Which Paint?

I would be asking their customers for comments. The best paint isn't any good if the prep and application aren't good. Also, just because someone is good with a cheap coating doesn't mean they they will do better with a more expensive one. I would look for each yard's work and see what time says about it (find boats they painted a couple years ago). Let them work with what they are comfortable with for the best results.

I've seen the guy at Cable Marine turn out some really nice paintjobs. They have 3 or 4 total repaints going on now. I had really bad luck with a well known outfit out of LMC where they painted the hull of a 58' searay in blue and they shot it 3 different times and it had grapefruit peel, not even orange peel........

I like traditional Awlgrip. I've found the Alexseal takes the same amount of matinenance and waxing as gelcoat......

Believe it or not this might well have had nothing to do with the applicator. I have recent experience of dark blue boats where the end result has been far from satisfactory.

If "traditional Awlgrip" was actually what you get in an Awlgrip tin there wouldn't be half the problems that are plaguing the industry today.

If you think Alexseal is high maintenance read the fine print about Du Pont that is sent after the job is finished and there are questions about why it doesn't look so good. It might be fine in cars and small boats but has not proved to be quite so good for one Owner I am aware of.

With the guys working out of LMC, the paint choice (brand/type) was theirs.

As in traditional Awlgrip.....I mean Awlgrip, not Awlcraft 2000 or etc..... Awlgrip recommends to never wax it. AND, if you use the Awlwash soap religiously it will maintain a nice shine for a decade.

I'm not familiar with Dupont too much. I do know of a boat I ran that was painted with Imron 15 years ago and still looks pretty good even though it has shown some signs of wear in the finish for the last 5 years.....

Hi,

I was writing about Awlgrip not Awlcraft.

The Awlgrip that you can get today is suffering the same fate as all the other big boys.

In an effort to lower the VOC's ( Volatile Organic Compounds) and to meet the environmental targets the recipes have all been modified, the end result is paint that is not what it was before the re mix.

I would be very keen to know how a paint job can last 10 yrs in top shape by using Awlwash. I have been on boats that used it and 5 yrs the paint is past its best.

10 years in my experience has been on white color, and smaller fiberglass boats. 50-100'. Dark colors and aluminum or even steel is a different story where many of your paint issues are from rust or paint bubbles.

I have been using Alexseal yacht paints for the last 4 years with no problems.

For more information on this topic please read the following thread:
http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/technical-discussion/13743-hull-paint-alexseal-awlgrip.html

Just a point I've been pondering.

If the Industry and Laws have made VOCs a bad thing, why do the older paints work much better? Old Awlgrip would last 10/15 years if looked after.

The new paints only last maybe 5 years, so more repainting, more VOCs, more waste. This 'green' ideal isn't really making much sense.

Just my 2 cents.

This goes for almost all "green" products, makes the quality go down and the waste go up...

Eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of coordination, nausea; damage to liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some organics can cause cancer in animals; some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans. Key signs or symptoms associated with exposure to VOCs include conjunctival irritation, nose and throat discomfort, headache, allergic skin reaction, dyspnea, declines in serum cholinesterase levels, nausea, emesis, epistaxis, fatigue, dizziness.

Many serious health conditions are now known to be often caused by VOC's and other chemicals. It's not a matter that painting a single boat would kill you, although inhaling too much could harm you. It's the total of what we're exposed to. The fact we're living longer, exposed longer, makes this even more of a problem. Often times too we're keeping people alive but as they age, the accumulated exposures are giving them a very poor quality of life. Just look at the number of people today on oxygen, or dialysis. The number having transplants of various organs. The number going through chemotherapy. The number with nerve disorders.

Whether it's formaldehyde, which was once so widely used and we were exposed to in so many ways, or VOC's, or the chemicals in plug in air fresheners, they add up. We develop new formulas and use chemicals to make products, such as paint work better but we can't find out the negative effects of things like VOC's for years or decades. When they're introduced, we can't possibly know the long term effects. But once we do know, then it's imperative that we develop new products without those effects. Over the years people have become exposed to many more chemicals. Determining which of those is truly safe and which ones harm us is difficult.

Surely we're smart enough to be able to develop paints without VOC's. It may take time to match the products that were loved. But ultimately if it comes down to our health versus making our yachts look better a little longer, then health has to win out. Most people probably aren't impacted. But what about that child who goes on the boat and turns out to have a horrific allergic reaction to VOC's? These attacks lead to repeated bronchitis and pneumonia. Fibrosis gradually takes place in many organs. The true impact hits when they're 50 or 60.

Neither does blending 10% Ethanol into the Gasoline here in the US that the EPA mandates, but that's what we're stuck with. 10% Ethanol = 10% less MPG and then you have the energy used to make the Ethanol, but that is big government and their agenda is to help a few people get ahead (corn farmers) and line their pockets in the process. And I lot of people with gas boats and older cars that spend thousands of dollars fixing the problems the Ethanol has created.

10% ethanol does not equal 10% less mileage if an engine is designed to run on it. And the other issues with the change happened when we went from leaded to unleaded fuel too. Trying to run an engine on a fuel it was not intended for always causes problems. I know people with, and have built e85 engines. Ethanol is cool burning and acts like it has a higher octane than is does have. To make it run right, you need more compression than a gasoline engine will have. Running ethanol with out the added compression is like running race fuel in a stock engine, it will cost power and use more fuel. A flex fuel engine will run on e85 if it has to, but if it were built for e85, it wouldn't run on pump gas. It's one if those things where people who don't understand engines are put in charge of keeping them clean. Just like the 70's emissions era when some idiots mandated lower compression to clean up engines. That made them make less power and use more fuel, and due to incomplete combustion, they polluted more than the old design. I wish our country would ditch any gasoline that is less than 85% ethanol. And make e98 avalible at the pump. It's different than gas, but with some time, people will learn how to use it. I do agree that using corn to make ethanol isn't the best way, sugarcane would be cheaper and easier. And wouldn't effect food prices near as much.

Don't be scared of ethanol, learn about it and you would probably like it. Imagine that old mercruiser 454 rebuilt with 14 to 1 compression, double the old power rating and get similar fuel use. That extra power spins a higher pitched prop and cruises faster at lower rpm. Sure, keeping water out of the fuel may be harder, but taking care of that will just mean we end up with better sealing fuel tanks that would keep fuel stable longer. Nothing but pluses over the long term.

If you look at all of the fuel mileage data of the E85 cars/trucks. The EPA rated fuel economy on E85 is right about 15% less than the same vehicle is rated with pure gasoline.

But that data is flex fuel data. They aren't built for e85. I haven't seen data on engines with enough compression to run e85. I know drag racers who have switched from c16 to e85 and they report very similar fuel consumption. They keep fuel records because they base their rebuilds off of gallons used. In some cases anyways.

Plus, there are related improvements. E85 burns cool, so a lighter cooling system can be used, lower volume water pumps or under drive pulleys can be used to reduce parasitic losses. Less weight and less drag = better economy. I have seen no tests on propose built e85 engines.

As do many Diesel engine suppliers as well

I've seen it in aviation engines as well. It's a good way to tell how much work an engine does.

It is flex fuel data.....but I'm basing that on the fact that none of the vehicles on the road were built for E90 or E85 solely and now they are all forced to consume E90 due to the EPA and everyone is getting the same resulting lower fuel economy. The only reliable thing to really compare the mileage to are flex fuel vehicles where they show both mileages for gas and E85. Just like the EPA is forcing paint manufacturers to lower the VOC's yet it's causing the paint to not last as long.

We're getting off topic, but I am seeing a lot more diesel cars entering the market including BMW that just introduced one for the first time in the US. Personally, at this moment in time, I think diesel is the way to go in vehicles with the current technology. However, the EPA stepped in there....and not only do they now have to burn ultra low sulfer fuel, you have to add some form of additive and they're choked with a bunch of emissions control stuff required on them.....