Why use bottom paint when you can scrape?

[LakeSuperior]

Your proposal might work in the Great Lakes...since you will be lifting out in the spring and fall.

[Josephcrawl]

Thank you to those who replied with useful information both for and against.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Your proposal might work in the Great Lakes...since you will be lifting out in the spring and fall.

Remember that the growth rate in freshwater is orders of magnitude less. You know this.


In the OPs area of the Chesapeake Bay, surfaces that are not anti-fouled, such as outboard props and rudders that are lifted, are fouled to the point where cleaning is needed in less than a week in peak season. The outboard will shake. This time of years , with cold water, there is practically no fouling. But it will start when the water goes above about 55F.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Josephcrawl

We use our boat 2 months out of the year the rest of the time it lives at a mooring. Rather than spending the time and money on bottom paint we are thinking of just scraping the hull when we go to use it. Plus there's the guilt of all that nasty copper going into the water. It's in the Chesapeake.

What could go wrong?

I am sure lots of posts already say this, but:

I have been in lots of places where after a stationary month on a mooring ball was hard to scrape the bottom that has bottom paint!

[fstbttms]

The rare thread about anti fouling paint and in-water hull cleaning in which pretty much every reply is spot-on and correct (with a few minor exceptions.)

[Giro]

While we’re on the subject, our sloop is berthed in Monterey Bay. Does anyone know how often she should be hauled out for attention to redo? We sail about 12 to 15 times per year. We’re talking about daysails in the bay (rarely offshore).

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Giro

While we’re on the subject, our sloop is berthed in Monterey Bay. Does anyone know how often she should be hauled out for attention to redo? We sail about 12 to 15 times per year. We’re talking about daysails in the bay (rarely offshore).

Completely dependent upon type, quantity and quality of whatever anti fouling paint you're currently using and also upon your maintenance regimen. That said, it is typical in Northern California to go 2-3 years (maybe a little more) between haulouts for new paint.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by LoudMusic

Is it two consecutive months? I would dry store when not in use.

Also there are non-copper based paints, and paints with reduced copper inclusion. And there are alternatives with some kind of growth deterrent mechanisms that attach to the inside of the hull. I've used none of this - I'm just aware they exist.

But using nothing and planning to scrape at the beginning seems a frighteningly bad idea, with all the badness that Ben mentioned, plus your neighbors will hate your boat because it'll be a nursery for everything terrible that they don't want on their boat and an eye sore.

If you're trying to save a few bucks on paint, I assure you it's more expensive to not paint, than to properly maintain your boat with bottom paint.

Please explain why "it's more expensive to NOT paint, than to properly maintain your boat with bottom paint"?
What actual damage is done with manual scraping? it's been done by divers for Centuries as well.

And this is questionable too, "But using nothing and planning to scrape at the beginning seems a frighteningly bad idea, with all the badness that Ben mentioned, plus your neighbors will hate your boat because it'll be a nursery for everything terrible that they don't want on their boat and an eye sore."

Remember your boat lives in a Marina and the Marina doesn't scrape it's docks or any thing else.

So, whatever growth isn't coming off your unscraped boat ... It's free floating in the water.

Nothing wrong with not painting.
And, while underway your not picking up much marine life!

But, if you want to sail, or motor efficiently.
You will have to scrape.
Boatyarddog

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

The rare thread about anti fouling paint and in-water hull cleaning in which pretty much every reply is spot-on and correct (with a few minor exceptions.)

My understanding of hull cleaning in Vitro, is restricted to the point of not releasing a visible emulsion of bottom paint while cleaning...i.e. Color coming off.
Is this correct?
So, with no paint there would be no paint residue.
Is it a violation for a cloud of marine scrapings to be visible.
In my opinion, no.

Also, have you come across much damage if any, do to marine growth, other than wood hulls.
Is this statement basically correct and are there circumstances where the question needs more input?
I scrape, that's all,I do.change zincs.
7 years on this boat, no visible issues.
Hauled out 4 years ago to replace the cutlass, and ther was no visible problems with the unpainted hull, so pressure washed and its 4 years later... Same condition.
Thanks!
Boatyarddog

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

My understanding of hull cleaning in Vitro, is restricted to the point of not releasing a visible emulsion of bottom paint while cleaning...i.e. Color coming off.
Is this correct?

In the U.S., certain state and local water quality authorities have made it an offense to create a plume of color when performing an in-water hull cleaning. But they are the exception rather than the rule.

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

So, with no paint there would be no paint residue.
Is it a violation for a cloud of marine scrapings to be visible.
In my opinion, no.

Creating cloud of debris when cleaning a bottom is not the same thing as removing enough paint to produce a plume of color. In short, there are no regulations regarding the detritus being removed from a recreational boat bottom during in-water hull cleaning activities

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

...have you come across much damage if any, do to marine growth, other than wood hulls.

No, I do not find much more than cosmetic damage to paint or gel coat due the removal of shelled animal fouling. Does that mean letting your boat become excessively foul or operating it without anti fouling paint is a seamanlike practice? It does not.

BTW- the subject of color plumes has been mentioned multiple times in this thread. What we are talking about is the cleaning of ablative paints. For the record, there is no evidence that ablative paints are inherently more polluting than hard paints and any regulation regarding this "plume" is nothing more than the knee-jerk reaction of ignorant water quality policy makers. Of course, one wants to keep as much paint on the boat as possible but the fact of the matter is that ablative paints need to be cleaned every bit as often as their hard counterparts. And again, there is no evidence that cleaning one type of paint is more polluting than cleaning the other.

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by sepharad

While wandering the yard, I watched 2 men paint their hulls with an amazing looking product called VC-17m by Interlux.

They both had clearly begun from a squeaky clean hull and were laying down a paper thin coating...then they quit!. I mean thin and glassy smooth.

Interlux recommends VC-17m for freshwater or for brackish and saltwater where only low levels of marine growth are observed. As you note, it requires substantial prep and, in my experience, works best on racing sailboats which spend a fair amount of their non-sailing time out of the water.

In other words, there is no magic bullet.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

In the U.S., certain local and state water quality authorities have made it an offense to create a plume of color when performing in-water hull cleaning activities. But they are the exception rather than the rule.



Creating cloud of debris when cleaning a bottom is not the same thing as removing enough paint to produce a plume of color. In short, there are no regulations regarding the detritus being removed from a recreational boat bottom during in-water hull cleaning activities



No, I do not find much more than cosmetic damage to paint or gel coat due the removal of shelled animal fouling. Does that mean letting your boat become excessively foul or operating it without anti fouling paint is a seamanlike practice? It does not.

BTW- the subject of color plumes has been mentioned multiple times in this thread. What we are talking about is the cleaning of ablative paints. For the record, there is no evidence that ablative paints are inherently more polluting than hard paints and any regulation regarding this "plume" is nothing more than the knee-jerk reaction of ignorant water quality policy makers. Of course, one wants to keep as much paint on the boat as possible but the fact of the matter is that ablative paints need to be cleaned every bit as often as their hard counterparts. And again, there is no evidence that cleaning one type of paint is more polluting than cleaning the other.

Thanks for your technical advise.
Well taken!
I disagree with the the thought that ablatives are less polluting than hard antifoulings.
They are a source of constant release, as are hard coatings, but come off easier.
Are applied more often.

Having worked for marine out fits on Lake Union in Seattle.
It's been found that copper found in the bay is coming more from unfiltered Stormwater outlets, due to Copper Brake pads used on vehicles, and major hyway and street pollution.

At least here in Seattle.
Copper settles out of the paint sloughed off boats and becomes trapped in sediments, therefore not active in the Marine Environment till, someone want to dredge.
Then it becomes a Very toxic soup.
Then it can damage the Ecosystem, because it's a large release.
Boatyarddog

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

I disagree with the the thought that ablatives are less polluting than hard antifoulings.

I never said that ablatives are less polluting than hard paints. I said that there is no evidence that they are more polluting. The regulations that have been put in place regarding color plumes and the in-water cleaning of ablatives are based on opinion, not science.

[Fore and Aft]

Boatyarddog the big issue with not slipping regularly is if the growth gets to bad then you could damage the hull while removing the growth. I can clearly remember surveying one yacht that needed shovels to remove the reef on the bottom. A fair bit of gelcoat came away with the barnacles that time. Actually there's been plenty of times where heavy growth removal has taken a bit of paint and below the waterline ends up with a golf ball finish.
Maybe I am old fashioned but I like to be able to walk around our yacht on the hard every 18 months and just check everything is ok.
Personally when we go to use the yacht I like to step onboard and go. Not mucking around scraping the hull before we leave the marina. Not to mention we do a lot of Friday evening after work departures so there's no way I am swimming then.
Cheers

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

I never said that ablatives are less polluting than hard paints. I said that there is no evidence that they are more polluting. The regulations that have been put in place regarding color plumes and the in-water cleaning of ablatives are based on opinion, not science.

Sorry, my own statement misquoted.
What I meant is that to me it's seems completely plausible that soft ablatives would slough off more easily and therefore be more present in the water, than a hard ablative, all being ablative, as this has purpose.
Once off the paint residue settles to the bottom and is covered by silt then its inert.
Once disturbed its present in free floating form again and more toxic to sea life.
Free floating copper may not be scientifically noted as a pollution problem.
But it is known to be toxic to sea life.
Please remember we are using copper in many other products that end up in waterways as well, as mentioned Copper in brake pads, and clutch components is a large contributor to copper, as well other toxic metals in Stormwater.

https://cbf.typepad.com/bay_daily/20...he-likely.html

Chesapeake bay Estuary studies.
Boatyarddog