MapisM
Well-Known Member
That would be my choice, fwiw.
What would you do? Coppercoating conundrum.
- Thread starter longjohnsilver
- Start date
maby
Well-Known Member
Depends entirely on what warranty they are offering and how much you trust them to honour it in a couple of years time. Coppercoat is wonderful, but expensive if it doesn't stay on for a good long time.
Wino
Well-Known Member
Orbital sanding will not remove coatings within holes and dents. Grit Blasting will, or should. It depends on the size of grit being used. Fine grit is expensive so contractors will try and use a coarser grade. - Australian Garnet is excellent,
Soda Blasting can be very good but make sure there is not any 'carry-over' as it is also a very good varnish remover!
Soda Blasting can be very good but make sure there is not any 'carry-over' as it is also a very good varnish remover!
volvopaul
Well-Known Member
I glad you have spoken to Paul , he deserves his say in this matter, he only did what was asked of his company. Had he been carrying out the whole job from start to finish then that would have been a different matter in my view, but he wasn't so I hope the outcome is good for you both. Be assured whatever you ask him to do it will be good.
EugeneR
Well-Known Member
+1
If the yard asks them to do a cheap job, that's what you'll get. I am sure Symblast can do an excellent job, if they were paid to use the right grit and with enough time to do it properly.
Lesson for anyone getting a yard to quote for coppercoat - make sure you specify the blasting method / grit you want and do not leave the choice to them.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Hang on, my understanding of what was offered to LJS is properly restoring a "traditional" a/f, without putting coppercoat on it.
That's what I said would be my choice, for a couple of reasons:
1) I've never been sold on the real economic advantage of coppercoat, if you do the whole math accurately (but that's me of course), and
2) LJS would still have the option to have someone else making an A to Z proper job with coppercoat next season, anyway....
rafiki_
Well-Known Member
I think the economics of copper coating depend on
1. How long you plan to keep the boat
2. If you paint the antifoul yourself.
rbcoomer
Well-Known Member
...and surely:
3. How much growth there is in home berth?
The Dart is a pretty rich and sheltered environment in terms of water. A friend & I were surprised that after just 3 weeks from new his anti-foul on his previous sports boat the growth had impacted enough to notice performance drop. Yes, it washes off more easily, but still needs cleaning off too often. Thus a good weather season could mean 4-5 lifts needed over a summer for 'beard trimming' with a jetwash... From what I've read here and elsewhere, the growth doesn't hold as well on coppercoat? Less scrubbing must therefore also impact the economics?
maby
Well-Known Member
I've never really been totally convinced of the economic case for Coppercoat - it seems to me that it probably takes five years or more to pay for itself and you have a significant up-front investment to make. I loved the convenience of it and probably would have coughed up the money for the new boat, but my experience of it coming off the previous boat got me nervous.
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
It must have been the wrong antifoul for the area, or incorrectly applied, or maybe sterngear fouling caused the performance loss.
Coppercoat is not better at reducing fouling than conventional antifoul, in fact i'd say conventional has the edge. The advantage of Coppercoat is the once only application, assuming it's done right.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
+1.
Just to better specify my point re. the coppercoat math, since I see that others are sensible to this point, in a nutshell these are my thoughts, fwiw:
1) I put conventional a/f yearly, and it's good enough to require ZERO boat lifts during the season.
I just make some odd scrubbings myself while swimming, but only when I'm in the right mood and the water is warm enough.
And it's actually just on the sides+stern, more for aesthetics than anything else.
It would take a lot of time and the scuba gear to make also the hull bottom and keel, life's too short. And it wouldn't be necessary anyway.
2) At least one yearly lift would be necessary with c/coat anyway, on one hand because some anodes would be difficult to replace properly on my boat while in the water (though that's not necessarily true for all boats of course), and otoh because everyone who tried coppercoat confirmed me that at least one powerwash each year at the beginning of the season is an absolute must.
3) As a consequence, the only economics-relevant differences are: spending now 3 to 4 times the cost of conventional a/f, and be done for 4 to 5 years, or spending 1x conventional a/f yearly.
Therefore, yes, c/coat possibly still is a tad less expensive option, but nothing worth writing home about, imho.
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
In the UK you can get cheap "lift and hold" deals in the summer at lots of places. For example, I could get the hull powerwashed and change the anodes for a lift cost of only £125 on the Windy, but to lift, store ashore and re-launch in winter would be £500-ish.
There's also some attraction to doing all the work in one go, then not having to worry about it for a few years.
I plan to have my new day boat Coppercoated, and i'm seriously considering having the Princess done as well, because it gives me options on when, where and for how long I lift, and also maybe the option to skip a year, which would pay for the Coppercoating in one go.
There's also some attraction to doing all the work in one go, then not having to worry about it for a few years.
I plan to have my new day boat Coppercoated, and i'm seriously considering having the Princess done as well, because it gives me options on when, where and for how long I lift, and also maybe the option to skip a year, which would pay for the Coppercoating in one go.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Well, in my experience, sheltering the boat for some months in winter is worth the cost in terms of reduced maintenance on the decks/superstructure.
And at least every other year, some paint jobs are required which need sheltering anyway.
Therefore, the "lift and hold" would not be an option for me, but I'm talking of a timber boat.
What you are considering surely makes sense with grp boats.
For the Windy (or similar boats), have you ever considered the option of keeping her on the hard at all times, putting her in and out of the water when used, hence avoiding a/f altogether?
The previous UK owner of my Fountain kept her in a S'hampton yard which offered this service, and the fact that her hull and o/b were in as new conditions was a key factor in my decision to purchase her.
Not sure about the economics of that UK yard, but I did the very same in Lake Como, for as long as I kept her.
Way more expensive than keeping her antifouled and in the water of course, but again, that paid dividends when I sold her....
And at least every other year, some paint jobs are required which need sheltering anyway.
Therefore, the "lift and hold" would not be an option for me, but I'm talking of a timber boat.
What you are considering surely makes sense with grp boats.
For the Windy (or similar boats), have you ever considered the option of keeping her on the hard at all times, putting her in and out of the water when used, hence avoiding a/f altogether?
The previous UK owner of my Fountain kept her in a S'hampton yard which offered this service, and the fact that her hull and o/b were in as new conditions was a key factor in my decision to purchase her.
Not sure about the economics of that UK yard, but I did the very same in Lake Como, for as long as I kept her.
Way more expensive than keeping her antifouled and in the water of course, but again, that paid dividends when I sold her....
rbcoomer
Well-Known Member
Dry stack here can be as much as a marina! They're are also fewer of them - for example there's no dry stack in Torbay, but there is at Blackness up on the Dart (tidal where they are I think) and Plymouth.
I looked into the costs of moorings, berths, anti-foul etc when I was looking for a project and it was a big factor. I considered a twin-engined Sunseeker like an Offshore or Portofino and whilst a mooring on say the Teign would be affordable for us, I'm less sure on all the extra annual expense/time maintaining. I envisaged heavy fouling and a list of repairs every time we wanted to use so went off the idea - for now anyway
I can see the benefits of coppercoat I must admit - and would probably so the same in John's position...symblastpaul
New Member
Hi I am Paul from Symblast, I rarely go on forum sites as too busy running my business and family, sailing etc!
We were called in to remove the antifoul from this vessel and the abrasive used was very similar to olivine 80, this being a nice rounded particle about table salt grain size. Three guys went to Darthaven and all 3are very good lads who have been working with me for a minimum now of 3 years. They called me when they found the epoxy was flaking off in places and exposing a gelcoat that had many voids. Had we blasted to remove the epoxy completely we would really have damaged this hull to the point that the hull may have been better served by gel peeling, the epoxy was sound in places and poor in others. I made the decision to remove the antifoul only as that is what we had been requested to do therefore causing minimal damage which would then require the hull having to have a good sanding-hard work but had the job been done properly in the first place the epoxy wouldn't be flaking off. This decision was approved by the on site painter.
The difficulty with this type of work also is distance-we ask the yard how thick the antifoul is so that we get an idea of what abrasive to carry onboard and in this case we used our usual abrasive which does an excellent job, sometimes though a coarser abrasive may be better as it smashes a tough epoxy breaking it up quickly so doing less damage to the underlying gelcoat because you are not hanging around long enough to actually hit much gelcoat (understand?)
In this instance I feel that all the epoxy needs removal as it cannot be trusted and the best way is random orbit sanding with 60 grit, this will be a hard job and I reckon 4 of my guys would crack this out in a day-no one who has seen these guys work will dispute that they work extremely hard.
The hull would then benefit from 2-3 coats of solvent free epoxy rolled on and bladed smooth-see website-this would use pure epoxy to fill the voids and followed by an epoxy primer all that would then be required would be a light sand to remove any blade lines then straight on with 4coats of Coppercoat.
The above process is not cheap but by God you will have the very best job possible that will last years-this is what I've done to my yacht and many others too and I cannot think of a more bullet proof solution ( providing the hull is dry)
We were called in to remove the antifoul from this vessel and the abrasive used was very similar to olivine 80, this being a nice rounded particle about table salt grain size. Three guys went to Darthaven and all 3are very good lads who have been working with me for a minimum now of 3 years. They called me when they found the epoxy was flaking off in places and exposing a gelcoat that had many voids. Had we blasted to remove the epoxy completely we would really have damaged this hull to the point that the hull may have been better served by gel peeling, the epoxy was sound in places and poor in others. I made the decision to remove the antifoul only as that is what we had been requested to do therefore causing minimal damage which would then require the hull having to have a good sanding-hard work but had the job been done properly in the first place the epoxy wouldn't be flaking off. This decision was approved by the on site painter.
The difficulty with this type of work also is distance-we ask the yard how thick the antifoul is so that we get an idea of what abrasive to carry onboard and in this case we used our usual abrasive which does an excellent job, sometimes though a coarser abrasive may be better as it smashes a tough epoxy breaking it up quickly so doing less damage to the underlying gelcoat because you are not hanging around long enough to actually hit much gelcoat (understand?)
In this instance I feel that all the epoxy needs removal as it cannot be trusted and the best way is random orbit sanding with 60 grit, this will be a hard job and I reckon 4 of my guys would crack this out in a day-no one who has seen these guys work will dispute that they work extremely hard.
The hull would then benefit from 2-3 coats of solvent free epoxy rolled on and bladed smooth-see website-this would use pure epoxy to fill the voids and followed by an epoxy primer all that would then be required would be a light sand to remove any blade lines then straight on with 4coats of Coppercoat.
The above process is not cheap but by God you will have the very best job possible that will last years-this is what I've done to my yacht and many others too and I cannot think of a more bullet proof solution ( providing the hull is dry)
Last edited:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
LJS, of course I have no idea of how your hull actually looks like, and how many actually are the "many voids" in the gelcoat that symblastpaul mentioned.
But fwiw, I've seen a fair number of old(ish) GRP hulls with this type of problem, and the recommended course of action from GRP experts has always been along lines similar to those suggested by him.
Often with a complete gel peeling, depending on how bad the situation is.
There's one thing though, which he just touched on, but afaik is very important: drying out the hull perfectly, after the cleaning and before the final surface renovation.
In fact, this job is typically done with the boat sheltered - or at least, covering the whole hull and insulating it from external rain and moisture.
One of the best yards I know, specialized in these jobs, even has a big heated, dried and ventilated shelter, where they keep the boat for as long as necessary after the cleaning.
Bottom line, if the hull needs such expensive job, imho it's worth doing it, because I'm afraid there isn't any cheaper longlasting solution. And the sooner the better.
But I would definitely want it to be done not only by experienced folks, but also in the right conditions.
But fwiw, I've seen a fair number of old(ish) GRP hulls with this type of problem, and the recommended course of action from GRP experts has always been along lines similar to those suggested by him.
Often with a complete gel peeling, depending on how bad the situation is.
There's one thing though, which he just touched on, but afaik is very important: drying out the hull perfectly, after the cleaning and before the final surface renovation.
In fact, this job is typically done with the boat sheltered - or at least, covering the whole hull and insulating it from external rain and moisture.
One of the best yards I know, specialized in these jobs, even has a big heated, dried and ventilated shelter, where they keep the boat for as long as necessary after the cleaning.
Bottom line, if the hull needs such expensive job, imho it's worth doing it, because I'm afraid there isn't any cheaper longlasting solution. And the sooner the better.
But I would definitely want it to be done not only by experienced folks, but also in the right conditions.
Sheppy
Well-Known Member
Hi John,
Firstly, I'm really sorry to hear about your troubles. With these sorts of threads you'll always get a conflicting range of opinions, of which I'll try not to add to!
I think one issue here that's come through, well to me anyway, is perhaps the lack of warning/discussions on potential problems with this kind of treatment post blasting. I'm quite sure this company have done what they believe to be a good job, so far, but there are pitfalls and I feel owners should be made more aware of the issues that can arise thus allow for extra planning and contingencies to better manage the entire process.
I've looked into this previously and although I believe slurry/soda blasting is a much safer system, all of which are still very abrasive, that doesn't really help you now. There are however people at Galmpton that deal with this, two different companies, I'm sure you can find them quite easily, and get some additional 'local' advice.
As you know I've pretty much given up on this whole antifouling lark due to various issues and finding nothing that really works, but I don't think a boat lift is your answer
I was put off, at the time, from blasting off my antifoul paint due to the potential (and very real) problems I might experience afterwards, and I'm grateful, I think, to the guys I spoke to and their honesty.
Hopefully I see you soon,
John
Firstly, I'm really sorry to hear about your troubles. With these sorts of threads you'll always get a conflicting range of opinions, of which I'll try not to add to!
I think one issue here that's come through, well to me anyway, is perhaps the lack of warning/discussions on potential problems with this kind of treatment post blasting. I'm quite sure this company have done what they believe to be a good job, so far, but there are pitfalls and I feel owners should be made more aware of the issues that can arise thus allow for extra planning and contingencies to better manage the entire process.
I've looked into this previously and although I believe slurry/soda blasting is a much safer system, all of which are still very abrasive, that doesn't really help you now. There are however people at Galmpton that deal with this, two different companies, I'm sure you can find them quite easily, and get some additional 'local' advice.
As you know I've pretty much given up on this whole antifouling lark due to various issues and finding nothing that really works, but I don't think a boat lift is your answer
I was put off, at the time, from blasting off my antifoul paint due to the potential (and very real) problems I might experience afterwards, and I'm grateful, I think, to the guys I spoke to and their honesty.
Hopefully I see you soon,
John
Last edited:
CX54WEK
Well-Known Member
We stripped the antifoul off Naughty-Cal a few weeks ago the good old fashioned way with some wood scrapers and elbow grease. Took a good few man hours (two off us three weekends with nine hour working days each day so over 100 man hours in total!!) but the result was great.
The intention had been to epoxy prime and then coppercoat the boat but after asking around and getting the opinion of a trusted surveyor we decided against it and opted for our usual antifoul after a coat of non epoxy primer. It does look great now but in hindsight we should have asked around sooner and then not gone to the extreme of stripping the paint in the first place. At least now we are starting afresh and know how much and of what paint is in it.
The intention had been to epoxy prime and then coppercoat the boat but after asking around and getting the opinion of a trusted surveyor we decided against it and opted for our usual antifoul after a coat of non epoxy primer. It does look great now but in hindsight we should have asked around sooner and then not gone to the extreme of stripping the paint in the first place. At least now we are starting afresh and know how much and of what paint is in it.
