Give you a hundred bucks if you can ride that all the way up the 311 bobby. $50 if you ride it all the way down. hell I will give you $50. if you ride it getting towed up.:haha:
-
Help Support Hardline Crawlers :
72" wide width restriction at Evans Creek?
- Thread starter Corey Y
- Start date
Give you a hundred bucks if you can ride that all the way up the 311 bobby. $50 if you ride it all the way down. hell I will give you $50. if you ride it getting towed up.:haha:
This Thursday. so whos recomendation :eeek:
longfield
Well-Known Member
THE POINT IS .
The way you guys are making the trails in a couple of years i will be able to.
Last edited:
THE POINT IS .
So in your opinion we would have been better off refusing to fix the issue and just let the FS just close the trail :eeek: Really now Bobby you have been around long enough to know that sometimes things have to be done to please the officials. You also know full well that the trail begining will revert back into something challenging after a little time just like the last time it was "fixed" about 10 years ago. Those of you making such a big deal out of this one little spot really need to get a grip and try looking at the big picture.
However lets try and get this thread back on its planned track :awesomework:
Will you guys and gals be coming up with a tire size and overall vehicle width number at this next region 2 PNWFWDA meeting on Thursday to submit to the USFS?
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
It is my understanding that many of the local PNW affiliate clubs were to broach the width and tire subjects during the last month, and bring those results back to the PNW this meeting.
I do not know whether the PNW will be coming to any conclusion, or making any representation this month, next month, or ever.
Money Mark
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 563
So I heard the recommendation is going to be 80" wide and 37" tires maximum because the "bigger" vehicles dont fit and make new trails all over.
Who made the illegal trail at Evans? :corn:
You are not making any sense......what are you getting at here?
That was my plan. The FS IS going to be working on the trails this summer thats a given. Bob has hired a trail crew and bought a piece of equipt. to do this. He has talked about the original designation of 72" width. I dont know if thats flexable or not or if so by how much. We all know that it dosent fit a lot of the rigs on the trails these days. My hope is to come up with a number from our members that will suit our membership and submit that as a recomendation. And just to be clear. This is only coming from region 2 which Evans creek is in. It is not going to be a statement from the PNW4WDA as a whole. That would have to come from the Washington state director not my office.
Personaly. I think he's just grasping at straws and trying to push buttons.
Money Mark
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 563
How will you come up with this number? A vote? Actual measurements?
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
Probably both. I know our club was asked to do measurements and bring that info to the PNW region.
Money Mark
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 563
Can you tell us what # your club came up with?
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
No... Unfortunately I'm not fully sure what our final 'recommendation' was.
I personally feel that making any recommendation is a very slippery slope, once we've started down that path, it's very likely that we're in a perpetual loosing battle over vehicle requirements, etc.
So I made the arguements for 80.5 inches as the minimum we should fight for (as a club). I'm not our club's PNW rep, and I also have to work thursday, so I'm not sure what will actually be represented from our club, to the PNW.
Our entire club is 80.0 or less, measured at the bulge in the tire (not at the tread, but rather where there tire bulges at the ground). My arguement for 80.5 was due to the perception that we need to ask for (slightly) more than we need. I feel if we ask for too little, and we get it, we still have too little. But if we ask for too much, and they 'round it down', we still have enough. The general feeling that our rep brought back from the prior PNW region meeting, was that 80 inches was going to be the PNW's maximum number, and they were hoping for a lesser number. I feel that is a poor response, and we need to ask for MORE than we need, not less.
I liken this arguement to tire size. I started out on 31s, then 33s, then 35s, now 37s. But next year? Evolution says I'll be on 39s soon.
Same with width. First was narrow track CJ, then Scout width D44s, now D60s. Next?
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
My personal feelings, is that this is an attempt by (Insert gov't body here) to be able to more effectively manage a trail system. By having a quantifiable vehicle requirement, they can more effectively manage whom gets to use the resource. If you set a (insert number here) tire size, then the Ranger/Cop/DNR person can easily give a ticket to those who don't qualify, and smile at those whom do.
I don't think it has anything to do with actually being able to drive the trails by MOST folks. I know I easily fit thru Evan, Elbe, Rimrock, etc. And I'm nearly 80 on one rig, and 78 on the other. If I can easily fit, than the width isn't an issue.
Not that I'm in favor of taking a full-size, rockwell'd, full-bodied rig thru Evans. Nor a Unimog either. Both may make it. But at what cost?
With that in mind, I'd rather have ORV permits required for off-highway use. I'd willingly pay a yearly fee to go offroad.
Provided that the Ranger/Cop/DNR person tickets all those who don't have ORV tags. That way, you keep the riff-raff from dumping garbage, or taking Mommy's Kia Sportage where it don't belong, etc.
Ya know, when we started this, we used the adage: Build your rig to fit the trails, don't build the trails to fit your rig. I still believe this. But the trails now WILL easily fit 80 inches, and probably a bit more. But God himself would pay Hell trying to get a 96 wide rig thru Rimrock.
I don't think it has anything to do with actually being able to drive the trails by MOST folks. I know I easily fit thru Evan, Elbe, Rimrock, etc. And I'm nearly 80 on one rig, and 78 on the other. If I can easily fit, than the width isn't an issue.
Not that I'm in favor of taking a full-size, rockwell'd, full-bodied rig thru Evans. Nor a Unimog either. Both may make it. But at what cost?
With that in mind, I'd rather have ORV permits required for off-highway use. I'd willingly pay a yearly fee to go offroad.
Provided that the Ranger/Cop/DNR person tickets all those who don't have ORV tags. That way, you keep the riff-raff from dumping garbage, or taking Mommy's Kia Sportage where it don't belong, etc.
Ya know, when we started this, we used the adage: Build your rig to fit the trails, don't build the trails to fit your rig. I still believe this. But the trails now WILL easily fit 80 inches, and probably a bit more. But God himself would pay Hell trying to get a 96 wide rig thru Rimrock.
Last edited:
dirk
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Money Mark
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 563
dirk
Well-Known Member
So...you like beer or Treeclimber's comments or both :haha:
Money Mark
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 563
Both:flipoff:
Some people think that keeping wider vehicles or vehicles with 37" + tires off the trail system will be a good thing. But almost all the bypasses are started by quads, utvs, or under prepared vehicles looking for an easy way around a "hard" section of trail. So if restrictions are made to keep certain vehicles out, there will still be problems and the people with the vehicles that are not allowed will not be there to help keep those trails open and maintained.
The only illegal trail (222) at Evans was built by narrow Jeeps (under 80" wide) on 33"-36" tires.
The only rollover fatality on a trail at Evans was a similar vehicle.
The only vehicle abandoned on a trail for years and was removed in pieces out of a gulley also fit the "legal" description- mostly stock Jeep Cherokee.
But the group of people that Bob Pacific (guy in charge of Evans Creek)listens too are ignoring all these facts and blaming all the problems on "big tire vehicles on full width axles"
:corn:
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
I disagree. The PNW isn't blaming anything on "big tire vehicles on full width axles". I believe this is an attempt to allow the Regulators to have a management tool that's easily quantifiable.
