F/S Has Handed Down Trial Restrictions...

[JOOP]

My personal issue is more with tire size height than axle width.

Bigger tires make it easier, it's the little tires that tear up the trails.

 

[Money Mark]

I gotta be honest......

I gotta be honest.....you sound undecided and uninformed on what's REALLY going on here. Look closer, think deeper.:;

To make it clear......you've been told you can't use FS land (4x4 trails). How does that sit with you?

 

[Money Mark]

Bigger tires make it easier, it's the little tires that tear up the trails.

Big assholes tear up trails. Little dicks try to restrict them. Get your facts straight.:fawkdancesmiley::redneck:

 

[PUO-BANNED]

To make it clear......you've been told you can't use FS land (4x4 trails). How does that sit with you?

It's bullshit.

 

[Catalog]

I gotta be honest.....you sound undecided and uninformed on what's REALLY going on here. Look closer, think deeper.:;

To make it clear......you've been told you can't use FS land (4x4 trails). How does that sit with you?

NO I am not undecided or uninformed.

I am not happy I have been restricted from a trail system I have used for many years.

Without building a new vehicle (read Samurai) I can not get my current vehicle even under the restrictions.

ON A PERSONAL LEVEL I feel Fullsize rigs are too big and do more damage than good to a trail.

ON A POLITICAL LEVEL I would fight for the right of a Fullsize rig as if I owned one for 2 main reasons. 1.... the restriction was not in place when the person built the vehicle for that area. 2.... The classic snowball effect. Where do they stop if starting at 72".


MY real concern is going to come to work parties. How many of us are actually going to go help on a trail system that we are not allowed to use? So this snowballs into trails going without repair. Once the trails are deemed overused and under worked they will close it for those who do fit the restrictions too.

 

[Money Mark]

NO I am not undecided or uninformed.

I stand corrected.:beer:and hope to see you "at the fight".

 

[Catalog]

Bigger tires make it easier, it's the little tires that tear up the trails.

Nah it is stupid people with a heavy right foot that tear up the trails.

I have a rep that I dislike for having a heavy foot. What people don't get is I run higher RPM but don't goose it in holes and dig. I bought a winch and use it when I gotta so not to tear up the trail.

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

So..... 80 + means FS and FW axles right?
My personal issue is more with tire size height than axle width.

I was 81" with toyota axles and 15.5" wide tsl's at "street" pressure. Easy to get that wide especially when you gain a handful of inches when you air down for increased traction and to lessen potential trail damage.


I bet I do less damage to the trails with my too long, too wide and large tired truck than half the people on 35's on the trails. It's all about the traction and how you use it.

 

[JOOP]

Big assholes tear up trails. Little dicks try to restrict them. Get your facts straight.:fawkdancesmiley::redneck:

Well whatever I'm going wheeling tomorrow so you guys keep this thread going with stupid **** that is out of our control. Better get your wheeling in before its gone.

 

[Catalog]

I was 81" with toyota axles and 15.5" wide tsl's at "street" pressure.

Thanks. I kinda forgot people run wider than a 13.5 ever. but am suprized still at 81" with Yota axles.




Oh and totally understand about PEOPLE with smaller tires tearing things up. Emphasis being people..... not tires size.

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

Thanks. I kinda forgot people run wider than a 13.5 ever. but am suprized still at 81" with Yota axles.




Oh and totally understand about PEOPLE with smaller tires tearing things up. Emphasis being people..... not tires size.

I had a mix of factory parts and 1 1/2" spacers on a mini truck axle to get 61" flange to flange measurement and 10" wide wheels with DIY beadlocks so everything was pretty darned wide. It would be very easy to get even wider using a fj80 land cruiser axle it is 63 1/2" wide with nothing done to it.

 

[Catalog]

so dump the spacers and you are under 80. but without going to oldschool grave diggers no way to get you under 72" huh.

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

so dump the spacers and you are under 80. but without going to oldschool grave diggers no way to get you under 72" huh.

The trick was I was running 42" tsl's so without the spacers I couldn't get full steering and I have a rather long wheelbase so I needed all the turning I could possibly get. :;

I could have been in the 72" area but that would have been on some very narrow rubber with skinny wheels. Leaf springs limit a lot of turning ability just by design. When the truck see's the trail again I'll have front dig and full lock again so navigation will be a breeze even with a standard issue 1980 toyota short box body.

 

[whatthe?]

To close an area is how the FS, DNR, ect deal with use. If an area is used too much (according to them), they shut it down. It costs no money and is easy to "manage" an area that is closed. It just has to be done a little at a time so nobody gets too upset. Remember you're supposed to look at nature not touch it.

 

[Damnyankee]

So..... 80 + means FS and FW axles right?


Our TJ's both measure 79 up front with adapters and 35-37's

Can take the adapters off one and make it 76.. other I am 78 till I new knuckles.








I gotta be honest I think FS FW axles is too big for the trails, and not just cause I am narrower than that. I would support the 80" width but would fight for a reasonable width to keep FS axles too.


My personal issue is more with tire size height than axle width.

this again shows ignorance.
i have full width axles, and i'm the same width as you are.
Unless 70's F150 axles are not considered full width.

so if you are not on full width axles and yo are 78" wide, then obviosly your tires are too big.:eeek:

 

[Mark m.]

Time to adapt and build a mini buggy. I know some of you are thinking about it. Looking for some Idea's

 

[Jaydog]

I will make the statement again, the old rule is HUB to HUB, not outside tire to outside tire, My tires are well beyond my hubs and under the old rule I am well under the width limit even though my rig is 80" outside tire to outside tire, I do not know the wording on the new width restriction, but would be good to know before everyone gets in an uproar.

 

[pokey]

I will make the statement again, the old rule is HUB to HUB, not outside tire to outside tire, My tires are well beyond my hubs and under the old rule I am well under the width limit even though my rig is 80" outside tire to outside tire, I do not know the wording on the new width restriction, but would be good to know before everyone gets in an uproar.

Your correct. But when I talked to bob I specificly asked him if the measurement was from outside of tire and he said yes. They do need to clarify this somewhere in writting.

 

[Damnyankee]

which map are we supposed to use?
They are both on the web site. and the new one is hard to find.
if you go looking for a map, the first one you come to mentions nothing of the restrictions.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/projects/travel-management/mvum_evans_cr.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/local-resources/images/EvansCreekOHVmap.jpg

 

[pokey]

which map are we supposed to use?
They are both on the web site. and the new one is hard to find.
if you go looking for a map, the first one you come to mentions nothing of the restrictions.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/projects/travel-management/mvum_evans_cr.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/local-resources/images/EvansCreekOHVmap.jpg

The first link you list shows the restriction right there on the bottom of the page.