Sail Magazine anchor test results are in...

[Maine Sail]

The Sail Magazine anchor test results are published and confirm what I've been saying on this and other boards for quite a while now. The "tried and true" anchors most sailors use are not the king pins they once were. These tests are about the most scientific and real world I've seen done. At least they used anchors of similar size unlike the Practical Sailor tests. My one gripe is I wish they had given more info on 180 degree re-sets. I'm a little concerned, by the test results, that some folks will run out and buy a Fortress as a primary and have tide/wind re-set issues like I have with mine. I only use mine as a, direct line pull, stern anchor where no "shifts" from tide or wind can occur. The authors/testers had many debates about the rather shocking test results and this quote kind of sums it up.

"Having several anchors with established reputations fail to set sparked many hours of debate. We questioned our methodology and tried to determine what could be done to insure that all anchors could at least return some results apart from "did not set"."

I stopped using my CQR a longtime ago because of terrible setting performance and a few dragging incidents. I also stopped using my Bruce for similar reasons. My observations, in Maine, NH, MA and Carib anchorages is that most folks never really bother to set an anchor properly. If they don't set properly they would not know that their trusty CQR is lying on its side only partially burried, at best, and acting like a rock on a rope. In normal benign summer conditions the chain and the weight of the anchor (rock on a rope) probably hold most boats and most people are clueless until a squal or 20+ knot winds pipe up. I someimes like to dive on anchors to observe the set and doing this is what caused me to stop using my CQR! On top of the poor performance it was the straw that broke the CQR's back for me.

We actually keep an anchor log and have been doing so for quite a while because we like to anchor whenever we can. I started this log after an incident where every boat in the anchorage, except us and one other, draged during a wind storm with winds of only 35-40 knots. We almost got taken out by a 70 foot Swan dragging its CQR. I was so angry the next morning that I wrote down what each boat was using for ground tackle as I watched as each boat weigh anchor and leave. I now keep track any boats that have dragged anchor around me. I log what anchor they used and to be as fair as possible if I saw them actually set the anchor or not.

I have done my own personal anchor testing and made videos of them setting on an inter tidal zone and my results are very similar to the Sail Magazine results. I have tested and own/owned the Bruce, CQR, Manson Supreme, Fortress, Spade (both Aluminum and Steel) and a Delta Fast Set. I chose the Manson Supreme as my clear winner with the Spade and Fortress as my back ups. The Manson Supreme, Rocna, Spade & Fortress were the clear winners in Sails tests, along with the Hydro Bbble which I don't own, and closely mirror my own very un-scientific results. I have sold my Fast Set and my Bruce and CQR are on loan to friends who don't really anchor much and just needed a lunch hook. My Spade A-80 sits in my garage because I had some real problems with getting it to penetrate a hard bottom. This is most likely due to its very light weight. The S-80 (identical size but in steel) performs much better and does set in tough bottoms.

I wish more people took anchoring & mooring as seriously as I do but they don't. Last season my boat sustained considerable damage because a boat broke free in a wind storm and draged onto my boat due to poor mooring maintenance. I'm sure this clown has similar anchoring manners. Fortunately the damage was cosmetic only but the whole event set me back some serious pocket change with a 2% deductable.

My question is this. Why do people choose to use anchors that have been proven time and time again, in test after test, to be considerably less effective than other commercially available models? I know I bought a CQR because everyone else had one but I tested it myself and decided it was a less than robust anchor for my taste. Do others not actually put a product through the paces and just rely on mass appeal?????

I actually had a few salty types laugh at my "ugly" anchor this summer and I found it to be quite idiotic. One guy actually told me of how he dragged into another boat last year in a "bad" wind storm. This as he laughed at my "ugly" anchor while I was washing he boat at the dock. I only wish I knew what anchor he was using for my log book..

I can't speak highly enough of the performance my Manson Supreme has given me compared to my other anchors. I've never had an anchor set so definitively and imediately and it's just plain jarring. With this anchor, when you back down to set it, there is NO guessing if it set you KNOW it set.. It even bests my Spades by enough to notice a difference.

These new anchors really DO work but I'm sure, like the GPS, it will take some of the salty types a long time to admit it....

[Carter Brey]

Hi there, Acoustic,

Like you, I worry constantly about anchor performance, and was taken aback to read this article. I've been using a Bruce with good results (breaking it out of the muddy bottoms of Long Island Souond anchorages takes nearly all my strength and occasionally requires motoring forward), but I'm rethinking my choice now.

Also like you, I did have one reservation about the results; there was virtually nothing about change of direction. This is supposed to be the Bruce's forte, and the main reason I use it. After all, it's one heavy mother and quite unwieldy. The Fortress would be much easier to use, but is not supposed to handle changing wind directions well. How does your Manson Supreme stack up in this department?

Thanks,
Carter Brey
Sabre 28 Mk II #532 "Delphine"
City Island, NY

[Maine Sail]

Immediate setting and wind tide shift performance is why I bought it! The high holding power is a bonus.. I've done 180 degree vere tests myself on an intertidal zone and other than the Spade it's the only anchor I tested that never broke out to re-set at 180 degrees. It actually rotates in the mud and never breaks out. My Bruce, CQR & Fortress all broke out and then had to try and re-set with heavy clay like mud stuck to them. The Fastset did a partial break out and re-set within 10 feet but my Bruce took 20 feet and the CQR and Fortress never re-set at all and I pulled 45 feet...

[Jim Evans]

How much chain are you using on your Manson Supreme??

[Maine Sail]

40 feet of 5/16 chain with a 5/8 rode. It's the same chain rope combo I've used for years. I don't feel comfortable with any less chain and I don't feel like cleaning mud off of any more than that.... Technically all the books call for 1/4 inch chain but I go to 5/16 for the extra weight..

[Didereaux]

A rather important, I think, thing was also omitted in the tests...BREAKING strength. The Manson, Fortress etc are WELDED. THe true CQRs and Bruces are not. In tests done a few years back the forged anchors never broke or bent while all of the welded ones exhibited one or the other of those faults. Welding materials and techniques have not changed much in the interim.

Further, I take issue with your implying that the Bruce and CQRs seem always to set badly and with diffiulty. I will not interject with anecdotal tales to the contrary, I will instead refer you to a SEARCH of this site on 'anchors' and there you will find the results of tests made a few years ago using a tug and tensioning gauges. FOr that matter I would even refer you to the Rocna site whose own scimpy tests showed their anchor(an anchor very like the Manson) which simply showed, in pictures as well, that theirs set faster, not better than the Bruce and CQRetc.

It all boils down to having a set of anchors, to set(grin), properly applying them, at appropriate locations and situations.

Under heavy weather situations, and such more than one anchor is always required. Personally, I would never overnight on a tidal with only one anchor, for and aft of the current , or at least a Bahamian set.

New fangled is nice, and if the fates handed me the bucks for the latest, greatest anchor, I would probably add it to displacement total, but I sure as hell wouldn't toss the Bruce and the CQR, nor for that matter the Danforth lunch/kedge hook either!

Yes, I like the spades, they set and hold well, do I trust my life and boats to solely on welds? not a chance.
g'Luk

[Carl Thunberg]

The point that gets missed in a lot of these discussions is the anchor needs to be appropriately sized for the boat. Bigger is not necessarily better and can be worse. I have a CD25 which is a pretty small boat. I use a 20-lb CQR as my primary anchor and I set it as well as a 6HP outboard is capable of setting it. My wife puts the outboard in reverse while I hold the chain. I find I can feel it set by the vibration in the chain. I feel a couple bumps, then nothing. Then I know it's set.

If I had chosen to buy a 35-lb CQR, then there's no way my little 6HP outboard could possibly set it properly. In that scenario, the 35-lb CQR and chain would be acting essentially as a mooring and prone to drag. Perhaps some of the dragging incidents you have observed were due to improperly sized anchors for the boat and poor technique. They may have had nothing at all to do with the type of anchor.

Personally, I've had very good luck with my CQR. I've spun 180 degrees with wind and tide and haven't had any dragging incidents. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I don't think so. When the wind pipes up, I keep an anchor watch. You can't just set it and forget it.

[dasein668]

My question is this. Why do people choose to use anchors that have been proven time and time again, in test after test, to be considerably less effective than other commercially available models? I know I bought a CQR because everyone else had one but I tested it myself and decided it was a less than robust anchor for my taste. Do others not actually put a product through the paces and just rely on mass appeal?????

Because some of us have had exceptional results with our CQRs. I really couldn't care less whether someone else has had good or bad experiences with their CQR at this point, because I have 113 documented anchoring attempts in my log book (and more on other boats), with one failure to set on the first attempt, which was due to fouling on substantial amounts of kelp. That's a 99.2% first-set success rate. I have never had the anchor drag once set.

I set my anchor with minimum of 7:1 scope at 2500 rpm for 2 minutes minimum. It is quite clear whether the anchor is set or not by viewing ranges against the shoreline.

I have numerous experiences with 180 degree wind shifts, sudden squalls etc., with solid holding throughout. I sleep well on my CQR in any moderate conditions. In conditions that I don't sleep well on my CQR, I wouldn't sleep well on any other anchor.

Yes, as Didereaux would say, this may be considered somewhat anecdotal, but I'll take that personal, real-world anecdotal experience results over these "scientific head-to-head tests" any day of the week. The methods used in most of these tests are questionable for applying the results to real-world situations.

I assert that the effectiveness of any anchor is far more reliant on anchoring technique than design of the hook. While some designs may have a slight edge, I think that belittling people for continuing to use what has shown proven effectiveness for them is a poor way to "sell" new anchoring technology to them.

[Maine Sail]

I use 40 feet of 5/16 chain with a 5/8 rode and that according to most all manufacturers is more than enough caternary weight. My technique actually includes my boat moving slowly in reverse as the anchor is let down to the bottom and played out to at least a 7:1 scope taking into account tide, water depth, transduccer depth and height of bow. Once I'm at 7:1 or more & I have felt the resistance "set" I increase the throtle slowly until I get to 80% in reverse or 2400 rpms roughly simulating a 30 knot+ wind. Many times my CQR would have an early resistance set with the line going mostly taut, this is where most sailors stop setting an anchor, and I would then begin the actual burrying of the anchor by increasing throttle to 80%. The CQR would quite often release from it's initial partial set and then drag and need to be re-set. I'm not happy on the hook unless I can apply 80% reverse power and not move! Is this asking to much from an anchor?? I feel this is the way any anchor should be set and I know from experience, and through watching and listening, most sailors don't ever apply more than 15-20% of full power when backing down if any. Once I know my anchor is secure I shorten scope to what is appropriate for the particular anchorage but I rarely like to go below 5:1 without all chain unless it's going to be very calm. I used to run all chain but got sick of cleaning 150+ feet of mud from the chain so I swiched from 200 feet of 1/4 inch to 40 feet of 5/16 and rode.

My assertion that most sailors never actually "set" an anchor, I beleive, still holds true. The forces on a 35 foot 10 foot beam sloop in 30 knots of wind is approx 900lbs. My motor at 80% throttle can't produce anywhere near 900lbs of pull.... Perhaps more sailors should try applying significantly more reverse throttle to the CQR and see what happens. I can tell you here in Maine my results are about 65% of the time it sets & 35% of the time it will pop out of its initial set and drag needing to be re-set again. Nate's results are outstanding I could never get close to that with my CQR otherwise I'd still be using it.

The sail testers used a 52 foot 92,000-pound research vessel named Shana Rae. She was equiped with a 375 horsepower diesel engine pushing a 40-inch diameter prop to achieve the 5000 pound max pull numbers. As for welds breaking none of the tested anchors failed. The forces of a 60 knot wind on a 35 foot X 10 foot beam are 3600lbs. The Rocna, Manson, Hydrobubble & Fortress all held 5000 pounds of force without breaking.

Perhaps I should just drop my anchors and let the wind "set it and forget it" like the vast majority of people do. This is what the captain of the 70 foot Swan did in Winter Harbor on Vinalhaven Island a few years back before he began draggin down on me and nearly forcing me onto the rocks. It took about one minute of blasting my air horn and trying to hail them on the VHF to even get them on deck to realize what was going on.

I don't dispute that the CQR has many happy customers but many of them never truly set the anchor and get lucky in the relatively benign summer conditions we experience. To have 9 out of 11 boats drag in a 35-40 knot blow at Winter Harbor confirms that assertion. Unless your backing down HARD your not truly setting your anchor...

[dasein668]

Perhaps I should just drop my anchors and let the wind "set it and forget it" like the vast majority of people do. This is what the captain of the 70 foot Swan did in Winter Harbor on Vinalhaven Island a few years back before he began draggin down on me and nearly forcing me onto the rocks. It took about one minute of blasting my air horn and trying to hail them on the VHF to even get them on deck to realize what was going on.

That sounds familiar: Dasein's Pulpit Harbor Fun

[Clay Stalker]

I have to agree with most of what has been offered, with the possible exception of some of the opinions of the CQR. This anchor is the anchor of choice for most blue water sailor world wide, and this is not by accident. It is also the most expensive product of the lot for it's size, and I find it doubtful that all those people would waste their money on reputation alone. Personally, I have always used a CQR and Fortress backup and have been very satisfied in a wide range of conditions and bottoms.

We seem to be discussing anchoring only as it absolutely should be done, with a 7-1 or greater scope....but what about when less scope is necessary? Most of us who have cruised the New England coast in summer have been in anchorages in Newport, Block Island, Hadley Harbor, Cuttyhunk Pond, and others where a 7-1 scope is usually impossible, so we make do with 5-1 or even a bit less. Most of us use more chain to compensate, so weight is king, thus the CQR works best in most bottoms. I totally agree, technique is more important than the product used in most cases.

Clay Stalker

[Joe Myerson]

This subject always stirs up the board.

I've got to agree with Clay and Acoustic that anchoring technique probably counts more than the kind of anchor one has. And like Clay, I've got to say that here in southern New England it's hard to find a popular harbor where you'll find enough room for 7:1 scope.

That said, I've found my 22-lb. Claw anchor with 25 feet of chain to be sufficient for my heavy-for-its-size 25D. However, I have never had to put the anchor to the test under really adverse conditions. And, of course, that's when it really counts to have the right anchor, set the right way.

I'm also pleased to see that SAIL gives the Hydro-Bubble a good rating. Practical Sailor trashed it a few years ago, but the concept always made sense to me. I've got one that I picked up from the designer several years ago. It became my catboat's primary anchor (and catboats really like to tack back and forth at anchor), and it held very well. It now serves as my backup/lunch hook--and I used it to winch backwards off of an embarrassing grounding in thick mud last year.

--Joe

[John Vigor]

There is no agreement on anchors, and never will be, simply because different anchors react differently to different seabeds. As a boating author and former managing editor of Sea magazine, successor to the venerable Rudder, I have studied scores of results of anchoring tests and digested the contents of half a dozen books on the subject.

But there is one thing that stands out, and that is that a small group of anchors has, over the years, earned a reputation for being the most suitable for most seabeds most of the time. The top two in this group are the CQR and the Bruce.

If we could only see the seabed we're trying to anchor in, we'd often be amazed at the stuff down there. I mostly imagine a nice flat stretch of mud or sand, and curse when my CQR won't set first time. But that's mostly because there's a thick bed of seagrass, or a small plateau of rock, or a thick coating of shells and oysters, or tree branches or something, right where I dropped the anchor.

There's no shame in not being able to set the anchor first time, and it's usually not the anchor's fault.

As others have noted, the CQR is the top choice among world cruisers, for very good reasons. It is very, very strong. In fact, it has a lifetime guarantee against breakage. It stows well in a bow roller and practically launches itself.

We've head a lot of argument in this thread about how important it is to back down agressively to bury the anchor, but what happens when the wind, or current, changes 180 degrees? Do we wake up in tne middle of the night, start the engine, and try to bury the anchor again, or do we hope the anchor will simply reset itself? The swiveling CQR head is wonderful at resetting itself, and the Bruce is known for fast setting, so that if it screws itself out of the ground during a wind change, it buries itself again very quickly.

Furthermore good anchors like the CQR and the Bruce will bury themselves without overly aggressive backing down. The longer they're down, the harder the wind blows, the deeper they'll go.

John V.

[Tod Mills]

Some questions from your experience:

1. Did any/many of the test results you saw include Rocna/Manson anchors? That designs is often referred to as a "new generation" anchor, so I wonder if there have been many evaluations that have included it.

2. Do many anchors break? In my limited experience, the only failure I've seen has been a bent shank, which happened when the wind shifted but the anchor didn't (thin plate steel shank).


I'm currently using a Bruce and have only had it drag once....during a thunderstorm when it was holding not only my boat but a half-dozen other boats who were rafted up. The bottom was soft mud.

[Sea Hunt]

I readily admit (and confess) to limited knowledge and very limited experience.

When someone like Mr. Vigor talks, I listen and listen attentively.