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. 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.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:21:46 -0400, "Richard"
wrote:

I use Micron 66. It seems a bit better than Micron Extra. My boat is in Long
Island NY.


Micron 66 is designated for salt water only. There are a lot of
cruising spots in the LIS area that are up rivers in brackish or fresh
water, where Micron 66 isn't formulated to work properly.


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:16:59 -0400, jeff wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:53:12 -0400, jeff wrote:

So my question is, was last fall particularly bad for growth in New
England, especially Boston Harbor?
I think you should go back to Micron Extra! No matter what, I never
have even a single barnacle attached. All I get is slime and fuzz,
which wipes off pretty easily.

Well perhaps, but the stuff I had on (old version CPP formulated then
by
Petit but since changed I believe) worked pretty good for almost 2
seasons, at half the price. There was no speed reduction during my
last
trip of the summer; it was only going to the haulout in mid October
that
the problem was apparent. And the worst of the fouling was on parts
where I can't use copper paint anyways, the Saildrives. In any case,
I've got two gallons of Blue Water Copper Shield 45 ready to go on this
Spring.

Micron Extra gets a lot of recommendations and there are good reports
about Trinidad SR also.

I used Micron and Micron Extra for about 6 years, but when the price
went up over $200 (now $240)

I'll be buying a gallon of Micron Extra this morning for $188. That's
a sale price, but the regular price at the same place is $209, not
$240.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:17:53 -0400, jeff wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:16:59 -0400, jeff wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:53:12 -0400, jeff wrote:

So my question is, was last fall particularly bad for growth in New
England, especially Boston Harbor?
I think you should go back to Micron Extra! No matter what, I never
have even a single barnacle attached. All I get is slime and fuzz,
which wipes off pretty easily.

Well perhaps, but the stuff I had on (old version CPP formulated then by
Petit but since changed I believe) worked pretty good for almost 2
seasons, at half the price. There was no speed reduction during my last
trip of the summer; it was only going to the haulout in mid October that
the problem was apparent. And the worst of the fouling was on parts
where I can't use copper paint anyways, the Saildrives. In any case,
I've got two gallons of Blue Water Copper Shield 45 ready to go on this
Spring.
Micron Extra gets a lot of recommendations and there are good reports
about Trinidad SR also.
I used Micron and Micron Extra for about 6 years, but when the price
went up over $200 (now $240)

I'll be buying a gallon of Micron Extra this morning for $188. That's
a sale price, but the regular price at the same place is $209, not
$240.

Since I had already decided against Micron Extra I didn't go hunting for
the best price. I quoted the West Marine list, but I assumed that with
the Spring sales it would be under $200. I'm glad you got a reasonable
price.

BTW, the Blue Seas was on sale last week so I paid about $160 for two
gallons, no tax or shipping. Part of the reason I questioned Micron was
that they kept telling me it was "the price of copper" that caused the
price to run up over $200, but it was easy to find paints with more
copper that are half the price.

I find it interesting that the production costs of the paint you are
using and Micron are probably similar regardless of differences in
material cost, yet Interlux doesn't seem to feel a need to compete on
price (which they could) to retain market share. Hmmmm.

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".

wrote:
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"

You paid $188/gal, and I paid under $80. You pair 6% CT sales tax, I
would have had to pay $20 bucks for Defender to ship. For two gallons,
this well over $200 price difference. I'm happy for you that this is
"negligible" to you; it isn't for me.

...and I'm not the one
who started this thread by saying his bottom was badly fouled.

True, but I did say in the first post, as well as several other times,
that the saildrives were the major problem. (I PS rated Trilux Prop
paint as "Poor/Good" in the 6 months rating but worse for longer periods.)


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".


Yes, they are the worst marine product reviewers we have, except for all
of the others.

Apologies to Winston.

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:45:22 -0400, Jeff said:

Yes, the current version of Copper Shield 45 is rated as "Multi-Season"
but Practical Sailor does not have it in the 18 month survey so I'm not
sure if it will go two seasons.

However, I've never had an issue with extended periods with any ablative
as long as the boat keeps moving.

Based on what I've read, I don't think that's the issue. A number of the
moderately priced ablatives claim to be multi-season, and I expect that's
correct if the boat stays in the water or perhaps only gets a short haul.
But that's not the same as saying you can leave the boat on the hard for 6
months without loss of the anti-fouling properties. My experience is that
you can't. I'm with Not At All on this one. Spend a few extra bucks for the
good stuff. In the long run the savings on the moderately priced stuff
aren't worth it.

It would be a more persuasive argument if there was any evidence that
the "high price spread" was in any way superior. My observation was
that CPP (at least the version I used) was equal to, or better than
Micron. And PS says that CS45 is superior. The question is "is Micron
truly superior or resting on its laurels?" I vote for the latter,

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:26:25 -0400, jeff wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:45:22 -0400, Jeff said:

Yes, the current version of Copper Shield 45 is rated as "Multi-Season"
but Practical Sailor does not have it in the 18 month survey so I'm not
sure if it will go two seasons.

However, I've never had an issue with extended periods with any ablative
as long as the boat keeps moving.

Based on what I've read, I don't think that's the issue. A number of the
moderately priced ablatives claim to be multi-season, and I expect that's
correct if the boat stays in the water or perhaps only gets a short haul.
But that's not the same as saying you can leave the boat on the hard for 6
months without loss of the anti-fouling properties. My experience is that
you can't. I'm with Not At All on this one. Spend a few extra bucks for the
good stuff. In the long run the savings on the moderately priced stuff
aren't worth it.

It would be a more persuasive argument if there was any evidence that
the "high price spread" was in any way superior. My observation was
that CPP (at least the version I used) was equal to, or better than
Micron. And PS says that CS45 is superior. The question is "is Micron
truly superior or resting on its laurels?" I vote for the latter,

A British magazine, Practical Boat Owner, did a test of all the common
yacht anti-fouling paints by painting test strips and placing them in
most of the widely used "yacht" harbors in England and Scotland.

What they discovered was that there is no "best" paint as a paint that
remained fairly growth free in, say a southern English harbor, was
covered by growth in a different, perhaps Northern or Western, harbor.

The final analysis was "go with local knowledge".

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On 30 Mar 2009 10:31:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:57:14 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
said:

A British magazine, Practical Boat Owner, did a test of all the common
yacht anti-fouling paints by painting test strips and placing them in
most of the widely used "yacht" harbors in England and Scotland.

What they discovered was that there is no "best" paint as a paint that
remained fairly growth free in, say a southern English harbor, was
covered by growth in a different, perhaps Northern or Western, harbor.

The final analysis was "go with local knowledge".

That's consistent with what Practical Sailor's test over the years suggest.
Interestingly enough, it seems the fouling is often as bad in New England as
in Florida, and sometimes worse, and different paints are better in one
place than the other.

A friend came up with a novel solution. He talked about wrapping
tarpaulins under the boat and hosing water between the tarps and the
hull to keep a layer of fresh water on the hull. He reckoned that
would keep the barnacles from growing. I don't know that he ever tried
it though.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
A friend came up with a novel solution. He talked about wrapping
tarpaulins under the boat and hosing water between the tarps and the
hull to keep a layer of fresh water on the hull. He reckoned that
would keep the barnacles from growing. I don't know that he ever tried
it though.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I've seen that done in the Long Beach area (SoCal) with varying degrees of
success. Seems to work best on powerboats, since they don't have the keel
and everything associated with it -- including ****ing off marina owners for
the wasting of fresh water. Even there, though, pulling the boat up out of
the water makes a whole lot more sense.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
A friend came up with a novel solution. He talked about wrapping
tarpaulins under the boat and hosing water between the tarps and the
hull to keep a layer of fresh water on the hull. He reckoned that
would keep the barnacles from growing. I don't know that he ever tried
it though.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I've seen that done in the Long Beach area (SoCal) with varying degrees of
success. Seems to work best on powerboats, since they don't have the keel
and everything associated with it -- including ****ing off marina owners
for the wasting of fresh water. Even there, though, pulling the boat up
out of the water makes a whole lot more sense.



I believe there's a device that you can buy that traps sal****er in a
similar setup, and you add a small amount of bleach to do the same thing. I
recall it works with sailboats as well.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com