Marv Sandbek
04-25-2006, 11:31 AM
Amid the threads regarding the "DQ's" at Winneconne, was an interesting question posed by "maybe another," on thread #17977. The question focused on a "modified' Lund 2025 console boat! The first reply from "rating" was in thread #17978, where "rating" stated that his impression was that the pro angler had modified the boat himself, and the in thread #17987, "schmidtwi" offered that there may have been an arrangement made between the pro angler and the PWT tournament officials to operate that particular boat in the Winneconne event!
My original reply is posted in thread #18026, and then a follow-up is posted to Gary Korsgaden in thread #18149. Whew . . .that's alot of stuff to tie together, but my point is that I do have some concern about what's going on with the modification of a manufacturer engineered, designed and certified product. I will restate my points as follows:
1. During the 2005 tournament season, I noticed a similar boat that was modified in the same manner . . .i.e. "the steering wheel was removed from the console and a tiller-controlled outboard was installed." In that particular instance, the engine installed was a 150HP Opti-Max! As previously mentioned, I did look for a NMMA certification label reflecting the modification, but I could not locate one.
2. I have done limited research regarding high-horsepower tiller certification from other manufacturer's, and discovered that Warrior seems to be leading the way regarding the upper limits of tiller horsepower certification. The Warrior 2090BT/Eagle XST is certified for 200HP!!! However, according to the Lund catalog, the highest tiller horsepower certification is listed at 90HP, as specified for the Pro-V 1800! As near as I can determine, Lund does not offer a 2025 Pro-V "tiller!" And so, that opens the question, "Who authorized the modification to the manufacturer's specification's?"
3. As mentioned earlier, if this configuration change was not authorized by the manufacturer, and was not subsequently approved by NMMA, then it would be reasonable to assume that there are legal and liability issues to be addressed? And, another piece of the puzzle is the question of whether a violation of PWT tournament rules and regulations, (equipment), took place when the modified 2025 was allowed to enter the tournament field at Winneconne! I am very curious to discover if, in fact, a deal was struck between PWT officials and the pro angler who operated the modified 2025! It seems that "schmidtwi" poses an interesting thread in all of this with the mention of some sort of agreement being reached between the angler and PWT tournament officials!
There may be some who reply that a boat greater than 20 feet in length is governed by a different set of criteria, i.e. U.S. Coast Guard?? And so, what is that criteria, and does the inclusion of that criteria into the equipment eligibility standards create the perception of advantage? Does modification of the manufacturer's original configuration void the product warranty? What does this mean for the "Re-sale" cycle of this boat, and what does it mean for the consumer who would like to buy one of their own? Is this boat, in a "tiller" version, available to the general public? I think not!
The focus of this post is FAIRNESS and SAFETY! Manufacturer's go to great lengths to engineer, design and market safe, high-performance tournament boats, linked to state-of-the-art propulsion and electronics. Tournament officials determine the equipment criteria and limitations for their sponsored events. Everyone competes on an equal playing field! In light of the disqualifications handed out at Winneconne for inadvertent violation of a site-specific rule, I ponder the question of whether there existed additional violations of the PWT rulebook, (equipment), that warranted similar disciplinary action by tournament officials! My view is fairly basic and straightforward . . . "What's good for one, is good for all!" No exceptions!
"Minnesota Marv"
My original reply is posted in thread #18026, and then a follow-up is posted to Gary Korsgaden in thread #18149. Whew . . .that's alot of stuff to tie together, but my point is that I do have some concern about what's going on with the modification of a manufacturer engineered, designed and certified product. I will restate my points as follows:
1. During the 2005 tournament season, I noticed a similar boat that was modified in the same manner . . .i.e. "the steering wheel was removed from the console and a tiller-controlled outboard was installed." In that particular instance, the engine installed was a 150HP Opti-Max! As previously mentioned, I did look for a NMMA certification label reflecting the modification, but I could not locate one.
2. I have done limited research regarding high-horsepower tiller certification from other manufacturer's, and discovered that Warrior seems to be leading the way regarding the upper limits of tiller horsepower certification. The Warrior 2090BT/Eagle XST is certified for 200HP!!! However, according to the Lund catalog, the highest tiller horsepower certification is listed at 90HP, as specified for the Pro-V 1800! As near as I can determine, Lund does not offer a 2025 Pro-V "tiller!" And so, that opens the question, "Who authorized the modification to the manufacturer's specification's?"
3. As mentioned earlier, if this configuration change was not authorized by the manufacturer, and was not subsequently approved by NMMA, then it would be reasonable to assume that there are legal and liability issues to be addressed? And, another piece of the puzzle is the question of whether a violation of PWT tournament rules and regulations, (equipment), took place when the modified 2025 was allowed to enter the tournament field at Winneconne! I am very curious to discover if, in fact, a deal was struck between PWT officials and the pro angler who operated the modified 2025! It seems that "schmidtwi" poses an interesting thread in all of this with the mention of some sort of agreement being reached between the angler and PWT tournament officials!
There may be some who reply that a boat greater than 20 feet in length is governed by a different set of criteria, i.e. U.S. Coast Guard?? And so, what is that criteria, and does the inclusion of that criteria into the equipment eligibility standards create the perception of advantage? Does modification of the manufacturer's original configuration void the product warranty? What does this mean for the "Re-sale" cycle of this boat, and what does it mean for the consumer who would like to buy one of their own? Is this boat, in a "tiller" version, available to the general public? I think not!
The focus of this post is FAIRNESS and SAFETY! Manufacturer's go to great lengths to engineer, design and market safe, high-performance tournament boats, linked to state-of-the-art propulsion and electronics. Tournament officials determine the equipment criteria and limitations for their sponsored events. Everyone competes on an equal playing field! In light of the disqualifications handed out at Winneconne for inadvertent violation of a site-specific rule, I ponder the question of whether there existed additional violations of the PWT rulebook, (equipment), that warranted similar disciplinary action by tournament officials! My view is fairly basic and straightforward . . . "What's good for one, is good for all!" No exceptions!
"Minnesota Marv"