 |
|
|
| Bruce vs. Claw Anchor:
|
|
For 15 years, publisher Bob Hale was the Northwest representative for Bruce Anchors. Although Bob's bias is Bruce, he always gives the facts when asked about other anchors, like the Claw. Here's an anchor comparison question from a reader:
|
|
|
Sept. 7, 1999
|
|
|
|
I was planning on buying a 66 lb Bruce anchor, but am debating between that one and the equivalent-weight Claw by Simpson-Lawrence. I've always liked the Bruce, but it IS more expensive... so which one to buy?
What do you see as the main differences between the Bruce and the S/L Claw anchor? Do you feel the price differential is justified, and do you plan to reduce the price of the Bruce?
--Eric Hammarlund
|
|
|
Response
|
|
|
|
At first glance, the Bruce and the Claw appear to be the same anchor, only the Claw is priced much lower. If you know what to look for, however, you find that the Claw differs from the Bruce in a number of disturbing ways.
First, the Claw's geometry is different. With both anchors sitting on the floor, you can see that the Claw's shank is noticeably higher than the Bruce's. Why the Claw has changed the geometry is unclear: the Bruce anchor geometry has been proven since the early 1970s. It has held offshore oil drilling rigs, commercial vessels, and thousands of pleasure boats. (I am unaware, incidentally, of Claw anchors being approved for or used in heavy offshore anchoring applications.) The Bruce's geometry was not arrived at by accident. Bruce International has a large test facility, and routinely tests anchor designs of all kinds, including its own.
But let's be generous. Let's say that the Claw's builder believes the Claw's geometry is superior. If that were the case, I would expect Claw anchors of different sizes to look the same, just larger or smaller. Bruce anchors look the same, from 11 pounds all the way to 550 pounds.
But that is not the case with Claw anchors. If you line up Claw anchors, 11 pounds to 66 pounds, and sight down the line, you find that the shank angles vary widely. They differ from each other, and none of them is the same as the Bruce. Which Claw has the correct geometry? Does any Claw have the correct geometry? (Answer: Bruce has the correct geometry. If you want a Bruce, you have to buy a Bruce.)
Next, the casting itself. The shank is warped on about one-third of the Claw anchors I have seen. When I look down on the anchor I can see the shank veering off to one side. If you look at a Claw anchor front-on, you will see that one of the flukes angles up more sharply than the other. This is true of every Claw anchor I have seen, even the display models at boat shows. Every Claw anchor I have seen is deformed. Not by a little; by a lot.
Different Claw anchors have different fluke shapes. On some, the outside flukes are rather bulbous; on others the flukes are more pointed, as the Bruce flukes are. On some Claw anchors the outside flukes begin their upward sweep fairly close to the shank. On others the flukes go out fairly flat before they sweep upward.
In short, the Claw anchors I have seen appear to be poorly cast, with a noticeable lack of design consistency among the various sizes. These are things that can be seen by anybody who knows what to look for.
Peter Bruce once told me that a bent anchor no longer is a reliable anchor. He explained that if an anchor is not absolutely symmetrical it will consistently roll out to its "weak" side, and will not develop its full holding power. Every Claw anchor I have seen (and I have seen many) has arrived at the store pre-bent.
Comparing similar size Claw and Bruce anchors, I find the Claw's shanks thicker than Bruce but the fluke area smaller than Bruce. Size for size, the Bruce has more fluke area. And it's the flukes that hold the boat. Furthermore, the leading edge of the Claw's flukes is noticeably thicker than the Bruce's, which probably hinders penetration in a hard bottom.
I have a fair amount of experience with Bruce anchors. For the past 15 years, I have been the Bruce sales rep in the Pacific Northwest, and I have used Bruce anchors on three boats, the most recent a Tollycraft 37 powerboat. I have just returned from an 8-week cruise in the Tolly 37 from Seattle, almost to Alaska, and back along the rugged West Coast of Vancouver Island. We anchored in sand, mud, rock and weed. The shallowest anchorage was 2 fathoms, the deepest was 15 fathoms. The Bruce bit and held every single time (except the one time when it hooked onto a small sunken tree, which had to be removed before the anchor was re-set). In these difficult, wilderness conditions, the anchor most often found is Bruce. I ask people why they have a Bruce. Repeatedly, the answer is, "It works."
These are the differences I am aware of. If a Bruce anchor is what you want, then you'll have to buy a Bruce. The Claw is the Claw, and not a bargain-priced Bruce. Is the Bruce worth the relatively small extra investment? The next paragraph is my answer.
As skipper, my family and any guests depend on me for their comfort and safety. When I put my anchor down on an unseen bottom, I want to know that I have not compromised in any way. With a genuine Bruce, I know I have not compromised. I would not have the same feeling with the Claw.
--Bob Hale
|
|
|
Back to Readers Write In |
|
|
|
