No Wake

[Woodsy]

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

Woodsy

[noreast]

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

[Woody38]

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

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

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by noreast

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

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rusty

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

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



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

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



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

.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by ApS

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


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

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




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

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

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Rusty

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

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

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by joey2665

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

Ignore my comments if it bothers you that much.

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

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

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Ignore my comments if it bothers you that much.

I can say the same thing!!!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rusty

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

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

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

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

[Cal Coon]

Originally Posted by ApS

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

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

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

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

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Cal Coon

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

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

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by noreast

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

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

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

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

[kawishiwi]

Originally Posted by Dave R

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

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

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

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

Agreed--we were almost swamped twice by mid/high 30's Carvers last year on our 20' 'toon while going through "no wake" zones.

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

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

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

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

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

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

[kawishiwi]

Originally Posted by Dave R

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

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

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

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

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

[Woodsy]

Kawishiwi...

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

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

Woodsy

[Woody38]

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

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

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

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

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

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

(HS = 1.34 x √LWL)

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

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

[Little Bear]

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

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

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

[Hillcountry]

Deleted due to YouTube problem...sorry

[JEEPONLY]

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

[Woodsy]

Hillcountry...

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

Woodsy

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Hillcountry...

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

Woodsy

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

[kawishiwi]

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

[Cal Coon]

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

[tis]

Originally Posted by Cal Coon

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

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Cal Coon

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

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Deleted due to YouTube problem...sorry

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

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...4&l=bb72d1767b

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Dave R

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

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...4&l=bb72d1767b

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

[Orion]

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

[joey2665]

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

[SAMIAM]

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

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Orion

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

NH RSA Section 270-D:1 - Definitions

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

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

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

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

This is not Rocket Science!

Woodsy

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

NH RSA Section 270-D:1 - Definitions

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

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

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

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

This is not Rocket Science!

Woodsy

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

[Woodsy]

Hillcountry...

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

Let me explain.....

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

Woodsy

[Descant]

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

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Hillcountry...

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

Let me explain.....

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

Woodsy

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

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Hillcountry...

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

Let me explain.....

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

Woodsy

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

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

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

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

Woodsy

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

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

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by noreast

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

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

[tis]

Originally Posted by ApS

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

>

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

[BroadHopper]

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

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

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

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

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

[Woodsy]

Wow... So much wrong information...

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

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

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

Woodsy