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

View Poll Results: What is the Minimum Planing Speed of your boat
less than 25 mph 78 57.35%
25 mph 18 13.24%
between 26 and 30 mph 32 23.53%
greater than 30 mph 8 5.88%
Voters: 136. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-09-2009, 10:23 AM   #1
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default Minimum Planing Speed

To determine what will be a reasonable night speed limit. It will be important to find the minimum planing speed for Winnipesaukee boaters.
To be able to plane creates less wake and less erosion of the shores. A sensible thing to do for our lake.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 10:48 AM   #2
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,233
Thanks: 402
Thanked 459 Times in 307 Posts
Default

I can plane at about 18 indicated, with flaps @15 degrees, but the wake turbulence is brutal. NB
NoBozo is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 10:54 AM   #3
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

I have a soon to be targeted 18,000 lb (scale tested) vessel that easily gets up on plane at 28 MPH. 32 is the sweet spot where it feels like we are gliding on silk with the engines gently purring.
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 10:55 AM   #4
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default Interesting

To have a large wake at planing speed. Maybe I should have said:

Minimum planing speed that will create a small wake.

Based on my observations, once a boat is on plane, the wake goes down.

I hope everyone takes this into account when they vote.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 11:11 AM   #5
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

I can get the boat on plane at less than 20 mph but it is not easy. The main problem is the wake generated to get it on plane. The ideal way to get it on plane is get it out of the hole quickly, then ease of the throttle and trim it out. This generates the smallest wake. Conversely by easing it up on plane I do end up plowing thus pushing several tons of water that generate large wakes.
Kracken is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 09-09-2009, 11:48 AM   #6
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

After Smart Tabs, my boat planes at about 20 now. The ideal small wake planing speed is at 28-30 mph. As stated above, gradual speed to plane, or to come off plane, results in larger wakes for a longer period of time. This has another adverse effect, that other small boats slow down as they come to the larger wakes.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:07 PM   #7
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,233
Thanks: 402
Thanked 459 Times in 307 Posts
Default

I think the faster a (planing) hull goes, the smaller the wake will be. This is particularly true of the Deep "V" hull which usually has a 24 degree deadrise. This hull will leave less and less wake the faster it goes because it continues to climb further out of the water on the "V" and lifting strakes, reducing wetted surface...allowing it to go even faster.

A flat bottom planing hull, such as a hydroplane, will plane off earlier and with much less effort, and leave less wake. NB


PS: The power to weight ratio probably has as MUCH to do with it as hull shape I think.
NoBozo is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:29 PM   #8
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Andover, MA
Posts: 392
Thanks: 173
Thanked 124 Times in 59 Posts
Default

The numbers on the graph are interesting, and leave me asking what kind of boats were talking about and how the MPH is being measured.

I think you also need to consider how stable your boat is at minimum plane speed. i.e. will it fall of plane if the engine RPM varies at all or if you hit any wake, or correct direction.

In my mind minimum plane speed is the speed where my hull is up "on top of the water" and will stay there without me playing with the throttle every second and/or holding a dead straight path across flat water.

In real world conditions, engine RPM will vary 100-200, you will hit someone elses wake, and you will have to make directional corrections and that will all effect the speed at which the hull will stay on a plane.

For my current boats:

1988 Glastron Carlson CVX-20 w/225 Yamaha 2/stroke outboard the lowest speed it will stay on top is like 32 MPH

1989 Glastron Carlson CSS-23 w/Mercruiser I/O the lowest speed it will stay on top is like 28 MPH

In both cases thats with average loads (people and gear) and near full fuel tanks and using GPS.

I have to question if the majority of the folks responding are talking about very small boats (under 18') with light loads and borderline falling off plane, AND using some factory speedometer (NOT super accurate) as I just dont see a whole lot of boats that can hold a solid plane under 25 MPH and most that I have driven are closer to 30 MPH than 25 MPH.

Well thats my observation

GH

p.s. the 25 MPH exactly option seems like a useless number in my mind as no boat holds and exact speed for very long, grab a GPS and see for yourself! I think you should consider re-polling and split the groupings into 5 MPH chunks and better define the term plane to include the factors I have described above.

Last edited by XCR-700; 09-09-2009 at 10:25 PM.
XCR-700 is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:37 PM   #9
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

The best way to eliminate harmful wakes is to either stay at headway speed or stay on plane. Starting and stopping along with plowing causes the largest wake.

There is no universal headway speed. Each hull design has its own maximum no wake speed. Size, shape and weight of the hull are the major factors that determine the maximum no wake speed. Some boats can go over 8 MPH without throwing a wake while others cant go over 5 mph without throwing a wake. When a boater is in a NWZ he/she must understand the characteristics of their vessel and act accordingly.

The same can be said for minimum planing speed. Size, shape weight and power are the determining factors in planing. Some boats have no problem getting on plane at speeds less than 20 MPH, most do not. While they can be on plane at speeds under 25 they end up plowing to get on plane or exceed the speed limit to achieve it.

New Hampshire is not the only state with a night time speed limit (I know I am not supposed to talk about other states). But other states have laws that read 25 MPH max at night OR minimum planing speed.

So my question is simple. What do Winnipesaukee boaters and land owners want? A limit that causes erosion or just a limit?
Kracken is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
XCR-700 (09-09-2009)
Old 09-09-2009, 04:23 PM   #10
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Andover, MA
Posts: 392
Thanks: 173
Thanked 124 Times in 59 Posts
Default Less rules, more comon sense!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
So my question is simple. What do Winnipesaukee boaters and land owners want? A limit that causes erosion or just a limit?
Well said!!!

I like the language about minimum planing speed, seems reasonable at night.

As for daytime speedlimits, well best not open that can of worms,,, but I will say the number is worthless as people crash boats at all speeds, not just over a certain number.

GH
XCR-700 is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 04:33 PM   #11
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post

So my question is simple. What do Winnipesaukee boaters and land owners want? A limit that causes erosion or just a limit?
I think most just want to go about their business and rest assured that the real nutcases on the lake will be dealt with accordingly.

"Some" want to gradually eliminate the people and boats "They" don't like. If you look through the old SL threads (now closed), you'll see what they are. We also had some great discussions last year about boats and wakes. Some pretty interesting comments

In short, "they" want to eliminate anything "they" don't like. It's a moving target.

Anybody that's ever driven a boat in a bay on a weekend knows full well what happens when people plow along due to congestion.
VtSteve is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
NoRegrets (09-09-2009)
Old 09-09-2009, 05:39 PM   #12
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
To determine what will be a reasonable night speed limit. It will be important to find the minimum planing speed for Winnipesaukee boaters.
I have an idea; rather than take the risk that this forum does not represent the real Winnipesaukee boating public or that people here are just lying about their planing speeds (or don't know how to drive their own boats), how about if we consult a reputable performance boating reference and use the planing speeds they have found when they tested each model boat? Then, with the help of an elected State official who has access to the State's registration database, we use those real planing speeds and set a nighttime speed limit accordingly? And of course, we will throw out the extremes (say the fastest and slowest 1%), because we should not let our laws be tailored to suit one costumed cowboy in a 55-foot 3000HP 92dB cigarette boat (you know who I mean) or one old codger in a 12' jon boat with a 1919 one-cylinder 1/2 HP outboard.
So if 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found by this reference to have a planing speed below say 40MPH, then 40MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. If 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found to have a planing speed below 18.6MPH, then 18.6MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. But of course, this only works if we ALL agree to abide by it and support the compromise...and to then respect the newly established limit. Can we all agree to this? I will. And it sounds right in line with the intent of this "compromise".
Hint: Be careful what you wish for.
 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:51 PM   #13
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
I have an idea; rather than take the risk that this forum does not represent the real Winnipesaukee boating public or that people here are just lying about their planing speeds (or don't know how to drive their own boats), how about if we consult a reputable performance boating reference and use the planing speeds they have found when they tested each model boat? Then, with the help of an elected State official who has access to the State's registration database, we use those real planing speeds and set a nighttime speed limit accordingly? And of course, we will throw out the extremes (say the fastest and slowest 1%), because we should not let our laws be tailored to suit one costumed cowboy in a 55-foot 3000HP 92dB cigarette boat (you know who I mean) or one old codger in a 12' jon boat with a 1919 one-cylinder 1/2 HP outboard.
So if 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found by this reference to have a planing speed below say 40MPH, then 40MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. If 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found to have a planing speed below 18.6MPH, then 18.6MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. But of course, this only works if we ALL agree to abide by it and support the compromise...and to then respect the newly established limit. Can we all agree to this? I will. And it sounds right in line with the intent of this "compromise".
Hint: Be careful what you wish for.
Wow EL, an actual post (barring the sarcasm) that makes sense. I don't know if it is possible because registered boats do not list speeds of the craft but all the same not a bad idea and I thank you for the actual valid post.

Just a heads up for future referance. A Cigarette boat is a manufactorer not a type. The one you refer to is an Outerlimits, a completely different boat then a Cigarette. Totally different handling and hull design.

If you are trying to give a name to the community, we refer to it as Go-Fast-Boat or GFB for short, because the is the primarially what it is designed for.

Cheers!
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 08:22 PM   #14
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default Min. Pane speed?

I own a PWC, so I am reluctant to answer the poll question. I believe it would skew the results.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 09:07 PM   #15
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

NB - Great job and congrats on the 43 years! My bride and I will be 29 years in a few weeks!

Since I still have an optimistic streak in me and fairly new to the forum I will expose my boats performance and be prepared to go to the edge....

There are many tyes of vessels to consider. The small, medium, and large bow riders. Small, large and medium crusiers, and the same for performance boats. I would expect sail and commercial boats would be exempt.

I have a 34' cruiser. MFG book weight was 13,000 lbs. We added generator, extra refridge, upgraded power, central vac, and added our "stuff" to the machine. We weigh in at 19,000 lbs with 740 HP total (Twin 8.1 gas engines), generator, 225 gallons fuel, 45 gallons water, and the same for waste.

To plane we give full throttle. It takes a little less than 20 seconds (1200 rpm to 3200 rpm) to get out of the "hole". The "monster wake" can be destructive and we are careful to make sure we do this in an appropriate location. If we have to come off plane due to b-heads oh-well...

Once on plane we cruse at 3400 (thanks to ethanal - used to be 3000) rpm and the wake is as small as a 24 foot Four Winds.

At 3400 rpm we are doing 29 mph. At 32 mph the machine is at total harmony and as smooth as silk. At 4800 rpm we can get to 48mph.

If anyone read past the details of my post here is the bottom line. 25 MPH is not fast enough for me to get out of the hole and I plow the lake leaving a terrible wake. I normally try to stay at least 600 feet from shore since the wake looses much of its energy (I am sure some may like to challenge this).

I would like to see if we can have this discussion and include cruisers.........

I am sure the statistical medium planning speed will be lower than my type of vessel can efficiently operate due to the number of smaller boats. It would be impossible to enforce different limits by boat type. There is a real challenge to make the suggestion that elchase is offering work.

It is worth the try and debate!
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 09:26 PM   #16
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,233
Thanks: 402
Thanked 459 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
NB - Great job and congrats on the 43 years! My bride and I will be 29 years in a few weeks!!
Thanks NoRegrets for your support. I have deleted my last post because I descided my other comments in that post ..... didn't add any positive thoughts to the conversation at hand..mainly: Minimum planing speeds. NB
NoBozo is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 10:08 PM   #17
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default Thanks NB

Well, I was very close to doing the same based on some caustic and narrow responses but these threads still have potential to add value to the lakes future. You and many others have a ton of class and it is an honor to be able to share in the fun.
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 10:21 PM   #18
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Andover, MA
Posts: 392
Thanks: 173
Thanked 124 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
I have an idea; rather than take the risk that this forum does not represent the real Winnipesaukee boating public or that people here are just lying about their planing speeds (or don't know how to drive their own boats), how about if we consult a reputable performance boating reference and use the planing speeds they have found when they tested each model boat? Then, with the help of an elected State official who has access to the State's registration database, we use those real planing speeds and set a nighttime speed limit accordingly? And of course, we will throw out the extremes (say the fastest and slowest 1%), because we should not let our laws be tailored to suit one costumed cowboy in a 55-foot 3000HP 92dB cigarette boat (you know who I mean) or one old codger in a 12' jon boat with a 1919 one-cylinder 1/2 HP outboard.
So if 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found by this reference to have a planing speed below say 40MPH, then 40MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. If 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found to have a planing speed below 18.6MPH, then 18.6MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. But of course, this only works if we ALL agree to abide by it and support the compromise...and to then respect the newly established limit. Can we all agree to this? I will. And it sounds right in line with the intent of this "compromise".
Hint: Be careful what you wish for.
I completely agree with the concept, the problem I see is finding a reliable source.

I have read all kinds of "official" boat test reports and all too often the numbers quoted read like a fairy tale.

When you see 20 foot bowriders with v6 I/O that they claim runs in the low 50's top speed and planes at 18 MPH all the while burning like 3 GPH you just have to shake you head and ask, how much did the manufacturer pay you to write this crap.

I think you would be very hard pressed to find any quality reference data that would stand up to a reasonable standard. You would need something like those insurance institute tests, or UL, or someone like that who wasn't in the tank for either the boat manufacturers, or the anti-boat crowd.

I guess you could hire someone with a GPS and radar gun to randomly test the boats of forum members boats, but that seems like an extreme option,,,

It will be interesting to see where this goes,,,
XCR-700 is offline  
Old 09-10-2009, 03:26 AM   #19
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

I agree the published test results in magazines and manufacture marketing sheets are not at all accurate. My boat is supposed to be 13,000 lbs but weighed 19,000 lbs on the lift. Why don't we try to get people that know their boats start to give what their vessels require. I know many have changed props (pitch or number of blades), slime on the hull, ethanal fuel robbing performance, full tanks or unbalanced loads, etc.

I posted many of my boats actual operating capabilities so maybe others can and we can get some idea if elcase's theory can be of vaue....
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 09-10-2009, 07:58 AM   #20
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default Great Post!

I have to admit that everyone wants a valid compromise. I applaud elchase for making a valid statement as well as everyone else in the forum.

Obvously, there are a lot of variables working here. It will be tough to make a concrete conclusion but at least we can come up with something that can be generally agreed upon.

Comments are still coming in. I'm going to give this post a few more days.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to BroadHopper For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (09-10-2009)
Old 09-10-2009, 09:59 AM   #21
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default This sheep has the tail of a wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
I have an idea; rather than take the risk that this forum does not represent the real Winnipesaukee boating public or that people here are just lying about their planing speeds (or don't know how to drive their own boats), how about if we consult a reputable performance boating reference and use the planing speeds they have found when they tested each model boat? Then, with the help of an elected State official who has access to the State's registration database, we use those real planing speeds and set a nighttime speed limit accordingly? And of course, we will throw out the extremes (say the fastest and slowest 1%), because we should not let our laws be tailored to suit one costumed cowboy in a 55-foot 3000HP 92dB cigarette boat (you know who I mean) or one old codger in a 12' jon boat with a 1919 one-cylinder 1/2 HP outboard.
So if 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found by this reference to have a planing speed below say 40MPH, then 40MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. If 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found to have a planing speed below 18.6MPH, then 18.6MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. But of course, this only works if we ALL agree to abide by it and support the compromise...and to then respect the newly established limit. Can we all agree to this? I will. And it sounds right in line with the intent of this "compromise".
Hint: Be careful what you wish for.
In case the last line did not give it away. When someone comes 180 degrees on their stand, they have found something that will work to their benefit in our stand. This poll and the quoted post proves that they are going to try to use these numbers to establish a much slower speed on the lake as this is as slow as we can go. This is a double edged sword because you could raise the night limit while opening the door for lowering the day. Think long and hard about wanting to have a discussion about how slow you can go. Just my thoughts, but someone that was hard pressed to move toward a compromise Tuesday, suddenly wants to now.
A disco dancer that just walked into a biker bar would seem as out of place too.

Last edited by jmen24; 09-10-2009 at 11:23 AM.
jmen24 is offline  
Old 09-10-2009, 10:24 AM   #22
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
Arrow Devil in the details

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700 View Post
I completely agree with the concept, the problem I see is finding a reliable source.

I have read all kinds of "official" boat test reports and all too often the numbers quoted read like a fairy tale.

When you see 20 foot bowriders with v6 I/O that they claim runs in the low 50's top speed and planes at 18 MPH all the while burning like 3 GPH you just have to shake you head and ask, how much did the manufacturer pay you to write this crap.

I think you would be very hard pressed to find any quality reference data that would stand up to a reasonable standard. You would need something like those insurance institute tests, or UL, or someone like that who wasn't in the tank for either the boat manufacturers, or the anti-boat crowd.

I guess you could hire someone with a GPS and radar gun to randomly test the boats of forum members boats, but that seems like an extreme option,,,

It will be interesting to see where this goes,,,
I'm not that worried about the writers being "in the tank" but rather the test conditions. I'm sure the magazines want to standardize their tests as much as possible and I'll guess that means a half tank of fuel and something like 2 passengers. But, as has been mentioned, other variables can come into play and move their measured planing speed up a few MPH. Moreover what do they use as a measure of "minimum" planing speed ? People speak as if being on-plane is a true binary thing but it isn't, it's a zone. I can hold a mushy plane at ~19-20 MPH with little fuel and just me aboard but the slightest thing will push me back over the hump and I'll have to goose it again to get back on-plane. So is that the minimum planing speed "we" want to use ? I wouldn't say so. A few MPH more is much better ... until I add a full load of gas and passengers ... then it's shaky again. And of course I'm neglecting the fact that I must exceed the "min" planing speed to get over the hump an on-plane in the first place.

I understand the complaints and elchases attempt to address them but I have to ask "what's the point again ?" If the (night time) SL is supposed to be about safety then let it about safety. If 25 MPH is the magic number then so be it. If it isn't the magic number then why are "we" restricting people to that speed or some min planing speed. So here's my proposal ... take some of that stimulus $$ and fund a true research study, to be peer reviewed, to determine the proper SL and then let the chips fall where they may. There was a time when engineers and safety professionals, not politicians, determined safe roadway speeds. I see no reason why that approach shouldn't work for the lake.

FWIW : Our boat is a 24' Wellcraft, neither a GFBL nor a floating mansion.
__________________
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  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mee-n-Mac For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (09-10-2009), Kracken (09-10-2009), VtSteve (09-10-2009)
Old 09-10-2009, 10:38 AM   #23
Slickcraft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Welch Island and West Alton
Posts: 2,550
Thanks: 808
Thanked 1,399 Times in 644 Posts
Default 20 mph

The 23’ Slickcraft SS235 planes at 18.5 mph and is essentially all the way up with minimum wake at 20 mph. That is my normal efficient cruise speed day or night. Speed measured by GPS.

Last edited by Slickcraft; 09-10-2009 at 10:38 AM. Reason: typo
Slickcraft is offline  
Old 09-10-2009, 11:10 AM   #24
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Fortunately there is only one person in this forum who has absolute power. His absolute power is the ability to shut the thread down, something I believe nobody wants. A change in the speed limit will not be decided here. There will be no bare knuckle brawl between OCTACTIVE and elchase with the victor making law (although that might be fun too). This is a forum for people with different perspectives to come together and see if they can reach a compromise. A lot of people here have tried to compromise in good faith. I know several people who want unlimited speeds throughout the lake who would be willing to agree to a limit. There are people who have supported the speed limit from day one who are willing to talk about raising the limit. Those people are trying to compromise. If certain people are happy with the current law and are unwilling to compromise, hey that is there right too.

If somebody wants even slower speed limits than 45/25, well its a free country and they are welcome to their opinion but I highly doubt they would get much support from boaters. If you are one of these people, be honest and come out and say it, the cloche and dagger thing is a little weak.
Kracken is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (09-10-2009), BroadHopper (09-11-2009), jmen24 (09-10-2009), VtSteve (09-10-2009)
Old 09-10-2009, 04:38 PM   #25
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

A friend of the forum and I were talking regarding the last few posts and I thought this response was right on the money.

El probably thinks a boat test can be evidence of a boat's planing ability. However,boat test show speed and time to plane, they Do Not determine a boat's ability to Remain on plane. Big difference. Many boats will plane at around 20 mph or so, but will fall off plane due to the lack of increased thrust. I can be on plane at around 16 mph, but I can't remain on plane at that speed.

Last edited by jmen24; 09-10-2009 at 04:43 PM. Reason: spelling
jmen24 is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jmen24 For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (09-11-2009), VtSteve (09-10-2009)
Old 09-10-2009, 06:27 PM   #26
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
Wow EL, an actual post that makes sense... not a bad idea and I thank you for the actual valid post.
OK, so it sounds like we are all in agreement then.
A "compromise" nighttime speed limit will be established using information obtained from;
1) A reputable performance boating reference (A well-known and respected performance boating authority who can surely not be accused of bias against GFBLers), and using the planing speeds they have already found by testing actual boats in real-life fresh-water conditions.
2) The official NH boat registration database, provided by an elected Republican State Representative, to catalog the model distribution of motor-powered boats registered for use principally on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2009.
This information will establish the speed below which 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee have been proven to reach plane (the"planing speed", as defined by the reference), and that speed will be the "compromise nighttime speed limit", supported by all the SL opposing members of this forum, no matter what it is.
And, all SL opposing members of this forum agree to abide by the newly established limit, no matter what it is.
Do we have a deal? Yes or No. Please just post "I agree" or "I do not agree". Let's see who is willing to put their boating where their mouth is. And no backing out afterward if you see that the number is a lot lower than you expected.
 
Old 09-10-2009, 06:30 PM   #27
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
OK, so it sounds like we are all in agreement then.
A "compromise" nighttime speed limit will be established using information obtained from;
1) A reputable performance boating reference (A well-known and respected performance boating authority who can surely not be accused of bias against GFBLers), and using the planing speeds they have already found by testing actual boats in real-life fresh-water conditions.
2) The official NH boat registration database, provided by an elected Republican State Representative, to catalog the model distribution of motor-powered boats registered for use principally on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2009.
This information will establish the speed below which 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee have been proven to reach plane (the"planing speed", as defined by the reference), and that speed will be the "compromise nighttime speed limit", supported by all the SL opposing members of this forum, no matter what it is.
And, all SL opposing members of this forum agree to abide by the newly established limit, no matter what it is.
Do we have a deal? Yes or No. Please just post "I agree" or "I do not agree". Let's see who is willing to put their boating where their mouth is. And no backing out afterward if you see that the number is a lot lower than you expected.
you may want to start a poll instead of a hundred posts of agree / disagree.. Just a suggestion.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-10-2009, 06:47 PM   #28
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
you may want to start a poll instead of a hundred posts of agree / disagree.. Just a suggestion.
Thanks, but the polls on this forum have no real meaning. People are known to vote multiple times from different computers, and to recruit from all over the place. I recall a couple of years ago seeing posts in a Canadian jet ski forum asking people to visit Winni.com and vote on one of the SL polls. We have no control or knowledge of who is voting, how often and from where. In one of the other pending "polls" there are 182 votes (at last count) opposing a speed limit, when there are only maybe eight or nine real opposers on this forum. Where did all those votes come from? It's too bad there is no way to know as it would make the results much more meaningful. IS there any way to identify where those votes came from?
I think the "I agree / I disagree" approach is pretty straight forward. We know who people are here for the most part, unless they are going to go so far as to change screen names. If a vociferous SL-opposing member agrees ahead to abide by this compromise and then starts crying foul when it does not show the results they had expected, they will look like crybabies. These are the people who suggested this "planing speed" logic for establishing the nighttime limit...let's see if they are willing to stand by it.
 
Old 09-10-2009, 06:49 PM   #29
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Thanks, but the polls on this forum have no real meaning. People are known to vote multiple times from different computers, and to recruit from all over the place. I recall a couple of years ago seeing posts in a Canadian jet ski forum asking people to visit Winni.com and vote on one of the SL polls. We have no control or knowledge of who is voting, how often and from where. In one of the other pending "polls" there are 182 votes (at last count) opposing a speed limit, when there are only maybe eight or nine real opposers on this forum. Where did all those votes come from? It's too bad there is no way to know as it would make the results much more meaningful. IS there any way to identify where those votes came from?
I think the "I agree / I disagree" approach is pretty straight forward. We know who people are here for the most part, unless they are going to go so far as to change screen names. If a vociferous SL-opposing member agrees ahead to abide by this compromise and then starts crying foul when it does not show the results they had expected, they will look like crybabies. These are the people who suggested this "planing speed" logic for establishing the nighttime limit...let's see if they are willing to stand by it.
well two thoughts:

1. you can have the poll show who voted for what (that is an option)

2. and for someone who "just joined" you know a lot of history of this forum.....

not crying foul but it is very interesting.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-10-2009, 08:06 PM   #30
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

I am surprised that there is a lack of trust in forum members. I would not have taken the time to detail elchase's possiblity of corruption in the forum's process but that is my nature to trust until stepped on twice.

I did not think the group ACORN or the Chicago voters association were reaking havic with the Winni Forum polling! I felt the polls were responded to in proper numbers and if there are a few bassturds, so be it.

We all learned something about a poll with 5 vs 2 options. With 5 you can infinitely debate percentages but with 2 choices it is black or white.
We are not writing law. This should remain a forum we all enjoy and contribute to. Everyone seems to be highly intelligent and successful and capable of debating this issue.

We could use registered handles and a single vote. It would be interesting to see how many do join in.
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 09-10-2009, 08:50 PM   #31
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post

We could use registered handles and a single vote. It would be interesting to see how many do join in.
Maybe we can hire the voting company from american Idol.... Or perhaps someone can come up with a new idea for voting and patent it?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-10-2009, 08:53 PM   #32
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

I have an idea:

Lets all Agree to elchase's idea and then if the tests show that 15, 16 or 18 MPH or whatever is the average minimum plaining speed then we go for it, make it law...


...then we cruise by his house on the lake as many times as we possibly can at night, abiding by the law of course. Then we see what, if any, shoreline, boat, swim raft, dock, etc. is left standing in the morning.

To quote elchase directly:
"Hint: Be careful what you wish for. "
hazelnut is offline  
Old 09-10-2009, 11:18 PM   #33
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Andover, MA
Posts: 392
Thanks: 173
Thanked 124 Times in 59 Posts
Default

I have no desire to fan the flames about the poll itself or any of the other issues being kicked back and forth as I really dont know anyone here, Im simply interested in the subject and have a vested interest as someone who has been boating Winnipesaukee for 46 years!

That said,,, I again have to question what kind of boats were talking about, under what water/wind conditions, and what are the pertinent factors; load (fuel people gear) prop engine hp - etc.

When I see some of you posting planing speeds of 16 and 18 and 20 MPH, I have to ask how is that possible, are you folks running 14 aluminum flat-bottom jon-boats with a 20 HP outboards and but for the driver and 2 gal of gas, its empty???

Now in the case of my CVX-20, I think I have an odd combination, 27 gal fuel tank in the nose, super heavy V6 outboard hanging on the transom with a 3 blade high pitch/high rake prop, 2 batteries, extra oil, tools, spare SS prop (or 2 sometimes) usually loaded with the Mrs and 2 kids and lots of stuff for the kids (food drinks water toys towels etc) and almost NEVER see flat water. So I fully except that my over 30 MPH planing speed is abnormally high for a 20 ski boat, but it is what it is. And though my stern heavy 23 similarly loaded does a bit better with a planing speed in the upper 20s, its still no where near the crowd that seem to be talking about solid planing under 20 MPH.

Hell, with my std 25 prop on the CVX-20 I think my idle speed is almost 10 MPH,,,

What am I missing here???

Are people seriously getting 20 and larger fiberglass family/pleasure boats that are fully loaded with gear fuel and people to run on a solid plane at speeds under 20 MPH???

I just find that awful hard to believe,,,
XCR-700 is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 07:31 AM   #34
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
I have an idea:
Lets all cruise by elchase's house on the lake as many times as we possibly can at night, abiding by the law of course. Then we see what, if any, shoreline, boat, swim raft, dock, etc. is left standing in the morning.
This is as a classic, but it is typical. This shows the criminal mentatility we are dealing with in this forum. If I was moderating and a guy posted something like this on my forum I'd throw him off for life and report him to the police. Just don't call anyone a "chump" or parse their quotes, because those "uncivilities" violate forum rules. But we can organize a harassment parade to his home and that is not "uncivil", as long as we just say afterward that we were just kidding...your next message will say "we were just razzing you". Ya, right. "Chumps" was too nice a word...You guys are a bunch of thugs.

Let's have a poll...how many of the opposers on this forum are felons?
 
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
Turtle Boy (09-11-2009)
Old 09-11-2009, 07:46 AM   #35
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,664
Thanks: 461
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default

Elchase, you say the polls have no real meaning but I bet if they were IN FAVOR OF the speed limit, you would think they were wonderful and spew them everywhere, even to the legislature.
tis is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 08:08 AM   #36
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
This is as a classic, but it is typical. This shows the criminal mentatility we are dealing with in this forum. If I was moderating and a guy posted something like this on my forum I'd throw him off for life and report him to the police. Just don't call anyone a "chump" or parse their quotes, because those "uncivilities" violate forum rules. But we can organize a harassment parade to his home and that is not "uncivil", as long as we just say afterward that we were just kidding...your next message will say "we were just razzing you". Ya, right. "Chumps" was too nice a word...You guys are a bunch of thugs.

Let's have a poll...how many of the opposers on this forum are felons?
And to that, here's my 2 cents worth. I can handle someone asking what channel I live in so they can purposefully and unlawfully speed by (because I won't tell them). Some of you guys can threaten (with a smile) similar harassment as noted above (after announcing on forum a few weeks ago where he lives). In reality, some of the people who have worked so hard to make the speed limit reality have indeed been intimidated and threatened outside of this forum. I read a message a couple of years ago on one of the even more venomous sites from someone who said he'd be happy to take out a certain person who was active in the SL movement...I believe his words were "make myself a martyr"...I found the quote disturbing enough that I made a hard copy. That being said, I agree with many of the posts indicating that those on this forum who are intimidating and dominating on the forum probably feel they have the same "rights" on the lake. Clearly, Hazelnut seems to be at the far end of the bell curve in this department (and to think, this guy is a school teacher!), though there are a couple more who are close. I am also perplexed as to why some of the more articulate/sincere SL opponents have tolerated this...clearly it just dumbs down their arguments against a SL. I give my respect to the law abiding and sincere SL opponents here, but EL hit the nail on the head, and I'm glad he has the courage to make his points. Many no longer do. I hope Don is taking note.

Last edited by Turtle Boy; 09-11-2009 at 08:36 AM. Reason: grammar
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 08:18 AM   #37
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default Time Out!!!

Elchase, I can see where you believe Hazelnut was trying to organize a harrasment parade but I take it as a literary attemp to show you personally the impact of the suggested solution. Not a criminal act focused upon you.

You are a very interesting poster but I am getting the sense you are debating on a different level with different motives. You easily goad others to a point of frustration that leads to the responses you get. Once you get it you instantly call foul and attack.

I would like to have the poll you suggested come to life but I am afraid the goading process may terminate the speed issues threads. It is Friday and another weekend is upon us and we should be looking forward to having another great weekend on d'lake.

I will take your last suggested poll - I am not a fellon. Had a speeding ticket 13 years ago, and pay all my taxes on time.

I am still against the speed limits. I do think the compromise that may be driven out of this thread for a suitable night time limit could be of value. I believe this was your idea.
NoRegrets is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NoRegrets For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (09-11-2009), OCDACTIVE (09-11-2009)
Old 09-11-2009, 08:29 AM   #38
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

To TurtleBoy, elchase and any others that have felt personally threatened I am truely sorry for the idiots that use the pen to do that. I guess the pen can be mightier than than the sword.

I have not looked into all the threads but hazelnut and the others all have contributed to a very exciting forum.

I now see that any reference to make anything "personal" should be out of bounds and we should and can continue the debate in a constructive bantering style. This is what makes me excited to turn the PC on and come to this site.

Cheers to all.......... (I always wanted to say that!)
NoRegrets is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NoRegrets For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (09-11-2009), OCDACTIVE (09-11-2009)
Old 09-11-2009, 09:21 AM   #39
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Yawn

Puleeeeze. The post was to prove a point. Stop with the woah is me attitude. el and TB you are such victims. My post was to illustrate a point to you in an extreme case. Go ahead and deduce that anyone who opposes the limit is a thug and a criminal. Don knows me from this forum and knows my posts. You are and have become a joke and a caricature on this forum. Now more so than ever. TB I suggest you distance yourself from elchase FAST. Notice that hardly any other SL supporter save for 1 or 2 back his statements ever. Not one person is interested in where you guys live.

I stand by the post and the intent. As a matter of fact it worked better than I had hoped. It proves a point and you confirmed it with your reaction. Unwittingly, your reaction proves that now realize the damage that could be done by the limit. Your post spoke volumes of how you would deem that people OBEYING THE LAW YOU PROPOSE would wreak havoc on your shoreline. It would be harrasment, as you stated. If we simply drove by your house nothing more, drove by your house obeying the law we would be harassing you and destroying your property. Get it? Thanks for helping to prove my point.

Again:

Be Careful What You Wish For.

P.S. Stop with the victim act it is tiresome.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 09:32 AM   #40
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
Arrow A bit too literal

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
This is as a classic, but it is typical. This shows the criminal mentatility we are dealing with in this forum. If I was moderating and a guy posted something like this on my forum I'd throw him off for life and report him to the police. Just don't call anyone a "chump" or parse their quotes, because those "uncivilities" violate forum rules. But we can organize a harassment parade to his home and that is not "uncivil", as long as we just say afterward that we were just kidding...your next message will say "we were just razzing you". Ya, right. "Chumps" was too nice a word...You guys are a bunch of thugs.

Let's have a poll...how many of the opposers on this forum are felons?
Interesting ... I can't be 100% sure of what hazelnut's true intent was since I don't read minds but my take on his post is that it was to graphically illustrate the end result of the proposal, specifically the large wakes he thinks would result. I guess I can see how you might take it differently but to me it illustrates that you actually think all the people who oppose you on the SL issue have "criminal mentalities". You lump every who opposes you into the same group, ie - everyone who opposes the SL is a GFBL'er, which I can assure you isn't the case by a long shot. Take a deep breath and relax, go for a sail, the world is not out to "get" you. You're just not that important.

ps - parse all you want, just don't do it so as to skew the original intent. Otherwise you'll be encroaching on APS's turf.

pps - Just to let you know, the immediate above was a razz at APS, not you.
__________________
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  
Old 09-11-2009, 09:37 AM   #41
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 I gots to type faster

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
Elchase, I can see where you believe Hazelnut was trying to organize a harrasment parade but I take it as a literary attemp to show you personally the impact of the suggested solution. Not a criminal act focused upon you.
Seems my post on this issue is redundant. You saw it the same way I did.
__________________
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  
Old 09-11-2009, 09:37 AM   #42
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac View Post

pps - Just to let you know, the immediate above was a razz at APS, not you.
The difference is although I may not agree with APS many times you ALWAYS know where he stands and is someone who has been making the same arguement for years. He doesn't take things personal or use the forums for an agenda.

P.S.. yup thats right I am sticking up for APS!! (take note)
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 10:04 AM   #43
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default Elchase

There has been no outrage by the SL opponents about comments towards you or any SL supporters because it is believed they are made in jest. I for one have never intended to threaten or bully anyone here and if you feel that way I sincerely apologize. I don’t believe negative comments made by members here have been personal attacks or actual threats; for the most part they have been directed at conflicting points of view not at individuals. While I have disagreed with just about every comment you have ever made here I do not wish you any harm and would condemn anybody who does. There is a big difference between making a joke and making a threat. Both sides have had there share of critical statements however they have been benign in nature.

The latest harsh statement is credited to you ELCHASE “...how many of the opposers on this forum are felons?”. I could get all defensive about this but…why? I am not a felon, the people I know here are not felons so quite frankly this comment doesn’t bother me in the least because it was not directed at a specific individual, it was directed at a person who may commit a crime in your channel.

Elchase As for your deal…I cannot speak for others but I will accept your challenge on two conditions.

1. We only include boats that can legally operate at night.
2. We are attempting to determine the minimum SUSTAINABLE planing speed.

I will take this a step further. I will take my boat out on Saturday and determine its minimal sustainable planning speed. I will use GPS and make runs from Sandy Point to Echo Point. I will even invite you to come along to verify my findings.

Last edited by Kracken; 09-11-2009 at 10:51 AM.
Kracken is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
NoRegrets (09-11-2009), VtSteve (09-11-2009)
Old 09-11-2009, 10:05 AM   #44
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Let's have a poll...how many of the opposers on this forum are felons?
Interesting. If you have followed the Littlefield case, the two bar owners 'conveniently' lost Littlefield bar tabs. They went on and became chief proponents of Winnfabs and SL. I consider that a felon.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 10:06 AM   #45
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

What a whiney couple they make . A joke about parading "slowly" by "lawfully" at slow speed, producing large wakes, and El comes out whining again. Sounds a lot like 2BD to me. Pretty mean as well.

I think it's time to just ignore "those two", or three if you want. There have been lots of good posts back and forth. The more ideas you post, the meaner El and TB will get. Professional victims they are. I suggest that any direct reply just be "UH HUH". Leave it at that.

Anyway, good discussion on planing speeds.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 10:12 AM   #46
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
Interesting. If you have followed the Littlefield case, the two bar owners 'conveniently' lost Littlefield bar tabs. They went on and became chief proponents of Winnfabs and SL. I consider that a felon.
Very interesting indeed. Amazing that the SL promoters never discussed that aspect, nor the founders of WINFABS. I'll just bet those very same founders are on this very board. I might add this about that case. If it weren't for his dad, he might not have been caught. In addition, the Vast majority of people that are against the SL cited this accident many times (I have), to have more night time enforcement. The SL crowd formed an agenda around it sadly, and have not accomplished a single thing.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 02:20 PM   #47
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
I agree the published test results in magazines and manufacture marketing sheets are not at all accurate. My boat is supposed to be 13,000 lbs but weighed 19,000 lbs on the lift. Why don't we try to get people that know their boats start to give what their vessels require. I know many have changed props (pitch or number of blades), slime on the hull, ethanal fuel robbing performance, full tanks or unbalanced loads, etc.

I posted many of my boats actual operating capabilities so maybe others can and we can get some idea if elcase's theory can be of vaue....
My boat weighs approx. 11,000lbs with a beam of 10 feet. I can certainly get up on plane by 25mph, but just barely throwing a huge wake(maybe I can swing by elchase's place a go by a few times, I'm sure he'd appreciate it!). My optimal cruising speed is 32-35 mph depending on conditions.
gtagrip is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 02:33 PM   #48
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtagrip View Post
My boat weighs approx. 11,000lbs with a beam of 10 feet. I can certainly get up on plane by 25mph, but just barely throwing a huge wake(maybe I can swing by elchase's place a go by a few times, I'm sure he'd appreciate it!). My optimal cruising speed is 32-35 mph depending on conditions.
Better not gta you'd be accused of "harassment." And you'd be obeying a law that HE proposes. Pretty ironic huh? At least he admits that boating at night by his proposed law would be considered harassment. Ya see that el we actually agree on something. If an 18MPH nightime speed limit law were put in place I too would call it harassment every time a boat went by my house.

"Be Careful What You Wish For." - I think that should be my new signature. I like it.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 02:47 PM   #49
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
Better not gta you'd be accused of "harassment." And you'd be obeying a law that HE proposes. Pretty ironic huh? At least he admits that boating at night by his proposed law would be considered harassment. Ya see that el we actually agree on something. If an 18MPH nightime speed limit law were put in place I too would call it harassment every time a boat went by my house.

"Be Careful What You Wish For." - I think that should be my new signature. I like it.

You're right! I had not read his post where he said if we went by his place obeying the nightime speed limit we would be considered "felons"!
Makes you kind of wonder.
gtagrip is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 04:17 PM   #50
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
Arrow Solid as a wet noodle

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700 View Post
{snip} Are people seriously getting 20 and larger fiberglass family/pleasure boats that are fully loaded with gear fuel and people to run on a solid plane at speeds under 20 MPH???

I just find that awful hard to believe,,,
As I said earlier, what's meant by "minimum". I'm pretty sure it's not what you or I would call solid.
__________________
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  
Old 09-11-2009, 04:44 PM   #51
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Let's have a poll...how many of the opposers on this forum are felons?

Convicted?
Dave R is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 04:52 PM   #52
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
I read a message a couple of years ago on one of the even more venomous sites from someone who said he'd be happy to take out a certain person who was active in the SL movement...I believe his words were "make myself a martyr"...I found the quote disturbing enough that I made a hard copy.
If you were reading forum posts about the Winnipesaukee speed limit a couple of years ago, it would make me think you may have been posting about them as well. Were you posting here about them? If so, under what screen name? Just curious.
Dave R is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (09-11-2009)
Old 09-11-2009, 05:14 PM   #53
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
If you were reading forum posts about the Winnipesaukee speed limit a couple of years ago, it would make me think you may have been posting about them as well. Were you posting here about them? If so, under what screen name? Just curious.
I would pose the same question to EL... What was his previous screen name?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 05:25 PM   #54
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Andover, MA
Posts: 392
Thanks: 173
Thanked 124 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
This is as a classic, but it is typical. This shows the criminal mentatility we are dealing with in this forum. If I was moderating and a guy posted something like this on my forum I'd throw him off for life and report him to the police. Just don't call anyone a "chump" or parse their quotes, because those "uncivilities" violate forum rules. But we can organize a harassment parade to his home and that is not "uncivil", as long as we just say afterward that we were just kidding...your next message will say "we were just razzing you". Ya, right. "Chumps" was too nice a word...You guys are a bunch of thugs.

Let's have a poll...how many of the opposers on this forum are felons?
WOW, I think your getting a bit torqued up over this.

Might be better to take the high road and sit this one out until you can cool off, otherwise the thread will be just wasted text and more smoke and mirrors about this whole SL issue.

Or is that the goal,,,

If so, sorry count me out, I didn't sign up for a food fight, I prefer boating!

I go to Winnipesaukee because its a good sized lake where you can enjoy a good blast across the lake and not get a big fine nor get called a felon.

If I wanted to take a 16 or 18 MPH put-put across a pond, then I'd boat on some pond.

Seems like the New World mentality, someone always thinks they can step in and change the rules, and its always in their own self-interest. To hell with the rest of us who don’t agree, just label us and keep saying it and pestering the politicians until you get your way and then we can all be miserable together. Yup that sounds like a great future.

Sure happy I was able to boat Winnipesaukee before the rule making omnipotent’s took over, because just like everything else they put their greedy little fingers on, they are spoiling this to,,,

Thanks for a meaningful exchange,,, NOT!!!

Sorry, now I'm the one that all torqued up and need to sit this one out,,,
XCR-700 is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to XCR-700 For This Useful Post:
pm203 (09-11-2009), VtSteve (09-11-2009)
Old 09-11-2009, 05:30 PM   #55
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I would pose the same question to EL... What was his previous screen name?
No no no OCD don't you know? They were sideline readers who had no posts in the original SL threads. They have become so passionate this time that they just HAD to chime in.

They are just instant experts on the forum.

At least I can say that I've never changed my screen name. What are THEY trying to hide?



FYI, Felon, nope, CORI check proves that out. Matter of fact not even a speeding ticket in the last 15+ years. I rarely exceed 70MPH in a 65 and rarely exceed 60MPH in a 55. My insurance rates prove that out!

Knock on wood!

Last edited by hazelnut; 09-11-2009 at 05:31 PM. Reason: Added "Knock on wood." I'm superstitious!!!!
hazelnut is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 05:38 PM   #56
Irrigation Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
No no no OCD don't you know? They were sideline readers who had no posts in the original SL threads. They have become so passionate this time that they just HAD to chime in.

They are just instant experts on the forum.

At least I can say that I've never changed my screen name. What are THEY trying to hide?



FYI, Felon, nope, CORI check proves that out. Matter of fact not even a speeding ticket in the last 15+ years. I rarely exceed 70MPH in a 65 and rarely exceed 60MPH in a 55. My insurance rates prove that out!

Knock on wood!
LOL....ever go 50 in a 45 or 30 in a 25?

Love the instant experts comment. Soooo true!
Irrigation Guy is offline  
Old 09-11-2009, 09:02 PM   #57
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default Felon?

Please don't tell the Dept of Defense, they will revoke my Secret clearance. They have been all over my background backwards, forward and in between and must have missed all of my criminal activity.

El, about the only thing I have been guilty of is getting sucked into your foolishness.

Last edited by VitaBene; 09-12-2009 at 12:40 AM.
VitaBene is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (09-12-2009)
Old 09-11-2009, 11:42 PM   #58
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 224
Thanks: 38
Thanked 84 Times in 45 Posts
Default

All this talk about the criminal mentality is ridiculous. If you really want to know who the criminals are, look at Winnfabs for the lies they fabricated and spewed, and look at our politicians. Their stupidity in actually passing this law is criminal in itself. I guess after being hammered and brainwashed over the years by the whiners, they just gave in. The passing of any new law without supporting data is the ultimate in criminal mentality.


P.S. And, suprisingly, I support a night time SL.
pm203 is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pm203 For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (09-12-2009), OCDACTIVE (09-12-2009), XCR-700 (09-11-2009)
Old 09-12-2009, 09:18 AM   #59
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
All this talk about the criminal mentality is ridiculous. If you really want to know who the criminals are, look at Winnfabs for the lies they fabricated and spewed, and look at our politicians. Their stupidity in actually passing this law is criminal in itself. I guess after being hammered and brainwashed over the years by the whiners, they just gave in. The passing of any new law without supporting data is the ultimate in criminal mentality.


P.S. And, suprisingly, I support a night time SL.
I loved the parts about "creates large wakes with high speed banking turns". I've struggled with that one ever since I read it in their poorly prepared, non-factual PP presentation with both gramatical and spelling errors.

We've had people like that ruin our waterfront over here. Cherish any of the many destinations you can go by boat on Winni, not here.

Speaking of planing speed, I was out yesterday and tested this theory. Granted, with a 5.0 and a light hull, I don;t have the issues many do. I can consistently stay on plane, which is key here, at 19 mph, 25 mph I'm fine. At 30, it drives a little better, and the wake is pretty small.

If you take a larger boat, the tests are not as easy. I would imagine for most boats, 25 - 30 mph is the sweet spot. (much easier if you clean your hulls too).

Fine with me, that's about my average at night for a long time, sometimes I'm closer to 20 than 25.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 09-12-2009, 03:27 PM   #60
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
In reality, some of the people who have worked so hard to make the speed limit reality have indeed been intimidated and threatened outside of this forum. I read a message a couple of years ago on one of the even more venomous sites from someone who said he'd be happy to take out a certain person who was active in the SL movement...I believe his words were "make myself a martyr"...I found the quote disturbing enough that I made a hard copy. EL hit the nail on the head, and I'm glad he has the courage to make his points. Many no longer do. I hope Don is taking note.
Thanks TB,
I've heard the same stories. Before my post yesterday, I got a private message from one of the opposers in which he just wanted to be sure I knew that he is a convicted felon and has spent some time in jail. Nice. Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure one could count up a couple of dozen admissions of law-breaking by this group on these threads, and they seem to be attracting more and more scofflaws every day to what used to be a forum for decent law-abiding locals. They boast about breaking the law as if it is a feat of heroism, and the rest pat them on the back. This is ok, because this is a law they don't agree with. And while this is a law that is very easy to obey, when other boaters inadvertently break another law that can be very difficult to obey in many cases, they are all over them...calling those offenders "captain boneheads" and worse. What a country we'd have if we could all just obey the laws we wanted to, huh? I'd become a thief. What would you become? But then, isn't this a good snapshot of the personality and behavior that led up to the SL in the first place? This is why I thought the Supporters' and Opposers' Threads were such a good idea...say what you feel and report what you see and nobody insults or torments you for it. Opening up these threads just invited the aggressors (from all over) and chased away the few remaining people this forum was supposedly created for. What a shame. I actually face a less hostile group when I post on the admittedly-GFBL sites. Dialogue there is much more civil. If someone posted some of the stuff you see here, they'd be thrown right off.

And by the way Hazelnut, since the "investigation" your friends did to expose where I live, you surely know that it is not possible to "abide by the law of course" if going the nighttime speed limit in a no wake zone. Puleeze. You are welcome to bring all the boats you can gather to "cruise by my house as many times as you possibly can at night", so long as you stay at headway speed and respect the town's noise ordinance and all other laws. I have no problem with that, I don't own the lake. That's why we have laws; to set reasonable and non-ambiguous limits on obnoxious or unsafe behavior which people (who are otherwise incapable of making rational decisions on their own) can follow to behave in a society. If you break our laws, you are either a "Capt Bonehead" or a scofflaw, no matter how you may try to dismiss it. I'd love to have a video of your group parading back and forth in front of my house in the middle of the night to punish me for my support of one of our laws. I think it would make a great story for WMUR. It would certainly do wonders for your reputations and efforts to gain sympathy in Concord this winter.

Have fun all...hope you show the same GFBLBV (Go-Fast-Be-Loud-Be-Vulgar) colors in January so the legislature can see what we are dealing with. Good bye.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
sunset on the dock (09-12-2009)
Old 09-12-2009, 04:11 PM   #61
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

I am not going to copy the above quote from EL because it doesn't deserve to be read more then once and frankly I am still laughing.


Will you please stop with the drama..........

Lets recap shall we:

1. Threads are opened up.
2. EL appears from no where claiming never to have posted but watched the from the sidelines because he did not want to be ridiculed.
3. Starts a supporters thread so that he could discuss the speed limits with again "no ridicule or intemidation" (however no discussion there in weeks)
4. No one continuously posts there so he starts causing arguments in the compromise thread.
5. Polls are made showing the majority of people on the site do not want the speed limits. He crys foul and tampering.
6. continues to make accusations and parses other peoples posts to try to piece together arguments.
7. Makes accusations that he is receiving prank phone calls.
8. Explains detailed history of Winni.com and prior posts from years ago (mind you from the sidelines)
9. Gets in heated disagreements where he accuses people of intemidation, however people immediately respond that they are sorry if he took it that way.
10. Calls the SL Opposers Felons for making jokes about going by his house and/or breaking the speed limits.
11. He gets people upset that they were called felons for having a discussion
12. Now says that the threads should not have been opened back up because of this intemidation.

Seriously, I think we all, supporters, opposers, and the webmaster can see your agenda. I as well as others have tried over and over to discuss things rationally and it never ceases to amaze me on how you twist every single comment.

There was a two week span that you did not post and many civil conversations took place between many supporters (again I applaud Sunset for his views, and even APS for many of his recent statements) and opposers.

The only member causing issues and crynig foul is EL....

So either please join in on civil conversations or stop the Melodramatics... It is getting tiring.


So back to minimum planing speed discussion as this thread was intended....

I think what we need to do is all come to an agreement as to the definition of being "safely" on plane. As discussed boat manufactorers list there #'s. But please keep in mind this is also from a marketing standpoint. Many manufactorers want their boats to have very low planing speeds so that they can boast that pulling a skier will be easier with their brand. However, as we all know just bringing the bow down does not make for a Safe planing speed. So before we can really discuss what would be realistic lets all try to come to a defination that works.

I feel in my boat that a safe planing speed would be roughly 30-32. This is where no trim tabs would be needed, I would not lose plane if I hit waves or made a course adjustment. I think that this would be most efficent for my boat (as it is currently propped) to avoid losing control (off plane) keeping a steady safe speed, and not throwing a large wake.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (09-12-2009), XCR-700 (09-12-2009)
Old 09-12-2009, 04:21 PM   #62
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Thanks TB,
I've heard the same stories. Before my post yesterday, I got a private message from one of the opposers in which he just wanted to be sure I knew that he is a convicted felon and has spent some time in jail.\
I am sorry but I think you are lying. If I'm wrong I apologize in advance but your track record speaks volumes. Seeing that Don sees all and most likely can see PM's? Don could you confirm or deny this? el I would be absolutely out of my mind over the edge irate if someone sent me a pm claiming they were a convicted felon. Isn't that a veiled threat to you. Why no outrage?

If it is true I think it is horrible and completely out of line.

Don could you please get to the bottom of this. If someone is PM'ng el or anyone for that matter telling him that they are a convicted felon and spent time in jail, what purpose could that serve other than to harass. If it turns out to be false... Well that's your call Don, not mine.

HN
hazelnut is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (09-12-2009), XCR-700 (09-12-2009)
Old 09-12-2009, 04:24 PM   #63
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

My boat will safely and easily plane at 23 MPH or so. I like to cruise at 28 at night though, it's on plane at that speed with the tabs up and gets best fuel mileage. I think the speed limit at night is a good idea, but perhaps it should be 30 or 35 MPH.
Dave R is offline  
Old 09-12-2009, 04:38 PM   #64
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
My boat will safely and easily plane at 23 MPH or so. I like to cruise at 28 at night though, it's on plane at that speed with the tabs up and gets best fuel mileage. I think the speed limit at night is a good idea, but perhaps it should be 30 or 35 MPH.
I have friends in law enforcement... They have said that speed limits are set usually lower because people will normally exceed the limit. Hence why most traffic is moving at 70 - 75 mph rather then the set 65.

So the 25 may just be this same attempt to keep people below 35 which I all think we can agree that unless you are somewhat reckless, going over 35 at night is usually NOT advisable. Given in certain conditions is it safe. That is still debatable but hey thats what this forums are for.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-12-2009, 06:10 PM   #65
Slickcraft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Welch Island and West Alton
Posts: 2,550
Thanks: 808
Thanked 1,399 Times in 644 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I have friends in law enforcement... They have said that speed limits are set usually lower because people will normally exceed the limit. Hence why most traffic is moving at 70 - 75 mph rather then the set 65.

So the 25 may just be this same attempt to keep people below 35 which I all think we can agree that unless you are somewhat reckless, going over 35 at night is usually NOT advisable. Given in certain conditions is it safe. That is still debatable but hey thats what this forums are for.
I agree that a 25/45 limit is in reality a 30/50 limit or maybe higher. For an auto limit of 45 most drivers travel at least 50 with no hassle from the law. After all a speeding ticket for going say 48 in a 45 zone may have a hard time holding up in court whether the supposed infection was on land or water.
Slickcraft is offline  
Old 09-12-2009, 07:03 PM   #66
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slickcraft View Post
I agree that a 25/45 limit is in reality a 30/50 limit or maybe higher. For an auto limit of 45 most drivers travel at least 50 with no hassle from the law. After all a speeding ticket for going say 48 in a 45 zone may have a hard time holding up in court whether the supposed infection was on land or water.
I'd like to think so but I recall a story or two on here from people who were not exceeding the limit, according to them, and were puled over. I just feel like it is way way more difficult on water to judge and estimate speed. I know they are supposed to use radar but can they pull someone over for an estimation of speed?
hazelnut is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (09-12-2009)
Old 09-12-2009, 07:06 PM   #67
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
I'd like to think so but I recall a story or two on here from people who were not exceeding the limit, according to them, and were puled over. I just feel like it is way way more difficult on water to judge and estimate speed. I know they are supposed to use radar but can they pull someone over for an estimation of speed?
I read the same story and my estimation there was more to the story... It absolutely is more difficult to judge speed via water because there is no frame of reference in many cases. Not only that but it can be difficult for the driver considering some boats do not have or are require to have spedometers
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
XCR-700 (09-12-2009)
Old 09-12-2009, 07:50 PM   #68
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 225
Thanked 627 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I have friends in law enforcement... They have said that speed limits are set usually lower because people will normally exceed the limit. Hence why most traffic is moving at 70 - 75 mph rather then the set 65.

So the 25 may just be this same attempt to keep people below 35
As one who routinely rides a sport bike without getting stopped by law enforcement, on desolate back roads, I figured as much.
Dave R is offline  
Old 09-12-2009, 07:59 PM   #69
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Andover, MA
Posts: 392
Thanks: 173
Thanked 124 Times in 59 Posts
Default I'm liking this less and less,,, :(

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I read the same story and my estimation there was more to the story... It absolutely is more difficult to judge speed via water because there is no frame of reference in many cases. Not only that but it can be difficult for the driver considering some boats do not have or are require to have spedometers
And please let me add that on most boats I have owned, my speedometers were lucky to work half of the time and rarely accurately.

With my 2 current rigs, the CSS-23 speedo works about 2/3 of the time before something blocks the pitot. On my CVX-20 I'm lucky if it works 1/3 of the time,,,

And even when they do work, I have not found them to be very accurate when checked against my handheld GPS.

So are we now responsible to add GPS to all our boats???

And then whats more important, watching the speedo/GPS or the water ahead (and to the sides, and behind, and the instruments, and map and compass, and kids on board, etc)

When you think about it, it sure makes a lot of sense to have to worry about a particular speed limit with everything else we have to do to operate a boat safely and navigate to our destination, especially at night,,, NOT!!!

I'm liking this less and less,,,

I'm one who drives VERY slow at night, always have, but there is a bottom reasonable speed any particular boat will run and not curl a 3 foot wake nor tear your arm off from the torque steer (outboard with big 3 blade prop) and I don’t determine that speed by watching the speedo, it just a throttle setting where everything hits a sweet spot, and its different for EVERY boat I have ever driven!

So in my mind you cannot effectively set a single speed limit for night operation that will fit the majority of boats unless its really high, 35+ MPH or it’s a no wake speed.

I just don’t see this working out effectively, boats just aren’t cars and lower limit speed limits are really tough to set that will work for everyone.


Last edited by XCR-700; 09-12-2009 at 09:12 PM.
XCR-700 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to XCR-700 For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (09-12-2009)
Old 09-12-2009, 10:24 PM   #70
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I have friends in law enforcement... They have said that speed limits are set usually lower because people will normally exceed the limit. Hence why most traffic is moving at 70 - 75 mph rather then the set 65.

So the 25 may just be this same attempt to keep people below 35 which I all think we can agree that unless you are somewhat reckless, going over 35 at night is usually NOT advisable. Given in certain conditions is it safe. That is still debatable but hey thats what this forums are for.
It used to be, that speed limits in localities were set to the 90% level of most drivers speeds. In other words, if the vast majority of people were going 50, the speed limit was set there. Some towns, besieged by calls from chronic complainers, would place signs that listed the limit at 40 mph. Many times, if you looked up the Legal speed limit, it was still 50. Case closed.

Basically, we have several 40 mph complainers on board here.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 09-12-2009, 11:45 PM   #71
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default elchase

Obvously don't want to comment on the wrongdoing of two Winnfabs proposers. So it must be allright by him for proposers to break the law and not the opposers.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.

Last edited by BroadHopper; 09-12-2009 at 11:45 PM. Reason: spelling
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 06:45 AM   #72
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default threatening PMs

ElC, If you have truly received threatening PMs I hope you forward them to Don for action. There is no call for that.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 09:02 AM   #73
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
Obvously don't want to comment on the wrongdoing of two Winnfabs proposers. So it must be allright by him for proposers to break the law and not the opposers.
Huh????????????
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 10:16 AM   #74
Island Girl
Senior Member
 
Island Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Central MA
Posts: 2,335
Thanks: 16
Thanked 508 Times in 172 Posts
Default Name calling

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
This is as a classic, but it is typical. This shows the criminal mentatility we are dealing with in this forum. If I was moderating and a guy posted something like this on my forum I'd throw him off for life and report him to the police. Just don't call anyone a "chump" or parse their quotes, because those "uncivilities" violate forum rules. But we can organize a harassment parade to his home and that is not "uncivil", as long as we just say afterward that we were just kidding...your next message will say "we were just razzing you". Ya, right. "Chumps" was too nice a word...You guys are a bunch of thugs.

Let's have a poll...how many of the opposers on this forum are felons?
Elchase, I take exception to you calling a long time and well respected member of this and another forum a thug. When you have been around here a while you will figure out the outstanding humor and sincerity and caring from most of our members. Each of us has a personality online that others have come to appreciate. This cannot be discerned from being here a short time.

Hazelnut is one of my favorite posters with a great sense of humor. Please take your nastiness elsewhere.

IG
__________________
Island Girl

....... Make Lemonade
Island Girl is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Island Girl For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (09-13-2009), SIKSUKR (09-14-2009)
Old 09-13-2009, 10:37 AM   #75
Kamper
Senior Member
 
Kamper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Thornton's Ferry
Posts: 1,202
Thanks: 65
Thanked 144 Times in 108 Posts
Default

About 15mph (GPS), '83 Starcraft SSC150 (15.5 ft) 40HP Merc
Attached Images
  
Kamper is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 10:42 AM   #76
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Girl View Post
Elchase, I take exception to you calling a long time and well respected member of this and another forum a thug. When you have been around here a while you will figure out the outstanding humor and sincerity and caring from most of our members. Each of us has a personality online that others have come to appreciate. This cannot be discerned from being here a short time.

Hazelnut is one of my favorite posters with a great sense of humor. Please take your nastiness elsewhere.

IG
IG,

Thanks so much! Almost brought a tear to my eye. *sniff* *sniff*

I have gone back and re-read my post and I guess if I were overly sensitive I would take it as a threat. Really though if you know me you'd know that was not the intention of the post. It's the old saying: "If I have to explain it, it aint' funny."
The funny thing is though it got such a rise and reaction out of that particular individual that I felt like the post worked better than I had planned. The person unknowingly admitted that it would be just about criminal for people to drive by someone's house obeying a nighttime speed limit that they propose (I.E. 16-18 MPH).

The real issue here that the opposition fails to recognize is that many boats on the lake cause real shoreline damage when cruising at or below 20 MPH. Many boats have a difficult time maintaining adequate steerage below 25 MPH.

Another side affect of the law is that you now have many nighttime captains with their heads buried in their speedometers fretting over their speed. We have taken the decision away from the captain as to how he or she operates his or her vessel reasonably at night. I for one have caught myself at night and said to myself "OH SHOOT, Speed Limit." Then I find myself obsessing over a few measly miles per hour. Why? I rarely traveled faster than 35 MPH at night. 30-32 It is an optimal speed for my boat day or night. So now I have to temper that down a bit and it is an extra effort that distracts me from the many many other tasks related to safe operation at night.

About Me: I have been driving on this lake for over 28 years, day AND night. This year was the least enjoyable year for me at night. My boat is a 248LS Monterey Bow Rider. Max Speed 50.1 with a strong tailwind, half tank of fuel, and 2 Passengers. Realistically the boat does 47MPH according to the GPS. I will most likely own this boat for the next 10+ years.

I am on record supporting a compromise. I stand by that position. It seems that non-boating lawmakers are making these arbitrary laws using numbers pulled out of the sky. I really wish the legislature would assemble a study group comprised of individuals representing all pursuits. I wish these people could assemble and logically discuss all facts and remove the emotion from the discussion. They could remove the words "afraid" and "scared" from the discussion. Replace those words with "reasonable" and "prudent." Perhaps all sides could be heard and boaters could explain why certain numbers don't work at certain times. Maybe just maybe a compromise could be reached and all sides could have input.

Unfortunately lawmakers don't work that way. Most create bills and subsequent laws solely for the purpose of press coverage and notoriety.
hazelnut is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (09-13-2009)
Old 09-13-2009, 10:47 AM   #77
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Girl View Post
Elchase, I take exception to you calling a long time and well respected member of this and another forum a thug. When you have been around here a while you will figure out the outstanding humor and sincerity and caring from most of our members. Each of us has a personality online that others have come to appreciate. This cannot be discerned from being here a short time.

Hazelnut is one of my favorite posters with a great sense of humor. Please take your nastiness elsewhere.

IG
It's not nastiness, it's concern for some of the threatening/intimidating postures seen on this forum, other forums, and outside of the cyberworld. I agree with others that Hazelnut is one of the more egregious offenders here and I suspect he was one of the people as well whom Don was referring to as badgering the SL supporters so that they would leave the forum. He may be one of your favorite posters but he needs to deal with some of the above issues.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 11:06 AM   #78
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
It's not nastiness, it's concern for some of the threatening/intimidating postures seen on this forum, other forums, and outside of the cyberworld. I agree with others that Hazelnut is one of the more egregious offenders here and I suspect he was one of the people as well whom Don was referring to as badgering the SL supporters so that they would leave the forum. He may be one of your favorite posters but he needs to deal with some of the above issues.
Nope. As a matter of fact Don and I emailed back and forth this summer and I received some nice words from him:

"I don't think I've ever had any problems with your posts and I appreciate your contributions."

and

"Join us on the ForumFest cruise and introduce yourself."

Sorry I couldn't make it Don.

Please don't lump me in with those individuals (if they even exist) that as you said make:
"threatening/intimidating postures seen on this forum, other forums, and outside of the cyberworld."

I could argue slander here but I won't. I'm a big boy, I can take it.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 11:21 AM   #79
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post

I could argue slander here but I won't. I'm a big boy, I can take it.
I'm sure you won't...especially if you go back and reread some of your posts to people whom you disagree with!
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 11:58 AM   #80
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

I think most people can judge for themselves who means well and who probably does not. The statements by El indicate that he is a professional troublemaker. His attacks on people here that I consider to be high quality, regardless of their positions on any subject, are despicable.

There have been some very civil, thoughtful, and constructive threads and posts this year since Don graciously opened the forums up again. There are only three people that set out to destroy the discussions. Failing that, they directly attack those that have been constructive. I admit, they are good at it, possibly all they are good at.

Bottom line, there are some great people here. Hazelnut is one of them. We pretty much know where everyone stands, and it's great hearing new opinions and ideas. It's not so great hearing from nasty people. I'm sure most readings understand the irony of these people's posts. Time to ignore them. Without an audience, they wither on the vine.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 12:04 PM   #81
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I'm sure you won't...especially if you go back and reread some of your posts to people whom you disagree with!
Well I know I never called anyone a "Thug" or a "Criminal", or accused them of salacious or unsavory actions though.

That doesn't matter to you though I'm sure.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 03:26 PM   #82
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default Pm

Sunset, remember when I sent you the nice PMs because you were concerned about my fitness (due to my posting about restaurants)? Were they threatening or thuggish??

I am still waiting for the answer but will not lose any sleep over it.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 04:12 PM   #83
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
Sunset, remember when I sent you the nice PMs because you were concerned about my fitness (due to my posting about restaurants)? Were they threatening or thuggish??

I am still waiting for the answer but will not lose any sleep over it.
I did get your PM but on many levels meeting anonymous men to work out with strikes me as unwise and is not my cup of tea. I'm sure your intentions are good. And no more PM's please.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 04:33 PM   #84
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
I am sorry but I think you are lying. If I'm wrong I apologize in advance but your track record speaks volumes. Seeing that Don sees all and most likely can see PM's? Don could you confirm or deny this?
I'm assuming Don is the moderator. While I can't speak for the sender, I give my permission to confirm or publish the PM. And the apology is accepted aforehand.

And I hope the moderator will also put an end to all the nonsensible speculation that those SL supporters who do post here must all be one person under different names. There are indeed more than one of us. As you'll see soon enough.

I had intended for the last one to be my last post here, but your calling me a liar dragged me back for one final message. Funny how all those so incensed when a threat-monger was called a "thug" have no problem with your accusations.

So now I'm outta here. You guys win. Please don't badger or insult me and force me to join back in. I had earlier tried to get some neighbors to join in these threads and provide some balance and they warned me against it. They said the risks of butting heads with the group of thugs (their words then, mine now) that frequents this forum was not worth it, and that besides putting myself in harm's way, all my logic would just be wasted. They were so right.

The whole idea of the very bunch of scofflaws sitting around and planning a "compromise" amongst themselves to redact a law that was aimed at them is laughable, and could only be made to appear logical in a place like this. This SL section of this forum is just another GFBL site like Offshoreonly, Speedwake, et al, except those sites seem to be quite a bit less tolerant of the stuff that is allowed here. People can't brag about their law-breaking escapades, threaten, and organize harassment efforts on those sites.

Now you can proceed to discuss amongst yourselves, with no opposition, how the SL law is not doing anything...but needs to be eliminated to clean up our statues. I'm sure our legislators are all going to make their decisions based on what this group recommends. Ya right.

Bye.
 
Old 09-13-2009, 04:53 PM   #85
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Bye..
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (09-13-2009), jmen24 (09-13-2009), Tyler (09-13-2009)
Old 09-13-2009, 06:54 PM   #86
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I did get your PM but on many levels meeting anonymous men to work out with strikes me as unwise and is not my cup of tea. I'm sure your intentions are good. And no more PM's please.
I guess the types of gym you frequent are different than the one I do- The Fitness Edge in Meredith.

For the others that may be interested, this is what I sent (and when I temporarily changed my signature to Eatebene, always flying the dinner being served banner)to ElC early on in the SL debate this summer:

So you decided to throw your two cents in on a boat thread by essentially calling my fitness into question because I post about restaurants from time to time. I responded, but alas, no comment back from you. I let it sit for a few days before I resorted to a PM, but I am really not surprised because it is obvious you are a troll also.

My offer stands- let me know when you want to work out with me.

Thanks to you and TB for the new nickname and signature ideas, BTW I liked it so much that I adopted it.

Just so you know, this week was low key from a restaurant standpoint- we ate in mostly but we did try the North Shore drive-in.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 07:11 PM   #87
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Bye Bye EL , whoever you are
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Cal For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (09-14-2009)
Old 09-13-2009, 07:25 PM   #88
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

Eclchase,

I choose to believe that everyone that posts here individually and is not a multi-nicker.

It is too bad that you chose to stop posting (bet you still be reading) but if you contributed anything to this forum outside of a debate on the SL, then I would say you would be missed. I find it laughable that you don't know that Don is the Owner and Admin of this site. How could you miss this thread http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8386if you cared at all about this place?

Your delusional lumping of SL opponents first as one type of boat owner and then some group of thugs and scofflaws showed me that regardless of whatever argument was presented to you, you were not listening.

Here is what I think- there will be a speed limit on this lake, it may very well be as it stands. It will hardly matter to any of us "thugs" due to the types of boats we own or how we boat. It will rarely be enforced or will be enforced as inconsistently as the the two major rules that the "scofflaws" want to see enforced- the 150' rule and stand on, give way.

Good day
VitaBene is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 09:11 PM   #89
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 365 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
OK, so it sounds like we are all in agreement then.
A "compromise" nighttime speed limit will be established using information obtained from;....
This information will establish the speed below which 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee have been proven to reach plane (the"planing speed", as defined by the reference), and that speed will be the "compromise nighttime speed limit", supported by all the SL opposing members of this forum, no matter what it is.
And, all SL opposing members of this forum agree to abide by the newly established limit, no matter what it is.
Do we have a deal? ...
And then you wrote

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
The whole idea of the very bunch of scofflaws sitting around and planning a "compromise" amongst themselves to redact a law that was aimed at them is laughable, and could only be made to appear logical in a place like this.
While we discuss the compromise for the sake of discussion, you are the one who acted as if you could set the law if we agreed to your idea. We have no such delusions.
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 10:27 PM   #90
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
I'm assuming Don is the moderator. While I can't speak for the sender, I give my permission to confirm or publish the PM. And the apology is accepted aforehand.

And I hope the moderator will also put an end to all the nonsensible speculation that those SL supporters who do post here must all be one person under different names. There are indeed more than one of us. As you'll see soon enough.

I had intended for the last one to be my last post here, but your calling me a liar dragged me back for one final message. Funny how all those so incensed when a threat-monger was called a "thug" have no problem with your accusations.

So now I'm outta here. You guys win. Please don't badger or insult me and force me to join back in. I had earlier tried to get some neighbors to join in these threads and provide some balance and they warned me against it. They said the risks of butting heads with the group of thugs (their words then, mine now) that frequents this forum was not worth it, and that besides putting myself in harm's way, all my logic would just be wasted. They were so right.

The whole idea of the very bunch of scofflaws sitting around and planning a "compromise" amongst themselves to redact a law that was aimed at them is laughable, and could only be made to appear logical in a place like this. This SL section of this forum is just another GFBL site like Offshoreonly, Speedwake, et al, except those sites seem to be quite a bit less tolerant of the stuff that is allowed here. People can't brag about their law-breaking escapades, threaten, and organize harassment efforts on those sites.

Now you can proceed to discuss amongst yourselves, with no opposition, how the SL law is not doing anything...but needs to be eliminated to clean up our statues. I'm sure our legislators are all going to make their decisions based on what this group recommends. Ya right.

Bye.
Oh me oh my I am going to lose sleep over this one...

What bothers me, (not really though) is that elchase never listened to anyone on this site. He flat out refused to believe that a bunch of bowrider owners would have such a strong opinion against this law. It became quite comical to read his posts constantly calling us all GFBL owners. Whether or not he was blind or just skimmed the posts is a mystery to me. How many times do I or others have to say it?
It must be so hard for him to accept that fact that the majority of SL opponents do not even own boats that fit the category GFBL. It irks him so much that he continually ignored that FACT and classified everyone who had an opinion that was contrary to his as GFBL boaters. Too funny. I mean seriously right up until the bitter end, his last post even. I'll quote it directly:

"The whole idea of the very bunch of scofflaws sitting around and planning a "compromise" amongst themselves to redact a law that was aimed at them is laughable,"

That has to be my favorite all time winnipesaukee.com quote.

Yes we scofflaws are planning a compromise so we can travel at 47MPH instead of 45MPH. Hysterical.

Thanks for the entertainment. I can't wait to see what your new screen name will be this time around.
hazelnut is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (09-14-2009)
Old 09-14-2009, 08:53 AM   #91
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
I can't wait to see what your new screen name will be this time around.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 09:31 AM   #92
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 496
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
I am sorry but I think you are lying. If I'm wrong I apologize in advance but your track record speaks volumes. Seeing that Don sees all and most likely can see PM's? Don could you confirm or deny this? el I would be absolutely out of my mind over the edge irate if someone sent me a pm claiming they were a convicted felon. Isn't that a veiled threat to you. Why no outrage?

If it is true I think it is horrible and completely out of line.

Don could you please get to the bottom of this. If someone is PM'ng el or anyone for that matter telling him that they are a convicted felon and spent time in jail, what purpose could that serve other than to harass. If it turns out to be false... Well that's your call Don, not mine.

HN
HN, I don't think that he was lying about the PM. He had posted earlier that he wondered how many of of the forum members were convicted felons. Looks like he recieved answers to his question in a PM. Of course I was not privvy to the contents of the PM, but based on what elchase wrote, it does not sound a bit threatening to me.

Signed,
Non-convicted non-felon.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 09:37 AM   #93
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
HN, I don't think that he was lying about the PM. He had posted earlier that he wondered how many of of the forum members were convicted felons. Looks like he recieved answers to his question in a PM. Of course I was not privvy to the contents of the PM, but based on what elchase wrote, it does not sound a bit threatening to me.

Signed,
Non-convicted non-felon.

While I agree with you the PM was most likely not intended to be threatening in any way..... (that is if it happened) No matter how or who sent the PM it would have been twisted to form his argument...

No worries.. He has parted ways and I think we should be thankful and get back on track.

I was hoping through all the retoric we all could still try to come up with a defination of minimum planing speed that would be agreed as safe minimum planing speed.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (09-14-2009), NoRegrets (09-14-2009)
Old 09-14-2009, 10:48 AM   #94
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default Good bye?

Hmm,

I guess this means Elchase and I wont be boating together anytime soon.

I cant believe I am typing this butI am a little sad to see him go. He did make the speed limit forums entertaining in spite of the fact I disagreed with almost every statement he ever made.
Kracken is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 04:24 PM   #95
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default Good Advice OCD

I have it on good word that these threads are on shaky ground at best. I will shoulder a heavy burden of that blame. I am going to do my best to stay on topic and suggest we all do the same. I am going to try and turn over a new leaf and not let the elchase's of the world get under my skin.

OCD you seem to have reasonably good judgment and always do a good job trying to refocus the discussion. Perhaps you could unofficially moderate the discussion as you kind of had been. Perhaps you could blow the whistle so to speak and redirect the discussion when you see it straying off topic? Not to burden you or anything.


HN
hazelnut is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (09-14-2009)
Old 09-14-2009, 05:35 PM   #96
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
I have it on good word that these threads are on shaky ground at best. I will shoulder a heavy burden of that blame. I am going to do my best to stay on topic and suggest we all do the same. I am going to try and turn over a new leaf and not let the elchase's of the world get under my skin.

OCD you seem to have reasonably good judgment and always do a good job trying to refocus the discussion. Perhaps you could unofficially moderate the discussion as you kind of had been. Perhaps you could blow the whistle so to speak and redirect the discussion when you see it straying off topic? Not to burden you or anything.


HN
Been trying to do that all along... But things get sidetracked so easily when things get personal.

This is a heated debate to begin with so as long as you don't read into peoples posts and take them at face value then "normally" things do not get out of hand. There are those that thrive on causing issues and may also have an agenda. The best thing that can happen for the speed limit supporters is to have the discussions shut down.

Right now there is no "specific data" to support their claims of a better lake. This is what the 2 year trial period was supposed to determine. Thus far all it has shown was there was not a speeding problem on the lake before or after the limits and they are not warrented. If this is continously brought to light and more and more people are shown to be in support of discontinuing the limits it hurts their case.

If you read back on all the past threads from 2 years ago many people tried this same tactic and succeeded in helping to shut them down.

I think if we all stay on topic and discuss things civilly as many supporters have we actually may be able to work something out, maybe even a compromise.

I do want to recognize a few supporters that although may have been taken down the wrong path, from time to time as we all have, they have really stayed on topic and have been a pleasure to discuss these issues with over the past 2 months.

Now hold onto your hats guys. First off Sunset (no secret he has done very well to stay on topic and express his opinions in a rational and objective manner)
Bear Islander!!! and if you go look back APS has even been doing a great job.

Although I may not agree with them they have all done well in stating their cases.

Great work.. Now lets all go get a 12 pack and watch the PATS Kick A$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 05:44 PM   #97
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

These threads aren't nearly as exciting or contentious as the restaurant threads are

At any rate, I'll stick to watching from the sidelines from here on out. No need to get people in a tizzy, and time to give Don some rest But I will let you know if I locate chicken parmesan that has two chicken breasts instead of just one.


Let's just stick to actual boating, perhaps that will not cause such a stir.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 07:39 PM   #98
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
Been trying to do that all along... But things get sidetracked so easily when things get personal.

This is a heated debate to begin with so as long as you don't read into peoples posts and take them at face value then "normally" things do not get out of hand. There are those that thrive on causing issues and may also have an agenda. The best thing that can happen for the speed limit supporters is to have the discussions shut down.

Right now there is no "specific data" to support their claims of a better lake. This is what the 2 year trial period was supposed to determine. Thus far all it has shown was there was not a speeding problem on the lake before or after the limits and they are not warrented. If this is continously brought to light and more and more people are shown to be in support of discontinuing the limits it hurts their case.

If you read back on all the past threads from 2 years ago many people tried this same tactic and succeeded in helping to shut them down.

I think if we all stay on topic and discuss things civilly as many supporters have we actually may be able to work something out, maybe even a compromise.

I do want to recognize a few supporters that although may have been taken down the wrong path, from time to time as we all have, they have really stayed on topic and have been a pleasure to discuss these issues with over the past 2 months.

Now hold onto your hats guys. First off Sunset (no secret he has done very well to stay on topic and express his opinions in a rational and objective manner)
Bear Islander!!! and if you go look back APS has even been doing a great job.

Although I may not agree with them they have all done well in stating their cases.

Great work.. Now lets all go get a 12 pack and watch the PATS Kick A$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last time I drank a 12 pack was at my high school graduation. It's also the last time I got sick. That was 37 years ago.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 09:53 PM   #99
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
Last time I drank a 12 pack was at my high school graduation. It's also the last time I got sick. That was 37 years ago.
After watching this game I am easily going to be 12 deep.. LOL
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 09-15-2009, 08:35 AM   #100
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
After watching this game I am easily going to be 12 deep.. LOL
Well I hope you were still concious to see a great win.
And to keep on topic, I feel the need for speed.
Pineedles is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:35 AM.


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

This page was generated in 0.57880 seconds