G
Guest
Guest
There is perhaps only one thing worse than a company who inadvertently sells a product that proves to be less than perfect, is one that fails to deal with the faulty
Product when called upon by their irate customer.
Back in February I bought some XM antifouling and primer with view to antifouling my yacht. During the lay up period I had scrubbed the bottom three times, and finally washed it off with fresh water as per the instructions, thoroughly dried the hull (on a breezy day) then proceeded to first paint the iron keels with the XM Primer. It went on well but on returning to the boat I noticed that some peeling had taken place. I washed the keels with fresh water again sanded the first coat and applied a second coat. This time it looked better and I considered it safe to apply the antifouling.
The previous years I had used Jotun antifouling and found that this works well in the upper reaches of the Percuil River. Even the silt didn't seem to want stick to Jotun, and I only changed to XM because of temporary unavailability of Jotun.
Anyway, I proceeded to apply the antifoul on what I considered to be an ideal day, sunny and warm with a gentle breeze. I noticed that the last years coat on the fibreglass areas of the hull was being stripped by the XM antifoul, I had to scrape what I could of the damaged substrate and proceed. I thought at this stage that there was a problem but felt that providing the antifoul would take to the ZM primer I would only apply the one coat to the hull and deal with it later in the year. The antifoul went over the primer ok.
There were neap tides at the time and the water did not at that time come up to the boat that was left high and dry on the riverbank. During the following week we had very heavy rain and when I returned to the boat found that large areas of the hull and keels had peeled.
I contacted XM (Simon Thomas) who asked all sorts of questions then said that they would come and have a look at the hull. Meanwhile I sent them what amounted to about 1/3 can of the antifouling so that they could try it out for themselves, they sent a carrier and paid for the return of the can to their office. I took the precaution of keeping some in a tin so that I can have it independently analysed. They came and had a look at the boat that had at that time been launched. The tide was high and the rain poured on the poor chap, who had been told by me that if he came at low tide most if not all of the hull would be visible. Sadly he chose not take my advice and really was able to see sweet nothing.
Despite Simon Thomas sending me an e-mail saying that they were waiting to hear from the manufacturer of the antifouling and me sending him numerous e-mails on the subject I have heard nothing. I can only assume by this that either XM have gone out of business or that Simon Thomas is practising gross ignorance of my communications. Thanks to XM I am left with what amounts to a flaking and damaged hull/keels just because they chose to market antifoul that act far better as paint stripper than antifoul.
The only cure that is likely to work is to have the boat hauled right out and sand blasted to clean this totally useless antifoul and primer from it. It must be said that I am not the only one who has experienced this kind of problem. I have spoken to three people who say that they had exactly the same thing happened to them. They didn't complain because of the difficulty persuading XM that they put the stuff on correctly. I would add to this and say, that any antifouling that is fickle in any way shouldn't be sold. If it is incompatible with other makes it should not be sold and if this is the best that XM can do, they should not be selling antifouling.
As a footnote, I would also say that the tin of antifoul had none of the usual health warnings and instructions including the exact contents of the antifoul. So assuming that someone applying the stuff became ill they would have to wait 2 months for Simon Thomas to reply to them to tell them why they are dying!! There must be something horrific in it, because Thomas went paranoid when I said that I was going to scrape the antifouling off!! XM antifoul certainly isn't the cheapest and in my experience is certainly the worst antifoul that I ever used. I doubt even if it is worth the title of the word "antifoul", but take the "anti" away and they're getting there.
This whole business has been going on since my original e-mail to XM in April and since the 14th May I have not heard from the blighters despite numerous e-mails requesting a reply - they have just taken to ignoring me - Such a caring company and one that obviously hopes for future business (or more likely none).
As a footnote: I am not slagging XM off for the sake of it, and I am sure that most of their products are seaworthy, but it does make me feel like looking elsewhere in future
Product when called upon by their irate customer.
Back in February I bought some XM antifouling and primer with view to antifouling my yacht. During the lay up period I had scrubbed the bottom three times, and finally washed it off with fresh water as per the instructions, thoroughly dried the hull (on a breezy day) then proceeded to first paint the iron keels with the XM Primer. It went on well but on returning to the boat I noticed that some peeling had taken place. I washed the keels with fresh water again sanded the first coat and applied a second coat. This time it looked better and I considered it safe to apply the antifouling.
The previous years I had used Jotun antifouling and found that this works well in the upper reaches of the Percuil River. Even the silt didn't seem to want stick to Jotun, and I only changed to XM because of temporary unavailability of Jotun.
Anyway, I proceeded to apply the antifoul on what I considered to be an ideal day, sunny and warm with a gentle breeze. I noticed that the last years coat on the fibreglass areas of the hull was being stripped by the XM antifoul, I had to scrape what I could of the damaged substrate and proceed. I thought at this stage that there was a problem but felt that providing the antifoul would take to the ZM primer I would only apply the one coat to the hull and deal with it later in the year. The antifoul went over the primer ok.
There were neap tides at the time and the water did not at that time come up to the boat that was left high and dry on the riverbank. During the following week we had very heavy rain and when I returned to the boat found that large areas of the hull and keels had peeled.
I contacted XM (Simon Thomas) who asked all sorts of questions then said that they would come and have a look at the hull. Meanwhile I sent them what amounted to about 1/3 can of the antifouling so that they could try it out for themselves, they sent a carrier and paid for the return of the can to their office. I took the precaution of keeping some in a tin so that I can have it independently analysed. They came and had a look at the boat that had at that time been launched. The tide was high and the rain poured on the poor chap, who had been told by me that if he came at low tide most if not all of the hull would be visible. Sadly he chose not take my advice and really was able to see sweet nothing.
Despite Simon Thomas sending me an e-mail saying that they were waiting to hear from the manufacturer of the antifouling and me sending him numerous e-mails on the subject I have heard nothing. I can only assume by this that either XM have gone out of business or that Simon Thomas is practising gross ignorance of my communications. Thanks to XM I am left with what amounts to a flaking and damaged hull/keels just because they chose to market antifoul that act far better as paint stripper than antifoul.
The only cure that is likely to work is to have the boat hauled right out and sand blasted to clean this totally useless antifoul and primer from it. It must be said that I am not the only one who has experienced this kind of problem. I have spoken to three people who say that they had exactly the same thing happened to them. They didn't complain because of the difficulty persuading XM that they put the stuff on correctly. I would add to this and say, that any antifouling that is fickle in any way shouldn't be sold. If it is incompatible with other makes it should not be sold and if this is the best that XM can do, they should not be selling antifouling.
As a footnote, I would also say that the tin of antifoul had none of the usual health warnings and instructions including the exact contents of the antifoul. So assuming that someone applying the stuff became ill they would have to wait 2 months for Simon Thomas to reply to them to tell them why they are dying!! There must be something horrific in it, because Thomas went paranoid when I said that I was going to scrape the antifouling off!! XM antifoul certainly isn't the cheapest and in my experience is certainly the worst antifoul that I ever used. I doubt even if it is worth the title of the word "antifoul", but take the "anti" away and they're getting there.
This whole business has been going on since my original e-mail to XM in April and since the 14th May I have not heard from the blighters despite numerous e-mails requesting a reply - they have just taken to ignoring me - Such a caring company and one that obviously hopes for future business (or more likely none).
As a footnote: I am not slagging XM off for the sake of it, and I am sure that most of their products are seaworthy, but it does make me feel like looking elsewhere in future
