Bruinsrme Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I have gotten the go ahead to purschase 2 jet skis for the family. the only thing is I know absolutely nothing and what to look for. These will not be used for any competition but will be for very casual enjoyment. any help or info abou tthe different brands would be greatly approciated. Thanks Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Jet-skis are an abomination; noisy, flashy and vulgar; bad taste, low-rent. They call for no skill or seamanship and express the worst side of American cultural values. Better you should get a nice little sailboat. You and you family can learn to sail together. Talk with each other. Learn together of wind and wave. My opinon ya understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynnm Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Sooooooooooooo Tom are you saying you don't like them ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruinsrme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 ---------------- On 7/18/2004 8:45:32 AM TBrennan wrote: Jet-skis are an abomination; noisy, flashy and vulgar; bad taste, low-rent. They call for no skill or seamanship and express the worst side of American cultural values. Better you should get a nice little sailboat. You and you family can learn to sail together. Talk with each other. Learn together of wind and wave. My opinon ya understand. ---------------- T Having spent 10 years underwater poking around at 4 to 6 knots at depths around 400 feet I have no desire to wait for wind to push me along. Not having any desire to sail the thrill of the speed, agility, and fun of the jet ski appeals to my son, wife and me. As far as sailing goes we both know how to sail, the rules of the road, I know how to visually and radar navigate over 9 major water ways of the East Coast, Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca, also know international rules of the road and so on and so on. I also know how to visually navigate using range markers, buoy interpretation, open ocean navigation/channel navigation, update and make chart corrections, plot postion, set and drift and adjust for course and speed, use of a sextant to obtain position fixes and determine advance and tranfer for large vessels and much more. I have navigated trident subs in and out of ports via radar, periscope, gps, gyrocompass, and plots. There are other means of navigating subs in order to obtain postional fixes while submerged which required many other aspects of navigation in order to execute the oepration. I feel I am very well versed in the great american culture of navigation and the art there of. Being an avid mountain biker I am used to the hikers bombardment of the negativity of making use of the same medium. Sorry T but having spent as much time learning the art of navigation I am ready to ghetto it and join the low lifes and enjoy the speed and brainless use of the waterways. The funniest thing happened to me when some brainless moron started ragging on me about snowboarding. Being only 5-6 he had no idea i was as old as I was and so on. so the next run I slapped on the skis and embarassed him. It was sweet revenge especially when he saw me take off my helmet and goggles and noticed I was about 10 years older than him. hehehehehehe just my background. I do appreciate your input tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 To each his own, but my sentiments certainly concur with those of Mr. Brennan. As someone who has spent many hours fishing, and therefore much time to observe the behavior of the 'drivers', overall they are reckless, discourteous, and seem oblivious to anyone and everything else except themselves. They create tremendous wakes for their size, which pounds the shoreline (much of their shenanigans seems to take place an illegally close distance TO shore within no wake zones!) and disrupts weedbeds and other aquatic life. The most recent example - I was in Canada over the 4th of July weekend, on a fishing trip. I was piloting my boat down the center of the lake, and saw to the west a Jet skier near shore zipping around in circles. Suddenly, he veered and made a wide open dash towards me. I assumed he was going to turn at some point, since I had the right of way in that situation. but he was on a collision course. I was forced to dump the throttle to avoid a crash, and blew my horn. The change in speed/sound seemed to get his attention, for finally, he suddenly reduced speed. As I accelerated by I shook my fist and yelled at him, and he just shrugged as if he couldn't understand WHY I was displeased with him. There was an outstanding chance the man was intoxicated. Regardless, a collision at those speeds (I was cruising about 40 mph) would have surely killed him. I turned to my companion and told him "Retardo Montablan needs to go back to shore and drink ANOTHER beer!" That evening, while trying to troll for walleyes, it was an almost impossible task, because the daytime antics of the jetskiers had dislodged a vast quantity of weeds, which now floated all over the surface, and quickly became entangled on the lures/lines. And I can't tell you the number of times that I've seen the jetskiers blatantly disregard channel speed limits and rip through 10 km/hr (6.6 mph) speed zones near flat out! The same weekend I had one such idiot blast past me and roar underneath a narrow, one boat width bridge that crosses the channel. There is also a slight bend to this channel, and you can't see oncoming traffic until almost at the bridge (hence the very sane REASON for the speed limit!) If another boat was coming through from the opposite direction(and it was a peak boating time too, being a Saturday afternoon!), a collision may have been unavoidable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynnm Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Another problem is that recent research indicates that a jet ski puts as many pollutants into a lake in one hour of use as is deposited by an automobile that is driven 100,000 miles. Way too dirty. The damned things should be banned as an environmental hazard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedball Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Oh man those jet ski's look like fun. My wifes cousin bought one and after it was sold he said "they depreciate considerably"...I do not know hardly anything about them......but they looooook so fun! ...Pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruinsrme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 Lynn where did you get that info? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Bruins----Well ya got me buddy, I'm chagrined. You're right, you have certainly earned the right to simply blast around. It's just that here on the lakes and rivers of the pays den haute, the Old Northwest, most jet-skis seem to be used by oblivious pellet-heads which you so obviously are not. Tarred with the same brush and all that. My apologies. I'm goin' to Seattle next week, visit my brother out there. He and his partners are fishermen, own a 300 footer and a 100 footer, they go up in the Bering Sea. I look forward to eating some good cod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynnm Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 This was reported during a documentary on the Canadian Broadcasting System about a year ago. I'm sorry but I can't remember the program but it might have been on an episode of W5.If memory serves the research was conducted by a team of students and professors at a Canadian university. As I recall the main problem is that they use 2 cycle engines and the exhaust goes directly into the water. In addition the frequent cycles of high revving and rapid deceleration results in a lot of unburned gasoline and oil mixture being expelled from the exhaust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 http://www.amcsem.org/conservation.html "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that a single personal watercraft can dump up to 6 gallons of raw fuel into the water in a mere two hours." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynnm Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Here is the article referred to by skeptic. Pretty much says it all. Jet Ski Pollution and Hazards - H.R. 2289 Support H.R. 2289 which will allow Massachusetts towns the right to decide for themselves whether to ban polluting jet skis from their waterways. This bill does not automatically ban jet skis. It simply gives towns the right to decide whether to ban them. If you are a Massachusetts resident in favor of H.R. 2289 (formerly 5019), sign the petition. The facts: The Massachusetts Environmental Police have received free loaner personal watercrafts (PWCs) from local watercraft manufacturers. This is a clear conflict of interest since they are the organization who has the power to reject towns' requests to ban PWCs. The personal watercraft industry has recalled more than 280,000 watercrafts during the past 10 years because of production and design problems with the potential to cause fires and explosions. Problems in tens of thousands of these machines have not been repaired. The federal government recently determined that PWCs are different from other motorboats and additionally reported that there was substantial evidence proving the damage they cause to air and water quality, visitor enjoyment, public safety, and wildlife. The National Transportation Safety Board criticized the design of PWCs and recommended that manufacturers implement design changes, such as off-throttle steering and braking. While operator education helps reduce accidents, the real safety problems are inherent in the craft and their designated use. PWC operator manuals instruct users to allow at least 348 feet -- longer than a football field -- to allow the craft to come to a safe, complete stop. This endangers others on the water. In addition, they have no brakes or off-throttle steering. If you're in their path, and the rider instinctively releases the throttle, the vehicle will not be able to avoid a collision. A 2001 study funded by the U.S. Coast Guard tested a range of PWCs in their ability to avoid an obstacle. The vehicles were operated by an equal number of novice, intermediate, and expert PWC users, with the following findings: At 20 MPH, they were unable to avoid the obstacle 21% of the time At 30 MPH, they were unable to avoid the obstacle 51% of the time At 55 MPH, they were unable to avoid the obstacle 86% of the time At 60 MPH, they were unable to avoid the obstacle 100% of the time More than 70 percent of PWC accidents are collisions with other vessels. Unlike traditional boats, PWCs have no braking mechanism, endangering others on small ponds, lakes, and estuaries. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that a single personal watercraft can dump up to 6 gallons of raw fuel into the water in a mere two hours. Manufacturers' claims that direct-injection engines will resolve pollution problems is erroneous. According to the California Environmental Protection Agency, emissions from direct-injection two-stroke engines are still four times higher than four-stroke engines with the same horsepower. Personal watercraft emit significantly more pollution than equivalent motorboats. The National Marine Manufacturers Association admitted that since PWCs have small engines and operate at higher speeds -- and generally are operated at closer to full throttle -- this results in higher emissions than equivalent motorboats. Personal watercrafts emit 85 to 105 decibels of sound per unit -- more noise than any motorboat in any speed category. The American Hospital Association recommends hearing protection above 85 decibels. PWC noise is different than that of conventional motorboats because of constant fluctuations in pitch. Rapidly varying noise is much more disturbing than constant noise, as decades of psycho-acoustic research has established. PWCs continually leave the water, magnifying their noise impact significantly. Because of the short hull, a PWC ridden fast on even slightly choppy water will lift out of the water naturally, creating that jarring "whomp" sound. This raises the craft's noise emission by 15 decibels on average. Personal watercrafts can and often do ride into shallow, remote areas close to shore, wreaking havoc on swimmers and surrounding wildlife. This past summer, a swimmer at Mashpee-Wakeby Pond was critically injured when she was struck by a personal watercraft that was reportedly riding too close to shore. Enforcing distance- from-shore guidelines is very difficult for towns with limited budgets. Enforcing a complete ban on small waterways would be much easier and cost-effective to enforce with just one person on land vs.. costly police boat monitoring and staffing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench_peddler Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Honda makes a four-stroke because of the polution problem. Don't know how they handle or run but they look sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruinsrme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 Yes in Massachusetts there are restrictions on certain bodies of water and is the responsibility of the town to determine their water way usage. I still find it rather laughable the stereotyping my question for informaton has created. Perhaps it's a good thing I didn't ask anyone about a good wine, I am sure I would be refered to AA or MADD or someother group to treat me for alcohol abuse. Glad I came here for some info. I have looked at the Hondas and is on the top of my list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 We have had several at our lake home over the past 10 years. We currently have 2 sea Do's (Rotax powered). I would say that they have been the least problematic. Yamaha also makes a nice unit. Within the next 3 years 100% of the skis will be 4 stroke (Fed mandate). We have a 2 seater and 3 seater (can pull a skier, with spotter on board) and really like the abilities of the 2. 2 seater is a great air machine, 3 seater is great in open rough water or for riding little ones. Hope this helps. And enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenratboy Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I'll flat out say I dislike (not HATE) jet skis. Their operators (just like SUV's) are the biggest issue, and for that, I would not mind having some lakes off limits to them. How often do you NOT see someone ripping around a lake and pissing people off? Not many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I've often thought it would be cool to use a wave-runner, you know, the sit-down jet-skis, to take the routes of Marquette, Joliet, LaSalle and others from the pays den haute into the Mississippi and down to the Gulf. Start at Mackinac, down the Lake to Chicago, take the canal to the Desplaines, Illinois and then the Big River. Kinda a water equivilent of a motorcycle trip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartdude Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 A buddy recently got a 2 seater and a 3 seater. They are a kick! I have gotten the 2 seater to 69mph (at our 4000' elevation) and the 3 seater we use to wakeboard with. Definately do want to get a 4-stroke as a lot of lakes are outlawing 2-strokers. Also take a boaters ed. course (required in Oregon). Taught me a lot. It is available online. I would definately buy some if my buddy didnt have them but now my wife wants a boat so we can use all 3 together, so it looks like Ima gonna have to get a boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougdrake Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I think we better switch to something less controversial, like firearms, abortion, or welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 ---------------- On 7/18/2004 10:00:53 PM dougdrake wrote: I think we better switch to something less controversial, like firearms, abortion, or welfare. ---------------- Even better how about politics or bush versus Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.