Anchor Selection Guide: How to Choose the Best Boat Anchor Type | Anchoring Articles and Tutorials Anchor Selection Guide: How to Choose the Best Boat Anchor Type × I accept the Terms and Coditions Register First name is not valid! Last name is not valid! This is not an email address! Email address is required! This email is already registered! Password is required! Please enter 6 or more characters! Please enter 16 or less characters! Passwords are not same! Terms and Conditions are required! Email or Password is wrong! Anchor Selection Guide: How to Choose the Best Boat Anchor Type This entry was posted on February 19, 2014 by Tommy C . There are a number of boat anchors available, constructed of different materials, and often with confusing names. This article will discuss the most popular types of boat anchors, the most common material types, and also give an overview of different naming conventions. Quick Anchor Style Summary Video: Choosing an Anchor Type Our video below introduces many of the anchor types discussed here, although the article discusses a few more anchor types and gives some useful links. Quick Summary Boat Anchor Recommendation For most boaters, a Bruce or Delta will be the most happy balance between price and performance.

All three perform similarly and are similarly priced (Narrowly, the Bruce/Claw is our favorite of the three). If you've used a Danforth in the past, and you have had luck with it, choose a Danforth . If you've never used one before and if your setup allows it, choose a Bruce , CQR , or Delta instead. If you're a blue-water cruiser, and you have a big wallet, consider one of the new generation of anchors. Boat Anchor Names: Trademarked Names and Generic Names Trademarked Name = Wing A special note is needed on the naming of anchors. Many anchors have a trademarked name, such as a Bruce or CQR, and a generic name like Claw or Plow. This is the same as how Xerox is a trademarked name for photocopier and how aspirin is a trademarked name for pain killer. Trademarks effectively never expire whereas design patents expire after approximately 20-25 years. Therefore, manufacturers are free to clone an anchor design that has an expired patent but cannot use the trademarked name. Bruce™ Claw Anchor The Bruce , or Claw, remains one of the most popular anchors amongst recreational boaters in North America.

The author is slightly biased, as this is my anchor of choice as well. The Bruce was developed in the 70s by the Bruce Anchor Group. Once their patent expired in the early 2000s, they stopped production of this anchor but many imitations have come along since. Claw Boat Anchor The Bruce is an excellent all-purpose anchor as it performs well in most sea bottoms including mud, sand, grass, rock, and coral. It sometimes has a hard time penetrating harder surfaces, such as clay. Due to the three-claw design, the Bruce often sets more easily than other anchors. It also resets easily if it is ever broken loose. On the downside, the Bruce has a lower holding power per pound than other anchors, meaning you’ll usually need a larger anchor than say the Delta/Wing . Pros: Performs well in most conditions. Sets easily. Cons: Awkward one piece design. Low holding power per pound. Bottoms: Performs well in most bottoms; Struggles in hard bottoms such as clay.

CQR™/Plow & Delta™/Wing Anchor CQR/Plow & Delta/Wing Style Anchors Both the CQR/Plow and the Delta/Wing are a plow style anchor. The most significant difference between these anchors is the fact that the CQR has a hinged design whereas the Delta is a one piece design. The CQR is one of the oldest styles, dating back to the 30s and to this day, it remains one of the most popular anchors amongst blue water cruisers. Despite this, it has relatively low holding power and it consistently struggles in independent tests. It’s also rare to find a CQR under 25 lbs lending itself to the saying “There’s no such thing as a small CQR”. Despite these shortcomings, the hinged design makes it more responsive to wind and tide changes as compared to other anchors. The Delta is arguably the most popular anchor on boats today, and is the standard anchor of choice used by most boat manufacturers. It has a very reasonable holding power per pound (about 50% more than the Bruce). Both the Delta and the CQR perform well in most bottoms, struggling the most in rock. Pros: Performs well in most conditions.

Fits most bow rollers. Cons: Hinged design can make stowage awkward. "No such thing as a small CQR/Plow anchor". Bottoms: Performs well in most bottoms; Struggles in rock. Danforth™/Fluke Anchor Danforth/Fluke Boat Anchor The Danforth , or Fluke anchor, remains a very popular anchor choice amongst boaters. The Fortress is also a popular Fluke style anchor, different from the Danforth in the fact that it comes apart and it constructed of light-weight, high-strength, aluminum. The Fluke performs excellent in mud and sand, potentially the best of any anchor style. The downside is that outside of these bottoms, it does not perform at well. Therefore it is a mud/sand only anchor, which fortunately is what most bottoms are comprised of. Whether or not it is used as a primary anchor, a Fluke anchor makes an excellent choice as a secondary anchor. Pros: Performs well in mud and sand. Arguably the most popular general purpose anchor. Stows easily on most bow rollers. Cons: Does not perform well outside of mud/sand. Bottoms: Performs excellent in mud/sand. Performs poorly in other bottoms.

Plow Anchor with Roll Bar New generation boat anchor There are several anchors on the market today which are essentially plow anchors with roll bars. These include the Rocna , Manson Supreme, and Bugel. Each of these anchors are essentially a variation on a plow style anchor. If you look at the plow portion of these anchors, you can see they are a lot sharper than traditional plows like the Delta/Wing and CQR. Analogous to a knife through butter, these anchors can penetrate the sea bottom a lot easier than the aforementioned anchors. The roll bar also helps it orient itself upright when setting. These anchors have performed extremely well in third party tests . The biggest downside to these anchors is that because they are still patented, they can be very expensive. The roll bar along with the elongated plow can also make storing these anchors on bow rollers difficult. Pros: Very high holding power for many models. Cons: Difficult to stow on a bow roller. Expense. Bottoms: Performs well in most bottoms. Grapnel and Other Small Craft Anchors Grapnel Boat Anchor A Grapnel Anchor is generally used for small boats such as Kayaks, Dinghies, Canoes, etc.

It’s also popular amongst fishermen.They fold up very compactly and are easy to stow. A Grapnel’s holding power comes from hooking onto another object, such as a rock. When it does hook, it can create immense holding power, which can also make retrieving the anchor difficult in such cases. Pros: Great for use as a lunch hook. Folds to allow for compact storage. Cons: Not appropriate for non-temporary anchorage. Bottoms: Rock or other situations when it can hook onto an object Mushroom Anchors Mushroom Anchor Mushroom anchors are amongst the most popular anchor used for permanent mooring buoys. As the silt from the sea-bottom builds up over these anchors, it can result in extreme holding power, up to 10x the holding power of its actual weight. As a mooring buoy, the mushroom anchor is an excellent choice, however, it is ineffective in most temporary anchoring situations. Pros: Great for use for permanent mooring buoys. Cons: Not appropriate for non-permanent moorings. Bottoms: Mud/Sand. Boat Anchor Material Types Boat anchors come in a variety of types, the most popular being mid steel, high-tensile steel, stainless steel, and aluminum.

Most of the traditional steel anchors we are accustomed to seeing are likely either mild or high tensile steel. Mild steel and high-tensile steel are nearly indistinguishable from one another appearance wise. However, high tensile steel has a holding power of 2-3x greater than mild steel. This isn't to say that a high-tensile steel boat anchor has 2-3x the holding power of its mild steel counterpart, but it will nonetheless be stronger. Both mild steel and high-tensile steel anchors are not corrosion resistant, and therefore need to be galvanized to prevent rust and other corrosion. All steel anchors (except stainless) should be galvanized. Galvanization has a tendency to wear down over time, but an anchor anchor (as well as nearly any other steel product) can be re-galvanized. Galvanized Steel Galvanization can wear down over time Not as attractive as stainless steel Looks very attractive Scratches and other damage from use can affect appearance Lightweight More expensive than steel Not as strong as steel Stainless steel is very similar to mild steel in terms of holding power but differs significantly in appearance. The shiny gloss is essentially the only difference between stainless steel and mild steel.

Stainless steel is also very corrosion resistant and will resist most rusting over time. You will often see manufacturers describing stainless steel as either 316 Stainless or 304 Stainless. 316 is a different chemical composition than 304 and is more corrosion resistant. It also more expensive. There are some anchors constructed from high strength aluminum, with Fortress anchors being the most popular of such anchors. These anchors are extremely lightweight while still offering high holding power. These anchors rely on the digging of the anchor for most of the holding power, and therefore, if they are not set, they provide little to no holding power. Old Generation Anchors: What’s really the problem? What’s really the problem? A look at the first small boat anchors Old generation anchor New generation anchors, such as the Spade and Rocna, consistently out-perform the older CQRs and Bruces, and owners of these upstart types without exception swear to the marked improvements they bring to the stressful task of anchoring.

However, a schism exists between these more open-minded boaters and those who value the ‘tried and true’ and the traditional; and who, despite the bemusement of the early adopters of what is clearly far superior technology, continue to use designs that in the case of the CQR is (without hyperbole) rather akin to the use of cotton sails and oil lanterns. Arguments from proponents of old generation anchors, and detractors of the new, commonly reduce to they’ve always worked so why change? Apart from betraying an obvious lack of perspective on the concept of progress (should we all be using no technology developed later than 1933?), these complaints seem to present a point difficult to rebut. Boats whose owners insist on keeping the CQR in service clearly do not always spontaneously drag once their anchor is deployed and the skipper looks the other way. What then, is really the problem with these old generation types? The old generation designs 2,700 kg twin-fluke anchor deployed from naval frigate. Anchors for temporary deployment of this size are symmetrical for practicality. Photo courtesy US Navy.

The truly old generation anchors are those which even the most die-hard CQR adherent would not term “modern”: their origins in the murky past well before the 20th century, typically now not even recognized as being small boat anchors at all. The Fisherman and Admiralty patterns occupy a unique place in the nautical annals of the world – however, they are now mostly relegated to that history and have little or no place onboard a modern small boat. (“Small boat” refers to any vessel using a primary anchor much under 200–300 kg. Ships above this size begin to require certain characteristics of their anchors, such as a symmetrical nature, and are outside the scope of this article). “Old generation” is the label now attached to those anchor types and designs dating before the Bügel (1986) and Delta (1990). The Bügel features some new generation design concepts, while the Delta is fundamentally a plow, so these two types define a bit of an overlap between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ generations.

The CQR (articulated plow) Embodiment of tradition: the plow anchor Origins and modern day status Developed in the early 1930's by British mathematician Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, the CQR is an articulating plow, distinguishing it from the improved fixed-shank variant of 60 years later (i.e. the Delta). The articulation has nothing to do with allowing the rode to veer without disturbing the fluke; rather, it was necessary to get the anchor to set, by angling the fluke tip to the seabed correctly. This works only partially and the hinge is a headache, creating wear issues and injuring many a boater’s fingers – a problem not solved until the Delta. For asymmetrical anchors to set, reliable self-righting is required to prevent the anchor from lying upside-down, and the CQR represents the first attempt at solving this problem. Had Taylor taken his concept further, he almost certainly would have progressed it to something similar to the Delta. The genuine CQR brand is now owned by Lewmar, having been traded a number of times in its lifetime. Of course the design is out of patent and poor copies abound, most of even worse performance and questionable construction quality.

Unfortunately their popularity is assisted by the relatively high cost of the genuine CQR. “I’ve used most types of anchor – CQR, Bruce, Danforth, Fisherman etc… I was most frustrated with the CQR, even though ours was oversize for the boat. In the hard, fine sand of the Isles of Scilly I came the closest I have ever come to losing a boat, when our CQR dragged in 60 knot gusts. Many, many times I cursed the thing when trying to get it to bite in any anchorage where there was weed present. “So when the new generation of anchors came along I was ready to give one a try, and plumped for the Rocna… and I have to say it has proved (over the last two seasons) worth every penny. Not only does it set instantly like a car’s handbrake and hold like a rock, but, remarkably it does so in such a wide variety of substrates. It really is the best piece of kit I’ve bought in recent years. “British yachties are very conservative - most of them will not hear a word against the good old CQR.

But… most people who sail “outside the box” a little wouldn’t have a CQR as a main anchor these days, any more than they would want to fly across the Atlantic in a biplane. I am convinced of one thing – anyone who ever tries one of the new generation of anchors will not be going back to their old CQR in a hurry.” — Colin Speedie, writing on Attainable Adventure Cruising The CQR patent, filed in the US in 1934, offers an insight into the concepts of its inventor, and a foil to some myths floating around the boating community… “The Holding Power of Anchors” (254 KB) Performance of the CQR and plows in the 21st century It cannot be denied that the CQR gifted to boaters a large improvement over the antiquated alternatives available in the early 20th century; it was the world’s first “small boat anchor”, an asymmetrical design with all the associated efficiencies of performance. In the 50 years following its beginnings, it enjoyed a near monopoly on the small boat market, while that market remained small and exclusive.

This established it with a strong legacy and a status in the minds of many boaters as the anchor of choice. Tradition and lore in the nautical world are powerful endorsers. However, there has been much work and development on anchors since, and the performance of plows compared to the all-round excellence of new generation types is really quite miserable – much like, of course, many other products dating from the 1930's compared to their eventual replacements. From a modern perspective, performance issues with the CQR are evident in all metrics which define a good all-round anchor, including inconsistent setting performance (commonly not setting at all), poor holding in soft bottoms, and failure to penetrate in hard ground. The fluke shape, unsurprisingly perhaps as it is a plow, is inherently designed to furrow, not to hold. This was used for the CQR at the time as it was not clear how to make a different geometry set reliably – a planar or concave fluke design would not work with the articulating shank concept. The CQR does not tolerate weed or grass well, and generally has few redeeming features. This characteristic of inconsistent setting leads to unpredictable anchoring.

Anchors must be in a particular attitude in order to set, and slight flaws in the design of the anchor lead to the attainment of this attitude being a hit-and-miss affair. If an articulating plow lands with its blade in an upright position, it will usually set without problems, but if the fluke (the actual plow part) lands on its side, with the shank rotated away, a bite on the seabed may elude it completely. Especially on a hard bottom, it is not uncommon to drag a plow in this situation for 50 meters without a set. Moreover, this has obvious implications for an unattended anchor which is pulled out (perhaps during a wind veer) and is being relied upon to automatically re-set. Proponents of the CQR have a tendency to dismiss these issues, if they are even aware of them, as problems to be overcome by ‘skill’ or ‘experience’, as if the anchor is an element of the vessel to be controlled no differently to the helm, sheets on a sailboat, or trim-tabs on a powerboat.

Talk abounds of the ‘proper technique’ by which to set an anchor, in the hunt for the mythical formula of process that will bring anchoring success. The reality is that, beyond some basic best practices, anchoring should not be like this. Moreover, as touched on above, the anchor is clearly not permanently under control or supervision once deployed; how many yachts maintain a permanent anchor watch? A boat’s anchor, pulled loose at 3 am, does not care for the ideas on anchoring technique of the sailor fast asleep in his bunk. The CQR was tested and developed by Taylor primarily in the forgiving English anchoring grounds of Essex and Suffolk, which present an environment of almost entirely soft mud and sand. It is possible that Taylor never witnessed his design in any attempt to use it in more faraway anchorages. Cruisers these days tend to demand an anchor capable of handling less gentle environments. It is perhaps a result of this that despite the CQR’s respected place in history, the plow is not to be recommended as a general purpose anchor and has no place on a modern yacht.

Compared to the new The following summary comments (complete and verbatim) from West Marine relating to their 2006 anchor comparison testing are referred to in order to exemplify the differences between the CQR and the Rocna: CQR 35 (38.5 lb): “One promising set to 2,000lb., but little else. Would not engage bottom.” Rocna 15 (32 lb): “Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately.” The following efficiency ratings (holding capacity vs measured mass) from John Knox’s test published by Practical Boat Owner in August 2011 reiterate the truly drastic differences that are apparent in controlled testing: CQR 45 (47 lb): Rocna 15 (35.7 lb): 30 Finally, the CQR, and many articulated plow copies, are classified as HHP (High Holding Power) by one or other of the classification societies (Lloyd’s, RINA, et al).

The Rocna is classified as SHHP (Super HHP), a higher standard which requires the anchor to resist pulls at least 200% that of a HHP anchor, over three different seabeds. The Danforth type Danforth anchor. Photo courtesy Casso Catena Origins and modern day status The Danforth, a twin-fluke symmetrical anchor, has strong affiliations with anchors of antiquity, particularly un-ballasted stockless types. The flukes of these anchors ‘flop’ either side of the shank with the result that the anchor is functional regardless of which side happens to land on the seabed. The flat plate of the flukes, built from steel and able to achieve a strength and durability unavailable in the past to engineers working with cast iron, allow a large surface area for minimal weight. It was developed a little after the CQR by American Richard Danforth, with a number of patents filed for various iterations of the design throughout that period. The recognizable current form was put on paper with the US Patent Office in 1948. Genuine Danforth anchors are now manufactured in Atlanta, Georgia, by Tie Down Engineering.

The Danforth name, while a trademark, is fairly genericized and many imitations are incorrectly referred to and even retailed as Danforths. “The closest I’ve come to disaster was when my anchor dragged over a mile across a bay, towards rocks and a wall of concrete at Seaview, Isle of Wight. It was 0300 and everyone aboard was asleep when a windshift, aided and abetted by a change of tide, caused the Fortress anchor to break out and drag… Though renowned for superb holding power, Danforth types can break out if the pull changes direction and they don’t always regain their grip…” — Editor’s Log, Original Danforth patent (2.0 MB) Performance of the Danforth and variants in the 21st century The Danforth type’s primary distinguishing characteristic is found in its large flat plate flukes, which offer a large surface area relative to the weight of the anchor. When set, this translates to a high holding power, well in excess of the CQR, its only small boat competitor at the time of its development. Early Danforth types were using during the war to winch landing craft off beaches – certainly the superior choice at the time for such a task.

The Danforth still offers good performance by this simple measure: its problems lie elsewhere. The Danforth is in essence an improved version of the 19th century Admiralty pattern and stockless variations thereupon. Superior steels and economical access to them permitted radical changes to the age-old designs, but the Danforth does not represent a clean break away from these types. It offers better holding power, and attempts to dampen the rotating impulse (which results from the presence of more than one fluke) by employment of several tricks including the retainment of a dedicated stock (located in front of the flukes rather than at the end of the shank). However, rooted in its past as a symmetrical anchor, it still suffers from a number of setting and behavioral issues. Because the flukes lie flat on the seabed before setting, the process of encouraging it to set depends on the tip of a fluke achieving an initial ‘bite’ – and on hard sand or grassy seabeds, this is not a given. It can skate along the surface without setting at all. This initial setting issue then implies other problems later.

Some manufacturers of the type even admit to this problem, advising users to set the anchor at a very short scope in order to lift the shank and thus exert a vertical pull on the crown of the anchor, the hope being that the flukes will then be angled downward. This tacit admission that the anchor will not set reliably at sensible scopes must inform its consideration as a general purpose anchor required to handle wind veers, changing depths with tides, and the myriad of other real world ramifications. The Danforth types’ behavioral problems include an inability to reliably handle force veers. Rather than remain buried when a sideways or reversed pull is applied, they tend to twist and pull out. Similarly, if the anchor is dragged once set (e.g. in soft mud), it has a strong tendency to trip on one fluke or the other, rolling and again popping out. Once this has happened, the anchor is unlikely to re-set itself. There are a number of other issues, including a reduced strength and durability. Even with good quality construction and high tensile steels or aluminium alloys, the geometry of the design does not lend itself to a rugged build. The flukes are flat plates with little reinforcement possible, and the tips are easily damaged.

Furthermore, if the force on the anchor is unbalanced, e.g. if one fluke gets stuck but not the other, it is very easily bent and destroyed. Finally, the aforementioned issue with accepting changes in the direction of pull has consequences should the anchor be very well set in hard ground such as clay. The large flukes may be sufficiently well stuck that the shank bends before the anchor will re-align itself, a common mode of failure. Such a fragile anchor so vulnerable to destruction in the course of normal usage has little to commend it to the role of a vessel’s primary anchor. Because the Danforth types are flat, they tend to be easily stowed, and are therefore popular secondary anchors. Additionally, they do without doubt hold well in simple circumstances, and so are reasonable solutions for secondary anchors (to be used where the anchor may be set once and not expected to handle more than a unidirectional pull). Nonetheless, there are other modern solutions which are superior for this purpose and avoid the drawbacks, including the Spade which has a demountable shank and is also available in aluminium – indeed the alloy version has been independently tested to out-perform the best aluminium Danforths on a weight-for-weight basis.

Compared to the new The following summary comments (complete and verbatim) from West Marine relating to their 2006 anchor comparison testing are referred to in order to exemplify the differences between the a generic Danforth type and the Rocna: West Marine Performance 20 (26.3 lb): “Disappointing results considering previous tests. Held 200 to 1,500lb, but could not get a secure grip.” Rocna 15 (32 lb): “Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately.” The Bruce (claw) Development of big scale anchoring: 6,350 kg Bruces used in the Falklands oil industry “Much of their popularity derives from the ease with which they stow on the stemhead.

But their performance proved disappointing… In gravel these claws bounce about whereas in sand they lie down on their side and rarely exceed 200 kgf of holding power.” — Antoine Sézérat, Original Bruce patent (438 KB) Origins and modern day status Peter Bruce launched his new anchor design to great interest from the boating community in the early 1970's, the UK patent having been filed in 1971. The anchor features a triple fluke configuration which forms a ‘claw’ shape. It enjoyed a good level of success, addressing many of the problems, mostly those pertaining to setting reliability, of the CQR and Danforth, then the only alternatives for small boats. This success was perhaps its downfall when the intellectual property protection expired, as it quickly became one of the most imitated types. The design is cast as a single piece, lending it to inferior production processes which undercut the high quality heat treated casting used originally by Bruce Anchor Co. Today, the genuine Bruce is no longer produced, and only poor quality copies remain available. Performance of the claw type in the 21st century Claw types, despite the initial success of the original Bruce, do not perform particularly well in terms of holding power.

They are therefore inefficient, requiring a heavier anchor to achieve the same holding ability as even a plow. Even proponents of the type tend to accept this trade-off. The anchor’s benefits instead supposedly lie in setting reliability, and when compared to plows and Danforth types it is true that claws generally perform better across a somewhat wider range of seabeds. However, this comparison is not particularly useful in light of the new generation of anchors now available, and the claw does have a number of serious flaws when examined from a wider perspective. One of these was described by a magazine tester as “hop and skip” behavior, referring to the unstable nature of the claw when pulled beyond yield (dragged). It tends to rotate then pop out violently in a manner not dissimilar to symmetrical anchors with multiple flukes. The claw also has three separate flukes, all fairly blunt, which do not cut and penetrate weed or grass very well. This also affects its setting performance in hard sand and clay. The configuration of the flukes tends to act as a trap for rocks and boulders, and other undersea obstacles, giving the design a poor reputation for fouling itself on these things.

Moreover, the claw does not set particularly well in harder seabeds if the anchor lands upside-down. In this position it relies upon one of the side flukes ‘grabbing’ the ground in order to trip the anchor into the correct attitude. This is not guaranteed to happen, and some copies in particular are quite capable of remaining on their back and skating along indefinitely. While the claw was the anchor of choice for well known sailors and cruisers for many years, the death of the genuine Bruce combined with the progression of technology has seen many of these boaters adopt new generation anchors instead. Cruising guru couples Steve and Linda Dashew (SetSail), and Evans Starzinger and Beth Leonard, used to have Bruces on their bows, and are now using Rocnas. Compared to the new The following summary comments (complete and verbatim) from West Marine relating to their 2006 anchor comparison testing are referred to in order to exemplify the differences between the a claw type and the Rocna: Claw 33 (36.3 lb): “Failed to set during this test. Maximum tension under 700lb., briefly.” Rocna 15 (32 lb): “Superb, consistent performance.

Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately.” The following efficiency ratings (holding capacity vs measured mass) from John Knox’s test published by Practical Boat Owner in August 2011 reiterate the truly drastic differences that are apparent in controlled testing: Bruce 15 kg (35.5 lb): 5 Rocna 15 (35.7 lb): 30 Finally, many claws are classified as HHP (High Holding Power) by one or other of the classification societies (Lloyd’s, RINA, et al). The Rocna is classified as SHHP (Super HHP), a higher standard which requires the anchor to resist pulls at least 200% that of a HHP anchor, over three different seabeds. The Delta (fixed-shank plow) What the CQR should have looked like: the Delta The Delta is a fixed-shank plow, essentially a development of the CQR as described above, and a substantial improvement over that early articulating version of the type. Peter used one for many years including his semi-circumnavigation from the UK to New Zealand.

However, its flaws, made obvious in certain locations on that trip, were partly the incentive behind development of the Rocna design: while the Delta was the best anchor in the early 90's at the time Peter’s yacht was outfitted, there remained much room for improvement. “Maerin was equipped with a Delta Quickset 45 as primary… The Delta’s name belies its capability, although it may set quick, it’s very easy to drag it around in a blow. My experience is that it’s difficult to set, doesn’t stay set… We’ve used the Rocna extensively… It has performed superbly… I really love [it], it’s improved our rest on board, and has really improved our confidence in anchoring …sets quickly, and securely. Best $1400 of insurance I ever bought!” — Steve Sipe, MV Maerin USA “Switching to the Rocna took some adjustment for me. It sets quickly, so I had to calibrate where I expected the anchor to set differently (we had a Delta 88 lb prior to the Rocna).

I have also noticed more work is required to raise the anchor (snug up the chain, pull the boat forward slightly to break the anchor loose, then raise). I am very pleased with the Rocna.” — Steve Hogan, SV Robin Ann USA Origins and modern day status The Delta was developed in the 1980's for commercialization by British marine manufacturer Simpson-Lawrence. It is a fixed-shank plow; the need for articulation as used for the CQR was avoided with more careful balancing of the anchor’s weight and shaping of the rear end of the fluke in order to permit self-righting and better guide the anchor through the setting process. The basic shape of the fluke nonetheless remains a plowshare, with a brake-pressed plate heel and solid steel cast tip (welded together to form the only joint attaching the tip to the rest of the anchor). This design necessarily relies on tip-weight for ballast and setting, an inefficiency which detracts from fluke surface area and ultimate holding power. The genuine Delta brand is now owned by Lewmar. The anchor has been out of patent for a few years now, and poor copies abound, most of worse performance and questionable construction quality.

The Delta, by no means perfectly engineered, was properly tested and uses quality steels to attain the required strengths. The Delta patent filed by Simpson-Lawrence includes some test data plus a number of fascinating imagined variants of the design. Original Delta patent (6.5 MB) Performance of the Delta in the 21st century The Delta, per its design criteria, did deliver a significant improvement over its ancestral plow type, and jumped ahead of the Bruce to become the best anchor at the time of its release (with the possible exception of the then relatively unknown Bügel). In the history of anchor development, it occupies a nether region between the old and new generation types, certainly superior to all former patterns, but still far from the ultimate general purpose anchor. Like the articulated CQR, the convex plow holds poorly in soft mud and dislikes weed and grass (these are key areas where the Rocna for example is drastically superior). These difficult bottoms, very hard compact sand, grass, weed, kelp, and others, are where the Delta is found wanting. This is confirmed by comparison testing and feedback from those boaters with comparative experience.

Compared to the new The following summary comments (complete and verbatim) from West Marine relating to their 2006 anchor comparison testing are referred to in order to exemplify the differences between the Delta and the Rocna: Delta 35 (36 lb): “Variable results ranging from around 1,500lb. to 4,500lb. Drags at limit.” Rocna 15 (32 lb): “Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately.” The following efficiency ratings (holding capacity vs measured mass) from John Knox’s test published by Practical Boat Owner in August 2011 reiterate the truly drastic differences that are apparent in controlled testing: Delta 35 kg (36 lb): 11 Rocna 15 (35.7 lb): 30 Finally, the Delta is classified as HHP (High Holding Power) by Lloyd’s Register. The Rocna is classified as SHHP (Super HHP), a higher standard which requires the anchor to resist pulls at least 200% that of a HHP anchor, over three different seabeds.

Peter has written some commentary on the Delta which is published here in closing. Peter Smith on the Delta anchor “I have owned and put some 20,000 nmi (on a voyage from England to New Zealand) on a 40 kg / 88 lb original Delta. It was this voyage and the problems experienced – such as dragging in the soft mud of the Chesapeake and New Zealand rivers, the grassy bottoms in New Zealand’s lower South Island, difficulty getting a set on the thin coral layer in the Bahamas, problems with swinging room in the crowded anchorages of Rhode Island and Maine, and disconcerting events such as the boat not being where we left it because the wind changed direction! – all led to the development of a new generation anchor. “The original Delta versions were very well built, with nice detailing such as the bottom edge of the shank which had a milled V section to reduce resistance to the anchor burying. However, Simpson-Lawrence now comes under the Lewmar umbrella, and the quality of current anchors which I have seen are nothing like the original production models.

No shank bevel, all steel edges are sharp with no pre-galvanizing chamfers, and no cleaning of intermittently rough galvanizing. “Further: the shank design has a straight neck with no gusset were it joins the blade, and therefore the anchor just sits on the bow roller where it tends to wobble and even jump in a seaway, with no way to restrain it other than a lashing or pin. This design element has also proven to be a major design weakness. The shank, heel, and cast toe are welded together with all three components meeting at a critical apex. The shank is only in effect welded to the heel which is in turn welded to the toe. I have personally seen three anchors which have broken at this junction. (With the Rocna, I designed a gusset into the equivalent neck point, spreading the shank loads down into the heavy plate toe where it acts as a reinforcing beam across the toe-to-heel joint. At the same time, the gusset forms the shape required to lock the anchor into the bow roller preventing vertical movement when in a seaway.) “The design uses the tip-weight to roll the anchor around the curved heel plate edges into the setting position.

This turning moment is critical to the anchor’s performance and yet is observed to be marginal at best, only just rolling the anchor on a flat concrete floor. The heel blade edges settling into soft mud or a build-up of mud etc on the shank surfaces would explain a failure to set, especially in a re-set situation. The Delta has a disturbing tendency to come free on a severe veer (90° or greater) and worse still, often will not re-set, especially if dragged at any pace by a boat in any degree of wind. “(The Rocna on the other hand has a very positive righting moment created by the heavy toe which rotates the anchor around the roll-bar, the supporting skids, and the shank end. With careful design and weight cut where it’s not required, and putting it where it is needed, ~33% of a Rocna’s weight rests on the tip where it is most effective. Also, one feature of the Rocna is its ability to stay set after a 90° or 180° veer, and to re-set immediately if dislodged for any reason. The design is made to be roll-stable; i.e.

it will remain embedded if dragged beyond yield and will not surface or hop out as the Delta is prone to once dragging.) “Due to the plow shape and relatively low projected area for anchor weight, the Delta’s holding power in soft mud or any semi-fluid medium is little better than its predecessors. “The Delta’s setting performance is reasonable in soft mediums but the cast tip is relatively blunt, without the ‘chisel’ cutting tip characteristic of for example a Rocna, meaning that setting performance drops off dramatically in more difficult material, and will not work at all in weed and grass mat. On the other hand, it is in these more difficult areas of soft semi-fluid mediums, coral rubble, weed mat and kelp, that the Rocna with its quick set high hold characteristics has developed its enviable reputation.” — Peter Smith, SV Kiwi Roa New Zealand References “The Holding Power of Anchors” G. I. Taylor, The Yachting Monthly and Motor Boating Magazine April 1934 US Patent 1,974,933 “Anchor” [CQR] G. I.

Taylor, USPTO September 1934 US Patent 2,576,390 “Anchor” [Danforth] R. S. Danforth, USPTO November 1951 US Patent Des 230,518 “Anchor” [Bruce] Peter Bruce, USPTO February 1974 US Patent 5,138,967 “Marine Anchor” [Delta] McCarron Stewart & Lyall / Simpson-Lawrence Ltd, USPTO August 1992 « Comparatif : 20 ancres au banc d’essai » Antoine Sézérat, Voiles et Voiliers “Anchoring in the Modern World” Colin Speedie, Attainable Adventure Cruising “Anchors Aware! Anchors On Test” Professor John Knox Practical Boat Owner COMMON TYPES OF BOAT ANCHORS | Zziiggee's Blog COMMON TYPES OF BOAT ANCHORS Posted on December 17, 2010 by zziiggee COMMON TYPES OF BOAT ANCHORS What is the best type of anchor for your boat? Well, that like adult diapers, it Depends.

It depends upon your type, size, location, and use of your boat. You must choose the type that best fits your needs. If you are not sure, what ever type you select, it’s best to choose a heavier anchor. 1. Parts of the anchor Please see diagram below Parts of a Boat Anchor Terms to remember 1. Shank, Crown, Fluke, Tipping ring, Stock, Rode Loop 2. Various designs: Hook, Plow, Fluke, Claw, Screw, Mushroom Danforth And Fluke Bruce (also called a Claw) anchor Bruce-claw-anchor- by Norestar A Bruce anchor looks similar to a plow used on a farm. It has a single fluke and can rotate to different angles and still hold well, by resetting themselves. A Bruce anchor can be used on most types of lake bottoms. It has an elbow shank – two right angles – that give it strength. Originally designed by Peter Bruce in the 1970s they are popular among small boats for their ease of use. The original Bruce anchors were cast and well made. Things have changed. Generic copies are cheaper to make because they can be stamped out at the factory, rather than cast in a mold.

None-the-less, they are still a good anchor. They have a limited use is soft sandy or grassy bottoms because they can plow up the bottom; not good for the soft seabed environment because the Bruce will damage plants and soft coral- it ruins the landscape below the water line. They have a lower holding power with weight to hold strength in strong tides or currents. They have a low rode angle. CQR anchors. above photo from (This site has a good description and explanation of CQR anchors.) CQR is the short abbreviation of “Clyde quick release” anchor. Also the CQR can be called “secure” anchor. CQR anchors are very popular anchors among boaters. Originally designed in the 1930’s it has become a popular anchor with long distance cruisers, sailors, and general boaters because it can be used with roller anchor retrieval systems. CQR anchors with a elbowed shank allow for deeper penetration. It is a plow type anchors because it resembles an agricultural plow used on a farm. It easy to set because it is hinged; if it lands on its side it can still dig in and hold.

The shank is hinged allowing the boat to turn without loss of purchase. The Delta Anchor, a sub-type of the CQR uses an unhinged shank to allow for a better performance. Delta’s slide of the roller easily and are thus considered a self launching anchor. Fisherman Anchor A Fisherman anchor is the classic type of anchor seen in many drawings, movies, museums, and old ships. They are a sturdy anchor used ideally in rocky bottoms or bottoms with heavy sea weed. They are very heavy and have very strong holding power. Because of their large size and weight they are not used by small boaters. Because they are so heavy they are also hard to handle. A mechanical system, winch and roller, is used, actually required, to deploy and retrieve them. Mushroom Jamestown mushroom anchor The above photo of a mushroom anchor is from Jamestown distributors. The anchor is available for purchase from As the name implies, this anchor is shaped like a mushroom, all-be-it and inverted one. Mushroom anchors are designed for use only in soft muddy bedding, silt, or fine sand, on the lake or ocean bottom. They are not generally used for recreational boating. Once embedded, they have strong holding power.

They are made from cast iron or heavy steel and weight from ten pounds to several tons. The heavier ones are used as a more permanent anchor, buried up to ten years. They will not work in rocky bottoms. Mushroom anchors can be used for boats up to 39 ft that operate in areas with soft riverbeds, or sandy bottoms. They are made in sizes: 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500 pounds. Can be very heavy, indeed. Larger ones are one ton, 1.5 ton, and 2 ton. All of the above sizes are available for sale from : . Shipping to your location may be extra. In order to place a mushroom anchor they need to be dragged so they can dig in. The alternative is the use of a counter weight to force the anchor to lie down sideways so it can dig in. In deploying a mushroom anchor it will sink to a level where its weight is displaced. Sometimes it take a long period of time for it to sink in.

Once deployed it can hold about nine or ten times its weight in holding strength. Once deployed a mushroom anchor is no joy to retrieve. It takes some expert seamanship to get it back up. There is a very well written article about anchor retrieval at: grapnel anchor by Attwood, available from defender.com Above folding grapnel anchor is available for purchase from Defender.com at: A grapnel anchor is an anchor used by small boats or dinghies. It usually has 4 flutes or tines on the shank and can grab at most anything. They can be a folding anchor or permanently set. They have a weighted shank so they set easily. The term grapnel is derived from “grappling hook”. They may have 3, 4 or more tines, and designed to catch on most anything on the lake bottom. Many times grapnel anchors are used to retrieve lost gear or drag for sunken items. They can set easily but may be difficult to retrieve. The are known to tangle on their own rode line. They are not much use in sandy, gravel, or muddy bottoms; but work well on firm rocky or jagged bottoms.

Kedge Modern style Kedge Anchor Above: Manson kedge anchor from Defender.com Kedge also called Navy Anchor, are very heavy anchors. They are not usually used on small boats but on big ships. The have a traditional look and style to them. Kedge anchors are commonly used on grassy soft bottoms, and also on rocky bottoms. Kedge anchors are usually a secondary anchor used off the stern to limit turning radius in tight quarters. Screw small-screw-anchor-for-small-boats.jpg Kwik Tek A-3 screw anchor by Kwik Tek is available for purchase on-line. A screw anchor, also called a helix anchor (with multiple threads), is a more secure, permanent type anchor, use for securing an object to the sea/ocean/lake floor or beach. Moorings, floating fishing docks, semi permanent piers, or swim platforms can anchored to the lake / sea bed by use of a screw anchor. Large, heavy screw type anchors require the use of special tools or equipment for installation. They are difficult to install and retrieve. Small screw anchors can be set by hand. Screw anchors are not stable in muddy bottoms because they can work loose.

If the screw is long and deep they will hold okay, but it depends upon how much weight and force of current involved pulls at it. Weight to holding power are better with screw type anchors than with other types, especially in the large heavy size. Small screw anchors can be use to hold a small boat at a beach. Hand drilled into the sand it can hold a boat whilst the owners swim at a beach. The small screw anchors work well for kayaks Danforth Anchor example of danforth anchor Danforth anchor, a generic term, is a type of plow anchor. It is the most common anchor on the market; made by various manufacturers and is available for sale world wide. It is available from marine outlets such as West marine or Defender, , and . It had two long flukes that pivot on the shank and dig in or plow in on soft bottoms. They are relatively inexpensive anchors but very popular with small and medium size boats. They are good to use in sand, muddy, or gravel bottoms. Because of their pivot and long points they are not well used on rocky surfaces. They are really good in soft mud. Great for sport fishermen on the Great Lakes. The hinge bar for the flukes is very wide and may be cumbersome to store.

See photo. The design lends itself to be buried and retrieved easily. It can be dragged out if the direction of the current or tide changes; then it can reset itself upon slight dragging. end This article is brought to you as a public service by ZZIIGGEE boat trading site Buy, Sell, Trade, Boat Shows, information, http:// . At ZZiiggee.com Blog we write articles for boaters, sailors, and power boaters. We never use unrelated false content to inflate our rating or bloat our content to confuse SEO. copyright 2010 and forward, all rights reserved ZZiiggee.com Rate this: Old generation anchors (Rocna Knowledge Base) Old generation anchors To read this article, click here: Old Generation Anchors Old generation anchors include most types and designs dating before the Bügel (1986) and Delta (1990). Because the Bügel uses what we consider to be some new generation design characteristics whereas the Delta is first and foremost a plow, these two types define a bit of an overlap between the 'old' and 'new' generations which marks the transition from old to new on the timeline.

The most obvious old generation types are those which we would not call "modern" anchors, with their origins well before the 20th century, and typically are recognized as not being small boat anchors. The old Fishermans style and Admiralty patterns have a fascinating history all of their own, and occupy a unique place in the nautical annuls of the world. However, they are now mostly relegated to that history and have little or no place onboard a modern small boat. (By "small boat", we mean anything using an anchor much under 200-300 kg. Vessels above this size begin to require certain characteristics of their anchors, such as a symmetrical nature, and are outside the scope of this article). Contents — Colin Speedie, writing on Attainable Adventure Cruising History and current status The CQR was developed in the early 1930's by British mathematician Geoffrey Ingram Taylor. The CQR is an articulating plow, as opposed to the improved fixed shank variant of the plow concept (i.e. the Delta ) of decades later. The articulation was necessary for the anchor to set, by angling the fluke tip to the seabed correctly.

This worked only partially and the hinge was a headache, creating wear issues and injuring many a boater's finger(s) – a problem not solved until the Delta. The genuine CQR brand is now owned by Lewmar, having been traded a number of times in its lifetime. Naturally the anchor is out of patent and poor copies abound, most of even worse performance and questionable construction quality. Unfortunately their popularity is assisted by the relatively high cost of the genuine CQR. The relative performance of plows The CQR was inarguably a massive improvement over the antiquated alternatives available in the early 20th century, and was the world's first "small boat anchor". In the 50 years following its launch, it enjoyed a near monopoly on the small boat market, while this market remained fairly small and exclusive. This established it with a strong legacy and a status in the minds of many boaters as the anchor of choice. Tradition and lore, especially in the nautical world, are powerful endorsers.

However, there has been much work and development on anchors since, and the performance of plows compared to the all-round excellence of new generation types is really quite miserable – much like many other products from the 1930s compared to their modern replacements! Performance problems with the CQR are evident across all measures which would define a good all-round anchor, including inconsistent setting performance (often not setting at all), poor holding in soft bottoms, and failure to penetrate in hard. The fluke shape, unsurprisingly perhaps as it is a plow, is inherently designed to furrow, not hold, and this shape being used for the CQR was a necessity at the time as it was not clear how to make a different shape set reliably. It does not handle weed or grass at all well, and generally has few redeeming features. Inconsistent setting leads to unpredictable anchoring. Anchors must be in a particular attitude in order to set, and slight flaws in the design of the anchor lead to the attainment of this attitude being a hit-and-miss affair.

If an articulating plow lands with its blade in an upright position, it will usually set without problems, but if the fluke (the actual plow part) lands on its side, with the shank rotated away, it may well not set at all. Especially on a hard bottom, it is not uncommon to drag a plow in this situation for 50 meters without a set. Moreover, this has obvious implications for an unattended boat which pulls out its anchor (perhaps during a wind veer) and must rely upon it automatically re-setting. The CQR was tested and developed primarily in the forgiving English anchoring grounds of Essex and Suffolk, which present an environment of almost entirely soft mud and sand. Cruisers these days tend to demand an anchor capable of handling more exotic environments. It is perhaps a result of this that the plow is not to be recommended as a general purpose anchor and has no place on a modern yacht. Compared to the Rocna There is a large amount of independent testing of both the CQR and Rocna. However, the following summary comments from West Marine in the USA relating to their 2006 comparison testing best sums up the true differences. West Marine Original Danforth patent.

Click here to view the PDF . History and current status The Danforth is a twin-fluke symmetrical anchor, which means it has strong connections with most anchors of antiquity including stockless types. The flukes can "flop" either side of the shank and the anchor works regardless of which side lies on the seabed. It was developed a little after the CQR by American Richard Danforth, comprising the United States' sole significant contribution to modern anchoring so far in history! A number of patents were filed for various iterations of the design, but the recognizable current form was filed with the US Patent Office in 1948. Genuine Danforth anchors are now produced by Tie Down Engineering of Atlanta, Georgia. The name, while trademarked, is fairly genericized and many imitations are incorrectly referred to and even sold as Danforths. The relative performance of Danforth types The Danforth type's primary distinguishing feature is found in its large flat plate flukes, which offer a large surface area for the weight of the anchor. When set, this translates to a high holding power, well in excess of the CQR, its only small boat competitor at the time of its development.

The Danforth still offers good performance by this simple measure – its problems lie elsewhere. The Danforth is in essence an improved version of the 19th century Admiralty pattern and stockless variations thereupon. It offers better holding power, and attempts to dampen the rotating impulse (which results from the presence of more than one fluke) with several tricks including its stock (located in front of the flukes rather than at the end of the shank). However, it still suffers from a number of setting and behavioral problems. Because the flukes lie flat on the seabed before it is set, the setting process depends on the tip of a fluke getting an initial 'bite' – and on hard sand or grassy seabeds, this is more easily said that done. It can skate along the surface without setting at all. This initial setting issue then implies other problems later. “ The closest I've come to disaster was when my anchor dragged over a mile across a bay, towards rocks and a wall of concrete at Seaview, Isle of Wight.

It was 0300 and everyone aboard was asleep when a windshift, aided and abetted by a change of tide, caused the Fortress FX-16 anchor to break out and drag... Though renowned for superb holding power, Danforth types can break out if the pull changes direction and they don't always regain their grip... ” — Editor's Log, Yachting Monthly December 2006 Its behavioral problems include an inability to handle force veers. Rather than remain buried when a sideways or reversed pull is applied, it tends to rotate and pull out. Similarly, if the anchor is dragged once set (e.g. in soft mud), it has a strong tendency to twist and rotate, again popping out. Once this has happened, the anchor is unlikely to re-set itself. There are a number of other issues, including a reduced strength and durability. Even with good quality construction and high tensile steels, the geometry of the design does not lend itself to a rugged build. The flukes are just flat plates with little reinforcement possible, and the tips are easily damaged. Furthermore, if the force on the anchor is unbalanced, e.g.

if one fluke gets stuck but not the other, it is very easily bent and destroyed. Because the Danforth type is flat, it tends to be easily stowed, and is therefore a popular secondary anchor. Additionally, it does hold fairly well in simple circumstances, and so is a reasonable solution for a second anchor (where force veers are minimal, and the anchor may be set once and not expected to handle more than a unidirectional pull). Nonetheless, there are other modern solutions which are superior for this purpose, including the Spade which has a demountable shank and is available in lightweight aluminium , and also of course the Rocna Stowable. Compared to the Rocna There is a large amount of independent testing of both Danforth types and the Rocna. However, the following summary comments from West Marine in the USA relating to their 2006 comparison testing best sums up the true differences. This Danforth type is the "West Marine Performance" version. West Marine History and current status The quality of a cheap claw copy. Peter Bruce launched his new anchor to great interest from the boating community in the early 1970s, the UK patent having been filed in 1971.

The anchor features a triple fluke configuration which forms a 'claw' shape. It enjoyed a good level of success, addressing many of the problems, mostly those pertaining to setting reliability, of the CQR and Danforth, then the only current alternatives. This success was perhaps its downfall when the intellectual property protection expired, as it quickly became one of the most imitated types. The design is best cast rather than fabricated, lending it to very cheap production processes which take shortcuts on the heat treated method used originally by Bruce Anchor Co in the Isle of Man. The genuine Bruce is no longer produced, and today only the inferior quality copies remain available. The relative performance of claws Claw types, despite the initial success of the original Bruce, do not perform particularly well in terms of holding power. They are therefore inefficient, requiring a heavier anchor to achieve the same holding ability as even a plow. “ Much of their popularity derives from the ease with which they stow on the stemhead. But their performance proved disappointing... In gravel these claws bounce about whereas in sand they lie down on their side and rarely exceed 200 kgf of holding power.

” — Antoine Sézérat, Voiles et Voiliers The anchor's benefits instead supposedly lie in setting performance, and compared to plows and Danforth-types, it is true that claws generally perform better across a somewhat wider range of seabeds. However, this comparison is not particularly useful in light of the new generation of anchors now available, and the claw does have a number of serious flaws. One of these was described by a magazine tester as "hop and skip" behavior, which refers essentially to the fact that the claw is inherently unstable when pulled beyond yield (dragged). It tends to rotate then pop out violently. The claw also has three separate flukes, all fairly blunt, which do not cut and penetrate weed or grass very well. This also affects its setting performance in hard sand and clay. The shape of the flukes also tend to act as a trap for rocks and boulders, and other undersea obstacles, giving the design a poor reputation for getting itself fouled on these things. Moreover, the claw does not set particularly well in harder seabeds if the anchor lands upside-down. In this position it relies upon one of the side flukes 'grabbing' the ground in order to trip the anchor into the correct attitude.

Unfortunately the anchor is quite capable of remaining on its back and skating along indefinitely. While the claw was the anchor of choice for many well known sailors and cruisers for many years, the death of the genuine Bruce combined with the progression of technology has seen many of these boaters adopt new generation anchors instead. Cruising guru couples Steve & Linda Dashew (SetSail) and Evans Starzinger & Beth Leonard used to have Bruces on their bows, and are now using Rocnas. Compared to the Rocna There is a large amount of independent testing of both the claw and Rocna. However, the following summary comments from West Marine in the USA relating to their 2006 comparison testing best sums up the true differences. West Marine Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately. ” Some claws are HHP (High Holding Power) classified by one or other of the classification societies (Lloyd's, RINA, et al). The Rocna however has SHHP (Super HHP) classification. The SHHP standard requires the anchor to resist pulls at least 200% that of a HHP anchor, over three different seabeds.

More resources Original Bruce patent Delta (fixed shank plow) The Delta is a fixed shank plow, essentially a development of the CQR as described above. By this definition it is an old generation anchor, but it nonetheless has its own page: Delta anchor . Marine Anchors by Danforth, Lewmar, Plastimo, Sea Choice, Sea Dog Ask. Answer. Discuss...Post a question or comment about Anchors . Products: 1 - 48 of 48 Danforth Standard Anchor, Galvanized Steel Mfr. Danforth Each Danforth Anchor's shank is made of high strength steel. Strong and wide flukes. These anchors are hot dipped galvanized coating for long-lasting protection... Sale Price From $22.02 Fortress Aluminum Boat Anchor Mfr. Fortress Anchors Fortress Anchors are made with Ultra Hi strength aluminum - Anodized finish. They can be dissasembled to store flat- Great for a back up or stern anchor.Precision-machined from an aluminum alloy... Sale Price From $141.84 Jim Buoy, Trolling Anchors Mfr. Jim Buoy Useful for Steering Assistance While Fishing.

Designed to help maintain a boat's orientation to the wind while fishing, these are not sea anchors $20.67 - $93.47 Jim Buoy, USCG Approved Storm Sea Anchor, 36 in. Diameter Mfr. Jim Buoy | Mfr No. 929 USCG Approved Storm Sea Anchor, 36 in. Diameter. U.S. Coast Guard Approved. Better suited as a drogue towed from the stern, it will slow the boat down while helping to prevent broaching. $373.58 Claw Style Galvanized Steel Marine Anchors Mfr. Lewmar Claw Style Galvanized Steel Marine Anchors set quickly and easily. High holding power on short scope in a wide variety of conditions, fashioned after the Bruce anchor... $8.65 - $660.71 Delta Plow Galvanized Marine Anchors Mfr. Lewmar Delta Plow Galvanized Marine Anchors are made of high-grade manganese steel. Unique shank profile and ballasted tip. Self Launching. Low center of gravity self-righting geometry ensure an immediate...

$90.48 - $480.48 Hi-Tensile Marine Boat Anchors Mfr. Danforth | Mfr No. 60H Hi-Tensile Marine Boat Anchors are hot dipped galvanized. Drop froged shank.Danforth's toughest and most durable anchors. Features very high holding power... $977.95 Plow Anchors, 14 to 44 Pounds Mfr. SeaChoice Anchor is hot dipped galvanized for lasting corrosion protection. Quick setting geometric design provides stability & high holding power. Great for sand, pebble, rock, grass, kelp and coral bottoms... Sale Price From $59.49 Claw Anchor, Galvanized Steel Mfr. SeaChoice Anchor is hot dipped galvanized for lasting corrosion protection. Designed for use in various sea beds, tides and wind conditions. Stows easily on bow roller. Sale Price From $84.18 Forfjord Marine Anchors Mfr. Forfjord Anchors Spread wing flukes (right degree angle) prevent pullout. Easily broken from its hold by a simple heave of the line. Designed to go down fast to the bottom without tangle...

Sale Price From $1,536.23 16kg/35lb C.Q.R. Anchor Mfr. Lewmar | Mfr No. 0056506 The C.Q.R. anchor has gained legendary status for its superior performance. The original drop-forged construction of the C.Q.R. anchor increases its strength $498.99 Minn Kota, Talon, Shallow Water Anchor, 12 volt Mfr. Minn Kota Minn Kota, Talon, Shallow Water Anchor, 12 volt. Half the battle when fishing is hitting your spot precisely and staying there. Deploys quietly, quickly and automatically... $1,899.99 - $1,999.99 Panther, King Pin Bracket, Outboard Motor Mount, Black Powder Coat Mfr. Panther | Mfr No. KPMMP King Pin Outboard Motor Bracket lets you mount your King Pin Shallow Water Anchor System to the O/B motor mount of your boat allowing you to hold your boat in position in shallow water... $59.56 Panther, King Pin Shallow Water Anchor System Poles Mfr.

Panther King Pin Shallow Water Anchor System Poles are part of Panther's convenient shallow water anchoring systems for a quick, low maintenance way to hold your boat's position in shallow water... $83.38 - $116.65 Panther, King Pin Shallow Water Anchor System, Bow Mount Bracket Mfr. Panther King Pin Shallow Water Anchor System, Bow Mount lets you deploy an anchor pole up front and with a quick pin pull and a short twist, the bracket is removed leaving a clean, obstacle free deck... $137.95 - $159.64

Question: What are Bruce, Danforth and Plough types of?
Answer: BOAT ANCHORS