Coppercoat – The Complete Process

[MYStargazer]

Wear on anodes
Actually, I want my anodes to wear - thats what they are there for.

I don't know the construction of your galvanic protection but I've always been concerned about shaft anodes.
IMO, a good galvanic system should have a good Nobel difference between the cathode and the anode with everything else in between.
It seems to me that shaft anodes are half way through the system which IMO will create an electrical flow both ways down the shafts.
If that is exactly what you want, it seems to me that is what you will get.
Personally, I would stick to convention.
That is big hull anodes bonded to the boat's earth system and then ensure that there is an excellent electrical connection between the boat's earth and the shafts.
That way you will create a good electrical flow between the anode and the cathode (the props) - BTW I'm never sure which way the electricity actually flows but it is the concept that matters.

If you are asking about coating the underwater metalwork with Coppercoat - it was a failure on our boat - it didn't stick.
Great on the hull - just not right for the metalwork.

Back to your original question, I don't think that Coppercoat has much bearing on the galvanic system.
Coppercoat is copper granules suspended in epoxy - I'm no expert but it seems to me that the epoxy surrounding each granule will electrically insulate it from the next.

Anyway, as I say, sacrificial anodes are designed to wear to protect other more expensive parts - thats why they are called sacrificial.

Some more really interesting insights - thanks very much.

At the moment, like you (albeit on a more modest scale) I have two hull anodes protecting two stainless shafts, mild steel p-brackets, bronze props, bronze rudders and stainless trim tabs. Quite a mix of metals. I'm replacing my old bronze sea cocks with Marelon (Nylon/carbon fibre mix) so that's at least some less to worry about.

Interesting theory about shaft anodes being in the wrong place mid-circuit. I can see the logic in this, but I'd be fascinated to know if there's any science behind the idea.

I've been playing with the idea of virtually entombing the rudders, p-brackets and trim tabs in West System epoxy before coating with Coppercoat. Maybe this will both reduce their galvanic exposure and help the Coppercoat to stick...

 

[Bandit]

I see lots and lots of boats being lifted almost all antifouled, but some, say 3% with Coppercoat or equivalent, its my job.

The application cost if third party is high or hard work if owner.

Generally when I see a boat lifted the copper coated boats are in a far worse from a fouling state than the antifouled ones.

Ie it does not inhibit fouling as well as a painted antifouling

My view is if you want less fouling ie less fuel burn per mile or better and faster sailing go for a good antifouling .

Its a product I don't rate, I use antifouling.

 

[Hurricane]

I've been playing with the idea of virtually entombing the rudders, p-brackets and trim tabs in West System epoxy before coating with Coppercoat. Maybe this will both reduce their galvanic exposure and help the Coppercoat to stick...

You may be interested that Coppercoat have a special primer which we used on our underwater metalwork - and even with that it didn't stick.
BTW there were absolutely no guarantees from Coppercoat that it would work on the metalwork.

 

[Hurricane]

Do you mean more slippery?

I believe that is a misconception.
Years ago in the dinghy racing world, we were trying different surfaces to make our dinghies go faster.
The better surfaces were the slightly rougher surfaces which we believed trapped air bubbles so that the hull rode over a microscopic layer of air.
This may explain the very small increase in performance that we (us Coppercoat owners) think that we are experiencing.

I don't know if it is a credit to her design, her engines, the coppercoat or our maintenance but Jennywren regularly last season reached speeds in excess of 31 knots and she is now a six year old with tons (and I mean tons) of clobber on board.
Nothing scientific in that fact but we do get the feeling that the Coppercoat helps.

 

[Nick_H]

Do you mean more slippery?
If you experienced a better performance (either higher wot speed or lower engines load at cruising speed), I for one would be interested to hear more about that.
By common sense alone, I can't think of any logical reason why it should be better in this respect.

The Coppercoat people claim that conventional anti foul absorbs moisture, and this waterlogged coating creates resistance. They say that Coppercoat offers less resistance, and this makes the difference.

To confuse things though, they offer testimonials that claim an advantage of Coppercoat over an unpainted gel coat finish, but don't offer any reasoning as to why this could be the case.

I'm sceptical on the performance benefits. My Coppercoated boat never reached the same speed as it did pre Coppercoat, though I think other factors were at play, and over a season I think Coppercoat fouls a bit more, so if you do gain anything on the roundabouts, I'm pretty sure you lose it on the swings.

I'd make a decision on Coppercoat based on long term cost and hassle of annual antifouling, and class any performance benefits as a bonus if you do find them.

 

[MapisM]

The Coppercoat people claim that conventional anti foul absorbs moisture, and this waterlogged coating creates resistance.

Ok, dunno how much that can matter, but at least I can see some sense in this point.
I also don't buy the "better than gelcoat" thing, though. I've yet to see a racing boat with anything else than a clean, polished gelcoat bottom.
Maybe the dinghies Hurric mentioned had to stay in the water for some reason, hence the need for a/f, but the typical racing boats have no a/f at all.

 

[Hurricane]

Maybe the dinghies Hurric mentioned had to stay in the water for some reason, hence the need for a/f, but the typical racing boats have no a/f at all.

No, we were playing with graphite coatings at the time on wooden boats and leaving the finish in different levels of "roughness".
Just observations though and as far as Coppercoat goes, I agree with Nick
Use of Coppercoat should be based on the long term cost and hassle of annual antifouling etc. - thats the reason we went for it.

 

[MYStargazer]

You may be interested that Coppercoat have a special primer which we used on our underwater metalwork - and even with that it didn't stick.

No, I didn't.

The West System I've used above the waterline needs an angle grinder - not a sander - to have any effect on its shape. Hard to see how it couldn't stay in place, but then I suppose it'd be having water blasted over it for a long time.

I can understand not coating props as they need dings removed and balancing from time to time.

 

[SEARANGER ANCASTER]

I looked at coppercoat , priced it several ways and pushed dealers for an answer on the longevity of it. Initially I was told 10-12 years so yes , def go for that. Then when I asked around and pushed people for a definate guaranteed timescale , they started talking in the 4-6 year timescale. At the cost involved , I came to the conclusion that its def not worth it if it needs redone in an average of 5 years.

 

[Hurricane]

I looked at coppercoat , priced it several ways and pushed dealers for an answer on the longevity of it. Initially I was told 10-12 years so yes , def go for that. Then when I asked around and pushed people for a definate guaranteed timescale , they started talking in the 4-6 year timescale. At the cost involved , I came to the conclusion that its def not worth it if it needs redone in an average of 5 years.

I did the same thing when we had our old Sealine and I didn't at the time (like you) have the confidence of its longevity.
I can't remember if I mentioned above or not but we had to strip the boat anyway - the old Micron 66 antifoul had failed in a big way and International were involved.
Between International and their contractor, they made a real "dogs breakfast" of the job so in the end, I split from them and took the initiative myself to have the boat stripped.
My main concern was to get a gentle process that didn't damage the hull.
The slurry blasting worked extremely well - some of the plastic fittings (trim tab brackets etc) were left on the hull and the blasting process only removed the old antifoul - not damaged any parts or gelcoat.

So, it was almost a "no brainer" for us - we were going to strip the boat anyway and it seems to me that stripping is the major cost anyway.
However, I did do a little research on Coppercoat's longevity.
One person I asked had a Squadron in our boatyard that had Coppercoat applied 13 years earlier
It really need extra treatment but he was still using it with no plans to recoat.
All the 5 or 6 year examples that I've seen are still working fine.
Personally, I think you can work on a longevity of at least 10 years.

Maybe that will change your mind.
I definitely changed mine.

 

[Vara]

Coppercoat cost benefit, on a 34' sailing boat, lift out, cradle and antifoul costs about £460, with Coppercoat, lift, hold,jet wash and check of under water fittings costs £115, so a saving of £345pa, if I could be bothered with going to drying posts saving would be even greater. My Coppercoat reached break even in year four.

The greatest benefit though is less out of the water time, boat is useless out of the water.

In terms of effectiveness, comparison with adjacent conventionally AF'd boats is that it is as good as most of them and better than some.

The only down side for me is that it is more difficult to clean and polish hull with boat in the water.

 

[Gentlemanracer]

Slurry blasting

I did the same thing when we had our old Sealine and I didn't at the time (like you) have the confidence of its longevity.
I can't remember if I mentioned above or not but we had to strip the boat anyway - the old Micron 66 antifoul had failed in a big way and International were involved.
Between International and their contractor, they made a real "dogs breakfast" of the job so in the end, I split from them and took the initiative myself to have the boat stripped.
My main concern was to get a gentle process that didn't damage the hull.
The slurry blasting worked extremely well - some of the plastic fittings (trim tab brackets etc) were left on the hull and the blasting process only removed the old antifoul - not damaged any parts or gelcoat.

So, it was almost a "no brainer" for us - we were going to strip the boat anyway and it seems to me that stripping is the major cost anyway.
However, I did do a little research on Coppercoat's longevity.
One person I asked had a Squadron in our boatyard that had Coppercoat applied 13 years earlier
It really need extra treatment but he was still using it with no plans to recoat.
All the 5 or 6 year examples that I've seen are still working fine.
Personally, I think you can work on a longevity of at least 10 years.

Maybe that will change your mind.
I definitely changed mine.

This looks like the best route for removing 5 yrs worth of AF to get a smooth bum, which is what I'm looking for this season of dry-stacking, then Coppercoat gets me away whether I'm in the water or not!

 

[Elessar]

In principal coppercoat gives a harder surface and (if sprayed or rolled very well) lower drag factor than normal antifoul. There have been some examples in MBY where it helped (Gregg Coop's Sunseeker) but I suspect its not always the case as there are lots of other variables. But in theory it should help. Last summer I had my boat jetwashed and then did quite a lot of hours @ 25kns and after a week or so the boat picked up another knot as the antifoul wore away. My boat's bottom is rough as a badgers a**e so I'm anticipating a small improvement.

It was my company that put it on Greg's sunseeker and I was onboard for the speed tests. It got faster versus clean, bare epoxy. And it was a very smooth, sprayed finish which is at odds with the golf ball theory.

 

[Nick_H]

It was my company that put it on Greg's sunseeker and I was onboard for the speed tests. It got faster versus clean, bare epoxy. And it was a very smooth, sprayed finish which is at odds with the golf ball theory.

In fairness, and no disrespect to Greg, but the MBY tests are not run under anything like scientific conditions. There's no rational reason why a clean bare epoxy with copper powder in it would be faster than a clean bare epoxy without, so I don't believe that's the case. Obviously I wasn't there, but there was clearly another factor which changed between the two speed runs. One possible explanation - it takes a few days to apply the Coppercoat and let it dry, so the second run would have been in different atmospheric conditions to the first. I've no idea whether this was the missing factor, but it's far more likely to explain the difference than some magic property of Coppercoat that even the manufacturer can't understand.

 

[John100156]

Mmmm Could it be as simple as less weight of fuel/water/people on-board for the second run?

I have heard others say that they get marginally better fuel consumption with CC but I expect that's not the deciding factor; my boat does not have CC, Micron 77 seems to have worked really well in Sant Carles. I hope to lift again in a month or two, by which time it will have been applied for two full seasons so I expect it to be ready to receive another application.

I must say though that I witnessed the performance of several boats in SCM with CC and was with Mike (Hurricane) when he dived to look at a boat in our marina prior to applying to JW. I must say, in a heavy fouling area like ours in the Med., CC seems to have performed and endured very well indeed, so I reckon the 10 year life is a conservative figure if properly applied. If it prevents heavy fouling for such a sustained period of time, it must inevitably save fuel in the long run. Perhaps I should talk to Mark to see if he can bring his kit out to SCM, I believe he bought an old Sealine out there once to scrap......

 

[Nick_H]

Just to be clear, I think Coppercoat is a good product and is effective in stopping fouling. I can also believe there could be some small speed advantage over eroding antifoul due to the water absorption aspect, though I suspect that evens out over the year. I was referring specifically to the Greg Copp Sunseeker comparison, between clean epoxy and Coppercoat.

 

[Elessar]

In fairness, and no disrespect to Greg, but the MBY tests are not run under anything like scientific conditions. There's no rational reason why a clean bare epoxy with copper powder in it would be faster than a clean bare epoxy without, so I don't believe that's the case. Obviously I wasn't there, but there was clearly another factor which changed between the two speed runs. One possible explanation - it takes a few days to apply the Coppercoat and let it dry, so the second run would have been in different atmospheric conditions to the first. I've no idea whether this was the missing factor, but it's far more likely to explain the difference than some magic property of Coppercoat that even the manufacturer can't understand.

fuel and number of persons the same. Months apart so atmosphere different, but greg measured the 2 way GPS speed at a known measured, RPM. The boat was faster after the coppercoat, so it was slipping through the water more easily. Sea state could have been different but it was comparable, and the difference big enough to prove the statement that coppercoat makes your boat go faster.
I don't think greg expected it to, he was grinning like a Cheshire cat!

 

[Elessar]

Mmmm Could it be as simple as less weight of fuel/water/people on-board for the second run?

I have heard others say that they get marginally better fuel consumption with CC but I expect that's not the deciding factor; my boat does not have CC, Micron 77 seems to have worked really well in Sant Carles. I hope to lift again in a month or two, by which time it will have been applied for two full seasons so I expect it to be ready to receive another application.

I must say though that I witnessed the performance of several boats in SCM with CC and was with Mike (Hurricane) when he dived to look at a boat in our marina prior to applying to JW. I must say, in a heavy fouling area like ours in the Med., CC seems to have performed and endured very well indeed, so I reckon the 10 year life is a conservative figure if properly applied. If it prevents heavy fouling for such a sustained period of time, it must inevitably save fuel in the long run. Perhaps I should talk to Mark to see if he can bring his kit out to SCM, I believe he bought an old Sealine out there once to scrap......

Happily come and paint it with you John, but you need to get the hull blasted locally. It is just too expensive to tow the rig down.

 

[Nick_H]

the difference big enough to prove the statement that coppercoat makes your boat go faster.

Your proof threshold and mine are clearly a little different!

 

[Elessar]

Your proof threshold and mine are clearly a little different!

maybe. But I know loads of customers anecdotally say the boat goes faster. None have ever said it is slower. Sunseeker have done WOT tests on big boats and they went faster. None went slower. Greg did some measurements and it went faster. Solitaire did before and after measurements on his RIB and it went so much faster even I didn't believe him! But he swears it was like for like. It certainly didn't make it slower.

Therefore I am happy to say "coppercoat makes your boat go faster" until someone proves otherwise