Ronald Raygun wrote:

I don't think the point was misunderstood by anybody, not even by
Wilbur who, in his inimitable style, called the idea stupid. He did
make a valid point though, that *if* re-antifouling is the only
reason for spending the winter ashore, which as a rule is quite a bit
more expensive than spending the winter afloat, then your plan is a
false economy, but of course it rarely is the only reason.

I did not see the post you refer to (no accident), but an annual haul is our
present mode. This has not always been the case, but it's the current MO.

Sharing your experiences is appreciated, but you do yourself no favour
by exaggerating the benefit. The fact is that by thinning to 75% you
only save a quarter of the price, not half. However, if you would
like to experiment to see what happens when you thin to 50%, I'm sure
your results will be awaited with interest.

I don't recall quantifying the benefit to any degree. I merely stated that
there _is_ an economic benefit. I find that of interest.

I think you're right that most people slap on more of the stuff than
is really necessary to last a six-month season, so it makes sense to
try to reduce the amount applied ...

I never made such a claim although others responding to this thread may have
done so.

On the other hand, if you winter
afloat occasionally, you will save more money even if you have to use
3 times as much paint because it has to last 18 months.

That is not always the case though it was the case for me in the past when I
did winter afloat. It happens that the boat yard where I winter actually
charges about the same for dry or wet storage. When one factors in a quick
haul in the spring for checking things (such as seacocks, etc.) the
economics are reversed.

Wilbur's suggestion ... is absurd.

Not having seen this post, I am unable to judge. Regards.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare