SailNet Community banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

bell ringer
Joined
6,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is kind of just thinking out loud with my fingers.

My current SeaHawk paint was just a waste of money ! I got their top paints available in the US and hard growth started within a month. A MONTH! At $275 and $210 per gal that is just bull ****! So I have been looking at other paints now for over a year.

Instead of the marketing hype, like the Seahawk fake warranty, I started looking at what the actives are in the various paints. This is mostly copper, some type of slime agent, and a binder/polymer that wears away etc. That finally led me the Sherwin Williams Copper Bottom #45 and the PPG ABC3 paints. Both these are basically at their heart are 45% copper paints and in a year of searching have yet to find a displeased owner of either. Besides the binders and polymers the main difference between the 2 I can see is while both have zinc in them, the PPG has almost 3 times the Copper #45. Since zinc is a good hard growth biocide I am leaning toward the PPG ABC3.

I can get the SW Copper #45 for $103/gal or the PPG ABC3 for $99/gal, each having as much copper as the hyped up bottom paints we always hear about,
 

Registered
Joined
2,276 Posts
This is kind of just thinking out loud with my fingers.

My current SeaHawk paint was just a waste of money ! I got their top paints available in the US and hard growth started within a month. A MONTH! At $275 and $210 per gal that is just bull ****! So I have been looking at other paints now for over a year.

Instead of the marketing hype, like the Seahawk fake warranty, I started looking at what the actives are in the various paints. This is mostly copper, some type of slime agent, and a binder/polymer that wears away etc. That finally led me the Sherwin Williams Copper Bottom #45 and the PPG ABC3 paints. Both these are basically at their heart are 45% copper paints and in a year of searching have yet to find a displeased owner of either. Besides the binders and polymers the main difference between the 2 I can see is while both have zinc in them, the PPG has almost 3 times the Copper #45. Since zinc is a good hard growth biocide I am leaning toward the PPG ABC3.

I can get the SW Copper #45 for $103/gal or the PPG ABC3 for $99/gal, each having as much copper as the hyped up bottom paints we always hear about,
There is a discussion on both of these paints here: Sherwin Williams COPPER BOTTOM ANTI-FOULING PAINT #45. You probably know about it because you participated but others may not be aware of that thread.
 

Registered
Joined
154 Posts
In 2002, I had to haul out in El Salvador. The only bottom paint available was some Sherwin-Williams at $45/gallon. It was mostly used on local pangas and fishing boats. It kept the bottom perfectly clean and was gone in a year. I wouldn鈥檛 use it again, but it did what it was supposed to do for a reasonable time and a good price.
 

Administrator
Beneteau 393
Joined
9,216 Posts
@Don L How about doing a test? On each side do some stripes of different paints? Then the differing light conditions etc should be evened out.

Maybe mix the 2 paints for one stripe.

All I know is we are being ripped off severely. If a slow moving cargo ship (some only go 10 to 12 knots year in /year out) spend $300 per gallon per year they would run broke.

BTW I have used both Sea Hawke and Micron Pro.... Black is by far the better colour.

Mark
 

Registered
Joined
5,639 Posts
On each side do some stripes of different paints? Then the differing light conditions etc should be evened out.
We've got a bit of that going on right now. The boat has Coppercoat, but I glassed over some thruhulls and slapped on Pettit Vivid bottom paint over the new glass work. So far after 7 months, the Vivid is one of the worse bottom paints I've experienced, and the Coppercoat is even worse than the Vivid.

I will say this about Vivid, though. The colors are very good and intense and are not fading or changing color. The reason it is on the bottom patches is because I was using it to make a custom color to paint over our boot stripe to help prevent grass growing there, so had some extra laying around. Besides nice colors, it also burnishes hard and smooth and to a semi gloss, so really looks like topside paint (at least along the water line). So far, it seems to be working in this application, but I wouldn't paint a boat bottom with it.

Mark
 

Registered
Joined
5,639 Posts
Another interesting observation is that I chocked our daggerboard trunks using epoxy thickened with graphite powder. I didn't put any antifouling over the part of the chocking that is exposed around the trunks. So far, nothing has grown on this. Too slippery? Too toxic? Not enough elapsed time?

Mark
 

Administrator
Beneteau 393
Joined
9,216 Posts
With the black paint I think it doesnt reflect the light as much so the undersides are darker making a less hospitable place for growth.
Its also why I suggested a test on both sides of the boat because people often park the boat in the same direction, so the south facing side (in the northern hemisphere) might attract more growth than the northern side. Here in the Tradewinds areas the boat is always facing the east, starboard side always gets more light directly and from the reflections of the white sand bottom.

It would be great to know if one paint works better in brighter light, etc. Because theres no problem painting different paints on each side.

The paints you are suggesting cost 1/3rd of the ones I use... and I buy about 4 or 5 gallons per paint job. Saving $800 per year is a LOT of beer!!

@colemj "The reason it is on the bottom patches is because I was using it to make a custom color to paint over our boot stripe to help prevent grass growing there." Exactly! The gap between the antifouling and the boot strip started about 6 inches and now its about 1 inch and still gets mucky.

When I would use a Vivid antifouling colour is when selling the boat. I think that could be well worthwhile. Nothing worse than seeing a dirty, encrusted hull. A newly painted bright colour would be worth the money.

Mark
 

Banned
Joined
2,711 Posts
With the black paint I think it doesnt reflect the light as much so the undersides are darker making a less hospitable place for growth.
Black paint is no more effective than any other color when it come to retarding fouling growth (copper content notwithstanding.) The environment is not darker below a hull painted with black paint than one painted with white. It may be more difficult to see the fouling growth on a black hull but there is not less of it.
 

bell ringer
Joined
6,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
I found more forum threads with PPG users. None of the USERS have had anything bad to say about the ABC3 paint. BUT ON EVERY ONE our SF bottom cleaner came in to say otherwise and to turn the thread into an argument.

PPG doesn't do a lot of marketing to recreational boaters as we probably aren't worth much of their time. I sent in a technical inquiry about actives and recommendations and will see what they have to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CVAT

bell ringer
Joined
6,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Well I got the PPG ABC3 paint and will try to update this over the next 3 years with how it did. But at $495 for 5-gal it is bound to work as well as the 4-gal of SeaHawk paint that was $920 that had hard growth within a month.

And I got black so if it doesn't work I am blaming MarkJ
 

Administrator
Beneteau 393
Joined
9,216 Posts
Well I got the PPG ABC3 paint and will try to update this over the next 3 years with how it did. But at $495 for 5-gal it is bound to work as well as the 4-gal of SeaHawk paint that was $920 that had hard growth within a month.
That cost saving is more than just significant. Over the lifetime of a boat its a game-changer.

Looking forward to the results :)
 

bell ringer
Joined
6,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Thread rises from the dead.

I find it interesting that according to the Federal pesticide license PPG ABC3 paint is only approved for commercial yard application on commercial boats. It specifically says not for recreational boats. Yet I brought the it at PPG store. I found a couple of State licenses and they say the same.
 

Registered
Joined
5,639 Posts
Since it is marketed toward the commercial market, I suspect there is probably just additional paperwork for recreational approval that the company didn't find worthwhile to pursue. I've found other paints like this - Micron 77 & 99, some of the Jotun paints. Some of these are also sold only in 5gal or larger containers. I've also found some recreational paints that state they can only be applied "professionally", whatever that means.

That thrill you get when you break the law...

Mark
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top