Hi Steve, as a commercial shell fisherman for over 35 years I've anchored thousands of times with my Danforth anchor in various types of bottoms in a 20' boat . A well known setting technique among shell fisherman is once the anchor hits the bottom you "jerk" the line by hand 5-10 times to set the anchor as the boat drifts back. We never just through the anchor in and power back . All anchoring takes place in hard to semi hard bottom. In mud, we shorten scope and purposely drag the anchor as we pull a clam rake over the bottom. I also own a 33' sailboat with Danforth, Mantus M1 and CQR anchors, I always "jerk" the line with these anchors as the boat drifts backwards to set them. If the anchors don't set with this technique they typically aren't going to set so I haul up the anchor and usually observe they have been fouled by weed, shells, etc . I always use oversized anchors on all my boats
Thanks Mike. Very interesting input. It might explain an experience that I had with a Fortress anchor that would set only if I used a powerful burst of engine thrust (boat accelerated to about 5 knots). Next time I'll try your "jerk" method.
Thank you. Great to know that the 45 degree angle doesn't work. For those who don't know, the famous 32 degree Danforth was invented by Richard Danforth as a kedge anchor for the D-Day landing on Normandy. The LST 325 landing ships would ground themselves, unload, and then wait for the 20ft tides to lift them off for another trip. The Danforth anchor held the stern as the tide came in. Danforth knew that the Normandy beach was soft sand. It would be a straight line pull, all chain rode, and there would be a lot of scope to keep the angle down. Certainly never designed for the SV Panope test suite but it did pretty well :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-325#/media/File:LSTs_325,_388;1016032501.jpg
This was disappointing. I wonder if you used similar weighted anchors for comparison. I am wondering if anchor weight does make a difference. I did want the Fortress to work as it's ability to be stored in parts as a backup anchor appealed to me.
@@ricknicholson5894 My "take away" is that going to 6:1 scope seemed to fix most of the problem - so I'd use 7:1 scope. When I set my Fortress from my dinghy I row it out to the end of the 150ft line so scope usually exceeds 10:1.
I hear folks talking about 5 to 1 which I wouldn't ever use or trust if for some reason I had to. I have over 30 years of anchoring in south Florida waters and only use a minimum of 7 to 1 and most often or always use 10 to 1 because rain storm forces build quick and become true storm level forces even if for only 30 to 45 minutes. I appreciate watching your results testing extremes of short rode and see its value for comparison. I have learned much watching your testing. Thank you for your earnest efforts.
Same here up in Maine, long all chain rodes go a long way up here 7:1 always, and keep your rock anchor handy lol because yeah, its all bleating rocks up here!
Used an 8# danforth, with 1 fathon of chain with a rope rode, for 8 weeks of constant open boat cruising on the Florida Gulf coast. A light boat, an oversized anchor. Never had a problem.
Thanks Steve. Your testing of the fortress correlates to what I have found just using my own. I use mine as a kedge with some chain and mostly nylon. I have found that it needs a lot of rode to really hold. I generally use a minimum of 7:1. Then it's absolutely solid. I like the aluminium anchor because it doesn't rust in the storage locker. The previous danforth was always rusted solid whenever I needed it.
Back in the 1970's when I learned to anchor, the Danforth was by far the most popular anchor. I wonder if the reason we were all taught to anchor with 7:1 scope is that the "old salts" then knew the Danforth type needed that much scope to perform well so just recommend 7:1 as a general anchoring rule. We don't know from this test but the Danforth at 5:1 might have dragged at say 1500lb but held much more at 7:1
Steve , thank for a great test . An eye opener , but nice to see the HT Danforth performing so well . We did carry a 60 lb Danforth on our 53ft HR . But it was never used .
I have the Fortress 16 on our 36' Sailboat. Never had any problems setting it in the Chesapeake Soft bottom - I use the soft mud setting - but set it with a 3:1 scope - once it grabs I then increase scope and really dig it in -works like a champ every time - holds very well - 35knots tested - which is pretty good for a light duty anchor on this boat.
Hey, I’m on the Chesapeake, as well, but with a 37’ deadrise. Thanks for your comment about the soft mud setting. I just got the Fortress 16 and will set it for that and try it. I have 20’ of stainless chain on the way which should support trying that 3:1 scope, which can be quite a variable length here in the bay as I’m sure you know.
Just found this channel, have a 31 ft houseboat 7000lbs, have 25 or 30 lbs Danforth ( I assume) 6ft of chain, 5:1 in Ontario, Canada, Trent Severn system, sandy bottom with lots of weeds. Initially it held but with short waves and 12 mph wind it dragged over 500 yards overnight. I am reading these tests and considering my options for more reliable anchor for next year. Not much heavy weedy bottom testing anywhere.
A cruise in the Great Lakes and this is the first time I’ve seen your video. Quite interesting. Our biggest issue here is seaweed! I’ll look at your series to see if I can find more on the issues of anchors and seaweed.
Ovo mi je yutube pokazao tek danas, i video je super. Kad se pojavio Danfort sidro, Američka mornarica je testirala 10 kg sidro s lučkim remorkerom. Nakon postavljanja po svim pravilima s lancem (5-1)sidro se sve više ukopavalo i brod je ostao na mjestu. Pregledom po zaronu sidro se ukopalo 1 m u mulj. Koliko mi je poznato Danforth kad u kopa ne pušta i
When the Fortress was built, there were two lines of Danforth anchor: Standard and Hi Tensile. Today, the same two lines are built by Tiedown. In this size range a 20H (20lb Hi Tensile) is rated at 2500lbs and the S1300 (16lb Standard) is rated at 1300lbs. However reliable these numbers might or might not be, it does show that that 20H is clearly intended to be a MUCH BIGGER anchor than the S1300(16lb) Standard. So, if the FX16 is intended to compete with the S1300, it would appear the comparison factor to the 20H should be closer to 50%. With that said, I always have wondered what changes make a 20H twice as tenacious as a S1300 or even a S1600 which is similarly sized. A stronger shank (and other parts?) should keep the anchor from deforming at higher loads; is that the criterion? My assumption has always been that the high tensile steel allows a 20H to be shaped differently with a thinner and possibly longer shank (and other parts?) which promote deeper setting. This would be an interesting comparison also.
Steve, you are the man for recognizing a gaping hole and stepping up for everyone and filling it !! One potential observation. At the end of this episode as you comment with the anchors behind you there appears to be a large difference in gap at the front of flukes. It appears the HT is twice what the Fortress has. Could this be essentially fouling the front of the Fortress in the sticky, clumpy, clay bottom?? Great work you do!! Im going to give you some well deserved support on patreon for all you've shared with the boating community!!
Thanks Tim, Interesting observation about the fluke gap. It could be a factor. Will be difficult to test without ruining an anchor. I'll give it some thought.
Thank you, for an interesting test! Your result with the Fortress flukes set in 45 degree angle, is similar to my own result where i tested a similar aluminium - "Bulldog 8" anchor: The setting in 45 degree angle of the flukes does NOT work in any type of bottom, not even in VERY-VERY soft mud.
The switch to 6:1 for the fortress was amazing. I wonder if 20% extra rode would be a fair comparison, rather than 20% holding with equal settings? Thank you for all this research!
It could be a good choice to replace a cqr 16 lbs anchor with a fortress fx-16 as main anchor? 50m of 8mm chain on a 35ft ketch sailing yacht, about 7.5t.
I had problems getting my Fortress 55 to sink in a two knot current when trying to back down on it. The flukes would point up and skim the top of the water.
I kind of wish you'd gone back and repeated all the tests on both anchors when you realized a bit more scope made a huge difference. I don't use minimum scope ever. My minimum is 7 to 1 and I almost always am anchoring in soft mud or soft mud and oyster shells.
I'm kind of surprised by the results of your test, our group boats on the upper Chesapeake bay with several of us using the fortress anchor. Our experience has been quite the opposite of yours. The bottom in our area is various densities of sand with occasional mud depending on location. We boat in all conditions and often sit through storms while at anchor in pretty open water. Certainly not saying the fortress is the end all, be all but it has often out performed out expectations in sand bottoms.
Same here - soft Chesapeake bottom, steep (short) scope of 3:1, soft bottom setting on the Fortress 16 - sets quickly and holds like a champ. Once it is initially set I then pay out more scope and really drive it in. I use this anchor 95% of the time (36' sailboat).
Thanks for your comment. I recently bought a 36’ deadrise and just got the anchor to try. I’m at Smith Point and it’s pretty deep here so it should be interesting with the scope but I have my long lines already.
@@shaydglenn I still really like the fortress, it is light, and handy to work with, only thing is if you are moving at any sort of speed it will "fly" and not go to the bottom, and thus not set. But in a sand bottom it will hold like mad once it is set!!! We went through a pretty nasty storm on the sassafras River this past July, and after it was over I struggled to remove the anchor from the bottom!!! Had to dig it out! I have an fx11 with a 26' boat. I am always open to suggestions, but I think with the bottom conditions we have on the upper Chesapeake, the fortress is a solid choice. This is my personal experience, your results may vary, but I always try to be honest and fair.
Great video, Steve. I would have thought the results to be more neck'n neck; I was surprised. I wonder though, I noticed that the fortress that you use has red lettering signifying that it was a Guardian model and not the blue lettering and more expensive anchor model. I'm not sure what significance that has or even if I'm correct Also, just, for poops and giggles, what if any difference would it make setting the Fortress without the mud palms installed? The reason I mention it is because that is how I deploy mine and get good results. I only use the palms in a loose or soft substrate (I call putting the mud palms on the "Chesapeake setting"). Fortress recommends using the mud palms all the time now. That wasn't always the case and as I mentioned, I get good results, especially in sand without the mud palms installed.
I have a West Marine Performance 25 that looks very close to the same dimensions as the Fortress at a glance.. The gap at the front of the flukes is 2 1/4", fairly tight. I have had a different fluke anchor fouled with very small stick across the tip... I really like the build and geometry on the PF25 but not sure now how it will do if really challenged outside of clean sand or mud now...
Could you do one test of all your anchors in mud or sand of at least 6 to1 scope with chain roads? Yes I have heard you tell why you test with short scope in poor holding such as cobble stone. But I would never do either so most of tests I have watched gave me little information I could use except your dinghy anchor test which was great.
Interesting that the 45 degree angle caused such a failure. I wonder, for other anchors, if measuring how low down an anchor pivots, the angle of the shank, and/or shank height could reveal some information about the performance of anchors. For example, could the shank angle play a role in some of the issues the rocna has in sandy mud substrates?
Rather than the "fluke angle", we should really only consider the location of the chain attach point with respect to some geometric "center" of the fluke. Put another way, the shank could be shaped like a pretzel and therefore have no definable angle at all. That said, I do not believe that the Rocna's chain attach location can be improved. I believe that virtually all of the Rocna's poor results in my tests are the result of seabed becoming stuck to the anchor.
Interesting results, Steve. My sailboat sails at anchor up to +/- 15 to 20 degrees at 25-30 knots. From your experience do you expect this to impact the Danforth results?
It appears that in some seabeds, anchor performance may actually IMPROVE after the anchor is subjected to a "veer". Other seabeds may produce the opposite result. That said 15 to 20 degrees of veer is not a large amount. A well set Danforth should have little trouble handling that amount of direction change - especially if there exists a generous holding power reserve.
I have a 45 ft Sportfish weighs about 40k lbs. what’s the best anchor i can get for all purpose use. I am at New Orleans area. I typically go offshore about 150 miles.
@@PathandPavement what size boat? We like the fact it’s all dismantled, light and doesn’t rust. We were advised to go the biggest we can as a storm anchor so it doesn’t bury itself to the point of no return! We do have a retrieval line. Seems to work for us.
Hi Steve, as a commercial shell fisherman for over 35 years I've anchored thousands of times with my Danforth anchor in various types of bottoms in a 20' boat . A well known setting technique among shell fisherman is once the anchor hits the bottom you "jerk" the line by hand 5-10 times to set the anchor as the boat drifts back. We never just through the anchor in and power back . All anchoring takes place in hard to semi hard bottom. In mud, we shorten scope and purposely drag the anchor as we pull a clam rake over the bottom. I also own a 33' sailboat with Danforth, Mantus M1 and CQR anchors, I always "jerk" the line with these anchors as the boat drifts backwards to set them. If the anchors don't set with this technique they typically aren't going to set so I haul up the anchor and usually observe they have been fouled by weed, shells, etc . I always use oversized anchors on all my boats
Thanks Mike. Very interesting input. It might explain an experience that I had with a Fortress anchor that would set only if I used a powerful burst of engine thrust (boat accelerated to about 5 knots). Next time I'll try your "jerk" method.
Thank you. Great to know that the 45 degree angle doesn't work. For those who don't know, the famous 32 degree Danforth was invented by Richard Danforth as a kedge anchor for the D-Day landing on Normandy. The LST 325 landing ships would ground themselves, unload, and then wait for the 20ft tides to lift them off for another trip. The Danforth anchor held the stern as the tide came in. Danforth knew that the Normandy beach was soft sand. It would be a straight line pull, all chain rode, and there would be a lot of scope to keep the angle down. Certainly never designed for the SV Panope test suite but it did pretty well :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_LST-325#/media/File:LSTs_325,_388;1016032501.jpg
This was disappointing. I wonder if you used similar weighted anchors for comparison. I am wondering if anchor weight does make a difference. I did want the Fortress to work as it's ability to be stored in parts as a backup anchor appealed to me.
@@ricknicholson5894 My "take away" is that going to 6:1 scope seemed to fix most of the problem - so I'd use 7:1 scope. When I set my Fortress from my dinghy I row it out to the end of the 150ft line so scope usually exceeds 10:1.
Thanks for the link, Carl. Great history.
If you do another test like this, compare equally weighted anchors AND include the Lewmar Fortress copy, the LFX.
I hear folks talking about 5 to 1 which I wouldn't ever use or trust if for some reason I had to. I have over 30 years of anchoring in south Florida waters and only use a minimum of 7 to 1 and most often or always use 10 to 1 because rain storm forces build quick and become true storm level forces even if for only 30 to 45 minutes.
I appreciate watching your results testing extremes of short rode and see its value for comparison.
I have learned much watching your testing. Thank you for your earnest efforts.
Same here up in Maine, long all chain rodes go a long way up here 7:1 always, and keep your rock anchor handy lol because yeah, its all bleating rocks up here!
Used an 8# danforth, with 1 fathon of chain with a rope rode, for 8 weeks of constant open boat cruising on the Florida Gulf coast. A light boat, an oversized anchor. Never had a problem.
Thanks Steve. Your testing of the fortress correlates to what I have found just using my own. I use mine as a kedge with some chain and mostly nylon. I have found that it needs a lot of rode to really hold. I generally use a minimum of 7:1. Then it's absolutely solid. I like the aluminium anchor because it doesn't rust in the storage locker. The previous danforth was always rusted solid whenever I needed it.
Back in the 1970's when I learned to anchor, the Danforth was by far the most popular anchor. I wonder if the reason we were all taught to anchor with 7:1 scope is that the "old salts" then knew the Danforth type needed that much scope to perform well so just recommend 7:1 as a general anchoring rule. We don't know from this test but the Danforth at 5:1 might have dragged at say 1500lb but held much more at 7:1
All your videos is saving us a bunch of research time, thanks
i've learned so much about anchor design i want to build a better one as a personal challenge.
Steve , thank for a great test . An eye opener , but nice to see the HT Danforth performing so well . We did carry a 60 lb Danforth on our 53ft HR .
But it was never used .
Great info. Especially the 6:1 recommendation on the fortress.
Brilliant, impressive work! Thank you so much for these thorough tests - plenty of food for thought.
I have the Fortress 16 on our 36' Sailboat. Never had any problems setting it in the Chesapeake Soft bottom - I use the soft mud setting - but set it with a 3:1 scope - once it grabs I then increase scope and really dig it in -works like a champ every time - holds very well - 35knots tested - which is pretty good for a light duty anchor on this boat.
Hey, I’m on the Chesapeake, as well, but with a 37’ deadrise. Thanks for your comment about the soft mud setting. I just got the Fortress 16 and will set it for that and try it. I have 20’ of stainless chain on the way which should support trying that 3:1 scope, which can be quite a variable length here in the bay as I’m sure you know.
There are sea beds that are ooze on top going down to soft mud.
Just found this channel, have a 31 ft houseboat 7000lbs, have 25 or 30 lbs Danforth ( I assume) 6ft of chain, 5:1 in Ontario, Canada, Trent Severn system, sandy bottom with lots of weeds. Initially it held but with short waves and 12 mph wind it dragged over 500 yards overnight. I am reading these tests and considering my options for more reliable anchor for next year. Not much heavy weedy bottom testing anywhere.
A cruise in the Great Lakes and this is the first time I’ve seen your video. Quite interesting. Our biggest issue here is seaweed! I’ll look at your series to see if I can find more on the issues of anchors and seaweed.
Ovo mi je yutube pokazao tek danas, i video je super.
Kad se pojavio Danfort sidro, Američka mornarica je testirala 10 kg sidro s lučkim remorkerom.
Nakon postavljanja po svim pravilima s lancem (5-1)sidro se sve više ukopavalo i brod je ostao na mjestu.
Pregledom po zaronu sidro se ukopalo 1 m u mulj.
Koliko mi je poznato Danforth kad u kopa ne pušta i
these are amazing shots and tests, good luck with building this channel!
Aye m8, what you are doing is well worth to support, no doubt! After watching 101 anchor tests I’m even more impressed.
been watching these all week!
When the Fortress was built, there were two lines of Danforth anchor: Standard and Hi Tensile. Today, the same two lines are built by Tiedown. In this size range a 20H (20lb Hi Tensile) is rated at 2500lbs and the S1300 (16lb Standard) is rated at 1300lbs. However reliable these numbers might or might not be, it does show that that 20H is clearly intended to be a MUCH BIGGER anchor than the S1300(16lb) Standard. So, if the FX16 is intended to compete with the S1300, it would appear the comparison factor to the 20H should be closer to 50%.
With that said, I always have wondered what changes make a 20H twice as tenacious as a S1300 or even a S1600 which is similarly sized. A stronger shank (and other parts?) should keep the anchor from deforming at higher loads; is that the criterion? My assumption has always been that the high tensile steel allows a 20H to be shaped differently with a thinner and possibly longer shank (and other parts?) which promote deeper setting. This would be an interesting comparison also.
Steve, you are the man for recognizing a gaping hole and stepping up for everyone and filling it !!
One potential observation. At the end of this episode as you comment with the anchors behind you there appears to be a large difference in gap at the front of flukes. It appears the HT is twice what the Fortress has. Could this be essentially fouling the front of the Fortress in the sticky, clumpy, clay bottom??
Great work you do!! Im going to give you some well deserved support on patreon for all you've shared with the boating community!!
Thanks Tim, Interesting observation about the fluke gap. It could be a factor. Will be difficult to test without ruining an anchor. I'll give it some thought.
Thank you, for an interesting test! Your result with the Fortress flukes set in 45 degree angle, is similar to my own result where i tested a similar aluminium - "Bulldog 8" anchor: The setting in 45 degree angle of the flukes does NOT work in any type of bottom, not even in VERY-VERY soft mud.
Perhaps Fortress will consider doing away with the 45 degree angle in a future release. Hmmm. Time will tell.
The switch to 6:1 for the fortress was amazing. I wonder if 20% extra rode would be a fair comparison, rather than 20% holding with equal settings? Thank you for all this research!
Thanks again for a great test! Greetings from Finland. Peter
Good stuff. Really excited to see the next video.
It could be a good choice to replace a cqr 16 lbs anchor with a fortress fx-16 as main anchor? 50m of 8mm chain on a 35ft ketch sailing yacht, about 7.5t.
Can you do tests of anchor kellets and how a 30lb weight affecys the holding power
I had problems getting my Fortress 55 to sink in a two knot current when trying to back down on it. The flukes would point up and skim the top of the water.
I’ve had decent-sized Danworth anchors do this on a running tide…they would just swirl back and forth.
I'd love to see a Fortress vs one size up Guardian comparison. They seem to stagger their sizes so one to one comparison not possible.
Maybe Fortress will have to consider amending some of their recommendations after these tests.
I kind of wish you'd gone back and repeated all the tests on both anchors when you realized a bit more scope made a huge difference. I don't use minimum scope ever. My minimum is 7 to 1 and I almost always am anchoring in soft mud or soft mud and oyster shells.
I'm kind of surprised by the results of your test, our group boats on the upper Chesapeake bay with several of us using the fortress anchor. Our experience has been quite the opposite of yours. The bottom in our area is various densities of sand with occasional mud depending on location. We boat in all conditions and often sit through storms while at anchor in pretty open water. Certainly not saying the fortress is the end all, be all but it has often out performed out expectations in sand bottoms.
Same here - soft Chesapeake bottom, steep (short) scope of 3:1, soft bottom setting on the Fortress 16 - sets quickly and holds like a champ. Once it is initially set I then pay out more scope and really drive it in. I use this anchor 95% of the time (36' sailboat).
Thanks for your comment. I recently bought a 36’ deadrise and just got the anchor to try. I’m at Smith Point and it’s pretty deep here so it should be interesting with the scope but I have my long lines already.
@@shaydglenn I still really like the fortress, it is light, and handy to work with, only thing is if you are moving at any sort of speed it will "fly" and not go to the bottom, and thus not set. But in a sand bottom it will hold like mad once it is set!!!
We went through a pretty nasty storm on the sassafras River this past July, and after it was over I struggled to remove the anchor from the bottom!!! Had to dig it out! I have an fx11 with a 26' boat.
I am always open to suggestions, but I think with the bottom conditions we have on the upper Chesapeake, the fortress is a solid choice.
This is my personal experience, your results may vary, but I always try to be honest and fair.
Great video, Steve. I would have thought the results to be more neck'n neck; I was surprised. I wonder though, I noticed that the fortress that you use has red lettering signifying that it was a Guardian model and not the blue lettering and more expensive anchor model. I'm not sure what significance that has or even if I'm correct
Also, just, for poops and giggles, what if any difference would it make setting the Fortress without the mud palms installed? The reason I mention it is because that is how I deploy mine and get good results. I only use the palms in a loose or soft substrate (I call putting the mud palms on the "Chesapeake setting"). Fortress recommends using the mud palms all the time now. That wasn't always the case and as I mentioned, I get good results, especially in sand without the mud palms installed.
Thanks, David. For sure, the anchor that I tested is the more expensive "Fortress" not the "Guardian".
Says Fortress on anchor, not Guardian. Got one just like it and it us red lettering.
I have a West Marine Performance 25 that looks very close to the same dimensions as the Fortress at a glance..
The gap at the front of the flukes is 2 1/4", fairly tight.
I have had a different fluke anchor fouled with very small stick across the tip...
I really like the build and geometry on the PF25 but not sure now how it will do if really challenged outside of clean sand or mud now...
Could you do one test of all your anchors in mud or sand of at least 6 to1 scope with chain roads? Yes I have heard you tell why you test with short scope in poor holding such as cobble stone. But I would never do either so most of tests I have watched gave me little information I could use except your dinghy anchor test which was great.
When you test a Fortress can you do it at 10:1 scope thats its maximum holding power angle.
I’d need 1200’ of line..hmmmm.
Can i use one of these anchors to over night in my 5.8 mt boat? Great and informative video's.
I read in some geeky anchor book that the Fortress is best set at 3:1. Not sure anymore.
Interesting that the 45 degree angle caused such a failure. I wonder, for other anchors, if measuring how low down an anchor pivots, the angle of the shank, and/or shank height could reveal some information about the performance of anchors. For example, could the shank angle play a role in some of the issues the rocna has in sandy mud substrates?
I mean, like perhaps the rocna anchor’s shank angle is approaching 45 degrees which is triggering failure in certain test situations? Just a thought.
Rather than the "fluke angle", we should really only consider the location of the chain attach point with respect to some geometric "center" of the fluke. Put another way, the shank could be shaped like a pretzel and therefore have no definable angle at all. That said, I do not believe that the Rocna's chain attach location can be improved. I believe that virtually all of the Rocna's poor results in my tests are the result of seabed becoming stuck to the anchor.
Interesting results, Steve. My sailboat sails at anchor up to +/- 15 to 20 degrees at 25-30 knots. From your experience do you expect this to impact the Danforth results?
It appears that in some seabeds, anchor performance may actually IMPROVE after the anchor is subjected to a "veer". Other seabeds may produce the opposite result. That said 15 to 20 degrees of veer is not a large amount. A well set Danforth should have little trouble handling that amount of direction change - especially if there exists a generous holding power reserve.
Thank you for so much information. Have you test a 60 lb Danford high tensile?
I have not.
I have a 45 ft Sportfish weighs about 40k lbs. what’s the best anchor i can get for all purpose use. I am at New Orleans area. I typically go offshore about 150 miles.
I have Danford 60h now. Maybe I can ship it to you and test it ?
We have a FX-125 with 110M of chain as a storm anchor, hope it holds....
I had that anchor as our primary for a while...
...had
@@PathandPavement what size boat? We like the fact it’s all dismantled, light and doesn’t rust. We were advised to go the biggest we can as a storm anchor so it doesn’t bury itself to the point of no return! We do have a retrieval line. Seems to work for us.
@@ross82 it is a 56ft sailing catamaran. Weighs about 30klbs. Should have been more than enough. The veering is what kills it!
I wonder if these tests could be replicated on land? Or does the water have an impact on the performance of the anchor?
Yes, the water likely changes performance.
Thanks for review! Aluminum sucks!)
thats a bad idea
Please. STRAIGHT line pull.
None of these companies know how to make an anchor!