The Fortress, without a chain, would hover about 5 feet below the
surface. Six feet of chain was enough to take it down, but I ended up using 8
or 10 feet with it.

I think Fortress states in their instruction sheet that you should use chain.
I think every manufacture states that you should use chain. I think every
anchor assembly article I ever read states to use chain.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

Actually, the Fortress site recommends six feet of chain. If you tried deploy
that while moving, or while holding station in a strong current, it might not
get to the bottom. They don't specify size, so if you used 6 feet of 3/16
chain, you've only added 2.5 pounds, not enough to take it down in a current.

Its true that most any cruising manual will advise chain, but they are
invariably talking about "working" or "storm" anchors, not lunch hooks or mud
hooks. For instance, you wouldn't want chain on one of these:
http://www.flyfishusa.com/pontoon/po...or/anchor.html

I'm not knocking the Fortress; I've used one for a dozen years and strongly
recommend them. Also, I'm not saying you shouldn't use chain, although I think
some people use too much. I'm only saying its important to understand how
different anchors work in different situations, and to use them accordingly.


"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
The Fortress, without a chain, would hover about 5 feet below the
surface. Six feet of chain was enough to take it down, but I ended up using 8
or 10 feet with it.

I think Fortress states in their instruction sheet that you should use chain.
I think every manufacture states that you should use chain. I think every
anchor assembly article I ever read states to use chain.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

I think
some people use too much. I'm only saying its important to understand how
different anchors work in different situations, and to use them accordingly.


But...jeff, do you agree with Loco's decision to base 25% of his anchor choice
on it's looks?

RB

Actually, he was probably required to carry an anchor for racing, and the
Fortress FX11 is the lightest that could be considered "suitable" for a 30
footer. Its OK as a minimal lunch hook, and Loco has admitted to no further
ambition. Sounds like a good match.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
I think
some people use too much. I'm only saying its important to understand how
different anchors work in different situations, and to use them accordingly.


But...jeff, do you agree with Loco's decision to base 25% of his anchor choice
on it's looks?

RB

Actually, he was probably required to carry an anchor for racing, and the
Fortress FX11 is the lightest that could be considered "suitable" for a 30
footer. Its OK as a minimal lunch hook, and Loco has admitted to no further
ambition. Sounds like a good match.


Agreed, but if you look back, you'll note that Loco says 25% of the reason for
the Fortress was looks.

RB

Ssssssssssssssssssss..what's that sound? Oh, it's bob**** deflating.

Loco ----- 100
boob**** - 0

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Actually, he was probably required to carry an anchor for racing, and the
Fortress FX11 is the lightest that could be considered "suitable" for a 30
footer. Its OK as a minimal lunch hook, and Loco has admitted to no
further
ambition. Sounds like a good match.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
I think
some people use too much. I'm only saying its important to understand
how
different anchors work in different situations, and to use them
accordingly.


But...jeff, do you agree with Loco's decision to base 25% of his anchor
choice
on it's looks?

RB

Scotty wrote:

Loco ----- 25%
boob**** - 100.


Bwahahahahahahaha!

RB

Actually, he was probably required to carry an anchor for racing, and the
Fortress FX11 is the lightest that could be considered "suitable" for a 30
footer. Its OK as a minimal lunch hook, and Loco has admitted to no further
ambition. Sounds like a good match.

Exactly! However the Fortress FX-11 is more than a lunch hook for a 30 footer.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

Exactly! However the Fortress FX-11 is more than a lunch hook for a 30
footer.

yes, it's also a FASHION STATEMENT!

RB

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
Actually, he was probably required to carry an anchor for racing, and the
Fortress FX11 is the lightest that could be considered "suitable" for a 30
footer. Its OK as a minimal lunch hook, and Loco has admitted to no further
ambition. Sounds like a good match.

Exactly! However the Fortress FX-11 is more than a lunch hook for a 30
footer.

Yes, it might also be good for brunch.

An FX11 is an absolute minimal anchor for a 30 footer. To claim that's all
that's needed for cruising is foolish. First of all, the best holding power
Fortress claims is 900 pounds. However, the wind drag on a 30 foot sailboat is
700 pounds in 30 knots. This number goes up as the square of wind speed, so
even if particular boat has a smaller profile, it easy to see that the FX11
would likely drag in any serious wind.

Secondly, although the Fortress has many virtues, resetting on wind or current
changes is not one of them. This is especially true for the small sizes - I
went from a FX16 to a FX23 because of this problem. Add this to the issue of
deploying such a light anchor in a current or from a moving boat and it really
doesn't make it as a primary.

Finally, the concept of cruising with only one anchor is silly. I've used two
anchors numerous times in a variety of situations - I can't imagine traveling
with only one. A third is just a backup - I've had to leave one behind once,
and loaned one another time, so its nice to know I have one to spare. (Also, if
I'm ever caught out in "the big one" I can set three anchors - it hasn't
happened yet!)

I will grant you one thing - the Chesapeake is about as benign and environment
as you can get. The soft mud is ubiquitous, and there is no such thing as a
rocky lee shore. You may be able to get away with such a naive approach there,
but you wouldn't last a weekend in Maine.