Steve, you bring up an important point. When we looked at the (2005 models) 17.5, the beds we checked were indeed the "bunk" beds on the side and at the back (both models in other words). They were abit narrow and abit short. I never understood why.
I also wondered why Bigfoot
didn't revise the floorplan when they created the 2005 17.5. I was hoping the new longer 25B17.5CB would provide at least one large comfortable bed for two. The narrow bunks are the only major drawback of my 15B17CB, if the front bunk was at least 6" wider or the rear somehow made 8" longer and 6" wider this would be an ideal layout for us. I should point out, however, that we have similar sized friends with a nearly identical trailer to ours and they seem to manage just fine in the cozy front bunk.
I suppose if you happen to be less than 5'10" tall the new version would be OK for two, but I was disappointed when I checked out the 2005 17.5CB model as I am 6' tall. My initial inspection revealed that there was no significant change in the bunk lengths, but the short rear bunk was a somewhat wider on the new model. The front bunk (dinette) appeared to be roughly the same width but tapered near the door seemingly reducing the dinette to 3 person seating verses the 4 that I currently have. I did like the larger holding tanks, available double pane glass and heavier duty brakes
on the new model, but there was not enough overall improvement to tempt me to trade in my 17'.
In all other aspects the 17 or 17.5 Bigfoots are nearly ideal, packing an adequate bathroom, large fridge
, good storage, and overall spacious feeling floorplan into a +/- 17 foot package.
I guess there will always be these tradeoffs in this size of trailer. To have it all you will have to go bigger - what do they call it ? Oh yeah - 2 footitis. Hmmmm, my previous FG trailer was 15', so perhaps this disease is for real!