Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bottom Paint question | Cruising | |||
Bottom Paint Question ,, on prep, type, application | Cruising | |||
Bottom Paint ,,, 20 layers of Bottom Paint ,,, how to remove it. | Cruising | |||
Bottom Paint Question | General | |||
Interlux Bottom Paint Question | Cruising |