Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site browngr.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!browngr!jfh From: jfh@browngr.UUCP (John F. Hughes) Newsgroups: net.rec.boat Subject: Re: Bottom paint Message-ID: <10090@browngr.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-Mar-85 21:23:11 EST Article-I.D.: browngr.10090 Posted: Sun Mar 17 21:23:11 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Mar-85 23:44:25 EST References: <259@eneevax.UUCP> <1452@ut-ngp.UUCP> <886@utcsri.UUCP> Reply-To: jfh@sluggo.UUCP (John (Spike) Hughes) Organization: Brown University Computer Science Lines: 26 Summary: A brief report on bottom paint: my father did an experiment last year on his Mercer 44, which he had in the water about 8 months of the year, mostly in Marion, Mass., but also in Maine and Long Island Sound. He painted the starboard bow underbody and port quarter underbody with (I think) Petit bottom paint. The remaining two portions were painted with another bottom paint. One paint cost about $70/gal, the other about $30/gal. The results: no visible difference in protection. The reason for the quarter-by-quarter method is that boats which lie on a mooring tend to have one side towards the sun most of the day (in Marion, the wind is (almost always) from the SW, while the sun is in the south. This means that the starboard side of the bottom is in shadow while the port side is in sunlight...) On the subject of 'flashy' bottom paints: if you can get an old can of grafspeed (is that how it's spelled), i.e. more than 10 years old, the stuff is great. Recent stuff isn't half as good. The reason: they aren't allowed to use the same toxic junk in it. This means that if you *do* use it, you should feel guilty about pollution. One last remark: 'Sears Best' bottom paint is a real bargain if you don't care about having the very best. I used it one summer in fresh water and was very happy with it. -jfh