another test?
Apply it to 3 pieces of cheap red plastic like a tide bottle. One of them, just spray it on and let it dry. Another one, follow the directions for application, but then rinse it with water to simulate boat usage. The third would get nothing. Then set all three out in the sun.
I don’t have any of the stuff, or I’d try it.
Well, it’s because I see local
applications of 303 still darkening the hull after more than one trip that I have concluded the stuff is still there. And, as I said, the bottom of the hull stays slippery for a while even after the boat has been in the water.
I’m planning to put cross stripes of 303, Armorall, and McNett on my boat, and see whether those stripes remain visible on the bottom.
I’m prepared to be disappointed by 303 et al. I just don’t expect to be >totally< disappointed.
Arkay, do you recall what evidence
was presented that Armorall is an environmental bummer? I say this because Armorall’s formulation appears to have changed over the years, and boaters may have been avoiding a useful product because of suburban legends.
The current formulation of Armorall leaves a >dry< finish compared to the slippery/greasy feel of unpolished 303, and my limited experience suggests the Armorall is staying on the boat at least as well.
I’m glad that you wiped off the excess
per the instructions this time. Please do use it per the instructions or don’t bother experimenting at all.
I thought that previous threads on 303 pointed out that it chemically bonds with the material it is appplied to and anything that comes off is excess and not needed for protecting the boat anyway.
It seems that some people just spray it on and spread it around and don’t actually spend a little time wiping it dry with clean cloths. If you leave excess on the boat, of course it will come off in the water.
Armor-all good/bad???
What was written at this forum some time back was that Armor-all supposedly contains silicon which is released in the water. 303 was claimed to be environmentally friendly. Some board members also claimed that Armor-all did not do a good job of UV protection/ or not as good a job as 303. I have no evidence one way or another on any of this. I’m not well schooled in chemistry… don’t know didley from pidley… I just want a product that inhibits UV, makes my boats shine a bit and doesn’t leave polluted water in my wake.
If Armor-all’s current formula meets these goals I’m all for it. Matter of fact I’m, for ANY brand that meets these goals.
OK fellas the results are in…
Just got home from work, the 303 dried in the sun all day 9 hours. I put a tablespoon of water on the poly lid and a little on the mirror and this is what happened. No shaking or stirring. If you still can’t grasp this try it your self. Worst part is that you just don’t know what that stuff is, it will trail your boat for hours.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b315/Indy425/different%20stuff/303result.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b315/Indy425/different%20stuff/303res.jpg
Question
Was your coffee sunburned?
Reply From Flood
Here is what I got back from Flood. The wash off vs. weather away part is helpful – to me anyway.
“Dear Customer,
Thank you for contacting The Flood Company.
Penetrol will not ‘wash off’. In time, it will weather away.
We cannot make any claims on our products being harmful to the
environment.”
303 Pollution?
Does 303 work for UV protection? I only have my own anecdotal evidence that items I coat with 303 show no signs of UV damage whereas similar materials degraded rapidly before I discovered 303. Does 303 wash or wear off? Yes it does over time. However, the amounts that get into the water are miniscule especially if you follow the directions and wipe off all the excess that you can. Less than half an ounce will coat my entire canoe, then I wipe most of that off before I put it in the water. I have a clear conscience knowing that whatever trace pollution my canoe adds to the environment in a year’s time is less than what a petroleum powered craft (particularly jet skis and 2 cycle outboards) add in 5 minutes of operation.
Non Toxic ???
Why don’t you get a plastic bottle coat it with 303 wipe it off let it dry and put it into a gallon fish bowl with two or three Zebra fish.
I’ll place a bet on how non-toxic it is.
303…
By NT’s tests it would appear that 303 does indeed float off in water. This is also observable by the fact that canoes coated with this product have noticeably less sheen after a float or two. …at least that’s what I’ve noticed on my boats.
I continue to have questions about this product:
If applied according to directions (all excess wiped off – dry) are there any negative environmental issues related to using this product on a watercraft?
Exactly was IS that milky stuff left in its wake??? Are we talking some sort of simple vegetable oil or some sort of nasty Teflon/C8 or silicon based goop?
Does this product actually check UV degradation or does it simply temporarily shine up a dull surface and fool the eye?
We store our canoes indoors in a purpose-built structure that allows zero light intrusion (no windows). The only UV exposure our boats face is during transportation on a car/truck roof or on a trailer and of course while on the water. Still at least one of our boats (usually 3) is exposed to UV at least one day a week pretty much year-‘round. Obviously I’m not going to stop paddling to protect my boats from UV!!! But I wonder if I really even need to be concerned about applying a UV inhibitor at all?
I probably won’t be going back to Armor-all due to the silicon that it is alleged to release on the water. Now I (obviously) question the “greenness” of 303 – the manufacturer won’t admit to what’s in the stuff and that raises my eyebrows.
Bottom line: Are there UV protecting/sheen enhancing products on the market for watercraft that are environmentally safe? - Randall
why not test 303s effectiveness?
It would seem easy enough to do. I don’t use it, maybe I should. But the price has always held me back.
There are multiple things to prove or disprove about this product. So far we have evidence that it produces a sheen in water.
Does anyone have a junk yak?
If you’ve got an old yak or canoe try this:
using some masking tape simply make two same-size boxes side by side with 4 strips of tape.
Leave one box alone - coat the other with 303. Make a third if you like and test another product.
Place boat in sun and get back to us in 90 days.
Proprietary Ingredients
Checked the MSDS for the product and it lists the ingredients as proprietary. Other statements are benign, then you get to the environmental section and it states:
“The manufacturer has not reported detailed studies on the environmental fate of the
material. However, prudent practice would dictate the material not be allowed to enter
the environment.”
They haven’t studied it, but are unsure enough to say we shouldn’t let it into the environment. And before everyone jumps I work in the environmental protection field, understand how to read an MSDS, and realize that is standard “legalize” to cover themselves. But if they market a product (it appears to have been developed for aerospace) for use on watercraft don’t they have a corporate responsibility to be sure.
Randy
It is legally dangerous to make claims
– Last Updated: May-15-07 9:55 AM EST –
... so I can understand the reluctance to do so.
Is there a product that we can hold up as a shining example of extensive environmental testing and non-ambigous claims about its complete lack of any potential environmental/human health impact? I guess there may be, but none come to my mind.
Silicon & oxygen = sand
Silicon is one of the most abundant elements on the planet. Sand and glass are made from silicon. It is fairly inert. If that is your worry, I’d let it go.
I don’t know what’s in ArmorAll but I’d guess some petroleum. I do agree that any activity with an engine, even just driving to the put-in, probably releases more pollutants into the environment than a carefully applied protectorant would.