Talk:Personal watercraft

The citations need to be reworked and the whole thing should be tagged for bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.49.216 (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there a dispute over the claims made by some organizations that PWCs pollute? Please discuss. -Willmcw 16:57, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there cannot be a dispute that they pollute; after all, they are internal combustion engined and inevitably emit pollutants when used. The question is how much, and what effects that has, and how serious a problem that is, and whether it amounts to anything significant in comparison to other forms of pollution. —Morven 17:19, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

go away hippy

The references that were in this article are misleading, dated, and false.

Also, the majority of watercraft sold are either clean burning direct-injected 2-stroke engines that emit less emissions than cars and use biodegradable oil or are 4-stroke powered just like the cars we drive.

I'm prepared to dig up the sourvces for the material on pollution. Are you prepared to provide sources for those assertions? Also, cars do not direct their exhaust directly into the water, so even if the pollution output were identical, the impact on bodies of water would be greater from PWCs. Thanks-Willmcw 23:19, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

This is a place to define PWC right? Take your naturalist bs somewhere else please... someone looking up "Pollution from Personal watercraft" looks for your info... not someone who wants to know what they are.

"Even if the pollution output were identical, the impact...." So I assume you feel there is a difference for exhaust into the air? Does it end up in the environment? In a perfect world, nobody would pollute anything, however, we are alive so even if we were cavemen, the 'environmentalists' would want to ban campfires.

Yes I'm prepared to cite sources too.--SuperJETT 23:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Citing sources and turning inaccurate statements into properly referenced, NPOV statements are what we should be doing. An article about personal watercraft needs to have information about their environmental impact, especially since it has attracted fairly widespread attention. —Morven 23:50, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting sourced information without comment is vandalism. The anon who is doing so needs to stop. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Manufacturers have come out with biodegradable oil a number of years ago for personal water crafts; I don't know anyone who still uses the conventional stuff, most of us care about the environment and enjoy being out exploring on the water:

http://www.pennzoil.com/products/marine/100pcSynth2cycle.html

http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine.cfm?story=320

http://www.autochic.com/redline/specialty.html

This company lists a whole bunch of them:

http://www.nmma.org/certification/programs/oils/

Sure you might get some idiots that use car oil in their PWCs (2 stroke) but most stopped. 4-stroke PWCs are as clean as a car since they use catalytic converters.

I think there is a good middle ground here.

From a quick read up on the topic, these seem to be some salient points about PWC pollution. Let's see if we can get reasonable agreement on these?:

1. Prior to 1996, PWC emissions were unregulated in the United States. In that year, the EPA passed pollution regulations for PWCs. These were set up after dialog 1991-1996 between the EPA and manufacturers.
2. 2-stroke PWCs sold before the 1990s, and the oils they used, were highly polluting.
3. 4-stroke PWC engines have always been less polluting than 2-stroke; modern 4-stroke PWCs feature similar technologies to cars (catalytic converters, etc) to reduce emissions to low levels.
4. Modern 2-stroke PWCs are much improved over their pre-1990 forebears. The use of cleaner-burning direct injection and biodegradable oils have made a significant difference. However, they still pollute more than 4-stroke PWCs.
5. California is operating an accelerated program of compliance compared to the rest of the US.

Anything else we can add to that?

This does of course ignore the complaints of noise pollution and of other, non-pollution environmental impact, which we should also address. —Morven 00:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I dont care if you have sources that they pollute, the reason this page was made was to say what a PWC is, not that they pollute or dont pollute... Go away Hitler !~

Ah, a Hitler comparison. Sane discussion about this topic with you is therefore proven impossible. I cease my efforts. —Morven 00:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

You're from CA, sane discussion about PWC's with you was never possible... :)

Ah, that's where you are wrong. I merely live here. —Morven 01:19, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though you'd like to concentrate on all the negatives associated with pwc, but there hasn't been any mention of the countless lives they save via rescue crews, lifeguards, and regular civilians.--12.220.216.50 01:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Do we have a source that confirms that four-stroke models predominate in all areas? The current phrasing, outdated studies on 20 year old watercraft, most of which are rarely seen on waterways today. seems like original research. We need to have a source that indicates the current majority of PWC in use are less polluting in order to support that assertion. Also, there is no information about the degree to which the new EPA standards will actually lower emissions. Let's further remember that this is an international encyclopedia. I think the emissions information that I previously supplied is still accurate in countries where the EPA does not have authority. Thanks -Willmcw 04:12, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a claim of a 75% reduction; this is probably comparing the best of now versus the worst of then, but still - it's within the bounds of probability, considering that car emissions have improved even more than that since before regulation. I'm not sure what the status will be when all the standards in place are fully rolled in.

I think the truth lies somewhere between these two points. PWCs sold today do not have the level of emissions that pre-regulation ones did. Regulations only began to take effect in 1998. The majority of the environmentalist POV references date from 1998 or so and are talking about pre-regulation craft. However, 1998 is only seven years ago; I'd imagine that at least half of the PWCs in use are pre-regulation standard, and remember that early regulation years were not as controlled. We need some real data on this, though, to state anything definite - or at least, attributed quotes from good sources.

I'd imagine that the major manufacturers of PWCs have incorporated at least some of the emissions control changes into their worldwide models; easier to just produce one specification when possible. Again, good to have sources, though. —Morven 04:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find on these topics, but I doubt there are firm numbers on the number of old 2-stroke engines in use compared to newer models. It may be difficult to find anything positive about foreign regulations. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the NMMA TC-W3 oil is not necessarily biodegradable. That specification refers to other qualities of the oil. Autochic sells marine oils, only two of which are biodegradable. Pennzoil sells three marine oils for 2-stroke engines, only one of which is biodegradable. A dealer has a lengthy "Oil Q & A" which never mentions biodegradability. These biodegrable oils may be available, but I haven't seen any indication that they are the preferred or the standard choice. -Willmcw 13:37, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

The CARB website indicates that the 2006 EPA standard requires emissions to be reduced by approximately 75%.[1] However, elsewhere it mentions that a 1999 PWC emits as much pollution in seven hours of operation as a 1999 automobile would emit in 100,000 miles of operation. [2] Therefore, the new level of equivalency is that a 2006 model PWC will emit in seven hours as as much emissions as a seven-year old car driven 25,000 miles, about two year's worth of usage for most car owners. Cleaner, but still far from clean. -Willmcw 13:56, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have written a new 'Emissions' section - how about working from there to try and get a NPOV view of the whole issue?

As regards to this issue drowning out everything else about PWCs, how about writing some other sections about that? It's definitely short of info. Rather than removing the emissiosn controversy, add other things! —Morven 02:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

The biggest controversy seems to be whether sit-down PWCS are boring. More other information would be great. Their safety is another topic worthy of a paragraph. Thanks for your help in working on this article. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

We need a source for this:

Against this, industry groups such as the Personal Watercraft Industry Association point out that environmental groups continue to cite pollution levels of pre-regulation watercraft and ignore the improvements made to newer models; and furthermore, that the personal watercraft is unfairly singled out when they are no more polluting than other powered boats.

I looked around the PWIA site and couldn't find anything like this. Also, are there other industry groups? I thought that it was the only one. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I mistakenly read their statement about noise pollution and applied it to emissions. They don't seem to claim that regular boats are equivalent in emissions, but they do claim it for noise. —Morven 02:52, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Is the "water craft" in "personal water craft" really two words? The wikipedia definition for watercraft is one word. If that is correct, this page should be moved to the proper title.--Daveswagon 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Another editor moved it to this title because, I believe he thought it made the initials "PWC" more logical. But I always see the term spelled "watercraft". If there's no objection I'll move it back. -Will Beback 07:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed link 5 - it is clearly just there to get a link to a company site and does not point to the information it claims to or any relevant information

Andy Dingley put it back as presumably he is being paid to ensure the link remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.200.148 (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the article it states that PWC can travel up to 70mph or 96Kph. This conversion is wrong.

It should be in knots anyway. -Will Beback 23:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would it be worth noting that in 2017, with the introduction of the Yamaha GP1800 and the use of aftermarket parts, that some watercraft are capable of safe top speeds of 88-90mph? source - ^[1] --Rheigel (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone. I just recently discovered the Susan Ford case which highlights the gory risk of orifice injuries from the powerful jet coming out of a PWC. On the one hand, this is a freak accident but on the other hand it indicates the extreme danger of PWCs. The opinion is: Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 755 (2006). Do you guys think it's worth mentioning in the article? --Coolcaesar 08:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Also, to make clear how important the Ford case is, the Court of Appeal upheld the $3.75 million in damages awarded by the jury. That's all economic and noneconomic damages. No punitives were awarded. --Coolcaesar 08:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

One option would be to say that manufacturer's have been found liable for serious injuries inflicted on users by the devices, and then use the case as a source. Scanning through the case I see that they already had a warning label on the device covering the issue, plus the engineer had conducted tests, so this can't have been a freak accident. -Will Beback · † · 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would it be practical to put a lightly-armored partial encloser and a turreted .50 cal on a jetski? Does anyone know whether something like that has been done? 69.12.155.64 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not for us to decide whether it's practical. But if anyone finds a source on the topic we can include that info. -Will Beback · † · 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know this was tried at least once. In the late-60s/early-70s the U.S. Marine Corps. expirimented with a militarized version of the AquaDart. I don't know if it was armored, but it was mounted with a Browning MG (I believe) and automatic granade launcher. I don't know how many were built in this configuration, or if they were factory-produced or merely custom modified, but it wasn't adopted. The AquaDart was not a ride-on, but rather a "drag-behind" if you will, with the driver's legs steering and dangling as shark bait. Roz666 04:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is the idea behind the variable plume of water that is usally seen from the tail of one of these craft when the engine is running? Is it to increase the visibility of the craft or is it some other reason? This info would be good to include. EdX20 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Extremely, horribly, badly, written article, needs rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepcomanche1 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The claim on this page that, "The first PWC to hit the market was designed by Bombardier in the late 1960s," seems very much at odds with this October 1956 newspaper report, which was also covered in the Illustrated London News of 15 September the same year. The latter notes that Harris and Denton were, "show girls at the Windmill Theatre." There's also this magazine article from the same year showing a different design. I am therefore amending the page to delete the spurious Bombardier claims. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

On closer inspection, the introduction needs major work, as it rcurrently evolves around the demonstrably false claims of Clayton Jacobson II being the "inventor" of the PWC some ten years after the above earlier European examples! It seems ratehr incredible that this has gone unchallenged previously. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's the Vincent Amanda, from Vincent the UK motorcycle maker. There was also the German Wave Roller. Both were around in 1956, but I don't know which was first. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

As of April 18, 2013 the false Jacobson claim exists in the History section. Since the above citations clearly show that it is false, that British water scooters existed long before Jacobson, I believe there may be a fanboy problem here. Fanboy: please justify ignoring the references to 1956 or stop claiming that the PWC was invented 10 years later. I question the several paragraphs devoted to the Jacobson craft, it was not first and therefore deserves no special mention...Unless it can be shown to have popularized the vehicles in the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.172.1.109 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 18 April 2013‎

Agreed. I have amended the page accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Here's another 1956 example, although I can't identify it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kirk Glover, stepson of Usher, has died after an accident involving a personal watercraft http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/ushers-stepson-dies-2-weeks-after-lake-accident-20120722-22hst.html - Is this worth including in article? Too controversal? Not relevant? Perhaps there were other factors involved?(23rd July 2012) Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I cut the following out of what had been the "References" section and am pasting them here exactly as they were. Some may be suitable as RSs, some not. It is unlcear whether any should be "Further reading", but they didn't belong where they were. I'm pasting them here in case they can be of use to editors as they inprove this article.

Gasoline Boats and Personal Watercraft. Retrieved on May 4, 2005.

• California Air Resources Board. Recreational Marine Engine Activities. Retrieved on May 4, 2005.
• Chad Nelsen (1988). Jet Skis Suck. Surfrider Foundation. Retrieved on May 4, 2005.
• Surfrider Foundation. (1988). Minimizing the Impacts of Personal Watercraft- Part II: Seeking a Solution. Retrieved on May 4, 2005.
• Personal Watercraft Industry Association. [3]. Retrieved on 9 August 2005.
• Bombardier Recreational Products. About Sea-Doo. Retrieved on 9 August 2005.
• MIT Inventor of the Week Archive: Clayton Jacobsen II Retrieved on 15 March 2006.

Novaseminary (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

"A personal water craft (PWC), also called water scooter, is a recreational watercraft that the rider rides or stands on, rather than inside of, as in a boat." That "the rider rides" is totally vacuous. Who wrote this? Did they mean "the rider sits on or stands on" ? Suggest it be changed to "that the rider stands or sits on"; but see the other problem (the problem with "on"). The two pictures to the right of this poorly worded sentence shows both PWC with gunwhales rising mid-calf on one and possibly up to or above the seat in the other. The USCG has a definition, I don't know if there is a universal one possible. There are a variety of boats that are < 13', where the driver is below gunwhales in a cockpit. The distinction between riding "on" rather than "in" either needs clarification, or more likely needs to be removed and the definition of such craft changed. Can we use the riders center of gravity being (generally) above the gunwhales?72.172.1.109 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's not a word about the need of eyewear for protection from water spray, wind and other particles that can damage the eyes. Is it a non-issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.50.153 (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Aren't these toys generally known as jet skis or water scooters? Isn't "personal water craft" something of an over-the-top title - rather like calling a car a "mechanical vehicular device"? I suggest changing the title to the more generally used "Jet ski".Royalcourtier (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

And it's clear you don't know anything about PWCs. Or Jet Skis, about which we already have an article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The final sentence in the first paragraph seems unsubstantiated. This seems like a bold thing to say or an advertisement. Citation? I'm new to editing after a long hiatus, I hope I am doing this constructively and respectfully!! RoToR~enwiki (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)RoToRReply

In the sports section it may be worth noting some other circuits that are also well known within the watercraft racing community. (I work in industry at RIVA Racing - We sponsor racers worldwide):

Hydrodrags - an event style where racers modify their watercraft in order to compete in a drag race style format, sometimes hitting top speeds of 112-114mph. ^[2]

Pro Watercross - Rival circuit to P1 AquaX with events around the USA ^[3]

All racing circuits are also governed by a worldwide sanctioned association, the IJSBA. The IJSBA provides a standardized rule book for all racing events, and sanctions certain races throughout the year as events used to get into the IJSBA World Finals of watercraft racing, usually hosted as a week-long event for Stand Ups, Freestyle, and sit-down watercrafts in the first week of October in Lake Havasu, AZ. ^{[4] [5] [6]}

First time working on editing in Wikipedia, so let me know what I can do to improve my formatting for discussion. Thank you for your consideration!

--Rheigel (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Personal water craft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902191629/http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/boating_statistics_2006.pdf to http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2006.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.wmlnj.org/var/www/TheWestfieldLeader/1956/1956-10-04/pg_0018.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101204839/http://www.voc.uk.com/net/docs/17/17-553-14.pdf to http://www.voc.uk.com/net/docs/17/17-553-14.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply