Hempel Tiger Extra

N

nimrod1230

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Dec 2005
Messages
305
Location
Oxfordshire
Visit site
So, new formulation to comply with current regulations.
I assume that means leaving something considered essential out?
Have they added an effective alternative?

It was reasonably effective in Gosport with the old formula but has anyone any real world experience with the new mix?
 
nimrod1230 said:
So, new formulation to comply with current regulations.
I assume that means leaving something considered essential out?
Have they added an effective alternative?

It was reasonably effective in Gosport with the old formula but has anyone any real world experience with the new mix?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link or more information, please?
 
My last lot applied 2 years ago is rubbish compared to the previous application which lasted better in both effectiveness and longevity.

Very sad, used to last three years or more on the Thames, now falls off within a year and the waterline gets crusty.
 
I assume the two users over 2017 and 2018 used both the old formulation and the latest incarnation with no discernible difference in performance? Perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm both products were used.
Certainly last spring saw a choice of supply both old and new. I chose old as a known quantity.
 
There is about a third left of tin left from last year, I can check at the weekend if there is any clue as to whether the formula had changed. Otherwise it was whatever happened to be in the shops when we visited.

I remember International's changes well as I bought the older stuff before stocks ran out but don't recall anything as drastic with Hempel's range.
 
nimrod1230 said:
So, new formulation to comply with current regulations.
I assume that means leaving something considered essential out?
Click to expand...

As far as I can see from published Safety Data Sheets, there was a tiny change in the metallic copper content (as opposed to dicopper oxide). Nothing significant, but sufficient to allow them to market it as a "new" formulation.
 
pvb said:
As far as I can see from published Safety Data Sheets, there was a tiny change in the metallic copper content (as opposed to dicopper oxide). Nothing significant, but sufficient to allow them to market it as a "new" formulation.
Click to expand...
That’s more like it, a scientific approach, thanks. I think failing good reasons not to I will buy and apply the latest product and cross fingers.
 
nimrod1230 said:
That’s more like it, a scientific approach, thanks. I think failing good reasons not to I will buy and apply the latest product and cross fingers.
Click to expand...

I only antifoul every 2 years, using International Micron (now Micron 350). If applied as recommended, it works for 2 years, so saving one annual liftout and a lot of work! I reckon a good indicator of likely effectiveness is the specific gravity - the heavier the better. Micron 350 is 2.18 specific gravity, Tiger Extra is 1.79 specific gravity.
 
pvb said:
I only antifoul every 2 years, using International Micron (now Micron 350). If applied as recommended, it works for 2 years, so saving one annual liftout and a lot of work! I reckon a good indicator of likely effectiveness is the specific gravity - the heavier the better. Micron 350 is 2.18 specific gravity, Tiger Extra is 1.79 specific gravity.
Click to expand...
Hm, food for thought though I need to change anodes yearly.
 
Generalising

If you must slip to replace anodes you may as well re-apply a COST EFFECTIVE AF. There is little point in spending 'extra' to get 18 months AF life if you need to slip at 12 months, better with a cheaper AF that lasts a dependable 12 months as well.

The big issue appears to be the amount of fouling varies in the same location, presumably to do with the amount of fresh water, (rain) sea temperature and how you use the yacht this year as opposed to last etc.

Owner application can be a bit difficult to judge as the amount of AF, or coating thickness, is usually very subjective (though you can get coating thickness measures). AF performance is subject to coating thickness - but some owners try to eke it out and apply too thin and too few coatings. It is thus difficult to compare 'performance' of one application (or location) against another as you don't know how it was applied nor how often the yacht was used etc. The best measure is how your previous coating compares with the current one - as you know how you use the yacht and presumably you apply your AF a similar way each time.

I prefer using less of a better AF than 2 or 3 coats of a cheaper one - less build up - but each to their own. Our AF regulations, formulations and even products and sources are different to yours - so comparisons are impossible.

The other issue and rate controlling characteristic is - how long does the prop AF last and this need be figured in as well, or you dive to clean.

Sadly there is no perfect answer.

Jonathan
 
nimrod1230 said:
Hm, food for thought though I need to change anodes yearly.
Click to expand...

Can't you extend that period? Maybe by fitting an additional shaft anode? Even if you do need to check the anodes annually, this could be done by a cheap lift and hold, rather than by actually getting the boat out and in to a cradle.
 
Been using tiger extra for many years from back when it used to be blakes. Recent years have revealed a noticeable decline in its longevity and effectiveness. Finally got fed up with the dire performance and having to crawl around every year sticking a couple more coats on, so have bitten the bullet and stripped the hulls ready for copper coat. . . . . . . . Obviously that has its doubters too but I won’t be scrabbling about under the boat quite so often so I’ll be happy enough, fingers crossed.
 
Been using tiger extra for many years from back when it used to be blakes. Recent years have revealed a noticeable decline in its longevity and effectiveness. Finally got fed up with the dire performance and having to crawl around every year sticking a couple more coats on, so have bitten the bullet and stripped the hulls ready for copper coat. . . . . . . . Obviously that has its doubters too but I won’t be scrabbling about under the boat quite so often so I’ll be happy enough, fingers crossed.
 
Not sure about the ‘new formula’ but I never had much luck using Tiger at Wicormarine. Mind you, I later heard that Scott (who owns Wicormarine) always recommended that if you use Tiger, use the green colour. Supposedly better performance.
 
pvb said:
As far as I can see from published Safety Data Sheets, there was a tiny change in the metallic copper content (as opposed to dicopper oxide). Nothing significant, but sufficient to allow them to market it as a "new" formulation.
Click to expand...

Thanks - that's what I was wondering about. Do you have links to the 'old' and 'new' SDSs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top