blooddrive
01-05-2004, 10:03 PM
63287-63311
63287 From: Jesus Chio <jchio@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:34pm
Subject: Re: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Come awn Stu, cant be that bad :)
I was actually thinking on adding kind of an alum skid plate underneath the whole frame so mud wont go in that easy. Same with engine bay since Im not sure what kind of mud we will see, but I am sure its gonna be NASTY!
Wondering if a 200HP shot will help on mud?? Im in for any mod! come awn hehe
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Stu Olson
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Jesus....do they make a Ziplock bag that is big enough to slip you CJ into? LOL
Remember.....MUD, JUST SAY NO!
Stu Olson
www.stu-offroad.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
63288 From: paparoach85251 <lespaparoach@m...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:42pm
Subject: WAS Re: United Association...NOW beers on Stu!
Stu,
I thought you were buying the drinks for everyone that went on your
6:30 run! That's the reason I signed up for your trip ;)
Les
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> Mike....good idea. Count me in!
>
> I'll volunteer to collect any donations for United on the 6:30AM
run.
> Heck....I am going to charge everyone $2 anyways! (that was what
Hackle
> told me to do so we would have enough $$ to get something cold to
drink
> after the run was over!) LOL
>
> Stu
>
> Stu Olson
> www.stu-offroad.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:30 AM
> To: 'az_vjc@y...'
> Subject: [az_vjc] United Association
>
>
> All,
>
> Sandee has informed me that it is possible for the AzVJC to join
United as
> an association. A minimum of $50 is needed for this to happen --
Ideally we
> want to send $100 or more.
>
> With association, we get to send 2 Delegates to United's yearly
meeting
> (next year's meeting is in Flagstaff); so we'd need some
nominations and a
> vote.
>
> If someone would like to volunteer to collect money at Crown King
this
> weekend that would be great (or I can do it if no one volunteers).
Also I'd
> like to have a PayPal account set up so that those not
participating in this
> weekend's events can donate.
>
> This is a voluntary donation! If we receive more than we need,
then we'll
> hold a vote to determine what to do with the extra.
>
> ALSO! We'll be receiving an electronic version of the newsletter,
which I
> will put online for everyone to download -- or I will e-mail it to
those
> interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Chatfield
> Programmer/Analyst
> Pegasus Solutions
> (602) 861-7686
> mike.chatfield@p...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
63289 From: Siade, Randy <randy.siade@u...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:47pm
Subject: RE: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
63290 From: DougB <azjeep@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just can't imagine
a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science. The ".5", "+",
and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is within a particular
category. The more you complicate it (10 categories), the more confused and
outta sinc things will become. I guess I just feel that we'd be inventing a
Beta Max, when everything is VHS.
BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
personal.
Happy Trails....
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
> The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot
> of the new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+
> or 5.0. In my opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think
> Assylum is quite a bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two
> trails would probably get the same rating under the current system.
>
> My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a
> bit. I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
> range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers
> in the rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down,
> that would free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale
> to accomodate all the new extreme trails that are really off the
> end of the current scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could
> either be described as "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5
> could be added.
>
> But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings
> of trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the
> current system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
>
> In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by
> the ASA. Possibly Upper Terminator too.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> -Roger
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is
> it that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> simply rated wrong on the website ??
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fred
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63291 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:52pm
Subject: RE: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
I agree with Doug. It's not broken so lets not fix it. If some trails
are incorrectly rated then lets change that particular rating and leave
the rest alone.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: DougB [mailto:azjeep@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:50 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; tomas2691
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just can't
imagine a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science.
The ".5", "+", and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is
within a particular category. The more you complicate it (10
categories), the more confused and outta sinc things will become. I
guess I just feel that we'd be inventing a Beta Max, when everything is
VHS.
BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
personal.
Happy Trails....
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
> The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot of the
> new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+ or 5.0. In my
> opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think Assylum is quite a
> bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two trails would probably
> get the same rating under the current system.
>
> My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a bit.
> I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0 range.
> You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers in the
> rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down, that would
> free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale to accomodate
> all the new extreme trails that are really off the end of the current
> scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could either be described as
> "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5 could be added.
>
> But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings of
> trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the current
> system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
>
> In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by the ASA.
> Possibly Upper Terminator too.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> -Roger
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is it
> that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> simply rated wrong on the website ??
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fred
>
>
>
>
> 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/
63292 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:54pm
Subject: RE: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
I was going to stay out of this but then again that was only my "first"
thought............... something is "making" me jump in this...... must be
one of these few days without meetings so I'm bored!
MY thoughts are the 1-5 scale is the best. Use the .3, .5, .8 etc breakouts
if necessary. Several have already stated it.............. THE TRAIL
RATINGS THEMSELVES NEED TO BE REDONE. Many of the ratings were done prior
to the new extreme rock crawling entered the picture and ALL of the trails
have become easier following a few years of use AND nameless individuals
STACKING ROCKS sooooooooooooooooooooooo.................... my proposal:
How about AzVJC updating the "1-5 ratings" AND lets get a consensus on EACH
trail rating. The 1-5 rating has been accepted INTERNATIONALLY and I was
the one that started the 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 etc rating a number of years
ago. United has picked up on the .5+- factor and are more or less using the
ratings as stated in the ASA4WDC Jamboree info. These ratings NEED to be
updated. If AzVJC put together a good rating description I'm certain the
ASA4WDC would accept it and it can carry out from there. Bottom
line............. all of this needs the use of some "common sense" with it.
In simple words..... it's not the "rating system" that needs to be redone,
it's the "description and/or qualities/difficulty" that need to be redone.
My thoughts........... Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DougB [mailto:azjeep@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:50 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; tomas2691
> Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
>
> Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
> extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just
> can't imagine
> a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science. The
> ".5", "+",
> and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is within a
> particular
> category. The more you complicate it (10 categories), the more
> confused and
> outta sinc things will become. I guess I just feel that we'd be
> inventing a
> Beta Max, when everything is VHS.
>
> BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
> personal.
>
> Happy Trails....
>
> Doug
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
>
> > The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot
> > of the new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+
> > or 5.0. In my opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think
> > Assylum is quite a bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two
> > trails would probably get the same rating under the current system.
> >
> > My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> > adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a
> > bit. I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
> > range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers
> > in the rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down,
> > that would free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale
> > to accomodate all the new extreme trails that are really off the
> > end of the current scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could
> > either be described as "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5
> > could be added.
> >
> > But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings
> > of trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the
> > current system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
> >
> > In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> > corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by
> > the ASA. Possibly Upper Terminator too.
> >
> > My 2 cents.
> >
> > -Roger
> >
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> > wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is
> > it that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> > simply rated wrong on the website ??
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Fred
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
63293 From: vtchopper <jasonandkatiemerrillinaz@h...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:03pm
Subject: Turkey Creek run and all other Runs Please Read
Hello all, Last weekend a buddy and I ran Turkey Creek, the trail was
fine no problems or anything like that just a few concerns. As we
were coming down the hill to drop into the wash we heard gun fire, It
was very close and we could not see the people firing off the guns.
I gave a few horn blows to let the people firing the guns know I was
coming down.. I did not know what direction they were firing so I
made sure they knew what direction I was coming from. When I got to
see where they were I stopped until they holstered there guns as they
did (They were target shooting) we said hello to each other and I
explained to them that I could not see them thats why I was blowing
my horn. They understood and we went on with our business as did
they. The point is, be aware of the area you are in and just be
careful when you are out in the desert because someone might not be
paying attention. Enjoy the trip this weekend Im sorry I can not
attend I have to work :-(
Jason Merrill
99 TJ odie
00 XJ Putter
63294 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
One by-product of a more complicated rating system (1-10) could be greater
confusion as to which trails our equipment and/or ability may be suited for.
This could lead to more people trying trails that they are not ready for and
thus more breakage and possible trail damage.
With the 1-5 system, I pretty much know that my Jeep is not cut out for 4.5
and above (and neither am I), so I don't even attempt them.
Just a thought,
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8 (for cooler weather)
Scott Kruize wrote:
> I agree with Doug. It's not broken so lets not fix it. If some trails
> are incorrectly rated then lets change that particular rating and leave
> the rest alone.
>
> Scott K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DougB [mailto:azjeep@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:50 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; tomas2691
> Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
> Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
> extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just can't
> imagine a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science.
> The ".5", "+", and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is
> within a particular category. The more you complicate it (10
> categories), the more confused and outta sinc things will become. I
> guess I just feel that we'd be inventing a Beta Max, when everything is
> VHS.
>
> BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
> personal.
>
> Happy Trails....
>
> Doug
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
> > The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot of the
> > new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+ or 5.0. In my
>
> > opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think Assylum is quite a
> > bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two trails would probably
> > get the same rating under the current system.
> >
> > My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> > adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a bit.
>
> > I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0 range.
> > You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers in the
> > rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down, that would
> > free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale to accomodate
> > all the new extreme trails that are really off the end of the current
> > scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could either be described as
> > "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5 could be added.
> >
> > But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings of
> > trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the current
> > system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
> >
> > In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> > corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by the ASA.
>
> > Possibly Upper Terminator too.
> >
> > My 2 cents.
> >
> > -Roger
> >
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> > wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is it
>
> > that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> > simply rated wrong on the website ??
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Fred
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63295 From: Jesus Chio <jchio@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:07pm
Subject: Re: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Yehaw! another vote on the 44" boggers
What gears would be OK to run with those tires?? My 350 is rated around 400/400 and I have 4.11 gears right now.
Even that the challenge wont be only mudboging, but tracks, trails and such...
Skiny could be the 38sx x 14.50?
Im sure there will be a ton of TJ's (4&6cyl), one or two big blocked trucks and CJs of all kind
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
63296 From: Len Sullivan <kermitj10@y...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:12pm
Subject: Re: 4 WHEELERS HAS PERMITS
Make that 15 permits now..........
Len
SIMONLUKER@AOL.COM wrote:
Sandee was nice enough to drop off 18 permits. Thats all till next week. See Barry at 4 wheelers Supply 3530 e Washington
602 273 7195
Good Luck Simon
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
63297 From: Len Sullivan <kermitj10@y...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:13pm
Subject: Re: United Association
I'll chip in. Either by PayPal or cash in CK....doesn't matter to me.
Len
"Chatfield, Mike" wrote:
All,
Sandee has informed me that it is possible for the AzVJC to join United as an association. A minimum of $50 is needed for this to happen -- Ideally we want to send $100 or more.
With association, we get to send 2 Delegates to United's yearly meeting (next year's meeting is in Flagstaff); so we'd need some nominations and a vote.
If someone would like to volunteer to collect money at Crown King this weekend that would be great (or I can do it if no one volunteers). Also I'd like to have a PayPal account set up so that those not participating in this weekend's events can donate.
This is a voluntary donation! If we receive more than we need, then we'll hold a vote to determine what to do with the extra.
ALSO! We'll be receiving an electronic version of the newsletter, which I will put online for everyone to download -- or I will e-mail it to those interested.
Thanks,
Mike Chatfield
Programmer/Analyst
Pegasus Solutions
(602) 861-7686
mike.chatfield@pegs.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
63298 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:18pm
Subject: RE: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
My 2 cents... The 1 - 5 ratings is more then adequate. Using the .5
increments help as well as the + or - symbols. The problem with all
these ratings be it 1 - 10 or 1 - 5 is that everyone uses their opinion
as to what a trail is rated. E.g. "The crown king is trail was a tough
trail in my stock TJ, it's definitely a 3.0+." same person next year
with a better Jeep. "Wow with my lifted YJ with rear locker this trail
is probably a 2.0+ trail." (Just an example to get a point across.)
Until we get a hard and fast rule that can define what a trail should be
rated as we will always have problems with any rating system. Oh and
forget the fact that a flash flood can change a trail from being a 3.0
to a 5.0 in moments. Keeping the ratings up to date is a chore in it's
self.
Just my cents worth.
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: tomas2691 [mailto:tomasr@a...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:45 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot of the
new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+ or 5.0. In my
opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think Assylum is quite a
bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two trails would probably get
the same rating under the current system.
My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a bit.
I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers in the
rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down, that would
free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale to accomodate
all the new extreme trails that are really off the end of the current
scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could either be described as "not
rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5 could be added.
But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings of
trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the current
system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by the ASA.
Possibly Upper Terminator too.
My 2 cents.
-Roger
--- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is
it that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
simply rated wrong on the website ??
>
>
> Cheers,
> Fred
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63299 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:11pm
Subject: Camping supplies/OHV supplies
I need your help!!!!
A while back someone was posting a "list" of needed camping supplies and/or
trail supplies etc. I have been appointed to a United Four Wheel Drive
committee that is working at putting together an "Educational booklet"
covering SUV "101" type safety driving rules as well as incorporating info
re what is needed when traveling "outside the urban sprawl"......
Any/all help, lists or ideas would be appreciated.
Sandee
63300 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:25pm
Subject: RE: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
That is a most excellent idea. Member's rating the trail. So if you go
on a run and think it was a 3 you submit that to the website. Over time
those numbers are averaged and maybe it will be fairly accurate. You
could also go back and see how someone with a like built Jeep rating a
trail so you could get an idea of what you are in for.
Well at least I think it's a cool idea.
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:08 PM
To: 'az_vjc@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
BTW, everyone,
For the "new and improved" website, I'm going to add a "Member Rating"
to the Trails section. Members will be able to "rate" trails based on
difficulty, scenery and overall enjoyment. These "ratings" will of
course be completely separate from the "official" rating.
- Mike
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63301 From: jetowle2000 <James.Towle@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:33pm
Subject: Re: United Association
Mike & Sandee,
I'll be the first victim..... LOL
Why do we want to join United as a club?
Really, a couple of bucks is no big deal but, I am already a member
of United (& of ASA4WDC).
I don't intend this to be negative just informative.
Thanks,
--James
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Chatfield, Mike" <Mike@A...> wrote:
> All,
>
> Sandee has informed me that it is possible for the AzVJC to join
United as
> an association. A minimum of $50 is needed for this to happen --
Ideally we
> want to send $100 or more.
>
> With association, we get to send 2 Delegates to United's yearly
meeting
> (next year's meeting is in Flagstaff); so we'd need some
nominations and a
> vote.
>
> If someone would like to volunteer to collect money at Crown King
this
> weekend that would be great (or I can do it if no one volunteers).
Also I'd
> like to have a PayPal account set up so that those not
participating in this
> weekend's events can donate.
>
> This is a voluntary donation! If we receive more than we need,
then we'll
> hold a vote to determine what to do with the extra.
>
> ALSO! We'll be receiving an electronic version of the newsletter,
which I
> will put online for everyone to download -- or I will e-mail it to
those
> interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Chatfield
> Programmer/Analyst
> Pegasus Solutions
> (602) 861-7686
> mike.chatfield@p... <mailto:mike.chatfield@p...>
63302 From: Jim Hughes <jhughes@h...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:37pm
Subject: Re: Jeep survival kit
THIS LIST WAS POSTED SOME TIME AGO BUT IS GOOD
>>> "Garrison St.Clair" <gunslinger@i...> 05/25/01 08:54AM >>>
Attached is a list including all items mention in this thread, plus some
others from lists I had on file. Keep adding and when everyone thinks it is
reasonably complete I can upload it to the files area.
The list is in Excel format but if prefereed I can do it in text or Word.
Gunslinger
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63303 From: Roger Tomas <tomasr@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
Doug,
You're right. I don't worry about it either. Most of us who run the
harder trails don't rely on trail ratings - we rely on word-of-mouth
information from other wheelers. I think it's probably the newbies
that rely on the trail rating system more than anyone else because
they haven't yet established that word-of-mouth network. For
them, the 1-5 system covers the trails they'd probably run
reasonably well.
-Roger
DougB wrote:
> Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
> extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just can't imagine
> a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science. The ".5", "+",
> and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is within a particular
> category. The more you complicate it (10 categories), the more confused and
> outta sinc things will become. I guess I just feel that we'd be inventing a
> Beta Max, when everything is VHS.
>
> BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
> personal.
>
> Happy Trails....
>
> Doug
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
> > The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot
> > of the new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+
> > or 5.0. In my opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think
> > Assylum is quite a bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two
> > trails would probably get the same rating under the current system.
> >
> > My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> > adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a
> > bit. I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
> > range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers
> > in the rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down,
> > that would free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale
> > to accomodate all the new extreme trails that are really off the
> > end of the current scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could
> > either be described as "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5
> > could be added.
> >
> > But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings
> > of trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the
> > current system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
> >
> > In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> > corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by
> > the ASA. Possibly Upper Terminator too.
> >
> > My 2 cents.
> >
> > -Roger
63304 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:32pm
Subject: Trail Ratings
Trail Ratings should not be what someone "thinks" they are, they are firm
guidelines...... mainly aimed at your "equipment" more than your concept.
It makes sense that someone with a stock CJ would think Axle Alley should be
a 5.0 whereas a driver with a new TJ or to the extreme with a fully modified
vehicle would think it's much easier......... IT IS. Mike's
"classifications" are good ones and are fairly in line with what's below. I
think the problem is we need to get back to what a "rating" should be......
it is not "someones opinion" of how hard the trail is.
If we use a 1-5 rating I would think common sense would tell us that makes a
3.0 rating mid range. A stock vehicle should be able to do this level
without difficulty but probably with some challenge. A 3.5 is requiring or
recommending a semi-modified and/or a minimum of a limited slip locking
device, which means "stock" should not be doing this level trail........ or
if your vehicle only has a rear locker and the rating guide
recommends/requires lockers front & rear you again should not be on that
level trail. I know we ALL want to "meet the challenge" but when we do so
with a vehicle that is not equipped to do so is when the "impact" starts
showing on our trails......... or by-passes start showing up. By-Passes
are the FIRST thing to PERMANENTLY CLOSE OUR TRAILS!!!!!! If you have to
make a by-pass you definitely do not belong on that trail.
As youn'uns we don't "run" before we "crawl".............???
The main issue that I harp <boy, that word was hard to say but it's true> at
the agencies is: CONSISTENCY. If we expect consistency from our land
managers why wouldn't we have the same within ourselves??
I go back to meetings tomorrow so ya'll won't have to listen to me
tomorrow!!
Sandee
TRAIL RATINGS
(1 - 5)
The ASA4WDC follows the following rating system to establish the relative
difficulty of trails. Recognizing that trails are not constant in their
degree of difficulty, the index requires that each trail be rated by the
most difficult situation encountered.
1 Passable by stock and two-wheel drive vehicles; improved dirt, gravel etc.
1.5 Unimproved dirt, chuck holes, dips, eroded cross cuts or sharp curves.
Two wheel drive may not be able to do.
EASY
2 Some mud holes, rocks, washs, and loose dirt hill climbs. Four wheel
drive high range will be needed. Street tires are acceptable.
2.5 Slow easy going with four wheel drive. Using low range some to
minimize terrain and road damage. Some 10” - 15” rocks/ledges. Street
tires are acceptable.
MODERATE
3 Four wheel drive required due to terrain and loose traction for safe, easy
travel. Rocks and ledges 12 - 15”. Lo-range gears used. Challenges for
novice driver. Clearance advised. Street tires unacceptable.
3.5 Wash beds, 15” - 20” rock ledges, hill climbs, larger boulders.
Four wheel drive, low range used. Ground clearance definitely needed.
Traction device required in the rear. Not recommended for the novice driver.
Street tires are not acceptable.
HARD
4.0 Four wheel drive required, usually in low range. Greatest amount of
ground clearance due to moderate - large sized rocks and obstacles. Low air
pressure, flotation tires and locked rear differentials are required. Jacks
and winches advised. Street tires not acceptable. Recommend experienced
drivers only.
EXTREME
4.5 Front and rear locked differentials required. Low gears and maximum
clearance needed. Large boulders, steep inclines, washouts, & off camber
situations. Recommend experienced drivers only. Winches are sometimes
required, always recommended. 33” tires or bigger recommended.
4.5+ Same as above but recommend a fully modified vehicle, winch, and spare
parts. Experienced drivers only.
63305 From: Roger Tomas <tomasr@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
The more I think about it, the more I like the 1-6 scale. First of all, it
models exactly what has happened in the real world with the creation
of new trails - as the level of difficulty continues to increase, so does the
upper end of the scale. Second, it keeps the existing 1-5 part of the
scale as it is. Finally, it doesn't add the extra complexity of a full 1-10
scale.
I guess I'm thinking that a 1-6 scale (even with .5 and +/- added in) is
less complicated than a 1-5 scale with the addition of tenths (ie. .1,
.2, .3, etc.).
JMHO.
-Roger
Sandee McCullen wrote:
> I was going to stay out of this but then again that was only my "first"
> thought............... something is "making" me jump in this...... must be
> one of these few days without meetings so I'm bored!
>
> MY thoughts are the 1-5 scale is the best. Use the .3, .5, .8 etc breakouts
> if necessary. Several have already stated it.............. THE TRAIL
> RATINGS THEMSELVES NEED TO BE REDONE. Many of the ratings were done prior
> to the new extreme rock crawling entered the picture and ALL of the trails
> have become easier following a few years of use AND nameless individuals
> STACKING ROCKS sooooooooooooooooooooooo.................... my proposal:
>
> How about AzVJC updating the "1-5 ratings" AND lets get a consensus on EACH
> trail rating. The 1-5 rating has been accepted INTERNATIONALLY and I was
> the one that started the 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 etc rating a number of years
> ago. United has picked up on the .5+- factor and are more or less using the
> ratings as stated in the ASA4WDC Jamboree info. These ratings NEED to be
> updated. If AzVJC put together a good rating description I'm certain the
> ASA4WDC would accept it and it can carry out from there. Bottom
> line............. all of this needs the use of some "common sense" with it.
> In simple words..... it's not the "rating system" that needs to be redone,
> it's the "description and/or qualities/difficulty" that need to be redone.
>
> My thoughts........... Sandee
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DougB [mailto:azjeep@c...]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:50 PM
> > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; tomas2691
> > Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
> >
> >
> > Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
> > extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just
> > can't imagine
> > a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science. The
> > ".5", "+",
> > and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is within a
> > particular
> > category. The more you complicate it (10 categories), the more
> > confused and
> > outta sinc things will become. I guess I just feel that we'd be
> > inventing a
> > Beta Max, when everything is VHS.
> >
> > BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
> > personal.
> >
> > Happy Trails....
> >
> > Doug
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
> > To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
> >
> >
> > > The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot
> > > of the new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+
> > > or 5.0. In my opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think
> > > Assylum is quite a bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two
> > > trails would probably get the same rating under the current system.
> > >
> > > My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> > > adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a
> > > bit. I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
> > > range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers
> > > in the rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down,
> > > that would free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale
> > > to accomodate all the new extreme trails that are really off the
> > > end of the current scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could
> > > either be described as "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5
> > > could be added.
> > >
> > > But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings
> > > of trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the
> > > current system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
> > >
> > > In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> > > corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by
> > > the ASA. Possibly Upper Terminator too.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents.
> > >
> > > -Roger
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > > > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> > > wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is
> > > it that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> > > simply rated wrong on the website ??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Fred
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
63306 From: <SIMONLUKER@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:49pm
Subject: 4 Wheelers has 10 permits left
only 10 left 2:00pm
Simon
63307 From: TODD MCCULLEN <desertfab@m...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:59pm
Subject: Trail Rating
I have to agree with Sandee, It needs to be consistent.
The reason everyone has a different rating for the same trail. For example, The level I wheel at would rate Asylum at a 5 and Highway to hell at a 3 on 1-5 scale.
Trail rating would be more realistic if was kept consistent.
Todd
Desertfab.com
63308 From: Siade, Randy <randy.siade@u...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:10pm
Subject: RE: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Are you running a manual or auto? 4.11s are a bit on the high side for 44s. The boggers would do great wish they where available when I was boggin. When I mean tall and skinny I mean like 38-50" x 10.5 -12.5. Lots of competitor will use tractor tires that are in the 50" range and only 10-12" wide.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:08 PM
To: Siade, Randy; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Yehaw! another vote on the 44" boggers
What gears would be OK to run with those tires?? My 350 is rated around 400/400 and I have 4.11 gears right now.
Even that the challenge wont be only mudboging, but tracks, trails and such...
Skiny could be the 38sx x 14.50?
Im sure there will be a ton of TJ's (4&6cyl), one or two big blocked trucks and CJs of all kind
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
63309 From: Jesus Chio <jchio@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:42pm
Subject: Re: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
SM420 is 7.0 and Atlas 4.3 so my crawling is great. I want some more deep gearing (around 4.88) so its not that weak (as a 5.3ish) but also not that fast.
I got 2 44" boggers in my garage right now, need 2 front tires and Im set on that side, Ill regear and bring both 38.5 and 44s on the lowboy so I can choose once we see whats gonna be up there
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: 'Jesus Chio' ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Are you running a manual or auto? 4.11s are a bit on the high side for 44s. The boggers would do great wish they where available when I was boggin. When I mean tall and skinny I mean like 38-50" x 10.5 -12.5. Lots of competitor will use tractor tires that are in the 50" range and only 10-12" wide.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:08 PM
To: Siade, Randy; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Yehaw! another vote on the 44" boggers
What gears would be OK to run with those tires?? My 350 is rated around 400/400 and I have 4.11 gears right now.
Even that the challenge wont be only mudboging, but tracks, trails and such...
Skiny could be the 38sx x 14.50?
Im sure there will be a ton of TJ's (4&6cyl), one or two big blocked trucks and CJs of all kind
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
63310 From: Siade, Randy <randy.siade@u...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:45pm
Subject: RE: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Lots of boggers will use a swampers in from and bogger in the rear. They do this because they do not want the front to dig in as much as the rear. Helps keep the vehicle floating on top.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:42 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; Siade, Randy
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
SM420 is 7.0 and Atlas 4.3 so my crawling is great. I want some more deep gearing (around 4.88) so its not that weak (as a 5.3ish) but also not that fast.
I got 2 44" boggers in my garage right now, need 2 front tires and Im set on that side, Ill regear and bring both 38.5 and 44s on the lowboy so I can choose once we see whats gonna be up there
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: 'Jesus Chio' ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Are you running a manual or auto? 4.11s are a bit on the high side for 44s. The boggers would do great wish they where available when I was boggin. When I mean tall and skinny I mean like 38-50" x 10.5 -12.5. Lots of competitor will use tractor tires that are in the 50" range and only 10-12" wide.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:08 PM
To: Siade, Randy; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Yehaw! another vote on the 44" boggers
What gears would be OK to run with those tires?? My 350 is rated around 400/400 and I have 4.11 gears right now.
Even that the challenge wont be only mudboging, but tracks, trails and such...
Skiny could be the 38sx x 14.50?
Im sure there will be a ton of TJ's (4&6cyl), one or two big blocked trucks and CJs of all kind
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
63311 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:47pm
Subject: RE: United Association
Stu I said $20 dollars not two:) If anyone on the 6:00 run wants to make a donation I will volunteer to introduce you to Mike Chatfield:) Jim F.
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@qwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:36 PM
To: Chatfield, Mike; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] United Association
Mike....good idea. Count me in!
I'll volunteer to collect any donations for United on the 6:30AM run. Heck....I am going to charge everyone $2 anyways! (that was what Hackle told me to do so we would have enough $$ to get something cold to drink after the run was over!) LOL
Stu
Stu Olson
www.stu-offroad.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@AzChatfield.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:30 AM
To: 'az_vjc@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [az_vjc] United Association
All,
Sandee has informed me that it is possible for the AzVJC to join United as an association. A minimum of $50 is needed for this to happen -- Ideally we want to send $100 or more.
With association, we get to send 2 Delegates to United's yearly meeting (next year's meeting is in Flagstaff); so we'd need some nominations and a vote.
If someone would like to volunteer to collect money at Crown King this weekend that would be great (or I can do it if no one volunteers). Also I'd like to have a PayPal account set up so that those not participating in this weekend's events can donate.
This is a voluntary donation! If we receive more than we need, then we'll hold a vote to determine what to do with the extra.
ALSO! We'll be receiving an electronic version of the newsletter, which I will put online for everyone to download -- or I will e-mail it to those interested.
Thanks,
Mike Chatfield
Programmer/Analyst
Pegasus Solutions
(602) 861-7686
mike.chatfield@pegs.com
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.
63287 From: Jesus Chio <jchio@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:34pm
Subject: Re: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Come awn Stu, cant be that bad :)
I was actually thinking on adding kind of an alum skid plate underneath the whole frame so mud wont go in that easy. Same with engine bay since Im not sure what kind of mud we will see, but I am sure its gonna be NASTY!
Wondering if a 200HP shot will help on mud?? Im in for any mod! come awn hehe
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Stu Olson
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Jesus....do they make a Ziplock bag that is big enough to slip you CJ into? LOL
Remember.....MUD, JUST SAY NO!
Stu Olson
www.stu-offroad.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
63288 From: paparoach85251 <lespaparoach@m...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:42pm
Subject: WAS Re: United Association...NOW beers on Stu!
Stu,
I thought you were buying the drinks for everyone that went on your
6:30 run! That's the reason I signed up for your trip ;)
Les
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> Mike....good idea. Count me in!
>
> I'll volunteer to collect any donations for United on the 6:30AM
run.
> Heck....I am going to charge everyone $2 anyways! (that was what
Hackle
> told me to do so we would have enough $$ to get something cold to
drink
> after the run was over!) LOL
>
> Stu
>
> Stu Olson
> www.stu-offroad.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:30 AM
> To: 'az_vjc@y...'
> Subject: [az_vjc] United Association
>
>
> All,
>
> Sandee has informed me that it is possible for the AzVJC to join
United as
> an association. A minimum of $50 is needed for this to happen --
Ideally we
> want to send $100 or more.
>
> With association, we get to send 2 Delegates to United's yearly
meeting
> (next year's meeting is in Flagstaff); so we'd need some
nominations and a
> vote.
>
> If someone would like to volunteer to collect money at Crown King
this
> weekend that would be great (or I can do it if no one volunteers).
Also I'd
> like to have a PayPal account set up so that those not
participating in this
> weekend's events can donate.
>
> This is a voluntary donation! If we receive more than we need,
then we'll
> hold a vote to determine what to do with the extra.
>
> ALSO! We'll be receiving an electronic version of the newsletter,
which I
> will put online for everyone to download -- or I will e-mail it to
those
> interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Chatfield
> Programmer/Analyst
> Pegasus Solutions
> (602) 861-7686
> mike.chatfield@p...
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
63289 From: Siade, Randy <randy.siade@u...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:47pm
Subject: RE: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
63290 From: DougB <azjeep@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just can't imagine
a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science. The ".5", "+",
and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is within a particular
category. The more you complicate it (10 categories), the more confused and
outta sinc things will become. I guess I just feel that we'd be inventing a
Beta Max, when everything is VHS.
BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
personal.
Happy Trails....
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
> The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot
> of the new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+
> or 5.0. In my opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think
> Assylum is quite a bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two
> trails would probably get the same rating under the current system.
>
> My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a
> bit. I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
> range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers
> in the rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down,
> that would free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale
> to accomodate all the new extreme trails that are really off the
> end of the current scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could
> either be described as "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5
> could be added.
>
> But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings
> of trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the
> current system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
>
> In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by
> the ASA. Possibly Upper Terminator too.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> -Roger
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is
> it that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> simply rated wrong on the website ??
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fred
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63291 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:52pm
Subject: RE: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
I agree with Doug. It's not broken so lets not fix it. If some trails
are incorrectly rated then lets change that particular rating and leave
the rest alone.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: DougB [mailto:azjeep@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:50 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; tomas2691
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just can't
imagine a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science.
The ".5", "+", and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is
within a particular category. The more you complicate it (10
categories), the more confused and outta sinc things will become. I
guess I just feel that we'd be inventing a Beta Max, when everything is
VHS.
BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
personal.
Happy Trails....
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
> The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot of the
> new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+ or 5.0. In my
> opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think Assylum is quite a
> bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two trails would probably
> get the same rating under the current system.
>
> My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a bit.
> I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0 range.
> You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers in the
> rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down, that would
> free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale to accomodate
> all the new extreme trails that are really off the end of the current
> scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could either be described as
> "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5 could be added.
>
> But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings of
> trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the current
> system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
>
> In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by the ASA.
> Possibly Upper Terminator too.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> -Roger
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is it
> that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> simply rated wrong on the website ??
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fred
>
>
>
>
> 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/
63292 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 0:54pm
Subject: RE: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
I was going to stay out of this but then again that was only my "first"
thought............... something is "making" me jump in this...... must be
one of these few days without meetings so I'm bored!
MY thoughts are the 1-5 scale is the best. Use the .3, .5, .8 etc breakouts
if necessary. Several have already stated it.............. THE TRAIL
RATINGS THEMSELVES NEED TO BE REDONE. Many of the ratings were done prior
to the new extreme rock crawling entered the picture and ALL of the trails
have become easier following a few years of use AND nameless individuals
STACKING ROCKS sooooooooooooooooooooooo.................... my proposal:
How about AzVJC updating the "1-5 ratings" AND lets get a consensus on EACH
trail rating. The 1-5 rating has been accepted INTERNATIONALLY and I was
the one that started the 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 etc rating a number of years
ago. United has picked up on the .5+- factor and are more or less using the
ratings as stated in the ASA4WDC Jamboree info. These ratings NEED to be
updated. If AzVJC put together a good rating description I'm certain the
ASA4WDC would accept it and it can carry out from there. Bottom
line............. all of this needs the use of some "common sense" with it.
In simple words..... it's not the "rating system" that needs to be redone,
it's the "description and/or qualities/difficulty" that need to be redone.
My thoughts........... Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DougB [mailto:azjeep@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:50 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; tomas2691
> Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
>
> Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
> extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just
> can't imagine
> a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science. The
> ".5", "+",
> and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is within a
> particular
> category. The more you complicate it (10 categories), the more
> confused and
> outta sinc things will become. I guess I just feel that we'd be
> inventing a
> Beta Max, when everything is VHS.
>
> BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
> personal.
>
> Happy Trails....
>
> Doug
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
>
> > The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot
> > of the new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+
> > or 5.0. In my opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think
> > Assylum is quite a bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two
> > trails would probably get the same rating under the current system.
> >
> > My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> > adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a
> > bit. I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
> > range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers
> > in the rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down,
> > that would free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale
> > to accomodate all the new extreme trails that are really off the
> > end of the current scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could
> > either be described as "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5
> > could be added.
> >
> > But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings
> > of trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the
> > current system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
> >
> > In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> > corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by
> > the ASA. Possibly Upper Terminator too.
> >
> > My 2 cents.
> >
> > -Roger
> >
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> > wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is
> > it that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> > simply rated wrong on the website ??
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Fred
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
63293 From: vtchopper <jasonandkatiemerrillinaz@h...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:03pm
Subject: Turkey Creek run and all other Runs Please Read
Hello all, Last weekend a buddy and I ran Turkey Creek, the trail was
fine no problems or anything like that just a few concerns. As we
were coming down the hill to drop into the wash we heard gun fire, It
was very close and we could not see the people firing off the guns.
I gave a few horn blows to let the people firing the guns know I was
coming down.. I did not know what direction they were firing so I
made sure they knew what direction I was coming from. When I got to
see where they were I stopped until they holstered there guns as they
did (They were target shooting) we said hello to each other and I
explained to them that I could not see them thats why I was blowing
my horn. They understood and we went on with our business as did
they. The point is, be aware of the area you are in and just be
careful when you are out in the desert because someone might not be
paying attention. Enjoy the trip this weekend Im sorry I can not
attend I have to work :-(
Jason Merrill
99 TJ odie
00 XJ Putter
63294 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
One by-product of a more complicated rating system (1-10) could be greater
confusion as to which trails our equipment and/or ability may be suited for.
This could lead to more people trying trails that they are not ready for and
thus more breakage and possible trail damage.
With the 1-5 system, I pretty much know that my Jeep is not cut out for 4.5
and above (and neither am I), so I don't even attempt them.
Just a thought,
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8 (for cooler weather)
Scott Kruize wrote:
> I agree with Doug. It's not broken so lets not fix it. If some trails
> are incorrectly rated then lets change that particular rating and leave
> the rest alone.
>
> Scott K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DougB [mailto:azjeep@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:50 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; tomas2691
> Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
> Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
> extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just can't
> imagine a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science.
> The ".5", "+", and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is
> within a particular category. The more you complicate it (10
> categories), the more confused and outta sinc things will become. I
> guess I just feel that we'd be inventing a Beta Max, when everything is
> VHS.
>
> BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
> personal.
>
> Happy Trails....
>
> Doug
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
> > The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot of the
> > new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+ or 5.0. In my
>
> > opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think Assylum is quite a
> > bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two trails would probably
> > get the same rating under the current system.
> >
> > My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> > adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a bit.
>
> > I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0 range.
> > You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers in the
> > rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down, that would
> > free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale to accomodate
> > all the new extreme trails that are really off the end of the current
> > scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could either be described as
> > "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5 could be added.
> >
> > But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings of
> > trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the current
> > system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
> >
> > In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> > corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by the ASA.
>
> > Possibly Upper Terminator too.
> >
> > My 2 cents.
> >
> > -Roger
> >
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> > wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is it
>
> > that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> > simply rated wrong on the website ??
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Fred
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63295 From: Jesus Chio <jchio@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:07pm
Subject: Re: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Yehaw! another vote on the 44" boggers
What gears would be OK to run with those tires?? My 350 is rated around 400/400 and I have 4.11 gears right now.
Even that the challenge wont be only mudboging, but tracks, trails and such...
Skiny could be the 38sx x 14.50?
Im sure there will be a ton of TJ's (4&6cyl), one or two big blocked trucks and CJs of all kind
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
63296 From: Len Sullivan <kermitj10@y...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:12pm
Subject: Re: 4 WHEELERS HAS PERMITS
Make that 15 permits now..........
Len
SIMONLUKER@AOL.COM wrote:
Sandee was nice enough to drop off 18 permits. Thats all till next week. See Barry at 4 wheelers Supply 3530 e Washington
602 273 7195
Good Luck Simon
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
63297 From: Len Sullivan <kermitj10@y...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:13pm
Subject: Re: United Association
I'll chip in. Either by PayPal or cash in CK....doesn't matter to me.
Len
"Chatfield, Mike" wrote:
All,
Sandee has informed me that it is possible for the AzVJC to join United as an association. A minimum of $50 is needed for this to happen -- Ideally we want to send $100 or more.
With association, we get to send 2 Delegates to United's yearly meeting (next year's meeting is in Flagstaff); so we'd need some nominations and a vote.
If someone would like to volunteer to collect money at Crown King this weekend that would be great (or I can do it if no one volunteers). Also I'd like to have a PayPal account set up so that those not participating in this weekend's events can donate.
This is a voluntary donation! If we receive more than we need, then we'll hold a vote to determine what to do with the extra.
ALSO! We'll be receiving an electronic version of the newsletter, which I will put online for everyone to download -- or I will e-mail it to those interested.
Thanks,
Mike Chatfield
Programmer/Analyst
Pegasus Solutions
(602) 861-7686
mike.chatfield@pegs.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
63298 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:18pm
Subject: RE: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
My 2 cents... The 1 - 5 ratings is more then adequate. Using the .5
increments help as well as the + or - symbols. The problem with all
these ratings be it 1 - 10 or 1 - 5 is that everyone uses their opinion
as to what a trail is rated. E.g. "The crown king is trail was a tough
trail in my stock TJ, it's definitely a 3.0+." same person next year
with a better Jeep. "Wow with my lifted YJ with rear locker this trail
is probably a 2.0+ trail." (Just an example to get a point across.)
Until we get a hard and fast rule that can define what a trail should be
rated as we will always have problems with any rating system. Oh and
forget the fact that a flash flood can change a trail from being a 3.0
to a 5.0 in moments. Keeping the ratings up to date is a chore in it's
self.
Just my cents worth.
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: tomas2691 [mailto:tomasr@a...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:45 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot of the
new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+ or 5.0. In my
opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think Assylum is quite a
bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two trails would probably get
the same rating under the current system.
My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a bit.
I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers in the
rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down, that would
free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale to accomodate
all the new extreme trails that are really off the end of the current
scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could either be described as "not
rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5 could be added.
But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings of
trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the current
system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by the ASA.
Possibly Upper Terminator too.
My 2 cents.
-Roger
--- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is
it that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
simply rated wrong on the website ??
>
>
> Cheers,
> Fred
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63299 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:11pm
Subject: Camping supplies/OHV supplies
I need your help!!!!
A while back someone was posting a "list" of needed camping supplies and/or
trail supplies etc. I have been appointed to a United Four Wheel Drive
committee that is working at putting together an "Educational booklet"
covering SUV "101" type safety driving rules as well as incorporating info
re what is needed when traveling "outside the urban sprawl"......
Any/all help, lists or ideas would be appreciated.
Sandee
63300 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:25pm
Subject: RE: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
That is a most excellent idea. Member's rating the trail. So if you go
on a run and think it was a 3 you submit that to the website. Over time
those numbers are averaged and maybe it will be fairly accurate. You
could also go back and see how someone with a like built Jeep rating a
trail so you could get an idea of what you are in for.
Well at least I think it's a cool idea.
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:08 PM
To: 'az_vjc@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
BTW, everyone,
For the "new and improved" website, I'm going to add a "Member Rating"
to the Trails section. Members will be able to "rate" trails based on
difficulty, scenery and overall enjoyment. These "ratings" will of
course be completely separate from the "official" rating.
- Mike
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63301 From: jetowle2000 <James.Towle@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:33pm
Subject: Re: United Association
Mike & Sandee,
I'll be the first victim..... LOL
Why do we want to join United as a club?
Really, a couple of bucks is no big deal but, I am already a member
of United (& of ASA4WDC).
I don't intend this to be negative just informative.
Thanks,
--James
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Chatfield, Mike" <Mike@A...> wrote:
> All,
>
> Sandee has informed me that it is possible for the AzVJC to join
United as
> an association. A minimum of $50 is needed for this to happen --
Ideally we
> want to send $100 or more.
>
> With association, we get to send 2 Delegates to United's yearly
meeting
> (next year's meeting is in Flagstaff); so we'd need some
nominations and a
> vote.
>
> If someone would like to volunteer to collect money at Crown King
this
> weekend that would be great (or I can do it if no one volunteers).
Also I'd
> like to have a PayPal account set up so that those not
participating in this
> weekend's events can donate.
>
> This is a voluntary donation! If we receive more than we need,
then we'll
> hold a vote to determine what to do with the extra.
>
> ALSO! We'll be receiving an electronic version of the newsletter,
which I
> will put online for everyone to download -- or I will e-mail it to
those
> interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Chatfield
> Programmer/Analyst
> Pegasus Solutions
> (602) 861-7686
> mike.chatfield@p... <mailto:mike.chatfield@p...>
63302 From: Jim Hughes <jhughes@h...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:37pm
Subject: Re: Jeep survival kit
THIS LIST WAS POSTED SOME TIME AGO BUT IS GOOD
>>> "Garrison St.Clair" <gunslinger@i...> 05/25/01 08:54AM >>>
Attached is a list including all items mention in this thread, plus some
others from lists I had on file. Keep adding and when everyone thinks it is
reasonably complete I can upload it to the files area.
The list is in Excel format but if prefereed I can do it in text or Word.
Gunslinger
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63303 From: Roger Tomas <tomasr@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
Doug,
You're right. I don't worry about it either. Most of us who run the
harder trails don't rely on trail ratings - we rely on word-of-mouth
information from other wheelers. I think it's probably the newbies
that rely on the trail rating system more than anyone else because
they haven't yet established that word-of-mouth network. For
them, the 1-5 system covers the trails they'd probably run
reasonably well.
-Roger
DougB wrote:
> Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
> extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just can't imagine
> a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science. The ".5", "+",
> and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is within a particular
> category. The more you complicate it (10 categories), the more confused and
> outta sinc things will become. I guess I just feel that we'd be inventing a
> Beta Max, when everything is VHS.
>
> BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
> personal.
>
> Happy Trails....
>
> Doug
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
> To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
>
> > The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot
> > of the new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+
> > or 5.0. In my opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think
> > Assylum is quite a bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two
> > trails would probably get the same rating under the current system.
> >
> > My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> > adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a
> > bit. I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
> > range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers
> > in the rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down,
> > that would free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale
> > to accomodate all the new extreme trails that are really off the
> > end of the current scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could
> > either be described as "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5
> > could be added.
> >
> > But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings
> > of trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the
> > current system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
> >
> > In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> > corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by
> > the ASA. Possibly Upper Terminator too.
> >
> > My 2 cents.
> >
> > -Roger
63304 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:32pm
Subject: Trail Ratings
Trail Ratings should not be what someone "thinks" they are, they are firm
guidelines...... mainly aimed at your "equipment" more than your concept.
It makes sense that someone with a stock CJ would think Axle Alley should be
a 5.0 whereas a driver with a new TJ or to the extreme with a fully modified
vehicle would think it's much easier......... IT IS. Mike's
"classifications" are good ones and are fairly in line with what's below. I
think the problem is we need to get back to what a "rating" should be......
it is not "someones opinion" of how hard the trail is.
If we use a 1-5 rating I would think common sense would tell us that makes a
3.0 rating mid range. A stock vehicle should be able to do this level
without difficulty but probably with some challenge. A 3.5 is requiring or
recommending a semi-modified and/or a minimum of a limited slip locking
device, which means "stock" should not be doing this level trail........ or
if your vehicle only has a rear locker and the rating guide
recommends/requires lockers front & rear you again should not be on that
level trail. I know we ALL want to "meet the challenge" but when we do so
with a vehicle that is not equipped to do so is when the "impact" starts
showing on our trails......... or by-passes start showing up. By-Passes
are the FIRST thing to PERMANENTLY CLOSE OUR TRAILS!!!!!! If you have to
make a by-pass you definitely do not belong on that trail.
As youn'uns we don't "run" before we "crawl".............???
The main issue that I harp <boy, that word was hard to say but it's true> at
the agencies is: CONSISTENCY. If we expect consistency from our land
managers why wouldn't we have the same within ourselves??
I go back to meetings tomorrow so ya'll won't have to listen to me
tomorrow!!
Sandee
TRAIL RATINGS
(1 - 5)
The ASA4WDC follows the following rating system to establish the relative
difficulty of trails. Recognizing that trails are not constant in their
degree of difficulty, the index requires that each trail be rated by the
most difficult situation encountered.
1 Passable by stock and two-wheel drive vehicles; improved dirt, gravel etc.
1.5 Unimproved dirt, chuck holes, dips, eroded cross cuts or sharp curves.
Two wheel drive may not be able to do.
EASY
2 Some mud holes, rocks, washs, and loose dirt hill climbs. Four wheel
drive high range will be needed. Street tires are acceptable.
2.5 Slow easy going with four wheel drive. Using low range some to
minimize terrain and road damage. Some 10” - 15” rocks/ledges. Street
tires are acceptable.
MODERATE
3 Four wheel drive required due to terrain and loose traction for safe, easy
travel. Rocks and ledges 12 - 15”. Lo-range gears used. Challenges for
novice driver. Clearance advised. Street tires unacceptable.
3.5 Wash beds, 15” - 20” rock ledges, hill climbs, larger boulders.
Four wheel drive, low range used. Ground clearance definitely needed.
Traction device required in the rear. Not recommended for the novice driver.
Street tires are not acceptable.
HARD
4.0 Four wheel drive required, usually in low range. Greatest amount of
ground clearance due to moderate - large sized rocks and obstacles. Low air
pressure, flotation tires and locked rear differentials are required. Jacks
and winches advised. Street tires not acceptable. Recommend experienced
drivers only.
EXTREME
4.5 Front and rear locked differentials required. Low gears and maximum
clearance needed. Large boulders, steep inclines, washouts, & off camber
situations. Recommend experienced drivers only. Winches are sometimes
required, always recommended. 33” tires or bigger recommended.
4.5+ Same as above but recommend a fully modified vehicle, winch, and spare
parts. Experienced drivers only.
63305 From: Roger Tomas <tomasr@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
The more I think about it, the more I like the 1-6 scale. First of all, it
models exactly what has happened in the real world with the creation
of new trails - as the level of difficulty continues to increase, so does the
upper end of the scale. Second, it keeps the existing 1-5 part of the
scale as it is. Finally, it doesn't add the extra complexity of a full 1-10
scale.
I guess I'm thinking that a 1-6 scale (even with .5 and +/- added in) is
less complicated than a 1-5 scale with the addition of tenths (ie. .1,
.2, .3, etc.).
JMHO.
-Roger
Sandee McCullen wrote:
> I was going to stay out of this but then again that was only my "first"
> thought............... something is "making" me jump in this...... must be
> one of these few days without meetings so I'm bored!
>
> MY thoughts are the 1-5 scale is the best. Use the .3, .5, .8 etc breakouts
> if necessary. Several have already stated it.............. THE TRAIL
> RATINGS THEMSELVES NEED TO BE REDONE. Many of the ratings were done prior
> to the new extreme rock crawling entered the picture and ALL of the trails
> have become easier following a few years of use AND nameless individuals
> STACKING ROCKS sooooooooooooooooooooooo.................... my proposal:
>
> How about AzVJC updating the "1-5 ratings" AND lets get a consensus on EACH
> trail rating. The 1-5 rating has been accepted INTERNATIONALLY and I was
> the one that started the 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 etc rating a number of years
> ago. United has picked up on the .5+- factor and are more or less using the
> ratings as stated in the ASA4WDC Jamboree info. These ratings NEED to be
> updated. If AzVJC put together a good rating description I'm certain the
> ASA4WDC would accept it and it can carry out from there. Bottom
> line............. all of this needs the use of some "common sense" with it.
> In simple words..... it's not the "rating system" that needs to be redone,
> it's the "description and/or qualities/difficulty" that need to be redone.
>
> My thoughts........... Sandee
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DougB [mailto:azjeep@c...]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:50 PM
> > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; tomas2691
> > Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
> >
> >
> > Well...it's not something I worry bout too much. I do most of the more
> > extreme trails, and the 1-5 rating system works for me. I just
> > can't imagine
> > a 1-10 scale being very practical. It's not an exact science. The
> > ".5", "+",
> > and "-" system give great indications of what a trail is within a
> > particular
> > category. The more you complicate it (10 categories), the more
> > confused and
> > outta sinc things will become. I guess I just feel that we'd be
> > inventing a
> > Beta Max, when everything is VHS.
> >
> > BTW, this is a good discussion, and nothing in my post(s) is meant to be
> > personal.
> >
> > Happy Trails....
> >
> > Doug
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "tomas2691" <tomasr@a...>
> > To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:44 AM
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Website Changes: Trail Ratings
> >
> >
> > > The current 1-5 trail rating systems fails to accomodate a lot
> > > of the new extreme trails. It lumps them all together at 4.5+
> > > or 5.0. In my opinion, this is inadequate. For example, I think
> > > Assylum is quite a bit more difficult than Anaconda yet these two
> > > trails would probably get the same rating under the current system.
> > >
> > > My opinion is that the 1-5 rating system could - and should - be
> > > adequate but everything would have to be shifted down the scale a
> > > bit. I don't see a need for the current ratings in the 1.0 - 2.0
> > > range. You rarely see trails with those ratings so those numbers
> > > in the rating system are wasted. If everything was shifted down,
> > > that would free up the numbers at the "difficult" end of the scale
> > > to accomodate all the new extreme trails that are really off the
> > > end of the current scale. Trails in the 1.0 - 2.0 range could
> > > either be described as "not rated" or maybe the numbers 0.0 and 0.5
> > > could be added.
> > >
> > > But I suspect this won't happen since it would change the ratings
> > > of trails that people are familiar with. Maybe expanding the
> > > current system to a 1-6 scale would suffice.
> > >
> > > In any case, incorrect ratings for trails definitely need to be
> > > corrected. I agree that Martinez Canyon is rated too high by
> > > the ASA. Possibly Upper Terminator too.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents.
> > >
> > > -Roger
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In az_vjc@y..., "FredTJ" <fredtj@c...> wrote:
> > > > I missed the beginning of this thread ( obviously ;) ), what's
> > > wrong with the current ASA4WDC ratings that we seem to use now. Is
> > > it that the rating itself is fine, but some of the listed trails are
> > > simply rated wrong on the website ??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Fred
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
63306 From: <SIMONLUKER@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:49pm
Subject: 4 Wheelers has 10 permits left
only 10 left 2:00pm
Simon
63307 From: TODD MCCULLEN <desertfab@m...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 1:59pm
Subject: Trail Rating
I have to agree with Sandee, It needs to be consistent.
The reason everyone has a different rating for the same trail. For example, The level I wheel at would rate Asylum at a 5 and Highway to hell at a 3 on 1-5 scale.
Trail rating would be more realistic if was kept consistent.
Todd
Desertfab.com
63308 From: Siade, Randy <randy.siade@u...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:10pm
Subject: RE: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Are you running a manual or auto? 4.11s are a bit on the high side for 44s. The boggers would do great wish they where available when I was boggin. When I mean tall and skinny I mean like 38-50" x 10.5 -12.5. Lots of competitor will use tractor tires that are in the 50" range and only 10-12" wide.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:08 PM
To: Siade, Randy; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Yehaw! another vote on the 44" boggers
What gears would be OK to run with those tires?? My 350 is rated around 400/400 and I have 4.11 gears right now.
Even that the challenge wont be only mudboging, but tracks, trails and such...
Skiny could be the 38sx x 14.50?
Im sure there will be a ton of TJ's (4&6cyl), one or two big blocked trucks and CJs of all kind
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
63309 From: Jesus Chio <jchio@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:42pm
Subject: Re: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
SM420 is 7.0 and Atlas 4.3 so my crawling is great. I want some more deep gearing (around 4.88) so its not that weak (as a 5.3ish) but also not that fast.
I got 2 44" boggers in my garage right now, need 2 front tires and Im set on that side, Ill regear and bring both 38.5 and 44s on the lowboy so I can choose once we see whats gonna be up there
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: 'Jesus Chio' ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Are you running a manual or auto? 4.11s are a bit on the high side for 44s. The boggers would do great wish they where available when I was boggin. When I mean tall and skinny I mean like 38-50" x 10.5 -12.5. Lots of competitor will use tractor tires that are in the 50" range and only 10-12" wide.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:08 PM
To: Siade, Randy; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Yehaw! another vote on the 44" boggers
What gears would be OK to run with those tires?? My 350 is rated around 400/400 and I have 4.11 gears right now.
Even that the challenge wont be only mudboging, but tracks, trails and such...
Skiny could be the 38sx x 14.50?
Im sure there will be a ton of TJ's (4&6cyl), one or two big blocked trucks and CJs of all kind
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
63310 From: Siade, Randy <randy.siade@u...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:45pm
Subject: RE: muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Lots of boggers will use a swampers in from and bogger in the rear. They do this because they do not want the front to dig in as much as the rear. Helps keep the vehicle floating on top.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:42 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com; Siade, Randy
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
SM420 is 7.0 and Atlas 4.3 so my crawling is great. I want some more deep gearing (around 4.88) so its not that weak (as a 5.3ish) but also not that fast.
I got 2 44" boggers in my garage right now, need 2 front tires and Im set on that side, Ill regear and bring both 38.5 and 44s on the lowboy so I can choose once we see whats gonna be up there
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: 'Jesus Chio' ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Are you running a manual or auto? 4.11s are a bit on the high side for 44s. The boggers would do great wish they where available when I was boggin. When I mean tall and skinny I mean like 38-50" x 10.5 -12.5. Lots of competitor will use tractor tires that are in the 50" range and only 10-12" wide.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:08 PM
To: Siade, Randy; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Yehaw! another vote on the 44" boggers
What gears would be OK to run with those tires?? My 350 is rated around 400/400 and I have 4.11 gears right now.
Even that the challenge wont be only mudboging, but tracks, trails and such...
Skiny could be the 38sx x 14.50?
Im sure there will be a ton of TJ's (4&6cyl), one or two big blocked trucks and CJs of all kind
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Jesus Chio ; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hey Jesus;
I came from mud country (Indiana). I use to rent a 5 stall car garage with a friend that built pro-stock cars and I built Mudboggers. I competed with a 78 Chevy step side that had a 350ci pushing 410hp, TH425 trans, 4:88 gears with detroits and 40x17 Gumbo monster mudders. Lots of fun. Here are some tips.
There are two thoughts behind bogging. One is to use very tall skinny tires do you can get down to bottom of the mud pit where the ground is hard for best traction. The other (this is the one I used) is to use a very wide tall tire for flotation, you need to keep your speed up with lots of horse power to stay on top of the mud.
Forget about keeping the mud out of you drive train. Put a snorkel on you engineer air intake and run it to the top of you jeeps windshield.
Since you are using a Jeep it is very light compared to a truck so I would suggest, if you have the horse power, to use the high speed flotation method which means you should have very wide tires.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Chio [mailto:jchio@alloffroad.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] muddin with a rockcrawler rig?
Hello guys,
Im sure that 90% or more of you are rockcrawlers, that said I think it will be a lot of help what you have to say about mud since my Jeep is set for rockcrawling only (almost?) too.
What modifications would you do in order to get your rig mud capable? Say you wanna go to LA and do some mudbogs and hit the local mud trails...
Im going to a ramsey challenge that is supposed to be 98% mud so I wanna get the CJ ready, even if that means regearing or getting a different size of tires.
Im running a 350H0, 4.11s and 38.5Sx, D60s, Atlas II and Sm420. SOA with Rancho 9012s...
Any help will be appreciated!
Jesus Chio
www.alloffroad.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT .COM?
www.offroadhost.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
63311 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:47pm
Subject: RE: United Association
Stu I said $20 dollars not two:) If anyone on the 6:00 run wants to make a donation I will volunteer to introduce you to Mike Chatfield:) Jim F.
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@qwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:36 PM
To: Chatfield, Mike; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] United Association
Mike....good idea. Count me in!
I'll volunteer to collect any donations for United on the 6:30AM run. Heck....I am going to charge everyone $2 anyways! (that was what Hackle told me to do so we would have enough $$ to get something cold to drink after the run was over!) LOL
Stu
Stu Olson
www.stu-offroad.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@AzChatfield.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:30 AM
To: 'az_vjc@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [az_vjc] United Association
All,
Sandee has informed me that it is possible for the AzVJC to join United as an association. A minimum of $50 is needed for this to happen -- Ideally we want to send $100 or more.
With association, we get to send 2 Delegates to United's yearly meeting (next year's meeting is in Flagstaff); so we'd need some nominations and a vote.
If someone would like to volunteer to collect money at Crown King this weekend that would be great (or I can do it if no one volunteers). Also I'd like to have a PayPal account set up so that those not participating in this weekend's events can donate.
This is a voluntary donation! If we receive more than we need, then we'll hold a vote to determine what to do with the extra.
ALSO! We'll be receiving an electronic version of the newsletter, which I will put online for everyone to download -- or I will e-mail it to those interested.
Thanks,
Mike Chatfield
Programmer/Analyst
Pegasus Solutions
(602) 861-7686
mike.chatfield@pegs.com
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.