ANCHOR TESTBY BILL SPRINGERHOLDINGPOWER
WE PUT THOUSANDS OF POUNDSOF FORCE ON 14 DIFFERENT ANCHORSTO SEE HOW WELL THEY WORK.
SOME RESULTS MAY SURPRISE YOU

W

HICH ANCHOR HOLDS BEST?

It should be a simple question. We’ve put a man on
the moon and have decoded the human genome, so
surely someone has designed the ideal anchor—one thatsets quickly in all bottoms, steadfastly stays in place evenin storm conditions, and reliably resets itself if the wind
shifts dramatically. It should also be light enough for a couple to handle ona 35-to-40-foot boat and be easy to retrieve when the time comes. How hard
could it be to design and build such a basic device? Harder than you think.
After three days of testing 14 different anchors in three different locations off Santa Cruz, California, Jeffery Moser from Power & Motoryacht
magazine, Toby Hodges from Yachting Monthly, Chuck Hawley and several colleagues from West Marine, plus yours truly from SAIL confirmed
what we all knew going in—that the effectiveness of any anchor is highly
dependent on a long list of variables. Some variables (scope, anchor design, and weight) can be controlled; others (bottom surface, wind, andswell) can’t. We also knew that the validity of our results depended on
ensuring that all variables (apart from the design of the individual anchors)
were kept as uniform as possible; all anchors were tested multiple times
with identical scope in identical conditions. We tested in three different
locations—on the west and east sides of Santa Cruz’s wharf and off New
Brighton Beach, near Capitola. The seas had just a hint of swell in all threelocations, and the wind varied from flat calm to a maximum of 12 knots.
We took bottom samples at each location with a weighted core sampler
to determine the composition of the top 5 inches of the bottom surface.
All three locations had a layer of fine dark sand on top of harder, finer,
claylike sand. The New Brighton location appeared to have a thinner layerof sand and a harder layer of claylike sand than the two wharf locations.

60 SAILMAGAZINE.COM OCTOBER 2006

PHOTO BY ONNE VAN DER WAL

OCTOBER 2006 SAILMAGAZINE.COM

61

ANCHOR TEST

scope that a cruiser on a
35-to-40-foot sailboat would
actually use. Each anchor
tested is available in a wide
range of weights; we used
the weight recommended fora 35-to-40 foot boat.
We were able to apply
and accurately record how
the anchors reacted to up
to 5,000 pounds of load,
thanks to the 52-foot,92,000-pound research vessel Shana Rae, which we

chartered to do the 2,974
LOAD
pulling. Equipped witha 375-horsepower diesel
engine and a 40-inch-diameter propeller, Shana Raeallowed us to apply moreforce on each anchor than
it would ever experience in“normal conditions.” But
we were looking for an anchor that could perform
well beyond “normal conditions,” when anchor performance is most critical.

WHAT THE NUMBERS MEAN
We found that some of these anchors resisted pulls in excess
of 5,000 pounds and that others broke out or dragged atconsiderably lower loads. Would such high loads actually be
put on sailboat anchors in real life?
One indicator is the American Boat and Yacht Council(ABYC) table for different boat sizes and types that estimates
the horizontal loads put on cleats in various wind strengths.
Obviously an anchor should be able to cope with similar loads.
According to the ABYC the load on a 35-foot-LOA,
10-foot-beam boat is 255 pounds in 15 knots of wind; 900 pounds
in 30 knots; 1,800 pounds in 42 knots; and 3,600 pounds in
60 knots. For a 40-footer, the figures are 300 pounds, 1,200
pounds, 2,400 pounds, 4,800 pounds; a 50-footer would require a storm anchor that could handle 6,400 pounds (go to
sailmagazine.com for the complete table) of load.
The ABYC’s figures are extremely conservative. Other
authorities, including naval architect Robert Smith, who tested
loadings on anchor rodes, suggest that the actual loads onan anchor could be as much as two-thirds less than the ABYC
figures predict.

We used a powerfultest boat to determine
max holding power

The Claw is Lewmar’s version of the
popular Bruce anchor that cruisers havebeen using for years. It stows easily in a
bow roller, its one-piece construction
is super-strong, and it is reportedly designed to be effective in a variety ofseabeds. However, our test results cameas a bit of a surprise: The maximum
load we recorded for this anchor with 5:1
scope was 886 pounds.And that was only
a short spike before the anchor released::s
886 lbD
LOA

WEIGHT: 38 LBS › PRICE: $582
LEWMAR INC. › 203-458-6200
www.lewmar.com

The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising test results.
The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope wasa very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt theanchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax
the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom. The
anchor did briefly hold over 2,000 pounds of load on pull four, west of thewharf, but those first three pulls did not inspire confidence and we were notable to replicate the results of pull four even when scope was increased to
7:1. The CQR’s relatively sharp point looked capable of penetrating the layers of sand, but something appears to have kept the point from digging in,except when we got that 2,000-pound reading. Like the Claw, the CQR has
been around for years. It also dug a considerable trench on the beach.

AX

M
lbs
2,000ADLO

ANCHOR TESTING ANALYSIS: AVERAGE OF PEAK STRAIN AT ALL LOCATIONS
6,000
5,500
5,000
4,500

Max before releasing
Stable dragging
Max pull

4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Z
XY

i
as
W

e
ad
Sp

a
rc
Sa

a
cn
Ro
20
ce
an
rm
rfo
Pe

ne
ea
Oc

n
so
an
M
e
bl
ub
ob
dr
Hy

ga

ss
re
rt
Fo

lta
De

R

aw

CQ

Cl

ag
llw

The concept behind the Bulwagga isfairly straightforward. Its three large flukes
are designed to ensure that two flukes
will always be properly aligned to dig
into the bottom no matter how theanchor is oriented. The shank canpivot in the center of the anchor to help
keep the load on the two working flukes
equalized. In all of our test pulls the Bulwagga set quickly and held a maximum of 2,974 pounds of load before
releasing abruptly (rather than dragging). We concluded that this anchor
should be able to handle the load a 35to-40-foot boat can exert on an anchor
with a minimum of 5:1 scope; performance dropped off dramaticallyat 3:1. The overall results for the
Bulwagga were good, but good lucktrying to get it to sit neatly on yourbow roller, and good luck trying to store
it in a locker. Its unconventional shapemakes it difficult to handle, and it can’t
be taken apart to be stored easily
down below. That said, it comes as
close to “throw it overboard, it’s sure
to catch something” as any of the anchors we tested. It would be a useful
backup/kedge anchor, provided you havethe necessary stowage space.

MAX

completely. During most of the 5:1 pulls,
it seemed to set and release rapidly
without ever really catching. One pull
showed it was slowly dragging under aload of about 300 pounds, but we were
never able to say with certainty that theanchor had set. We recorded similar results with 7:1 scope.One idea we considered
was that the Claw’s flukes were simply
not sharp enough to penetrate the harderclaylike sand.The beach pull was also tellingin that the Claw dug a much longer
trench than other anchors that produced better results during the holding-power pulls.

WEIGHT: 28 LBS › PRICE: $350
MELE COMPANIES › 888-674-4465
www.noteco.com/bulwagga

Bu

62 SAILMAGAZINE.COM OCTOBER 2006

lbs

LEWMAR INC. › 203-458-6200
www.lewmar.com

Average holding power (5:1 scope, lbs)

T

he goal of this test
was to determine
the performance
characteristics of 14 anchors (on a hard sand bottom) deemed suitable bytheir manufacturers for a
cruising sailboat in the
35-to-40-foot range. We
judged performance on
how quickly the anchor
set, its holding power (asmeasured by a digital dynamometer attached to therode and wired into a
laptop computer, andwhether it dragged(as determined by using
visual ranges and precise
GPS measurements). Our
primary test scope was 5:1
in roughly 20 feet of water,
but we also tested performance with scopes of
3:1 and 7:1.
Our primary goal was tolearn the maximum holding
power—and, more important, how each anchor acts
before its maximum load
is reached—in a specifictest location and at a specificMAX::
WEIGHT: 36 LBS › PRICE: $99.99

PHOTOS BY ABNER KINGMANTHE OBJECTIVE ::::OCTOBER 2006 SAILMAGAZINE.COM

63

ANCHOR TEST::::WEIGHT: 36 LBS › PRICE: $259.99

WEIGHT: 22 LBS › PRICE: $420

LEWMAR INC. › 203-458-6200
www.lewmar.com

FORTRESS MARINE ANCHORS
954-978-9988
www.fortressanchors.com

The Delta is a one-piece plow-type anchor with large
flukes. It was one of several anchors that held substantial
loads on multiple pulls east of the wharf. On one pull at 5:1
scope, it set quickly and held firm up to 5,000 pounds. During two other 5:1 pulls, it held to a maximum of about
3,500 pounds, then slowly dragged (holding 3,500 pounds)
for about 600 feet before releasing. Performance wasconsiderably poorer at the other locations. It appears
that the Delta’s angled fixed shank, relatively sharp point,
and large flukes helped it set quickly and hold (up to a point)
as long as the scope was at least 5:1. Performance declined
sharply at 3:1. The beach pull confirmed that the anchor
set and dug in almost immediately, rather than plowing along trench before setting.

TESTING PROCEDURE ::A

s we gathered anchors forthe test, we found thatsome manufacturers
were a bit skeptical. They wanted
assurances that the evaluation
would be unbiased and thateach anchor would be tested insimilar conditions. This was
our guiding principle, and we
described our methodology toeach manufacturer prior to thetest. West Marine’s VP of Product Development, Chuck Haw-

lbs
5,000ADLODATA GRAPHS: EACH PULL WAS GRAPHED USING THE COMPUTER
Average holding power (lbs)

EAST OF WHARF › 20' CHAIN / 108' 1'' NYLON / 25' DEPTH

6,000
5,500
5,000

Sample of anchor subjected to full pull
Observations: Engaged
immediately, held to
5,000 lbs. Test terminatedSample of anchor that did not set
Observations: Seemed to skip
along the bottom. Stopped test
because of excessive dragging

5,238 lbs

4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

78 lbs

0
12

:5
9:

:4

:4

:4

:4

40

4:

5:

6:

47

47

4
7:

12

12

12

:4
8:

LO

pened when we veered sharply
on the rode. Scope was determined according to Shana Rae’s
depthfinder and confirmed via
leadline. We also used a boatclose to shore to pull each anchor in wet sand on the beachto make it easy to see how eachanchor set.
Each test was conducted
the same way. The anchor was
attached to the rode and thendropped over the side. The
rode was attached to the digital dynamometer, which was
wired to a PC that recorded thestrain on the gauge three times
per second. The boat idled forward until the appropriate
scope had paid out and theanchor had set. Once a set was
confirmed, engine revs were
slowly increased until the anchor dragged, released, orreached 5,000 pounds. Then thewhole process was repeatedwith the next anchor.

a fluke slightly during our veering test. Thiswas while the anchor was under load, so it
would be unfair to say anything other thanit withstood a tremendous amount of abuse
and still functioned properly. It would be difficult (but not impossible) to secure in a bowroller when not in use.

::

WEIGHT: 16 LBS
PRICE: $249
ANCHOR CONCEPTS
888-282-2535
www.anchorconcepts.com

When placed alongside all
the other anchors in our test,
the Hydrobubble Standard 45
didn’t get much respect atfirst—until it started stand-

What’s most curious about
MAXs the Hydrobubble is thelb
0
5,00 AD shape of its blade. InsteadLOof Delta or CQR-type flukes),
the Hydrobubble’s blade
forms an upside-down V. It
seems the pull of the shankdrives the flat V-shaped blade
deeper into the bottom. This
could help explain how it penetrated the hard bottom eventhough the point wasn’t paring up to multiple 5,000- ticularly sharp.This anchor’s
pound pulls. The minimal performance exceeded our
flotation provided by the capacity to exert force on it,
eponymous bubble helps the and I was able to take it apartanchor orient itself so that its and bring it back from Caliheavy stainless-steel blade is fornia in my luggage. It may
always positioned to dig in at look unconventional, but thethe optimal angle. Quick sets anchor with the effervescentand multiple 5,000-pound name may represent a new
pulls at 5:1 scope prove it and effective way to anchor
worked beautifully every time. a boat.

47

7

47

64 SAILMAGAZINE.COM OCTOBER 2006

12

10

40

0

40

8:

6:

4
7:
:5

:5

:5

10

10

10

Time

ley, and his colleagues from
West Marine have conducted
countless anchor tests over theyears in our test location (theytest any anchor West is considering carrying in its stores),but had never tested anchorsweighing between 20 and 40
pounds off Santa Cruz. West Marine sells roughly half the anchors
we tested.
Our procedure was as consistent as possible. Each anchor was pulled on the same rode(1-inch nylon rope with a 20foot leader of 5/16-inch chain) atleast three times with 5:1 scope.
We moved the test boat (confirming our new location with
the GPS) before each new pull
to ensure the anchor had achance to set in a fresh sea bed,
and instead of testing each anchor three times in succession,
we pulled the first anchor,weighed it, moved the boat,
set the second anchor, weighed
it, and so on, to make absolutely
sure that no one anchor would
be tested in a specific area of thebottom. We also tested the anchors with 3:1 and 7:1 scope andseparately checked what hap-lbs
5,000ADThe Fortress FX37 was one of several anchors we tested that consistently set quickly
and held up to 5,000 pounds of load on multiple sets in multiple locations. Its sharp, large
flukes dug in immediately. As we increased
the loads and the rode became bow-string
tight, the boat shuddered and kicked up some
impressive turbulence at the stern but theanchor didn’t budge. At only 22 pounds
the Fortress was one of the lightest anchors we tested, and it was the easiest to
stow (it can be broken down and will fit ina slim bag). It also held over 5,000 pounds
on 3:1 scope. With its light weight, quick setting and retrieval , enormous holding power
at a variety of scopes, and easy stowability, the Fortress ranked high among all theanchors we tested. However, we did bend

The test
team moved
hundreds
of pounds ofanchors overthree daysof testing

MAX

MAX

OCTOBER 2006 SAILMAGAZINE.COM

65

ANCHOR TEST

::

MAX

The Manson Supreme is one oflbs several newer anchors we tested
00,0
5 AD that combine a rigid shank, a sharpLOpoint, a scooplike (rather than aplow-type) blade, and a roll bar that
ensures the anchor is always properly oriented on the sea bed. It also
set quickly and resisted multiple
5,000-pound pulls at 5:1 scope eastof the wharf. Results at the other locations were also good, consistently topping out at 2,500 pounds
before releasing. The Manson was
was also able to withstand 5,000
pounds at 3:1 scope. On the beach,
it dug in without dragging. Its shapeappears compatible with most bow
rollers, but it would protrude morethan a Claw or a CQR, and its roll bar
WEIGHT: 35 LBS › PRICE: $450
could possibly interfere with some
PLASTIMO USA ›bow pulpits.
941-360-1888 › www.plastimo.com::
WEIGHT: 38 LBS › PRICE: $259
WEST MARINE
800-262-8464
www.spade-anchors.com

The most obvious difference between
the Oceane and the other one-pieceplow/scoop-type anchors we tested isthat its C-shaped shank is attached rightat the front of the scoop, close to thepoint. In our on-the-beach tests the
Oceane pivoted quickly on its sharp
MAX
point, and its C-shaped shanklbs
did a good job of converting the 5,000
DAO
lateral force on the rode into downL
ward/digging force on the scoop. Howrecorded multiple maximum
ever, the Oceane did not produce pulls. None of the other anchors weconsistent results. East of the wharf tested had such profoundly different
and at New Brighton, the Oceane results between venues, and the reafailed to set after multiple attempts on son is not readily apparent.The Oceane’s
scopes of 5:1 and 7:1. However, west unique shape makes it difficult to stowof the wharf it set immediately, and we on a bow roller.

66 SAILMAGAZINE.COM OCTOBER 2006

Soil samples

Bulwagga

Claw

CQR

Delta

Fortress

Hydrobubble

Manson Supreme

OceaneRocna

Sarca Anchorlight

Spade

Wasi

West Marine
Performance 20

XYZ

The strain gauge (inset) fed the data directly
into the computer as well as to a second
read-out on deck (below)

DATA ANDANALYSIS ::W

ith the digital dynamometer
we were able to record the
maximum load exerted on eachanchor, to graph how increased load affected the anchor, and to incorporate accurate time and GPS data, along withvisual range marking to show dragging.
Thanks to Phil Cowley of West Marine, whoprovided the dynamometer as well as thesoftware expertise to process the data.
This procedure virtually eliminated any errors that could arise from physically jotting down readings of over 100 pulls at
different scopes.
Over dinner on each test day we reviewed
the day’s results—everything from bottom sampling, hydraulic-crane operation,
to each anchor’s performance or lack of performance. Then, when we were all backin our respective offices, we again discussed each anchor’s performance via a conference call to confirm our analyses.

OCTOBER 2006 SAILMAGAZINE.COM

67

ANCHOR TEST

Average holding power (lbs)

EFFECT OF SCOPE ON HOLDING POWER

MAX

lbs
5,000AD

5,000

MAX

lbs
1,500AD

3:1

LO

5:1

::

4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0

WEIGHT: 26 LBS › PRICE: $200
Bulwagga

Delta

Fortress

Manson

Rocna

Sarca

Spade

Wasi

EFFECT OF LOCATION ON HOLDING POWER::

WEIGHT: 32 LBS › PRICE: $560
SUNCOAST MARINE › 604-781-8347
www.rocna.com

6,000

Test location

East of wharf

New Brighton

5,000

3,000
2,000

0

LOA

68 SAILMAGAZINE.COM OCTOBER 2006

suited to penetrating the hard-packsand. On every 5:1 pull at all three locations it set quickly and held up to 3,000
pounds. The data shows it consistently
held between 1,500 and 3,000 pounds
before releasing. Similar numbers wererecorded after the 3:1 pull. These setting characteristics deserve a high rating. However, several other anchors
we tested set with similar consistency
and held at higher loads.

i
as
W

lbs
5,000 D

The Spade turned out to be one of thebetter-performing anchors on 5:1 scope.

MAX

lbs
4,000AD
LO

::

MAX

WEIGHT: 35 LBS › PRICE: $450
SPADE ANCHORS › 800-262-8464
www.spade-anchor.com

e
ad
Sp

a
rc
Sa

Anchors that did not generate significant holding power are omitted

a
cn
20
Ro
ce
an
rm
rfo
Pe

NE
EA
OC

n
so
an
M
e
bl
ub
ob
dr
Hy

s
es
rtr
Fo

The Sarca was unlike any of the otheranchors we tested. It consists of a large
triangular blade, a pronounced roll bar,and a hollowed-out shank that allows
the shackle to slide forward during retrieval. Its very sharp point (it could
cut you if you weren’t careful) was wellshowed brief spikes, then a quick release. It also
briefly held 1,500 pounds on 5:1 scope before slowly
dragging and releasing off New Brighton. But thatwas only one pull of many—hardly enough to show
the anchor is capable of holding anything close
to that much load dependably. The Fortressshowed how effective a Danforth-type anchor couldbe, so the only explanation the team could comeup with was that the flukes of the particular anchor we tested weren’t sharp enough to penetrate the hard, claylike sand.

1,000

Multiple pulls at both wharf locations
yielded 5,000-pound load readings. Its
simple weighted point and mid-sized blade
easily penetrated and held without dragging. Results fell off dramatically, however, at 3:1 scope and at the New Brighton
location. Our beach pulls illustrate why
the Spade was so successful. The heavily weighted point immediately dug in andnearly buried not only the blade, but theshank as well.

::
WEIGHT: 33 LBS › PRICE: N/A
ANCHOR RIGHT › 604-322-4008
www.anchorright.net

WEST MARINE › 800-262-8464
www.westmarine.com

The Performance 20 is a Danforth-style anchor
marketed by West Marine, so when we wereconsistently unable to get the anchor to set at
a variety of scopes and locations, there wasconsiderable scratching of heads. For the majorityof pulls on increasingly longer scope, the anchor
seemed to set and release quickly. Several pulls

West of wharf

4,000

lta
De
ga
ag
lw
Bu

The Rocna is very similar in design to
the Manson, but the Rocna yieldedslightly better results. Both withstoodmaximum pulls east of the wharf andhad similar holding power on both 5:1
and 3:1 scope; the Rocna held slightly
longer east of the wharf before releasing. Like the Manson, the Rocna, with
its sharp point and roll bar, was one of
the better-performing designs wetested; it has similar potential drawbacks,
such as how much it would protrude on
a bow roller and potential pulpit conflicts. However, the Rocna’s blade wasmore angular and had slightly upturned
flaps at the back, and its shank wasslightly longer. These subtle differences might explain the Rocna’s slightly
better test results.

Average holding power (lbs)

LO

6,000

MAX

lbs
3,000ADLO

WEIGHT: 32 LBS › PRICE: $730
SWISS TECH AMERICA ›408-505-7245
www.swisstech-america.com::

WEIGHT: 12.5 LBS › PRICE: $395::

The stainless-steel Wasi has a roll bar
like some of the other anchors wetested, but its blade and shank design
are unusual. The blade consists of aflat, heavy triangle, and the shank angle is very pronounced. This angle appears to provide the downward force
required to propel the flat blade down
into the bottom, and test results show
it works. The Wasi set quickly on 5:1
scope, held to 3,000 pounds, anddragged before releasing when theload topped 4,000 pounds. Results weresimilar on 3:1 scope.

MAXs
300 lbD
LOA

CREATIVE MARINE › 800-824-0355
www.creativemarine.com/xyz.htm

The XYZ anchor was by far themost innovative design we tested.
Weighing in at only 12.5 pounds, its holding ability depends solely on how wellit can dig into the bottom. The shank is also equipped with a knob that insures
the XYZ will flip over if it lands upside down on the bottom. On the beach it
flipped over and dug a long trench in the wet sand. But, no matter how hard
we tried, we could not get the XYZ to set in any of our tests. We recorded intermittent readings that maxed out at about 300 pounds, but we were neverable to get a legitimate set at any location and on any amount of scope.

CONCLUSION ::After three full days, over 100 test
pulls, and countless hours crunching numbers and analyzing data,
we learned a great deal about all theanchors we tested and about the challengesof anchor testing. Having several
anchors with established reputations failto set sparked many hours of debate.
We questioned our methodology andtried to determine what could be done toinsure that all anchors could at least
return some results apart from “did notset.” It’s possible the size and powerof the Shana Rae could have been too great
to get accurate readings on someanchors. (Hawley and his team were able
to get all the test anchors to set using asmaller, less powerful boat in a separate
test.) The anchors that returned poor
results in our test may produce better
results in different conditions.
In the end, we were surprised that
the CQR, Claw, XYZ, and Performance 20
performed poorly in our test and were
impressed with the results of the new
sharp-point/roll-bar designs, along with
the Hydrobubble and the Fortress.
Anchor design is evolving, but our
results still confirm the rule of thumbthat every boat should carry at least
three different anchor designs andweights to deal with a wide variety ofbottom types. F

OCTOBER 2006 SAILMAGAZINE.COM

69