Estimate Man Hours to build a yacht......

[apex1]

Originally Posted by marshmat

The Dashews' FPB 83 comes to mind. I recall an article where Steve was being asked, basically, what the hell was he doing building an 83-foot motoryacht with the accommodations of a typical fat 55-footer.

His answer was that the two would be about equally complex to build and the added length (being not much more than hull structure) not all that much more expensive, but that by going longer, he could have more storage, a longer sea-riding length (thus faster and more comfortable), and didn't have to cram living space into the (uncomfortable) ends of the boat.

Now, I tend more towards a Buehler level of luxury (and cost) than a Dashew level. I think I'd start losing track of my gear in an FPB's hold! But there are similarities in the design philosophy of these two, and of several other designers who don't sell thousands of boats, but whose clients absolutely love them.

..

Yepp............
and I am almost sure Dashews had a bit more than just a broad clue about the result of their efforts.

But let us talk about real life, compare these two boats:
http://www.balta.fr/Classe%2040.html
http://www.balta.fr/tocade50img.html

the first 40ft and 4,5 tons displ.
the second 50ft and 12 tons displ.
both are build in wood Epoxy, both are racers, not cruisers, both born on the same drawing board.
I assume twice the time and cost to build the 50ft. Who disagrees?
So, it is not enough to dash a few lines and figures and expect to receive a serious calculation. We are in boatbuilding where NOTHING is easy and nothing for free! In comparison calculating & building airplanes is a piece of cake!

And thanks to TAD! Some numbers are so nice to play with.

Regards
Richard

[robherc]

Originally Posted by Tad

Why? Comparing apples and oranges is hopeless. You can only reasonably compare like with like. Reuel Parker can build a Terapin 36' in 2500 hours, Dudly Dix can build a Didi 38' in 3000 hours, Hans Christen Yachts spent 9000+ (production) hours on their 38' traditional....quite a spread...but they're different boats.

Actually, if I were designing a boat purely for speed, and I already had a displacement figure in mind, THEN (and only then) would the longer-hull, smaller-beam figure be apples-to-apples for me. That's the scenario I had in mind when I put that in there, since he said he's planning on building a stripped-down racing boat.

Realistically, I know that the longer hull + narrower beam = totally different boat...but then again, realistically I have never seen anyone build a boat bigger than a rowboat/canoe that was merely an empty hull.
So, please take my figures above with a realistic-sized grain of salt

[Tad]

Ahhh.....I get it Rob...

Something along the lines of LFH's Restricted Sail Area Cruiser? She is LFH's idea (1931) of the ultimate performance from 1000 sq ft sail area. She came out 55' by 11'6", a double-ended ketch with the accommodation of a 35' boat.

In theory if the cubic number remains constant (thus displacement) the boat will require roughly the same amount of material and cost the same. So the short fat boat, at 35' * 12.5' * 6' = 2625, and the long skinny boat, 48' * 10' * 5.5' = 2640 are the same size and the same cost (man hours).

[WoodmanWoods]

Been build boats for 35 years..

smallest were fancy sailing dinghies...8 feet with varnished wooden spars etc... versus my buddy building all glass with rubber guards,, and his chop strand gun.. so 8 hours I guess compared to 80 hours.

A friend ran a major boat operation, they were in business 30+ eyars build 10,000s of boats and he told me the first of any model took 7 times as long as the 7th one. These builders were very accomplihed pros.

I built about 18 yachts of40 and 42 foot length, crusing sailboats they were molded hulls and decks. Very Fancy woodwork inside and out and all of them were custom. Varying lengthso fbunks, moved bulkheads, extended cabins etc. They took approximately 7000 hours and were heavy at 18000 +/-. I built 2 similar 52 footers that were 44,000 pounds that took 12,000 hours.

We built cold molded, one off glass, scrimpt method glass, aluminium etc..

The largest boat I have done is 143+ feet and took about 200,000 man hours.

I find some house builders here that think there is a similarity and there is not I have also built homes, both reasonable ones and ones with million dollar plus rooms for movie theaters etc.

Fit and finish matters.

You can price and figure a boat by the pound witha track record that is viable and experienced but remember weight costs both ways.

The America's cup racing boats are very light but VERY expensive as it costs a tremendous amount of money to remove that last 6 ounces..

thanks

[Tad]

woody.....

Yes, those numbers fall right in with what I stated earlier. Your 42's are right at 2.6 pounds/man hour, and the 52's are at 3.6 lbs/mh. Bigger boats are often more complex due to added systems, multiple tanks, multiple voltages, etc. But they can also be built of bigger pieces, thus adding weight quicker.

Antonisa, built at Hodgdon's, is 365,000 pounds and required roughly 220,000 man hours. That's 1.65 pounds/mh and again reflects construction to the very highest standards with huge complexity in methods, finish, and systems.

[WoodmanWoods]

Yes Tad, I worked around some of the the highest fit and finish and the hourly rate by "pros" was low in hours.. You can sure catch up quickly with a
75,000 keel. But some stated that pros build at 6 pounds or so per hour.

I have been speaking with a home builder that feels he can build himself and save lots of money. He has no plans, seat of pants, lots of changes, no insight to weight reports, schematics, etc..

The old "Sell a dream and build a nightmare."

[Landlubber]

"Sell a dream and build a nightmare."

emmm, methinks you are very close to being right there mate....I have seen some beautiful home built boats, but the majority are certainly not like that.

I am "trying" to turn a pigs ear into a silk purse for one poor fello currently, no hope of course, but he refused to sell it and now has spent on $400k on a boat that would be lucky to fetch 100 (if he sold it to a blind man)....I have told him to STOP spending money, but he insists that he has to as he has so much "invested" as it is....very sad.

[Manie B]

a home builder that feels he can build himself and save lots of money. He has no plans, seat of pants, lots of changes, no insight

and the saddest part is that most of them live by the attitude

Go Big or Go Home

why they CANNOT start small and get to grips with things beats me

now that my tiny little microcruiser is taking shape i get told regularly by many visitors that why am i not building a 40ft cat

[marshmat]

You can always add expensive gear and gadgets to a sound, sturdy hull later on, as needs and finances demand.

It is awfully hard to retrofit a sound, sturdy hull to a collection of expensive gear and gadgets.

Skimping on the basic essentials rarely pays any dividends.....

[rambo!]

This has been a very interesting thread to follow.
For a pro builder a mh count has to be essential to be able to give a quote to the customer.
For an amature/one off builder a lot of other things has to be taken into account, skill, pleasure, visions etc.

Most homebuilders will probably undersestimate the mh/lbs and still be happy, a pro builder can not afford to underestimate.

A Swan yacht will probaly have more mh/lbs than a Bennetau...but if owner of any brand is happy with the boat...who cares.

A homebuilder will probably spend more mh´s to save and effectivly use expensive material than a pro bilder with high running cost of labor.

But anyway the thread has been of great interest.

[Manie B]

Great thread - and just to add a bit more - guys that are buying plans - in general add 50 % to the quoted hours.
This is the conclusion that i came to after reading MANY build stories on the net, and if you are going to work with expensive epoxy and kevlar / carbon laminations - these take time to do carefully and properly.

[apex1]

Fully concur Manie.

Richard