Why Wax? What's the point in doing that?

T

Thudpucker

Active member
Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
RO Number
10503
Messages
3,677
I'm talking about FGlass boats.
I know about wood and wax.
Glass shouldn't need wax.
The only reason it needs paint is to change colors or repair.
All the new paints are 'wax free' and I thought the FiberGlass surface was as well.

Am I wrong?
 
Technically Thud, I suppose you don't have to wax Fglass...but OTOH, a good wax and polish helps to pull out the "dead" layers of oxidation that occur with Fglass. It's more of an asthetics than a requirement. You've seen what UV and time do to a Fglass shine.
 
Well...yeah...esthetics are important to a lot of the good guys on this forum.

The goofiest reason I ever heard for waxing was speed.
I knew a guy who Waxed his plane.
"Boy what a difference" he says.
He was so impressed he had his Plane painted with Imron.
He claimed he could feel the difference on climb out.

I remember my 36 Chev being the bright blue Oxidize. (now people pay extra to get that multi-shade paint)
That was the paint problem though.
I thought the newer acrylics were advertized as never needing wax.
"whew" I thought. They invented that just in time to keep my arm from falling off!
 
I apply wax to the topsides of my boat at least 3 times a season so I don't get oxidized fiberglass like most of the boats in my marina. My boat is 11 years old and the gel coat still shines like new. Also, with good wax, the dreaded black streaks wash off. When they don't, it's time to wax again. If I didn't have paint on the bottom, I'd wax there too, to make it easier to get the river slime/scum off at haulout. My hull only gets a coat or two of wax before spring launch and seems to last all summer as it's not in direct sunlight.
Greg
 
Wax is one of those things, as a chemist, I get geeky about.

Basically, waxes are sacrificial coatings wherever they are used. They are sacrificial because they can be easily renewed compared to what's underneath. On wood or other uncoated materials they serve as a primary protectant of the underlying material. On coated surfaces, like painted metal or wood and gelcoat, they were developed to serve as protection of the underlying coating.

Depending on how the wax product is formulated it can provide a barrier layer to water and water-based stuff that tends to stain, oxidation and UV damage.

In addition to protection waxes can enhance the gloss of a surface as well as apparent depth and distinction of image. They do this by "perfecting" the surface through filling microscopic imperfections. To help do this a wax product can be formulated with polishing aids (i.e., abrasives).

I believe the "wax free" paints you refer to are primarily the clear-coat acrylics. While these don't appear to gain much from waxing in protecting against apparent UV or oxidation damage, wax will help prevent other kinds of damage sucha s etching from acidic contaminants (bird droppings, acid rain, etc.). But in the end, it's about aesthetics and extending the life of the coating. And even the acrylics oxidize and suffer UV damage - they just do so very gracefully.

For gelcoat on fiberglass, wax serves to protect the gelcoat from oxidation, UV degradation and chemical damage. It's about aesthetics and practical lifetime of the gelcoat. If you aren't too concerned about the appearance and are comfortable painting in something like twenty years, then you can surely go wax free - the fiberglass won't rot or corrode for lack of waxing. The gelcoat is, however, very prone to oxidation and resultant chalking of the surface.

Me -- I like the gloss.
 
Eric, I posted my Fiberform with the badly oxidized Red Gel coat on this forum.
From the answers I got, it seemed the Red Pigment was gonna die, whether we waxed or not.
And once it's dead, waxing wont bring it back.

There's no way to protect the Pigment from the UV waves!
Wax is not a thick enough coating.
And you cant put the UV wave difuser in the thin coating of wax.

I seem to remember from Chemistry something about the UV waves penetrating just about everything except certain metals and most earthen compounds.

Now your saying wax can be a UV blocker.

Which wax would that be, and what should we look for in the Ingredients list?
 
Thud,

Nearly all premium wax products from companies such as Meguiars ad others will contain UV absorbers. The most common of these are benzotriazoles, and there are a number of these. There are also other classes of compounds used. But, in most cases you won't be able to find out which one(s) are used. On MSDS's many just provide a generic reference, others hide under the guise of "proprietary ingredients".

How effective these are in fact is a matter of debate, but they do help. The usual problem is loss to volatilization from heating. That's why regular and frequent reapplication helps maintain the appearance.

UV light can be readily absorbed by UV absorbers in thin, transparent coatings - they are made to do just that. Typically, you won't get all of it, but you can get enough of the more damaging wavelengths to have a significant effect. Even in the extremely thin coat of a wax UV protection can be real. Consider how thin a coating of typical liquid UV protectant is. These are quite effective if renewed fairly frequently. Think about how effective sunscreen is and how thin it is.

I am not familiar with the case of the red gel coat you mention. When some of the old metal-based pigments were essentially banned for environmental reasons, some of the early substitutes did not have comparable stability and pigment bleaching cases were seen. However, in more recent years more durable pigment compositions are being used. It would be unusual for the pigment in your gelcoat to actually fade (i.e., bleach)to the point the surface could not be restored - the degradation is usually a surface effect with very limited depth. Pigments intended for exterior exposures can usually take a lot of UV. Most commonly it is oxidized resin that leads to the appearance of fading due to a problem generally known as chalking. When surface chalk sits on a dark color, the net result is a very faded appearance. The cure is to remove the chalked surface through polishing and then coat and protect.

The poly-siloxane paint protectants that are marketed heavily as no-wax paint protectants tend to lead to a stable appearance by stopping chalking, not by stopping UV damage . In reality, many of those coatings provided little if any real UV protection. If these coatings are kept intact by periodic retreatment without removal they gave the appearance of a healthy finish by hiding the chalk. Basically the locked down the surface. If you ever went to remove an old coating system it was a mess - a lot of degraded paint chalk underneath, but until the protective layer was removed it sure looked nice.
 
WOW!
That was a mouthful. Many thanks for the heads up.

My Fiberform was a 1978, 24'. Red hull and white top and trim.
Since I dont know the years (history) of the boat or those paints I'll have to assume the Boat was all original.

The Red was faded. All over the boat. When I removed somthing the really bright Red was still there, but everywhere else it was faded to a Pukie Pink color.

I did notice some Chalkiness in the White. Only in some areas.

I bought an orbital polisher, some rubbing compound, some wax and went to work on the Red.
Nothing worked. I had a nice shiny Pukie Pink boat.
I tried wet/dry sand paper, still the same result. When I sold the boat it had all my efforts exhibited along the Stb Hull.

I'm amazed that such a thin coat of wax would be effective.
I will not argue the point with the Poobah of Resource knowlege though.
I'll go get some wax!
Thanks Eric.
 
Like I said - it's one of those subjects I get geeky about.

Your red may have been a case of poor pigment or poor formulation. Blues and reds are two of the more difficult colors to come up with stable pigments. Reds have a long history of being challenging.

A good wax product can help, but to get the most benefit it needs regular reapplication. Since you're in the south where it gets pretty hot (I'm even further south), heat will be the main challenge to a wax coatings longevity. Carnauba is a great wax, but it really doesn't hold up too well in hot climates. If you go with a pure carnauba type wax, plan on reapplication at least every two months - monthly is better. You will probably get more lifetime per coating out of a premium synthetic that combines wax with synthetic polymers such as siloxanes. I personally like Meguiar's Flagship Premium. The downside of the synthetics is if you ever want to paint - getting all of the silicone off means more work.
 
divedaddy this product might interest you: http://www.optimumcarcare.com/optimumwax.html#wax
I have a few more that I would like your opinion on to if you dont mind? I have been reading a lot on a car detailing forum and I believe that the auto "geeks" are far ahead of what us boat "geeks" are. Let me know if you would give me your opinion on a few of the products I am considering and I will send you the links.
 
thudpucker: the pilot you knew, knew what he was talking about. Parasitic drag increases to the square of velocity. Decreasing surface friction ie waxing would definately increase climb performance. Trust me, I know!
 
4mula,

I tend to make it a rule not to judge a product I haven't tried. However, I will share what I can see about the product and tell you where I would try it.

The Optimum product you referenced looks fairly typical of current state-of-the-art formulations for a spray on detailing wax. It is polish free, appears to use a combination UVA / HALS stabilizer like Tinuvin 5050, and is probably carnauba + polydimethylsiloxane based. It is formulated as an emulsion to make it a liquid spray-on product. I like the formulation and would try it as a touch up and detailing wax on top of something like Meguiar's Flagship Premium as a regular touch-up between major waxings. It might be a good also be good on non-skid and textured surfaces. I believe the comparable Meguiar's product would be NXT Generation Spray Wax. Here are the assocaited US patents - read the description and the examples to find out what the product is about.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6669763.PN.&OS=PN/6669763&RS=PN/6669763

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6685765.PN.&OS=PN/6685765&RS=PN/6685765

The problem I have with spray waxes is that they are mostly water. They are not very efficient or cost effective as a base wax. But they are very useful in tricky spots like non-skid and are great for touch ups if they are comparable to the base wax.

For what it's worth I agree - the auto guys are way ahead. But I believe it's because it is a much bigger market and the technology is driven by the car show enthusiasts. The finish appearance they achieve is unbelievable. That said, gelcoat is a different beast and the marine environment is also different. In my opinion it is unreasonable to expect comparable results. But the practices are essentially the same.
 
Great info, thanks. If I can borrow a little more of your knowledge. I was thinking of using this lineup on my 05 formula with imron hullside paint:
(i was going to use prime:strong) http://www.jeffswerkstatt.com/prime.php for a base cleaning/protection followed by,
http://www.jeffswerkstatt.com/acrylic-jett-trigger.php
on the auto forums they say these products last 6-8 months, which is a full season for me. They also say that the prime: strong is like the "pre-voc" klasse all-in-one. Or what do you think about this:
http://properboatcare.stores.yahoo.net/gelcomise.html

Am I over thinking this or are these synthetic products no better than an application of meguiars #45 Boat/RV Polish followed by Flagship Wax? I have used the latter on my 97 31PC Formula and got tremendous results. (I could read the bottle of #45 off the reflection of the hull from about 6 feet away!) I am looking for the best possible finish as well as protection(more importantly) The auto forum experts say that the aj:trigger goes extremely well with the optimum spray wax referenced above.
 
4mula,

I don't know anything about the Jeff's products. They may be good, but I just can't tell in real time.

If it were me, I would go with the tried and true and selectively try and compare anything you felt might be better. Remember the auto geeks are doing their ride every week and they keep them under wraps. They keep them out of the rains and away from water.

For your Formula with Imron graphics I would use a traditional fine or ultra fine polish followed by the Flagship Premium. Polish the Imron only if it needs it, and then go with as fine a polish as will do the job. Flagship Premium alone may be enough on Imron. Then on a section maybe try something new and see not only how it looks fresh, but how it looks in a month or three

For protection, I doubt you will beat a well maintained coat of Flagship Premium. For regular (weekly ?) touch ups use a comparable spray wax. If you are fanatical and are willing to wax every month (at least) then go with a pure Carnuba product as the wax.

That would be my approach.

Remember, a boat is NOT a show car - you can't keep it like one and you don't have the same finish. How many show cars are finished either in gelcoat or Imron?
 
1959. El Paso Tx, I had my car painted.
I was headed home on leave and wanted a good looking car when I got there.

The guy said "dont wax it...." but after a week, I couldn't stand it any longer.
I waxed it. Paste wax of whatever brand they sold in the Exchange. My right shoulder still aches!
But I comprimized.
I waxed it heavily. Gooped it on. But didnt' buff it off.

A week later, I was home in Seattle. About 2500 miles of Sun, wind rain and road dirt had done the buffing for me in the high impact areas.
What a mulatto looking car. Dull and shiney ajacent to one another.

The lesson was learned when I went to wash it for a new wax job.
The wax was already gone from the High impact area. Very little water beading in those frontal areas.

I hope the newer wax's are better than that old stuff was.
If I'm going to do that much work, I'd expect the wax to stay in place for at least a week.

This topic makes my right Shoulder ache all over again!
 
Thud,

Two things. In 1959 your paint was likely air-cured alkyd enamel. That stuff took forever to cure, and as it did the "tall oil" and heavy solvents evaporated slowly. Wax applied too soon would never adhere to the finish. The rule of thumb was no wax for a year.

Second, the newer sealant-waxes actually bond to the surface which extends their protective lifetime. A pure carnauba-type wax doesn't do that.

On boats and cars it helps to know what kind of surface you are "waxing" - gelcoat or paint, and if paint what kind of paint.
 
4mula owner you're even more right on;

"The power required to overcome ....drag is given by the formula:

[Power] (required) = [Drag Force] times [Velocity]"

[Drag Force] is equal to roughly one half the density of the medium traveled times the square of the velocity

velocity times velocity squared is velocity cubed.

"...the power needed to push an object through a fluid [air] increases as the cube of the velocity."

wikipedia: search; drag, power,

there is a big difference when wax is used on an airplane. all reno air race planes, even sport classes, are waxed before each race.

in my younger days, i would never ski in a slalom or downhill race without waxing my skis (every one still does).

all the j-24 hulls at my marina in keyport, are waxed before they race. a lot of elbow grease but it must be worthwhile. not applicable to my 14ft rascal.:-)
 
For all you waxaholics, (I'm one too!) Ever try Liquid Glass? Best stuff I have ever used period! Use it weekly to remove black streaks and light dirt. It workes very well. Just my .02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top