|
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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? Another part of the problem is the original statement that one can apply antifouling effective for a 5 year period might be credible from another source. Check out Jotun's recommendation for SeaForce 90 on container ships with a 60 month dry dock interval:- http://pdf.shepherdmarine.com/brochures/SeaForce.pdf#page=5 and more detail in a Tecnical data brochu Recommended use To be used on vessels operating in global service with drydocking intervals up to 60 months when high performance, predictable polishing rate and possible smoothing effect is important. SeaForce 90 offers the best in antifouling performance and is well suited to offer 60 months antifouling performance on all underwater areas on vessels trading at high speed (18 knots) and high frequency. On vessels operating at lower speeds/frequency SeaForce 90 can be specified up to 36 months on the sidebottom, 60 months on flatbottom and 60 months on boottop given that the vessel spends a significant portion of its time in ballast condition. http://www.marineandtools.com/marine-paints-coatings/pdf/jotun_seaforce90.pdf from which we see that the key to 5 year antifouling performance is to make frequent passages, make over 18 knots and go blue water. That's a corner of the performance envelope that I have no resources, ability or desire to explore given that the hull speed of a 200' vessel is only just over 18 knots. ... [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 ..... 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. However unlike Wilma/ADN I have actually met and had a drink with a couple of the very few individuals in the Pro sailing community who *HAVE* the experience of round the world Ocean racing averaging 18 knots, but I didn't waste my time or their goodwill asking about what antifouling they used . . . . I doubt ADN has even *MET* any of the skippers who have 'Been there, Done that'. My relevant experience to judge Jotun's recommendation: Maybe 1% of what's needed to propose it professionally: ADN's relevant experience? (independently confirmed as the truth is not in him) probably 1% of mine - or vanishingly small if you prefer! I use a 'handle' to post under but have never concealed my real name. OK, I am not too free with personal data, (You will never see me post the name of my or a friend's boat or details of my club or current home port), for privacy reasons but I know that my postings are seen by at least a few fellow members and other friends who have the means to verify my identity so I too have a significant incentive to tell the truth as I see it rather than slanting my pitch to suit my current target ADN style. At least 'Ronald' is not using an anonymizer of any sort so we can be reaonably confident he isn't an ADN alias or one of the 'nym' shifting trolls who plague the sailing groups. Sorry about being so long winded endorsing your point of view. Maybe I should have settled for 'Me too.' but that's not my style ;-) 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? That's USEnet for you, its like herding cats. I wont say it's like trying to walk a cat with a lead, as I know from practical experience its achievable if you tie some cordage to the end of the lead, and let the cat freely attack it as you drag the cord all the way to your destination. It was less trouble and considerably safer for me than trying to put Ginger in a box when we moved round the corner and also had the benefit of delivering a happy cat who was willing to explore the new premises rather than lacerating us in passing and bolting immediately. Back to the antifouling, I maintain that you will get better results at lower cost by careful control of your application method to achieve a thinner but more uniform film. I am also concerned that excessive thinning may affect the micro-structure of the paint, bringing more binder resin to the surface and reducing the effectiveness. Thinners cost money. Litre for Litre, the proper thinners is a non-negligible cost compared to the paint. Your saving is only on the difference. Mine is direct, with the only overhead being the tools and consumables, and I have that down to under £5 on top of the paint each year. With Jotun Seaguardian @ £68.95 /5L. Thinners '7' @ £6 /L. and £9.95 carriage on orders under £150, (current price list, ex VAT, Sheperd Marine mail order) for a total of £105 for all delivered + a tray and a couple of rollers bought locally, its easy to see the saving over International Cruiser Uno (typically £60 - £70 /2.5L in local chandlers or /3L on limited stock special offer from UK chandler chains) even on a 'slap on one tin each year basis', I have a base saving of about £15 (12.5%) over two years (assuming VAT at the 210 rate of 17.5%, and that the local chandler has Uno at £60 and will throw in an application kit each year) However my neighbour in the yard was unhappy with the results of skimping with a single tin and now uses about 1 1/2 tins a year carefully applied, so if we compare like with like, and assume a more realistic average of £65 per tin of Uno we have 3 tins every two years + 1 set of tools (assuming the free application kit is not included with the single tin) totalling £200 and a whopping 50% saving -* Your Original Target *- with the bonus of better performance against our local fouling :-) As I invested in a 'bulk buy' of 4 years supply - 2 x 5L + 1L thinners (at 15% VAT and last year's price), I'm actually running at a 52% saving over four years, being about fifty quid behind last year, a tenner ahead this coming winter and 'in the gravy' for the following two years. I've bet that chandlers prices for my neighbour will increase more than the lost opportunity cost of the £50 - a safe bet with a very weak pound, no perceptible recovery in the UK and copper market trends as they are. Must remember to go down the cellar, and turn the tins over and shake monthly between now and February to get the good stuff off the bottom and back into the binder. My other neibour, with a long keel heavy displacement 40 footer grabbed the invoice out of my hands to get the contact details when I told him the price and is now a Jotun convert and also another happy Sheperd Marine customer :-) -- 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: |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:29:50 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote: Would you, for example, give much credence to anchoring recommendations from someone who has never used an anchor? Spirit Lake Ia is 19 feet deep nearly everywhere . The usual anchor that came with rental fishing boats was a cement filled tin can. Very few knew anything about anchors. [We had a duck boat with a 20 lb Danforth with a fifty foot braided rode.. I think my dad just bought the biggest one at the store. I often buried it it in the mud with the engine, and it never dragged.] The runabouts and sailboats all lacked anchors, so any bogus advice would do. Casady |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
Ronald Raygun wrote:
IanM wrote: Yes, same small rollers on a long handle. I meant what *I* am using. I'd like to see you try to get a big roller on a 5' handle behind a radiator! VBG 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. Bear in mind, my draft is only just over 4' and even with the blocks and cradle, my waterline isn't far from eye level. You may *need* a longer roller while I am working comfortably one handed. YMMV 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. Then you need a 'jumbo' tray for a big roller - more paint wasted caking up the equipment ;-( 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. Don't know. I use Jotun Seaguardian when I can get it and their Seaforce 30 if I can't. Both are commercial 'fleet' use eroding antifoulings and manufacturer rated for 2+ years use. They use Xylene thinners. 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 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. 2 people so 2 rollers, the third is not always needed, but I didn't want to over claim - especially in *THIS* thread. :-) The cheap foam rollers are *CRAP* and even the good ones can't take Xylene for a whole coat. The pile rollers are excellent and easy to keep as you say. My fault for believing a shop assistant in a chain store chandler many years ago the first time I was roped in as a crew volunteer and not initially revising my choice with our own boat. -- 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: |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
Ronald Raygun wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote: 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 ... "Bottom Paint Half Price" is a variation on a typical advert slogan in the US. It is not nor was it ever intended to be used as an arithmetic formula. Your taking this title literally implies either that hyperbole is unknown in the British Isles, which is unlikely, or that your own irony antennae could stand a tune-up. Incidentally I don't cross-post without a good reason, and this thread is not one that I would have chosen for such treatment. Somewhere along the way this was cross-posted to u.r.s without my noticing. When you replied the "flavoUr" of your response required that I continue the cross-posts. I am sure that many readers at u.r.s have found this discussion less than enthralling. While this has been a pleasant if somewhat overdone discourse, I am not sure that either of us would consider the meandering nature of this part of the thread as particularly useful or enlightening. That aside, enjoy your sailing, old sport. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
IanM wrote:
Ronald Raygun wrote: IanM wrote: 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 meant what *I* am using. I'd like to see you try to get a big roller on a 5' handle behind a radiator! VBG I should try attaching a broomstick to a short-handle small roller. Bear in mind, my draft is only just over 4' and even with the blocks and cradle, my waterline isn't far from eye level. You may *need* a longer roller while I am working comfortably one handed. YMMV Draft, and hence the height I need to reach up to, is not the problem, my draft being not much more than yours, at about 4'6. Comfort is the key word. There is no way I could work "comfortably" even on a flat vertical surface (such as a house wall) much above eye level or below the belt (no double meaning intended). The less I need to crouch or crawl the better. And with a boat of course the negative slope makes it worse. I always ached for days afterwards when I used to antifoul one handed, no matter whether using a big short-handled roller or the normal radiator roller (small with 2ft handle). Perhaps it's because I'm a wimp and my drinking arm doesn't get enough exercise. With a long handle, and both hands on it, I can reach up to the waterline and down almost as far as the keel from a comfortable standing position while still applying a decent amount of contact pressure. Only for the lowest-down bits do I need to crouch down behind the props. 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. Then you need a 'jumbo' tray for a big roller - more paint wasted caking up the equipment ;-( I don't need a jumbo tray but I think I see what you mean, you can't completely immerse a standard roller in a standard tray, but I get by all the same. 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. 2 people so 2 rollers, the third is not always needed, but I didn't want to over claim - especially in *THIS* thread. :-) I see. The job's so unpleasant you feel you need to halve your exposure to it, and foist the other half on a reluctant but willing slave who puts up with it in return for the joy of being asked to crew for you. :-) The technique I've evolved, on the other hand, has reduced the discomfort to such an extent that I now actually enjoy it so much that I want to do it all myself and don't need to recruit an assistant. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
Armond Perretta wrote:
Ronald Raygun wrote: Armond Perretta wrote: 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 ... "Bottom Paint Half Price" is a variation on a typical advert slogan in the US. It is not nor was it ever intended to be used as an arithmetic formula. Your taking this title literally implies either that hyperbole is unknown in the British Isles, which is unlikely, or that your own irony antennae could stand a tune-up. Well, if you add "(Serious Question)" to something which otherwise just might pass for irony, it sends the signal that it was meant to be serious and not ironic. If you then reinforce the "half price" quantification in the text itself, what else is one to think than that you meant it literally? I refer you to your original posting from April in which you wrote: 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. See what I mean? "... cutting my paint cost by half.". That didn't look ironic, it looked serious. And when you subsequently flatly denied having made any quantification at all, I just couldn't let you get away with it. :-) While this has been a pleasant if somewhat overdone discourse, I am not sure that either of us would consider the meandering nature of this part of the thread as particularly useful or enlightening. Well, I'm glad you found it pleasant even though I may have been overly pedantic, and I apologise if that irritated you. That aside, enjoy your sailing, old sport. Thanks, I intend to. As I am not hauling out this year, I hope to get some winter sailing in. I just hope my bottom paint lasts the full 18 months! :-) |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
... Armond Perretta wrote: Ronald Raygun wrote: Armond Perretta wrote: 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 ... "Bottom Paint Half Price" is a variation on a typical advert slogan in the US. It is not nor was it ever intended to be used as an arithmetic formula. Your taking this title literally implies either that hyperbole is unknown in the British Isles, which is unlikely, or that your own irony antennae could stand a tune-up. Well, if you add "(Serious Question)" to something which otherwise just might pass for irony, it sends the signal that it was meant to be serious and not ironic. If you then reinforce the "half price" quantification in the text itself, what else is one to think than that you meant it literally? I refer you to your original posting from April in which you wrote: 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. See what I mean? "... cutting my paint cost by half.". That didn't look ironic, it looked serious. And when you subsequently flatly denied having made any quantification at all, I just couldn't let you get away with it. :-) While this has been a pleasant if somewhat overdone discourse, I am not sure that either of us would consider the meandering nature of this part of the thread as particularly useful or enlightening. Well, I'm glad you found it pleasant even though I may have been overly pedantic, and I apologise if that irritated you. That aside, enjoy your sailing, old sport. Thanks, I intend to. As I am not hauling out this year, I hope to get some winter sailing in. I just hope my bottom paint lasts the full 18 months! :-) A full 18 mos? I guess that's normal, but I've gotten close to three years on mine. I used Micron 99. I'm hoping to see about that long a time on the new coat. It wasn't super cheap, but it seems pretty cost-effective. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
IanM wrote:
SNIP 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! May I suggest plastic disposable gloves? Not merely are they handy for keeping odd paint off your hands (and that's stuff I would not want on mine) but a disintegrated roller can be squeezed out before binning. Not really my problem mind, I always roll my boat upside down and a roller always lasts a full coat. And it's sailed dry. If Uffa Fox is to be believed I'm only 12... Andy |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
|
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com