P.S. is the real Bruce noticeably better than the Lewmar copy? Details please.
I think so.
From The Bruce Anchor Group website:
"At first glance the genuine Bruce anchor and the look-alikes that have flooded the market appear to be the same anchor. Close inspection will reveal that the look-alike is different in a number of disturbing ways. If you line up a row of the look-alikes you will find further disturbing features: whereas the genuine Bruce anchor has the same geometry throughout the anchor range, the look-alikes have shank angles that vary widely throughout the anchor range and even between same-size look-alikes... Would you leap from a plane with a haversack on your back because it looks like the real thing and comes at a rock bottom price? Remember an anchor is a safety device upon which the survival of you and your boat may ultimately depend."
What they say sounds convincing to me. Shank angle is one of the most important aspects of anchor design. The original patent Danforth has a fluke angle of 32deg. Why thirtyTWO
degrees and not 33 or 31? Why would the shank angle vary so much between knock-offs or between sizes of Lewmar Claws. Did Lewmar spend millions of dollars of testing and find better angles? I would wager not.
The Bruce Anchor Group spends a mint on R&D to make their anchors work. Most of their business is holding oil-rigs to the ocean floor. Why do they need to spend so much on R&D Because what we ask of them is difficult to achieve. They must set quickly in all bottom types, hold on short scope, self-reset from an oblique angle, be easy to retrieve from above... etc etc. The design of anchors is
exacting. Otherwise any old hook on a rope would set quickly in all bottoms, Minor changes can and do make massive differences in performance. Personally I would never anchor overnight to a look-alike anchor, only one that has passed some 3rd party tests and/or done the miles of experience on many boats in the real world.
MedSailor (faithful follower of the cult of Bruce)