Boat noise laws thrown out?

[LRSLA]

I am not familiar with the specifics of that part of the
NH exhaust regs.

I will forward that switched mufflers work well in areas that
have large bodies of open water to run in. Quiet the exhaust
in proximity to land and then open up two to three miles out.

Switchable exhaust have been in effect outlawed.
Boats in the past would pass the noise tests done by the
Wardens and then run the rest of the day with cutouts engaged.
In the end boats running on inland lakes will have to muffle their
craft to legal levels.

In Maine there isn't such a thing as a legal switchable exhaust any more.
Boats in Maine must meet the 95db and the 75db limits with and with out
cutouts in place. Since there is no way for a water craft to meet the regs
with the exhaust bypassed, cutouts are in essence now illegal in Maine.

Noise is subjective to a point. That point is when it impacts another
person. At that point of impact noise becomes an irritant and a health
issue. There really is no debate about the effects of noise on health.
Noise , sound is now being utilized by the armed forces as a method of
disabling combatants.

During the last three years I have studied sound dynamics and noise
measurement extensively. Our world becomes noisier every year.

I will not be posting for three days.

[Rob]

Thanks to LRSLA for so many detailed and informative posts. Your lack of hyperbole and rhetoric coupled with your neutral tone and calm responses are appreciated.

Let me clarify some comments I made earlier. The first post of this thread was a simple question, which was quickly answered by our de facto legal counsel. (Thanks Skip). After another round of question and answer, this thread would have concluded, barely 90 minutes after it started.

Instead it metastasized into something that I doubt the initiating poster ever intended. Personally, I felt that the accusations regarding allegations of the initiating poster's behavior elsewhere, coupled with claims regarding his intentions in visiting Winnipesaukee were a bit much, to say the least, and I was attempting to lighten the situation with humor, not to attack the LRSLA.

I'm happy to hear that your decision to pull the videos was a voluntary one. I hope that it goes without saying that I was neither aware nor involved in any sort of hostile activity regarding your web server, as has been alleged. In the event that you continue to have questions regarding my conduct in this matter, feel free to contact me via private message or email.

I'd like to ask you for clarification on few points.

The green scarab was tested at 1/2 mile at 72db, this would mean that he
would have to be at least 95 dB operational at 50 feet

How do you calculate the reduction in dB level over distance? Also, I would think that some consideration is made for the 'size' of the volume source. I read that a telephone dial tone is 80 dB. I can believe that, when it's up against one's ear, it's certainly loud enough. But move that telephone receiver 5 feet away, and one would barely be able to hear it. On the other hand, 5 feet would do nearly nothing to dissipate the volume of say, a power saw or a boat engine.

Boats in Maine must meet the 95db and the 75db limits

I thought Maine's was 75/90? (there is a link further down this post with a chart)

NH has a mandatory operator certification program.
Maine does not and probably should, but these programs are
hard to pass into law.

According to US Coast Guard Statistics, in 2002, 80% percent of fatalities occurred on boats where the operator had not taken a boater education course. In other years, the number has been even higher. http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2002.pdf

In light of that one statistic, I would think that working toward mandatory boater education in Maine would(and I submit, should) be the primary(if not the only) item on your organization's agenda, particularly if you've now managed to get the noise laws enforced.

Just for comparison(we should realize how complete New Hampshire’s boater education law is), here is a link to a table showing boater education requirements by state. http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/stateregs.htm

18 states have no boater education law whatsoever. 7 require boater education for PWCs only(not boats), and some of those only require education for PWC operators of a certain age. Many states do have a mandatory education requirement, but it is only for say, people born in 1989 or later(Kansas), with no phase in at all, i.e., people in Kansas born before 1989 will never have to take boater education. Many of the states that require boater education only require it for those operators who are 12 to 18 years of age (Illinois, Kentucky), so you could buy a boat at 19 with no education whatsoever. In Idaho, boater education is required only for (get this) ‘Repeat marine offenders, those convicted of OUI or aggravated BUI’. Only a few states currently mandate education for all ages, or (like New Hampshire) are phasing it in.

Personally, I had no idea that New Hampshire was so strict with regard to boating safety. Why, I keep hearing that New Hampshire's laws are benign. (By design, I'm told.)

By the way, another state that has a mandatory boater education law is Florida. Apparently the pop singer Gloria Estefan was instrumental in getting legislation passed there. Yup, thats right. She was involved in a well known fatal accident in which an inexperienced jet skier came too close to her boat, lost control, and slammed into the side. All sources reported the Estefan's boat was traveling in a straight line, at barely 20 miles per hour. After the accident, Ms. Estefan, (who herself had already taken three different boating training classes,) paid her own way to testify before the Florida Legislature. (Well, there's so much information about this hard working advocate for safe boating laws in Florida that I'll just let you all read for yourselves- google "gloria estefan" and "boating accident")

In conversations that I have had with owners of boats of all sizes, the number one comment I hear is not about noise, size, speed, or lack of law enforcement, its about people who don't know the basic rules regarding right of way, safe distances and when to use headway speed.

I also recently read the results of a survey conducted on an offshore powerboat enthusiast site that indicated that the majority supported mandatory boater education. I would like to respectfully point out that if offshore boaters support boater education, and the LRSLA’s efforts at boater safety are not just focused on noise reduction, then the offshore boaters and the LRSLA can find common ground by helping to pass legislation in areas related to boating education and safety.


I want to ask the LRSLA if, in hindsight, there are things that you would do differently in terms of how you approached boaters, marinas, and local law enforcement regarding the LRSLA's concerns. I'm not looking to trip you up here, but rather to learn from your experience as to what we on Lake Winnipesaukee can do to make progress in boating safety without putting people on the defensive.

For example, new boat sales- I think it is only fair to acknowledge that barely 50% of the states have an enforceable boat noise law on the books.(see link further down this post) Because of this, boat manufacturers treat exhaust systems as an a la carte option. The cost of marine exhaust systems is by no means insignificant, and I am certain that in many cases, those who decline the exhaust options do so because of price, combined with a lack of understanding of what the law requires. I was wondering to what extent your efforts at noise reduction include making sure that marinas and boat retailers are aware of the fact that they may be selling boats that, from day one, do not meet the dB requirements of your state?

Also, you mentioned that:

LRSLA made many attempts to warn High performance boaters that enforcement was going to ramp up this year.

How exactly did you warn these boaters? To what extent did the warnings come from an 'official' (non-private, or non-LRSLA) source? Do you feel that the warnings would have had a different impact depending on the source? In other words, a private citizens group saying 'your boat is too loud' as opposed to the Marine Patrol saying 'Next year, if your boat is this loud, it will be a ticket and a fine'?

The link below leads to a table originally from Powerboat magazine, showing the noise laws of the 50 states.

http://home.columbus.rr.com/mtboats/noiselaws.html

(I'm aware of the fact that this is from 2002, it was the most current and complete list that I could find. If anyone has a newer one, please let me know and I'll change the link)

According to this table, 31 states currently have boat noise laws; 20 have none. Of 31 states with laws, two use the standard of 'Reasonable Level', one uses the phrase 'Must be adequately muffled', and one state (Massachusetts) requires boats to meet 'Federal Standards', which I believe is 80 dB. I'm sure that Skip can explain to us the likelihood of convicting someone for violating a law that uses the phrase 'Reasonable Level' in place of a measurable standard.

So, according to this chart, barely half of the states have enforceable noise level laws. New Hampshire is one of the few that does. Researching this post has been a real eye opener for me, I can tell you that. I was starting to believe those stories about New Hampshire’s benign (by design) laws. It's good to see that New Hampshire is ahead of so many states in it's approach to boat noise laws and boater education. Perhaps it’s due to all those students from Massachusetts and other states who regularly vote in New Hampshire elections. (I’m only repeating what I’m told here on the forum.)

Of the states with noise laws, there are several different standards, but they fall into a few specific groups. After people have a chance to look at the link, I would be interested to hear what people think of New Hampshire’s dB level and how it compares to other states. In other words, is the law acceptable as it’s written and is enforcement the problem, is it neither, or both? I should acknowledge that Mee-n-Mac previously brought this up in an attempt to get the thread back on track, but I thought I would restate it here.

Well, I suppose that's enough for now. I hope no one fell asleep reading this .

Rob

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Rob

I'd like to ask you for clarification on few points.

How do you calculate the reduction in dB level over distance? Also, I would think that some consideration is made for the 'size' of the volume source. I read that a telephone dial tone is 80 dB. I can believe that, when it's up against one's ear, it's certainly loud enough. But move that telephone receiver 5 feet away, and one would barely be able to hear it. On the other hand, 5 feet would do nearly nothing to dissipate the volume of say, a power saw or a boat engine.

{snip}

Of the states with noise laws, there are several different standards, but they fall into a few specific groups. After people have a chance to look at the link, I would be interested to hear what people think of New Hampshire’s dB level and how it compares to other states. In other words, is the law acceptable as it’s written and is enforcement the problem, is it neither, or both? I should acknowledge that Mee-n-Mac previously brought this up in an attempt to get the thread back on track, but I thought I would restate it here.

Well, I suppose that's enough for now. I hope no one fell asleep reading this .

Rob

Let me step in and see if I can help. Most noise measurements I'm aware of use the Sound Pressure Level (SPL) measured via decibels (dB) using the "A scale" (vs the B or C scales). This logarithmic measurement tends to mimic the tonal (frequency) response of human hearing with some caveats I'll add in a bit. The math is that X dB SPL means that X = 20 x log(pressure/0.02 mPa). The 0.02 milli Pascals is a somewhat arbitrary reference level (idealized minimum detectable sound level) but the math explains the following. For every 6 dB increase or decrease the SPL doubles or halves and sound pressure (with another caveat) follows the usual inverse square law, halving for each doubling of distance. Said another way if some noise measures 60 dB SPL at 100 ft then at 200 ft it's 54 dB and at 400 ft it's 48 dB. The caveat is that this doesn't account for reflections or refraction of the sound waves. The water surface will reflect (depends hugely on the sea state/calmness) sound which will reinforce certain frequencies and cancel others depending on the distance. Add in echos (reflections) from other surfaces and a hard scientific way of accurately estimating SPL vs distance over the lake eludes me. It may be better or worse that the simple inverse square law everyone likes to mention. I don't know of any good emperical methods to account for lake effects (there may be some rule of thumb, I just don't know it).

The first caveat I mentioned has to do with the A scale. As LRSLA mentions it tends to discount the lower (<500Hz) and higher (>10,000Hz) frequency sounds but it does so because human hearing does likewise, at least at lower SPLs. Human hearing is non-linear in it's response to increasing SPL. We poorly hear low frequency sounds at low levels but as they increase in level we tend to hear them disproportionately louder than we would a similar increase in mid-tones. At loud SPLs perhaps the flatter (frequency response-wise) C scale would be a better match. I'm not sure which should be applied at ... say ... an 80 dBa SPL.

Lastly I would emphasize the non-linear nature of human hearing once again. We don't "hear" a doubling of sound power or sound level that same way a microphone would measure it. I've always heard that a 3 dB increase is just noticeable and a 10 dB is perceived as a doubling in loudness, 20 dB as a quadrupling. A low 60's dBA SPL is normal conversation, mowing the lawn produces mid 80's, a chainsaw something around 100-110 and a Foghat concert (from personal experience) at least 120

So getting back to the topic, I'll opine from my experience in Alton Bay there are a few boats that unlawful and more that are probably at the legal limit. The latter don't stop conversation but are noticable over the general din of the background level. These don't bother me but do annoy "Mee". As I said earlier this is a topic that will get many responses depending on what someone thinks is "too" loud. I brought my trusty RS sound meter up to the lake to get some objective data during bike week, perhaps next season (or this one when possible) I can collect some dockside data to better frame the situation. I don't think it's as bad as some say but I do agree it's a valid point to debate and there are some boats which are too loud even for me. While I can understand trying to wring the best possible performance from the boat, this has to be balanced against the desire of the rest of us to not be disturbed. Especially when 50 extra HP won't make that big a difference in top speed.

[LRSLA]

Sorry for the delay in posting I have been out of town.


I have to agree with you on the overall quality of the posts on this forum.
This has been a good forum for communication.

You are correct on the operational test being 90db in maine.
I must have had a middle age moment. :-))

The rule of thumb in noise measurement is that doubling the distance from a source decreases the noise level by 6db; Halving the distance increases it by 6db.

So if the operational limit is 75db at fifty feet, and I take a measurement from shore from 1/2 mile away and the SPL (sound pressure level) is 72db. I can assume that at 1/4 mile the measurement would be 6db higher, or 78db. At 1/8 of a mile the SPL should be about 84db. At 1/16 of a mile the SPL should be 90db.

This measurement was forwarded to the Warden service and they caught up with the boat later in the day. The Warden's preformed a Stationary test and the boat failed that test. Later in the summer the boat was cited again and told to tie up until the boat was brought into compliance.

I really need to add that when ever I take measurements or forward info on measurements I add distance to my distance from source measurement.
If I take a measurement at 150 feet I forward that the measurement was taken at 200 feet. I try to build in a conservative approach to sound measurement. LRSLA has begun using laser ranging scope to obtain distance readings.

I have found that most of the boats I have measured are so far over the operational limit that obtaining good quality measurements is not a problem. This why I have pressed the issues with the State. I have found that obtaining operational tests in real world environments is not difficult.

The Maine State operational noise test procedure is supposed to be preformed at fifty feet from the source. All of my measurements were taken at least 200>300 from the source.

I also take wind, temperature and barometric readings prior to take measurements.
I also re-calibrate my meter at the beginning of each test day.

Mee'n'Mac, post was excellent and a very concise explanation of sound measurement. The only issue I would bring up is that noise measurement has not really moved out of the factory and lab and into the real world. Many communities are using the C scale because it more closely represents the impact that audible low frequency sound has on communities.

Additionally my feeling is that a real world impact should be
mitigated by a real world test. In essence, surface water reflection of sound and other impacts on the noise measurement process are OK if they support normal measurement of the normal sound scape on the lake and the noise impact of the boat of issue.

I have witnessed reduction in noise level by trees but never increase in sound levels.


I would speculate that this is due to the extreme amplitude of the
offending craft. One key point is that a source must be at least 10 db over the background noise level in order to measured effectively an legally.

Of course environmental conditions effect the efficiency of a sound wave moving through air and thus can affect it's impact.
Yet once again, this is a real world condition, and if a boat is operating during a time when those atmospheric conditions are present, then the boat should be considered illegal if it fails a test at that time.

Most of my sound traces were taken at around two to three hundred feet from the source boat. All the traces were over 75db even at that distance. Most traces were around 86>89db at two to three hundred feet.

You are correct that you can have a source with a very high db, but almost not be able to hear it. SPM's, (Sound Pressure Meters) are calibrated with a
certified calibrator. A testing officer should calibrate the meter before and after each test. Meter readings can change with changes in temperature and barometric levels. SPM's must be calibrated and the calibrators must be calibrated each year by a certified sound engineer. The certifications are kept with the units to prove this calibration.

The calibrator emits a very precise tone at a specific frequency and a specific SPL. My meter calibrates at 114db. The microphone on the meter is placed very close to the calibrators speaker for calibration and then the meter is adjusted to that level of sound. If you hold the calibrator at arms length you can not hear it. Yet, the sound level adjacent to the speaker is 114db.


As for mandatory education I would support this , absolutely!!!

The reality is that bloody hell would break out in Maine if this were attempted to be floated. LRSLA is planing to bring up the issue when it meets with State Reps this winter. We are not hopeful that the issue will move forward. IFW and the Federal government would love to have a mandatory boater education course in place in Maine. In Maine many of the 6000 bodies of water are not heavily impacted by recreational boating. To ask a fellow who lives in a northern township were he might see ten boats in a summer, to take a boater education course, is a hard sell in Maine.

As far as warning boaters.

We put info in the local press and contacted marina owners to inform them of the enforcement. And as I mentioned this issue has been coming to boil for three seasons. Each season has seen increased enforcement.

I also need to correct one of my statements. The impact of noise is subject on an individual basis. What is not subject is the measurement of sound.
The measurement of sound is extremely objective and scientific.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

The caveat is that this doesn't account for reflections or refraction of the sound waves. The water surface will reflect (depends hugely on the sea state/calmness) sound which will reinforce certain frequencies and cancel others depending on the distance.

So if I understand you correctly, this has a lot to do with how far sound carries at night, compared to midday. Part of it is the lack of background noise (other boats, cars, power tools, even wind), but another part of the equation is the flat water, which allows sound waves to carry.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I brought my trusty RS sound meter up to the lake to get some objective data during bike week, perhaps next season (or this one when possible) I can collect some dockside data to better frame the situation.

That's a great idea. I wouldn't mind swinging by, as I want to try out some new clamp-on muffler tips. They clamp onto the outside of the thru-hulls, so we can do a test with just my internal muffler system, and then try the tips to see if they reduce the dB level by as much as the manufacturer claims.

Skip was kind enough to post the RSA back in the beginning of this thread, so we can read up on it and do the test under official conditions.

I could even call the MP and ask if they would let us use their official dB testing site over by Timber Island. As of last weekend, they still have all of the buoys in the water, both the ones to moor the test boat to as well as the ones to use as a guide when you do your runs. I snorkeled over there some months ago, and I noticed that the chain for the mooring is getting kinda thin, but I'm sure it will hold.

I have some friends who got tested (and passed), if they are willing and available, we could use their scores to calibrate your meter (or to adjust our test methodology).

I won't be up next weekend unfortunately, but maybe the one after that, if the weather holds. If not this winter, then next spring.

Rob

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Rob

So if I understand you correctly, this has a lot to do with how far sound carries at night, compared to midday. Part of it is the lack of background noise (other boats, cars, power tools, even wind), but another part of the equation is the flat water, which allows sound waves to carry.

Yes but there are 2 points here. First is the well known phenomenon of how well voices (sound) will carry over the calm lake at night*. Most science articles will tell you that it's due to refraction (bending) of the sound waves as they travel. You'd expect that sound not "aimed" at your ear would pass by you unheard but due to refraction some of the sound initially aimed overhead is bent downward and is effectively now re-aimed and impinges upon your ear. This indirect path can add to the direct path sound and increase the level you hear. I won't bore you with the physics behind the refraction (besides there's some debate as to what effect is actually dominant, air density difference due to temperature inversion or air density difference due to humidity).

The other point is that sound will emanate from it's source in widely varying directions. As I said above you hear only the sound waves that hit your ear but these can come from different directions (other than the most direct, straight line path) as the sound reflects off different surfaces, one being the water itself. Look at the Sun reflecting off the water and now imagine it's sound waves rather than light waves. A calm lake gets you (more or less) a single patch of reflection while a wavy lake gets you multiple, small, time varying reflectors. Other reflectors might be the glass windows of the cabin behind you or from the shore across the way or from ... you get the idea. Just like multiple waves intersecting on the lake can create places where the wave crests are higher (and troughs lower) than any single wave, so can the various sound waves add or subtract to create higher or lower SPLs. How much difference this makes in the real world I don't know but it's interesting that in order to get reproducable results the test procedures call for short distances (50') btw boat and meter and large distance from other potential reflecting items.

Originally Posted by Rob

That's a great idea. (informal SPL measurements) I wouldn't mind swinging by, as I want to try out some new clamp-on muffler tips. They clamp onto the outside of the thru-hulls, so we can do a test with just my internal muffler system, and then try the tips to see if they reduce the dB level by as much as the manufacturer claims.

I could even call the MP and ask if they would let us use their official dB testing site over by Timber Island.

I have some friends who got tested (and passed), if they are willing and available, we could use their scores to calibrate your meter (or to adjust our test methodology).
Rob

Might be a fun experiment. Could make a few passes at varying distances to see how well the real world adheres to the anechoic, free space 6dB rule as well. Only problem would be the MP getting antsy about > headway speed passes

*This is one good use for CL's idea of allowing switchable exhaust. One reasonably quiet for daytime and one really quiet for night-time. No doubt too much hassle to enforce though ....

I do have 1 question for LRSLA How did ME arrive at the 75 dBA limit ? This is more restrictive than NH's 82 dBA. How well do older OB engines do with that limit ? (OK, 2 questions )

[LRSLA]

I do not have info on how the 75db level was arrived at.

It is restrictive. I think that it is the most restrictive in the nation.

I have some responses to the use of the 75db rule.

1) I have taken numerous readings of normally exhaust ported outboards,
IO's and even older thru the hulls exhausted craft.

What i have witnessed is that 99% of all craft will pass the 75db at fifty feet.
And if they do not pass a fifty feet they will absolutely pass at 100 feet.

Boats that will pass at one hundred feet are not an issue on the lakes.
Even boats that will pass at a two hundred foot reading in most cases are not an issue.

The boats that we are having an issue with are boats that would not pass at 300 feet or greater.

So 75db seems restrictive yet it really is not. I could understand how it would be restrictive if you are not in compliance. We have a Baja on the lake that
runs so quiet I can't even hear it coming down the lake. So compliance with the
regulation is possible.

75db is also a decent regulation point die to the low ambient noise levels on Maine's lakes and ponds.

Now Maine is not performing the operational test yet. LRSLA has been working with the State for the commencement of operational testing next summer.
The boats that were cited this season have been muffling to comply with the
stationary test. Next year they might be forced to retool their muffling for the
operational test.

There is no boat that will comply with the cutout part of the test. Remember,
boats with cutouts in Maine must be able to pass the 75db reg when tested with the
cutout engaged. And they there is the issue with normal exhaust operational
testing.

The operational test in Maine is the same for the most part as the NH test.
Most agencies will not use it due to the inherent danger of the test.
There is a move a foot to develop a more real world test procedure.

I have posted a copy of one of the sound traces that I captured this season.
These traces are take at A and some of the reading are taken at C scale.
I do this to show the level of low frequency sound that is not captured on the
A scale measurment.

This test showed a Max A weighted level of 84.9dB
and a peak C weighted level of 106.4dB, the trace was taken
over a 32 second period as the boat passed at about sixty MPH+
I was two hundred feet from the source as it passed.

So add 6dB to 100feet and 6dB to fifty feet for an add of 12dB.
You get an A rated reading at 50 feet of 96.9dB then add ten
10db to bring your to 106.9. Only .5dB off what a C scale reading would be.

If the boat was traveling at 60mph then the the test shows a trace over a half mile of operation. You can read the trace from left to right. The boat is
traveling through the sound scape left to right as graphed.

[Mee-n-Mac]

OK now you've done it You've put data before the enginerd and now it's time to pay (no good deed goes unpunished) But more seriously if you have the time I have a few questions as my curiousity is whetted.

Originally Posted by LRSLA

I have posted a copy of one of the sound traces that I captured this season.
These traces are take at A and some of the reading are taken at C scale.
I do this to show the level of low frequency sound that is not captured on the A scale measurment.

This test showed a Max A weighted level of 84.9dB
and a peak C weighted level of 106.4dB, the trace was taken
over a 32 second period as the boat passed at about sixty MPH+
I was two hundred feet from the source as it passed.

So add 6dB to 100feet and 6dB to fifty feet for an add of 12dB.
You get an A rated reading at 50 feet of 96.9dB then add ten
10db to bring your to 106.9. Only .5dB off what a C scale reading would be.

I think I was right with you until the 10 dB part I've underlined above. What's that for ? There are 3 very similar traces (yellow, reddish and magenta) that I understand to be A weighted measurements. I would ask if these are 3 passes made by the boat or 3 different time averages or outputs from 3 different meters or ??. If it's the first then it's nice and consistent ! Good to see that in a field test. I understand the green trace to be a C weighted measurement (not sure what the jagged blue one is). It's interesting (to me ) that the aspect angle to the boat doesn't affect the measurement more. Was your technique to pan the mic as the boat passes or leave it aimed "straight out" ? I'm making an assumption hear that the boat's course was more or less a straight line and not a curved trajectory.

Originally Posted by LRSLA

I do not have info on how the 75db level was arrived at.
It is restrictive. I think that it is the most restrictive in the nation.
I have some responses to the use of the 75db rule.
I have taken numerous readings of normally exhaust ported outboards,
IO's and even older thru the hulls exhausted craft.
What i have witnessed is that 99% of all craft will pass the 75db at fifty feet.

Reason I asked was that in looking for some sound data on boats I came across an old (1995 I think) set of measurements done by NJ authorities. Some of the normal boats would have had trouble with a 75 dB limit. I suspect your average family runabout has gotten quieter since then.

[LRSLA]

I knew I was getting long winded.


I use a quest 2900 type 2 logging sound meter.
The meter has the ability to measure two scales at the
same time. I started out with a RS meter for 45$.
These are not really that good for capturing data that
will support your case. My meter is only garunteed to 1db.
SInce you can't calibate the RS meter it is worthless
for issues related to legal issues.

The three traces that I use are LEQ RED and LMAX and LPeak.

In these traces, LMAX and Lpeak are measured at C scale
with LEQ measured at A scale. What I was trying to point out is that
C scale measurements end up around 10dB higher then a C scale taken at
fifty feet from source.

This trace is made up of samples taken once a second.
My feeling is that the C scale represents the real impact of the
boat noise. The A scale really does not fully show the impact of low frequency noise. But, since the regs are set to that standard it still works for enforcement.

4 stroke outboards and most IO have gotten quieter.
The issue with PWC's is that they are out of the water half the time.
This means that the violate noise regs half the time in most cases.

Noise as a whole is something that is normally avoided by manufacturers.

For instance, most car manufacturers go to great lengths to engineer away noise. This is due to the stress that long term exposure to noise places on the human body. Add in Sun, water, and a couple of beers and increased noise on the water can really effect a boaters ability to operate a craft effectively.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by LRSLA

Add in Sun, water, and a couple of beers and increased noise on the water can really effect a boaters ability to operate a craft effectively.

The beer maybe , but noise cummon you gotta be kidding

[LRSLA]

You can think what you want.....

This info came off www.boatingsafety.com

Don't overdo your boating fun. In 3 hours of normal boating, the noise, motion, sun, wind and glare can frequently double an individual's reaction time.

Boating is fun, a great form of recreation. Problem is that
many boaters don't respect the hazards of boating.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by LRSLA

Don't overdo your boating fun. In 3 hours of normal boating, the noise, motion, sun, wind and glare can frequently double an individual's reaction time.
Boating is fun, a great form of recreation. Problem is that
many boaters don't respect the hazards of boating.

I'm sure the three six packs had nothing to do with it either

I hate to be the Devils advocate here , particularly since I have a quiet boat. You know as well as I do , figures can be made to look however you want them to.
Two opposing sides can gather ALL THE SAME facts and figures and by the way they are presented and the ones that are conveniently omitted both sides can appear entirely correct.
MAJOR case in point...the upcoming presidential elections

[LRSLA]

So all the experts are wrong and your right?

The sound level at my steering wheel on my Sea Ray
20 foot bow rider with an 325hsp IO is 86dB. Add the wind noise and your up over 90dB. Add the sun, thirty MPH wind, heat, physical exertion
and after three to four hours on my boat I come off feeling wiped.

Accidents happen because people get tired and get sloppy.

Even car drive education programs push the concept of
being well rested when driving. Hell three hours behind the
wheel of a car is enough to tire me out.

So why is it so hard to believe that three to four hours being bounced around on a lake, fried by the sun and blown by the wind might just bring enough stress to bear on your body to lower your response time.

My only point is that fun day on the lake can be a safe day on the lake.
It sucks when mothers and fathers have to go home after a vacation to our lakes missing part of their family. And in most cases it's because some one just didn't abide by a regulation or didn't have exposure to the fact that recreational boating can be very dangerous.

Fast on the water is fun, but as I have mentioned before fast also means that
bad things happen faster. Noise on the water means that other boaters are distracted and being distracted is never a good state for an operator to be in
on the water.

I try to think of parallels for the high performance boats on the waters.
I think NASCAR is a good one. I don't remember ever seeing a NASCAR
vehicle going down a street in my neighbor hood. In fact NASCAR vehicles are not street legal. So why do the same rules not apply to our national water ways.

Why can a fellow go out and buy a boat with twin 1000hsp engines
practically no exhaust and a top speed of 100Mph+ and run it
were ever he wants. Would this same fellow even think of running a
NASCAR vehicle down his block or running a top fuel dragster down the
street. No, he would never to that. Why, because he would have his car
impounded the first time he tried.

The same rules should apple on the water that apply on the street.

[Coastal Laker]

Originally Posted by LRSLA

The same rules should apply on the water that apply on the street.

Unfortunately LRSLA, your logic won't work in any legislative process you choose to champion. You don't have lines to follow on the water, street signs, or traffic lights. Spring a leak in your car and you're not necessarily going to be in peril. Spring a leak in your boat and you better hope for a quick rescue. We're talking apples and oranges here.

The speed topic will likely be debated for years after we are all gone. The problem is it's unenforceable on water. Radar must be in a fixed/stationary position to work (meaning on land). It doesn't work on a boat. Some people use miles-per-hour others knots. Some boats have a speedometer, others don't. Speedometers measure speed through water, not over land. Radar measures speed over land. There's too many variables to make a valid case on limiting speed.

I think most will agree the problems/violations on the water are mostly due to operator error, inattention, or a lack of knowledge. For that reason, I'd rather raise the bar on education. There's a lot that can be done... and yes, I have contacted a fellow boater in the state legislature with a few ideas that are a win win for the state administration and the boaters.

Stay tuned for more information.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by LRSLA

So all the experts are wrong and your right?

I didn't say that . I simply said each side will weigh the facts and figures to their advantage , much as you are doing right now.
Just like "loud pipes saves lives".....they can get the attention of an inattentive boater with a 20 bowrider who is about to cut in front of a larger faster boat. Just think , they could save your life . Yeah I know that's rediculious , about as rediculous as,

[Quote]Why, because he would have his car impounded the first time he tried. The same rules should apple on the water that apply on the street.[Quote]

but I'm trying to get my point acrossed to you.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by LRSLA

{snip}
I try to think of parallels for the high performance boats on the waters.
I think NASCAR is a good one. I don't remember ever seeing a NASCAR
vehicle going down a street in my neighbor hood. In fact NASCAR vehicles are not street legal. So why do the same rules not apply to our national water ways.

Why can a fellow go out and buy a boat with twin 1000hsp engines
practically no exhaust and a top speed of 100Mph+ and run it
were ever he wants. Would this same fellow even think of running a
NASCAR vehicle down his block or running a top fuel dragster down the
street. No, he would never to that. Why, because he would have his car
impounded the first time he tried.

The same rules should apple on the water that apply on the street.

I'm not sure what the analog is driving at. If the point is noise regulations then I might agree it's a fair comparison (straight pipes on any car would be apropro as well). If it's a speed / danger thing you're trying to compare then I would ask you to consider the case of a Ferrari Enzo or Porsche Turbo or even a Corvette. While not having 1000 HP all of these cars are fast and potentially unsafe if not driven with due care. And yet all allowed on the road. The restrictions apply to use of the car not on the car itself.

.... Off to the Lake to match Upthesaukee's day

[LRSLA]

I was just trying to speak to the issue that some of these boats are truly
racing boats and are not being driven responsibly.

I have witnessed some very poor operation of high performance boats on the lake. It seems that any boy or girl with enough money or high enough credit rating can buy a big fast noisy toy. The issue isn't buying the toys. the issue is that education is lacking and there is practically zero enforcement on the surface waters. The lakes have become the last great lawless frontier.

In Maine, with it's 6000 bodies of water there are less then twenty five wardens on duty at any given time. There are less wardens with IFW today then there were twenty years ago. The classic response i get from boaters testing the regulations is. "the lake are for all of us". My question is when did I stop being part of "all of us". When it come down to it the whole issue is that a lot of boaters just don't care about other people.

You guys on Winne must deal with some of the same economic issue we deal with here. Lake Front property owners pay 65% of all taxes in our town. Most of the properties on the lake are seasonal so owners have no vote in town. LRSLA is members are property owners that pay that 65% to the town. Isn't interesting that these residents are being impact by a very small number of boaters, most of which pay no taxes in town. Our town does float a marine Safety unit.
The budget is .014% of the yearly budget.

In Maine the State enforces regs on the lakes. This is a very frustrating fact.

The only battle I will be fighting is for furthering education and enforcement
presence on the waters.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by LRSLA

So all the experts are wrong and your right?

You obviously haven't been on this forum very long, or you'd know better than to expect any respect for submitting information based on facts. (I'm joking of course, and mean no disrespect to the majority of people on this forum who make an effort to quote and check the facts. And to Cal, who I know was just giving his opinion in this case.)

Originally Posted by LRSLA

The sound level at my steering wheel on my Sea Ray
20 foot bow rider with an 325hsp IO is 86dB. Add the wind noise and your up over 90dB.

With that setup, you must go pretty fast yourself. Also, how is your boat muffled to produce 86 dB (at idle, I assume)?

Originally Posted by LRSLA

Noise on the water means that other boaters are distracted and being distracted is never a good state for an operator to be in
on the water.

So are you saying that the noise of other boats is a significant distraction when you are operating yours?

Consider this:

Maine has the 90/75 dB standard and New Hampshire has the 82 dB standard. Maine uses the 75 dB standard when you are on plane, so assuming the other boat is following the dB rules, your boat (over 90 dB) is louder than theirs(75 dB in Maine, or 82 dB in NH). Under those circumstances, the other boat's noise should not be distracting you at all, since it is not louder than your boat. The other boat would actually be even quieter than I stated, due to the minimum distance you must maintain.

Personally, I would barely notice, let alone be distracted by, the noise of another boat when my boat is also on plane. If I am off plane(and thus quieter and more aware or distracted by loud noise), then I am also going slowly enough that I should have more than enough reaction time to stay on top of what's around me, even going into the Weirs Channel on a weekend afternoon.
I would submit that of the 5 senses, boaters use sight more than anything else, especially when under way in a powerboat. Sound(as a tool for avoiding collisions) would be of much more use to a the operator of a sailboat, which does not produce it's own noise.

In all fairness, I should point out that it is only recently that we as a public have become aware of the profound physiological impact of sound. I have read some articles on noise that specifically state that it is unwanted noise that causes a measurable stress response. In other words, the person in a boat is probably the one least likely to be affected by the noise emanating from said boat, at least in terms of stress and fatigue. I'm not saying that we shouldn't enforce a noise law, mind you.

Originally Posted by LRSLA

I try to think of parallels for the high performance boats on the waters.............
Why can a fellow go out and buy a boat with twin 1000hsp engines
practically no exhaust and a top speed of 100Mph+ and run it
were ever he wants. Would this same fellow even think of running a
NASCAR vehicle down his block or running a top fuel dragster down the
street. No, he would never to that. Why, because he would have his car
impounded the first time he tried.

No offense, but:
What about a high performance motorcycle? Or a Porsche 911 turbo? Or a new Corvette? Any one of those vehicles can double, and probably triple, the highway speed limit. And that's before any performance modifications, all of which are legal if the vehicle still passes emissions.

Now, yes, there are speed limits on our highways, but, as has been alleged on this thread already, certain people are going to find a way break the law no matter what. Personally, if someone wants to buy a brand new sports car and then spend large sums of money to make performance modifications, more power to them. It's not for everybody, but it's certainly legal, and many people choose to do so. Boats should be no different.

I'm obviously assuming that said persons are expected to follow the various laws. Likewise, performance boaters who choose to exercise their right to buy a fast boat have the same obligations as others with regard to applicable laws.

Originally Posted by LRSLA

The same rules should apple on the water that apply on the street.

I think it's safe to say that there are tremdendous differences between operating boats on a body of water, and operating cars on a road.

Perhaps what you meant to say was more along the lines of enforcement, in that you feel that loud cars are not tolerated, so loud boats should not be tolerated either?

If that's your point, no disagreement here, but I would like to point out that all new cars come with mufflers. I am sure that automotive noise standards must exist, and that automobile companies make every effort to comply with those standards. If some automobiles came from the dealer with no mufflers(or if it was an option, like on many boats), I am sure that many people would just leave them as they came, and many more would deliberately choose to purchase a car with no muffler. I'm not saying it's right, just making an observation about human nature.

I get my vehicles inspected once a year, by law. I have never had the dB level checked on any vehicle(including a loud diesel truck) during an inspection. I don't know why. I'm sure that it wouldn't take that much more money to add a dB meter to that diagnostic machine that tests my emissions, and a closed garage is certainly a controlled environment in which to conduct such a test. I suppose that since the majority of cars come with mufflers, it's easier for law enforcement officials to notice an obviously louder than average car.

On the other hand, the only boat inspections I know of are the non-mandatory ones that the Lakes Region Sail and Power Squadron and Coast Guard Auxilary volunteers are nice enough to provide us with free of charge. They don't check our noise levels, and one certainly wouldn't expect them to. Not for free, anyway. When the time comes that all boats are required to be inspected for emissions and/or noise on a regular basis, I will certainly get in the (undoubtedly long) line along with everyone else. Even then, I have no doubt that some on this forum will claim that many boaters will rush home from the inspection and remove their mufflers, or do all kinds of other things that will probably wreck the engine, in exchange for the ability to violate the noise laws(until the engine melts, that is).

That's why I think that the current strategy of pulling over the boats that sound too loud, and making those boats submit to a dB check, is probably the best way to go right now. If anything, it makes it a lot harder for someone to try to 'fix' their exhaust for a once a year test, as they never know when they will be required to submit to another test. I heard of one boat that was tested several times this year, because it was very close to the limits, and different MP officers would hear it going by, pull the guy over, and test him. I suppose that guy would prefer a once a year test.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

(informal SPL measurements) Only problem would be the MP getting antsy about > headway speed passes

Originally Posted by LRSLA

The operational test in Maine is the same for the most part as the NH test.
Most agencies will not use it due to the inherent danger of the test.

Actually, thats a great point. I had not thought about this until I read your posts. Like most boaters, I carefully follow the 150' rule. I would be very nervous blowing by another boat at top speed as the test conditions require.

A friend commented on the fact that he found the dB test a bit scary(and this is a very experienced, skilled boater I am talking about) specifically because he had to bring his boat barely 50' from the (moored) MP boat, including the second set of passes at full throttle.

Now, I'm aware that the obvious problem with scrapping a speed test in favor of an idle-only test is that a boat could pass at idle, but not at WOT. On the other hand, I would like to point out that most high performance boats(like the cars mentioned above) do not normally run at anywhere near their top speed. I personally spend 95% of my on-plane time at or under 3000 rpm. And of the remaining 5%, it's rarely at WOT. Just because I can go faster, doesn't neccesarily mean that I want to. As an aside, the majority of performance boats are now sold with(and many owners are switching to) the 4-blade props, as they provide faster planing and greater (fuel)efficiency at lower (i.e., cruising)speeds, at the expense of top speed, where the 3-blade prop is superior. Given what stainless steel props cost, it's a significant investment for the boat owner, I might add.

In my opinion, the dB test should change in one or both of the following ways:

1-Only use the half-throttle passes.(Or idle plus half-throttle.) The exhaust will be out of the water once the boat is on plane, and it's still a good indicator of the WOT dB level. The engine mfr plate usually states the max rpm, so the officer in the tested boat could watch the tachometers.

2- Increase the measuring distance to 150' or more. Not only is this safer than the 50', but it more accurately duplicates the real-world condition due to the fact that boats are supposed to be 150' from each other, as well as the shoreline or any docks, swim floats, etc. Personally, I wouldn't want to be nearly that close to any object at WOT. I'd rather see 200' or more for the testing boat, plus a buffer zone where the tested boat is circling around, but that's just me. Also, just for the record, I fully understand that if the distance between the test boat and the testing boat increases, the max dB allowed must decrease. I'm not trying to trick anyone here.

Rob

[Cal]

Rob,
Just a little side note about the WOT db test. I'm from NJ and they did away with that a number of years ago because they didn't want to be responsible for having you operate your boat at full throttle. Since most offending boats are probably faster than average , suppose someone had a mishap or broke something like a $25,000 engine at 80mph or better? Laywers would be circling like fresh water sharks .
I'm like you Rob, I have 41 hours on the engines so far this year and most is 3000 rpms or less.This still will get me 50 mph. Wide open throttle time is probably less than 10 minutes.

LRSLA,
Those noise figures you gave for your boat DO seem a wee bit high
Remember " People in glass house shouldn't throw stones".
As for stress , being back home now , yesterday I made a 104 mile (round trip) lunch run. Total running time about 2 hours and 50 minutes including NWZ's. Riding in something that weighed probably 8000 (including 130 gallons of gas and 5 passengers) I personally felt great!

[LRSLA]

Hey I think Offshore boats are great if the are truly
Offshore. I also think , YES it is possible to have a great
relaxing day cruising the coast.

As for my sound traces, the data is the data,
Thats why we have so many pissed off property owners
up here. We have a problem because there is an real issue.

Offshore boats don't belong on a lake that is less then a mile wide
with hills on both sides to reflect and intensify the sound.
Unless the boats have been adapted to run responsibly on those waters.

I don't know why you keep saying, "don't throw stones".
I am considerate of others, my boat is legal in every respect.

The only issue is that OS boaters have been throwing proverbial stones
at my proverbial glass house.

I think is is important once again mention the harassment that
freedom loving and preaching fellows on OSO have leveled against
myself and others that have simply exercised our own right to
free speech.

[Audiofn]

I have made it to the bottom of all this and I am almost at a loss for words..... ALMOST. First off this STINKS of the Salem Witch trials. The LRSLA talks a lot about "safty" but lets be honest hear and just say that if it was not for the LRSLA's impression that Offshore boats are to loud then they would not be in existance today. The LRSLA seems to be saying that all of us Offshore guys have ignored what they are doing. I beg to differ. We have often talked at great length about this issue. As you can see Biggus and myself have spent a great deal of money to comply with the laws that are on the books.

The moving test is one that is JUST PLAIN DANGEROUS! I would NEVER drive my boat at WOT with in 150 feet of anyone if they want me to or not. Now the law says that they want us a LOT closer to that. To that I reply NO WAY. What happens if something breaks on my boat and I hit some one? We all maintain our boats to the best of our ability and take a lot of pride in them. However STUFF CAN BREAK. I refuse to take kids on my Offshore for this very reason. I have been on boats that parts have broken on and felt the effects. So to ask me to not only put other people at that risk NO WAY. The current standing test is fine and it is safe. Since we seem to have said that the boat has to pass with the exhaust open and closed I firmly believe that the standing test is the ONLY safe way to do this.

Now I would like to poss to the LRSLA what if my Donzi does not pass? This is a VERY rare boat (only 8 made to the best of the records that I have been able to find and God only knows how many are left of those 8) This boat is 100% originall and that is the only way that it holds its value. To make any canges would seriously hurts its value. This is not a loud boat IMO but I am not sure if it will pass or not. My big boat, adding the exhaust had no adverse effect on the value so I had no problem making the changes. So is it really fair that I have to either not use my boat or ruin its value? I mean one of your coplaints seems to be that our boats hinder your enjoyment of your property. Well what about ME? What about my ability to enjoy my property and my boat?

I own land on the lake also, I HATE jetskiers, they have cut me off, run into me, and on and on. I would NEVER think to try and get them to stop doing what they enjoy. Edjucation so that they know how to be a better boater if fine and probably smart but telling them to stop, no way.

As for offshore guys being drunks and inconsiderate to the land along the lake, I would say that being on the river the people that come up the river the slowest are the offshores. I constantly see jet ski's, renters, and the alike flying up the river, some even on plane! I also CONSTANTLY see people letting their kids hang their feet over the bow. This is illegal, VERY dangerous, and NEVER enforced. I have watched on many occasions the patrol just drive right on past. To the alcohol issue I find that most offshore people do not drink and drive. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but I am willing to bet that on any given day there are more drunks out there in bow riders and fishing boats then offshores.

As for the abuse that you took on Offshoreonly I have to say what do you expect? You are trying to take away something that is very important in our lives. This is not just a hobby that we do once in a while. Most of us stay awake dreaming about what our next boat will be. We all spend a significent portion of our income on our boats and want to be able to enjoy them the few times a year that we can actually use them with out being targeted by your organization. So some of the guys on OSO want to fight back. I do not think that ANY of the harsh stuff was said by anyone that actually lives up in the area or has probably ever visited the lake. Most of it is guys venting their frustrations as we see OUR freedoms taken away from us.

Now you are probalby ready to say what about my freedoms.... Well what is the percentage of time that Offshores are going past your house? How many on a bussy day? I am willing to bet that it is less then 5 and that is a bussy day. I know that most of the boats on the river only go out maybe once a week. Heck who can afford to run them with the price of gas these days!! So it is really a VERY small percentage of the time that you are "inconverineced" So in the interest of "being a good neighbor" why can't you just let it go?

I also have to agree that to say you can not have a conversation with a person that is 3 feet away is obsurd. I have been to poker runs with hundreds of boats running louder exhaust then you have ever heard and can have a conversation no problem. My example of this is the 1000 Islands poker run. We were in the channel and about 150 feet away from the fleet and my wife and I were talking at normal volumes on shore. So be honest. You realy do not have to yell. If you say yes then lets do a test. Both you and I will stand on your property and we will have the "worst offenders" all drive by and you and I can see how bad it really is. Heck maybe I am wrong but I do not think so.

Lastly I hear you kid likes them, I heard him in the video

[Jan]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Biggus and myself have spent a great deal of money to comply with the laws that are on the books.

I really respect you and Biggus for doing that. I have no complaints with any boat that is operated safely and within the law. The problem is you two are the ONLY "offshore" owners I've ever seen respond like that.

Unfortunately anyone that is concerned about excessively loud boats is usually shouted down and told "If you don't like it leave" or Will's classics "offshores...will become louder, people just need to learn to live with it" and "How do you get off saying that a preferrably loud boat is a problem?". Many (not all) offshore owners come off like bullies who really don't care about the effects their boats can have on others around them (IMHO).

I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you. I just wish that other offshore owners could discuss this without the often arrogant "eat my exhaust" attitude. I think you can see that attitude in many of the messages posted here. It really gets my blood boiling that some people can be so selfish and inconsiderate. I believe those attitudes force concerned people to form groups like the LRSLA.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by LRSLA

.

Offshore boats don't belong on a lake that is less then a mile wide
with hills on both sides to reflect and intensify the sound.

I think is is important once again mention the harassment that
freedom loving and preaching fellows on OSO have leveled against
myself and others that have simply exercised our own right to
free speech.

"Hills that reflect and intensify sound"??? Didn't you forget the part how wooded hillsides act as a natural sound absorber? Sound relects best off of smooth hard surfaces , like a canyon wall , not a tree lined hillside. The leaves disrupt any reflections and certainly don't intensify it. Why do you think you DON'T get an echo in a wooded valley??? . Oops , I guess you forgot that.

As for harassment.....only because groups like LRSLA make us look like the greatest scurge of the Earth with ONE SIDED arguments and come at us with both "guns blazing". You poke a dog with a stick enough and your gonna get bit....be nice to him and you get a loyal friend. Not that OSO is a bunch of dogs but you seem intelligent enough to get my point.

Could you define "Offshore" boat. My title states "powerboat". The state registration denotes it as "cruiser" as opposed to "open boat'" or "runabout" because it has a cabin. Nowhere does it state it's to be called , or to be used for "offshore" purposes. I think the term "Offshore" is way over used and exploited by groups who are trying to ban them simply by their misunderstood and over emphasized name.

[LRSLA]

See we differ on a major point.

I believe there is never a justification to act as a wild dog.

And I specifically mentioned that there are many members of OSO.
I am sure that most members would never act in an
inappropriate manner.

As for the sound of the hills issue. I have posted a document that describes
how sound wave move in a lake environment. There are many issue associated with reflection of sound waves. I think the document say it batter then I could.

As for offshore boats, I should define that the only issue that people have with HIGH PERFORMANCE boats is the noise issue. No one is trying to ban anything.

And As I mentioned in the past, noise enforcement was a small part of the
Warden activity. The only reason we were out on the lake taking reading is that noise has to be quantified. We needed proof that the noise level was as loud as we thought it was. When every boat tested fails the tests we know we have an issue.

I understand your issues with LRSLA activity. We all need to try to put our selves in the other guys shoes. This issue didn't come to boil over night.

[another 1]

I too am a Naples boater,you didn't see much of me on Long Lake this year due to the loud boat issue.I'm another one of those loud,obnoxious boaters,but unlike the rest,I kept a low profile and tried not to bring any attention to myself.I'm equipped with silent choice and kept my pipes quiet all season in fear of being stopped and ticketed.Now the season has come to an end and I look back on the worst boating season of my life.I've had my boat on this lake for 8 seasons without any trouble from anyone,always got the thumbs up from passing boaters.Not anymore.How relaxing can it be when your constantly boating on egg shells,wondering if your next in line to be hung?Well no more of it,I have as much right as anybody to be on the water and I will not tollerate such stupidity.LRSLA,you remind me of a kid who throws rocks at a hornets nest then cries when he gets stung!I'll do whatever it takes to make my boat pass,just barely,then I have a special spot on long lake to try it out,all day,everyday.BIGGUS,your boat rocks,I've NEVER heard anyone tell me different,even my 74 year old Mom loves it.Maybe next season the whole gang can get together and raft on Long Lake,I know a great spot.Thumbs up to all those hot boats!