What is a wake?

SAMIAM · 07-17-2008, 09:33 AM

The other day I was in a no wake zone and a guy yelled at me from his dock about my wake.It puzzled me because I was only doing headway speed and leaving a few ripples of two or three inches.I think he was frazzled because people who don't know the area often buzz right through there.
Anyway,it got me wondering what the measure is for an acceptable wake.I've seen the MP leave bigger wakes than mine and,although it has nothing to do with this thread,I've seen two foot wakes from big displacement hulls on the intercoastal in Florida in their no wake zones.
Can someone quote the law on this one? Thanks

Newbiesaukee · 07-17-2008, 10:15 AM

Don't know the exact law, but is a no wake zone, really a headway speed zone; that is, the slowest speed that the captain can still maintain control of the vessel?

Woodsy · 07-17-2008, 10:25 AM

Sam...

As I understand the statute in NH, No Wake is defined as the slowest speed possible where you can maintain steerage of the vessel, not to exceed 6MPH...

Now that being said I have seen and personally experienced the NHMP telling people to speed it up in a NWZ... as one MP officer told me last year "No Wake does not mean DEAD SLOW" (this was in the Weirs Channel on a busy weekend) I pointed to the big cruiser going dead slow 100' in front of me and politely asked the MP officer "where was I supposed to go?"

Property owners no doubt have a much different opinion as its thier property that is getting eroded by the wakes...

Woodsy

Evenstar · 07-17-2008, 10:36 AM

From NH RSA's: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-d-mrg.htm

CHAPTER 270-D : BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS

270-D:1 Definitions:

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.

XII. "Wake'' means any disturbance created on the surface of the water as a result of combined vessel motion and hull displacement.

Wolfeboro_Baja · 07-17-2008, 10:55 AM

After you read the quotes of the RSA provided by Evenstar, you'll have to decide how slow you can go and still maintain steerage.

When I'm in a no wake zone (including Weirs Channel), I throttle all the way down to idle, which for our boat is around 750rpm -800rpm. At that speed, there are no visible "wake" lines following off our boat, just swirling water behind. Yes, there's some wander at that speed but if you're paying attention (as you should be!), you compensate! As conscientious boaters, my wife and I get annoyed when we see people leaving an obvious wake in any no wake zone (or a mooring field for that matter). If we're in the Weirs Channel or entering/leaving Meredith or Alton, we want to power up a little and get on plane just as fast as the next guy (even more so in hot weather) but a no wake zone is STILL a no wake zone and we won't do it.

The only exception to the above is when I'm in a long line of traffic in a long channel (like the Weirs Channel or between Governors Island and mainland) and someone is climbing up my back; then, I'll speed up just enough to move with the traffic flow. But if the rest of the traffic is travelling at the proper no wake speed, then every one will have to slow down also and deal with it. I'm sorry if that annoys someone who's in a hurry but it's the law.

Bear Islander · 07-17-2008, 12:03 PM

Actually "no wake" speed is the fastest you can go without taking the chance of someone in another boat yelling "HEY.... THIS IS A NO WAKE ZONE!" thus causing your wife to give you the hairy eyeball.

Woodsy · 07-17-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Actually "no wake" speed is the fastest you can go without taking the chance of someone in another boat yelling "HEY.... THIS IS A NO WAKE ZONE!" thus causing your wife to give you the hairy eyeball.

Now thats funny! LOL!

Woodsy

NightWing · 07-17-2008, 12:25 PM

The reply to those who yell "It won't go any slower" is to yell back "How do you dock?"

MAINLANDER · 07-17-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWing

The reply to those who yell "It won't go any slower" is to yell back "How do you dock?"

When the channel is not crowded I'm not going to keep shifting from gear to neutral to go dead slow. Idle speed leaves a very small wake.

NightWing · 07-17-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAINLANDER

When the channel is not crowded I'm not going to keep shifting from gear to neutral to go dead slow. Idle speed leaves a very small wake.

So, you get yelled at?

SteveA · 07-17-2008, 05:38 PM

Here is a web site that defines "wake" as it relates to boating.

You will see that this may very well be an issue that this forum can't solve.

My guess on the over/under on the number of posts on this one is >165. ( Any Takers?)

http://en.mimi.hu/boating/wake.html

I really like # 8 -- it brings into question a "Pleasure Craft".. Sounds like a whole new thread

tis · 07-17-2008, 05:50 PM

A few years ago I had the pleasure (?) of watching MP stop boats in a no wake zone. I think it totally depends on the opinion of the particular officer what is a wake and what isn't. One insisted that any little tiny wave was making a wake which is technically true. But I was really surprised that he stopped people for that little wave. However, I believe other officers would not consider that to be illegal. So as I said, I think it all depends on the officer. Like so many other laws there is a lot of interpretation.

topwater · 07-17-2008, 06:53 PM

Samiam, My hats off to ya brother for just being concerned about your wake. I am a Bass Fisherman and am always concerned about my actions are on the water. If more people on the water were like yourself, chances are the guy would have never yelled at you. They are correct about headway/no wake rules, but COMMON SENSE is the biggest factor with anything that happens on the lake. Once again, THANKS FOR BEING CONCERNED !

jrc · 07-17-2008, 07:08 PM

All I want to know is why does everyone pull out their cellphone the minute they get in the channel traffic. I even see PWC drivers doing it.

Sometime going upstream in the channel it can be tough to go dead slow if the current is moving. In the fall sometimes I have to throttle up a little just to make way.

My boat does around 4.5 mph (GPS) with both motors at idle. In the channel, I have to go to neutral a lot just to keep spacing. It can be stressful because in neutral or slow speeds the steering is ineffective and the rocks are big.

In non-traffic no wakes zones, I can sneak it up to 5 or 6 without leaving a wake and the boat is more steerable.

SIKSUKR · 07-18-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

All I want to know is why does everyone pull out their cellphone the minute they get in the channel traffic. I even see PWC drivers doing it.
.

That was probably me on my PWC.Hmm..let me see.I would have quite a hard time using my phone when under way with the boat on plane.Sure makes life easier to connect with my friends who are already on the water.Does this create more wake by using the phone or is this something that just gets under your skin because the lake is no place for a cellphone?If the answer is either one,then there ought to be a law or something.

bilproject · 07-18-2008, 09:30 AM

Here's a related twist to this thread. Summer of 2007 4 of us were on PWC (3seaters) near Beckey's garden. We had stopped to talk and were within about 10 feet of each other. After our discussion of direction to continue our ride, we each headed at 90 degrees away from each other (picture the 4 compass points) and as we were 75 feet or so apart we sped up and when more than 150 ft apart we each came to the heading we had agreed to. The marine police stopped the first boat to accelerate and gave him a warning for going greater than headway within 150 ft. Now I understand that technically the officer is correct. However, in practice it seems that when a boat is in a congested area (no wake zone with boats lined up nose to tail 50 ft apart) as the lead boat reaches a point were it can safely (end of no wake zone boat ahead more than 150 away) go to plane it does. Later the same day we were headed to the Nasawa and a marine patrol boat was observing traffic on the lake side of the channel. As we were headed in I saw boat after boat reach the end of the no wake accelerate with less than 150' between them and the boat behind. More than a little upset I motored over to the patrol boat to find the same office that had earlier issued the warning. I asked why he had not stopped at least one of the boats violating the 150 ft rule. His response was the boats would never get a 150 seperation as they were all moving at the same speed and would be strung out to the eagle island no wake. He further said that there was no danger as long as the boat behind waited until the boat ahead has achieved the 150 seperation before the boat behind took off. When I asked about our earlier meeting he stated that we each should have waited (boat to rear would have to come to a complete stop) until we had 150 in all directions. My question was why if "there was no danger"
Just an interesting twist on the rules. Unwritten rule on the intercoastal is that you don't worry about what is behind you when accelerating out of a channel or no wake, only what is in front or to the side. Maybe they were just trying to get up the numbers on PWC stops that summer as it seemed like every boat stopped by the MP was a PWC.

jrc · 07-18-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

That was probably me on my PWC.Hmm..let me see.I would have quite a hard time using my phone when under way with the boat on plane.Sure makes life easier to connect with my friends who are already on the water.Does this create more wake by using the phone or is this something that just gets under your skin because the lake is no place for a cellphone?If the answer is either one,then there ought to be a law or something.

You are taking this too personal, I have nothing against PWCs or cell phones.
My boat always has at least two working cell phones and a Blackberry aboard. It's just that some people cannot drive and talk at the same time. When I'm in the channel on a busy day it takes a little concentration. Having someone weaving back and forth while they fumble around with their phone can add stress.

I mentioned PWC because it seems extra difficult to drive a PWC while you are dialing a phone. July 4th I was behind a PWC in the channel near the beach heading into Paugus. He takes out his phone and starts dialing, he slows to a stop in the channel. I do what I can to just sit motionless in the channel, it's tough. After dialing he grabs some throttle and continues, he's weaving but at least he's moving. I'm not saying he represent all riders but he could have waited until we cleared the tight area before making the call.

I hate the idea of cell phone driving laws, I have a long commute and I use my phone in the car a lot. But we have to start policing ourselves or these laws will continue to spread.

SIKSUKR · 07-18-2008, 12:42 PM

I guess I made that post sound like it was personal.I sort of had my tongue in cheek.I should have put a smiley at the end jrc.I'm guessing from your last post that the problem you had with people on the phone was that bozo holding up other boats while he calls whoever.I'd be pretty steamed also.But he wasn't making any wake though!!

ossipeeboater · 07-20-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bilproject

Here's a related twist to this thread. Summer of 2007 4 of us were on PWC (3seaters) near Beckey's garden. We had stopped to talk and were within about 10 feet of each other. After our discussion of direction to continue our ride, we each headed at 90 degrees away from each other (picture the 4 compass points) and as we were 75 feet or so apart we sped up and when more than 150 ft apart we each came to the heading we had agreed to. The marine police stopped the first boat to accelerate and gave him a warning for going greater than headway within 150 ft. Now I understand that technically the officer is correct. However, in practice it seems that when a boat is in a congested area (no wake zone with boats lined up nose to tail 50 ft apart) as the lead boat reaches a point were it can safely (end of no wake zone boat ahead more than 150 away) go to plane it does. Later the same day we were headed to the Nasawa and a marine patrol boat was observing traffic on the lake side of the channel. As we were headed in I saw boat after boat reach the end of the no wake accelerate with less than 150' between them and the boat behind. More than a little upset I motored over to the patrol boat to find the same office that had earlier issued the warning. I asked why he had not stopped at least one of the boats violating the 150 ft rule. His response was the boats would never get a 150 seperation as they were all moving at the same speed and would be strung out to the eagle island no wake. He further said that there was no danger as long as the boat behind waited until the boat ahead has achieved the 150 seperation before the boat behind took off. When I asked about our earlier meeting he stated that we each should have waited (boat to rear would have to come to a complete stop) until we had 150 in all directions. My question was why if "there was no danger"
Just an interesting twist on the rules. Unwritten rule on the intercoastal is that you don't worry about what is behind you when accelerating out of a channel or no wake, only what is in front or to the side. Maybe they were just trying to get up the numbers on PWC stops that summer as it seemed like every boat stopped by the MP was a PWC.

there's a different set of standards applied to jet skis. Every weekend I see PWC operators harassed, unfortunately as a group we bring it on ourselves because theres a ton of idiots on them. Never been pulled over in my boat, been pulled 2x for a 150 violation on the jet ski and in neither case could the MP have seen how far away I actually was because of his angle. In both cases once we established the fact I lived there they drove away but had I been a renter I'd have gotten a ticket.

Airwaves · 07-21-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilproject

As we were headed in I saw boat after boat reach the end of the no wake accelerate with less than 150' between them and the boat behind. More than a little upset I motored over to the patrol boat to find the same office that had earlier issued the warning. I asked why he had not stopped at least one of the boats violating the 150 ft rule. His response was the boats would never get a 150 seperation as they were all moving at the same speed and would be strung out to the eagle island no wake.

This is one of the problems with NH boating laws. The Safe Passage rule and the rule regarding overtaking another vessel (essentially what you're talking about here because the vessel being overtaken changed speed) conflict.
This is an annoyance now, next year such a stop, that ends in a ticket being issued, will be reported to DMV and go against your driving record.

I have to agree with ossipeeboater when it comes to PWC riders. They are targets on the water for the NHMP especially if they are bored. I have a friend with a PWC a High Performance boat and a smaller bowrider. She has never been stopped in her High Performance or smaller boat but when she is on her PWC and there is a MP in the area she is always stopped.

White Rook · 07-23-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

The other day I was in a no wake zone and a guy yelled at me from his dock about my wake.It puzzled me because I was only doing headway speed and leaving a few ripples of two or three inches.I think he was frazzled because people who don't know the area often buzz right through there.
Anyway,it got me wondering what the measure is for an acceptable wake.I've seen the MP leave bigger wakes than mine and,although it has nothing to do with this thread,I've seen two foot wakes from big displacement hulls on the intercoastal in Florida in their no wake zones.
Can someone quote the law on this one? Thanks

Here's a screen capture of a wake in the Weirs Channel I captured a few minutes ago.

Pineedles · 07-23-2008, 07:26 PM

I can't see the rest of the funeral parade though. Its a wake right?

dpg · 07-24-2008, 05:46 AM

People who have nothing better to do than stand on their docks and yell to people need to get a life in my opinion.

idigtractors · 07-24-2008, 08:59 AM

What is a wake? The first thing that comes to my mind is "a time one goes and pays his/her respect to a person who has passed". That is what I was told since I was a kid.

HUH · 01-28-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpg

People who have nothing better to do than stand on their docks and yell to people need to get a life in my opinion.

People who have no respect should learn some humility

macshpman · 01-30-2009, 10:00 PM

It is something that I certainly miss this time of year.

April cannot come to soon for me this year

Pontoon Goon · 02-06-2009, 07:17 PM

I am wondering what peoples feelings are in regard to the proposed no wake zone in Weirs Bay being extended out to the #1 marker ? Alright I may be the one who proposed it and that was only to my wife but I think the idea has merit. That has got to be by far the most dangerous area on the lake. With boats funneling into the channel hard on a busy W/E, boats ignoring the 150 and coming out of the channel hard and not even taking into account boat traffic for the Weirs, it is a disaster in waiting. By extending the no wake it would give vessels the proper room to disperse and reduce the huge swells that create danger for smaller boats. The no wake zone was extended in Meredith a few years ago and I for one thinks it is working out great.

Dave R · 02-06-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pontoon Goon

I am wondering what peoples feelings are in regard to the proposed no wake zone in Weirs Bay being extended out to the #1 marker ? Alright I may be the one who proposed it and that was only to my wife but I think the idea has merit. That has got to be by far the most dangerous area on the lake. With boats funneling into the channel hard on a busy W/E, boats ignoring the 150 and coming out of the channel hard and not even taking into account boat traffic for the Weirs, it is a disaster in waiting. By extending the no wake it would give vessels the proper room to disperse and reduce the huge swells that create danger for smaller boats. The no wake zone was extended in Meredith a few years ago and I for one thinks it is working out great.

I think it has some merit, as long as it angles from the peir toward #1, therefore allowing those that are headed toward Meredith to get moving sooner. That would encourage folks to spread out when leaving the Weirs channel, rather than making a beeline for Eagle Island, much the same way the NWZ at Bear Island works. It would also encourage people to go around the outside of Eagle Island rather than between it and Governor's. I have to confess, I hate the Meredith NWZ and think it's way too big.

This'nThat · 02-08-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

A few years ago I had the pleasure (?) of watching MP stop boats in a no wake zone. I think it totally depends on the opinion of the particular officer what is a wake and what isn't. One insisted that any little tiny wave was making a wake which is technically true. But I was really surprised that he stopped people for that little wave. However, I believe other officers would not consider that to be illegal. So as I said, I think it all depends on the officer. Like so many other laws there is a lot of interpretation.

The problem here is that a "wake" definition is being used, rather than a proper "no wake" definition. The difference? "Wake" is defined as water ripples. "No wake" is defined as the minimum speed at which a motorized watercraft is able to move and maintain adequate steerage control. That minimum speed is likely to leave a small wake, which the officers are focusing on. If they focused on the no-wake definition, and spent a minute observing the boat operator, they would see that the boat operator is constantly adjusting his steering to keep the boat on course; therefore, the boat operator is observing the "no-wake" rule, even if the boat leaves small ripples.

As for the person on shore yelling at the boats? He really needs to get a life --- and perhaps a brain.

hazelnut · 02-08-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by This'nThat

As for the person on shore yelling at the boats? He really needs to get a life --- and perhaps a brain.

I AGREE!!!!! Seriously I get the biggest kick out of watching people who freak out on others whether on land or on another boat. What makes me laugh is that I thought we were all supposed to be relaxing out on the lake. Aren't we supposed to leave the stress at home? So why waste your breath on an idiot? When I see an idiot ignoring a no wake zone or coming too close I usually shake my head and laugh at them. I figure that they're too stupid to listen to me, or anyone for that matter, screaming the rules at them. The reality is that the person screeching from shore ends up getting laughed at by the offender and anyone else within ear shot. Maybe some people just enjoy shouting at others and that's what relaxes them?

OCDACTIVE · 02-12-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pontoon Goon

I am wondering what peoples feelings are in regard to the proposed no wake zone in Weirs Bay being extended out to the #1 marker ? Alright I may be the one who proposed it and that was only to my wife but I think the idea has merit. That has got to be by far the most dangerous area on the lake. With boats funneling into the channel hard on a busy W/E, boats ignoring the 150 and coming out of the channel hard and not even taking into account boat traffic for the Weirs, it is a disaster in waiting. By extending the no wake it would give vessels the proper room to disperse and reduce the huge swells that create danger for smaller boats. The no wake zone was extended in Meredith a few years ago and I for one thinks it is working out great.

I think your idea has merit but now with all the new laws that we can not speak of and the 150 foot laws how many more do we need to impose. Most people who are out there causing the problems are not adhering to current rules. So pesonally I don't think adding more rules and regulations is the answer. I actually had proposed an idea similar to this a couple years back before this whole mess. I thought that if we could have limits in the bays whether it be no wakes or others, where the congestion is, it would satisfy both sides. But at this point I think it would be redundancy. PS. not trying to stir anything up here.

Pontoon Goon · 02-14-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODCACTIVE

I think your idea has merit but now with all the new laws that we can not speak of and the 150 foot laws how many more do we need to impose

You're right, I think we are over regulated as it is. But what I would like to impose is common sense. Dave R. suggested angling from the docks towards the #1 marker, that makes great sense. I'm also not trying to stir the pot, this has nothing to do with speed limits, but simply safety in a very congested area.

Channel Pirate · 02-14-2009, 03:51 PM

A wake is the dissplacment of water behind your boat. A PWC leaves a bigger wake than a 32' baha under headway speed going north up the WB channel. Some people are just inexperienced or more aggressive and arrogant about thier actions and now we have a speed limit on the whole lake.

Chances are if someone is on a dock yelling at you to slow down in a "no wake" zone, the ripples behind your boat could be smaller and thier boat is smashing against the dock it is tied to and your wake is causing this to happen, not becase they don't have a life.

Wolfeboro_Baja · 02-18-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pontoon Goon

I am wondering what peoples feelings are in regard to the proposed no wake zone in Weirs Bay being extended out to the #1 marker ? Alright I may be the one who proposed it and that was only to my wife but I think the idea has merit. That has got to be by far the most dangerous area on the lake. With boats funneling into the channel hard on a busy W/E, boats ignoring the 150 and coming out of the channel hard and not even taking into account boat traffic for the Weirs, it is a disaster in waiting. By extending the no wake it would give vessels the proper room to disperse and reduce the huge swells that create danger for smaller boats. The no wake zone was extended in Meredith a few years ago and I for one thinks it is working out great.

Personally, I think that would be too far out but I suppose it would also depend on where the other end of that imaginary line would be. Like you said, you would have boats funnelling in and out of a channel that's what, 50-75 ft wide? Somehow, I just see that as getting more congested, not less. It's not like the NWZ in Meredith Bay; that one I don't mind as much although I think they could move that line 100-200 ft closer to the public docks and achieve the same results.

Dave R mentioned getting boats to go around the outside of Eagle Island instead of between it and Governor's Island which I wouldn't mind doing except that it's a really w-i-d-e berth around Eagle in order to properly go around the 3 black spars (or is it 4, I don't have a chart in front of me) marking the ledge underwater. I'm sure more people would use that route if it weren't for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

P.S. not trying to stir anything up here.

You're no fun!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pontoon Goon

You're right, I think we are over regulated as it is. But what I would like to impose is common sense. Dave R. suggested angling from the docks towards the #1 marker, that makes great sense. I'm also not trying to stir the pot, this has nothing to do with speed limits, but simply safety in a very congested area.

You CANNOT legislate common sense or courtesy!! That was one of the biggest reasons mentioned by those pushing for the speed limit. You either have, and know how to use, common sense and courtesy or you don't. Unfortunately, too many boaters on the lake either don't have it and/or refuse to use it and we now have a speed limit to contend with for 2 (or more) years!! We do NOT need another law, just ENFORCE the laws we already have!!

OCDACTIVE · 02-19-2009, 07:36 AM

[QUOTE We do NOT need another law, just ENFORCE the laws we already have!!

[/QUOTE]

Yup... That ship sailed A LONG TIME AGO!

Pontoon Goon · 02-19-2009, 04:39 PM

Nobody is advocating a new law here. What I am talking about is one specific spot that really is dangerous. By extending the NWZ out fifty yards or so safety would increase tenfold and it would help with erosion.(whole new issue).

07-17-2008, 10:25 AM	#3
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,965 Thanks: 80 Thanked 980 Times in 440 Posts	Sam... As I understand the statute in NH, No Wake is defined as the slowest speed possible where you can maintain steerage of the vessel, not to exceed 6MPH... Now that being said I have seen and personally experienced the NHMP telling people to speed it up in a NWZ... as one MP officer told me last year "No Wake does not mean DEAD SLOW" (this was in the Weirs Channel on a busy weekend) I pointed to the big cruiser going dead slow 100' in front of me and politely asked the MP officer "where was I supposed to go?" Property owners no doubt have a much different opinion as its thier property that is getting eroded by the wakes... Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

07-17-2008, 10:36 AM	#4
Evenstar Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Littleton, NH Posts: 382 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	From NH RSA's: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-d-mrg.htm CHAPTER 270-D : BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS 270-D:1 Definitions: 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. XII. "Wake'' means any disturbance created on the surface of the water as a result of combined vessel motion and hull displacement. __________________ "Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

07-17-2008, 05:38 PM	#11
SteveA Deceased Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Gilford, NH Posts: 2,311 Thanks: 1,070 Thanked 2,054 Times in 497 Posts	I almost hate to do this.. but what the heck Here is a web site that defines "wake" as it relates to boating. You will see that this may very well be an issue that this forum can't solve. My guess on the over/under on the number of posts on this one is >165. ( Any Takers?) http://en.mimi.hu/boating/wake.html I really like # 8 -- it brings into question a "Pleasure Craft".. Sounds like a whole new thread __________________ "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry he'll be a mile away and barefoot!" unknown Last edited by SteveA; 07-17-2008 at 07:07 PM. Reason: added info

07-18-2008, 12:42 PM	#18
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Sorry jrc I guess I made that post sound like it was personal.I sort of had my tongue in cheek.I should have put a smiley at the end jrc.I'm guessing from your last post that the problem you had with people on the phone was that bozo holding up other boats while he calls whoever.I'd be pretty steamed also.But he wasn't making any wake though!! __________________ SIKSUKR

07-23-2008, 07:26 PM	#22
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,542 Thanks: 1,071 Thanked 667 Times in 366 Posts	The yellow boat has the Chaplain right? I can't see the rest of the funeral parade though. Its a wake right?

07-17-2008, 09:33 AM	#1
SAMIAM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 2,893 Thanks: 334 Thanked 1,675 Times in 585 Posts	What is a wake? The other day I was in a no wake zone and a guy yelled at me from his dock about my wake.It puzzled me because I was only doing headway speed and leaving a few ripples of two or three inches.I think he was frazzled because people who don't know the area often buzz right through there. Anyway,it got me wondering what the measure is for an acceptable wake.I've seen the MP leave bigger wakes than mine and,although it has nothing to do with this thread,I've seen two foot wakes from big displacement hulls on the intercoastal in Florida in their no wake zones. Can someone quote the law on this one? Thanks

07-17-2008, 10:15 AM	#2
Newbiesaukee Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Coral Gables, winter; Long Island, summer Posts: 1,353 Thanks: 947 Thanked 573 Times in 298 Posts	Don't know the exact law, but is a no wake zone, really a headway speed zone; that is, the slowest speed that the captain can still maintain control of the vessel?

07-17-2008, 10:55 AM	#5
Wolfeboro_Baja Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Hopkinton NH Posts: 395 Thanks: 88 Thanked 80 Times in 46 Posts	After you read the quotes of the RSA provided by Evenstar, you'll have to decide how slow you can go and still maintain steerage. When I'm in a no wake zone (including Weirs Channel), I throttle all the way down to idle, which for our boat is around 750rpm -800rpm. At that speed, there are no visible "wake" lines following off our boat, just swirling water behind. Yes, there's some wander at that speed but if you're paying attention (as you should be!), you compensate! As conscientious boaters, my wife and I get annoyed when we see people leaving an obvious wake in any no wake zone (or a mooring field for that matter). If we're in the Weirs Channel or entering/leaving Meredith or Alton, we want to power up a little and get on plane just as fast as the next guy (even more so in hot weather) but a no wake zone is STILL a no wake zone and we won't do it. The only exception to the above is when I'm in a long line of traffic in a long channel (like the Weirs Channel or between Governors Island and mainland) and someone is climbing up my back; then, I'll speed up just enough to move with the traffic flow. But if the rest of the traffic is travelling at the proper no wake speed, then every one will have to slow down also and deal with it. I'm sorry if that annoys someone who's in a hurry but it's the law.

07-17-2008, 12:03 PM	#6
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	Actually "no wake" speed is the fastest you can go without taking the chance of someone in another boat yelling "HEY.... THIS IS A NO WAKE ZONE!" thus causing your wife to give you the hairy eyeball.

07-17-2008, 12:25 PM	#8
NightWing Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 410 Thanks: 4 Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts	The reply to those who yell "It won't go any slower" is to yell back "How do you dock?"

07-17-2008, 05:50 PM	#12
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,714 Thanks: 752 Thanked 1,456 Times in 1,013 Posts	A few years ago I had the pleasure (?) of watching MP stop boats in a no wake zone. I think it totally depends on the opinion of the particular officer what is a wake and what isn't. One insisted that any little tiny wave was making a wake which is technically true. But I was really surprised that he stopped people for that little wave. However, I believe other officers would not consider that to be illegal. So as I said, I think it all depends on the officer. Like so many other laws there is a lot of interpretation.

07-17-2008, 06:53 PM	#13
topwater Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 302 Thanks: 85 Thanked 116 Times in 48 Posts	Samiam, My hats off to ya brother for just being concerned about your wake. I am a Bass Fisherman and am always concerned about my actions are on the water. If more people on the water were like yourself, chances are the guy would have never yelled at you. They are correct about headway/no wake rules, but COMMON SENSE is the biggest factor with anything that happens on the lake. Once again, THANKS FOR BEING CONCERNED !

07-17-2008, 07:08 PM	#14
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	All I want to know is why does everyone pull out their cellphone the minute they get in the channel traffic. I even see PWC drivers doing it. Sometime going upstream in the channel it can be tough to go dead slow if the current is moving. In the fall sometimes I have to throttle up a little just to make way. My boat does around 4.5 mph (GPS) with both motors at idle. In the channel, I have to go to neutral a lot just to keep spacing. It can be stressful because in neutral or slow speeds the steering is ineffective and the rocks are big. In non-traffic no wakes zones, I can sneak it up to 5 or 6 without leaving a wake and the boat is more steerable.

07-18-2008, 09:30 AM	#16
bilproject Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Bear Island/Fort Myers, Fla Posts: 229 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 1 Thanked 59 Times in 41 Posts	Here's a related twist to this thread. Summer of 2007 4 of us were on PWC (3seaters) near Beckey's garden. We had stopped to talk and were within about 10 feet of each other. After our discussion of direction to continue our ride, we each headed at 90 degrees away from each other (picture the 4 compass points) and as we were 75 feet or so apart we sped up and when more than 150 ft apart we each came to the heading we had agreed to. The marine police stopped the first boat to accelerate and gave him a warning for going greater than headway within 150 ft. Now I understand that technically the officer is correct. However, in practice it seems that when a boat is in a congested area (no wake zone with boats lined up nose to tail 50 ft apart) as the lead boat reaches a point were it can safely (end of no wake zone boat ahead more than 150 away) go to plane it does. Later the same day we were headed to the Nasawa and a marine patrol boat was observing traffic on the lake side of the channel. As we were headed in I saw boat after boat reach the end of the no wake accelerate with less than 150' between them and the boat behind. More than a little upset I motored over to the patrol boat to find the same office that had earlier issued the warning. I asked why he had not stopped at least one of the boats violating the 150 ft rule. His response was the boats would never get a 150 seperation as they were all moving at the same speed and would be strung out to the eagle island no wake. He further said that there was no danger as long as the boat behind waited until the boat ahead has achieved the 150 seperation before the boat behind took off. When I asked about our earlier meeting he stated that we each should have waited (boat to rear would have to come to a complete stop) until we had 150 in all directions. My question was why if "there was no danger" Just an interesting twist on the rules. Unwritten rule on the intercoastal is that you don't worry about what is behind you when accelerating out of a channel or no wake, only what is in front or to the side. Maybe they were just trying to get up the numbers on PWC stops that summer as it seemed like every boat stopped by the MP was a PWC.

07-24-2008, 05:46 AM	#23
dpg Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,591 Thanks: 150 Thanked 229 Times in 166 Posts	People who have nothing better to do than stand on their docks and yell to people need to get a life in my opinion.

07-24-2008, 08:59 AM	#24
idigtractors Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 248 Thanks: 6 Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts	What is a wake? What is a wake? The first thing that comes to my mind is "a time one goes and pays his/her respect to a person who has passed". That is what I was told since I was a kid.

01-30-2009, 10:00 PM	#26
macshpman Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southern NH Posts: 32 Thanks: 3 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	What is a Wake It is something that I certainly miss this time of year. April cannot come to soon for me this year __________________ Just remember Your DEAD alot longer then your ALIVE! Enjoy every DAY

02-06-2009, 07:17 PM	#27
Pontoon Goon Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Stoneham Ma./ Meredith Posts: 141 Thanks: 339 Thanked 67 Times in 27 Posts	Speaking of no wake zones.... I am wondering what peoples feelings are in regard to the proposed no wake zone in Weirs Bay being extended out to the #1 marker ? Alright I may be the one who proposed it and that was only to my wife but I think the idea has merit. That has got to be by far the most dangerous area on the lake. With boats funneling into the channel hard on a busy W/E, boats ignoring the 150 and coming out of the channel hard and not even taking into account boat traffic for the Weirs, it is a disaster in waiting. By extending the no wake it would give vessels the proper room to disperse and reduce the huge swells that create danger for smaller boats. The no wake zone was extended in Meredith a few years ago and I for one thinks it is working out great.

02-14-2009, 03:51 PM	#33
Channel Pirate Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Weirs Beach (full time) Posts: 22 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	Headway, Wake or Ripple A wake is the dissplacment of water behind your boat. A PWC leaves a bigger wake than a 32' baha under headway speed going north up the WB channel. Some people are just inexperienced or more aggressive and arrogant about thier actions and now we have a speed limit on the whole lake. Chances are if someone is on a dock yelling at you to slow down in a "no wake" zone, the ripples behind your boat could be smaller and thier boat is smashing against the dock it is tied to and your wake is causing this to happen, not becase they don't have a life.

02-19-2009, 07:36 AM	#35
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	[QUOTE We do NOT need another law, just ENFORCE the laws we already have!! [/QUOTE] Yup... That ship sailed A LONG TIME AGO! __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

02-19-2009, 04:39 PM	#36
Pontoon Goon Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Stoneham Ma./ Meredith Posts: 141 Thanks: 339 Thanked 67 Times in 27 Posts	just common sense Nobody is advocating a new law here. What I am talking about is one specific spot that really is dangerous. By extending the NWZ out fifty yards or so safety would increase tenfold and it would help with erosion.(whole new issue).