other reasons. 1) Very large at that time, so its inflow, if you took vector analysis, was aimed where it was moving towards. The larger the storm, the harder it is to weaken. ( Also the weaker the storm the harder because its already week). This is exactly why the power and impact scale is so dang good: size matters with hurricanes, 50 kt and 34 kt windfields both get the same rating, with spot wind at the surface. A quick calculation of Wilma at landfall. Ike 2 days after landfall was knocking out power in the Ohio valley. ( in fact Ike was the inspiration for the Power and Impact scale) The upper flow was lined up nicely for maximum transport of wind down to the surface. We see this sometimes in the northeast on the east side of hurricanes. But this added fuel to my seeding of smaller, more intense storms coming to the coast as its a great anti-log as opposed to a storm that is focusing its fury as its coming to the coast. So, based on the NHC report, Pressure gets a 3.5. Wind gets a 3.7; gusts get a 4.9; hurricane winds get a 2.6; 50 kt gets a 3.2; 34 kt gets a 3.6. So it's a 3.6 without pressure adjustment (if rapidly falling, add; if weakening, subtract, since an intensifying storm will have better transport to the surface than a weakening storm). Classic case: Idalia ( weakening). In this case, power and impact and Saffir-Simpson were close ( NHC should use tenths at the least). Size matters, and so do gusts! In the case of Ike, it was a high-end 3 on our scale. Think about it. Charley vs. Donna in southwest Florida. Both cat 4s, but Charley can not hold a candle to Donna except within the 10 mile area of landfall