 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics Related Topics CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Boat Forum / Cruising / April 2006Cleaning the hull
Hi I have a 26 year old Mirage 27 sailing boat, beautiful condition inside, however the hull has become dull, looking tired and her age. I would like to clean and bring back the shine. I have heard both pro's and con's of silicon polish. Can anyone advise a good fiberglass cleaner, and resolution to the "dull hull" syndrome. I need to apply anti-fouling this year, should I use the cleaner below the water-line before applying the anti-fouling. Thanks. I posted the following respone to a similar question on sailnet.net the other day to the same question: First look at the gelcoat with a strong magnifying glass or pocket microscope (Radio Shack). If you see NO 'alligatoring', then the gelcoat can be wet sanded and powerbuffed back to the 'original' shine and brilliance. 1. wash the surface with a STRONG caustic detergent ... from a janatorial supply, then use oxalic acid (wood bleach -- from a paint store) to remove old dead wax, iron and tannin stains. Dont MIX detergent and oxalic !!!! rinse in between the two. Wear gloves when using oxalic as it quickly absorbs through you skin and can damage your kidneys. 2. Flat sand the gelcoat with 1000--> 1500 -->2000 grit wet and dry sandpaper using a few drops of dishwashing detergent in a few gallons of water. Use a rubber sanding block. Sand away until the surface is flat. Most gelcoat is quite thick .... but stop sanding immediately when you see the matting layer of fiberglass under layer showing through .... if you do its time to paint. If not, proceed to 2. The object is to remove the oxidized outter layer of gelcoat and produce a FLAT surface ... use the pocket microscope if you have one. 3. Get a high speed autobody power polisher (varibale speed 1000-3000 rpm), 3M foam polishing pads, Coarse Fiberglass rubbing compound, 1000 grit auto body shop compound, 3M finesse it, 3M Perfect polishing compount, Collinite Fleetwax. 4. Begin with a fresh foam pad (Never mix pads and grits). In a 2ft. by 2 ft. surface apply coarse rubbing compound then do the 2ft. x 2 ft. square with a foam pad, move to the next 2X2 square until the whole boat is completed, Then do the same with 1300 grit - whole boat, then Finesse-it, then Perfect-it. Keep the buffer moving at all times, be very careful and dont 'burn through' sharp corners. Power buffing can remove a LOT of gelcoat, so use a 'light touch' .. and keep the buffer moving so you dont 'overheat' the surface. The speed of the polisher is what does the work not the pressure. By the time you get to the Finesse-it the hull should be back to NEW condition shine wise. Perfect-it with give the deep shine. You must wax immediately to fill the 'pores' of the gelcoat. Use a clean bare hand, some water and the paste collinite and rub by hand until the wax begins to shine, then add about a 10¢ size spread over the 2X2 and powerbuff. Push the wax INTO the pores of gel ... dont just smear it across it - this will seal the pores and will retard oxidation. 99% of the time the above process will restore an old faded hull back to NEW condition. Its also the same process that is used to powerbuff a NEW hull when its pulled from its mold. Rewax at about 6 months and every 12 thereafter as a minimum. Every 2-3 years STRIP the old dead wax with a caustic detergent, light powerbuff with Perfect-it and rewax. .... This should keep the boat looking like new for the next 30 years. You may want to fill in gouges, etc. with new gelcoat before you powerbuff. Beware snake oil: acrylic coating 'wipe on' coatings. They look good for a season or two but ultimately fail and have to be removed (when they will look like a severe skin disease). The acrylic removal is a PITA and is ultimately more harmful than the above powerbuffing method.In article <FgD1g.40957$7a.16136@pd7tw1no>, Sebastian <olliedog_pls@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks. You are giving excellent advice. I think that the 3M stuff requires 3200rpm. Read the label and follow the instructions and Rich's prediction will come true for you. The above sounds good, but I'd try just buffing with 3m's brown compound first, then Finesse-it to see if it brings back the shine you want. I've brought back some pretty bad hulls that way. I only use Collinite Fleetwax paste wax as well. Works very well and lasts a long time. Don't get these compounds at the marine store though... you can get them for half that price on the web. The place I get mine is: http://www.autobodydepot.net > The above sounds good, but I'd try just buffing with 3m's brown > compound first, then Finesse-it to see if it brings back the shine you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get them for half that price on the web. The place I get mine is: > http://www.autobodydepot.net Most auto-restorers use Farecla or something similar, applied with a man-sized electric polisher. This will bring up the bare gelcoat prior to polishing with whatever takes your fancy, it's hard work, but worth it. I wouldn't put wet 'n dry of any grade anywhere near my gelcoat unless a repair had made this necessary. The auto-shops are bristling with all manner of polishes at half the price of so-called boat polish, and there are rather more cars than boats, so take advantage of the research and development they carry out all the time. Ask a body shop what they use! I use Mir! DP I disagree somewhat. Gelcoat needs a flat surface to shine well, If you start with coarse compound you wond get the truely flat surface hence the shine wont be fully developed. You usually dont need to use much coarse compound once you get the surface really flat with 2000 grit as coarse compound is 'probably' in the range of 800-1000 grit. Wet sanding is a very FAST way to get a surface Flat .... just like they used to do to get a lacquer job on a super-expensive automobile FLAT before the final polish. > The above sounds good, but I'd try just buffing with 3m's brown > compound first, then Finesse-it to see if it brings back the shine you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get them for half that price on the web. The place I get mine is: > http://www.autobodydepot.net >Beware snake oil: acrylic coating 'wipe on' coatings. They look good >for a season or two but ultimately fail and have to be removed (when >they will look like a severe skin disease). The acrylic removal is a >PITA and is ultimately more harmful than the above powerbuffing >method. Not my experience or the experience of may who've used them. Yeah sure... and the same folks probably slather their brightwork with 'cetol'. BTW if you want the acrylic overcoats to look as good as finely buffed gelcoat, flat sand and buff the acrylic as I described above. The 'problem' with these coatings is that eventually have to be removed when they oxidize and begin to lose adhesion. Acutally I prefer urethanacrylic copolymers, especially on teak but with a bit of ferrous oxide thrown in to retard UV damage. But still, ****nothing**** looks as good as freshly buffed gelcoat ... thats the way it comes from the factory and its really easy to keep that way. When I look at a boat for sale, having an acrylic overcoat for me is a deal breaker because usually its hiding 'something' and its impossible to visualize the true condition of the gelcoat. > >Beware snake oil: acrylic coating 'wipe on' coatings. They look good > >for a season or two but ultimately fail and have to be removed (when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not my experience or the experience of may who've used them. >Yeah sure... and the same folks probably slather their brightwork with >'cetol'. > >BTW if you want the acrylic overcoats to look as good as finely buffed >gelcoat, flat sand and buff the acrylic as I described above. Total baloney >The 'problem' with these coatings is that eventually have to be removed >when they oxidize and begin to lose adhesion. Total baloney. Mine has not needed "removal" in 8 years. Every spring I wash the boat to get the dust off and wipe on two maintenance coats. My boat always looks like it is wet. Always. >Acutally I prefer >urethanacrylic copolymers, especially on teak but with a bit of ferrous >oxide thrown in to retard UV damage. But still, ****nothing**** looks >as good as freshly buffed gelcoat ... thats the way it comes from the >factory and its really easy to keep that way. Total baloney >When I look at a boat for sale, having an acrylic overcoat for me is a >deal breaker because usually its hiding 'something' and its impossible >to visualize the true condition of the gelcoat. Total baloney If I see a boat with wax that is very shiny, I know that there is probably very little gelcoat left after the owner has been foolishly grinding it thinner and thinner every year. > Total baloney. Mine has not needed "removal" in 8 years. Every > spring I wash the > boat to get the dust off and wipe on two maintenance coats. My boat > always looks > like it is wet. Always. Which product are you using? Is it something similar to the Poli Glow that was being discussed here a while back? BTW I suspect this is one of those situations where there is some truth to both points of view depending on standards, situation, and maintenance. I'm probably going to go to a wipe on coating because my boat will probably need paint in five years anyway due to PO caused damage. Looking at it closely, I think it may be a boat that came out of the mold with surface problems and had a new gel coat applied immediately. Buffing is also something I have to hire out.  SignatureRoger Long I'm probably going to go to a wipe on coating because my > boat will probably need paint in five years anyway due to PO caused > damage. Looking at it closely, I think it may be a boat that came out > of the mold with surface problems and had a new gel coat applied > immediately. Buffing is also something I have to hire out. When the old gel coat starts getting thin, why not just have new gel coat sprayed on and buffed out? We hit a rock with our power boat last year and had a 6' x 1" gash repaired. As part of the repairs, they resprayed the entire bottom of the boat with gel coat, sanded it smooth, and then buffed it out. The cost on a 21' boat was not prohibitive ($3700 including the fiberglass repairs). There may be a very good reason to not re-gelcoat, but it eludes me at the moment. Don W. "Don W" <donw_s11atswbelldotnet@figure.it.out> wrote> > There may be a very good reason to not re-gelcoat, but it eludes me > at the moment. Gee, extrapolating up for size, that works out to over 1/3 of the purchase price of our used 32 foot sailboat or, about the price of a whole new set of sails, complete with the spinnaker we don't have. Or, I could redo all the rigging, replace the plastic portlights with metal, add a diesel heater and modify the engine cooling system for late (freezing nights) season operation and have something left over for more electronics. In my world at least, that counts as a reason. SignatureRoger Long Hi Roger, I think that you are extrapolating based on the cost of fixing a 9.14' x 1.5" gash in the bottom of your 32' boat and _then_ re-gelcoating :) Note that the gash was entirely through the fiberglass, not superficial. The only thing that kept the boat from sinking was the inner hull. I have no idea what the cost of spraying, leveling and buffing the gelcoat would have been by itself, but I doubt it would have been nearly as much. How much do you expect to spend to have the hull sanded, faired, epoxy primed, and then two coats of 2-part epoxy paint professionally applied? I'll bet it doesn't come to much difference by the time you're done, since much of the labor is in the prep. But I've been wrong before ;-) Don W. > Gee, extrapolating up for size, that works out to over 1/3 of the > purchase price of our used 32 foot sailboat or, about the price of a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In my world at least, that counts as a reason. >There may be a very good reason to not re-gelcoat, but it >eludes me at the moment. Most of the experts say it isn't cost-effective, particularly with the durability of the 2-part epoxy paints. > Most of the experts say it isn't cost-effective, particularly with the > durability of the 2-part epoxy paints. I don't doubt that what you say is true, however... It seems to me that if the manufacturers could save a bit by switching from gel coat to Imron or Awlgrip they would. Yet the boat manufacturing industry uniformly uses gel coat instead of paint. Professional fiberglass repair places also routinely respray the gel coat and then buff it out. There is little cost difference between the materials, and the preparation is similar. Could it be that the popularity of two-part paints is because they can be applied more easily by the DIY crowd? Regards, Don W. >Yet the boat manufacturing industry uniformly uses gel coat >instead of paint. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >There is little cost difference between the materials, and >the preparation is similar. I think you need to learn a bit about how boats are built. Start your research with the words "mold" and "mold release." > I think you need to learn a bit about how boats are built. Start your > research with the words "mold" and "mold release." Hi Dave, Your second mistake is in thinking that I don't know how boats are built. I'm not going to tell you what your first one was--only that you presume a lot without knowing. Instead of sniping, why don't you share your accumulated wisdom and point out from your point of view why the two-part paints are better and cheaper than gel coat. You could also share your experiences about how you came to hold those views. Or not... (waiting) BTW, have you ever personally painted anything using a two-part paint such as Awlgrip or Imron? Epoxy primer? Regards, Don W. >Or not... (waiting) No need to wait. Go back and read earlier messages in the thread and your question will be answered. Meanwhile, I suggest that anyone who says the process of applying a boat's initial gelcoat is remotely similar to applying paint to the outside of a hull doesn't know what he's talking about. Hi Dave, Earlier I wrote the following: Instead of sniping, why don't you share your accumulated wisdom and point out from your point of view why the two-part paints are better and cheaper than gel coat. You could also share your experiences about how you came to hold those views. Or not... (waiting) BTW, have you ever personally painted anything using a two-part paint such as Awlgrip or Imron? Epoxy primer? You Replied: > No need to wait. Go back and read earlier messages in the thread and your > question will be answered. I read back through your posts in this thread. The most helpful comment you wrote that I found was: "Most of the experts say it isn't cost effective, particularly with the durability of the 2-part epoxy paints." Very helpful. It suggests that you've read the views of experts and have a religious belief that coincides with theirs--whoever they are. > Meanwhile, I suggest that anyone who says the process of applying a boat's > initial gelcoat is remotely similar to applying paint to the outside of a > hull doesn't know what he's talking about. Dave, you are acting like a usenet troll. You continue to snipe, and not contribute or answer the questions asked. I suggest that you add my name to your killfile so that you won't see my posts in the future. I'm adding your name to right now. <plonk> Regards, Don W. >> Most of the experts say it isn't cost-effective, particularly with the >> durability of the 2-part epoxy paints. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Yet the boat manufacturing industry uniformly uses gel coat >instead of paint. That's not exactly true, Don. If you order a new red or blue C&C 99, they take a standard gelcoated white hull and PAINT it with awlgrip. I would not be at all surprised if that is the way the majority of manufacturers do it. (Metalflake Bass boats aside!) >>It seems to me that if the manufacturers could save a bit by >> switching from gel coat to Imron or Awlgrip they would. >>Yet the boat manufacturing industry uniformly uses gel coat >>instead of paint. > That's not exactly true, Don. If you order a new red or blue C&C 99, they take a > standard gelcoated white hull and PAINT it with awlgrip. I would not be at all > surprised if that is the way the majority of manufacturers do it. (Metalflake > Bass boats aside!) Interesting. I went to their website, and see that Awlgrip is an option for dark hull colors. I'd like to hear their rationale. It is also interesting that they don't offer Awlgrip in the light hull colors. http://www.c-cyachts.com/model/model.aspx?UID=4a367bf2-f527-4a33-b144-ed117dc4f1 6f&MUID=2dfa6c71-e233-4175-ae7b-a61eae41d7de I wonder if they plan to do this for their other models as well. The darker gel coat colors do tend to show oxidation rather badly. Also, are you sure that they are actually painting over a white gelcoat? That seems odd, since scratches would stand out pretty dramatically and they could just as easily apply Awlgrip over a color matched gelcoat. BTW, I'm not putting down the two-part paint systems. I've painted with them and they work well. If sprayed on a well prepped surface, the finish can be spectacular. A lot of people even report good results using DIY methods such as "rolling and tipping". My point was that if you are going to go to all the trouble to prep the hull for painting, and you are set up to spray, why not spray gel coat. The material cost is about the same, and you can spray a much thicker coating that can be wet sanded and buffed for many years to come. The downside is that you may need to wet sand and buff it out after spraying, and the positive side is that you _can_ wet sand and buff it out. For decks, an additional downside to gelcoating may be that you have to redo all of the patterned non-skid. However, I notice that the new Catalinas are using a texture gun to apply the non-skid instead of using a mold pattern. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this lately, because the deck on our Catalina 27 needs to be redone. I will spray it, but the issue is whether to spray gelcoat or paint. I have some concerns about the long-term durability of Awlgrip or any other paint when used as a surface to walk on. >> Total baloney. Mine has not needed "removal" in 8 years. Every >> spring I wash the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >of the mold with surface problems and had a new gel coat applied >immediately. Buffing is also something I have to hire out. I use poliglow. What Hampel wrote is the standard FUD rant used by boatyard luddites who are losing income as people switch to PoliGlow and similar products, and no longer need their services to compund and wax, which is very labor intensive. I'd be willing to bet that he has no personal experience with the product at all. If he does, then he is one of the folks who didn't follow the clear and easy instructions. The truth in this case is squarely to one side. The simple truth is that poliglow works exactly as advertised if you follow the simple directions. Question anyone who claims to have had a poor experience and carefully, and without exception, they have "improvised" rather than follow the directions. Forget everything you know about compounding and waxing when you use Poliglow. If you apply "wax" knowlege to Poliglow, I agree that you will have problems. I've heard of boatyards charging for untold hours of labor trying to remove poliglow by compounding it. Pretty stupid, since the manufacturer specifically tells you that that WILL NOT WORK. The manufacturer has a companion product that removes poliglow easier than you've ever removed a coat of wax. One other nice advantage of Poliglow is that unlike wax, which pretty much sits on the surface, Poliglow fills in the pores of the gelcoat and really seals it to slow down or stop oxidation. The air trapped under a coat of wax means your gelcoat continues to oxidize and will need compounding again and again. I have recommened Poliglow to a large number of people over the years and have never had a single complaint. I've never had anybody go back to wax, either. Not a single one. Any reason you couldn't apply Poli Glo in the water at dockside on a reasonably calm day? Any hints on stripping the wax put on last year? The boat sat outside for six years so there probably isn't much build up aside from the compound and wax job I had done last spring. SignatureRoger Long >Any reason you couldn't apply Poli Glo in the water at dockside on a >reasonably calm day? The issue would be the initial cleaning with Poli-prep, which involves scrubbing with a scotchbrite pad. If the initial cleaning isn't very thorough, the poliglow may not adhere well. It's less elbow grease than compounding, but it's still a bit of work. I supposde it could be done in the water, but it would be a lot easier on land. On a boat with an existing installation of Poliglow, doing the annual maintenance coats while in the water would not be hard at all. >Any hints on stripping the wax put on last year? The boat sat outside >for six years so there probably isn't much build up aside from the >compound and wax job I had done last spring. By the time you go around the boat with poli-prep and a scotchbrite pad two or three times, the wax will be gone. It's also important to get the old compounding residue that is worked into the gelcoat. The poli-prep and scrubbing is the only answer. It's pretty effective, but I recommend doing it at least twice to make sure it's REALLY clean. That's why the folks at Poliglow advise resisting the urge to compound before applying poliglow. It doesn't gain you any thing, and the residue has to be completely gone for the poliglow to bond correctly. I didn't compound my 1986 boat and it always looks like it was just dipped in a tank of clear lacquer. If Polyglow, etc. was such a wonderful product, why dont the boat manufacturers/builders apply it to new boats? Please name one. Certainly your rants a have a very strong commerical/profit tinge to them. > >> Total baloney. Mine has not needed "removal" in 8 years. Every > >> spring I wash the [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > never had a single complaint. I've never had anybody go back to wax, either. Not > a single one. >If Polyglow, etc. was such a wonderful product, why dont the boat >manufacturers/builders apply it to new boats? Please name one. > >Certainly your rants a have a very strong commerical/profit tinge to >them. I have absolutely no affiliation with Poly Glow other than the one where I send them money and they send me a product I like very much. What's your angle in trying to spread blatant untruths about the product? Hmmm? >>If Polyglow, etc. was such a wonderful product, why dont the boat >>manufacturers/builders apply it to new boats? Please name one. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What's your angle in trying to spread blatant untruths about the > product? Hmmm? I'm active on a Catalina 30 list and quite a few of the participants use Poliglow and have been quite satisfied with the results. I tried it on that basis and have been very happy with it so far. I did the initial work (with the prep solution) with the boat on the hard and have done the maintenance coats with the boat in the water. Much less work than waxing and it looks great. --Alan Gomes >>>If Polyglow, etc. was such a wonderful product, why dont the boat >>>manufacturers/builders apply it to new boats? Please name one. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >--Alan Gomes Same thing on the C&C list. A lot of people who already tried it and liked it have encouraged others to try it, and there hasn't been one person who didn't like the result. Some of us have been using it for many years. Practical Sailor Magazine and Power Boat Reports BOTH rate it #1 >A lot of people who already tried it and >liked it have encouraged others to try it, and there hasn't been one >person who didn't like the result. That's perhaps a bit too glowing (pun intended.) It does give a nice shiny surface, but the appearance is a bit less "smooth" than that of a waxed hull. I like it, particularly its ability to restore faded dark colors, but it's not for everyone. >>A lot of people who already tried it and >>liked it have encouraged others to try it, and there hasn't been one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >hull. I like it, particularly its ability to restore faded dark colors, but >it's not for everyone. It wasn't my opinion, Dave. I was stating a fact. There were truthfully no people among that group who tried it that reported disappointment with it. >>>A lot of people who already tried it and >>>liked it have encouraged others to try it, and there hasn't been one [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >truthfully no people among that group who tried it that reported >disappointment with it. You seem to be having a comprehension problem. Not being disappointed is not necessarily the same as believing it's perfect--heaven's answer to a boat-owner's prayers. I'd say I'm not disappointed with it, but I wouldn't say it's absolute perfection in all respects. >>>>A lot of people who already tried it and >>>>liked it have encouraged others to try it, and there hasn't been one [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >boat-owner's prayers. I'd say I'm not disappointed with it, but I wouldn't >say it's absolute perfection in all respects. ??? Where did I say it was perfect, Dave. I will say that I do not know of anyone who wanted anything to do with the old fashioned compounding and waxing routine again after trying it, though. If it was free for the asking and cleaned the boat and applied itself without my assistance, it would be perfect. For now it's closer to perfect than compounding and waxing by a country mile. >Where did I say it was perfect, Dave. Where you objected so strenuously to my pointing out one of its problems. >>Where did I say it was perfect, Dave. > >Where you objected so strenuously to my pointing out one of its problems. I can't seem to find where I said it was perfect. Your comment about it not being "smooth" was pretty funny, though. Maybe you are glopping it on too thick. Many thin coats are better and "smoother" than a few thick ones. All you "really" said was that wax is dull compared to Poly Glow. I already knew that. Practical Sailor used scientific measurements to confirm that. It's a LOT glossier than any wax. Nothing at all to do with whether it is perfect or not. I never said anything that could be remotely construed as a statement that it was perfect. I will say it is a heck of a lot closer to perfect than any traditional "compounding & wax" method I have ever used in about 45 years of owning and working on boats. >I will say it is a heck of a lot closer to perfect than any >traditional "compounding & wax" method I have ever used in about 45 years of >owning and working on boats. Since I use the stuff too, I'm inclined to agree that it's preferable. But I'd invite anyone intending to use it to take a look at a boat that's had the polyglo treatment up next to one that's had the conventional compound and wax treatment, and see which effect you like best, and how much better. It's one of those things on which reasonable men may differ. >>I will say it is a heck of a lot closer to perfect than any >>traditional "compounding & wax" method I have ever used in about 45 years of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and wax treatment, and see which effect you like best, and how much better. >It's one of those things on which reasonable men may differ. Whatever, Dave. Don't forget the wide disparity in the amount of work involved as part of your calculations. >>Since I use the stuff too, I'm inclined to agree that it's preferable. But >>I'd invite anyone intending to use it to take a look at a boat that's had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Whatever, Dave. Don't forget the wide disparity in the amount of work involved >as part of your calculations. Ya gotta learn to read a bit more carefully. Why do you think I said "and how much better?" >>>Since I use the stuff too, I'm inclined to agree that it's preferable. But >>>I'd invite anyone intending to use it to take a look at a boat that's had [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Ya gotta learn to read a bit more carefully. Why do you think I said "and >how much better?" Maybe you need to write more clearly. This isn't abstract poetry class. My response stands. >Maybe you need to write more clearly. This isn't abstract poetry class. My >response stands. My mistake in assuming a modicum of literacy on the part of the reader. >>Maybe you need to write more clearly. This isn't abstract poetry class. My >>response stands. > >My mistake in assuming a modicum of literacy on the part of the reader. HAND >If Polyglow, etc. was such a wonderful product, why dont the boat >manufacturers/builders apply it to new boats? Please name one. I already knew that PoliGlow does not recommend their product for use on boats less than 2 years old. Just to answer your question, I emailed them to ask what the reason was for that recommendation. They just replied: Bill, Thank you for your inquiry. PoliGlow is a clear coat that adheres to the boats surface. A out-of-the-mold boat has an extremely smooth surface which the PoliGlow will not adhere to easily. PoliGlow requires those microscopic voids in the surface which are caused by age, exposure to UV, etc. to bond to the surface and function properly. PoliGlow is an incredible restoration product. For a like-new boat we suggest the following wax: http://www.myboatstore.com/trewax.htm Hope we answered your question. Please don't hesitate to follow up if we can be of further assistance! Greg Ulrich MyBoatStore.com 800-206-3305 www.myboatstore.com >If Polyglow, etc. was such a wonderful product, why dont the boat >manufacturers/builders apply it to new boats? Please name one. I take it you do not intend to respond to the earlier suggestion that you have no personal experience with the product? Great advice Rich! Well done. >I posted the following respone to a similar question on sailnet.net the > other day to the same question: [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] >> >> Thanks. Thanks..... Good information.... I apprieciate it... > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks. Coming late to this party, I wonder what is recommended for relatively new awl-grip. By relatively new, I mean older than 2 years, which is how long Flying Pig has been ashore, at a minimum. That may be significant, as I see that less than 2-year old gelcoat isn't a good candidate for this product. FWIW, the stern and rubrail are both only 1 year old, but the rest of it is probably 3-5 or maybe more old. And, I'm wondering how much product would be needed to cover about 400SF or so... Thanks for any intelligence on the matter. As we approach the time to splash, with Lydia's mom available to help dress her out, this is now on the radar... L8R Skip Morgan 461 #2 SV Flying Pig KI4MPC http://tinyurl.com/384p2 The vessel as Tehamana, as we bought her " I went to the Sea because I wished to live deliberately .. to confront only the essential facts of life .. and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not .. when I came to die discover that I had not lived" - Hendry David Thoreau " Skip, How is the older Awlgrip looking at this point? > Coming late to this party, I wonder what is recommended for relatively > new awl-grip. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > not learn what it had to teach, and not .. when I came to die > discover that I had not lived" - Hendry David Thoreau " Actually, the correct quote from "Walden" begins "I went to the woods because..." Although its is fine to go to sea for the same reasons. Don W. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.