Final Reiter trail specs

[Horus]

You can't lose a "world class ORV area" if it was never an ORV area to begin with.

I'm going to ask this and come off as a total ass doing so, but it needs to be said. Got kids?

Yes, I would feel like an ass asking a dude who spent six weekends in a row on average wheelin if he has kids. :haha: <---- With you, not at you Travis.
:beer:

Note also I said ORV area and not park. Old Reiter may never have been official but it was tolerated, very tolerated. ORV recreation was common, constant and tolerated for long enough that a whole culture of wheelers developed because of it. Then the closed signs came and we lost what had become the norm in our lives and more than enough justification for owning a modern rock buggy.

Remember that we are having this conversation because what we had was taken away, not because we feel entitled to something we never had before.

 

[Travis1]

Remember that we are having this conversation because what we had was taken away, not because we feel entitled to something we never had before.

Keep in mind, legally speaking, Reiter is never something he "had" before. I do understand that it feels like it was taken away.

If they took away one of the official ORV parks, that would be taking away something we had.

 

[dirk]

Go back to Pokey's generation and I see a lot more of them fighting for land to wheel, and even winning here or there. Of course, they are only interested in building for mildly built rigs, it's what they have.

Exactly...instead of giving up & conforming to what the average wheeler is happy with, I am choosing to stand up & fight for what holds my interest. I realize I may not get exactly what I want on the first round, but I am willing to keep asking for what I want.

Bottom line...the DNR/FS needs input from all wheelers...if the PNW4WDA is the only one fighting the good fight, then folks not involved in the process might not get what they want.

There is so much we can learn from the years of experience the PNW4WDA has...we need to work together & fight for a variety of trails...instead of generic trails that kind of satisfy most and piss off the rest.

 

[Binder]

Keep in mind, legally speaking, Reiter is never something he "had" before. I do understand that it feels like it was taken away.

If they took away one of the official ORV parks, that would be taking away something we had.

Bullshit!! We had Reiter and yes Reiter was legal. Reiter was not designated as a ORV park but that does not make it illegal.

 

[Totalled]

Typos happen. As these are found please point where they are on the documents for that they can get corrected. If you would like, please PM or E mail me which document, page number and area on the page. That way the problem can get corrected or explained

Or just post it up here for all know where you are talking about

Page 14 of the first doc doesn't jive with page 3 of the second.

 

[nowires]

Page 14 of the first doc doesn't jive with page 3 of the second.

thanks I have already sent the mail to get it fixed

 

[Damnyankee]

Not likely.

Look at the maps. They refer to track width on the 86" wheelbase rigs as being 66" wide for the purple trail. The other trails with longer wheelbases have a wider track width.

If this is the case, 86" long and 66 wide, then this is a quad and atv trail..crap, i don't even think samis fit this.

 

[Travis1]

Bullshit!! We had Reiter and yes Reiter was legal. Reiter was not designated as a ORV park but that does not make it illegal.

How was Reiter legal for ORVs without being designated an ORV park?

I'm looking forward to you citing an RCW or WAC to back you up.

 

[nowires]

If this is the case, 86" long and 66 wide, then this is a quad and atv trail..crap, i don't even think samis fit this.

alright........ everyone it is a TYPO can we move on to the next typo

Susprised no one has asked why there is a min WB or WW on the trails

Or better yet why is the 66" in the plans so much

 

[Travis1]

If this is the case, 86" long and 66 wide, then this is a quad and atv trail..crap, i don't even think samis fit this.

Flatty's qualify, I believe the CJ5's do as well.

Even the suzuki samurai in stock form has a wheelbase of 80" and a overall width of 60.6".

For reference, the overall width of a stock YJ is 66", but it's wheelbase is 93.5".

 

[The_Shocker]

alright........ everyone it is a TYPO can we move on to the next typo

Susprised no one has asked why there is a min WB or WW on the trails

Or better yet why is the 66" in the plans so much

To exclude bikes/Quads/Side-x-sides..... But it only "Recommends" it not "Requires" it.

 

[Travis1]

alright........ everyone it is a TYPO can we move on to the next typo

Susprised no one has asked why there is a min WB or WW on the trails

Or better yet why is the 66" in the plans so much

To keep the quads, more importantly the side by sides out.

If you build it so they are allowed in, on an engineered trail system. That system would need to be engineered to the lowest common denominator, aka the side by side or quad.

 

[Damnyankee]

alright........ everyone it is a TYPO can we move on to the next typo

Susprised no one has asked why there is a min WB or WW on the trails

Or better yet why is the 66" in the plans so much

sorry, i was catching up on reading, and hadn't gotten to the the explanation yet..

but it was not a typo. Tihs si a typo.

its a lack of underatnding of the deffintions by the drafter.

 

[nowires]

To keep the quads, more importantly the side by sides out.

If you build it so they are allowed in, on an engineered trail system. That system would need to be engineered to the lowest common denominator, aka the side by side or quad.

Yep
:awesomework:

 

[Binder]

BTW you guys do know that these are the trail building specifications not designations of who will be allowed to use the trails.:;

 

[nowires]

sorry, i was catching up on reading, and hadn't gotten to the the explanation yet..

but it was not a typo. Tihs si a typo.

its a lack of underatnding of the deffintions by the drafter.

Not picken on you in any way

Hell I helped with a lot of it and I still get confused and have to double check stuff

All good...... carry on:awesomework:

 

[NotSoPC]

I don't understand what you mean by run a muck.

Just meaning that they would be able to go anyplace they want.

 

[crash2]

Just meaning that they would be able to go anyplace they want.

They have to stay on the designated trails just like us.


But the best point made (and I think binder made it) is the fact once a trail is blown out by bigger rigs the small ones don't find it as enjoyable anymore--shouldn't those little rigs also have a place in this sport? As I mentioned you can look at a single track trail thats been blown out by quads or side by sides or a trail that us wheelers blew thru.

I am not for a full area being restricted to a certain user but I think its a compromise to have a single trail for a smaller rig--sounds fair to me (look at the big picture)

 

[japerry]

I am not for a full area being restricted to a certain user but I think its a compromise to have a single trail for a smaller rig--sounds fair to me (look at the big picture)

It is fair, and hopefully will work... the problem is when bigger rigs run out of options and so the decide to do something stupid. Perhaps putting the purple trail near a large trail would be a good idea so 99% of people who are big go the correct way. Along with signage, would be good.

Third, as we saw at Walker... make a gatekeeper that is impossible for large wheelbase to get over. Something with an insane breakover angle causing rigs like mine to high-center, while Zukkev could go over it easily. Put bollards on both sides, restricting width to 78-80" to keep buggies with 40" tires (which negates the WB issue on breakover) out for the most part.

Ohh Kitty!

 

[zukkev]

.

Ohh Kitty!

Say what???:haha: