Lake Daytime Speed Limit

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

After a certain speed... the same amount of displacement will occur regardless. It would never get to the point that no mass was in the water.

You do not understand how planing hulls work... while there will be always be "some" mass in the water, at speed it is a fractional amount of the total boat weight/displacement.

Boats with planing hulls are designed to rise up and glide on top of the water when enough power is supplied. These boats may operate like displacement hulls when at rest or at slow speeds but climb toward the surface of the water as they move faster.

Boats with planing hulls can skim along at high speed, riding almost on top of the water rather than pushing it aside. The faster a planing hull goes in the water.. the less water is displaced by the mass of the boat. The less boat in the water, the less energy the boat wake has.

Think of a flat stone skipping across the top of the water...

Woodsy

[Dick]

What a shame that the sound system used in Representatives Hall was so poor that most of us could not hear/understand the speakers.
Further, did it seem to you that the House Transportation representatives were disengaged . . .didn't want to be there.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You do not understand how planing hulls work... while there will be always be "some" mass in the water, at speed it is a fractional amount of the total boat weight/displacement.

Boats with planing hulls are designed to rise up and glide on top of the water when enough power is supplied. These boats may operate like displacement hulls when at rest or at slow speeds but climb toward the surface of the water as they move faster.

Boats with planing hulls can skim along at high speed, riding almost on top of the water rather than pushing it aside. The faster a planing hull goes in the water.. the less water is displaced by the mass of the boat. The less boat in the water, the less energy the boat wake has.

Think of a flat stone skipping across the top of the water...

Woodsy

I do understand the inverse function of displacement and speed. That is why I question wave speed. A higher wave speed... even if the wave has a lower amplitude... results in a greater conservation of kinetic energy over a specified distance. That is what the scientific studies showed.
The faster boat is displacing less water mass at a higher rate of speed.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I do understand the inverse function of displacement and speed. That is why I question wave speed. A higher wave speed... even if the wave has a lower amplitude... results in a greater conservation of kinetic energy over a specified distance. That is what the scientific studies showed.
The faster boat is displacing less water mass at a higher rate of speed.

You are correct in that the faster boat (on plane) is displacing far less water at a higher rate of speed than it would at a slower speed. It is also transferring far less energy to the water.

The planing hull design is where the relationships change. Planing hulls are designed to give little resistance to the water and take advantage of hydrodynamic lifting.

The hydrodynamic lift of the hull design is what changes the wave form of the wake. When on plane there is very little displacement (relative to size & mass) very little drag (mostly the drives) and thus very little energy transferred to the water in the form of a wake. The energy is instead expended as speed.

The wake of boat on plane has very little energy transferred from the hull, so the amplitude is low, wave energy is low, and wake dissipates very quickly.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

But it is increasing wave speed.
That is what all the studies that they do is telling them.

They aren't slowing the rate of speed near shore just because they feel like it.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

But it is increasing wave speed.
That is what all the studies that they do is telling them.

They aren't slowing the rate of speed near shore just because they feel like it.

All functions of a wake created by a boat are the result of an energy transfer. This energy transfer is directly related to boat displacement. The amount of energy in a wave depends on its height and wavelength as well as the distance over which it breaks. Given equal wavelengths, a wave with greater amplitude will release more energy when it falls back to sea level than a wave of lesser amplitude. The speed of the waves has little to do with this.

A boat on plane displaces very little water and thus transmits very little energy to the water. The low energy waves dissipate quickly. Assuming the boat on plane maintains 150' off the shoreline (per the law) by the time the wake reaches the shore there is little energy left.

This wave energy discussion is the crux of all the proposed wakeboat rules.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

All functions of a wake created by a boat are the result of an energy transfer. This energy transfer is directly related to boat displacement. The amount of energy in a wave depends on its height and wavelength as well as the distance over which it breaks. Given equal wavelengths, a wave with greater amplitude will release more energy when it falls back to sea level than a wave of lesser amplitude. The speed of the waves has little to do with this.

A boat on plane displaces very little water and thus transmits very little energy to the water. The low energy waves dissipate quickly. Assuming the boat on plane maintains 150' off the shoreline (per the law) by the time the wake reaches the shore there is little energy left.

This wave energy discussion is the crux of all the proposed wakeboat rules.

Woodsy

You are still not submitting a study to the Legislature with all your credentials to support your findings. The Lake Association is.
Should a court fight ensue at a later date... most lawyers would rather have the credentialed studies on their side.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

You are still not submitting a study to the Legislature with all your credentials to support your findings. The Lake Association is.
Should a court fight ensue at a later date... most lawyers would rather have the credentialed studies on their side.

Blah Blah Blah... our discussion was about wave energy. There are plenty of credible studies that support my findings. I certainly could have posted my links but as you seemed so focused on wave speed the point would have been moot.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Not the ones being presented to the Legislature.
The Legislature is a very large body representing very diverse interests... and many times doing what it can to avoid lawsuits.

So somewhere along the line it determined that a boat should not come near the shore or another object in the water if travelling at more than headway speed.

The other object in the water may be for safety and reaction time - who knows? - but the shore has to be erosion... and that must mean the transmission of kinetic force in some manner.

You would need to present studies to overcome that... especially for legislators that are not focused on Lake Winnipesaukee - unless the bill specifies Lake Winnipesaukee.

For Lake Winnipesaukee, and maybe some other lakes, it should be rather easy... they want the property around the lake - within sight of the lake - to build dramatically in value... as it lowers the relative taxation to the properties not near the lake.

If you can show the safety and erosion risks are lower, then the higher speeds may lead to the property around the lake double or tripling in value - maybe a bit over done... but higher than now. That would lower the amount of property tax that needs to come from the other properties within a municipality, school district, and even the county.

[Blyblvrd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Not the ones being presented to the Legislature.
The Legislature is a very large body representing very diverse interests... and many times doing what it can to avoid lawsuits.

So somewhere along the line it determined that a boat should not come near the shore or another object in the water if travelling at more than headway speed.

The other object in the water may be for safety and reaction time - who knows? - but the shore has to be erosion... and that must mean the transmission of kinetic force in some manner.

You would need to present studies to overcome that... especially for legislators that are not focused on Lake Winnipesaukee - unless the bill specifies Lake Winnipesaukee.

For Lake Winnipesaukee, and maybe some other lakes, it should be rather easy... they want the property around the lake - within sight of the lake - to build dramatically in value... as it lowers the relative taxation to the properties not near the lake.

If you can show the safety and erosion risks are lower, then the higher speeds may lead to the property around the lake double or tripling in value - maybe a bit over done... but higher than now. That would lower the amount of property tax that needs to come from the other properties within a municipality, school district, and even the county.

Lol.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.
If there is no additional erosion or safety issues by increasing, or doing away with, a limit that is very hard to enforce... it would mean that more boaters may want to be on our local waters.
Those boaters would want direct access rather than the use of a public access that may have limited parking and longer waits.

We could see a build out that might take decades due to material prices transpire quickly. That build out removes pressure on local budgets and keeps our property rate from rising.

But we have always been told that added erosion and loss of safety would result in collapsing property values... something that would shift costs back to us.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.

But we have always been told that added erosion and loss of safety would result in collapsing property values... something that would shift costs back to us.

"There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value" Would that be so people in waterfront homeowners can carry the heavy end of the tax burden?

"Shift costs back to us"? So you see the issue as waterfront owners VS non waterfront owners?

First: There are many waterfront property owners who are year round New Hampshire residents. Making an Us VS them self serving argument looks petty.

But more important: New Hampshire has set itself up through it's tax structure to benefit substantially from non resident taxes and the tax revenue supported by the tourist industry. Many,many non residents contribute substantially to the tax base that the state uses, while taking very little in government supported services.

It is counter productive to bite the hand that feeds you.

[John Mercier]

They are properties.
It doesn't matter to anyone whether the property is occupied by the owner, or how long.

The higher that a sector of property goes within a district, the more that the cost of the budget as a percentage is shifted to that property.

Lakefront and Lake view are currently hot commodities... keeping that going is good for the tax rate when you have budgetary pressures on labor - which makes up much, if not most, of the local budgets.

If someone is willing to pay more for a property because they feel that they can do more of what pleases them... then the value of the property is likely to rise faster than the base... and it will shift the budgetary costs in that direction.

It insures that the housing sector stays strong... and the housing sector, not tourism, is the strongest part of what we have going in the Lakes Region. If we stop building or renovating... we lose jobs, lots of jobs. That improvement of the property makes the property worth more.

This isn't new. It just that currently we have an up cycle that we want to keep going. Some will sell... but that will mean that others are willing to buy.
And after they buy, they tend to renovate which keeps the construction industry busy.

So it isn't an US vs Them. They want the property, and want to build/renovate and we want them to come and purchase the properties and build/renovate. If a higher speed on the lake makes that happen... I don't see that as a bad thing.

We've been told for years that the opposite would happen.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

They are properties.
If a higher speed on the lake makes that happen... I don't see that as a bad thing.

We've been told for years that the opposite would happen.

I find it highly, highly doubtful that a higher lake speed (or lower one than what is currently in place for that matter) will have any bearing on the price of waterfront properties.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Garcia

I find it highly, highly doubtful that a higher lake speed (or lower one than what is currently in place for that matter) will have any bearing on the price of waterfront properties.

You don't think some boat owners would choose one over the other?
I would think that someone with a high speed boat, or looking to purchase a high speed boat, would want to own or rent property on a lake that supported that desire.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

You don't think some boat owners would choose one over the other?
I would think that someone with a high speed boat, or looking to purchase a high speed boat, would want to own or rent property on a lake that supported that desire.

No I don't, just as the implementation of the speed limit has not had a positive or negative impact on waterfront property.

[John Mercier]

Well, someone seems to be bringing it to the attention of Rep. Bordes.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.

There has to be a balance. A 2015 Moultonboro watershed study included a build-out report. Water quality metrics were measured for today, for a pre-development era and for build-out based on current regulations. It showed that, at the time there was 26% of land within the study area that could be built on. Build-out would occur between 2039 and 2058, depending on growth rates. A phosphorus level above 8 accelerates aging of the lake. We are already there in the Moultonboro Bay Inlet study area and would add to the aging acceleration if build-out happened. See graphic. Basin 1 is Greens Basin inner basin, Basin 2 is the basin including Evergreen Island and Basin 3 is from Lees Mills to roughly Buzzels Cove. TP is total phosphorus concentration.

Even in today's building craze, too many wavers are granted and many rules to control water runoff are ignored. Restraint is needed because the pressure to build satisfies an immediate need but the impact lags by decades. By the time cyanobacteria blooms keep us out of the water every August, it will be too late for easy corrections.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

There has to be a balance. A 2015 Moultonboro watershed study included a build-out report. Water quality metrics were measured for today, for a pre-development era and for build-out based on current regulations. It showed that, at the time there was 26% of land within the study area that could be built on. Build-out would occur between 2039 and 2058, depending on growth rates. A phosphorus level above 8 accelerates aging of the lake. We are already there in the Moultonboro Bay Inlet study area and would add to the aging acceleration if build-out happened. See graphic. Basin 1 is Greens Basin inner basin, Basin 2 is the basin including Evergreen Island and Basin 3 is from Lees Mills to roughly Buzzels Cove. TP is total phosphorus concentration.

Even in today's building craze, too many wavers are granted and many rules to control water runoff are ignored. Restraint is needed because the pressure to build satisfies an immediate need but the impact lags by decades. By the time cyanobacteria blooms keep us out of the water every August, it will be too late for easy corrections.

We started to sell Bonide because it was the first to offer chemical fertilizer that used boron instead (still has phosphorus in the starter)
Moultonboro has a low tax rate... and the family and friends that we have there will say it is because of all the waterfront properties. The high valuation relative to the budget keeps the tax rate low. But in Belknap county, I think Alton has the lowest. The other municipalities are going to go after the tax base were they can.

So even if new structure is not built, but more money is expended into the currently existing structures, it is good for the housing industry and the tax base. It may be short term thinking... but if the same house that sold last year for a million sells this year for more that budgetary inflation, it will affect the tax base overall.

Waterfront and view seem to be in high enough demand that they are more likely to see price appreciation faster than the others. The home owners paying more for those existing properties tend to upgrade.

The pro is usually more of an energy efficient unit (windows/doors/insulation/HVAC upgrade)... the con is that higher priced existing units leads to gentrification.

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.
If there is no additional erosion or safety issues by increasing, or doing away with, a limit that is very hard to enforce... it would mean that more boaters may want to be on our local waters.
Those boaters would want direct access rather than the use of a public access that may have limited parking and longer waits.

We could see a build out that might take decades due to material prices transpire quickly. That build out removes pressure on local budgets and keeps our property rate from rising.

But we have always been told that added erosion and loss of safety would result in collapsing property values... something that would shift costs back to us.

That's funny - I thought I read somewhere (maybe it was in an old thread) that the Lake was for the enjoyment and use of all NH residents, not just waterfront landowners. Now getting back to boats and speed limits...

[John Mercier]

Equal enjoyment.

But all property owners have protection from abutting owners doing or allowing for something that would damage their property.

For the 1.3 million plus residents of NH, many of us are not going to see that lakes or mountains as more than the monetary value to represent to us.

For me, the lake is just what draws the building. I never travel near Lake Winnipesaukee except when going to a property in relation to building.
The value to me is different than the other ''owners'' that may use the lake for other means.

For me, it is like being a shareholder in Facebook, I don't use it... but I like the way the profits move the share price.

[sunset on the dock]

One of the Republican Reps on the Transportation Committee has let it be known that he has received 800 emails against the bill to eliminate daytime speed limits on Winni and only 10 in favor. He says that the bill is essentially dead.

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Equal enjoyment.

But all property owners have protection from abutting owners doing or allowing for something that would damage their property.

For the 1.3 million plus residents of NH, many of us are not going to see that lakes or mountains as more than the monetary value to represent to us.

For me, the lake is just what draws the building. I never travel near Lake Winnipesaukee except when going to a property in relation to building.
The value to me is different than the other ''owners'' that may use the lake for other means.

For me, it is like being a shareholder in Facebook, I don't use it... but I like the way the profits move the share price.

For many of us, this is not like "being a shareholder in Facebook"!

Perhaps you could step back a bit, and let those whose lives are changed on these topics, make the comments.

Perhaps not comment on 100% of the threads on this forum?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

For many of us, this is not like "being a shareholder in Facebook"!

Perhaps you could step back a bit, and let those whose lives are changed on these topics, make the comments.

Perhaps not comment on 100% of the threads on this forum?

Hmmm. FLL, our busiest poster over time, posts about 433 times per year. We all have our individual opinions about the factual accuracy of his posts. John Mercier posts about 100 time per month/1200 per year. I suggest each member judge the factual accuracy of his posts accordingly. BTW, FLL is not trying to sell anything.

[sunset on the dock]

By Kevin Landrigan, New Hampshire Union Leader

Mar 1, 2022 Updated 57 min ago

A House panel voted by a 5-1 margin to recommend killing legislation that would eliminate the daytime, 45 mph speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee.

CONCORD — A move to get rid of the daytime speed limit on New Hampshire’s biggest lake failed a House committee test Tuesday, after citizens flooded legislators with hundreds of emails in opposition.

Many owners and sellers of large recreational boats favor dumping the 13-year-old limit of 45 mph on Lake Winnipesaukee that kicks in a half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after sunset.

The nighttime speed limit on the lake is 30 mph.

Rep. Aidan Ankarberg, R-Rochester, said 600 people signed up remotely in support of the bill, with 200 opposed.

Five House Republicans from five of the state’s 10 counties agreed to sponsor the measure (HB 1424).

The chairman of the House Transportation Committee and the House deputy speaker didn’t want to kill it.

But state Rep. Dennis Thompson, R-Stewartstown, said more than 800 emails he received against the bill convinced him to drop his support as a co-sponsor.

Thompson joined the 15-3 majority on the House Transportation Committee who voted to recommend the full House kill the bill later this spring.

“Early on I thought it wasn’t a bad idea,” Thompson said.

The Winnipesaukee Sailing Association started one petition in favor of the speed limit, which had more than 300 supporters.

“The typical family motorboat can’t go 45 mph anyway. This bill is aimed primarily at huge, high-speed ‘muscle boats’ that can go 80 mph and plenty more,” the petition said. “Fortunately, the existing law has kept a lot of those monsters off the lake.”

Marine patrol had no position

Rep. Ted Gorski, R-Bedford, said he was certain many boaters could stay safe without a speed limit, but he worried about those who weren’t careful.

“I appreciate the responsible boat owners who might be able to navigate this,” Gorski said. “What I am more concerned about are the irresponsible boat owners.”

The state Division of Marine Patrol that polices traffic on the state’s lakes and ponds took no position on the bill.

Rep. Michael Bordes, R-Laconia, prime author of the measure, said he was open to compromise.

Supporters convinced him to extend the bill beyond his original idea, to only eliminate the speed limit on “The Broads,” the island-free, very wide expanse north of Governor’s Island in the center of the lake, where owners of large boats often go to travel at maximum speeds.

Bordes also said he could live with leaving the speed limit in place on the weekends, when boat traffic is most congested.

But Rep. Karel Crawford, R-Center Harbor, said she can’t support any change.

“It’s a safety issue as far as I am concerned. I felt like eliminating the speed limit in Lake Winnipesaukee, whether it is in The Broads or not, would be a hazard to our citizens using the lake,” Crawford said.

Committee Chairman Tom Walsh, R-Hooksett, said he’s been safely boating on the lake for decades and thinks changing the speed limit would not make it less safe.

“You can go slower if it’s busy,” Walsh said. “If we have an issue with unqualified boaters, maybe we should be looking at that.”

Most of the state’s largest lakes have no speed limits, though 40 mph is the fastest a boater can go during the day on Spofford Lake near the Vermont border and Squam Lake, the bucolic waterway that was the location for the Academy Award-winning film, “On Golden Pond.”

A number of much smaller ponds and rivers have even lower posted limits.

Former Gov. John Lynch signed a 2010 law that made the Lake Winnipesaukee speed limits permanent.

The Legislature in 2009 set speed limits for two years to test the idea, but a year later lawmakers acted to enshrine them

[fatlazyless]

On a rainy and foggy Tuesday early morning, June 17, 2008 at about 2-am, a 37' Formula with three women onboard struck a rocky ledge on the shoreline of Diamond Island resulting in one death.

After the Friday, July 4, 2008 Independence Day holiday weekend, like on July 7 or 8 or 9 or so, Gov John Lynch signed the initial Lake Winnipesaukee 45-day/30-night speed limit into law. If I remember correct, it was in effect for one year and then got extended, or something.

[tis]

It seems to me, as it seemed to me last time that it's the legislators that don't live around the like that don't want to change it. Why should they care? I didn't see an official count so maybe I am wrong.

Also the Diamond Island crash involved alcohol as do most of these serious crashes.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

On a rainy and foggy Tuesday early morning, June 17, 2008 at about 2-am, a 32' Fountain with three women onboard struck a rocky ledge on the shoreline of Diamond Island resulting in one death.

After the Friday, July 4, 2008 Independence Day holiday weekend, like on July 7 or 8 or 9 or so, Gov John Lynch signed the initial Lake Winnipesaukee 45-day/30-night speed limit into law. If I remember correct, it was in effect for one year and then got extended, or something.

It was a 37' Formula sport cruiser, not a 32' Fountain.

If you are trying to tie the speed limit to this accident, I would focus more on the alcohol, weather conditions and failure to maintain a proper lookout.

[znh]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

All functions of a wake created by a boat are the result of an energy transfer. This energy transfer is directly related to boat displacement. The amount of energy in a wave depends on its height and wavelength as well as the distance over which it breaks. Given equal wavelengths, a wave with greater amplitude will release more energy when it falls back to sea level than a wave of lesser amplitude. The speed of the waves has little to do with this.

A boat on plane displaces very little water and thus transmits very little energy to the water. The low energy waves dissipate quickly. Assuming the boat on plane maintains 150' off the shoreline (per the law) by the time the wake reaches the shore there is little energy left.

This wave energy discussion is the crux of all the proposed wakeboat rules.

Woodsy

That sounds good. Too bad most of the large cruisers that create giant wakes are never anywhere near on plane...hence the issue with their giant wakes.

Speed limits and wakes seems like two completely separate issues. I know I'm a little late to the thread here but why are the two being discussed under the same umbrella?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by znh

That sounds good. Too bad most of the large cruisers that create giant wakes are never anywhere near on plane...hence the issue with their giant wakes.

Speed limits and wakes seems like two completely separate issues. I know I'm a little late to the thread here but why are the two being discussed under the same umbrella?

Many, if not most, of the large cruisers do not have "planing hulls", they have displacement hulls. They will not get up on plane in the way our bowriders and runabouts do.

Dave