Author Topic: Calibrate wind speed?  (Read 7744 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mackbig

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 4127
    • Mackie's Main Street, Unionville, ON Canada Weather
Re: Calibrate wind speed?
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2009, 08:27:36 AM »
my real concern over and above that I think a speedometer should be fairly precise and 10% in my opinion is ridiculous from a precision standpoint is the odometer.   7% on a 60,000 km lease is 4200km, that is significant, luckily I am no where near my limit, but more the principle.

Andrew

I know that is GM's stand on speedometer calibration too.. We even see the certified versions such as ordered in a SEO package for law enforcement vehicles read 10-12 mph different than the standard stock clusters. They won't even let us do anything to the IPC's but remove and send back! Guess they are afraid we'll change the mileage somehow! We have just gotten to where we can program miles and hours on replacement IPC's now..providing they are set a 0 when they are shipped..

Andrew - Davis VP2+ 6163, serial weatherlink, wireless anemometer, running Weather Display.  Boltek PCI Stormtracker, Astrogenic Nexstorm, Strikestar - UNI, CWOP CW8618, GrLevel3, (Station 2 OS WMR968, VWS 13.01p09), Windows 7-64

Offline sam2004gp

  • Mount Crawford, Virginia
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Weeeeeeeee!!!!
    • Mount Crawford Weather, VA
Re: Calibrate wind speed?
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2009, 08:49:24 AM »

The vehicle method sounds like an AFV clip in the making to me. #-o :oops:

Sam will be starring in next season's StormChasers series driving the PIV...Pavement Intercept Vehicle.....

I think they had that a few times in this years episode with the broken frame/axle issues they kept having.

Hmmm, and how did you know my wife considers me a PERV?   :-)
SAM --->>> http://www.mountcrawfordweather.org
OS WMR-968 with a Dedicated PWS Weather Computer running VWS v13.01 p09


blackjack52

  • Guest
Re: Calibrate wind speed?
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2009, 12:34:20 PM »
 :oops: