Running Gear Antifoul...?

Sounds a lot like Prop Speed to me.

So, how goes it with the Sea Slide?

Claim from Sea Slide's web-page:

Holy Cr@p, that is a huge reduction..Can they back up the claims?

Anybody?

The test data and controls would be very interesting to see. What I see here is "can be" and "up to", and what I don't see is "as compared to", which indicate puff rather than proof. I'm skeptical.

I ran one boat that had it put on. The boat was a 1999 45' Searay sedan bridge. Before applying it, it cruised at 17.2-17.5 knots at 1950 rpms (clean bottom). We then had the bottom soda blasted and applied 5 coats epoxy barrier coating and 2 coats of interlux hard bottom paint, and seaslide on top of it (the owner insisted). After it was done the vessel cruised at 19.3-19.5 knots at 1950rpms. I then delivered the boat from Fort Lauderdale to St. Croix which is approximately 1000 nm's. The cruise speed never changed from 19.3-19.5 knots. The owner used it to this year and claims the speed never changed and has used it on several boats before. That is my only experience with it.

2kts. is only a hair over 10%, and how much of that was due to going from old paint to "We then had the bottom soda blasted and applied 5 coats epoxy barrier coating and 2 coats of interlux hard bottom paint".

I would say soda blasting the bottom gave it 1 knot and the seaslide the other knot. The bottom was not all that bad before it was soda blasted. It had a lot of paint buildup, but was smooth for the most part. It's really hard to say....Yeah it's like a 15% increase in speed, but you're not talking about a blazingly fast boat to begin with.

Propspeed is a great product on the running gear. Not sure about gaining any speed but it sure keeps the barnacles from attaching. Even if they attach they are thrown off when the wheels start turning.
I keep the boat on the east coast of central florida and during the summer we have barnacles, etc attach to the bottom of the boat in 4-5 days, but no problem on the running gear.
Wish I could find a bottom paint that works well. Heading to the Bahamas and may purchase some bottom paint over there that still has tin in it. That stuff still works great unfortunately its outlawed in the US.

While 2 knots is nothing to sneeze at. The real issue maybe fuel burn.
If you could now maintain 17-17.5 knots at lower RPM that could add up to some interesting fuel savings. Or of course you may now be doing 19-19.5 at the same GPH you once burned at 17-17.5.

It would be interesting to see those figures to see where the break even point is on the cost of the Sea Slide.

By the way, how much is it per gallon?

Capt J- You didn't do any conrtoll though, so its an out of the blue guess as to how much each of the two processes helped.

NYCAP123- As for the "Up to" and "as much as" issue, if you take a square block and slick it up its not going to work that much better, hydrodynamics are still shape dependant.

Although I understand your theory I'm not sure of its relevance to what I commented on i.e. the promotion claim (which I actually misstated and should have quoted as): "can be reduced up to 15-20%". "can be" and "up to" are advertising puff terms. I "can be" worth "up to" $20m. Trust me, I'm not. They do have a little test info on their sight which sounds pretty good, but I'd be a lot more impressed if I saw independent tests that said 'THIS was the result under THESE conditions'.

Sorry, but I have had issues with Propspeed falling off, maybe I am applying it wrong? I follow what the website tells you to but it peels off after a few weeks.

It's all in the application. I had this happen once but have been very happy since.

The rules set forth by the FTC and what ever the European Union equivalent of that body is pretty clearly state that you have to get a result before you can use it. So they did a test, maybe a few tests, and one or more of them returned 15-20% but they know that someone with a lousy boat will not be able to get that kind of return, so it can be up to. If you were dealing with the more technical end, maybe working with them, then you would get the exact specs, but as is they will give you the advertising language that is geared to sell. It doesn't make there claim false, its just that you, being how you are, are not their primary target audience.

Surely if you can find what the Europeans have as rules on this you should know the name of the issuing authority.

I would say that people like NYCAP ( Captains and others who have the purchasing dollars) are the primary target audience, the money spent on advertising is designed to pique interest and encourage further examination culminating in a purchase.

The use of language that is instantly recognizable by a knowledgeable professional (I will give NYCAP the benefit of the doubt here ) as being a smoke blowing exercise is something the advertising dept need to address.

Its like murder being illegal, the same rules about proof for claims are everywhere. And thats not language that he recognizes because of his expertise, its language he recognizes because he is inherrently distrustful of those claiming anything fantastic, which he should be.

I can't tell you how many "miracle" products I've seen come and go from the marine market over the years. Some were great, some pure hype. Several did more harm than good and none were cheap. I know people that use this for racing, and it seems proven to be a good product for that, but they reapply for each race. I'm just waiting to hear more real world reports before I believe advertising. And as for the regulatory agencies, you cannot lie. That's different from telling the whole truth. Companies are allowed to use "puffery" ("can be"/ "up to"). So I'm skeptical. A while back an owner was lamenting to me that he wished there was something like Consumer Reports for boats. There actually was on a small scale until a couple of years ago. Unfortunately they're gone.

Hi,

This statement should be applied to some of the posts on YF in the Biodeisel Thread.

Your reading it!

Hi,

That is not a very environmentally friendly decision there CSKIPR.

TBT Anti Foulings do harm the environment there is no doubt about it, they are now banned not only in the US but nearly everywhere else.

Ships sailing foreign have to have certificates relating to their anti fouling, it would be shame to apply this and then get sprung on the way back to the US wouldn't it.

I was going to add that, but on this I haven't yet seen an apples to apples controlled test yet. What mainly has me wondering on this is that they did have independent studies done, but what they published seemed to be cherry picked (which could have been done just to condense for advertising space). Before recommending a product like this I'd like to know things like: Does the 50,000 sea mile claim stand up in salt water and actual cruising conditions and varying speeds? What would Capt.J's results have been after he "had the bottom soda blasted and applied 5 coats epoxy barrier coating and 2 coats of interlux hard bottom paint", but before adding the sea slide? (Then we'd have an aples to apples comparrison.) Does it inhibit or exaserbate marine growth (If you clean the bottom you need to reapply which means another haul)?