Anti Fouling South Side

[BroadScot]

37 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Boring, never! Okay, so there is a lack of overcrowding, stag parties, pirates and grockels in kiss-me-quick hats but that aside the South has space, some of the finest pubs and restaurants on the Broads, quick access to the sea, Norwich, Beccles, Somerleyton Hall and Burgh Castle for day trips, Geldeston Locks, great fishing, the best sailing rivers on the Broads, stacks of wildlife in amongst the reeds, boring the South Rivers are not, in my sincere and honest opinion. The only thing better up North than down South is above Potter Bridge.

Must mention the meander down the Chet to Loddon, JM. As I have said on here many times, above Wroxham Bridge to Coltishall is a delightful streach of water. 

We all have our favourites, is what I am trying to put across.

Iain

[dnks34]

We did ours in March this year, there was no antifoul on it before then.

We did a good job of cleaning the waterline and about 1 1/2ft below all round then cleaned the rest of the bottom up as best we could, it was dirty but no clinging creatures of any kind after 4 years in the wet. 

We then gave the 1 1/2ft we had cleaned properly 2 coats of broads antifoul all round and then a third coat just around the waterline and round the thruster tunnel rudder / skeg etc.  We also put 3 coats red oxide primer on the rudder and skeg a few months before hand. 

After being back in the water since march the difference is clear to see.  The waterline is cleaner and when looking below the waterline at the stern no growth can be seen where the antifoul was applied.

Ideally we should have done the whole bottom the same, maybe in the future we will put the extra effort in as it does seem to be worth it but if its a diy job it does require a lot of the physical labour! 

 

 

 

[Oddfellow]

We saw a vessel recently that had no antifoul on the underside. Looks like it never had any on it from the day it was built. It was in an absolutely shocking state. To say that it had osmosis would be an understatement. It was pockmaked like an unfortunate teenager with stress fractures emanating from many of them. Not to put too fine a point on it, it was beyond economic repair. 

Don't forget, gel is NOT impervious to water. Fibreglass is less so. A protective layer over the gel can't be a bad thing. 

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

We saw a vessel recently that had no antifoul on the underside. Looks like it never had any on it from the day it was built. It was in an absolutely shocking state. To say that it had osmosis would be an understatement. It was pockmaked like an unfortunate teenager with stress fractures emanating from many of them. Not to put too fine a point on it, it was beyond economic repair. 

Don't forget, gel is NOT impervious to water. Fibreglass is less so. A protective layer over the gel can't be a bad thing. 

A protective layer over the gel can't be a bad thing. 

Can't argue with that, no gel under the waterline with epoxy direct to the resin is another option. I doubt that antifouling is impervious to water.  Where's Strow when you want him, don't doubt that he would know what's best!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

On 12/07/2016 at 9:09 PM, FreedomBoatingHols said:

We saw a vessel recently that had no antifoul on the underside. Looks like it never had any on it from the day it was built. It was in an absolutely shocking state. To say that it had osmosis would be an understatement. It was pockmaked like an unfortunate teenager with stress fractures emanating from many of them. Not to put too fine a point on it, it was beyond economic repair. 

Don't forget, gel is NOT impervious to water. Fibreglass is less so. A protective layer over the gel can't be a bad thing. 

Andy`s last point reminded me of something very recently at work.  As some of you may know, i build aircraft interiors at Bournemouth airport. A year or so ago, we had a number of new contractors start that came from nearby Sunseekers at Poole, having been made redundant. A month or so ago, i was talking to one of the guys about Osmosis, i can`t remember how we got on the subject, but i was to say, more than a little surprised, to hear this guy question my comments that GRP can absorb moisture. He simply did`nt believe it, saying it was more likely due to scratches in the gel, or where through hull / deck fittings are incorrectly sealed.  I`ve known since i was 12 about GRP boats and the dreaded osmosis, and am more than happy to believe what i`ve always believed, and Andy has just backed me up with his last paragraph above.

Many years of scientific research and developement has gone into the manufacturing and testeing of antifouling in different climatic conditions for good reasons. To protect both the environment, and the boat you own. Don`t be fooled by inexperienced peoples claims to the contrary.

As for Andy`s quote of £12 per linear foot including lift out, jet wash re-antifoul, and  lift in,  if you think that`s expensive, come down here to Poole harbour, you`ll pay more than that just for the lift out alone. That equates to £300 for a 25 footer, you do the maths?.

 

 

[Vaughan]

On 12 Jul 2016 at 9:37 AM, marshman said:

Perhaps we should now resurrect the thread about whether it is actually necessary on the Broads?????

I have just been reading this thread after a few days away, so let me throw one or two ideas into the "pond" and see how you react!

Speedtriple says that he has met people from Sunseeker who are surprised about osmosis through gel-coat. This is because those companies, as well as Benetteau, have developed resins which are resistant to this problem. They are also flame retardant (a big bonus). We, however, are talking about older boats, when the technology was not so advanced.

I have said on another thread that antifouling, and paint, are not a protection against osmosis. This is because it can also enter the mat through the bilges. In my experience, most osmosis comes from the laying up of the mould, where the mat has not been soaked in enough resin. This creates dry areas within the layers, which can easily absorb water. This water can also enter if the laying up has been done in an excessively humid atmosphere. I will certainly not mention names but I have seen boats moulded by a Norfolk yard which, when in a collision, have no better strength than cardboard, and I have been able to crumble the mat away from the hole in my hands, like dried biscuit. I have also seen boats where the gel-coat was no thicker than a coat of milk.

When you take the panelling off the back of a wardrobe cupboard and you can see the setting sun through the side of the hull, you know that there may have been "economies" in the construction!

And so to antifouling. We have not yet mentioned that these are "hard" or "soft". Fouling will not happen when a boat is in motion, so boats like hire craft, or yachts that are regularly raced, will need a hard antifoul which releases its poison slowly, as these boats do not spend a long time moored up, and are usually hauled out when not in use. If your boat stands a lot of time on a mooring then you need a soft antifoul which will release poison more quickly, into the still water of a dyke or basin, and thus repel plant growth. In both cases these treatments do not last long, and so must be re-applied every year, or even every 6 months. This is another reason why you never antifoul a boat until just an hour before you launch it.

Incidentally I know that antifoulings have been improved over the years so that they contain less pollutants, etc., but it remains a fact that even a modern product is there to repel plant and marine growth. However you look at it, this means it releasing some kind of poison into the water. 

And so to hire boats.

All boats that I have ever run have had their waterlines painted in gloss enamel, usually Permoglaze. This means you can easily clean it on a Saturday with some Jif, but if you try to do that with antifouling you will scrub it off. After all, antifouling is a soft paint that is supposed to gradually degrade. I can assure you that if you want your boat to look good, clean the waterline first. This will "fool the eye" for the rest of it!

As to the bottom, if it is a wooden boat then it needs protection and I still think you cannot beat a good coat of tar varnish, slapped on with a roller. If it is a GRP hull, then leave it bare! If it was going to get osmosis, then it will already have got it (but it will not get any worse) and if the boat grows a bit of weed, then it will go slower. Yes, contrary to popular belief, we boat hirers do want our boats to go slower! It is our customers who sometimes don't see it that way. . . . .

So when you haul the boat out in the winter (and you DO haul your boat out every winter, don't you?) a quick going over with a pressure washer will cure all ills.

Personally, if I wanted to protect my boat from the so-called fresh water of the Broads I would look carefully at the cathodic protection of the rudder, stern gear and external skin fittings.

 

[Baitrunner]

Boats that live in freshwater tend to be fare less affected by growth than than those in salt water or warmer climes. 

I have my boat lifted and dried then anti fouled every 2 yrs. last Nov when she came out the hull has a layer of slime on it and the drive legs had a free crusty squatters. Nothing too bad. 

I would suggest you can get away with a hard anti foul repainted every 2 yrs. 

as Vaughan says though the more you use it the less crud you will collect.