Width Restrictions

Wildman1 · Oct 21, 2007

Hey all,
I started a thread over on Timber Crawlers and got everyone all butt hurt about this issue. I know no one wants to see any kind of restricitions but if some had to be imposed what would the common ground be? Not looking for a pissing match or any flaming.

I was also told I am in the minority with a 76" or less width from the outside of tire to the outside of tire. I thought this was track width but just to make sure trying to discribe it in a different way.

So lets keep it civil and post your thoughts.

pokey · Oct 21, 2007

I am at 67" and it works fine for me. as far as restictions there are plenty of trails that are wide enough for bigger rigs and they should be allowed to use them. But there are trails made for and should be limited to narrower rigs with stiff fines for those who try to cram their rig into a trail to tight for them. there should be some kind of a rating system created and width restrictions enforced. Make your rig to fit the trail dont expect the trail to fit your rig:awesomework:

LWB Samurai Joe · Oct 21, 2007

Im not sure, but I thought 72" was the PNW rule for the jamboree? Just as an example. Please correct me ifn Im wrong on that one.

CHOP SHOP · Oct 21, 2007

the only reason i have a toyota is the trails around here. i get jealous when i see clips and pics from the midwest where rockwells and fullsizes fit on the trail. it sux all our trails are so small. i love fullsizes more than any buggy/trail machines out there. it just sux that if you have a fullsize your pretty much limmited to private land (pretty much mud only) i think more private parks and events are the answer. it seems its OK to clear land for devopments, but if you hit a tree with a truck or roost some mud then your a bad wheeler?
:wtf: FAWK IT PAVE THE WORLD WITH PLASTIC AND CEMENT.
RESTRICTIONS ARE MADE TO BE BROKE!!!:fawkdancesmiley: :fawkdancesmiley: :fawkdancesmiley:

Wildman1 · Oct 21, 2007

pokey said:
I am at 67" and it works fine for me. as far as restictions there are plenty of trails that are wide enough for bigger rigs and they should be allowed to use them. But there are trails made for and should be limited to narrower rigs with stiff fines for those who try to cram their rig into a trail to tight for them. there should be some kind of a rating system created and width restrictions enforced. Make your rig to fit the trail dont expect the trail to fit your rig:awesomework:

Pokey,
Yes the trails that have been cut out should stay that way, what about the trails that are narrow? How do you enforce something when someone trys to bring a bigger rig down that narrow trail? What is some kind of rating system? Ideas?

LWB Samurai Joe said:
Im not sure, but I thought 72" was the PNW rule for the jamboree? Just as an example. Please correct me ifn Im wrong on that one.

I thought it was 76, will have to look."

Brian H · Oct 21, 2007

My 4 runner is 85" in the front and 83 in the rear. I dont think ill have to much problems.

Wildman1 · Oct 21, 2007

Brian,
Not too much of a problem where? What trails?

Sammy Joe it is 74"

Boonie Buster · Oct 21, 2007

Make the limit 90" and be done with it:fawkdancesmiley:

Wildman1 · Oct 21, 2007

Boonie Buster said:
Make the limit 90" and be done with it:fawkdancesmiley:

And we all know that ain't going to happen. That is what has happened to the Naches Wagon trail and the Shoestring. And why I am asking if there needs to be something in place to keep it from happening to other trails. But as was brought up on the other board, how would you enforce any restrictions? And isn't it the people who would follow the rules not the ones we are worried about?

Too me a lot of the draw of the trail here in the PNW is the tightness which in turn makes them hard. When you make them wider does this take away from the hardness?

And then we have the next area which is the new JK Jeeps, how wide are they? So if we have "Jeep" trails do they now need to fit the new Jeep?

JThompson · Oct 21, 2007

CHOP SHOP said:
the only reason i have a toyota is the trails around here. i get jealous when i see clips and pics from the midwest where rockwells and fullsizes fit on the trail. it sux all our trails are so small. i love fullsizes more than any buggy/trail machines out there. it just sux that if you have a fullsize your pretty much limmited to private land (pretty much mud only) i think more private parks and events are the answer. it seems its OK to clear land for devopments, but if you hit a tree with a truck or roost some mud then your a bad wheeler?
:wtf: FAWK IT PAVE THE WORLD WITH PLASTIC AND CEMENT.
RESTRICTIONS ARE MADE TO BE BROKE!!!:fawkdancesmiley: :fawkdancesmiley: :fawkdancesmiley:

Why do you need a Yota? If you like the "fullsize" aspect of things, I think an early bronco or CJ with a V8 would be more of an answer for you. I love my Toyotas, but also realize that if somebody is craving size/power, then there are other ways to go.

Also, a buddy of mine *cough* Bearing Buster *cough* is running fullsize axles on his project and was going to be within most trail/competition parameters...

JThompson · Oct 21, 2007

I don't think the new Jeeps are that much wider? Just longer, I think.

PORTER · Oct 21, 2007

I at my widest in my last wrangler was 83 outside of tire, and made it through every trail in wa state EVEN Rimrock. I am now 78 and wont be going any narrower. To me I dont want to see fullsize rigs, NOT rigs with fullsize axles on the narrow trails. Leave the mudboggs for them, or wider trails, flame on is you want but that is my opinion like it or not. It is also my belief from what I have seen that fullsize rigs are not the culprit, ITS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT THAT WELL EQUIPPED that do the most damage to the trails and I will argue this to my dying day. They cant make it through a tough obsticle so what do they do, make go arounds, of cut **** out of the way, spin tires for days so they can make it.:looser: Trails around here should have gate keepers, as well as a trail rating system to let people what they are getting themselves into kinda like a ski resort green through double diamond. last but not least I would really hope that the people helping influence the decisions being made will take into account what is good for all wheelers not just what they drive.:corn:

Wildman1 · Oct 21, 2007

PORTER said:
I at my widest in my last wrangler was 83 outside of tire, and made it through every trail in wa state EVEN Rimrock. I am now 78 and wont be going any narrower. To me I dont want to see fullsize rigs, NOT rigs with fullsize axles on the narrow trails. Leave the mudboggs for them, or wider trails, flame on is you want but that is my opinion like it or not. It is also my belief from what I have seen that fullsize rigs are not the culprit, ITS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT THAT WELL EQUIPPED that do the most damage to the trails and I will argue this to my dying day. They cant make it through a tough obsticle so what do they do, make go arounds, of cut **** out of the way so they can make it.:looser: Trails around here should have gate keepers, as well as a trail rating system to let people what they are getting themselves into kinda like a ski resort green through double diamond. last but not least I would really hope that the people helping influence the decisions being made will take into account what is good for all wheelers not just what they drive.:corn:

Okay good points and I will agree to a point Porter. 78" isn't that wide to me. What type of restrictions? How do we enforce them? And then I guess what trails get gate keepers? OG had the idea to make areas like Naches limited use on long weekends. Also make it a reservation system and charge per vehicle per day. Something like $50. Use this money for enforcement personnel. Yes it is public land but unless we all do something it isn't going to be there.
And I agree with your full width rig statement, not total sure on the FW axle.

Dubshot · Oct 21, 2007

Just plant some 10 foot steel posts in the ground and the start and end of the trail.. make sure you cant go around them and then you have to be able to fit through the entrance to get in the trail. I dont think its the fullsize guys always tearing **** up either. Yes they are wider and heavier but if your a good wheeler a fullsize can go ALOT of places very carefully.. I think that all the ORV parks should put fullsize trails in.. I get jealous as well when I see those fullsize rigs on the trails with alot of clearence and width for movement. I Just ran my scout in Evans Creek yesterday and I thought the body was going to get beat but never did. I would help carve some trails for the big rigs.. I like to watch big rigs more than little ones.

PORTER · Oct 21, 2007

Wildman said:
Okay good points and I will agree to a point Porter. 78" isn't that wide to me. What type of restrictions? How do we enforce them? And then I guess what trails get gate keepers? OG had the idea to make areas like Naches limited use on long weekends. Also make it a reservation system and charge per vehicle per day. Something like $50. Use this money for enforcement personnel. Yes it is public land but unless we all do something it isn't going to be there.
And I agree with your full width rig statement, not total sure on the FW axle.

INMO restrictions should be different for different trails, not all trails are narrow, ALOT are damn near full size width. Enforcement is a hard subject, as I dont believe this can be accomplished as you cannot have enough officers to police it. As for paying for use ON OUR LAND I sure dont want to pay it everytime I wheel, but probably wouldnt have a problem with a small fee added to our ORV tabs, or to buy a one time(Per year) forest use pass. Again it will suck to have to pay for use on our land. IMO our biggest problem is THE GREENIES when it comes to losing the land we have. They are MUCH better organized, better funded, and have a passion to see us go extinct. If we are going to have the land for our kids to use we better get as organized, and THE FUNDS to combat them. This is a tough subject because you want to come up with a solution for the majority, but what about the other 20% of wheelers that it overlooks(Fullsize guys). Trail use should be for all of us, not the majority but onfornately that might have to be that way it is.

CHOP SHOP · Oct 21, 2007

JThompson said:
Why do you need a Yota? If you like the "fullsize" aspect of things, I think an early bronco or CJ with a V8 would be more of an answer for you. I love my Toyotas.

toyota just happens to be my choice second to a chevy. have no use for a ford or jeep, too expensive. just my opinion. any ways lets keep it on track!:awesomework: and ps my toy is getting a v8 right now!:redneck:

TreeClimber · Oct 21, 2007

Personally, I'm at Scout width axles. And I've always felt that a Scout, old Bronco, Sami, Jeep CJ-YJ-TJ-JK, Toy PU, Landcruiser, little Rover, Patrol, class of rigs are wheelers. And fullsized rigs aren't. Not that I don't like 'em, just that seeing full sized carnage and tree bashing isn't cool. Most of the greater pacific northwest trails were made with old Willys by our fore-fathers. Some of these areas are old mining trails, some were made for recreation, but MOST were made long before WE hit the trails. (Yeah, I know that this or that trail was made by so-and-so - especially at Reiter)

So I'm less inclinded to limit axle width, but more inclined to limit vehicle size. Can it happen? NO.

So, if you wanted to put limitations on the trail system, how would you do it?

Firstly, I'm with Porter. All trail systems should have a gatekeeper. Every trail system, every entry. Hard to do? Yes, but it's IS doable.

Secondly, I doubt you could effectively legislate/legalize axle widths. But it would be much easier to legislate off-road tire size. So, I'd prefer that. Now, I run 37s. But in a prior incarnation, I ran 31s. So, it might be a step backwards, but I can adapt. However if we (the state) ever did go to a maximum tire size, I hope it is 37s. Of course, this is another can of worms, which, if I recall correctly, has a thread somewhere here already.

PORTER · Oct 21, 2007

TreeClimber said:
Personally, I'm at Scout width axles. And I've always felt that a Scout, old Bronco, Sami, Jeep CJ-YJ-TJ-JK, Toy PU, Landcruiser, little Rover, Patrol, class of rigs are wheelers. And fullsized rigs aren't. Not that I don't like 'em, just that seeing full sized carnage and tree bashing isn't cool. Most of the greater pacific northwest trails were made with old Willys by our fore-fathers. Some of these areas are old mining trails, some were made for recreation, but MOST were made long before WE hit the trails. (Yeah, I know that this or that trail was made by so-and-so - especially at Reiter)

So I'm less inclinded to limit axle width, but more inclined to limit vehicle size. Can it happen? NO.

So, if you wanted to put limitations on the trail system, how would you do it?

Firstly, I'm with Porter. All trail systems should have a gatekeeper. Every trail system, every entry. Hard to do? Yes, but it's IS doable.

Secondly, I doubt you could effectively legislate/legalize axle widths. But it would be much easier to legislate off-road tire size. So, I'd prefer that. Now, I run 37s. But in a prior incarnation, I ran 31s. So, it might be a step backwards, but I can adapt. However if we (the state) ever did go to a maximum tire size, I hope it is 37s. Of course, this is another can of worms, which, if I recall correctly, has a thread somewhere here already.

Well put Tony , but I hope if tire size becomes law its set at a max of 40'

. Like some have also stated body width is more of a problem as that is what gets drug across a tree far more than axle width, and does far more damage.

CHOP SHOP · Oct 21, 2007

after talking to people from other states, i have come to the conclusion washington SUCKS for orv users. when i go to oregon orvs seem more welcome than wa. when i went to the hammers i didnt see any restrictions. when i went to the indy jambo it was crazy what they were getting away with!! washington veiws orv use as a nuisance and will always get the shaft.
look at how many orv sites we have in wa. i pass almost that many just on my way to the dunes in or. :wtf:

CHOP SHOP · Oct 21, 2007

PORTER said:
Well put Tony , but I hope if tire size becomes law its set at a max of 40'. Like some have also stated body width is more of a problem as that is what gets drug across a tree far more than axle width, and does far more damage.

porter, how big are your tires??