Copper coat - yes or no ?

[Boatbore]

There has been a lot written on here on Copper Coat and the obvious pros and cons. Including some helpful 1st hand experience, but I would like to try and revisit some of that experience in as much as we are now a “few years on”.

As some of you know I am rebuilding a 2002 sunseeker Superhawk 50. At the end of the process she will be repainted including all old antifouling removed.

This is a perfect position to be in to apply copper coat, done by a top rated paint shop.

In due course the boat is going back to the Med and to an area where there is a lot of growth, although I would qualify that by saying it leans more on the side of barnacles rather than weed.....in as much as I can tell anyway.

There is obviously an increased cost but given how much I’ve put in already, I am more keen on getting the best result than on saving a few quid at this stage.

All views welcome, But the question is simply....... should I copper coat her or not ?

 

[rafiki_]

CC for me. Hurricane keeps his boat on the Med and is a big advocate of CC

 

[kashurst]

CC it - in the med its not quite as good as normal antifoul so budget for a lift and scrub at some point during the season. However long term it will save you money in A/F, time and your boat will be a little bit more efficient
don't put CC on any of the underwater metal bits, it will come off sooner or later and its a sod to remove the remains.
I use velox on all the underwater bits in the med. Its not perfect but will keep your props clean a lot longer than nothing- unless you have dive kit and can do an underwater clean yourself.
Note - I found CC takes 18 months to 2 years to get properly effective so you will have to be a bit patient year 1.

 

[Hurricane]

It would be helpful to know where in the Med you intend keeping her.
As said above, we have CC and keep the boat in a heavy fouling barnacle marina.
CC does work but not as well as AF but with frequent lift and wash, IMO, it is easier to use.

 

[rubberduck]

We had it on last boat & have asked Osmotech to do it to the new one while he has it for other work, so a positive from me.

 

[jfm]

I'm a definite no. Apart from looking ugly where it goes a bit green, it doesn't actually keep the hull clean as users above testify. Heeeellllloooooo??

I would (and do) use an eroding soft high end product like micron 77 (now 99 iirc). And it comes in black or blue. Year after year, when my boat is lifted after a year in the med the hull is completely smooth and clean. Completely.

 

[Hurricane]

I disagree
Clean CC is much nicer to swimmers in the water.
We have had it for about several years now and don't regret it.
Probably saved a lot as well.
One of the hidden savings - the maint ashore can be shorter and is way easier.

 

[Tranona]

Three key factors are first your time horizon. If you are intending to keep the boat for several years then put it on the list. If you intend selling in say 3/4 years time CC will be unlikely to add value. Second what is your haulout regime and do you pay for somebody to do your antifoul (or want to avoid doing it yourself) then another tick. Third how severe is the fouling in your area as it is perhaps less good as an antifoul compared with conventional products.

Personally I chose it on a new boat because It intend keeping the boat 19 years or more, keep it in the water all year round, never want to crawl underneath to antifoul again (or pay somebody to do it) and fouling is low in our club marina. So far (21/2 years) working well. Lift and scrub once a year and out for a couple of weeks every other year.

IF it lasts the 10 years with that level of maintenance it will more than pay for itself just in the savings of lift and storage and annual recoating.

If your decision is on purely financial grounds then you have to do the sums for yourself taking into account your circumstances.

 

[MapisM]

CC does work but not as well as AF but with frequent lift and wash, IMO, it is easier to use.

M, can you possibly elaborate/quantify "not as well" and "frequent"?
I am also seriously thinking to go for CC now that I'm back to bare gelcoat, but jfm post sounds a bit worrying...

 

[Portofino]

I,am with JFM on this ,mainly because a major sales pitch flaw in the financial equation is “ save on lift costs “ .
You SHawk 50 is gonna need those Trimax drives ( or outdrives ? ) looking at every year with plenty of € chucked @ , this is on top of other yard work like Annodes etc that inevitably crops up running a - how can I put this - er hmm - not new boat age wise .

Also from a personal perspective- for me I like to eye ball ,touch , feel the underside , it’s the only time you can when it’s out .
Takes what a good day to roll on AF , you can sand rough ish area too ,
I would want to speak to onther 30 + knot cruiser punter before committing, better still another 40 + guy if poss .
My 0.2 p worth

 

[Hurricane]

M, can you possibly elaborate/quantify "not as well" and "frequent"?
I am also seriously thinking to go for CC now that I'm back to bare gelcoat, but jfm post sounds a bit worrying...

On the mobile at the moment so short reply.
CC is easier if you do the maint yourself.
Think about if.
After a lift, wash and block off, there really isn't much more to do.
That leaves just the other bits - props etc.
Some years, I have had the CC scrubbed with water and a Scotch pad but it doesn't really need it.

Having had a summer in CF, there was virtually no growth. Whereas in SC the barnacles grow quickly.

The 64 thousand dollar question for me is "would I apply it again" - The answer is a definite YES.
And especially if I kdpg my boat in CF

 

[MapisM]

Having had a summer in CF, there was virtually no growth.

LOL, now that's a killer feature for me!
Btw, occasionally I did have barnacles also on traditional a/f, in CF.
Just a very few actually, and probably much less than in SC...
...But still, if you found CC to work well in CF, there's not much more I need to know! :encouragement:

 

[MapisM]

You SHawk 50 is gonna need those Trimax drives ( or outdrives ? ) looking at every year with plenty of € chucked @

Fwiw, I'm actually told that Trimax transmissions don't need a lot of maintenance vs. Arnesons and outdrives, 'cause they are neither trimmable nor steerable.
Btw, I for one would be interested in some pics of those fine bits of engineering in Boatbore boat.

Ref. CC effects on performance, I've yet to hear anyone who experienced the slightest speed reduction vs. conventional a/f.
A former Ferretti 620 owner which I met recently even swears that he made one more knot with CC, and the F620 ain't a slow boat...
But I don't know him well enough to qualify that as more than just hearsay, tbh.

 

[rafiki_]

I know several boats that claim both speed increase and consequent fuel saving.

CC will not stop you lifting the boat, as nothing I have come across stops growth on the stergear, and anodes need maintenance. However it is a lift and hold, rather than block off, so back in the water in a couple of hours.

 

[MapisM]

I know several boats that claim both speed increase and consequent fuel saving.

Interesting to hear that the (very few, since CC ain't so popular here) boaters who told me the same weren't just pulling my leg.
Looking fwd to hearing about your experience soon! :encouragement:

 

[jfm]

I disagree
Clean CC is much nicer to swimmers in the water.
We have had it for about several years now and don't regret it.
Probably saved a lot as well.
One of the hidden savings - the maint ashore can be shorter and is way easier.

i totally don't understand. I've never thought mine "unkind". When I say "soft", it doesn't rub off on people.
How can you save a lot? We both jet wash each year and I put a coat on every second year but didn't have the upfront cost of cc. Also mine keeps the bottom clean, unlike cc, so saves a bit of fuel.

 

[Portofino]

Fwiw, I'm actually told that Trimax transmissions don't need a lot of maintenance vs. Arnesons and outdrives, 'cause they are neither trimmable nor steerable.
Btw, I for one would be interested in some pics of those fine bits of engineering in Boatbore boat.

Ref. CC effects on performance, I've yet to hear anyone who experienced the slightest speed reduction vs. conventional a/f.
A former Ferretti 620 owner which I met recently even swears that he made one more knot with CC, and the F620 ain't a slow boat...
But I don't know him well enough to qualify that as more than just hearsay, tbh.

I just envisaged a lot of extra yard time maintenance wise with 3 x drives , neutralising any perceived benefits of lower lift out spend ,that CC are advertising on there Web page .

Performance according to CC improves anecdotally - #
I was ( sorry for not making it clear ) inferring that at 30/40 knots or what ever —- questioning the durability
In a word WASHING it off .
I,d want some assurances from existing 40 knot + users 1st .
Shame doing your maths on 10y and it ends up lasting 4 .
You whinge to CC , they fire back there usual bullet of “ it was applied incorrectly “ then they reload when they find out all the other satisfied customers like Hurricanes boat spent their life below 25 knots .

# depends
Straight after removing X kg,s of multilayer dog rough AF and doing s performance test 1 week after CC then yes a knot or two faster .One Easter
Park the boat up in the warm Med , use it in school hols ,let the surface slime accumulate, then “ test “ it .
Then the phaff of mid season so called scub ? What’s that all about ? I don,t want to feel I have to inspect the undersides every few months -green scrubber in hand rubbing the hull slime off ,or exposing a fresh 5 micron layer .

A good AF is a fit n forget .

While we are touching on AF a few years ago in the shop there was normal stuff priced X and some with PTFE added €2x
Yup Poly Tertra Flouro Ethylene- you know not stick pans - Man on the moon NASA legacy etc .
So it bought it doubled by AF material cost .
On it went ( my old SS ) when it was dry ,by hand - not kidding it actually felt smoother to the touch, kinda less friction.
Gained an extra 2 knots for a given rpm , all through the season .Or turned around lower rpm for same crushing speed and saved fuel .

Thing is I have not seen it again or used it —- but it did work .

 

[rafiki_]

Man maths are quite simple on Rafiki (11.9 m)

Cost of conventional a/f = £500
Cost of CC = £2500

At some point you have to clean off the old a/f. This applied to Rafiki this year. = £1000. I could then have gone conventional a/f. However, ignoring the additional block off charge over simple lift and hold, and fuel consumption improvement, CC has a 5 year payback.

 

[rubberduck]

I'm a definite no. Apart from looking ugly where it goes a bit green, it doesn't actually keep the hull clean as users above testify. Heeeellllloooooo??

I would (and do) use an eroding soft high end product like micron 77 (now 99 iirc). And it comes in black or blue. Year after year, when my boat is lifted after a year in the med the hull is completely smooth and clean. Completely.

I spent most of last year in & out of hospital, boat unused, when she did come out she was clean enough.

 

[MapisM]

i totally don't understand. I've never thought mine "unkind". When I say "soft", it doesn't rub off on people.
How can you save a lot? We both jet wash each year and I put a coat on every second year but didn't have the upfront cost of cc.
Also mine keeps the bottom clean, unlike cc, so saves a bit of fuel.

Actually, in my experience with self-eroding traditional a/f, Micron 77 included, the stuff does rub off on your skin a bit, if you drag along the hull with your arm (or leg, back, whatever) while swimming.
Not saying it's a major problem, also because normally I have much better spots for snorkeling around than the water surrounding the hull...
But if forced to choose the most annoying feature, between that and the CC greenish look, I'd rather vote for the former.

That's no biggie, though. I'd be more interested to hear from you about the following:
1) am I understanding correctly that one year after the initial a/f application, you just powerwash the hull, and the following year you only put ONE coat of fresh a/f on top?
If so, you must have more chlorine than sea water, in PV...
2) on which basis you are saying that the hull stays cleaner with normal a/f?
Have you got any like for like comparisons, like some CC-ed boat also moored in PV?