Worst chase country

This has been an interesting thread.

This topic should be expanded to include the best areas, worst areas and the areas in between, then made into a sort of colored contour type map based on the reponses. That would make a nice reference for everyone when trying to determine what areas are or aren't chaseable, especially if they are unfamiliar with the area.
 
Hey Laura - I'll up that a little. I generally won't chase east of Brantford - Woodstock - Stratford line. Just awful!!!
[/b]

Hey Pat!

Stratford is horrible if you're going straight through town... the roads there are messed up. I find I really like the hwy 85 stretch, from Elmira to Listowel. Very good visibility, the storms go through there usually, several road options, and it's easy driving and near by. I've been around the Fergus area and I find that area a bit hilly and foresty for my liking.

The Niagara escarpment like I said is the worst in southern Ontario... it's very comparable to the ozarks.
 
I think Karen was only comparing EASTERN Arkansas to the Panhandle ... terrain-wise, it's similar, with flat, cleared agri land that has expansive views, but of course the chaseable area is smaller, you don't get the wide array of supercells that far east (no LPs, some Gulf-style HPs that are hard to see inside), the season is much shorter (not much after May 15 most years), and there's more haze the later in the season you get.


[/b]


Always gotta give some support to my stomping grounds... but lets not forget central IL ;)

Panhandle flat, with better roads :)
 
Only good thing about WI is native knowledge of the roads. I generally refer to the triangle from FDL-MSN-MKE as the convective-free zone.
[/b]

Nah, Fond du Lac and Dodge counties are quite active with severe weather. The convective free zone are the counties right along the lake. Storms die fast as they approach Lake Michigan. :( Too bad I live in Saukville.
 
This has been an interesting thread.

This topic should be expanded to include the best areas, worst areas and the areas in between, then made into a sort of colored contour type map based on the reponses. That would make a nice reference for everyone when trying to determine what areas are or aren't chaseable, especially if they are unfamiliar with the area.
[/b]

How's this?

wisconsin.jpg
 
How's this?

wisconsin.jpg

[/b]

Yeah, something like that, only nationwide. By gathering input from the various members here, I think that would be a very doable project.

Once on a national scale however, it might be better just to blanket the areas with solid colors, rather than only colered lines, It would probably be easier on the eyes and easier to pick out.
 
Yeah, something like that, only nationwide. By gathering input from the various members here, I think that would be a very doable project.

Once on a national scale however, it might be better just to blanket the areas with solid colors, rather than only colered lines, It would probably be easier on the eyes and easier to pick out.
[/b]

I think this is an absolutely champion idea! I will volunteer to do NM and CO....which would be very easy, LOL. Everything east of the mountains is great, other than that there are areas with really limited road networks. Perhaps there could be some sort of way to indicate poor road networks, (and poor cellphone coverage?) that is different than indicating trees and hills. Grey shaded area, maybe? Hashed area? (You're welcome, SA)

Bob
 
Shane,

I was waiting for somebody to point out the Tulsa area. I am from ne Oklahoma but have never chased west of Tulsa. I chased in that area last Monday and it sucked! Road networks very poor and too many hills/trees. Rob is correct in that north or Tulsa and towards Bartlesville and points east of Bartlesville are very good chase country.
 
Back
Top