Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 25, 6:23?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...

I agree with you, Tom. I can't see how approaching a no-wake zone at a
high speed and then slowing down is going to introduce a wake to the
zone,
==========================

You can't see that? I wish I had a video camera and could post an example
for you. Wakes don't just go out sideways from the boat. There's an element
of "diagonalness". Depending on the location of the next object they meet,
the results can be significant.

My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat,
with one exception we will address in a moment.

The wake is formed when the hull displaces water in order to advance.
The water is primarily pushed to either side as that is the longest
dimension of the hull and also where there is the most resistance. the
bow is normally designed to offer very little resistance, of course.

The water isn't really being pushed away from the boat diagonally,
especially aft of the bow curve. What happens is that once the boat
displaces water that water contiunes to travel away from the point of
contact while the boat advances, so the farther behind the boat you
look the greater the "gap" between the port and starboard waves. The
widening gap and the advancing point of origin describe a "V", but
that isn't how the water was originally displaced. In any case, the
port and starboard wakes trail the boat. If a boat is making a wake,
anything immediately abeam of the point where the wake is generated
will be affected. Once the boat slows down to a no-wake speed things
that come up abeam beyond that point won't be washed by the wake- with
the fore mentioned exception noted in the following paragraph.

There are three major "wakes" associated with most powerboats.
The bow wake, the sten wake, and a transom wake. The transom wake will
disappear more completely when a boat is truly on plane than will
either the port or starboard bow and stern wakes. The transom wake
*will* overtake the boat if it slows down suddenly as the transom wake
as literally following the boat and at about the same speed. The
volume of water in a transom wake is substantially less than the
volume of water
in bow and stern wakes, and the transom wake will also be very
slightly mitigated when it uses up some energy to go "under" a boat
that has slowed down abruptly ahead of it. This transom wake could
easily enter a no-wake zone if a boater were approaching on a heading
perpendicular to the boundary of the zone.

Some "No Wake Zones" run parallel to the shoreline, with a 200 yard or
so area marked by advisory buoys. A boat running 250 yards from shore,
parallel to the no wake zone boundary, will certainly create a wake
within the exclusion zone whether the boat is actually being operated
in the zone or not.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 25, 6:23?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...

I agree with you, Tom. I can't see how approaching a no-wake zone at a
high speed and then slowing down is going to introduce a wake to the
zone,
==========================

You can't see that? I wish I had a video camera and could post an example
for you. Wakes don't just go out sideways from the boat. There's an
element
of "diagonalness". Depending on the location of the next object they
meet,
the results can be significant.

My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat,
with one exception we will address in a moment.

The wake is formed when the hull displaces water in order to advance.
The water is primarily pushed to either side as that is the longest
dimension of the hull and also where there is the most resistance. the
bow is normally designed to offer very little resistance, of course.

The water isn't really being pushed away from the boat diagonally,
especially aft of the bow curve. What happens is that once the boat
displaces water that water contiunes to travel away from the point of
contact while the boat advances, so the farther behind the boat you
look the greater the "gap" between the port and starboard waves. The
widening gap and the advancing point of origin describe a "V", but
that isn't how the water was originally displaced. In any case, the
port and starboard wakes trail the boat. If a boat is making a wake,
anything immediately abeam of the point where the wake is generated
will be affected. Once the boat slows down to a no-wake speed things
that come up abeam beyond that point won't be washed by the wake- with
the fore mentioned exception noted in the following paragraph.

There are three major "wakes" associated with most powerboats.
The bow wake, the sten wake, and a transom wake. The transom wake will
disappear more completely when a boat is truly on plane than will
either the port or starboard bow and stern wakes. The transom wake
*will* overtake the boat if it slows down suddenly as the transom wake
as literally following the boat and at about the same speed. The
volume of water in a transom wake is substantially less than the
volume of water
in bow and stern wakes, and the transom wake will also be very
slightly mitigated when it uses up some energy to go "under" a boat
that has slowed down abruptly ahead of it. This transom wake could
easily enter a no-wake zone if a boater were approaching on a heading
perpendicular to the boundary of the zone.

Some "No Wake Zones" run parallel to the shoreline, with a 200 yard or
so area marked by advisory buoys. A boat running 250 yards from shore,
parallel to the no wake zone boundary, will certainly create a wake
within the exclusion zone whether the boat is actually being operated
in the zone or not.


Sometimes explanations don't match observations. If just one boat goes
through this particular no wake zone, throwing a wake, and nearby objects
begin to move, it's obviously the wake. It's not the objects thinking "I
guess we should move".

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 25, 7:48?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 25, 6:23?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

groups.com...

I agree with you, Tom. I can't see how approaching a no-wake zone at a
high speed and then slowing down is going to introduce a wake to the
zone,
==========================

You can't see that? I wish I had a video camera and could post an example
for you. Wakes don't just go out sideways from the boat. There's an
element
of "diagonalness". Depending on the location of the next object they
meet,
the results can be significant.

My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat,
with one exception we will address in a moment.

The wake is formed when the hull displaces water in order to advance.
The water is primarily pushed to either side as that is the longest
dimension of the hull and also where there is the most resistance. the
bow is normally designed to offer very little resistance, of course.

The water isn't really being pushed away from the boat diagonally,
especially aft of the bow curve. What happens is that once the boat
displaces water that water contiunes to travel away from the point of
contact while the boat advances, so the farther behind the boat you
look the greater the "gap" between the port and starboard waves. The
widening gap and the advancing point of origin describe a "V", but
that isn't how the water was originally displaced. In any case, the
port and starboard wakes trail the boat. If a boat is making a wake,
anything immediately abeam of the point where the wake is generated
will be affected. Once the boat slows down to a no-wake speed things
that come up abeam beyond that point won't be washed by the wake- with
the fore mentioned exception noted in the following paragraph.

There are three major "wakes" associated with most powerboats.
The bow wake, the sten wake, and a transom wake. The transom wake will
disappear more completely when a boat is truly on plane than will
either the port or starboard bow and stern wakes. The transom wake
*will* overtake the boat if it slows down suddenly as the transom wake
as literally following the boat and at about the same speed. The
volume of water in a transom wake is substantially less than the
volume of water
in bow and stern wakes, and the transom wake will also be very
slightly mitigated when it uses up some energy to go "under" a boat
that has slowed down abruptly ahead of it. This transom wake could
easily enter a no-wake zone if a boater were approaching on a heading
perpendicular to the boundary of the zone.

Some "No Wake Zones" run parallel to the shoreline, with a 200 yard or
so area marked by advisory buoys. A boat running 250 yards from shore,
parallel to the no wake zone boundary, will certainly create a wake
within the exclusion zone whether the boat is actually being operated
in the zone or not.

Sometimes explanations don't match observations. If just one boat goes
through this particular no wake zone, throwing a wake, and nearby objects
begin to move, it's obviously the wake. It's not the objects thinking "I
guess we should move".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apples and oranges.

Obviously any boat "going through a no-wake zone and throwing a wake"
will be in volation of no-wake rules.

Your original post stated that the local cops are ticketing boaters
for not slowing down far enough in advance of the no-wake zone. My
observations are based on the relative bearing of the no-wake boundary
to the vessel itself, and I maintain that if the boat is entering the
no-wake zone at a 90-degree angle to the perimeter of the area and
isn't making a wake when it enters the zone there will be very little,
if any, wash immediately ahead of the vessel or within the zone.

If you are describing a situation where the boats are running parallel
to a no-wake zone, you probably can't move the markers out far enough
to eliminate any and all effects from wakes generated outside the
zone.

I've been bawled out by a landlubbing greenie for making a "wake" in a
narrow entrance channel to a local harbor. What the greenie stood on
shore and referred to as my "goddam wake!" wake was hardly even an
aggressive ripple. When somebody figures out how to move a boat
through the water without displacing any of it, we'll have the wake
problem solved for all time.

Most intelligent legal definition of "wake" that I'm aware of: a bow
or stern wave that is high enough to break.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

How about this: Boat making huge wake, cuts throttle 10 feet before the
no-wake zone.

Read this again, and go get a tape measure if it helps:

10 (TEN) feet.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 25, 7:59?am, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On 25 May 2007 07:41:43 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat,
with one exception we will address in a moment.

The REAL point is whether you are creating a wake or not.

In an automobile, this is the same argument that could be had over
when one should be going the speed limit. Do you wait until you get to
the lower speed limit sign to slow down or do you slow down such that
when you pass the sign you are running the posted speed limit. If I
run up to the 35 MPH sign at the prior posted limit of 55, I could
pass through a lot of distance before I slowed down to the new legal
limit.

Now, the boat. If I wait until I get abreast the no wake sign to pull
off the power, I don't *need* the wake to "overtake and/or precede
the boat," since the boat will continue at a "wake" speed until it
coasts to a "no-wake" speed.

I think that would be construed as a violation of the rule by anyone
watching from a distance.
--


Agreed. As a boat slows down gradually it will continue to generate a
wake until speed is reduced enough. Once at a no-wake speed, however,
nothing abeam or ahead of the vessel will be washed or rocked with the
possible exception of the transom wake overtaking the boat.

I would bet that if the boats are entering the no-wake zone
perpendicularly and are still leaving a wake within the zone it is
because they didn't begin slowin down soon enough. If a boat is at no-
wake speed when it enters a zone, particularly head on, a wake that
was generated a couple of hundred yards earlier will be of no
consequence within the no wake zone.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 25, 7:59?am, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On 25 May 2007 07:41:43 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat,
with one exception we will address in a moment.

The REAL point is whether you are creating a wake or not.

In an automobile, this is the same argument that could be had over
when one should be going the speed limit. Do you wait until you get to
the lower speed limit sign to slow down or do you slow down such that
when you pass the sign you are running the posted speed limit. If I
run up to the 35 MPH sign at the prior posted limit of 55, I could
pass through a lot of distance before I slowed down to the new legal
limit.

Now, the boat. If I wait until I get abreast the no wake sign to pull
off the power, I don't *need* the wake to "overtake and/or precede
the boat," since the boat will continue at a "wake" speed until it
coasts to a "no-wake" speed.

I think that would be construed as a violation of the rule by anyone
watching from a distance.
--


Agreed. As a boat slows down gradually it will continue to generate a
wake until speed is reduced enough. Once at a no-wake speed, however,
nothing abeam or ahead of the vessel will be washed or rocked with the
possible exception of the transom wake overtaking the boat.

I would bet that if the boats are entering the no-wake zone
perpendicularly and are still leaving a wake within the zone it is
because they didn't begin slowin down soon enough. If a boat is at no-
wake speed when it enters a zone, particularly head on, a wake that
was generated a couple of hundred yards earlier will be of no
consequence within the no wake zone.


Not a couple of hundred yards. 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet. High speed until
the bow of the boat is about 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet from the signs. The
signs are large enough to be seen from a few hundred feet away. The marina
is pretty easy to differentiate from the sky, as is the boat launch.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

On May 25, 8:26?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...





On May 25, 7:59?am, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On 25 May 2007 07:41:43 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat,
with one exception we will address in a moment.

The REAL point is whether you are creating a wake or not.

In an automobile, this is the same argument that could be had over
when one should be going the speed limit. Do you wait until you get to
the lower speed limit sign to slow down or do you slow down such that
when you pass the sign you are running the posted speed limit. If I
run up to the 35 MPH sign at the prior posted limit of 55, I could
pass through a lot of distance before I slowed down to the new legal
limit.

Now, the boat. If I wait until I get abreast the no wake sign to pull
off the power, I don't *need* the wake to "overtake and/or precede
the boat," since the boat will continue at a "wake" speed until it
coasts to a "no-wake" speed.

I think that would be construed as a violation of the rule by anyone
watching from a distance.
--

Agreed. As a boat slows down gradually it will continue to generate a
wake until speed is reduced enough. Once at a no-wake speed, however,
nothing abeam or ahead of the vessel will be washed or rocked with the
possible exception of the transom wake overtaking the boat.

I would bet that if the boats are entering the no-wake zone
perpendicularly and are still leaving a wake within the zone it is
because they didn't begin slowin down soon enough. If a boat is at no-
wake speed when it enters a zone, particularly head on, a wake that
was generated a couple of hundred yards earlier will be of no
consequence within the no wake zone.

Not a couple of hundred yards. 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet. High speed until
the bow of the boat is about 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet from the signs. The
signs are large enough to be seen from a few hundred feet away. The marina
is pretty easy to differentiate from the sky, as is the boat launch.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So the basis of the problem is that the offending boats have *not*
slowed to a no-wake speed prior to entering the zone. Very
understandable source of a wake. If the boats do slow to a no-wake
speed prior to entering the zone, it won't matter much how far in
advance they reach no-wake speed.

Same thing is true when coming abeam of a no-wake zone or a fisherman
in a small open boat. You do throttle back in advance of coming abeam
of the zone or fisherman so that you are at a no or reduced wake speed
when passing opposite. Once past, it's OK to throttle back- the wake
isn't going to extend backwards from the point where it was generated

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

How about this: Boat making huge wake, cuts throttle 10 feet before the
no-wake zone.

Read this again, and go get a tape measure if it helps:

10 (TEN) feet.

If that's the case, the boat still has enough momentum that it would be
travelling too fast once it entered the no-wake zone. I was under the
impression that these boats were coming fully off plane and settled in the
water once they entered the zone. Afterall, you said "200-300 feet before
the no-wake zone" they were getting flagged down by the CG. That's a full
football field's length, and just about any boat that cuts back power to
idle one football field's length before the zone is not throwing a wake once
it enters the zone.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 25 May 2007 07:41:43 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat,
with one exception we will address in a moment.

The REAL point is whether you are creating a wake or not.

In an automobile, this is the same argument that could be had over
when one should be going the speed limit. Do you wait until you get to
the lower speed limit sign to slow down or do you slow down such that
when you pass the sign you are running the posted speed limit. If I
run up to the 35 MPH sign at the prior posted limit of 55, I could
pass through a lot of distance before I slowed down to the new legal
limit.

Now, the boat. If I wait until I get abreast the no wake sign to pull
off the power, I don't *need* the wake to "overtake and/or precede
the boat," since the boat will continue at a "wake" speed until it
coasts to a "no-wake" speed.

I think that would be construed as a violation of the rule by anyone
watching from a distance.

Gene,
He said that they were flagging these boats down 300 feet before the zone. I
doubt that there's any powerboat under 50 feet that is still travelling at
a wake-creating speed 300 feet after it cuts power back to neutral.

Proper interpretation of no-wake rules
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 25, 7:59?am, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On 25 May 2007 07:41:43 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
My point is that the wake doesn't overtake and/or precede the boat,
with one exception we will address in a moment.

The REAL point is whether you are creating a wake or not.

In an automobile, this is the same argument that could be had over
when one should be going the speed limit. Do you wait until you get to
the lower speed limit sign to slow down or do you slow down such that
when you pass the sign you are running the posted speed limit. If I
run up to the 35 MPH sign at the prior posted limit of 55, I could
pass through a lot of distance before I slowed down to the new legal
limit.

Now, the boat. If I wait until I get abreast the no wake sign to pull
off the power, I don't *need* the wake to "overtake and/or precede
the boat," since the boat will continue at a "wake" speed until it
coasts to a "no-wake" speed.

I think that would be construed as a violation of the rule by anyone
watching from a distance.
--


Agreed. As a boat slows down gradually it will continue to generate a
wake until speed is reduced enough. Once at a no-wake speed, however,
nothing abeam or ahead of the vessel will be washed or rocked with the
possible exception of the transom wake overtaking the boat.

I would bet that if the boats are entering the no-wake zone
perpendicularly and are still leaving a wake within the zone it is
because they didn't begin slowin down soon enough. If a boat is at no-
wake speed when it enters a zone, particularly head on, a wake that
was generated a couple of hundred yards earlier will be of no
consequence within the no wake zone.


Not a couple of hundred yards. 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet. High speed until
the bow of the boat is about 10 (ten, diez, dix) feet from the signs. The
signs are large enough to be seen from a few hundred feet away. The marina
is pretty easy to differentiate from the sky, as is the boat launch.


You said that the CG was flagging them down 200-300 feet before the zone.
(?)


If it's 10 feet, then I agree with ticketing those boats.