How wide is too wide?

[shotmobile]

FWIW, the “Trails†in Central. Oregon are officially track width limited to 80-inches.
The play areas are open as are the 2-track roads and the limited Rock trails/areas.
However, Edison and reportedly all new trails (per COHOPS if my info is correct) will be 80†that is USFS and BLM.
My current Junk is 80.5 so I only play at the mall (Fullsize on 35" BFG'z)
I will be well under 80 inches on my Ranger build so I can play in the dirt again.
Just something to think about looking in to before you drop too much coin...

Are you kidding me! The last I was down in Tilamuck, I could of ran a Semi down the trails and still not scratched the side of the thing. Your trails are like or dirt roads to get to our trails.

 

[Toyotanut]

Are you kidding me! The last I was down in Tilamuck, I could of ran a Semi down the trails and still not scratched the side of the thing. Your trails are like or dirt roads to get to our trails.

I'd have to agree here, when I was down at TSF in august....the trails were not tight at all.:stirpot:

 

[no excuses]

Are you kidding me! The last I was down in Tilamuck, I could of ran a Semi down the trails and still not scratched the side of the thing. Your trails are like or dirt roads to get to our trails.

Central OR is not Tillamook :haha: :haha: only about 6 hours away :flipoff:

 

[Toyotanut]

Central OR is not Tillamook :haha: :haha: only about 6 hours away :flipoff:

so it it just central oregon that's going to the 80" limit then?

 

[wheelinjp]

My yj is 82.5in wide and I fit everywhere I have gone including Rimrock. I dont think 82 is too wide at all. It sure is nice and stable. If the only reason were to protect the hubs though, I would run the 78in set up if I could.

 

[Outback]

so it it just central oregon that's going to the 80" limit then?

It was a dark and snowy night in Central Oregon…
I had my web-hubs locked in for some nice web wheeling in NWW when suddenly there big and bold was a post about several of the trails at the PNWFWDA Trail Jambo being width limited so I clickitied on over to this link: http://www.pnw4wda.org/trailjam/trail_descriptions.htm and sho-nuff…
Divide: 74-Inches
Naches: 74-Inches
Shoestring/Upper Kaner Westbound: 74-Inches
Kanr/Quartz-Eastbound: 74-inches
Rocky Saddle: 74-Inches

I hate to admit it but I’ve been around the PNW for a long time and wheeled in places now looong closed. I have been building other peoples toys off and on since the 70’s… I first heard a rumor about trail width restrictions back in the early nineties and again when the “Final Rule†was in comment period. I have had many people ask me about it, but being just a Stumpjumper WFTDIK?
Anyway I went here and started reading because this is my back yard:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/about/regulations/cfrs.shtml
Not finding a clear answer I went here:
http://www.arra-access.com/arra/ohv_designation_center.html
Then here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf
Then I went and read CFR’s until I I had a grasp of the scope...
So, then I asked specifically about Central Oregon and a representative of the USFS named Paul said quote, “Our 80" restriction is in width. Outside of tire to outside of tire, not length.†And: “There is no "standard" rule for this in CFRs across the board 80'' is ours, but other trail systems could be different.â€

Now I do understand that there in fact may be a few trails out there that are that tight and I understand that there are places that I just should not take my big truck… However, in my observation of this “sport†over the last 30+years the trend has been to wider axles under narrower bodys. There are damn good reasons to build this way!
IME, out on the trail it is generally not the width that causes problems but the Wheelbase, thus the turning radius that is the issue.
However, the point is there is no single standard for Track Width in every area. The Track Width can be set on a trail by trail basis, which on one hand is a good thing… and on the other hand allows the powers that be to leave a trail “OPEN†and restrict the width to 51-inches effectively closing it to all but ATV’s without any public/user comment.
I do hope that it never comes to that however the law is apparently written so that it can.
If you are (like me) planning a build you had better do your homework!
If you build an 82-inch Track width you can’t run an 80†trail!
The issue popping up again caused me to do research because I will be starting construction of a new trail toy this year sometime. The base for the rig is the pile of parts that I have, including a Ranger and a set of fullsize axles. The plan was to run the axles and a set of 39.5 ROKz. However I have decided to change my plans and narrow the axles, to allow for more tire options. I don’t know just how narrow I will go but I will be well under 80-inches!

That is the reason I posted up because I would be pissed if I built the new toy and was not allowed to run the local trail because I was 2-4-6~freeging inches too wide! The width regulation affects everything! Axle width, Wheel offset & width, Tire width, Suspension design, Spring rate, and even Frame design in my case…
Be sure you have enough information before you start and be aware that they can change the regulations at any time for any reason or no reason at all, so say the CFR!

Chris

 

[Jim1]

96" overall front width... here's a pic, no BS.

 

[Toyotanut]

It was a dark and snowy night in Central Oregon…
I had my web-hubs locked in for some nice web wheeling in NWW when suddenly there big and bold was a post about several of the trails at the PNWFWDA Trail Jambo being width limited so I clickitied on over to this link: http://www.pnw4wda.org/trailjam/trail_descriptions.htm and sho-nuff…
Divide: 74-Inches
Naches: 74-Inches
Shoestring/Upper Kaner Westbound: 74-Inches
Kanr/Quartz-Eastbound: 74-inches
Rocky Saddle: 74-Inches

I hate to admit it but I’ve been around the PNW for a long time and wheeled in places now looong closed. I have been building other peoples toys off and on since the 70’s… I first heard a rumor about trail width restrictions back in the early nineties and again when the “Final Rule†was in comment period. I have had many people ask me about it, but being just a Stumpjumper WFTDIK?
Anyway I went here and started reading because this is my back yard:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/about/regulations/cfrs.shtml
Not finding a clear answer I went here:
http://www.arra-access.com/arra/ohv_designation_center.html
Then here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf
Then I went and read CFR’s until I I had a grasp of the scope...
So, then I asked specifically about Central Oregon and a representative of the USFS named Paul said quote, “Our 80" restriction is in width. Outside of tire to outside of tire, not length.†And: “There is no "standard" rule for this in CFRs across the board 80'' is ours, but other trail systems could be different.â€

Now I do understand that there in fact may be a few trails out there that are that tight and I understand that there are places that I just should not take my big truck… However, in my observation of this “sport†over the last 30+years the trend has been to wider axles under narrower bodys. There are damn good reasons to build this way!
IME, out on the trail it is generally not the width that causes problems but the Wheelbase, thus the turning radius that is the issue.
However, the point is there is no single standard for Track Width in every area. The Track Width can be set on a trail by trail basis, which on one hand is a good thing… and on the other hand allows the powers that be to leave a trail “OPEN†and restrict the width to 51-inches effectively closing it to all but ATV’s without any public/user comment.
I do hope that it never comes to that however the law is apparently written so that it can.
If you are (like me) planning a build you had better do your homework!
If you build an 82-inch Track width you can’t run an 80†trail!
The issue popping up again caused me to do research because I will be starting construction of a new trail toy this year sometime. The base for the rig is the pile of parts that I have, including a Ranger and a set of fullsize axles. The plan was to run the axles and a set of 39.5 ROKz. However I have decided to change my plans and narrow the axles, to allow for more tire options. I don’t know just how narrow I will go but I will be well under 80-inches!

That is the reason I posted up because I would be pissed if I built the new toy and was not allowed to run the local trail because I was 2-4-6~freeging inches too wide! The width regulation affects everything! Axle width, Wheel offset & width, Tire width, Suspension design, Spring rate, and even Frame design in my case…
Be sure you have enough information before you start and be aware that they can change the regulations at any time for any reason or no reason at all, so say the CFR!

Chris

thanks for the info....

 

[Fullywrecked]

My yj is 82.5in wide and I fit everywhere I have gone including Rimrock. I dont think 82 is too wide at all. It sure is nice and stable. If the only reason were to protect the hubs though, I would run the 78in set up if I could.

85" is kick ass. It feel so stable. I am going back to 81" to help squeeze in those tight spots.:redneck: