Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

General boating discussion
Shark Bait
Donator 08, 11, 15, 17
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 pm
16
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#1

Post by Shark Bait »

Does anyone have experience with both Interlux Trilux 33 and Pettit Alumacoat SR? While I have used Trilux 33 I have no experience with Pettit products.

Is one better than the other at slime reduction? Will one last longer? Other considerations?
Image
Chaps
Donator '09
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:19 am
16
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#2

Post by Chaps »

I've been putting Petitt Vivid on most alloy boats recently, have not applied any Alumacoat since they changed the formula, have had terrible results with Trilux 33.
1987 24' LaConner pilothouse workboat, 225 Suzuki
Image
please view and like: https://www.facebook.com/bottompainting/
Shark Bait
Donator 08, 11, 15, 17
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 pm
16
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#3

Post by Shark Bait »

Chaps: What sort of problems have you had with Trilux 33?

Here is my problem. When I had my EagleCraft built in Campbell River BC I had bottom paint applied at the factory. Because of the environmenatl restrictions in Canada Daigle had to use Trilux II (Trilux 33 can not be used in Canada).

While I am not getting any hard growth (barnicales or mussells) I do get a lot of slim and alge. When I spoke to the Interlux tech folks they said it did not surprise them because Trilux II doesn not have any anti-slime biocide in it. They suggessted I use Trilux 33 which has an anti-slime biocide in it. ZPT 3.39% by weight.

When I spoke to the Pettit tech staff they suggessted I use Aluminacoat SR (SR=Slime Resistent) and their anti-slime biocide ZPT is 4.95% by weight. Just from the chemisrty it would seem the Alumacoat SR would prevent/retard slime growth better than Trilux 33.

Thoughts - suggesstions?
Image
User avatar
spoiled one
Donator '08 '09 '10
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:48 pm
16
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#4

Post by spoiled one »

Shark Bait wrote: Thoughts - suggesstions?
Take the boat out of the harbor ever once in awhile. You are at the stage in your life where every day is a Saturday, right? Go spend your kids inheritance! :popcorn:
Spending my kids inheritance with them, one adventure at a time.

2010 AK Meet & Greet
Image
2012 AK Meet and Greet
Image
Chaps
Donator '09
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:19 am
16
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#5

Post by Chaps »

Shark Bait wrote:Chaps: What sort of problems have you had with Trilux 33?

Here is my problem. When I had my EagleCraft built in Campbell River BC I had bottom paint applied at the factory. Because of the environmenatl restrictions in Canada Daigle had to use Trilux II (Trilux 33 can not be used in Canada).

While I am not getting any hard growth (barnicales or mussells) I do get a lot of slim and alge. When I spoke to the Interlux tech folks they said it did not surprise them because Trilux II doesn not have any anti-slime biocide in it. They suggessted I use Trilux 33 which has an anti-slime biocide in it. ZPT 3.39% by weight.

When I spoke to the Pettit tech staff they suggessted I use Aluminacoat SR (SR=Slime Resistent) and their anti-slime biocide ZPT is 4.95% by weight. Just from the chemisrty it would seem the Alumacoat SR would prevent/retard slime growth better than Trilux 33.

Thoughts - suggesstions?
To me, T-33 seems to be basically ineffective at resisting barnacle growth around here once it is in service more than about half a season. That is based on my own experience with it and from what I've seen on clients boats. Alumacoat SR has the same active ingredient at a little higher concentration and is in a polymer base so I would expect similar T-33 type results. Vivid also contains the ZPT (2.8%) but has the additional benefit of a 25% loading of copper thiocyanate which seems quite effective against the hard growth and its base is modified epoxy which I've found is harder and more durable than traditional ablatives. The thiocyanate is far less problematic on an alloy hull than the more common cuprous oxide form of copper but it is recommended that hulls done in Vivid have a barrier coat to improve isolation from the hull. If you don't have the barrier coat and don't want to go through the work and expense of applying it then stick with the non-copper Alumacoat SR IMO.
1987 24' LaConner pilothouse workboat, 225 Suzuki
Image
please view and like: https://www.facebook.com/bottompainting/
Shark Bait
Donator 08, 11, 15, 17
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 pm
16
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#6

Post by Shark Bait »

Spoiler One: "Go spend your kids inheritance! " I am already doing a damn good job of that! Hey I have a slip why would I want to pull the boat out - pulling the boat takes away from time on the water!!
Image
User avatar
spoiled one
Donator '08 '09 '10
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:48 pm
16
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#7

Post by spoiled one »

Shark Bait wrote:Spoiler One: "Go spend your kids inheritance! " I am already doing a damn good job of that! Hey I have a slip why would I want to pull the boat out - pulling the boat takes away from time on the water!!
I didn't mean out of the water, but out on the water. I have intel that says Dream Catcher spends a lot of time in the slip. :rotfl:
Spending my kids inheritance with them, one adventure at a time.

2010 AK Meet & Greet
Image
2012 AK Meet and Greet
Image
Shark Bait
Donator 08, 11, 15, 17
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 pm
16
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#8

Post by Shark Bait »

Spoiled One says "I have intel that says Dream Catcher spends a lot of time in the slip."

Lets see - the weather is sh***y, the Dream Catcher is in the slip plugged into power, the heater is running, the tunes are blasting, the beer is cold, telling war stories with the guys - sounds like the right thing to do until the weather clears and the sun comes out !!

But then I guess you could be onboard the Patience in the parking lot in Whitter doing the same thing - but then I don't really think it would be the same as being 'On the Water" :mrgreen:
Image
User avatar
spoiled one
Donator '08 '09 '10
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:48 pm
16
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#9

Post by spoiled one »

We live a pretty tough life wouldn't you agree? :beer:
Spending my kids inheritance with them, one adventure at a time.

2010 AK Meet & Greet
Image
2012 AK Meet and Greet
Image
Shark Bait
Donator 08, 11, 15, 17
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 pm
16
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#10

Post by Shark Bait »

UPDATE: After researching Interlux, Pettit and e Paints I decided to go with Pettit Alumacoat SR. However when I attempted to find the Alumacoat in Alaska and Seattle no one had it - no local dealer, not WM, not SEMAR or Fishieries Supply.

I called Pettit on Monday and asked it they could direct me to a dealer that had it. They gave me the standard dealers I had tried and when I said none of them had it the Tech Rep said O - USE VIVID FREE, IT IS THE SAME PRODUCT! I ask him if I heard him correctly that they were the exact same product and he said yes that whey were phasing out the name Alumacoat SR. Same product just a different name.

I found the Vivid, Tie-Coat primer and thinner at Fisheries and a friend of mine who is driving his motorhome back to Alaska this week is bringing it to me. I am going to put a couple of coats of the Vivid Free over my Trilux II and we will see what happens. Will report back at the end of the season as to the effectiveness of the Vivid Free against slime and algae.
Image
Chaps
Donator '09
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:19 am
16
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#11

Post by Chaps »

Yeah, now I recall the Pettit guy at the boat show saying they were changing the name. Vivid Free is not Vivid, BTW
1987 24' LaConner pilothouse workboat, 225 Suzuki
Image
please view and like: https://www.facebook.com/bottompainting/
Shark Bait
Donator 08, 11, 15, 17
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 pm
16
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#12

Post by Shark Bait »

Chaps: You are correct that Vivid Free is not the same as Vivid. I believe the main difference and hence the name is Vivid Free does not contain any copper. It does however contains a much higher percentage of Zinc Pyrithione which is the anti-slime biocide. Since slime reduction is my primary goal I hope it works well. The Trilux II which is on the boat now has no anti-slime biocide in it so anything should be better. Will report back at the end of the season.

A good point to remember if anyone is considering purchasing or having a boat built in Canada is to wait until the boat is in the US before having bottom paint applied - you will get much better protection.

Anyone have a good stash of TBT paint lying around?
Image
Chaps
Donator '09
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:19 am
16
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#13

Post by Chaps »

I have about 3 gallons left, I use it on outdrives
1987 24' LaConner pilothouse workboat, 225 Suzuki
Image
please view and like: https://www.facebook.com/bottompainting/
IronwoodIsland
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:21 pm
15
Location: Howe Sound, Vancouver BC

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#14

Post by IronwoodIsland »

I'm looking for some advice on the best (longest lasting) antifouling paint. Hauling and painting a boat around here is quite an expensive hassle (pressure washing prohibited unless recycle equipped wash basins and there are not many around here)

Here is a summary of the data on antifouling paints available for use on aluminum hulls. I've not had much luck with Interlux's Trilux II as it only lasts about one season in the Pacific Northwest before allowing barnacle and mussle growth.

Epaint seems good but is not yet available here in Canada. Pettite's Vivid has two biocides and may be available more readily so I'm going to try and find some. I've got a barrier coat still with some Trilux II and lots of barnacles....

Ultima Eco (Pettite)
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Tralopyril...6.0%
Zinc Pyrithionel...4.80%

Vivid (Pettite) Hard Smooth Finish
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Cuprous Thiocyanate ....25.00%
Zinc Pyrithione...2.80%

Vivid Free (Same as Alumacoat below, both by Pettite)
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS....
Zinc Pyrithione .....4.95%

Aluminacoat SR (Pettite)
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
Zinc Pyrithione (ZPT)...4.95%

Tri-Lux II (Interlux) Soft Ablative Copolymer
Cuprous Thiocyanate... 25%(?)
No biocide

Trilux 33 (Interlux)
ZPT (?)....3.39%?

SN-1 (Epaint)
Sea-Nine 211 Biocide
Photocatalytic Zinc compound that evolves hydrogen peroxide in response to sunlight
2412
19' Ironwood extended with platform to 21'
Shark Bait
Donator 08, 11, 15, 17
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 pm
16
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#15

Post by Shark Bait »

UPDATE: I just finished repainting my bottom with Pettit Vivid Free, Black. As listed above my boat is a 34' X 10' which had Trilux II applied at the factory . The Trilux II had three seasons on it ( 4 to 5 months per season). The Trilux II has never performed very well -while it has kept hard growth off the bottom it did absolutely nothing against slim and algae. Since the original paint was still in good shape I decided to put on a better paint. Here is the drill I went through - and this was all done with the boat on a trailer!!:

1. Sprayed Clorox bleach on the bottom and then pressure washed it. This was done last fall when the boat was pulled for the winter.

2. Scuff sanded the bottom with 80 grit sandpaper using a 1/4 sheet electric palm sander and a hand sanding block.

3. Wiped sanding dust off the bottom the bottom with shop towels

4. Wiped the bottom with Pettit T-120 Brushing Thinner

5. Put Pettit Tie- Coat primmer on all of the bare aluminum areas and thin spots (Waited 18 hours before the next step)

6. Put a second coat of primer on the spots (Waited 18 hours before the next step)

7. Put on the first coat of Pettit Vivid Free (Waited 18 hours before the next step)

8. Put on the second coat of Vivid Free (Waited 18 hours before the next step)

9. Put on a third coat of Vivid Free from the water line down to about a foot (Pettit Tech Staff recommendation)

I used a 4" foam roller and a brush to apply both the primer and the Vivid Free. Both go on very well and the foam roller left the Vivid Free with a smooth finish. Since the solvent in the primer and paint caused the foam to separate from the center of the roller after about 30 minutes you will use a number of rollers. It took 4 to 5 hours to apply the first and second coats of the vivid Free. I used 1 3/4 gallons of Vivid Free so the Pettit estimated coverage of 400 Sq Ft per gallon is pretty accurate.

At best this is a time consuming, SH***y job!!! But I am very pleased with the Pettit products so far.

I Will report back on the the effectiveness of the Vivid Free at the end of boating season - in September.
Image
Chaps
Donator '09
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:19 am
16
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#16

Post by Chaps »

Good going there SB. How did you deal with the bunks/rollers?
1987 24' LaConner pilothouse workboat, 225 Suzuki
Image
please view and like: https://www.facebook.com/bottompainting/
Shark Bait
Donator 08, 11, 15, 17
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 pm
16
Location: Eagle River Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#17

Post by Shark Bait »

I didn't.Trailer has bunks so for now there will be four strips which do not have the new paint on them. No easy access to a Travelall or lift so this will have to do until the next paint job.
Image
Shark Bait
Donator 08, 11, 15, 17
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 pm
16
Location: Eagle River Alaska

FOLLOW UP -Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#18

Post by Shark Bait »

OK - Winter is just around the corner and Termination Dust is imminent so the Dream Catcher is bedded down in my driveway for the winter.

I am VERY pleased with the way Pettit Vivid Free performed this year - far better than the Trilux 2 that was on the boat. A major portion of the bottom of the hull was completely free of any slim and growth. I suspect this is because that portion of the hull was "cleaned" by the movement through the water. Previously the entire bottom was covered with slim that was a b**ch to remove. There was some slim growth at the waterline, especially on the port side which is away from the finger and facing west, but nothing to get too excited about. Contrast this to the "Rain Forest" which was growing on the top of the trim tabs and transom mounted transducer and it is easy to see how effective the Vivid Free is.

What little slim there was on the bottom came off fairly easily with just a good pressure washing - no Clorox or soap.

The only thing I am a little disappointed about is there are a few small areas where the Vivid Free did not adhere to the primer so the primer is showing. These areas will be retouched in the spring.

Based on the lack of performance of the original Trilux 2 and the great first year performance of the Pettit Vivid Free I think the Vivid Free is certainly worth considering if need or or are thinking about putting bottom paint on your alloy boat.

SB :beer:
Image
User avatar
spoiled one
Donator '08 '09 '10
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:48 pm
16
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#19

Post by spoiled one »

Glad your bottom is clean. The hills behind us had a dusting this morning, didn't yours?

I am hoping for at least one more weekend on the water before I put the boat to bed for winter. :thumbsup:
Spending my kids inheritance with them, one adventure at a time.

2010 AK Meet & Greet
Image
2012 AK Meet and Greet
Image
User avatar
gandrfab
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:33 pm
16
Location: Edgewater Fl

Re: Trilux 33 Vs. Alumacoat SR

#20

Post by gandrfab »

spoiled one wrote:Glad your bottom is clean. The hills behind us had a dusting this morning, didn't yours?

I am hoping for at least one more weekend on the water before I put the boat to bed for winter. :thumbsup:
Oh my, it still made it to 90* today here. :shocked:
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic