If you're talking about a wooden boat that is sound, and maintained
efficiently in decent working shape, and don't include long-term things
like ripping the seams & refastening, then it is no more work than to
maintain a fiberglass boat of similar size & style in high-gloss yachtie
condition.


Maxprop wrote:
It takes about two or three hours to buff the gelcoated topsides of a 36'
fiberglass boat. It takes no time at all if the boat is Awlgripped. The
same process of a wooden boat with topside paint (not linear polyurethane,
which is rare on wooden boats)

That's because it's unwise to put on an expensive finish
with higher hardness than the underlying surface.

..... is generally not necessary annually, but such
boats will typically need repainting about every 4 or 5 years to keep them
looking bristol.

Depends on the environment, how it's cleaned, etc etc.

... A sanding and painting, if properly done, will take well
over 20 hours or preparation and another 4-6 hours of masking and painting.
Glass (4-5 years): up to 15 hours maximum, Wood (same period): 24 hours
minimum.


I disagree that wood will need repainting every 4 ~ 5 years.

Brightwork: most recent glass boats have none. Most wooden boats have
acres.

"Most"?? There is no need for a wooden boat to have any
varnish. It's optional. For a fair comparison, why not try a
fiberglass boat like a Tayana with a wooden boat like a
skipjack? Or, since wooden production boats averaged much
smaller, why not compare a 40+ foot fiberglass production
boat (average size) with a 26 ~ 30 foot wooden boat?

Bottom: glass: reapplying antifouling annually, or not if well coated with
Teflon paint or ablative, wood: sanding and painting annually, and an
occasional need to repair small areas of defective caulking, if the boat is
carvel planked. If the boat is cold-molded, it may take no more time than
glass.


You're right that seams often need attention, but a wooden
boat bottom does not need to be sanded every year unless
you're a fanatic. And I stated at the outset that fanatacism
should be excluded from this comparison.


Deck and house: glass: virtually no work required, beyond a bath,

Really? No recaulking of ports & hatches? No rebedding of
deck fittings? No gel coat touch-up? No replacing crazed Lexan?

wood:
similar, except when the Dynel or canvas needs to be replaced, which is a
multi-week job encompassing many hours. Then painting is necessary. If the
deck is wood (common with wooden boats, rare with fiberglass) a certain
minimum amount of maintenance is necessary annually.


I dunno, we own a fiberglass boat that had a teak deck until
quite recently. Right now I'm hopefully about 3/5 thru
replacing it with fiberglass, including rebuilding a few
sections with rotten core. How's that for your comparison?



I generally say that maintaining a wooden boat is 10% more work than
fiberglass, and having owned several of each, feel confident this can
backed with figures. The difference is that the wooden boat will have
certain labor & skill intensive things done to it every ten years or so,
by which time you will probably have sold it to somebody else.


You can't simply dismiss those maintenance items.

I wasn't intending to dismiss them, just point out that the
scary things about wood boat ownership are not monthly
occurences.

.... Amortized over a number
of years, the labor time is greatly skewed against the wooden boat.


I'd agree that it's skewed, but if the fiberglass boat is
kept truly Bristol, then I'd say it's not "greatly" skewed
at all.

The biggest difference is that you can defer maintenance on
the fiberglass boat, and schedule tasks at a convenient
time... very important, almost sacrosanct, in this culture.
A wooden boat sets it's own schedule, and if you don't do
the jobs that need to be done before they really need it,
then you've increased your work tremendously.

This is a foreign concept for modern Americans.


... Most wooden boats are neglected

Most boats are neglected, period.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King