TubeNet

From a Reuters story:

Bush declared the state a disaster area to speed aid after the storm hits.

And if Frances misses Florida completely, the state will still be a disaster area...

Seriously, you folks kitty-corner from us here in the Pacific Northwest have my best thoughts and wishes that you will all avoid Frances' wrath.

My daughter has been in Palm Beach for a number of years. She and her boyfriend don't seem to get too worked up over tropical storms and hurricanes. They live in a REAL house that is built to withstand a fair amount of wind. I don't get the fascination with living in a swampland.

TubaTinker wrote: I don't get the fascination with living in a swampland.

Yeah, especially when you're living in an ALUMINUM CAN in swampland! I have a fair amount of kin that live down there in mobile homes; I'll attest that those PARTICULAR Floridians are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
___________________________________
Joe Baker, who doesn't look down on people for having not-so-nice homes, but just doesn't get why, if you're going to live in a box-kite, you would do it in hurricane or tornado country.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecasts/FLZ07 ... city=Miami
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/showsigwx.php?w ... CANE+WATCH

woo hoo....

145 mph sustained winds -- with higher gusts -- are no joke. It's not often when even a tornado reaches speeds higher than that. I wonder how many tornadoes would be spawned, too.

If that thing keeps its intensity up, people would need a very strong house to just take damage & not blow away.

Leland wrote:woo hoo....

145 mph sustained winds -- with higher gusts -- are no joke. It's not often when even a tornado reaches speeds higher than that. I wonder how many tornadoes would be spawned, too.

If that thing keeps its intensity up, people would need a very strong house to just take damage & not blow away.

According to this web site http://www.marinewaypoints.com/marine/wind.shtml....

A very strong (cat 5) hurricane is 155 plus miles per hour. That is only equal to an F2 tornado. An F5 tornado is 261 to 318 mph.... MUCH higher wind speeds than a cat 5 hurricane. It's the SUSTAINED winds of a hurricane coupled with the wide path that makes hurricanes so devastating. In the mid-west, trailer parks are referred to as 'tornado magnets'.

I lived in Florida for the first 25 years of my life.

The biggest problem with Hurricanes is the Twisters they spawn. Hurricane Andrew Spawned F5 twisters in addition to is high speed sustained winds.

Most of the damage is done because of poor adherence to buidling codes. Trailers should be outlawed for numerous reasons, one of which being the fact that they become too "mobile" when a big storm comes through, and it doesn't even have to be a hurricane.


The other problem with 'canes are the fact that county commisioners are all too easily convined to let people build in areas where a decent storm surge can take almost any structure right out. Native American's survived those storms for many years without proper shelter. They were smart enough to know to get off of the barrier islands when bad weather was coming...

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:Trailers should be outlawed for numerous reasons, one of which being the fact that they become too "mobile" when a big storm comes through, and it doesn't even have to be a hurricane.

I guess you mean "in Florida" on that. Remember today trailers are not what was out there 20 years ago. Mine is built better than most houses where I lived as a child. The biggest problem with modern trailers is the piss poor tie-downs used. Some areas require a better system, where the straps go ober the roof instead of just attaching to the bottom.

Any house, not secured to the ground, is bad in a storm. A twister came through my childhood neighborhood. The houses built ove slabs of concrete faired well. Those built on "conventional" foundations, cinder block peirs supporting the wooder floor, did not. They wer pushed off the foundations, just like trailers.

I know that there are varios degrees of "Manufactured Housing." Some of it is indistinguishable from regular houses in just about every way. The main problem is from resedences that are not mounted directly to the earth. Any time air gets under and object like that at a high velocity, it tends to lift. That is when the fun starts. A lot of trailers in Florida are still resting a good 18" (or more) above the ground and are not tied down properly as you point out.

Many states other than Florida do not have good provision or laws for the proper mounting of trailers to the earth. Many have survived because of the not-so-violent weather conditions.

My problem is that engineers understand that these trailers will react in a certain manner. They do not push hard enough for the right installation, or the local governing body just doesn't really care.

There is only so much safety you can build in, however, when people are only looking to pay $30K or less for their residence (not pointing a finger at you Thomas, as your's probably cost consideraly more).


Good or bad, my mother and father still live down there. My mother has to go through a major operation this weekend. I am actually thankful that she is in a hospital that has 4 deisel powered backup generators. At least they'll have a/c over the weekend.

Matthew Gilchrest wrote: The main problem is from resedences that are not mounted directly to the earth. Any time air gets under and object like that at a high velocity, it tends to lift. That is when the fun starts.

I pointed that one out too Not sure I'd call it fun though.

Many states other than Florida do not have good provision or laws for the proper mounting of trailers to the earth. Many have survived because of the not-so-violent weather conditions.

Other than, that being a prioblem to address on all houses, you're right. And it should be fixed. A few years ago I help a guy build a house. It was a huge 2 story job, but build on block pillars. The floor joists just rest on top of them. The floor is 18" -24" off the ground. But it meets the building codes.

My problem is that engineers understand that these trailers will react in a certain manner. They do not push hard enough for the right installation, or the local governing body just doesn't really care.

I's not the engineers. It the politicians and the manufacturers. See below.

There is only so much safety you can build in, however, when people are only looking to pay $30K or less for their residence (not pointing a finger at you Thomas, as your's probably cost consideraly more).

Not really, under $40k. 52'x48' "double wide", with some customization, so it was buit to order. Took ~ 1 month form order to arrival. Same house would have cost 2-2.5x around here to build not counting the land and site prep (about the same either way).. It's better built than any $75k, older house in the area, and better insulated for lower utilities.

I got the best insulation I could and double pane windows. I couldn't get the high rated roof load, they only sell it up north. I couldn't get the better tie-down system, only available in costal / hurricane areas. Those are because of the regional manufacturing. So the site near me, don't have the tooling, parts, or experience to build those "options". I could have ordered form up north, and got better roof loading and higher insulation, but the cost for transport here (transport cost is high) would take 40 years to recover in my utilities. If I went south for the better tie-downs, then I only get the benifit of the cost if it survives a tornado, not even an insurance break.

The manufacturers won't add the options untill required by law becauise other wise they won't sell well enough. Just like in the auto industry, try to get a column shift, 3 speed transmission. a Diesel powered full size sedan (think bio-diesel), or a full-sized 2-door (like so many were in the 70's). People won't pay the extra (back to trailers) if the don't have too. Politicians won't require it becaue of the effects on their voters, who see an increased cost of housing for no benifit, and manufacturers would loose sales too.

I think I'm far enough north to not be affected by 99% of the hurricanes, and tornados are real bad here. My in-laws have an old trailer, near the gulf coast in MS. They've been lucky with the direction the hurricanes go, usually east of them. But I wouldn't live in that trap, down there.

ThomasDodd wrote:Other than, that being a prioblem to address on all houses, you're right. And it should be fixed. A few years ago I help a guy build a house. It was a huge 2 story job, but build on block pillars. The floor joists just rest on top of them. The floor is 18" -24" off the ground. But it meets the building codes.

Maybe the Sunshine State needs some earthquakes. Out on the somewhat shakier west coast, sills bolted to foundations and braced cripple walls have been code for years.

And maybe some real winter weather might help. 2x6 R21 insulated walls are code here also (R-30 in the roof), which tends to keep the framing pretty beefy. Don't know if High-E glass is code, but double glazing certainly is.

Cinder block for foundations is frowned upon, but you can use it and meet code by adding rebar and filling the blocks with concrete. Saves you from the bother of building forms.

You gotta stop building them paper shacks down there!

Tubatinker wrote:
I don't get the fascination with living in a swampland.
Hey boy,the ladies keep thier figures trim all year 'round because
bikini season is eight months long.The boatin' is really good and the
music is really hot.
Your friendly Fart Man

We just sit around and wait for the earth to break in two down here in Southern California.

tubatooter1940 wrote: Hey boy,the ladies keep thier figures trim all year 'round because
bikini season is eight months long.The boatin' is really good and the
music is really hot.
Your friendly Fart Man

From what I've seen, the ones with the great bodies are young tourists. The locals are a bunch of old sun-wrinkled fat-asses!

Chuck(G) wrote:And maybe some real winter weather might help. 2x6 R21 insulated walls are code here also (R-30 in the roof), which tends to keep the framing pretty beefy. Don't know if High-E glass is code, but double glazing certainly is.

I've got R-21 in the walls and roof, all 2x6 framming. The northern, higher load roofs are 2x8 and braced diferently (I have a vaulted ceeling through out the place.) The glass is not Highe-E, just double pane, R-21 I think, I'd have to check. But it was an option. Single pane window are still very common here, epecially in trailers. Too many people don't realized that a few thousand dollars up front on insulation, can save 10x that while you live there. My utilities are 1/2 to 1/3 those of my neighbors.

Lot's here have LPG/NG for heating, and maybe cooking. But keep using electric water heaters and clother dryers. My dryer has nearly paid for itself in 5 years just in savings over electric.

[quite]Cinder block for foundations is frowned upon, but you can use it and meet code by adding rebar and filling the blocks with concrete. Saves you from the bother of building forms.[/quote]

Rebar? Concrete? Not here. Maybe a concrete footing, but the plocks ar kust stacked, not even mortar. Trailers usually don't even get the concrete footing.

bloke wrote:Whatcha think of this?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thom ... 0908.shtml

Just like the stoopid people who build homes on reclaimed MIssissippi flood plain, thinking it'll never flood again. Let's get the Federal Gummint out of the flood insurance business too.

Chuck(G) wrote:

bloke wrote:Whatcha think of this?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thom ... 0908.shtml

Just like the stoopid people who build homes on reclaimed MIssissippi flood plain, thinking it'll never flood again. Let's get the Federal Gummint out of the flood insurance business too.

Who ARE you, and what have you done with Chuck???
____________________________________
Joe Baker, who marvels that Chuck makes good sense on this one.

Joe Baker wrote: Who ARE you, and what have you done with Chuck???
____________________________________
Joe Baker, who marvels that Chuck makes good sense on this one.

There are some things that are just damned stupid to me (agricultural subsitidies and price controls are another) that just seem like the government's attempt to defy nature.

OTOH, I've stopped folliowing the campaign circus. Both parties it seems to me have deserted their constituencies and are basically committed toward doing the same thing, and arguing about stoopid things in the meantime.

Chuck(G) wrote:

Joe Baker wrote: Who ARE you, and what have you done with Chuck???
____________________________________
Joe Baker, who marvels that Chuck makes good sense on this one.

There are some things that are just damned stupid to me (agricultural subsitidies and price controls are another) that just seem like the government's attempt to defy nature.

OTOH, I've stopped folliowing the campaign circus. Both parties it seems to me have deserted their constituencies and are basically committed toward doing the same thing, and arguing about stoopid things in the meantime.

Chuck, you sound like a guy with a conservative awakening going on!!! You've precisely identified the reason conservatives don't like big government: because, in its arrogance, big government thinks it can give everyone equal (and excellent) outcomes in life, solve all of our problem, make our cereal stay crunchy (even in milk!) -- overcoming not only nature, but our own bad choices as well!! Conservatives know that wishing your actions were helpful when in fact they are wasteful and oppressive doesn't make what you're doing good; that when not only common sense but EXPERIENCE tells you that your well-intentioned efforts are counterproductive, you should stop. Liberalism holds up as its highest value "good intentions". The great irony of modern liberalism is that, as it does all the things it does trying in vain to make things better, it often makes things worse by calling common-sense statements like Chuck's 'heresy'.
___________________________________
Joe Baker, adding that this applies to both Democrat liberals and Republican liberals -- but more so to Democrats.

bloke wrote:Whatcha think of this?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thom ... 0908.shtml

I agree 100%. He left out a few other's that should be dealt with too.
Like the idiots building cities on a fault line, or multi-million dollar houses in a region known for uncontrollable wildfires, or on the sides of snow covered mountaions, surprized by and avalanche. And the list goes on.

Way too much money is spent on "natural disasters" which were clearly likely to happen. FEMA should be resticted to unexpected events. Like Mt. St. Hellens, the Fed. BUilding in OK, and the WTC attacks, or tornados in areas seldom affected by them.