Rubicon Standard Rig? - Page 10 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Land Use and Trails > Rubicon Trail
Notices

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-12-2005, 12:28 PM   #226 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Trailer Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49181
Location: Redding, Jefferson
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon
I think the idea was to standardize the TRAIL, not the rigs..
I'll agree with that. I must also ask the question; Who is going to stand at the check point gate going into and out of the trail? Also, are you thinking of how many entrances you would have to cover with check points? And do you really think the county is going to just fork over the funds to do something like this? Plus, with that list and a few suggested vehicle specs, the county has a great start for vehicle requirements/laws that might restrict certain size/type of vehicles.
__________________
Better to die fighting for freedom then be a prisoner all the days of your life. -Bob Marley-

Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility. -Sigmund Freud-
Trailer Guy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2005, 01:33 PM   #227 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 144
Location: Northern Mexico... er.. AriDzona
Posts: 32,458
So, what I'm getting from this thread now is that we need to be babysat to enjoy the trail. If that's the direciton it's going, I'm done. I can not, will not and won't support that. That's my 2 cents worth.
__________________
That's because you're a pinko fascist. - Haole
I know what antidisestablishmentarianist means

Last edited by mike; 12-12-2005 at 01:33 PM.
mike is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 12-12-2005, 02:01 PM   #228 (permalink)
H Rated
 
jethrodeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Member # 36099
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 1,737
The trail standard = what it takes you to get through the trail. Fix erosion, clean the trail from litter but I do not like the idea of have a trail standard. By doing so is to impose a persons opinion of what should be done to change the trail, not maintain it. I also do not like the idea of someone telling me what I must carry on a trail. I understand the need to recommend items but will it stop there? Could these be turned into trail required equipment? Much like OHV parks with their requirements.
__________________



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

jethrodeg is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2005, 02:06 PM   #229 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Tinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member # 21358
Location: Georgetown, Ca
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by jethrodeg
.....Much like OHV parks with their requirements.

That's exactly what some want to turn it into. It's going to change but let's leave it natural at least.
__________________
Bret Preble

California 4 Wheel Drive Association
American Motorcyclist Association
Tinman is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2005, 02:11 PM   #230 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 547
Location: CITRUS HEIGHTS /Placerville CA.
Posts: 3,316
the business owners want to be able to get stock jeeps through the entire ROAD during their jamborees ... period.

The business owners have the money and county politicians behind them, they will get what they want .... the "standard rig" might as well be a street legal, stock 2005 Jeep Rubicon on 32s/33s with a locker, sid plate, paid rock stackers/spotters and completly unexperianced drivers who can't even speak english..... This is the kind of rig JEEP wants to see naviagte the ENTIRE ROAD.

if you've ever been at the box during a stock jeep jambo you know what i'm talking about...

i'm not saying it's right or wrong, just presenting the facts
__________________
RocknRoll4x4.com Club Member
Been a FOUNDING FOTR since day one!!!

Last edited by FLASHLIGHTMAN; 12-12-2005 at 02:29 PM.
FLASHLIGHTMAN is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2005, 02:51 PM   #231 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Member # 42365
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simple Man
Maybe it wasn't clear that not everyone fits in to one of these four catagories. Only those that expect boady damage when they go wheeling.



I don't fit in to any of these because I don't expect body damage when I go out. Just because you have received body damage doesn't mean I think you don't care about the environment.

The Pirates are a great example of this, over the past few years few clubs have done as much to clean up the trail at the end of the year. They do care about the trail. But they don't always care about their vehicles.
I dont believe its that these users dont care about their vehicles, but more so about damaging sheet metal. I know people that do some serious damage to sheet metal when they are out, always pushing the limits..but I can guarantee that their D60s, 44s, 22Rs, 350s and regular maintence are as up to par as your 4x4. Wrinkled sheet metal doesnt mean their vehicles is in top notch running order otherwise they wouldnt have a chance in hell to make half the obstacles they try.
__________________
Toyota pickup with a few modifications...
Westy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2005, 04:16 PM   #232 (permalink)
Registered User
 
RCKRATZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Member # 2485
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,919
Send a message via Yahoo to RCKRATZ
Quote:
Maybe I should have left out the words "had to" when talking about finding challenges. I do not assume that all drivers of extreme rigs drive off the trail and alter the trail. But new routes were formed and the trail was altered. Don't try and tell me it was done by someone driving a rig with 31's.
moot point. Any off trail driving is bad whether it be to find a harder obstacle or create a new bypass around something. I've seen so many occurences of both over the years that to point to any one type of rig for anything is ridiculous.
__________________
Keith Ratzburg aka "El Rolo"
Ratz Racing #4821

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Big thanks to the vendors that have helped us out!
Goatbuilt, South Bay Driveline, East Coast Gear Supply, Rugged Radios, 150tunes.com, Pro Comp, Raceline Wheels, FOX Shocks
RCKRATZ is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2005, 05:41 PM   #233 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Member # 19251
Location: Cedarville, Michigan
Posts: 1,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon
uh, do we really want someone to do a safety inspection on every single vehicle that goes on the trail? Come awn..

I think the idea was to standardize the TRAIL, not the rigs..
I'm just bringing up points that I don't think were discussed yet in this thread. I never said I wanted a mandate on what each vehicle must carry to traverse the Con. To have a check point at entry points would be non-realistic. To have a LEO check if they ran across you on the trail somewhere would be. Once again I'm not saying that is or is not what I want but just putting it on the table.

The basics such as a tow strap or winch, garbage bag, spill kit and wag bag or something similar are items everyone should carry while on the trail regardless. Just those basic items would help reduce the damage to the trail. Would lockers front and back with proper gearing help prevent unneeded tire spin...sure it would but then were getting back into driver ability or lack theroff with a more or less capable rig.

Getting rid of flowers n feeces, garbage and vehicle fluid spills would go a long way. The strap or winch would cut down on trail damage from people trying to get out of major stucks. Certainly a cb antenaee less than 4'6", per Cal4wheel policy, isn't going to do anything to help prevent degredation of the trail.

I think I'm just trying to point out that standards might need to be identifiable and not subject to interpretation ie "person A can do the box open with 33" and person B couldn't do the box in a comp buggy".

I certainly don't need to agree with everyone and under no circumstances dose ANYBODY have to agree with me. All opinions in a positive demeanor are welcome and constructive.

Robert

Last edited by microtus; 12-12-2005 at 06:17 PM.
microtus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2005, 07:13 PM   #234 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brandon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1975
Member # 6
Location: Pollock Pines, CA
Posts: 11,609
Send a message via ICQ to Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLASHLIGHTMAN
the business owners want to be able to get stock jeeps through the entire ROAD during their jamborees ... period.

The business owners have the money and county politicians behind them, they will get what they want .... the "standard rig" might as well be a street legal, stock 2005 Jeep Rubicon on 32s/33s with a locker, sid plate, paid rock stackers/spotters and completly unexperianced drivers who can't even speak english..... This is the kind of rig JEEP wants to see naviagte the ENTIRE ROAD.

if you've ever been at the box during a stock jeep jambo you know what i'm talking about...

i'm not saying it's right or wrong, just presenting the facts

I don't think that rig would have any problem with the trail as is - they don't go through the box but I don't think anyone there has a prob w/that..
__________________
This Space for rent!
Brandon is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2005, 08:22 PM   #235 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Member # 40133
Location: Mesa AZ
Posts: 47
Huh?

So maybe I'm just a dumbass newb who does'nt know all the political nuances of the Con,but it seems to me that all this talk of a "standard " of any sort is a moot point. My understanding is that the Gatekeeper and other obstacles set the standard. If the powers that be see fit to change that,you are screwed anyway. And there will ALWAYS be some yahoos who care about nothing but their own personal pleasure. Until you deal with that sort of trash all your talk and discussion is in vain. For the record I've been over the trail once, this summer, riding shotgun with a friend. It was hot. One of our guys broke and we did'nt get to camp till long after dark, hungry and dirty. I thought I lost my thumb between a rock and a bumper. I literally ran ( as on foot ) the big sluice in the dark spotting for the broke guy. And I had a blast!!! I loved it. I'm very disappointed the Gatekeeper was destroyed as I wanted to test my jeep on it this summer. I"m planning on driving down from Washington this summer to run the Con in my own jeep.
I guess my point is this. The standard isn't the rig--- it's the nut behind the wheel. From what I've seen in the mags and in person and read, that is the problem. I don't have an answer-at least not a legal one. When the yahoos have to lay out some serious cash for tickets ,lose their rigs, spend some time in the slammer, maybe just maybe the rest of us can enjoy the Con on it's own terms. Just my nickels worth (inflation ya know)
__________________
On The Rock ---- in the gravel pit.
bare 1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2005, 08:28 PM   #236 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brandon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1975
Member # 6
Location: Pollock Pines, CA
Posts: 11,609
Send a message via ICQ to Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by bare 1
So maybe I'm just a dumbass newb who does'nt know all the political nuances of the Con,but it seems to me that all this talk of a "standard " of any sort is a moot point. My understanding is that the Gatekeeper and other obstacles set the standard. If the powers that be see fit to change that,you are screwed anyway. And there will ALWAYS be some yahoos who care about nothing but their own personal pleasure. Until you deal with that sort of trash all your talk and discussion is in vain. For the record I've been over the trail once, this summer, riding shotgun with a friend. It was hot. One of our guys broke and we did'nt get to camp till long after dark, hungry and dirty. I thought I lost my thumb between a rock and a bumper. I literally ran ( as on foot ) the big sluice in the dark spotting for the broke guy. And I had a blast!!! I loved it. I'm very disappointed the Gatekeeper was destroyed as I wanted to test my jeep on it this summer. I"m planning on driving down from Washington this summer to run the Con in my own jeep.
I guess my point is this. The standard isn't the rig--- it's the nut behind the wheel. From what I've seen in the mags and in person and read, that is the problem. I don't have an answer-at least not a legal one. When the yahoos have to lay out some serious cash for tickets ,lose their rigs, spend some time in the slammer, maybe just maybe the rest of us can enjoy the Con on it's own terms. Just my nickels worth (inflation ya know)

well put, and I think the purpose of many of these threads it to bitch, and that's about it.
__________________
This Space for rent!
Brandon is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2005, 09:17 PM   #237 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Rock Tractor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Member # 11635
Location: Ca.
Posts: 1,372
Simple Man, if your views are the views or the ROC and FOTR I will not ever support them again!
__________________
KJ6FOR
Dysfunctional RockCrawlers
Rock Tractor is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 10:04 AM   #238 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
cruzila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Member # 6650
Location: Garden Valley
Posts: 5,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Tractor
Simple Man, if your views are the views or the ROC and FOTR I will not ever support them again!
Rock, can we get off this? There is no where in any of Dougs posts that he states these are the views of the ROC or FOTR. He is stating his personal beliefs. Thats it. Period. End of Story.

Even if he did state that he would be way out of line. Noone Except Del or a committee therof can make any statements representing FOTR. Even with that we ALL know that there will never be full agreement on any issue within FOTR. There is no point in trying to achieve full agreement as that is what makes us strong. The diversity of our opinion.

Only the vote and decisions at as ROC meeting can be held true. Again there is diversity there too.

Scott
__________________
Scott Johnston
Rubicon Trail Foundation
Founding Director
Past President 2010-2012
Retired Director 2004-2013
ReElected RTF Director Dec 2017

cruzila is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 10:08 AM   #239 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Trailer Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49181
Location: Redding, Jefferson
Posts: 4,462
I'm starting to look at this thread as being useless. The only area of the Con that we know for sure had people pull in Rock illegally was the Little Sluice. That area will now be taken care of. Other than that, the rest of the trail just needs to have erosion and vegetation growth maintained, that's it. We DO NOT need to change the trail to fit anything, we just need to maintain. I read a couple different posts about the Old/True Sluice and the rocks in it. There is no proof, and no majority feelings/sayings that suggest illegal activities were done at that location in the trail. There is a perfectly good bypass around that area, and I've seen plenty of 33's on YJ's make it through, so I don't see anyneed to change anything there. So what we are really talking about is maintenance, not change. We do not need to change the trail for any certain type of rig, just maintain what is there now. The trail, besides Little Sluice (which is being dealt with), can be traversed. There are a few risk areas that can be traversed by a smaller rig, or that driver could take the bypass. At the beginning of this thread that is what people wanted. A trail that can be traversed by all, with some difficulties. I think the Rubicon is already there. I think our plan may need to be a procedure rather than a standard. Say something like this:

The group/club that has adapted a certain area sees a problem accuring that needs attention. They photograph the area and make a quick plan. Working with the FOTR they could bring the problem to the attention of the county along with their plan of attack. With the counties approval and/or suggestions, they could then carry out a maintenance plan for that particular situation/area.

Changing the trail to fit a standard rig or to fit past pictures is not right, nor is it feesable. Maintaining the trail in its current condition to help prevent future erosion, and fixing the problem areas (Little Sluice, Gatekeeper) is feesable. Future problem areas will raise their heads, like Walker Hill in the future, but will have to be dealt with on its own. Each problem will need a different solution, so there can be no standard solution, but there can be a standard procedure.
__________________
Better to die fighting for freedom then be a prisoner all the days of your life. -Bob Marley-

Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility. -Sigmund Freud-
Trailer Guy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 10:18 AM   #240 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
Rubicrawler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Member # 2037
Location: Brentwood, CA 150 mi. from the 'Con
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trailer Guy
I'm starting to look at this thread as being useless. The only area of the Con that we know for sure had people pull in Rock illegally was the Little Sluice. That area will now be taken care of. Other than that, the rest of the trail just needs to have erosion and vegetation growth maintained, that's it. We DO NOT need to change the trail to fit anything, we just need to maintain. I read a couple different posts about the Old/True Sluice and the rocks in it. There is no proof, and no majority feelings/sayings that suggest illegal activities were done at that location in the trail. There is a perfectly good bypass around that area, and I've seen plenty of 33's on YJ's make it through, so I don't see anyneed to change anything there. So what we are really talking about is maintenance, not change. We do not need to change the trail for any certain type of rig, just maintain what is there now. The trail, besides Little Sluice (which is being dealt with), can be traversed. There are a few risk areas that can be traversed by a smaller rig, or that driver could take the bypass. At the beginning of this thread that is what people wanted. A trail that can be traversed by all, with some difficulties. I think the Rubicon is already there. I think our plan may need to be a procedure rather than a standard. Say something like this:

The group/club that has adapted a certain area sees a problem accuring that needs attention. They photograph the area and make a quick plan. Working with the FOTR they could bring the problem to the attention of the county along with their plan of attack. With the counties approval and/or suggestions, they could then carry out a maintenance plan for that particular situation/area.

Changing the trail to fit a standard rig or to fit past pictures is not right, nor is it feesable. Maintaining the trail in its current condition to help prevent future erosion, and fixing the problem areas (Little Sluice, Gatekeeper) is feesable. Future problem areas will raise their heads, like Walker Hill in the future, but will have to be dealt with on its own. Each problem will need a different solution, so there can be no standard solution, but there can be a standard procedure.

AMEN!

Finally, a voice of reason! This is a common sence approach that I can support.
__________________
Mark Langford
KI6TMK


'86 CJ7, ProRock60's, 4.88's/Detroits/35 Spline Alloys/CTM's, TBI 350, 700R4, 4:1 D300 w/Twin Stick, 17" x 8.5" Trail Ready HD Aluminum beadlocks, 37x13.5x17 Toyo MT's

Dysfunctional Rockcrawlers (TDO)

Wheelers for the Wounded of California
Rubicrawler is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 01:29 PM   #241 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brandon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1975
Member # 6
Location: Pollock Pines, CA
Posts: 11,609
Send a message via ICQ to Brandon
I second that Amen
__________________
This Space for rent!
Brandon is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 02:36 PM   #242 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Trailer Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49181
Location: Redding, Jefferson
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
AMEN!

Finally, a voice of reason! This is a common sence approach that I can support
Quote:
I second that Amen
Can I get a HALLELUJAH from my brothers and sisters?
__________________
Better to die fighting for freedom then be a prisoner all the days of your life. -Bob Marley-

Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility. -Sigmund Freud-
Trailer Guy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 02:39 PM   #243 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Member # 18320
Location: Lake County
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCKRATZ
moot point. Any off trail driving is bad whether it be to find a harder obstacle or create a new bypass around something. I've seen so many occurences of both over the years that to point to any one type of rig for anything is ridiculous.
Agreed. Hard part at the Rubicon is knowing what is off trail and what is not.
Soups & the hillclimb between Little Sluice & Soup are good examples.

A good example of going around an obstacle that has created an erosion issue is the high road going by Buck Island. To avoid a sidehill, folks have started driving in the brush.
Another is the bypass for middle sluice, when going down the slabs. There is a small steep section when you first drop on the slabs. Just this past year a new line was created over the brush. Since larger rigs would have no issues going up the ledge, I would *assume* the bypass was created by someone in a smaller rig. Regardless, I was irritated when I saw it.
elarsen is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 03:21 PM   #244 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
cruzila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Member # 6650
Location: Garden Valley
Posts: 5,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trailer Guy
Each problem will need a different solution, so there can be no standard solution, but there can be a standard procedure.
And that procedure is?
__________________
Scott Johnston
Rubicon Trail Foundation
Founding Director
Past President 2010-2012
Retired Director 2004-2013
ReElected RTF Director Dec 2017

cruzila is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 03:39 PM   #245 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Member # 24859
Location: Where ever my wife says
Posts: 5,623
the procedure is common sense and it obviously aint workin.
__________________
Mellonhead
peesalot is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 04:50 PM   #246 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Trailer Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49181
Location: Redding, Jefferson
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruzila
And that procedure is?
And the standard is? That's what we are here to help figure out, come on now, give me a break, I'm trying many different options here to give us different ways of looking at getting the job done. If someone else has a different idea, post up, but all I here is a standard rig and I'm trying to look at this from many different angles and not set on just one. I, not like others, am trying to have an open mind and figure out the best method. And the best method is not always the easy one. Now I stated something to that effect about a procedure in my post, let me go find it, hang on.......................... Oh, here it is, the middle paragraph, this is not perfect, but I think you'll get the idea.

Quote:
The group/club that has adapted a certain area sees a problem accuring that needs attention. They photograph the area and make a quick plan. Working with the FOTR they could bring the problem to the attention of the county along with their plan of attack. With the counties approval and/or suggestions, they could then carry out a maintenance plan for that particular situation/area.
__________________
Better to die fighting for freedom then be a prisoner all the days of your life. -Bob Marley-

Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility. -Sigmund Freud-
Trailer Guy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 08:04 PM   #247 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Member # 18320
Location: Lake County
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruzila
And that procedure is?
The consensus is that there is no consensus

The one area of agreement on maintenance is controlling erosion & soil stability. I posted a link a while back on the Green/ Yellow/ Red system the USFS developed. There are procedures already set up by other agencies for soil stability & erosion.


What might help with the discussion is to give an example where you would have to apply the "maintenace" or "standard" on difficulty. (Would you use the "standard rig" or "maintenance standard" when addressing the big sluice?)

I guess without a standard the "Big Turn" could get paved to mitigate erosion, and that would be the pits.

Do I make any sense?
elarsen is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 08:27 PM   #248 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
cruzila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Member # 6650
Location: Garden Valley
Posts: 5,906
I read that but it gives absolutely no guideline for the clubs to follow. You could have a TDO section (sorry guys, just an example) of the trail maintained to the standard they set and then another club/group setting their own ideals to a different section. I also see the county possibly buying into (inadvertantly) both ideals.

We need some sort of guideline other than making a quick plan. Not to say there is no sense in the idea you presented. I think it is more forward progress to the ultimate goal. We just need to get to specifics to be at the end. Generalizations can work like in the tree example. If a tree falls across the trail, the group assigned can cut it, or possibly choose not to. Depending. ie. If the tree is on dirt, it is a 100 percent chance of erosion in and around it. So, it should be removed. If it is small, on granite and it is not determined to cause any change, it could be left there.
Specifics should be more towards the result of what would happen if an action was taken vs no action. I really thought the rock above Walker would prove to be a barrier. I was wrong on that one. I feel it should stay. It could go and would not make a difference in traffic or erosion either way. The rock in the middle of Walker however, I predict to be a real problem next spring if something is not done to change the line back to the solid rock on the left. That notch is going to be bad this spring and the water flowing into it from the top needs to be diverted asap.

So, the challenge is how do you put that in writing. That is why Randii started this thread in the first place. Some sort of specific standard or guideline needs to be written so we the users can dictate to the county how we want the trail to be managed. I beleive if it is well written, they'll buy into it. We are the ones with the experience and we are the logical ones to define the guide/standard.
__________________
Scott Johnston
Rubicon Trail Foundation
Founding Director
Past President 2010-2012
Retired Director 2004-2013
ReElected RTF Director Dec 2017


Last edited by cruzila; 12-13-2005 at 08:29 PM.
cruzila is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 09:17 PM   #249 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Kevie Ray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Member # 49165
Location: Discovery Bay, CA
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCKRATZ

Pull out the rocks that were artificially added to the box and a rig on 33's is still gonna have a hell of a time. I just wish that people would stop with the vandalism this, illegal actions that talk. Yes everybody knows that there were at least 3 big guys thrown into the box. Get over it, what is done is done. Lets look to the future and decide what is going to happen in the box. Why don't we start by breaking up the one's that are known to be artificially added and see what that does to the difficulty??? Seems to me that if you break those up it would give you a pretty good start.

Simple man. I just don't understand your point about making the entire trail passable to the standard rig. Does that mean that we are going to walk every single section of trail once this "standard rig" stuff is decided and say nope too hard and change it? I thought the "standard rig" was a way of handling future MAINTENANCE projects. So what are we talking about here? Maintenance or changing the entire trail to suit a certain type of rig? Suiting the ENTIRE trail to one type of rig is just as bad as throwing a huge boulder in the box imo.

Also, I somewhat disagree with your point that the Con is a camping/fishing type trail, etc. The rubicon became what it is today because it was seen as a HARD trail. Read all the literature out there from anyone and they talk about the Rubicon being the grand daddy, and a 10 degree of difficulty on all scales, blah blah blah. That said, its not that way anymore, its been passed by a million other trails and I'm not saying it should be an extreme trail, but it also shouldn't be altered for the entire length so a guy on 31's or 32's or whatever can get through with no issues. Leave the trail as is and use the maintenance standard when doing MAINTENANCE and at no other time.

my $.02

BRILLIANT!
__________________
"Stepping into the sound waves of Stevie Ray Vaughan's blues was like walking into the wash of a jet engine naked"


BRC MEMBER
CA4WDC MEMBER
FOTR MEMBER

Last edited by Kevie Ray; 12-13-2005 at 09:18 PM.
Kevie Ray is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2005, 10:45 PM   #250 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Member # 18320
Location: Lake County
Posts: 1,328
So, the rock in the middle of waker hill is a good example of why a standard needs to be created. There is an erosion issue that needs to be addressed, so how does a group go about repairing that section?

To show the severity of the erosion, check out this thread:
https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...highlight=1976

You have to scroll down to see the comparison pic of Walker Hill. Taking it back to what the old pic looks like would not be practical.

I would hate to see that portion of the trail paved to mitigate erosion. Without a standard set by users, I could see the county's answer as pave it (dynamite, etc). By creating the standard, we have a say in the outcome.
(so I come full circle, from standard yes! to no! to yes! )

An Idea:
I like the thought of using the Sheriffs' XJ as the standard. To eliminate driver capability as a variable, what about taking measurements of the XJ (angle of approach, departure, breakover, ???) and use those numbers as guidelines for the reconstruction of an area.
elarsen is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.