On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:04:24 -0400, jeff wrote:

wrote:
...

Yes, it seemed to be a very active season for bottom growth. Having
barnacles is still a paint failure in my book. As long as there is
Micron Extra covering a surface, there will never be any barnacles.

As I said, my major problem area was the saildrives, which had the
Trilux. Also, the rubber "fairing mat" around the saildrive was heavily
encrusted, while in years past it only had minor problems. The rest of
the only had occasional barnicals, not enough to cause a speed problem.



With the amount of effort involved in bottom painting and interim
cleaning, the price differential between paints is of no consequence.
If Micron Extra was $300 a gallon and "something else" was $100, I'd
still advise Micron Extra as the better deal.

If you're happy with the performance and don't mind paying an extra few
hundred bucks for piece of mind, that's fine.


Well, as I pointed out, the price difference is negligible, and no
where near your, "an extra few huindred bucks" ...and I'm not the one
who started this thread by saying his bottom was badly fouled.

However, your opinion is
not shared by everyone. The recent Practical Sailor report only gave
Micron Extra Fair/Fair (FL/CT) ratings, one of the lowest in their 6
month ablative survey. Blue Seas Copper Shield 45 was top rated as
Excellent/Good.

Practical Sailor is occasionally correct about something, but it's
rare. Their testing methods are what compuer programmers would term,
"spagetti code".

After using those faulty methods to obtain data, they often disagree
with themselves within a few paragraphs of the same article. One year,
I remember that the results for bottom paint indicated a particular
paint tested above all others, but they rated another one higher
because "it had done so well in previous years".