Better Billy Bunker Method

[Terry Lavin]

We are having sand contamination issues approximately seven years after putting the white Best sand (Ohio) in at Beverly and many have recommended the Better Billy Bunker method. Who has done this before?  How has the experience been?  How expensive is it?  I'd appreciate any and all feedback.

[Pete_Pittock]

We are having sand contamination issues approximately seven years after putting the white Best sand (Ohio) in at Beverly and many have recommended the Better Billy Bunker method. Who has done this before?  How has the experience been?  How expensive is it?  I'd appreciate any and all feedback.

Terry, I can probably answer you tomorrow. Our club has been installing it since 7/1. Scheduled to be done at the end of the month I don't like to play though construction zones, but will make an exception tomorrow morning. Installer is Duininck Golf

[Pete_Pittock]

Terry,
Sending PM

[Tom_Doak]

It's a great method ... for contractors to make bank and architects to stay busy.

[Terry Lavin]

It's a great method ... for contractors to make bank and architects to stay busy.

That resonates with me. I just fear the costly trend that doesn't make a big playability difference but gives a club's leadership an economic engine to leave its mark on the course.

[SL_Solow]

Our super Justin Van Landuit who posts here is better qualified.  We installed it in one bunker as an experiment.  It appears to work very well but it is expensive.

[Quinn Thompson]

...saw it installed once, but only in select bunkers throughout the course, perhaps a good dozen of them. It was used in bunkers with rather steep faces or in those that had a history of being washed....seen some pictures of the course since then (via the Super) and it's been noticed that after a substantial rain event, the bunkers with the BBB are pretty much left standing as is....seems to work. Expensive is right though; I imagine if the Super had the funds, he would have called for it to be installed throughout the course...what I'm getting at is, from what I remember, Beverly has some bunkers, some rather flat ones, that probably wouldn't need it...?

[BHoover]

My former course in Minnesota used the BBB to replace all of our old bunkers. The difference in playability following significant rain events was like night and day. I don't know what it cost the owner, but it was money well spent when you compared the rebuilt bunkers to the old ones.

[Mike_Young]

Terry,
It works but as TD says above it is a way for archies to stay busy and contractors to sell.  While it might make sense for a private club which can spread th cost to members, it is tough for a green fee course to justify such when you compare the cost of just adding some new sand, filling a few washes and waiting an extra day to play after significant rain events....JMO

[Jason Topp]

The only downside I have observed is the need for the grounds staff to be very vigilant in making sure there is adequate sand coverage within the bunkers to avoid someone bouncing a club or a ball off of a liner surface that is essentially concrete.   You cannot necessarily see that the sand is low without actually stepping in the thing. 

[Matthew Rose]

The course closest to me is currently being reno'd and they're doing this for all the bunkers. Looks to me like they spray on some kind of resin / polymer before putting in the sand. I guess the city must be putting a lot of money up if the process is as expensive as noted because I'm pretty certain they've done the entire course with it.




I didn't play the old course enough to be able to tell if it would make any difference or not, as it wasn't my favorite course in the area, but I am looking forward to seeing if they improved it.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

One of the alternatives I've seen is to use actual sod as the liner.  I've also heard of sod flipped upside down.  Curious to see if anyone has experience with this.  One nearby course renovated some bunkers recently with sod liners but only time will tell. One thing we should all agree on is that the standard geotextile liners are just headaches waiting to happen.  At my course most of them are blown.


That being said, I see no harm in doing the Better Billys as a trial in certain terrible bunkers on a given course.  I think this might be within most budgets.  Our course has 3 acres (80 something in number) of bunkers that range from really nice to abominable.

[Mark_Fine]

There are all kinds of ideas out there for bunkers (the Better Billy Bunker is one of them) but I was taught many years ago by a favorite contractor of mine that, "A dry bunker is a good bunker!"  And if it is designed/built properly with good DRAINAGE, it will function well for a LONG time. 

[Joe Hancock]

There are other products that perform similarly to BBB; Capilary Concrete and perveous asphalt. I've had experience with BBB and CC, in that I've shaped bunkers with the installed dimensions of those products in mind


Most often, the bunker liner system is requested and chosen by the superintendent, and then, consequently, by the club/ course leadership. The architect weighs in when considering style, cost and construction/ timing issues.


I think of these things in agronomic and hyraulic terms......if we pile sand up on gravel in a USGA green construction to "perch" the water, then why do we do that in areas that we are trying to keep dry? We do it in bunkers now, and we have done it in drainage trenches for a very long time. I know of a famous East Coast facility that had to modify the bunker bottoms to accomodate the "perched water table" in their BBB installations.....the bunker sand was staying too wet in the very bottom of their typically large bunkers, to the point of growing green algae on the surface of the sand. Coversely, I visited another club, in Chicago, that liked the "perched water table" facet, because their members liked the moisture in the sand......


The thing I do like about these aggregate-based liners is that they stay in place longer, and the intial cost will likely make bunker renovations happen less frequently, which we would all agree is a good thing. Also, theoretically, bunker shapes should become more static.


Costs of these aggregate systems run anywhere $2.50- $4.00 per square foot, installed.

[Terry Lavin]

Thanks to all for chiming in. Our superintendent (Kirk Spieth) will make the ultimate recommendation and he has great judgment, so I'm sure we will be in better shape next year and beyond.

[Connor Dougherty]

The only downside I have observed is the need for the grounds staff to be very vigilant in making sure there is adequate sand coverage within the bunkers to avoid someone bouncing a club or a ball off of a liner surface that is essentially concrete.   You cannot necessarily see that the sand is low without actually stepping in the thing.

For what it's worth, BBB requires 5 inches of compacted sand to keep the bunkers protected under warranty. Assuming that the superintendent makes sure to occasionally monitor, it shouldn't be much of an issue.

One of the alternatives I've seen is to use actual sod as the liner.  I've also heard of sod flipped upside down.  Curious to see if anyone has experience with this.  One nearby course renovated some bunkers recently with sod liners but only time will tell. One thing we should all agree on is that the standard geotextile liners are just headaches waiting to happen.  At my course most of them are blown.

We did install sod liners on a project I worked on last year. So far I've heard that they're working pretty well but would like to check back to see how they are long term. Installing it upside down seems counterintuitive, but I'd be curious to see it if someone has done it. Have the reports of that been good?

It's a great method ... for contractors to make bank and architects to stay busy.

Tom,
Maybe I'm mis-interpreting your comment, and maybe I've spent too long working on the contractor side of things, but this seems a bit crass and a bit over the top. Sure, it's expensive and not necessary everywhere. But in a place like Dallas, where I'm working currently, where the soil is a dense clay that holds water like none other, and heavy rains are not out of the ordinary (we had a 5" overnight rain in June) it saves the club a lot of work repairing washouts. And at the end of the day, particularly in maintenance, time is money. Maybe not enough to justify the costs, but enough to allow superintendents to focus on other parts of the golf course with their time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have consulted with a few supers recently who went with BBB to reduce the sand wash on faces.  Both said they saved $70-80K per year in unscheduled shoveling after rains.  I would have guessed $15-20.


If you count all the work (including new white sand, I find the total cost of bunker renovation to be about $6 per SF.


Either way, assuming 3.5% interest rates, and about $70 per thousand annually, it would seem, based on those numbers, that any BBB investment up to $1,000,000  (or over 166,000 bunker SF, when most courses have 50-125K sf of bunkers) would pay off just in labor savings. 


As to the architect and contractor trying to keep busy, well, I have never demanded any course install that.  I usually use the old CBM quote about bringing the cavalry in for the day to "prepare" the bunkers suitably for play.  It has never been taken up.  However, the decision usually comes from the clubs or courses themselves, if that tells you anything about Tom's somewhat snarky comment! 


It is pretty competitive, so I doubt the contractors make big bank on the smaller $$ projects. As an architect, I don't find I can charge a lot for it, or even get called, unless they use that opportunity to reduce or redesign the bunkers. 


BTW, if you are deciding to add bunker liners, it does pay to use that opportunity to rethink your bunkers, both in total number and size, the ones that have "crept away" from the greens (or vice versa)  As mentioned, it can also make sense to change design a bit to max out the benefits.  If there are bunkers that don't see a lot of "action" perhaps they could be removed similar to Tillie's thoughts on duffer headaches. 


In cloth liners in particular, you will probably be hand raking, so reducing some of the bunker size, and perhaps widening out any noses to ease mowing is a good way to go.

[Tom_Doak]

Connor:  for whom do you work, exactly?  I'd just like to know who is really calling me crass.


Jeff B:  do you spec Better Billy Bunker on all of your new projects?  If not, why not? if it known to save so much money in labor costs? 


i think architects probably should get involved if all bunkers are going to be rebuilt in that way, because shaping mistakes are going to last a long time or be really expensive to fix, and I do think some architects promote the technology knowing they will get work out of it.  Some of the clubs where we consult have installed it as well, but my role has been as skeptic rather than promoter.  How did golf survive without this technology for its first 300 years?

[Don Mahaffey]

I'd really like to see the numbers being used to come up with the savings Jeff is noting. While some of the bunker liners certainly help with sand wash, it's not like you don't still have to go touch em up after a rain.  There may be a delta, but it's not like the bunkers are on auto pilot, which seems to be the ultimate goal anymore with maint. 


I find good bunker and bunker surround shaping has a lot more to do with maintainable bunkers than some fancy liner. But high level shaping is a lot harder for the lay person to recognize and attach a value.

[BCowan]

Connor:  for whom do you work, exactly?  I'd just like to know who is really calling me crass.


Jeff B:  do you spec Better Billy Bunker on all of your new projects?  If not, why not? if it known to save so much money in labor costs? 


i think architects probably should get involved if all bunkers are going to be rebuilt in that way, because shaping mistakes are going to last a long time or be really expensive to fix, and I do think some architects promote the technology knowing they will get work out of it.  Some of the clubs where we consult have installed it as well, but my role has been as skeptic rather than promoter.  How did golf survive without this technology for its first 300 years?

Tom,


It was rather crass.  You sound as if u are using the broken window theory with bunkers. Kinda like how we build thin roads in michigan and allow the heaviest trucks on the road so are roads are shitty and constantly being repaired.  Sometimes u take the keynesian progressive side and other times the conservative stance.


Your last sentence is rather weak, that's like saying why don't u ride a train or drive a model T to your jobs or why doesn't the downs roll the greens at 6 anymore? 


I for one hate the crushed rock sand but understand the high end member clubs wanting fu fu shit.  I like my sand dirty and mildly contaminated, it is just fine with me.   That's why I love 2nd and 3rd tier privates they don't have the money to waste on artificial silicon toys are made for boys shit

[AStaples]

I find that bunker liners are now an assumed cost by owners when renovating bunkers, regardless of local. I recently did not use liners on a project, and then was challenged by some in the industry that I was cutting quality. In this case we spent a significant amount of time adding the detailed swales to keep water out of the sand, as Don suggests above. So far, they are working very well.


I've seen faces dry out, and the bottoms stay wet as Joe suggests, in many cases. Testing the sand seems to be way more important with liners. The 4 inch cover is a very significant factor.


The one area that is challenging my thoughts on bunker liners, and any other maintenenance intensive feature is Labor in general. I think available staff with low burden is a big issue and adding liners may be something that could be justified by assumed future increases.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Connor:  for whom do you work, exactly?  I'd just like to know who is really calling me crass.


Jeff B:  do you spec Better Billy Bunker on all of your new projects?  If not, why not? if it known to save so much money in labor costs? 


i think architects probably should get involved if all bunkers are going to be rebuilt in that way, because shaping mistakes are going to last a long time or be really expensive to fix, and I do think some architects promote the technology knowing they will get work out of it.  Some of the clubs where we consult have installed it as well, but my role has been as skeptic rather than promoter.  How did golf survive without this technology for its first 300 years?

Tom,


Probably an even split between fabrics and BBB, with fabrics winning when upfront cost is the main driver, BBB when long term cost matters more.  The trend is BBB, because supers who have fabrics do experience some problems, none that are not manageable.


My perspective is a bit different than yours.  I recall my first project and seeing the contractor merely dump the sand on bare clay.  Even my sandbox as a kid had a plastic liner separating sand from soil, so I wondered how the simple approach could work, at least in the clay soils of Chicago.


So, while part of me is in the skeptic camp of wanting to stop the unattainable but unending search for maintenance perfection, this isn't one of the things I protest strongly.  For me, the limit comes when installing special irrigation to water the banks separately, and/or installing irrigation to water the sand itself in cases where the sand loss is greatest in fall and winter when irrigation stops.

[Craig Disher]

Chechessee Creek Club installed BBB on several bunkers two years ago. Irma brought over 12' of rain in just a few hours around Beaufort, CCC may have had more. Two days after the deluge I saw the bunkers and the ones that had been treated with BBB appeared as though there hadn't been any rain at all. One bunker had a small cave-in at an upper corner but it wasn't clear whether it had been caused by the rain or a sand-pro that went too high on the bunker without sufficient sand between it and the membrane. It's an expensive option but from what I could see it gives great results.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

As to the architect and contractor trying to keep busy, well, I have never demanded any course install that.  I usually use the old CBM quote about bringing the cavalry in for the day to "prepare" the bunkers suitably for play.  It has never been taken up.  However, the decision usually comes from the clubs or courses themselves, if that tells you anything about Tom's somewhat snarky comment! 

Jeff, what's the CBM quote you speak of?

[Pete_Pittock]

    The Reserve Vineyards is have BBB installed on the South course. That course has 100ish bunkers and a maintenance budget 3x the North course  (bunker area and overall acreage. The bunkers were 20 years old, had steep faces, continually contaminating sand and serious ingress/egress problems ( I had to use a rake for balance to get in/out). Play from bunkers was at best haphazard because of their condition and were not attractive.
     The club contacted the architect, John Fought, who was able to move, reshape or eliminate bunkers to eliminate half the surface area, and steep faces, which eliminates a lot of maintenance costs. Since this is a privately owned club I have no knowledge of actual costs, but I would guestimate this will probably pay for itself in 5-7 years.
     It makes sense for our situation. After a three month vacation, I will play them next week. The only glitch I see is above grade bunkering, with our white sand, leads to framing issues in some cases if relative scales are off kilter.