01/28/anchor-trip-line/

I agree, the secret to breaking out a well and truly dug in anchor is 90% of the time patience.

Another winner article John.

I had an opportunity to do some practical anchor testing years ago when I was caught by Hurricane Bob in Lewis Cove in Linekin Bay aboard a 40-foot powerboat named Duchess. The only three anchors I had were a 55-pound CQR, a 30-pound Danforth HT, and a 30 pound Luke fisherman. I set these in a diamond pattern with as much rode as I had then joined my family in an evacuation shelter for the duration. When the weather cleared the next day, Duchess had moved about fifty yards closer to shore, she had clocked the compass about twenty times completely snarling the three anchor rodes (two rope and one chain) to the extent they were unsalvageable. Two of the three anchors had pulled free and where incorporated in the snarl, and the third was all that held the boat.

The question, 0f course, is which of the three anchors was the hero that saved the day (and my boat)? Given that the bottom off Linekin Bay (just north of Boothbay Harbor) is an amalgam of rocks and sand and kelp, the answer is obviously the fisherman. The other two are useless under those bottom conditions even in moderate weather.

Does this prove that the Luke Fisherman is the best anchor to use in a hurricane? Of course not. It proves that some of us are lucky buggers who get more breaks than we deserve.

Regards Jim Trefethen

Thanks for the kind words and smart analysis. I would say though, that given the location, setting the Luke was a smart. Interesting that it worked, even though it was so small.

Well put. Like you, I am an avid reader of anchor testing but I understand the limitations of the data. I would love to see someone figure out a good way to test setting and veering capabilities of anchors in really tough bottoms but this would likely be way too expensive and people would invariably complain about the setting method.

To Chris’ point about using a single test to try to fully characterize an anchor, I think that the variability in the test results is staggering and shows that these factors have not been separated out. Looking at the raw data from the Sail test a few years ago, the standard deviations were often greater than 50% of the average holding power which means on some sets you would drag in a gale and with others you could be fine in a hurricane all in the same area.

Unfortunately, real world test results can be problematic as well. Many people are not familiar with the relationship between windspeed, waveheight and the forces involved. I would consider this a windy year for us and out of 70+ nights, we have had 1 night of storm force conditions, 3 nights of gale force and a few thunderstorms/fronts where it blew hard for a few minutes. While we have been extremely impressed with our anchor, most of the impression is based on power setting and occasional weather events. Additionally, the bottoms around the world are very different so it is easy to believe that an anchor does very well only to find that it doesn’t work in a different area. Therefore it takes a large number of people who anchor a lot reporting on their experiences to figure out the smaller difference.

I agree with all you say, and specifically your worry about real world results that come from users who cruise in a limited area. This is one of the reasons I put very little store in what is said on forums about anchoring since there is no way to know how wide the commenters experience is and in fact most people only anchor in a very limited mix of bottom types and circumstances.

And, to make things worse, very few people on the forums (not including AAC comments) have your clear engineer’s understanding, as exhibited in your comment above, of what their actual experience really is.

By preferred approach to anchor evaluation is to listen to a few people like Colin (or myself) who has used a given anchor in many different places and conditions. In the end I think I get a more accurate result by so filtering the opinions I listen to rather than crowd sourcing.

I recently finished a large anchor testing project. a. Consistent bottoms scale-up, layered bottoms don’t. b. It’s bloody hard work. c. Getting good data is really difficult. When testers show ALL of the runs, the variability is often +/- 50%. Of course, some anchors are more consistent than others, and we like those! d. When in doubt, go for a swim. There is something going on down there you don’t understand. Particularly true with 2-anchor rigs; lots of false information out there.

Nice piece of work with your anchor test story in the December 2015 issue of Practical Sailor.

Well done, Brian

a. That was the dingy anchor review, which I only did because I had to develop baseline data for the Claw, Guardian, and Mantus (representatives for 3 design schools). There will be several more, all focused on 2-anchor systems, b. All of the shift/veer data was cut for size. Basically, all of them reset well except for the Guardian. In that case, it did track well with changes that were gradual (shifts in a rising wind), just not reversals.

Actually, anchors scale surprisingly well in consistent, non-layered bottoms, so that is all that I worked with using small anchors. Pretty accurate over a range of 1000 to one, actually, and the US Navy uses 100:1 factors in initial fleet mooring design. But in the real world, anchor dragging is what happens when there is something bad about the bottom.

The whole purpose of the test program was not to test anchors per se (very tough, and I’m not going to beat that dead horse), but rather to look at trends when different 2-anchor rigging methods are used, since a lot of people have trouble with this. I could drag 2-pound anchors, but there is simply no way any reasonable equipment is going to budge two 35-pound anchors well-set in sand! The small anchors allowed for some easy myth busting (tandem anchors are nearly always worse than either anchor alone) and pointed in some interesting directions (open-hawse with 2 different anchors works best if the hawse is asymmetrical).

Then I went full scale. What I learned small transferred, plus some new lessons were learned. My motivation was the low holding values reported in the Solomons Island Tests (yes, folks with good anchors drag there, because the mud is barely soup), since that is my home turf. In fact, their data for that location squared well with my experiences, both before and during testing.

There will also be an article on snubbers, because I had to develop anchor rode tension data to translate conclusions to reality.

My 3 most vivid experiences, since each is important: * I anchored my 34-foot cat on two 2-pound anchors in 20-30 knots in the open one night (I had a big anchor deployed with a lot of slack). My way of storm testing a 2-anchor rig. They dug and shifted, but did not fail. The little 2-pound guardian was actually quite difficult to pull up! * Testing a 12-pound Northill as the tandem for a 35-pound Manson Supreme in medium sand. It lifted the Manson right out of the bottom and turned it into a kelet. Useless. * Testing the same rig on small rocks and oyster it was the best rig. If one slipped off a rock in a shift, the chain would guide the other into a rock. * Loosing a strain gauge to Netune, when a wave hit while anchored on non-stretch line. Huge force.

I recently read the posts on your website about tandem anchoring and found them very interesting. Your results make intuitive sense and they show just how dangerous many people’s assumptions are with regards to spreading loads.

It will be interesting to see what you have come up with for snubbers. One of the big questions in my mind is how much stretch is appropriate. Because of the simplicity of the models that people have created, it is assumed that more stretch is always better but I suspect that in situations with badly behaved boats and limited fetch, loads may be lower (and the boat motion nicer) with more limited stretch.

Great article as always.

I am a Ph.D student in Miami, FL studying physical oceanography and we use laboratory tests in our wave tank facilities to try to simulate some aspects of observable phenomena in the ocean. In one of our experiments we were comparing designs of ocean drifters and studying their behavior in ocean environments. One thing we have observed and try to stick by is the 1/3 rule, that anytime you scale anything smaller than 1/3, the difficulty of scaling accurately is much much more complicated because not all processes(wind/wave forces/inertia) scale nicely. In short, I agree that these scaled anchor tests should be viewed very dubiously! Not to mention that the sand boxes are DRY! How is that even closely related to the ocean? Keep it up!

If you google “Robert Taylor Navy Civil Engineering Laboratory” you will find anchor design and soil mechanics research that was done by Bob Taylor, who consulted for us during the 2014 Chesapeake Bay testing.

Bob has spent more than 45 years in the field and he has infinitely more knowledge than anyone on the pleasure craft side of the fence. Our late company founder kept a small library of his work, and here’s a link to his “Advanced Anchoring & Mooring Study” that you might find to be of interest:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/71o6f9cp9wqbdxs/OWET%20Anchor%20and%20Mooring%20Study%20Report%20042810.pdf?dl=0

Regarding anchor testing on dry sand, whether on a beach or in a box, that is totally practical, assuming of course that you are actually planning on anchoring there.

Best of luck with your studies.

Regards, Brian

Hi John I replaced my old Bruce and purchased a 44 lb Spade.

Can anyone help me with three questions?

1. On my bow roller, the Spade is self-launching, so that there is nothing to hold the anchor aboard except the windless. I need to install a chain stopper or a hook snubber, correct?

2. While sailing, what is the best way to hold the anchor in place? Shall I simply lash the anchor down to the roller?… or install a bow roller that does not self-launch the Spade?

3. Finally, the end of the Spade’s shank brushes against the side of the fuller drum as it goes overboard. New bow roller or raise the roller?

Thanks, Dana

Good questions. Getting this stuff right really matters. Reminds me that I need to do a post on exactly this. I will do that.

Just wanted to share my real-world experience with the Spade : it’s amazing. Since we have it we have probably anchored a hundred times, and only once did it not set properly (the seabed was posidonia and rocks). When I say it didn’t set properly, I mean that it dragged when we applied 2500 rpm of pull on our chain ; it was probably ok for the night.

I can’t count the number of boats we’ve seen dragging around us, to the point that it has become the main thing we worry about while anchored.

Anyway, one more piece of anecdoctical evidence towards Spade ! Brann, s/v Lucy

Thanks for that. Real world experience is the best information.

Hello John, Thank you for all of great advice and insight in your web site. I have however one observation regarding this subject matter – (albeit I intend to now buy a spade anchor to replace my CQR because I am persuaded it will be an improvement for me) – I note you are not a fan of the CQR at all, whilst Miles and Beryl Smeeton I gather used a CQR on Tzu Hang during all of their travels without apparent complaint – which I venture represents quite a practical test of an old favourite for some – just saying 🙂 With thanks

Sure, the Smeatons used a CQR, simply because that was the best available at the time. But that was half a century ago and I, like you plan to, have moved on to better anchors. As to the Smeatons not complaining, I can tell you, having sailed as a boy with the Pyes, who mentored the Smeatons in sailing, that that generation from England simply did not complain about anything, no matter how bad it was.

Bottom line, based on significant personal experience with a CQR, it is a very poor anchor, particularly at setting, when compared to any of the modern alternatives.

Thank you John and understood – I can see that had the Smeatons had the opportunity to read your very good article they would have bought a Spade also I expect (had the technology been invented by then). Thanks for this great resource – I learn something new most days !

SV Panope Anchor Test “Video 100” https://youtu.be/smgWTtFuk3U

Heavy anchors scale 1-5 is best Sarca Excel 48 lb 4.3 Rocna Vulcan 55 lb. 3.9 Mantus M1 45 lb. 3.9 Spade S60 45 lb. 3.8 Super Sarca 47 lb. 3.8 Ultra 46 lb 3.7 Manson S. 45 lb 3.4 CQR 45 lb 3.3 Delta 45 lb 3.1 Bruce 45 lb 3.1 Rocna 45 lb 2.8

In reviewing the concluding table from SV Panope’s evaluation of anchor usage, I think certain factors are incorrectly weighted in his average to get a final reading. A simple average of different factors is used to get a judgment of anchor value. 1- Tip weight is much more important in anchor effectiveness and is probably the main factor in ease and quickness of setting. This is weighted equally to other factors that have no bearing on anchor effectiveness, and is probably the most important factor for anchor function and behavior. The Spade anchor has the highest tip weight of any anchor, and is therefore under-rated unfairly. 2- Galvanization life and ease of regalvanizing have no bearing on anchor effectiveness. 3- Cost of anchor has no bearing on anchor effectiveness, and is a small value compared to the value of a boat. I believe all these factors mistakenly underweight the final value ascribed to the Spade anchor. Best wishes, Charles Charles L Starke MD FACP SV DAWNPIPER

Hi Charles,

I would agree that cranking cost into anchor selection numbers seems to me to be a complete logic fail. Sure someone might decide they just can’t afford a SPADE and be making a perfectly rational decision, but cost and function are two different issues that need to be considered separately.

Or to put it another way to say:

“Sarca is a better anchor because its cheaper” is a logic fail, but to say, “SPADE is a better anchor (assuming that’s true), but I can only afford Sarca and it will meet my needs at a price I can afford”, is perfectly logical.

And that reminds me I really need to break out some time to catch up with the Panope videos. Been trying to get to this for a month, but the demands of the site upgrades keep getting in the way.

Dear John I agree. This last video, #100, is a compilation of results, but has no anchor test video. A subtext refers to the anchor video of a particular anchor to be able to view your anchor in action.

The different tests are summarized and the input numeral from one to five are detailed for each anchor and test. But non-functioning judgements are weighted in equally to function.

Perhaps function average should be a separate judgement number than overall value to the owner’s pocketbook. I would weight tip weight much higher than 5 since this is extremely important to function. And I personally don’t count galvanizing ease or quality highly valued since I expect my Spade to last my lifetime, especially since there is always paint!

But the video and the singular work of SV Panope is valuable, amazing and should be valued by the whole yachting world. Best wishes, Charles Charles L Starke MD FACP SV Dawnpiper

Hi Charles and John,

This type of comparison is regularly used in comparison of design concepts and is known as a Pugh Matrix. Typically, there will be a weight applied to each column in order of importance. It is a useful tool for discussing trade-offs but it should not be used as anything more than a communication tool, it should not give you an answer without you giving it a gut check. I will often conditionally format the table so that in addition to seeing scores, we can see general trends of where concepts do well and where they don’t. Getting column weightings can be particularly tricky and I like a process known as the analytical hierarchy process where you compare 2 attributes against each other at a time and go through all combinations; it will even tell you if you are consistent or not.

There are however several pitfalls with doing Pugh Matrices. Some of them are:

• It is impossible to fully describe needs with a Pugh, for example you may need a non-linear scaling or there may be an absolute minimum for some requirement. This comes back to doing a gut check and not taking results literally.
• Getting the right column categories can be really tricky and it is hard to fully describe the needs.
• Doing a 1-5 type scoring is tricky to keep consistent inside columns and particularly tricky to keep consistent across columns (people tend not to scale evenly which messes with your weightings). Some people like a 1,3,9 scoring to really accentuate good attributes but I don’t.
• You have to watch double dipping on your columns. For example, if you had columns both for tip weight and performance, that would be double dipping, either you quantify performance and score on that or you quantify proxies for performance like tip weight, angle, shape, etc and use those.

What I see in this video is that Steve has provided a compilation of all of his data which is very important. Having worked with data a lot, I can assure you that if you don’t put it all in one place, people’s memories are shockingly bad and they tend to misremember data and therefore draw the wrong conclusions. Whenever taking a lot of data, some form of summary table of key metrics is always really helpful. I know that Steve adds up the scores but I personally ignored that. If you were cruising in bottoms similar to his, then you might come up with your own weightings and actually come up with comparative scores based on this table. I tend to agree with both of your thoughts that the performance categories would be heavily weighted and things like cost and galvanizing would have very small weightings. For those of us whose bottoms are not great matches, it is useful information but I personally am not actually adding it up. It would be great if Steve can keep expanding his testing to include additional bottoms such as really hard sand, heavy weeds, Chesapeake style silt, etc. There is a lot of good information in his videos and I really applaud the thoughtfulness and effort he has put into this hobby project (my understanding is that he really isn’t taking in enough money right now to make it anything else) and I think it is great he has a summary table but I also am ignoring his rollup scores.

Hi Eric I agree 100%. You have made a great analysis. Thanks Best wishes Charles SV Dawnpiper

Thanks for the fill on that. The other thing that this kind of analysis misses is what I would call the “deal breakers”. For example, I would never even have the Rocna on my list because it has a proven (to my satisfaction) fast drag modality that I consider so dangerous that I would not have one on the boat: https://www.morganscloud.com/2019/05/24/anchors-resetting-failures-with-rocna-and-some-thoughts-on-vulcan2/

We have a SARCA Excel, the anchor that came out top in the Panope anchor ranking. And I have to say, primarily because in NZ, the Spade is soooo… expensive that it made my eyes water so I couldn’t find my wallet.

But at the start of every cruise, I swear I’m going to swap out our anchor and buy a Spade. Until I remember that I need AT LEAST 5:1 scope to get the “damned” SARCA anchor to set. Don’t even bother trying to set on 4.9:1 (at 2500 rpm).

But when I viewed more of the links in the video, it demonstrates for instance that the Spade under-performs relatively in a boulder bottom, and also in soft mud. And due to the hollow and open shank of the Spade, he questions if it could be subject to unknown and hidden corrosion and shank failure. He adds his Spade started rusting quickly around the lead tip. Then he marks the Spade down for the difficulty of re-galvanising to mitigate the above issue (which is probably erroneous because the shank can be removed from the head). And remember the reviewer owns a Spade as his main bower, so is probably unbiased?

And he equally marks down the ROCNA due to the hollow roll-bar and visible manufacturing defects (and canes it for the re-set issues). But he also starts the video saying that the tests only apply in his waters and substrates – that different anchors may outperform in different waters – deep kelp?

But a question for you; if the SARCA Excel performs at least as well as the Spade overall (as tested in multiple substrates ), then why aren’t price, ease of re-galvanising (read longevity), and overall construction, relevant test criteria for rating/choosing an anchor?

I can attest our EXCEL after a real blow is dug in so deep, you are lucky to see the shackle (if you dive down), let alone the shank.

Thanks again for the link – nice to get some confidence back in our anchor choice!

I would say that saying that the SPADE underperforms in a boulder bottom is just another example of the weaknesses of testing since in over 20 years of use in the high latitudes we have never had our SPADE fail us (either set or drag) in the boulder bottoms that are typical. Why the discrepancy? I have no idea, way too many variables.

Also having had a SPADE for years I have no worries about shank strength or corrosion (a bit of rust does not bother me) and in fact the SPADE shank tests as, if memory serves, over twice as strong as the next best just because it’s a hollow fabrication rather than a flat piece of steel.

Does this mean I’m trying to sell you a SPADE or say it’s better than a SARCA Excel? No, I don’t engage in that argument, it’s just not worth it since the data is so poor that anyone can read anything they like to support their favourite anchor.

Rather I simply relate my experience with the SPADE and let people make up their own mind: https://www.morganscloud.com/2019/03/28/4-vital-anchor-selection-criteria-and-a-review-of-spade/

In that article I also provide some selection criteria that I hope will help others make the best decision for them.

So, to answer you question: My experience indicates that the SPADE issues with rust have no influence on longevity and I still believe that cranking price should be separated from function.

That said, as I said earlier in thread, if you decide that a SPADE is too expensive in NZ to be justified, or that you can’t stand a bit of rust on the deck, I would say that’s perfectly logical, for you. Just means that after evaluating function, you have different price thresholds than I who would ship a SPADE to NZ, cost be damned, because I put 20 years of experience ahead of any testing as explained in the article above.

Hi Rob & John Your comments and questions are all good. The price of the Spade at the time I bought it on sale was only slightly higher than a Rocna. And my decision was colored by experience like John. My Rocna on a new boat had recently dragged in a tidal area. A Spade on a previous boat had dug in so deep into Northwest Rockland Harbor, Maine, behind the breakwater, that the bow was pulled down to the water, and I motored around for one-half hour, until it came up clean and we popped up! I sold the 88 lb Rocna and bought a 99 lb Spade, and an aluminum Spade as a back-up anchor, the same size as a 120 lb galvanized. Dawnpiper is a 47’ Trintella, 40,000 lb. I don’t think I heard how good the Sarca Excel was until after my purchases. I also discounted in my decision the slightly higher cost compared with the value of the boat, the risk of galvanization failure in my lifetime because of availability of paint, and the risk to the shank because of beam-like strength and construction. Both Spade and Sarca Excel anchors seem to be excellent. Previous experience may be the big determinant for both John and me. Best wishes, Charles Charles L Starke MD FACP SV Dawnpiper

After Season One of using our 30 kilo SPADE, I can’t fault it in terms of holding our steel 12 metre cutter to the seabed. Our only concern is that it buries so deeply we have to take our time breaking free and we have, in any soft bottom conditions, brought up a great deal of muck with the anchor, leading to some interesting contortions at the bow trying to knock off gobbets of mud before we get the anchor on the roller.

But the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

I think that’s a well balanced way to look at it, thanks.

Please verify you are a human

Access to this page has been denied because we believe you are using automation tools to browse the website.

This may happen as a result of the following:

• Javascript is disabled or blocked by an extension (ad blockers for example)
• Your browser does not support cookies

Please make sure that Javascript and cookies are enabled on your browser and that you are not blocking them from loading.

Reference ID: a5374cac-7528-11ef-b87a-d419603f1dd1

Powered by PerimeterX , Inc.

An article from PeterSmith.net.nz , written by Peter Smith www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/independent-performance-testing.php

Independent Anchor Performance Testing

Published boat anchor testing is generally of poor quality. Much of it amounts to nothing better than noise: terrible test designs, absence of controls, lack of repeat trials, and commercial or even nationalist biases generate unhelpful data that confuse and distract. On this page is a collection of those few exceptions that manage to build an accurate and helpful picture of real world anchor performance.

Writers tend not to possess science or engineering backgrounds and lack understanding of what would constitute valid testing, much less reasonable analysis of the resulting data. Even if the publication boasts qualified personnel, testing of an acceptable standard is expensive and unlikely to ever become an activity a magazine will engage in. The three- or four-figure worth of a single article can never bring a financial return on the five- or six-figures of the necessary budget.

Commercial involvement with supposedly independent publications is a particularly insidious example of media failings. An example is a ‘test’ conducted in 2014 by Fortress Marine Anchors in the USA which was covered by a number of well-known publications. Without exception the write-ups included only cursory notes as to the testers’ commercial nature, glossed over as unimportant. Predictably, the results looked exactly as Fortress might prefer them, attending to both the championing of their own product and the disparagement of their most threatening marketplace competitors. In this case as always the testing methodology may be critiqued, such as a focus on a bottom type in the company’s favor; apples-to-oranges comparisons of aluminium to steel anchors, resulting in mismatched physical sizes; a pulling protocol designed to benefit their product rather than best simulate real world usage; and so on. In a follow-up in PassageMaker , author Nigel Calder debates test ‘witness’ and ex-West Marine corporate man Chuck Hawley, pointing out some of these issues and raising concerns based on discrepancies between the testing data and real world experience – Hawley doggedly maintains that the testing he witnessed was not rigged and that the results were credible. Similar claims were made by Practical Sailor , who took Fortress at their word and simply published supplied results without even bothering to send anyone. But the problem of any form of bias is very simple, and does not require deep arguments on methodology. In the world of science, where researching the facts of reality with a rigid impartiality is foundational, it is well understood how natural human biases in even the most neutral and competent experimentalist can totally invalidate otherwise carefully planned testing. Peer review will simply not accept results from research which has not taken great care to eliminate bias with basic techniques such as proper controls, randomization, and blind testing. All this before results are published by the mainstream media. The typical sports magazine staff and writers are unequipped, in terms of qualifications or scientific experience, to review a complicated test. And whether or not the cynical invite from the commercial party to ‘referee’ their testing is accepted, writers are expected to produce a pay-worthy draft that a magazine can dress up as useful to their readers. This alone is sufficient to introduce substantial bias on top of the existing commercial agenda. Such ‘independent’ witnesses, lacking scientific training, are bound to be misled. A clever salesman would rely on it. The publications involved in this kind of debacle allow, in their credulity or indolence, commercial agents to commandeer their reputation and do a tremendous disservice to their readers. The boating media needs to do a better job of maintaining impartiality.

While blemished, the picture is not universally bleak. The tests below manage to present credible data. For example: the West Marine testing, a product of the world’s largest marine retailer’s desire to test the anchors it distributes. Although obviously commercial, the testers at least uphold the appearance of brand-neutrality, and indeed their bestselling anchors (at the time) are those with the poorest results. A radically different example is John Knox’s work in Practical Boat Owner , a continuation of a long-time obsession with anchors – much more a labor of love than any mercenary effort by the magazine writer who fancies himself a research scientist for the day.

These tests are therefore overviewed here with an eye to their scientific credibility, a standard which leads to the rejection of a number of published articles. Tests are also restricted to those which include the Rocna or Vulcan, but have no connections to any anchor manufacturer.

Kippari March 2015

The Finns at Kippari (Skipper) conducted a small and simple comparison test on dry land, using an industrial sand and gravel pit. The substrate appeared consistent from location to location, which many other poorly controlled tests cannot match, although unfortunately it does not appear to have been realistically wet. Nevertheless the data for hard sand, where many contenders simply failed to set, is worthwhile, and in soft sand interesting differences are found too.

“The test’s top anchor for absolute grip and holding power” was the Rocna, although the magazine included Finnish retail pricing in their final consideration and slipped the New Zealand design down a spot as a consequence. They also considered dimensions and physical bulk of the anchors, with regard to bow roller fit. Only the pull data is reproduced here.

The results were not adjusted for the variance in mass between the anchor models tested, an irritating omission given there is a 20% variance between the lightest (10 kg) and the heaviest (12 kg) steel products, and a 47% variance if the aluminium Fortress is considered. The inclusion of the latter is always a problem for tests; the FX‑23 model chosen by Kippari is relatively large, and would weigh nearly 18 kg were the same design built from steel. Accordingly, the reader should really try to view the results on a size-for-size basis, especially if an anchor of different size to those tested here is required.

Voile Magazine May 2012

French magazine Voile has accrued a number of anchor tests to its name. Historically French products have been the focus, at the expense of other anchor types more common in the rest of the world. In this iteration the Rocna and a few other international brands were added to the list of contenders, which were tested on a “loose and loamy sand” seabed. The assistance of the French SNSM (analogous to the British RNLI) was employed, and it was one of their boats tasked with the pull testing.

Voile selected a total of fourteen anchors, and in their write-up and analysis of results separated them into three groups: “plate” anchors (symmetrical flat fluke types), “light” anchors (aluminium), and “plow” anchors (asymmetrical types). This last misnomer – less than half of those in the “plow” group were actually plows – may be forgiven as the writers have avoided the apples-to-oranges comparisons of different types and materials seen all too often in other tests. In the other categories, the light aluminium Spade and Fortress turned in good linear pull results but both failed physically (“twisted”) under the stress of the veering test.

This write-up did not include several of the traditional types usually seen, particularly the CQR and Bruce. The CQR was tested but would not reliably set and was excluded from the final results. The genuine Bruce is no longer manufactured but Voile tried to test the “Ray”, a knock off version by Manson, which also would not set and was similarly excluded from the tabulated data.

Test design

This test does suffer from an unfortunate tendency amongst magazines to measure loads whilst dragging the anchors, the testers apparently apathetic toward the notion that the primary function of an anchor is instead to stay where it was set. John Knox’s article in Practical Boat Owner (overviewed below) is an excellent counter-example of measuring the right properties in the right manner, which other publications could benefit from following.

Nevertheless, drag data of this sort is informative because, if the anchor is to drag, it is important that it continues to provide as much resistance as possible whilst doing so. When pulled beyond its yield, a good anchor will remain properly embedded rather than suddenly releasing, and should continue to bury down to where firmer substrate may provide a more secure holding.

Additionally, figures for “skewed holding”, or veered pulls, were measured by Voile to add to their conclusions. This data increases credibility and relevance to the real world where a general purpose anchor must do much more than simply provide good holding power in simple linear pulls.

Overviewed here are only the results for the “plow” group of asymmetrical general purpose anchors.

Voile dragged their anchors at an increasing velocity, measuring resistance at speeds from 0.1 knots to 0.4 knots. The latter was the penultimate speed, supposed to represent a dragging vessel in high winds or tide, and it is the figures for this that are charted in dark red in the graph below.

The results of the veered pulls are charted in yellow. This data is not normalized or adjusted for the varying sizes of the anchors.

While the “0.4 knots” pull data is not directly representative of the actual static holding power of the anchors, together with the veered pulls these results give a reasonable picture of relative anchor performance.

Practical Boat Owner (John Knox) August 2011

Scotsman Professor John Knox has a history of anchor testing, write-ups of which have appeared in Practical Boat Owner before. Introducing this article, he describes his experience tenuously anchored to a CQR in the Inner Hebrides during a storm in 1988, and how this led to the testing of anchor types in order to best appraise performance.

Knox examined eight different anchor types, with the addition of multiple sizes of a few. He used tidal pools on sand flats on the west coast of Scotland, using a custom rig to exactly control pull forces and speeds.

Anchors ranged from small 5 kg (11 lb) to medium 15 kg (33 lb) examples. Unlike the dump-and-pull technique frequently used in other tests, Knox used a carefully designed rig powered by a winch and purchase system with a slightly elastic line. The anchors were pulled with intermittent pauses, allowing the candidate to rest and settle according to the pull maintained by the elasticity of the “rode”. This provided a figure for what Knox labels SHF (“Static Holding Force”). This process was repeated until the figures for SHF had leveled off and were judged unlikely to increase with further pulling – this final plateau dictated the anchor’s recorded holding power.

This methodology provides graphs of the anchor’s intermittently recorded SHF figures over time during each set, the shapes of which are also of direct interest. A poor design will give fluctuating and unstable SHF numbers – or an anchor that sets poorly and with shallow depth will quickly hit its plateau, while a good performer will show a steady rise stabilizing only at a relatively high force level.

Knox seems well aware of the various pitfalls of anchor testing, and has avoided many of them in this test. His pull figures were firstly normalized against the results for a particular anchor for each session, to account for variations specific to that day or seabed area. Consolidated results were then further analyzed on a weight-for-weight basis and presented as “efficiency” values. The smaller anchors of each type, where multiple weights were tested, were found to be less efficient that the larger versions; nonetheless the results are presented without further analysis.

The below chart shows both normalized holding power and the rated efficiency values.

This weight-for-weight efficiency measure is a fair approach in principle but does favor anchors with reduced strength (thinner section profiles and the like resulting in lower weights for a larger fluke surface area). It also fails to account for manufacturing tolerances outputting a lighter or heavier sample for what is really the same nominal ‘size’. For example, the Rocna 15 tested is nominally 15 kg but measured by Knox at a conservative 16.2 kg, while its Spade S80 competitor with an equal listed mass was found to shortchange its owner at only 13.3 kg. These variances combine to favor the undersized anchor in results – unduly so, because while tolerances or wear of material on a used anchor may cause significant variation, the surface area of the fluke, which dictates performance, is not affected by these factors.

The below chart depicts the same data as above, but with the efficiency values re-calculated based on nominal sizes.

Larger anchors may expect to gain higher efficiency ratings, and this is borne out in this test when two sizes of the same type are compared. This is most obvious in the small sizes selected; by simple virtue of size, 15 kg anchors may expect their fluke tips to find better quality substrates than their 4 or 6 kg little brothers which have to make do with only the very top layer of the seabed. More telling is when a smaller anchor is proven to be substantially more efficient than its larger competitor.

West Marine, SAIL , & Yachting Monthly 2006

The big American retail chain has conducted a number of anchor tests over the years, and 2006 saw it put together a series of trials on three different sand seabeds with no less than fourteen different anchor types. They used real world locations and a realistic rode make-up.

Brief summaries of the results were included in the 2007 and 2008 West Marine catalogs. Additionally, staff from magazines SAIL and Yachting Monthly were present and proceeded to publish their own write-ups of the testing. These write-ups were problematic with confused analyses of the data and outright contradiction of one another on a number of details, but SAIL provided a good overview of the results in a chart averaging holding power and peak resistance.

Anchors of approximately 15 kg (35 lb) were selected, mostly steel but unfortunately including a few with part or whole aluminium construction. The aluminium Fortress FX‑37 Danforth-type chosen is relatively large compared to the other anchors tested, a size that would weigh in at over 25 kg (55 lb) if its aluminium was swapped to steel. Aluminium is weaker than steel, especially when compared to high strength grades: no less than two Fortresses were damaged and put out of action during this testing.

The testers used a short 20′ (6 m) length of 5/16″ (8 mm) chain, coupled to 1″ (25 mm) nylon to make up the rest of the rode. Tests were conducted at scopes of 7:1, 5:1, and 3:1, by a suitably large motorboat permitted to run up a maximum force of 5,000 lb-force (2,270 kgf). Consistency and reliability of the contending anchors was measured by further varying the testing to cover three different locations with different variations on a theme of hard sand.

The ability of the anchors to deal with a variety of tough (hard to penetrate) bottoms was well examined in this test, and the results serve to show up magazine “tests” which do not conduct repeat trials. Some anchors gave high peak results during some trials, but let themselves down during others. Consistency is a critical element of any anchor’s performance.

This table contains the summary comments published by West Marine themselves. Charted data results are below.

Averaged results

SAIL published the below chart, which graphs three different metrics if applicable for each anchor. “Max before releasing” is the only figure presented for all (except two anchors which failed to set): this is the most important, averaged “holding power” or static resistance. “Max pull” is the peak resistance measured by the testers, either static (holding) or dynamic (dragging) – this figure should be higher than “Max before releasing”, as a good anchor will give increasing resistance as it is dragged beyond yield. The absence of this figure, where it was lower than the static holding power, does not tell a pleasant tale for that type.

The above chart makes no analysis of efficiency on a weight-for-weight basis, and there is a lot of variance in size between the anchors tested. If the same data is weighted for anchor size then ranked in order of increasing “Max before releasing”, the picture looks like this:

Lastly, the magazines can be ignored, and the raw data released by West Marine may be analyzed directly. This chart shows the averaged “holding power” of all test pulls, a few of which were apparently ignored by the magazines. Only the original numbers are used (unweighted).

• “Holding Power” Bill Springer, SAIL October 2006
• “Ultimate Holding Power” Toby Hodges and Bill Springer, Yachting Monthly December 2006
• “Anchor and Docking / The West Advisor”, West Marine Annual Catalog 2007–2008
• “Anchors Aware! Anchors On Test” Professor John Knox Practical Boat Owner August 2011
• « 14 ancres sous haute tension » François-Xavier de Crécy, Voile Magazine May 2012
• ”Ankkurit Testissä” Klaus Salkola Kippari March 2015
• About the Manson Supreme Anchor , a Rocna look-alike – or why to avoid copies

More reading

• A Process of Evolution: New Generation Anchors
• Old Generation Anchors – What’s really the problem?
• Catenary & Scope In Anchor Rode: Anchor systems for small boats
• Anchor Rode Kellets – Uses and Applications
• Two to Tandem: Maximizing holding power with tandem anchoring
• Anchor Certification, HHP/SHHP Classification, and Type Approval
• Coastguard Handbook: Anchoring Beyond 2007
• New Generation Anchors Explained
• Rocna Anchors website
• Rocna Knowledge Base

Tired of anchors? Take a tour of some of the world’s best destinations…

• Photo journals

ACTIVE STORM TRACKER Hurricane and Tropical Storm Information Learn more

Service Locator

• Angler Endorsement
• Boat Towing Coverage
• Mechanical Breakdown
• Insurance Requirements in Mexico
• Agreed Hull Value
• Actual Cash Value
• Liability Only
• Insurance Payment Options
• Claims Information
• Towing Service Agreement
• Membership Plans
• Boat Show Tickets
• BoatUS Boats For Sale
• Membership Payment Options
• Consumer Affairs
• Boat Documentation Requirements
• Installation Instructions
• Shipping & Handling Information
• Contact Boat Lettering
• End User Agreement
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Vessel Documentation
• BoatUS Foundation
• Government Affairs
• Powercruisers
• Buying & Selling Advice
• Maintenance
• Tow Vehicles
• Make & Create
• Makeovers & Refitting
• Accessories
• Electronics
• Skills, Tips, Tools
• Spring Preparation
• Winterization
• Boaters’ Rights
• Environment & Clean Water
• Boat Safety
• Navigational Hazards
• Personal Safety
• Batteries & Onboard Power
• Motors, Engines, Propulsion
• Books & Movies
• Cockpit Confessions
• Communication & Etiquette
• Contests & Sweepstakes
• Colleges & Tech Schools
• Food, Drink, Entertainment
• New To Boating
• Travel & Destinations
• Watersports
• Anchors & Anchoring
• Boat Handling

How To Anchor

Advertisement

Take your time, don't overdo the engine, and let nature do most of the work.

In advance, work out silent communications between the spotter at the bow, and the helmsperson: When the spotter wants slow RPM, she raises one finger. More RPM, hand in circular motion. Neutral, hand up. Less RPM, hand palm down. Kill engine, fist. Develop your own hand signals, review them with crew, and stick to them. (Photo: Billy Black)

Now, let's go through the steps for how to drop the hook and make sure your anchor holds.

Avoid the Biggest Boat Anchoring Problem

Prepare For Anchoring

Before the anchor goes over the bow, make sure you have plenty of rode and that it's free of tangles and ready to run. Anchor rode that you've already marked with the length helps you determine how much to put out. A length of chain helps weigh the rode down at the anchor, ensuring better holding. When you're ready to set, the boat should be motionless, or drifting very slowly astern. Any forward motion may knock the anchor against the boat's stem. This is especially true on boats with a plumb (vertical) bow. Forward motion can also cause the boat to run over the rode, possibly setting the anchor in the wrong direction and also fouling keel, rudder, and prop.

Penny Rode Markers

Measure your anchor rode, then, in some easy-to-remember pattern, attach zip ties through a chain link or to one strand of three-strand line. My system is one tie at 25 feet, two at 50 feet, three at 75 feet, and four at 100 feet. Then I just repeat the pattern, one tie at 125 feet, and so on. Some other progression might work better for you. The only takeaway here is that you must mark your rode in some manner, and zip ties do the job perfectly for just a penny each.

— Don Casey

Drop The Hook

Pick a spot to drop anchor, keeping in mind where you want the boat to end up and that the anchor will drag a short distance before it sets. As the boat drifts back, lower the anchor to the bottom, then gently pay out the rode. This will prevent the chain from piling up in a heap. If the anchor and rode all pay out in one line, free of tangles, everything should be ready to set it securely in the bottom. Take a turn around a cleat, if using a rode, and snub it off every now and then to take the pressure off your windlass and to let the tackle straighten out on the bottom.

Which One Is Best?

Results of a head-to-head anchor test.

Several years ago, Fortress Marine Anchors sponsored an in-water test of 11 different anchors to determine the holding power of each in a typical soft mud bottom. The test vessel was a position-stabilized research vessel from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Here are test takeaways:

• The anchors that set the quickest and hardest were usually the ones with the sharpest flukes.
• Few anchors exceeded 700 pounds of holding power, the American Boat and Yacht Council's calculated load in high winds for a 30-foot boat; 5 of the 11 anchors only reached 700 pounds once.
• The Danforth and Fortress with their long, wide flukes outperformed the claw and plow anchors in holding power in soft mud.
• "New generation" anchors performed no better than older designs.
• Mantus and ULTRA were the only new-gen anchors that exceeded 700 pounds of tension on three of five sets.
• The Fortress FX-37 at the 45-degree fluke angle was the overall holding power winner with three sets holding over 1,000 pounds and two sets exceeding 2,000 pounds.
• Like real life, most anchors had one good set that far exceeded the rest. Almost all had one trial where the anchor didn't seem to engage the bottom at all, reinforcing the need to take your time when anchoring, letting the anchor settle before backing down on it.
• It took between 10 and 20 feet of dragging for most anchors to reach 300 pounds of holding power, a bare minimum to consider for an anchor of this size.

— Charles Fort

Pay Out Proper Scope

Your anchor holds best when the load on it is horizontal, not vertical. So let out enough scope to accomplish that. First, add the depth of the water to the height of the bow from the water, then multiply that by 5 and pay out that amount of rode for a "lunch hook" when you'll be aboard, awake, and watching in calm conditions. If the tide is coming in, adjust for it so you rest at 5-to-1 scope once it's fully in. If it's windy or you might go ashore for a bit, pay out at least a 7-to-1 scope. If you're spending the night on the hook, pay out an 8-to-1 scope. NOTE: When you calculate scope, don't include the chain at the anchor end of the rode unless there's more than 6 feet or so; the chain's job is simply to weigh down the anchor.

Depending on the wind strength and length of time at anchor here are appropriate scope recommendations for a mixed rope/chain rode. For larger boats or for anchoring overnight, two to four boat lengths of chain attached to your rode is ideal.

So, for example, if you're anchoring in water that's 10 feet deep and your bow is 5 feet above the waterline, water depth (10) + bow height (5) = 15 feet, which means that for a lunch hook you should put out 75 feet of rode (15 feet x 5).

For an overnight stop in the same location, put out 120 feet (15 feet x 8), and so on. Some circumstances such as bottom type or expectation of a storm may call for more rode. But always make sure to stay clear of any boat or obstruction down wind or current.

Chain Rode Vs. Line

Chain is far more durable if you happen to anchor in bits of coral, rock, or debris. Also, chain will dig into mud or soft sand, helping the anchor. It forms a catenary, or curve, in the rode helping to keep the pull on the anchor horizontal so it digs in when under tension. An all-chain rode has some catenary in all but the strongest (i.e., hurricane) winds.

Photo: Getty Images/gvm61

Catenary comes from weight, but unfortunately, weight is often the last thing you want aboard, and too much of it in the bow can adversely affect a boat's handling. Unless you have a larger boat, or you're going cruising, an optimal rode is composed of a length of relatively heavy chafe-resistant chain attached to the anchor, then a lightweight, strong, stretchy line attached to the chain — the best of both worlds.

Nylon line gets its shock-absorbing properties from stretch rather than through catenary action, and it's this property, along with its lighter weight and strength, that makes it a good rode. Three-strand nylon line has the most stretch. Polyester line is about 15% stronger and more resistant to chafe but doesn't absorb shock as well. Avoid using polypropylene line for this reason.

One to two boat lengths of chain is sufficient for most purposes, although more is always better. Be aware that with a rope/chain rode, only certain windlasses can bring in rope and chain on the same gypsy. Those that can will require that you use a rope-to-chain splice, which can be more vulnerable to chafe when not maintained/checked seasonally.

To create an effective rode, use good quality shackles to tie the system together, and mouse the pin to prevent it from unscrewing at a bad time.

— Bob Adriance

Set The Hook

Once you've let out ample scope, let the boat settle back on the anchor to straighten out the rode. A gentle breeze or a mild current may be sufficient for this step. If not, use the engine with just a touch of reverse. Pause and take a good look around, especially abeam (opposite the boat's middle), and note your position relative to other fixed objects.

Now, put the engine in SLOW reverse. You can expect to move slightly astern as the anchor and rode set themselves and stretch out. Soon, though, the boat should settle in a fixed position. If at this stage the boat is still moving astern, your anchor may be dragging; pick it up and dragging; pick it up and drop it again, perhaps in a different spot. If the boat's position is fixed, you should see prop wash alongside aft, and your anchor rode should be straight and taut.

To thoroughly set the anchor, with the engine still in reverse, increase the rpm. If the boat stays put, you can rest (relatively) easy, knowing you're hooked. Check your swinging room again, assuming that the wind or current might come from any direction.

How To Rig A Snubber

An anchor snubber, or snubbing line, performs two important functions for boats using all-chain rode: absorbing shock loads to an anchor rode and preventing the anchor windlass from taking all the strain as the boat swings at anchor and rises and falls with waves.

Notice how all the strain is taken by the snubbing line. The anchor chain is slack between where the snubber attaches and the windlass.

The simplest way to rig a snubber is, after setting the hook, attach a 20-foot length of nylon line (ideal because it stretches) to the chain or rode using a rolling hitch, before you deploy the final length of chain. (Lengths may vary depending on your circumstances.) Attach the other end of the subbing line to a strong bow cleat, then feed out more anchor chain/rode until it hangs loosely between the rolling hitch and the windlass or other point where it attaches to the boat.

When rigged correctly, all the weight is taken by the snubbing line, not the windlass. Also, letting your chain loop down between the rolling hitch and cleat will add additional weight, thus producing more catenary effect which may improve the holding power of the anchor and give additional shock absorption to the rode.

To make rigging a snubber even quicker, many boaters with all-chain rode invest in a snubbing hook or chain hook. Both come in different sizes to suit the size of your chain and can be permanently spliced into the end of a suitable snubbing line. Once you're successfully anchored, slip the specially shaped hook over a chain link, attach the other end of the snubber to the boat, then let out a bit more chain until the snubber is taut.

— Mark Corke

Related Articles

• Where To Anchor
• How To Weigh Anchor
• Which Anchor Is Right For You?
• Ground Tackle Upkeep

The Truth About Ceramic Coatings For Boats

Our editor investigates the marketing claims of consumer-grade ceramic coatings.

Fine-Tune Your Side Scan Fishfinder

Take your side-scanning fishfinder off auto mode, and you’ll be spotting your prey from afar in no time

DIY Boat Foam Decking

Closed-cell foam flooring helps make boating more comfortable. Here’s how to install it on your vessel

Click to explore related articles

Contributing Editor, BoatUS Magazine

BoatUS Contributing Editor Tim Murphy is the author of "Adventurous Use of the Sea" (Seapoint Books, Nov 2022). He sails Billy Pilgrim, a 1988 Passport 40, on the U.S. East Coast. He develops marine trades curriculum for the American Boat & Yacht Council.

BoatUS Magazine Is A Benefit Of BoatUS Membership

Membership Benefits Include:

Subscription to the print version of BoatUS Magazine

4% back on purchases from West Marine stores or online at WestMarine.com

Discounts on fuel, transient slips, repairs and more at over 1,200 businesses

Deals on cruises, charters, car rentals, hotel stays and more…

All for only $25/year!

We use cookies to enhance your visit to our website and to improve your experience. By continuing to use our website, you’re agreeing to our cookie policy.

Anchors: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Foundation findings #05 - august 1989, anchor testing is not an exact science..

Most experts agree, however, that the best way to determine an anchor's holding power is to set it in a natural seabed and exert a straight-line pull from a boat while measuring with a strain gauge the amount of force required to drag or break it out of the seabed. Over the years, a wide variety of anchor tests have been performed, often by anchor manufacturers, who rate their anchors according to holding power and use these ratings in advertisements and technical brochures. Most manufacturers publish conservative figures based on a series of tests. While their methodologies may be similar, their tests are conducted in a wide variety of seabeds-from loose sand to gooey mud-in a wide range of water depths, and using rode of various scope made up of varying proportions of chain and rope. There are so many variables at work here that results vary widely from one test to another. An anchor that has been proven to hold 3,000 lbs. In hard sand with a scope of 6:1 in one test, might hold only 350 lbs. In soft mud with a scope of 3:1 in another test. The lesson here is that it is futile to compare the holding strength of two anchors tested under different conditions. And even with objective, reliable data. Results from different tests measuring different performance criteria reveal how difficult it is to design and perform an unbiased anchor test.

ln January 1989, the BoatUS Foundation and Cruising World magazine jointly sponsored tensile strength tests of seven anchors. Unlike many other anchor tests, we were able to eliminate the bias of a manufacturer-sponsored test. Our collaboration with Cruising World brought another independent, objective participant into the testing. The testing procedure was carried out by engineering and technical experts in an independent testing laboratory, Com-Tex Development Corp., at the University of Lowell, Massachusetts.

The test procedure was designed to simulate the type of load that results from an anchor's fluke(s) being lodged in rock, coral, a stump, or other unyielding surface in a strong wind or stressful retrieval situation. Specifically, we wished to compare the bending/breaking strength of the seven anchors listed in the table below, which are of similar size and weight and recommended for like-sized boats. All anchors were supplied off the shelf; their manufacturers were not aware that a test was being performed.

The Contenders

Test Procedure

Each anchor was secured shank end up in a hydraulically operated 160,000-lb. capacity, Tinius Olson testing machine . A custom-made, hardened-steel. 3/8" toe fitting was slipped onto the end of the fluke(s) and chained to the hydraulic actuator that applied the load. In order to simulate the type of load that results from the anchor's being lodged in rock, coral, or other hard substance, the load was applied to the fluke ends. In the case of the Danforth anchors, the load was applied to both flukes, since in an actual holding situation, both flukes would likely be wedged in rock. Loads were applied gradually and evenly at a rate of approximately 1,000 lbs. per minute and measured by a load dynamometer.

In order to monitor anchor deflection, each ,anchor was secured in the jig, and a measurement was taken from the top of the shank to the tip of the fluke(s) before any load was applied. This distance was remeasured at 1,000-lb. Intervals as the load was steadily increased, which resulted in the deflection curves shown in the graph on page 19. A gradual load was applied until it reached that anchor's rated holding strength. The target load (if known).

At that point, the load was maintained with the shank-to-fluke measurement taken to monitor any distortion. Then the load was steadily increased until either a) the anchor suffered a mechanical component failure, or b) the anchor experienced a 90° deflection from the line of the applied load, rendering the anchor useless. At this point the toe fitting would s lip off and the test was stopped.

Test Results

Danforth s-1600.

The anchor failed to reach the target load of 1,600 lbs. At the 1,500-lb. load, the shank pulled through the crown, causing a rollingsheer type of failure of the crown plate. The load was maintained wblle measurements were taken and damage assessed, then the load was reapplied. At a steady 1,500-lb. load, both flukes bent and one fluke tore apart near the point where it was welded to the crown plate. With this structural failure, the toe fitting slipped off the flukes when the shank-to-fluke angle reached 90°.

Danforth T-4000

When loaded to 1,500 lbs., the flexible shank began to deflect. In attempting to reach a target load of 4,000 lbs., the shank of this anchor deflected and twisted as the load increased, then sprang back to shape when unloaded, demonstrating the positive attribute of spring steel. The springy nature of this anchor made it necessary to restrain the stock with nylon line to prevent the flukes from springing out of the toe fitting. For this reason, its distortion could not be plotted in the Anchor Deflection Chart on the next page. At a load of 2,600 pounds, structural failure occurred when the welds holding the crown plate sheared off. Without the crown plate in place, the anchor opened to a full 180°.

Danforth H-1500

Under a target load of 1,500 pounds, the shank-to-fluke angle increased by about 5°. This deflection could not be attributed to any single anchor component. The load was then increased to failure. At 5,250 lbs., the shank strap (which prevents the shank from impinging on the crown plate) failed in tension, then the crown broke. The simple modification at the shank stop in this design gives this anchor a much higher load capacity.

Danforth P-1500

When loaded to 1,500 pounds, the swivel pin connecting the shank to the plow was observed to bend slightly. As the load was increased, this pin continued to bend. When the load exceeded 5,000 pounds, tensile failure occurred when the swivel bushing parted from the plow neck.

Luke "Storm Anchor"

When loaded to 3,000 lbs., the bottom of the steel shank, which passes through an aperture in the fluke arm, began to bend. While the one-piece, cast-iron fluke arm did not distort to any measurable degree throughout the test, the lower portion of the steel shank continued to bend gradually until, at a load of 9,000 pounds, the shank-to-fluke angle reached 90 and the test was stopped.

When loaded beyond 4,000 pounds, the shank was observed to bend. This bending increased gradually until, when loaded to 6,000 lbs., the shank could be seen bending and twisting slightly. Under a 9,000-lbs. load, the aperture between the jaws of the shank and the neck of the plow widened slightly, probably indicating some bend in the swivel pin. The shank continued to bend and twist increasingly until, at a load of 13,250 lbs., the shank-to-fluke angle reached 90 degrees and the test was stopped. The swivel joint experienced very little distortion.

The one-piece Bruce held its shape extremely well throughout the test. While no distortion whatsoever could be visually observed up to a load of 9,000 lbs., shank-to- fluke measurements showed an average movement Before Alter of 1/8" per 1,000 lbs. of applied load, indicating that the load was well spread over the entire anchor. When loaded to 10,000 lbs., the shank began to bend. The load was gradually increased to 18,500 lbs., at which point the shank began to twist slightly as it continued to bend. The test was then stopped briefly to replace a critical piece of test equipment that had elongated. The toe fitting was readjusted and the load reapplied. At a load of 17,000 pounds, the shank-to-toe angle, though less than 90°, allowed the toe fitting to slip off and the test was stopped.

Horizontal Loads on Typical Ground Tackle

It is important to keep in mind that these tensile strength tests are intended to simulate what happens when an anchor that Is hooked or wedged In rock, coral, or other hard substance is overloaded. While holding power is the main function of an anchor, there is no guarantee that the holding ground you choose will be a consistent substratum of sand, mud, clay, or pebble. Often the anchoring bed is strewn with rocks, ledge, coral, or even wreckage. An anchor that Is capable of holding 100 times its weight in sand is of little use if it bends or breaks when subjected to a load of 20 times its weight when a fluke Is wedged in rocks and the wind blows up. While the anchor may not break, its flukes or shank may bend appreciably, rendering the anchor unreliable for future use.

The Danforth T-4000 showed remarkable resilience in the a bility of its shank to spring back to its original shape after twisting wildly. You would expect this anchor's breaking strength to meet or exceed its rated holding power of 4,000 lbs. However, under a maximum load of 2,600 lbs., the crown plate sheared off at the welds, causing the anchor to fail. Among the fluke anchors, the Danforth H-1500 Hi-Tensile showed superior strength, withstanding twice the load of the Deepset before failing. This anchor could be greatly improved with the simple modification of a shank stop, as on the P- 1500.

Of the plow anchors, the Danforth and CQR appear similar in design, but they differ markedly in construction. While the Danforth P-1500's breaking strength far exceeded its rated holding power, in our test it fell far short of the performance of the CQR and Bruce. The Danforth's swivel pin and swivel bushing appear to be the weak link in an otherwise versatile and efficient anchor. When loaded to 5, 700 lbs. (the point at which the Danforth plow failed), the CQR's shank showed some bending and twisting, but the shank-to-fluke angle had Increased by less than 5°. Due to Its drop-forged, high-tensile steel construction, the CQR's shank continued to bend and twist gradually without a tensile failure until it reached a maximum load of 13,250 lbs., more than twice that sustained by the Danforth plow.

The Bruce was clearly the strongest anchor we tested, both in terms of maximum load sustained and its stubborn refusal to bend. Built of one-piece, heat-treated cast steel, there are no joints, welds, or pins to break. Surprisingly, though the load was applied to the central fluke alone, it showed no distortion when the test was stopped. When loaded to 9,000 lbs., the Bruce was the only one in the test group that could still be considered serviceable for further use. And the Bruce is probably the only anchor we tested that would remain hooked in rocks when loaded beyond 14,000 lbs.

To put the results of this test into more meaningful perspective, let's look at the sort of theoretical loads imposed on "typical" boats of various sizes at anchor in a wide range of wind strengths. The table above right, "Horizontal Loads on Typical Ground Tackle," was developed by the American Boat and Yacht Council and assumes freedom of the boat to oscillate, and moderate shelter from large seas. However, surge loading from high seas can double the horizontal load on a boat's ground tackle. (This is where a long rode of suitable strength becomes valuable in absorbing shock loads.) While this table gives only a general approximation of the horizontal loads on your ground tackle, it's wise to keep these figures in mind when choosing your primary working anchor, for use In winds up to 30 knots.

A note about rodes: While Danforth recommends using a nylon rode with a short chain leader for its anchors, Bruce and Simpson-Lawrence (maker of the CQR) specify a minimum of one foot of chain per foot of boat, or three times the water depth, or an all-chain rode. The reasons for this are to add weigh, to increase catenary (the curving, and consequently more horizontal angle of the rode relative to the bottom), and to avoid chafe on rocks. Therefore, most anchor tests conducted in Europe use as much as 75' of chain (about one-quarter of the total rode length), with a scope of between 5:1 and 7: l. This underscores the point that it is not easy to devise an unbiased test.

These are some of the dynamics with which anchor manufacturers grapple when engineering anchors thin enough to penetrate the seabed, broad enough in fluke area to hold under load, and strong enough in design and construction to resist bending and breaking.

While there are many anchors on the market today that meet all the criteria we look for in an anchor to one degree or another, there is no single anchor, nor one style of anchor, that outperforms all others in all conditions.

Further Comments

In Foundation Findings Report #5 (1989 Summer Boating Equipment Reports), we tested the tensile strengths of seven anchors by simulating what would happen to each anchor when its flukes were lodged in rock, coral, a stump, or other unyielding surface in a strong wind or stressful retrieval situation.

Following that report, a number of anchor manufacturers approached us about performing an identical test on seven additional anchors. We put each of these seven anchors through the same paces, using the facilities and technical expertise of an independent testing laboratory, COMTEX Development Corp .. at the University of Lowell, Massachusetts.

The results of the follow-up anchor test are summarized in the chart below. The chart illustrates the strengths of all 14 anchors tested and lists them in order of increasing anchor weight.

No single anchor outperforms all others in all conditions. That's why prudent boat owners stow more than one type aboard. A secondary storm anchor of a different type than your primary anchor is essential safety gear aboard any coastal cruising boat and offshore cruisers should carry a minimum of three anchors.

While holding power is the main function of an anchor, other factors to take into account are: wind and sea conditions in the anchorage, and bottom characteristics (is the seabed hard sand, silt, mud, rock, coral, weeds, or kelp?). Also, the size of your boat, the relative ease of setting and retrieving the anchor; and the stowability.

Tips on Anchor Selection and Use

• Coastal cruising boats should carry a minimum of two anchors and an offshore cruiser should carry a minimum of three. A primary anchor should be capable of holding your boat in winds up to 30 knots and should be well-suited to the bottom conditions where you boat. A storm anchor should be capable of holding your boat In any wind and sea conditions you are likely to encounter.
• In storm conditions, more anchors are lost to rode failure or deck hardware failure than to anchor failure. Be sure all your ground tackle components are adequately strong and free from chafe and corrosion.
• Use only nylon line or a combination of nylon line and chain. Nylon is the strongest synthetic line; it stretches to absorb the sudden shocks of a boat jerking around in rough water, and it resists chafe.
• Unless the anchor manufacturer specifies otherwise, follow this general rule: 3' of chain between the anchor and the rode to hold a 30' boat in most conditions; 6-10' of chain for larger boats.
• When choosing an anchor, know what you are buying. The market Is rife with "budget" anchors and even some counterfeits that resemble name brands. As our tensile strength tests show, construction is all-important. The best anchors represent a significant investment; consider it hull insurance.
• Know your seabed. Check your chart for indications of the type of holding ground. If the water is warm and not too deep, dive over the side to inspect the bottom and see how the anchor is set.
• Perfect your anchoring technique and always be sure your anchor Is well-set before turning in for the night or leaving the boat.

Boat Reviews

• Boats Specs
• Marine Pros
• Boat Insurance
• Boat Warranties
• Boat Transport
• Boat Towing
• Marine Forecasts

Your Ultimate Boating Resource

Anchor Selection: A Guide to Types and Sizes

Anchoring is a crucial aspect of boating, and the right anchor can provide stability, safety and peace of mind for any sailor. Choosing the correct type and size of anchor is essential, as it can greatly impact your overall experience on the water. This guide will outline the various types of anchors available, their ideal uses, and how to choose the right size for your boat.

Understanding the Purpose of Anchors

Anchors serve multiple purposes in boating:

• Holding power : Anchors are designed to provide holding power by digging into the seabed and creating resistance, preventing the boat from drifting.
• Temporary mooring : When a boat needs to be stationary for a short period, an anchor is used to secure it in place.
• Emergencies : Anchors can serve as a safety measure in emergencies by helping to control your boat’s movements in rough weather or if the engine fails.

Types of Anchors

There are several types of anchors to cater for various boating requirements and environments. The primary ones include:

Plow Anchors

Originally designed for large ships, plow anchors resemble a plowshare and offer excellent holding power in most bottom conditions, especially sand and mud. They work by digging into the seabed and maintaining a consistent grip. Plow anchors are popular among cruisers due to their adaptability, and they can handle a variety of wind and current changes.

Danforth Anchors

Also known as fluke anchors, Danforth anchors boast superior holding power in proportion to their weight. They’re characterized by their flat, sharp flukes and long shank that allows them to dig into soft substrates like sand and mud. However, Danforth anchors may struggle with rocky bottoms and can be challenging to set in grassy or weedy seabeds.

Claw Anchors

Claw anchors, also known as Bruce anchors, have three claws that provide holding power in a variety of bottom conditions. Due to their versatile design, they re-set easily when the boat’s position changes and can function with shorter scope, which is the anchor rode (chain or rope) payed out relative to the water’s depth. These factors make claw anchors popular among boaters, though their holding power may be less than that of plow or Danforth anchors.

Mushroom Anchors

Mushroom anchors are useful for small boats in relatively calm conditions. As the name suggests, they’re shaped like a mushroom and utilize their weight to create a suction effect, embedding themselves into soft bottom substrates like silt or mud. However, they generally offer limited holding power in stronger currents or wind.

Choosing the Right Size Anchor for Your Boat

Selecting the appropriate size anchor for your vessel involves considering factors like boat weight, size, and the windage (resistance to wind). Generally, anchor manufacturers offer recommendations based on boat length, but it’s essential to factor in your specific boat’s requirements and typical anchoring conditions.

Anchor Weight

Anchors are typically sized by weight, ranging from a few pounds for small vessels to several hundred pounds for large yachts. The rule of thumb is that the heavier the boat, the heavier the anchor should be. However, it’s important to consider the type of anchor you’re using, as the holding power varies across anchor designs.

Boat Length

Boat length is another crucial aspect to consider when selecting an anchor size. Consult manufacturer guidelines on their recommendations for anchor sizing based on boat length.

Chain and Rode Size

The anchor rode, which connects your boat to the anchor, is critical for holding power. The scope, typically measured in a ratio of the rode’s length to the water’s depth, is an important factor for the anchor’s performance. A common recommendation is using a 4:1 scope for temporary mooring and a 7:1 scope for overnight anchoring. Ensure the chain (the section of the rode closest to the anchor) is of suitable size and strength to prevent it from breaking under strain.

Final Thoughts

When selecting an anchor for your boat, it’s essential to consider the type, size, and the conditions in which you’ll be anchoring. Consult manufacturer guidelines and conduct thorough research on the options available to make an informed decision. A properly sized and suited anchor will offer peace of mind, ensuring your vessel remains securely moored during your adventures on the water.

RELATED ARTICLES

Overview of the 2024 sea-doo rxp-x 325, overview of the 2024 parker offshore 2900 cc, what your boat’s beam is and why it matters, power cats of 2024: ultimate guide to the top power catamarans this year, navigating the heat: 10 safety tips for a safe boat ride in the summer heat, latest posts, don't miss, our newsletter.

Get the latest boating tips, fishing resources and featured products in your email from BoatingWorld.com!

What type of wood is used for pier pilings?

What is the difference between a dock and a floating pier, what is the proper technique for pulling a beginner wakeboarder, what does ‘no wake’ mean on a lake, what is the difference between wash and wake, highs, lows, and tidal know-how: a deep dive into ocean currents, 10 essential tips for fishing near private property, the benefits of using a drift sock: guidance for anglers, lure fishing: secrets for imitating live bait and attracting fish, explore the untapped depths of america’s best bass fishing spots, outboard motor maintenance: tips for keeping your engine in top shape, the essential boat tool kit: tools every boater needs, diy boat building: 8 tips and tricks for building your own vessel, the art of miniature maritime craftsmanship: ship in a bottle, antifouling paints: a guide to keeping your boat shipshape, beginner’s guide to standup paddle boarding: tips and techniques, boating for fitness: how to stay active on the water, kayak safety: how to stay safe on the water, anchoring in a kayak or canoe: how to secure your small boat, overview of the 2024 yamaha 252sd, overview of the 2024 tiara yachts 48 le, overview of the 2024 bass cat jaguar sts, 2024 pursuit os 445: an overview, 2024 aquila 47 molokai review, 2024 sea-doo switch 13 sport review, gear reviews, megabass oneten max lbo jerkbait review, fortress anchors fx-7 anchoring system review, fortress anchors fx-11 anchoring system review, fortress anchors commando anchor kit review, fortress anchors aluminum anchors review, stay in touch.

To be updated with all the latest news, offers and special announcements.

• Privacy Policy

• Fishing Tips

The Best Boat Anchors Of All Time (Ranked Best Overall To Worst…)

• By: Joseph Simonds
• on July 16, 2021
• Found In: Boat Anchoring , Boating Tips , Fishing Tips , Weekly Newsletter: 7-18-21

• Comments (22)

It’s boat anchoring time!

Being able to quickly anchor your boat in any situation is one of the most important things for a boater (especially if you’re trying to catch fish and want to make sure you stay on your fishing honey hole).

It’s also a massive safety hazard if you have a small, weak anchor that won’t hold you during a storm, ripping current, etc.

But have you ever been confused (or uncertain) about which anchor is best for your boat?

Well, you’re not alone…

Turns out the majority of boaters we interviewed said they just bought an anchor “because their buddy had a similar anchor on his/her boat” or “because it was on sale and fit in the front hatch of their boat”…

NOT GOOD!!!

That’s why we had Salt Strong Fishing Coach Capt. Peter Deeks embark on a multi-month underwater investigation to find out exactly which anchors are best, and just as important, which anchors to avoid.

Let me tell you, the results were a bit shocking!

Let’s just say that the most popular anchors you see on boats are NOT the best!

Here are the main types of boat anchors that we tested:

• Danforth Fortress Fluke Anchor
• Common Danforth Fluke Anchor
• Small Fluke Anchor (West Marine)
• Danforth Steel Fluke (West Marine)
• Bruce Anchor
• Mushroom Anchor
• Grapple Reef Anchor
• Folding Grapnel Anchor
• Plow Anchor

Next, we tested each of these anchors out in every one of these situations (with and without chain – and with different rope length scopes):

• Hard compact sand
• Loose rocks/shelly gravel bottom
• Rocky/reef/wreck environment

So below you’ll see the following regarding this “best to worst” anchor test:

• An intro video where Capt. Deeks shares a few anchoring tips along with how we set up the test (definitely worth the watch)
• Links to all of the individual anchor tests (for you engineer types who like to see the actual underwater footage and testing of every anchor)
• Actual rankings for each anchor
• Conclusion video where we discuss the pros and cons of each anchor and declare a WINNER of best overall boat anchor

Enjoy this course and please leave us a comment below with any questions you have about anchors, how to anchor, or specific types of anchors you like.

1. Introduction To The Anchoring Test

Sign up for FREE to receive the latest saltwater fishing videos, tutorials, product reviews, and fishing product discounts!

2. Links To All Anchor Tests (Actual Underwater Footage)

Click any link below to see the full underwater footage for each anchor type

3. The Boat Anchor Test Results

The point scoring system is based on speed and strength of hold with the following criteria:

1 = one point is awarded for an anchor fail with endless slipping before finally setting

2 = two points are awarded for an anchor that has slight slipping (or slight issues) but does set

3 = three points are awarded for an anchor that works perfectly and sets exactly how and when you want it to

The best anchors (ranked from best anchor to worst anchor):

• Best in Mud
• Best in Sand
• Best in Hard Sand
• Best for using shortest Rode
• Quietest Anchor
• 2 nd in ease of use and storage
• Tied for Best Structure or Wreck
• Plow Anchor (44 Points)
• Large West Marine Brand Fluke Anchor (37 Points)
• Small West Marine Brand Fluke Anchor (37 Points)
• Danforth Fortress Fluke (28 Points)
• Folding Grappling Anchor (26 Points)
• The Most Common Cheap Fluke Anchor (25 Points)
• Specialty Anchor – Best for Structure and Ledges
• Specialty Anchor – Best for slowing a drift or light force use

  Click here to download the Google sheet with all of the individual anchor scores

4. conclusion – the best boat anchors (ranked).

In conclusion, the BRUCE ANCHOR was the best overall anchor for fishing boats.

The Bruce, The Bruce, The Bruce is on Fire!

What’s crazy is that no one on our immediate Salt Strong team had one in their boat (we all had Danforth flukes and even a new Danforth Fortress – which was one of the WORST anchors).

But you can believe we’re all headed out to get a big Bruce anchor after seeing all of this.

The next time you’re at a sandbar, check out what anchors are being used.

I bet you’ll see more cheap fluke anchors and Danforth fortress anchors than anything else (which this study proved to be not very effective at holding boats).

Did you have any “aha’ moments from this anchor course?

Do you currently own a Bruce anchor?

Any anchors that we missed?

Anything else you’d like to see when it comes to boat anchors or anchoring tips?

Let us know by leaving a comment.

Tight lines and tight anchors!

Click here to download the Google sheet with all of the individual anchor scores

 click here to join the insider club, related categories:.

• Boat Anchoring , Boating Tips , Fishing Tips , Weekly Newsletter: 7-18-21

Ok, all the tests without chain are really useless! ANY anchor, should have proper amount of chain. That is just how anchors work. Period! And per Chapmans just sayin. That being said, most anchors hold better in certain bottoms then others. I have used a Fortress for years on a 22 Chawk Pilothouse (LOTS of windage!) w great success. But takes some skill to set properly. Also have have many other kinds and types. All have their place, and most vessels, even small, should carry 2 types, for different bottoms. But thanks for the great vids. Hope people can see, not having chain (really need 10ft of proper size for boat) greatly affects anchor set.

I have the grappling small anchor for my kayak. PLease let me know what you would recommend instead. Great stuff!!

Worst anchor – cement shoes Best anchor – 55 gal drum filled with cement, unknown, and whatever dumped in the tin can grounds off statin island.

Well I, too, had the winning worst anchor which seemed to be a reasonable one when I bought it. I rarely use an anchor since I am in shallow flats most of the time. That anchor didn’t last too long – it rusted worse than most so I pitched it. I use my old galvanized Danforth and it is holding up. Perhaps I will get a Plow or Bruce when the old one gives up. Shorter rode would be a selling point.

Get a Mantus anchor, similar to a plow but self righting. Best anchor ever.

No box anchor included in the test? I use a box on my pontoon and a fluke on my bass boat.

Please remember: You won’t use your best bower for holding fishing marks. For permanent parking. The chain does most of the work. Lots of heavy chain + cable up to seven times the depth of the water at high tide.

For fishing, you will use a very much lighter kedge. Possibly, even without chain. You will probably tow it from mark to mark. Very physical, even with a winch. If it slips now and again so what. Just curse and reset it. You will be on the boat after all.

Best Bower is your insurance for your pride and joy. Best you can accomodate / afford.

Kedge will be your bain. Usually lives like Odo in a bucket. Filthy, heavy, awkward and bloody hard work. Consider if you can set and reset it 10 times on a tide. Can I tow it? Make sure you can afford it when you loose it. Must trip easily so you can get it back off a dodgy bottom.

Choice! The excellent research has been done for you. Many thanks all round.

A rider. As a massive chain swings with the tide, it sterilizes the sea bed. Tremendous destruction. Use fore and aft permanent moorings in the absense of “Eco Moorings”. We are installing the latter, especially to conserve sea grass.

Did you test a Navy Anchor?

I think any “absolute” advice has to be given and/or taken with a grain of salt. I say this because everyone’s frequency of use, depth of water, and type of bottom they anchor in is different. For example, I rarely use an anchor (thanks to Minn Kota and Power Pole) but my anchor resides in the anchor locker of my 22 foot bay boat 24/.7. The anchor in my boat is an FX7 Fortress without any chain. If and when I do anchor (maybe 6 or 8 times a year), it is either mud or sand……and the Fortress locks up tight…..even to the point that, oftentimes, I have to use the boat to pull it up. I personally have no need for a 10 to 15 lb anchor in the bow! Obviously, that would change if I were trying to anchor in 10 feet of water with 20 feet of rope, or anchoring in grass, or ……….

I do indeed have bruce anchors on my boat. I learned of them long ago as a member of the sailing community as they are very popular with cruisers who live on their sailboats. I carry a 10kg Bruce on my 24’ bay boat and a second smaller one. I learned to carry what is called a kedge anchor which really is just a small anchor that you can either throw or manually place to help pull you off a lee shore, when you run aground or are in danger of doing so. I use a 7# bruce anchor with 5’ of stainless chain and 75’ of 5/16” nylon for my line. I can throw this anchor about 50’. Let it settle to the bottom and then set it and pull yourself either off a sandbar or back out to deeper water. It has saved the day more than once and it is also a nice anchor for a dingy or kayak.

STOP WASTING TIME ON THE WATER!

Do what the “SMART ANGLERS” are doing and join the Insider Club.

Here’s what you’ll receive today when you join:

• Weekly fishing reports and TRENDS revealing exactly where you should fish every trip
• Weekly “spot dissection” videos that walk you through all the best spots in your area
• Exclusive fishing tips from the PROS you can’t find anywhere else
• Everything you need to start catching fish more consistently (regardless if you fish out of a boat, kayak, or land).

The SECRET Redfish, Trout, & Snook Lure That Is Out-Fishing Live Bait

the secret redfish, strout, & snook lure that is out -fishing live bait

THE #1 REDFISH LURE IN THE WORLD?

About Salt Strong

In December of 2014, these two brothers shocked their clients, friends, and family by quitting their 6-figure jobs to start their dream focused on helping saltwater anglers:

1. Catch more fish in less time

2. Create memories that matter through fishing

Quick Links

Popular sections.

• Fishing Club
• Fishing Courses
• Fishing Knots [Rankings]
• Product Reviews
• Fish Recipes

Popular Tips

• Inshore Manifesto
• Redfish Tips
• Seatrout Tips
• Distance Casting
• Kayaks/Paddleboards

Other Fishing Tips You May Like :

What you need to reel in the catch of a lifetime from kayak or boat, is this the best lure for nearshore and offshore reefs, choose a category :, editor's picks.

• Fishing Manifesto
• Inshore Fishing 101
• Best Fishing Knots
• Insider Home

01. connect With Salt Strong

02. join with salt strong.

• RISK-FREE Membership
• 3 Inshore Secrets Webinar
• Fishing Tribe Facebook Group

03. Salt Strong Products

• Salt Strong Online Mastery Courses
• Salt Strong INSIDER Club
• Salt Strong Books
• Inshore Fishing Manifesto

01. CONNECT WITH SALT STRONG

02. JOIN SALT STRONG

03. SALT STRONG PRODUCTS

Email: [email protected] Toll-free: (855)888-6494 1505 S Lake Shipp Drive Winter Haven, FL 33880

• © 2024 Salt Strong, LLC
• 1505 S Lake Shipp Drive Winter Haven, FL 33880
• Smart Fishing Spots
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Legal Information
• Career Opportunities
• Tackle Tester Program
• Ready to Join
• Smart Fishing Tides
• Regional Map
• Leaderboard
• Members Directory
• Fishing School
• Weekend Game Plans
• Cheat Sheets
• Tackle Store
• Group Discounts
• Account Settings

Get Instant Access To “The Inshore Fishing Manifesto” PDF Now

• Your information is safe with us and will not be shared with any third party.

Free Shipping *

Premium Quality

No-Hassle Returns

[email protected]

844-524-7627

Anchor Selection Guide: How to Choose the Best Boat Anchor Type

There are a number of boat anchors available, constructed of different materials, and often with confusing names. This article will discuss the most popular types of boat anchors,  how to choose the best anchor for your boat, the most common material types, and also give an overview of different naming conventions.

Quick Anchor Style Summary

Video: Choosing an Anchor Type

Our video below introduces many of the anchor types discussed here, although the article discusses a few more anchor types and provides some useful links.

Quick Summary Boat Anchor Recommendation

For most boaters , a Bruce or Delta is the best balance between price and performance. Both perform similarly and are similarly priced (Narrowly, the Bruce/Claw is our favorite of the three). If you've used a Danforth in the past , and you have had luck with it, choose a Danforth. If you've never used one before and if your setup allows it, choose a Bruce or Delta instead. If you're a blue-water cruiser , choose a CQR, or consider one of the new generation of anchors discussed below.

Boat Anchor Names: Trademarked Names and Generic Names

A special note is needed on the naming of anchors. Many anchors have a trademarked name, such as a   Bruce   or CQR, and a generic name like Claw or Plow. This is the same as how Xerox is a trademarked name for photocopier and how Aspirin is a trademarked name for pain killer. Trademarks effectively never expire whereas design patents expire after approximately 20-25 years. Therefore, manufacturers are free to clone an anchor design that has an expired patent but cannot use the trademarked name.

Bruce™ Claw Anchor

The   Bruce, or Claw, remains one of the most popular anchors among recreational boaters in North America. This is our anchor of choice as well.

The   Bruce   was developed in the 70s by the Bruce Anchor Group. Once their patent expired in the early 2000s, they stopped production of this anchor but many imitations have come along since.

The  Bruce  is an excellent all-purpose anchor as it performs well in most sea bottoms including mud, sand, rock, and coral. It has a harder time penetrating harder surfaces, such as clay, and bottoms with heavy grass. The three-claw design sets more easily than other anchors. It also resets easily if it is ever broken loose. On the downside, the Bruce has a lower holding power per pound than other anchors, meaning you’ll usually need a larger anchor than say the  Delta/Wing .

Pros:  Performs well in most conditions. Sets easily. Cons:  Awkward one piece design. Lower holding power per pound. Bottoms: Performs well in most bottoms; Struggles in hard bottoms such as clay, or heavy grass.

CQR™/Plow   &   Delta™/Wing Anchor

Both the CQR/Plow and the Delta/Wing are a plow style anchor. The most significant difference between these anchors is the fact that the CQR has a hinged design whereas the Delta is a one piece design.

The   CQR   is one of the oldest styles, dating back to the 30s and to this day, it remains one of the most popular anchors among blue water cruisers. Despite this, it has relatively low holding power and it consistently struggles in independent tests. It’s also rare to find a CQR under 25 lbs lending itself to the saying “There’s no such thing as a small CQR”. Despite these shortcomings, the hinged design makes it more responsive to wind and tide changes as compared to other anchors.

The   Delta   is arguably the most popular anchor on boats today, and is the standard anchor of choice used by most boat manufacturers. It has a good holding power per pound (about 50% more than the Bruce).

Both the   Delta   and the   CQR   perform well in most bottoms, struggling the most in rock.

Pros:   Performs well in most conditions. Fits most bow rollers. Cons:   Hinged design can make stowage awkward. "No such thing as a small CQR/Plow anchor". Bottoms : Performs well in most bottoms; struggles in rock.

Danforth™/Fluke Anchor

The  Danforth , or Fluke anchor, remains a very popular anchor choice. The Fortress is also a popular Fluke style anchor, different from the  Danforth  in that it comes apart and it constructed of light-weight, high-strength, aluminum.

The Fluke performs well in mud and sand, potentially the best of any anchor style. The downside is that outside of these bottoms, it is not a good performer. Therefore, it is a mud/sand only anchor, which fortunately is what most bottoms are comprised of.

Whether or not it is used as a primary anchor, a Fluke anchor makes an excellent choice as a secondary or stern anchor.

Pros:  Performs well in mud and sand. Stows easily on most bow rollers. Cons:   Does not perform well outside of mud/sand. Bottoms : Top performer in mud/sand. Performs poorly in other bottoms.

Spade Anchors

There are several anchors on the market today that feature a sharp fluke and a roll bar. These include the   Rocna and Manson Supreme.

Each of these anchors are essentially a variation on a plow style anchor. If you look at the plow portion of these anchors, you can see they are a lot sharper than traditional plows like the   Delta/Wing   and CQR. Analogous to a knife through butter, these anchors can penetrate the sea bottom a lot easier and deeper than the other anchor styles, hence the name for these anchors: "spade". The roll bar helps orient the anchor upright when setting.

These anchors have performed   extremely well in third party tests . The biggest downside to these anchors is that because they are still patented, they can be very expensive. The roll bar along with the elongated fluke can also make storing these anchors on bow rollers difficult.

Pros:   Very high holding power for many models. Cons:   Difficult to stow on a bow roller. Expense. Bottoms : Performs well in most bottoms; less effective in rock

Grapnel   and Other Small Craft Anchors

A  Grapnel anchor  is generally used for small boats such as Kayaks, Dinghies, Canoes, etc. It’s also popular with fishermen.They fold up very compactly and are easy to stow. A Grapnel’s holding power comes from hooking onto another object, such as a rock. When it does hook, it can create immense holding power, which can also make retrieving the anchor difficult.

Pros:  Great for use as a lunch hook. Folds to allow for compact storage. Cons:  Not appropriate for non-temporary anchorage. Bottoms: Rock or other situations when it can hook onto an object.

Mushroom Anchors

Large Mushroom anchors  are often used for permanent mooring buoys. As the silt from the sea-bottom builds up over these anchors, it can result in extreme holding power, up to 10 times the holding power of its actual weight. As a mooring buoy, the mushroom anchor is an excellent choice, however, it is not as useful in some temporary anchoring situations. An exception is that smaller versions of these anchors are good for use in small boats for anchoring while fishing or for a lunch stop over silty bottoms where the mushroom can penetrate.

Pros: If large, great for permanent mooring buoys. If small, good for use while fishing or for a lunch stop. Cons: If large, not appropriate for non-permanent moorings. If small, only good in soft bottoms. Bottoms: Silt, soft mud, unpacked sand.

Boat Anchor Material Types

Boat anchors come in a variety of types, the most popular being mild steel, high-tensile steel, stainless steel, and aluminum.

Most of the traditional steel anchors we are accustomed to seeing are likely either mild or high tensile steel. Mild steel and high-tensile steel are nearly indistinguishable from one another appearance wise. However, high tensile steel is 2-3 times stronger than mild steel. This isn't to say that a high-tensile steel boat anchor has 2-3 times the holding power of its mild steel counterpart, but it will nonetheless be stronger.

Both mild steel and high-tensile steel anchors are not corrosion resistant, and therefore need to be galvanized to prevent rust and other corrosion. All steel anchors (except stainless) should be galvanized. Galvanization has a tendency to wear down over time, but an anchor (as well as nearly any other steel product) can be re-galvanized.

Stainless steel is identical to galvanized steel in terms of holding power but differs significantly in appearance. The shiny gloss is essentially the only difference between stainless steel and galvanized steel. Stainless steel is also very corrosion resistant and will resist most rusting over time. You will often see manufacturers describing stainless steel as either 316 Stainless or 304 Stainless. 316 is a different chemical composition than 304 and is more corrosion resistant. It also more expensive.

There are some anchors constructed from high strength aluminum, such as the Fortress. These anchors are extremely lightweight while still offering high holding power. These anchors rely on bottom penetration for most of the holding power, and therefore, if they are not set, they provide little to no holding power.

Published May 08, 2018

Recent Posts

Windlass problems common issues and how to fix them.

Let's look at common issues with windlasses and how to address them: 1) Windlass Won’t Run in Either Direction 2) Solenoid Clicks, but Windlass Won’t Move 3) Windlass Lacks Power to Haul the Anchor 4) Rode Gets Jammed or Doesn’t Come In

Our history: a 20 year journey

Boat Cleaning Tips for Anglers: Keeping Your Vessel Spotless and Pristine

Avast, Ye Mariners! Master the Art of Docking: A Swashbuckling Guide for Boaters

Top Reasons to Keep a Boating Maintenance Log

4 Top Tips for Buying a New-to-you Used Boat

Bent Boat Anchor Shank: Common Causes and Prevention Tips

Prepare Your Boat For An Above Average Hurricane Season

Best Methods For Anchoring Your Jet Ski in Deep or Shallow Water

Best Options For Connecting Your Boat To WiFi Internet

Information

About Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Product Manuals & Instructions Shipping Info

Anchors Anchor Lines Biminis Covers Dock Lines Fenders Galleyware Windlasses

Customer Service

Contact Us FAQs Returns & Warranty Wholesale Inquiries

Anchoring Help

Browse all products >, stay updated.

© 2024 TH Marine. All Rights Reserved. Anchoring.com ™ • Norestar™ • Komo Covers®

• New Sailboats
• Sailboats 21-30ft
• Sailboats 31-35ft
• Sailboats 36-40ft
• Sailboats Over 40ft
• Sailboats Under 21feet
• used_sailboats
• Apps and Computer Programs
• Communications
• Fishfinders
• Handheld Electronics
• Plotters MFDS Rradar
• Wind, Speed & Depth Instruments
• Anchoring Mooring
• Running Rigging
• Sails Canvas
• Standing Rigging
• Diesel Engines
• Off Grid Energy
• Cleaning Waxing
• DIY Projects
• Repair, Tools & Materials
• Spare Parts
• Tools & Gadgets
• Cabin Comfort
• Ventilation
• Footwear Apparel
• Foul Weather Gear
• Mailport & PS Advisor
• Inside Practical Sailor Blog
• Activate My Web Access
• Reset Password
• Customer Service

• Free Newsletter

Blue Jacket 40 Used Boat Review

Catalina 270 vs. The Beneteau First 265 Used Boat Match-Up

Ericson 41 Used Boat Review

Mason 33 Used Boat Review

How to Create a Bullet-Proof VHF/SSB Backup

Tips From A First “Sail” on the ICW

Tillerpilot Tips and Safety Cautions

Best Crimpers and Strippers for Fixing Marine Electrical Connectors

Polyester vs. Nylon Rode

Getting the Most Out of Older Sails

How (Not) to Tie Your Boat to a Dock

Stopping Mainsheet Twist

Fuel Lift Pump: Easy DIY Diesel Fuel System Diagnostic and Repair

Ensuring Safe Shorepower

Sinking? Check Your Stuffing Box

What Do You Do With Old Fiberglass Boats?

Boat Repairs for the Technically Illiterate

Boat Maintenance for the Technically Illiterate

Whats the Best Way to Restore Clear Plastic Windows?

Stopping Holding-tank Odors

Giving Bugs the Big Goodbye

Galley Gadgets for the Cruising Sailor

The Rain Catcher’s Guide

Sailing Gear for Kids

What’s the Best Sunscreen?

UV Clothing: Is It Worth the Hype?

Preparing Yourself for Solo Sailing

R. Tucker Thompson Tall Ship Youth Voyage

On Watch: This 60-Year-Old Hinckley Pilot 35 is Also a Working…

On Watch: America’s Cup

On Watch: All Eyes on Europe Sail Racing

Dear Readers

• Sails, Rigging & Deck Gear
• Safety & Seamanship
• Emergencies

Practical Sailor Classic: The Load on Your Rode

Our time spent testing anchors has prompted some important musings; we offer the following thoughts regarding the forces and factors to be considered before purchasing anchors and rodes..

Without really meaning to, over the past several years, Practical Sailor has acquired a considerable reputation for testing anchors and anchoring gear. On more than a dozen occasions anchor makers have sent anchors to be included in these PS tests. Inventors, too, have sent prototypes. (The notion of a perfect anchor is so intriguing that inventors are, we’re positive, out there working right now.)

When PS first looked at this situation back in 1997, there had been dozens of tests run by manufacturers (and testing organizations in their pay), other magazines, independent authors of books on the subject, and even government-allied groups. Among these were the French APAVE, the U.S. Navy tests, the RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) in England, the Boat/US-Cruising World magazine strength tests, the Dutch tests (done in a huge sandbox), the on-going tests by naval architect and author, the late Robert A. Smith, and the extensive “Seattle Tests” co-sponsored by the Safety at Sea Committee of the Sailing Foundation and West Marine.

Close examination of the results of these tests, plus careful readings of books, like Earl Hinz’s Complete Book of Anchoring & Mooring, Don Bamford’s Anchoring, and the revered Chapman’s (probably the best-selling marine book of all-time), suggested to PS that the tests were too omnibus (in most cases, the bottom was not even known or varied). The tests tried to do it all.

In our due diligence, we also checked a new book, International Marine’s Small-Boat Seamanship Manual. It came out in 2002 and is “Based on the U.S. Coast Guard Seamanship Manual.” All the many photos were supplied by the Coast Guard. Only six pages are allotted to anchoring and the only table is a very small one supplied by Danforth, giving three anchor sizes for boats 10, 30 and 40 feet in length.

Another book we examined was Staying Put, by Brian Fagan, who enjoys a strong reputation on the California coast. The book has a minimal table showing boat size (20 to 50 feet); the recommended size of chain (both proof coil and high test) and nylon rode, and what size anchor, as long as it is a CQR, Delta, West Danforth type, or Bruce.

BETTER MOUSETRAPS?

One of sailing’s acknowledged authorities, John Rousmaniere, in his tome The Annapolis Book of Seamanship, uses tables from both the American Boat & Yacht Council and the Earl Hinz book mentioned above. The Hinz table deals only with Danforth-type, plow, Bruce, and yachtsman anchors, but does make chain and line rode recommendations. Rousmaniere also makes the puzzling statement, “Nylon rode should be half-inch in diameter for every nine feet of boat length overall.” Going by that prescription, a 40-foot boat needs a hawser more than two inches in diameter!

Another authority, Steve Dashew, in his huge (1,232 pages) Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia, tap-dances for a half dozen pages around the subject of anchor loads, but summarizes with: “You should carry the largest possible anchor and use it for everyday anchorages.” He also “suggests” as a main anchor “the largest Bruce you can carry, twice the size of what everyone else suggests…,” and a big Fortress as a second anchor. He likes a chain rode. We think it’s good, conservative advice.

DEALING WITH THE CONFLICTS

Because of all the conflicting and imprecise data, Practical Sailor concluded that anchor testing should be broken into small sections that can be assembled by a boat owner to suit his or her needs. It was determined that the predominant “sections” were:

1. Setting (if an anchor doesn’t set, it isn’t an anchor). 2. Holding (with dragging as a derivative). 3. Re-setting (or holding) when veered.

PS settled on four other factors to be considered, after the above three. They are: (1) the difficulty of breaking out; (2) weight on board; (3) quality of workmanship, as it pertains to long-term utility, and (4) ease of handling and stowage, either at the bow or in an anchor locker. For some owners, self-launching and automatic retrieval might be added to the list.

The next question is, of course, in what? Fine sand, coarse sand, that crusted sand found in tropical waters, good solid mud, gravel, the deep thin mud found in Massachusetts’ Nantucket Harbor (which was from 1800 until 1840 the whaling capital of the world), or the soupy ooze encountered in the tributaries of the Outer Banks of the Carolinas? That question led to the decision to conduct separate tests in clearly identified bottom conditions.

Next question: What kind of boat and what wind and water conditions? Along with bottom composition, these factors are vital.

After winnowing wearily through the possibilities for testing, PS settled—because we had to settle on something—on a 30- to 32-foot sailboat, in sheltered water, with no more than 40 knots of air (which is classified as the top end of a “fresh gale” or Beaufort 8).

Boat length and wind velocity are the two components in the tables usually seen in marine catalogs, manufacturer’s data, and general marine reference books. And a few include the boat’s beam.

The real questions for any boat owner are:

A. In what kind of conditions—wind, bottom and waves—do I expect to anchor?

B. For the conditions, how much of a load, or “pull,” will be exerted on the components (anchor, rode, shackles, etc.) in my anchoring gear?

Getting to that single figure isn’t easy. But without it, how can one select an anchor? Or a rode, or whether it should be nylon line or chain? And it’s even more difficult to reconcile this quandary with the customary tables that are intended to help you select an anchor.

West Marine’s 2004 catalog has an “Anchor Selection Guide” featuring tables that specify different styles of anchors (fluke, plow, Bruce, etc.) and specific models relative to boat length from 0 to 120 feet LOA. There’s also a full-page Advisor on anchor rodes.

(A pause here, if you please, in defense of such tables, which can’t possibly place on a single grid all the conditions that affect anchoring. The worst omission, however, is leaving out wind strength, a vital factor that could be stated in a single line.)

The 2003 Defender catalog has half a dozen tables supplied by manufacturers, such as Fortress, Guardian, Danforth, and Simpson Lawrence. The Fortress and Danforth charts show holding power in pounds, but only the Danforth data supplies wind strengths (20 knots and 60 knots).

The 2002 Boat/US catalog uses boat length and holding power in pounds for anchors made by Suncor, Danforth, CQR, Bruce, Fortress, Delta, and others. Stating the holding power is admirable, but for what wind strength?

“Holding power” (Item B above) is at the heart of anchor and rode selection. Put another way, it begs the question, just how hard does your boat pull on that anchor? And an integral part of the problem is (Item A above), “In what bottom and with what wind and waves?”

THE ABYC VS. ROBERT SMITH

The American Boat and Yacht Council calls holding power “Typical Design Horizontal Loads in Pounds.” Robert Smith, a naval architect and engineer who spent many long days testing anchors, calls it “Calculated Rode Tension in Wind and Waves.”

The ABYC data comes in a table reproduced in abbreviated form above. Smith’s table included in a sidebar at the end of the article. A cursory examination will tell you that they are wildly dissimilar.

For wind strengths, the ABYC table gives a set of figures for “Lunch Hook,” “Working Anchor” and “Storm Anchor,” which corresponds to winds of 15, 30, and 42 knots. If you expect to anchor in 60 knots (typical in summer thunderstorms), you multiply the “working anchor” value by four.

Along the other side of the table are boat lengths from 20 to 60 feet, in five-foot increments, but modified by a second column giving a boat’s beam (for both power and sail). A footnote says that for your boat, use whatever combination gives the highest load.

The ABYC data is good, conservative stuff, which is where one should be positioned when buying an anchor and a rode that will stand up to the extremes. The selection should be made on a thoughtful pre-determination of the worst conditions in which one expects to anchor. The problem is, of course, that after building an anchor system based on 42 knots you find yourself stuck in a rather open anchorage during a two-day gale that wasn’t supposed to happen.

In sharp contrast to the ABYC data is the data published in the table of the third edition of Robert Smith’s 1983 book called Anchors—Selection and Use (see table at end of article).

Smith told PS (a year or so before he died in June of 1997) that he obtained his data from testing in a level area of the Columbia River that has a fine sand bottom and a fetch of four miles to windward. He used several boats, both power and sail. With a 30-foot boat anchored in 30 knots of wind, the ABYC says the load on your anchor system will be 1,200 pounds. Using Smith’s figures, the load will be only 341 pounds. The figures, if used to help you determine what size anchor and rode to use, will produce radically different choices.

One more example: if you have a 30-foot sailboat and get caught on a night when a 60-knot squall goes through the protected harbor in which you’re anchored, the ABYC says the pull on your anchor rode will be 2,800 pounds. Smith says it would be 765 pounds. The ABYC figures are about 3.5 times greater than Smith’s. When asked to explain these wild discrepancies, Smith said, “I don’t know how they got their figures; mine are real, developed by actual testing.”

As originally explained by Tom Hale, then the ABYC’s technical director, the ABYC data was developed in the 1950s to indicate the strength required of an anchor bitt or cleat. Hale said it is not unreasonable to apply the figures in the chart entitled “Ground Tackle Loads” to the entire anchor system (as has been done in various catalogs and books). Hale said the ABYC tests (done with a 40-foot boat by Bob Ogg, who developed the Danforth anchor) assumed a “worst case” situation, including sea state and surge. Hale also said the figures were subjected to a hefty, but now unknown, safety factor that over the years has made the table a trustworthy guide.

Philippe Ras, the ABYC technical director until 2003, said the much-used Table 1 in H-40 of the “Anchoring, Mooring, and Lifting Section” of the ABYC’s voluminous standards now is entitled “Design Loads for Sizing Deck Hardware.”

FEEL LIKE SOME TOUGH MATH?

If you want information that’s less general, something more specific to your boat, you can calculate the load (or drag) on your ground tackle—that is if you’re very patient, meticulous, and mathematically inclined.

It’s all based on Isaac Newton’s wind-drag data, developed in the late 1600s, which became highly refined after the precision of aviation research subsequently improved.

As presented in Don Bamford’s book, Anchoring, the formula for drag (D) in pounds per square foot remains (see right):

Cd is the coefficient of drag, p is the density of air, V is the wind velocity in knots, S is the boat’s cross-sectional area (in square feet) taken at right angles to the wind.

You can, for p, substitute the U.S. standard atmospheric air density of .0023779.

For S, you’ll have to measure and do some geometry on your hull, mast, cabin, boom, dinghy, lifelines, stanchions, pulpit, and everything else (including any pretty girls you habitually carry up on the bow) that creates wind resistance. You then need to increase some of the figures for however much your boat yaws at an anchor.

For Cd values, Earl Hinz, in his book, The Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring, supplied some general guidance with this table:

Angular tramp steamer – 1.2 Cabin cruiser – 1.0 Morgan OI-41 – .9 Oil tanker – .85 Cruising trimaran – .55 Racing trimaran – .45 Airplane – .09

Even better, Bamford says a sailboat with a “really sleek” superstructure will run as low as .70, but a blocky pilothouse or even a dinghy strapped on deck would push the figure to 1.00. He simply suggests using 1.00.

If you anchor in a current—say five knots, with a 40-foot boat, Hinz says to add 300 pounds to the load. Bamford says to add 10 percent.

For surge loading from wave action, Bamford says it isn’t important in normal anchoring, if you have a sure-fire way to prevent snubbing. Hinz says that in severe conditions, the up-and-down jerking can double the load, especially if the boat is heavy displacement.

Both Bamford and Hinz are emphatic in noting that the load increases as the square of the wind velocity. In other words, if the wind doubles from 30 to 60 knots, the load is four times greater.

Intimidating, isn’t it?

FURTHER BECLOUDING THE ISSUE

Neither the manufacturers’ data nor the Smith tables mention wave action; presumably, you’re supposed to anchor in very sheltered water, as we’d all prefer to do.

And in none of the data is there any mention of the bottom conditions, which is probably the greatest variable of all. Despite that getting the hook to “grip” is sometimes the most difficult facet of anchoring, the tables simply presume that you’ve induced the anchor to take a very firm hold on the bottom—be that sand, soft mud, hard clay, rock, shingle, coral, sawdust, or an old shipwreck—and that it will not drag in any wind shown on the table. (Perhaps the most surprising fact that emerged from PS’s many anchor tests is that an anchor never, ever stays put exactly; even a light load “works” an anchor in the direction of the pull.)

We firmly believe that anchors should be tested under different conditions to derive useful data. Good engineering practice holds that tests must support theoretical or calculated data (an anchor’s “holding power” often is calculated as “frontal area” by the manufacturer.) And with anchors, testing is not easy, not only because of the many variables, but also because it’s plain hard work.

As mentioned, there is no dearth of tests. Some are independent tests; more often they are sponsored by an anchor manufacturer or inventor. We’ve never seen a sponsored test that did not come out favoring the sponsor’s anchors; those that don’t must get unpublicized burials. Peculiarly, even the independent tests never have produced results that point a shining light on the perfect, all-purpose anchor, the one that sets every time and holds better than all others, in all bottoms. That has led most experienced sailors to conclude that you should carry two, or even three, different types of anchors.

Even the French-made Spade does not top all others in all of the PS tests.

THE BOTTOM LINE

So, what’s a body to do? What size anchor do you need? And what size nylon or chain rode should you use to hook it up? It depends, of course, on what kind of anchoring you expect to do. If you never venture out in anything even slightly resembling threatening weather, you can go with the recommendations of most manufacturers and those based on Robert Smith’s tables. Generally speaking, this data would appear to fall in the minimum category. Remember: You’re going with the minimum and there’ll be trouble if you get caught in any conditions other than that.

If you’re the type who prefers to be prepared for anything, you’ll need powerful gear based on the ABYC tables, which, compared with other advice, call for much heavier gear—both anchors and rodes.

Even when so equipped, there are places so notoriously bad for anchoring (such as off some of the California islands and the old, ooze-filled whaling harbor at Nantucket, south of Cape Cod) that savvy sailors don’t even attempt to anchor in these locales; they pick up moorings, go into docks, or leave.

In the final analysis, consistently successful anchoring calls—most of all—for good judgment based on knowledge and experience. And, here and there, a goodly helping of pure luck.

TESTING NEVER STOPS

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Safeguarding Sailors via Passage Guardian

The ABYC table indicates “design load.” Design load is defined as

“The total load on a structural system for the most severe combination of loads and forces which it is designed to sustain.” ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/design_load )

“…prescribed minimum load requirements are actually based on the expected maximum load […] over its lifetime. As such, design load requirements will exceed the true live load that a structure will actually bear.” https://www.nishkian.com/live-loads-explained-for-structural-design/

This I suspect is the major difference between the ABYC table and Mr. Smith’s empirical measurements. They’re both right; one way to think of it is the ABYC table includes a safety factor of 3.5x. But you want to size your system and equipment around the design load, not the live load.

Good history article. However, we have learned more since then. Let me add some of it here:

The reason the ABYC numbers are higher than common experience is because they are actual worst-case values, obtained when the boat is anchor in shallowish water, with all-chain rode and no snubber. In fact, PS documented this in “What is the Ideal Snubber Size,” March 2016, page 13. The average peak load is 3-4 times lower, but loads matching the the ABYC H-40 Table 1 figures are not only possible but probable if anchored in a worse-case location with all chain and no-snubber. In fact, further study of the ABYC H-40 standard reveals this, because the working load of a rope rode of the size recommended in table AP 1 is 3-4 times lower than Table 1, reflecting that loads are expected to be much lower with the impact absorption provided by the nylon rode. If you went by the fatigue strength in Table 1, you would be matching 7/8-inch rope with 1/4-inch G40 chain, which is ridiculous and would not pass the windlass. In fact, 1/2-inch rope is used with 1/4-inch chain, with a working load of 709 pounds vs. 2600 pounds for 1/4-inch G40 chain, or 3.7 times less. Nylon stretches, and thus the mystery is solved. The take away is to always use a snubber if anchored in shallow water (anything less than about 20 feet).

In fact, the peak load has less to do with wind force than the waves the wind generates. It is when a wave strikes, as the boat is yawing and the catenary comes out of the chain rode, that peak forces occur. This is VERY difficult to calculate, which is why several PS authors, primarily Drew Frye and Johnathan Neeves, spent weeks on the bows of several different boats ~ 2015-2018, measuring actual loads with a range of snubbers and yawing controls. Some of the testing was a little scary and at least one load cell exploded when a wave hit. It’s all in the archives.

Table 1 is not the result of conservative standard, or a large safety factor, it is the result of actual test results, duplicated by PS. There is, of course a safety factor of sorts built into working load calculations; the working load is about 3-10 times lower than the breaking strength of the material, but this is not a matter of caution, this is related to the fatigue limit of the specific material and construction. If the working load is exceed through enough cycles, the material fatigues and breaks at the working load.

There are also, obviously, a good few new anchors since then, Excel, Mantis, Rocna, and Viking, to name just a few. Weaknesses reveal themselves as they are tested and as sailors report in. For example, Rocna MKI has a documented tendency to collect sticky mud and then not reset. Will the Rocna MKII solve this? We don’t yet know. I guess we’ll have to get one and find out.

There are also newer books on anchoring, including “Rigging Modern Anchors,” 2018 by PS’s own Drew Frye.

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Log in to leave a comment

Latest Videos

Cabo Rico 34 Boat Review

Super Shallow Draft Sailboat: The Leeboard Sharpie

Hans Christian 41T – Boat Review

Seven dead after superyacht sinks off Sicily. Was the crew at...

Latest sailboat review.

• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell My Personal Information
• Online Account Activation
• Privacy Manager