Thanks so much for doing all the work of testing and making this video! I just bought a Rocna after lots of trouble with bruce imitations, but I was likely the weak link for my testing!
Excellent testing. Most unexpected results frequently. Run the winter storms on two Danforth that I wasn't trusting as single. Now, to replace the bowsprite main anchor. These tests make for much reconsideration.
Saw out 5 days of gales force 50 knot gusts with a Viking 10 in Hauraki Gulf Island in NZ on a soft mud bottom, over New Year period, Sure, it helped I had about 170 feet of chain out too, and also helped the wind was blowing from the shore, not the ocean, but nevertheless, the Viking did not budge an inch. That doesn't mean another new age anchor would not have performed just as well - but the Viking definitely passed it's first real test with me. Boat was a Contessa 26.
Jumped right to the conclusions/table. I have experienced my Viking and yes I am not surprised. Love your work anyhows/although I am not looking for a new anchor. Thx for all your testing!!
Still I’m baffled that I watch every second of this test. Yup, I’m not surprised anymore that the Viking is taking the lead, but how bad aren’t the ones skidding? Steve I’m proud to be one small Patreon of yours, and even more excited about watching your work. 🙏🏽
Videos are great and I based my recent anchor purchase on the summary data you have provided related to 44lbs (20kg) range (thanks again for performing all the tests). Wondering if you might also draw some conclusions on the "multiple" types to carry on board, since most folks, if they are like me, carry a primary AND a secondary on the bow (sailboat) and a stern hook. The primary being the "all around", and the secondary being the "unique" sea bed (soft mud in my case), and the stern hook managing the bow/stern tandem arrangement. Anyway - I'm one who would love to see you put together a - "what three hooks to carry" video.
Ha! I can't even make a "what ONE hook to carry" video, let alone three hooks!!! But seriously, it really depends on multiple factors that will vary depending on the type of Boat, Cruising style, Global location, Availability of anchors, Personal finances, Personal risk tolerance, etc. Best I can say, is to have the "secondary" bow anchor be "complimentary" to the primary. Generally, this could mean having one Rollbar anchor and one Non-Rollbar anchor (Rollbar anchors are be better in Soft Mud). I think a key factor for the stern hook is portability, or light enough to row, or walk. This usually means Fortress or Danforth. Fortress are the lightest (per holding power) but are not as reliable at setting/resetting as the Danforth. Note that if you installed a SINGLE bow anchor that equaled the combined weight of any two "complimentary" anchors, performance will not suffer. This also solves the problem of having to decide "which anchor" to set based on imperfect seabed knowledge (what the hell is down there!)
You tested so great anchors, thank you! Do you know the Jambo anchor? Please can you test and compare it to your favorites? This would be very interesting! Best regards
Shoot just come to Georgetown SC and anchor in the steel mill pond, you'll get a lot of softmud experience but no footage the water is so dark,lol. But you will spin in circles each day. But so far my 35lbs Sampson & Lawrence plow is holding decent,still dragging but re catching in circles. But yea my Danforth loved soft mud, I just don't have one heavy enough on board for the 20+knot winds to keep it's hold in harder seabeds since I killed my 22lbs when it got stuck.
Always interesting to see the video of how failures happen. The type of bottom makes so much difference, where small differences in mud character seem to affect the clumping. I don't know what your sequence of anchors was, but is there possibility that the later tested anchors are working with a mud that is more disturbed and acts differently? It would be interesting to do the exact same test on a different day (plus or minus a different sequence and plus or minus a slightly different spot) to see if the results are repeatable.
For this test (and others) I was carful to drop and reset each anchor in "fresh" seabed. Scow bay is very wide and with a flat uniform bottom, so it is easy to find undisturbed seabed. Over the years of testing here, I frequently do "repeat" tests of the same anchor. "Repeatability" has always been very high.
The Bruce is one of the lowest performing anchors, yet it seemed to be your go-to while cruising this summer. Is this just due to it being 66 pounds? Why not use the Spade, Vulcan, Excel, or M2? Should we be more focused on sizing up anchors rather than splitting hairs between designs?
At this time, do not have a "go-to" anchor. I am trying to gain real world cruising experience with as many anchors as possible. So far I have cruised PANOPE with the following anchors: 33lb Bruce, 35lb CQR, 45lb Manson Supreme, 45lb Spade, 45lb Ultra, 50lb Excel, 66lb Buce, 55lb Mantus M1. I do not have access to the 45lb Vulcan that I tested previously. After discovering that many of the places that I like to anchor have rocky/impenetrable seabeds, I am leaning toward larger anchors.
It's complicated. The Larger anchors received a "straight line" reset, not a "180 degree" reset - so not exactly apples to apples. While the holding/wt. was similar between the the Vulcans, the smaller anchor had the advantage of using the same chain (80' of 5/16") and therefore had more catenary. Again, not apples to apples. That said, I agree that the Larger Vulcan seemed to behave better than the smaller version. Another example is the Excel, where the 17lb version behaves very poorly in the Soft Mud and the 50lb Version does much better. The Mantus M1 might be the opposite. It appears that the smaller versions might be a bit better than the larger. This needs to be studied/tested further to make an accurate conclusion.
Hi Steve, great video as always! Did you happen to run up the RPM on the Viking to see what its overall holding power was? Kind of curious to see how it compared to the Danforth
I conducted holding power tests in the same seabed in August 2021. The 21lb. Viking held 690 pounds and the 20lb. Danforth held 1,295 pounds. Scope was 5:1 and the rode included 80 feet of 5/16" chain.
Ok, thank you for the info, that’s super helpful. 690lbs is pretty substantial. I looked and didn’t see the soft mud with the Viking but I’m sure I missed it somehow. Thank you for finding that!
Is it safe to assume that the ratings on these different brands of anchors would transfer more-or-less directly if sized to their weightier versions? This would be helpful to know for those that anchor in these PNW situations but with heavier vessels.
Generally, yes, the anchors "scale" fairly accurately. However, I have noticed a few cases where a different size will have a fairly large affect. I will need to conduct many more apples to apples comparisons (between different sizes) before I can give a definitive answer.
Interesting...no Ultra Test? The Spade looks That have a small surface área, comparing with the Mantus for exemple... Dont you think That oversize the Spade to get more área Will make it much more efective specialy in soft mud?
The Mantus M1 has twice as much holding power as an equal weight Steel Spade. This was true for the 20lb "range" anchors as well as the 45 pounders. While the Spade does have a bit smaller dimensions than the M1, the primary reason for the performance difference lies with the design. In a nutshell, the Rollbar anchors are consistently far better than the Ballasted, Non-Rollbar anchors in my soft mud testbed I do not have access to an Ultra in the 20lb. range.
@@MARIOSAILOR1 The Rollbar Rocna has a "mud collection" problem in the SANDY MUD seabeds. You are commenting in a SOFT MUD video. Rollbar Rocna anchors have always performed very well in this SOFT MUD.
What to do?!? I've got an M2. Previously it appeared a reasonable choice with high marks in most bottoms. But it failed miserably in the soft mud. Any suggestions? Anything I should do if I know I'm anchoring in soft mud? Other than buy a Viking anchor.
Set an anchor drag alarm with a small distance circle. If the wind shifts after the initial set, "test" the new "set" by backing down (with the engine) in the new direction. If the anchor holds, reset the alarm to the new position. If the anchor drags - retrieve, clean, and re-deploy. Another option is to use a "specialty" anchor like a Danforth. This is almost a requirement for storms because none of the "fixed fluke" anchors that I know of (including the Viking) have "storm level" holding unless grossly oversize. I recently spent a sleepless night in that same Soft Mud seabed lying to a 55lb Mantus M1 (as good as the Viking). This is at least 1 size larger than Mantus recommends for the 40 knot winds that I saw. The anchor dragged 20 or 30 feet throughout the night - hence the sleeplessness. I should have put out a Danforth or Fortress.
Also, keep in mind that this was a perfect 180 degree reset test that resulted in mostly "back flips". A more typical wind shift will happen at some other angle, and will have a tendency to result in the anchor pivoting in the seabed and not releasing.
@@flygoodwin Got it. Any grander ideas? In the past you drilled some holes in a Rocna and got a better performance. (Sorry if I'm mangling the details.) Do you think there is a way to modify these roll bar-less anchors physically to make them perform better in soft mud? I hope you continue to explore the issue of soft mud holding. Why is it happening to this class of anchors? It seems the scoop is getting full of material and causes the anchor to turtle. Is the only way to get them back over to add a bar?
@@davidhopkins In the case of the M2, I believe the anchor would behave better in the soft mud if the "ears" (the protruding wing like things) had an extra piece of metal in the vertical orientation. Most Non-Rollbar anchors have this feature. As it is, when the M2 anchor is on its side, the ear is easily pushed into the soft mud and therefore does little to help the anchor become upright. It is likely that a Rollbar will perform the same function as these "vertical ear panels".
@@flygoodwin FYI I reached out to Mantus. They are aware of the issue with the M2 in soft mud. They said the first version of the M2 had to be recalled due to a significant issue in soft mud. The revised version (as of 2020 I think they said) still has a lesser issue. Their theory was the shank is not perfectly straight. I was impressed with the support. They got right back to me and offered to make things right.
That's the million dollar question. In most cases, the anchors will scale up (or down) and have similar performance, but not always. For example, the 17 lb. Excel is at times unusable in the Soft Mud, but the large versions are reliable. While it is technically possible for me to conduct a round of testing with a group of 80lb. anchors, this is solidly out of reach for me in terms of time and money.
@@flygoodwin Thank you for your response. I realized you pay for all these Test out of your own pocket and I believe the community appreciates that. It is very helpful to have an unbiased testing of such a critical piece of gear. Thank you Michael walters
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
You sir are doing brilliant work for the benefit of all us boaters - I can't thank you enough.
Loved that animated end 👌🏽
Thanks for your huge efforts.
Your tests are a great help for us sailors.
Phenomenal videos and commentary.
Thanks so much for doing all the work of testing and making this video! I just bought a Rocna after lots of trouble with bruce imitations, but I was likely the weak link for my testing!
Mantus anchors are the best. Either an M1 or an M2 .... all day long. Great job Steve!!
Excellent testing. Most unexpected results frequently. Run the winter storms on two Danforth that I wasn't trusting as single.
Now, to replace the bowsprite main anchor. These tests make for much reconsideration.
Saw out 5 days of gales force 50 knot gusts with a Viking 10 in Hauraki Gulf Island in NZ on a soft mud bottom, over New Year period, Sure, it helped I had about 170 feet of chain out too, and also helped the wind was blowing from the shore, not the ocean, but nevertheless, the Viking did not budge an inch. That doesn't mean another new age anchor would not have performed just as well - but the Viking definitely passed it's first real test with me. Boat was a Contessa 26.
Good to hear. I just ordered a Viking 10 for my 26' C-dory.
Jumped right to the conclusions/table. I have experienced my Viking and yes I am not surprised. Love your work anyhows/although I am not looking for a new anchor. Thx for all your testing!!
Still I’m baffled that I watch every second of this test. Yup, I’m not surprised anymore that the Viking is taking the lead, but how bad aren’t the ones skidding? Steve I’m proud to be one small Patreon of yours, and even more excited about watching your work. 🙏🏽
I would love to see you test chain vs rope anchor rhode with a few different scopes !
Great work again . Thanks!
Videos are great and I based my recent anchor purchase on the summary data you have provided related to 44lbs (20kg) range (thanks again for performing all the tests). Wondering if you might also draw some conclusions on the "multiple" types to carry on board, since most folks, if they are like me, carry a primary AND a secondary on the bow (sailboat) and a stern hook. The primary being the "all around", and the secondary being the "unique" sea bed (soft mud in my case), and the stern hook managing the bow/stern tandem arrangement. Anyway - I'm one who would love to see you put together a - "what three hooks to carry" video.
Ha! I can't even make a "what ONE hook to carry" video, let alone three hooks!!!
But seriously, it really depends on multiple factors that will vary depending on the type of Boat, Cruising style, Global location, Availability of anchors, Personal finances, Personal risk tolerance, etc.
Best I can say, is to have the "secondary" bow anchor be "complimentary" to the primary. Generally, this could mean having one Rollbar anchor and one Non-Rollbar anchor (Rollbar anchors are be better in Soft Mud).
I think a key factor for the stern hook is portability, or light enough to row, or walk. This usually means Fortress or Danforth. Fortress are the lightest (per holding power) but are not as reliable at setting/resetting as the Danforth.
Note that if you installed a SINGLE bow anchor that equaled the combined weight of any two "complimentary" anchors, performance will not suffer. This also solves the problem of having to decide "which anchor" to set based on imperfect seabed knowledge (what the hell is down there!)
I hope you get a chance to try the 90 deg test. That will be interesting.
You tested so great anchors, thank you! Do you know the Jambo anchor? Please can you test and compare it to your favorites? This would be very interesting! Best regards
Shoot just come to Georgetown SC and anchor in the steel mill pond, you'll get a lot of softmud experience but no footage the water is so dark,lol. But you will spin in circles each day. But so far my 35lbs Sampson & Lawrence plow is holding decent,still dragging but re catching in circles. But yea my Danforth loved soft mud, I just don't have one heavy enough on board for the 20+knot winds to keep it's hold in harder seabeds since I killed my 22lbs when it got stuck.
Great video, thank you so much for your work! It seems Viking have significantly changed the design of their anchor. Any plans to test it?
I will test any anchor (within reason) that Viking sends to me. No plans thus far.
Always interesting to see the video of how failures happen. The type of bottom makes so much difference, where small differences in mud character seem to affect the clumping. I don't know what your sequence of anchors was, but is there possibility that the later tested anchors are working with a mud that is more disturbed and acts differently? It would be interesting to do the exact same test on a different day (plus or minus a different sequence and plus or minus a slightly different spot) to see if the results are repeatable.
For this test (and others) I was carful to drop and reset each anchor in "fresh" seabed. Scow bay is very wide and with a flat uniform bottom, so it is easy to find undisturbed seabed. Over the years of testing here, I frequently do "repeat" tests of the same anchor. "Repeatability" has always been very high.
The Bruce is one of the lowest performing anchors, yet it seemed to be your go-to while cruising this summer. Is this just due to it being 66 pounds? Why not use the Spade, Vulcan, Excel, or M2? Should we be more focused on sizing up anchors rather than splitting hairs between designs?
At this time, do not have a "go-to" anchor. I am trying to gain real world cruising experience with as many anchors as possible. So far I have cruised PANOPE with the following anchors: 33lb Bruce, 35lb CQR, 45lb Manson Supreme, 45lb Spade, 45lb Ultra, 50lb Excel, 66lb Buce, 55lb Mantus M1.
I do not have access to the 45lb Vulcan that I tested previously.
After discovering that many of the places that I like to anchor have rocky/impenetrable seabeds, I am leaning toward larger anchors.
Vulcan performance in Scow Bay mud looks to be quite different between the 21 lb and the 47 lb.
It's complicated. The Larger anchors received a "straight line" reset, not a "180 degree" reset - so not exactly apples to apples. While the holding/wt. was similar between the the Vulcans, the smaller anchor had the advantage of using the same chain (80' of 5/16") and therefore had more catenary. Again, not apples to apples. That said, I agree that the Larger Vulcan seemed to behave better than the smaller version.
Another example is the Excel, where the 17lb version behaves very poorly in the Soft Mud and the 50lb Version does much better.
The Mantus M1 might be the opposite. It appears that the smaller versions might be a bit better than the larger.
This needs to be studied/tested further to make an accurate conclusion.
@@flygoodwin Yes, we’re thinking about this in the same way. Any plans to bring the larger anchors to Sucia?
Hi Steve, great video as always! Did you happen to run up the RPM on the Viking to see what its overall holding power was? Kind of curious to see how it compared to the Danforth
I conducted holding power tests in the same seabed in August 2021. The 21lb. Viking held 690 pounds and the 20lb. Danforth held 1,295 pounds. Scope was 5:1 and the rode included 80 feet of 5/16" chain.
Ok, thank you for the info, that’s super helpful. 690lbs is pretty substantial. I looked and didn’t see the soft mud with the Viking but I’m sure I missed it somehow. Thank you for finding that!
Is it safe to assume that the ratings on these different brands of anchors would transfer more-or-less directly if sized to their weightier versions? This would be helpful to know for those that anchor in these PNW situations but with heavier vessels.
Generally, yes, the anchors "scale" fairly accurately. However, I have noticed a few cases where a different size will have a fairly large affect. I will need to conduct many more apples to apples comparisons (between different sizes) before I can give a definitive answer.
Interesting...no Ultra Test? The Spade looks That have a small surface área, comparing with the Mantus for exemple...
Dont you think That oversize the Spade to get more área Will make it much more efective specialy in soft mud?
The Mantus M1 has twice as much holding power as an equal weight Steel Spade. This was true for the 20lb "range" anchors as well as the 45 pounders. While the Spade does have a bit smaller dimensions than the M1, the primary reason for the performance difference lies with the design. In a nutshell, the Rollbar anchors are consistently far better than the Ballasted, Non-Rollbar anchors in my soft mud testbed
I do not have access to an Ultra in the 20lb. range.
Só the Rocna did not collect mud on the Rollbar any more?
@@MARIOSAILOR1 The Rollbar Rocna has a "mud collection" problem in the SANDY MUD seabeds. You are commenting in a SOFT MUD video. Rollbar Rocna anchors have always performed very well in this SOFT MUD.
What's the best recommendation for anchor and kg for Bayliner 2655?
What to do?!? I've got an M2. Previously it appeared a reasonable choice with high marks in most bottoms. But it failed miserably in the soft mud. Any suggestions? Anything I should do if I know I'm anchoring in soft mud? Other than buy a Viking anchor.
Set an anchor drag alarm with a small distance circle. If the wind shifts after the initial set, "test" the new "set" by backing down (with the engine) in the new direction. If the anchor holds, reset the alarm to the new position. If the anchor drags - retrieve, clean, and re-deploy.
Another option is to use a "specialty" anchor like a Danforth. This is almost a requirement for storms because none of the "fixed fluke" anchors that I know of (including the Viking) have "storm level" holding unless grossly oversize.
I recently spent a sleepless night in that same Soft Mud seabed lying to a 55lb Mantus M1 (as good as the Viking). This is at least 1 size larger than Mantus recommends for the 40 knot winds that I saw. The anchor dragged 20 or 30 feet throughout the night - hence the sleeplessness. I should have put out a Danforth or Fortress.
Also, keep in mind that this was a perfect 180 degree reset test that resulted in mostly "back flips". A more typical wind shift will happen at some other angle, and will have a tendency to result in the anchor pivoting in the seabed and not releasing.
@@flygoodwin Got it. Any grander ideas? In the past you drilled some holes in a Rocna and got a better performance. (Sorry if I'm mangling the details.) Do you think there is a way to modify these roll bar-less anchors physically to make them perform better in soft mud? I hope you continue to explore the issue of soft mud holding. Why is it happening to this class of anchors? It seems the scoop is getting full of material and causes the anchor to turtle. Is the only way to get them back over to add a bar?
@@davidhopkins In the case of the M2, I believe the anchor would behave better in the soft mud if the "ears" (the protruding wing like things) had an extra piece of metal in the vertical orientation. Most Non-Rollbar anchors have this feature. As it is, when the M2 anchor is on its side, the ear is easily pushed into the soft mud and therefore does little to help the anchor become upright.
It is likely that a Rollbar will perform the same function as these "vertical ear panels".
@@flygoodwin FYI I reached out to Mantus. They are aware of the issue with the M2 in soft mud. They said the first version of the M2 had to be recalled due to a significant issue in soft mud. The revised version (as of 2020 I think they said) still has a lesser issue. Their theory was the shank is not perfectly straight. I was impressed with the support. They got right back to me and offered to make things right.
I wonder if these test scale up, in another word. Does the performance of a 20lb anchor predict how a 80lb anchor will preform
That's the million dollar question. In most cases, the anchors will scale up (or down) and have similar performance, but not always. For example, the 17 lb. Excel is at times unusable in the Soft Mud, but the large versions are reliable.
While it is technically possible for me to conduct a round of testing with a group of 80lb. anchors, this is solidly out of reach for me in terms of time and money.
@@flygoodwin Thank you for your response. I realized you pay for all these Test out of your own pocket and I believe the community appreciates that. It is very helpful to have an unbiased testing of such a critical piece of gear.
Thank you
Michael walters