Selling my boat...

"Bass_Mr." wrote in message
nk.net...

I know one thing from experience Pro.
When that boat leaves the yard you WILL GO CRAZY the first time a good
opportunity comes up to use it and it's gone.
You can bet on that.
I've been saving for four years for a new Triton, but now I'm saving for a
FastCat !


I'm very impressed with the performance I have heard and read about the Fast
Cat, but unless I primarily fished big water I would say a conventional bass
boat is better. I have a hard enough time getting in and out of some of the
tight places I fish without pushing a fork in front of me. Having owned a
tunnel hull bass boat in the past I know about the phenomenal ride, and the
unbelievabley stable fishing attitude. That is inherent in the design of a
tunnel hull. Some days I wish I had not sold mine. Mine did overcome some
of the difficulties I see with the FastCat in that it had a conventional
shaped bow, and it was narrower than most bass boats the same length. Even
so it was more stable than any v-bottom or pad bottom boat I have ever
ridden in. The only thing I have fished out of that comes close for
stability is some of the old tri-hulls, and we all know how those pump and
slap in rough water.


--
Bob La Londe
Fishing Arizona & The Colorado River
Fishing Forums & Contests
http://www.YumaBassMan.com






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message SNIP

I'm very impressed with the performance I have heard and read about the
Fast Cat, but unless I primarily fished big water I would say a
conventional bass boat is better.

***Why is that? I typically fish waters less than 1,800 acres in size,
having put the boat in on basically ponds, yet find that I prefer to fish
from the Cat. The stability is superior, the draft shallower than
conventional bassboats, the hull is more efficient so I get better fuel
economy and yes, it is faster than most. I'm into performance for sure, but
fishability is even more important. If I was purely interested in speed,
I'd be driving an Allison, Bullet or Stroker.

I have a hard enough time getting in and out of some of the
tight places I fish without pushing a fork in front of me.

***Good Lord, what kind of places are you fishing? I understand that you're
fishing river systems, but unless I have to get in between two tall trees
that are less than 8' 6" wide, I can't imagine anyplace I couldn't get to in
my boat that a conventional hull would. I fish thick weeds and stumpfields
that were a bi$%^ch to get through with my Cobra, yet the Cat goes through
with ease because of the shallow draft.

Having owned a
tunnel hull bass boat in the past I know about the phenomenal ride, and
the unbelievabley stable fishing attitude. That is inherent in the design
of a tunnel hull.

***There is a difference between a tunnel hull and a true catamaran hull. A
tunnel hull is essentially a monohull cut down the midline and a connecting
wing attached. A true catamaran's hull incorporates many more design
features to increase efficiency, stability and handling.

Some days I wish I had not sold mine. Mine did overcome some
of the difficulties I see with the FastCat in that it had a conventional
shaped bow, and it was narrower than most bass boats the same length.

***LOL, and I consider the width to be an asset. Fishing from narrower
boats now feels extremely unstable and I love the increased width at the
bow. I can work with a client, for fish with a friend and although we're
close, we're not rubbing shoulders! The only time I've found the increased
width to be a problem was when I tried to get the boat into a slip at a
waterside eatery. I can live with that.

Even
so it was more stable than any v-bottom or pad bottom boat I have ever
ridden in. The only thing I have fished out of that comes close for
stability is some of the old tri-hulls, and we all know how those pump and
slap in rough water.

***Agreed, I had a tri-hull style boat and it was a wet-riding,
hard-pounding SOB! Nice to fish from, but getting from Point A to Point B
on a windy day was wet and uncomfortable. I consider the safety, stability
and smooth ride to be far more important. I like the fact that at the end
of the day, I am not nearly as tired as I used to be. I think that's from
the stability of the Cat versus a monohull. I'm no longer having to
constantly adjust to maintain balance. It might sound silly and
inconsequential, but at the end of a 12 - 14 hour day of guiding, it does
make a difference.
--
Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers
http://www.outdoorfrontiers.com
G & S Guide Service and Custom Rods
http://www.herefishyfishy.com

"Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers" wrote in
message ...
I have a hard enough time getting in and out of some of the
tight places I fish without pushing a fork in front of me.

***Good Lord, what kind of places are you fishing? I understand that
you're fishing river systems, but unless I have to get in between two tall
trees that are less than 8' 6" wide, I can't imagine anyplace I couldn't
get to in my boat that a conventional hull would. I fish thick weeds and
stumpfields that were a bi$%^ch to get through with my Cobra, yet the Cat
goes through with ease because of the shallow draft.

There are several prime back water lakes off the river where both side of
the boat are rubbing on the tulies and cat tails. In addition there are
several turns in some of those channels going in where you have to edge the
bow of the boat off the side and let it deflect you back into the channel.
This is not jsut one place, but many of them. Even those channels which are
relatively straight would be difficult to shoehorn that puickle fork down.
The wide "points" would be hanging up on all the brush even not with
standing its extra width. A few of those channels have such tight bends
that you have to jockey a 20' boat back and forth to get around them.


Having owned a
tunnel hull bass boat in the past I know about the phenomenal ride, and
the unbelievabley stable fishing attitude. That is inherent in the
design of a tunnel hull.

***There is a difference between a tunnel hull and a true catamaran hull.
A tunnel hull is essentially a monohull cut down the midline and a
connecting wing attached. A true catamaran's hull incorporates many more
design features to increase efficiency, stability and handling.


Actually, mine would probably have been more accurately described as a
trimaran as it had two tunnels the full length of the boat with a nearly
conventional racing pad on the middle hull. Sitting in the water it just
look like a conventional bass boat. The baker was the most stable boat I
have ever fished out, and it never skipped like a regular bass boat at any
speed including wide open and slamming the wheel over hard.

Its biggest draw back, and it would be an issue with your FastCat as well is
that while it drew less water at rest the "chines" sat deeper in the water.
Many of those back water access channels I mentioned before are dish shaped
"roughly" and/or too narrow to get through without forcing your boat chines
over the weeds and root balls on both sides. Because of the deeper chines
this take more engine output to force it through. The Baker was able to
make it through most of these because it was narrower than most 20' Bass
boats, but it was still tough. I had Jarod Bollardo (fishes a lot of
tourneys on the Delta) worried we wouldn't be able to get out of one such
channel when he came down to fish with me. When I go exploring new areas I
have not fished before I take my little tin boat which is even narrower.

I can't imagine forcing that pickle fork through a patch of heavy pencil
tulies to get a fish out or to get back behind the tulies to fish the back
side of an opening back in them. A V front helps to part them and actually
keeps them away from the bottom and back of the boat. The pickle fork would
take a number of them and force them back under the boat.

Seriously, a lot of the guys who fish here never go into those backwaters.
They spend almost all of their time flipping the main river and combatting
the wake boarders and water skiers. For those guys the Fast Cat might make
more sense. I'm not sure it would help much for skipping sand bars though.
I don't see how it would have much less displacement depth at WOT. Maybe a
little, but not much. I suppose it could run the engine much shallower
which could help a little, but when most of us ground out on a sandbar its
not from dragging the skeg. The boat goes solidly up on it. Actually I
have to back off a little on that statement. My tunnel hull did run enough
shallower on pad that guys running Tritons and Rangers could hang hard on
bars I could make it over. I still put it on a bar or three that I couldn't
get off of without help.

Don't get me wrong. I think its a good boat, but anybody who does not
recognize or chooses to ignore the limitation of their boat is fooling
themselves. I really like my BassCat for instance, but I readily recognize
that it is very heavy and much slower than comparable boats from other
manufacturers. I also clearly recognize that the factory has superior
customer support to any other manufacturer, and thats for a guy like me who
is just another customer. Not somebody who has "factory team" painted down
the side of his boat.


--
Bob La Londe
Fishing Arizona & The Colorado River
Fishing Forums & Contests
http://www.YumaBassMan.com



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

P.S. I would credit that Optimax more with the fuel economy than the hull.
The hull may be some help, but let me illustrate my point.

I've got two 2004 Mercury outboards. A 50HP carburated motor I run on my
little boat and a 225HP Optimax I run on the cat. In a WOT run (basically)
rom Squaw lake down to the dam, then up to Fisher's, into Martinez, and then
up past Island lake to the river island and then back to Squaw my 50HP burns
right at 11 gallons of gas and does about 32-33 mph turning 5600 RPM.

The same run with the Optimax running from 68-71 MPH (WOT all the way) burns
just under 12 gallons of gas.

A similar run with my tunnel hull would burn around 18 gallons of fuel.

Now don't go saying I can't compare a fuel injected motor with a carburated
motor. The Baker was running a 200HP fuel injected Mercury.

Those Optimax motors really get incredibly better fuel economy than any
older design out there. I have heard the E-Tecs by Evinrude get even better
fuel economy than the Optimax, but I have not run one so I can't honestly
compare.

Of course fuel economy also depends on how you run it. I compared WOT runs,
at comparable speeds the Optimax will get better fuel ecomony than the
little motor and absolutely shame older outboards. If I trim it just right
at 35 MPH the Optimax fuel ecomony nearly doubles. That's right. I use
less fuel than the jon boat with the 50 horse. Actually its most economical
speed is a little faster than that, but I have to compare apples to apples
right. LOL.

I'm not picking on your boat. Just pointing out that the Mercury Optimax
proably has a lot more to do with your imporved fuel economy than the hull
design.


--
Bob La Londe
Fishing Arizona & The Colorado River
Fishing Forums & Contests
http://www.YumaBassMan.com



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com