View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
wyattmiller
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 651
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do not move it.
I have seen it to where you had to swim out past the island numerous times when it was perfect 4.0
We all know how to read the current sensor.... Don't drive for 25. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
windfind
Joined: 18 Mar 1997 Posts: 1899
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Wyatt,
I agree, it seems like you almost always have to swim past the island since no wind touches the water surface due to the rocks just upwind.
But even on 4.0 winds when everyone is swimming out there is lots of wind at the top of the island. And there would be a heck of a lot more at the top of a sensor mast.
Fast forward this video to 1:40, 2:07, 3:12, 3:40 and especially 5:25 to see the island grass and shrubs getting blasted:
http://windnotes.phanfare.com/4743675_5825871
I also agree with you... "Don't drive for 25." for the old Maryhill sensor we all know how to read.
The problem is that the new Wall Sensor on M40 is sometimes showing 32 knots and you can not even launch at the Wall.
Mike Godsey
iwindsurf.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
timsaunders
Joined: 12 Aug 2003 Posts: 22
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:19 pm Post subject: Don't move it..... |
|
|
We all know how to the read the sensor. And my skunk rate for driving out to the wall is very very low.
Maryhill bridge wsw
Wall marker 30 avg
I'm driving....
I don't think it's all that difficult. My vote is to keep it. The marker is currently in a very good spot which is why it was originally put there. Sure it reads 5 high no big deal. If the direction is good it's very accurate.
Thanks
Last edited by timsaunders on Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
drblanke
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 65
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a cam at the rock island would be better than any wind meter.
Let me see the swell and I can tell you what the wind is like. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kenmacdonald
Joined: 15 Apr 1999 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:35 pm Post subject: YES on the island launch site sensor M41 the wall |
|
|
a sensor there would be great; AND a video cam if possible; the more info from that stretch of river, the better! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DougofGD
Joined: 22 Aug 2011 Posts: 2
|
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I live out in the Eastern Gorge. I go to Rufus or the wall to sail and then realize the wind direction is just a little off allot.
The terrain in this area is unique and warrants an another sensor. If not 2 sensors at least move Wall Sensor M40! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
brettn
Joined: 22 Nov 2000 Posts: 114
|
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't sound like we'd lose that much intel if you moved one of those sensors, since they're currently right near each other, and both are on the Oregon side of the river. In Wyatt's scenario where a bit of a swim was involved, wouldn't the proposed Washington sensor show at least something if there's a sweet 4.0 sesh to be had?
Sounds like it wouldn't hurt to try. I've burned a lot of time and gas to get there, only to find it's "gone north" on me. It gets expensive, and the emotional toll is sometimes more than I can bear. I think I have ptsd from it. Please give the new spot a try. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rlshirey
Joined: 01 Dec 2000 Posts: 81 Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:40 am Post subject: Move the Wall Marker |
|
|
I can't find any correlation to the wind on the water at the Wall and the Wall Marker wind sensor. Where as the Mary Hill sensor seems to read 3 mph high consistently, the Wall marker sensor never seems to correlate to what's on the water. Move it to another location. _________________ Windsurfing for life. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
telus01
Joined: 01 Jun 2004 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vote to move to M41. M40 readings are not representative of what is going on at all. We ignore M40 numbers and just use Maryhill. Rufus could be OK if it did not give strange readings like M40. Having Maryhill and a second site on the Washington side would be best. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WutUpWitU
Joined: 21 May 2000 Posts: 52
|
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i vote move it or put one at Rufus so we can see the distance change through the whole stretch and we will figure out the new system as we figured out the one we have now. Either would probably be better and
thanks for all the work you do and the way you are always trying to improve things and ask the users for their input. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|