Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Future of Outboard (brought over from Post classic)

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Future of Outboard (brought over from Post classic)
Whaletosh posted 07-19-2001 03:51 PM ET (US)   Profile for Whaletosh  

For the record I am neither for or against 4-stroke or for or against DFI. I am also with you on the EPA's mandate: It will improve motors and make them cleaner. I am irritated that CARB and the Tahoe authority tinkered with the timeline. The EPA had worked with the marine industry to establish a timeline that would have met the goal while giving the marine industry ample time for R&D.

My point on the fuel flow is two fold:

1) It takes more force to accelerate 2 ounces of fuel than 1 ounce. There is only so much time to do this in any engine design, and DFI engines have the least amount of time available. All of the fuel must be delivered after the exhaust ports close, which is after the piston is up into the compression stroke. So one can assume that it would take more force to get the fuel charge into the cylinder. Now, having said that, it may very well be that the current pressure and injector designs ARE workable for higher power engines. I am just stating that this may be part of the problem. I have no data hence it is merely a hypothesis.

2) Imagine that we have an 8-ounce jar and a 16-ounce jar; load a couple straws half full of water, and blow each straw's worth of water into a jar (not the same jar). Which jar has the better chance of having the cloud of water more atomized and more thoroughly dispersed? Now, repeat the experiment with more water in the straw that supplies the 16 ounce jar. Again, which jar has the better chance of having a finely atomized widely dispersed cloud? In both cases it would be the smaller jar. And again, this is just my hypothesis as to why large DFI two strokes are having problems and smaller units aren't.

OMC even stated that getting the fuel charge in, atomized, and dispersed, was one of the engineering hurdles facing them when they were developing Ficht outboards. They stated that the short time period was one of the big problems. I read this in Trailer Boats Magazine, several years back. It was a a direct quote from an OMC source that was cited.

I can't argue that currently there are many DFI choices that are shipping, in a wide variety of horsepower ranges. I also can't argue with the fuel economy, durability, noise, etc., that most people are experiencing with these motors. My only point is that there are apparently engineering hurdles to getting DFI engines to work at higher horsepowers. Can these hurldles be jumped? Of course, but at what cost? There are engineering hurdles to bringing large 4-stroke motors to the market as well. But at what cost? Outboard makers will produce the design that will meet the design goal at the cheapest cost. Let's not forget that the EPA 2008 standards need to be met as well. That is part of the design goal. I can't believe that any of the outboard makers would continue to invest in a technology of any sort that would get them to EPA 2006, unless they were very confident that they could get it to meet EPA 2008 with a little more work.

Again, all of my posts are about the future of outboards and my hypothesis of what will happen and why. It is going to be worth watching.


As for the fuel effecincy of DFI vs. EFI/carbed outboards: Yes, DFIs are more fuel efficient. The reason--the fuel in your motors and any "traditional" 2-stroke is delivered into the engine with the air via the crankcase. That fuel/air mixture isn't used entirely for combustion. Some of it is used to push the remnants of the exhaust out of the motor, and some of the fuel/air mixture exits with the exhaust. So in essence your motor "wastes" some fuel because it isn't using it solely for combustion. A DFI motor still gets most of the air through the crankcase, and some of that air goes out with the exhaust. But the fuel is delivered directly into the cylinder AFTER the exhast port closes. Therefore, none of the fuel goes out with the exhaust, and is used for combustion. Thus, DFIs are more effecient than "traditional" 2-stroke outboards.


Chap posted 07-19-2001 04:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for Chap  Send Email to Chap     
Doesn't the addition of oil to the fuel/air mix in 2 strokes also contribute to their inherent inefficient use of the fuel itself?

Are DFI's the quick fix while they work on the 4 strokes?


bigz posted 07-19-2001 04:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Thank you Sean for starting this over here.

Still feel real bad about Juris Opti problem.

I did post one last statement regarding fuel usage on our 225 Fichts -- heh heh stand corrected.

I read a similar statement regarding the Ficht development back (I think) in '98 or there abouts. I sort of follow your argument, however in the case of the 200,225 and the 250, model-year-2001 Fichts this doesn't seem to be the issue, at least from what I have learned. Those engines take a little extra care and feeding but other than that they seem to be performing fine with the upgrades since the early 2000 and 1999 models. Still, the service bulletins continue as they find new areas which need to be addressed. At least my feeling they will be here to stay for some time to come right along side 4-strokes. I also have this CPU-programming nagging-feeling as part of some of the minor problems which can cause major problems being the culprit.

Hey Chap skip to Neo Classics and read the 125 posts in the Optimax topic; see if you can tell if these DFI's are just short term. Hint: hint too much money has been invested to be short term just "while they get marine grade 4-strokes sorted out" Z

LarrySherman posted 07-19-2001 04:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for LarrySherman  Send Email to LarrySherman     
Here is the link to the Lake Tahoe Outboard study. Estimates that 30% of fuel put into a standard 2-stroke is unburned, dumping gas, MTBE and Toulene directly into the lake. Study of FICHT indicated only 10% of fuel not combusted would go into lake, resulting in a 70% decrease in polutants entering into the lake via outboards. Interesting reading, but did not see Optimax mentioned.


Sean, thanks for restarting it.

Whaletosh posted 07-19-2001 04:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whaletosh    

I feel for Juris' as well. I have seen some posts on other boards that reiterate the problems of the large Optis.

At least my problem won't prevent me from going out. As my dealer told me this morning, I might as well use the boat and put off getting the new motor until later in the season. It is like using a loaner free of charge, as my warranty for the new motor is the full 3 years and begins when they hang the motor.


blackdog posted 07-19-2001 04:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for blackdog  Send Email to blackdog     
Are your Twin Ficht's leaking Injection oil from the Air Box?


bigz posted 07-19-2001 05:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Happy to say they are not Gene --
LarrySherman posted 07-19-2001 05:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for LarrySherman  Send Email to LarrySherman     
An interesting read on recreational marine drive technology publish this year.


Peter posted 07-19-2001 07:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     

You said "I also have this CPU-programming nagging-feeling as part of some of the minor problems which can cause major problems being the culprit".

I recall reading somewhere recently that one of the Ficht fixes to reduce the sooting problem was, through the fuel managment programming, to alter the low speed mixture on one of the cylinders relative to the mixture in the others and continuously alternate the cylinders which receive the different mixture so that over time all cylinders equally receive this different mixture (sort of a spreading a little piece of the problem around approach). I can't remember whether they make the odd cylinder richer or leaner, but I suspect leaner, so that the others can be a little richer. I guess the idea is that if you average the richness of the mixture on all of the cylinders over time, it would be the same as if they ran the same apparently sooting mixture in all cylinders. I guess that is one part of the solution to achieve emissions goals and solve the sooting problem. I thought that this was pretty clever.

jimh posted 07-19-2001 09:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Some of primary reasons outboards have remained popular:

--simple maintenance
--excellent horsepower-to-weight ratio

As these new "low-emission" outboards are developed, their technology seems to be infringing on these three areas:

--maintenace interval worse than inboard; changing plugs every 100 hours; periodic oil sump changes now needed
--weight increasing relative to horsepower
--durability and longevity decreasing

One can get a 350 HP outdrive for quite a bit less money than a pair of 175 HP outboards. In fresh-water use, the I/O choice may be becoming the preferred!


Whaletosh posted 07-19-2001 10:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whaletosh    

Have you seen the new sunbird 200MS. A center console mid engine unit that utilizes a jackshaft to couple to a Mercruiser. Multiple gas engine options and a diesel option as well. The motor cove is used for seating and storage, reclaiing some of the "lost" space.

Imagine an Outrage fitted similarily.


counterstrike posted 07-19-2001 10:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for counterstrike    
I aren’t to good on it at all, But! I say But!
Are these Engines using COP (coil on Plug) or Shared Coils (Waste Spark setup)?

If using COP, there should be no need for “special programming” to altering the Injection Pulse Width (2.5 millisecond’s at an idle of 800 +/- 100 rpm is a good average). On a 4X ICE they should be using a CKPs and a CMP (Crank Angle Position Sensor and a Cam Position Sensor) along with a TPS (Throttle Angle = TPS voltage) and A Baro Pressure (Pressure relevant to sea level), /MAP sensor (Engine Vacume) to attain a perfect A/F mixture optimized for Environment and Performance.
For the 2X ICE all they need to program is the CKP sensor readings at the ECM and utilize the ECM’s properties to control the EFI or PEFI (pressurized EFI) and the COP.

The TPS and MAP would be the most needed items to control the A/F mixture throughout the Power curve.

bigz posted 07-20-2001 08:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Here for your reading pleasure is basicly the technology used in the FICHT DFI -- make sure you read the update -- Kenneth C. Dyer

A few views from both sides of the world ---
a little something on performance
a typical Brit -- I find delightful

and now from Italy

the Aussi slant on the OMC demise --

Now for a few notes I picked up on the Optimax operating structure in a nut shell--

Which is Air-Assisted

"Most prominent among the air-assisted versions of direct fuel injection is Australian technology from Orbital Engine Company. Mercury Marine of Fond-du-Lac, Wisconsin has begun introduction of its OptiMax engine technology. The OptiMax system essentially consists of a Fuel and Oil Metering Pump (FOMP) and a Direct Cylinder Injector (DCI). The FOMP controls the amount of fuel and oil delivered to the engine. The oil is measured as a function of engine speed and fuel flow. Because the FOMP injects oil into the air intake, fuel and oil are not mixed in the fuel tank. The fuel injection is accomplished by an air assisted (pneumatic) fuel injector used to achieve a stratified charge. The air and fuel are injected into the cylinder. Electronic control of the injection timing is used to ensure that the exhaust port is closed prior to the injection of fuel into the combustion chamber." this was taken from a National Marine Association paper based on enviromental concerns effecting the industry thought it gave a quick overview of the Orbital tech used in the Opi engine --

dauntlass 18 posted 07-20-2001 10:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for dauntlass 18  Send Email to dauntlass 18     
Maybe if Optimax owners who had problems with there engine wrote in the exact problem (fuel injector ,spark plugs, engine control module,etc.]. We might see a pattern of where the problem area of the engines is.
Peter posted 07-20-2001 11:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Need to make a correction to my post of yesterday regarding programming, now I don't think that they altered the fuel mixture, rather, at the 1200 to 1800 rpm, they altered the spark advance of one cylinder relative to the others -- slightly advancing one cylinder and slightly retarding all of the others and alternating this for every cylinder at each revolution. Same general concept, just applied to spark advance rather than mixture. Don't see why you couldn't play around a little with the timing of the fuel injection per cylinder also with the Ficht system, assuming that would help, Yami does this with its EFI line.

Nevertheless, all this necessary tweaking to prevent sooting shows once again that Jimh's post, regarding infringement of our "fundamental outboard power boating rights", has hit the nail squarely on the head.

Kelly posted 07-20-2001 06:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
I think the discussion of the future of Outboards is very interesting, but so far, it seems that one very important aspect has been kinda left out, the boats. It seems to me that somewhere in the '70s or '80s, maybe earlier, most boat designers took the approach that no matter how poorly they designed the hull, they could just add enough horse power to make it plane,go fast, and give the appearance that the boat was performing well. And that has been true so far. Some hull designs are better than others, but in general, I think horses have been used to overcome alot of poor design. Look at what most manufacturers quote in their specs, "Degree Dead Rise". I know that is important, but I get the impression that there are manuacturers that select the degree of dead rise at the stern and feel that all of the design work is complete and the rest is cosmetic.

Personally, I think the Whaler 17' hull might be one of the last designs by a major manufacturer that is capable of being used satisfactorily with a wide range and relatively low minimum requirement for power. I have seen posts indicating satisfactory results with 50 to 115 horse power. While 50 may not be as thrilling, it appears that the boat still performs well. I suspect that there are other 17' boats that must have close to the maximum horsepower to perform satisfactorily. My 17' works well with a 70. My 13' is a blast with a 15hp, and I know people put 40hp and more on this boat. My favorite picture of the 13 is with no motor and under oar power.

My point is, one of the benefits of the "Future of Outboards" may be that the "Future of Boats" returns us to some of the designs that make us so fond of the Classic Whalers. I hope so, before Whaler discards all of the classic designs. Kelly

counterstrike posted 07-20-2001 09:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for counterstrike    
Excelent info bigz
Dick posted 07-20-2001 09:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     
Well put.
I am one of those guys that runs a 50 4 stroke on a Montauk. As you said "Not as thrilling", but it works well. The classic design Whaler hulls perform well with a wide range of HP depending on what the owner wants out of them. I am not knocking the deep V hulls, It's just that my combination works best for me. I like running a stable boat with a motor that doesn't guzzel fuel but still performs well.
I'll leave the deep Vs with the big HP to the younger guys.
jimh posted 07-21-2001 09:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I think it is inevitable that outboard motor design will affect boat design.

In particular, the increasing weight of outboard motors has meant a change in boat design to accommodate greater weight on the transom.

And the trend to higher horsepower had meant a change in boat construction to add more strength to accommodate the extra power.

So the engine weighs more, the boat weighs more, the hull form is wider (to support the weight), and much of the performance gain that was supposed to occur from the bigger engine is eaten up by all the extra weight and pushing the less efficient hull form through the water.

I think trends like this are one reason Whaler had to re-design the 13-foot hull. If you want good performance with one of those 4-stroke outboards on the transom, it was probably necessary to tweak the hullform a bit.


Kelly posted 07-21-2001 11:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
I don't disagree that what you have stated will probably happen. On the other hand, the 17' Whaler design works very well with a lower horsepower motor, and there are already 4 strokes that work fine on this boat. Are the currently available 90's too heavy, I think so, does the boat have to have a 90, I don't think so. Is top end speed compromised with the lower horsepower, yes. But in my opinion, I dont think the classic whalers were designed as much for top speed as they were designed for seaworthyness. I would venture to say that the top horsepower rating of 100 for the 17' boat was intended to push heavier loaded boats, not increase top speed for a lightly loaded boat. But that is my opinion, I would love to hear what the designer's thoughts were. I personally would not be surprized to see some designer come forward with a boat design with the outboard mounted in a well located forward of the stern of the boat. There are several small manufactures that provide this feature, and I have always thought it has its advantages, especially if the motor is very heavy. One more thought, if we just keep getting bigger and heavier, what is the environmental advantage of that approach? Also, at some point, I think consumers will want boats that can operate at lower horsepower from the initial cost and operating cost standpoint. When I was growing up, you would not dream of having a vehicle without a V-8, and I still think in some cases there is no substitute. Now people have grown accustom to smaller motors for smaller cars and applications. Just my thoughts. Kelly
Peter posted 07-21-2001 11:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I primarily agree with Kelly and Jimh's latest thoughts. However, interestingly, his 20 Revenge and basically the 18 to 27 Outrage/Revenge series were designed to accomodate twin outboards which means Dougherty and company had to take into consideration that there might be more weight at the transom for a given total horsepower. This seems to me to be very evident in the 25 Revenge. The ones that I have seen with a single outboard at rest seem too light in the transom, with the rear chines noticibly riding out of the water. Clearly, hull design requires a lot of considerations and tradeoffs.

I think comparing the 17 Montauk or standard hull (which is not a deep vee) to an Outrage (which is), if that is what is being done here, is like comparing apples to oranges. Regarding power for the 17, what is the minimum required hp is a matter of personal preference and typical use. I know a lot of folks around here use the 17 for water skiing. Most of those are powered with a 90 or higher. A 50 simply would not cut it. However, this just goes to show the versatility of a highly trailerable hull design. It can do a lot of things particularly well. However, there are some things it is not particularly good at, like keeping people dry and providing a soft ride in a significant chop. Again, tradeoffs.

Kelly posted 07-21-2001 01:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
From the reference section:

"The hull of the 18-Outrage is a modified vee-hull shape that evolved from the original twin sponson designs of the earlier hulls. This vee-hull form evolved over the years, benefiting from several earlier iterations whose seakeeping was not as successful. The evolution proceeded along these lines: As the length and beam of the hull increased, the enormous lateral stability of the twin sponson design of the 13-foot hull was no longer a necessity; thus the central hull grew into a moderate vee-hull design, while the twin sponsons shrunk, becoming only vestigial runners. The hull shape retained the refined bow lines with the classic "smirk" (formed by carrying the line of the runners up and across the bow). The resulting Outrage-18 hull was able to provide excellent lateral stability, but offered much improved ride in waves and chop compared with the 17-foot hull. The 18-Outrage was designed for operating in big waves and big water, to be able to go offshore and fish in the ocean.

For a boat to be successful for offshore fishing, it must be wide and stable enough to provide a platform that resists rolling uncomfortably while drifting or trolling, yet be capable of travelling at planning speeds through moderate waves without a harsh ride. The 18-Outrage met these requirements perfectly. Also, its hull-form proved to be extremely stable in a following sea, a situation frequently encountered when running back to the harbor from ocean fishing. And a final plus, the hull was still relatively lightweight and easily planed, so good performance could be obtained without excessive horsepower on the transom."

I just don't think some of the new boats, even Whaler's, get this kind of thoughtful design, and I think as outboards change, it will be even more important. Kelly

B Bear posted 07-21-2001 01:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for B Bear  Send Email to B Bear     
I am at a little loss on this thread. DFI has been around for a long time in diesel engines. Diesels are used in 2 stroke and 4 stroke versions and can come in a varity of sizes. Diesels use high compresson (and the heat of compresson to ignite the fuel rather than spark plugs) sometimes coupled with glow plugs. I am curious as to why this techonology has not been advanced into the outboard field. After all there are only a few differences, fuel (gas&oil mix vs diesel), the need for sump oil in a deisel, the possible use of ports instead of valves in a diesel. Could it be weight, toruqe, HP to wieght ratio, RPMs? With all the new alloys the wieght and heat of a diesel could be addressed. The engine would be tough, reliable and effiecent, and possibly exempt from most of EPA mandates.
I would wonder if some day we might see a small turbo charged diesel outboard in the future.
Food for thought.
Kelly posted 07-21-2001 02:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     

sorry to have digressed on your thread.

SuburbanBoy posted 07-21-2001 03:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for SuburbanBoy  Send Email to SuburbanBoy     
The 4-stroke weight issue will probably quickly improve with competition. We might also see the evolution of "sport" 4-stroke motors and "working" 4-stroke motors. And why not? My recreational, water sports requirements are different than the requirements for those who travel miles off-shore for fishing expeditions. High HP to weight ratio is more important to me than the ability to repetitivly run for hours on end at partial throttle.


counterstrike posted 07-21-2001 05:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for counterstrike    
Older OB's weigh more,
Newer one's Less.
The design of the C 13 is suitable for a Higher HP than the original rating.
Today's 4 cyc OB( comparitive hp or higher can weigh as much (but most likely Less) that the same year 2cyc OB ( comparitive hp or lower )

This View should be ... Well, Viewed with Total Thrust at Prop x Weight ( your "Prop" may vary).

Any Opinions?


Kelly posted 07-21-2001 06:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
In my opinion, almost everything we have seen so far in terms of 4 strokes and cleaner more efficient 2 strokes is still part of the industry's first generation of product. Right now, manufacturers are just trying to meet the 2006 deadline and be ready to have product to sell at that time. Once manufacturers fill the gaps in their 2006 product lines, then they will really start competing on the weight and other issues. Today it is enough that Yamaha has a 4 stroke 225, in two or three years, people will have more choices. I personally think the future is 4 stroke. The two stroke approach seems to be adding complexity to simplicity to avoid complexity.
Kelly posted 07-21-2001 11:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
Just got my August issue of Trailer Boats. Interesting article in the propulsion section about a new product that Outboard Propulsion Systems is working on. It appears to be a jet drive in an enclosure that bolts onto the transom. In this case they used a 92 hp VW inline 4 cylinder diesel for power. Enclosure adds static bouyancy. On the back of a 198 Key West, they reported prototype achieved following: 27 mpg at 3800 rpm, optimum cruise at 22.5 mpg with 4.3 gph and 5.2 mpg. Looks like a low profile unit that does not stick up above the transom. They report that the design is suitable for a variety of diferent motors and that they are working on a V-8. Looked interesting. Kelly
Kelly posted 07-21-2001 11:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
Thats 27mph and 22.5 mph
Kelly posted 07-21-2001 11:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Kelly  Send Email to Kelly     
take a look at for info on the above
counterstrike posted 07-21-2001 11:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for counterstrike    
Good outlook reserch on the use of future OB development and deployment, however, OB "J" drives have been around for years, (30 + if my brain is still with me)

Things that make you scratch your head and say... "Hmmm"

Arch Autenreith posted 07-22-2001 01:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for Arch Autenreith  Send Email to Arch Autenreith     
Sorry, Kelly. re: I have to be the first....Did you see what they have it attached to? A Boston Whaler!! With pics, too. Thanks for the info.
B Bear posted 07-22-2001 10:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for B Bear  Send Email to B Bear     
Kelly thanks for the information. I believe the real kicker here is that they are using diesels in these units. That is what enabled them to get 4.3 and 5.2 miles per gal with a jet drive. Those numbers compete with current 4 strokes. I wonder how much better the performance and mpg would be if they had a more efficent propeller on the unit instead of a jet.
Arch Autenreith posted 07-22-2001 12:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Arch Autenreith  Send Email to Arch Autenreith     
Bear. BTW, I haven't forgotten about your kind offer to fish with you on the Bay. I came down to Fla 6 weeks ago with the kids. I liked the fishing down here so much I just left the Whaler here at my folks, took the kids back to Pittsburgh then came back down for a couple more weeks. I will be making it down to the Bay again this fall for sure. Hope your offer to show me the secrets for Stripers still stands then.
I'm sure the bite has been on there for some time now, hasn't it? Sorry this wasn't exactly 'Future of Outboard' stuff.
Whaletosh posted 07-23-2001 03:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for Whaletosh    
Back form a camping trip, my what a can of worms I opened.


Future of boats and future of motors are tied together, so only small digression.

B Bear,

I am sure that if the outboard industry were to try to use diesels to skirt the EPA's regs there would be immediate action in response. Plus, diesels have there own design problems. Yanmar does produce some diesel outboards already. They are small and pricey, but heavy. The DF-36 weighs more than my 60 HP. Mainly they are popular with people that use them as kickers or spares that have boats that use larger diesels. This keeps the fuel requirements the same. Poeple that have trawlers like tham as well, they are fuel thrifty. And they do use DFI, in a 4 stroke design.


bigz posted 07-25-2001 01:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Bombardier introduces four-stroke watercraft

Well I know -- I know it ain't an outboard -- still interesting ---

LarrySherman posted 07-25-2001 01:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for LarrySherman  Send Email to LarrySherman     
I especially like the "D-Sea-Bel sound reduction system." Pehaps new Johnson and Evinrude OBs will feature "Tran-So-Mounts" or "Lor-R-Units."

Whaletosh posted 07-25-2001 01:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whaletosh    

Honda announced earlier this spring that they were going to produce a 4-stoke PWC as well.

Begin soapbox

Many places, Lake Tahoe and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake Shore eg., have instututed bans on PWCs because of noise and pollution. What are the chances are that these new quieter and cleaner PWCs will be permitted to use those areas? Probably not much.

end soapbox


Bigshot posted 07-25-2001 03:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
About the same as a snowballs chance in hell.
lhg posted 07-26-2001 02:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Although pollution is a major problem with Jet Ski's, I've always thought the pollution issue was just an excuse to get rid of them. The real issue is the obnoxious noise (same for those big Bombardier and Yamaha jet boats) and the obnoxious way they are driven by the majority of users. The first thing the PWC association should do, is get rid of the rental operations. They are the WORST offenders of all.

There's something about jet ski's that just makes people, and other boaters, hate them!
(myself included)

Whaletosh posted 07-26-2001 03:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whaletosh    

I get fed up with the PWC drivers jumping my wake; turning on a dime without looking around; running full throttle far too close to swimming areas, shorelines, and docks; and just generally being a nuiscance. If I owned water front property I would get sick of the constant drone of them. But I don't hate PWCs, they are inanimate objects. Only the driver can be blamed, not the product. PWCs aren't any noisier than any other boat and don't pollute any more than conventional 2-stroke with similar HP motor. I would agree that the exhaust note is more irritating, but not louder. It certainly isn't louder than the go fast boats that I can hear several miles off shore on Lake Michigan while standing on a pier.

I was really pointing out some items:

1) PWC makers, like outboard makers, are addressing pollution. They are required to do so just as all marine engine makers are. (Which is how this ties in with the future of outboards).

2) Four stroke motors and other technologies are going to make PWCS quieter. We may think the name "D-Sea-Bel sound reduction system" is cutecy and funny, but it is addressing the noise issue.

3) If PWCs can be banned from use in certain areas than so can our Whalers. Especially, a conventional 2-stroke. Your 25 Outrage with EFI Mercuries can't be used on Lake Tahoe. A divided house won't stand.

Personnally, I believe that the PWC makers and dealer would do themselves a world of good if they would start providing basic classes on navigation and boating courtesy. Most of the offenders are just ignorant. A little instruction might go a long way. Those that are arrogant simply don't care and can only be dealt with enforcement.


P.S. I hope this thread doesn't get hijacked as well, like the one that it evolved from.

bigz posted 07-26-2001 03:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for bigz    
Sean, nice statement but your right we are talking about outbroads.

Little more news from what lhg calls the newsless company --- chuckle --

Bombardier sets up new European distribution

Bigshot posted 07-26-2001 04:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Biggest complaint on PWC's is who flies into the sandbar area that everyone is anchored in? The thing that puzzles me is why 2strokes are banned on Tahoe. I read somewhere that if you drained Tahoe it would cover the entire state of calif. in 6 inches of water and then take over 100 years to fill back up. What is up with that?

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.