Skater30

Lol, I don't doubt at all that he told you that Matt. What you couldn't see through the phone line was the smile on his face as he was telling you that. It's not my place to give every last detail of Skater's newest boat, but you know that I do everything I can as a friend of Pete's to support their lineup. I just want guys to know that it truly is an all new boat, and it is the first Skater with a completely different hull design since the 40 was first built after the 32A. Trust me, once you see the bottom of the 438, you will see how different it is (I have pictures, but it's not my place to post them). If I won the Lottery tomorrow, it would be the boat I ordered - that's for sure!

Skater30

Hey Chad, there may well be a few more slight differences between the 368 and 388, but they are so similar that you can't tell which is which from standing behind the hulls when they are side by side at the factory. The 438 is a completely new boat, and looks completely different when side by side with a 388 or 368. And I'm talking about when the boats are just hulls, fresh out of the molds, before they even are cut and readied for flat decking. You can see that the 438 is a different hull from the 388/368, different from a 40 or 46 also, even with nothing else to give it away. As to tweaking existing models to bring this latest technology across the line, I will leave that answer to Pete and Tony. Pete and I had lengthy discussions about this while my 30 was being converted, but I don't feel that's information that I should be sharing.

precisiondetails

Matt Trulio

All I can do with sources who have earned my trust—and no one has earned more of it than Mr. Hledin—is trust them to be truthful. Mr. Hledin, who I first interviewed at his plant in the late 1990s and have interviewed more times since than I care remember, is among the most brutally honest people I know. I take him at his word. (Interpreting smiles, particularly hypothetical ones, isn't part of what I do ) Below is our reasonably thorough coverage from June 18, 2015, through April 4, 2018, of this build.

https://speedonthewater.com/new-boat...ing-1350-power
https://speedonthewater.com/new-boat...-438-catamaran (Tony Cutsuries: “It’s a 388—all pumped up,” he added. “It’s 10 percent bigger all the way around.”
https://speedonthewater.com/new-boat...-438-catamaran
https://speedonthewater.com/new-boat...-438-catamaran
https://speedonthewater.com/new-boat...78-438-and-318

Yes, the 438 is a "new model" and, yes, no two Skaters are absolutely identical. But according to Mr. Hledn and his national sales manager, it is based off the 388 (as stated in the article) and its general specifications are essentially scaled up from that model to be 10 percent larger/longer. And that is what was accurately stated in the article. I stand by it.

Skater30

Hey Matt, no doubt that your journalism excellence brings us all great stories direct from the manufacturers. But in this specific case, the manufacturer (Peter Hledin) was only telling you what he wanted to be let out to the public at the time. I just spoke to him to get the ok to post pictures and more details of the new 438. This new design of his is basically the fourth generation of Skater hulls. The first generation ran up through the 32A, second generation started with the 40 (completely new hull design), and the third generation started with the 46 (multi step bottom). Every Skater model since the 46 has basically had the same hull design (36, 368, 30, 318, 388), until this new 438. Though you are correct that Pete said it's a 10% scaled up 388, you could also say it is a 15% scaled up 368, or a 5% scaled down 46 - this is all referencing size. When Pete built the plug for the 438, he started with a clean slate, and built an entirely new hull. The sponson deadrise is no longer a single plane of 19 degrees as it is on the other big Skater models, but now a double dihedral plane of 12 degrees starting at the keel, transitions to 24 degrees at the first lifting strake, and continues at 24 degrees to the chine. The tunnel has more compression built into it, this as a result of the necessity for more room in the motor compartments with the new tunnel design to allow clearance for the modern QC4v Mercury motors (note the upper rail in the tunnel, above the standard spray rail on the side of the sponsons). You can also see from the pictures that the lifting strakes have been moved down toward the keel at the transom from previous models, and are now in-line on the bottom, rather than staggering out towards the chine as they move back towards the transom. All of these changes make the new 438 have almost nothing in common with the 388, other than that they are both catamarans. Since this 438 has already been in Performance Boat Center's hands, everything I have just posted is obviously no longer a secret. Once again, Skater is leading the way in catamaran hull technology.........

nautdesign1

[QUOTE=Skater30;4620174] Once again, Skater is leading the way in catamaran hull technology.........

Let’s not get too carried away. George Linder, Steve Koss and the UIM Formula 1 class have been utilising various iterations of this geometry for decades..



ND1

Boatlesss

nautdesign1

[QUOTE=Boatlesss;4620297]

1) The concept is the same as the Linder hulls but the low deadrise planes are not longitudinally continuous which results in diverging angles of incidence. That’s why I used the term ‘iteration of the geometry’;



2) For a much closer example look at the F1 boats:



F1 Powerboat World Championship Guido Cappellini Picture to Pin on Pinterest - PinsDaddy

3) Also have a look at the image in post #116 in the following thread:

Technical Questions For Steve 1



Anything look familiar?





ND1

Boatlesss

nautdesign1

How do you derive that question from my previous posts? It appears you have a thing for Mr. Linder but I reference him ONLY as yet another example of a designer that utilises variable lateral dihedral (or deadrise) in sponson design. Interestingly the span of the very low deadrise sections on the ChrisCat is too narrow to provide a great deal of benefit at the speeds he designed it for –particularly given the boat’s considerable mass. The other problem is the effective low deadrise of the ChrisCat’s overall sponson section reduced dampening and this contributed to that annoying porpoise –but that’s another conversation.



Back on topic –As I mentioned previously the other two are much better examples of the point I am making. I included a couple of visual links in the previous post so why not have an objective look?





ND1