Armond Perretta wrote:

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.

By "no accident" do you mean you've killfiled him?
Probably not a bad idea. :-)

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.

Of course you quantified it. The very subject line refers to "Half Price".
Also, in your article of last Friday (23 Oct 2009) you quoted from your
article of 25 April as follows (at the end of which you refer to
"cutting my paint cost by half"):

I took a new
gallon of Trinidad, split it in half into a new empty gallon can,
added what appeared to be about one half quart of last year's paint,
and then thinned each can to bring the volume to about three quarts
in each one gallon can. This means the paint was thinned about 25 to
27 percent, which is well in excess of the manufacturer
recommendations. In fact just about any source I can find would
disagree with my approach and advise that I will end up with less
than adequate protection. The only advantage to me is, of course,
cutting my paint cost by half.

You made up 2 batches of 3 quarts of diluted paint using 4 new quarts
and half an old quart. This gives a paint strength of 4.5/6 or 75%,
which ties in with your saying it's "thinned about 25 percent". But
that means cutting a quarter off your price.

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.

Well, OK, it was actually Bruce who *said* that, but not only did you
explicitly agree with him:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:

What is happening is that the O.P. is applying a thinner then previous
layer of solids to the hull. This layer is providing the required anti
fouling function for the period between haul outs.
...
In essence probably most people apply more anti fouling then they
require and then complement themselves when they haul annually and
find no growth ...

As the "OP" I believe I am qualified to state that Bruce has summarized
the situation accurately.

but it's what the whole of your exercise is really about! By applying the
same volume of thinned-down paint which you used to apply of pure paint,
you are reducing the amount of solids applied, and the reason it works
is that the unreduced amount is clearly more than necessary.

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.

Fair enough, there is wide variety in what's on offer. In my area some
places do charge the same for 6 months ashore as they do for 6 months
afloat, but many of these don't permit staying afloat in the winter. Other
places only provide moorings and have no provision for storage ashore.
These tend to be cheaper per 6 months than places which do provide
hard standing. Moreover, they tend to offer 12 month prices which are
much less than double the 6 month rate. It's like getting the winter at
better than half price.

Just some rough figures: I pay about £650 for 6 months afloat, about £850
for 12 months afloat, and just under £1000 for 6 months ashore, but there
are extra fees for taking the mast down and putting it up again, and
electric power is extra too.

Wilbur's suggestion ... is absurd.

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

Well, you didn't miss much, but I did tell you what his suggestion was,
so you *were* able to judge. It was that you could slap on 2 gallons
and have it last 4-5 years without hauling.

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.

I have wintered afloat on the slightly saline Norfolk Broads for the past
seven years
with only the anti-fouling that came on the boat at purchase. Sometimes she
grew
some slime underneath and a few weed whiskers at the waterline. The weed was
easily
removed with a broom and the slime tended to come off after a good sail.

This year I sailed her round to the north Norfolk coast and she dried out
for the first time
on the sand. The bottom was as clean as a whistle with a minimal thickness
of old red anti-foul. However, within a month she started
growing barnacles despite only being afloat for some 4-5 hours in every 12.

I may try the coppercoat solution, not for economy but through sheer
laziness, should
cost about £300. Alternatively I may buy some epoxy resin and add the copper
powder myself,
it appears to be readily available but I haven't costed it nor looked at
minimum order levels.
I may have to order a ton of copper powder and that'll be more than the boat
is worth!

TonyB

Ronald Raygun wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:
Ronald Raygun wrote:

Wilbur's suggestion ... is absurd.

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

... I did tell you what his suggestion was, so you *were* able to judge
...

Have we met somewhere? Your implicit assumption seems to be that I should
readily base my opinion on hearsay from a stranger writing under what
appears to be a nom-de-Usenet. BTW forgive me if that is indeed your actual
name. As Lord Peter Whimsey might have said, let's move on, old sport.

Cheerio.

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

"Flying Pig" wrote in message
...
How do your end zincs do on your MP? Mine eat away pretty quickly,
usually - and I also use two collar zincs in the shaft in front of the
line cutter and prop.

However, this last time, the collars were entirely gone, while the cone,
while very deteriorated and partly gone, this time, didn't separate at the
mounting bolts as it usually does.

MP problem has usually been that the mounting points give way before the
mass and it slings off, damaging the bolt still attached, if not changed
soon enough (ask me how I know...)

My Maxprop has no end zincs, just a conical bronze pointy nut. Never any
pitting trouble at all on the prop.
I rarely connect to shore power and never for very long and anyway I have an
isolating transformer aboard so if the shore power has a crappy earth any
leakage to earth from outside my boat will have to find some other way back
rather than through my propeller.

Armond Perretta wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:
Ronald Raygun wrote:

Wilbur's suggestion ... is absurd.

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

... I did tell you what his suggestion was, so you *were* able to judge
...

Have we met somewhere?

Highly unlikely, bcause we seem to be on opposite sides of the Altlantic
(I'm in Scotland).

Your implicit assumption seems to be

But it isn't, you couldn't be further from the truth.

that I should readily base my opinion on hearsay from a stranger

The concept of hearsay has to do with indirect evidence, and has
little value outside of a court room. I'm not asking you to judge
Wilbur based on what I claim he said. I merely disagree with your notion
that simply because you didn't see him make it, you are unable to judge
the suggestion itself.

What I'm saying is that you should be able to judge (i.e. agree or
disagree with) the suggestion on its own merit, irrespective of who made
it, or even of whether anyone actually made it at all. I could easily
have said instead, without reference to anyone else, that "the idea that
you can beef up the thickness of your antifouling coat to the extent that
you can expect it to last 5 years is absurd".

OK, perhaps "absurd" was too strong a word. All I really meant was that
the idea that thicker coats last longer is fine, but that stretching it
to 4-5 years is going too far.

writing under what
appears to be a nom-de-Usenet. BTW forgive me if that is indeed your
actual name.

It isn't my real name. It's a pseudonym I've been using for many years
(I don't remember exactly how many, but let's say 15-20) in order to limit
the amount of spam I get. Do you have a problem with that?

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:19:48 -0000, "TonyB"
wrote:

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.

I have wintered afloat on the slightly saline Norfolk Broads for the past
seven years
with only the anti-fouling that came on the boat at purchase. Sometimes she
grew
some slime underneath and a few weed whiskers at the waterline. The weed was
easily
removed with a broom and the slime tended to come off after a good sail.

This year I sailed her round to the north Norfolk coast and she dried out
for the first time
on the sand. The bottom was as clean as a whistle with a minimal thickness
of old red anti-foul. However, within a month she started
growing barnacles despite only being afloat for some 4-5 hours in every 12.

I may try the coppercoat solution, not for economy but through sheer
laziness, should
cost about £300. Alternatively I may buy some epoxy resin and add the copper
powder myself,
it appears to be readily available but I haven't costed it nor looked at
minimum order levels.
I may have to order a ton of copper powder and that'll be more than the boat
is worth!

TonyB


I looked into "Copper Coat" or "Copper Bot", whatever the name after
reading an article extolling it in Practical Boatowner. The idea
initially sounded quite logical however after talking to the few
people that I found that had actually used it on their own boat I
decided not to. All of the people I talked to, admittedly only a few,
said the same thing - it didn't work as advertised and they had all
removed the epoxy-copper from their boats, not a trivial task, and
gone back to the old system.

I'm not saying that the system is NO GOOD, rather that one should do
some research and talk to people that had used it before spending the
not trivial sum to apply it.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Ronald Raygun wrote:
IanM wrote:
Unless he's getting more paint on himself and the hard standing he's
slapping it on far thicker than we do as we are doing two coats.

Possibly, but it's neither here nor there whether he puts on one
thick coat or two thin ones, if the combined thickness is about
the same. Or he could have been using the word "coat" to mean
one year's coating even if it was in fact applied in two thin coats.
Anything that you have to sand or scrape off next year is wasted. OTOH
a fouled bare spot has not only slowed you down, its also a right PITA
to clean up for repainting. I try to go for a minimal buildup with
*some* sanding required to allow a fresh coat but anything over about
1/16" of antifouling would do me more good in the can than on the boat
(except in heavy wear areas).

The biggest saving would be buy a radiator roller handle and the *GOOD*
(i.e. EXPENSIVE) rollers to go on it. A fully loaded large roller is to
heavy and awkward and cheap rollers break up too much and waste paint.
The extra length of the radiator roller handle makes the job go much
quicker with less stooping.

I was really pleased when I "discovered" (followed someone's advice
to use) radiator rollers (for the avoidance of doubt, we're talking
about the small ones, about 5 inches long and 1.5 inches in diameter,
the handle being about 2ft long). They're so much easier to use and
make a quicker job of it than brushes. I also tried ordinary full
size rollers and found them too heavy and went back to the small ones.
But then I tried the big rollers on a long handle, and they really make
fast work of it. They're not too heavy when you hold them with both
hands.

Yes, same small rollers on a long handle.

Big rollers might make sense if you are coercing the crew to help, but
it goes plenty quick enough with the small rollers, and I don't want the
extra mess and effort with big ones. Also I find it convenient to work
with a small roller and a big tray,



I use cheap rollers and don't understand what you mean about them
breaking up. Nor do I understand why using rad rollers should use
less paint overall.

The big rollers have to be wetted out and a lot of paint soaks into the
roller core on the cheap ones. Even with the little rollers named brand
'decorators' ones do a far better job than the economy DIY discount
store foam ones, stay bonded to their cores in spite of the Xylene
thinners, and last a whole coat or even two.

We used 3/4 of two packs of 10 rollers the first year, as they were
breaking up after a couple of square yards, and I bought the good ones
hoping they'd last twice as long. I reckon we are using about 3 a year
and in a couple of years I might need to get a few more. Every roller
that breaks up and has to be binned with lots of paint still on it is
bad for the environment, and more immediately important to me, my pocket!

Its all about minimising wastage FIRST before considering reducing
quality to make savings.



--
Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk
[at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & 32K emails -- NUL:

Ronald Raygun wrote:

What I'm saying is that you should be able to judge (i.e. agree or
disagree with) the suggestion on its own merit, irrespective of who
made it, or even of whether anyone actually made it at all ...

Your statement leads me to suppose that the US and the UK really _are_ two
bodies of land separated by both a different language, _and_ different
credibility standards. It has been my experience here in Leftpondia that
the utility and reliability of a suggestion is _strongly_ related to the
source. Would you, for example, give much credence to anchoring
recommendations from someone who has never used an anchor?

... [you are] writing under what appears to be a nom-de-Usenet ...

It isn't my real name. It's a pseudonym I've been using for many
years ... in order to limit the amount of spam I get ...

Unless you receive email addressed to your name rather than your email
address, this justification is invalid. Spam is sent to an email address
that is independent of the actual name associated with it. I write under my
actual name but, depending on circumstances, associate my name with
different email addresses to keep things at least a bit organized. You can
confidently use your real name and _any_ email address, "munged" or
otherwise, with no fear of spam based solely on your actual name.

Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, but then it's certainly _my_ problem and perhaps not a problem to
others. I first started writing to r.b.c in 1997 under my real name. From
time to time I have written posts that perhaps should not have seen the
light of day, but it can be hoped that one learns as one goes along.
However in all cases I realized that whatever I wrote was associated with my
actual name and that I would have to live with the consequences. My
personal view is that same standard is not applied in many (but not
all) cases where the writer uses a pseudonym. I don't expect all share this
view, but it is _my_ view and it serves me well.

BTW, would you not agree that this discussion is a bit far afield from my
original intention of trying to save a few bucks on antifouling?

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

Armond Perretta wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:

What I'm saying is that you should be able to judge (i.e. agree or
disagree with) the suggestion on its own merit, irrespective of who
made it, or even of whether anyone actually made it at all ...

Your statement leads me to suppose that the US and the UK really _are_ two
bodies of land separated by both a different language, _and_ different
credibility standards. It has been my experience here in Leftpondia that
the utility and reliability of a suggestion is _strongly_ related to the
source. Would you, for example, give much credence to anchoring
recommendations from someone who has never used an anchor?

Well, one might think the immediate answer would have to be "probably
not", but after a few moments' thought one would have to admit that
there could be circumstances in which one might. It would depend on
the nature of the recommendation, but even if it came from someone
experienced, one wouldn't accept it blindly without thinking about
it to see whether it makes sense, and why. Things suggested by
non-experts can often make sense too.

The point is that at the end of the day it isn't really about source
credibility at all (as it would be if you were trying to assess the
truth or falsehood of a disputed statement of fact), but primarily
about credibility of the material itself.

We had a suggestion on the table that you can slap on enough
antifouling in one session to last 4-5 years of no hauling out.

I completely fail to understand why you believe you cannot form
a view on that suggestion without knowing who made it.

Admittedly, the fact that it was our friend Wilbur who made the
suggestion might make it easier for you to condemn it, and if I
wanted you to condemn it for that reason, then you are being very
fair indeed to reserve judgement when you didn't see him make it
and only have my word for it that he did.

But I'm not asking you to condemn it for that reason, nor do I
disagree with it for that reason. I disagree with it because I've
thought about it and my intuition tells me that it won't work (at
least not in general - there may be some locations where fouling
is so light that you'd get away with it).

It isn't my real name. It's a pseudonym I've been using for many
years ... in order to limit the amount of spam I get ...

Unless you receive email addressed to your name rather than your email
address, this justification is invalid.

You're perfectly right on that point, I could have coupled my real
name with an invalid email address, but that strikes me as somewhat
half-hearted. Besides it's not the only reason. The extra anonymity
gives me the confidence to be at times a little more, er, forthright
than I might otherwise be. If that's naughty, I hold my hand up to it.

But since you, like most of our readers, don't know me anyway, it
wouldn't serve any useful purpose from the credibility standpoint
if I did use my real name. The only benefit would be, as you seemed
to imply, that it would make me more careful of what I say, in case
someone who knows me in real life happens to drop in here and saw me
make an arse of myself.

But I do notice that while many people use what appears to be their
full real name, quite a few use what is probably their real name, but
not enough of it to identify them (they might use only a forename), so
they enjoy a certain amount of anonymity too. I note also that on many
web forums it seems to be the norm rather than the exception to use a
handle which is totally anonymous.

I accept your criticism as valid. My defence is that I'm not completely
at odds with widely accepted practice.

BTW, would you not agree that this discussion is a bit far afield from my
original intention of trying to save a few bucks on antifouling?

Indeed. Good idea to try saving a few bucks. But your credibility
suffered when you claimed to "save half" by using 25% less. I didn't
judge you by your name, but by what you wrote. :-)

IanM wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:

I was really pleased when I "discovered" (followed someone's advice
to use) radiator rollers (for the avoidance of doubt, we're talking
about the small ones, about 5 inches long and 1.5 inches in diameter,
the handle being about 2ft long). They're so much easier to use and
make a quicker job of it than brushes. I also tried ordinary full
size rollers and found them too heavy and went back to the small ones.
But then I tried the big rollers on a long handle, and they really make
fast work of it. They're not too heavy when you hold them with both
hands.

Yes, same small rollers on a long handle.

No, I meant big rollers on a long handle. My experience was that the
2ft handle which you normally get for the small roller was too short
to get both hands on (and it's awkward to hold the bare wire with the
other hand, while the first hand is on the proper grip at the end), and
too heavy to wield with just one hand, and so I changed to normal size
rollers on a handle which telescopes to about 5ft, and use both hands,
generally about 2ft apart.

I should try attaching a broomstick to a short-handle small roller.

Big rollers might make sense if you are coercing the crew to help, but
it goes plenty quick enough with the small rollers, and I don't want the
extra mess and effort with big ones.

I must time myself properly next time and do half a coat with a small
roller and the other with a big one. I think I've been taking about
45 mins to apply one coat to both sides of a 32 footer, using a big
roller.

Also I find it convenient to work with a small roller and a big tray

Yes I also found that the small trays didn't work too well.

I use cheap rollers and don't understand what you mean about them
breaking up. Nor do I understand why using rad rollers should use
less paint overall.

The big rollers have to be wetted out and a lot of paint soaks into the
roller core on the cheap ones. Even with the little rollers named brand
'decorators' ones do a far better job than the economy DIY discount
store foam ones, stay bonded to their cores in spite of the Xylene
thinners, and last a whole coat or even two.

Maybe the type of paint I use is less fierce than yours. I use the
cheap cruising antifouling, not the fancy hard racing stuff.

We used 3/4 of two packs of 10 rollers the first year, as they were
breaking up after a couple of square yards, and I bought the good ones
hoping they'd last twice as long. I reckon we are using about 3 a year
and in a couple of years I might need to get a few more. Every roller
that breaks up and has to be binned with lots of paint still on it is
bad for the environment, and more immediately important to me, my pocket!

I only need one roller each year and it's enough to do 4 coats. Between
coats, the roller goes in a plastic bag to prevent it drying out and
hardening. I've never had one break up. But I do use pile, not foam.