CuNiGuard Anti-Fouling System

[James S]

While at the boat show">London Boat show I ran across this bottom coating system and thought it interesting.
http://www.prlog.org/10477321-new-cuniguard-antifouling-brings-major-savings-to-boat-owners.html

The big difference between it and other Copper coat systems I've seen over the years is this has a single coat of epoxy applied to the hull then while still wet, a mixture of mostly copper and a bit of nickel is sprayed on with a set-up that looks similar to a powder coat sprayer.

Traditional copper coat systems mix the powder with the epoxy and then apply several coats.

The think the price quoted is retail with them doing it....looks like the material costs, if you were to act as a dealer, would be about a third.

Cleaning down to the "bedrock" is necessary.

Any one have any experience with this system...

[fstbttms]

Not saying it isn't a good product, but it sounds expensive, difficult to apply and it is definitely unproven.

[Stevens 47]

This stuff looks interesting. I do wonder about applying a epoxy skin over a wet GRP bottom and the possibility of blistering from that. In my case as I have been out of the water for so long it would not be a problem.

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Not saying it isn't a good product, but it sounds expensive, difficult to apply and it is definitely unproven.

I would have to question how much more "unproven" it is then traditional bottom paint. It seems that the paint manufacturers have changed their formula pretty frequently over the past years due to a variety of factors. I feel like I am buying an unproven product every time I get a gallon since it is very difficult to find a history of the current formula of any particular product.
This seems a more structural process like coating the bottom in copper foil. If it works it really could be nice. You just have to determine how many bottom jobs it replaces to find the sweet spot as far as cost.

This is something I would be interested in trying when available because there is really nothing I hate more then painting the bottom.

Jim

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by jkleins

I would have to question how much more "unproven" it is then traditional bottom paint. It seems that the paint manufacturers have changed their formula pretty frequently over the past years due to a variety of factors. I feel like I am buying an unproven product every time I get a gallon since it is very difficult to find a history of the current formula of any particular product.

While traditional anti fouling paint manufacturers may modify their formulations occassionally to please a changing market, the basic technology is proven by decades of use with good performance in every possible region on the planet. This other product is virtually unknown and hasn't even been tested outside Britain, for all we know.

But hey, it's your dime.

[Blue Stocking]

Like EVERY OTHER bottom paint ever concocted, it probably works someplace in the world, and not in others.

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

While traditional anti fouling paint manufacturers may modify their formulations occassionally to please a changing market, the basic technology is proven by decades of use with good performance in every possible region on the planet. This other product is virtually unknown and hasn't even been tested outside Britain, for all we know.

But hey, it's your dime.

But if you change the formula how can you say it is still the same "basic technology." Other then being "paint" what is the same between the old toxic formulas and newer synthetic formula's. Even practical sailor seems to have paints that used to be fairly highly rated showing not much protection now in the latest tests. If anything the embedded copper powder in epoxy, or whatever they are using, seems to have more similarities to a solid copper bottom. which has been tested, then some of the newer paint formulas have to the older ones.

Jim

[James S]

Originally Posted by jkleins

But if you change the formula how can you say it is still the same "basic technology." Other then being "paint" what is the same between the old toxic formulas and newer synthetic formula's. Even practical sailor seems to have paints that used to be fairly highly rated showing not much protection now in the latest tests. If anything the embedded copper powder in epoxy, or whatever they are using, seems to have more similarities to a solid copper bottom. which has been tested, then some of the newer paint formulas have to the older ones.

Jim

That’s what I thought...Copper worked for years...this is copper powder basically glued on with the epoxy underlayment.
If it sticks well...what’s the difference?

[fishwife]

I used to have a very old 18 foot sail boat, built locally by a yard that has long since ceased to exist. The boat was literally copper plated below the waterline including the rudder. She stayed out on a tidal river mooring year in, year out. After owning her for about 3 years I pulled her ashore to replace some timber. There was no evidence of even the thin velvety growth I've seen with modern anti-fouling. I'm going to stick my neck out and try this new system when my boat comes out of the water in a couple of months. I'll try and remember to report in a years time on how good it is
If it works for even 5 or six years it's going to be worth the expense for me. I'll be cruising and a clean hull is going to be quite important to improve fuel economy.

P

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by jkleins

But if you change the formula how can you say it is still the same "basic technology." Other then being "paint" what is the same between the old toxic formulas and newer synthetic formula's.

I was referring to the changes manufacturers make to their traditional, copper-based anti fouling paints, such as adding a slime retardant. What you apparently are referring to are the next generation of anti fouling systems, such as zinc oxide paints, foul-release coatings, photo reactive hydrogen peroxide paints etc., etc. These newer types of anti fouling do represent a new anti fouling technology.

As does this "Cuniguard". It apparently uses "copper nickel" as the anti foulant and is sprayed over an epoxy barrier coat. One assumes it works much the same way as copper-loaded epoxies (which have been discussed ad naseum here) like CopperCoat and Copperpoxy, and these products have proven to have very limited performance in regions of moderate to high fouling. Further, the news release that the OP linked to states that the product is non-toxic. I would argue that it is absolutely toxic, as it is (by the manufacturer's own admission) releasing copper and nickle into the environment, both of which are heavy metals and are toxic (in quantity). In addition, the news release claims this product is superior to traditional anti fouling paints in that it doesn't need to be pressure washed or abraded to ensure that the toxin is released. What the writer of the news release is either ignorant about, or hopes the reader is, is that copper-based paints release their toxin at a proscribed rate throughout their useful lives, regardless of whether the boat is washed, scrubbed or even moved. Several factual oversights, perhaps understandable since they are trying to launch what is undoubtably a very expensive product in a poor economic climate.

[jkleins]

I guess we will just have to see. I don't think a solid copper bottom "releases" toxins and it is the 100% coverage that this product has that is more similar to solid metal coating then the resins that have copper suspension. These have to be abraded periodically to "show" the copper to the organism. I think there is a difference at the theoretical level even if none at the practical level. I read nothing about this "releasing" the copper at any rate similar to what you would expect from a paint designed to do that very thing.

Jim

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by jkleins

I read nothing about this "releasing" the copper at any rate similar to what you would expect from a paint designed to do that very thing.

I didn't compare the copper release rates between the two types of products. However, the news release does state that Cuniguard releases it's metals at a slower rate than traditional anti fouling paint, thereby accounting for its (alleged) longer useful lifespan.

[Delezynski]

Hi all,



Just finished up putting on our new Copper/epoxy bottom. The 2ed time for us. Sure did work for us From a few years in the San Francisco Bay (Redwood city to South San Fran when our old marina closed) to and including a few years in the Sea of Cortez.



I think I remember saying I would report on it when I finished. Soooo.....


Click on: Guenevere's 2010 Copper bottom
for a full report with a number of pictures of our “GOLD” boat!


Greg
Note; The link is only good as a direct click, you can not find it in our “Position Reports” page yet. Just got it up....

[James S]

Excellent report...thanks Greg
There was another company at the show selling the "mix it together with the epoxy type system" similar to yours, and uses the same copper dust blend as the CnNiGuard system and according to "the guy" contains about 5% nickle to toughen it up.

[Delezynski]

James,

Have not been to a "boat show" since 2004! Once we headed out, they are few and far between! But the sunsets here are MUCH better than a boat show!!

Greg