Attention: Have 2 pages to see today

Author Topic: Paint below the waterline  (Read 6674 times)

April 07, 2006, 01:10:42 PM
Reply #15

Anonymous

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2006, 01:10:42 PM »
I just finished refinishing the bottom of my project. I sanded the bottom back down to original gelcoat, and surprisingly it was in good shape (no blisters.) I then applied an epoxy barrier coat CM-15 from Epoxyproducts, topped off with Interlux VC Performance epoxy bottom pain. Both products are two part epoxy coatings, and I air sprayed both with a nice finish. I had to wait for warmer weather however. I will now wet sand the VC paint for a smoother glossier finish. I am planning on using a topside paint for the sides above the water line.

September 26, 2006, 05:47:11 AM
Reply #16

RickK

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 11267
(No subject)
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2006, 05:47:11 AM »
So I have another question now, does anyone make a bottom paint that has very low resistance?  I don't know if racing boats have paint on the bottom of their boats or if it's gelcoat or what.  Or like awlgrip for topsides (under 5 days in water) that is slick and remains so.
Rick
1971 "170" with 115 Johnson (It's usable but not 100% finished)

1992 230 Explorer with 250 Yamaha

September 26, 2006, 08:20:29 AM
Reply #17

JimCt

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 1848
(No subject)
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2006, 08:20:29 AM »
Whoa... hang on here a minute....  Did you buy that racing outboard after all????  You'll go plenty fast enough with that hanging on the transom without some fancy bottom paint.

But for the question at hand, the only experience I've had with slick bottom finishes is on racing sailboat bottoms where a very hard finish is applied then wet-sanded by hand.  For our boats though, I'd guess the speed difference would be hardly measureable.  As long as the bottom is smooth with no build-up of paint and no flaking to cause micro-turbulence, a high preformance paint wouldn't make any difference.  A naked gelcoat bottom would probably be best since there isn't the added weight of the paint.
JimCT
------
\'74 22-2 inboard
HIN:ASPL0953M74J
Chrysler 318
------
\'74 Marshall 22

September 26, 2006, 03:09:06 PM
Reply #18

RickK

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 11267
(No subject)
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2006, 03:09:06 PM »
:lol:  :lol:
It's getting close to the get-together date and I want to buff her up a bit - need to redo the bottom and I was just wondering.  I did see some sailboat paint but it still is the "one color does all" color.  I need maroon - to not only match my bimini but also to match my new maroon Tundra 4x4. 8)
Rick
1971 "170" with 115 Johnson (It's usable but not 100% finished)

1992 230 Explorer with 250 Yamaha

September 26, 2006, 10:06:09 PM
Reply #19

JimCt

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 1848
(No subject)
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2006, 10:06:09 PM »
Why change paints?  Use what you have been using... just plain enamel if I remember correctly and the color looks great!

Wonder why bottom paint mfr's don't offer a tintable paint system.  Seems there'd be a strong market for it.  With our sailboat I used to box a quart of black with a gallon of green to produce a darker tone but I wasn't trying to match colors with anything since I can't.  I've got a touch of color blindness so I steer clear of Color Committees.
JimCT
------
\'74 22-2 inboard
HIN:ASPL0953M74J
Chrysler 318
------
\'74 Marshall 22

September 26, 2006, 10:08:30 PM
Reply #20

JimCt

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 1848
(No subject)
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2006, 10:08:30 PM »
Forgot to ask... let's see a picture of that color-coordinated Tundra!
JimCT
------
\'74 22-2 inboard
HIN:ASPL0953M74J
Chrysler 318
------
\'74 Marshall 22

November 04, 2006, 02:31:12 PM
Reply #21

damnitbadger

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 137
(No subject)
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2006, 02:31:12 PM »
I've used this companies paint on my last resto of a 1974 Luhrs and it looked great. 2-part urathane roll and tip. Sold the boat but it was a very hard finish and cost half as much as awlgrip.

http://www.bluewatermarinepaint.com/vsi ... st,00.html
Beware the lolipop of mediocrity, lick it once and you will suck forever!

88\' CCP 222 w/200 EFI Merc

November 04, 2006, 04:09:16 PM
Reply #22

adventuris

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 7
(No subject)
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2006, 04:09:16 PM »
awlgrip , and interlux perfection are not ment to be on the bottom the paint is not designed to be imersed in water .

November 04, 2006, 04:46:31 PM
Reply #23

warthog5

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 262
(No subject)
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2006, 04:46:31 PM »
But it will work fine for the boat to sit in the water for several day's.  :D
"Just \'cause it\'s new, doesn\'t mean it\'s worth a Damn!




November 06, 2006, 10:25:49 AM
Reply #24

Shine

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 276
    • http://www.gulfstreamcoposites.com
(No subject)
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2006, 10:25:49 AM »
Quote from: "warthog5"
But it will work fine for the boat to sit in the water for several day's.  :D


Thats right, for most boats that live on a trailer you can use "topside" paint on the bottom.  We have had guys keep the boat in the water for a couple weeks with no problem.  Over time the water will soften the paint and you could scrape some off on a trailer bunk.

I still prefer bottom paint if for no other reason that it hides imperfections
 :D

November 06, 2006, 11:40:25 PM
Reply #25

warthog5

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 262
(No subject)
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2006, 11:40:25 PM »
Your not supposed to have imperfections.  
"Just \'cause it\'s new, doesn\'t mean it\'s worth a Damn!




 


SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal