blooddrive
01-05-2004, 09:30 PM
62436-62460
62436 From: Garrison St.Clair <gunslinger@i...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 3:46pm
Subject: Re: money to burn on jeep stuff
Josh,
Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do everything.
Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list is, I
frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road vs.
the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the more
"purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
simultaneously.
One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56 gears,
Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving) with
your Jeep that you have failed?"
Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves your
primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
trails.
That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your present
setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad roads,
trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't do
monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with 4.5"
lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ, but I
also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should weight
the type of mods.
JMO, FWIW.
Gunslinger
Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
----- Original Message -----
From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> Hello everyone,
> Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> I need to figure out is on what?
>
> What I currently have:
> 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> What I would like to end up with:
> 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> the freeway.
>
> I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
>
> The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> depend on both on the trail and the highway.
>
> Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Josh Wooten
> 99 TJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
62437 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:00pm
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Ms. Leonard
I do not have the expertise that my friend Stu has on the subject but he
makes very good sense. I hope you take the time to look into his reply to
your article. You may find it well worth your time. I look forward to seeing
your answers to his questions in the paper just like your original article
was published. Jim Florence
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx"
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
-----Original Message-----
From: Stu Olson [mailto:solson8@q...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:13 PM
To: christina.leonard@a...
Cc: az_vjc
Subject: [az_vjc] your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Ms. Leonard,
I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's newspaper.
Although I am not a "geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it has gained
over the past years. With the improvements in GPS receivers and their drop
in price, it is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one of these little
beauties.
One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated (on page A2)
that "Geocaching began in May 2000 when the Clinton administration
unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global
positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use devices to steer cars or find
missing hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that geocaching
may very well have started in May, 2000, it was not because of any actions
taken by the Clinton Administration. On or about May 1, 2002, then
President Clinton lifted the requirement that caused the intentional
degradation in the accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he nor his
administration can be given any kind of credit for making the GPS technology
available to the civilian population and its subsequent use for steering
cars or finding lost hikers. I was using a consumer grade GPS receiver long
before May 1, 2000. As to your comment about it being able to steer a
car....no...no...no! Would you feel confident in a car with a "steering
system" that could guide your vehicle to within an accuracy of 6 to 20 feet?
(those are your numbers, not mine) Thank you but no....I prefer to "steer"
my vehicle with more precision than that. I am afraid that a 6 to 20 foot
error would very well put me into the path of dangerous oncoming traffic.
But, enough about the basics of GPS reception. I need to get to the point
of this correspondence.
As an environmentalist that fully enjoys virtually everything our public
lands have to offer, I am saddened to hear that some irresponsible people
are leaving their trash behind, making new trails, and even picking up
native artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how many of these
people are familiar with the laws concerning removing an item from an
archaeological site? I can tell you, from first hand experience, that many
people have no idea that driving across the desert or up a big hill, where
there is no trail, is unlawful in most of Arizona. I can speak to people
leaving their trash behind....any road trip down I-10 or I-17 will yield
supporting evidence that people certainly do litter.
The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame that your
article places on those people that are participating in the geocaching
sport (I guess we can call it a sport?)
Let's first look at the facts you stated in the article:
1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the Internet that
are on or near archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how many were
actually on a site)
2. There are more than 10,900 known archaeological sites in Maricopa
County.
3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, not
including those on Tribal lands.
4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have been kept
secret for years, and officials have even required a new site steward to
sign a confidentiality agreement.
So...let me see if I understand what you are really saying.
1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological site in this state.
2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and specific land
management officials, no where the archaeological sites are.....and we have
one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) that are upset because three
and one half hundreths of just one percent of the total geocache sites in
Arizona happen to be put on these secret archaeological sites.
It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that are ruining
our archaeological sites but yet we won't tell them where the sites are so
they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an archaeological
site. I realize this might very well be a damned if you do, damned if you
don't kind of situation, but please apply some common sense here. Your
article indicates that many of the Arizona geocaches are in remote
locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we then say shame on
the geocachers for picking a challenging location to hide their
cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret archaeological site
that no one told them about.....and it is their fault? You've got to be
kidding, right?
Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps another way to
look at it is:
1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage population didn't
complete high school?
2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving through a
Phoenix intersection ran the red light?
I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person who helps run
AZgeocaching.com, has not been contacted or notified about the apparent
problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological sites.
However, it is sad that the amount of text you devoted to Mr. Cluff is
approximately 0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I am certain
that all reading it will in no way be biased by this.
Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's plans to
help correct it? From what was written, it appears that a strong push
towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a long way
in correcting this problem. Perhaps some public awareness commercials on
the local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make more aware of their
inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people randomly hiding little
tuperware containers of goodies on secret archaeological sites that they
have no knowledge of.
I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that will be
implemented to help curb this problem.
King Regards,
Stu Olson
Phoenix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62438 From: mervalot <miller2993@m...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:07pm
Subject: Re: The Difference between HREW and DOM tubing
Good point Mike. I didn't think of the Tech section. Or motivation
for that matter (such as, someone will have to do something). I vote
for John Rabenius (sp?) email be added to
the tech section with some kind of catchy title like "The Difference
Between HREW and DOM Tubing" or maybe "Steel Tubing Info,
Condensed". Perhaps
John has something to say about it? I'll bet he did not intend for
it to be an "article", and he might like to edit it a little, but
that's a nice piece of work!
Oh, and Mike, "can I borrow your holesaw"? LOL!
Marv
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Chatfield, Mike" <Mike@A...> wrote:
> >What if the website had a place for Frequently Asked Questions?
>
> This is what I designed the "Tech" section for.
>
> Ideally we should have Lockers, Gears, Lifts, Tires, Cooling, DOM
vs.
> "Regular" Tube, etc...
>
> All it take is someone with enough motivation to write up the Tech
> Article...
62439 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:12pm
Subject: RE: Crown King head count
Everyone don't listen to Hackle. The early Turkey Creek run will be much
more interesting!
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@q...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:54 PM
To: Az_Vjc
Subject: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
Ok by my count we have 79 signed up on the main page. I clicked
on all of them then went to the trips separately and found 27 that were
not high lighted. So my count for today is 106 :) Looks like a lot of
fun. Glad to see so many members going with us. Jim F. BTW the early
bird run will be the best :O
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx" Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62440 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:23pm
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
I just heard something rip. Could it have been Ms. Leonard getting a new
hole!!
I'm with you Stu Let her have it!
Joey K
93YJ
PS whew almost sent this to her!! :) I will have my reply to her later.
;)
-----Original Message-----
From: Stu Olson [mailto:solson8@q...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:13 PM
To: christina.leonard@a...
Cc: az_vjc
Subject: [az_vjc] your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Ms. Leonard,
I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's newspaper.
Although I am not a "geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it has
gained over the past years. With the improvements in GPS receivers and
their drop in price, it is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one
of these little beauties.
One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated (on page
A2) that "Geocaching began in May 2000 when the Clinton administration
unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global
positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use devices to steer cars or
find missing hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that
geocaching may very well have started in May, 2000, it was not because
of any actions taken by the Clinton Administration. On or about May 1,
2002, then President Clinton lifted the requirement that caused the
intentional degradation in the accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he
nor his administration can be given any kind of credit for making the
GPS technology available to the civilian population and its subsequent
use for steering cars or finding lost hikers. I was using a consumer
grade GPS receiver long before May 1, 2000. As to your comment about it
being able to steer a car....no...no...no! Would you feel confident in a
car with a "steering system" that could guide your vehicle to within an
accuracy of 6 to 20 feet? (those are your numbers, not mine) Thank you
but no....I prefer to "steer" my vehicle with more precision than that.
I am afraid that a 6 to 20 foot error would very well put me into the
path of dangerous oncoming traffic. But, enough about the basics of GPS
reception. I need to get to the point of this correspondence.
As an environmentalist that fully enjoys virtually everything our public
lands have to offer, I am saddened to hear that some irresponsible
people are leaving their trash behind, making new trails, and even
picking up native artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how
many of these people are familiar with the laws concerning removing an
item from an archaeological site? I can tell you, from first hand
experience, that many people have no idea that driving across the desert
or up a big hill, where there is no trail, is unlawful in most of
Arizona. I can speak to people leaving their trash behind....any road
trip down I-10 or I-17 will yield supporting evidence that people
certainly do litter.
The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame that your
article places on those people that are participating in the geocaching
sport (I guess we can call it a sport?)
Let's first look at the facts you stated in the article:
1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the Internet
that are on or near archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how many
were actually on a site)
2. There are more than 10,900 known archaeological sites in Maricopa
County.
3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, not
including those on Tribal lands.
4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have been kept
secret for years, and officials have even required a new site steward to
sign a confidentiality agreement.
So...let me see if I understand what you are really saying.
1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological site in this state.
2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and specific land
management officials, no where the archaeological sites are.....and we
have one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) that are upset
because three and one half hundreths of just one percent of the total
geocache sites in Arizona happen to be put on these secret
archaeological sites.
It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that are
ruining our archaeological sites but yet we won't tell them where the
sites are so they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an
archaeological site. I realize this might very well be a damned if you
do, damned if you don't kind of situation, but please apply some common
sense here. Your article indicates that many of the Arizona geocaches
are in remote locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we
then say shame on the geocachers for picking a challenging location to
hide their cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret
archaeological site that no one told them about.....and it is their
fault? You've got to be kidding, right?
Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps another
way to look at it is:
1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage population
didn't complete high school?
2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving
through a Phoenix intersection ran the red light?
I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person who helps
run AZgeocaching.com, has not been contacted or notified about the
apparent problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological
sites. However, it is sad that the amount of text you devoted to Mr.
Cluff is approximately 0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I
am certain that all reading it will in no way be biased by this.
Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's plans to
help correct it? From what was written, it appears that a strong push
towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a long
way in correcting this problem. Perhaps some public awareness
commercials on the local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make
more aware of their inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people
randomly hiding little tuperware containers of goodies on secret
archaeological sites that they have no knowledge of.
I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that will be
implemented to help curb this problem.
King Regards,
Stu Olson
Phoenix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62441 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:27pm
Subject: RE: Crown King head count
Yeah but Joey is leading it??? Did anything good ever happen that was lead
by a Joey??? :) Jim F. aka Hackle
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx"
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
-----Original Message-----
From: DesertJeep [mailto:joey@d...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:12 PM
To: 'Az_Vjc'
Cc: 'Hackle'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
Everyone don't listen to Hackle. The early Turkey Creek run will be much
more interesting!
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@q...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:54 PM
To: Az_Vjc
Subject: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
Ok by my count we have 79 signed up on the main page. I clicked
on all of them then went to the trips separately and found 27 that were
not high lighted. So my count for today is 106 :) Looks like a lot of
fun. Glad to see so many members going with us. Jim F. BTW the early
bird run will be the best :O
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx" Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62442 From: Stu Olson <solson8@q...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:32pm
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Christina,
I've not time to contact you today, but I will certainly give it my best
effort tomorrow.
I appologize for the wording in my correspondence to you.
I mistakenly said:
"0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an archaeological
site in this state."
What I should have said was:
"0.0357143% of the archaeological sites in this state are located at or near
a geoache site."
Sorry...I had the numbers correct but the sites were backwards.
Again, my appologies and I will contact you tomorrow.
Stu Olson
-----Original Message-----
From: christina.leonard@a...
[mailto:christina.leonard@a...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:19 PM
To: Stu Olson
Subject: Re: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
thanks for the note. If you would like to speak about it, I would prefer to
do it over the phone. I'm at 602-xxxxxxx
"Stu Olson"
<solson8@q... To:
christina.leonard@a...
t> cc: "az_vjc"
<az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: your article in
AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Composed
Date:08/07/2002
03:08 PM
Ms. Leonard,
I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's newspaper.
Although I am not a "geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it has gained
over the past years. With the improvements in GPS receivers and their drop
in price, it is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one of these little
beauties.
One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated (on page A2)
that "Geocaching began in May 2000 when the Clinton administration
unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global
positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use devices to steer cars or find
missing hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that geocaching
may very well have started in May, 2000, it was not because of any actions
taken by the Clinton Administration. On or about May 1, 2002, then
President Clinton lifted the requirement that caused the intentional
degradation in the accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he nor his
administration can be given any kind of credit for making the GPS
technology
available to the civilian population and its subsequent use for steering
cars or finding lost hikers. I was using a consumer grade GPS receiver
long
before May 1, 2000. As to your comment about it being able to steer a
car....no...no...no! Would you feel confident in a car with a "steering
system" that could guide your vehicle to within an accuracy of 6 to 20
feet?
(those are your numbers, not mine) Thank you but no....I prefer to "steer"
my vehicle with more precision than that. I am afraid that a 6 to 20 foot
error would very well put me into the path of dangerous oncoming traffic.
But, enough about the basics of GPS reception. I need to get to the point
of this correspondence.
As an environmentalist that fully enjoys virtually everything our public
lands have to offer, I am saddened to hear that some irresponsible people
are leaving their trash behind, making new trails, and even picking up
native artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how many of these
people are familiar with the laws concerning removing an item from an
archaeological site? I can tell you, from first hand experience, that many
people have no idea that driving across the desert or up a big hill, where
there is no trail, is unlawful in most of Arizona. I can speak to people
leaving their trash behind....any road trip down I-10 or I-17 will yield
supporting evidence that people certainly do litter.
The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame that your
article places on those people that are participating in the geocaching
sport (I guess we can call it a sport?)
Let's first look at the facts you stated in the article:
1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the Internet that
are on or near archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how many were
actually on a site)
2. There are more than 10,900 known archaeological sites in Maricopa
County.
3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, not
including those on Tribal lands.
4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have been kept
secret for years, and officials have even required a new site steward to
sign a confidentiality agreement.
So...let me see if I understand what you are really saying.
1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological site in this state.
2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and specific land
management officials, no where the archaeological sites are.....and we have
one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) that are upset because
three
and one half hundreths of just one percent of the total geocache sites in
Arizona happen to be put on these secret archaeological sites.
It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that are ruining
our archaeological sites but yet we won't tell them where the sites are so
they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an archaeological
site. I realize this might very well be a damned if you do, damned if you
don't kind of situation, but please apply some common sense here. Your
article indicates that many of the Arizona geocaches are in remote
locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we then say shame on
the geocachers for picking a challenging location to hide their
cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret archaeological site
that no one told them about.....and it is their fault? You've got to be
kidding, right?
Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps another way
to
look at it is:
1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage population
didn't
complete high school?
2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving through a
Phoenix intersection ran the red light?
I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person who helps run
AZgeocaching.com, has not been contacted or notified about the apparent
problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological sites.
However, it is sad that the amount of text you devoted to Mr. Cluff is
approximately 0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I am certain
that all reading it will in no way be biased by this.
Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's plans to
help correct it? From what was written, it appears that a strong push
towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a long way
in correcting this problem. Perhaps some public awareness commercials on
the local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make more aware of their
inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people randomly hiding little
tuperware containers of goodies on secret archaeological sites that they
have no knowledge of.
I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that will be
implemented to help curb this problem.
King Regards,
Stu Olson
Phoenix
62443 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:46pm
Subject: [MS] GC on 59th and Grand
Smoke silver (not sure the name of the color) Grand Cherokee. At about 3
pm today on 59th and Grand Ave. Nice rig with safari rack and lift.
Yes you looked right at me. I was in the white [cough cough] Crown
Victoria getting honked at for not moving up more.
Here is a wave at you... WAVE!
Joey K
62444 From: mt_b <mt_b@y...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:01pm
Subject: Permit required for STL?
I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling at
FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong there
is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
ever been questioned by any authorities.
Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
either way?
Dan
62445 From: my1stjeep <my1stjeep@e...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:05pm
Subject: Re: Crown King head count
Uh oh, I now see a rush to run on the 6:00am with Hackle.
Sharky(always looking to make something happen) is going on that
one...<grin>
Chris
"AzA"---------------------------------------------------------------
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Hackle" <hackle@q...> wrote:
> Yeah but Joey is leading it??? Did anything good ever happen that
was lead
> by a Joey??? :) Jim F. aka Hackle
>
> I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a
member. "Groucho
> Marx"
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> http://www.rockrats.org/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DesertJeep [mailto:joey@d...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:12 PM
> To: 'Az_Vjc'
> Cc: 'Hackle'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
>
>
> Everyone don't listen to Hackle. The early Turkey Creek run will
be much
> more interesting!
> Joey K
> 93YJ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@q...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:54 PM
> To: Az_Vjc
> Subject: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
>
>
> Ok by my count we have 79 signed up on the main page. I
clicked
> on all of them then went to the trips separately and found 27 that
were
> not high lighted. So my count for today is 106 :) Looks like a lot
of
> fun. Glad to see so many members going with us. Jim F. BTW the
early
> bird run will be the best :O
>
> I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a
member. "Groucho
> Marx" Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> http://www.rockrats.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62446 From: my1stjeep <my1stjeep@e...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:14pm
Subject: Re: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Go Stu!!!!!!!!!!!! Awesome response and it looks like you were
heard!!! Keep us informed.
Chris
"AzA"----------------------------------------------------------------
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> Christina,
>
> I've not time to contact you today, but I will certainly give it
my best
> effort tomorrow.
>
> I appologize for the wording in my correspondence to you.
>
> I mistakenly said:
>
> "0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological
> site in this state."
>
> What I should have said was:
> "0.0357143% of the archaeological sites in this state are located
at or near
> a geoache site."
>
> Sorry...I had the numbers correct but the sites were backwards.
>
> Again, my appologies and I will contact you tomorrow.
>
> Stu Olson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: christina.leonard@a...
> [mailto:christina.leonard@a...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:19 PM
> To: Stu Olson
> Subject: Re: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
>
>
> thanks for the note. If you would like to speak about it, I would
prefer to
> do it over the phone. I'm at 602-xxxxxxx
>
>
>
> "Stu Olson"
> <solson8@q... To:
> christina.leonard@a...
> t> cc: "az_vjc"
> <az_vjc@y...>
> Subject: your
article in
> AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
> Composed
> Date:08/07/2002
> 03:08 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ms. Leonard,
>
> I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's
newspaper.
> Although I am not a "geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it
has gained
> over the past years. With the improvements in GPS receivers and
their drop
> in price, it is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one of
these little
> beauties.
>
> One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated (on
page A2)
> that "Geocaching began in May 2000 when the Clinton administration
> unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global
> positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use devices to steer cars
or find
> missing hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that
geocaching
> may very well have started in May, 2000, it was not because of any
actions
> taken by the Clinton Administration. On or about May 1, 2002, then
> President Clinton lifted the requirement that caused the
intentional
> degradation in the accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he nor his
> administration can be given any kind of credit for making the GPS
> technology
> available to the civilian population and its subsequent use for
steering
> cars or finding lost hikers. I was using a consumer grade GPS
receiver
> long
> before May 1, 2000. As to your comment about it being able to
steer a
> car....no...no...no! Would you feel confident in a car with
a "steering
> system" that could guide your vehicle to within an accuracy of 6
to 20
> feet?
> (those are your numbers, not mine) Thank you but no....I prefer
to "steer"
> my vehicle with more precision than that. I am afraid that a 6 to
20 foot
> error would very well put me into the path of dangerous oncoming
traffic.
> But, enough about the basics of GPS reception. I need to get to
the point
> of this correspondence.
>
> As an environmentalist that fully enjoys virtually everything our
public
> lands have to offer, I am saddened to hear that some irresponsible
people
> are leaving their trash behind, making new trails, and even
picking up
> native artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how many
of these
> people are familiar with the laws concerning removing an item from
an
> archaeological site? I can tell you, from first hand experience,
that many
> people have no idea that driving across the desert or up a big
hill, where
> there is no trail, is unlawful in most of Arizona. I can speak to
people
> leaving their trash behind....any road trip down I-10 or I-17 will
yield
> supporting evidence that people certainly do litter.
>
> The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame
that your
> article places on those people that are participating in the
geocaching
> sport (I guess we can call it a sport?)
>
> Let's first look at the facts you stated in the article:
>
> 1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the
Internet that
> are on or near archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how
many were
> actually on a site)
>
> 2. There are more than 10,900 known archaeological sites in
Maricopa
> County.
>
> 3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, not
> including those on Tribal lands.
>
> 4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have been
kept
> secret for years, and officials have even required a new site
steward to
> sign a confidentiality agreement.
>
>
> So...let me see if I understand what you are really saying.
>
> 1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
> archaeological site in this state.
>
> 2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and
specific land
> management officials, no where the archaeological sites
are.....and we have
> one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) that are upset
because
> three
> and one half hundreths of just one percent of the total geocache
sites in
> Arizona happen to be put on these secret archaeological sites.
>
> It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that are
ruining
> our archaeological sites but yet we won't tell them where the
sites are so
> they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an
archaeological
> site. I realize this might very well be a damned if you do,
damned if you
> don't kind of situation, but please apply some common sense here.
Your
> article indicates that many of the Arizona geocaches are in remote
> locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we then say
shame on
> the geocachers for picking a challenging location to hide their
> cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret
archaeological site
> that no one told them about.....and it is their fault? You've got
to be
> kidding, right?
>
> Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps
another way
> to
> look at it is:
>
> 1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage
population
> didn't
> complete high school?
>
> 2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving
through a
> Phoenix intersection ran the red light?
>
> I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person who
helps run
> AZgeocaching.com, has not been contacted or notified about the
apparent
> problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological
sites.
> However, it is sad that the amount of text you devoted to Mr.
Cluff is
> approximately 0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I am
certain
> that all reading it will in no way be biased by this.
>
> Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's
plans to
> help correct it? From what was written, it appears that a strong
push
> towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a
long way
> in correcting this problem. Perhaps some public awareness
commercials on
> the local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make more aware
of their
> inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people randomly hiding
little
> tuperware containers of goodies on secret archaeological sites
that they
> have no knowledge of.
>
> I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that
will be
> implemented to help curb this problem.
>
> King Regards,
>
> Stu Olson
> Phoenix
62447 From: bermboy2000 <bermboy@h...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Crown King head count
Sweet! I might get to see him play turtle again!!
Scott Maiden
--- In az_vjc@y..., "my1stjeep" <my1stjeep@e...> wrote:
> Uh oh, I now see a rush to run on the 6:00am with Hackle.
>
> Sharky(always looking to make something happen) is going on that
> one...<grin>
>
> Chris
> "AzA"---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "Hackle" <hackle@q...> wrote:
> > Yeah but Joey is leading it??? Did anything good ever happen that
> was lead
> > by a Joey??? :) Jim F. aka Hackle
> >
> > I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a
> member. "Groucho
> > Marx"
> > Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> > http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> > http://www.rockrats.org/
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DesertJeep [mailto:joey@d...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:12 PM
> > To: 'Az_Vjc'
> > Cc: 'Hackle'
> > Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
> >
> >
> > Everyone don't listen to Hackle. The early Turkey Creek run will
> be much
> > more interesting!
> > Joey K
> > 93YJ
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@q...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:54 PM
> > To: Az_Vjc
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
> >
> >
> > Ok by my count we have 79 signed up on the main page. I
> clicked
> > on all of them then went to the trips separately and found 27
that
> were
> > not high lighted. So my count for today is 106 :) Looks like a
lot
> of
> > fun. Glad to see so many members going with us. Jim F. BTW the
> early
> > bird run will be the best :O
> >
> > I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a
> member. "Groucho
> > Marx" Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> > http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> > http://www.rockrats.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62448 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:18pm
Subject: Re: Permit required for STL?
Dan (and all)
Yes, a State Land Recreation Permit _IS_ required to be on State Trust Land. You can obtain the permits and information from:
Phoenix:
Arizona State Land Department
1616 W. Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85007
PH: 602 542-4631
Flagstaff:
Arizona State Land Department
3650 Lake Mary Road
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
PH: 928 774-1425
Tucson:
Arizona State Land Department
233 N. Main Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
Ph: 520 628-5480
The permits can also be obtained from 4 Wheelers Supply in Phoenix.
The fines can be hefty so would recommend that you get one.
Hope this helps,
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8
mt_b wrote:
I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling at
FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong there
is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
ever been questioned by any authorities.
Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
either way?
Dan
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62449 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:20pm
Subject: RE: Permit required for STL?
Your kidding right? Well half of what you say below is true. I have
wheeled with you in the FJ area and I had a permit. :)
Here you go Dan!
http://www.land.state.az.us/support/faqs.htm#01
Joey K
-----Original Message-----
From: mt_b [mailto:mt_b@y...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:01 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Permit required for STL?
I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling at
FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong there
is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
ever been questioned by any authorities.
Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
either way?
Dan
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62450 From: mt_b <mt_b@y...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Permit required for STL?
Thanks Joey!! :)
Some people must have had a bad day at work. I must have gotten on
some people's bad side this afternoon. :)
I have been in this club for two years now, BUT, I don't read the
board every single day, just don't have the time. So if it has been
discussed, that's great, being a member doesn't automatically mean
you see each and every post.
The reason I said no one I knew had a permit is because, *no one I
knew had a permit*. My point was I didn't KNOW that people had the
permit. I was not questioning whether anyone had one.
It has never been a topic of discussion when I was within earshot, on
the trail, hence the reason I asked the question. :)
But thanks to the people that were polite in answering my questions,
to the rest, hopefully you never ask something I already know... :D
Happy trails (with a permit of course),
Dan
--- In az_vjc@y..., "DesertJeep" <joey@d...> wrote:
> Your kidding right? Well half of what you say below is true. I have
> wheeled with you in the FJ area and I had a permit. :)
>
> Here you go Dan!
>
> http://www.land.state.az.us/support/faqs.htm#01
>
> Joey K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mt_b [mailto:mt_b@y...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:01 PM
> To: az_vjc@y...
> Subject: [az_vjc] Permit required for STL?
>
>
> I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
> STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling
at
> FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong
there
> is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
> ever been questioned by any authorities.
>
> Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
> either way?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62451 From: Steve Meyer <steve.j.meyer@c...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:02pm
Subject: RE: money to burn on jeep stuff
I have to disagree with some of this. If done right, 35's and 4.56 gears
can be just as comfortable to drive as stock. SOA YJ's (like mine) ride
pretty damn nice.
--Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Garrison St.Clair [mailto:gunslinger@i...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:47 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
Josh,
Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do everything.
Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list is, I
frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road vs.
the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the more
"purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
simultaneously.
One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56 gears,
Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving) with
your Jeep that you have failed?"
Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves your
primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
trails.
That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your present
setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad roads,
trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't do
monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with 4.5"
lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ, but I
also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should weight
the type of mods.
JMO, FWIW.
Gunslinger
Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
----- Original Message -----
From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> Hello everyone,
> Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> I need to figure out is on what?
>
> What I currently have:
> 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> What I would like to end up with:
> 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> the freeway.
>
> I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
>
> The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> depend on both on the trail and the highway.
>
> Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Josh Wooten
> 99 TJ
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62452 From: Fleg . <fleigle@h...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:02pm
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Hey Stu,
When you do get a chance to talk to the author of the article please ask
them how they even know it was geocachers who are doing this. Where is the
proof other then the fact that there are a couple of geocache sites that are
located near archaeological sites? I'm sure a "legit" article such as this
one would need some type of proof to back up these claims. Where can we see
the pictures and video that they must have taken to come up with this theory
that geocachers are damaging "secret" archaeological sites. If they do have
the pictures print them for everyone to see!!
Also if you get time please ask the author why he failed to mention all the
good things that geocachers do for the environment. Where is the mention of
the "cache in trash out" policy that all responsible geocachers follow? How
about the mention of the countless bags of trash that we haul out of the
desert each year? How about the fact that geocaching is getting people out
of their houses and into nature to explore what really is around them and to
see new and exiting things that they would have never seen otherwise.
Ooops...that last one is probably a bad thing when considering the elitist
attitude that the hikers who were interviewed for the article have. How
dare people hike on their trails and see their public lands!!
Michael
Geocacher/Jeeper
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:32:35 -0700
From: "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...>
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Christina,
I've not time to contact you today, but I will certainly give it
my best
effort tomorrow.
I appologize for the wording in my correspondence to you.
I mistakenly said:
"0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological
site in this state."
What I should have said was:
"0.0357143% of the archaeological sites in this state are
located at or near
a geoache site."
Sorry...I had the numbers correct but the sites were backwards.
Again, my appologies and I will contact you tomorrow.
Stu Olson
-----Original Message-----
thanks for the note. If you would like to speak about it, I
would prefer to
do it over the phone. I'm at 602-xxxxxxx
__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
62453 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:20pm
Subject: RE: D60 high steer options ???
I didn't pick up the axle today. The first axle I saw somebody had pulled the wrong axle (it was a D50). That is NOT what I wanted. The second one I saw had a cracked housing from being hit in the front. The third one was in a F350 that was hit so hard on the drivers front corner that the frame looked like a boomerang. I decided to pass on the 3rd one as well. So I'm still looking. Not in any real hurry though. I've still got plenty of other unfinished projects to do.
Thanks to everyone for the advice!
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: DesertJeep [mailto:joey@desertjeep.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:08 PM
To: 'Scott Kruize'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] D60 high steer options ???
Scott I have his number too.
Joey K
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 12:38 PM
To: 'Scott Kruize'; 'AZ_VJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] D60 high steer options ???
Okay, I did a little web research and found that the knuckles can be machined to accept a D44 style high steer arm. When I was looking at Nasser's Jeep I believe he told me that Neil H does this. If so, I'd appreciate it if I could get in touch with Neil.
Thanks,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 12:07 PM
To: AZ_VJC
Subject: [az_vjc] D60 high steer options ???
Hello,
I'm looking at picking up a front Dana 60 from a 94 Super Duty later today. But I believe it has a ball joint style knuckle. I've heard that the older kingpin style is the easiest way to go when looking at high steer options.
What are my options with the newer axle? I don't want to pick up this axle and regret it.
Thanks,
Scott K
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
62454 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:29pm
Subject: RE: Re: Permit required for STL?
Hi Dan,
I've got my permit. Most of the people I wheel with have their STL
permits too. The parking lot at Table Mesa is on STL. If you've ever
stopped there to air up or down you've been required to have a permit.
Most of the trails out at the White Tanks pass through STL. Need a
permit there too.
Head on down to 4 Wheelers Supply and get a family permit for $20. It's
good for a year.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: mt_b [mailto:mt_b@y...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:45 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Permit required for STL?
Thanks Joey!! :)
Some people must have had a bad day at work. I must have gotten on
some people's bad side this afternoon. :)
I have been in this club for two years now, BUT, I don't read the
board every single day, just don't have the time. So if it has been
discussed, that's great, being a member doesn't automatically mean
you see each and every post.
The reason I said no one I knew had a permit is because, *no one I
knew had a permit*. My point was I didn't KNOW that people had the
permit. I was not questioning whether anyone had one.
It has never been a topic of discussion when I was within earshot, on
the trail, hence the reason I asked the question. :)
But thanks to the people that were polite in answering my questions,
to the rest, hopefully you never ask something I already know... :D
Happy trails (with a permit of course),
Dan
--- In az_vjc@y..., "DesertJeep" <joey@d...> wrote:
> Your kidding right? Well half of what you say below is true. I have
> wheeled with you in the FJ area and I had a permit. :)
>
> Here you go Dan!
>
> http://www.land.state.az.us/support/faqs.htm#01
>
> Joey K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mt_b [mailto:mt_b@y...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:01 PM
> To: az_vjc@y...
> Subject: [az_vjc] Permit required for STL?
>
>
> I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
> STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling
at
> FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong
there
> is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
> ever been questioned by any authorities.
>
> Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
> either way?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62455 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:35pm
Subject: [FS] 1965 Jeep CJ-5 for sale
Price: $1500.00 obo
Contact: David Tucker
I have stretched the frame (and wheelbase) by five inches and the frame is completely boxed in from front to back. Custom front and rear bumpers are integrated into the frame. The suspension is completely redone and has been swapped over to YJ leaf springs. The suspension includes 1/2" lift shackles and all the bushings are greaseable. A shackle reversal has been performed in the front. This all yeilds about seven" inches of lift with stock YJ leaves with the axles mounted spring over. It has a stock F head engine,
T-90 transmission, &; model 18 Transfer case. The axles are stock units as well. The body is in good condition. I have replaced the rear floor supports and floor with light gauge diamond plate. The front floor support bracing has all been redone and ties into heavy duty rock sliders that wrap around the bottom of the body.
For any more information please feel free to call me, I do not have constant access to a computer so a call would be much faster.
David M. Tucker
(623)388-9702
Traci Tucker
62456 From: CoyotEddie <coyoteddie@e...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:50pm
Subject: Need an Education on GPS
The older crowd (at least me) know about 8 tracks and beta machines, but nothing about GPS. I understand the basics but do not know which receiver is better. So any opinions would be helpful.
The 3 brands listed below are compatible with my topo map set but have many models. What model is the easiest to use? The best value? all input is welcome.
Garmin
Eagle/Lowrance
Magellan
Thanks in advance
Ed
62457 From: <sharxjeep@c...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 2:50pm
Subject: oooohh...somebody got tagged :)
Well..as much as hated to do it...I got rid of my tag that Rick norman was
so kind to give me. And in good old Jim and Rick fashion I delivered it
straight to the recipients driveway hehehe... so everyone beware of a Red XJ
that looks like it should be my tow rig :)
Sharky
62458 From: linda luik <minihummer@w...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:55pm
Subject: Re: money to burn on jeep stuff
I argee with Garrison. The best 4x4s have moderate lifts (2-3") and 33"
tires. After that you start the transition of converting your TJ from a
nice 4x4 to a money pit. Sure it looks cool, but you better have a good
income to be able to afford its upkeep.
Linda
"Garrison St.Clair" wrote:
>
> Josh,
>
> Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do everything.
> Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
> Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
> anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
>
> On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list is, I
> frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road vs.
> the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the more
> "purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
> simultaneously.
>
> One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56 gears,
> Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
>
> Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving) with
> your Jeep that you have failed?"
>
> Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves your
> primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
> trails.
>
> That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your present
> setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad roads,
> trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't do
> monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with 4.5"
> lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
> typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ, but I
> also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
>
> Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should weight
> the type of mods.
>
> JMO, FWIW.
>
> Gunslinger
>
> Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
> Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
>
> > Hello everyone,
> > Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> > across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> > I need to figure out is on what?
> >
> > What I currently have:
> > 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> > 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> > SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> > 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> > What I would like to end up with:
> > 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> > Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> > I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> > smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> > the freeway.
> >
> > I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
> >
> > The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> > depend on both on the trail and the highway.
> >
> > Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Josh Wooten
> > 99 TJ
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62459 From: Garrison St.Clair <gunslinger@i...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 7:04pm
Subject: Re: money to burn on jeep stuff
Steve,
Lifts (of any type) and taller tires all raise the center-of-gravity. The
higher the center-of-gravity, without the appropriate increases in track and
wheelbase, make a vehicle (any vehicle) less stable.
Also a wider tire, unless designed for wet surfaces (or, for that matter,
any equal tire), is more likely to aquaplane. Another aspect of less
stability.
Just as most sports cars setup for track racing, or even rallying, are not
ideal for highways - the same is true of Jeeps setup to crawl rocks or play
in the mud.
Its like weapons. A 9 mm is a good all around defensive sidearm. A .44 is
till a sidearm but could be sued for some types of hunting. But it starts
getting very uncomfortable if you had to carry it all day everyday. You
would much rather carry the nine.
Jeeps are no different. You can modify them all you want. But most of the
mods will make the vehicle less suitable for daily driving.
And using the original poster as an example, he's driving about 2.5 times
the US average. That's a lot of hours to which I would hate to add much
discomfort.
As I said, JMO, FWIW, YMMV
Gunslinger
Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Meyer" <steve.j.meyer@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 20:02
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> I have to disagree with some of this. If done right, 35's and 4.56 gears
> can be just as comfortable to drive as stock. SOA YJ's (like mine) ride
> pretty damn nice.
>
> --Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Garrison St.Clair [mailto:gunslinger@i...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:47 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
>
>
> Josh,
>
> Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do everything.
> Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
> Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
> anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
>
> On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list is,
I
> frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road vs.
> the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the
more
> "purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
> simultaneously.
>
> One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56 gears,
> Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
>
> Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving) with
> your Jeep that you have failed?"
>
> Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves your
> primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
> trails.
>
> That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your present
> setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad
roads,
> trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't
do
> monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with
4.5"
> lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
> typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ, but
I
> also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
>
> Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should
weight
> the type of mods.
>
> JMO, FWIW.
>
> Gunslinger
>
> Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
> Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
>
>
> > Hello everyone,
> > Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> > across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> > I need to figure out is on what?
> >
> > What I currently have:
> > 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> > 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> > SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> > 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> > What I would like to end up with:
> > 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> > Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> > I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> > smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> > the freeway.
> >
> > I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
> >
> > The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> > depend on both on the trail and the highway.
> >
> > Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Josh Wooten
> > 99 TJ
>
62460 From: Garrison St.Clair <gunslinger@i...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 7:11pm
Subject: Re: money to burn on jeep stuff
Linda,
I always like folks who agree with me, but, I didn't say the "best" have (or
don't have) any mods in particular.
My point was only that beyond a certain point, with certain modifications,
you begin to seriously degrade the "on-road" stability, performance, and
comfort.
So I don't mind getting flamed, but let it be for what I meant, not
something else...<G>
Gunslinger
Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
----- Original Message -----
From: "linda luik" <minihummer@w...>
To: "Garrison St.Clair" <gunslinger@i...>
Cc: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 20:55
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> I argee with Garrison. The best 4x4s have moderate lifts (2-3") and 33"
> tires. After that you start the transition of converting your TJ from a
> nice 4x4 to a money pit. Sure it looks cool, but you better have a good
> income to be able to afford its upkeep.
>
> Linda
>
>
> "Garrison St.Clair" wrote:
> >
> > Josh,
> >
> > Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do
everything.
> > Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
> > Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
> > anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
> >
> > On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list
is, I
> > frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road
vs.
> > the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the
more
> > "purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56
gears,
> > Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
> >
> > Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving)
with
> > your Jeep that you have failed?"
> >
> > Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves
your
> > primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
> > trails.
> >
> > That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your
present
> > setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad
roads,
> > trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't
do
> > monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with
4.5"
> > lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
> > typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ,
but I
> > also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
> >
> > Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should
weight
> > the type of mods.
> >
> > JMO, FWIW.
> >
> > Gunslinger
> >
> > Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
> > To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
> > Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > > Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> > > across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> > > I need to figure out is on what?
> > >
> > > What I currently have:
> > > 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> > > 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> > > SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> > > 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> > > What I would like to end up with:
> > > 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> > > Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> > > I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> > > smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> > > the freeway.
> > >
> > > I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
> > >
> > > The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> > > depend on both on the trail and the highway.
> > >
> > > Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Josh Wooten
> > > 99 TJ
62436 From: Garrison St.Clair <gunslinger@i...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 3:46pm
Subject: Re: money to burn on jeep stuff
Josh,
Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do everything.
Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list is, I
frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road vs.
the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the more
"purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
simultaneously.
One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56 gears,
Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving) with
your Jeep that you have failed?"
Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves your
primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
trails.
That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your present
setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad roads,
trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't do
monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with 4.5"
lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ, but I
also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should weight
the type of mods.
JMO, FWIW.
Gunslinger
Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
----- Original Message -----
From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> Hello everyone,
> Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> I need to figure out is on what?
>
> What I currently have:
> 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> What I would like to end up with:
> 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> the freeway.
>
> I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
>
> The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> depend on both on the trail and the highway.
>
> Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Josh Wooten
> 99 TJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
62437 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:00pm
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Ms. Leonard
I do not have the expertise that my friend Stu has on the subject but he
makes very good sense. I hope you take the time to look into his reply to
your article. You may find it well worth your time. I look forward to seeing
your answers to his questions in the paper just like your original article
was published. Jim Florence
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx"
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
-----Original Message-----
From: Stu Olson [mailto:solson8@q...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:13 PM
To: christina.leonard@a...
Cc: az_vjc
Subject: [az_vjc] your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Ms. Leonard,
I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's newspaper.
Although I am not a "geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it has gained
over the past years. With the improvements in GPS receivers and their drop
in price, it is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one of these little
beauties.
One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated (on page A2)
that "Geocaching began in May 2000 when the Clinton administration
unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global
positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use devices to steer cars or find
missing hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that geocaching
may very well have started in May, 2000, it was not because of any actions
taken by the Clinton Administration. On or about May 1, 2002, then
President Clinton lifted the requirement that caused the intentional
degradation in the accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he nor his
administration can be given any kind of credit for making the GPS technology
available to the civilian population and its subsequent use for steering
cars or finding lost hikers. I was using a consumer grade GPS receiver long
before May 1, 2000. As to your comment about it being able to steer a
car....no...no...no! Would you feel confident in a car with a "steering
system" that could guide your vehicle to within an accuracy of 6 to 20 feet?
(those are your numbers, not mine) Thank you but no....I prefer to "steer"
my vehicle with more precision than that. I am afraid that a 6 to 20 foot
error would very well put me into the path of dangerous oncoming traffic.
But, enough about the basics of GPS reception. I need to get to the point
of this correspondence.
As an environmentalist that fully enjoys virtually everything our public
lands have to offer, I am saddened to hear that some irresponsible people
are leaving their trash behind, making new trails, and even picking up
native artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how many of these
people are familiar with the laws concerning removing an item from an
archaeological site? I can tell you, from first hand experience, that many
people have no idea that driving across the desert or up a big hill, where
there is no trail, is unlawful in most of Arizona. I can speak to people
leaving their trash behind....any road trip down I-10 or I-17 will yield
supporting evidence that people certainly do litter.
The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame that your
article places on those people that are participating in the geocaching
sport (I guess we can call it a sport?)
Let's first look at the facts you stated in the article:
1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the Internet that
are on or near archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how many were
actually on a site)
2. There are more than 10,900 known archaeological sites in Maricopa
County.
3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, not
including those on Tribal lands.
4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have been kept
secret for years, and officials have even required a new site steward to
sign a confidentiality agreement.
So...let me see if I understand what you are really saying.
1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological site in this state.
2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and specific land
management officials, no where the archaeological sites are.....and we have
one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) that are upset because three
and one half hundreths of just one percent of the total geocache sites in
Arizona happen to be put on these secret archaeological sites.
It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that are ruining
our archaeological sites but yet we won't tell them where the sites are so
they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an archaeological
site. I realize this might very well be a damned if you do, damned if you
don't kind of situation, but please apply some common sense here. Your
article indicates that many of the Arizona geocaches are in remote
locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we then say shame on
the geocachers for picking a challenging location to hide their
cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret archaeological site
that no one told them about.....and it is their fault? You've got to be
kidding, right?
Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps another way to
look at it is:
1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage population didn't
complete high school?
2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving through a
Phoenix intersection ran the red light?
I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person who helps run
AZgeocaching.com, has not been contacted or notified about the apparent
problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological sites.
However, it is sad that the amount of text you devoted to Mr. Cluff is
approximately 0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I am certain
that all reading it will in no way be biased by this.
Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's plans to
help correct it? From what was written, it appears that a strong push
towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a long way
in correcting this problem. Perhaps some public awareness commercials on
the local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make more aware of their
inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people randomly hiding little
tuperware containers of goodies on secret archaeological sites that they
have no knowledge of.
I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that will be
implemented to help curb this problem.
King Regards,
Stu Olson
Phoenix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62438 From: mervalot <miller2993@m...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:07pm
Subject: Re: The Difference between HREW and DOM tubing
Good point Mike. I didn't think of the Tech section. Or motivation
for that matter (such as, someone will have to do something). I vote
for John Rabenius (sp?) email be added to
the tech section with some kind of catchy title like "The Difference
Between HREW and DOM Tubing" or maybe "Steel Tubing Info,
Condensed". Perhaps
John has something to say about it? I'll bet he did not intend for
it to be an "article", and he might like to edit it a little, but
that's a nice piece of work!
Oh, and Mike, "can I borrow your holesaw"? LOL!
Marv
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Chatfield, Mike" <Mike@A...> wrote:
> >What if the website had a place for Frequently Asked Questions?
>
> This is what I designed the "Tech" section for.
>
> Ideally we should have Lockers, Gears, Lifts, Tires, Cooling, DOM
vs.
> "Regular" Tube, etc...
>
> All it take is someone with enough motivation to write up the Tech
> Article...
62439 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:12pm
Subject: RE: Crown King head count
Everyone don't listen to Hackle. The early Turkey Creek run will be much
more interesting!
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@q...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:54 PM
To: Az_Vjc
Subject: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
Ok by my count we have 79 signed up on the main page. I clicked
on all of them then went to the trips separately and found 27 that were
not high lighted. So my count for today is 106 :) Looks like a lot of
fun. Glad to see so many members going with us. Jim F. BTW the early
bird run will be the best :O
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx" Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62440 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:23pm
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
I just heard something rip. Could it have been Ms. Leonard getting a new
hole!!
I'm with you Stu Let her have it!
Joey K
93YJ
PS whew almost sent this to her!! :) I will have my reply to her later.
;)
-----Original Message-----
From: Stu Olson [mailto:solson8@q...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:13 PM
To: christina.leonard@a...
Cc: az_vjc
Subject: [az_vjc] your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Ms. Leonard,
I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's newspaper.
Although I am not a "geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it has
gained over the past years. With the improvements in GPS receivers and
their drop in price, it is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one
of these little beauties.
One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated (on page
A2) that "Geocaching began in May 2000 when the Clinton administration
unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global
positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use devices to steer cars or
find missing hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that
geocaching may very well have started in May, 2000, it was not because
of any actions taken by the Clinton Administration. On or about May 1,
2002, then President Clinton lifted the requirement that caused the
intentional degradation in the accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he
nor his administration can be given any kind of credit for making the
GPS technology available to the civilian population and its subsequent
use for steering cars or finding lost hikers. I was using a consumer
grade GPS receiver long before May 1, 2000. As to your comment about it
being able to steer a car....no...no...no! Would you feel confident in a
car with a "steering system" that could guide your vehicle to within an
accuracy of 6 to 20 feet? (those are your numbers, not mine) Thank you
but no....I prefer to "steer" my vehicle with more precision than that.
I am afraid that a 6 to 20 foot error would very well put me into the
path of dangerous oncoming traffic. But, enough about the basics of GPS
reception. I need to get to the point of this correspondence.
As an environmentalist that fully enjoys virtually everything our public
lands have to offer, I am saddened to hear that some irresponsible
people are leaving their trash behind, making new trails, and even
picking up native artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how
many of these people are familiar with the laws concerning removing an
item from an archaeological site? I can tell you, from first hand
experience, that many people have no idea that driving across the desert
or up a big hill, where there is no trail, is unlawful in most of
Arizona. I can speak to people leaving their trash behind....any road
trip down I-10 or I-17 will yield supporting evidence that people
certainly do litter.
The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame that your
article places on those people that are participating in the geocaching
sport (I guess we can call it a sport?)
Let's first look at the facts you stated in the article:
1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the Internet
that are on or near archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how many
were actually on a site)
2. There are more than 10,900 known archaeological sites in Maricopa
County.
3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, not
including those on Tribal lands.
4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have been kept
secret for years, and officials have even required a new site steward to
sign a confidentiality agreement.
So...let me see if I understand what you are really saying.
1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological site in this state.
2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and specific land
management officials, no where the archaeological sites are.....and we
have one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) that are upset
because three and one half hundreths of just one percent of the total
geocache sites in Arizona happen to be put on these secret
archaeological sites.
It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that are
ruining our archaeological sites but yet we won't tell them where the
sites are so they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an
archaeological site. I realize this might very well be a damned if you
do, damned if you don't kind of situation, but please apply some common
sense here. Your article indicates that many of the Arizona geocaches
are in remote locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we
then say shame on the geocachers for picking a challenging location to
hide their cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret
archaeological site that no one told them about.....and it is their
fault? You've got to be kidding, right?
Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps another
way to look at it is:
1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage population
didn't complete high school?
2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving
through a Phoenix intersection ran the red light?
I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person who helps
run AZgeocaching.com, has not been contacted or notified about the
apparent problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological
sites. However, it is sad that the amount of text you devoted to Mr.
Cluff is approximately 0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I
am certain that all reading it will in no way be biased by this.
Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's plans to
help correct it? From what was written, it appears that a strong push
towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a long
way in correcting this problem. Perhaps some public awareness
commercials on the local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make
more aware of their inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people
randomly hiding little tuperware containers of goodies on secret
archaeological sites that they have no knowledge of.
I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that will be
implemented to help curb this problem.
King Regards,
Stu Olson
Phoenix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62441 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:27pm
Subject: RE: Crown King head count
Yeah but Joey is leading it??? Did anything good ever happen that was lead
by a Joey??? :) Jim F. aka Hackle
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx"
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
-----Original Message-----
From: DesertJeep [mailto:joey@d...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:12 PM
To: 'Az_Vjc'
Cc: 'Hackle'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
Everyone don't listen to Hackle. The early Turkey Creek run will be much
more interesting!
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@q...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:54 PM
To: Az_Vjc
Subject: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
Ok by my count we have 79 signed up on the main page. I clicked
on all of them then went to the trips separately and found 27 that were
not high lighted. So my count for today is 106 :) Looks like a lot of
fun. Glad to see so many members going with us. Jim F. BTW the early
bird run will be the best :O
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx" Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62442 From: Stu Olson <solson8@q...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:32pm
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Christina,
I've not time to contact you today, but I will certainly give it my best
effort tomorrow.
I appologize for the wording in my correspondence to you.
I mistakenly said:
"0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an archaeological
site in this state."
What I should have said was:
"0.0357143% of the archaeological sites in this state are located at or near
a geoache site."
Sorry...I had the numbers correct but the sites were backwards.
Again, my appologies and I will contact you tomorrow.
Stu Olson
-----Original Message-----
From: christina.leonard@a...
[mailto:christina.leonard@a...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:19 PM
To: Stu Olson
Subject: Re: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
thanks for the note. If you would like to speak about it, I would prefer to
do it over the phone. I'm at 602-xxxxxxx
"Stu Olson"
<solson8@q... To:
christina.leonard@a...
t> cc: "az_vjc"
<az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: your article in
AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Composed
Date:08/07/2002
03:08 PM
Ms. Leonard,
I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's newspaper.
Although I am not a "geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it has gained
over the past years. With the improvements in GPS receivers and their drop
in price, it is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one of these little
beauties.
One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated (on page A2)
that "Geocaching began in May 2000 when the Clinton administration
unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global
positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use devices to steer cars or find
missing hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that geocaching
may very well have started in May, 2000, it was not because of any actions
taken by the Clinton Administration. On or about May 1, 2002, then
President Clinton lifted the requirement that caused the intentional
degradation in the accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he nor his
administration can be given any kind of credit for making the GPS
technology
available to the civilian population and its subsequent use for steering
cars or finding lost hikers. I was using a consumer grade GPS receiver
long
before May 1, 2000. As to your comment about it being able to steer a
car....no...no...no! Would you feel confident in a car with a "steering
system" that could guide your vehicle to within an accuracy of 6 to 20
feet?
(those are your numbers, not mine) Thank you but no....I prefer to "steer"
my vehicle with more precision than that. I am afraid that a 6 to 20 foot
error would very well put me into the path of dangerous oncoming traffic.
But, enough about the basics of GPS reception. I need to get to the point
of this correspondence.
As an environmentalist that fully enjoys virtually everything our public
lands have to offer, I am saddened to hear that some irresponsible people
are leaving their trash behind, making new trails, and even picking up
native artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how many of these
people are familiar with the laws concerning removing an item from an
archaeological site? I can tell you, from first hand experience, that many
people have no idea that driving across the desert or up a big hill, where
there is no trail, is unlawful in most of Arizona. I can speak to people
leaving their trash behind....any road trip down I-10 or I-17 will yield
supporting evidence that people certainly do litter.
The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame that your
article places on those people that are participating in the geocaching
sport (I guess we can call it a sport?)
Let's first look at the facts you stated in the article:
1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the Internet that
are on or near archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how many were
actually on a site)
2. There are more than 10,900 known archaeological sites in Maricopa
County.
3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, not
including those on Tribal lands.
4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have been kept
secret for years, and officials have even required a new site steward to
sign a confidentiality agreement.
So...let me see if I understand what you are really saying.
1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological site in this state.
2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and specific land
management officials, no where the archaeological sites are.....and we have
one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) that are upset because
three
and one half hundreths of just one percent of the total geocache sites in
Arizona happen to be put on these secret archaeological sites.
It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that are ruining
our archaeological sites but yet we won't tell them where the sites are so
they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an archaeological
site. I realize this might very well be a damned if you do, damned if you
don't kind of situation, but please apply some common sense here. Your
article indicates that many of the Arizona geocaches are in remote
locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we then say shame on
the geocachers for picking a challenging location to hide their
cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret archaeological site
that no one told them about.....and it is their fault? You've got to be
kidding, right?
Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps another way
to
look at it is:
1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage population
didn't
complete high school?
2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving through a
Phoenix intersection ran the red light?
I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person who helps run
AZgeocaching.com, has not been contacted or notified about the apparent
problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological sites.
However, it is sad that the amount of text you devoted to Mr. Cluff is
approximately 0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I am certain
that all reading it will in no way be biased by this.
Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's plans to
help correct it? From what was written, it appears that a strong push
towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a long way
in correcting this problem. Perhaps some public awareness commercials on
the local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make more aware of their
inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people randomly hiding little
tuperware containers of goodies on secret archaeological sites that they
have no knowledge of.
I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that will be
implemented to help curb this problem.
King Regards,
Stu Olson
Phoenix
62443 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 4:46pm
Subject: [MS] GC on 59th and Grand
Smoke silver (not sure the name of the color) Grand Cherokee. At about 3
pm today on 59th and Grand Ave. Nice rig with safari rack and lift.
Yes you looked right at me. I was in the white [cough cough] Crown
Victoria getting honked at for not moving up more.
Here is a wave at you... WAVE!
Joey K
62444 From: mt_b <mt_b@y...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:01pm
Subject: Permit required for STL?
I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling at
FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong there
is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
ever been questioned by any authorities.
Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
either way?
Dan
62445 From: my1stjeep <my1stjeep@e...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:05pm
Subject: Re: Crown King head count
Uh oh, I now see a rush to run on the 6:00am with Hackle.
Sharky(always looking to make something happen) is going on that
one...<grin>
Chris
"AzA"---------------------------------------------------------------
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Hackle" <hackle@q...> wrote:
> Yeah but Joey is leading it??? Did anything good ever happen that
was lead
> by a Joey??? :) Jim F. aka Hackle
>
> I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a
member. "Groucho
> Marx"
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> http://www.rockrats.org/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DesertJeep [mailto:joey@d...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:12 PM
> To: 'Az_Vjc'
> Cc: 'Hackle'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
>
>
> Everyone don't listen to Hackle. The early Turkey Creek run will
be much
> more interesting!
> Joey K
> 93YJ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@q...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:54 PM
> To: Az_Vjc
> Subject: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
>
>
> Ok by my count we have 79 signed up on the main page. I
clicked
> on all of them then went to the trips separately and found 27 that
were
> not high lighted. So my count for today is 106 :) Looks like a lot
of
> fun. Glad to see so many members going with us. Jim F. BTW the
early
> bird run will be the best :O
>
> I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a
member. "Groucho
> Marx" Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> http://www.rockrats.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62446 From: my1stjeep <my1stjeep@e...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:14pm
Subject: Re: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Go Stu!!!!!!!!!!!! Awesome response and it looks like you were
heard!!! Keep us informed.
Chris
"AzA"----------------------------------------------------------------
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> Christina,
>
> I've not time to contact you today, but I will certainly give it
my best
> effort tomorrow.
>
> I appologize for the wording in my correspondence to you.
>
> I mistakenly said:
>
> "0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological
> site in this state."
>
> What I should have said was:
> "0.0357143% of the archaeological sites in this state are located
at or near
> a geoache site."
>
> Sorry...I had the numbers correct but the sites were backwards.
>
> Again, my appologies and I will contact you tomorrow.
>
> Stu Olson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: christina.leonard@a...
> [mailto:christina.leonard@a...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:19 PM
> To: Stu Olson
> Subject: Re: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
>
>
> thanks for the note. If you would like to speak about it, I would
prefer to
> do it over the phone. I'm at 602-xxxxxxx
>
>
>
> "Stu Olson"
> <solson8@q... To:
> christina.leonard@a...
> t> cc: "az_vjc"
> <az_vjc@y...>
> Subject: your
article in
> AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
> Composed
> Date:08/07/2002
> 03:08 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ms. Leonard,
>
> I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's
newspaper.
> Although I am not a "geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it
has gained
> over the past years. With the improvements in GPS receivers and
their drop
> in price, it is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one of
these little
> beauties.
>
> One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated (on
page A2)
> that "Geocaching began in May 2000 when the Clinton administration
> unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global
> positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use devices to steer cars
or find
> missing hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that
geocaching
> may very well have started in May, 2000, it was not because of any
actions
> taken by the Clinton Administration. On or about May 1, 2002, then
> President Clinton lifted the requirement that caused the
intentional
> degradation in the accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he nor his
> administration can be given any kind of credit for making the GPS
> technology
> available to the civilian population and its subsequent use for
steering
> cars or finding lost hikers. I was using a consumer grade GPS
receiver
> long
> before May 1, 2000. As to your comment about it being able to
steer a
> car....no...no...no! Would you feel confident in a car with
a "steering
> system" that could guide your vehicle to within an accuracy of 6
to 20
> feet?
> (those are your numbers, not mine) Thank you but no....I prefer
to "steer"
> my vehicle with more precision than that. I am afraid that a 6 to
20 foot
> error would very well put me into the path of dangerous oncoming
traffic.
> But, enough about the basics of GPS reception. I need to get to
the point
> of this correspondence.
>
> As an environmentalist that fully enjoys virtually everything our
public
> lands have to offer, I am saddened to hear that some irresponsible
people
> are leaving their trash behind, making new trails, and even
picking up
> native artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how many
of these
> people are familiar with the laws concerning removing an item from
an
> archaeological site? I can tell you, from first hand experience,
that many
> people have no idea that driving across the desert or up a big
hill, where
> there is no trail, is unlawful in most of Arizona. I can speak to
people
> leaving their trash behind....any road trip down I-10 or I-17 will
yield
> supporting evidence that people certainly do litter.
>
> The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame
that your
> article places on those people that are participating in the
geocaching
> sport (I guess we can call it a sport?)
>
> Let's first look at the facts you stated in the article:
>
> 1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the
Internet that
> are on or near archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how
many were
> actually on a site)
>
> 2. There are more than 10,900 known archaeological sites in
Maricopa
> County.
>
> 3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, not
> including those on Tribal lands.
>
> 4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have been
kept
> secret for years, and officials have even required a new site
steward to
> sign a confidentiality agreement.
>
>
> So...let me see if I understand what you are really saying.
>
> 1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
> archaeological site in this state.
>
> 2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and
specific land
> management officials, no where the archaeological sites
are.....and we have
> one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) that are upset
because
> three
> and one half hundreths of just one percent of the total geocache
sites in
> Arizona happen to be put on these secret archaeological sites.
>
> It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that are
ruining
> our archaeological sites but yet we won't tell them where the
sites are so
> they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an
archaeological
> site. I realize this might very well be a damned if you do,
damned if you
> don't kind of situation, but please apply some common sense here.
Your
> article indicates that many of the Arizona geocaches are in remote
> locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we then say
shame on
> the geocachers for picking a challenging location to hide their
> cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret
archaeological site
> that no one told them about.....and it is their fault? You've got
to be
> kidding, right?
>
> Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps
another way
> to
> look at it is:
>
> 1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage
population
> didn't
> complete high school?
>
> 2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving
through a
> Phoenix intersection ran the red light?
>
> I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person who
helps run
> AZgeocaching.com, has not been contacted or notified about the
apparent
> problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological
sites.
> However, it is sad that the amount of text you devoted to Mr.
Cluff is
> approximately 0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I am
certain
> that all reading it will in no way be biased by this.
>
> Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's
plans to
> help correct it? From what was written, it appears that a strong
push
> towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a
long way
> in correcting this problem. Perhaps some public awareness
commercials on
> the local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make more aware
of their
> inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people randomly hiding
little
> tuperware containers of goodies on secret archaeological sites
that they
> have no knowledge of.
>
> I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that
will be
> implemented to help curb this problem.
>
> King Regards,
>
> Stu Olson
> Phoenix
62447 From: bermboy2000 <bermboy@h...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Crown King head count
Sweet! I might get to see him play turtle again!!
Scott Maiden
--- In az_vjc@y..., "my1stjeep" <my1stjeep@e...> wrote:
> Uh oh, I now see a rush to run on the 6:00am with Hackle.
>
> Sharky(always looking to make something happen) is going on that
> one...<grin>
>
> Chris
> "AzA"---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "Hackle" <hackle@q...> wrote:
> > Yeah but Joey is leading it??? Did anything good ever happen that
> was lead
> > by a Joey??? :) Jim F. aka Hackle
> >
> > I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a
> member. "Groucho
> > Marx"
> > Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> > http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> > http://www.rockrats.org/
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DesertJeep [mailto:joey@d...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:12 PM
> > To: 'Az_Vjc'
> > Cc: 'Hackle'
> > Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
> >
> >
> > Everyone don't listen to Hackle. The early Turkey Creek run will
> be much
> > more interesting!
> > Joey K
> > 93YJ
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@q...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:54 PM
> > To: Az_Vjc
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Crown King head count
> >
> >
> > Ok by my count we have 79 signed up on the main page. I
> clicked
> > on all of them then went to the trips separately and found 27
that
> were
> > not high lighted. So my count for today is 106 :) Looks like a
lot
> of
> > fun. Glad to see so many members going with us. Jim F. BTW the
> early
> > bird run will be the best :O
> >
> > I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a
> member. "Groucho
> > Marx" Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> > http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> > http://www.rockrats.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62448 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:18pm
Subject: Re: Permit required for STL?
Dan (and all)
Yes, a State Land Recreation Permit _IS_ required to be on State Trust Land. You can obtain the permits and information from:
Phoenix:
Arizona State Land Department
1616 W. Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85007
PH: 602 542-4631
Flagstaff:
Arizona State Land Department
3650 Lake Mary Road
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
PH: 928 774-1425
Tucson:
Arizona State Land Department
233 N. Main Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
Ph: 520 628-5480
The permits can also be obtained from 4 Wheelers Supply in Phoenix.
The fines can be hefty so would recommend that you get one.
Hope this helps,
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8
mt_b wrote:
I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling at
FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong there
is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
ever been questioned by any authorities.
Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
either way?
Dan
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62449 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:20pm
Subject: RE: Permit required for STL?
Your kidding right? Well half of what you say below is true. I have
wheeled with you in the FJ area and I had a permit. :)
Here you go Dan!
http://www.land.state.az.us/support/faqs.htm#01
Joey K
-----Original Message-----
From: mt_b [mailto:mt_b@y...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:01 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Permit required for STL?
I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling at
FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong there
is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
ever been questioned by any authorities.
Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
either way?
Dan
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62450 From: mt_b <mt_b@y...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Permit required for STL?
Thanks Joey!! :)
Some people must have had a bad day at work. I must have gotten on
some people's bad side this afternoon. :)
I have been in this club for two years now, BUT, I don't read the
board every single day, just don't have the time. So if it has been
discussed, that's great, being a member doesn't automatically mean
you see each and every post.
The reason I said no one I knew had a permit is because, *no one I
knew had a permit*. My point was I didn't KNOW that people had the
permit. I was not questioning whether anyone had one.
It has never been a topic of discussion when I was within earshot, on
the trail, hence the reason I asked the question. :)
But thanks to the people that were polite in answering my questions,
to the rest, hopefully you never ask something I already know... :D
Happy trails (with a permit of course),
Dan
--- In az_vjc@y..., "DesertJeep" <joey@d...> wrote:
> Your kidding right? Well half of what you say below is true. I have
> wheeled with you in the FJ area and I had a permit. :)
>
> Here you go Dan!
>
> http://www.land.state.az.us/support/faqs.htm#01
>
> Joey K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mt_b [mailto:mt_b@y...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:01 PM
> To: az_vjc@y...
> Subject: [az_vjc] Permit required for STL?
>
>
> I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
> STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling
at
> FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong
there
> is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
> ever been questioned by any authorities.
>
> Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
> either way?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62451 From: Steve Meyer <steve.j.meyer@c...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:02pm
Subject: RE: money to burn on jeep stuff
I have to disagree with some of this. If done right, 35's and 4.56 gears
can be just as comfortable to drive as stock. SOA YJ's (like mine) ride
pretty damn nice.
--Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Garrison St.Clair [mailto:gunslinger@i...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:47 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
Josh,
Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do everything.
Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list is, I
frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road vs.
the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the more
"purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
simultaneously.
One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56 gears,
Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving) with
your Jeep that you have failed?"
Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves your
primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
trails.
That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your present
setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad roads,
trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't do
monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with 4.5"
lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ, but I
also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should weight
the type of mods.
JMO, FWIW.
Gunslinger
Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
----- Original Message -----
From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> Hello everyone,
> Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> I need to figure out is on what?
>
> What I currently have:
> 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> What I would like to end up with:
> 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> the freeway.
>
> I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
>
> The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> depend on both on the trail and the highway.
>
> Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Josh Wooten
> 99 TJ
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62452 From: Fleg . <fleigle@h...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:02pm
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Hey Stu,
When you do get a chance to talk to the author of the article please ask
them how they even know it was geocachers who are doing this. Where is the
proof other then the fact that there are a couple of geocache sites that are
located near archaeological sites? I'm sure a "legit" article such as this
one would need some type of proof to back up these claims. Where can we see
the pictures and video that they must have taken to come up with this theory
that geocachers are damaging "secret" archaeological sites. If they do have
the pictures print them for everyone to see!!
Also if you get time please ask the author why he failed to mention all the
good things that geocachers do for the environment. Where is the mention of
the "cache in trash out" policy that all responsible geocachers follow? How
about the mention of the countless bags of trash that we haul out of the
desert each year? How about the fact that geocaching is getting people out
of their houses and into nature to explore what really is around them and to
see new and exiting things that they would have never seen otherwise.
Ooops...that last one is probably a bad thing when considering the elitist
attitude that the hikers who were interviewed for the article have. How
dare people hike on their trails and see their public lands!!
Michael
Geocacher/Jeeper
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:32:35 -0700
From: "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...>
Subject: RE: your article in AZRepupblic , 8/7/2002
Christina,
I've not time to contact you today, but I will certainly give it
my best
effort tomorrow.
I appologize for the wording in my correspondence to you.
I mistakenly said:
"0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an
archaeological
site in this state."
What I should have said was:
"0.0357143% of the archaeological sites in this state are
located at or near
a geoache site."
Sorry...I had the numbers correct but the sites were backwards.
Again, my appologies and I will contact you tomorrow.
Stu Olson
-----Original Message-----
thanks for the note. If you would like to speak about it, I
would prefer to
do it over the phone. I'm at 602-xxxxxxx
__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
62453 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:20pm
Subject: RE: D60 high steer options ???
I didn't pick up the axle today. The first axle I saw somebody had pulled the wrong axle (it was a D50). That is NOT what I wanted. The second one I saw had a cracked housing from being hit in the front. The third one was in a F350 that was hit so hard on the drivers front corner that the frame looked like a boomerang. I decided to pass on the 3rd one as well. So I'm still looking. Not in any real hurry though. I've still got plenty of other unfinished projects to do.
Thanks to everyone for the advice!
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: DesertJeep [mailto:joey@desertjeep.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:08 PM
To: 'Scott Kruize'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] D60 high steer options ???
Scott I have his number too.
Joey K
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 12:38 PM
To: 'Scott Kruize'; 'AZ_VJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] D60 high steer options ???
Okay, I did a little web research and found that the knuckles can be machined to accept a D44 style high steer arm. When I was looking at Nasser's Jeep I believe he told me that Neil H does this. If so, I'd appreciate it if I could get in touch with Neil.
Thanks,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 12:07 PM
To: AZ_VJC
Subject: [az_vjc] D60 high steer options ???
Hello,
I'm looking at picking up a front Dana 60 from a 94 Super Duty later today. But I believe it has a ball joint style knuckle. I've heard that the older kingpin style is the easiest way to go when looking at high steer options.
What are my options with the newer axle? I don't want to pick up this axle and regret it.
Thanks,
Scott K
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
62454 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:29pm
Subject: RE: Re: Permit required for STL?
Hi Dan,
I've got my permit. Most of the people I wheel with have their STL
permits too. The parking lot at Table Mesa is on STL. If you've ever
stopped there to air up or down you've been required to have a permit.
Most of the trails out at the White Tanks pass through STL. Need a
permit there too.
Head on down to 4 Wheelers Supply and get a family permit for $20. It's
good for a year.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: mt_b [mailto:mt_b@y...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:45 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Permit required for STL?
Thanks Joey!! :)
Some people must have had a bad day at work. I must have gotten on
some people's bad side this afternoon. :)
I have been in this club for two years now, BUT, I don't read the
board every single day, just don't have the time. So if it has been
discussed, that's great, being a member doesn't automatically mean
you see each and every post.
The reason I said no one I knew had a permit is because, *no one I
knew had a permit*. My point was I didn't KNOW that people had the
permit. I was not questioning whether anyone had one.
It has never been a topic of discussion when I was within earshot, on
the trail, hence the reason I asked the question. :)
But thanks to the people that were polite in answering my questions,
to the rest, hopefully you never ask something I already know... :D
Happy trails (with a permit of course),
Dan
--- In az_vjc@y..., "DesertJeep" <joey@d...> wrote:
> Your kidding right? Well half of what you say below is true. I have
> wheeled with you in the FJ area and I had a permit. :)
>
> Here you go Dan!
>
> http://www.land.state.az.us/support/faqs.htm#01
>
> Joey K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mt_b [mailto:mt_b@y...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:01 PM
> To: az_vjc@y...
> Subject: [az_vjc] Permit required for STL?
>
>
> I've heard through the grapevine that permits are required to be on
> STL..is that true now (or has it always been)? I've been wheeling
at
> FJ and Table Mesa for a few years now, which unless I am wrong
there
> is some STL. However, no one I know has ever had one, nor have I
> ever been questioned by any authorities.
>
> Does anyone have any physical proof (website, etc) that will say
> either way?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62455 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:35pm
Subject: [FS] 1965 Jeep CJ-5 for sale
Price: $1500.00 obo
Contact: David Tucker
I have stretched the frame (and wheelbase) by five inches and the frame is completely boxed in from front to back. Custom front and rear bumpers are integrated into the frame. The suspension is completely redone and has been swapped over to YJ leaf springs. The suspension includes 1/2" lift shackles and all the bushings are greaseable. A shackle reversal has been performed in the front. This all yeilds about seven" inches of lift with stock YJ leaves with the axles mounted spring over. It has a stock F head engine,
T-90 transmission, &; model 18 Transfer case. The axles are stock units as well. The body is in good condition. I have replaced the rear floor supports and floor with light gauge diamond plate. The front floor support bracing has all been redone and ties into heavy duty rock sliders that wrap around the bottom of the body.
For any more information please feel free to call me, I do not have constant access to a computer so a call would be much faster.
David M. Tucker
(623)388-9702
Traci Tucker
62456 From: CoyotEddie <coyoteddie@e...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:50pm
Subject: Need an Education on GPS
The older crowd (at least me) know about 8 tracks and beta machines, but nothing about GPS. I understand the basics but do not know which receiver is better. So any opinions would be helpful.
The 3 brands listed below are compatible with my topo map set but have many models. What model is the easiest to use? The best value? all input is welcome.
Garmin
Eagle/Lowrance
Magellan
Thanks in advance
Ed
62457 From: <sharxjeep@c...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 2:50pm
Subject: oooohh...somebody got tagged :)
Well..as much as hated to do it...I got rid of my tag that Rick norman was
so kind to give me. And in good old Jim and Rick fashion I delivered it
straight to the recipients driveway hehehe... so everyone beware of a Red XJ
that looks like it should be my tow rig :)
Sharky
62458 From: linda luik <minihummer@w...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 6:55pm
Subject: Re: money to burn on jeep stuff
I argee with Garrison. The best 4x4s have moderate lifts (2-3") and 33"
tires. After that you start the transition of converting your TJ from a
nice 4x4 to a money pit. Sure it looks cool, but you better have a good
income to be able to afford its upkeep.
Linda
"Garrison St.Clair" wrote:
>
> Josh,
>
> Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do everything.
> Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
> Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
> anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
>
> On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list is, I
> frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road vs.
> the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the more
> "purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
> simultaneously.
>
> One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56 gears,
> Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
>
> Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving) with
> your Jeep that you have failed?"
>
> Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves your
> primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
> trails.
>
> That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your present
> setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad roads,
> trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't do
> monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with 4.5"
> lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
> typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ, but I
> also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
>
> Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should weight
> the type of mods.
>
> JMO, FWIW.
>
> Gunslinger
>
> Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
> Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
>
> > Hello everyone,
> > Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> > across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> > I need to figure out is on what?
> >
> > What I currently have:
> > 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> > 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> > SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> > 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> > What I would like to end up with:
> > 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> > Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> > I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> > smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> > the freeway.
> >
> > I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
> >
> > The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> > depend on both on the trail and the highway.
> >
> > Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Josh Wooten
> > 99 TJ
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
62459 From: Garrison St.Clair <gunslinger@i...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 7:04pm
Subject: Re: money to burn on jeep stuff
Steve,
Lifts (of any type) and taller tires all raise the center-of-gravity. The
higher the center-of-gravity, without the appropriate increases in track and
wheelbase, make a vehicle (any vehicle) less stable.
Also a wider tire, unless designed for wet surfaces (or, for that matter,
any equal tire), is more likely to aquaplane. Another aspect of less
stability.
Just as most sports cars setup for track racing, or even rallying, are not
ideal for highways - the same is true of Jeeps setup to crawl rocks or play
in the mud.
Its like weapons. A 9 mm is a good all around defensive sidearm. A .44 is
till a sidearm but could be sued for some types of hunting. But it starts
getting very uncomfortable if you had to carry it all day everyday. You
would much rather carry the nine.
Jeeps are no different. You can modify them all you want. But most of the
mods will make the vehicle less suitable for daily driving.
And using the original poster as an example, he's driving about 2.5 times
the US average. That's a lot of hours to which I would hate to add much
discomfort.
As I said, JMO, FWIW, YMMV
Gunslinger
Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Meyer" <steve.j.meyer@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 20:02
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> I have to disagree with some of this. If done right, 35's and 4.56 gears
> can be just as comfortable to drive as stock. SOA YJ's (like mine) ride
> pretty damn nice.
>
> --Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Garrison St.Clair [mailto:gunslinger@i...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:47 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
>
>
> Josh,
>
> Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do everything.
> Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
> Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
> anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
>
> On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list is,
I
> frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road vs.
> the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the
more
> "purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
> simultaneously.
>
> One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56 gears,
> Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
>
> Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving) with
> your Jeep that you have failed?"
>
> Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves your
> primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
> trails.
>
> That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your present
> setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad
roads,
> trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't
do
> monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with
4.5"
> lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
> typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ, but
I
> also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
>
> Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should
weight
> the type of mods.
>
> JMO, FWIW.
>
> Gunslinger
>
> Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
> Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
>
>
> > Hello everyone,
> > Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> > across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> > I need to figure out is on what?
> >
> > What I currently have:
> > 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> > 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> > SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> > 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> > What I would like to end up with:
> > 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> > Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> > I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> > smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> > the freeway.
> >
> > I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
> >
> > The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> > depend on both on the trail and the highway.
> >
> > Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Josh Wooten
> > 99 TJ
>
62460 From: Garrison St.Clair <gunslinger@i...>
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 7:11pm
Subject: Re: money to burn on jeep stuff
Linda,
I always like folks who agree with me, but, I didn't say the "best" have (or
don't have) any mods in particular.
My point was only that beyond a certain point, with certain modifications,
you begin to seriously degrade the "on-road" stability, performance, and
comfort.
So I don't mind getting flamed, but let it be for what I meant, not
something else...<G>
Gunslinger
Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
----- Original Message -----
From: "linda luik" <minihummer@w...>
To: "Garrison St.Clair" <gunslinger@i...>
Cc: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 20:55
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> I argee with Garrison. The best 4x4s have moderate lifts (2-3") and 33"
> tires. After that you start the transition of converting your TJ from a
> nice 4x4 to a money pit. Sure it looks cool, but you better have a good
> income to be able to afford its upkeep.
>
> Linda
>
>
> "Garrison St.Clair" wrote:
> >
> > Josh,
> >
> > Its an interesting conundrum; you really want your Jeep to do
everything.
> > Smooth, comfy, and nice top end on the road; and big boulders as well.
> > Complicated by the fact that you are doing high on-road mileage, by
> > anybody's reckoning - 30K per year.
> >
> > On the Jeep list, which is not as "rock crawling" focused as this list
is, I
> > frequently ask folks "what percentage of your driving will be on-road
vs.
> > the percentage off-road?" Oft times it is that folks don't realize the
more
> > "purpose-built" a vehicle becomes, the less "roadable" it becomes
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > One question would be: "Have you driven a 35" tire, 4"+ lift, 4.56
gears,
> > Detroit locked Jeep on the highway?" Not fun at all.
> >
> > Next question would be: "What have you tried to accomplish (driving)
with
> > your Jeep that you have failed?"
> >
> > Where you don't want to end up is with a Jeep that know longer serves
your
> > primary purpose - daily driver - and doesn't gain you much more on the
> > trails.
> >
> > That said, here is an opinion. My YJ is set up similarly to your
present
> > setup. Its quite comfortable on the road and handles most of the bad
roads,
> > trails, rocks, mud, sand etc. without many problems. Of course, I don't
do
> > monster rocks nor mud bogs. I have driven some well set-up Jeeps with
4.5"
> > lifts, 35" tires, 4.56 gears, lockers front and rear, and all the other
> > typical mods. They sure do climb over objects more easily than my YJ,
but I
> > also never want to drive one in traffic, especially on a wet road.
> >
> > Not trying to start a flame war, but I think usage percentages should
weight
> > the type of mods.
> >
> > JMO, FWIW.
> >
> > Gunslinger
> >
> > Gunslinger's First Law: "No good deed goes unpunished."
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "pebble007" <jawooten@c...>
> > To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 07 August, 2002 14:57
> > Subject: [az_vjc] money to burn on jeep stuff
> >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > > Well hopefully in the next month or so I should come
> > > across about 2500.00 bucks to put into my jeep (thanks honey). What
> > > I need to figure out is on what?
> > >
> > > What I currently have:
> > > 3in Procomp spring lift (stock control arms)
> > > 31x10.50 on ar767 with 4" backspacing
> > > SYE (putting it in hopefully by end of august)
> > > 3.73:1 gears in a d30 (f) and D35c (r)
> > > What I would like to end up with:
> > > 33-35in tires (prefer 35")
> > > Enough lift to effectivly run up to 35in tires
> > > I drive up to 2500 miles per month mostly on the highway so I need as
> > > smooth of a ride that is possible and be able to maintain 75mph on
> > > the freeway.
> > >
> > > I have a 99TJ auto 6cyl. 55,000 miles
> > >
> > > The idea here is to make a good dual purpose vehicle that I can
> > > depend on both on the trail and the highway.
> > >
> > > Any input is appreciated and thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Josh Wooten
> > > 99 TJ