Weirs channel coexistence

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

If the current is ever 8 mph in the channel then there is something seriously wrong with the dam..... I think the worst I have seen it is 2 or 3 mph...

Current "speed" in channels and canals is dependent on what's traveling in it.

I have no trouble believing that a stuck barge needed towing: in a narrow-enough channel, even one over-sized boat can affect current speed.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by ApS

Current "speed" in channels and canals is dependent on what's traveling in it.

I have no trouble believing that a stuck barge needed towing: in a narrow-enough channel, even one over-sized boat can affect current speed.

You are not saying that a 40' cruiser will change the speed of the current in the Weirs channel in any appreciable way, are you?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

Interesting theory APS, how much will my 26 foot bow rider affect the speed of the current?

It's not a theory, and it can be measured—but first—think of it this way:

If 100 cubic yards of "fill" were added to the channel bottom, would the speed of the current change?

Now take the displacement of all the boats in the channel, and think of that as "fill"—but at the top.

The more engines a boat has—the deeper the "V" of the hull—all that displacement has to be "displaced" to somewhere else—effectively, narrowing the channel.
_________________________________

To measure the effect of your boat, put your GPS in a Styrofoam cooler, and float that GPS down a measured course—say, a hundred feet. Record the speed of the current. Then anchor your 26-footer in the channel, and measure the current with the same floating GPS device. You can expect the GPS to record a faster speed. Apply that reasoning to a large number of boats: that they're in motion is insignificant.

If the channel were narrow enough, you can see even a canoe can affect current speed. (And why I advocate starting one's boating-experience with a small boat—even building one—not jumping in with an over-sized boat).

Originally Posted by VitaBene

You are not saying that a 40' cruiser will change the speed of the current in the Weirs channel in any appreciable way, are you?

It would, but not to the same measure as a 40-foot rowing scull. It's displacement that counts—not length.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by ApS

It's not a theory, and it can be measured—but first—think of it this way:

If 100 cubic yards of "fill" were added to the channel bottom, would the speed of the current change?

Now take the displacement of all the boats in the channel, and think of that as "fill"—but at the top.

The more engines a boat has—the deeper the "V" of the hull—all that displacement has to be "displaced" to somewhere else—effectively, narrowing the channel.
_________________________________

To measure the effect of your boat, put your GPS in a Styrofoam cooler, and float that GPS down a measured course—say, a hundred feet. Record the speed of the current. Then anchor your 26-footer in the channel, and measure the current with the same floating GPS device. You can expect the GPS to record a faster speed. Apply that reasoning to a large number of boats: that they're in motion is insignificant.

If the channel were narrow enough, you can see even a canoe can affect current speed. (And why I advocate starting one's boating-experience with a small boat—even building one—not jumping in with an over-sized boat).




It would, but not to the same measure as a 40-foot rowing scull. It's displacement that counts—not length.

The law of physics is absolute Aps, to a degree anyway, your post made it seem like there would be a significant change in velocity in the channel based on the boats in it, I say that the change is so small for the typical traffic in the channel, even on a busy day, your chosen measurement instrument, a gps, would not detect it.

The 100 yards of fill you mentioned would be fixed in place, and cause a significant disruption of the water flow, depending on how it was placed, it could increase the current speed, really not pertinent to your theory..... A 40 foot boat floating with or against the current would cause a change so small, it would be undetectable to a person on a boat. Remember, we are talking millions of pounds of water moving versus a 10 or 15 thousand pound boat. So while in theory your assumption is correct, the current speed is affected by the boats in the current, in reality, in the Weirs channel, even on a busy day, the effect is pretty much undetectable. Moreover you have boats moving in both directions, which would tend to negate the effect.

[NH_boater]

Of course, casting a lure into the lake would raise the lake level across the entire lake.

(And before anyone corrects me) The lure would have to be cast from shore because if I cast it from my kayak, the lake would already have risen and would only drop, momentarily while the lure was in flight.

[NH_boater]

I too enjoy the channel, although not as much on crazy busy days. The traffic and chaos does not bother me, just the extra 30 minutes lost that I could spend enjoying more of the lake.

[Seaplane Pilot]

.................The Weirs channel was the biggest problem we had on this lake. But, sad to say, it's far from the biggest problem. If MP is going to waste their time worrying about a few small ripples behind someone's boat, while they ignore the real problems out there, then that officer should be fired.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by ApS

Current "speed" in channels and canals is dependent on what's traveling in it.

I have no trouble believing that a stuck barge needed towing: in a narrow-enough channel, even one over-sized boat can affect current speed.

Interesting theory APS, how much will my 26 foot bow rider affect the speed of the current?

[Woodsy]

I am going to start a petition..... there is too much confusion over the term "No Wake"! It needs to be a solid number that everyone can understand!

The No Wake rule is written as follows....

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

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

Note that the law does not say "DONT MAKE A RIPPLE" or "DONT MAKE A WAKE" The key to the law is 6 MPH or MAINTAIN STEERAGE. It does not state the a boat is to be operated at DEAD SLOW.

Every boat is different, some boats can maintain steerage at 2-3 MPH others need 5-6 MPH. My old Donzi 22 Blackhawk actually required 8-9 MPH to maintain steerage. The channel and other NWZ should have signage that says 6 MPH - HEADWAY SPEED


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ad.php?t=10308 Note the response from NHMP!

Woodsy

[BroadHopper]

I have brought this matter up with marine patrol and with NHRBA and SNONH.

All channel or traffic areas should be designated 'Headway Speed' and all NWZ areas that does not have through traffic should be designated as 'No Wake' It makes sense.

Unfortunately the definition of 'No Wake' and 'Headway Speed' are basically the same so there will be no changing signs now or in the future.

[tis]

It definitely needs to be defined. I think there is a reason for no wake however and that means you can't make a wake. Otherwise, just eliminate it. There NEEDS to be a difference. I know in years past, some MPs would not allow ANY wake to be made- some so small it even surprised me.

[NH_boater]

Maybe I am in the minority but I do not think anything needs to change. I do not see a need for 'no wake' and 'headway' speed. They are synonymous because they serve the same purpose. Both mean 6 mph or the minimum to maintain steering. In currents, the over-ground speeds will be higher when having to deal with currents.

If someone wants to yell at me because I am going too fast, I just smile and wave back (at their ignorance) as always. I know I err to slower passage rather than faster passage through these areas.

Like most topics, I think we have all the laws we need, we need to simply enforce what we have rather than add more laws or complexity.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by tis

It definitely needs to be defined. I think there is a reason for no wake however and that means you can't make a wake. Otherwise, just eliminate it. There NEEDS to be a difference. I know in years past, some MPs would not allow ANY wake to be made- some so small it even surprised me.

First I want to start by saying that the simple act of a object moving through water you are going to create a wake.... so if a Marine Patrol officer every indicated that no wake what so ever was allowed, I would be very surprised.

The displacement of the boat dictates how much of a wake you produce at a slow speed. In short at the same given speed of 6 mph, the wakes behind two different sized boats are going to be different.... so some boats my have a larger ripple then others....

Now the real problem here, is peoples interpretation of the wording.... As has been stated I would like to see the term No-Wake changed.... because as previously stated any object travel through the water will create a wake....

Now what is the proper speed.... that is a whole other argument. Which is why the law has been designed with a great deal of interpretability. As Woodsy point out he had a boat which really required headway speed to be about 7-8 mph... while I have had boats that I could back all the way down to 2 or 3 mph with out any issues.

I personally think "No-wake" should become "Headway speed"

And Headway speed should be defined as "A reasonable speed which allows the vessel, to maintain steerage, and progress in a forward motion, against any current, while minimizing the wake created by the vessel"

A figure of speed needs to be taken completely out of the equation....

[jetlag100]

If you can't control your boat going thru the Channel, stay out of the Channel.

[tis]

Well, you have to be very surprised then LIF because I stood right beside the MP and he said the guy was making a wake and he stopped him. I actually questioned him, being very surprised that he was going to stop the guy for making that small of a wake. It was barely a ripple. And this happened more than once with this MP. I can tell you one thing, it didn't take long for the "regulars" to figure out that they better not make a wake. You can believe me or not.

It is simply inconsiderate to rock people's boats and docks and erode the shore just because you are in such a hurry while driving a boat.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by tis

Well, you have to be very surprised then LIF because I stood right beside the MP and he said the guy was making a wake and he stopped him. I actually questioned him, being very surprised that he was going to stop the guy for making that small of a wake. It was barely a ripple. And this happened more than once with this MP. I can tell you one thing, it didn't take long for the "regulars" to figure out that they better not make a wake. You can believe me or not.

It is simply inconsiderate to rock people's boats and docks and erode the shore just because you are in such a hurry while driving a boat.

Yes it is inconsiderate to produce to much of a wake when in close proximity of the shore... Believe me I am on the same page as you....

I have met and talked with many MP officers over the years, and am the first to state that they are not all created equal... In short the MP officer that made the comment you have stated now twice... clearly didn't understand the physics, that any object moving through the water is going to create a wake.... I was not trying to indicate that what you said didn't happen... I just couldn't believe that the wording would have been that way... To openly state the N0-Wake could come from a boat underway even at half a mile per hour, means the person didn't understand the physic involved....

The bottom line is that this is a grey array of law, always has been always will be.... Could different wording make things better, well... no mater what someone is always going to ready into the wording what they want too....

[chipj29]

I must be in the very rarest of the rare minority. I actually enjoy going through the channel. There is always something to see, whether it is other boats or the people on shore. Granted, I don’t pass through there often, but I find it fun.

[Happy Gourmand]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I must be in the very rarest of the rare minority. I actually enjoy going through the channel. There is always something to see, whether it is other boats or the people on shore. Granted, I don’t pass through there often, but I find it fun.

Chip, I'm with you on this. It can be quite a show. I don't get upset when another boater doesn't navigate the channel exactly as I do, I'm on the boat to have a good time and figure they are too.
It does get interesting sometimes, though, doesn't it?

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

Chip, I'm with you on this. It can be quite a show. I don't get upset when another boater doesn't navigate the channel exactly as I do, I'm on the boat to have a good time and figure they are too.
It does get interesting sometimes, though, doesn't it?

I travel through the channel almost daily. I have seen lots of crazy things but that's part of the fun of cruising through. It's a circus on the weekends and that's fine with me. If you expect to travel through that channel and not encounter wake or see something that doesn't translate into proper boating etiquette, avoid it, it's a huge lake.
The summers are short and life's even shorter...a little wake in the Weirs channel is nothing to stress about.
Weirs Archimedes when you need him??

[Retired Ole Guy]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

I travel through the channel almost daily. I have seen lots of crazy things but that's part of the fun of cruising through. It's a circus on the weekends and that's fine with me. If you expect to travel through that channel and not encounter wake or see something that doesn't translate into proper boating etiquette, avoid it, it's a huge lake.
The summers are short and life's even shorter...a little wake in the Weirs channel is nothing to stress about.
Weirs Archimedes when you need him??

Ahem!!!! the only wake I want to stress about is my own and by then it will be to late

[NH_boater]

I live by the Alton no wake zone and seen everything from barely crawling to full plane thru the NWZ. Life is too short to get all bunched up on this. I feel bad for those who wait around for the next infraction. If you dock on the lake, especially near NWZ's where people are coming off and on plane, you will be affected by passing boats. People on the lake behave a lot like the same people on our roads.

Better to just enjoy the lake. I try to do this and most days I do.

[mowtorman]

Couldn't agree more with the right to enjoy beautiful days and sharing a natural resource. The issue to me is safety overall, which is compromised by mixed use, high volume and careless/discourteous behavior. Duoprops are meat cleavers that can do more damage in a shorter period of time than an alligator. People are swimming in the channel very close to power boats, exercising their right to enjoy themselves. There are other problem areas on the lake for sure, for example Center Harbor beach. A power boat with a mechanical issue or incapacitated driver could easily go straight across the swim raft. Nothing's ever a problem until after the fact, like pond skimming. In general prevention and common sense are a lot easier to deal with than fixing a problem after it occurs. One of the best tests of mixed use recreation will be next weekend when non powered craft take over the domain of powered craft. Gatherings of people with common interests are one thing, pursuit of contrived "world records" is another. The volume of power boats in the channel should be reduced with the event happening after Labor Day, though a lot of people will be putting their power boats away. Maybe we'll have our first tropical storm of the season and it will all be a moot point. Have to see what happens with the wakes of the Sophie and Doris and the big Carvers that like to put up big wakes in Weirs Bay with volumes of novice kayakers and other paddle craft. BTW - how many "F bombs" have you heard dropped in the channel this year?

[Legionnaire70]

Anyone else witness the formula/Donzi that went screaming out of the channel at about 30 mph yesterday passing several boats along the way IN the channel?
I've seen a lot, that tops them all! What a tool!

[BroadHopper]

I recall a red boat with NJ registration going crazy in Saunders Bay.

[chris410]

Speaking of bad boating etiquette, I launched from the "new" public ramp in Alton bay on Saturday. Headed up towards Wolfeboro, while waiting in line with the rest of the boats I must have been cut in line by three other boats who came way after me. All with bigger boats tan mine who probably thought they were more important. Then after getting lunch in Wolfeboro, I see another boat tag a sailboat that was docked pretty good, I wasn’t too close to the action so I wasn’t sure what the outcome was, but to me, it looked like the offending party just took off.

The best part is when I went to pull my boat out of the water at the ramp. The boaters in front of me just decided to pull their much larger and newer boat half out of the water proceeding to block the entire ramp , The wife was driving and the husband was doing something up on the boat, I figured he would come down and move the boat/truck into a better location eventually, So i tried to be patient and after the minutes just tick away, he has no intention of doing that. So I give him a friendly toot toot of the horn. And he flips out on me telling me there is another car in front of him and to just “chill out bro!”

Yes there was another boat/truck in front of him, but he had many other options he could have taken other then completly blocking the ramp. He could have moved up another 35 feet so that it looked like he was at least trying to get out of my way, he could have asked the other boater to move his truck/trailer up so that they were not blocking the ramp, he could have moved off to the side so that he wasn’t blocking the ramp, he could have drove out the entrance so that he was blocking the ramp. Instead he decided to be a rude and inconsiderate person and block the ramp and give me attitude.

Besides that, still a nice day at the lake!