No Wake

[tis]

This is how we roll in a no wake zone. And this is after he cut back the throttle.

[webmaster]

I was getting gas at Winni Marine in the Weirs Channel last week when a rental came plowing through leaving a big wake. I got a kick out of one of the dock attendants who grabbed an air horn and started screaming "NO WAKE" and blasting the air horn at him. The driver never turned his head or slowed down even though he couldn't have missed the blaring air horn.

While I was talking to the attendant about the problem another larger boat came by doing the same thing. He also got the air horn treatment and never turned his head either.

It seems very consistent that the small percentage of captains who ignore the rules also never turn their head or look back. My head is on a swivel when I'm underway.

[MDoug]

That air horn would pale in comparison to the yelling from the lady on the point at Y Landing. If you make even a ripple, you'll definitely hear from her:eek:

[Hillcountry]

Yup...I’ve seen two rentals from “anchor marine” (name emblazoned on the side of the yellow/white boat) blasting through 2 different NWZs.
Probably the same “older” couple.

[tis]

Absolutely, Don. They don't pay attention. I think maybe they don't know (even though there is a sign) so I yell at them too. But I might as well save my breath. Some of them even argue. So many people, like one right now plowing through, just said they thought it was 6 MPH. Dead calm, on a jet ski, and they don't need to make any wake at all. So irritating.

[salty dog]

Last week we went twice through the no wake between Eagle and Governors. Each way we couldn't believe the number of boats blasting through like it didn't exist. Today, tied up at Alton Docks for picnic lunch, at least 3 different boats were well above "no wake" sending waves through the docks. Someone gave one of them the air horn but no results. We've been on the lake about 10 years, certainly not as long as many of you, but to me, it definitely is getting worse as time goes on.

[TiltonBB]

I was just outside of Alton Bay at about 5:30 this afternoon. A pontoon boat on the left was going to intersect my path. I sped up to get out of the way so they didn't collide with my boat. As they passed behind me a woman on the boat waved, but forgot to use 3 of her fingers. I wanted to go back and educate them but sometimes there is no hope.

[8gv]

If a photo has enough detail to make out the registration numbers, could/would MP act on it?

[Dave R]

FWIW, in most places, it's normal to make a small wake in a no wake zone and no one cares. It would be so smart if they simply posted the speed limit of 6 MPH instead of "No Wake". They way the law is written, most Winnipesaukee boats will create a wake in a no wake zone without breaking the law. If you've read the law and still think it means you must go the slowest possible speed your boat can go in a NWZ, you are wrong.

I recently spent a lot of time cruising in Canada and the official (there are many private signs) no wake zone signs there clearly state "10 kph" (6.2 MPH). Everything except for 40 foot+ boats leaves a wake at that speed, but everyone realizes that it's normal and no one cares about the <1 foot wakes. I was also in NY waters on the same cruise, and there the signs say 5 MPH. The wakes are smaller, but still present at that speed.

Going 3 MPH in NH to avoid making a ripple is just silly when you can legally go 6 MPH. This might be why people just ignore the air horns and yelling, they might have GPS and know that they are not breaking the law. This is especially true if they are going against some current, the wakes, in that case, can be substantial without breaking the law.

[ApS]

"Royalty-Free Stock Photo" https://tinyurl.com/y8xn8nuf

Absolutely, Don. They don't pay attention. I think maybe they don't know (even though there is a sign) so I yell at them too. But I might as well save my breath. Some of them even argue. So many people, like one right now plowing through, just said they thought it was 6 MPH. Dead calm, on a jet ski, and they don't need to make any wake at all. So irritating.
Maybe start a GoFundMe site for a seasonal employee? :cool:
Get a tan—meet people—learn sign language? :look:

Isn't "presentation" everything? ;)

>

[tis]

It would NOT be smart to simply post the speed limit of 6 MPH because that is NOT the law. The law is NO WAKE. This is not Canada and this is not NY waters. This is lake Winnipesaukee. The only exception to no wake is if you will lose control of your boat by going a slower speed and believe me there is usually not enough current on Winnpesaukee to need to go 6 MPH, at least in most NO WAKE areas on most occasions. I have been told by Marine Patrol that the NH law that many misunderstand, was written for the ocean and the MP here does not like it. The can and do give people tickets and if the ticket gets contested and somebody goes to court the judge will back the MP. I think the MP needs to publicly get this information out to the public since some apparently don't understand the law. I still don't know why people are in such a hurry anyway. And if they don't like the no wake law and need to make waves stay out of of the zones.

[MikeF-NH]

two years ago I had my then-new boat docked at Channel Cottages (which is a fantastic place to stay by the way and none of this is their fault) in late Spring and watched a constant barrage hit my boat at the dock from waking boats there were not even going reasonably slow enough to just maintain control. The wakes were substantial and I watched my poor boat getting slammed against the dock so hard that even the bumpers provided no protection. My boat took damage to the paint that weekend in several places and unfortunately for both me and the business owner...I can't go back due to knowing what goes on there. These jerks costed me damage to my boat and caused the owner business.

Most disappointing (and I'm a huge supporter of emergency response personel) was watching a fire boat go through at probably 10-15 mph kicking up a two foot wake with no lights on. I watched them go down to where Paugus begins to open and stop and sit there for about 10 minutes so it was clear they were not responding to an emergency.

I would love to see MP just post a camera there where they could capture bow numbers and video evidence including pictures of the captain and proceed to gather enough funding through fines to pay salaries of all state wide MPs each year. I'm guessing from my observations that they could gather 100+ fines each weekend day...maybe more. Think of the revenue...and the education!!! If they wanted to be fair about it they could even post a sign near the bridge saying "Wakes monitored and enforced by camera".

[TiltonBB]

Most disappointing (and I'm a huge supporter of emergency response personel) was watching a fire boat go through at probably 10-15 mph kicking up a two foot wake with no lights on. I watched them go down to where Paugus begins to open and stop and sit there for about 10 minutes so it was clear they were not responding to an emergency.


You cannot know that they were not responding to an emergency, and I doubt they would run the Channel at speed just for fun.

Many emergency vehicles, police, fire, ambulance, enroute to a call might be the second or third due at that incident. When the first or subsequent vehicle arrives and determines that additional help is not needed, and the situation is under control, a radio call is made to cancel the additional response. That happens quite often, every day.

For years people have erroneusly commented when an emergency vehicle passes them at a higher rate of speed and then slows down and shuts off the emergency lights that they must be on the way to the coffee shop. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[tis]

I hear ya', Mike and it erodes the shore line as well as the boats and docks. Even if it is not a NO WAKE area, they should slow down. I think cameras is a great idea!

[SAMIAM]

I don't think there will ever be a solution to bonehead capt's
I gave up and got mooring whips.
The other day my jet ski's got blown right off the beach from a big wake....luckily they were tethered.

[The Real BigGuy]

It would NOT be smart to simply post the speed limit of 6 MPH because that is NOT the law. The law is NO WAKE. This is not Canada and this is not NY waters. This is lake Winnipesaukee. The only exception to no wake is if you will lose control of your boat by going a slower speed and believe me there is usually not enough current on Winnpesaukee to need to go 6 MPH, at least in most NO WAKE areas on most occasions. I have been told by Marine Patrol that the NH law that many misunderstand, was written for the ocean and the MP here does not like it. The can and do give people tickets and if the ticket gets contested and somebody goes to court the judge will back the MP. I think the MP needs to publicly get this information out to the public since some apparently don't understand the law. I still don't know why people are in such a hurry anyway. And if they don't like the no wake law and need to make waves stay out of of the zones.



Actually, and unfortunately (I live in a NW zone) you are wrong. I believe that the law is written something like the slowest you can go to maintain control or 6mph. The unfortunate thing is this has been interpreted by enforcement to mean a max speed of 6 mph. I believe this is a misinterpretation of the legislations intent but, what do I know. If they had added “the slower of” or “not to exceed” we wouldn’t have these issues.

In 1983 I was exiting the Weirs channel at what I thought was no wake speed. An MP near the end of the channel yelled at me to slow down. I yelled back that I was going no wake speed. He yelled back, “Turn around. Do you see white? If you see white you are making a wake!” That has stuck with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[Dave R]

It would NOT be smart to simply post the speed limit of 6 MPH because that is NOT the law. The law is NO WAKE.

The law does not address wakes at all, but it does give a very specific speed.

Here it is:

TITLE XXII NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:1

"VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. "

"VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed. "

[Hillcountry]

The law does not address wakes at all, but it does give a very specific speed.

Here it is:

TITLE XXII NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:1

"VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. "

"VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed. "

But if 6 mph is obviously, causing a wake it’s just too fast.
Headway speed is simply being able to make forward progress without going backwards (sometimes in a wicked current, you might be exceeding 6 but you need to do what it takes to keep moving ahead) no such currents exist on Winni save for the spring current toward Paugus.
Simple, really.

[Woodsy]

NO Wake/Headway is 6 MPH regardless of how much wake your boat puts out at that speed. The law is written as such that you can EXCEED 6MPH if conditions warrant it.

Woodsy

[noreast]

A 6 MPH wake is not going to affect anyone's day. I don't think a large cruiser at 6 MPH could cause any real issues, could it?

[Woody38]

My boat at idle goes faster than most others, therefore I have to go to neutral.
Then I don't have headway and am constantly going in and out of gear in these conditions when there is a lot of traffic. Not good.

---------------------------------------------

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[Rusty]

A 6 MPH wake is not going to affect anyone's day. I don't think a large cruiser at 6 MPH could cause any real issues, could it?

To some shore front owners it's like a tsunami that caused a seismic like wave.

[Dave R]

But if 6 mph is obviously, causing a wake it’s just too fast.


Is it though? No boat is going to make a damaging wake at 6 MPH unless it's in a fast current. If there is a fast current, it won't be the first time, so anyone that docks a boat on a stretch of water with a potential for fast current needs to plan for wakes. Realistically, you should plan for wakes no matter where you dock. Fenders exist for a reason.

Headway speed is simply being able to make forward progress without going backwards (sometimes in a wicked current, you might be exceeding 6 but you need to do what it takes to keep moving ahead) no such currents exist on Winni save for the spring current toward Paugus.
Simple, really.

Yes, that is simple (and eloquent too), but it's your definition of headway speed, not the state's definition. That state is quite clear on this: "VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. ".

[Hillcountry]

Is it though? No boat is going to make a damaging wake at 6 MPH unless it's in a fast current. If there is a fast current, it won't be the first time, so anyone that docks a boat on a stretch of water with a potential for fast current needs to plan for wakes. Realistically, you should plan for wakes no matter where you dock. Fenders exist for a reason.



Yes, that is simple (and eloquent too), but it's your definition of headway speed, not the state's definition. That state is quite clear on this: "VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. ".

If you’re going 6 through the channel you’re going to get yelled at...

[tis]

"VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed. "
__________________

And headway speed means 6MPH or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

So what is hard to understand about that? 6 MPH or the slowest speed does not mean JUST 6MPH.

All I can say Woodsy is you do just what you want to do. But you deserve to be caught.

As Real Big Guy said per Marine Patrol: Turn around and look and see if you are making a wake.

I would like to educate not start an argument. But some people are so sure of themselves--- it just isn't worth it.

And I do wonder if the new breed of MP is as knowledgeable as they used to be. So maybe you will get away with doing what you want.

[noreast]

If you’re going 6 through the channel you’re going to get yelled at...

Yell back, Or make a poster that say's " I'm going 6 MPH". You could add an FU if you feel the need.

[Reilly]

If you’re going 6 through the channel you’re going to get yelled at...

Only by one person 😊😊😊

[Hillcountry]

A 6 MPH wake is not going to affect anyone's day. I don't think a large cruiser at 6 MPH could cause any real issues, could it?

About a week ago we were returning to the Weirs after fishing on a day that had become extremely windy. I took the route closest to mainland which was between Locke’s and the Glendale area. On the other side of the narrows there was some kind of sailing club out sailing. They had watch boats with them to act as a safety net in case of any capsized sailors. One of the sailboats was actually capsized due to the heavy winds and was being taken care of by a watch boat. I maneuvered through them at headway speed giving plenty of room to the sailboats when I spot this huge cruiser heading out from (I think it’s Fay’s marina after passing west of Locke’s).
This was a 40 foot plus behemoth and he was plowing along making a huge wake. That idiot sailed right into the mass of sailboats without slowing and actually caused one to nearly capsize by cutting so close to it (less than 20 ft). We couldn’t believe our eyes. If I was to guess his speed I’ll bet it was under 10 mph. So yes, a wake can cause havoc at slower speeds. He may not have been going 6 but he may as well have been going 20. We were hoping the watch boat got his name or numbers.

[Dave R]

About a week ago we were returning to the Weirs after fishing on a day that had become extremely windy. I took the route closest to mainland which was between Locke’s and the Glendale area. On the other side of the narrows there was some kind of sailing club out sailing. They had watch boats with them to act as a safety net in case of any capsized sailors. One of the sailboats was actually capsized due to the heavy winds and was being taken care of by a watch boat. I maneuvered through them at headway speed giving plenty of room to the sailboats when I spot this huge cruiser heading out from (I think it’s Fay’s marina after passing west of Locke’s).
This was a 40 foot plus behemoth and he was plowing along making a huge wake. That idiot sailed right into the mass of sailboats without slowing and actually caused one to nearly capsize by cutting so close to it (less than 20 ft). We couldn’t believe our eyes. If I was to guess his speed I’ll bet it was under 10 mph. So yes, a wake can cause havoc at slower speeds. He may not have been going 6 but he may as well have been going 20. We were hoping the watch boat got his name or numbers.

A 40 foot cruiser at 6 MPH won't make any appreciable wake.

[kawishiwi]

A 40 foot cruiser at 6 MPH won't make any appreciable wake.

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.

[thinkxingu]

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.Agreed--we were almost swamped twice by mid/high 30's Carvers last year on our 20' 'toon while going through "no wake" zones.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

[The Real BigGuy]

I find that wake size @ 6 mph is very dependent upon the boat hull. A personal watercraft at 6 mph can throw a pretty good size wake; a pontoon throws very little; one brand of 20 ft runabout might throw a wake where another brand might not. It really all gets back to thinking about the other boats and storefront property as much as you think about yourself. Doesn’t matter if you think headway is 6mph or slower. Do you really need to save that extra 180 seconds by exceeding headway speed and causing issues for others?

#Look behind you - if you see white you are creating a wake.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[ApS]

A 6 MPH wake is not going to affect anyone's day. I don't think a large cruiser at 6 MPH could cause any real issues, could it?
Law enforcement might allow a 10% "over", so 6.6-MPH rounded-off to 7-MPH should be good. :rolleye1:

[tis]

Law enforcement might allow a 10% "over", so 6.6-MPH rounded-off to 7-MPH should be good. :rolleye1:

>

APS, you don't get it. It's not about the speed. It's about the wake your boat is throwing out.

[BroadHopper]

It is true that the statutes regarding Headway speed vs No wake appears to be one and the same. 6 mph or a speed to maintain steerage. Yet some LEOs interpret a different way. The size of the wake!

If you have a judge that goes by the law and one get cited for creating a wake then the judge will throw out the conviction if the person is traveling 6 mph. If the person claims he must travel over 6 mph to maintain steerage, this is where the judge have to make a decision. All boats have different speed to maintain steerage and outside influence such as current, wind etc. must also come into consideration. So do your homework.

Unfortunately the local courts almost always side with marine patrol, so it's a no win situation unless you can justify and prove your speed!

In my travels to other states, the signage makes sense. Headway speed signs in channels and passages. No wake signs in designated areas where there should be no wake. In NH there is now such thing as a 'Headway speed' area. In passages or channels it's no wake.

Tough to pick your battles and to educate the public in NH.

[Dave R]

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.

I actually have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about. Here's the deal, the "hull speed" (the fastest the boat can go over water before it starts to plow or climb on plane) of a boat is dependent on the length at waterline. The equation is: hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (HS = 1.34 x √LWL). Thus, the longer the hull the faster the hull speed is. While there are certainly other factors that affect wake and true hull speed, for a given speed under hull speed, a longer boat will make less wake than a shorter boat if they have similar hull designs.

When boat operate at 2/3 of hull speed or less, they make practically no wake at all. 40 foot boats would typically have a 35 to 38 foot LWL, thus their hull speed will be around 8 knots (9.3 MPH). At 6 MPH, they are clearly running at less than 2/3 of hull speed (6.2 MPH) and not making more than a minor ripple.

The hull speed of a 10 foot PWC (assuming 9 feet LWL) is 4.6 MPH. At 6 MPH they are plowing like crazy and throwing a good size wake, pretty much like the photo in the first post on this thread...

Here's a really neat white paper on wakes, if you like physics: https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/know-boat=know-wake-151014.pdf

[Woodsy]

Wow... So much wrong information...

The law defining Headway speed is absolute... you are allowed up to 6 MPH before you need to perhaps explain yourself to the MP. When the law was written, the NH legislature, knew that different boats need different speeds to maintain steerage, and that conditions such as current & wind can vary those numbers substantially. The law was written (just like the nighttime speed limit) such that the overwhelming majority of boats do not need to exceed 6MPH in normal conditions to maintain steerage, however, unlike the speed limit, there is a provision in the law that allows you to EXCEED the 6mph should the conditions warrant it.

A boat ALWAYS makes a wake as it moves thru and displaces the water (its a simple energy transfer) that's just physics. So while at 6MPH while you might actually make a visible wake, there is very little wave energy in that wake so no damage is done.

I have no problem at all going thru a NWZ at 5.5MPH on my GPS...

Woodsy

[Woodsy]

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.

That happened because a boat wake is a transfer of energy.... it takes a lot of energy to push a 15,000 lb+ cruiser thru the water. This energy transfer is what gives the wake amplitude/energy and can potentially cause damage.

Woodsy

[VitaBene]

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.

Dave knows more about boats and boating than pretty much anyone I know.

[kawishiwi]

I actually have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about. Here's the deal, the "hull speed" (the fastest the boat can go over water before it starts to plow or climb on plane) of a boat is dependent on the length at waterline. The equation is: hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (HS = 1.34 x √LWL). Thus, the longer the hull the faster the hull speed is. While there are certainly other factors that affect wake and true hull speed, for a given speed under hull speed, a longer boat will make less wake than a shorter boat if they have similar hull designs.

When boat operate at 2/3 of hull speed or less, they make practically no wake at all. 40 foot boats would typically have a 35 to 38 foot LWL, thus their hull speed will be around 8 knots (9.3 MPH). At 6 MPH, they are clearly running at less than 2/3 of hull speed (6.2 MPH) and not making more than a minor ripple.

The hull speed of a 10 foot PWC (assuming 9 feet LWL) is 4.6 MPH. At 6 MPH they are plowing like crazy and throwing a good size wake, pretty much like the photo in the first post on this thread...

Here's a really neat white paper on wakes, if you like physics: https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/know-boat=know-wake-151014.pdf

...I stand corrected.
What low speed does a, say, 35 ft cruiser need to go to throw a wake that breaks on itself 100 yards away?

[Woodsy]

Kawishiwi...

Its the weight/mass of the object that causes the wave energy.... a 35' cruiser could weigh up to 20,000lbs...

My guess is you crossed paths with a 20,000lb underpowered brick...

Woodsy

[Woody38]

My 37' Egg Harbor weighed 40,000 lbs. It did not throw a big wake on plane, then one can always utilize the trim tabs to raise or lower the bow.

------------------------------------------------------

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[Dave R]

...I stand corrected.
What low speed does a, say, 35 ft cruiser need to go to throw a wake that breaks on itself 100 yards away?

Assuming 33 feet at the water line, anything over 5.85 MPH (two thirds of hull speed) will typically create some white water (breaking waves).

Try it out in your boat. Just plug the water line length into my original equation:

(HS = 1.34 x √LWL)

Then take the result and multiply it by .77 to get two thirds hull speed in MPH. If you have GPS, see how your wake looks at that speed, under that speed and above that speed.

The magic speed for my boat is 4.88 MPH, when I'm really trying not to make a wake, I keep it below 5 MPH and have never heard a word from anyone about my wake. When I'm in a silly-big NWZ, (like Meredith, or the one on the Potomac River by Alexandria), I run at 6ish MPH until I'm 150 feet from docks.

[Little Bear]

All this no wake complaining is quite entertaining. You should have spent the weekend sitting at my place. Huge, breaking waves slamming into the shoreline all weekend long, caused by all kinds of vessels, going all different speeds. I knew it going in when I bought the place, but the waves keep getting bigger and bigger. If a child or pet is in the water when some of these waves come ashore, there would be potential for serious injury.

So for you poor people that live in no-wake zones that are complaining about small ripples and white froth coming from boats, come on over and see how green the grass is on the other side of the fence!

And for those who don't think these boat waves cause substantial shoreline erosion, please feel free to PM me and I will extend a personal invitation for you to come see for yourself (and I will supply the beer!).

[Hillcountry]

Deleted due to YouTube problem...sorry

[JEEPONLY]

Not too long ago i heard Mike Baxter say to his wife, "Gee, I was afraid our relationship was devolving into meaningless banter". Does art imitate life?

[Woodsy]

Hillcountry...

Thanks for taking the time to post the videos! I see no issues with your 6MPH wake.... kind of amazing how big it gets at 10MPH.

Woodsy

[Hillcountry]

Hillcountry...

Thanks for taking the time to post the videos! I see no issues with your 6MPH wake.... kind of amazing how big it gets at 10MPH.

Woodsy

Yes...other than all that “white foamy stuff” which a MP officer may or may not approve of! I don’t go anywhere near that fast in a NWZ...even at 4:30 am coming out of the channel.
On a side note, returning from fishing around 11am we witnessed 2 boats in a row blasting between Eagle and Governor’s on full plane...:(

[kawishiwi]

The cruiser that threw a big wake at me Sunday was far enough away that I didnt really consider what it could throw. The only reason I was able to adjust was that the wake started breaking 80 ft away from me so that I heard it coming.

[Cal Coon]

This thread is giving me a popsicle headache!!! When it comes time for me to enter a no wake zone, I utilize the "kiss" method. Since I don't have a gps on board, and my speedometer doesn't move till you are doing about 10 or 15, I have figured out EXACTLY what rpm's my boat makes NO wake at, (1200) and that's where I put it every time. 1200 rpm's - no wake, no looking back, no white, no foam, no yelling, no problem, and I have NO idea how fast I'm going. Doesn't matter... Keep it simple, stupid. Amazing how "things" get so complicated...

[tis]

This thread is giving me a popsicle headache!!! When it comes time for me to enter a no wake zone, I utilize the "kiss" method. Since I don't have a gps on board, and my speedometer doesn't move till you are doing about 10 or 15, I have figured out EXACTLY what rpm's my boat makes NO wake at, (1200) and that's where I put it every time. 1200 rpm's, no wake, no white, no yelling, and I have NO idea how fast I'm going. Doesn't matter... Keep it simple, stupid.

Well, you are right. Speed doesn't matter, the wake you are making is what matters!!

[Dave R]

This thread is giving me a popsicle headache!!! When it comes time for me to enter a no wake zone, I utilize the "kiss" method. Since I don't have a gps on board, and my speedometer doesn't move till you are doing about 10 or 15, I have figured out EXACTLY what rpm's my boat makes NO wake at, (1200) and that's where I put it every time. 1200 rpm's - no wake, no looking back, no white, no foam, no yelling, no problem, and I have NO idea how fast I'm going. Doesn't matter... Keep it simple, stupid. Amazing how "things" get so complicated...

That's a really good approach if you don't an accurate way to measure speed.

[Dave R]

Deleted due to YouTube problem...sorry

I saw them before they were deleted. That hull speed equation is only for mono-hull boats, multi-hull boats like yours are not the same because of the way the bow waves interact between the hulls. My 25 foot mono-hull makes a huge wake at 10 MPH. You can see it in the link below, taken on the Champlain Canal, where the speed limit is 10 ans there's no safe passage law. Bear in mind too, that the close confines and shallow water also increase the wake intensity.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10211483708840314&l=bb72d1767b

[BroadHopper]

I saw them before they were deleted. That hull speed equation is only for mono-hull boats, multi-hull boats like yours are not the same because of the way the bow waves interact between the hulls. My 25 foot mono-hull makes a huge wake at 10 MPH. You can see it in the link below, taken on the Champlain Canal, where the speed limit is 10 ans there's no safe passage law. Bear in mind too, that the close confines and shallow water also increase the wake intensity.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10211483708840314&l=bb72d1767b

I have a 22' 24 rise mono hull. I can do the same, maybe more at 10 mph. At idle, my boat is going 6.2 GPS mph in no wind or current situation, yet I create enough of a ripple to actually have an LEO telling me to slow down!
At this speed the boat wanders left and right as there are no chines.
When passing through the channel a decade ago, an LEO pulled me over for 3 things: Shifting in and out (because the traffic is slower than idle speed), wandering left and right, and a wake he feels was too high!
After a safety, registration and sobriety check, he let me off with a warning and a note to my boat mechanic to fix the boat! WTH!

[Orion]

Seems like we have this exact same discussion every couple of years with the threads having all the same arguments. I'm not linking to the old thread because i don't want to revive them, but clearly there is confusion so the law must be "confusing" and needs to be re-written. Of course, there will always be those that are ignorant of the law no matter how clear it could be written. So, there will be waves, there will be idiots, and hopefully we can just relax and have another beer and enjoy the show.

[joey2665]

To me it always comes down to common sense and respect for the shore line and other people's property. I do not think the law is confusing at all many looks for ways around the law, but for what... to go 8 mph instead of 6. Your not getting where you need to go that much faster. Relax and enjoy your on the lake :)

[ApS]

To some shore front owners it's like a tsunami that caused a seismic like wave.
When a cruiser passed by at top speed Monday, I was thinking that his wake shouldn't be too bad.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f91/18/11/38/95/fullsc13.jpg

"Education" tells us that plowing produces more wake—which can also be attributed to "trim"—an equivalent affront to shorelines.

Even a quarter-mile away, his wake came crashing down on our shoreline. "Surf's Up!"

https://i.servimg.com/u/f91/18/11/38/95/fullsc12.jpg

It's a good thing we're not at Spring's highest water level, or more silt would be severely eroded from shore—all the way to Meredith!

.

[Rusty]

When a cruiser passed by at top speed Monday, I was thinking that his wake shouldn't be too bad.


"Education" tells us that plowing produces more wake—which can also be attributed to "trim"—an equivalent affront to shorelines.

Even a quarter-mile away, his wake came crashing down on our shoreline. "Surf's Up!"

https://i.servimg.com/u/f91/18/11/38/95/fullsc12.jpg


It's a good thing we're not at Spring's highest water level, or more silt would be severely eroded from shore—all the way to Meredith!

Wow..that wave must have wiped out all the homes on that shore line.
My heart goes out to all the owners of these homes that this wave totally destroyed.

[joey2665]

Wow..that wave must have wiped out all the homes on that shore line.
My heart goes out to all the owners of these homes that this wave totally destroyed.

Always with the sarcasm. Why? He is just pointing out that larger wakes can cause erosion.

[Woodsy]

Seems like we have this exact same discussion every couple of years with the threads having all the same arguments. I'm not linking to the old thread because i don't want to revive them, but clearly there is confusion so the law must be "confusing" and needs to be re-written. Of course, there will always be those that are ignorant of the law no matter how clear it could be written. So, there will be waves, there will be idiots, and hopefully we can just relax and have another beer and enjoy the show.

NH RSA Section 270-D:1 - Definitions

I. "Boat" means every description of watercraft other than seaplanes, capable of being used or used as a means of transportation on the water and which is primarily used for noncommercial purposes, or leased, rented, loaned or chartered to another for such use.

VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

Headway speed is defined as 6MPH... so you can legally go up to 6MPH in a NWZ. The clause "or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way." is there for when the conditions are such that you have to EXCEED 6MPH... due to current, tide, etc...

This is not Rocket Science!

Woodsy

[SAMIAM]

Very often on the ICW in Florida we meet up with 80' to 100" boats traveling at 10 to 20 mph. Some of them throw up wakes over 4' that can really cause problems if you don't handle them right. I have seen times in a narrow channel that I've actually done a 180 and fled to avoid a huge wake.
I cross them at a 45 degree angle....if you drive straight into them you're likely to bury your bow in the trough.
Wasn't much of a problem on our lakes until the wakeboard boats showed up. Some of them produce the kind of wakes that BearIslander was talking about. Actually can be dangerous. I have nothing against them, just saying that everyone is responsible for their wake and operators should be considerate.

[Hillcountry]

NH RSA Section 270-D:1 - Definitions

I. "Boat" means every description of watercraft other than seaplanes, capable of being used or used as a means of transportation on the water and which is primarily used for noncommercial purposes, or leased, rented, loaned or chartered to another for such use.

VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

Headway speed is defined as 6MPH... so you can legally go up to 6MPH in a NWZ. The clause "or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintaining steerage way." is there for when the conditions are such that you have to EXCEED 6MPH... due to current, tide, etc...

This is not Rocket Science!

Woodsy

Obviously, you interpret the law your way and others, another way.
Like others have said...what’s the damned hurry?
Your logic is flawed but you can’t see it. So be it!

[Woodsy]

Hillcountry...

Actually, my logic is not flawed at all.... It is not my fault you don't understand the law or its intent. Unfortunately it is your reasoning/logic that is wrong. But please feel free to consult a lawyer... I did!

Let me explain.....

A law has to be well defined and absolute it cannot be subjective. So, if you look at the RSA that defines what "Headway Speed" is, there is number that defines "Headway Speed"... 6MPH. (its not just there for no reason) So just like every other type of speed limit there is a number clearly defined by law! (so the MP can write you a ticket) The clause "or or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way." is designed so that you can EXCEED 6MPH if the conditions warrant it (tides/currents etc). EX: Weirs Channel during the spring runoff and the Lakeport Dam is wide open. IF you are going with the current of say 5MPH... you need to go faster than 5MPH to maintain steerage of your boat, otherwise your stern gets pushed sideways. IF you are going against the current, you have to go faster than 5MPH to overcome the current and move forward thru the channel. Going with the current produces little or no wake even though you are actually going thru the channel at close to 10MPH... going against the current produces a HUGE wake even though you are only moving thru the channel at 5MPH!

Woodsy

[Rusty]

Always with the sarcasm. Why? He is just pointing out that larger wakes can cause erosion.

Ignore my comments if it bothers you that much.

APS and I go back a long way, he can pretty much defend himself.

Have a good day & don't let me bother you so much. :D

[joey2665]

Ignore my comments if it bothers you that much.


I can say the same thing!!!

[Descant]

I agree with Woodsy. The law was rewritten not so many years ago to cover the high speed of the current/tide in areas of the seacoast. It was not written just for Lake Winnipesaukee, or Opeechee, etc.
On a windy day as you come out from the Weirs bridge, headed north, you often have to increase throttle (not speed) to maintain steerage. Same applies northbound coming out from under the Governor's Island Bridge. However, again on a windy day, the wind is such that your wake is broken up into the wind driven waves and is not noticeable.

[Hillcountry]

Hillcountry...

Actually, my logic is not flawed at all.... It is not my fault you don't understand the law or its intent. Unfortunately it is your reasoning/logic that is wrong. But please feel free to consult a lawyer... I did!

Let me explain.....

A law has to be well defined and absolute it cannot be subjective. So, if you look at the RSA that defines what "Headway Speed" is, there is number that defines "Headway Speed"... 6MPH. (its not just there for no reason) So just like every other type of speed limit there is a number clearly defined by law! (so the MP can write you a ticket) The clause "or or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way." is designed so that you can EXCEED 6MPH if the conditions warrant it (tides/currents etc). EX: Weirs Channel during the spring runoff and the Lakeport Dam is wide open. IF you are going with the current of say 5MPH... you need to go faster than 5MPH to maintain steerage of your boat, otherwise your stern gets pushed sideways. IF you are going against the current, you have to go faster than 5MPH to overcome the current and move forward thru the channel. Going with the current produces little or no wake even though you are actually going thru the channel at close to 10MPH... going against the current produces a HUGE wake even though you are only moving thru the channel at 5MPH!

Woodsy

I understand what you are saying. Differing opinions is all...
My point is this: Just because “the law” says you can go 6 mph doesn’t mean you should. The channel has a fast current in very early season when they’re letting the lake come to it’s Spring level. Very few boaters are out when this condition is prevalent save a few early fishermen and work boats perhaps.
There are most likely, very few boats in slips at this time and most marinas are just getting ready for the upcoming season. My marina doesn’t even valet until mid-May...long after the current has settled down.
My main concern is during the boating season 6mph is overkill for traversing a NWZ. That’s it! That’s all I care about. My video plainly, showed that although the wake thrown by my toon was minimal, the speed and prop wash would be significant overkill for a NWZ. Common courtesy to all dictates a much slower headway speed.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Hillcountry...

Actually, my logic is not flawed at all.... It is not my fault you don't understand the law or its intent. Unfortunately it is your reasoning/logic that is wrong. But please feel free to consult a lawyer... I did!

Let me explain.....

A law has to be well defined and absolute it cannot be subjective. So, if you look at the RSA that defines what "Headway Speed" is, there is number that defines "Headway Speed"... 6MPH. (its not just there for no reason) So just like every other type of speed limit there is a number clearly defined by law! (so the MP can write you a ticket) The clause "or or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way." is designed so that you can EXCEED 6MPH if the conditions warrant it (tides/currents etc). EX: Weirs Channel during the spring runoff and the Lakeport Dam is wide open. IF you are going with the current of say 5MPH... you need to go faster than 5MPH to maintain steerage of your boat, otherwise your stern gets pushed sideways. IF you are going against the current, you have to go faster than 5MPH to overcome the current and move forward thru the channel. Going with the current produces little or no wake even though you are actually going thru the channel at close to 10MPH... going against the current produces a HUGE wake even though you are only moving thru the channel at 5MPH!

Woodsy

It's crystal clear to me Woodsy. I think the hang-up is that people interpret this in a way that they think if you can maintain steerage at any speed slower than 6mph, then that's the speed you're supposed to go. In other words, if you can maintain steerage and control of the vessel at 1mph, then they believe that's the law. But I do not believe that this is the intent or spirit of the law.

[KPW]

It should be as simple as, no wake means no waves. If you are in a no wake zone and you are making waves, then you are breaking the law.

[8gv]

Waaaay back when I went to a USCG Auxiliary course as a kid I remember being taught that the captain is responsible for his vessel’s wake.

Is that on the books as a law in NH?

[Woodsy]

Hillcounty...

First, you are making excuses (not many boaters) because you are thinking this only applies to Winni... this happens every day at the mouth of Piscataqua and other places. This why the law is written the way it is.

Second.. You have people here whining about boats in a NWZ that are probably not breaking ANY laws whatsoever. The law is clear and people should really have an understanding of the law before they go bitching about it.

Third.. Every boat idles in gear at a different speed... (also another reason for a 6MPH limit) so while you might think 6MPH is excessive, because YOUR pontoon boat idles nicely at 3MPH, somebody behind you in the NWZ might think 3MPH is too slow because they idle 5MPH. So what? No big deal right? They are constantly shifting in and out of gear, struggling to maintain steerage. I won't get into the boat traffic backup a single boat going 2-3MPH in the Weirs Channel can cause on a busy weekend.

So while I do believe in common courtesy & respect... that goes both ways! If nobody is behind you go as slow as you want. If there are others behind you go pick up the pace a little. (don't exceed 6MPH) What speed dead slow is for your boat, might not be the same for the poor guy behind you.

Woodsy

[Woodsy]

It should be as simple as, no wake means no waves. If you are in a no wake zone and you are making waves, then you are breaking the law.

That doesn't work.... every boat has a different speed where it makes a noticeable wake, it is also very subjective and would likely not hold up in court. See my explanation above


Woodsy

[Hillcountry]

Hillcounty...

First, you are making excuses (not many boaters) because you are thinking this only applies to Winni... this happens every day at the mouth of Piscataqua and other places. This why the law is written the way it is.

Second.. You have people here whining about boats in a NWZ that are probably not breaking ANY laws whatsoever. The law is clear and people should really have an understanding of the law before they go bitching about it.

Third.. Every boat idles in gear at a different speed... (also another reason for a 6MPH limit) so while you might think 6MPH is excessive, because YOUR pontoon boat idles nicely at 3MPH, somebody behind you in the NWZ might think 3MPH is too slow because they idle 5MPH. So what? No big deal right? They are constantly shifting in and out of gear, struggling to maintain steerage. I won't get into the boat traffic backup a single boat going 2-3MPH in the Weirs Channel can cause on a busy weekend.

So while I do believe in common courtesy & respect... that goes both ways! If nobody is behind you go as slow as you want. If there are others behind you go pick up the pace a little. (don't exceed 6MPH) What speed dead slow is for your boat, might not be the same for the poor guy behind you.

Woodsy

Oh come on...! The mouths of rivers where they meet the ocean tides are dangerous and hazardous waterways...anyone who has navigated the mouth of the Merrimac River knows this! Oranges and apples to our little, placid in comparison, Winnipesaukee!

[Hillcountry]

Hillcounty...

First, you are making excuses (not many boaters) because you are thinking this only applies to Winni... this happens every day at the mouth of Piscataqua and other places. This why the law is written the way it is.

Second.. You have people here whining about boats in a NWZ that are probably not breaking ANY laws whatsoever. The law is clear and people should really have an understanding of the law before they go bitching about it.

Third.. Every boat idles in gear at a different speed... (also another reason for a 6MPH limit) so while you might think 6MPH is excessive, because YOUR pontoon boat idles nicely at 3MPH, somebody behind you in the NWZ might think 3MPH is too slow because they idle 5MPH. So what? No big deal right? They are constantly shifting in and out of gear, struggling to maintain steerage. I won't get into the boat traffic backup a single boat going 2-3MPH in the Weirs Channel can cause on a busy weekend.

So while I do believe in common courtesy & respect... that goes both ways! If nobody is behind you go as slow as you want. If there are others behind you go pick up the pace a little. (don't exceed 6MPH) What speed dead slow is for your boat, might not be the same for the poor guy behind you.

Woodsy

I am aware of people struggling both astern and ahead of me and I adjust accordingly.

[tis]

Obviously, you interpret the law your way and others, another way.
Like others have said...what’s the damned hurry?
Your logic is flawed but you can’t see it. So be it! ( Quote was from Hllcountry.)

I couldn't thank you for this, because I had used up my thanks. But you are right. Woodsy for some reason just can't understand that NO WAKE means no wake. He says he has talked to a lawyer, I wonder why he doesn't talk to Marine Patrol and see what they say. Because of all these discussions that keep coming up, I DID talk to Capt. Dunleavey and he said No Wake is no wake not a certain speed. The law was basically written including the 6 MPH limit for the ocean where there are currents and it is necessary to go 6 MPH. He said they have been challenged and gone to court and the judge upholds the officers and the tickets stand. In the past I have seen MPs stop people for a wake that surprised me that they would be stopped for. So what do you say, Woodsy, how about talking to the Capt.? Or would you still not believe?

[jr616]

I am always wondering . . . Where the hell are you going in such a rush?

Boating on the Big Lake is meant to be enjoyable for ALL. Slow down when asked to do so the extra 2 minutes may just give you a chance to take in the scenery and relax. :coolsm:

[Woodsy]

Oh come on...! The mouths of rivers where they meet the ocean tides are dangerous and hazardous waterways...anyone who has navigated the mouth of the Merrimac River knows this! Oranges and apples to our little, placid in comparison, Winnipesaukee!

Yes... but the LAW applies to both!

Now for some hard numbers.... the Weirs Channel is approx 3/4 mile long (3960ft) Look at these transit times...

@ 2MPH = 22.5 mins
@ 3MPH = 15 mins
@ 4MPH = 11.25 mins
@ 5MPH = 9 mins

The difference between 3MPH & 5 MPH is only 6 mins. No big deal right? Now add more & more boats piling up behind, having to stop & shift in and out of gear like every other traffic jam... and it quickly becomes a SNAFU. Just like when a slow car is in the right lane on the highway.

Woodsy

[The Real BigGuy]

It should be as simple as, no wake means no waves. If you are in a no wake zone and you are making waves, then you are breaking the law.



Amen!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[The Real BigGuy]

That doesn't work.... every boat has a different speed where it makes a noticeable wake, it is also very subjective and would likely not hold up in court. See my explanation above





Woodsy



I don’t think you understand him. He’s saying it is not the speed, it’s the wake wave. If you are making a wake, slow down. Your boat won’t make a wake at idle no matter what speed that is. You’re apparently saying you don’t care the repercussions, you’re going to go the maximum speed allowed by law.

Sounds like it must be all about you. Sad way to go thru life.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[Woodsy]

Bigguy...


This is where you are wrong.... different hull designs throw wakes at different speeds. Also, at dead slow, different boats travel at different speeds. I had a Donzi 22 that idled at 7.5MPH and threw a wake doing so.

So while HillCountry can idle thru the Weirs Channel at 3MPH in his pontoon, the guy behind him idles at 4.5MPH. The guy behind him idles at 5MPH. So what you end up with is a traffic jam as the 2 guys behind HillCountry shift in and out of gear trying to hold position in winds and currents.

That being said... There is ALWAYS a wake when you push an object thru the water. ALWAYS. It just depends if it is visible or not, and then if it is visible, how big is it? But now you are crossing into opinion and subjectivity. The only way to truly control this is to use speed as it is an absolute. You are going to fast, or you are not going to fast... black & white.

In the NH RSA's... the 1st State law clearly defines "Headway Speed" as 6MPH. The law does not differentiate between Lake or Ocean. It is no different than the 70MPH highway speed limit or the 45 MPH daytime speed limit on the lake. Exceed the speed limit, possibly get a ticket. However, the State also realized that in some instances on the water you would need to EXCEED the 6MPH and they wrote a provision for that.

The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone".

It is very simple! I am not saying anyone HAS to go 6MPH... I am just saying you are ALLOWED to go 6MPH.

Now if the State would just relabel the NWZ's to Headway Speed Zones... the confusion would be gone.

Woodsy

[VitaBene]

Bigguy...


This is where you are wrong.... different hull designs throw wakes at different speeds. Also, at dead slow, different boats travel at different speeds. I had a Donzi 22 that idled at 7.5MPH and threw a wake doing so.

So while HillCountry can idle thru the Weirs Channel at 3MPH in his pontoon, the guy behind him idles at 4.5MPH. The guy behind him idles at 5MPH. So what you end up with is a traffic jam as the 2 guys behind HillCountry shift in and out of gear trying to hold position in winds and currents.

That being said... There is ALWAYS a wake when you push an object thru the water. ALWAYS. It just depends if it is visible or not, and then if it is visible, how big is it? But now you are crossing into opinion and subjectivity. The only way to truly control this is to use speed as it is an absolute. You are going to fast, or you are not going to fast... black & white.

In the NH RSA's... the 1st State law clearly defines "Headway Speed" as 6MPH. The law does not differentiate between Lake or Ocean. It is no different than the 70MPH highway speed limit or the 45 MPH daytime speed limit on the lake. Exceed the speed limit, possibly get a ticket. However, the State also realized that in some instances on the water you would need to EXCEED the 6MPH and they wrote a provision for that.

The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone".

It is very simple! I am not saying anyone HAS to go 6MPH... I am just saying you are ALLOWED to go 6MPH.

Now if the State would just relabel the NWZ's to Headway Speed Zones... the confusion would be gone.

Woodsy

And while they are at it, change the black spars to green!

[Woodsy]

And while they are at it, change the black spars to green!

Perhaps we should consider changing the ATON system completely... but thats another argument! :D:emb::rolleye1:

Woodsy

[Descant]

Back to 'TIS original post. The jetski that started this thread, I think we can agree, deserved a ticket. Like Troopers on the highway, MP can't ticket every offender. But for repeat offenders there's special consideration: From RSA 270-D:2
XI. Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted.
I believe this applies to all speed limits, and convictions not just 45 mph on Winni.

Life's little embarrassments:
"So your insurance went up $1000? How come?"
"Speeding tickets"
"Wow! How fast were you going?"
"8 mph. The insurance hit me really hard because it was more than 30% over the limit."

[tis]

Woodsy wrote:

The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone".

But you OMITTED the most important part. "OR THE SLOWEST SPEED THAT A BOAT CAN BE OPERATED AND MAINTAIN STEERAGE WAY".


VI."Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.


So if you are in a no wake area you operate at headway speed and headway speed is defined as 6 MPH OR the slowest speed that a boat can be operated.

I don't see why you can't understand that!!!!

[noreast]

And while they are at it, change the black spars to green!

My vote is fluorescent yellow.

[jazzman]

I've always been confused if the law means no more than 6 mph or slower if you can control the boat. My 16 foot center console will go straight in idle at less than 1mph.

[tis]

I've always been confused if the law means no more than 6 mph or slower if you can control the boat. My 16 foot center console will go straight in idle at less than 1mph.

Why are you confused? It says: 6 MPH or the slowest speed. " 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way." I can't see how that can mean anything else. What am I missing?

[Dave R]

So if you are in a no wake area you operate at headway speed and headway speed is defined as 6 MPH OR the slowest speed that a boat can be operated.

I don't see why you can't understand that!!!!

Regardless of what is meant by the last part of the definition of headway speed, the word "OR" in there, without the term "whichever is slower", clearly means you have the choice of 6 MPH OR the slowest speed the boat can be operated.

If you were offered 6 million dollars OR the least amount of money you could barely survive on, which would you choose?

[tis]

DaveR. Thank you for enlightening me. I never took it as a "choice" of one or the other. Of course that's not the way it is meant to be interpreted but at least I can understand now.

[Cal Coon]

I said in an earlier post that I set my boat at 1200 rpm's for a no wake zone. The reason I went with 1200 rpm's is because it's the FASTEST my boat will go without making a wake!!! I don't care what the mph are, and I don't care what the "law" says. I'm going through all nwz as fast as possible without "making waves", and I have NEVER been pulled over for too big of a wake. What is so hard to understand about this?? I don't even pay attn to the mph in a nwz, I pay attn to my wake, and I really don't think MP cares about speed in a nwz as long as you have NO WAKE. I'm pretty sure all they care about is your WAKE, not your speed. Just go through nwz as fast as you can WITH NO WAKE, unless there is a strong wind or current going against you that you HAVE to power through. Pretty simple rule of thumb. I realize when you are in a "congested" channel, and you are at the mercy of the boat(s) in front of you, that changes everything. Sometimes you have to shift into and out of gear if they are crawling along, or they are going as fast as their boat will go without making a wake! Just common sense, really. Not complicated at all...

[Woodsy]

Woodsy wrote:

The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone".

But you OMITTED the most important part. "OR THE SLOWEST SPEED THAT A BOAT CAN BE OPERATED AND MAINTAIN STEERAGE WAY".


VI."Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.


So if you are in a no wake area you operate at headway speed and headway speed is defined as 6 MPH OR the slowest speed that a boat can be operated.

I don't see why you can't understand that!!!!

Tis.... I explained this.... you are not going to EVER get it because your mind is made up.

The Devil is in the details.... the wording of the RSA is "6MPH or the slowest speed needed to maintain steerage" This wording makes 6MPH the PRIMARY rule, the phrasing "or slowest speed possible" is the secondary rule that is there for conditions where you would have to exceed 6MPH. I listed some examples above.

Now had the the law just been phrased "slowest speed possible to maintain steerage"... you would be correct. But because the slowest speed possible to maintain steerage is different for every boat, the NH Legislature saw fit to to include the 6MPH wording as most boats have no problem maintaining steerage at 6MPH in the majority of conditions. That 6MPH defines the law!

I cannot explain it any simpler!

Woodsy

[ApS]

Bigguy...This is where you are wrong.... different hull designs throw wakes at different speeds. Also, at dead slow, different boats travel at different speeds. I had a Donzi 22 that idled at 7.5MPH and threw a wake doing so. So while HillCountry can idle thru the Weirs Channel at 3MPH in his pontoon, the guy behind him idles at 4.5MPH. The guy behind him idles at 5MPH. So what you end up with is a traffic jam as the 2 guys behind HillCountry shift in and out of gear trying to hold position in winds and currents. That being said... There is ALWAYS a wake when you push an object thru the water. ALWAYS. It just depends if it is visible or not, and then if it is visible, how big is it? But now you are crossing into opinion and subjectivity. The only way to truly control this is to use speed as it is an absolute. You are going to fast, or you are not going to fast... black & white. In the NH RSA's... the 1st State law clearly defines "Headway Speed" as 6MPH. The law does not differentiate between Lake or Ocean. It is no different than the 70MPH highway speed limit or the 45 MPH daytime speed limit on the lake. Exceed the speed limit, possibly get a ticket. However, the State also realized that in some instances on the water you would need to EXCEED the 6MPH and they wrote a provision for that. The State then defines a "No Wake Zone" as an area where you are required to go "Headway Speed". Given that "Headway Speed" is clearly defined as 6MPH... you are allowed up to 6MPH in a "No Wake Zone". It is very simple! I am not saying anyone HAS to go 6MPH... I am just saying you are ALLOWED to go 6MPH. Now if the State would just relabel the NWZ's to Headway Speed Zones... the confusion would be gone. Woodsy
I have a standard shift vehicle, so traffic jams could be a greater headache; therefore, what's worked is to adopt the technique to allow a greater space to the cars ahead of me (and coast, where I can, in neutral). Sure, some drivers will jump in front of me, but those caught in the same traffic jam are not going to get there noticeably faster by doing so. :coolsm:

Perhaps we should consider changing the ATON system completely... but thats another argument! :D:emb::rolleye1: Woodsy
ATON markers cost thousands each, and are moved by weaker sea ice. OTOH, they make a gratifying sound when struck by drunk or impaired ocean-racers. :rolleye1:

And while they are at it, change the black spars to green!
Those with color-blindness are still granted drivers licenses. When you can't see markers, consider going slower. :rolleye2:

I am always wondering . . . Where the hell are you going in such a rush? Boating on the Big Lake is meant to be enjoyable for ALL. Slow down when asked to do so the extra 2 minutes may just give you a chance to take in the scenery and relax. :coolsm:

Suggesting that Woodsy set his alarm for an earlier hour, or make a bridle and tow a bucket or a sea anchor? :look:

To some shore front owners it's like a tsunami that caused a seismic like wave.
A seismometer would record that cruiser's thunder-clap wake. It may not record that my piling dock has just shuddered. :mad:

[tis]

At least Woodsy, now I can see how you are interpreting it, even though you are wrong. The spirit of the law is not meant to be 6 MPH hell and be damned. It is NO WAKE. And because you are so stubborn and insist you will make a wake in a NO WAKE zone because you choose to go 6MPH, no matter what, I honestly hope you get caught and get a ticket. You deserve it.

[Orion]

It's crystal clear to me Woodsy. I think the hang-up is that people interpret this in a way that they think if you can maintain steerage at any speed slower than 6mph, then that's the speed you're supposed to go. In other words, if you can maintain steerage and control of the vessel at 1mph, then they believe that's the law. But I do not believe that this is the intent or spirit of the law.

Yep, that, by definition, means the law is CONFUSING. i.e., it's not clear to all. Even if I do agree with Woodsy's definition, it could be interpreted as above. And, apparently, the MP do not subscribe to Woodsy's interpretation.

[The Real BigGuy]

I agree with your approach. The speedometer on one boat doesn’t work and on the other boat it doesn’t register below 8 or 9 mph. As I’ve said before, I live in a NWZ. I don’t care how fast a boat is going as long as it is not generating a wake wave that has the potential to damage my boats or shoreline.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[Woodsy]

At least Woodsy, now I can see how you are interpreting it, even though you are wrong. The spirit of the law is not meant to be 6 MPH hell and be damned. It is NO WAKE. And because you are so stubborn and insist you will make a wake in a NO WAKE zone because you choose to go 6MPH, no matter what, I honestly hope you get caught and get a ticket. You deserve it.

It is not my fault your brain cannot understand the law.... but leave it to an idiot to wish ill on someone else in a dispute. This is just like a 20MPH School Zone... You are allowed 20MPH... doesn't mean you have to go 20MPH. It just means the cops can't ticket you unless you EXCEED 20MPH. I will go thru the NWZ at whatever speed the boat traffic is traveling. If there is no traffic I will go thru the NWZ at 5 - 5.5MPH and I will have my GPS on so as not to exceed 6MPH. If the MP stop me, so what? I will win the argument and be sent on my way.

The legal definitions are CLEAR.

For the record... Years ago (18?) I had a Donzi 22 Classic that idled @ 7.5MPH on GPS... guess who won the dispute? I will give you a hint... it wasn't the MP. I won on the "slowest and maintain steerage" clause in the law.

Woodsy

[Rusty]

Below is a forum thread that was posted some years back that might help:

I am posting an email sent to Marine Patrol seeking clarification on rules governing speed in "No Wake" zones, followed by the reply from Lieutenant Timothy Dunleavy. (He has provided his consent to reproduction of the email trail in this forum.) I found Lt. Dunleavy's reply to be both interesting and informative.u

Glove

__________________________________________________ ______________

Thu, June 17, 2010 9:19:47 AM
Subject: Clarification on "no wake rules"
From: Lake Citizen
To: marinepatrol@dos.nh.gov


Dear Marine Patrol:

I am writing seeking clarification of the New Hampshire laws pertaining to No Wake zones. I first started by researching the question, "what is a wake -- 4 inches, 6 inches, 8 inches?" But I then determined that New Hampshire law makes very clear that the speed allowed in a "No Wake" zone is headway speed...in other words headway speed and "no wake speed" are synonomous.

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:1
270-D:1 Definitions. – In this chapter:


VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.



But believe it or not, I am seeking information on interpretation of the word "or" in the headway speed definition.

I can understand that for very large boats that cannot maintain steerage at less than 6 mph, they may have to travel at 7 or 8 mph to maintain steerage...but they should operate at the slowest speed above 6 mph that allows for steerage. (In other words, they select the second option: "slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.")

But the real question is what about tiny boats that can easily maintain steerage at extremely slow speeds? For example, a 12 foot jon boat with a motor on the back can maintain steerage at 1 mph. So in this case, is headway speed considered 1 mph (i.e. slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage"), or is headway speed considered any speed less than 6 mph? Based on the NH law, it appears that in the case of the jon boat, law abiding citizens may choose between the two options of :

6 miles per hour
OR
the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way

In other words, the jon boat can choose to travel at 6 mph (even if it creates a 4 inch "wake"). Is this correct?

Thank you in advance for taking the time to address this question.

Sincerely,
Lake_Citizen


__________________________________________________ ______________

Sat, June 19, 2010 9:52:43 AM
Subject: Headway Speed/No Wake
From: "Dunleavy, Timothy"
To: lake_citizen


Lake Citizen,

Thank you for your inquiry.

Your research is accurate as to the definitions you cite. To clarify your question, I’ll offer you some history behind the law change that took effect in 1995. The “old” language stated, headway speed was the slowest speed that the boat could be operated and maintain steerage way, “but which does not exceed 6 miles per hour.”

In the early 1990’s Marine Patrol began patrolling our seacoast. It was recognized by our officers that the tidal currents in the state’s coastal rivers often exceeded 6 mph and therefore safe steerage for a vessel fighting the current would need to exceed the limits of the law.

As a result the law was changed to its current language. Local Judges have accepted and recognize the intent of the law and therefore the application of the “slowest speed necessary…” is the portion of the definition that our officers most often use in their application of the law.

To try and answer your question specifically as it applies to a 12’ jon boat (your example). The officer would look at several things when considering a boat stop for a violation. They would include the existing water conditions, the boat’s wake, how much faster than necessary they are travelling, is the attitude of the bow “lifting” vs. flat, speed and size of other vessels in the immediate area, etc. I believe that a common sense application of these concepts by any boat operator will keep them safe and legal.

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me at Marine Patrol Headquarters or by phone at the number listed below.

Safe Boating!!

Tim

Timothy C. Dunleavy
Lieutenant,
New Hampshire Marine Patrol
31 Dock Rd.
Gilford, NH 03249
Ph. 603-293-2037
Fax 603-293-0096
https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132141&postcount=1

[iw8surf]

It is not my fault your brain cannot understand the law.... but leave it to an idiot to wish ill on someone else in a dispute. This is just like a 20MPH School Zone... You are allowed 20MPH... doesn't mean you have to go 20MPH. It just means the cops can't ticket you unless you EXCEED 20MPH. I will go thru the NWZ at whatever speed the boat traffic is traveling. If there is no traffic I will go thru the NWZ at 5 - 5.5MPH and I will have my GPS on so as not to exceed 6MPH. If the MP stop me, so what? I will win the argument and be sent on my way.

The legal definitions are CLEAR.

For the record... Years ago (18?) I had a Donzi 22 Classic that idled @ 7.5MPH on GPS... guess who won the dispute? I will give you a hint... it wasn't the MP. I won on the "slowest and maintain steerage" clause in the law.

Woodsy

My big bad scary wave making wakeboard machine that everyone hates idles with out the slightest ripple at 7.5MPH. I have always found V drives to idle at higher speeds. I never care to look at the speedometer, put the boat in gear and that speed is the speed I travel in the NWZ.

[tis]

Local Judges have accepted and recognize the intent of the law and therefore the application of the “slowest speed necessary…” is the portion of the definition that our officers most often use in their application of the law.


I supposed you still know more than the Captain of our Marine Patrol, Woodsy?

[VitaBene]

ATON markers cost thousands each, and are moved by weaker sea ice. OTOH, they make a gratifying sound when struck by drunk or impaired ocean-racers. :rolleye1:


Those with color-blindness are still granted drivers licenses. When you can't see markers, consider going slower. :rolleye2:

You think black markers are adequate at night? If so, you are as crazy as every one of your inane posts!

[Woodsy]

Local Judges have accepted and recognize the intent of the law and therefore the application of the “slowest speed necessary…” is the portion of the definition that our officers most often use in their application of the law.


I supposed you still know more than the Captain of our Marine Patrol, Woodsy?

Well Tis.... Tim's letter proves my point. The legislature added "the slowest speed to maintain steerage" clause so that if conditions warrant it you can exceed the 6MPH speed limit. The original definition of "Headway Speed" was just 6MPH. The legislature made no differentiation in the law for Tidal vs. Inland waters. You can argue all you want, the reality is you are allowed 6MPH in a NWZ. I know this because I won my case... I demonstrated that my boat @ dead slow was 7.5MPH. Dead Slow being just in gear/no throttle. I won because the the statute reads "6MPH or slowest speed needed to maintain steerage". I ultimately prevailed in court.

There is no boat at 6MPH that is going to leave any sort of a damaging wake... Well, maybe one of those new ski boats with the ballast tanks and tabs... maybe.

Woodsy

Woodsy

[Hillcountry]

Well Tis.... Tim's letter proves my point. The legislature added "the slowest speed to maintain steerage" clause so that if conditions warrant it you can exceed the 6MPH speed limit. The original definition of "Headway Speed" was just 6MPH. The legislature made no differentiation in the law for Tidal vs. Inland waters. You can argue all you want, the reality is you are allowed 6MPH in a NWZ. I know this because I won my case... I demonstrated that my boat @ dead slow was 7.5MPH. Dead Slow being just in gear/no throttle. I won because the the statute reads "6MPH or slowest speed needed to maintain steerage". I ultimately prevailed in court.

There is no boat at 6MPH that is going to leave any sort of a damaging wake... Well, maybe one of those new ski boats with the ballast tanks and tabs... maybe.

Woodsy

Woodsy

What, pray tell, is the RPM’s of your boat at “dead slow idle”? Anone can turn an idle screw in or out...

[tis]

Woodsy, we are never going to see eye to eye on this so we might as well just give it up. I still read it as you can go UP to 6 MPH if conditions warrant it, not that you can go faster. If you are not making a wake in your boat at 6MPH then I agree you can go 6 MPH. If you are making a wake though, you should go slower. Apparently you DID get a ticket for making a wake if you went to court. If what you say that your boat will go no slower than 7.5 MPH, is true, then I guess you have no choice. Unless, as HILL said, you adjust something. However, I am curious as to how do you dock if you can't slow your boat down? Again, is you are not "pulling our legs", then all I can say is you are certainly the EXCEPTION to the rule. Most people are able to make their boat go slower than 7.5 MPH. And most of the boats I see I am sure can go slower than that, they just don't choose to. BTW, most of the offenders I see are jet skis.

[8gv]

I have enjoyed the give and take on this issue but...

I would bet that the participants here don’t put up a wake in a no wake zone.

The real issue isn’t the difference between the interpretations of the law offered in this thread.

It is the flagrant disregard for no wake zones by people piloting their boats way too fast.

Maybe we can get their speeds down first and then go back to splitting hairs?

;)

[ApS]

You think black markers are adequate at night? If so, you are as crazy as every one of your inane posts!
Some days, sun and water conditions make none of the markers particularly noticeable; however, the NH navigation marking-system has seen a very high years-long endurance for what—eighty-plus years? (None appear on my 1909 Lake Winnipesaukee chart).

Why, suddenly, can markers not be seen? :confused:

Why is greater support seen here for night-time controls on "activity"? :confused:

Are we hearing from one of the male population that is colorblind—8%? :confused:

Let a woman drive: their colorblindness is only 1% of the population. :coolsm:

Ever notice how easy night navigation is when shoreline lights are not present?

Artificial light (aboard) can take away one's night vision for many minutes. :eek2:

When you can't see markers, my advice is to become familiar at slow speeds in daylight, and especially slow down at night. :rolleye2:

.

[Not to Worry]

You think black markers are adequate at night? If so, you are as crazy as every one of your inane posts!

I love the forum for the information it provides about the lake. I hate the forum when it gets petty and attacks people for their opinions. I try not to post often for that reason because regardless of what I say someone will pounce on that and attack the person versus the opinion.

I am sure we all do it at times with the false courage of anonymity.

[VitaBene]

I love the forum for the information it provides about the lake. I hate the forum when it gets petty and attacks people for their opinions. I try not to post often for that reason because regardless of what I say someone will pounce on that and attack the person versus the opinion.

I am sure we all do it at times with the false courage of anonymity.

APS and I have had differing opinions on many boating related topics dating back to the speed limit debate. I am certainly not the only one that takes issue with his parsed, taken out of context, often inane posts!

I am hardly anonymous- you can find my name and phone number on any number of posts on this forum!

[VitaBene]

Some days, sun and water conditions make none of the markers particularly noticeable; however, the NH navigation marking-system has seen a very high years-long endurance for what—eighty-plus years? (None appear on my 1909 Lake Winnipesaukee chart).

Why, suddenly, can markers not be seen? :confused:

Why is greater support seen here for night-time controls on "activity"? :confused:

Are we hearing from one of the male population that is colorblind—8%? :confused:

Let a woman drive: their colorblindness is only 1% of the population. :coolsm:

Ever notice how easy night navigation is when shoreline lights are not present?

Artificial light (aboard) can take away one's night vision for many minutes. :eek2:

When you can't see markers, my advice is to become familiar at slow speeds in daylight, and especially slow down at night. :rolleye2:

.

My vision is perfectly good. Black markers have been a subject of complaint here for many years. I always boat at a speed suitable for the conditions- whether they be lighting or weather.

[noreast]

My vision is perfectly good. Black markers have been a subject of complaint here for many years. I always boat at a speed suitable for the conditions- whether they be lighting or weather.

Exactly, And the worst argument for anything is because it's always been that way. I think we can come up with an unlimited list of things that have been improved.

[ApS]

Wow..that wave must have wiped out all the homes on that shore line. My heart goes out to all the owners of these homes that this wave totally destroyed.
1) As previously posted, the cruiser can be seen to be going fast, which is a factor in producing a reduced wake—so we are told. :rolleye1:

Indeed, in the photo below, the wake that struck the shore appears innocuous. Note the cruiser's wake coursing across the center of the photograph, as indicated by the two x's. Although a small wake, it is cresting between the x's—never a good sign. :(

2) The lake is approaching year-end's lowest level. Had this cruiser's "modest" wake struck at "full-pond", more soil (and Phosphorus) would have been released, more trees (and boulders) would fall into the lake, and more survey markers would be found in the lake. :rolleye2:

[Cal Coon]

1) As previously posted, the cruiser can be seen to be going fast, which is a factor in producing a reduced wake—so we are told. :rolleye1:

Indeed, in the photo below, the wake that struck the shore appears innocuous. Note the cruiser's wake coursing across the center of the photograph, as indicated by the two x's. Although a small wake, it is cresting between the x's—never a good sign. :(

2) The lake is approaching year-end's lowest level. Had this cruiser's "modest" wake struck at "full-pond", more soil (and Phosphorus) would have been released, more trees (and boulders) would fall into the lake, and more survey markers would be found in the lake. :rolleye2:This is a joke, right? So who's fault is it when the wind kicks up the white caps?? Do those waves cause the same amount of damage as the waves that are caused by gas and oil?? Or is it just the waves caused by gas and oil that do the damage?? You have got to be kidding me. I'm going to have to side with Rusty on this one... Where are the surfers??? Man, they missed a big one!!

[Descant]

This is a joke, right? So who's fault is it when the wind kicks up the white caps?? Do those waves cause the same amount of damage as the waves that are caused by gas and oil?? Or is it just the waves caused by gas and oil that do the damage?? You have got to be kidding me. I'm going to have to side with Rusty on this one... Where are the surfers??? Man, they missed a big one!!

Wind driven waves have their place. Mostly, exposed areas have moved the waters edge up to the ledge or granite boulders over the last few hundred years. However, in a protected cove, or on a small lake, there is not a lot of natural wave action caused by wind. However, boats in these coves, with large wakes can cause some erosion or other damage to docks and boats if there is enough repeated activity of some magnitude. So the argument is very situational.

[ApS]

Exactly, And the worst argument for anything is because it's always been that way. I think we can come up with an unlimited list of things that have been improved.
Normally, I'd agree, but our 1909 Winnipesaukee chart shows NO MARKERS at all. The first "improvement" was to go to anchored 6"x6" tapered wooden markers, painted red and black. Ice moved them around, and some captains struck them at night—knocking the tops off to leave just a hint of a marker at the surface. :rolleye2:

Such boaters prompted the next improvement, which was PVC markers in red and black. Today, they break only if struck "dead-on", or if "sleds" break them off, level with the ice. :rolleye1:

Now, if only we could agree with the color of the next "improvement". :look:

My vision is perfectly good. Black markers have been a subject of complaint here for many years. I always boat at a speed suitable for the conditions- whether they be lighting or weather.
Yes...We are all "above average". :rolleye1:

Y'know, cataracts of the eyes can strike at middle age. Excluding advanced age, the one aggravating activity?

Boating in the sunshine—where direct UV rays are compounded by being reflected off the water, to take the double toll of skin cancers and cataracts. :(

BTW: Most everybody who has had cataract-surgery comments, "Color has come back". :eek2:

Wind driven waves have their place. Mostly, exposed areas have moved the waters edge up to the ledge or granite boulders over the last few hundred years. However, in a protected cove, or on a small lake, there is not a lot of natural wave action caused by wind. However, boats in these coves, with large wakes can cause some erosion or other damage to docks and boats if there is enough repeated activity of some magnitude. So the argument is very situational.
Exactly right! :look:

I would add that ice has been shuffling the entire perimeter of the lake for ten thousand years—and perhaps more-so in the past hundred years. But it's the most recent three decades of "modern boating" has sent old-time residents to rescue their docked boats with breakwaters and hydraulic lifts. (Even for the oversized boats of our surprised newest residents, and there has been a remarkable turnover—no pun intended—of residents in Winter Harbor). :eek:

As for wave action (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=50196&postcount=151), even the strongest of summer on-shore windstorms don't soak our dock. (Although our dock can get very hot, and a soaking is appreciated—wakes that throw gravel on the steps, not so much). :(

What, pray tell, is the RPM’s of your boat at “dead slow idle”? Anyone can turn an idle screw in or out...
True enough, and one can also select a propeller that allows speeds that conform to "no wake" speeds. But to have a ocean-racer to go a little bit faster, hire an attorney to argue the "no wake" law in court. :rolleye2:

.

[Cal Coon]

Normally, I'd agree, but our 1909 Winnipesaukee chart shows NO MARKERS at all. The first "improvement" was to go to anchored 4"x4" wooden markers, painted red and black. Ice moved them around, and some captains struck them at night—knocking the tops off to leave just a stump above the water. :rolleye2:

Such boaters prompted the next improvement, which was PVC markers in red and black. Today, they break only if struck "dead-on", or if "sleds" break them off, level with the ice. :rolleye1:

Now, if only we could agree with the color of the next "improvement". :look:


Yes...We are all "above average". :rolleye1:

Y'know, cataracts of the eyes can strike at middle age. Excluding advanced age, the one aggravating activity?

Boating in the sunshine—where direct UV rays are compounded by being reflected off the water, to take the double toll of skin cancers and cataracts. :(

BTW: Most everybody who has had cataract-surgery comments, "Color has come back". :eek2:


Exactly right! :look:

I would add that ice has been shuffling the entire perimeter of the lake for ten thousand years—and perhaps more-so in the past hundred years. But it's the most recent three decades of "modern boating" has sent old-time residents to rescue their boats with breakwaters and hydraulic lifts. (Even for the oversized boats of our surprised newest residents, and there has been a remarkable turnover—no pun intended—of residents in Winter Harbor). :eek:

As for wave action (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=50196&postcount=151), even the strongest of summer on-shore windstorms don't soak our dock. (Although our dock can get very hot, and a soaking is appreciated—wakes that throw gravel on the steps, not so much). :(


True enough, and one can also select a propeller that allows speeds that conform to "no wake" speeds. But to have a ocean-racer to go a little bit faster, hire an attorney to argue the "no wake" law in court. :rolleye2:

.Maybe we should just ban all powerboats, regardless of size, and just allow sail boats, and anything operated by "people power". I don't know why anybody needs a powerboat anyways. All they do is cause trouble, (in more ways than one...!!)

[Bizer]

Bizer just received an eMail that said, I want to give you an update on the NH No Wake law. Last Friday NH Representative Charlie St. Clair submitted legislation to change the No Wake law by removing any reference to 6 MPH. Simply: "VI. "Headway speed" means the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way."

If it passes it will clear up this law for the final time.What that means is, for example, if a boat can maintain steerage way at one mile-per-hour, it will take him/her about 25 minutes to pass the 0.4 miles from the Governor's Island Bridge to light #69.

[LIforrelaxin]

Maybe we should just ban all powerboats, regardless of size, and just allow sail boats, and anything operated by "people power". I don't know why anybody needs a powerboat anyways. All they do is cause trouble, (in more ways than one...!!)

If you ask APS this is what he would desire....

APS please get some new material....

[tis]

That is great! The wording of this law undoubtedly needs to be changed. I do not see why it would mean you could only go 1MPH though. If you are not making a wake, you could go faster than that. Really headway speed has nothing to do with the rule. IMO they don't need it.

[Hillcountry]

That is great! The wording of this law undoubtedly needs to be changed. I do not see why it would mean you could only go 1MPH though. If you are not making a wake, you could go faster than that. Really headway speed has nothing to do with the rule. IMO they don't need it.

Yup! 6 mph is a bit fast and causes a substantial wake from my Tritoon!
Imagine what a non-pontoon boat makes at that speed. Hope the law passes...

[Descant]

I think hovercraft and others have no wake, and are registered as vessels, so with this change they can go through the channel at 45 mph?

[TiltonBB]

I am glad Charlie St.Clair is finally doing something. He has shown up for only 70% of the legislative days and voted in only 52% of the legislative votes.

That is truly Part Time representation!

Want to fix it? Vote for someone else

[Dave R]

Bizer just received an eMail that said, What that means is, for example, if a boat can maintain steerage way at one mile-per-hour, it will take him/her about 25 minutes to pass the 0.4 miles from the Governor's Island Bridge to light #69.

The way the proposed law is worded, it's actually worse than that:

If you have a boat that can maintain steerage at 3 MPH and your boat is facing a 3 MPH current, the slowest you can go and maintain steerage is 0 MPH.

If you are in the same boat facing into a 4 MPH current, you can maintain steerage while moving backward at -1 MPH.

Perhaps someone that understands math should amend the proposal...

[Hillcountry]

The way the proposed law is worded, it's actually worse than that:

If you have a boat that can maintain steerage at 3 MPH and your boat is facing a 3 MPH current, the slowest you can go and maintain steerage is 0 MPH.

If you are in the same boat facing into a 4 MPH current, you can maintain steerage while moving backward at -1 MPH.

Perhaps someone that understands math should amend the proposal...

The law (and common sense) implies using a “no current” situation. Obviously, in any current you have to adjust accordingly...my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??

[joey2665]

The law (and common sense) implies using a “no current” situation. Obviously, in any current you have to adjust accordingly...my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??



Your absolutely correct but way too simple a solution for lawmakers. Everything needs convoluted language to confuse us. It’s how they keep their jobs. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[Garcia]

I am 100% confident that I will be able to follow the spirit and letter of the law in any boat, in any circumstances. I won't need a speedometer, tachometer, or to turn around and see if I'm creating a wake. My guess is this is the case for pretty much anyone on the forum. Those who are not abiding by the letter and spirit of the law know it.

That said, I do enjoy reading the ongoing discussion about the different ways to interpret what I find to be a pretty straightforward issue.

[Patofnaud]

Your absolutely correct but way too simple a solution for lawmakers. Everything needs convoluted language to confuse us. It’s how they keep their jobs. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

Exactly.

This is a Winni forum, not a Piscataqua River forum and to the best of my knowledge the only current is the Weirs Channel heading into Paugus, so everywhere else (Governors bridge, between Eagle and Gov, Bear Island post office, etc,,,,) there is ZERO current, meaning the wake your making, is the wake YOU are making. All the wording in the RSA means diddley. Wake = wake. Not rocket science.

[joey2665]

Exactly.



This is a Winni forum, not a Piscataqua River forum and to the best of my knowledge the only current is the Weirs Channel heading into Paugus, so everywhere else (Governors bridge, between Eagle and Gov, Bear Island post office, etc,,,,) there is ZERO current, meaning the wake your making, is the wake YOU are making. All the wording in the RSA means diddley. Wake = wake. Not rocket science.



I think Garcia said it best. “Spirit” of the law. Just don’t make a wake, it’s not difficult the problem is there is always someone looking to circumvent the system.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[The Real BigGuy]

I believe the mph limit in “headway” refers to speed your boat can maintain steerage in the water/wind condition it is in. If I can maintain steerage at 3 mph in still water and I move to a 3 mph current I will need to go faster than 3 mph to maintain steerage because no boat will be able to continually maintain a heading 180 degrees to a current. As soon as it falls off it looses steerage. Same in a following current. Common sense, but that will never stop some from twisting it to fit their argument. And by the way, if you don’t want to spend the time going thru a no wake zone properly, go around it. If you can’t go around it, enjoy the slow ride.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[Dave R]

The law (and common sense) implies using a “no current” situation. Obviously, in any current you have to adjust accordingly...my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??

You can't assume a law implies anything, that's the opposite of the point of laws. Otherwise we could just have one law that says: "don't do anything bad".

[tis]

Wow, how can we make something so easy so difficult???

[Garcia]

You can't assume a law implies anything, that's the opposite of the point of laws. Otherwise we could just have one law that says: "don't do anything bad".

This is a great example of why government gets bigger and bigger. The more we try to find loopholes, require specifics rather than use common sense, and try to over analyze the intent of rules and regulations, the more bureaucracy we create. I'm not trying to make a political statement, just pointing out the more we debate things, the more politicians try to clarify, and the more things get clogged up in the interpretation of the rules and regulations (which can lead to the court system).

[tis]

I agree with you again, Garcia. I can't believe how complicated some people have made this discussion.

[Dave R]

I agree with you again, Garcia. I can't believe how complicated some people have made this discussion.

If you find this stuff complicated, perhaps boating isn't for you. No wake zones are pretty much the easiest part of boating to deal with.

[tis]

Dave R. I don't find the "stuff" complicated, I find the way you guys make such a big deal out of it complicated. As Garcia and Hill said no wake means no wake, how hard is that for you to understand? BTW, I bet I know a lot more about boating that you do.

[Woodsy]

It is so freaking simple...

A No Wake Zone is the same as School Zone or a Thickly Settled Zone... it defines an area where there is a reduced speed limit.

Headway Speed (6MPH) is same as the 20 MPH speed limit sign when you enter a School Zone. It tells you how fast you can thru the zone.

The law has to be absolute... and it is. 6MPH.

The only place this really even comes into play is the Weirs Channel and Meredith Bay... mostly the Weirs Channel. There is way too much boat traffic to have them move thru the Channel at 2 MPH...


Woodsy

[joey2665]

You got it Woodsy. 134 posts about something so simple if people just use common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[KDL]

Two rules,

1) Don't make a wake in a "No Wake Zone"

2) Don't do anything bad.

That was easy.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Two rules,

1) Don't make a wake in a "No Wake Zone"

2) Don't do anything bad.

That was easy.

3) Stay home, pull the shades, hide in the house, have no fun.

That sums up life in the “Live Free or Die” state.

[TiltonBB]

So........................If your boat can go through the Weirs Channel and leave no wake at 1/2 MPH should you do that?

And, if you look behind you and the substantially different sized/configuration/hull design boat following you is having great difficulty steering and maintaining control at your "safe speed" should you speed up to allow the vessel behind you to maintain safe control?

Are you guilty of a violation of law?

What will you do?

How many boaters are smart enough or aware enough to realize they are causing a problem for the boats behind them?

[kawishiwi]

...if no one is enforcing it? I've been on the lake most weekends for 4 years. I dont go into the big traffic areas like the Weirs and I am most often out from dawn to maybe noon or 5ish till dark. I have yet to see ANY enforcement of ANY type, period. I am not hiding way up in out of the way places either and I can almost count on one hand how many times I've even seen the M.P. in 4 years.

[tis]

It is so freaking simple...

A No Wake Zone is the same as School Zone or a Thickly Settled Zone... it defines an area where there is a reduced speed limit.

Headway Speed (6MPH) is same as the 20 MPH speed limit sign when you enter a School Zone. It tells you how fast you can thru the zone.

The law has to be absolute... and it is. 6MPH.

The only place this really even comes into play is the Weirs Channel and Meredith Bay... mostly the Weirs Channel. There is way too much boat traffic to have them move thru the Channel at 2 MPH...


Woodsy

But Woodsy why don't you understand??? It's not 6MPH, it's NO Wake!!!

[Dave R]

...if no one is enforcing it? I've been on the lake most weekends for 4 years. I dont go into the big traffic areas like the Weirs and I am most often out from dawn to maybe noon or 5ish till dark. I have yet to see ANY enforcement of ANY type, period. I am not hiding way up in out of the way places either and I can almost count on one hand how many times I've even seen the M.P. in 4 years.


From what I've seen on Winnipesaukee lately, wake violations need to be egregious to get any law enforcement attention. That's also what I've noticed elsewhere boating in the northeast for years, so perhaps it's just spreading into Winni from the rest of the region. Winnipesaukee is the only place I've ever boated where people get really upset over wakes that would not raise an eyebrow anywhere else.

In all the other places I've boated, "no wake" essentially means "don't plane" and "don't plow"; except in the case of small boats like a RIB dinghy, they can go as fast as they want to, anywhere without anyone caring... I don't know why dinghy drivers get such relaxed rules, but it's probably because at worst, they don't make much of a wake. Picture yourself cruising along at idle speed in the no wake zone in Meredith or Weirs Beach and having a dinghy pass you at 20 MPH in plain view of marine patrol without any reaction. That's normal outside of Winnipesaukee. Imagine the uproar here if that really happened, some people would lose their minds.

FWIW, I've been boating on Winni for decades and have never been stopped for a no-wake violation (on Winni or anywhere else except Costa Rica where it was unclear that it was a no wake zone, no ticket, just a verbal warning). I just adjust speed for conditions (in other words, don't stand out), and all is good.

[Woodsy]

But Woodsy why don't you understand??? It's not 6MPH, it's NO Wake!!!

Unfortunately for you... that is NOT the way the law is written! Its not my fault you do not understand law.... perhaps a law class or two?

Woodsy

[DEJ]

Tis, Woodsy is correct, you do not understand the law as currently written.

[Bizer]

... I do not see why it would mean you could only go 1MPH though. ... Because that's what the law would dictate if your boat could maintain steerage way at one mile per hour, then that is your maximum speed.

I think hovercraft and others have no wake, and are registered as vessels, so with this change they can go through the channel at 45 mph?No. As written, the law is purely a function of the speed. The size of the wake is not considered.

... my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??Any boat movement creates a wave. If the wave is 1mm high (the thickness of a dime), we call it a ripple. If the wave is 150mm high (6"), we call it a wake. At what point does a ripple become a wake? If you say 76mm, how does one measure it?




FYI: Here is my "wake" in a 20 foot Four Winns. The GPS said 5.7 MPH. My minimum steerage way speed is about 3 MPH.

[Little Bear]

Because that's what the law would dictate if your boat could maintain steerage way at one mile per hour, then that is your maximum speed.

No. As written, the law is purely a function of the speed. The size of the wake is not considered.

Any boat movement creates a wave. If the wave is 1mm high (the thickness of a dime), we call it a ripple. If the wave is 150mm high (6"), we call it a wake. At what point does a ripple become a wake? If you say 76mm, how does one measure it?




FYI: Here is my "wake" in a 20 foot Four Winns. The GPS said 5.7 MPH. My minimum steerage way speed is about 3 MPH.

That wake looks about the size wake that a duck would make.

[VitaBene]

That wake looks about the size wake that a duck would make.

And to Dave R's point, there are many on this lake that would yell at the "offending" operator from land.

[Hillcountry]

That wake looks about the size wake that a duck would make.

Yeah...that doesn’t equate with 5.7 mph in my experience. My toon makes a much more substantial wake at that speed...your 20 footer must glide like a goose!

[iw8surf]

Yeah...that doesn’t equate with 5.7 mph in my experience. My toon makes a much more substantial wake at that speed...your 20 footer must glide like a goose!


You can't compare a toon wake at 5.7 mph to a bowrider wake at 5.7 mph. Apples to oranges.

[tis]

Hill, isn't it nice we have so many lawyers on here who think they know so much?For some reason they will say anything to justify making a wake.

[The Real BigGuy]

So........................If your boat can go through the Weirs Channel and leave no wake at 1/2 MPH should you do that?

And, if you look behind you and the substantially different sized/configuration/hull design boat following you is having great difficulty steering and maintaining control at your "safe speed" should you speed up to allow the vessel behind you to maintain safe control?

Are you guilty of a violation of law?

What will you do?

How many boaters are smart enough or aware enough to realize they are causing a problem for the boats behind them?



That is easy to answer. Few operators look behind them period. Not for boats gaining on them, not to see if they are making a wake.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[DEJ]

Hill, isn't it nice we have so many lawyers on here who think they know so much?For some reason they will say anything to justify making a wake.

No lawyer is needed to understand the law as it is currently written.

[Hillcountry]

You can't compare a toon wake at 5.7 mph to a bowrider wake at 5.7 mph. Apples to oranges.

Yes, I know...a bow riders wake, along with any v-hull makes a greater wake than a lowly toon. This fact has been borne out numerous times on this forum that toons make very little wake compared to the v-hull boats. Look it up.

[MDoug]

And to Dave R's point, there are many on this lake that would yell at the "offending" operator from land.

Very true of the lady on the point at Y Landing, yelling and flailing arms:eek: