Convergence Frustration and Chaser Legislation

[Jason Foster]

The cost aspect too....going a little off-topic here...is especially weak when most purchase or stay at places that are chain / corporate businesses where a majority of the profit goes back to a corporate office in some large city that continues to bleed the small towns of the central states. Personally I make every effort to buy from local places (aka Mom & Pop) to give as much profits as possible to those folks that actually keep the money in town. I see way too often chasers going to big chain fast food restaurants and staying at hotels/motels that don't have much profit sharing with the local management and staff.

However, the economic power of chasers isn't exactly something to ignore. It still is a percentage that businesses would NOT make without our presence. Add to that the fact that many also talk about certain restaurants and other establishments when will bring business to certain places. I've even preached the importance of visiting the central plains states and know that some have traveled to area of the central US that may not have otherwise unless I had recommended it.

 

[Jesse Risley]

However, the economic power of chasers isn't exactly something to ignore. It still is a percentage that businesses would NOT make without our presence. Add to that the fact that many also talk about certain restaurants and other establishments when will bring business to certain places. I've even preached the importance of visiting the central plains states and know that some have traveled to area of the central US that may not have otherwise unless I had recommended it.

I think I would look at it like this. Are there enough chasers spending enough money to hurt said businesses economically if chasing were abrogated via legislation? There's a significant degree of dubiety in my mind that any of these businesses would close or lay off employees if everyone just didn't chase anymore. From a public safety standpoint, if a state was hypothetically going to legislate our hobby (again, I doubt it will happen), I think the traffic hazards would trump any perceived, but likely negligible economic gain that chasers bring to the "promised land" every year.

 

[rdale]

I'd have to say IMO the operations that require a literal "convoy" are posing the major risks. It shouldn't take ten vehicles to study one tornado!

How many vehicles would you think is a better number?

 

[Jason Foster]

I think I would look at it like this. Are there enough chasers spending enough money to hurt said businesses economically if chasing were abrogated via legislation? There's a significant degree of dubiety in my mind that any of these businesses would close or lay off employees if everyone just didn't chase anymore. From a public safety standpoint, if a state was hypothetically going to legislate our hobby (again, I doubt it will happen), I think the traffic hazards would trump any perceived, but likely negligible economic gain that chasers bring to the "promised land" every year.

And that's a good point. No, I too doubt that any business would go out of business with the absence of chasers should (the very, very, very unlikelihood) legislation be enacted to prevent such activity.

How many vehicles would you think is a better number?

I know I've actually made a comment like this before. I believe three, maybe four is an OK number for coordinating safely. Having chased in a few groups in the past, it seemed once five cars got in a line/convoy it was difficult to stay together. This is especially true through towns, or chases with lots of turns. I can't stand tailgating while in a caravan so the distances on "Bob's Roads" tends to be greater and thus the distance from lead car to the 'sweep' vehicle can be 1/4 mile or more. Throw in another chaser that enters your route from a side street then all of a sudden vehicles get more and more spread and harder to coordinate. This is assuming too that there is some sort of two-way coordination.

Three is optimal maximum, four can pull it off, but five just doesn't seem to work....in my opinion and observation.

Note: this does not include chase groups that spread out, much like research vehicles do. I specifically talking about chasers that drive the same exact route to a storm.

 

[Sarah Kenyon]

How many vehicles would you think is a better number?

RDale-
Once again IMO two or three at the most. Anything more is just creating more chaos. Once again this is my opinion.... I just feel like its over kill to put out four, five, or even six vehicles.

 

[rdale]

I don't think it is physically possible to fully research a storm with 2 or 3 vehicles total.

"Twister" isn't real. Nobody runs a one-car operation to put things into the tornado. That's not research...

I'd suggest looking at the Vortex2 plans and see what actually was done, and you'll realize how whittling that down to 2 cars means the research would be close to useless.

 

[Sarah Kenyon]

I don't think it is physically possible to fully research a storm with 2 or 3 vehicles total.

"Twister" isn't real. Nobody runs a one-car operation to put things into the tornado. That's not research...

I'd suggest looking at the Vortex2 plans and see what actually was done, and you'll realize how whittling that down to 2 cars means the research would be close to useless.

If you were researching a whole storm, yes I would agree that you would need more vehicles, but however *if* I were in the position of collecting that data, I would have the convoy spilt up into smaller groups to collect the data in different parts of the storm (NOT lumped up together in one line on a two lane highway).

If someone is just studying tornadoes and nothing else in the storm, what more do you need? You can't get a truck with a mobile Dopplar close to any spot where there is a probability of getting hit by hail or debris.


I never brought up anything regarding "Twister"; while it provided entertainment, it was pretty far fetched.

 

[rdale]

If someone is just studying tornadoes and nothing else in the storm

...then it's just a waste of time... Studying the tornado by itself doesn't do a lot of good. We have plenty of single Doppler data on tornadoes. What we need is to understand why storms that look like they should have tornadoes -- don't. And that requires knowing the entire storm's structure and what is going on in the environment near and around the cell. Which means more than 2-3 cars.

I never brought up anything regarding "Twister"; while it provided entertainment, it was pretty far fetched.

I wasn't saying that you personally did, it's just that a lot of people think all researchers need to do is shoot some projectiles into the tornado to measure what's going on and call it a day. That makes for a great movie -- not for any sort of usable research that could apply to warnings or save lives.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

How many vehicles would you think is a better number?

While I am not a radar expert... Just a guess, if you want to get velocity (i.e. speed and direction of wind in 3d) information from radar you're going to need to have 3 DOWs (assuming vertical velocity is large which it should be in supercells). Then if you want to tie that information to surface observations you need more vehicles.

Side note: Personally I think this thread is largely pointless.

 

[Jason Foster]

Well, Vortex is done and there doesn't seem to be any current plans to put out significant projects in the near term. So if Vortex3 happens in 10 years...and for two years I have to put up with some congestion and headache for a few days...I'm OK with that. Now, if more and more expeditions are there...then we do have an issue, and we do have a general issue of congestion, but I'm thinking it's a wait and see thing for this upcoming season.