Hull finish - Smooth as glass?

[Limpet]

Below is a picture of a hull and in the picture the sail drive and prop have been painted. Click on it to see the high resolution image. Am I being overly critical to say that this looks like very poor work?
Also, take a look at the hull itself. It appears as if the hull was not properly prepped before it was coated. See the rough finish on the left?

Then again, perhaps this is commonplace and being around newer boats has clouded my view.

[Orion Jim]

Just a buildup of old layers of paint. Apparently someone has an aversion to using an orbital sander before slopping on a fresh layer of paint. If an owner did this it's fine. If an owner paid to have this done professionally he has grounds for a complaint.

[Ex-Calif]

They probably could have done a better job on the hull but for a cruising boat/day sailer it is acceptable.


Paint on the prop is a waste of paint...

[dlymn]

Don't we all wish we had the time and money to have a racing hull finish. Oh, those boys don't even use antifouling. I reckon I've got 15 coats on. One day I'll find the couple of weeks to cut it all back but in the meantime I'll put up with the 1/2 knot cut to speed

[GILow]

At first I thought the OP was being fussy, but the more I look at it the more it looks wrong to me. Our boat is hardly some spanking new racer, but she's much smoother than that. That looks almost as though there was no preparation done at all prior to recoating, and to my mind that suggests the coating will not last long.

Here's our boat after our first slipping. The rudder is still pretty rough, I made a first start on cleaning it up this time round, and will go further on the next slipping, but the rest of the hull looks much smoother, and this is a boat that first hit the water in 1982. The time taken to get this level of finish was not great at all.

I don't know what the general condition was of the OP's boat when it came out, but I think, if I had paid for the job, I would be disputing the finish.

Matt

[HappyMdRSailor]

I'll bite too.... Looks horrid... Sure it will "probably" be OK, but as said earlier... may lose some paint, though likely not...

Is this a job done on your boat by a yard?

[Ex-Calif]

Well if you're gonna invest in hundreds of dollars in paint you probably should invest in some sandpaper and some elbow grease...

Here's the before and after on mine...

[Limpet]

FYI, the picture is that of a boat up for sale. They are presenting the newly painted sail drive and prop as a plus. But my take away was all negative. I don't know if the owner did the work or they paid someone to do it.

[D&D]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Paint on the prop is a waste of paint...

...other than PropSpeed, which is brilliant (albeit hellishly expensive) stuff, in our humble opinion anyway...

[Cheechako]

Not an uncommon look at all. Bottom painting is costly. Often it's just a haul out pressure wash and add a coat of paint to keep the barnacles off. Nothing wrong with that. But eventually any owners want to spend the $ to have it all removed and start over.... not that they could ever tell the difference in sailing...


Often the quote for a basic bottom job is just a quick sanding to rough the surface and repaint. If you want it smooth it's an hourly rate above that.
The good news is if it's got that many layers of paint on it and there are no blisters it's likely not a wet hull! That is a bigger plus than a bit of lumpy-ness.
I'm always am suspect of a fresh smooth bottom coat on an unknown boat!

[Kim Klaka]

A couple of points worth noting:
1. If sanding down antifouling paint, do not dry-sand as the dust is poisonous.
2. Velox paint works on yacht props at least as effectively as Propspeed and is cheaper.
3. Any paint roughness thicker than a human hair will increase friction drag and slow the boat down (in nav arch speak, roughness height has to be less than boundary layer sub-layer thickness). Cruisers tend to think they don't need a smooth bottom, but it will reduce your passage times, cut your fuel bill down and, most important in my view, make sailing your fast boat more enjoyable.
See http://www.fsc.com.au/cproot/1076/3/...h-a-bottom.pdf for more info

Kim

[Orion Jim]

I was going to make the comment about dimples improving the flight of golf balls but I thought better of it......till now......

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Not an uncommon look at all. Bottom painting is costly. Often it's just a haul out pressure wash and add a coat of paint to keep the barnacles off. Nothing wrong with that. But eventually any owners want to spend the $ to have it all removed and start over.... not that they could ever tell the difference in sailing...


Often the quote for a basic bottom job is just a quick sanding to rough the surface and repaint. If you want it smooth it's an hourly rate above that.
The good news is if it's got that many layers of paint on it and there are no blisters it's likely not a wet hull! That is a bigger plus than a bit of lumpy-ness.
I'm always am suspect of a fresh smooth bottom coat on an unknown boat!

Yup...doing that now. I no longer let a yard prep my bottom without me watching. I had a terrible job done in Ca...and I never let them paint a bottom at $100@hr. It takes me an afternoon to do it myself.
I had a freelance yard worker in Mexico sand my bottom, removing the majority of the 6 layer build up for $600. I kept an eye on things. He did a fair job. When I get back down to the boat, I'll take a few hours and go over it myself and smooth things out further.

[markpierce]

Sorry, but my reaction is that rudder and propeller are too exposed to the elements (groundings, floating logs/trees, lobster/crab lines, and so on.

[ramblinrod]

Very poor?

No, pretty typical of a DIY anti-fouling maintenance coat.

Unless one races, this will have little negative impact on performance both in speed and growth prevention.

That fact that it is done is a good thing.

My only concern is the material on the sail drive and prop. Only certain anti-fouling paints can be used on metal (especially aluminum). It may be the right type and the reason why it is different than the hull.

Cheap (non-ablative) anti-fouling paints build up and flake off eventually.

When an ablative is applied properly, (with an alternate colour reveal coat underneath) one only repaints where the paint has worn off to expose the reveal coat, thus avoiding excessive build up.

Therefore, annual maintenance requirements are vastly lower than cheaper paints, typically requiring very little paint, applied to leading edges, and a thin coat from the waterline down about 4".

Cheap paint is not cheap. By saving $50 on paint each year, it means in 5-10 years the entire bottom will have to be stripped. If you pay a yard, that will cost a lot more than $500. If you do it yourself and value your time for performing work with hazardous materials at more than $20/hr, it will likely cost more than $500.

Here are some ball park yard costs (materials and labour):

A) Maintenance Coat cheap paint (pre-powerwashed, no-sand), LOA x Beam x $2.
B) Maintenance Coat ablative paint (pre-powerwashed with light pressure, no-sand), LOA x Beam x $0.50.
C) New Ablative Bottom Job (strip, prime, 2.5 coats of Interlux Micron CSC), LOA x Beam x $8.

Anti-fouling paint is very hazardous, and worth every penny to hire out to professionals who will use the proper safety gear and disposal methods.



Photo above is a customer's 2005 Hunter 41DS receiving a Micron CSC bottom job. Reveal coat is blue, anti-fouling coat black.

Rod Brandon