Is my anchor adequate

[Alan Gomes]

My view of the Fortress's issue is that it's relatively light compared to it's projected area. So if you try to back down on it on a kelpy, grassy, or harder sand bottom, it tends to skid before really digging in.

I think that backing down slowly, understanding the bottom type, etc. would make a lot difference.

IN a muddy bottom, a Fortress would be really good, once you set it.

The Danforth, in my opinion, is somewhat easier to set because it is heavier compared to its projected area. It is heavier.

I have both a Rocna and a Fortress and like them both. When I had a Fortress on my previous boat, I purchased a Fortress that was equivalent in weight to a standard Danforth that I would have had for that same boat. What this meant was that I did not realize the weight savings that is typically associated with the Fortress--together with the downside of possibly not wanting to set as readily--but instead had an anchor with greater surface area and holding power for roughly the same weight. So my Fortress FX-23 at 15# weighed the same as the 15# Danforth that would have been an appropriate anchor for that boat, but with better performance and at no weight penalty--albeit with no weight savings, either. I found it set quite well, though as with all Danforth-style anchors, I don't think it's the anchor of choice for swinging on a single hook in a 180-deg. shift.

On my current boat (Ericson 26-2) I have a 10 kg. Rocna on the bow, which I think is better for when I anchor on a single hook, and use an FX-16 for my stern hook. I'm happy with both, each for their own purposes.

 

[Fortress]

Fortress anchors are precision-machined from an aluminum-alloy, the result of which is easier handling along with faster setting and deeper penetration into common sea bottoms such as sand, mud and clay vs. traditional, heavier dull-edged steel anchors, including the Danforth.



In other bottoms such as grass and weeds, I have heard conflicting reports regarding the performance of the Fortress during the past 20 years, as some owners have said that the Fortress is sharp enough to slice through them, while others have said that these anchors do not have the weight to punch their way through the vegetation. I think that it all depends on the thickness.

Additionally, rocks are a challenge for this type of anchor since the two massive flukes are likely to have more difficulty penetrating and getting a firm hold compared to anchors with only a single narrow fluke, and with some serious weight behind it.

Regarding any setting issues, they are usually caused by:

• The anchor is set at the wrong shank / fluke angle for the bottom type. Ex: If the anchor is set at the 45° angle (a unique & patented feature) to improve the holding in soft mud, and the bottom is not soft mud but a harder soil, then the anchor is likely to skip along the bottom and not set.
• The mud palms are not installed. They are a set of two plates that bolt on to the center (called the crown) of the anchor and they will lift the back end of the anchor up so that the flukes take a more aggressive angle into the bottom. We have included the mud palms inside the box with every anchor for the past 20+ years, but sometimes owners will not take the time to install them.
• Of course, there is always the possibility of operator error, such as falling back too quickly, too short of a scope, too little chain, etc.

I hope this helps!

Safe anchoring,
Brian

 

[py26129]

Check the two links below for some real world testing of the Fortress anchor on the Panope youtube channel:
Fortress set:

Fortress reset test:

Cheers

Matt

 

[Fortress]

I am well familiar with these tests of a 10 lb (4.5 kg) FX-16 anchor, and I have discussed them with Panope as well.

 

[py26129]

Do you have any comments on the test conditions & results in the videos?
I do have a fortress on board and use it mainly in soft mud, with good results.

 

[shemandr]

An anchor thread in August????? What will we do in February?

 

[Chief RA]

Fortress: I ask again: why not make us steel ones as well and you will sell more anchors! I offer this valuable advice free of charge even though I am an Industrial Engineer and have a BS in Business Mgmt. Chief

 

[Fortress]

Do you have any comments on the test conditions & results in the videos?
I do have a fortress on board and use it mainly in soft mud, with good results.

Thanks for input and glad to hear that you are getting good results in soft mud where the Fortress should be superb, particularly at the 45° angle. Regarding comments about the videos and the performance of the 10 lb FX-16:

• First video / setting: We certainly recommend using a longer scope than 3.5:1, since the more of a horizontal pull you put on any anchor, then the more likely it is to dig in deeper and perform better. Panope correctly stated that the anchor was continuing to move and bury deeper while the tension was increasing, just as it was designed to do.
• Second video / re-setting: We have to first realize that this type of test is by no means a common "real world" occurrence, and Panope will attest to that. He loads the anchor to 3,000 rpms, and then drives right over it at 3.5 knots (or 2 knots for this test) to try and flip the anchor over, and then have it re-engage the bottom.

I shared this video with Bob Taylor, a retired US Navy anchor design and soil mechanics expert who has over 45 years of experience with the US Navy and the offshore industry. Here is a summary of his conclusions:

- The camera /tethers had a serious negative upward pull during their movement on this 10 lb anchor, which certainly affected it more than than the much heavier 35-45 lb steel anchors that he also tested.

- Additionally, a smaller anchor is likely to bury deeper when loaded to the same amount (in this case 3,000 rpms) compared to a physically larger anchor, which in turn would make it more difficult for this smaller, deeper-buried anchor to quickly disengage the bottom, shed the sediment, and then flip over and finally re-engage the bottom.


As a side note, in this test any anchor which initially set the deepest and performed the best under the initial load of 3,000 rpms would also have the most difficulty flipping over for the above-stated reasons.

 

[Jack999000]

I agree, the new anchors set far better and reset extremely well in wind or tide changes.

 

[Fortress]

Fortress: I ask again: why not make us steel ones as well and you will sell more anchors! I offer this valuable advice free of charge even though I am an Industrial Engineer and have a BS in Business Mgmt. Chief

Chief, thanks for your suggestion, but unfortunately we simply do not have the production capacity or capability to manufacture any other type of anchor at our Fort Lauderdale warehouse facility where we have been since our inception in 1987.

I could be mistaken, but I believe that outside of Dutton-Lainson (makers of the Sentinel), there are no other high volume steel anchor manufacturers still in the USA, as they have all located their manufacturing to China.

 

[Chief RA]

Thank you for your response. Wish you could make steel as well but me being Industrial you know I am aware of different machinery/procedures involved. Hopefully we will recover from this China production thing. Went to Italy a number of years ago and selected equipment for a tile co.. Cast iron slug mounted on base of aluminum shank butt? Chief

 

[justsomeguy]

Cast iron slug mounted on base of aluminum shank butt?

Then you'll have a battery for an anchor.

 

[Ron20324]

An anchor thread in August????? What will we do in February?

The same as in October, December and January... start all over again

 

[Chief RA]

justsomeguy: Your right! So what to use for weight? Coat slug with epoxy resin? Chief

 

[capta]

After something over 1800 nights on our Rocna (we are full time liveaboards), I can't say enough good things about it. I bought my first genuine CQR in 1971 and for 40 years I thought it was a good anchor. I pooh poohed the whole idea of a "new gen" anchor until I got this Rocna. Now, I wouldn't sail any boat, anywhere, without one. Even a very expensive anchor is a very cheap insurance policy.
Check out my signature quote.

 

[JimInPB]

To a large extent the bottom type dictates what type of anchor will work best in a given situation. There are several types of anchors that I have had work better than a CQR in many situations. That having been said, a CQR works fairly well in a fairly wide variety of bottoms. They do tend to drag slowly in soft bottoms & they may or may not catch properly on very hard bottoms. One nice thing about a CQR is that Lloyds of London lists them as an insurable anchor. Before you change anchors, it may behoove you to see what types your insurance carrier considers acceptable. I favor carrying more than one type of anchor when practical, unless you are always using the boat in one specific area.

 

[capta]

I watched the Fortress promo videos testing theirs and others in similar conditions and in they were impressive. But change the conditions say in a Pacific NW kelp bed over a rocky bottom and the results are likely to be different.

The go-to anchor on the north Pacific coast for commercial fishing boats has always been the Northill style anchor. I can remember numerous nights tucked in under one point or another sitting on our Northill on a cable rode, waiting out a blow.
For sailors it has always been the genuine Danforth. That seems to be the best pick for kelp infested waters.
A steel Fortress would be a Danforth, wouldn't it?

 

[Chief RA]

Capta: I think a steel Fortress would be similar to a Danforth but not exact. My problem with a Fortress is by the time I select the aluminum anchor with the weight I would prefer, the physical size of the anchor is too big for my anchor locker. Chief

 

[capta]

Capta: I think a steel Fortress would be similar to a Danforth but not exact. My problem with a Fortress is by the time I select the aluminum anchor with the weight I would prefer, the physical size of the anchor is too big for my anchor locker. Chief

The whole point of a Fortress is that it is an anchor that is lighter than a steel equivalent of equal holding power. I can't see any advantage to a steel fortress over a Danforth. I wanted the F-85 because, like you, I was thinking heavier is better, but the F-55 we got as our #2 anchor is plenty big enough and I sincerely doubt a heavier one of equal size would hold better.

 

[jssailem]

Capta, If I have read the design specifications on the Fortress correctly, they have designed a greater angle for the flukes than the Danforth. This give the Fortress better dig and holding power for a physically lighter weight anchor. It digs into mud, sand, and silt better than the Dansforth and many of their competitors. They also give you a lighter anchor so it is easier to handle. It comes a part so it is easier to stow. All good properties until you anchor in a place that is not favorable to it's design or it is apart, stowed in pieces and is needed in a hurry.