Prop anti-fouling treatments-is it worth it?

BlueYonder said:

Micron 66 is great if you keep the boat in salt water. Even brackish water can cause the paint to fail.

Click to expand...

Blue Yonder

All our testing was conducted in pristine water, in a group of moorings off a swimming beach and our results with Micron 66 were stunning, compared to some other AF. The bay opens to the Tasman Sea. But you mention that it is not quite so effective in brackish water and I have heard less than enthusiastic comment from one person in a marina (which might suggest any number of factors).

Jonathan

fstbttms said:

That's funny. I know any number of dive services doing land office business in Florida. And I have heard anecdotally that monthly cleanings are de rigeur there. Maybe it depends on specific location. In California, anywhere from 6 to 15 cleanings a year are typical with quality anti fouling paints performing well for 3+ years.

Click to expand...

From what I gather from other boaters in our PNW marina, a dive every six months seems typical for owners willing to pay for this service (like us). Since divers are no longer allowed to actually wipe down bottoms anymore the service consists of knocking off barnacles, changing zincs, and checking the condition of the bottom paint, through hulls, and running gear.

The people we know who have used a prop coating have reported less than stirling results with it. According to them, the coatings are pretty well shot in terms of effectiveness within a year. Now these are bosts the get used fairly regularly year round. For a boat that is given a prop treatment and then just sits, I don't know how long the coating is effective.

Growth does not seem to be as much of an issue here as barnacles.

Djbangi said:

But you mention that it is not quite so effective in brackish water and I have heard less than enthusiastic comment from one person in a marina (which might suggest any number of factors).

Click to expand...

Micron 66 is not simply "not quite so effective in brackish water", it is ruined by it. Micron 66 requires a specific salinity level to work at all and deprived of this for even a short time, is essentially "killed."

Marin said:

Since divers are no longer allowed to actually wipe down bottoms anymore...

Click to expand...

This is not the case. Ablative paints cannot be cleaned in Washington but all others can.

fstbttms said:

That's funny. I know any number of dive services doing land office business in Florida. And I have heard anecdotally that monthly cleanings are de rigeur there. Maybe it depends on specific location. In California, anywhere from 6 to 15 cleanings a year are typical with quality anti fouling paints performing well for 3+ years.

Click to expand...

Not wishing to get into any argument over this, all I can say is the water where my boat is berthed is in Southeast Queensland, and our climate is similar to that of Florida I've been told, yet here is my (boat's) bottom, just hauled before even a spray down, after 3 & ¼ years in the water, with only occasional use - often not out for weeks at a time, (sadly), and here is the result, with Micron Extra, and PropSpeed, and never a diver went near it. However, I often see fish having a go at the few growths one sees around the waterline. Maybe we have great boat-bottom feeding fish..?

The performance was down maybe half a knot max, and it appeared to have lasted just as well as the 3 years I got with Micron 66 previously, and the Extra is quite a bit cheaper. When you ran your hand over it, other than where there were some barnacles, like the rudder foot, it still felt quite smooth and slippery.

I almost felt like saying to the guy, hey just give her a good squirt and we'll plop her back in - just kidding, but only just - but she needed an insurance survey as well, so had to come out.

fstbttms said:

This is not the case. Ablative paints cannot be cleaned in Washington but all others can.

Click to expand...

Not in our harbor. According to the dive service and the Port the wiping down of bottoms is not allowed, period. This has been the case for many years now.

I have no idea what the state requirements are, or even if there are any. But in our harbor, no bottom wipe downs are allowed. The kind of paint makes no difference at all. When the announcement was made in the Port's newsletter, the reason given was environmental. As best I can recall, this requirement was put into effect back in the earlier 2000s.

Peter B said:

Not wishing to get into any argument over this, all I can say is the water where my boat is berthed is in Southeast Queensland, and our climate is similar to that of Florida I've been told, yet here is my (boat's) bottom, just hauled before even a spray down, after 3 & ¼ years in the water, with only occasional use - often not out for weeks at a time, (sadly), and here is the result, with Micron Extra, and PropSpeed, and never a diver went near it. However, I often see fish having a go at the few growths one sees around the waterline. Maybe we have great boat-bottom feeding fish..?

Click to expand...

If that represents over three years without a cleaning, then your boat lives in very low fouling waters.

This pic represents about a year's growth on a Coppercoat bottom in Berkeley, CA.

Marin said:

Not in our harbor. According to the dive service and the Port the wiping down of bottoms is not allowed, period. This has been the case for many years now.

I have no idea what the state requirements are, or even if there are any. But in our harbor, no bottom wipe downs are allowed. The kind of paint makes no difference at all. When the announcement was made in the Port's newsletter, the reason given was environmental. As best I can recall, this requirement was put into effect back in the earlier 2000s.

Click to expand...

That is a marina-specific regulation then. Washington has no edict banning in-water hull cleaning, only the restriction on cleaning ablative paints.

"...hard-coatings and epoxy-based hard paints are now available for boat hulls. They provide a slick surface and they are safe for in-water cleaning."

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/CleanBoating/hull.html

fstbttms said:

That is a marina-specific regulation then. Washington has no edict banning in-water hull cleaning, only the restriction on cleaning ablative paints.

Click to expand...

I just looked it all up. The state does not allow the wiping down of bottoms with ablative paint on them (which is what the vast majority of boats up here use, according to their data).

Our harbor uses the Soundkeeper organization's guidelines for boat maintenance and repair, which says that any boat bottom with sloughing paint should not be wiped down, nor a bottom with any other kind of paint where there is a risk of anything come off into the water. I'm guessing our Port folks decided that the easiestr course of action was simply to ban the wiping down of any bottoms, period.

On the other hand, they are pretty liberal with what a person can do to the portion of the boat that's above the water. About the only thing that's flat out not allowed is metal grinding. Washing, sanding, brightwork and painting--- even spray painting on a very small scale with the appropriate enclousure--- are allowed.

I wonder how much extra fuel is burned and hydrocarbons are emitted by boats going around with uncleaned bottoms.

fstbttms said:

I wonder how much extra fuel is burned and hydrocarbons emitted by boats going around with uncleaned bottoms.

Click to expand...

In the case of slow diesel cruisers like a lot of us have, probably not much at 6 to 8 knots. In the case of boats like our crusing companions' lobsterboat which cruises at 15-16 knots, it probably makes a pretty significant difference.

Marin said:

In the case of slow diesel cruisers like a lot of us have, probably not much at 6 to 8 knots. In the case of boats like our crusing companions' lobsterboat which cruises at 15-16 knots, it probably makes a pretty significant difference.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the question remains; does the harm done to the marine environment by in-water hull cleaning activities outweigh the harm done by the fossil fuels burned by boats that now do not get to have their bottoms cleaned?

fstbttms said:

Perhaps, but the question remains; does the harm done to the marine environment by in-water hull cleaning activities outweigh the harm done by the fossil fuels burned by boats that now do not get to have their bottoms cleaned?

Click to expand...

The environmental folks seem to think so.

fstbttms said:

I wonder how much extra fuel is burned and hydrocarbons are emitted by boats going around with uncleaned bottoms.

Click to expand...

Not much I bet. Because those boat tend to be the ones that don't move much if at all.

Capt.Bill11 said:

Not much I bet. Because those boat tend to be the ones that don't move much if at all.

Click to expand...

Good point. The ones that do move a fair amount tend to have ablative paint on them (up here, anyway) and they "clean themselves" while they're underway.

And the ones that don't move and have slimy, mossy, weedy bottoms are helping the environment by providing food and a place to hide for little fishes. Which when they do swim out provide food for the herons that stalk our docks at night. Which in turn fertilize the trees and bushes with their poop. Which in turn provides habitats and food for mice and birds and slugs and stuff.

So dirty bottoms are, in fact, great for the environment. Cleaning them is actually commiting a crime against nature.

Marin said:

And the ones that don't move and have slimy, mossy, weedy bottoms are helping the environment by providing food and a place to hide for the little fishes.

Click to expand...

I call those boats surface reefs.

Capt.Bill11 said:

Not much I bet. Because those boat tend to be the ones that don't move much if at all.

Click to expand...

You missed the point. In Marin's marina, nobody can have their bottom cleaned, whether the boats get used much or not.

fstbttms said:

You missed the point. In Marin's marina, nobody can have their bottom cleaned, whether the boats get used much or not.

Click to expand...

The point is that the boats that get used clean their own bottoms because just about everybody around here uses ablative paint. The boats that just sit feed the fishes.

fstbttms said:

You missed the point.

Click to expand...

I think not.

I refused to pay for Prop Speed and used this Pettit product called Barnacle Buster (I think). Haven't been in the water very long so have no performance reports but several here on the forum reported good results. Cost .... about $14. It's grey color as in the pic.

In a lot of places Prop Speed is well worth the money but when there's no need to go latest and high tech usually it's a waste of money. Some of the places well south of the US PNW need much better anti-fowling protection and Prop Speed could be well worth the expenditure but using it "just because" leans toward the "D" and the "S" words. What did people do in the past? A lot of people here think the past is "S" and "D".

Before Prop Speed my prop would be heavely fouled long before the rest of the bottom needed cleaning. With Prop Speed And modern anti foul paints I can go better than a year without cleaning the prop or bottom. No I'm not tolerant of fouling.

To my surprise I picked up both RPM and almost a knot of top speed when I applied Prop Speed.

At my next, well past due, haul out I'm going to try Velox. My understanding is that Velox uses a poison and Prop Speed doesn't.

HopCar said:

My understanding is that Velox uses a poison and Prop Speed doesn't.

Click to expand...

Prop Speed is a "foul release" coating, meaning it provides a surface too slippery for fouling organisms to readily attach. Velox uses several forms of zinc to retard growth, much like the current crop of zinc-based anti fouling paints for hulls.

I pulled my boat last week after 2 years in brackish water, and was surprised at how clean it was. The prop had been treated with Prop Speed, and looked great other than a few small barnacles where the coating had broken down (possibly due to galvanic corrosion)

The hull only required a light spray wash to remove the slime, and a little more growth on the waterline.
The only big growth area was the stainless rudder shoe. It was barnacle city. I painted the stainless shoe with a $8 can of high zinc spray paint. I don't know if it will help, but it will be be a low cost test.

You can use Prop Speed/Gold and Velox on any metal protruberance (you could use it on the whole boat I think) the only restriction is cost (and if you do it yourself, time). If these items preferentially foul, (rudder, etc) then they might be worth doing - otherwise a decent AF should be suitable. But rudders enjoy a lot of wash (and sometimes abrasion from cavitation) from the prop and ablative paints can be stripped off quite quickly - so a hard AF might be a better idea. You might need caution with Prop Gold/Speed - the silicone might strip off easily. One needs to look at the boat when it comes out of the water and knowing what was applied last time - make a decision on whether different paints in different areas might be advantageous.

Previous to the modern treatments people tried everything you can imagine, stove black (graphite) was one, lanolin anther. The idea was to produce a slippery surface - we found that marine organisms ate the lanolin and then set up home there!

Be very cautious of experiences from cold water areas - in Europe for example many slip their boats for 6 months, so when they report good results they omit to mention a season is only half a year.

On the horizon are 3 pack fluoro polymers, used by Navies round the world and Cruise ships (Cunard, Princess et al), Desparately expensive and require skilled application but life of 12 years is being quoted. They are also quite toxic to make and apply (which is one reason they are not available to us). They are very difficult to repair and once you use them you then commit to using them for life as they are very difficult to remove and allow a conventional paint to be applied (the paint falls off). They are a modern version of Prop Speed/Gold. Most of the big surface coating companies make them. Currently they only appear to be packed in bulk (oil barrels). It is said they actually reduce fuel consumption and increase max cruising speeds because they are so slippery. A few trials have been run on leisure vessels but it does not seem to have caught on yet (I know of trails - one in America and one in Europe). The surface coatings companies are aware we represent a market - but have not found a way to service us yet. In Oz it takes 6-7 years to get approval for any new AF paint for amateur/leisure usage - I can see why the surface coating companies are not rushing in!

Jonathan

AusCan said:

I pulled my boat last week after 2 years in brackish water, and was surprised at how clean it was. The prop had been treated with Prop Speed, and looked great other than a few small barnacles where the coating had broken down (possibly due to galvanic corrosion)....

Click to expand...

Can I tap your experience, I`m about to apply P/S for the first time. Is it maintainable? Next haulout, do you strip the lot and redo, or touch up broken down areas, or recoat over the existing, or a combination?

BruceK said:

Can I tap your experience, I`m about to apply P/S for the first time. Is it maintainable? Next haulout, do you strip the lot and redo, or touch up broken down areas, or recoat over the existing, or a combination?

Click to expand...

The trick to making Propspeed last is to not brush it off with anything abrasive when you wipe it down under water. A gloved hand or sponge is about all you want to lightly wipe it down with.

You have to redo it completely. You can't touch it up. Well, should amend that a bit. You can touch it up but by the time you get around to it, as in a year or more later, it ends up being time to redo the whole job.

And it is only applied to metal.

BruceK said:

Can I tap your experience, I`m about to apply P/S for the first time. Is it maintainable? Next haulout, do you strip the lot and redo, or touch up broken down areas, or recoat over the existing, or a combination?

Click to expand...

Bruce,
I'm still on my first trial of Propspeed, but I've been told that all the old coating must be scraped off before recoating.

The acid etching primer; and the prop speed clear coating must be replaced each time.

AusCan said:

Bruce,
I'm still on my first trial of Propspeed, but I've been told that all the old coating must be scraped off before recoating.

The acid etching primer; and the prop speed clear coating must be replaced each time.

Click to expand...

+1

You need to strip with abrasive and get down to bare metal, each time. Velox has the advantage that if the coating is sound you only need to clean, abrade lightly (to form a new key) and then recoat with the active top coat.

After 3 months I dove on the boat yesterday. Sorry no pics! The prop which I had done with Velox was almost completely barnacle free. There were a couple barnacle 'foot prints' where they had been slung off during use. But this is MUCH better that anything I've tried previous.

I did not use Velox on the hub. The prop guy I used recommended leaving the black epoxy on around the hub. I wish I had removed it all and veloxed the entire prop!

My exposed metals used to accumulate huge growth. My shafts went from 1 1/2" to almost 3". My props were not much better. And I tried all the local remedies. I even took my props to a plating company and paid to have them copper plated. No, even that didn't work.

NOw at haul time my shafts have spotted growth and not much at all; same with the props.

My solution was to first clean all the metal growth as best I could. Next, sprayed the metals with zinc chromate or whatever is in Rustolium's so called product. The paint bonded to the metals well and acted as bonding agent for bottom paint which I next applied. The bottom paint was nothing special other than it was a hard bottom paint rather than ablative.

This works..........at least it works well for me and it is inexpensive!