Royster Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Guys, The man asked for help/input for jet skis. NOT what if one dislikes or hates them. Let's stay on topic and try to help if we can. Think a a set of pro medias would fit on a ski??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 ---------------- On 7/19/2004 8:05:35 AM Royster wrote: Think a a set of pro medias would fit on a ski??????? ---------------- That's all we'd need... they're already deafeningly loud and obnoxious as is - they should add loud, blaring sound systems to them also! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Cleve, It is almost as annoying as someone asking for advise in a clearly defined post, and having a group of folks submit USELESS off topic opinions. IT WAS HUMOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! After all we are all guest's here one a audio web site! And yes, why not, now that I think about it. If it annoys you, please feel free to exercise your right to crawl back where you came from. If folks don't want to see PWC's, then maybe you should buy your own lake. Maybe someone is annoyed at things YOU do as well. As for me, we have fishermen motoring into our private harbor, fishing under our docks, waking up the house at 5:00 AM as they crank the motors and leave. But that is part of life. My point is, he asked for advice. If we can contribute and help fine. If not why start another arguement on this site? Remember opinions are like elbows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruinsrme Posted July 19, 2004 Author Share Posted July 19, 2004 I am surprised that most of the negative posters never took into account where I live. Hmmmmm a stones throw from the ocean, not some small ponds in the middle of nowhere or north of the border or some National Park. For those that have contributed positively thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 ---------------- On 7/19/2004 9:07:37 AM Royster wrote: Cleve, It is almost as annoying as someone asking for advise in a clearly defined post, and having a group of folks submit USELESS off topic opinions. IT WAS HUMOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! After all we are all guest's here one a audio web site! And yes, why not, now that I think about it. If it annoys you, please feel free to exercise your right to crawl back where you came from. If folks don't want to see PWC's, then maybe you should buy your own lake. Maybe someone is annoyed at things YOU do as well. As for me, we have fishermen motoring into our private harbor, fishing under our docks, waking up the house at 5:00 AM as they crank the motors and leave. But that is part of life. My point is, he asked for advice. If we can contribute and help fine. If not why start another arguement on this site? Remember opinions are like elbows. ---------------- My opinions, as they always are, are based on FACTS and STUDIES and METRICS and EXPERIENCE. Feel free to re-read them above if you need a quick refresher, but they pollute MORE than larger boats, they are NOISIER than boats, and they are inherently UNSAFE and endanger my, and others, peaceful use and enjoyment of the natural resources that are our national heritage. They need to be tightly controlled and regulated, just like the use of snowmobiles and ATV's are in most state, local, and national parks. There needs to be laws enacted and enforced for sane maximum speed within 200 yards of shore, and more mandatory training courses. The same could be said for powerboats as well. The only reason this bane continues to be inflicted upon us are the lobbyists for the manufacturers spreading the wealth around. Hopefully, other states wil follow Massachusett's lead and not knuckle under to monied interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 LOL, it never fails to amaze me some folks view of themself. MAYBE tighter regulation for those prevayors of fact might be inorder. IE: THE POSTER ASKED FOR TYPE< BRAND< SIZE ADVISE. What part of that do you fail to comprehend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 "THE POSTER ASKED FOR TYPE< BRAND< SIZE ADVISE." True. But obviously a lot of folks buying PWC are not knowledgeable about the type and scope of pollution that they emmit. I agree that the whole "PWC pilots are jerks" is out of line, since obvious that is up to the operator. I think the remarks about pollution are fine, since it is something that harms all of us. Putting pollution in waterways is never a good thing, and should at least be minimized. Atleast now he can research 4 stroke PWC and see if they will be adequate for his uses as well as keep pollution a bit lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 ---------------- On 7/19/2004 10:50:12 AM Royster wrote: LOL, it never fails to amaze me some folks view of themself. MAYBE tighter regulation for those prevayors of fact might be inorder. IE: THE POSTER ASKED FOR TYPE< BRAND< SIZE ADVISE. What part of that do you fail to comprehend? ---------------- And this is the first thread on these forums that's contained subthreads or divergent discussions? People should be fully aware of the potential dangers/drawbacks of their decision before purchase. How many people have had their kids killed as a result of uninformed uneducated purchases of ATVS, Jet Skis, motorcycles, et al? There's always a number of these tragedies every summer in the area where I live. If pointing out the inherent dangers of the machines makes someone take a more critical look at them before buying, then I see that as an inherently GOOD thing. Besides, exactly what salient information have YOU provided to assist his decision? And since when do new posters moderate these forums and decide what other posters can or cannot discuss? If you've a formal complaint about the content of my, or anyone's posts, take it to Trey or Amy. That is the proper avenue to pursue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 For someone that bases thier posts on fact, I am do not see how you missed the info in my inital post. Automobiles, bikes, and play sets ALL kill more folks than PVC's. Maybe you you should alert Ralf Nader, I am sure he could use another illinformed lap dog. A"new poster" is not trying to moderate anything. Only providing a responce to a post asking for input as to WHAT pvc to buy. That is something that you seem unable or inwilling to comprehend. Maybe Tray or Amy can explain the origional question to you. Since when does number of posts equate to relevence of content? I am starting to see why alot of folks don't post or vist much anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Hey Bruinsrme! Boating...a subject near and dear to me heart. Been boating/fishing for almost 40 of my 47 years of life. Hope my two cents worth helps. I owned a SeaDoo GTX (twin cylinder Rotax, carb model, 110hp) 3-seater for almost 4 years. Put approx. 260 hours on it and never had a problem with it. Just about all maintenance was done by me and I suspect you'd be just as attentive as I was, so you can expect good service. I did install a Worx performance maxi-loader intake grate in order to help keep the pump loaded and it did take care of cavitation issues unless the water got really rough. The wife & I could carry quite a bit of gear with some creative packing. We loved using the GTX for exploring places a typical boat couldn't get you in and loved "touring" with other owners. At this point I'll digress and say that some of the negative comments expressed here are not totally without merit. As much as I hate to admit it, there's a lot of evidence to support people's negative view of PWC owners. Sadly, it seems to follow the same path as motorcycling (I own three); and that is the fact that a relatively small minority of PWC idiots make the rest of us responsible owners look bad. Unfortunately, that well behaved; DNR, Marine patrol, USCG supported; PWC owner group that does a poker run for a charity without a single bonehead incident because the members of that PWC club are responsible, level-headed people won't get any mention in the local paper/TV. And guess what? Neither will that fishing dude with the 75+mph bass boat that slams into a boat and kills someone. Or the drunk outta his mind Doctor with the 26' Grady White who swamps a couple in their jon boat. But let a PWC owner (or motorcyclist) do it and it's damn near front page news. My point is that you need to understand the "label" others will unfortunately put on you. You'll just have to do what I did (and do with my motorcycle habit) - pay no attention to them. As for pollution - I would always, always, always trust everything the EPA or any other enviromental agency/group tells you in their reports. It's the gospel. Really....it is. I just know that for every two-smoke powered PWC that's on the water there are at least 15 to 20 older generation outboards that are much "dirtier" out there smokin' around. But since they're on "real boats", I guess that's ok. I think you get my drift. Recently the wife & I wanted to get back on the water (sold the GTX a couple years ago), so we started thinking PWC again since my "goal boat" is still a few years off. However, we wanted something a bit more boat-like so we could enjoy the nicety of things like bimini top shade. To make a long story short, we bought a SeaDoo Speedster 160 (a respectable PWC since it looks more like a boat) in great shape for the price of the new Sportster 4-Tec. Which leads me to saying that I would definitely look at the new generation 4-stroke PWC's. They have great performance, albeit a little heavier than their 2-smoke counterparts. And I would defintely buy used since PWC's take a big depreciation hit the first two years and most folks get rid of them after two years. There's some great deals out there. If you wanna pick my brain more, you can PM me. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 ---------------- On 7/19/2004 12:23:34 PM Royster wrote: Automobiles, bikes, and play sets ALL kill more folks than PVC's. Maybe you you should alert Ralf Nader, I am sure he could use another illinformed lap dog. ---------------- First, to eliminate one minor irritation, it's PWC, not 'pvc' PWC = Personal Water Craft. And here's some information from yet another source on the hazards they present, even in the ocean! http://www.nps.gov/calo/pwc_det.htm And here's some pertinent sections... A report in the August 27, 1997, Journal of the American Medical Association stated in part: Based on national estimates, injuries associated with PWC use have increased 4-fold (P<.001) from an estimated 2860 in 1990 to more than12,000 in 1995.During the same period, there was a 3-fold (P<.001) increase in the number of PWC in operation from approximately 241,500 in 1990 to an estimated 760,000 in 1995. The same report also states: Based on these data <1992>, 14,062 injuries were associated with PWC use treated in EDs ...The rate of injuries related to PWC treated in EDs was about 8.5 times higherthan the rate of ED-treated injuries from motorboats. Guess who pays for all those extra First Responder visits? Yep, the taxpayer. Our state should immediately make registering a PWC 8.5 times more expensive than a small boat! That would help pay for the damage they inflict on both the users and the environment! Now on to the Environment... From that same study.. Noise Pollution The effect of PCW noise has a very high potential to degrade the visitor experience at the seashore. A traditional motorized watercraft traverses through an area and, within a few minutes, is out of the area. PWC use typically consists of groups of riders who traverse the same area over and over again. Because they tend to stay in one area for longer periods of time, the noise from PWC's is constant. Noise problems are compounded by PWC operating characteristics. The jet drive may emerge from the water when a PWC goes over a wave or wake resulting in changes in loudness and pitch which complainants cite as more disturbing than constant sounds. The erratic changes in engine pitch, the pulsation of sound produced by jumping wakes, and frequent changes in speed, in addition to the volume of the sound, create noise that is perceived as both irritating and intrusive upon the park experience. The PWC industry has argued that new models are much quieter than older models, but this does not alleviate the noise pollution of the PWC's already in use at the seashore. Additionally, after market modifications to PWC's are common practice with many PWC's having exhaust systems modified to increase horsepower and thrust. This can render useless attempts by manufacturers to reduce noise levels. Hydrocarbon Pollution Hydrocarbon emissions from PWC use has a potential to damage the natural estuarine systems of the seashore. Nearly all PWC's currently in use are powered by two-stroke engines, which do not completely burn the mixture of oil and gasoline delivered to the combustion chamber. According to studies cited in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gasoline spark-ignited engine rulemaking, these two-stroke engines discharge as much as 25% of their gas and oil as emissions directly into the water. On a per-gallon basis, PWC's can emit a minimum of 23% more ambient hydrocarbon (gas and oil) emissions that other two-stroke engine watercraft (USEPA,1991). An average two-hour ride on a PWC emits three gallons of gas and oil into the water. PWC's have twice the hourly annual usage rate of other water vessels, double the load factor (rpm, payload, etc.), and significantly more horsepower than a typical two-stroke outboard. For these reasons, PWC's emit eight times more pollution than equivalent motorboats. The California Air Resources Board reports that a two-hour ride on a 100-horsepower PWC emits the same pollution as driving 139,000 miles in a 1998 passenger car. The PWC industry counters that the EPA data include older, less efficient PWC's and almost all 1998 models meet new hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emission standards. It will be many years, however, before the older models are no longer used. Wildlife Impacts Because of the unique capabilities, anticipated use and noise profile of PWC's, significant impacts to wildlife are likely if PWC's are permitted in the seashore. PWC's have a shallow draft, which gives them the ability to penetrate areas that are not available to conventional motorized watercraft. This access has the potential to adversely impact wildlife and aquatic vegetation in these shallow areas. Wildlife impacts may include interruption of normal activity and alarm or flight; avoidance and displacement, loss of habitat use, decreased reproductive success, interference with movement, direct mortality, interference with courtship, alteration of behavior, change in community structure and nest abandonment. Other potential impacts on the environment include elevated noise levels and the discharge of oil and gas mixture into the water. Extensive published research has shown that human intrusion on foot, boat, 4-wheeler, etc., disturbs birds feeding or nesting in estuarine areas, sometimes to the point that birds abandon nests and eggs. Research has shown that propeller-driven boats also impact turbidity of water near shore as well as sea grass communities growing there. The most prominent researcher in the area of PWC effects on estuarine birds is Jim Rogers of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. In 1997, Rogers recommended minimum "setback" distances for outboard motorboats to avoid disturbing nesting and feeding birds. He is currently studying setback distances for PWC's and his unpublished findings show that the minimum PWC setback for long-billed dowitchers is a little over 150 feet. The minimums for all other birds he has studied are much greater, some in excess of 450 feet. Based on Rogers research, the soundside 150- foot NPS boundary would be inadequate to protect most species of estuarine birds on the seashore. However, in the absence of jurisdiction to impose greater setbacks to protect estuarine species, prohibition of PWC operation within seashore waters would appear to be the maximum protection that the NPS can afford these species. J. Burger, Nelson Biological Laboratories, Rutgers University, examined the flight behavior of Common Terns (Sterna hirundo) over a nesting colony in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, in 1997. He used the number of birds flying over the colony to test the hypothesis that there were no differences in flight behavior as a function of presence and type of craft (motor boat, personal watercraft.) Boats that raced elicited the strongest response as did boats that were outside of the established channel. Boats traveling closer to the nesting colonies elicited stronger responses than those that remained in the channel. Personal watercrafts elicited stronger responses than motor boats. J. Burger indicates that these data suggest that personal watercraft should be managed to reduce disturbance to colonial-nesting species, by eliminating them within 100 meters of nesting colonies and restricting speed near such colonies. Unfortunately, around this state, they could have a million laws on the books to regulate their usage, but with so many lakes and rivers, enforcement would be spotty and inadequate. The best way to regulate is to increase the cost of the machines to the end user via taxation, to make them more expensive and contain their growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Tom, We have a 98 GSX, and a 2000GTX. Love them both. Before that we had the Yamaha 1100, it was a nice 3 place sled but not much zip. Back in 97 had the Kawasaki 750 GT. I am a member of our local coast Guard Aux. We have used the Sea Doo's one more than one outing to search for people that have drown in the river and bay system.The perception that pwc owners are stupid, law breaking, somehow less of a person than sailors amd fishermen is inaccurate at best. Did the stuffer grate help that much improvement. We like it as a air machine, but in choppy water the GTX is much smoother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Royster - You're right about the generalizations/perceptions about PWC owners. And while I whole heartedly subscribe to the "a person's perception is their reality", it doesn't mean that that percieved reality is, in fact, the truth. I hope that makes sense. As for the Worx intake...my GTX had the same hole shot as stock and lost virtually nothing on top end. And it would launch off a wave the same as stock. What it wouldn't do was cavitate while running in 1' or so chop at a steady throttle of, say, 35 or 40 mph. The steady thrust made for a much better ride. I hope that makes sense too. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Tom, Both understood. The grate seems like something that we need to do. Thanks for the input. It always helps hearing from someone that has tried it already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Royster said "The perception that pwc owners are stupid, law breaking, somehow less of a person than sailors amd fishermen is inaccurate at best." Yeah, it's only true of most PWC owners I see, certainly not ALL of them. Listen, these things appeal to what's lowbrow about Americans; the "need for speed", a love of showing-off and noisily and conspicuously displaying "power", and a longing for immediate gratification. Also appealed to is a penchant for laziness and a loutish lack of civility. Some of the defenders of these craft seem offended that they're tarred with the same brush as the yahoos who use these devices. This betrays a class anxiety common in America. I say if you like the things use them but don't be offended if people think you're a yokel: if you take up behavior popular with bumpkins don't cry when people mistake you for one. Soldier on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartdude Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 "Listen, these things appeal to what's lowbrow about Americans; the "need for speed", a love of showing-off and noisily and conspicuously displaying "power", and a longing for immediate gratification. Also appealed to is a penchant for laziness and a loutish lack of civility." - And probably most all other "modernized" countries (at least as pertaining to your first sentence) "Some of the defenders of these craft seem offended that they're tarred with the same brush as the yahoos who use these devices. This betrays a class anxiety common in America. I say if you like the things use them but don't be offended if people think you're a yokel: if you take up behavior popular with bumpkins don't cry when people mistake you for one. Soldier on. " - I like Klipsch speakers! Also SUV's, PWC's, Guns, and a lot of other stuff that gets bad reps, though not by me . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruinsrme Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 I own a gun therefor I must be a killer I own a truck therefor I must be a reckless tail gater I own an ax therefor I must be a lizzy Borden I drink beer and wine therefor I must must be an alcoholic I have over 15 hockey sticks I must be a Marty McSorely in the making I play hockey therefor I like to fight and sucker punch people Now that I own a gun, drive a truck, drink beer and wine, have hockey sticks and play hockey does that mean I am going to drink, drive, shoot up a convenient store and beat people with my hockey stick after biting a head off a bat becasue I just finished listening to an Ozzy song? Or Use my gun on a range, use my truck to pick up lumber and as a mode of transportation, concume beer and wine resposnsibly, use an ax to chop down small trees, use my hockey sticks to play hockey and play the game for the love of the sport.Hmmmmm I am looking to own a jet ski to get back at all those fishing people for purposely trying to kill fish with metal hooks. How would you feel to have some one stick a metal hook in your mouth then pulled on it like a son of a gun, cut off your oxygen medium just to get a freaking picture then rip the hook out of your mouth and throw you back in with a ripped up face? For you swimmers you better get out of my way and stop peeing in my drinking water. ahhhh I feel better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Bruins, I hope that you are able to take some useful info from those that have tried to answer your post. PWC's are a lot of fun and a useful tool. Don't let the illinformed cry babies get to you. Maybe they should start a post for themselfs "Why I am anti pwc". Check with your insurance company as to what the rates are for different makes and models. Also a Coast Guard or USPS saftey course gets you a discount, and is a basic requirement IMHO. Enjoy and good times to ya!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Last post on this thread. Seriously. No really. I mean it. What concerns me about the so-called negative comments are the over-tones to which Bruinsrme eludes to. And it can be summed up in one word - prejudice. I've seen a lot of black people commit crimes, therefore that race is prone to violence. He's a member of the UAW, must be an idiot. I've seen plenty of them crotch rockets doing wheelies & burnouts, therefore all of those folks are speed crazy thrill seekers with no regard for any one on the road. She wears short dresses and heels to work, therefore she's "loose". He has a thick southern accent and listens to country music, therefore he's an under-educated redneck. She's a Hispanic, therefore (you fill in the blank). He has tatoo's and rides a Harley, must be in a gang or summat. I have Heritage speakers and you only own Reference or (gulp) Synergy's. The (your??) list can go on & on. What I find ironic is that our shared hobby (audio) is used as the basis for this kinda of behavior or action on our part. The word? Stereotyping. Makes ya wonder, eh? Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Tom. Well said. To quote that one guy........ "Can't we all just get along".......... 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.