Minimum Planing Speed
 

To determine what will be a reasonable night speed limit. It will be important to find the minimum planing speed for Winnipesaukee boaters.
To be able to plane creates less wake and less erosion of the shores. A sensible thing to do for our lake.

I can plane at about 18 indicated, with flaps @15 degrees, but the wake turbulence is brutal. :D NB

I have a soon to be targeted 18,000 lb (scale tested) vessel that easily gets up on plane at 28 MPH. 32 is the sweet spot where it feels like we are gliding on silk with the engines gently purring.

Interesting
 

To have a large wake at planing speed. Maybe I should have said:

Minimum planing speed that will create a small wake.

Based on my observations, once a boat is on plane, the wake goes down.

I hope everyone takes this into account when they vote.

I can get the boat on plane at less than 20 mph but it is not easy. The main problem is the wake generated to get it on plane. The ideal way to get it on plane is get it out of the hole quickly, then ease of the throttle and trim it out. This generates the smallest wake. Conversely by easing it up on plane I do end up plowing thus pushing several tons of water that generate large wakes.

After Smart Tabs, my boat planes at about 20 now. The ideal small wake planing speed is at 28-30 mph. As stated above, gradual speed to plane, or to come off plane, results in larger wakes for a longer period of time. This has another adverse effect, that other small boats slow down as they come to the larger wakes.

I think the faster a (planing) hull goes, the smaller the wake will be. This is particularly true of the Deep "V" hull which usually has a 24 degree deadrise. This hull will leave less and less wake the faster it goes because it continues to climb further out of the water on the "V" and lifting strakes, reducing wetted surface...allowing it to go even faster.

A flat bottom planing hull, such as a hydroplane, will plane off earlier and with much less effort, and leave less wake. NB


PS: The power to weight ratio probably has as MUCH to do with it as hull shape I think.

The numbers on the graph are interesting, and leave me asking what kind of boats were talking about and how the MPH is being measured.

I think you also need to consider how stable your boat is at minimum plane speed. i.e. will it fall of plane if the engine RPM varies at all or if you hit any wake, or correct direction.

In my mind minimum plane speed is the speed where my hull is up "on top of the water" and will stay there without me playing with the throttle every second and/or holding a dead straight path across flat water.

In real world conditions, engine RPM will vary 100-200, you will hit someone elses wake, and you will have to make directional corrections and that will all effect the speed at which the hull will stay on a plane.

For my current boats:

1988 Glastron Carlson CVX-20 w/225 Yamaha 2/stroke outboard the lowest speed it will stay on top is like 32 MPH

1989 Glastron Carlson CSS-23 w/Mercruiser I/O the lowest speed it will stay on top is like 28 MPH

In both cases thats with average loads (people and gear) and near full fuel tanks and using GPS.

I have to question if the majority of the folks responding are talking about very small boats (under 18') with light loads and borderline falling off plane, AND using some factory speedometer (NOT super accurate) as I just dont see a whole lot of boats that can hold a solid plane under 25 MPH and most that I have driven are closer to 30 MPH than 25 MPH.

Well thats my observation

GH

p.s. the 25 MPH exactly option seems like a useless number in my mind as no boat holds and exact speed for very long, grab a GPS and see for yourself! I think you should consider re-polling and split the groupings into 5 MPH chunks and better define the term plane to include the factors I have described above.

The best way to eliminate harmful wakes is to either stay at headway speed or stay on plane. Starting and stopping along with plowing causes the largest wake.

There is no universal headway speed. Each hull design has its own maximum no wake speed. Size, shape and weight of the hull are the major factors that determine the maximum no wake speed. Some boats can go over 8 MPH without throwing a wake while others can’t go over 5 mph without throwing a wake. When a boater is in a NWZ he/she must understand the characteristics of their vessel and act accordingly.

The same can be said for minimum planing speed. Size, shape weight and power are the determining factors in planing. Some boats have no problem getting on plane at speeds less than 20 MPH, most do not. While they can be on plane at speeds under 25 they end up plowing to get on plane or exceed the speed limit to achieve it.

New Hampshire is not the only state with a night time speed limit (I know I am not supposed to talk about other states). But other states have laws that read 25 MPH max at night OR minimum planing speed.

So my question is simple. What do Winnipesaukee boaters and land owners want? A limit that causes erosion or just a limit?

Less rules, more comon sense!!!
 

Well said!!!

I like the language about minimum planing speed, seems reasonable at night.

As for daytime speedlimits, well best not open that can of worms,,, but I will say the number is worthless as people crash boats at all speeds, not just over a certain number.

GH

I think most just want to go about their business and rest assured that the real nutcases on the lake will be dealt with accordingly.

"Some" want to gradually eliminate the people and boats "They" don't like. If you look through the old SL threads (now closed), you'll see what they are. We also had some great discussions last year about boats and wakes. Some pretty interesting comments :rolleye2:

In short, "they" want to eliminate anything "they" don't like. It's a moving target.

Anybody that's ever driven a boat in a bay on a weekend knows full well what happens when people plow along due to congestion.

I have an idea; rather than take the risk that this forum does not represent the real Winnipesaukee boating public or that people here are just lying about their planing speeds (or don't know how to drive their own boats), how about if we consult a reputable performance boating reference and use the planing speeds they have found when they tested each model boat? Then, with the help of an elected State official who has access to the State's registration database, we use those real planing speeds and set a nighttime speed limit accordingly? And of course, we will throw out the extremes (say the fastest and slowest 1%), because we should not let our laws be tailored to suit one costumed cowboy in a 55-foot 3000HP 92dB cigarette boat (you know who I mean) or one old codger in a 12' jon boat with a 1919 one-cylinder 1/2 HP outboard.
So if 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found by this reference to have a planing speed below say 40MPH, then 40MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. If 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee were found to have a planing speed below 18.6MPH, then 18.6MPH would be the new "compromise" nighttime limit. But of course, this only works if we ALL agree to abide by it and support the compromise...and to then respect the newly established limit. Can we all agree to this? I will. And it sounds right in line with the intent of this "compromise".
Hint: Be careful what you wish for.:D

Wow EL, an actual post (barring the sarcasm) that makes sense. I don't know if it is possible because registered boats do not list speeds of the craft but all the same not a bad idea and I thank you for the actual valid post.

Just a heads up for future referance. A Cigarette boat is a manufactorer not a type. The one you refer to is an Outerlimits, a completely different boat then a Cigarette. Totally different handling and hull design.

If you are trying to give a name to the community, we refer to it as Go-Fast-Boat or GFB for short, because the is the primarially what it is designed for.

Cheers!

Min. Pane speed?
 

I own a PWC, so I am reluctant to answer the poll question. I believe it would skew the results.

NB - Great job and congrats on the 43 years! My bride and I will be 29 years in a few weeks!

Since I still have an optimistic streak in me and fairly new to the forum I will expose my boats performance and be prepared to go to the edge....

There are many tyes of vessels to consider. The small, medium, and large bow riders. Small, large and medium crusiers, and the same for performance boats. I would expect sail and commercial boats would be exempt.

I have a 34' cruiser. MFG book weight was 13,000 lbs. We added generator, extra refridge, upgraded power, central vac, and added our "stuff" to the machine. We weigh in at 19,000 lbs with 740 HP total (Twin 8.1 gas engines), generator, 225 gallons fuel, 45 gallons water, and the same for waste.

To plane we give full throttle. It takes a little less than 20 seconds (1200 rpm to 3200 rpm) to get out of the "hole". The "monster wake" can be destructive and we are careful to make sure we do this in an appropriate location. If we have to come off plane due to b-heads oh-well...

Once on plane we cruse at 3400 (thanks to ethanal - used to be 3000) rpm and the wake is as small as a 24 foot Four Winds.

At 3400 rpm we are doing 29 mph. At 32 mph the machine is at total harmony and as smooth as silk. At 4800 rpm we can get to 48mph.

If anyone read past the details of my post here is the bottom line. 25 MPH is not fast enough for me to get out of the hole and I plow the lake leaving a terrible wake. I normally try to stay at least 600 feet from shore since the wake looses much of its energy (I am sure some may like to challenge this).

I would like to see if we can have this discussion and include cruisers.........

I am sure the statistical medium planning speed will be lower than my type of vessel can efficiently operate due to the number of smaller boats. It would be impossible to enforce different limits by boat type. There is a real challenge to make the suggestion that elchase is offering work.

It is worth the try and debate!

Thanks NoRegrets for your support. I have deleted my last post because I descided my other comments in that post ..... didn't add any positive thoughts to the conversation at hand..mainly: Minimum planing speeds. NB

Thanks NB
 

Well, I was very close to doing the same based on some caustic and narrow responses but these threads still have potential to add value to the lakes future. You and many others have a ton of class and it is an honor to be able to share in the fun.

I completely agree with the concept, the problem I see is finding a reliable source.

I have read all kinds of "official" boat test reports and all too often the numbers quoted read like a fairy tale.

When you see 20 foot bowriders with v6 I/O that they claim runs in the low 50's top speed and planes at 18 MPH all the while burning like 3 GPH you just have to shake you head and ask, how much did the manufacturer pay you to write this crap.

I think you would be very hard pressed to find any quality reference data that would stand up to a reasonable standard. You would need something like those insurance institute tests, or UL, or someone like that who wasn't in the tank for either the boat manufacturers, or the anti-boat crowd.

I guess you could hire someone with a GPS and radar gun to randomly test the boats of forum members boats, but that seems like an extreme option,,,

It will be interesting to see where this goes,,,

I agree the published test results in magazines and manufacture marketing sheets are not at all accurate. My boat is supposed to be 13,000 lbs but weighed 19,000 lbs on the lift. Why don't we try to get people that know their boats start to give what their vessels require. I know many have changed props (pitch or number of blades), slime on the hull, ethanal fuel robbing performance, full tanks or unbalanced loads, etc.

I posted many of my boats actual operating capabilities so maybe others can and we can get some idea if elcase's theory can be of vaue....

Great Post!
 

I have to admit that everyone wants a valid compromise. I applaud elchase for making a valid statement as well as everyone else in the forum.

Obvously, there are a lot of variables working here. It will be tough to make a concrete conclusion but at least we can come up with something that can be generally agreed upon.

Comments are still coming in. I'm going to give this post a few more days.

This sheep has the tail of a wolf
 

In case the last line did not give it away. When someone comes 180 degrees on their stand, they have found something that will work to their benefit in our stand. This poll and the quoted post proves that they are going to try to use these numbers to establish a much slower speed on the lake as this is as slow as we can go. This is a double edged sword because you could raise the night limit while opening the door for lowering the day. Think long and hard about wanting to have a discussion about how slow you can go. Just my thoughts, but someone that was hard pressed to move toward a compromise Tuesday, suddenly wants to now.
A disco dancer that just walked into a biker bar would seem as out of place too.:eek:

Devil in the details
 

I'm not that worried about the writers being "in the tank" but rather the test conditions. I'm sure the magazines want to standardize their tests as much as possible and I'll guess that means a half tank of fuel and something like 2 passengers. But, as has been mentioned, other variables can come into play and move their measured planing speed up a few MPH. Moreover what do they use as a measure of "minimum" planing speed ? People speak as if being on-plane is a true binary thing but it isn't, it's a zone. I can hold a mushy plane at ~19-20 MPH with little fuel and just me aboard but the slightest thing will push me back over the hump and I'll have to goose it again to get back on-plane. So is that the minimum planing speed "we" want to use ? I wouldn't say so. A few MPH more is much better ... until I add a full load of gas and passengers ... then it's shaky again. And of course I'm neglecting the fact that I must exceed the "min" planing speed to get over the hump an on-plane in the first place.

I understand the complaints and elchases attempt to address them but I have to ask "what's the point again ?" If the (night time) SL is supposed to be about safety then let it about safety. If 25 MPH is the magic number then so be it. If it isn't the magic number then why are "we" restricting people to that speed or some min planing speed. So here's my proposal ... take some of that stimulus $$ and fund a true research study, to be peer reviewed, to determine the proper SL and then let the chips fall where they may. There was a time when engineers and safety professionals, not politicians, determined safe roadway speeds. I see no reason why that approach shouldn't work for the lake.

FWIW : Our boat is a 24' Wellcraft, neither a GFBL nor a floating mansion.

20 mph
 

The 23’ Slickcraft SS235 planes at 18.5 mph and is essentially all the way up with minimum wake at 20 mph. That is my normal efficient cruise speed day or night. Speed measured by GPS.

Fortunately there is only one person in this forum who has absolute power. His absolute power is the ability to shut the thread down, something I believe nobody wants. A change in the speed limit will not be decided here. There will be no bare knuckle brawl between OCTACTIVE and elchase with the victor making law (although that might be fun too). This is a forum for people with different perspectives to come together and see if they can reach a compromise. A lot of people here have tried to compromise in good faith. I know several people who want unlimited speeds throughout the lake who would be willing to agree to a limit. There are people who have supported the speed limit from day one who are willing to talk about raising the limit. Those people are trying to compromise. If certain people are happy with the current law and are unwilling to compromise, hey that is there right too.

If somebody wants even slower speed limits than 45/25, well it’s a free country and they are welcome to their opinion but I highly doubt they would get much support from boaters. If you are one of these people, be honest and come out and say it, the cloche and dagger thing is a little weak.

A friend of the forum and I were talking regarding the last few posts and I thought this response was right on the money.

El probably thinks a boat test can be evidence of a boat's planing ability. However,boat test show speed and time to plane, they Do Not determine a boat's ability to Remain on plane. Big difference. Many boats will plane at around 20 mph or so, but will fall off plane due to the lack of increased thrust. I can be on plane at around 16 mph, but I can't remain on plane at that speed.

OK, so it sounds like we are all in agreement then.
A "compromise" nighttime speed limit will be established using information obtained from;
1) A reputable performance boating reference (A well-known and respected performance boating authority who can surely not be accused of bias against GFBLers), and using the planing speeds they have already found by testing actual boats in real-life fresh-water conditions.
2) The official NH boat registration database, provided by an elected Republican State Representative, to catalog the model distribution of motor-powered boats registered for use principally on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2009.
This information will establish the speed below which 99% of the boats registered for use principally on Winnipesaukee have been proven to reach plane (the"planing speed", as defined by the reference), and that speed will be the "compromise nighttime speed limit", supported by all the SL opposing members of this forum, no matter what it is.
And, all SL opposing members of this forum agree to abide by the newly established limit, no matter what it is.
Do we have a deal? Yes or No. Please just post "I agree" or "I do not agree". Let's see who is willing to put their boating where their mouth is. And no backing out afterward if you see that the number is a lot lower than you expected. :D

you may want to start a poll instead of a hundred posts of agree / disagree.. Just a suggestion.

Thanks, but the polls on this forum have no real meaning. People are known to vote multiple times from different computers, and to recruit from all over the place. I recall a couple of years ago seeing posts in a Canadian jet ski forum asking people to visit Winni.com and vote on one of the SL polls. We have no control or knowledge of who is voting, how often and from where. In one of the other pending "polls" there are 182 votes (at last count) opposing a speed limit, when there are only maybe eight or nine real opposers on this forum. Where did all those votes come from? It's too bad there is no way to know as it would make the results much more meaningful. IS there any way to identify where those votes came from?
I think the "I agree / I disagree" approach is pretty straight forward. We know who people are here for the most part, unless they are going to go so far as to change screen names. If a vociferous SL-opposing member agrees ahead to abide by this compromise and then starts crying foul when it does not show the results they had expected, they will look like crybabies. These are the people who suggested this "planing speed" logic for establishing the nighttime limit...let's see if they are willing to stand by it.

well two thoughts:

1. you can have the poll show who voted for what (that is an option)

2. and for someone who "just joined" you know a lot of history of this forum.....

not crying foul but it is very interesting.

I am surprised that there is a lack of trust in forum members. I would not have taken the time to detail elchase's possiblity of corruption in the forum's process but that is my nature to trust until stepped on twice.

I did not think the group ACORN or the Chicago voters association were reaking havic with the Winni Forum polling! I felt the polls were responded to in proper numbers and if there are a few bassturds, so be it.

We all learned something about a poll with 5 vs 2 options. With 5 you can infinitely debate percentages but with 2 choices it is black or white.
We are not writing law. This should remain a forum we all enjoy and contribute to. Everyone seems to be highly intelligent and successful and capable of debating this issue.

We could use registered handles and a single vote. It would be interesting to see how many do join in.

Maybe we can hire the voting company from american Idol.... Or perhaps someone can come up with a new idea for voting and patent it?

I have an idea:

Lets all Agree to elchase's idea and then if the tests show that 15, 16 or 18 MPH or whatever is the average minimum plaining speed then we go for it, make it law...


...then we cruise by his house on the lake as many times as we possibly can at night, abiding by the law of course. Then we see what, if any, shoreline, boat, swim raft, dock, etc. is left standing in the morning. :laugh:

To quote elchase directly:
"Hint: Be careful what you wish for. :D"

I have no desire to fan the flames about the poll itself or any of the other issues being kicked back and forth as I really don’t know anyone here, I’m simply interested in the subject and have a vested interest as someone who has been boating Winnipesaukee for 46 years!

That said,,, I again have to question what kind of boats were talking about, under what water/wind conditions, and what are the pertinent factors; load (fuel – people – gear) prop – engine hp - etc.

When I see some of you posting planing speeds of 16 and 18 and 20 MPH, I have to ask how is that possible, are you folks running 14’ aluminum flat-bottom jon-boats with a 20 HP outboards and but for the driver and 2 gal of gas, its empty???

Now in the case of my CVX-20, I think I have an odd combination, 27 gal fuel tank in the nose, super heavy V6 outboard hanging on the transom with a 3 blade high pitch/high rake prop, 2 batteries, extra oil, tools, spare SS prop (or 2 sometimes) usually loaded with the Mrs and 2 kids and lots of stuff for the kids (food – drinks – water toys – towels – etc) and almost NEVER see flat water. So I fully except that my over 30 MPH planing speed is abnormally high for a 20’ ski boat, but it is what it is. And though my stern heavy 23’ similarly loaded does a bit better with a planing speed in the upper 20’s, its still no where near the crowd that seem to be talking about solid planing under 20 MPH.

Hell, with my “std” 25” prop on the CVX-20 I think my idle speed is almost 10 MPH,,,

What am I missing here???

Are people seriously getting 20’ and larger fiberglass family/pleasure boats that are fully loaded with gear – fuel – and people to run on a solid plane at speeds under 20 MPH???

I just find that awful hard to believe,,,

This is as a classic, but it is typical. This shows the criminal mentatility we are dealing with in this forum. If I was moderating and a guy posted something like this on my forum I'd throw him off for life and report him to the police. Just don't call anyone a "chump" or parse their quotes, because those "uncivilities" violate forum rules. But we can organize a harassment parade to his home and that is not "uncivil", as long as we just say afterward that we were just kidding...your next message will say "we were just razzing you". Ya, right. "Chumps" was too nice a word...You guys are a bunch of thugs.

Let's have a poll...how many of the opposers on this forum are felons?

Elchase, you say the polls have no real meaning but I bet if they were IN FAVOR OF the speed limit, you would think they were wonderful and spew them everywhere, even to the legislature.

And to that, here's my 2 cents worth. I can handle someone asking what channel I live in so they can purposefully and unlawfully speed by (because I won't tell them). Some of you guys can threaten (with a smile) similar harassment as noted above (after announcing on forum a few weeks ago where he lives). In reality, some of the people who have worked so hard to make the speed limit reality have indeed been intimidated and threatened outside of this forum. I read a message a couple of years ago on one of the even more venomous sites from someone who said he'd be happy to take out a certain person who was active in the SL movement...I believe his words were "make myself a martyr"...I found the quote disturbing enough that I made a hard copy. That being said, I agree with many of the posts indicating that those on this forum who are intimidating and dominating on the forum probably feel they have the same "rights" on the lake. Clearly, Hazelnut seems to be at the far end of the bell curve in this department (and to think, this guy is a school teacher!), though there are a couple more who are close. I am also perplexed as to why some of the more articulate/sincere SL opponents have tolerated this...clearly it just dumbs down their arguments against a SL. I give my respect to the law abiding and sincere SL opponents here, but EL hit the nail on the head, and I'm glad he has the courage to make his points. Many no longer do. I hope Don is taking note.

Time Out!!!
 

Elchase, I can see where you believe Hazelnut was trying to organize a harrasment parade but I take it as a literary attemp to show you personally the impact of the suggested solution. Not a criminal act focused upon you.

You are a very interesting poster but I am getting the sense you are debating on a different level with different motives. You easily goad others to a point of frustration that leads to the responses you get. Once you get it you instantly call foul and attack.

I would like to have the poll you suggested come to life but I am afraid the goading process may terminate the speed issues threads. It is Friday and another weekend is upon us and we should be looking forward to having another great weekend on d'lake.

I will take your last suggested poll - I am not a fellon. Had a speeding ticket 13 years ago, and pay all my taxes on time.

I am still against the speed limits. I do think the compromise that may be driven out of this thread for a suitable night time limit could be of value. I believe this was your idea. ;)

To TurtleBoy, elchase and any others that have felt personally threatened I am truely sorry for the idiots that use the pen to do that. I guess the pen can be mightier than than the sword.

I have not looked into all the threads but hazelnut and the others all have contributed to a very exciting forum.

I now see that any reference to make anything "personal" should be out of bounds and we should and can continue the debate in a constructive bantering style. This is what makes me excited to turn the PC on and come to this site.

Cheers to all.......... (I always wanted to say that!)

Yawn

Puleeeeze. The post was to prove a point. Stop with the woah is me attitude. el and TB you are such victims. My post was to illustrate a point to you in an extreme case. Go ahead and deduce that anyone who opposes the limit is a thug and a criminal. Don knows me from this forum and knows my posts. You are and have become a joke and a caricature on this forum. Now more so than ever. TB I suggest you distance yourself from elchase FAST. Notice that hardly any other SL supporter save for 1 or 2 back his statements ever. Not one person is interested in where you guys live.

I stand by the post and the intent. As a matter of fact it worked better than I had hoped. It proves a point and you confirmed it with your reaction. Unwittingly, your reaction proves that now realize the damage that could be done by the limit. Your post spoke volumes of how you would deem that people OBEYING THE LAW YOU PROPOSE would wreak havoc on your shoreline. It would be harrasment, as you stated. If we simply drove by your house nothing more, drove by your house obeying the law we would be harassing you and destroying your property. Get it? Thanks for helping to prove my point. :laugh:

Again:

Be Careful What You Wish For.

P.S. Stop with the victim act it is tiresome. :rolleye1:

A bit too literal
 

Interesting ... I can't be 100% sure of what hazelnut's true intent was since I don't read minds but my take on his post is that it was to graphically illustrate the end result of the proposal, specifically the large wakes he thinks would result. I guess I can see how you might take it differently but to me it illustrates that you actually think all the people who oppose you on the SL issue have "criminal mentalities". You lump every who opposes you into the same group, ie - everyone who opposes the SL is a GFBL'er, which I can assure you isn't the case by a long shot. Take a deep breath and relax, go for a sail, the world is not out to "get" you. You're just not that important.

ps - parse all you want, just don't do it so as to skew the original intent. Otherwise you'll be encroaching on APS's turf. ;)

pps - Just to let you know, the immediate above was a razz at APS, not you.