Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > Boating Issues
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-20-2004, 06:52 PM   #1
Biggus
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sebago Lake
Posts: 20
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default Boat noise laws thrown out?

My question has been answered. I'm not pleased with the direction this thread has taken.

Last edited by Biggus; 10-13-2004 at 05:44 AM. Reason: question answered
Biggus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2004, 07:09 PM   #2
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Exclamation That darn rumor mill....

Nope,

No truth to those rumors whatsoever.

There was some confusion over the administrative rule section of the marine code several month's ago (where the procedure for measuring & enforcing decibel violations exists), but that situation has been rectified and the code and applicable RSA's remain in full force.

As always, a quick call to the Marine Patrol HQ in Gilford, NH (603-293-2037)should quickly confirm that the aforementioned rumors are not true.

Skip
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2004, 07:56 PM   #3
Outlaw
Senior Member
 
Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gilford, NH
Posts: 338
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default RSA's for measuring & enforcing decibel viloations

Skip -

Curious if nothing else, but after reading your post, I sit here wondering what the RSA's are for this (as I am sure others are). Is there a web site you can direct me to that would explain this?

In advance, thanks so much for your help.
Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2004, 08:30 PM   #4
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Smile Happy to oblige!

Hi Outlaw,

Attached below is the RSA governing noise & below that the administrative rule section defining the testing procedure;

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Motorboat Noise Levels
Section 270:37
270:37 Decibel Limits on Noise. –
I. No person may operate any boat powered by a marine engine manufactured before January 1, 1977, in or upon the waters of this state which is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds a noise level of 86 decibels on the "A' scale measured at a distance of 50 feet from the boat.
II. No person may operate, sell, or offer for sale any marine engine for use in or upon the waters of this state which is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds the following noise levels measured at a distance of 50 feet from the boat with which the engine is tested under RSA 270:39:
(a) For a marine engine manufactured in or before 1977, a noise level of 86 decibels on the "A' scale.
(b) For a marine engine manufactured between January 1, 1978, and December 31, 1981, a noise level of 84 decibels on the "A' scale.
(c) For a marine engine manufactured after December 31, 1981, a noise level of 82 decibels on the "A' scale.
III. Noise levels in decibels shall be measured according to procedures established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39.
IV. The director or his agent may order the operator or owner of any boat which he reasonably believes is capable of being operated in a manner which exceeds the decibel limits contained in this section to subject his boat to noise level testing procedures as provided in this subdivision.
V. A boat owner or operator shall submit a boat which is the subject of an order by the director or his agent pursuant to RSA 270:37, IV to noise level testing by the director or his agent within 7 days of such an order. No person shall operate the boat after this 7-day period has expired until it is subjected to such noise level testing.
VI. The director or his agent may prohibit the operator or owner of any boat which fails a noise level testing procedure from operating the boat until the boat successfully passes the procedure. No person shall operate a boat contrary to such an order of the director.
VII. Pursuant to the penalties imposed under RSA 270:41-a, any person convicted of violating this section shall be fined not less than $100. No portion of any fine imposed under this section shall be suspended or reduced by the court.


Noise Testing Procedures;

Saf-C 403.22 Noise Level Testing Procedure.

(a) This section shall set forth the procedure to be used to measure marine engine noise levels, pursuant to RSA 270:36-40.

(b) The following instruments shall be used to measure decibel levels of marine engines and motors:

(1) A precision sound level meter that conforms to the specifications of ANSI S1.4-1983; and

(2) An external field test, such as a sound level calibrator.

(c) The test site shall be located in a calm body of water that is large enough to allow full speed pass-bys, such as Paugus Bay in Lake Winnipesaukee.

(d) The area around the test site, for a minimum distance of 100 feet, shall be free of large obstructions, such as buildings, boats, hills, large piers, and breakwater walls.

(e) The test course shall consist of 3 small buoys, in a straight line.

(f) The test boat shall be positioned parallel to the test course, at a distance of 50 feet from the center buoy of the course. The bow and stern of a test boat shall be secured to moorings.

(g) There shall be a marine patrol officer on board each boat tested. The marine patrol officer shall stay on board each boat tested to verify that the boat was operated at maximum speed, pursuant to (k) below, for 2 of the pass-bys, during the noise level test.

(h) Calibration shall be as follows:

(1) The sound level meter used for the purpose of making measurements under this section shall be calibrated using an external field test;

(2) Field calibration of the sound level meter shall be made immediately before and after each test sequence;

(3) A notation of successful completion of the field calibration shall be made, by the person performing the calibration, on a noise test report form;

(4) An external standard calibration test shall be conducted annually on the sound level meter, and the external field test; and

(5) A copy of the external calibration test forms, filled out by the person(s) who performed the last external standard calibration, shall be evidence that the sound level meter and external field test were properly calibrated at the time of the noise level test.

(i) The ambient sound level, including wind effects, due to noise sources other than the vessel being tested, shall be measured immediately prior to the test sequence of the vessel to be tested. The value shall be recorded.

(j) The temperature, humidity, and windspeed shall be recorded. They shall be the current values available and reported by the National Weather Service at the nearest observation station to the site.

(k) The test shall consist of 4 passes along the test course of 3 buoys, at a distance of 1 to 3 feet from the buoys. The direction of travel shall be reversed between each run. The first 2 runs shall be at the boat's half throttle cruising speed, and the other 2 runs shall be at full throttle.

(l) During each test, all radio equipment shall be switched off. An officer shall hold the sound level meter 5 to 6 feet above the water with the microphone inclined approximately 70 degrees off horizontal, facing the center buoy of the test course. The results of each run shall be recorded by a marine patrol officer in the test boat.

(m) Each meter reading shall be obtained as the boat is within the boundaries of the test course, at the highest sound level for each speed.

(n) All values for (m) above shall be recorded, however, the sound level shall be the average of the 2 readings, rounded down to the nearest whole number.

(o) The officers conducting the noise level tests shall maintain a log sheet that records the following information:

(1) Name and address of owner of the boat;

(2) Date of birth of boat owner;

(3) The document that the officer checked for proof of identification of the boat operator;

(4) Names of officers conducting the test;

(5) Date and time of test;

(6) Location of test site;

(7) Weather conditions;

(8) Water conditions;

(9) Color of the boat being tested;

(10) Make and model number of boat being tested;

(11) Length of boat;

(12) Boat registration number;

(13) Hull number;

(14) Names or distinguishing marking on the boat;

(15) The result of the field test of the sound level meter;

(16) Direction of the test pass; either left or right; and

(17) Results of each test.
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2004, 09:12 PM   #5
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Lightbulb Why worry about the law?

There are at least six stealthy techniques to satisfy your need to draw attention to yourself -- using your through-hull exhausts.

The most popular seems to be a dash-mounted control to "turn off the water" (to a water-muffled muffler). The MPs seem to be "baffled" by such a device.

Another site says "Snatch your registration back from the [Winnipesaukee] Marine Patrol Officer and take off. They'll never catch an 80 MPH boat."

'Course, at night, you can always turn off your lights, open your pipes, make lots of extra noise -- and never get caught.

NH's "Benign by Design" laws favor "Noise and Action" boating...among other things.

Last edited by madrasahs; 08-20-2004 at 09:56 PM. Reason: Title change
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-20-2004, 11:02 PM   #6
Outlaw
Senior Member
 
Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gilford, NH
Posts: 338
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Skip - you kill me .....thank you FOR the RSA, so much more than I was expecting. Good Reading though. Appreciate your time and help on this... Thanks so much.
Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2004, 10:02 PM   #7
NightWing
Senior Member
 
NightWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madrasahs

The most popular seems to be a dash-mounted control to "turn off the water" (to a water-muffled muffler). The MPs seem to be "baffled" by such a device.
The device you refer to does not turn off the water to the muffler. It directs the exhaust through the lower unit (under water), or straight through the hull or transom, via a diverter plate on each exhaust pipe. Such devices are NOT LEGAL in New Hampshire waters.

Shutting the water flow off would cause extreme overheating of the exhaust system and would melt any rubber connections or hoses. It could even cause an engine compartment fire.
NightWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2004, 12:03 AM   #8
NightWing
Senior Member
 
NightWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Thank you. I have read so many of his posts I felt it was time to play once more. I just registered in this new format and I am getting used to it all over again. I used to post quite often in the old forum. I was a little disapointed that the "new" didn't recognize the "old" and I had to start from scratch again.

( Wait a minute, where did the post go that I replied to with this one? I thanked someone for their positive response to my post.)

Last edited by NightWing; 08-25-2004 at 04:07 PM. Reason: Missing Post
NightWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2004, 12:30 AM   #9
Outlaw
Senior Member
 
Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gilford, NH
Posts: 338
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

NightWing welcome back !


Let the GAMES begin ....
Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2004, 08:35 PM   #10
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question Not Legal, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWing
Shutting the water flow off would cause extreme overheating of the exhaust system
The steel won't melt. It'll get red, but it won't melt.
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWing
...and would melt any rubber connections or hoses.
If you have rubber connections, and shut it off long enough, it could. Spares are cheap.
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWing
The device you refer to does not turn off the water to the muffler. It directs the exhaust through the lower unit (under water), or straight through the hull or transom, via a diverter plate on each exhaust pipe. Such devices are NOT LEGAL in New Hampshire waters.
NOT LEGAL? Really?

Take note of my previous title: Why worry about the law?

On Winnipesaukee, start with a boat named "A-- M---", and I'll get a few more boat names in the meantime. (That is, if you're even from within 1000 miles of Lake WInnipesaukee).

A lot of these "annoyed" responses come from other states, always on the lookout for lakes with naïve state laws -- and inadequate enforcement -- to put in their noisy boats.

Try to see the incentive in the original post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggus
"I'm a Sebago Lake boater and we have heard from several people that the boat noise laws (in NH) have been thrown off the books. Any truth to this rumor?".
(Biggus didn't mention that there is a citizen's initiative underway to kick Big Noisy Boats out of the State of Maine).

With other states' lawmakers cracking down on such abuses on lakes and coves nationwide, this lake could sound like Lake Interstate.

Last edited by madrasahs; 08-26-2004 at 06:19 AM. Reason: Add "a boat named"
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2004, 09:59 PM   #11
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=madrasahs]The steel won't melt. It'll get red, but it won't melt.
.
If you have rubber connections, and shut it off long enough, it could. Spares are cheap.

Utterly rediculous. It could cause a fire and /or a sinking.

Mad, Why don't you take a cork out of your wine and put it in your whine
.
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2004, 08:21 AM   #12
CMG
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Windham - NH
Posts: 21
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

while the exhaust may not melt, don't think the heat generated in the engine compartment would be benificial. water always flows throught the exhaust, the only difference is under water ot below.
CMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2004, 07:28 AM   #13
Blue Thunder
Senior Member
 
Blue Thunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Eastern MA & Frye Island/Sebago Lake, Maine
Posts: 818
Thanks: 202
Thanked 234 Times in 108 Posts
Default Give us a break Mad Racer

Hey Mad,

Just for your information, the Sebago Lake Safety Watch is not attempting to ban big boats from Sebago Lake (Maine's 2nd largest lake, 50 square miles of water). They have recently formed to try and get a handle on unsafe operation of all types of water craft on the lake. The plan is to have as many eyes as possible out there to report unsafe boat operators to the Maine Warden's Service and the local town's Marine Patrol.
As far as I know, switchable exhaust is not legal in NH, however it is in Maine. Having said that, Maine enforces a certain decibel level at a certain distance from the measuring device.

Hey Biggus, I've heard the Marine Patrol now has the measuring device on Sebago and are writing tickets. BTW, your boat is beautiful!

Blue Thunder
Blue Thunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2004, 10:30 AM   #14
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question Maine approves boat fires and boat sinkings?

Seems like Big Boaters have caused an on-going disagreement among themselves:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWing
The device you refer to does not turn off the water to the muffler. It switches the exhaust through the lower unit (under water), or straight through the hull or transom, via a diverter plate on each exhaust pipe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
Utterly rediculous. It could cause a fire and /or a sinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWing
Shutting the water flow off would cause extreme overheating of the exhaust system and would melt any rubber connections or hoses. It could even cause an engine compartment fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistantThunder
As far as I know, switchable exhaust is legal in Maine.
It's legal to burn and/or sink your boat in Maine? Boy, this "ignorance of the law is no excuse" business is confusing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
Mad, Why don't you take a cork out of your wine and put it in your whine
Somehow I'm less entitled? Here's what you wrote last month:
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
I usually stay at the NASWA so there aren't many High Performance boats screaming by at 2 am , but I do get my share of bikes on that road. I don't like it...
Sounds like wine + whine to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
More wonderful words of wisdom from our resident "whatchamacallit" boat lover
Yes, I am a Winnipesaukee shorefront resident: and that makes all the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistantThunder
Just for your information, the Sebago Lake Safety Watch is not attempting to ban big boats from Sebago Lake...
Sorry, I've never heard of "Sebago Lake Safety Watch".

The citizen's group in Maine I read of began with "Lakes Region Something-or-other"

I have a question about Maine regulations: Are their registration numbers on their boats larger than NH's? (That may get on my list of improvements to Winnipesaukee's boating environment).
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2004, 01:03 PM   #15
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Default Reading for comprehension

Quote:
Originally Posted by madrasahs
Seems like Big Boaters have caused an on-going disagreement among themselves:

It's legal to burn and/or sink your boat in Maine? Boy, this "ignorance of the law is no excuse" business is confusing.
Let me step infor just a moment and try to clear up your misunderstanding because I don't see any disagreement. Are you trying to create one or really didn't follow the below ...

On 8/20 @ 9:12 pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by madrasahs
There are at least six stealthy techniques to satisfy your need to draw attention to yourself -- using your through-hull exhausts.
The most popular seems to be a dash-mounted control to "turn off the water" (to a water-muffled muffler). The MPs seem to be "baffled" by such a device.
which drew this response on 8/24 @ 10:02 pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWing
The device you refer to does not turn off the water to the muffler. It directs the exhaust through the lower unit (under water), or straight through the hull or transom, via a diverter plate on each exhaust pipe. Such devices are NOT LEGAL in New Hampshire waters.
Shutting the water flow off would cause extreme overheating of the exhaust system and would melt any rubber connections or hoses. It could even cause an engine compartment fire.
Seems to me NightWing is saying madrasahs is wrong re: turning off water and trying to tell him about "Captains Call" exhaust, a switchable system that either directs exhaust out under the water or straight out the transom, and is not legal in NH. (Blue Thunder later added such exhaust is legal in Maine). I'll add that I've seen new Chris-Crafts w/Captains Call (or similar type) exhaust, unexpected since at 23' it's neither an "offshore" nor a dedicated performance boat. Go figure....

which got this response on 8/25 @ 8:35 pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by madrasahs
The steel won't melt. It'll get red, but it won't melt.
If you have rubber connections, and shut it off long enough, it could. Spares are cheap.
which prompted this on 8/25 @ 9:59 pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
Utterly rediculous. It could cause a fire and /or a sinking.
Mad, Why don't you take a cork out of your wine and put it in your whine
So putting aside the actual topic, seems that nobody in this thread is promoting "shutting off the water". Capt's Call exhaust won't cause fires and sink your boat, is legal in ME but not in NH.

You all may return to the actual debate now
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2004, 06:29 PM   #16
NightWing
Senior Member
 
NightWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Thank you Mee-n-Mac for helping clarify my statement. I was trying to explain to Madrasahs that he was not clear how an adjustable exhaust system operates. Cooling water is introduced into the exhaust stream, regardless if the exit point is above or below the water line. Notice I didn't say "muffling water" because water alone does not meet the state definition of a muffler.

Now, to shut that water flow off, even for a short time, would seriously overheat the exhaust system from the risers on back to the exit point. Most through hull exhaust systems have some type of rubber connection, sometimes a length of hose or a small "hump hose" which allows for slight movement and misalignment. True, some of the faster, high performance boats have solid systems with nothing but stainless steel piping. Still, those systems require cooling water to keep exhaust temperature under control.

As far as being a fire hazard, consider that the exhaust system on a boat is not out in the airflow, like an automobile. The entire powerplant is under cover in a compartment with marginal ventilation, and that compartment is of fiberglass or wooden construction, both items well suited for a nice, hot fire.


That being said, adjustable exhaust systems, whether named Captain's Call, Silent Choice, or Quick and Quiet II Plus, all share a similar method of allowing the exhaust to exit, un-muffled, through the hull or transom, instead of through the lower unit under water. That similarity is a diverter plate in each exhaust pipe and they are operated with various types of solenoids or cylinders and are controlled either by the operator or by some type of basic engine management system. Again, those adjustable devices are not legal in New Hampshire waters.


Finally, I would like to point out that I am not a "Big Boater".
NightWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2004, 10:29 AM   #17
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default It's my lying hearing again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac
Let me step in for just a moment and try to clear up your misunderstanding because I don't see any disagreement. Are you trying to create one...
Moi?

It's true, as a long-time Winnipesaukee boater, I had never heard of Captain's Call, Silent Choice, or Quick and Quiet II Plus -- only the phrase, "shutting off the water". (NightWing: "all share a similar method of allowing the exhaust to exit, un-muffled, through the hull or transom").

What I thought I was hearing while quietly sailing on Winnipesaukee was this: http://www.jetworks.net/fcar2.htm

I searched Captain's Call, and found this:

http://boards.trailerboats.com/cgi-b...c;f=2;t=001811

"Help, pleez......my main concern is that it is so loud even with the Captain's Call diverter closed...and just unbearable with the Captain's Call on. This is not what I expected."

In addition to the "helpful" posts that state, "You bought it...You own it", and "You didn't try it first?" There was this:

"I have a Captain’s Call on a four winns 23 horizon and the exhausts is louder than the other boats I have owned in the past. You get a good little rumble with the valves closed due to the exhaust not being under water. I was lucky I was able to test drive my new boat last fall so I knew what to expect. I also used a GPS and did several runs with the flappers opened and closed and found a difference of about 2 MPH."

And the submitter of that last posted remark was...?

"NH BOATER".

"Illegal in New Hampshire", huh? This is a Vast NightWing Conspiracy.

My ears do not deceive me.
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2004, 02:25 AM   #18
NightWing
Senior Member
 
NightWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Conspiracy? Are you for real?

So, someone named NH Boater admits to having an illegal system and you cry conspiracy. By your own admission, you are not familiar with exhaust systems.

Some people speed, rape, rob, murder, cheat on their taxes, beat their spouses etc, ad nauseum. All of those acts are against the law, but they happen. There is no conspiracy. Laws help keep the honest people honest. There will always be people who break the law.

In a perfect world.......................
NightWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2004, 12:56 PM   #19
Blue Thunder
Senior Member
 
Blue Thunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Eastern MA & Frye Island/Sebago Lake, Maine
Posts: 818
Thanks: 202
Thanked 234 Times in 108 Posts
Default Where are you coming from anyway Mad ??

How is it that you can use other screen names properly and not mine?

What did I do to deserve that?

Nevermind....I think I figured it out for myself...I made the mistake of trying to clarify some of the information in your post.

Blue Thunder
Blue Thunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2004, 06:04 PM   #20
HUH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 230
Thanks: 21
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Thumbs down Annoying sailboaters

Why do sailboats usually have the little infernal combustion engine running ..And do they feel since they are so inadiquately powered that the can skirt the ROW laws..
Also seems alot of them are driving large SUV's most of the time so there goes the environment.. I believe my diaper is full
HUH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2004, 08:48 AM   #21
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool Where the real Thunder belongs...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWing
Conspiracy? Are you for real?
There's no such thing as a Vast Night Wing Conspiracy. (It rhymes, you may have noticed, with another "conspiracy").

Quote:
Originally Posted by HUH
Why do sailboats usually have the little infernal combustion engine running ..And do they feel since they are so inadiquately powered that the can skirt the ROW laws..
I can't speak for all powered sailboats, as I don't have one. They do have one collision-avoidance advantage, though, in that they can turn on a dime regardless of speed -- something your boat can't do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Thunder
How is it that you can use other screen names properly and not mine?
Nothing personal...It's just that "Product Identification" offshore thing.

But I had just read of 24-year-old, 5' 2", Ellen MacArthur's offshore sailing, where she raced around the world non-stop ALONE -- finishing second in 79 days -- and had to climb an 80-foot mast to fix an antenna in the effort.

Think of all the males with boat names associated with "Thunder" (Black Thunder, Thunder-Struck, EMI Thunder, Active Thunder, Distant Thunder, and the oxymoronic Silent Thunder.

All that these "thunder men" have in common is an ignition key, machismo, noise -- and maybe just a little arrogance. Nothing personal, but it "steals the thunder" from Ellen MacArthur's offshore exploits, if you know what I mean. Ellen makes them "Girlie-Men" by comparison.

Her book, Taking on the World is available on-line, and will help support this forum if purchased through the book store at http://www.winnipesaukee.com/howtohelp.html.
Attached Images
    

Last edited by madrasahs; 09-04-2004 at 03:35 PM. Reason: Add photos. Yes, It's Love.
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2004, 04:03 PM   #22
NightWing
Senior Member
 
NightWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

"There's no such thing as a Vast Night Wing Conspiracy. (It rhymes, you may have noticed, with another "conspiracy")."

????????????????// Well, I am totally lost on your analogy, unless you are referring to our former First Lady when she said there was a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" going on against her husband. Certainly, politics haven't entered into the discussion about loud boats, have they?

On another note, Former President Clinton will be undergoing emergency quadruple bypass surgery in the next day or so. Let's put our differences aside and have a good thought for him.
NightWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2004, 01:30 PM   #23
Zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Giford
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Default HUH, huh?

HUH,
The small motors on sailboats are almost always adequate, The reason for the small size is due to the fact a sailboat will only be pushed to it's theoretical hull speed, which is not a planning speed. Any horses after that are wasted. Regarding all these sailors who do not watch ROW rules, my expierience is they tend to be considerably better at this than most, mainly out of necessity. They don't really have the ability to jump on the throttle to "get by" in front of you. It's some what like my driving down the road at 80, and wondering why I always have these slow cars in front of me. I get the sense your one of the powerboaters who call sail boats rag baggers, or the like. Yes, no?
Zeke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2004, 11:34 PM   #24
NightWing
Senior Member
 
NightWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Actually, the Clinton thing started with the "it rhymes with another conspiracy" comment by our sailboating friend. Once that small connection was made, I just expanded on it and one thing led to another. I never intended for it to be a bone of contention and it wasn't worthy of its own thread. I just made a comment about the man's condition. I would have suggested the same thoughts for most anyone. Quadruple bypass is not a walk in the park.
NightWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2004, 01:05 AM   #25
Rob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 64
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggus
I think we will head over to Winni next weekend.

If you see a 38 Cigarette with red transom, wave and say hello.
Good. You should come to the forum gathering, then we can check out the Konrads.

Rob
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2004, 10:43 AM   #26
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default I don't get this "beneficence" thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke
"The small motors on sailboats are almost always adequate..."
When the weather gets really rough, even these small motors become useless. (The propeller leaves the water between wave troughs). Then it's time to put up the storm trysail and "reef" the mainsail (reduce the surface area).

It's always a treat to read magazine photo-op accounts turning into races -- when sailboats arrive hours ahead of the photographers' powerboats.

BTW, the citizens' action against disruptive boaters on Sebago Lake is called "Lakes Region Safe Boating Assocation".

Now "Disruptive Boaters" want to grace Lake Winnipesaukee with their Great Beneficence. (Bad press from Sebago is responsible perhaps?)
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 09:43 AM   #27
Blue Thunder
Senior Member
 
Blue Thunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Eastern MA & Frye Island/Sebago Lake, Maine
Posts: 818
Thanks: 202
Thanked 234 Times in 108 Posts
Default

"BTW, the citizens' action against disruptive boaters on Sebago Lake is called "Lakes Region Safe Boating Assocation"."

The group that I referred to is the Sebago Water Safety Watch. Some of their info is available at this link:

http://www.fryeisland.com/watch/index.htm

Blue Thunder
Blue Thunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 02:18 PM   #28
Will
Senior Member
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Madrasahs Wrong? Come on guys no way!

Ok I've been lurking around here for a while and have continuously seen posts by madrasahs totally bashing the offshore boaters on this forum. You (Madrasahs) have said yourself that you do not own a Offshore machine so nor do you know how they work.(as seen forehand.). So my question stands, how can you draw a conclusion to which you don't know. It seems as though you almost post for attention?

My suggestion to you, since you seem to be always correcting all of the other forum members is this: You act, or try to act, at least, like you know what your talking about, but you don't, especially on this thread. Now your probably going to comeback and make a post and try to make me look stupid, dwelling on little things such as spelling or grammatical errors. But you will still be wrong. I honestly and truly suggest next time before trying to "sting" your fellow man that you carefully research your topic. Remember research is the key to knowledge, cause as the NBC commercial says, "The More Ya Know!"

Mad, Were all in this together, its a big lake and unless you have enough money to buy all the land around it, people are still going to boat on it. Marinas and the people at them make their living from it, others vacation on it ( those would be the "Yuppies" you speak of". So my last piece of knowledge for you is to enjoy it, enjoy your home, enjoy the lake. No matter what you do, no matter who you try to write to, its not going to change. So just enojoy it. People will always boat here and boats will continue to be loud.

Maybe you should look into the "If you can't beat them join them" idea.

Just a thought but Silver Sands Marina has a beautiful 38 Fountain Lightning that you'd look good in.

Good Luck
We're all in this together.,
Will
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 04:04 PM   #29
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Talking That's a very funny thought...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
Just a thought but Silver Sands Marina has a beautiful 38 Fountain Lightning that you'd look good in.
That's a very funny thought...

Fountains seem to have a negative reaction to the Lake.

Do they not like fresh water?
GWC... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 04:28 PM   #30
NightWing
Senior Member
 
NightWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

"its a big lake and unless you have enough money to buy all the land around it, people are still going to boat on it."

Will, good post with good arguments. Point of order though is the above statement from your post.

Even if Mr. Mad owned every bit of land around the lake, it would still be a public lake.

True, he probably wouldn't allow people to cross the line to launch, but a new cottage industry could spring up on Weirs Blvd called something like "Formula Airlift" or "Offshores And More, Delivered To Your Moor", or "Donzis From Heaven".

Surplus military equipment helicopters could be used for Valet Service airdrops on the Broads, or better yet, in front of Mad's digs.

That way, he could record bow numbers and videotape the noisy, polluting vessels that are powered by big blocks instead of bedsheets. LOL!
NightWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 04:36 PM   #31
Jan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 36
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
Ok I've been lurking around here for a while and have continuously seen posts by madrasahs totally bashing the offshore boaters on this forum. You (Madrasahs) have said yourself that you do not own a Offshore machine so nor do you know how they work.(as seen forehand.). So my question stands, how can you draw a conclusion to which you don't know. It seems as though you almost post for attention?
This isn't just aimed at you Will but is it so hard to believe that someone may see an issue differently than you? And since when do you have to be an expert on something to have an opinion?

I'm a lurker too and what I mostly see is Madrasahs giving his opinions without getting nasty and with a sense of humor. He also tries to back up his comments with links to articles about similar topics or incidents. That is very much unlike most of his detractors who are frequently rude and irrational (IMHO). I thought only politicians just smear anyone they disagree with. Except for Skip (a notable exception), they rarely back up their opinions and just have hissy fits every time Madrasahs posts anything.

It's really too bad since I think it intimidates other people who may share some of his opinions but don't want to get attacked. Certainly he and I are not the only ones concerned about the excessively large, powerful and noisy boats that are growing in numbers every year on the lake. It seems to me that this is a suitable topic for this forum and everyone should be able to give their opinion without being ripped apart.

I personally like to read both sides of issues. If the anti-Madrasahs crowd would respond in a more thoughtful and less emotional way I would give their opinion more weight.
Jan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 05:07 PM   #32
Will
Senior Member
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Talking Madrasahs supporter

Never in my article did I say his opinions were wrong, it was however clearly stated throughout the thread that his suggestions would surely smoke a motor. In your boat, you are totally free to read the everything guide to boating, by madrasahs. However in mine, id like to keep my motors, 12k A PIECE!, in tact. SOOOOOO, I do believe that the idea of shutting off water to a WATER COOLED motor, would overheat it and do some serious damage, if not start a fire. (Just a little fact, I figured id throw out there). Now there is a list as long as my arm and im sure plenty of people can support me that posts made have been more that coincedently bashing to most of us. Jan I totally agree with you that the forum is a place for self expression, but if I express myself by having an offshore boat, I do not expect nor do i deserve to be bashed for that simple fact.

Sincerely,
Water Cooled
Will
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 05:49 PM   #33
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Question And the answer is ...

No doubt I'll live and regret this but the question remains. Yes the original question was whether the noise laws had expired (no) but the resulting topic seemed to be whether (some) boats are too loud and whether they're doing it by unlawful means. Everyone is going to have their own definition of too loud so I'll ask whether illegal exhaust systems are the major problem or whether the dB limits stated above are too high ?
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2004, 06:13 PM   #34
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Jan,
You're pretty much correct...everyone is entitled to there own opinion
There are thing I don't like too , but I don't use the forum for my own personal soap box over and over again.
I have also been "quoted" by "someone" who only used part of what I said and then turned it around to use it against me to make me look like a fool This person would make one GREAT politician .
I think this person may just be sitting back laughing at us behind their anonimnity(sp).
So if I and other performance boats ignore partial truths and misquotes and don't "play " with this person...maybe that will take the fun out of it for them. In hind sight , many of their statements seemed to invite counter attacks which I feel I may have been suckered into.
I've tried to state this tactfully and politically correctly with no personal attacks.
Have a wonderful day
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2004, 08:34 AM   #35
Will
Senior Member
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default a Problem?

How do you get off saying that a preferrably loud boat is a problem? I suppose that this would mean that all people who drive muscle cars have a problem too? Im sorry us offshore boaters disturb you while on the lake. Oh yah and to respond to your comment about me being sober, and able to drive the boat? I have a commercial captains license, so someone (USCG) thinks im pretty able. I would urge you as I did to madrasahs to just share the lake with us, offshores will not go away, they will become louder, people just need to learn to live with it.
W
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2004, 10:19 AM   #36
DoftheMattysort
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the South pole but south of North pole
Posts: 15
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Two thumbs up for Will

Will, who ever you are, you hit the nail on the head. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Leave the broads to us who don't mind spending money and are not to cheap to spend $300 a weekend on gas.
DoftheMattysort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2004, 08:21 PM   #37
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Arrow Why "Big" comes to Winnipesaukee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taupe Thunder
"BTW, the citizens' action against disruptive boaters on Sebago Lake is called [/I]"Lakes Region Safe Boating Assocation"."

The group that I referred to is the
Sebago Water Safety Watch. Some of their info is available at this link:

http://www.fryeisland.com/watch/index.htm
I read now that the Sebago Water Safety Watch is very concerned about the plummeting quality of recreational boating on Sebago Lake. (A large, pure-water, lake).

Here's the one I was referencing: http://www.lrsla.org/ (Also Sebago Lake).

They've been archiving videotapes of "disruptive boaters", and guess what? Biggus is featured in their videotapes!

Their website opens with:

SAFE Boating / QUIET Lakes

"LRSLA supports Safe Boating and Quiet Lakes on our regions surface waters. Our local waters have been heavily impacted by high performance boats. Regulation enforcement has not been maintained at a level commensurate to the need.

"DUI operation has increased as well as extensive violations of no wake zones, slow speed zones and shore safety zones.

"Through education, safe boating and quiet lakes advocacy and funding of enforcement activities LRSLA is working to make surface water recreation on our regions surface waters an enjoyable, safe, high quality, experience."

Last edited by madrasahs; 09-13-2004 at 09:37 PM. Reason: Add: "Also Sebago Lake"
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2004, 09:07 PM   #38
Will
Senior Member
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Biggus

Biggus, look what happened! You were attacked, whats amatter with you anyways? You think the lake is just a place to go have fun and enjoy the weekend on your boat that YOU paid for? Come on we cant do that, well that is unless you have a sailboat........
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2004, 09:41 PM   #39
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Wink One grain of sand at a time will fill the bucket...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoftheMattysort
Will, who ever you are, you hit the nail on the head. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Leave the broads to us who don't mind spending money and are not to cheap to spend $300 a weekend on gas.

Hope you didn't forget to send $15.00 to support the Webmaster's Dream cam.

Last edited by GWC...; 09-13-2004 at 09:56 PM.
GWC... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 10:02 AM   #40
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 5,234
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 1,401
Thanked 1,323 Times in 467 Posts
Default

The noise video has been disabled. I am disappointed that I could not check out what Biggus and his ride looks like!
Rattlesnake Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 01:06 PM   #41
Rob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 64
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madrasahs
They've been archiving videotapes of "disruptive boaters", and guess what?
Umm, I give up, what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madrasahs
Biggus is featured in their videotapes!
Ohmigosh! Not Biggus!

Quickly, I rushed to click on the link provided (I have been wanting to see the new drives), only to see this:


Dear website visitor:
We have temporarily removed the boat noise videos from our website so as to more clearly emphasize LRSLA's broad mission.



This was less than an hour after the link to these videos of alleged 'disruptive boater' activity was posted.

Too bad. I did want to see the Konrads.

It is possible that the server was not able to handle all the requests (from people who wanted to see the new outdrives ), so the webmaster disabled it until they could get set up for more bandwidth. I imagine that won't take long, as I hear that this particular website is very well funded by a private individual.

Or perhaps the webmaster was threatened with some sort of legal action, as this type of behavior (posting videos of people you don't like) seems to border on harassment/stalking if you ask me.

BTW, Biggus was the first person in this area to test a special new, high-performace outdrive from Konrad Marine. The Mercury TRS outdrives have a well-known tendency to self destruct under high loads. In addition to being stronger, the Konrad outdrives have less drag, resulting in lower fuel consumption. Since broken outdrives contribute to the waste stream, not to mention the possibility of a damaged outdrive leaking oil into our lakes, we should applaud Biggus (and Konrad) for making the significant financial investment in a better quality, environmentally friendly product.

www.konradmarine.com


Rob
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 01:40 PM   #42
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 5,234
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 1,401
Thanked 1,323 Times in 467 Posts
Default

Biggus, can you post a photo for us to see your big bad boat?
Rattlesnake Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 01:51 PM   #43
Will
Senior Member
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Reply to Rob

Rob have to agree with you, I tried the same thing, its almost as though someone thou stickest there footus in their mouthus............? hmmm, kinda interesting.
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:41 PM   #44
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Exclamation Don't take MY word for it...Google the "performance" sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
"Rob have to agree with you, I tried the same thing, its almost as though someone thou stickest there footus in their mouthus............? hmmm, kinda interesting."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob
"It is possible that the server was not able to handle all the requests (from people who wanted to see the new outdrives), so the webmaster disabled it until they could get set up for more bandwidth."
"(from people who wanted to see the new outdrives,")," huh? R-i-g-h-t.

The cost of the bandwidth is the problem. The video was disabled even before I posted the URL. (I didn't state you could view it, just that Biggus was featured.)

Thousands of Big Boaters, including Biggus, Cal, (and maybe Rob and Will - naaah - not Will) from all over the country know why the video is disabled. "The call" went out to overload the server, driving up the cost for Sebago's www.lrslr.com from the Big Boat sites, (www.fastboat.com, www.vdrive.com, etc) hence, no video at www.lrslr.com today.

Remember the "Accident on the Broads" thread? Five thousand, six hundred (5,600) views, from guess who? Not "us-folks", I'm sorry to say.

Google other "performance" sites yourself. Caution! Some sites are definitely not family-friendly, and promote risk-taking behavior in boating and um... other things never viewed at www.winnipesaukee.com.

Big Boaters don't just want to disturb lake residents with their "thunder" (what we hear as noise), they perceive their power to extend to nearly everything else.

You wouldn't believe what's going on their sites. They defend the choice of drinking vodka while boating (over Gatorade, water), and defend the carrying of firearms on board as one of their boating rights. See "Lake Lice" and "Speed Bumps" (and other terms for lesser boats) in print!

Pressure on government agencies, intimidation of Marine Patrols and "tracking down" persons who want to restrict their "fun" appears also. When one of their own collides with a lesser boat, their concern is their Insurance!

They've even ripped our own Webmaster!

"From people who wanted to see the new outdrives," huh? R-i-g-h-t.

Unless they're just "talking the talk", It's a virtual Marine Mafia out there!

I kid you not.
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 07:05 PM   #45
Will
Senior Member
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default We've Been Caught

Ok guys I guess its time to give it up, T. we have been caught. Mad found out about our "Marine Mafia" lol E. Hopefully he hasn't found out about our monthly secret meetings in N. the back room of tonys pizza. But yes mad it is true, we are a mafia, we even T support the sale of a drug called gasoline. Well boys it was nice while it lasted but ya cant outsmart some of the people among us. Oh well.


Water Cooled
Willy
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 10:31 PM   #46
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madrasahs
[I
Thousands[/I] of Big Boaters, including Biggus, Cal, (and maybe Rob and Will - naaah - not Will) from all over the country know why the video is disabled. "The call" went out to overload the server, driving up the cost for Sebago's www.lrslr.com from the Big Boat sites, (www.fastboat.com, www.vdrive.com, etc) hence, no video at www.lrslr.com today.

You wouldn't believe what's going on their sites. They defend the choice of drinking vodka while boating (over Gatorade, water), and defend the carrying of firearms on board as one of their boating rights. See "Lake Lice" and "Speed Bumps" (and other terms for lesser boats) in print!
They've even ripped our own Webmaster!
Unless they're just "talking the talk", It's a virtual Marine Mafia out there!

I kid you not.

OUCH.....Excuse ME
Did I see my name?? First off you don't know my boat....see my avatar? Can't hear it , can you? Because it's quiet and can pass any noise test anywhere.
Secondly and even more importantly all the boating sites I visit DO NOT promote drinking any alcohol. Far from it. Any organized events (charitable fund raisers and such) strickly prohibit alcohol.
Thirdly...Yes we do carry firearms. They are required by law. They're called Flare guns
And while you're talking about Lake Lice and Speedbumps lets not forget about Snailboaters. We don't spend late hours planning out attacks on these people as you would have it sound
So bash all you like...just keep the facts straight , please.
In a few weeks it will all be a moot point since boating will pretty much be done for the season.
Next you have those nice 2 cycle , smokey , noise making sleds to contend with.
Maybe we should all give up out finely tuned , clean running 4 cycle performance boats for 2 cycle outboards perhaps that would help
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

Last edited by Cal; 09-14-2004 at 10:34 PM.
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 03:03 PM   #47
PROPELLER
Senior Member
 
PROPELLER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 340
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Firearms?

Cal, just to set the record straight, I am 99.9% sure that flare guns on NH inland waters are not required by law. You may be confusing that with a Coast Guard requirement on ocean waters. Although I do carry them on the lake & its a good idea.
PROPELLER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 03:24 PM   #48
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PROPELLER
Cal, just to set the record straight, I am 99.9% sure that flare guns on NH inland waters are not required by law. You may be confusing that with a Coast Guard requirement on ocean waters. Although I do carry them on the lake & its a good idea.
They are a USCG requirement. I'm not sure about inland waters , but they surely aren't illegal.
Just like the NH law requires a bell for 26' or 27' and greater. I had a "safety check" by the coasties 3 years ago shortly after 911 and threw them a curve when I pulled out my bell. They weren't sure what to make of it , but I pointed out they are a requirement in some states
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 04:02 PM   #49
throttleman
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Was someone just hyperventilating?

The Marine Mafia has been around since the beginning of time. You've never heard about them? Did you know that Tony Soprano is an active member? I believe a descendant of the Corleone's are part of it as well.

They've been on a Powerquest for years...it's not a Donzi or a Ponzi scheme nor an illegal Cigarette operation. They spend their time in the Outerlimits of the Baja frollicking in Fountains and enjoying the Sunsation. They're always engaged in Formula's to have an Awesome time. Some play chess and once in a while get a Checkmate, while others are Hustlers and enjoy a good Powerplay. Some appear as Spectres while others are Nordics. I've even seen a few Warlocks wield a nasty Excalibur that's used to slay Dragons, Cougars, and Scarabs. I've seen Black Thunder and Active Thunder and the Sonic boom from both is immense. Their Velocity is faster than most Skaters, yet not as fast as a Chief or an Apache riding a Thoroughbred. If you think I'm being Extreme, you should reread your post....sit back, take a deep breath....and enjoy a Magnum of your favorite vintage.

The sky is not falling.

The internet is so enormous and there are so many powerboaters with different interests and opinions...you can be sure to find some unsavory comments or posts that can be used to promote your propaganda. Heck, you'd not believe the picture I saw of two people on a sailboat the other day....definitely not family friendly material....I've been scarred for life. I'll never look at a sailboater the same way ever again.

Last edited by throttleman; 09-15-2004 at 04:17 PM.
throttleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 04:29 PM   #50
Will
Senior Member
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default throttleman

Throttleman, awesome post, that borders on the line of thoreau. lol. Keep up the good work
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 09:19 PM   #51
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Arrow Pop Quiz time for Cal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
Did I see my name?? First off you don't know my boat....see my avatar? Can't hear it , can you? Because it's quiet and can pass any noise test anywhere.
I'll ease up on you, Cal, since you're generally a good sport. (Just misguided as to noise by people's homes located on protected inland waters).

Here's two quotes from my Virtual Marine Mafia archives:

1)"While I'm not into appeasement, and enjoy antagonizing the intentionally stupid, let's let the local [Big Boaters] decide if we should take over [Winnipesaukee] for a weekend."

2) "I never did get a noise test , but returned later with Corsa Captains Call and kept it closed and followed all the rules religiously as not to be stopped and never had a problem."

Which one did you NOT post?
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 11:54 PM   #52
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default Cal scores a 100

Quote:
Originally Posted by madrasahs
I'll ease up on you, Cal, since you're generally a good sport. 1)"While I'm not into appeasement, and enjoy antagonizing the intentionally stupid, let's let the local [Big Boaters] decide if we should take over [Winnipesaukee] for a weekend."

Which one did you NOT post?
This one as " I Remember"

Now since you know so much , fill in the banks if you can

I owned that boat from ____ to ____. My present(quiet) one has been owned from ____ to the present.

Getting late and time to go home for the night
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2004, 07:16 AM   #53
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

That cigarrette is a smokin' ride Biggus! SS
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2004, 11:02 AM   #54
Tyler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 114
Thanks: 16
Thanked 4 Times in 1 Post
Default Wow

Great looking boat Biggus, congrats!
Tyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2004, 11:22 AM   #55
Will
Senior Member
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Wink Mad, could be out there too

"Mad, for just 169,900 you too could be slicing through the waves in your very own 38' Fountain Lightning. Bright red too just like biggus. Just imagine you come out of the house with your sleek sunglasses on and fire up the twin 525SC Mercruiser Motors, each cranking out an earth shattering roar as you cast off the lines and head off into the sunset over the broads. You race to the weirs as all the women line the shore and cheer your name, for you are their daddy. The possibilites are endless, I mean im not saying that the wow factor of a catamaran isnt there but, ya know just think of the possibilities.

Water Cooled
Willy
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2004, 02:06 PM   #56
Rose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 498
Thanks: 62
Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Now I think I know where you got your screen name. Up until now, all I could think of was a character in Monty Python's "Life of Brian."
Rose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2004, 08:31 PM   #57
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default A word or two from LRSLA

Just thought you might want to hear the truth of this matter.

The LRSLA videos are still on the server at a private url.
We made the decision to take them private so that we could
fight certain boaters attempts to spread rumors and lies about
our activity. Our board felt that our Quiet Lakes activity was
overshadowing the other great Boating Safety work we were
doing.

As for the accusation that we pulled the videos due to bandwidth costs.
Were as we did see a large increase in the bandwidth usage on our server
it was still very minimal compared to the amount of bandwidth we are alloted.

Just as in New Hampshire, Southern Maine is experiencing a substantial
increase in boating activity. Offshore type boats are only one of the new
impacts being placed upon our surface waters. LRSLA is working to address the great need for boater education and safety awareness in our region.

As for our noisy boat issue, Maine's Boating Noise Regulations are now being enforced. The boats cited this season were operating illegally. LRSLA not only purchased sound meters this season for The State Warden's, we also sponsored training for the Wardens in noise enforcement. Our state warden's are highly professional and are committed to enforcement of Boating regulation.

Finally, LRSLA acquired 28 sound traces this season of boats that were in violation of Maine's noise regulation. Every boat was a high performance boat and every trace was at least 200% above the legal noise level.
Maine's noise regulations are 75db operational at 50feet and 95db stationary. Fines are $300>$500 per incident. Boats must be measured
with and with out cutouts in place. LRSLA will be petitioning the
legislature for an increase in the fines for next season and noise enforcement activity will increase on Long Lake and be initiated on Sebago
Lake also next season. There have not been any operational tests performed in the region to date. LRSLA is working to see that operational
testing begins next season. Boaters that failed the noise testing failed
stationary tests.

99% of the residents and boaters of the region are supportive of these efforts. LRSLA made many attempts to warn High performance boaters that enforcement was going to ramp up this year. Actually enforcement has been increasing for the last three years.

Noise violators in the region seemed to just blow off the whole issue
crying foul with out every attempting to understand the impact they were
having on the region.

Long Lake is not like Winni. LL is 12 miles long but it is only a mile wide at
it's widest point. With hills on all sides the lake forms a perfect amphitheater. Noise travels very efficiently in this environment.
Long Lake nor Brandy Pond are lakes that can handle extreme noise
levels without suffering great impact.

Yet the violators did not make any attempt to understand the impact.


Civilized society is not about doing any thing you please. Living in a community is about being a good neighbor.

LRSLA has recently formalized a very close relationship with Sebago's SWSW. The two organization are preparing to work together in support of Safe Boating and Quiet Lakes in the Lakes Region of Southern Maine.

Last edited by LRSLA; 09-16-2004 at 08:36 PM. Reason: typo
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2004, 08:54 PM   #58
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by throttleman
"...The sky is not falling..."
Looks like it's falling in Maine!
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2004, 09:40 PM   #59
Biggus
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sebago Lake
Posts: 20
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

As a fellow waterfront property owner, I'll be glad to see the LRSLA devote some energy to safe boating.

The safety issues are really a big problem over here.

....by the way, I just installed a new muffling system that utilizes the latest methods in sound-cancellation technology for performance boats.

Please do not think I do not care about offending folks. When I should be saving my acorns for the winter, I just dropped a bundle on mufflers for my boat.

Last edited by Biggus; 09-17-2004 at 01:40 PM.
Biggus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2004, 11:24 PM   #60
Jan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 36
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
Noise violators in the region seemed to just blow off the whole issue
Sounds familiar!

What a wonderful, informative post. Boat noise is a growing problem that many other lakes recognize and are dealing with. Not here I guess. Is there any group like the LRSLA and Quiet Lakes here on Winni? Sign me up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggus
....by the way, I just installed a new muffling system that utilizes the latest technology in sound-cancellation technology for performance boats.

Please do not think I do not care about offending folks.
Thanks Biggus . If more "offshore" owners were like you there wouldn't be a problem!

Last edited by Jan; 09-17-2004 at 12:31 AM.
Jan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004, 08:27 AM   #61
PROPELLER
Senior Member
 
PROPELLER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 340
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default No Problem?

Jan says there would not be a problem if more offshore boat owners were like Biggus (I am assuming she is speaking of Biggus muffling his boat). However, there are many posters, & others who feel (I am not one of them & I do not own an offshore performance boat) that there are other problems with these boats, not just the noise. If every offshore performance boat owner eliminated the noise issue from the equation, in the eyes of many they still would be a problem.
PROPELLER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004, 08:31 AM   #62
Blue Thunder
Senior Member
 
Blue Thunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Eastern MA & Frye Island/Sebago Lake, Maine
Posts: 818
Thanks: 202
Thanked 234 Times in 108 Posts
Default Are we done now??

Hey Biggus, wasn't this fun?? Over 2300 views and 64 posts on your question!

Blue Thunder
Blue Thunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004, 10:26 AM   #63
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Biggus are you a homeowner as well here on the lake? I think that MP is doing a few things to enforce sound from performance boats on the lake. Our dear friends have a neighbor in their cove with a loud performance boat and heard from their local marina that MP "suggested" he switch to something less noisy. Well I don't know speicifics, if he was just tired of getting tickets from MP or they were going to do some legal action againts him..he put in a quieter system at the beginning of this summer. Imagine the complaints against this guy for MP to go to those extremes.
KonaChick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004, 10:27 AM   #64
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 5,234
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 1,401
Thanked 1,323 Times in 467 Posts
Default My two cents

Quote:
Originally Posted by PROPELLER
If every offshore performance boat owner eliminated the noise issue from the equation, in the eyes of many they still would be a problem.
You’re absolutely right Propeller. The issue isn’t just about noise, but the manner in which the craft is navigated.
Last Sunday, early evening, one of “those” boats came within 10 feet of us as we were heading into Alton Bay. We were just passing marker #22 (the Little Mark Island marker) somewhat close, when some fool blew by us. We were completely surprised and shocked. It was like he/she came out of nowhere. Roared by us faster than I can even take a guess on. It sped away so quickly we could not even tell the brand. I shudder to think what would have happened if we changed our straight course and veered right past the marker just a bit. I realize that all of these boat owners do not act this way. Everyone out on the lake should follow the rules to be safe. These bigger boats can go a lot faster than the smaller ones, which can be a bit unnerving at times. It could have easily been a smaller boat in the same situation. If the person I am referring to is a member of our forum and is reading this, smarten up. I love my life and do not want it cut short or altered in anyway because of some idiot being reckless.
I’m not saying that I don’t appreciate the larger boats. I’m an equal opportunity enjoyer. There is a time and a place for everything. It can be thrilling to see boats go zooming by. Safely, that is. I would even go so far as to say that I would love to see an official race on the lake. What seats Rattlesnake Islanders would have!
One of my favorite “big boat” memories this summer was when we were out in the middle of the Broads floating. Two tunnel hulls, one was an impressive Nor Tech with an open cockpit and the other was a bit smaller (not sure of the brand) with a closed cockpit and twin outboard engines. Equally impressive. What a race. No other boats were around and each went on either side of us more than 150’ away. Not close to shore. What a sight and it was okay by me. (The smaller one won by a lot.) Very exciting.
The long and short of my post: Big boat, small boat, it doesn’t matter. It is how you use them. Safety before crazy pleasure for everyone!
Climbing down off my soapbox now.
Rattlesnake Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004, 10:45 AM   #65
PROPELLER
Senior Member
 
PROPELLER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 340
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Performance boats

RG, You took the words right out of my mouth. You have stated my opinion exactly. I took a ride 2 weeks ago on a new 30' Baja, the operator was competent, made sure no other boats were anywhere near him when he accelerated & I had a great time. Probably the best riding boat I have ever been on.

Thats not to say I would ever purchase one but it was impressive.
PROPELLER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004, 01:09 PM   #66
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Personally I have other issues

There are other issues on the water.

Milfoil was just found within 100 feet of Biggus's
house. The Maine DEP has divers working on the
Songo River at this moment. Invasive's
are a great concern in our region.

Operator issues abound on the lakes.
We believe that this is somewhat do to the
lack of enforcement presence on the lakes.
This is the reason that we contracted dedicated Warden services
in our region.

I constantly hear stories of close calls. I have also been
in some very dangerous situations caused by poor operators.
Of course NH has a mandatory operator certification program.
Maine does not and probably should, but these programs are
hard to pass into law.

I think that we are at one of those times when technology has
exceeded operator ability. I remember when I was young and
I jumped into my dads new Mazda Rx-7. I gunned it around a turn and
ended up fish tailing down the road out of control. My abilities at that
time were not up to the task of operating that vehicle.

This is what I think is happening across the country in the boat area.
Again when I was young a friend of the family had a cigarette
just like Biggus's. I used to ride the second seat during races.
Of course this was on the ocean. One thing I can tell you about
fast boats is, the faster you go the faster something bad can happen.

One of LRSLA's directors has a resume in the navy and on the water
that is unbelievable. He does not back down on the issue that excessive
noise is a safety issue. His belief is that any distraction to the driver
is a safety issue.

Speed and racing have also been an issue on LONG LAKE.
A number of the High Performance boaters being angered at my
activity on the Quiet Lakes issue spent the last month raking my
shoreline at full throttle and full out exhaust. Many of the boats came
closer then the 200 foot safety zone limit. One day I followed a
high performance boat as the operator ran the shore line at about 75 feet
off the shore at full throttle and full exhaust.

Violating the shore line safety zone is dangerous and causes wake damage to the shore line.

In closing I think the greatest issue I have seen regarding noise enforcement
is the tendency of the boaters that receive citations to look for some one else to blame. In our area they chose me and my family. Here I am a guy that is just trying to make the lakes safer for all who use it. The noise issue has been so bad on Long lake that literally you can not carry on a conversation with some one sitting three feet away from you.

Yet when the Warden's writes some one up I am the one getting harassed.
The list is long on the forms of harassment that have been leveled against me. Those same guys that wave the flag are the first to violate my write to free speech. I have been, harassed via email. I have received late night calls telling me to leave town. I have had my cell phone deluged with false calls. I have been threatened with violence repeatedly. I have been cursed out in front of my children. I have had false reports filed against me to the Maine DEP.

Who needs to look for terrorists, we have them right in our own back yard.
I have been maligned and chastised and raked across the coals on national
High Performance Boating web forums.

WHY, because some people don't want to be told to stop violating the law.
The last time I looked, laws were created for a reason. Biggus, the
people that have done all these things are your buddies. These are the
guys you hang out online with and the guys you hang out on the lake with.
Nice bunch of fellow, fine upstanding citizens, that is until they don't
agree with some one else's actions.

In this year of an election, we all need to remember that we are all American's, citizens of a great country. Yet our country is only as great as our tolerance for others beliefs. Look to your neighbor and afford them the same respect that you would request. "Live Free or Die", doesn't mean I'm right and every one else is wrong. It means that we all must have the right to fight for what we believe in with out fear of harassment or prosecution.

High Performance boaters violated my rights.
Those that propagated those actions should be aware that they
have only made me more ready to stay my course.
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LRSLA For This Useful Post:
ApS (08-29-2010)
Old 09-17-2004, 02:36 PM   #67
Biggus
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sebago Lake
Posts: 20
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

I've been very civil here, why are you throwing knives in my direction? You don't know who my friends are. As a matter of fact some of my friends are friends of yours. But since I have a performance boat I am lumped into this terror group???

People who do know me tend to like me, actually I am a very likeable guy! I am not the animal you portray me to be.

I do think the LRSLA is very one-sided and full of mis-information. For example when you had my boat on the video clip. the description read that I had been given 3 citations for excessive noise. That is false. I actually was the first performance boat to volunteer for decibel testing when the game wardens recieved their first meter. I was tested later that summer and was over the limit and given a citation. The muffling system was repaired and I was retested and found to be in complience with the law. In three years I have only recieved one citation and my boat now complies with the law.

Another bit of misinformation was the boat you labled as "RED" and read that it was an example of manufacturers trends towards marketing excessively loud boats. That boat is 15 years old!!! Not a new vessell by any means.

Your comment on the noise is so loud that you can't even have a conversation in your own home is just plain unbelievable. I've been on this lake for over 30 years and have never heard anything remotely close to that.

I do agree with the fact that there are quite a few unsafe boaters out there. But the offenders are not performance boaters. I have never seen a perf. boat up here operating in a dangerous manner. Take a trip through the locks some busy weekend, you are sure to see some clowns and many of them are intoxicated. But none of them will be in a perf. boat.

Just because I've responded to some of the Long Lake topics on the "other" site does not mean I agree with some of the rediculous responses that the thread had recieved.

I'm a property owner also. I can appreciate your want for tranquility but you bought a home in the middle of the largest recreation area in southern Maine and to boot, at the narrowest point of the lake and then cry that you can't find "sanctuary" ...sorry but it's not going to be found here, it can be found about 200 miles north.

Aren't you an avid snowmobiler? I am too but my wife and next door neighbors can't stand the sound of them and many are operated in a very unsafe manner. But, they don't plan to start a ban on them like the LRSLA has done to perf. boats.

Is it true that your family owns one of the largest auto parts chains in the US? If so I'm sure that there hundreds of families all over the country that are sick and tired of the ear-splitting racket from the aftermarket exhaust spewing out of Honda's and Toyotas that seem to be popular with the young kids these days.

The LRSLA is very one-sided and smells like hypocrocy in a big way.
Biggus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004, 04:13 PM   #68
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default The Noise is real

This is the problem with limited communication, errors are made on both sides.

First I am NOT an avid snowmobiler. I do own two Polaris 440 sports that I have had for twelve years. In the last twelves years I have put less the five hundred miles on them.

Second, yes my wifes grandfather was one of the original founders of a auto chain. He started when it took three months to drive across the country. But NO her family no longer owns the company, it is a publicly traded company on the NYSE. What this has to do with boating I am not sure.

Third, related to the red Boat, I was in error, I was attempting to point out that smaller boats can make just as much noise. I am sure you are aware of the Rinkers with the side hull exhaust on the lake at this time. There is a trend in recreational boating to sell bow-rider Family type boats that have thru the hull exhaust.

As far as the number of citations you have received, I was only repeating what was told to me by the Wardens. If I was in error I stand corrected.

On LRSLA being one sided, give us a break, we are less then a year old and in that year we have accomplished more in the area of Safe Boating in the Region then had been accomplished in last fifty years. We are a young organization.

As for the Noise and interrupting conversations......
Your disbelief shows that you truly do not understand the impact that the noise is having on the residents. I can only tell you once again that it is this bad and I am not exaggerating in any way the impact. Do you think I want to spend the time I have spent on this issue.
I would much rather be out fishing or spending it with my family.

This is one of the reasons I have so much anger at the noise issue. It has increased to a point were it literally ruins my ability to enjoy my home.

As for the location of my home. I have also been in the area for about thirty years. When I built my home there was not one boat with exhaust like yours on the lake. Once or twice a year a ski boat would come on the lake with straight (dry) pipes, but it would be gone in a day or two. Now there are at least twenty high performance boats on the lake. Their presence permeates the lake environment from one end to the other.
I have calculated that one of the boats passing down the lake is equivalent to at least twenty tractor trailer (eighteen wheelers) passing down the lake at the same time.

So we are now blessed with thirty to forty pass bys on a given summer weekend.

The issue is not that there is traffic on the lake it is that there are boats that are illegal on the lake. On any given weekend I have hundreds of boats passing my property. yet it is the ones that I can hear six miles off in the distance and six miles after they head up lake that seems to be having the greatest impact.

The green scarab was tested at 1/2 mile at 72db, this would mean that he
would have to be at least 95 db operational at 50 feet. 20db over the limit.
Since every three db is a 100% increase in noise intensity, he would be
at least 700% over the legal limit. One Speed was tested at 86db at 200feet
which would mean he would be close to 100db at fifty feet. 25db over the
legal limit, or almost 1000% increase in noise intensity from the legal limit.
You guys need to spend some time studying sound. I could on with twenty six other measurments.


Dude, you have a beautiful boat, i was just down the river last weekend and it was shinny and clean, you should be proud of it. I know your a good guy. I avoided you at the meeting we were at last year for a reason. This issue has impacted me so horribly that I could not control my anger when you introduced your self to me. I just wanted to avoid you, thats it.

I know you would find me a good guy also, I am a good dad, I work hard in my profession, I am well liked and respected, hell I even have great karma,
but I need to protect my investment in my home and ensure that
I can continue to enjoy it.

All I can say is I would rather be spending my time on other issues, but this one hit me were I live literally.

As for LRSLA and it's goals, your are within your right to believe what ever you choose. I work at the direction of my board of directors. We are a Safe Boating and a Quiet Lakes Association. Purchasing 150 hours of Warden coverage for a season is not little task. When the Warden is on the lake he is there to support boating safety. Our safety signs were at three well traveled locations on the lake, and our kids safety coloring books were at
three local restaurants.
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004, 04:41 PM   #69
Coastal Laker
Senior Member
 
Coastal Laker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In the Beautiful Lakes Region of course!
Posts: 130
Thanks: 1
Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts
Default Time to chime in

Regarding the original question on laws being thrown out: I know folks on both sides of the issue on noise and high performance boats.



There is activity in progress to pursue a change in the law regarding switchable exhaust which is presently illegal in NH. In simple terms: under the existing law, your boat can be loud (but under the decibel limit) or quiet, but not both. The changes being pursued would allow the ability to switch between the two. There are a lot of boats with the capability but were required to disable the muffling device under the law… go figure.



So why would anyone want to switch back and forth? Well, contrary to belief, some of the performance boat crowd I am familiar with would actually desire having the ability to switch from loud to quiet when it’s appropriate. They could muffle the noise to a quiet level when in an area that is sensitive to it – like gas docks, coves, houses, marinas, etc and go back to the classic high performance rumble elsewhere.



Right now NH says be loud, be quiet, but you can’t have it both ways. The new law, if it ever comes to pass, would at the very least give boaters an option to muffle the rumble in their high performance boats. With that option available, I don’t expect the anti-noise crowd to be satisfied with the change; I don't think it meets their goals. I do believe that at least a small percentage of people would use the switchable feature for the reasons I just mentioned. A small number is better than none, right?
Coastal Laker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2004, 07:10 PM   #70
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggus
LRSLA,
I don't believe the problem is even a fifth of what you are making it out to be...
Kurt
Ya know Kurt , I think you're right. I was sitting in my second favorite cove last Sunday with my wife , radio on at a level that we could talk at a normal tone of voice and I was listening to passing boats(both loud and quiet).
At no point did we have to raise our voices to be heard....at no point could I not heard the radio. Airplanes at a nearby airport were making as much or more than the marine traffic. Go figure
I think some of these "noise" people should be a victims of their own noise if they really want to complain about something

Cal
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

Last edited by Cal; 09-18-2004 at 11:12 AM.
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2004, 08:22 AM   #71
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default The effects of noise

I thought that it might be interesting for others to understand the effects of
noise. It is important to understand that the normal background noise level
along the lake is about 55>60db during a normal weekend with out
illegal noise present. Illegal noise increase the level to 75>85db.
This increase is a 250%>525% increase in noise intensity.

These measurements are based upon the A-scale. The A-scale does not
fully take into account the effects and impact of Low Frequency noise.
Illegal boat operation predominantly emits low frequency noise.

I have pasted information located on the OSH web site. It's a good
primer on the effects of noise.



What are non-auditory effects?



Hearing loss from long term exposure to noise has been recognized as a hazard for a long time. However, what the non-auditory effects of noise are is still not certain. In general, the suspected effects include cardiovascular function (hypertension, changes to blood pressure and/or heart rate), and changes in breathing, annoyance, sleep, physical health and mental health. This wide range of effects has led researchers to believe that noise has the ability to act as a general, non-specific stressor. Evidence suggests that the stress reaction produced by noise is not unlike that produced by other stressors. The major research problem is that since noise may act as a general stressor, it is very difficult to pin point what the effects of noise are versus the effects of other general stressors.


In the workplace, non-auditory effects of noise include problems with oral communications. It has also been shown that absenteeism appears to be higher among workers in noisy industries. It has not been concluded whether this is from psychological aversion to noise or from physiological consequences of noise stress.


What types of non-auditory effects are there?



Non-auditory effects can be divided into two categories - physiological effects and performance effects.


What are some examples of physiological effects?



The physiological effects can be temporary or permanent.

Examples of temporary physiological effects are:


the startling response to loud noise, where muscles burst into activities, generally, with the intention to protect

the muscle tension response, where muscles tend to contract in the presence of loud noise

the respiratory reflexes, where the respiratory rhythm tends to change when noise is present

changes in the heart beat pattern

changes in the diameter of the blood vessels, particularly in the skin



All those effects are similar to the response of the body to other stressors.


As for the permanent effects, there is no consensus on the issue: some researchers tend to favour the theory that there are permanent effects, while others are skeptical on the issue.


How can noise affect performance?



Noise can interfere with verbal communications and can be distracting and annoying. Below are some examples of how these factors can affect work performance.


Speech intelligibility


Speech intelligibility is the ability to understand spoken words. The presence of noise interferes with the understanding of what other people say. This includes face-to-face talks, telephone conversations, and speech over a public address system.


In order to be intelligible the sound level of speech must be greater than the background noise at the ear of the listener. People with otherwise unnoticeable hearing loss find it difficult to understand spoken words in noisy surroundings.


In noisy work situations, people are able to converse with difficulty at a distance of one meter for a short time in the presence of noise as high as 78 dB(A). For prolonged conversations, the background noise level must be lower than 78 dB(A).


In social situations people often talk at distances of 2 to 4 meters. In such cases noise level should not exceed 55 to 60 dB(A). In outdoor play and recreational areas, people communicate at distances of 5 to 10 meters. In such cases background noise should not exceed 45 to 55 dB(A).

Source: C.M. Harris. Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.


Annoyance


Noise is annoying. If exposed to noisy environments, people generally prefer to reduce the noise loudness, avoid it, or leave the noisy area if possible. The same noise could be annoying to some people but acceptable to others. There is no definite relationship between the degree of annoyance or unpleasantness of noise and the risk of adverse health effects. For example, very loud music may be pleasant to one group of people and annoying to another group. Both groups will be equally at risk of hearing loss.


Besides loudness of sound, several other factors contribute to annoyance. The following table lists examples of such factors:



Factors that affect Individual Annoyance to Noise

Primary acoustic factors
Sound level
Frequency
Duration

Secondary acoustic factors
Spectral complexity
Fluctuations in sound level
Fluctuations in frequency
Rise-time of the noise
Localization of noise source
Physiology

Nonacoustic factors
Adaptation and past experience
How the listener's activity affects annoyance
Predictability of when a noise will occur
Is the noise necessary?
Individual differences and personality

Source: C.M. Harris. Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd Ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.


Job interference


Depending of the type of activity, noise can severely affect efficiency of a task performance. The following examples will illustrate this point:

a conversation nearby will distract a person and affect his or her concentration, hence reducing the employee's his efficiency

a noisy environment could create an additional hazard, since audible alarms might not be heard

a noisy environment interferes with oral communication and thus, interferes with the activity
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2004, 11:36 AM   #72
Will
Senior Member
 
Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Was not the bandwith

Mad, I rest my case. (LRSLA's post)

Sincerely
Your Buddy
Will
Will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2004, 12:27 PM   #73
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Incredibly informative , BUT...

[Quote]"These measurements are based upon the A-scale. The A-scale does not fully take into account the effects and impact of Low Frequency noise. Illegal boat operation predominantly emits low frequency noise.".[Quote]
Not to mention [Quote] "As for the permanent effects, there is no concensus on the issue".[Quote]
And [Quote]" The same noise could be annoying to some people but acceptable to others. "[Quote]
So who gives anyone the right to decide what noise is annoying and what isn't with out stepping on someone else rights?

Pehaps you could ask a deaf or hearing impaired person if they would like to hear some "noise"

And like I said [Quote]"At no point did we have to raise our voices to be heard....at no point could I not heard the radio. Airplanes at a nearby airport were making as much or more than the marine traffic."[Quote]
Now since "I" was the one who elected to anchor near an airport I guess "I" would have to accept the noise or move . Because I am not about to move the airport
The entire issue seems rather subjective , much like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". By those standards do you suggest we ban ugly or fat people or people we just don't care to look at. And who is to decide what fat or ugly really is. Laugh at this if you will , but the issues are a lot closer than you may realize.
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

Last edited by Cal; 09-18-2004 at 12:42 PM.
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2004, 12:52 PM   #74
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 5,234
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 1,401
Thanked 1,323 Times in 467 Posts
Question Switchable Exhausts - a good compromise?

LRSLA, what did you think about Coastal Lakers interesting post on switchable exhausts? There were good questions that were left unanswered here and I for one would like to know your opinion. Thanks. (I am not trying to come across as antagonistic here. Just looking for more information on the issue.)
Rattlesnake Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2004, 01:52 PM   #75
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Noise is subjective until there is impact

I am not familiar with the specifics of that part of the
NH exhaust regs.

I will forward that switched mufflers work well in areas that
have large bodies of open water to run in. Quiet the exhaust
in proximity to land and then open up two to three miles out.

Switchable exhaust have been in effect outlawed.
Boats in the past would pass the noise tests done by the
Wardens and then run the rest of the day with cutouts engaged.
In the end boats running on inland lakes will have to muffle their
craft to legal levels.

In Maine there isn't such a thing as a legal switchable exhaust any more.
Boats in Maine must meet the 95db and the 75db limits with and with out
cutouts in place. Since there is no way for a water craft to meet the regs
with the exhaust bypassed, cutouts are in essence now illegal in Maine.

Noise is subjective to a point. That point is when it impacts another
person. At that point of impact noise becomes an irritant and a health
issue. There really is no debate about the effects of noise on health.
Noise , sound is now being utilized by the armed forces as a method of
disabling combatants.

During the last three years I have studied sound dynamics and noise
measurement extensively. Our world becomes noisier every year.

I will not be posting for three days.

Last edited by LRSLA; 09-18-2004 at 01:53 PM. Reason: typo
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2004, 05:33 AM   #76
Rob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 64
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Thanks to LRSLA for so many detailed and informative posts. Your lack of hyperbole and rhetoric coupled with your neutral tone and calm responses are appreciated.

Let me clarify some comments I made earlier. The first post of this thread was a simple question, which was quickly answered by our de facto legal counsel. (Thanks Skip). After another round of question and answer, this thread would have concluded, barely 90 minutes after it started.

Instead it metastasized into something that I doubt the initiating poster ever intended. Personally, I felt that the accusations regarding allegations of the initiating poster's behavior elsewhere, coupled with claims regarding his intentions in visiting Winnipesaukee were a bit much, to say the least, and I was attempting to lighten the situation with humor, not to attack the LRSLA.

I'm happy to hear that your decision to pull the videos was a voluntary one. I hope that it goes without saying that I was neither aware nor involved in any sort of hostile activity regarding your web server, as has been alleged. In the event that you continue to have questions regarding my conduct in this matter, feel free to contact me via private message or email.

I'd like to ask you for clarification on few points.

Quote:
The green scarab was tested at 1/2 mile at 72db, this would mean that he
would have to be at least 95 dB operational at 50 feet
How do you calculate the reduction in dB level over distance? Also, I would think that some consideration is made for the 'size' of the volume source. I read that a telephone dial tone is 80 dB. I can believe that, when it's up against one's ear, it's certainly loud enough. But move that telephone receiver 5 feet away, and one would barely be able to hear it. On the other hand, 5 feet would do nearly nothing to dissipate the volume of say, a power saw or a boat engine.

Quote:
Boats in Maine must meet the 95db and the 75db limits
I thought Maine's was 75/90? (there is a link further down this post with a chart)

Quote:
NH has a mandatory operator certification program.
Maine does not and probably should, but these programs are
hard to pass into law.
According to US Coast Guard Statistics, in 2002, 80% percent of fatalities occurred on boats where the operator had not taken a boater education course. In other years, the number has been even higher.
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2002.pdf

In light of that one statistic, I would think that working toward mandatory boater education in Maine would(and I submit, should) be the primary(if not the only) item on your organization's agenda, particularly if you've now managed to get the noise laws enforced.

Just for comparison(we should realize how complete New Hampshire’s boater education law is), here is a link to a table showing boater education requirements by state.
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/stateregs.htm

18 states have no boater education law whatsoever. 7 require boater education for PWCs only(not boats), and some of those only require education for PWC operators of a certain age. Many states do have a mandatory education requirement, but it is only for say, people born in 1989 or later(Kansas), with no phase in at all, i.e., people in Kansas born before 1989 will never have to take boater education. Many of the states that require boater education only require it for those operators who are 12 to 18 years of age (Illinois, Kentucky), so you could buy a boat at 19 with no education whatsoever. In Idaho, boater education is required only for (get this) ‘Repeat marine offenders, those convicted of OUI or aggravated BUI’. Only a few states currently mandate education for all ages, or (like New Hampshire) are phasing it in.

Personally, I had no idea that New Hampshire was so strict with regard to boating safety. Why, I keep hearing that New Hampshire's laws are benign. (By design, I'm told.)

By the way, another state that has a mandatory boater education law is Florida. Apparently the pop singer Gloria Estefan was instrumental in getting legislation passed there. Yup, thats right. She was involved in a well known fatal accident in which an inexperienced jet skier came too close to her boat, lost control, and slammed into the side. All sources reported the Estefan's boat was traveling in a straight line, at barely 20 miles per hour. After the accident, Ms. Estefan, (who herself had already taken three different boating training classes,) paid her own way to testify before the Florida Legislature. (Well, there's so much information about this hard working advocate for safe boating laws in Florida that I'll just let you all read for yourselves- google "gloria estefan" and "boating accident")

In conversations that I have had with owners of boats of all sizes, the number one comment I hear is not about noise, size, speed, or lack of law enforcement, its about people who don't know the basic rules regarding right of way, safe distances and when to use headway speed.

I also recently read the results of a survey conducted on an offshore powerboat enthusiast site that indicated that the majority supported mandatory boater education. I would like to respectfully point out that if offshore boaters support boater education, and the LRSLA’s efforts at boater safety are not just focused on noise reduction, then the offshore boaters and the LRSLA can find common ground by helping to pass legislation in areas related to boating education and safety.


I want to ask the LRSLA if, in hindsight, there are things that you would do differently in terms of how you approached boaters, marinas, and local law enforcement regarding the LRSLA's concerns. I'm not looking to trip you up here, but rather to learn from your experience as to what we on Lake Winnipesaukee can do to make progress in boating safety without putting people on the defensive.

For example, new boat sales- I think it is only fair to acknowledge that barely 50% of the states have an enforceable boat noise law on the books.(see link further down this post) Because of this, boat manufacturers treat exhaust systems as an a la carte option. The cost of marine exhaust systems is by no means insignificant, and I am certain that in many cases, those who decline the exhaust options do so because of price, combined with a lack of understanding of what the law requires. I was wondering to what extent your efforts at noise reduction include making sure that marinas and boat retailers are aware of the fact that they may be selling boats that, from day one, do not meet the dB requirements of your state?

Also, you mentioned that:
Quote:
LRSLA made many attempts to warn High performance boaters that enforcement was going to ramp up this year.
How exactly did you warn these boaters? To what extent did the warnings come from an 'official' (non-private, or non-LRSLA) source? Do you feel that the warnings would have had a different impact depending on the source? In other words, a private citizens group saying 'your boat is too loud' as opposed to the Marine Patrol saying 'Next year, if your boat is this loud, it will be a ticket and a fine'?

The link below leads to a table originally from Powerboat magazine, showing the noise laws of the 50 states.

http://home.columbus.rr.com/mtboats/noiselaws.html

(I'm aware of the fact that this is from 2002, it was the most current and complete list that I could find. If anyone has a newer one, please let me know and I'll change the link)

According to this table, 31 states currently have boat noise laws; 20 have none. Of 31 states with laws, two use the standard of 'Reasonable Level', one uses the phrase 'Must be adequately muffled', and one state (Massachusetts) requires boats to meet 'Federal Standards', which I believe is 80 dB. I'm sure that Skip can explain to us the likelihood of convicting someone for violating a law that uses the phrase 'Reasonable Level' in place of a measurable standard.

So, according to this chart, barely half of the states have enforceable noise level laws. New Hampshire is one of the few that does. Researching this post has been a real eye opener for me, I can tell you that. I was starting to believe those stories about New Hampshire’s benign (by design) laws. It's good to see that New Hampshire is ahead of so many states in it's approach to boat noise laws and boater education. Perhaps it’s due to all those students from Massachusetts and other states who regularly vote in New Hampshire elections. (I’m only repeating what I’m told here on the forum.)

Of the states with noise laws, there are several different standards, but they fall into a few specific groups. After people have a chance to look at the link, I would be interested to hear what people think of New Hampshire’s dB level and how it compares to other states. In other words, is the law acceptable as it’s written and is enforcement the problem, is it neither, or both? I should acknowledge that Mee-n-Mac previously brought this up in an attempt to get the thread back on track, but I thought I would restate it here.

Well, I suppose that's enough for now. I hope no one fell asleep reading this .

Rob


Last edited by Rob; 09-20-2004 at 12:44 PM. Reason: phrasing
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004, 12:18 AM   #77
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Default Noise and dBa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob
I'd like to ask you for clarification on few points.

How do you calculate the reduction in dB level over distance? Also, I would think that some consideration is made for the 'size' of the volume source. I read that a telephone dial tone is 80 dB. I can believe that, when it's up against one's ear, it's certainly loud enough. But move that telephone receiver 5 feet away, and one would barely be able to hear it. On the other hand, 5 feet would do nearly nothing to dissipate the volume of say, a power saw or a boat engine.

{snip}

Of the states with noise laws, there are several different standards, but they fall into a few specific groups. After people have a chance to look at the link, I would be interested to hear what people think of New Hampshire’s dB level and how it compares to other states. In other words, is the law acceptable as it’s written and is enforcement the problem, is it neither, or both? I should acknowledge that Mee-n-Mac previously brought this up in an attempt to get the thread back on track, but I thought I would restate it here.

Well, I suppose that's enough for now. I hope no one fell asleep reading this .

Rob

Let me step in and see if I can help. Most noise measurements I'm aware of use the Sound Pressure Level (SPL) measured via decibels (dB) using the "A scale" (vs the B or C scales). This logarithmic measurement tends to mimic the tonal (frequency) response of human hearing with some caveats I'll add in a bit. The math is that X dB SPL means that X = 20 x log(pressure/0.02 mPa). The 0.02 milli Pascals is a somewhat arbitrary reference level (idealized minimum detectable sound level) but the math explains the following. For every 6 dB increase or decrease the SPL doubles or halves and sound pressure (with another caveat) follows the usual inverse square law, halving for each doubling of distance. Said another way if some noise measures 60 dB SPL at 100 ft then at 200 ft it's 54 dB and at 400 ft it's 48 dB. The caveat is that this doesn't account for reflections or refraction of the sound waves. The water surface will reflect (depends hugely on the sea state/calmness) sound which will reinforce certain frequencies and cancel others depending on the distance. Add in echos (reflections) from other surfaces and a hard scientific way of accurately estimating SPL vs distance over the lake eludes me. It may be better or worse that the simple inverse square law everyone likes to mention. I don't know of any good emperical methods to account for lake effects (there may be some rule of thumb, I just don't know it).

The first caveat I mentioned has to do with the A scale. As LRSLA mentions it tends to discount the lower (<500Hz) and higher (>10,000Hz) frequency sounds but it does so because human hearing does likewise, at least at lower SPLs. Human hearing is non-linear in it's response to increasing SPL. We poorly hear low frequency sounds at low levels but as they increase in level we tend to hear them disproportionately louder than we would a similar increase in mid-tones. At loud SPLs perhaps the flatter (frequency response-wise) C scale would be a better match. I'm not sure which should be applied at ... say ... an 80 dBa SPL.

Lastly I would emphasize the non-linear nature of human hearing once again. We don't "hear" a doubling of sound power or sound level that same way a microphone would measure it. I've always heard that a 3 dB increase is just noticeable and a 10 dB is perceived as a doubling in loudness, 20 dB as a quadrupling. A low 60's dBA SPL is normal conversation, mowing the lawn produces mid 80's, a chainsaw something around 100-110 and a Foghat concert (from personal experience) at least 120

So getting back to the topic, I'll opine from my experience in Alton Bay there are a few boats that unlawful and more that are probably at the legal limit. The latter don't stop conversation but are noticable over the general din of the background level. These don't bother me but do annoy "Mee". As I said earlier this is a topic that will get many responses depending on what someone thinks is "too" loud. I brought my trusty RS sound meter up to the lake to get some objective data during bike week, perhaps next season (or this one when possible) I can collect some dockside data to better frame the situation. I don't think it's as bad as some say but I do agree it's a valid point to debate and there are some boats which are too loud even for me. While I can understand trying to wring the best possible performance from the boat, this has to be balanced against the desire of the rest of us to not be disturbed. Especially when 50 extra HP won't make that big a difference in top speed.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004, 08:12 PM   #78
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Real world noise enforcement

Sorry for the delay in posting I have been out of town.


I have to agree with you on the overall quality of the posts on this forum.
This has been a good forum for communication.

You are correct on the operational test being 90db in maine.
I must have had a middle age moment. :-))

The rule of thumb in noise measurement is that doubling the distance from a source decreases the noise level by 6db; Halving the distance increases it by 6db.

So if the operational limit is 75db at fifty feet, and I take a measurement from shore from 1/2 mile away and the SPL (sound pressure level) is 72db. I can assume that at 1/4 mile the measurement would be 6db higher, or 78db. At 1/8 of a mile the SPL should be about 84db. At 1/16 of a mile the SPL should be 90db.

This measurement was forwarded to the Warden service and they caught up with the boat later in the day. The Warden's preformed a Stationary test and the boat failed that test. Later in the summer the boat was cited again and told to tie up until the boat was brought into compliance.

I really need to add that when ever I take measurements or forward info on measurements I add distance to my distance from source measurement.
If I take a measurement at 150 feet I forward that the measurement was taken at 200 feet. I try to build in a conservative approach to sound measurement. LRSLA has begun using laser ranging scope to obtain distance readings.

I have found that most of the boats I have measured are so far over the operational limit that obtaining good quality measurements is not a problem. This why I have pressed the issues with the State. I have found that obtaining operational tests in real world environments is not difficult.

The Maine State operational noise test procedure is supposed to be preformed at fifty feet from the source. All of my measurements were taken at least 200>300 from the source.

I also take wind, temperature and barometric readings prior to take measurements.
I also re-calibrate my meter at the beginning of each test day.

Mee'n'Mac, post was excellent and a very concise explanation of sound measurement. The only issue I would bring up is that noise measurement has not really moved out of the factory and lab and into the real world. Many communities are using the C scale because it more closely represents the impact that audible low frequency sound has on communities.

Additionally my feeling is that a real world impact should be
mitigated by a real world test. In essence, surface water reflection of sound and other impacts on the noise measurement process are OK if they support normal measurement of the normal sound scape on the lake and the noise impact of the boat of issue.

I have witnessed reduction in noise level by trees but never increase in sound levels.


I would speculate that this is due to the extreme amplitude of the
offending craft. One key point is that a source must be at least 10 db over the background noise level in order to measured effectively an legally.

Of course environmental conditions effect the efficiency of a sound wave moving through air and thus can affect it's impact.
Yet once again, this is a real world condition, and if a boat is operating during a time when those atmospheric conditions are present, then the boat should be considered illegal if it fails a test at that time.

Most of my sound traces were taken at around two to three hundred feet from the source boat. All the traces were over 75db even at that distance. Most traces were around 86>89db at two to three hundred feet.

You are correct that you can have a source with a very high db, but almost not be able to hear it. SPM's, (Sound Pressure Meters) are calibrated with a
certified calibrator. A testing officer should calibrate the meter before and after each test. Meter readings can change with changes in temperature and barometric levels. SPM's must be calibrated and the calibrators must be calibrated each year by a certified sound engineer. The certifications are kept with the units to prove this calibration.

The calibrator emits a very precise tone at a specific frequency and a specific SPL. My meter calibrates at 114db. The microphone on the meter is placed very close to the calibrators speaker for calibration and then the meter is adjusted to that level of sound. If you hold the calibrator at arms length you can not hear it. Yet, the sound level adjacent to the speaker is 114db.


As for mandatory education I would support this , absolutely!!!

The reality is that bloody hell would break out in Maine if this were attempted to be floated. LRSLA is planing to bring up the issue when it meets with State Reps this winter. We are not hopeful that the issue will move forward. IFW and the Federal government would love to have a mandatory boater education course in place in Maine. In Maine many of the 6000 bodies of water are not heavily impacted by recreational boating. To ask a fellow who lives in a northern township were he might see ten boats in a summer, to take a boater education course, is a hard sell in Maine.

As far as warning boaters.

We put info in the local press and contacted marina owners to inform them of the enforcement. And as I mentioned this issue has been coming to boil for three seasons. Each season has seen increased enforcement.

I also need to correct one of my statements. The impact of noise is subject on an individual basis. What is not subject is the measurement of sound.
The measurement of sound is extremely objective and scientific.
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004, 11:47 PM   #79
Rob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 64
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac
The caveat is that this doesn't account for reflections or refraction of the sound waves. The water surface will reflect (depends hugely on the sea state/calmness) sound which will reinforce certain frequencies and cancel others depending on the distance.
So if I understand you correctly, this has a lot to do with how far sound carries at night, compared to midday. Part of it is the lack of background noise (other boats, cars, power tools, even wind), but another part of the equation is the flat water, which allows sound waves to carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac
I brought my trusty RS sound meter up to the lake to get some objective data during bike week, perhaps next season (or this one when possible) I can collect some dockside data to better frame the situation.
That's a great idea. I wouldn't mind swinging by, as I want to try out some new clamp-on muffler tips. They clamp onto the outside of the thru-hulls, so we can do a test with just my internal muffler system, and then try the tips to see if they reduce the dB level by as much as the manufacturer claims.

Skip was kind enough to post the RSA back in the beginning of this thread, so we can read up on it and do the test under official conditions.

I could even call the MP and ask if they would let us use their official dB testing site over by Timber Island. As of last weekend, they still have all of the buoys in the water, both the ones to moor the test boat to as well as the ones to use as a guide when you do your runs. I snorkeled over there some months ago, and I noticed that the chain for the mooring is getting kinda thin, but I'm sure it will hold.

I have some friends who got tested (and passed), if they are willing and available, we could use their scores to calibrate your meter (or to adjust our test methodology).

I won't be up next weekend unfortunately, but maybe the one after that, if the weather holds. If not this winter, then next spring.

Rob
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004, 12:56 AM   #80
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Talking Voices carry (apologies to Ms Mann)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob
So if I understand you correctly, this has a lot to do with how far sound carries at night, compared to midday. Part of it is the lack of background noise (other boats, cars, power tools, even wind), but another part of the equation is the flat water, which allows sound waves to carry.
Yes but there are 2 points here. First is the well known phenomenon of how well voices (sound) will carry over the calm lake at night*. Most science articles will tell you that it's due to refraction (bending) of the sound waves as they travel. You'd expect that sound not "aimed" at your ear would pass by you unheard but due to refraction some of the sound initially aimed overhead is bent downward and is effectively now re-aimed and impinges upon your ear. This indirect path can add to the direct path sound and increase the level you hear. I won't bore you with the physics behind the refraction (besides there's some debate as to what effect is actually dominant, air density difference due to temperature inversion or air density difference due to humidity).

The other point is that sound will emanate from it's source in widely varying directions. As I said above you hear only the sound waves that hit your ear but these can come from different directions (other than the most direct, straight line path) as the sound reflects off different surfaces, one being the water itself. Look at the Sun reflecting off the water and now imagine it's sound waves rather than light waves. A calm lake gets you (more or less) a single patch of reflection while a wavy lake gets you multiple, small, time varying reflectors. Other reflectors might be the glass windows of the cabin behind you or from the shore across the way or from ... you get the idea. Just like multiple waves intersecting on the lake can create places where the wave crests are higher (and troughs lower) than any single wave, so can the various sound waves add or subtract to create higher or lower SPLs. How much difference this makes in the real world I don't know but it's interesting that in order to get reproducable results the test procedures call for short distances (50') btw boat and meter and large distance from other potential reflecting items.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob
That's a great idea. (informal SPL measurements) I wouldn't mind swinging by, as I want to try out some new clamp-on muffler tips. They clamp onto the outside of the thru-hulls, so we can do a test with just my internal muffler system, and then try the tips to see if they reduce the dB level by as much as the manufacturer claims.

I could even call the MP and ask if they would let us use their official dB testing site over by Timber Island.

I have some friends who got tested (and passed), if they are willing and available, we could use their scores to calibrate your meter (or to adjust our test methodology).
Rob
Might be a fun experiment. Could make a few passes at varying distances to see how well the real world adheres to the anechoic, free space 6dB rule as well. Only problem would be the MP getting antsy about > headway speed passes

*This is one good use for CL's idea of allowing switchable exhaust. One reasonably quiet for daytime and one really quiet for night-time. No doubt too much hassle to enforce though ....

I do have 1 question for LRSLA How did ME arrive at the 75 dBA limit ? This is more restrictive than NH's 82 dBA. How well do older OB engines do with that limit ? (OK, 2 questions )
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH

Last edited by Mee-n-Mac; 09-22-2004 at 05:52 AM. Reason: spellin
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004, 09:51 AM   #81
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I do not have info on how the 75db level was arrived at.

It is restrictive. I think that it is the most restrictive in the nation.

I have some responses to the use of the 75db rule.

1) I have taken numerous readings of normally exhaust ported outboards,
IO's and even older thru the hulls exhausted craft.

What i have witnessed is that 99% of all craft will pass the 75db at fifty feet.
And if they do not pass a fifty feet they will absolutely pass at 100 feet.

Boats that will pass at one hundred feet are not an issue on the lakes.
Even boats that will pass at a two hundred foot reading in most cases are not an issue.

The boats that we are having an issue with are boats that would not pass at 300 feet or greater.

So 75db seems restrictive yet it really is not. I could understand how it would be restrictive if you are not in compliance. We have a Baja on the lake that
runs so quiet I can't even hear it coming down the lake. So compliance with the
regulation is possible.

75db is also a decent regulation point die to the low ambient noise levels on Maine's lakes and ponds.

Now Maine is not performing the operational test yet. LRSLA has been working with the State for the commencement of operational testing next summer.
The boats that were cited this season have been muffling to comply with the
stationary test. Next year they might be forced to retool their muffling for the
operational test.

There is no boat that will comply with the cutout part of the test. Remember,
boats with cutouts in Maine must be able to pass the 75db reg when tested with the
cutout engaged. And they there is the issue with normal exhaust operational
testing.

The operational test in Maine is the same for the most part as the NH test.
Most agencies will not use it due to the inherent danger of the test.
There is a move a foot to develop a more real world test procedure.

I have posted a copy of one of the sound traces that I captured this season.
These traces are take at A and some of the reading are taken at C scale.
I do this to show the level of low frequency sound that is not captured on the
A scale measurment.

This test showed a Max A weighted level of 84.9dB
and a peak C weighted level of 106.4dB, the trace was taken
over a 32 second period as the boat passed at about sixty MPH+
I was two hundred feet from the source as it passed.

So add 6dB to 100feet and 6dB to fifty feet for an add of 12dB.
You get an A rated reading at 50 feet of 96.9dB then add ten
10db to bring your to 106.9. Only .5dB off what a C scale reading would be.

If the boat was traveling at 60mph then the the test shows a trace over a half mile of operation. You can read the trace from left to right. The boat is
traveling through the sound scape left to right as graphed.
Attached Images
 
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004, 01:22 PM   #82
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Exclamation Caution : this post has high geek content !

OK now you've done it You've put data before the enginerd and now it's time to pay (no good deed goes unpunished) But more seriously if you have the time I have a few questions as my curiousity is whetted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
I have posted a copy of one of the sound traces that I captured this season.
These traces are take at A and some of the reading are taken at C scale.
I do this to show the level of low frequency sound that is not captured on the A scale measurment.

This test showed a Max A weighted level of 84.9dB
and a peak C weighted level of 106.4dB, the trace was taken
over a 32 second period as the boat passed at about sixty MPH+
I was two hundred feet from the source as it passed.

So add 6dB to 100feet and 6dB to fifty feet for an add of 12dB.
You get an A rated reading at 50 feet of 96.9dB then add ten
10db to bring your to 106.9.
Only .5dB off what a C scale reading would be.
I think I was right with you until the 10 dB part I've underlined above. What's that for ? There are 3 very similar traces (yellow, reddish and magenta) that I understand to be A weighted measurements. I would ask if these are 3 passes made by the boat or 3 different time averages or outputs from 3 different meters or ??. If it's the first then it's nice and consistent ! Good to see that in a field test. I understand the green trace to be a C weighted measurement (not sure what the jagged blue one is). It's interesting (to me ) that the aspect angle to the boat doesn't affect the measurement more. Was your technique to pan the mic as the boat passes or leave it aimed "straight out" ? I'm making an assumption hear that the boat's course was more or less a straight line and not a curved trajectory.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
I do not have info on how the 75db level was arrived at.
It is restrictive. I think that it is the most restrictive in the nation.
I have some responses to the use of the 75db rule.
I have taken numerous readings of normally exhaust ported outboards,
IO's and even older thru the hulls exhausted craft.
What i have witnessed is that 99% of all craft will pass the 75db at fifty feet.

Reason I asked was that in looking for some sound data on boats I came across an old (1995 I think) set of measurements done by NJ authorities. Some of the normal boats would have had trouble with a 75 dB limit. I suspect your average family runabout has gotten quieter since then.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004, 07:50 PM   #83
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Leq ?????

I knew I was getting long winded.


I use a quest 2900 type 2 logging sound meter.
The meter has the ability to measure two scales at the
same time. I started out with a RS meter for 45$.
These are not really that good for capturing data that
will support your case. My meter is only garunteed to 1db.
SInce you can't calibate the RS meter it is worthless
for issues related to legal issues.

The three traces that I use are LEQ RED and LMAX and LPeak.

In these traces, LMAX and Lpeak are measured at C scale
with LEQ measured at A scale. What I was trying to point out is that
C scale measurements end up around 10dB higher then a C scale taken at
fifty feet from source.

This trace is made up of samples taken once a second.
My feeling is that the C scale represents the real impact of the
boat noise. The A scale really does not fully show the impact of low frequency noise. But, since the regs are set to that standard it still works for enforcement.

4 stroke outboards and most IO have gotten quieter.
The issue with PWC's is that they are out of the water half the time.
This means that the violate noise regs half the time in most cases.

Noise as a whole is something that is normally avoided by manufacturers.

For instance, most car manufacturers go to great lengths to engineer away noise. This is due to the stress that long term exposure to noise places on the human body. Add in Sun, water, and a couple of beers and increased noise on the water can really effect a boaters ability to operate a craft effectively.
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004, 08:53 PM   #84
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
Add in Sun, water, and a couple of beers and increased noise on the water can really effect a boaters ability to operate a craft effectively.
The beer maybe , but noise cummon you gotta be kidding
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004, 10:49 PM   #85
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default boating safely

You can think what you want.....

This info came off www.boatingsafety.com

Don't overdo your boating fun. In 3 hours of normal boating, the noise, motion, sun, wind and glare can frequently double an individual's reaction time.

Boating is fun, a great form of recreation. Problem is that
many boaters don't respect the hazards of boating.
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004, 11:41 AM   #86
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
Don't overdo your boating fun. In 3 hours of normal boating, the noise, motion, sun, wind and glare can frequently double an individual's reaction time.
Boating is fun, a great form of recreation. Problem is that
many boaters don't respect the hazards of boating.
I'm sure the three six packs had nothing to do with it either

I hate to be the Devils advocate here , particularly since I have a quiet boat. You know as well as I do , figures can be made to look however you want them to.
Two opposing sides can gather ALL THE SAME facts and figures and by the way they are presented and the ones that are conveniently omitted both sides can appear entirely correct.
MAJOR case in point...the upcoming presidential elections
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004, 12:23 PM   #87
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Safe is as Safe Does

So all the experts are wrong and your right?

The sound level at my steering wheel on my Sea Ray
20 foot bow rider with an 325hsp IO is 86dB. Add the wind noise and your up over 90dB. Add the sun, thirty MPH wind, heat, physical exertion
and after three to four hours on my boat I come off feeling wiped.

Accidents happen because people get tired and get sloppy.

Even car drive education programs push the concept of
being well rested when driving. Hell three hours behind the
wheel of a car is enough to tire me out.

So why is it so hard to believe that three to four hours being bounced around on a lake, fried by the sun and blown by the wind might just bring enough stress to bear on your body to lower your response time.

My only point is that fun day on the lake can be a safe day on the lake.
It sucks when mothers and fathers have to go home after a vacation to our lakes missing part of their family. And in most cases it's because some one just didn't abide by a regulation or didn't have exposure to the fact that recreational boating can be very dangerous.

Fast on the water is fun, but as I have mentioned before fast also means that
bad things happen faster. Noise on the water means that other boaters are distracted and being distracted is never a good state for an operator to be in
on the water.

I try to think of parallels for the high performance boats on the waters.
I think NASCAR is a good one. I don't remember ever seeing a NASCAR
vehicle going down a street in my neighbor hood. In fact NASCAR vehicles are not street legal. So why do the same rules not apply to our national water ways.

Why can a fellow go out and buy a boat with twin 1000hsp engines
practically no exhaust and a top speed of 100Mph+ and run it
were ever he wants. Would this same fellow even think of running a
NASCAR vehicle down his block or running a top fuel dragster down the
street. No, he would never to that. Why, because he would have his car
impounded the first time he tried.

The same rules should apple on the water that apply on the street.
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004, 12:54 PM   #88
Coastal Laker
Senior Member
 
Coastal Laker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In the Beautiful Lakes Region of course!
Posts: 130
Thanks: 1
Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts
Default Apples and Oranges

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
The same rules should apply on the water that apply on the street.
Unfortunately LRSLA, your logic won't work in any legislative process you choose to champion. You don't have lines to follow on the water, street signs, or traffic lights. Spring a leak in your car and you're not necessarily going to be in peril. Spring a leak in your boat and you better hope for a quick rescue. We're talking apples and oranges here.

The speed topic will likely be debated for years after we are all gone. The problem is it's unenforceable on water. Radar must be in a fixed/stationary position to work (meaning on land). It doesn't work on a boat. Some people use miles-per-hour others knots. Some boats have a speedometer, others don't. Speedometers measure speed through water, not over land. Radar measures speed over land. There's too many variables to make a valid case on limiting speed.

I think most will agree the problems/violations on the water are mostly due to operator error, inattention, or a lack of knowledge. For that reason, I'd rather raise the bar on education. There's a lot that can be done... and yes, I have contacted a fellow boater in the state legislature with a few ideas that are a win win for the state administration and the boaters.

Stay tuned for more information.
Coastal Laker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004, 04:50 PM   #89
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
So all the experts are wrong and your right?

I didn't say that . I simply said each side will weigh the facts and figures to their advantage , much as you are doing right now.
Just like "loud pipes saves lives".....they can get the attention of an inattentive boater with a 20 bowrider who is about to cut in front of a larger faster boat. Just think , they could save your life . Yeah I know that's rediculious , about as rediculous as,

[Quote]Why, because he would have his car impounded the first time he tried. The same rules should apple on the water that apply on the street.[Quote]

but I'm trying to get my point acrossed to you.
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

Last edited by Cal; 09-23-2004 at 04:54 PM.
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004, 05:25 PM   #90
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Question Unsure of your analogy

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
{snip}
I try to think of parallels for the high performance boats on the waters.
I think NASCAR is a good one. I don't remember ever seeing a NASCAR
vehicle going down a street in my neighbor hood. In fact NASCAR vehicles are not street legal. So why do the same rules not apply to our national water ways.

Why can a fellow go out and buy a boat with twin 1000hsp engines
practically no exhaust and a top speed of 100Mph+ and run it
were ever he wants. Would this same fellow even think of running a
NASCAR vehicle down his block or running a top fuel dragster down the
street. No, he would never to that. Why, because he would have his car
impounded the first time he tried.

The same rules should apple on the water that apply on the street.

I'm not sure what the analog is driving at. If the point is noise regulations then I might agree it's a fair comparison (straight pipes on any car would be apropro as well). If it's a speed / danger thing you're trying to compare then I would ask you to consider the case of a Ferrari Enzo or Porsche Turbo or even a Corvette. While not having 1000 HP all of these cars are fast and potentially unsafe if not driven with due care. And yet all allowed on the road. The restrictions apply to use of the car not on the car itself.

.... Off to the Lake to match Upthesaukee's day
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004, 08:03 PM   #91
Rob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 64
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
So all the experts are wrong and your right?
You obviously haven't been on this forum very long, or you'd know better than to expect any respect for submitting information based on facts. (I'm joking of course, and mean no disrespect to the majority of people on this forum who make an effort to quote and check the facts. And to Cal, who I know was just giving his opinion in this case.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
The sound level at my steering wheel on my Sea Ray
20 foot bow rider with an 325hsp IO is 86dB. Add the wind noise and your up over 90dB.
With that setup, you must go pretty fast yourself. Also, how is your boat muffled to produce 86 dB (at idle, I assume)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
Noise on the water means that other boaters are distracted and being distracted is never a good state for an operator to be in
on the water.
So are you saying that the noise of other boats is a significant distraction when you are operating yours?

Consider this:

Maine has the 90/75 dB standard and New Hampshire has the 82 dB standard. Maine uses the 75 dB standard when you are on plane, so assuming the other boat is following the dB rules, your boat (over 90 dB) is louder than theirs(75 dB in Maine, or 82 dB in NH). Under those circumstances, the other boat's noise should not be distracting you at all, since it is not louder than your boat. The other boat would actually be even quieter than I stated, due to the minimum distance you must maintain.

Personally, I would barely notice, let alone be distracted by, the noise of another boat when my boat is also on plane. If I am off plane(and thus quieter and more aware or distracted by loud noise), then I am also going slowly enough that I should have more than enough reaction time to stay on top of what's around me, even going into the Weirs Channel on a weekend afternoon.
I would submit that of the 5 senses, boaters use sight more than anything else, especially when under way in a powerboat. Sound(as a tool for avoiding collisions) would be of much more use to a the operator of a sailboat, which does not produce it's own noise.

In all fairness, I should point out that it is only recently that we as a public have become aware of the profound physiological impact of sound. I have read some articles on noise that specifically state that it is unwanted noise that causes a measurable stress response. In other words, the person in a boat is probably the one least likely to be affected by the noise emanating from said boat, at least in terms of stress and fatigue. I'm not saying that we shouldn't enforce a noise law, mind you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
I try to think of parallels for the high performance boats on the waters.............
Why can a fellow go out and buy a boat with twin 1000hsp engines
practically no exhaust and a top speed of 100Mph+ and run it
were ever he wants. Would this same fellow even think of running a
NASCAR vehicle down his block or running a top fuel dragster down the
street. No, he would never to that. Why, because he would have his car
impounded the first time he tried.
No offense, but:
What about a high performance motorcycle? Or a Porsche 911 turbo? Or a new Corvette? Any one of those vehicles can double, and probably triple, the highway speed limit. And that's before any performance modifications, all of which are legal if the vehicle still passes emissions.

Now, yes, there are speed limits on our highways, but, as has been alleged on this thread already, certain people are going to find a way break the law no matter what. Personally, if someone wants to buy a brand new sports car and then spend large sums of money to make performance modifications, more power to them. It's not for everybody, but it's certainly legal, and many people choose to do so. Boats should be no different.

I'm obviously assuming that said persons are expected to follow the various laws. Likewise, performance boaters who choose to exercise their right to buy a fast boat have the same obligations as others with regard to applicable laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
The same rules should apple on the water that apply on the street.
I think it's safe to say that there are tremdendous differences between operating boats on a body of water, and operating cars on a road.

Perhaps what you meant to say was more along the lines of enforcement, in that you feel that loud cars are not tolerated, so loud boats should not be tolerated either?

If that's your point, no disagreement here, but I would like to point out that all new cars come with mufflers. I am sure that automotive noise standards must exist, and that automobile companies make every effort to comply with those standards. If some automobiles came from the dealer with no mufflers(or if it was an option, like on many boats), I am sure that many people would just leave them as they came, and many more would deliberately choose to purchase a car with no muffler. I'm not saying it's right, just making an observation about human nature.

I get my vehicles inspected once a year, by law. I have never had the dB level checked on any vehicle(including a loud diesel truck) during an inspection. I don't know why. I'm sure that it wouldn't take that much more money to add a dB meter to that diagnostic machine that tests my emissions, and a closed garage is certainly a controlled environment in which to conduct such a test. I suppose that since the majority of cars come with mufflers, it's easier for law enforcement officials to notice an obviously louder than average car.

On the other hand, the only boat inspections I know of are the non-mandatory ones that the Lakes Region Sail and Power Squadron and Coast Guard Auxilary volunteers are nice enough to provide us with free of charge. They don't check our noise levels, and one certainly wouldn't expect them to. Not for free, anyway. When the time comes that all boats are required to be inspected for emissions and/or noise on a regular basis, I will certainly get in the (undoubtedly long) line along with everyone else. Even then, I have no doubt that some on this forum will claim that many boaters will rush home from the inspection and remove their mufflers, or do all kinds of other things that will probably wreck the engine, in exchange for the ability to violate the noise laws(until the engine melts, that is).

That's why I think that the current strategy of pulling over the boats that sound too loud, and making those boats submit to a dB check, is probably the best way to go right now. If anything, it makes it a lot harder for someone to try to 'fix' their exhaust for a once a year test, as they never know when they will be required to submit to another test. I heard of one boat that was tested several times this year, because it was very close to the limits, and different MP officers would hear it going by, pull the guy over, and test him. I suppose that guy would prefer a once a year test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac
(informal SPL measurements) Only problem would be the MP getting antsy about > headway speed passes
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
The operational test in Maine is the same for the most part as the NH test.
Most agencies will not use it due to the inherent danger of the test.
Actually, thats a great point. I had not thought about this until I read your posts. Like most boaters, I carefully follow the 150' rule. I would be very nervous blowing by another boat at top speed as the test conditions require.

A friend commented on the fact that he found the dB test a bit scary(and this is a very experienced, skilled boater I am talking about) specifically because he had to bring his boat barely 50' from the (moored) MP boat, including the second set of passes at full throttle.

Now, I'm aware that the obvious problem with scrapping a speed test in favor of an idle-only test is that a boat could pass at idle, but not at WOT. On the other hand, I would like to point out that most high performance boats(like the cars mentioned above) do not normally run at anywhere near their top speed. I personally spend 95% of my on-plane time at or under 3000 rpm. And of the remaining 5%, it's rarely at WOT. Just because I can go faster, doesn't neccesarily mean that I want to. As an aside, the majority of performance boats are now sold with(and many owners are switching to) the 4-blade props, as they provide faster planing and greater (fuel)efficiency at lower (i.e., cruising)speeds, at the expense of top speed, where the 3-blade prop is superior. Given what stainless steel props cost, it's a significant investment for the boat owner, I might add.

In my opinion, the dB test should change in one or both of the following ways:

1-Only use the half-throttle passes.(Or idle plus half-throttle.) The exhaust will be out of the water once the boat is on plane, and it's still a good indicator of the WOT dB level. The engine mfr plate usually states the max rpm, so the officer in the tested boat could watch the tachometers.

2- Increase the measuring distance to 150' or more. Not only is this safer than the 50', but it more accurately duplicates the real-world condition due to the fact that boats are supposed to be 150' from each other, as well as the shoreline or any docks, swim floats, etc. Personally, I wouldn't want to be nearly that close to any object at WOT. I'd rather see 200' or more for the testing boat, plus a buffer zone where the tested boat is circling around, but that's just me. Also, just for the record, I fully understand that if the distance between the test boat and the testing boat increases, the max dB allowed must decrease. I'm not trying to trick anyone here.

Rob
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004, 08:32 PM   #92
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Speed Kills

I was just trying to speak to the issue that some of these boats are truly
racing boats and are not being driven responsibly.

I have witnessed some very poor operation of high performance boats on the lake. It seems that any boy or girl with enough money or high enough credit rating can buy a big fast noisy toy. The issue isn't buying the toys. the issue is that education is lacking and there is practically zero enforcement on the surface waters. The lakes have become the last great lawless frontier.

In Maine, with it's 6000 bodies of water there are less then twenty five wardens on duty at any given time. There are less wardens with IFW today then there were twenty years ago. The classic response i get from boaters testing the regulations is. "the lake are for all of us". My question is when did I stop being part of "all of us". When it come down to it the whole issue is that a lot of boaters just don't care about other people.

You guys on Winne must deal with some of the same economic issue we deal with here. Lake Front property owners pay 65% of all taxes in our town. Most of the properties on the lake are seasonal so owners have no vote in town. LRSLA is members are property owners that pay that 65% to the town. Isn't interesting that these residents are being impact by a very small number of boaters, most of which pay no taxes in town. Our town does float a marine Safety unit.
The budget is .014% of the yearly budget.

In Maine the State enforces regs on the lakes. This is a very frustrating fact.

The only battle I will be fighting is for furthering education and enforcement
presence on the waters.
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004, 10:38 PM   #93
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Rob,
Just a little side note about the WOT db test. I'm from NJ and they did away with that a number of years ago because they didn't want to be responsible for having you operate your boat at full throttle. Since most offending boats are probably faster than average , suppose someone had a mishap or broke something like a $25,000 engine at 80mph or better? Laywers would be circling like fresh water sharks .
I'm like you Rob, I have 41 hours on the engines so far this year and most is 3000 rpms or less.This still will get me 50 mph. Wide open throttle time is probably less than 10 minutes.

LRSLA,
Those noise figures you gave for your boat DO seem a wee bit high
Remember " People in glass house shouldn't throw stones".
As for stress , being back home now , yesterday I made a 104 mile (round trip) lunch run. Total running time about 2 hours and 50 minutes including NWZ's. Riding in something that weighed probably 8000 (including 130 gallons of gas and 5 passengers) I personally felt great!
Attached Images
 
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

Last edited by Cal; 09-23-2004 at 10:53 PM.
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2004, 08:09 AM   #94
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Os Os

Hey I think Offshore boats are great if the are truly
Offshore. I also think , YES it is possible to have a great
relaxing day cruising the coast.

As for my sound traces, the data is the data,
Thats why we have so many pissed off property owners
up here. We have a problem because there is an real issue.

Offshore boats don't belong on a lake that is less then a mile wide
with hills on both sides to reflect and intensify the sound.
Unless the boats have been adapted to run responsibly on those waters.

I don't know why you keep saying, "don't throw stones".
I am considerate of others, my boat is legal in every respect.

The only issue is that OS boaters have been throwing proverbial stones
at my proverbial glass house.

I think is is important once again mention the harassment that
freedom loving and preaching fellows on OSO have leveled against
myself and others that have simply exercised our own right to
free speech.
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2004, 12:14 PM   #95
Audiofn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bedford, MA/Naples, ME
Posts: 162
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I have made it to the bottom of all this and I am almost at a loss for words..... ALMOST. First off this STINKS of the Salem Witch trials. The LRSLA talks a lot about "safty" but lets be honest hear and just say that if it was not for the LRSLA's impression that Offshore boats are to loud then they would not be in existance today. The LRSLA seems to be saying that all of us Offshore guys have ignored what they are doing. I beg to differ. We have often talked at great length about this issue. As you can see Biggus and myself have spent a great deal of money to comply with the laws that are on the books.

The moving test is one that is JUST PLAIN DANGEROUS! I would NEVER drive my boat at WOT with in 150 feet of anyone if they want me to or not. Now the law says that they want us a LOT closer to that. To that I reply NO WAY. What happens if something breaks on my boat and I hit some one? We all maintain our boats to the best of our ability and take a lot of pride in them. However STUFF CAN BREAK. I refuse to take kids on my Offshore for this very reason. I have been on boats that parts have broken on and felt the effects. So to ask me to not only put other people at that risk NO WAY. The current standing test is fine and it is safe. Since we seem to have said that the boat has to pass with the exhaust open and closed I firmly believe that the standing test is the ONLY safe way to do this.

Now I would like to poss to the LRSLA what if my Donzi does not pass? This is a VERY rare boat (only 8 made to the best of the records that I have been able to find and God only knows how many are left of those 8) This boat is 100% originall and that is the only way that it holds its value. To make any canges would seriously hurts its value. This is not a loud boat IMO but I am not sure if it will pass or not. My big boat, adding the exhaust had no adverse effect on the value so I had no problem making the changes. So is it really fair that I have to either not use my boat or ruin its value? I mean one of your coplaints seems to be that our boats hinder your enjoyment of your property. Well what about ME? What about my ability to enjoy my property and my boat?

I own land on the lake also, I HATE jetskiers, they have cut me off, run into me, and on and on. I would NEVER think to try and get them to stop doing what they enjoy. Edjucation so that they know how to be a better boater if fine and probably smart but telling them to stop, no way.

As for offshore guys being drunks and inconsiderate to the land along the lake, I would say that being on the river the people that come up the river the slowest are the offshores. I constantly see jet ski's, renters, and the alike flying up the river, some even on plane! I also CONSTANTLY see people letting their kids hang their feet over the bow. This is illegal, VERY dangerous, and NEVER enforced. I have watched on many occasions the patrol just drive right on past. To the alcohol issue I find that most offshore people do not drink and drive. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but I am willing to bet that on any given day there are more drunks out there in bow riders and fishing boats then offshores.

As for the abuse that you took on Offshoreonly I have to say what do you expect? You are trying to take away something that is very important in our lives. This is not just a hobby that we do once in a while. Most of us stay awake dreaming about what our next boat will be. We all spend a significent portion of our income on our boats and want to be able to enjoy them the few times a year that we can actually use them with out being targeted by your organization. So some of the guys on OSO want to fight back. I do not think that ANY of the harsh stuff was said by anyone that actually lives up in the area or has probably ever visited the lake. Most of it is guys venting their frustrations as we see OUR freedoms taken away from us.

Now you are probalby ready to say what about my freedoms.... Well what is the percentage of time that Offshores are going past your house? How many on a bussy day? I am willing to bet that it is less then 5 and that is a bussy day. I know that most of the boats on the river only go out maybe once a week. Heck who can afford to run them with the price of gas these days!! So it is really a VERY small percentage of the time that you are "inconverineced" So in the interest of "being a good neighbor" why can't you just let it go?

I also have to agree that to say you can not have a conversation with a person that is 3 feet away is obsurd. I have been to poker runs with hundreds of boats running louder exhaust then you have ever heard and can have a conversation no problem. My example of this is the 1000 Islands poker run. We were in the channel and about 150 feet away from the fleet and my wife and I were talking at normal volumes on shore. So be honest. You realy do not have to yell. If you say yes then lets do a test. Both you and I will stand on your property and we will have the "worst offenders" all drive by and you and I can see how bad it really is. Heck maybe I am wrong but I do not think so.

Lastly I hear you kid likes them, I heard him in the video
Audiofn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2004, 01:52 PM   #96
Jan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 36
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiofn
Biggus and myself have spent a great deal of money to comply with the laws that are on the books.
I really respect you and Biggus for doing that. I have no complaints with any boat that is operated safely and within the law. The problem is you two are the ONLY "offshore" owners I've ever seen respond like that.

Unfortunately anyone that is concerned about excessively loud boats is usually shouted down and told "If you don't like it leave" or Will's classics "offshores...will become louder, people just need to learn to live with it" and "How do you get off saying that a preferrably loud boat is a problem?". Many (not all) offshore owners come off like bullies who really don't care about the effects their boats can have on others around them (IMHO).

I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you. I just wish that other offshore owners could discuss this without the often arrogant "eat my exhaust" attitude. I think you can see that attitude in many of the messages posted here. It really gets my blood boiling that some people can be so selfish and inconsiderate. I believe those attitudes force concerned people to form groups like the LRSLA.
Jan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2004, 02:41 PM   #97
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Just more noise

What are we talking about here, recreational boating.

So your TOTAL enjoyment of your recreational boat
supersedes my ability to enjoy my home?

Lets see HOME>>>>BOAT //// FAMILY LIFE >>>> FUN PARTYING

Which should out way the other?????

I think this is the issue that really isn't appreciated for lack of better
term by OS's. Hell the issue and stress and the harassment had me so worked up that I ended up in the emergency room in Bridgton with chest pains.

How about the cost to me in medical bills. Now you might forward that I have otherissues that caused this hospital visit. I would forward that the noise and the Harassment stressed me out so much that I practically had a nervous breakdown.

SOME PEOPLE RESPOND TO NOISE DIFFERENTLY. NOISE EFFECTS
SOME PEPLE MORE THEN OTHERS. There do you understand now.

You can forward all you like that your noise is not disruptive, it is and
it is to the extent I am forwarding. Why do you think I am spending the
time on this forum, I love Winne, great lake, but I other thing that I would rather be doing.

Your right my kids could not believe the noise that ONE SPEED put out.
You do hear them on the video, hey they are six years old.
So your pointing out that you share something in common with six year olds, no kidding.

What you don't hear on the video is what my kids also say when an OS goes by the house. "there go the BOZO boats" Of course they are responding to the impact that the boats have had on my life, they are my kids, they love me.

As for the number of time OS boats go by my house on a weekend day,
how about thirty to forty times. I figure I have at least a combined hour or
noise from boats a day on a weekend day.

Personally the only thing I care about is my family and my health and the
integrity of my investment in my home.

If you buy a boat that can't be run legally deal with it. There is a reason it's not legal.I'm tired of being gentle on this issue. Obviously you don't believe that I have been impacted by the noise on the lake. And I am not a single voice here.

I have spoken to hundreds of residents that feel just as I do and at the same level. The laws have been on the books for years, nuf said.

One last thing, when a group online holds a forum were they malign and
threaten and plan ways to F#@$K with a regular decent fellow that is only being active in his community, then that forum is nothing more then a MOB.
A bunch of uncivilized lawbreaking jerks.

Now in fairness OSO has some 22,000 members. I am not naming names,
you know who you are, I have the posts from OSO, your on the record.
Those same posts have been emailed to Maine IFW and the town of Naples
Select Board. The goings on, on OSO are wrong. The admins should
shut down a thread that exhibits the post that I have seen.
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2004, 04:52 PM   #98
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRSLA
.

Offshore boats don't belong on a lake that is less then a mile wide
with hills on both sides to reflect and intensify the sound.

I think is is important once again mention the harassment that
freedom loving and preaching fellows on OSO have leveled against
myself and others that have simply exercised our own right to
free speech.
"Hills that reflect and intensify sound"??? Didn't you forget the part how wooded hillsides act as a natural sound absorber? Sound relects best off of smooth hard surfaces , like a canyon wall , not a tree lined hillside. The leaves disrupt any reflections and certainly don't intensify it. Why do you think you DON'T get an echo in a wooded valley??? . Oops , I guess you forgot that.

As for harassment.....only because groups like LRSLA make us look like the greatest scurge of the Earth with ONE SIDED arguments and come at us with both "guns blazing". You poke a dog with a stick enough and your gonna get bit....be nice to him and you get a loyal friend. Not that OSO is a bunch of dogs but you seem intelligent enough to get my point.

Could you define "Offshore" boat. My title states "powerboat". The state registration denotes it as "cruiser" as opposed to "open boat'" or "runabout" because it has a cabin. Nowhere does it state it's to be called , or to be used for "offshore" purposes. I think the term "Offshore" is way over used and exploited by groups who are trying to ban them simply by their misunderstood and over emphasized name.
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2004, 05:45 PM   #99
LRSLA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default How sound travels

See we differ on a major point.

I believe there is never a justification to act as a wild dog.

And I specifically mentioned that there are many members of OSO.
I am sure that most members would never act in an
inappropriate manner.

As for the sound of the hills issue. I have posted a document that describes
how sound wave move in a lake environment. There are many issue associated with reflection of sound waves. I think the document say it batter then I could.

As for offshore boats, I should define that the only issue that people have with HIGH PERFORMANCE boats is the noise issue. No one is trying to ban anything.

And As I mentioned in the past, noise enforcement was a small part of the
Warden activity. The only reason we were out on the lake taking reading is that noise has to be quantified. We needed proof that the noise level was as loud as we thought it was. When every boat tested fails the tests we know we have an issue.

I understand your issues with LRSLA activity. We all need to try to put our selves in the other guys shoes. This issue didn't come to boil over night.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by LRSLA; 09-24-2004 at 05:55 PM. Reason: adding image
LRSLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2004, 07:32 PM   #100
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=LRSLA]See we differ on a major point.
I believe there is never a justification to act as a wild dog.
[QUOTE]


There we go adding words to what I said


And no , there major point here is , if LRSLA took a more synergetic approach , I'm sure a win/win situation could arise.

Thanks for posting that article. It proved my sound squelching effect of the land like I was saying
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.43807 seconds