Larson 1750 FX TL

[DXO]

Originally Posted by coooolboat

And the problem with a bigger beam with a 16 degree dead rise would be what?

In relationship to beam vs.length, the design is not conforming to accepted boat design. Bloated beam.
It is pandering to those who accept and want maximum beam, while ignoring the overall performance of a boat hull.

Dead rise is, as I see it, a work not of itself, but of the complete design.

Some tend to take any of and take them as the whole. They are not separate, but work together.

I don't think it was intended to be a rough water contender
But the dead rise seems to be inline with most seventeen footers granted its not a starcraft superfisherman
But after looking around a lot of boat manufactures don't list there dead rise

[DXO]

Originally Posted by coool boat

I don't think it was intended to be a rough water contender
But the dead rise seems to be inline with most seventeen footers granted its not a starcraft superfisherman
But after looking around a lot of boat manufactures don't list there dead rise

They don't . And it is not so important to me.

What is important is the complete design.

Not pointing fingers, but this forum too often focuses on one thing or another. Not of the whole.

Completeness of design - an encompassing of all aspects of boat design - is intriguing.

We're all searching for the perfect boat that does not exist.

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

Originally Posted by DXO

They don't . And it is not so important to me.

What is important is the complete design.

Not pointing fingers, but this forum too often focuses on one thing or another. Not of the whole.

Completeness of design - an encompassing of all aspects of boat design - is intriguing.

We're all searching for the perfect boat that does not exist.

Isn't the whole glass boat thing (glass boat design) a huge advantage over tin for deep/rough water ride? I would think leaving that sitting on the bench to be a negative. Otherwise it's just an expensive/heavy tin boat.

[DXO]

Originally Posted by Wade B AKA: Ruger2506

Isn't the whole glass boat thing (glass boat design) a huge advantage over tin for deep/rough water ride? I would think leaving that sitting on the bench to be a negative. Otherwise it's just an expensive/heavy tin boat.

Wade,

I think you are ignoring the gist of my prior comments. Taking it somewhere else.

But I'll entreat you. How is any boat, glass or aluminum, able to excel proper boat design and succeed?

They both have to honor the same. There are expensive and heavy glass boats.

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

Originally Posted by DXO

Wade,

I think you are ignoring the gist of my prior comments. Taking it somewhere else.

But I'll entreat you. How is any boat, glass or aluminum, able to excel proper boat design and succeed?

They both have to honor the same. There are expensive and heavy glass boats.

DXO, perhaps I am. Perhaps I've one to many (or just enough) weekend beverages. Either way I'm not following that last post.

Glass boats have the ability to be shaped with a reverse chine coupled with a deeper V shape to both handle the rough water and create a smoother/faster ride in all conditions compared to a tin hull.

So.........why create a wider beamed hull with a shallower deadrise? Unless you are looking to compete with the salt water series boats and provide an inshore series hull.

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

Originally Posted by DXO

Not pointing fingers, but this forum too often focuses on one thing or another. Not of the whole.

One small detail can make or break the overall characteristics of a properly functioning hull. Of course we focus on one thing if it could possibly be a bad thing.

[DXO]

Originally Posted by Wade B AKA: Ruger2506

One small detail can make or break the overall characteristics of a properly functioning hull. Of course we focus on one thing if it could possibly be a bad thing.

Which is the point of my prior comments. :-)

i'm not convinced of the too wide beam(as I see it) vs length. Regardless of glass or aluminum.

I've done much looking into those who are or have been owners of Yarcraft 1785BTs. Only 85" in beam.
Haven't found anyone denying or discouraged of its' comparatively narrow beam. It, the beam, is an asset. The ratio of beam vs. length.

Even Lund(my not so favorite) has a good example in their 1750 Outfitter. Long in length, narrow in beam. Comparatively to themselves and their competitors. Great hull, but in my opinion, too much ignored.

That wide Larson beam on a short hull? Well, that's expensive tubing.

[REW]

Since this is a relatively new boat, I would suggest that rather than folks be - on paper critics - that they take a ride in the rig and see how it goes.

Just from the pictures of the details, the planing position of the boat, etc. it would appear to be a pretty well made rig that will satisfy many many fishermen's needs with a great amount of alacrity.

Take care
REW

[Hot Runr Guy]

as a "student" of tillers, I'm surprised that the 90hp Opti has the "old", pre-2008 tiller handle and rear-mount shifter on it, rather than the current Big Tiller handle. The kid wouldn't have to reach as far back as he is while running, much less to shift.

What, they just happened to have an old 90-tiller laying around?

HRG