New build advice needed

I would never guess all those things about Palmer Johnson.

Let me make a question about the #1 yacht. What exactly should I need to pay attention for? I mean, there are some challenges that would be in there and would basically be the same with any yacht in the same category. eg. management, crew hiring etc.

That said, I do suppose the important things to pay attention would be design/projects specifics, and so what would the be more important points to look for, and wouldn't do some charters be more efficient (as already pointed as an alternative) given the fact I could jump from one kind/style to another freely?

Now, in relation to a custom build what are the challengers? Someone already pointed the specific hull design.

In this sense of an 'experience' yacht I suppose an used one would be cheaper to play, but ready available projects about 5om the two I could live with are from Baglietto:

http://*****************/en/yacht/43m-explorer/
http://*****************/en/yacht/55m/

The other option would be simple, get a SeaXplorer and live with that forever.

They are quite different, inclusive like the ones I pointed as my preferences in design: PJ SuperSport 72M and the Esquel, one is a explorer and the another is quite on the contrary. And that is exactly why I can't find anything I like, I want something as sport as that PJ but with explorer capabilities.

I mean, I understand I would need an aluminum hull designed for the maximum possible efficiency/speed to be indeed reinforced (something like ice class) in order to retain the sportiness with the extra weight.

So I am really looking for "SuperSport Explorer".

Also, what would be the advise if I was looking for a err... a 100m+ yacht since that are not some many available? Just curious.

Thank you.

For the sake of the exemplification, and if I was made of money, I would get something like that PJ resize that to 85-100m, add another deck below the bow deck level. Then add 25-35m more with a glass superstructure, similar to the Esquel, at the aft but to work as a helicopter hangar; however instead of that glass superstructure be in there as an isolated item do that integrated with the rest of the profile design.

Something roughly like this:

I would really appreciate if you or another fellow could bring some light/list about the usual general steps of building a yacht. The little time I am looking into that I feel things tends to be as confused as they can be with apparently no reason, and that makes the things complicated or too personal. That quite feel like dealing with a Panamanian bank.

I quite understand, appreciate and agree with the several concerns and advises brought by the fellows in this thread but some others things in this market are quite weird. The market in general give a sensation of completely lack of professionalism.

I am not ofc talking about the quality of the product but about the way several "reputable" professionals/business deal with things. It also looks like the clients are too soft too and allow themselves to be easily abused, I suppose they are too forgiving with the problems they face.

Shipyards doing crap are the norm everywhere they work are the least trustable part of the whole chain, and they know that, otherwise bringing your own project managers would not be the norm but offensive.

Another (unrelated) thing that really drive me crazy is I've spotted several reasonable big yachts completely fitted with (what I call) domestic level products. For instance, 65m+ yachts with those water makers built for the yacht market.

Why (rhetorical) those people do that in those kind of yachts instead of getting something with proven reliability from the commercial market, like from Wärtsilä? I would buy everything I could fit MIL-SPEC for anything nearly critical.

Every specific market is a big single bus, the actors inside it will tell how this bus looks like. As someone not experienced in the Yatch market the Vision the market pass of itself is something like: you can't get anything high quality unless you are lucky enough to find some very specific individual who have the right personal contacts in the market for what you want, otherwise ever the most reputable providers will not give down to deliver you a quality product because you can always be blamed for ordering something different. The guilty is always the client.

If one (inclusive reputable international business) try to open a bank account in a Panamanian bank (any, inclusive the international ones) they will ask for a big load of papers will take months to put together and then they will ask more because ... regulations. However, if you land in Panama now give 100 bucks to any lawyer, fiduciary or ever a random citizen with some contact in that particular bank you want and went there with he/she, your bank account will be opened ASAP with a passport and a couple of documents everyone have, and by the same person who told you need a big load of paper one hour ago.

Why? Nobody really knows even the Panamanian lawyers, inclusive because when the people from the bank get used to your face the things change from one day to another - you now became a introducer.

This is quite like the Yacht market feel to someone new to it. I am not saying it is like that, inclusive because I don't ever have experience to do that, leave alone accusing any particular individual, specially the fellows in here - very on the contrary. What I am saying is the market as whole make a new entrant feel it is like that.

Cheers!

I am sure I am missing a lot of people but I did a briefly list of providers who pass me some confidence to work with:

Shipyards/builders: Nobiskrug, Lürssen, Bannenberg and Rowell, and Oceanco.

Feadship also. but there is something present in all their constructions (the ones I saw at least) I really don't like; however I can't tell you what that is. And, Damen of course, but that is not what I am looking for unless I decide to go full explorer.

Nobiskrug seems to be the only of those with reasonable carbon fiber experience, and carbon fiber sound quite interesting to build superstructures. Btw, I heard about some one called Dominick Delafoy who seems to be some sort of carbon fiber expert.

Exterior designer: Timur Bozca, Bannenberg and Rowell.

There is that Palmer Johnson concept but they are now known to be unreliable, but I don't know if that concept was made by them or if they bought that from someone; would probably be worthy to know who did that.

Pininfarina did some very interesting things in THIS concept but I never saw anything from them I really liked as a whole.

Interior designers/stylists: Nuvolari Lenard, Bannenberg and Rowell, and Hot Labs.

Naval Architects/Engineers: Lateral, but I quite don't have really looked about this particular expertise yet.


Project managers and people for "regulational" matters I didn't quite found anything "looking" good, most seems to be brokers. But I accidentally hit this particular provider for electronics.

I will leave this subject aside for a while, inclusive to get some time to think about the options and ideas brought by the forum fellows. I am not building anything quite soon and so I am not in a hurry to get in there.

Thank you.

I never said the industry is crap, what I said it is what it exactly look like to someone trying to get into it, as client at least. I've hit similar situations several times, some were really problematic (see Panamanian banks) others are not.

The people who are inside of all markets live in their own vacuums like everyone live inside their own vacuums everywhere. When you know your métier and know how to navigate in there, everything looks fine and natural, but when you are interesting to getting into anything new the first impression will drive your mind until the point you get used to the practices.

I wonder how many people completely gave up of buying a yacht because of that, and ever before trying.

I can give you tons of examples of how things may not be like how they look like, this is a inverted scenario:

Lockheed Martin is among the best aircraft makers in existence. It is hard to get any helicopter more reliable than a Sikorsky. You will need to go heavy and get a Leonard (former AgustaWestland) AW101 to get anything better than a Sikorsky S-92, but again you need to go heavy; however the market is full or Airbus. Well, there are Russian helicopters, nothing beat a Russian helicopter in maximum take-out, but if you get one you also need to get a Russian engineer/mechanic because just them know how to service those beasts.

Airbus products are amazing machines, the software quality (automation) is pretty high quality, but at the same time all those people flying Airbus don't have idea the risk they are putting themselves, air liners does but they don't care due to Airbus cost vs. benefit. Airbus do a pretty neat trick!

Airbus has a "mentality" the automation system is king, and so the pilot is in there more like to operate the automation system - not the aircraft. As I said, their system are amazing but there is a trick. If you look at all (majors) accidents with Airbus products they managed to easily play the pilot guilty in all of them except one (the AirFrance Rio-Paris).

The reason is: wherever you have a problem flying a Airbus you need to do a specific procedure in the system to fix the thing. This quite reasonable for minor problems but not when the plane is falling. It is impossible to anyone remember the zillions of specific procedures, and get a manual with dozens of thousands of pages to find out what to do in the middle of very critical situation.

Airbus systems don't allow (in general) the pilot to bypass the automation and get manual control of the aircraft when the system fail, and so they can almost always blame the pilot because he/she didn't made the right procedure when things go worng. Boeing, Gulfstream, Embrarer, Bombardier, none of them does that, just Airbus.

Now, back to Lockheed Martin. Everybody know the USA government is quite soft with their defense contractors. Lockheed Martin is building the F35, zillions were spent on that and the thing barely fly, and every single soul in the defense market, specially those writing safety-critical software, knows why.

The F35 is fully software operated, military software is expensive and those software are built to be maintained for long time, usually 25 years but in practice more, and so the maintenance is also a big business.

Lockheed Martin is writing the F35 software using a programming language called C++. C++ is a very popular language, and like all very popular language it is unreliable. Programmers like freedom (to do everything they want) and allow that is the recipe for unreliable software.

There is a language called Ada, or more specifically SPARK (an Ada subset) designed specifically to write software with the most stringent level of assurance. Nobody use that, nor Google nor Apple nobody other than the safety-critical market (defense, avionics, nuclear power plants, medical devices).

So, why Lockheed Martin (and the majority of the USA defense contractors) is using an unreliable language to write military software? Well, Ada/SPARK software maintenance is breeze and so will be the money they will get to maintain that. On the other hand C++ is a hell to maintain and that translate to a gigantic pile of money for them; however they don't do that on Civil market nor in another defense contract they get outside USA because the clients are no soft with them as the USA Government is.

Like you or not all business have their tricks, it is up to you to be prepared to find them because no one will get your back when things go down the hill.

Just for the sake of the explanation, the reason the USA Government, Pentagon and DoD in particular, is so soft with their defense contractors (without getting into hypothetical shady things) is because they think that would be too embarrassing for them not accept a product they spent billions and have to litigate with the contractor, because that would be a public assumption they were fooled. They often receive crap, sometimes far from what they specified, and they deploy to production anyway to later fix the what can be fixed.

The contractors know that and so they use and abuse. This is something that came from the 70's...

Rigoletto is a Verdi Opera, but yes it is about a Jester (not a joker). And yes, I am a Opera fan.

Btw, everything would be far easier, more reliable and less stressful if those business accepted 'letter of credit' which is the standard way to do foreign trade business, for tiny to big business.

The parts make the deal , involve some bank they prefer, and the bank hold the contract. The importer deposit the money and the exporter do what they need to do. If the exporter don't delivery exactly what is specified (in detail) in the contract, the importer refuse the goods and the exporter is not paid.

In practice the importer usually will accept the goods with 15% off. The price the exporter pay for its unreliability and inefficiency.

If you think I am joking in here, you may have a lot of experience in the yacht market (I don't) but little to no experience on how actual serious business work.

Also, if you think I am saying BS you can (e.g.) watch THIS video with quite reputable person (unfortunately already dead), which bring to light some minor things about how serious business work.

For the record I unfortunately never met him, a brilliant mind beaten by cancer, but I am moderately close to the company he funded.

This forums is clearly not working for me, I got some good advises which I appreciate, but you somehow confirmed the Yacht market is far from anything serious unless I do stick with the providers with commercial/military background, what I indeed had already thought. With anything else I feel would be a quite risky.

If you have a policy of closing threads feel free to lock this one, and please delete my account.

Thank you.

[EDIT]

That is what services providers should do, if they are not capable of doing that they are amateurs.

I wouldn't call the business structure I have around me 'joe shmoe', but you don't know and don't have how to know that which is fine, and that is another reason I realized I will be better with the providers with commercial/military background, I could be introduced to any of those with one or two calls by some of the most important ports and commercial lines.

Again,
Thank you for your time and advise.