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.