How good is Coppercoat Antifouling?

[jdc]

'Fraid not. Anecdote is any uncontrolled and self-selected report. Second hand anecdotes are hearsay. Evidence is controlled and statistically significant. "I tried coppercoat and it didn't work" is just as anecdotal as "I tried coppercoat and it worked"

I'm afraid I don't agree.

anecdote
ˈanɪkdəʊt
noun
1. a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
"he told anecdotes about his job"

2. an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.
"his wife's death has long been the subject of rumour and anecdote"

3. the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.
"the use of inversions of hierarchy, anecdote, and paradox by Magritte, Dali, and others"​

It's presumably meaning 2 we are referring to here. I also assumed that you'd not be so deliberately rude as to accuse those posting first-hand experiences as being automatically unreliable, so it actually does come back to anecdote == hearsay, just as I said.

As for evidence, any first hand account, from someone we have no reason to disbelieve, is evidence. That evidence may not be overwhelming or conclusive by itself and needs corroboration to become so. But mere lack of detail or exact dates does not automatically make it unreliable.

 

[prv]

Anecdote is second hand, as in 'somebody told me'. Evidence is first hand, as in 'on my boat I never had to scrub it'.

Or, "on our boat, some bits of it fell off"

Pete

 

[Birdseye]

I've been tempted by Coppercoat, but have not yet succumbed, for five main reasons:

1. There seem to be a lot of stories here about problems with application and/or the stuff falling off once applied
2. There also seem to be a lot of stories about it not working very well
3. It's blinking expensive, and I get perfectly good performance where I sail with a single coat of "Nautical" which takes me approximately one hour to apply and costs less than £40
4. The scrubbing some people say they need sounds as if it would take as long as the painting I do
5. When it finally expires (after five years?), you don't have a strippable / scrapable / blastable layer of old paint to remove: you have a firmly attached (probably, see #1) layer of epoxy with metal in it. What then?

There may well be some people, boats and places for which it's a good choice, but for me it doesn't come close to being a sensible option.

Let me try and answer your points - I have had coppercoat and several boats with conventional antifoul.

1/ Coppercoat is an epoxy and a water based one at that. So it does need applying to a clean prepared undersurface in weather warmer than about 10C and weather that will be dry for 4 or 5 days. So yes it cannot be slapped on one damp afternoon like conventional - it has to be treated like any other epoxy coat system. But just like any other epoxy, it sticks like the proverbial to a shovel if done correctly and it isnbt really that hard to diy it either. Application of each of the 5 coats is far easier than conventional.
I have had a problem with it falling off my lead keel but that is because no coating sticks well to lead once breached. Exactly the same problem with conventional.

2/ The internet effect. For any given problem whether boat bike or car, those with problems aare always more ready to post than those who are saitisfied. Personally I havent had an issue in 4 or 5 years of coppercoat. Its excellent with crustaceans, OK with weed. Not quite as good as the best of conventional but fully equivalent to most conventional

3/ and the scraping off when the coats build up? and the value of your time? and the painting materials? but in the end thats your decision. As far as I am concerned I am not prepared to lay underneath a boat every March painting it. The alternative for me is paying someone to antifoul.

4/ given that it performs much like most conventional antifouls, the need for a mid season scrub is much the same. At the end of the year a pressure wash is adequate provided its a good one. My boat was washed badly last winter down in falmouth so by mid season new weed had become firmly attached to the old weed that washing had left. It was a PITA. But I see no reason why conventional would not have been the saem. Either way, I never normally do anything other than pressure wash - no sanding, no scotchbrite. Indeed coppercoat themselves advise against it.

5/ expiry is more like 10 to 15 years and at that point you have a nice smooth epoxy coat. You can either sand off and recoat or if you wish you can just prime and use conventional.

 

[pmagowan]

Anecdote is evidence, it is just not very good evidence. It falls down because it is not systematic, rigorous or scientific. There will be an element of self selection and significant bias. If you really wanted to test how good coppercoat was you would need to develop a rigorous method for measuring the success and then measure multiple samples agains control in a variety of conditions. That is not likely to happen any time soon so we will have to make do with anecdote.

It does seem expensive but I think I would give it a try when I build my new boat. The only real downside if it doesn't work well is the cost as you can simply antifoul over it. Like most things it probably suits some situations better than others and the only way to tell is to suck it and see. My current boat would not be fit for an epoxy based antifoul as it is unsealed wood and thus expands and contracts.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I've seen what they pay for it. And they buy a LOT.

And of course I'm not going to publish the spec any more than I'm going to publish the cost.

But remember that Coppercoat hasn't changed in 20 years. Nor has its price. Because you are no longer paying for R+D.

If you really can source it better than them go and do so. I would point out though that others with plenty of available resource have tried, and failed, to copy it.

Thank you. I think my question has been fully answered.

 

[oldvarnish]

birdseye (above) give a neat summing up of my position on CC

 

[JumbleDuck]

It's presumably meaning 2 we are referring to here. I also assumed that you'd not be so deliberately rude as to accuse those posting first-hand experiences as being automatically unreliable, so it actually does come back to anecdote == hearsay, just as I said..

Sorry, but first hand accounts are unreliable, in the sense that they can't be relied on. That's not to say that they are untrue, but they are self-selected accounts by observers whose qualifications or biases are unknown. There are, for example, plenty of first-hand anecdotes of abduction by aliens. They may well provide evidence of something, but not necessarily of aliens.

As we say in the scientific world "the plural of anecdote is not data".

 

[pappaecho]

At Hardway SC we have two camps.. for and against. I took the plunge with mixed results. Some areas of the hull were only covered with sslime, whilst others ares had both barnacles and weed.

Told to cut it back with sander, which is what I did, with no apparent difference. On balance it is certainly no worse than conventional antifoul, with the advantage that you dont have to reapply every year. BUt is does not mean a completely clean hull

 

[Giblets]

DZR ball valves don't need servicing as such, just periodic operation to stop the ball jamming and general inspection of hoses etc.

Slight fred drift but a small round stiff brush loaded with water proof grease and passed up into the skin fitting (whilst out if the water!) and brushed onto the closed ball which is then worked open/closed works well for me.

 

[Poecheng]

Sorry, but first hand accounts are unreliable, in the sense that they can't be relied on. That's not to say that they are untrue, but they are self-selected accounts by observers whose qualifications or biases are unknown. There are, for example, plenty of first-hand anecdotes of abduction by aliens. They may well provide evidence of something, but not necessarily of aliens.

As we say in the scientific world "the plural of anecdote is not data".

I wonder whether this is correct
Unless first hand accounts are mistaken (saying it was weedy when it was a shadow) or deliberately false (saying barnacles when there plainly are none) then this is an eye-witness account (otherwise known as testimony) which would be expected to be reliable. The word anecdote tends to imply that the source of the information is not the speaker - ie that it is hearsay
The fact that they are self- selected does not make them (any more) unreliable.
I am not sure, when answering the question "did coppercoat work on your boat" that you need a qualification to answer [Javelin and Elessar seem to know what they are doing though - no disrespect to others].
Equally the question of bias is unlikely to the point where it might be thought to be irrelevant; if you strongly believe in the miracle properties of coppercoat, apply it and it is shit, are you likely to say its wonderful? Would the coppercoat sceptic who ends up with a clean hull still be a sceptic?

Are their answers influenced by external factors (revealed and unrevealed)?: yes! Highly likely that they are affected by the cruising area and by the quality of application. We can probably rely on them giving a truthful answer as to area. They are likely to give a truthful answer to quality of application but there is a chance of mistake which can be factored in. Both of these external factors are revealed.
I like the one about aliens but not sure there is a parallel with this question - except that we are all mad for thinking about sailing all the time and being on this forum !

So I think each first hand account is data, not anecdote. It might be capable of criticism but it is still data . And the plural of data ..... The criticisms may cancel each other out - all those (in fact) who didn't apply it properly may not all be the ones who now complain of its ineffectiveness.
No one account might be sufficient to reliably answer the question. However, lots of answers may answer the question. Surely if everyone said it was the dog's, then why would we doubt it.
Isn't the problem here that the data (for all its imperfections) is quite sufficient to rely upon but it points in different directions and is therefore not conclusive.

As for Coppercoat falling off, those coppercoat people could learn a thing or two from Brightlingsea mud

 

[JumbleDuck]

The fact that they are self- selected does not make them (any more) unreliable.

Reliability is not a matter of truth, though it helps. It's a matter of having data you can rely on, and a few self-reported stories just don't have the statistical significance needed. That's why I don't put any more reliance on the accounts of Coppercoat failures than the accounts of Coppercoat successes - I don't doubt the sincerity of the reports but they just aren't enough to lead to a sound conclusion.

Isn't the problem here that the data (for all its imperfections) is quite sufficient to rely upon but it points in different directions and is therefore not conclusive.

Spot on.

 

[dslittle]

This is becoming a Coppercoated Rocna discussion. Who cares? If you want to buy it, great. If not, great. If you have no interest in buying it, why put others off? Coppercoat is a product. Rocna is a product. Marmite is a product. It is your choice to buy any of them if you choose but please don't bang on about why you didn't buy something ad nauseum...

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Reliability is not a matter of truth, though it helps. It's a matter of having data you can rely on, and a few self-reported stories just don't have the statistical significance needed. That's why I don't put any more reliance on the accounts of Coppercoat failures than the accounts of Coppercoat successes - I don't doubt the sincerity of the reports but they just aren't enough to lead to a sound conclusion.



Spot on.

There are also issues with self-selection of accounts. People who have made a large investment (and Coppercoat does involve a substantial investment) and who judge their investment to have "failed" will be more vocal and probably more likely to report their failure than those who are quite happy with it.

Sometimes "failure" is because of problems with the application; the classic case is where the copper doesn't start to oxidize for some reason, and the coating doesn't turn the proper greenish colour.

There is also an issue about expectations of success and failure! Coppercoat is not expected to be "better" than conventional antifouling - it is expected to last for 10+ years. Coppercoat themselves say the 10 years in their advertizing is because that is how long it will last under the worst conditions such as those in the Caribbean; that you should expect substantially longer in benign areas like the Clyde, and that they have clients whose coating is still going strong at 20 years. But during those 10+ years, it will perform at a similar level to conventional antifouling. If you're in a bad fouling area where no antifouling works well, don't expect Coppercoat to do better; it almost certainly won't, though it probably won't do worse, either. But it will last for a long time, and will have less maintenance required than conventional antifouling.

 

[Sans Bateau]

Good post AP.

It should also be considered that one brand of conventional antifoul will work in one area or river, but may fail in another. So it is true with CC I'm sure. Before using it ask around in your marina to see what results others get, but if they dont get good results its not that CC is bad, it just does not work well in that area for one reason or another. I should also say that anyone who condemns CC "because it fell off" should not blame CC but should question their own lack of skill in being able to apply it.

 

[prv]

I should also say that anyone who condemns CC "because it fell off" should not blame CC but should question their own lack of skill in being able to apply it.

Even if it was applied by pro painters with a top-notch reputation, in a climate-controlled spray-bay?

Pete

 

[Sans Bateau]

Even if it was applied by pro painters with a top-notch reputation, in a climate-controlled spray-bay?

Pete

Just because they are 'pro' does not mean they did it right.

 

[bert49uk]

I will give you the facts of my case, when I bought Rubicon the paperwork stated she had been CC over 10 years ago, when I went to view her she had been given a coat of self eroding AF over the top, as the owner had died I coulnt get info as to why.
Our harbour is a drying harbour on hard sand/ mud usually you get a small amount of 'green' on the surface which is easily scrubbed off mid season.
I didn't do anything the first season, but at lift out I thought as I've nothing to loose I would rub off the antifouling and take a look. I used 40 grit on a sander and removed all of the antifouling, this also brought the copper back to its original colour. The first year was great no weed or any growth, at lift out at the end of season just a power wash.
This season everyone is suffering with weed, not helped by contractors repairing our breakwater who have been stirring up the sedament, so I've had to scrub off a couple of times, no more than anyone else, I do agree that the problem could be not removing all of the growth and that a wash down with a mild bleach could help.
To sum up I have no axe to grind as the boat had the copper coat when I bought her, the CC was applied over 15 years now and is still working well.
I do not have to antifoul every year, and I get no build up, so I would recommend CC to thoes thinking of using it

 

[Monique]

In my experience, the most important phase is the cleanup of the hull and the application of the product.

I strongly suggest:

-Soda blasting to an absolute clean bottom.
-2 coats of epoxy primer
- Dilute to 20% with the approved dilutant
- Apply thin coats.

IF you need more help, read the RTFM from Coppercoat. I like it a lot.

 

[deep denial]

I have cc on by boat i have just got a touch up pack from http://www.copper-tek.com/

But is not Copper-tek different stuff??

 

[JumbleDuck]

There are also issues with self-selection of accounts. People who have made a large investment (and Coppercoat does involve a substantial investment) and who judge their investment to have "failed" will be more vocal and probably more likely to report their failure than those who are quite happy with it.

There can also be biasses the other way ... someone who has spent a good deal of money on something is often inclined to seek confirmation for the decision. See, for example, all the people who buy a NG anchor and instantly find it infinitely preferable to the predecessor. Or hi fi buffs, for whom true quality always starts at 10% less than they paid themselves.