03-01-2016, 07:11 PM
[quote Therapist]This is an interesting thread. Set back plates were very common with fiberglass boat for a number of years before the boat manufacturers began to design the hulls with integral set back.
I don't see what the problem is. The purpose is to get the motor off the transom, allow it to be raised and lowered for maximum efficiency. Most Bass and Walleye boats today use hydraulic jack plates that allow the motor to be raised and lowered. These Jack plates used to be a set back of 4-6 inches in addition to the up and down.
Look at the transom of any fiberglass rig and you will see that it tapers back so the motor is set back about 8-12 inches off the flat transom. Jack plates still give the up and down adjustment, but the manufacturer has built the set back into the hull.
My Skeeter 1850DV has a flat transom with the motor mounted pretty much down on the transom, no set back, no up and down adjustment. The original owner and dealer did not know anything about rigging a boat, or the owner did not want to spend the bucks on a hydraulic jack plate. He chose instead to put a "whale tail" on the motor to get the lift he needed to plane the boat. I have not put one on as I have not wanted to drill more holes in the transom. I do not get the top end speed I should and the boat tends to porpoise if I trim out to much. I still think about it, but have not done anything about it.[/quote]
There is a big difference between the setbacks on bass boats and the so-called offshore brackets. Different purpose, different design. The integrated setback was introduced by Ranger to decrease wetted surface and increase top speed. It is not flush with the bottom of the hull. The OS brackets were originally add-on affairs like the Armstrong welded pipe brackets, the Gill brackets, etc. They were designed simply to get the engine back farther from the transom and so increase interior space. That worked, of course. They have since evolved into what they are today, integrated hull extensions. Nothing wrong with them, they work fine most of the time. There have been lots of problems with leaky access hatches with disastrous results, however.
The real question is not whether a 20' boat with the added length of an ET is better than a 20' splashwell boat, because the one with the bracket is 30" longer. The question is whether a 23' boat with a bracket, measured from the bow to the engine mount, better than a 23' splashwell boat. Which gives full width flotation at the engine? Which has more volume, stability, etc? To think of it another way, you can make a 23' splashwell boat into a 20.5' bracket boat with a sawzall. But why would you?
I'm not here to bash anybody's boat, so please don't take it that way. ETs are popular in the PNW, as many fisherman think an "Offshore" bracket, as marketed by North River, etc, makes a boat more offshore capable. Fishermen are a conservative bunch, so the market demands OS brackets, or ETs, etc, and boat builders build what sells. There is also a packaging issue involved, especially if you want a splashwell boat with self-bailing decks, but that's different.
[signature]
I don't see what the problem is. The purpose is to get the motor off the transom, allow it to be raised and lowered for maximum efficiency. Most Bass and Walleye boats today use hydraulic jack plates that allow the motor to be raised and lowered. These Jack plates used to be a set back of 4-6 inches in addition to the up and down.
Look at the transom of any fiberglass rig and you will see that it tapers back so the motor is set back about 8-12 inches off the flat transom. Jack plates still give the up and down adjustment, but the manufacturer has built the set back into the hull.
My Skeeter 1850DV has a flat transom with the motor mounted pretty much down on the transom, no set back, no up and down adjustment. The original owner and dealer did not know anything about rigging a boat, or the owner did not want to spend the bucks on a hydraulic jack plate. He chose instead to put a "whale tail" on the motor to get the lift he needed to plane the boat. I have not put one on as I have not wanted to drill more holes in the transom. I do not get the top end speed I should and the boat tends to porpoise if I trim out to much. I still think about it, but have not done anything about it.[/quote]
There is a big difference between the setbacks on bass boats and the so-called offshore brackets. Different purpose, different design. The integrated setback was introduced by Ranger to decrease wetted surface and increase top speed. It is not flush with the bottom of the hull. The OS brackets were originally add-on affairs like the Armstrong welded pipe brackets, the Gill brackets, etc. They were designed simply to get the engine back farther from the transom and so increase interior space. That worked, of course. They have since evolved into what they are today, integrated hull extensions. Nothing wrong with them, they work fine most of the time. There have been lots of problems with leaky access hatches with disastrous results, however.
The real question is not whether a 20' boat with the added length of an ET is better than a 20' splashwell boat, because the one with the bracket is 30" longer. The question is whether a 23' boat with a bracket, measured from the bow to the engine mount, better than a 23' splashwell boat. Which gives full width flotation at the engine? Which has more volume, stability, etc? To think of it another way, you can make a 23' splashwell boat into a 20.5' bracket boat with a sawzall. But why would you?
I'm not here to bash anybody's boat, so please don't take it that way. ETs are popular in the PNW, as many fisherman think an "Offshore" bracket, as marketed by North River, etc, makes a boat more offshore capable. Fishermen are a conservative bunch, so the market demands OS brackets, or ETs, etc, and boat builders build what sells. There is also a packaging issue involved, especially if you want a splashwell boat with self-bailing decks, but that's different.
[signature]
Single main, no kicker. 