posted 10-09-2007 03:14 PM ET (US)        

The operator of the speedboat was arrested on two counts of reckless operation - one count for the two passengers who's lives were endangered by having an outboard that was 25 or 50hp greater than the capacity plate indicates. In talking with the State DEP officers, there is absolutely no wiggle room in their not writing a summons for overpowering a boat.

Thus if you're considering putting a 50 on a Classic 13, or a 25 on a classic 11 and their capacity plates are 40hp/20hp respectively, plan on a heavy hitting charge of reckless operation - even if you operate the vessel within the law.

posted 10-09-2007 09:13 PM ET (US)            

Boating, the last frontier, until guys like this get to be in charge in Florida. I'll be running without hp markings on the engine when they do.

They don't have open water speed limits in Connecticut yet, do they?? At least he did not get a ticket for endangering himself. Can the passengers drop the charges if they wish to then?

Does this make you proud???

posted 10-09-2007 10:45 PM ET (US)            

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/Waha/100_0933.jpg

Note the 90hp Yamaha.

I know of no law, State or Federal that allows for a citation to be issued based on overpowering a boat alone. But I am always learning...Any chance we could get a look at the summons or the section violated?

Responsible boating is the key.

Be safe out there.

posted 10-09-2007 10:55 PM ET (US)            

What state are you referring to?

What is a "DEP officer"?

Washington state has no law against overpowering a boat. Oregon and California has no such law. There is no federal law against overpowering a boat. I believe Michigan may have such a law.

posted 10-09-2007 11:38 PM ET (US)            

Maximum Rated Horsepower
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ratedHP.html

As for the State of Connecticut, I used to live there. I found it really weird that roads that I drove on every day were legally closed. Connecticut used to post notices (signs on posts) that a road was legally closed, yet it was still open and in use by everyone. The first time I came across this I did not know what to do. Then a local explained how it was just a legal formality, a way of the State being able to cop-out on any liability due to the poor pavement.

posted 10-10-2007 12:26 AM ET (US)            

Connecticut "DEP" = Department of Environmental Protection.

Still can't find any violation for exceeding the HP on the capacity plate in Connecticut.

posted 10-10-2007 11:38 AM ET (US)            

MAXIMUM LOADING AND HORSEPOWER

posted 10-10-2007 02:34 PM ET (US)            

"90 HP" becomes "190HP".

Not that I would ever suggest that, mind you.

posted 10-10-2007 05:41 PM ET (US)            

§ 99.7. Prohibited acts.

(a) A person may not tamper with or remove a capacity plate or any of the information shown.

(b) A person may not sell or otherwise transfer ownership of a boat subject to this chapter that does not comply with this chapter.

(c) A person may not furnish a false or fraudulent statement on an application for a capacity plate.

(d) A person may not operate a boat displaying an illegible capacity plate. Owners of these boats shall apply for a replacement plate as provided in § 99.3 (relating to persons affixing plates).

(e) A person may not operate a boat for which a capacity plate is required unless the boat displays the capacity plate.

(f) A manufacturer, dealer or other person may not offer a boat for sale for which a capacity plate is required unless a capacity plate is properly affixed.

posted 10-11-2007 10:43 AM ET (US)            

I will tell you in San Diego, CA several years ago, an aquaintance of mine (John) was at the helm of a "speed boat". I am not sure how to define it further other than there was almost no "V" to the hull at all. He had it overpowered. He was in Mission Bay tearing it up. He flipped the boat. A female passenger died and he was left paraplegic, after many months in our ICU, which is where I ran into him. Alcohol was a contributing factor (per his account to me).

He was cited for overpowering the boat. The mechanic who installed the motor was found civilly liable in the woman's death, as was John. He received multiple citations and did a short jail stint.

posted 10-19-2007 06:36 AM ET (US)            

It is my understanding, if you exceed documented OEM capacity limits or a commercial vessel has undesirable issues, Underwriters can refuse to insure you.
Pick you poisen.
Play safe.

posted 10-22-2007 11:26 AM ET (US)         

-Have a negative effect on handling
-Have a negative impact level floatation (the power head will probably not stay above the waterline)
-Potentially crack the transom
-Void most insurance policies
-Void the warrantee

Louie

posted 10-22-2007 01:52 PM ET (US)            

The person is out cruising on the water one weekend, when something with the steering system breaks, and the boat cuts sharply to one direction, t-boning a 10 million dollar yacht.
Fortunately, no one is hurt. However on impact, the strong Whaler hull actually punched a 4 foot hole in the side of the yacht, at the waterline.

The yacht began to take on water, and the occupants of the yacht took refuge on the Outrage. Within 10 minutes, the yacht had sunk.

Obviously, the Outrage's insurance provider is going to be liable for the yacht. The insurance company is going to send investigators to determine why this happened, and the resulting damage.
The investigator's quickly realize the motor on the Whaler, is not within the legal specs.

Now here's the question. Knowing how some insurance companies work, one of the following is going to happen:
- the insurance company is going to say "no big deal about the Whaler being illegally powered, let's go ahead and pay for the 10 million dollar yacht that's a total loss"
-or-
- the insurance company is going to say "the agent did "technically" give him coverage, so let's pay for the yacht, and then fire, and sue the agent
-or-
- the insurance company is going to say "that's boat's not legally configured, we don't care if the agent said they'd cover it, we're not paying a dime"
-or-
- when the agent is confronted by the company for wanting to know why an illegally powered boat was given coverage to begin with, the agent, looking to save his/her own hide, is going to drop the boat owner in the grease, and tell the company that the boat was legal whenever he/she gave it coverage, and that the boat owner must have changed the boat's power without consulting them.

Hopefully someone can weigh in on this, that may have had a similar experience.

posted 10-22-2007 03:43 PM ET (US)         

You are right. So long as you are transparent in your disclosure the fine print shouldn’t come into play. That said, most insurance markets will not insure a vessel that is overpowered. As for level floatation, you are also right. If the motor weight is the same, level floatation will remain as per factory spec. And, IF one has the discipline to always drive the boat within its, and the transoms limits, everything should be fine. I personally wouldn’t have the self control.

As for the guy with the Alert; it’s a commercial boat, and commercial warrantees are looked at in a different light. The first question the factory asks before they warrantee a transom is “what size motor is on the boat”. My understanding is they will not warrantee an overpowered transom.

I have a 22 Guardian that I’m looking to re-power. I had a lengthy discussion with the folks at CGP and was told my warrantee would be void if exceed the power OR weight ratings of the transom.

PS

The yacht owners insurance would pay for anything over and above the overpowered boat owners policy. But they have the right to subrogate, and would go after the owner of the overpowered boat. I wouldn’t want to be that guy.

posted 10-23-2007 06:45 AM ET (US)         

Rich

posted 03-19-2008 03:41 PM ET (US)            

Reckless is regarding an action that is or has taken place.

Being cited for 300hp on the back of the boat with a capacity of 150hp is out of the question. No wake zone is a no wake zone(When in doubt refer to Chapman's rules of the road).

State based maritime law enforcement are a bit too energetic at times to make a name for themselves.

When renewing your maritime insurance policy this year or starting a new one. Consider the following fine print phrase "Should the insured commit illegal acts or break any law the policy is null and void". I am certain the capacity plate will be referenced.

Homeowners, renters, life, medical, auto, motorcycle, and the recent fraud of Pet Medical insurance has only been around for 50 to 70 years. They have been built on those who have paid their premiums for the past few years without a claim. All of the advertising is geared in a way which shows you can not operate without it. Laws passed previously state it must be paid for in order to operate a vehicle. Regardless their objective is NOT to pay and find every excuse or general counsel to prove they should not pay.

Open water is considered open water and your speed with luck is your discretion. The owner of Benihana of Tokyo was in a race that sent the bow of the boat underwater at speeds in excess of 100mph. He spent three months in the hospital with multiple fractures and has never fully recovered as he no longer races.

I can not think how many stories, photos, and videos show the cigarette boats filled with drugs attempting to out run USCG air craft. The druggies who have an immense budget for spending on top engines, props, and transmissions still can not out run the air support. In the mid 1980's the FCI's or USCG's Fast Costal Interceptors a product of Trident Marine which were made of an aluminum hull had to be decommissioned due to stress cracks found in the hull.

As a person who is working on whaler restorations when the final product is finished the laws must be respected. The person or mechanic who installed the oversize engine being held civilly liable is a fact on the basis you knew in advance what the rating was and you chose to install larger. You choose to provide another party a much more powerful rated machine and you will be held accountable for your actions. There is no way in a dark place you will elude and evade this FACT.

If you choose to put a 300hp on your own vessel and it has a capacity plate of 150hp this is your decision. You sell, transfer ownership, or LEND this vessel to someone else it is your tail on the line NOT THE OPERATORS. You are the one who modified your vessel and the person who operates other then you will get your tail in a world of hot water.

This subject is a double edge sword which is yours to swing. You modify it and someone else operates it that you get to be subject to their stupidity since they may not have your level of experience. You modify it and you only operate it then hang on as you will fly...

posted 03-24-2008 01:24 PM ET (US)            

That there are people wringing their hands about this and condemning owners of "overpowered" boats as reckless regardless of any knowledge about the actual operation of a vessel...

Or

The fact that by default, there are law enforcement officers who must also believe the same as the above

Guns don't kill people, people do.

Likewise, boats don't behave recklessly - operators do. And I will add that I would love to see an analysys of reckless operation citations from around the country to determine just how likely a person with more hp on the transom is to be "reckless" than those with hp within the capacity plate.

posted 03-24-2008 11:52 PM ET (US)            

I can not think how many stories, photos, and videos show the cigarette boats filled with drugs attempting to out run USCG air craft. The druggies who have an immense budget for spending on top engines, props, and transmissions still can not out run the air support. In the mid 1980's the FCI's or USCG's Fast Costal Interceptors a product of Trident Marine which were made of an aluminum hull had to be decommissioned due to stress cracks found in the hull."

What the hell does this have to do with people overpowering a 17' with a 115?

PS the Benihana was a race(The Godfather of offshore races) in NJ, not Tokyo. It was a Japanese restaurant in Toms River, NJ...not Tokyo. They later changed it to the Walsh offshore war(1986?) after he was injured and nolonger sponsored it...please get your facts right.

PS...You can run a 200hp on a Montauk...don't kill anyone and NOBODY will ever say boo to ya. If you do get a citation for an overpowered boat, you were either reckless driving and got off easy or you were stopped for a "courtesy check" and did not know how to be "courteous" to the man. NOBODY has EVER checked my capacity plate in 30 years of boating.

posted 03-30-2008 07:52 PM ET (US)         

I've recently seen that this excellent website you own and manage, www.continuouswave.com/whaler, is a link on the new BW owners website. That's great, for lots of reasons. But also because hopefully BW representatives will now become engaged in many of the topics raised here on your website.

This particular thread is discussing rigging larger hp on BWs than their BW capacity plates approve. Other related threads on the website discuss jack plates, which I imagine inherently raise questions with BW; there are other subjects we raise on your website where actions outside of BW standards are discussed.

I really hope that BW representatives will weigh in on these issues and many other topics raised on the website since BW has incorporated your website as a link. I think in particular that their contributions can be extremely helpful, as they can explain critically important researched BW facts and give us good guidance on safety, etc. implications raised by many of these threads.

If some of us as Whaler owners want to continue on our independent approaches regarding hp, jack plates, etc. at least we'll better understand BW's views on these subjects based on their BW research and government approvals, and hopefully all of this information will be extremely valuable to all of us.

posted 03-31-2008 06:12 PM ET (US)            

What makes anyone here think that there are not representatives from Boston Whaler, Brunswick, Mercury, Evinrude, Yamaha, etc. ..on the site already?

They are just not operating in "official" capacities. But some of the learned members are certainly "in the know".

Knowing corporations as I do, there will not be an "official" BW representative here other than to provide information that has already been approved by the company. We need a retired exec to become a member and tell all!

Seriously....if your lawyers told you to say something, would you turn around and in an official capacity say something different (and still expect to keep your job)?

Come on now folks....Pay close attention...get to know posters...and then start reading between the lines - read with vision - and you can pick out some of the insiders (though I'll never out them - we all value their opinions too much).

posted 03-31-2008 08:21 PM ET (US)            

It is not considered reckless, as here is the deffination of reckless in CT.

"Reckless Operation of a vessel or the reckless manipulation of water-skis,a surfboard, or similar device is defined as the failure to exercise the care necessary to prevent the endangerment of another person or their property.
Examples of reckless operation are:

Weaving your vessel through congested waterway traffic or swerving at the last possible moment in order to avoid a collision

Jumping the wake of another vessel unnecessarily close to the other vessel or when visibility around the other vessel is restricted

Chasing, harassing, or disturbing wildlife with your vessel"

You will find the reference on page 3 of the CT Boating Laws.
www.boat-ed.com/abc/abc_specific_images/pdfs/ct_law.pdf

They designate an overpowered boat as hazardous, but only indicate the officer can request you proceed to the nearest mooring. It also lists an excessive amount of water in the boat as hazardous, so if I take a wave over the bow and there is lots of water in the boat do i get a ticket?

posted 04-01-2008 11:55 AM ET (US)         

"Tell it to the Judge."

Sec. 15-140m. Reckless operation of a vessel in the second degree. (a) A person commits the offense of reckless operation of a vessel in the second degree when he (1) operates a vessel at such speed or maneuvers a vessel in such a manner as to endanger the life, limb or property of another person, (2) operates or, as owner, permits the operation of a vessel loaded with passengers or cargo beyond its safe carrying capacity, having regard for weather and other operating conditions, (3) operates or, as owner, permits the operation of a vessel loaded or powered in excess of the maximum capacity information stated on the United States Coast Guard capacity information label or the capacity information label of the manufacturer affixed to such vessel, or (4) operates or, as owner, permits the operation of a vessel the capacity information label of which has been altered, defaced or removed.

posted 04-01-2008 07:38 PM ET (US)            

Also if anyone is interested, he quoted me $7900 + tax, for a 90hp Fourstroke, installed on my boat. Includes Prop, controls and cables. He says they do about 35-40 engine swaps a week there!

Also went on about E-TEC's and how they (Mercury) had that technology 30 years ago... Blah blah blah.
I said "Thank you very much." and went off to my concert at the House of Blues.

posted 04-03-2008 02:12 PM ET (US)            

I suppose that if ever I was involved in an accident, it could theoretially become an issue.

By the way, isn't there a "Coast Guard Formula" somewhere for calculation of max hp? If memory serves, this formula is a function of length, beam and perhaps weight. I forget. Anyhow, it's interesting to ponder if (and why) a vessel would be plated with "max" numbers that are sometimes less than those derived using this formula.

posted 04-12-2008 11:19 PM ET (US)            

Quote:
Anyhow, it's interesting to ponder if (and why) a vessel would be plated with "max" numbers that are sometimes less than those derived using this formula.
EndQuote:

I think it was believed that Whaler did that a few years ago when one of the models they had had a Mercury powerplant of say, 120HP, and the hull was rated at 120HP. The next year, when the Mercury powerplant was say, 130HP (a new model introduced), then magically, that same hull capacity was now increased by 10 HP to 130HP.

(Since I was not buying that series, especially with Mercury power, I did not pay too much attention to the actual specifics).

posted 04-19-2008 12:20 PM ET (US)            

"PS the Benihana was a race(The Godfather of offshore races) in NJ, not Tokyo. It was a Japanese restaurant in Toms River, NJ...not Tokyo. They later changed it to the Walsh offshore war(1986?) after he was injured and no longer sponsored it...please get your facts right."

posted 04-19-2008 05:10 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

By the way, isn't there a "Coast Guard Formula" somewhere for calculation of max hp?

---

posted 04-20-2008 09:03 PM ET (US)            

It still seems to me that Whaler was a bit arbitrary to assigh a maximum rating of 90 to the 170 Montauk, a vessel that, when "overpowered" with a 115, not only complies with the USCG formula, but even when thus overpowered, still cannot exceed 46 mph going down stream with a tail wind.

posted 04-21-2008 09:35 PM ET (US)         

With that said, provided a boat is not burdened by a higher HP motor than rated, I can't think of a single down side (except some negligable cost differences) to a couple extra ponnies on the back of a boat. In fact I would argue just the opposite with many examples to support this. The notion that this type of boat is somehow unsafe is absurd. With the exception of a few anemic 4 cylinder models, we all operate automibiles capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph. Are these autos all inviting negligent behavior or somehow unsafe? of course not.