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: