Coppercoat

[SV THIRD DAY]

If frogs has wings, would they still bump their butt when they jumped?

oh...wait...what were we talking about...I kinda lot it in all the ego and chest beating.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

The boat has been in your stomping grounds of sf bay for several lengthy stays of a couple months each and once for a little over a year and we have not found fouling to be a problem. Is that where you think there is a problem?

Yes. I earn my living cleaning boat bottoms in the Bay Area and have done for over two decades. I have the opportunity to compare anti fouling coatings of all types side-by-side every day and I know a poor-performer when I come across one. It's clear that there are people who feel that Coppercoat provides good anti fouling performance. I am not one of them however.

[Iredsell]

So could you please give me your recommendations for antifouling and your view on life before over painting. What would you put on a liveaboard that maxed out at 6 knots?

Would it vary by water temp?

Thanks
Ian

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Iredsell

So could you please give me your recommendations for antifouling and your view on life before over painting. What would you put on a liveaboard that maxed out at 6 knots?

Would it vary by water temp?

Well, it looks like you are in the U.K. and I have no experience with the fouling conditions there. But in California, I find Pettit Trinidad to to be the best performing, longest lasting hard anti fouling paint you can buy and what I would typically recommend for a liveaboard. With proper application (2 coats everywhere, 3 at the waterline and leading/trailing edges of the appendages) and maintenance, 3+ years of good service is normal.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Yes. I earn my living cleaning boat bottoms in the Bay Area and have done for over two decades. I have the opportunity to compare anti fouling coatings of all types side-by-side every day and I know a poor-performer when I come across one. It's clear that there are people who feel that Coppercoat provides good anti fouling performance. I am not one of them however.

I wonder if that's because of all the silt/dirt in the water in many parts of the Bay. I've written about this before on CF but don't know quite where the posts are. We believe that this bottom paint works well in waters that don't have high iron content. Many silty/dirty waters do have high iron content. The particulars are that the copper must be able to oxidize and produce the antifouling cuprous oxide that is so effective. When there is a lot of iron present, a different oxide (that is inert) is created and doesn't provide the same kind of antifouling. In our case, we generally clean the bottom enough even in high-iron content waters to probably keep the surface clean enough to allow an effective cuprous oxide oxidation as well as the other. If the boat just sits with no cleaning in a high iron environment, in theory, the oxides formed would be very inert. That may be what you are seeing.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

I wonder if that's because of all the silt/dirt in the water in many parts of the Bay. If the boat just sits with no cleaning in a high iron environment, in theory, the oxides formed would be very inert. That may be what you are seeing.

Perhaps. But that doesn't explain the poor performance in SoCal described by others on this forum.

My personal opinion is that Coppercoat releases so little biocide that it cannot effectively retard fouling growth here.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Perhaps. But that doesn't explain the poor performance in SoCal described by others on this forum.

My personal opinion is that Coppercoat releases so little biocide that it cannot effectively retard fouling growth here.

From what I've seen (btw, we were in San Diego the first year of use of this stuff and we've been back there off and on since then as well as to Newport Beach harbor -- also a silty place), it is really and truly very sensitive to the installer. We had no real problems with it in So Cal. The reason I say it's sensitive to the installer is because I'm the person who did ours pre-launch 2009, touch up when we raised the waterline 6/2010, and when we re-did our bootstripe and touched up the keel 10/2013. I applied it with a roller and especially on the keel touch up and the work on the bronze, I know the little things I did differently and how it impacted the Coppercoat.

For example, I used a brush (not roller) without taping off the edges to touch up a couple feet of planking seams where the seam compound had "pooched" out and put little cracks in the bottom paint. (aside, our boat was newly planked and expected to have a lot of these pooching seams within a few months of launch which is why we hauled out only 1 year after launch to simply fare the hull and deal with all the pooches here and there) I scraped off the pooch and brushed over it (in 2010) and those lines were areas that always, always got little bits of growth on them while the rest of the hull didn't. Same for a couple other spots on the keel touch-up that were done differently in 2010 than the rest of the hull. So, in 2013, I went back to those areas, sanded and taped them off and used a roller to do them properly. I can only surmise from what I know of how I did the painting that the too-thickly applied coppercoat allowed the copper to not be near the surface of the carrier material in those spots. And--it was a problem only where I KNOW I applied using a brush or the layer I put on was thicker than usual.

For me, knowing how I painted the bottom and how it is working let me know that it is sensitive to application. I'm very detail oriented--even if not consistent! in how I do things Many people won't admit that they've done something that could impact the performance of a product. And there are others who aren't so detail oriented and may not even that they've applied something not to spec.

So I was new at applying coppercoat in 2009. I now have 3 experiences of applying the material and seeing (while diving/cleaning the boat) what the impact of how I apply the stuff is on my boat. I'm not really sure how a boatyard employee--even a good one--assesses the effectiveness of their own paint job. I mean, they're not the ones diving on the boat to see what difference their technique made. Sure, over time, they're going to figure it out and do great jobs of applying it--but how often does the same boatyard employee get to apply the material and get feedback? In the meanwhile, the customers may be very unhappy with the product though.

[Iredsell]

Schooner

Your point is well made and seems to tie in with my observations that the hull pad areas which were painted last are the most effective in shedding weed. Your explanation on consistency and copper distribution are key. The applicators though are clearly unable to recreate consistently good results despite their experience.

There needs to be more closed loop feedback exactly as you have described to improve the consistency and then we would know what good is and if it is enough compared to the alternatives.

[quandary]

This feedback is very frustrating and I wish it was possible to get some real objective info. Perhaps a few cruisers could just paint their rudders with coppercoat and something else on the rest to get some valid comparisons?
The Ultrasonic antifouling is also frustrating because the only info the suppliers have is anecdotal with no real evidence of efficacy. One would think that by now some university or credible institution would have done some proper research...even if it is regional.?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by quandary

This feedback is very frustrating.....
One would think that by now some university or credible institution would have done some proper research...even if it is regional.?

And the industry likes it that way because then reality is whatever they are able to convince you through marketing it is! Anecdotal evidence is a marketing dream because it is generally worthless.

Practical Sailor does independent bottom paint testing...other than that... It is a dock rumor, telephone game.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Quandary: people are naturally biased by their condition. Professionally and personally I have had many people commend me upon my objectivity. I just provided you with intricately detailed and objective info to be helpful. I suggest you read it and refrain from condemning it out of hand.

I am a mechanical engineer and part of my training and real professional experience is in conducting experiments to ascertain quality and performance, and on how to qualify results and report objectively.

Practical Sailor has an editor or staff writer who's had this product on their hull for more than 15 yrs and written about it for years. Go look it up.

There is often no "one size fits all" answer and this is one of those cases. When you get your boat put some bottom paint on it and see what you think.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

And the industry likes it that way because then reality is whatever they are able to convince you through marketing it is! Anecdotal evidence is a marketing dream because it is generally worthless.

Practical Sailor does independent bottom paint testing...other than that... It is a dock rumor, telephone game.

I would not agree that 'anecdotal' evidence is worthless, at least not when we are discussing 'boat' stuff and what's useful antifowl. I would agree with you when discussing what works in medical/medicine, but when it comes to marine matters, it's first hand anecdotal evidence I want to hear about. I want to hear what others have found works and doesn't work.

And so far, when it comes to a product like coppercoat, the anecdotal evidence is very favourable with hardly any 'first hand' experiences that are negative.

[nigel1]

A few pictures taken today.
Boat was Coppercoated back in May 2014,and has been in the water since then, no hull scrubs in the interim either
Cruising area is NW Europe
Three barnacles found on hull, two on the edge of the depth sounder transducer, and one of the edge of the speed log impeller housing.
There was a very thin covering of a green slime which could be wiped off by hand.
Altogether, I'm more than pleased with the result