ATTN... Width Poll for Evans Creek...

[dirtygoat]

I now, it's been done before...

We need some realistic stats on the width of peoples rigs from bulge to bulge that wheel up at Evans...

They are talking about putting in goal posts to restrict width on the 311 trail... As it stands right now, it could be 72"... Pokey has mentioned that the PNW are talking about an 80" restriction... Who wants to see it 80"+???

 

[dirtygoat]

I'm 82" bulge to bulge...

 

[Brian H]

:awesomework:

82" bulge to bulge...

 

[Brian H]

I'm 82" bulge to bulge...

Sounds like you need to work off them love handles.:haha:

 

[megatoy66]

91" here...........

 

[Corey Y]

86"

The USFS should follow the DNRs 96" width limit. Wider vehicles are safer on side hills and hillclimbs and there are alot of that type of terrain at Evans. There have been accidents there in the past and it would be a shame to keep safe and stable vehicle from enjoying the trails.

 

[TreeClimber]

86"

The USFS should follow the DNRs 96" width limit. ils.

8 foot WIDE should be allowed? Dayum. They must be expecting Hummers?

 

[NotSoPC]

I picked 72 to 80 cause after my yotas and rim and tires I will be in that range. &2 is too tight now a day but 8 feet is a bit wide. Last time up I saw a rig on rockwells and 52's that was trashing the sides of the trail and driving up trees cause he did not fit.

 

[Corey Y]

8 foot WIDE should be allowed? Dayum. They must be expecting Hummers?

H1s are pretty well equipped for offroad travel.

 

[TreeClimber]

H1s are pretty well equipped for offroad travel.

So are donkeys & mules. But that doesn't mean I want one.

 

[zukkev]

As it stands right now with the 35x12.5" LTB's, It's at 70.25" b to b; however with 36x12.5 TSL's on the same rims the sami was sittin' at 73"....but I've never wheeled there (hope to sometime this summer/fall), so take it for what it's worth.

 

[dirk]

80" F & R (only 78" if I remove the wheel spacers)
full width D60 F & 14bolt R
17x9 wheels w/6" BS
body is 53" wide
106" wheel base

 

[ain'tstuckjustresting]

Mine's 76" B to B on Toy axles.

 

[pokey]

I now, it's been done before...

We need some realistic stats on the width of peoples rigs from bulge to bulge that wheel up at Evans...

They are talking about putting in goal posts to restrict width on the 311 trail... As it stands right now, it could be 72"... Pokey has mentioned that the PNW are talking about an 80" restriction... Who wants to see it 80"+???

Pardon... The region has not yet given me a number to represent them with. Therefore the PNW4WDA does not yet have a position on a number. The 80" number was one I tossed out to Bob as being a little more realistic. It was just to open his eyes a little as to what many rigs are. I really doubt were going to get much more than that simply due to the design parameters of the trail system.


My new jeep is 67" buldge to buldge. this is with axles that are 2" wider than stock cj axles with 1.25" spacers front and rear and 35x13.50 toyos on 3.5" backspacing.

 

[nowires]

77" F/R

My stock 06 f 350 is 75" with 35s on it

 

[Brian H]

77" F/R

My stock 06 f 350 is 75" with 35s on it

I doubt that. My ifs chevy is 84 on 15x10s wth 35s

 

[pokey]

Lets try to keep this on track with just answering the question. Keep the banter and arguing out of it. :awesomework:

 

[Fordzuki]

My LJ is 66" bulge to bulge because I built it to run evans and elbe. :hi:

 

[dirk]

The 80" number was one I tossed out to Bob as being a little more realistic. It was just to open his eyes a little as to what many rigs are. I really doubt were going to get much more than that simply due to the design parameters of the trail system.

Thank you Jim, for at least getting the conversation started with Bob...80 inches would match what is being done down in Oregon.

Borrowed from the PNW4WDA forum:

http://www.pnw4wda.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1740​

This is one of those issues that you will never be able to satisfy everyone and everyone has a passionate opinion. We have had a similar discussion on our board http://www.deschutescounty4wheelers.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1764. There are some updated USFS specs posted there. In the Deschutes National Forest, the forest supervisor has adopted a blanket 80 inch rule for all new trail systems. Keep in mind that a full-size F-350 is under 80 inches. Depending on the vegetation, terrain and distance between trees, sometimes a length restriction would be more appropriate. Sometime a tire size restriction is more appropriate. Sometimes a width restriction works better.

The goal is to maintain the integrity of the trail system and not allow folks to make a freeway out of it. Often times, people lose sight of this goal while "protecting" their right to use the system. Not all trails are appropriate for all rigs, we just have to accept that. A full size truck with 44 inch tires is inappropriate for Edison, whereas a stock or semi-stock rig with 31" tires and no lockers is inappropriate for Santiam. We need to keep the big picture in mind........the specs are located in the Forest Service Handbook FSH 2309.18_20 Exhibit 23.23-01 and are effective 10/16/2008. In the case of our 80 inch rule, it falls within the parameters of these specs. The forest service came to us and asked us if we would agree.

Speaking of new trails...Region 6 of the PNW4WDA has been actively building new "challenging" trails in Oregon:

http://www.pnw4wda.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1201​

Alan, all of us in Region 6 who have stuck together like bad glue and said no, this is not acceptable to the USFS and the BLM and kept knocking on doors have aimed high. You and Umpqua Valley Timber Cruisers included!

Larry East, Reid Sherman, Steve Roach, Julie Thompson, Paul Clark and all of the Region 6 fellows at Klamath have been a great reminder of how communication and documentation and pure honest hard work can make a difference. They have joined with the Oregon Hunters Association and their local class I and class III friends to effectively add (keep) 1500 miles of "trails" to/on their maps.

Region 6's backyard in Deschutes County is becoming a little more promising. We are spread so thin from McKenzie to Crescent we think we

 

[TreeClimber]

YJ. 76.0 Front, 78.0 Rear
TJ. 79.5 Front, 78.75 Rear.
Both. 37 Krawlers (which tape measure at 36" tall at street (25#) pressure.

I could change out my wheels to a higher backspacing (around 3 now), and narrow my vehicle by several inches. However that will drastically change my turning, as the tires will touch the frame much sooner. So if there is a 'narrow' width restriction, I could accomidate it, however it will NOT improve my ability to 'TREAD LIGHTLY', but rather hinder it.

For what it's worth, both rigs have done Evans creek. Hell, I even did it in the TJ without functional steering. The trail was undamaged, although I did get a little crease in my fender flair.