Rate the rough water?
Is this 3' to 4's or what? Pictures are from destin.
http://i54.tinypic.com/i2ud1f.jpg http://i53.tinypic.com/2bwuw5.jpg Thanks |
always looks smaller in a picture but I am going to say 1-2's
|
Hard to tell without scale but 3s in the top pic.
|
no frame of reference, very hard to tell. I have pics that look like that and it was easily 3-5's. Other pics look the same and it's tiny 1 footers.
|
to me they look like about 2' rollers.
|
The perspective may be misleading me, but the first pic looks like they might be at most 1'ers - meaning 2' from trough to crest.
|
If you were telling a story about racing a guy in them and winning........they'd be 6s.
:lolhit: |
Originally Posted by offshoredrillin
(Post 3229288)
to me they look like about 2' rollers.
|
Originally Posted by catastrophe
(Post 3229299)
If you were telling a story about racing a guy in them and winning........they'd be 6s.
:lolhit: |
I got in a long arguement on THT 6-7 weeks ago about wave heights on some pictures I posted. (42 Tiger at speed, out of the water, clearing 2 boat lengths). I called them 3, occasional 4 and everyone there swore they were 1-2's. That first pic looks very similar to the pics I posted.
Someone did finally say that wave height should be measured by the average 2/3rd's of the waves and from "level" to the top of a wave and not bottom of trough to top of the wave (1/2 of the total height we seem to measure). |
Originally Posted by t500hps
(Post 3229306)
I got in a long arguement on THT 6-7 weeks ago about wave heights on some pictures I posted. (42 Tiger at speed, out of the water, clearing 2 boat lengths). I called them 3, occasional 4 and everyone there swore they were 1-2's. That first pic looks very similar to the pics I posted.
Someone did finally say that wave height should be measured by the average 2/3rd's of the waves and from "level" to the top of a wave and not bottom of trough to top of the wave (1/2 of the total height we seem to measure). Shouldnt measurement be from the highest water that the boat can ride on to the lowest water the boat can ride on? Never heard of 1/2 the distance. |
OK so 2 to3s?
Ran from Destins cut to PanamaCity and back on the gulf. First pic was the water we ran in. What a ride . Lots of air time. Its hard to react as fast on the sticks as the motors rev. (ros280s) HaHa. Boat pic was taken earlier in the day from the beach. got alot rougher later in the day. Thanks |
Originally Posted by CigDaze
(Post 3229293)
The perspective may be misleading me, but the first pic looks like they might be at most 1'ers - meaning 2' from trough to crest.
|
To me they looked like 2-3'.
|
Originally Posted by catastrophe
(Post 3229324)
How do you know where LEVEL is ?
Shouldnt measurement be from the highest water that the boat can ride on to the lowest water the boat can ride on? Never heard of 1/2 the distance. |
I just wish I was there to see for my self:drink:
|
Originally Posted by offshoredrillin
(Post 3229341)
because the constant is always changing the calculation starts at half. meaning while looking at a beach with waves, the waves may come up 4 feet at crest and braking however when they go out they may go down 2 feet under normal level. there fore making the constant 2 ft above center :)
Am I in 2 ft waves? |
|
We call that "Flat" on Lake Mich.
|
Its a hard one to say especially from pics. we used to go out to glamis (Imperial sand dunes) youd take pics and look at them later and the place looked flat compared to how tall the razor backs really were.
Works the same in the waves they just look flat on camera. I would call those pics 1 foot or less here in the bottom picture on LI sound! But that could just be the camera flattening it out. We dont see the rollers you guys do down in FLA unless wereout in the atlantic then its a whole different story |
Last pics I would say "dead flat". But the sunset is beautiful.
|
Originally Posted by catastrophe
(Post 3229348)
But if I'm in rollers like in the pic and I am NOT launching the boat into the air and I fall 4 ft. into a hole where the boat rides next in the water, am I not in 4 ft. waves ?
Am I in 2 ft waves? A number of other photos were posted and all had the same results. They claim was also made that true 3-4 footers would require enough wind to create that they WOULD have significant white caps. Here are a couple of the photos I posted and was told they were 1-2's: linked from Randy Nuzzo's site. http://photos.powerboatphotos.com/p2...69151#hf3ea188 http://photos.powerboatphotos.com/p2...9151#h111d7d45 http://photos.powerboatphotos.com/p2...9151#h12049c9b |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by catastrophe
(Post 3229348)
But if I'm in rollers like in the pic and I am NOT launching the boat into the air and I fall 4 ft. into a hole where the boat rides next in the water, am I not in 4 ft. waves ?
Am I in 2 ft waves? Wave Anatomy: * Still-Water Line - The level of the sea surface if it were perfectly calm and flat. * Crest - The highest point on the wave above the still-water line. * Trough - The lowest point on the wave below the still-water line. * Wave Height - The vertical distance between crest and trough. * Wavelength - The horizontal distance between successive crests or troughs. * Wave Period - The time it takes for one complete wave to pass a particular point. * Wave Frequency - The number of waves that pass a particular point in a given time period. * Amplitude - One-half the wave height or the distance from either the crest or the trough to the still-water line. * Depth - the distance from the ocean bottom to the still-water line. * Direction of Propagation - the direction in which a wave is travelling. that's where the interpretation takes a turn, for all general purposes this shows total wave height. from trough to top |
Originally Posted by t500hps
(Post 3229399)
according the everyone on THT that is correct......and remember, I was in a Top Gun running beside a Tiger and at 70 we were getting 1-2 boat lengths of undisturbed water under the boat.
A number of other photos were posted and all had the same results. They claim was also made that true 3-4 footers would require enough wind to create that they WOULD have significant white caps. Here are a couple of the photos I posted and was told they were 1-2's: linked from Randy Nuzzo's site. http://photos.powerboatphotos.com/p2...69151#hf3ea188 http://photos.powerboatphotos.com/p2...9151#h111d7d45 http://photos.powerboatphotos.com/p2...9151#h12049c9b |
In the 1st pic, 2s.
In the 2nd pic... flat. Either is not rough, even for a 13ft whaler. |
Originally Posted by offshoredrillin
(Post 3229404)
Theoretically yes, but not reality...see chart below
Wave Anatomy: * Still-Water Line - The level of the sea surface if it were perfectly calm and flat. * Crest - The highest point on the wave above the still-water line. * Trough - The lowest point on the wave below the still-water line. * Wave Height - The vertical distance between crest and trough. * Wavelength - The horizontal distance between successive crests or troughs. * Wave Period - The time it takes for one complete wave to pass a particular point. * Wave Frequency - The number of waves that pass a particular point in a given time period. * Amplitude - One-half the wave height or the distance from either the crest or the trough to the still-water line. * Depth - the distance from the ocean bottom to the still-water line. * Direction of Propagation - the direction in which a wave is travelling. |
So this is the answer ??
Wave Height - The vertical distance between crest and trough. |
Originally Posted by Stormrider
(Post 3229408)
In the 1st pic, 2s.
In the 2nd pic... flat. Either is not rough, even for a 13ft whaler. For your 13 foot whaler it would have been sunk if you made it thru the cut. lol Heres a wave crushing 13' cat. http://i54.tinypic.com/118io2q.jpg |
Im gonna say 2's. It was a blast either way.
thanks |
Originally Posted by t500hps
(Post 3229399)
according the everyone on THT that is correct......and remember, I was in a Top Gun running beside a Tiger and at 70 we were getting 1-2 boat lengths of undisturbed water under the boat.
A number of other photos were posted and all had the same results. They claim was also made that true 3-4 footers would require enough wind to create that they WOULD have significant white caps. Here are a couple of the photos I posted and was told they were 1-2's: linked from Randy Nuzzo's site. http://photos.powerboatphotos.com/p2...69151#hf3ea188 http://photos.powerboatphotos.com/p2...9151#h111d7d45 http://photos.powerboatphotos.com/p2...9151#h12049c9b |
Originally Posted by Back4More
(Post 3229390)
We call that "Flat" on Lake Mich.
|
Lots of different measurements. If you measure the back of the wave, it's generally thought to be more accurate for surfing conditions because you'd be measuring the wave, not the swell as it grows in shallower water. Interestingly, this method is somewhat larger than 1/2 of the face height (Crest to Trough).
Most of the world seems to use 2/3rds the height. Different for inland waterways than the ocean as well. Generally speaking, if the wave face on the lake is 4', then there are 4 footers. I think the NWS takes the face height average of two thirds of the highest waves. Being out in the ocean on three to fives can be significantly different than Champlain, or the Great Lakes. The period is much shorter (usually) on inland lakes, and while your boat in in the trough, the crest of the next wave can be headed for the top of your bow. If they're close enough together, larger boats can effectively ride the top for a ways if consistent enough. We've had some very windy days on Champlain now since mid-August, so I got to see a lot of how NOAA measures them. 2-3s are pretty irritating and painful for my little 22'. 3-4's mean I shouldn't have gone out, pay attention. One day I was doing the cross lake journey, it started out as 2-3's, built up to 4-5's. That meant I could be SOL. Thankfully, they were close enough that I didn't have to ride them down. But they were large enough that I couldn't go into the straight following sea, the bow would have stuffed on many of the larger ones. My guess from the picture was 1-2. But pictures rarely show the proper perspective Then you can see whacked out waves like these :eek: Teahupoo |
Originally Posted by Back4More
(Post 3229390)
We call that "Flat" on Lake Mich.
|
Looks like 1-2, but pics can be very deceiving!
|
Originally Posted by redlinecat
(Post 3229425)
First pic is rough for me running 80 to 100mph. Could very well be, but that was not the question.
For your 13 foot whaler it would have been sunk if you made it thru the cut. lol Impossible... really. Heres a wave crushing 13' cat. http://i54.tinypic.com/118io2q.jpg |
1 Attachment(s)
How big are these? Lake Winni in Sept "09"
|
1 Attachment(s)
another
|
Originally Posted by t500hps
(Post 3229306)
I got in a long arguement on THT .
|
Originally Posted by DMAX
(Post 3229744)
How big are these? Lake Winni in Sept "09"
|
1...
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.