Pirate 4x4 banner

221 - 240 of 298 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
971 Posts
I feel that the sluice will be a crowd drawer.. but what we have is another situation
if the crowd .. god forbid..
does what was done at spider we have a major problem..

anytime there is a major gathering we have people doing what was forbiden (the paper flowers..)

I do feel that the word is getting out there and alot more people are using the corect methods of sanitation.. (thank god)



I would love to see the carnage at the hard spots..
but I dont want to see the fluids all over the place either..

we should have stations for itms like cat litter .. bags.. for cleanup issues

any other thoughts???


mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,503 Posts
we should have stations for itms like cat litter .. bags.. for cleanup issues
Mike, in the past kits made specifically for oil spills have been handed out at the Loon Lake trailhead to those entering the Con. Spill kits can also be purchased on an individual basis at auto parts stores and I would imagine places like WalMart.

That actually brings up an interesting twist on the minimum rig standard that we havn't hashed out yet. Rather than tires size, wheelbase ect ect with which driver it would be much easier to identify "rig" qualifications based on what the rig has with it on the trail aka..oil spill kit, garbage bags (burlap bag ect), trail sanitation kit be it the PETT system or other.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
881 Posts
The idea of what rigs should carry has been brought up in sub-comittee meetings of the ROC. The list that Cal4wheel requires each fun-run participant to carry was the list brought up.

CA4WDC's Safety Requirements All vehicles must be maintained to conform to highway safety standards, as well as meet the minimum requirements listed below:

1.Roll bar or full cage or factory hard top

2.Functional Parking brake or Mico-Lock

3.Tow strap or rope. (recommend rated at 2 times the vehicle weight).

4.First aid kit (what do you want when you are hurt?)

5.Jack capable of lifting the vehicle and a tool capable of removing lug nuts
(don't forget your wheel locks)

6.Spare tire equal to or within 3 inches of existing tires on the vehicle. (no temporary spares).

7.Fire extinguisher with gauge indicating good/full, appropriately stored

8.Seat belts for all passengers

9.Antennas must not exceed 4'6" (except when longer antennas/whips are required by certain OHV areas).

10.Adequate attachment points front and rear, i.e., tow hooks, receiver, etc. Tow balls are generally not recommended.

11.Battery hold downs (no bungie cords)


In addition to this list it was brought up that a suggested list of items to bring could be published.

Spill Kit
Trash bags
WAG Bags
Spare parts


who knows what else...


If you have any suggestions or comments along these lines please e-mail the ROC at:

[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,607 Posts
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..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,919 Posts
with that list right there you just blocked access to a ton of people. I miss out on at least 3 of them.

"All vehicles must be maintained to conform to highway safety standards"

Yeah not so much :laughing:

"Jack capable of lifting the vehicle and a tool capable of removing lug nuts"

I have a winch cable and a tree saver. :D

"Spare tire equal to or within 3 inches of existing tires on the vehicle"

Plugs plugs and more plugs :D

As for spill kits they are good idea no matter where you go. One of our members helped Blue Devil Products put together a real good kit and our club carries at least 1 on every single one of our outings.

No idea how you could EVER enforce any of this stuff. They cant even get patrol out there as it is and we are talking about doing rig inspections??? Just not logistically possible imho.

Can someone tell me when there was vandalism in the Old Sluice? I have been running that section of trail for AT LEAST 14 years now and it really hasnt changed imo. (When compared to other parts of the trail)

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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
Brandon said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,458 Posts
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.
 

·
H Rated
Joined
·
1,737 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,848 Posts
jethrodeg said:
.....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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,960 Posts
Simple Man said:
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,919 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,503 Posts
Brandon said:
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,607 Posts
FLASHLIGHTMAN said:
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..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
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)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,607 Posts
bare 1 said:
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Rock Tractor said:
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,991 Posts
Trailer Guy said:
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.
 
221 - 240 of 298 Posts
Top