Two Questions for San Diego Boaters

[Bash]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Our challange is to educate not only Bay Area boaters, but divers as well, that this simple change in the boating culture here will not only bring a healthier environment but save the client money and protect the diver's job to boot. To that end I posted my original two questions.

Let's see. The going rate in the Bay Area right now is $2.00 per foot. If you clean my 46 footer fourteen times a year, this means I'll be paying a diver $1,288 per year, plus whatever it costs to change zincs.

Honestly, that's getting close to the point where I should just haul once a year and eliminate the use of divers completely. If I take the boat up to the Delta every August and scrub it down myself, I should be able to make this work.

Maybe what we really need to do is to educate the divers that their current pricing structure is counterproductive. I'd be happy to enter into a relationship with a diver where I pay you a flat fee of $800 per year, and you keep the bottom clean in the most efficient, environmentally friendly manner possible.

How 'bout it, Fstbttms?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Bash

Let's see. The going rate in the Bay Area right now is $2.00 per foot. If you clean my 46 footer fourteen times a year, this means I'll be paying a diver $1,288 per year, plus whatever it costs to change zincs.

Please read the thread before jumping to conclusions:

Originally Posted by fstbttms

The CPDA feels that for the Bay Area, 6 cleanings per year is the magic number. This frequency of service in almost all cases would enable the diver to use carpet or a white pad to clean the bottom. This is better for the environment and would reduce the need for new anti fouling paint to every 3 years. The savings there alone would offset the increased hull cleaning costs by thousands of dollars over a ten year period for a 30-foot boat (savings increase as the boat gets bigger), not to mention better performance under sail and power and reduced fuel consumption and carbon emissions throughout the year.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

What makes you think your paint's copper is depleted?

"We bought our boat on 12/2009 in San Francisco" I meant to say 12/2006.

The bottom is going on three years, and I thought that was about the life of good bottom paint. Am I wrong in that assumption?

[theonecalledtom]

Once a month, summer and winter @ about $1.60 per foot.

The bottom paint is just over two years old and while wearing thin around the water line in places our diver thinks it looks okay for a while longer (says he uses a soft approach to cleaning).

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by Bash

Let's see. The going rate in the Bay Area right now is $2.00 per foot. If you clean my 46 footer fourteen times a year, this means I'll be paying a diver $1,288 per year, plus whatever it costs to change zincs.

Honestly, that's getting close to the point where I should just haul once a year and eliminate the use of divers completely. If I take the boat up to the Delta every August and scrub it down myself, I should be able to make this work.

Maybe what we really need to do is to educate the divers that their current pricing structure is counterproductive. I'd be happy to enter into a relationship with a diver where I pay you a flat fee of $800 per year, and you keep the bottom clean in the most efficient, environmentally friendly manner possible.

How 'bout it, Fstbttms?

The diver I'm using is charging the same as our previous diver on our 36 foot sailboat, and that is $1.00 per foot (zincs are extra). I would say that if you had the bottom cleaned more often, the work would be easier thus cheaper. $1.00 per foot x 36 feet = $36.00 per month or $432.00 per year.

[theonecalledtom]

Originally Posted by JiffyLube

The diver I'm using is charging the same as our previous diver on our 36 foot sailboat, and that is $1.00 per foot (zincs are extra). I would say that if you had the bottom cleaned more often, the work would be easier thus cheaper. $1.00 per foot x 36 feet = $36.00 per month or $432.00 per year.

I'm feeling miffed, is that per foot water line?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by JiffyLube

"We bought our boat on 12/2009 in San Francisco" I meant to say 12/2006.

The bottom is going on three years, and I thought that was about the life of good bottom paint. Am I wrong in that assumption?

No, you got good usage out that last bottom job. I was just surprised that you thought your paint was shot after less than a year, but clearly that isn't the case.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by JiffyLube

The diver I'm using is charging the same as our previous diver on our 36 foot sailboat, and that is $1.00 per foot (zincs are extra). I would say that if you had the bottom cleaned more often, the work would be easier thus cheaper.

No offense, but as a hull cleaner, I feel compelled to make a comment here:

I guarantee nobody is getting rich, living in California and only charging a buck a foot. That is rock-bottom cheap, probably the cheapest hull cleaning rate in the country. And you think he should charge less if you have the boat cleaned more often? The guy still has to drag his gear to your boat and get into the water and clean it. The time and effort it takes to do that is not appreciably different whether the boat was cleaned two, or four, weeks ago. If you took your car to the car wash twice a month, would they charge you less because it wasn't as dirty? Of course not. Why should your diver do any differently?

[Roy M]

Or, one could simply get rid of the boat, not have to pay for maintenance and take up checkers at the park. Good grief guys. The diver is just doing what he needs to do to keep your boat bottom as clean as possible while reducing, as much as possible, any fouling of the environment. We are doing the fouling by painting our bottoms with toxic stuff, it's not his fault that it requires some effort to keep the surface free of slime that allows the surface toxicity to keep critters from establishing a hold on the hull. The arguments here are silly. You, the boat owner, own the responsibility for polluting the ocean with toxic materials. You can choose to go without bottom paint and clean by hand A LOT, you can buy a toxic bottom paint, then choose to maintain it so as to release as little toxicity into the water as necessary, you can choose to scrub it less often and allow the red cloud to disappear into the tide, oblivious of the consequence, OR you can put yourself in the water and take full responsibility for your own maintenance. Uh-OH! Here comes the defense: "The Authorities won't let me take responsibility for my own acts, I'm not allowed to dive on my own boat, I'm not allowed to formulate my own paint, I don't contribute materially to pollution, I am not responsible, Damn it!"

[fstbttms]

Roy, you make good points as always, but I would add a couple of others:

1.- Going without anti fouling paint is really not an option in California, especially in Southern California. You would need to be in the water cleaning the bottom several times a week to stay ahead of the growth. That is not an exaggeration.

2.- If one was really concerned about polluting, one could use one of the non-toxic anti fouling solutions that are available and on the market. You don't have to use a paint that is loaded with heavy metal if you don't want to. But there are reasons we don't see many boats using it.

[Roy M]

fstbttms: There you go again, being reasonable and rational. Don't you get it? The problem is that an increasing number of us are finally realizing our entitlement to have whatever we wish, without actually having to pay for it. It's folks like you who spoil the party. The next thing we'll probably hear are some folks actually requiring us to show proficiency when we take our beloved craft out onto our personal space defined by the displacement of water. Good grief, doesn't anyone get it? We even have people here in San Diego that are trying to limit our God-given right to vacuum all the breeding populations of fish, lobster, abalone and all of those other troublesome creatures that poop into the water (OOps! That includes the City of San Diego). If only the politicians and other deep thinkers could fit their heads around the concept of good, old-fashioned free enterprise and complete elimination of all regulations. Then we could go back to the good old days of unlimited plundering of these resources. They really only should belong to the brave and lusty folks who can seize them and use them most profitably in their enlightened self interest. Sort of like the seagulls in FINDING NEMO: "Mine, MINE, MINE!"

--Editor's note: Roy M has just been administered a gentle sedative and should show signs of improved behavior shortly. We have successfully removed the mouse from his cold, deathlike fingers. Everything is getting calmer.

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Roy, you make good points as always, but I would add a couple of others:

1.- Going without anti fouling paint is really not an option in California, especially in Southern California. You would need to be in the water cleaning the bottom several times a week to stay ahead of the growth. That is not an exaggeration.

2.- If one was really concerned about polluting, one could use one of the non-toxic anti fouling solutions that are available and on the market. You don't have to use a paint that is loaded with heavy metal if you don't want to. But there are reasons we don't see many boats using it.

the reasons include--failure to put out--they just simply do not work...go figger-----and when coronado places 240,000 or more gallons of untreated waste into san diego bay DAILY because the plans at the time of creating the commmunity hadnt included sewer systems, then,,,of course it is ALLLL the boaters' faults and we should , of course, accept our role in this bs........have you heard what the alleged environmentalists are teaching the children these days?? they hold their classes in coronado nnext to the moored boats and lie to these kids like no ones biz--saying that ALL the pollution and toxicity in the great bay of dago is on the 78 boats in that particular mooring field...LOL....and this with nassco across the bay from us..LOL...i a m ready to use mil spec bottom paint...it really works lol.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by theonecalledtom

I'm feeling miffed, is that per foot water line?

No, overall length.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

No offense, but as a hull cleaner, I feel compelled to make a comment here:

I guarantee nobody is getting rich, living in California and only charging a buck a foot. That is rock-bottom cheap, probably the cheapest hull cleaning rate in the country. And you think he should charge less if you have the boat cleaned more often? The guy still has to drag his gear to your boat and get into the water and clean it. The time and effort it takes to do that is not appreciably different whether the boat was cleaned two, or four, weeks ago. If you took your car to the car wash twice a month, would they charge you less because it wasn't as dirty? Of course not. Why should your diver do any differently?

I don't think he should charge less, that is just the price that the divers have charged us...and I didn't even haggle with them. The diver we're using now goes to our boat in a large inflatable, with all his gear and supplies on board...I believe he has many customers near us.

You misunderstood what I was responding to Brash about him thinking that his diver was charging to much for what they did for him...read his post again please.

[JiffyLube]

It seems to me that there is no middle ground when it comes to humans living on this planet. We either have to be radically environmental in our thinking, or not thinking at all. I for one am environmentally conscious of what I may be contributing to messing up the environment (it started for me back in the 70's when it was called ecology), but I don't lose any sleep at night if I screw up a little either...at least I've not a complete screw up.