Association Forum - Tohatsu vs Honda

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

Catalina 250 Specific Forum

Tohatsu vs Honda

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Page: of 2

Steve Raffel
Captain

Member Avatar

262 Posts

Initially Posted - 10/16/2015 : 09:15:59

My 16 year-old 9.9 Honda is getting tired. My dealer sells both the Honda and Tohatsu. He claims the Tohatsu is more bang for the buck, because it is as good a motor and is lighter. Does anyone know which fits better in the limited space where the outboard goes?

Thanks.

Steve Raffel
C 250 WK #408

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2270 Posts

Response Posted - 10/16/2015 : 11:09:27

Please define "tired."

My Honda is almost exactly the same age, and though it doesn't look pretty and new, I am thrilled with it. It starts instantaneously, runs reliably and shows no signs of age (other than cosmetic blemishes). I've never owned a Tohatsu, but I know others who have them, and though they're generally happy with them, they sound kind of klunky and rattley to me - not the smooth hum that my Honda makes.

There are many Tohatsu supporters here, so I suspect they'll disagree with my comments. But whether I'm right or wrong, I would advise anyone with any brand of outboard to make sure you've had a dealer go over it before giving up on it. Most problems are fixable for a lot less than buying another motor.

FWIW, my Honda (an exact twin of yours) can fully rotate with the tiller handle up, but with only about 1/8" clearance on either side, and only when it's in exactly the right spot on the transom. But with it in the right spot, I attached a hard link so it rotates with the rudder and it's great for maneuvering in tight areas. I'm not sure the new generation Hondas or Tohatsus would have the same rotational freedom - someone else will have to confirm.

Rick S., Swarthmore, PA
PO of Take Five, 1998 Catalina 250WK #348 (relocated to Baltimore's Inner Harbor)
New owner of 2001 Catalina 34MkII #1535 Breakin' Away (at Rock Hall Landing Marina)

Edited by - TakeFive on 10/16/2015 17:56:08

Sailor Vic
1st Mate

Members Avatar

56 Posts

Response Posted - 10/16/2015 : 17:20:55

I own a 2005 250wk and have owned a Honda on my former 2002 250wk and although the Honda did "fit" my Tohatsu fits much better and I prefer the Tohatsu to the Honda.

My 3 year old Tohatsu starts every single time on the first push (I have an electric start) and even if the Tohatsu would costs more (which it doesn't) I'd pay more to get a Tohatsu.

JMHO

Vic M. -

on Lake Oroville, Northern California
2005 C250WK #818 - w/ tiller & Tohatsu (MFS9.8A3EFTUL)
www.chicosailing.com
Also formerly owned Catalina models:
2002 C250WK #660 w/ wheel & Honda 8 h.p.
2005 C34WK #1688 berth in Alameda, Calif (San Fran Bay)

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5853 Posts

Response Posted - 10/17/2015 : 07:01:11

I have a Nissan 6 on my Cal 25. It's the same engine as the Tohatsu, except for the manufacturer's decal. The Nissan/Tohatsu doesn't have the smooth sound that a Honda engine has. The reason is because the Honda is a 2 cylinder engine, and the Nissan/Tohatsu is a single cylinder, and that sound is the nature of a single cylinder motor. That difference in the sound of the engines might be important to some owners. My primary concern is that a motor perform well. My motor starts easily, runs well, is reliable, and is unbelievably stingy on gas. I estimate it uses about 1/4 to 1/3 of a gallon per hour, running at nearly full throttle. From an online check of prices, it appears that the cost of a new Honda engine is nearly twice that of a new Nissan/Tohatsu. Mine is a 2001 engine, and only needed a minor adjustment to the shifter when I bought the boat. I'd like it better if it had the smooth sound of a Honda, but in every other respect, it's a fine engine.

Steve Milby J/24 "Captiva Wind"
previously C&C 35, Cal 25, C25 TR/FK, C22
Past Commodore

Stinkpotter
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
9017 Posts

Response Posted - 10/17/2015 : 09:11:04

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Milby

I have a Nissan 6 on my Cal 25. The Nissan/Tohatsu doesn't have the smooth sound that a Honda engine has. The reason is because the Honda is a 2 cylinder engine, and the Nissan/Tohatsu is a single cylinder, and that sound is the nature of a single cylinder motor.

The comparable Honda is the 5hp, which is a single cylinder and probably just about as noisy (although not as bad as their howling 2-2.3hp air-cooled light-weights).

The comparable Nissan/Tohatsu to the Honda that's popular on C-25/250s is the 9.8 hp 2-cylinder 4-stroke, which is just about as quiet as the Honda 8/9.9--maybe not quite. Those Hondas have the high-thrust props and gearing, automatic chokes, front-mounted shifters, and a substantially more powerful alternators, but they certainly are heavier, and the cowl is larger--probably making the clearance on the C-250 tighter. I recall some people having solved that by adding a bracket on the transom.

Dave Bristle
Association "Port Captain" for Mystic/Stonington CT
PO of 1985 C-25 SR/FK #5032 Passage, USCG "sixpack" (expired),
Now on Eastern 27 $+!nkp*+ Sarge

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2270 Posts

Response Posted - 10/17/2015 : 09:27:09

quote:
Originally posted by Stinkpotter

[quote]Originally posted by Steve Milby

...The comparable Nissan/Tohatsu to the Honda that's popular on C-25/250s is the 9.8 hp 2-cylinder 4-stroke, which is just about as quiet as the Honda 8/9.9--maybe not quite. Those Hondas have the high-thrust props and gearing, automatic chokes, front-mounted shifters, and a substantially more powerful alternators, but they certainly are heavier, and the cowl is larger--probably making the clearance on the C-250 tighter. I recall some people having solved that by adding a bracket on the transom.

What you say is true of the current generation of new Honda outboards.

But OP's 16 year old Honda is significantly lighter and with a smaller, more squared-off cowling that fits better in the C250's outboard well without a bracket. That was the reason that I suggested exercising all options for repair and maintenance before giving up on the current outboard (something that I suggest for any outboard, regardless of what brand). That generation of Honda at 8, 9.8, or 15 HP is a really great match for the C250 without the need for a bracket. Due to the more compact cowling, it is arguably better in many ways than the current generation.

Note that I have not actually tested the new generation Hondas in the C250's well, but a visual observation of the size of display models gives me some concern.

FWIW, I hate automatic choke on any small motor. It almost never works properly and causes severe difficulty restarting warm motors.

Rick S., Swarthmore, PA
PO of Take Five, 1998 Catalina 250WK #348 (relocated to Baltimore's Inner Harbor)
New owner of 2001 Catalina 34MkII #1535 Breakin' Away (at Rock Hall Landing Marina)

Stinkpotter
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
9017 Posts

Response Posted - 10/17/2015 : 12:28:25

quote:
Originally posted by TakeFive

...FWIW, I hate automatic choke on any small motor. It almost never works properly and causes severe difficulty restarting warm motors.

FWIW, that does not match my experience with my Honda 8. It started instantly, with a touch of the button--cold or warm. The older pull-start Honda 8 I had would sometimes flood with the choke pulled. It wasn't hard to resolve (open the choke and the throttle, and pull some more), but...

I can't speak to clearances, but the older model Honda 9.9/15 (same engine) had a wider cowl than the older 8. The new 8/9.9 (same engine) might be similar in width to the older 9.9/15. I liked my newer Honda 8 (the Tohatsu 9.8 wasn't around then), but now, the Honda is heavier and more expensive.

Dave Bristle
Association "Port Captain" for Mystic/Stonington CT
PO of 1985 C-25 SR/FK #5032 Passage, USCG "sixpack" (expired),
Now on Eastern 27 $+!nkp*+ Sarge

Edited by - Stinkpotter on 10/17/2015 12:29:16

OLarryR
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
3370 Posts

Response Posted - 10/17/2015 : 13:38:56

I have had my Honda 9.9hp for almost 10 years now. It runs flawlessly. I initially gave pause to buying it when I learned it had an auto choke. But it has proven to not be an issue. In fact, it runs so well, lowering the idle rpms as soon as it has been running a minute or so, that I would recommend to anyone to get the Honda because of the auto-choke !

Larry
'89 Robin's Nest#5820, Potomac River/Quantico, Va
http://catalina25.homestead.com/olarryr.html

Edited by - OLarryR on 10/17/2015 13:40:19

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2270 Posts

Response Posted - 10/17/2015 : 13:45:02

Glad to hear that Honda's implementation of auto choke works so well.

I've never used a Honda motor with auto choke. My only problems with auto choke have been with non-Honda motors. In all cases, the problem has been with restarting motors that were already warm. Manufacturers instructions (if you read them) indicated that you must cool down the motor by idling for 5 minutes before shutting off, so that the auto choke has a cool motor, and thus does not flood the motor upon restarting. To which my response is, this requirement is far more cumbersome than just having manual choke. I'm glad that Honda's implementation is more user friendly than that.

Rick S., Swarthmore, PA
PO of Take Five, 1998 Catalina 250WK #348 (relocated to Baltimore's Inner Harbor)
New owner of 2001 Catalina 34MkII #1535 Breakin' Away (at Rock Hall Landing Marina)

islander
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
3994 Posts

Response Posted - 10/17/2015 : 14:17:57

Let me first say that I have never had an auto choke motor but being a little old school and all things being egual, I prefer a mechanical choke only for the reason that when something breaks you can always fiddle/Megiver with something that is mechanical and get it going but an electronic choke ether works or it doesn't and could possibly get you into a bad situation. I would rather have an option. That said my 97 Honda 9.9 purrs and with proper maintenance any brand motor should do the same. You didn't say what exactly is wrong with your engine but unless its burning a lot of oil I would look into having the engine fixed. A mechanic once told me "Engines and Batterys don't die an early death but rather their owners murder them"

Scott-"IMPULSE"87'C25/SR/WK/Din.#5688
Sailing out of Glen Cove,L.I Sound

Edited by - islander on 10/17/2015 14:19:35

delliottg
Former Mainsheet C250 Tech Editor

Members Avatar

USA
4479 Posts

Response Posted - 10/17/2015 : 16:41:29

With regard to the noise, our Tohatsu is nearly inaudible when idling from about 10 feet away. I usually start the engine whenever I go down to the marina and let it run for 15-20 minutes at low idle. This seems to keep it happier. However, it has its drawbacks if I'm doing other things, because I can completely forget it's running. This has happened a couple of times, including one time when I almost walked away completely to go home. The engine makes sort of a whirring sound that you have to listen for. I'd walked to the end of my finger pier and was collecting things off of my dock box when I noticed the whirring noise and wondered what it was. D'oh!

David
C-250 Mainsheet Editor

Sirius Lepak
1997 C-250 WK TR #271 --Seattle area Port Captain --

Stinkpotter
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
9017 Posts

Response Posted - 10/18/2015 : 07:43:01

quote:
Originally posted by delliottg

...I'd walked to the end of my finger pier and was collecting things off of my dock box when I noticed the whirring noise and wondered what it was. D'oh!

I did that once with a Honda 50 on a runabout--started walking away and heard splashing--it was the pisser.

Dave Bristle
Association "Port Captain" for Mystic/Stonington CT
PO of 1985 C-25 SR/FK #5032 Passage, USCG "sixpack" (expired),
Now on Eastern 27 $+!nkp*+ Sarge

zebra50
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
408 Posts

Response Posted - 10/18/2015 : 09:22:04

I upgraded to a Tohatsu 9.8 hp long shaft from a Nissan that I had for about 6-7 yrs. Love it. Auto chock, electric key start with battery charge while running, connected to pedestal for fast slow, forward & reverse. Fits very well in outboard space. Dealer told me that Nissan and Tohatsu are basically same, but Tohatsu is less cost etc.

Jay
Papa's Boat II
250WB #370
Blog:http://zebra50-boilingpoint.blogspot.com

delliottg
Former Mainsheet C250 Tech Editor

Members Avatar

USA
4479 Posts

Response Posted - 10/18/2015 : 13:27:16

What length is your shaft? I've got a 9.8 with the XL shaft (25"), but yours looks like it's got an extra 5" section on it? At max extension on my Garelick mount, my propeller is about 18" below the hull, yours looks lower and it's not on a scissors mount like mine.

BTW, Tohatsu and Nissan are identical except for the more expensive decals on the Nissan.

EDIT: I just figured out what the difference is, you've got a WB, and we've got a WK.

David
C-250 Mainsheet Editor

Sirius Lepak
1997 C-250 WK TR #271 --Seattle area Port Captain --

Edited by - delliottg on 10/18/2015 13:29:31

zebra50
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
408 Posts

Response Posted - 10/19/2015 : 16:21:28

that is the difference. WB vs WK

Jay
Papa's Boat II
250WB #370
Blog:http://zebra50-boilingpoint.blogspot.com

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2270 Posts

Response Posted - 10/20/2015 : 02:56:00

I don't get it. Why does WB vs WK matter? They both have the same hull form (aside from the keel), so the way the motor hangs off the transom should be the same for both WK and WB.

In the picture, the boat rests lower on the trailer, so the prop is closer to the ground, but the motor's extension below the hull should be the same, shouldn't it?

Rick S., Swarthmore, PA
PO of Take Five, 1998 Catalina 250WK #348 (relocated to Baltimore's Inner Harbor)
New owner of 2001 Catalina 34MkII #1535 Breakin' Away (at Rock Hall Landing Marina)

Edited by - TakeFive on 10/20/2015 03:03:57

delliottg
Former Mainsheet C250 Tech Editor

Members Avatar

USA
4479 Posts

Response Posted - 10/20/2015 : 08:02:07

Sorry, didn't mean to thread jack, but compare his picture of his stern to mine:

I believe the WB has less vertical room in the aft berth than the WK. If you compare where the mounting plates are vertically, you can see that his is on his transom, and mine is pretty close to the same height when all the way down on the mount, just extended back about 15" or so. The bottom of his engine just before it goes into the drive leg is about at the turn of the stern, while mine is several inches above it, maybe 5"-6".

As I remember, when we were first looking at boats, getting into and out of the stern berth on the WB was pretty tight.

David
C-250 Mainsheet Editor

Sirius Lepak
1997 C-250 WK TR #271 --Seattle area Port Captain --

Edited by - delliottg on 10/23/2015 20:27:46

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2270 Posts

Response Posted - 10/20/2015 : 08:30:56

Part of the difficulty getting into the aft berth of the WB version is because the cabin sole is 9" higher. As a result, the berth is only an inch or so above the sole. And you're right, it's possible that the aft berth level is a few inches higher, since the berth is less than 9" above the sole on my WK. This would result in there being less room in the aft berth.

But none of this should have anything to do with the exterior dimensions of the hull and transom. As far as I know, those are exactly the same for both boats. I think the differences in the picture are an optical illusion from the camera angles.

Rick S., Swarthmore, PA
PO of Take Five, 1998 Catalina 250WK #348 (relocated to Baltimore's Inner Harbor)
New owner of 2001 Catalina 34MkII #1535 Breakin' Away (at Rock Hall Landing Marina)

Stinkpotter
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
9017 Posts

Response Posted - 10/20/2015 : 18:41:41

Year ago, I recall posts here saying the WK hull had more freeboard than the WB, contributing to the headroom difference. It seemed odd to me but I wouldn't be surprised if there are two different molds, so maybe it's true. I'm just not sure why.

Dave Bristle
Association "Port Captain" for Mystic/Stonington CT
PO of 1985 C-25 SR/FK #5032 Passage, USCG "sixpack" (expired),
Now on Eastern 27 $+!nkp*+ Sarge

Edited by - Stinkpotter on 10/20/2015 18:42:26

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2270 Posts

Response Posted - 10/20/2015 : 20:05:20

quote:
Originally posted by Stinkpotter

Year ago, I recall posts here saying the WK hull had more freeboard than the WB, contributing to the headroom difference. It seemed odd to me but I wouldn't be surprised if there are two different molds, so maybe it's true. I'm just not sure why.

Here is what I have always understood to be true. It's possible I am wrong, but would want to see some hard evidence of it:

The greater headroom of the WK model is entirely because the cabin sole is lower. Has nothing to do with hull shape.

The higher freeboard of the WK is because it is lighter than the WB model, so it floats higher in the water. The filled WB model needs to be heavier because the ballast weight is higher up in the bilge. The WK is a bit lighter because more of its ballast weight is at the bottom of the keel (in the wing), so it needs less ballast weight to have adequate righting moment.

I have never heard anything to suggest a different hull shape of the two boats. And think about it for a minute: Why would the water ballast model, which needs more bilge space to accommodate the water tank, be designed with a shallower hull? It just defies common sense (and good engineering mechanics).

Rick S., Swarthmore, PA
PO of Take Five, 1998 Catalina 250WK #348 (relocated to Baltimore's Inner Harbor)
New owner of 2001 Catalina 34MkII #1535 Breakin' Away (at Rock Hall Landing Marina)

Edited by - TakeFive on 10/20/2015 20:05:46

Stinkpotter
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
9017 Posts

Response Posted - 10/21/2015 : 14:24:44

quote:
Originally posted by TakeFive

...The greater headroom of the WK model is entirely because the cabin sole is lower. Has nothing to do with hull shape. The higher freeboard of the WK is because it is lighter than the WB model, so it floats higher in the water...

That's what I would've thought, although from what I've seen the difference is only 150 lbs, (1050 vs. 1200) which might account for what--1/2"?

Dave Bristle
Association "Port Captain" for Mystic/Stonington CT
PO of 1985 C-25 SR/FK #5032 Passage, USCG "sixpack" (expired),
Now on Eastern 27 $+!nkp*+ Sarge

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2270 Posts

Response Posted - 10/21/2015 : 15:18:34

quote:
Originally posted by Stinkpotter

That's what I would've thought, although from what I've seen the difference is only 150 lbs, (1050 vs. 1200) which might account for what--1/2"?

I agree that any difference in freeboard appears (to me) to be insignificant. I've never personally observed a difference, so I'll leave it to others who claim the freeboard is different to explain why it is different.

Personally, until I hear hard facts otherwise, I'm sticking to my beliefs that both WK and WB models have the same hull form, the apparent difference in propeller depth is an optical illusion caused by camera angles in the two pictures, and any difference in interior headroom is caused by the space requirements of the ballast tank (not hull form).

Rick S., Swarthmore, PA
PO of Take Five, 1998 Catalina 250WK #348 (relocated to Baltimore's Inner Harbor)
New owner of 2001 Catalina 34MkII #1535 Breakin' Away (at Rock Hall Landing Marina)

DavidCrosby
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
229 Posts

Response Posted - 10/21/2015 : 18:46:23

The WB and WK boats are definitely different. SailAway has a 2002 WB #649, I have a 2002 WK #614. We both sail out of the same dry sail club on Carlyle Lake, IL.

I have been seeing noticeable differences between the two boats. The WK hull is definitely taller. The deck also has differences in height. I just noticed that. A friend (with a Hunter 260) and I were discussing adding a sprit for an asymmetrical spinnaker. I had done some measuring at the bow of my boat. We were then discussing the measurements when we walked over to SailAway's WB 250 to look at his bow so that I could show him what I was explaining. At that point, I was suprised to discover that apparently the deck molds are different as well. My deck is nearly an inch taller than SailAway's at the mooring cleat location.

I will take pictures, with measurements, of different exterior aspects of both boats this weekend and then post them. I already have photos of interior differences posted on this forum.

In July, we took both boats to Lake Michigan for a week. I found that my WK was faster than his WB both under sail and under power. I really started to look at differences to try to determine why. One noticeable difference was that the WB boat sits much lower in the water. I started thinking about why. I came to the conclusion that it rides lower in the water because to take on water ballast, you have to effectively sink the boat several (4-5) inches.

Back to the original point of this thread. While I have no experience regarding Tohatsu versus Honda. During the same July, Lake Michigan trip while trying to determine speed differences. I also noticed that of the four boats that were traveling together, mine was the only one with a four blade propeller. I think there is a substantial performance difference with four blades versus three blades.

David Crosby "Small World"
'02 C250 WK #614

philagnes2003
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 10/23/2015 : 03:45:28

"I think there is a substantial performance difference with four blades versus three blades" That difference I believe is all about thrust not speed. I recently upgraded from a 1998 Mercury 9.9 4 stroke 3 blade prop to 2015 Mercury 9.9 High Thrust 4 blade prop. The boat is a little slower (I believe) but start and stops and reverses on a dime. Much better in the marina.

Mac's Bounty
2003 C250 WK #679
Orient Harbor, NY

If you think you can, or think you can't, pretty soon you find out your are right! H.F.

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2270 Posts

Response Posted - 10/23/2015 : 05:48:30

Phil's comment is spot on. Horsepower is horsepower - you don't get something for nothing. A 9.9 HP is not going to get more power from a prop change.

What you can get is more torque or more thrust, but not both. High thrust props will get you to hull speed at lower RPMs. But they will sacrifice some torque. Other props will need higher RPMs to get hull speed, but will give you faster response in docking maneuvers (because the engine will respond faster to your throttle changes).

The best way to visualize this effect is with powerboats. A higher torque will get you faster "hole shot", which is the ability of the boat to get out of it's own hole in the water and up onto plane. But to get the torque for faster hole shot, your prop will run higher RPMs at a given speed, and thus have less speed at full throttle. You also need to be careful not to pick a prop that redlines at full throttle, or motor damage will result. This applies to all motors, not just large powerboat motors.

Rick S., Swarthmore, PA
PO of Take Five, 1998 Catalina 250WK #348 (relocated to Baltimore's Inner Harbor)
New owner of 2001 Catalina 34MkII #1535 Breakin' Away (at Rock Hall Landing Marina)

Edited by - TakeFive on 10/23/2015 05:49:20

Stinkpotter
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
9017 Posts

Response Posted - 10/23/2015 : 06:52:17

quote:
Originally posted by TakeFive

...Horsepower is horsepower - you don't get something for nothing. A 9.9 HP is not going to get more power from a prop change.

...and torque is torque--you don't get more of that either. Torque is the turning force on the prop shaft, and is a component of "power" (force applied over time). A lower-pitch, larger-blade prop makes better use of the engine's power at low boat speeds, partly because it allows the engine to run at speeds where its torque is higher. It also pushes the water more in line with the prop shaft at low speeds through the water, creating more "thrust". A higher-pitched prop makes better use of power to achieve higher boat speeds, but at lower boat speeds tends to push some of the water more in all directions, a little like a paddle wheel. Therefore, the term "high thrust" in the outboard marketplace is used to describe motors using props with lower pitch and larger blades (and/or more of them) for pushing and stopping boats that are too heavy for the motor to get past theoretical hull-speed. The "high thrust" motor will therefore run at higher RPMs to maintain a particular speed.

Dave Bristle
Association "Port Captain" for Mystic/Stonington CT
PO of 1985 C-25 SR/FK #5032 Passage, USCG "sixpack" (expired),
Now on Eastern 27 $+!nkp*+ Sarge

Edited by - Stinkpotter on 10/23/2015 06:54:27

Page: of 2

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.