| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
I have been using Pettit Trinidad on my 28 foot sloop for many years (1981
boat purchased new). When we haul, the boat is pressure-washed, and then in the Spring the loose stuff is scraped off and the entire bottom wet-sanded with 80 wet-dry. I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. This routine has worked for many years, and even though the boat has never been taken down to bare glass, the buildup is not an apparent problem. In recent years the boat has been kept on the Jersey Shore in brackish water. This year I have decided to honor the titans of Wall Street and what remains of the financial system by "going cheap." 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. I suppose I will find out in the Fall if this plan is practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else does it this way or has similar experience. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
"Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... I have been using Pettit Trinidad on my 28 foot sloop for many years (1981 boat purchased new). When we haul, the boat is pressure-washed, and then in the Spring the loose stuff is scraped off and the entire bottom wet-sanded with 80 wet-dry. I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. This routine has worked for many years, and even though the boat has never been taken down to bare glass, the buildup is not an apparent problem. In recent years the boat has been kept on the Jersey Shore in brackish water. This year I have decided to honor the titans of Wall Street and what remains of the financial system by "going cheap." 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. I suppose I will find out in the Fall if this plan is practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else does it this way or has similar experience. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare Local marinas used to thin the heck out of it and offered a $160 bottom paint job (about 15 yrs ago). It was good for a year. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
... I have been using Pettit Trinidad on my 28 foot sloop for many years (1981 boat purchased new). When we haul, the boat is pressure-washed, and then in the Spring the loose stuff is scraped off and the entire bottom wet-sanded with 80 wet-dry. I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. This routine has worked for many years, and even though the boat has never been taken down to bare glass, the buildup is not an apparent problem. In recent years the boat has been kept on the Jersey Shore in brackish water. This year I have decided to honor the titans of Wall Street and what remains of the financial system by "going cheap." 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. I suppose I will find out in the Fall if this plan is practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else does it this way or has similar experience. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare Trinidad is excellent paint. But what you did is an illusion. You added volume by adding thinner. This will not harm the paint but it will reduce the thickness of each coat as the excess thinner will evaporated of sublimate resulting in a thinner coating than if the paint had not been thinned. What it amounts to is you fooled yourself into thinking you had more paint while all you really accomplished is making extra work for yourself in that you have to add at least one more coat to acquire the thickness you would have had with fewer coats using paint that was not thinned. It's like trying to make a bed sheet longer by cutting a foot off the bottom and sewing it on the top. Wilbur Hubbard |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
mmc wrote:
"Armond Perretta" wrote... 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 ... Local marinas used to thin the heck out of it and offered a $160 bottom paint job (about 15 yrs ago). It was good for a year. The old man who owned our yard did this exact same thing for many years and had few complaints. However he's been dead about 13 years now, and I never did know exactly how much he thinned the paint. I suspect I'm cutting it very close to the practical limit, but I have no way to predict the outcome. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... I took a new gallon of Trinidad, split it in half, ... added ... about one half quart of last year's paint, and then [brought] the volume to about three quarts in each ... can. This means the paint was thinned about 25 to 27 percent ... .... But what you did is an illusion. You added volume by adding thinner. This will not harm the paint but it will reduce the thickness of each coat as the excess thinner will evaporated of sublimate resulting in a thinner coating than if the paint had not been thinned. What it amounts to is you fooled yourself into thinking you had more paint while all you really accomplished is making extra work for yourself in that you have to add at least one more coat to acquire the thickness you would have had with fewer coats using paint that was not thinned ... I'm not sure "illusion" is a good description of my thinking. I am aware that I am covering the same surface area with less active material (in this case somewhere between 72 and 75% of the cuprous oxide active ingredient I have applied in the past). The question is: "Will this attempt to cut expenses result in satisfactory single season performance for my particular application, when compared with standard application methods?" Can you comment based on your own experience? -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
... Wilbur Hubbard wrote: "Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... I took a new gallon of Trinidad, split it in half, ... added ... about one half quart of last year's paint, and then [brought] the volume to about three quarts in each ... can. This means the paint was thinned about 25 to 27 percent ... .... But what you did is an illusion. You added volume by adding thinner. This will not harm the paint but it will reduce the thickness of each coat as the excess thinner will evaporated of sublimate resulting in a thinner coating than if the paint had not been thinned. What it amounts to is you fooled yourself into thinking you had more paint while all you really accomplished is making extra work for yourself in that you have to add at least one more coat to acquire the thickness you would have had with fewer coats using paint that was not thinned ... I'm not sure "illusion" is a good description of my thinking. I am aware that I am covering the same surface area with less active material (in this case somewhere between 72 and 75% of the cuprous oxide active ingredient I have applied in the past). The question is: "Will this attempt to cut expenses result in satisfactory single season performance for my particular application, when compared with standard application methods?" Can you comment based on your own experience? Like I said, it's not the thickness of a particular coat but the overall thickness of the combined coats that counts. When the extra solvent evaporates the thickness of each coat will be less but the concentrate of the biocide will not change. The total thickness will end up the same as if you'd not added the extra thinner. I used two gallons of Trinidad about five years ago when I last painted my 22-ft LWL vessel which has remained in the water since. I did not thin it but rolled on the first coats with a short nap roller. I brushed on the last two coats with a fore and aft stroke for a smoother surface. The two gallons resulted in eight coats from the boot stripe around the turn of the bilge and four coats everywhere else except on the rudder and leading edge of the bows which got about 10 coats each. I also added four small bottles of tributyl tin biocide to the paint - two to a gallon. Each small bottle is 2.5 ounces. Five years later the paint is still there except for a couple of small areas where it is wearing thin from scrubbing. But no corals and few barnacles are adhering to date - just a lot of slime and other plant material but it scrubs off easily enough and takes a month or two to grow back. Wilbur Hubbard |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:12:28 -0400, "Armond Perretta"
wrote: Wilbur Hubbard wrote: "Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... I took a new gallon of Trinidad, split it in half, ... added ... about one half quart of last year's paint, and then [brought] the volume to about three quarts in each ... can. This means the paint was thinned about 25 to 27 percent ... .... But what you did is an illusion. You added volume by adding thinner. This will not harm the paint but it will reduce the thickness of each coat as the excess thinner will evaporated of sublimate resulting in a thinner coating than if the paint had not been thinned. What it amounts to is you fooled yourself into thinking you had more paint while all you really accomplished is making extra work for yourself in that you have to add at least one more coat to acquire the thickness you would have had with fewer coats using paint that was not thinned ... I'm not sure "illusion" is a good description of my thinking. I am aware that I am covering the same surface area with less active material (in this case somewhere between 72 and 75% of the cuprous oxide active ingredient I have applied in the past). The question is: "Will this attempt to cut expenses result in satisfactory single season performance for my particular application, when compared with standard application methods?" Can you comment based on your own experience? I would not expect it to perform as well. Ablative paints depend on adhesion to the hull, AND adhesion to itself. Without that much thinner, the paint is not going to be as strong. My guess is that it is not only a thinner layer, but it will ablate much faster. What did you save with this foolishness? $25? Bottom paint is not there for looks. Maybe you could save money by straining your old oil through a tee shirt and putting it back in the engine. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
wrote in message
... On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:12:28 -0400, "Armond Perretta" wrote: Wilbur Hubbard wrote: "Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... I took a new gallon of Trinidad, split it in half, ... added ... about one half quart of last year's paint, and then [brought] the volume to about three quarts in each ... can. This means the paint was thinned about 25 to 27 percent ... .... But what you did is an illusion. You added volume by adding thinner. This will not harm the paint but it will reduce the thickness of each coat as the excess thinner will evaporated of sublimate resulting in a thinner coating than if the paint had not been thinned. What it amounts to is you fooled yourself into thinking you had more paint while all you really accomplished is making extra work for yourself in that you have to add at least one more coat to acquire the thickness you would have had with fewer coats using paint that was not thinned ... I'm not sure "illusion" is a good description of my thinking. I am aware that I am covering the same surface area with less active material (in this case somewhere between 72 and 75% of the cuprous oxide active ingredient I have applied in the past). The question is: "Will this attempt to cut expenses result in satisfactory single season performance for my particular application, when compared with standard application methods?" Can you comment based on your own experience? I would not expect it to perform as well. Ablative paints depend on adhesion to the hull, AND adhesion to itself. Without that much thinner, the paint is not going to be as strong. My guess is that it is not only a thinner layer, but it will ablate much faster. Duh. Trinidad is not ablative paint! Trinidad is a hard, scrubbable epoxy based paint. Wilbur Hubbard |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:33:16 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:12:28 -0400, "Armond Perretta" wrote: Wilbur Hubbard wrote: "Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... I took a new gallon of Trinidad, split it in half, ... added ... about one half quart of last year's paint, and then [brought] the volume to about three quarts in each ... can. This means the paint was thinned about 25 to 27 percent ... .... But what you did is an illusion. You added volume by adding thinner. This will not harm the paint but it will reduce the thickness of each coat as the excess thinner will evaporated of sublimate resulting in a thinner coating than if the paint had not been thinned. What it amounts to is you fooled yourself into thinking you had more paint while all you really accomplished is making extra work for yourself in that you have to add at least one more coat to acquire the thickness you would have had with fewer coats using paint that was not thinned ... I'm not sure "illusion" is a good description of my thinking. I am aware that I am covering the same surface area with less active material (in this case somewhere between 72 and 75% of the cuprous oxide active ingredient I have applied in the past). The question is: "Will this attempt to cut expenses result in satisfactory single season performance for my particular application, when compared with standard application methods?" Can you comment based on your own experience? I would not expect it to perform as well. Ablative paints depend on adhesion to the hull, AND adhesion to itself. Without that much thinner, the paint is not going to be as strong. My guess is that it is not only a thinner layer, but it will ablate much faster. Duh. Trinidad is not ablative paint! Trinidad is a hard, scrubbable epoxy based paint. Wilbur Hubbard In that case, he really screwed up, as the structure of the cured paint will be wrong and the copper will be unable to leach out properly. He may as well forget bottom paint and just dive on the boat weekly. That will really save some money, and give him some excercise. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
|
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
|
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question)
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:59:44 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:24:05 -0400, wrote: Bottom paint is not there for looks. Maybe you could save money by straining your old oil through a tee shirt and putting it back in the engine. A tee shirt won't get it, but there was one fleet operator who changed the oil daily. The oil was washed with water, centrifuged, then filtered, and then reused. Mostly removed the sulfuric acid. Casady Yeah, That's what I meant to say. Thanks. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
Armond Perretta wrote (on 25 April 2009):
I have been using Pettit Trinidad on my 28 foot sloop for many years (1981 boat purchased new). When we haul, the boat is pressure-washed, and then in the Spring the loose stuff is scraped off and the entire bottom wet-sanded with 80 wet-dry. I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. This routine has worked for many years, and even though the boat has never been taken down to bare glass, the buildup is not an apparent problem. In recent years the boat has been kept on the Jersey Shore in brackish water. This year I have decided to honor the titans of Wall Street and what remains of the financial system by "going cheap." 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. I suppose I will find out in the Fall if this plan is practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else does it this way or has similar experience. Last April I posted the above looking for comments and similar experiences. We hauled the boat yesterday and were able to determine how the highly thinned bottom paint performed. The short answer is: "Very well." This past summer we did an "average" amount of sailing based from New Jersey. We spent 3 weeks in southern New England and otherwise sailed approximately 2 to 3 times a week daysailing in and around Barnegat Bay. The boat is usually moored on the Toms River in what I would call brackish conditions, although we do have ocean access through several inlets quite nearby. I did not dive on or clean the hull during the season. When we pulled the boat we had a bit of slime but not much and certainly not more than on previous occasions using the same paint straight from the can. We had no barnacles on the paint, but they are out there as I had a few on the prop (which has pretty much always been the case since I don't make any effort to treat the prop). I would have to say that this thinning method works for me, as I am now going to get 2 paint jobs from one gallon on this 28 foot full keel sailboat. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
"Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... Armond Perretta wrote (on 25 April 2009): I have been using Pettit Trinidad on my 28 foot sloop for many years (1981 boat purchased new). When we haul, the boat is pressure-washed, and then in the Spring the loose stuff is scraped off and the entire bottom wet-sanded with 80 wet-dry. I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. This routine has worked for many years, and even though the boat has never been taken down to bare glass, the buildup is not an apparent problem. In recent years the boat has been kept on the Jersey Shore in brackish water. This year I have decided to honor the titans of Wall Street and what remains of the financial system by "going cheap." 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. I suppose I will find out in the Fall if this plan is practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else does it this way or has similar experience. Last April I posted the above looking for comments and similar experiences. We hauled the boat yesterday and were able to determine how the highly thinned bottom paint performed. The short answer is: "Very well." This past summer we did an "average" amount of sailing based from New Jersey. We spent 3 weeks in southern New England and otherwise sailed approximately 2 to 3 times a week daysailing in and around Barnegat Bay. The boat is usually moored on the Toms River in what I would call brackish conditions, although we do have ocean access through several inlets quite nearby. I did not dive on or clean the hull during the season. When we pulled the boat we had a bit of slime but not much and certainly not more than on previous occasions using the same paint straight from the can. We had no barnacles on the paint, but they are out there as I had a few on the prop (which has pretty much always been the case since I don't make any effort to treat the prop). I would have to say that this thinning method works for me, as I am now going to get 2 paint jobs from one gallon on this 28 foot full keel sailboat. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare Good to hear it worked out Armond. thanks for the info. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
... Armond Perretta wrote (on 25 April 2009): I have been using Pettit Trinidad on my 28 foot sloop for many years (1981 boat purchased new). When we haul, the boat is pressure-washed, and then in the Spring the loose stuff is scraped off and the entire bottom wet-sanded with 80 wet-dry. I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. This routine has worked for many years, and even though the boat has never been taken down to bare glass, the buildup is not an apparent problem. In recent years the boat has been kept on the Jersey Shore in brackish water. This year I have decided to honor the titans of Wall Street and what remains of the financial system by "going cheap." 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. I suppose I will find out in the Fall if this plan is practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else does it this way or has similar experience. Last April I posted the above looking for comments and similar experiences. We hauled the boat yesterday and were able to determine how the highly thinned bottom paint performed. The short answer is: "Very well." This past summer we did an "average" amount of sailing based from New Jersey. We spent 3 weeks in southern New England and otherwise sailed approximately 2 to 3 times a week daysailing in and around Barnegat Bay. The boat is usually moored on the Toms River in what I would call brackish conditions, although we do have ocean access through several inlets quite nearby. I did not dive on or clean the hull during the season. When we pulled the boat we had a bit of slime but not much and certainly not more than on previous occasions using the same paint straight from the can. We had no barnacles on the paint, but they are out there as I had a few on the prop (which has pretty much always been the case since I don't make any effort to treat the prop). I would have to say that this thinning method works for me, as I am now going to get 2 paint jobs from one gallon on this 28 foot full keel sailboat. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare Stupid, stupid, stupid! What you are doing is spending more on haul outs than you save on paint. Your system requires an annual haul out and we all know those aren't cheap. They call this being penny wise and pound foolish across the other side of the Pond. If you would wake up and lay on two full gallons of bottom paint instead of being a cheapskate your bottom job would last five or more years. This assumes a hard, scrubable surfaces such as Petit Trinidad SR which is epoxy-based. This assumes the majority of coats placed on the high wear areas. Two gallons can give you 8-10 coats at the high wear areas along the boot stripe and down a couple feet, the entire rudder and extra on the leading trailing edges if it's a spade rudder. The bow shearwater area also needs 8-10 coats. The rest of the boat four or five coats will do. Why because you will have to clean the bottom after the first couple years with a scrub brush every four months or so to get rid of slime, algae and other soft growth. Also every year you can hit it with wet-dry fine sandpaper and burnish it underwater while snorkeling. This removes spent layers of biocide and renews the potency. I bet the boat yards love your advice but, really, it's quite shortsighted from an boat owner's standpoint. Wilbur Hubbard |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... Armond Perretta wrote (on 25 April 2009): I have been using Pettit Trinidad on my 28 foot sloop for many years (1981 boat purchased new). When we haul, the boat is pressure-washed, and then in the Spring the loose stuff is scraped off and the entire bottom wet-sanded with 80 wet-dry. I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. ... This year I have decided to honor the titans of Wall Street and what remains of the financial system by "going cheap." 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. I suppose I will find out in the Fall if this plan is practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else does it this way or has similar experience. Last April I posted the above looking for comments and similar experiences. We hauled the boat yesterday and were able to determine how the highly thinned bottom paint performed. The short answer is: "Very well." I would have to say that this thinning method works for me, as I am now going to get 2 paint jobs from one gallon on this 28 foot full keel sailboat. Stupid, stupid, stupid! A bit harsh, though I must say his numbers don't quite seem to add up or, as you would say on your side of the Pond, his "math" is suspect. He needs 3 quarts per coat, and his old system therefore used 12 quarts (3 gallons) of full strength goop every 4 years. His new system still involves using 3 quarts per coat, but of goop thinned to 75% strength. In other words he will now need 2.25 quarts of full strength goop per coat, which isn't quite down to the 2 coats per gallon (which would be 2.00 quarts per coat) he claims, unless he's going to dilute it down to 67% strength (which he may well get away with, but I guess that's next year's experiment). 3 gallons used to give him 4 years, and if he dilutes to 67%, then 2 gallons will give him 4 years. That's not "Half Price", it's 1/3 off. And then only if the thinner costs nothing. What you are doing is spending more on haul outs than you save on paint. Your system requires an annual haul out and we all know those aren't cheap. They call this being penny wise and pound foolish across the other side of the Pond. But he may well be hauling out annually anyway, for other reasons, even in those years when no painting would be needed. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
Ronald Raygun wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote: "Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... Armond Perretta wrote (on 25 April 2009): I have been using Pettit Trinidad on my 28 foot sloop for many years (1981 boat purchased new). When we haul, the boat is pressure-washed, and then in the Spring the loose stuff is scraped off and the entire bottom wet-sanded with 80 wet-dry. I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. ... This year I have decided to honor the titans of Wall Street and what remains of the financial system by "going cheap." 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. I suppose I will find out in the Fall if this plan is practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else does it this way or has similar experience. Last April I posted the above looking for comments and similar experiences. We hauled the boat yesterday and were able to determine how the highly thinned bottom paint performed. The short answer is: "Very well." I would have to say that this thinning method works for me, as I am now going to get 2 paint jobs from one gallon on this 28 foot full keel sailboat. Stupid, stupid, stupid! A bit harsh, though I must say his numbers don't quite seem to add up or, as you would say on your side of the Pond, his "math" is suspect. He needs 3 quarts per coat, and his old system therefore used 12 quarts (3 gallons) of full strength goop every 4 years. His new system still involves using 3 quarts per coat, but of goop thinned to 75% strength. In other words he will now need 2.25 quarts of full strength goop per coat, which isn't quite down to the 2 coats per gallon (which would be 2.00 quarts per coat) he claims, unless he's going to dilute it down to 67% strength (which he may well get away with, but I guess that's next year's experiment). 3 gallons used to give him 4 years, and if he dilutes to 67%, then 2 gallons will give him 4 years. That's not "Half Price", it's 1/3 off. And then only if the thinner costs nothing. What you are doing is spending more on haul outs than you save on paint. Your system requires an annual haul out and we all know those aren't cheap. They call this being penny wise and pound foolish across the other side of the Pond. But he may well be hauling out annually anyway, for other reasons, even in those years when no painting would be needed. Well for what its worth, 5 litres of Jotun Seaguardian will do over 4 coats on a full keel 26 footer. That's two coats per year rolled on, + extra coats near the waterline and on the rudder. Seaguardian is supposed to be good for 30 months, but we haul annually anyway and might as well freshen up the antifouling while we are out. The part tin will keep a year if properly resealed with some butane gas in there to displace the air and prevent it oxidizing. There is some thinners to add to the bill but that's used at well under the 10% max ratio recommended. Works pretty good as well, with no weed or barnacles unless it's got rubbed off somewhere. Any spot that has got rubbed or has to be taken back to the gelcoat for any reason gets underwater primer followed by black hard scrubbable 'waterline' antifouling as a 'witness' coat and to prevent serious fouling if it happens again. The same tiny can of scrubbable has been on the go for the last two years and there is plenty left. For all you mathematically challenged Leftpondians 1 litre is just under a US quart. This year I set aside half the big can as soon as I opened it as I had a clean 2.5 litre tin handy. If you are keeping it, you want it well mixed, as fresh as possible and to set it aside *before* mixing in old paint. I read it as every third year he avoided buying a new can so that's 2 US gallons for 3 years and he's reduced to 1 for 2 years by diluting it. How he got 3 quarts left after two years and reckons to save half by thinning, I do not know, but unless he's measured what's left in the can accurately I wouldn't believe his 3 quarts per coat. 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. I reckon I'd have had plenty from my half can to do a 28 footer at an even two coats all over with a bit spare for the waterline and where the prop wash hits the rudder. 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. -- 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
"IanM" wrote in message ... Well for what its worth, 5 litres of Jotun Seaguardian will do over 4 coats on a full keel 26 footer. That's two coats per year rolled on, + extra coats near the waterline and on the rudder. Seaguardian is supposed to be good for 30 months, but we haul annually anyway and might as well freshen up the antifouling while we are out. The part tin will keep a year if properly resealed with some butane gas in there to displace the air and prevent it oxidizing. There is some thinners to add to the bill but that's used at well under the 10% max ratio recommended. Works pretty good as well, with no weed or barnacles unless it's got rubbed off somewhere. Any spot that has got rubbed or has to be taken back to the gelcoat for any reason gets underwater primer followed by black hard scrubbable 'waterline' antifouling as a 'witness' coat and to prevent serious fouling if it happens again. The same tiny can of scrubbable has been on the go for the last two years and there is plenty left. For all you mathematically challenged Leftpondians 1 litre is just under a US quart. This year I set aside half the big can as soon as I opened it as I had a clean 2.5 litre tin handy. If you are keeping it, you want it well mixed, as fresh as possible and to set it aside *before* mixing in old paint. I read it as every third year he avoided buying a new can so that's 2 US gallons for 3 years and he's reduced to 1 for 2 years by diluting it. How he got 3 quarts left after two years and reckons to save half by thinning, I do not know, but unless he's measured what's left in the can accurately I wouldn't believe his 3 quarts per coat. 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. I reckon I'd have had plenty from my half can to do a 28 footer at an even two coats all over with a bit spare for the waterline and where the prop wash hits the rudder. 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. This makes more sense to me than those post who talk in terms of years without haulout and paint so they put the stuff on much thicker. Here in Norway I have to haul out every year because although Oslo fjord has never frozen right over-at least since I have lived here-the channels between the inner islands do freeze in a bad winter and the small creeks where my marina is freeze every year and I do not want to see my boat iced in with a couple of feet or more snow along the pontoons and no electricity or water available at the berths. So I haul every year and give my boat one coat of Hempel antifouling which I apply with a brush and she always comes out clean except for the propeller and shaft. I have not found a rally good solution for these last because the speed of rotation soon takes off the ablative coating of a standard antifouling. However, I have found some antifouling Volvo sell (very expensive) in a spray can for their outdrives which works pretty well because (I think) the fouling cannot adhere to it and as soon as you run the motor it mostly shears off. I always use a brush. I do not go with rollers because they may be OK for the wide open spaces but you will have to use a brush at some point for the awkward corners. I never clean my brushes. Just squeeze off the surplus and leave the bristles nice and straight and let them harden like that . Next year soak them in gasoline overnight and they come soft again as antifouling just washes off in gasoline. I have a 38' fin keel boat with a spade rudder and the whole job takes just four 750ml tins each year. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
Edgar wrote:
This makes more sense to me than those post who talk in terms of years without haulout and paint so they put the stuff on much thicker. Here in Norway I have to haul out every year because although Oslo fjord has never frozen right over-at least since I have lived here-the channels between the inner islands do freeze in a bad winter and the small creeks where my marina is freeze every year and I do not want to see my boat iced in with a couple of feet or more snow along the pontoons and no electricity or water available at the berths. So I haul every year and give my boat one coat of Hempel antifouling which I apply with a brush and she always comes out clean except for the propeller and shaft. I have not found a rally good solution for these last because the speed of rotation soon takes off the ablative coating of a standard antifouling. However, I have found some antifouling Volvo sell (very expensive) in a spray can for their outdrives which works pretty well because (I think) the fouling cannot adhere to it and as soon as you run the motor it mostly shears off. I always use a brush. I do not go with rollers because they may be OK for the wide open spaces but you will have to use a brush at some point for the awkward corners. I never clean my brushes. Just squeeze off the surplus and leave the bristles nice and straight and let them harden like that . Next year soak them in gasoline overnight and they come soft again as antifouling just washes off in gasoline. I have a 38' fin keel boat with a spade rudder and the whole job takes just four 750ml tins each year. Good point about the gasoline/petrol. Its a lot cheaper than thinners for equipment cleanup - even at UK rates of duty on road fuel - and does a good job on roller handles and brushes. I usually do the cleanup in the old roller tray and that gets clean enough to re-use as well. You would be surprised how much of an average hull you can sensibly do with a roller, and cutting in round skin fittings, anodes etc. is easier with a 1" brush than a big one. Why not wash out your brushes BEFORE they set rock solid though? I've been using a red lanolin based grease called 'Propshield' on the propeller and it's better than nothing as it keeps the fouling from sticking hard so it comes off with a pan scourer. The propeller manufacturer recommended NOT to use paint as they reckoned it increased the risk of electrolytic pitting. -- 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 Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:33:01 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote: Wilbur Hubbard wrote: "Armond Perretta" wrote in message ... Armond Perretta wrote (on 25 April 2009): I have been using Pettit Trinidad on my 28 foot sloop for many years (1981 boat purchased new). When we haul, the boat is pressure-washed, and then in the Spring the loose stuff is scraped off and the entire bottom wet-sanded with 80 wet-dry. I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. ... This year I have decided to honor the titans of Wall Street and what remains of the financial system by "going cheap." 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. I suppose I will find out in the Fall if this plan is practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else does it this way or has similar experience. Last April I posted the above looking for comments and similar experiences. We hauled the boat yesterday and were able to determine how the highly thinned bottom paint performed. The short answer is: "Very well." I would have to say that this thinning method works for me, as I am now going to get 2 paint jobs from one gallon on this 28 foot full keel sailboat. Stupid, stupid, stupid! A bit harsh, though I must say his numbers don't quite seem to add up or, as you would say on your side of the Pond, his "math" is suspect. He needs 3 quarts per coat, and his old system therefore used 12 quarts (3 gallons) of full strength goop every 4 years. His new system still involves using 3 quarts per coat, but of goop thinned to 75% strength. In other words he will now need 2.25 quarts of full strength goop per coat, which isn't quite down to the 2 coats per gallon (which would be 2.00 quarts per coat) he claims, unless he's going to dilute it down to 67% strength (which he may well get away with, but I guess that's next year's experiment). 3 gallons used to give him 4 years, and if he dilutes to 67%, then 2 gallons will give him 4 years. That's not "Half Price", it's 1/3 off. And then only if the thinner costs nothing. What you are doing is spending more on haul outs than you save on paint. Your system requires an annual haul out and we all know those aren't cheap. They call this being penny wise and pound foolish across the other side of the Pond. But he may well be hauling out annually anyway, for other reasons, even in those years when no painting would be needed. I think that youse guys are confusing quantities of liquid with what actually provides the anti fouling function - the solids. 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. Since all anti fouling either ablate or expend their anti fouling chemicals over time logically one applies just enough of the expensive stuff to last - depending on your use of the vessel. An ablative paint for example, seems to work best if you go sailing regularly. In essence probably most people apply more anti fouling then they require and then complement themselves when they haul annually and find no growth :-) By the way, Practical Boatowner, a British magazine, conducted a rather extensive test of anti fouling paints a few years ago (Post TBT) and found that a paint that worked perfectly in one local didn't do worth a damn in another so the fact that a bloke gets startling results with XYZ paint in one section of the country doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best paint for another. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:06:04 +0100, IanM
wrote: For all you mathematically challenged Leftpondians 1 litre is just under a US quart. Bull****. According to the CalculatorThatTakesNoPrisoners[HP48], [which converts 19 volumn units], one litre equals 1.05668820943 US quart. About 946 ml to a quart. If you say a litre is about a quart you aren't far off. Casady |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
"IanM" wrote in message ... Good point about the gasoline/petrol. Its a lot cheaper than thinners for equipment cleanup - even at UK rates of duty on road fuel - and does a good job on roller handles and brushes. I usually do the cleanup in the old roller tray and that gets clean enough to re-use as well. You would be surprised how much of an average hull you can sensibly do with a roller, and cutting in round skin fittings, anodes etc. is easier with a 1" brush than a big one. Why not wash out your brushes BEFORE they set rock solid though? Washing them clean seems like a waste of time and gasoline/petrol seeing that I keep those brushes just for that one job and I am going to use the same paint on them next season I've been using a red lanolin based grease called 'Propshield' on the propeller and it's better than nothing as it keeps the fouling from sticking hard so it comes off with a pan scourer. The propeller manufacturer recommended NOT to use paint as they reckoned it increased the risk of electrolytic pitting. I have about 3' of exposed stainless steel shaft with an outer cutlass bearing carried in a skeg just before the bronze Maxprop propeller. I renew the anode on the shaft annually as it ends up pretty pitted although there is still a lot of zinc left after one season. Never a trace of pitting on the propeller, though. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
IanM wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote (on 25 April 2009): I use a foam roller and about 3 quarts per coat on this full keel boat with a 22 foot waterline. At this rate every 3 years I've had enough paint on hand to avoid buying a new gallon. Well for what its worth, 5 litres of Jotun Seaguardian will do over 4 coats on a full keel 26 footer. That's two coats per year rolled on, I read it as every third year he avoided buying a new can so that's 2 US gallons for 3 years and he's reduced to 1 for 2 years by diluting it. His narrative makes clear that he didn't actually write what he must have meant: He did write "every 3 years", but obviously meant that after the 3rd year he had enough left not to need to buy more for the 4th year. Year 1: He buys a gallon and uses 3/4 of it. Year 2: He uses the rest, buys a 2nd gallon and uses 1/2 of that. Year 3: He uses the rest, buys a 3rd gallon and uses 1/4 of it. Year 4: He uses the 3/4 gallon left. How he got 3 quarts left after two years and reckons to save half by thinning, I do not know, He has 3 quarts left after *three* years. But it's obvious that if he uses the same volume of diluted paint per year as he previously used of undiluted paint, then if he thins to 75% he can only save a quarter, not half, and if he thins to 67% he would save a third, not half. Dare he thin to 50%? It'll be so runny then that it will probably need to be applied in several coats. but unless he's measured what's left in the can accurately I wouldn't believe his 3 quarts per coat. I don't see why not. Since a quart is about a litre, as you say, his 3 quarts per year is in the same ballpark as your 2.5 litres per year. 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. 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. 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. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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. In case the point was not adequately explained (or more likely not adequately understood by some) in earlier posts, let me restate the point he the idea is to save money. Could that point have possibly been overlooked? BTW it is a sad comment on the state of Usenet (and this group in particular) that an effort to provide helpful information results in some (but not all) of the responses to this thread. I am not one to give up on this group, but is this really the best we can do? -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare |
Zincs and props (was) Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
"Edgar" wrote in message
... I've been using a red lanolin based grease called 'Propshield' on the propeller and it's better than nothing as it keeps the fouling from sticking hard so it comes off with a pan scourer. The propeller manufacturer recommended NOT to use paint as they reckoned it increased the risk of electrolytic pitting. I have about 3' of exposed stainless steel shaft with an outer cutlass bearing carried in a skeg just before the bronze Maxprop propeller. I renew the anode on the shaft annually as it ends up pretty pitted although there is still a lot of zinc left after one season. Never a trace of pitting on the propeller, though. We used PropSpeed, very carefully applied, very successfully. Took nearly 2 years to wear off, and before then, any critters slid right off under power, or were easily dislodged with a bump from a plastic brush handle... 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...) L8R Skip and crew, near Tilloo Pond with voice-grade WiFi -- Morgan 461 #2 SV Flying Pig KI4MPC See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery ! Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog "You are never given a wish without also being given the power to make it come true. You may have to work for it however." (and) "There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its hand (Richard Bach) |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
Armond Perretta wrote:
In case the point was not adequately explained (or more likely not adequately understood by some) in earlier posts, let me restate the point he the idea is to save money. Could that point have possibly been overlooked? 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. 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 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. 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. Wilbur's suggestion that by applying 2 gallons instead of 3 quarts (or even just 2 or 1.5 quarts) this will last 4-5 years is absurd. |
Zincs and props (was) Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
"Flying Pig" wrote:
"Edgar" wrote in message ... I've been using a red lanolin based grease called 'Propshield' on the propeller and it's better than nothing as it keeps the fouling from sticking hard so it comes off with a pan scourer. The propeller manufacturer recommended NOT to use paint as they reckoned it increased the risk of electrolytic pitting. We used PropSpeed, very carefully applied, very successfully. Took nearly 2 years to wear off, and before then, any critters slid right off under power, or were easily dislodged with a bump from a plastic brush handle... Which is it - PropSpeed or Prop Shield 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. Paint the zinc where the mounting holes are so it doesn't eat away there. 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...) L8R Skip and crew, near Tilloo Pond with voice-grade WiFi |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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. 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. I find that of interest. 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. 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. Wilbur's suggestion ... is absurd. Not having seen this post, I am unable to judge. Regards. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare |
Zincs and props (was) Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
"Rosalie B." wrote in message
... Which is it - PropSpeed or Prop Shield Speed.... Two part application after 80-grit roughing. First is an etcher to provide the base, the top being the slippery stuff. Basically yellow in appearance... L8R Skip and crew -- Morgan 461 #2 SV Flying Pig KI4MPC See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery ! Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog "You are never given a wish without also being given the power to make it come true. You may have to work for it however." (and) "There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its hand (Richard Bach) |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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 |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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 |
Zincs and props (was) Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
"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. |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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? |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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) |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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: |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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 |
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? 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. :-) |
Bottom Paint Half Price (Serious Question) RESULTS
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com