I Can’t Believe It’s Not Coppercoat!

[Sticky Stuff]

So If I am not confident with the risks and wanted to keep costs down and have a simple 10 year system rather than a 50 year system could I have a 50 micron layer rather than the 250 micron 50 year system ?

I already have many coats of waterproofing epoxy so I am not looking for the Osmosis resisting or waterproof qualities just long term antifouling.
I already know of an International yacht antifoul called Micron 66 or 77 that lasts up to 2 years and one from Jotun that lasts 3 years with a fouling performance guarantee (I have heard this product can last 4-5 years)
So a 10 year system of course is better .... Are there any guarantees with Coppercoat or is it like conventional antifouling where you have no guarantees you just have to try to count up the good examples of a particular product (which seem to be advertised heavily) and the bad examples (which only seem to get the occasional airing)

If it is as bad as some of the examples (who knows why they failed) what happens then ? have I simply wasted my money or do I get money back ?.
How much confidence is there it will work every time or is there a massive difference between each application ?

 

[EwanClark]

You are quite correct - it is not complex. Hence I'm not quite sure where the original confusion came from. But to quickly re-cap, Coppercoat is usually applied at a dft of about 220 microns and usually erodes at a rate of about 5 microns per year. And this combination of a good thick coating and a slow erosion rate is what gives the coating its famously long life.

As mentioned above, some of the boats treated when we very first launched the product are still performing well on their original treatments, even though their Coppercoat is now over 20 years old. Who knows, these treatments may yet give another decade or so of good anti-fouling performance (depending on the remaining thickness and current rate of erosion). Fingers crossed.

Of course, the one downside with this longevity is the adverse effect it has on our repeat business!!! While most anti-foul companies can rely on selling their goods to the same customer every year for many years, we need to find a constant supply of new clients. Which is quite tough. But we've made our bed now...

 

[EwanClark]

I think our messages crossed, Sticky Stuff. Typical! But if it's just the two of us having a chat about the anti-foul needed for your boat, please call the office on 01258 861059 (assuming you are in the UK - if not, drop the first 0 and add 0044 in it's place). Or ping me a quick PM with your name, telephone number and boat details and I'll happily call you.

 

[pmagowan]

Come on make up your minds :

Below are two statements from the website.
GRP Osmosis Protection
Coppercoat is based upon an inherently waterproof epoxy resin. As such, the application of Coppercoat helps to protect GRP vessels against osmotic attack.
Environmentally Friendly
Being epoxy based Coppercoat is classified as non-eroding and causes less harm to the environment than conventional anti-foul paints.

(1) So 5 microns per year is the stated erosion rate even though it doesn't erode and its waterproof enough to be an osmosis barrier ...
(2)So to get a 10 year system you would need to apply a total combined dry film thickness of 50 microns.
On the datasheet 250 dry microns are asked for or 4 roller coats at 360 microns wet combined so that = 90 microns wet per roller coat each drying out to 62 microns dry
Surely using the stated erosion rate of 5 microns the actual amount people are buying and applying is for a 45-50 year system is this right ?.
Am I being daft ?
Who's getting mixed up with the data me or the experts ?

This is your post stating your areas of contention (my numbering). I simply do not see the contradiction that you do.

(1) 5 microns per year of erosion may well be considered a 'non-eroding antifoul'. This is simply terminology and context. To be an eroding antifoul you will need to erode at a set rate or above. This does not mean non-eroding antifouls do not erode otherwise we would have to call everything an eroding antifoul as it is not possible for something to have a 100% resistance to erosion. i.e. the contradiction you see between different statements on the site does not, in reality exist.

(2)Does it say on the site that the only factor affecting performance is the 5 micron erosion rate? If not then why would you assume this and make calculation based on this. From my understanding of their claims the system is a combination of epoxy and copper. The copper is the active part. The epoxy only has to erode at a rate that it exposes more copper once other bits of copper are used up. It may well be that average film thickness needs to take into acount uneven application, uneven distribution of copper or copper to epoxy ratios etc etc. I think it is a bit wierd to pick on this to suggest that they overspec their product or are making false claims as neither of these follow logically.

I think you are extrapollating too much from the minimal amount of information you have. Fair enough to ask them to defend claims or performance but I don't like a counter argument which sounds scientific and yet lacks any scientific validity.

p.s. I have never used or seen coppercoat used. I use conventional antifoul because my boat is wood and expands and contracts too much for epoxy systems.

 

[Sarnia]

oh, for goodness sake !

If it illegal in the UK, then you must assume that there are sufficient and proper reasons for the ban. Does living abroad change the laws of biology ?

Assuming there are sufficient and proper reasons for the ban, when most come from Brussels? ASSUME - makes an ASS out of U and ME.

 

[Sarnia]

OK. I'm no 'bleeding heart' eco-warrior and am currently looking at an array of soon-to-be-used pots of antifoul paint, wondering - provoked by this thread - what I could readily add to the mix to enhance effectiveness.

Whatever, I won't be adding antibiotics - again due to this thread. I'll keep the nasty biocidal stuff for my personal fungal infections ( ! ) and leave the poor barnacles to enjoy their simple little lives blocking up water intakes.

There! I've said it. Now I can go away feeling all self-righteous, having saved a little bit of planet.....

Last four seasons I have been using CHILLICOAT, with great results, I mix the cheapest antifoul paint I can find with the most hottest chilli powder available on ebay (there are several good retailers) mix the two too a consistency stll paintable using a roller, leaves a finish like a smooth sandpaper where the powder it at the surface, and it works, others who doubted the efficacy are now converted.

 

[Neeves]

I already know of an International yacht antifoul called Micron 66 or 77 that lasts up to 2 years and one from Jotun that lasts 3 years with a fouling performance guarantee (I have heard this product can last 4-5 years)
/QUOTE]

It takes a long time, so which Jotun antifoul might offer 3-5 years life?, again why the reticence.

You can easily get 2 years from Micron 66, apply very thick coats, keep vessel in brackish water, use vessel frequently, wipe down gently any slime or weed. Getting 5 years from any conventional, more difficult - so that's interesting.

You are very keen to attack Coppercoat, reptitively. Often 4 or 5 times a day. Much of you repetition is in the face of clear and easily understood answers from Ewan and/or in the face of successful application comment from forum members. No antifoul works the same way for every vessel, it depends, on application, usage, temperature, salinity, sunshine (or lack of) etc. Performance varies year to year. If you read AF threads - that is one conclusion, one size does not fit all. AF makers and I assume CC make a one size fits all - it would be uneconomic to make a product that works in Inverness, another for the Solent, another for the Mediterranean and yet another for the Caribbean. Comventional AFs might have the same name worldwide but they vary as each country has different legislation covering the active contents - so to expect them to perform the same is unrealistic You have information on products that might be of interest to members - and you do not reveal their names. This forum is meant to be a location where members help each other - and not exclusively to attack one part of an industry.

I like technical debate but trolling does not help anyone.

I remain intrigued

As I mentioned previously we are using Jotun SeaQuantum Ultra, we are in month 8 (so hopefiully a long way to go). But if they make a better product, I'd like to know as I would try it next, and report back on performance. Micron 66, and Hempel's Globic (we trialled 12 AF side by side on the hulls of our cat) we did not find to be as good as SeaQuantum

We did consider Copperocat, and have talked it through with both Ewan and the current CC agent in Oz. We have a problem in Australia in finding an economic way to strip hulls of old AF, paint stripping is a relatively new industry here. But if it were possible to recoat at the costs that are possible in the UK we would have coated out 38' cat with CC years ago - there are enough positives from users to suggest it cannot be worse nor less economic that most AF. But we might change our mind if we get 5 years from Jotun's SeaQuantum! (SeaQunatum might be known by another name in other geographic areas - but the information supplied by Jotun suggests its a world wide designation. Note it comes in 4 forms, for static, slow moving, medium speed and high speed vessels.)

Jonathan

If you changes a few of the words - this is almost like an anchor thread from a few years ago!

 

[Neeves]

Sticky Stuff is possibly championing an International product Micron 66 (but reticent about a competitive product from Jotun and no to mention equivalent product from Hempel or any of the big American companies). He is also keen to attack CC for inconsistent results.

Possibly he can explain how Micron 66 can perform with equal longevity on a conventional AWB sailing every 2 - 4 weeks in the Solent as a 40' catamaran which can average 12 knots over hundreds of miles. Or a 40' AWB sailing in a Solent charter fleet compared to exactly the same model of yacht in the same global company charter fleet in either Thailand or The Whitsundays.

Additionally if Micron 66 and Micron 77 are similar (that's the implication to me) - why two names and/or formulations. Sticky Stuff appears to be happy to know all about CC, as long as its negative or controversial, why not be positive, even useful, and tells us why we should choose 66 over 77 - or not, as the case might be. (edit - accepting that this was a thread on CC - I make the assumption thread drift might be possible? close edit).

Jonathan

 

[Sticky Stuff]

Maybe I have been a little harsh, however if this forum is designed for people to help each other as Neeves says then ensuring there is a balanced discussion is just democratic.
Copper coat seemed to enter this discussion to champion the Copper Epoxy type systems being discussed.
Having a product manufacturer selling itself on a forum designed for people to help each other with the pros and cons of all subjects is perhaps not ideal, if it continues we will end up having all companies advertising themselves on here.
Having used a fair amount of epoxy over the years perhaps my knowledge of it clouds my thinking but also on the other hand perhaps its what makes the erosion theory of an Epoxy nonsense.
There is clearly some degree of antifouling quality to this type of system, perhaps my persistence is the dissatisfaction of being spun some tail about an erosion being linked to a water based Epoxy, on top of this the back breaking labour of sanding upside-down under any boat is almost passed by with statements like ' just give it a light sand ' ect.
I hold no allegiance to International paint, Hemple or Jotun but they do seem to have products that seem to last for many years rather than just one.

 

[Neeves]

My interpretation was not that there was any connection between 'water based' and 'erosion' The association was coincidental (but maybe quoted in the same sentence or paragraph). Water based systems are convenient for the applicator. I assume there are many water based systems and the one chosen to be used in CC also meets whatever technical parameters are required. I also assume a solvent based system might also have these same technical parameters - but would not be so user friendly.

You mention that your knowledge of epoxy leads you to believe that the theory of erosion of epoxy is nonsense. Maybe you can explain, as you are an expert, how it is that Coppercoat works for many users, some of whom have posted here, that they never abrade their coating yet it continues to have 'antifouing' properties.

I am more than comfortable to have a manufacturer present in these debates. They are required to be open with their commercial affiliations. The forum members are very quick to identify when a member oversteps 'the line' between describing some aspect of their product (to clarify) and selling their product - and we are very intolerant of marketing (and negative marketing), especially when hidden under the guise of anonymity. I personally wish there were more commercial members, like Ewan or Brian.

Possibly you can divulge the name of Jotun product that might give 5 years life.

Jonathan

 

[Uno]

Hmmm.... There seem to be some valid points on both sides ...
I to have strong views on this subject but it seems to have been said repeatedly
Having a fair discussion between interested parties is key to this site so I have to agree that to have a company selling themselves on hear is not a good or ideal thing.
Don't we already have plenty of places where products can be sold to by the actual companies who make them.
Right or wrong Sticky Stuff seems to have an issue with the science rather than a particular product.

 

[JumbleDuck]

You mention that your knowledge of epoxy leads you to believe that the theory of erosion of epoxy is nonsense. Maybe you can explain, as you are an expert, how it is that Coppercoat works for many users, some of whom have posted here, that they never abrade their coating yet it continues to have 'antifouing' properties.

By a method other than erosion?

 

[pmagowan]

Hmmm.... There seem to be some valid points on both sides ...
I to have strong views on this subject but it seems to have been said repeatedly
Having a fair discussion between interested parties is key to this site so I have to agree that to have a company selling themselves on hear is not a good or ideal thing.
Don't we already have plenty of places where products can be sold to by the actual companies who make them.
Right or wrong Sticky Stuff seems to have an issue with the science rather than a particular product.

I can't see where he has an issue with the science. He has an issue with the claims that CC has made and his missunderstanding of what they mean. There is not enough information to have a scientific understanding or debate.

CC have made a number of claims which do not appear inconsistent when taken into context.

We have testimonials that CC works and also anecdote of where it has failed to work satisfactorily, we can draw our own conclusions.

If people want to make a pseudoscientific attack on the claims that it does work then they will have to back that up with information that is currently not available or at least has not been demonstrated on this thread. Simply extrapolating something out of nothing is not helpful. I see no problem with a company defending its product and clarifying things when asked since currently they are the only ones with any liklihood of providing the information required irrespective of their bias.

 

[EwanClark]

To be fair Sticky Stuff, I did not come on to this thread to advertise Coppercoat (let alone any other copper/epoxy anti-foul). I came on it to answer questions and offer explanations. Anyone reading this thread can see that I've simply corrected some inaccurate assumptions and provided a little balance and clarity. Of course, most people contact us directly with their questions, but very occasionally someone prefers to do it over a forum. Which is fine, obviously.

The joy of discussing it over the forum is that it gives genuine users of Coppercoat the opportunity to tell their side of the story. And as can be seen throughout this thread, they seem pretty pleased with anti-foul choice. While its been great to read our customers state how well their Coppercoat has worked for them, for me, the really good part of joining this thread has been the opportunity to explain why and how it works, rather than just stating that it does. Hopefully everyone now understands that resins can be blended in a variety of ways to cause variety of outcomes. Obviously ours is blended to very slowly erode so that it can operate as an anti-foul.

As Jonathan says. no one individual anti-foul is going to be the perfect choice for every single boat and every single owner. Which is why there are lots of good products out there, from lots of different companies. We happen to make just one of the available options.

If you would like to discuss any of this in greater detail, please do feel free to contact our office on the number previously given. It would be good to talk instead of type!

 

[Sticky Stuff]

Expert is a pushing it a little but I have used Epoxy resin for many years for both gluing and clear coating .
The term Trolling is a little harsh ...
Why it seems to work for some users and not others is the whole point of the thread and discussion is it not ?
What is the difference between the good examples (of which there are many) and the bad (of which there are also many)? Should the bad examples simply be ignored ?
A bad example of a conventional antifouling is never ignored.. we just don't use it again the following year.
Ignoring the bad examples of a 10 year product is not as easy.
Is there a difference between the applications that alters the concentration of copper in different places within the epoxy layer ?
Is it possible that some examples may have a high level of copper nearer the surface than others when applied at different times of year for example, maybe Is it a workshop v outside application that changes things ?
Does it work by a method other than erosion as JumbleDuck questions ?

 

[MagicalArmchair]

To be fair Sticky Stuff, I did not come on to this thread to advertise Coppercoat (let alone any other copper/epoxy anti-foul). I came on it to answer questions and offer explanations. Anyone reading this thread can see that I've simply corrected some inaccurate assumptions and provided a little balance and clarity. Of course, most people contact us directly with their questions, but very occasionally someone prefers to do it over a forum. Which is fine, obviously. <snip>

I can certainly testify to that! When I was DIY applying Coppercoat to Triola I bombarded Ewan with questions in tens of emails and they replied promptly, professionally and never got hacked off with the volume of questions I fired at them.

http://www.albinballad.co.uk/technology/coppercoat/

We've been very happy with its performance, value and in Coppercoats continuing support of us (since fixing the front of my keel when it cracked, I had to patch the CC).

 

[RichardS]

In response to the point made by Sticky Stuff and Uno about Ewan from AMC / Coppercoat appearing on this thread, my view is that this is to be welcomed and, indeed, I suggested a few days ago that Ewan might wish to re-join the discussion (I think he did comment on this thread months ago).

The vast majority of forumites are not stupid and you can be absolutely sure that if the representative of any company starts to spout bull about their product or unfairly denigrate the efforts of their competitors, then the judgment of the forum will be merciless.

Ewan has never gone down this route, however it is not always an easy path to tread. Forumites with a longer memory will remember that there was a representative of a company who did overstep the line ..... and we all remember what happened to that company!

Richard

 

[Neeves]

Surely it was not so long ago some might have forgotten

Yes , once it was resurrected - became one of the most recognised brands in the marine industry. There is no such thing as bad advertising, nor is there any justice.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

By a method other than erosion?

Possibly we need to define erosion. There is physical erosion, chemical erosion......??

Jonathan

 

[Twister_Ken]

on top of this the back breaking labour of sanding upside-down under any boat is almost passed by with statements like ' just give it a light sand ' ect.

FFS - how many times do I have to tell you that I have never had to abrade my CC?

I hold no allegiance to International paint, Hemple or Jotun but they do seem to have products that seem to last for many years rather than just one.

Just maybe, but not with a similar lifespan to CC.