posted 09-07-2001 10:34 PM ET (US)            

Don't accept them!

posted 09-07-2001 11:16 PM ET (US)            

What is your criteria for "overpowered"?

posted 09-08-2001 01:59 PM ET (US)            

Before this post gets out of hand (as we have seen in the past) may I make a few observations?

1. You come to the Photo section of the site and post with a title of "Responsible Image of Whaler owners".

2. You give an opinion and then state that others have a different opinion (YABUT), but you have heard them all and they are not acceptable. (to you).

Sounds like "I don't care what you say, I know better". Wrong? Tough to get others to post with a position like that.

3. You clarify you defination of a boat with a motor in excess of the rated HP for the whaler. How are other people you are afraid will get a bad image of Whaler owners supposed to know the rated HP of the boat?

4. You state that, of course, you don't KNOW the motivation for overpowering... yet in the beginning you said "I've heard 'em all". Is that a contridiction?

5. Next you state " it presents an unsafe and irresponsible image of Whaler owners to the general boating public". It just seems your main concern is the "image".

There is a thread that has been going on concerning "overpowering" with posts concerning safety, liability etc. Have you seen it?

Just trying to figure out your post and what you are looking for in replys.

posted 09-08-2001 07:01 PM ET (US)            

Conservatively operated in placid waters, a modestly overpowered boat is little hazard to its operator or other boats. On the other hand, "over" powered engines are generally heavier than the designers anticipated and capable of delivering more thrust than anticipated. Control is perpetually at risk.

I have seen and heard of too many "accidents" including an overpowered skiff (not a Whaler) that killed the son of a dear friend by flipping over backward onto him when he opened the throttle abruptly in a mild chop.

Hence my paranoia. My friend barely escaped a jail term. He would have gladly served it to get his son back.

posted 09-08-2001 08:22 PM ET (US)            

I personally wouldn’t intentionally overpower a boat I owned, and I would be concerned with even riding in an overpowered boat. Just my personal preference.

As you say, if an accident occurs an overpowered boat has a very good chance of being labeled "unsafe" and its operator irresponsible, and liable.

However, I think it still gets down to the operator of the boat (or car or plane or skateboard)

A “properly” powered boat, or even an “underpowered” boat does not mean that everything will be fine. An “overpowered” operator can do more damage and cause more accidents than a boat no matter what power it has. The real responsibility belongs to the operator, not the size of the motor.

Whatever power you put on your boat, you simply have to be aware of its capabilities and it’s limitations and how it reacts with the particular boat. The same engine will perform differently on different hulls and under different loads and under different water conditions.

I am sorry your friend lost his son. If I knew more about the total circumstances, I might have some further comments. But since I was not there, I will only say, I’m sorry for the personal loss.

These unfortunately happen too often but I think you will find they are caused more by circumstances other than overpowered boats. Alcohol, excessive speed, reckless driving, carelessness and just plain stupidity probably cause most.

I do understand your concern, as I think all others on the forum do. Lets just be “safe and sane” with our boats, no matter what their power.

Just my thoughts.

posted 09-08-2001 08:32 PM ET (US)            

I am with Tsuriki in that I was (and still am) having difficulty understanding the point of your post. If you are referring to the boats pictured in the Cetacea section (and since you are posting in the Cetacea Comment section, I presume you are), I guess I have to respectfully ask you to identify the boats you conclude are overpowered as I am not seeing them. I have frequently not been as observant as I might have been, and that could easily be the case here. If so, and you have a deep felt concern you feel compelled to share for the overall safety of fellow Whalers and the public or a story you feel the need to tell , I might suggest your concern would be better appreciated and more effectively impactive if you were more direct in your post rather than attempting to "...deliberately provoke defensive reactions...". You may respond positively to that sort of provocation, but I don't think many others here (or elsewhere)do.

On the other hand, if you simply made a careless and/or inaccurate statement that you can't support, or were simply trying to get a rise (trolling) then you got me and I'll try to be more cognizant of your purposes the next time I read one of your posts. (Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.)

Please advise-

posted 09-08-2001 11:41 PM ET (US)            

So, I get angry and combative when I see casual overpowering. I think he would have survived without it.

Thank you for your understanding. I will check Cetacea and ID the boats that offended me.

Red sky at night. . .
JB

posted 09-09-2001 12:08 AM ET (US)            

Just two questions before I call it a night.

Who's decision was it to put the 40hp motor on a boat rated for 20hp and why?

Good evening

posted 09-09-2001 05:40 PM ET (US)            

I haven't had or seen a Whaler that wont go as fast as is safe for that hull with the rated power and a reasonable load within the max load rating. All but one of my Whalers have been powered at about 70% of the rating and would still go very fast on smooth water. The exception was my Outrage 18, which did have 150 hp aboard and would go faster than I felt safe going in that boat, even on smooth water.

I firmly believe that the MAXIMUM horsepower rating on most boats clearly defines a dividing line between safe and dangerous. In a growing number of places it has become law.

The libertarian in me hates that, but laws get written to make people stop doing dangerous or irresponsible things. If we boaters (no, not "they", "we") werent having sad events resulting in propety loss and injury tracable to overpowering (along with the many other factors mentioned by Tsuriki above) the lawmakers would ignore us.

posted 09-09-2001 07:58 PM ET (US)            

I applaud the refreshing views you hold regarding the reasons lawmakers make laws. I hold a much more cynical view regarding those reasons but if I were able to have my "druthers" I think I'd prefer your views to be correct, at least I would if there was reason to believe that the lawmakers had more common sense and knowledge of the subject than I do.

Anyway - here's to your right to be appalled by what you've seen in Cetacea. (Although I do suspect that in your count there is a significant number of those that failed your test which might have failed due to your having mis-applied the set [or having not applied the complete set] of factors necessary for the conclusions you have drawn.) I myself find it difficult to make such discriminate judgements because I hamper myself with the burden of being convinced that I don't have all the facts, don't have the knowledge base from which to make such a judgement, wasn't asked or empowered by anyone to make the judgement to begin with, it isn't my business, and I really don't care much about it, anyway. (In fact I'm boring myself as I write this.) Sometimes I envy those the clarity that allows for such straight forward positions. Sometimes it seems it would be so much easier that way...

And here's to your right to put as small a motor on your boat(s) as you like (except not smaller than the Manufacturer's recommendations - that's a whole 'nother can of worms). The subject of our affection here is, after all, personal enjoyment and recreation as expressed in our choice of boats! Ain't this forum grand?

Somebody stop me-

posted 09-09-2001 08:50 PM ET (US)            

There is also a 27 with 400HP. It is rated at 300HP in one form and 600HP in another, so that is arguable. The others are, granted, only modestly overpowered, but overpowered nevertheless.

Unless the text stated a HP figure in excess of the published MAX rating, I skipped it.

Have I misapplied simple arithmetic here? Do I misunderstand the term, "MAXIMUM"? What other method of defining "overpowered" would you suggest?

There are those who argue very correctly that any boat is only as safe as its operator. I prefer to put it slightly differently, "No boat is safer than its operator and may be a lot less safe." Overpowering, like overloading is a way of increasing risk. Our country is the greatest on earth at least partly because of our freedom to accept and take risks. . . for ourselves. Taking risk and compromising safety for others is not the same thing.

posted 09-09-2001 09:29 PM ET (US)            

In the meantime, I think I'll muddle my way back to smaller issues I'm more easily able to be helpful with, and leave this space available for those who have more passion and clarity with the subject than me.

Keep up the good fight (and keep down the horsepower)-

kingfish

posted 09-09-2001 09:49 PM ET (US)            

1. Any boat may be unsafe if not operated in safe manner, regardless of horsepower.

2. Overpowering a boat may not make that boat unsafe depending on the hull and the way it is operated.

3. Most Whalers I have seen overpowered have been + 10 to 20%, that isn't very much. I used to run a 4 wheeler that came with a 165 HP and I was putting out 350 HP.

4. Nice thing about living in America, we are free to make our own decisions and even overpower if we want to.

5. If I am running an overpowered boat and operating it in a responsible manner It's no ones business but mine.

That's it for now, before I get carried away.

posted 09-10-2001 01:33 AM ET (US)            

Why, you failed to notice the most Outrageous Whaler of them all, the 18 with 230! Where, exactly do you see a 22 with 300 hp? I could only find one 17 with a 115, and a 27 with 400 is only at 66% of it's rating.

Do you really think that the maximum horse power rating is some magical black line? Do you think the Coast Guard goes out and runs new boats with all sorts of power to determine what is safe or not? The maximum horsepower rating is arrived at via formula based on a limited set of parameters like length, beam, weight ect. The boats aren't actually tested. The rating are, to some extent, various. The idea is to give the public a guideline to help people boat safely, but the idea that a boat at its maximum rating is safe, and one which is 8% overpowered isn't, is absurd.

I own an aluminum skiff which is currently powered at 66% of it's horsepower rating. That boat scares me to run at full throttle. It is the only boat (other than a sail boat) that I have ever flipped. I have owned 5 Whalers only two of which were powered at their maximum horsepower rating, none were overpowered. But in the future....

posted 09-10-2001 02:19 AM ET (US)            

1. You said “ I deliberately provoked defensive reactions in order to clarify my major concerns: safety and liability.”

What kind of replies did you expect by resorting to that type of post? And what kind of openness to your opinion?

2. You stated:

“an overpowered skiff (not a Whaler) that killed the son of a dear friend by flipping over backward onto him when he opened the throttle abruptly in a mild chop.”

Then: “The one eyewitness said he got into a wake and appeared to lean forward, then the engine went to WOT and the bow came back over him.”

Then: “just (as you point out) massively overpowered and in a deadly environment.”

What really happened? Do you really know?

Could it possibly be that he made a mistake on his own?

3. You said: “ overpowered is mounting an engine rated in excess of the rating of the boat. For example, 115, 125 or 135hp on a 16/17 which is rated for 100.”

Then: "over" powered engines are generally heavier than the designers anticipated and capable of delivering more thrust than anticipated. Control is perpetually at risk.

Then:” Conservatively operated in placid waters, a modestly overpowered boat is little hazard to its operator or other boats”.

How do you define “casual overpowering, modestly overpowering. Massively overpowered”??

4. You said “I am ordinarily a reasonable and rational person, but I have a few hot buttons. One of them is the casual overpowering of outboard boats. . . after 30-some years I am still carrying a bag of rage about the loss of Dave's boy.”

30 years of rage??? Yet you have not posted on the Performance section on the thread titled “overpowering” , giving your opinion, concerns and story. Why?

Have you expressed your “rage” to your friend over the past 30 years , who owned the boat, gave permission to “overpower” the boat (he was the owner) and was held responsible?

5. You say: “I am appalled at how many of the Cetaceans are overpowered.” You base your opinion (and post) on pictures of boats you have never seen in person and text you compare with catalogs you have in a collection. Have you ever contacted one of the owners and discussed the boat/motor, your opinion, anything with the owner?

I’m sorry JB, but I am more confused now about what you are trying to get across, the accident and your motive, than I was when I read your initial post.

posted 09-10-2001 10:25 AM ET (US)            

I don't think that posters were trying to, or interested in attacking you. Nor were they just blindly defending overpowering. I think the point was trying to understanding your position, present another, and reach some understanding of an important subject.

Your opinion and followup were questioned, in order to get clarification or to make a point. Others voiced their opinion. You are free to question those. That's how it works, right?

Nothing personal at all.

Peace? Of course. In the end we are all "Whalers".

posted 09-10-2001 12:21 PM ET (US)            

Does a 100HP engine and 9.9HP kicker constitute overpowering my montauk? Just kidding. I just found a used Suzuki 9.9 with a built-in oil tank and 20" shaft. If I get it I won't need a separate tank for premix.

Dave

posted 09-10-2001 02:23 PM ET (US)            

JB, I understand your issues. A decision to overpower should be a concious one, and certainly should not be made capriciously.

Just so you clearly understand, there is rated power, and then there is physics. Given the special circumstances I face (regularly boating at both 5000 ft above sea level and 9000 ft above sea level), the rated power at sea level falls off dramatically. In the best of circumstances, you may have a mere 20% fall off at 5000 ft. This brings a 50 HP motor down to 40 HP, which is the rated maximum power for a Sport 13.

So the question that I raised was meant to determine a reasonable means of compensating for the physics.

The legal issues are certainly of note, and since the "maximum rated power" is established by formula--not by test (Tom, do you have a copy of the formula?--extremely problematic.

Unfortunately, in our media-oriented and litigious society, perception becomes reality. In an accident, it is emotionally much easier to blame the boat (or the car, or the gun), not the driver. In a number of cases, the blame must be shared.

My $.02.

posted 09-10-2001 02:23 PM ET (US)         

Your going to start this PWC thing again LHG! Ouch -- here are a few answers to your question and also a device which you might consider for your 25 ;)

http://www.pwcwatch.org/questions.htm

http://www.west.net/~lpm/hobie/archives/v1-i2/humor.shtml

posted 09-10-2001 03:01 PM ET (US)         

Recently I saw a single occupant sized PWC buzz by me at about 50mph. To go that fast it must have an 80HP jet engine or so. But it's a fraction of the length, beam and weight (the Coast Guard forumla) of a 13' Whaler, which even if overpowered with a 50HP Merc in line 4 (like mine was), won't go that fast. So how does the Whaler get a 40HP rating, and the jet ski 80HP, even if the jet is a lot less effecient than the prop? The CG forumla applied to a jet ski, and they do want to be considered as boats, with all the priviledges, would only give it 5 or 10 HP rating. So my question again, is "what am I missing here?" How did Whaler get away with putting a 175 HP Merc jet in a 15' Rage, while the 15' Classic is rated for 70HP? There is no way that the CG formula on a 15' Rage would calculate 175HP! Is it maybe that boat companies can be irresponsible in overpowering their boats, but that individuals can't?

posted 09-10-2001 03:54 PM ET (US)         

Sorry Larry I should know your serious all the time :( !!!

My guess is as currently done with PWC, BW filed for an exemption for the Rage!

posted 09-12-2001 03:56 PM ET (US)            

I hate the fact that we have laws in our country that require us to be responsible for our own lives because others were not.

Sorry, I realize that covers a broad area of legal items and could care less if you you attack me on this.

It appears Mr Cornwell feels he has the right to vent at others because his friend was stupid.

Sorry pal, but thats it, your friend was dumb and he killed his own son. Pretty cut and dry.

Now, becuase of his and others reckless actions, the reponsible ones out there like myself and the majority of others are now forced to obey the regulation laws that have come up because others were plain dumb. Seatbelt laws, Maximum HP, etc.

posted 09-12-2001 04:42 PM ET (US)            

Yes I do! What are you gonna do about it whine? I love the freedom we have and am very unhappy when it is taken away because people are reckless and stupid. (sound familair to current events?) You do realize our personal freedom to move about has been seriously restricted due to the unspeakable actions of individuals yesterday.

Where do you get off telling me or anyone what is called for?

If you disagree fine, but please state why? Those are my feelings. I am interested in yours but give it some reason. I did not know I could not post my views on this site because it hurt Sorcerer's feelings.

posted 09-12-2001 08:12 PM ET (US)            

You are correct that you have a right to express your views here, within limits of decency. Why then, do you complain so that I did the same? At least I didn't call you stupid, or somehow hold you responsible for your own complaint.

When I arrived at this site I had an image of Whaler owners as being a cut above the ordinary boater; safe, responsible, gentlemen and ladies. I was shocked by those 5-of-the-first-11 cetaceans that violated the judgement of the BIA and USCG about what is safe. I went off half cocked, thinking those owners considered the rating arbitrary and meaningless.

Most of you lived up to my image of you, some didn't. Some reacted like drunken jerks.

I surrendered, I quit, I walked away. You had your shots when I was in it. I AM OUT! GET OFF MY CASE!!

posted 09-14-2001 10:54 AM ET (US)            

I want to express thanks to all of those who sent me e-mails comending my posts above. Was it an attack on Mr. Cornwall?...Yes. Was it an attack on him as an individual?...No. I attacked his view on overpowering boats and thought, and still think it is stupid.

No, Mr. Cornwall I will not get off your case. I will argue my view down to the wire, because I disagree with you. I felt the need to express my views on the subject, much like you did, and just because you lacked a decent argument and stated "I am out" does not deter my right to give my $.02

posted 09-14-2001 01:14 PM ET (US)            

Just wanted to clarify a few things, if I could.

Did you say you received a lot of e-mails "comending" my posts or "condeming" them? (typo's do happen)

If/when you overpower your boat, have and accident and your wife/friend, dogs and cats are killed, can we say " Sorry pal, but thats it, your action was dumb and you killed your own family. Pretty cut and dry.

Or the same thing happens in a car accident where you did not use/ insist on others using seatbelts/child seats, can we say the same thing?

Can we say: Give me a break Mr. Corntender 25 Stupid!!!.

Will that be OK?

Of course, nothing personal. just our $0.2

posted 09-14-2001 01:17 PM ET (US)            

I withdrew because the only sound point I heard in its defense was altitude. The rest was mainly nit-picking of my numbers, the usual "YABUT"s: "I got a right to be dangerous if I want to." and "It's only a little bit over" and displays of incredibly bad manners.

Most of the feedback was courteous and gentlemanly, in a manner I expected of Whaler owners. It's too bad we couldn't have had a debate without the static.

I thank most of you for your patience and good manners when I stepped out of line.

Red sky at night. . .
JB :)

posted 09-14-2001 03:26 PM ET (US)            

Most of them veiw this site but will not post because they find people such as yourself as: "arogant", and I beleive I read "want to be know it alls" or something like that.

I state it as I feel and am not ashamed. I should have stated in my first post I do feel bad for the young man who was killed.It is unfortunate his death could have been prevented but soneone did not use common sence.

Feel free to call me stupid Tsuriki, or whom ever. If I go and put 40Hp on a boat rated for 20 I certainly deserve it. Better yet, if I start venting over how evey one should power their boats to the manufactures recomendations just because my friend did not have any clue what he was doing and ignored common sence killing his son as a result, you can call me an A-@^&#* or worse for all I care, Tsuriki you can quote me on that!

posted 09-14-2001 06:18 PM ET (US)            

16 of 'em, WOW. View but won't post....

Was only asking if it was OK to call you stupid and blame you for the result if the hypethetical(SP?) situations occured, something like that. That's all.

Probably won't quote you until I find out what "A-@^*" means. You might be giving yourself a compliment!

Tsuriki

posted 09-14-2001 11:18 PM ET (US)            

LOL!!!!

if you get a chance go to a website called thehulltruth.com, do a search on boston whaler, or continuouswave. You will find former clasic whaler posters there along with their views towards individuals on this site. after checking my e-mail I am up to 17 but one negative comment so back to 16.