blooddrive
01-05-2004, 10:05 PM
63312-63336
63312 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:55pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
Sandee,
I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandee McCullen [mailto:mccullen@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:32 PM
To: AZVJC
Subject: [az_vjc] 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.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
63313 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:00pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
Would someone please explain to me how a 0 to 10 system, incremented by
whole numbers is MORE complicated than a 0 to 5 system incrementing by HALF
numbers? There is still TEN different ratings (not counting zero) it doesn't
matter to me if we call it 4.5 or 9 -- it is still the same rating. If a 5
scale rating system is recognized more than a 10 scale, then so be it, but
we still need to update the descriptions.
Really, the numbers don't mean too much.
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
OR
0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0
What needs to change is the Rating Descriptions, Required Equipment and
Recommended Equipment. My suggestion is to rewrite the descriptions and
then reclassify the trails in accordance with those revised descriptions. It
is obvious that many trails need to be reclassified, and I think that we
have a unique opportunity to redefine the trail ratings.
Take a look at the second draft:
http://www.azvjc.org/trails/altratings.asp
Remember the reasoning behind this is to educate new Wheelers. The obscure
ratings we currently use don't seem to differ greatly from 3.5 to 4.0 to 4.5
While the trails represented by these ratings do (FR42, L. Terminator, Axle
Alley). With the rating system I've proposed, there is a bigger difference
between FR42 and L. Terminator (2.0 vs 3.0) and L. Terminator to Axle Alley
(3.0 vs 4.5)
Also I'm not trying to permanently rate these trails, just trying to offer
MY idea of where they'd fit in. Some of the more extreme wheelers may want
to move some of the trails I've never done before from one rating into
another as well.
- Mike
63314 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:03pm
Subject: Re: Camping supplies/OHV supplies
Sandee,
Here is a list that I would suggest:
Recovery Strap
Extra Water (3-5 Gallons)
Extra Fuel
Hi Lift Jack
Bottle Jack
Lug Wrench
Various Tools
Blanket
Matches/lighter
Flash Light - Head Lamp (Head Lamp keeps your hands free for night repairs.)
On Board Air
Spare Tire
Food for at least one extra day
Signal Mirror
First Aid Kit (A good one)
Sun Screen
Insect Replant
Jacket
Hat
Knife
Side Arm (if you are so inclined)
Extra Set of keys for your vehicle
Wear good walking shoes
Gloves
Tarp
Rope/straps
A length of chain
An assortment of nuts and bolts, wire, tape, hoses, belts.
Spare Axles
Spare U Joints
Spare Hub
Shovel
Ax
Cell Phone
CB Radio
Camera
And, extra Jeepin Buddies to tow you home. :o}
Hope this gets you started . . . . .
Good Luck,
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8
Sandee McCullen wrote:
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
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63315 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:04pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle to
the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall to ride this
ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this trail..."
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
Sandee,
I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
Scott K
63316 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:02pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
Difficulity has nothing to do with it. CONSISTENCY is the key word. The
1-5 rating system is being used INTERNATIONALLY with the exception of Jeep
Jamboree...........
If 1-5 incremented in tenths is as easy as 1-10 incremented by whole numbers
why not stay with CONSISTENCY. Stay with 1-5
Just me again. S.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:01 PM
> To: 'az_vjc@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
>
>
> Would someone please explain to me how a 0 to 10 system, incremented by
> whole numbers is MORE complicated than a 0 to 5 system
> incrementing by HALF
> numbers? There is still TEN different ratings (not counting zero)
> it doesn't
> matter to me if we call it 4.5 or 9 -- it is still the same rating. If a 5
> scale rating system is recognized more than a 10 scale, then so be it, but
> we still need to update the descriptions.
>
> Really, the numbers don't mean too much.
> 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
> OR
> 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0
>
> What needs to change is the Rating Descriptions, Required Equipment and
> Recommended Equipment. My suggestion is to rewrite the descriptions and
> then reclassify the trails in accordance with those revised
> descriptions. It
> is obvious that many trails need to be reclassified, and I think that we
> have a unique opportunity to redefine the trail ratings.
>
> Take a look at the second draft:
>
> http://www.azvjc.org/trails/altratings.asp
>
> Remember the reasoning behind this is to educate new Wheelers.
> The obscure
> ratings we currently use don't seem to differ greatly from 3.5 to
> 4.0 to 4.5
> While the trails represented by these ratings do (FR42, L.
> Terminator, Axle
> Alley). With the rating system I've proposed, there is a bigger
> difference
> between FR42 and L. Terminator (2.0 vs 3.0) and L. Terminator to
> Axle Alley
> (3.0 vs 4.5)
>
> Also I'm not trying to permanently rate these trails, just trying to offer
> MY idea of where they'd fit in. Some of the more extreme wheelers may want
> to move some of the trails I've never done before from one rating into
> another as well.
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63317 From: tomas2691 <tomasr@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:12pm
Subject: Re: Trail Ratings
That could be a benefit to both our trails and to those who
would otherwise get in over their heads. But as soon as you
attempted to do that someone would cry "who died and made you
the trail god?".
;-)
-Roger
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Chatfield, Mike" <Mike@A...> wrote:
> It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type
obstacle to
> the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall to
ride this
> ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this
trail..."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> Sandee,
>
> I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found
out
> about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the
trail.
>
> Scott K
63318 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:13pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
Yeah, but there would always be big stack of rocks in front of it. :(
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
To: 'AZVJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle
to the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall to
ride this ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this
trail..."
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
Sandee,
I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
Scott K
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63319 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:08pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
Do you honestly think these guys/gals that are entering trails above their
"vehicle" capabilities are going to listen to a "gate keeper" any more than
they "read" the rating criteria?? Right?!!!.......... I don't want to be
the one at the 4.0+ trails that everyone seems to think they're capable of
doing nowdays.
When the statewide route inventory is complete (within the next 18 months -
2 years) the agencies will be posting signs at the trailheads of all the
"designated trails". They will be posting similar to what I recently
sent...... Easy, Moderate, Hard, Extreme but without the "numbering".
The access maps will have the "numbering" level criteria listed but the
trailheads will not. They will be basing their rating criteria on the "1-5"
rating system.
Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle to
> the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall
> to ride this
> ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this trail..."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> Sandee,
>
> I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
> about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
>
> Scott K
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63320 From: Jake Wagner <jakewagner@y...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:21pm
Subject: FREDTJ: STL
Fred:
What confuses me is how can it be "State Trust Land," but yet it's private land and land swaps are made with private contactors, I.E. the current developments in the White Tanks area.
I understand the land is sold off and used to fund schools, but it's "State Trust Land." Not Jake or Fred's Trust Land, and the money goes to the State to fund our school system not to our pockets for our own personal use. I'm usually one to understand things, but this I have never understood! So Why aren't the properties our homes sit on State Trust Land? We own the private property?
Jake, very confused
From: "FredTJ" <fredtj@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: STL Permits
STL is different than BLM or FS land. For one, STL is not public land,
it's private property. Also, by law, the State is "required" to make
money for education (and other things) from the land, which is why
permits are issued (for a fee and not free). Additional income comes from
sale of the land also. The money that the State takes in from STL is
suppose (by law) to be more than what's required to maintain it. STL, is
"for profit" private property. I think this is one of the things that
some people keep forgetting about.
Cheers,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] STL Permits
Sandee and I have exchanged a few e-mails and I figured I'd throw
this out to the club since a few are complaining about the cost of the
permit. A $20 Family Permit breaks down to $0.38 cents a week, and a $15
Individual Permit breaks down to $0.28 Cents a week. If you can't
afford it then you shouldn't be driving a Jeep!
On top of this most of my friends and I throw about $800 to $1,000 a
year at our TJs, $15/20 is a tank of gas people. I highly recommend
that each and everyone in the club has one because I have no sympathy for
someone who goes on a run and gets a minimun of a $500 fine. I myself
was ignorant and did not know that one was needed, but you bet your
butt I went out and purchased one and everyone of my passengers has one .
All my regular wheeling friends also have them and we encourage all of
you to purchase one.
I don't agree with the permit, but I'd rather pay $15 than $500. I'm
already paying taxes, why should I have to pay for a permit to use the
land? BLM and the Forest Service do not require one and the money to
maintain the roads, etc come out of my paycheck via taxes every week.
See you all on the CK run, can't wait to trail test the body lift and
motor mount lift Scott K, Joey K and I put on my TJ tonight.
Jake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
63321 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:17pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
Sorry Mike........... I misread the "gate keeper" definition.
The agencies WILL be building obstacles at the trailheads of certain
trails.......... the reason and object of this is:
to build an obstacle harder or as hard as any obstacle within the trail
itself thusly eliminating "some" of the ingress of the vehicles not yet
qualified to "meet the challenge". If we continue to see "rocks stacked"
and don't see some respectful wheel'n the trail will simply be CLOSED. The
best example of this is Jawbreaker......... if the BLM had their way this
trail would have been closed to ALL motorized use two years ago. I have
pounded the fact that mitigating actions were needed first to see if they
would work. My point made. If the BLM puts money into getting obstacles
built and the OHV community abuses this issue................. they no
longer have to deal with it. The trail will be PERMANENTLY CLOSED and
someone will end up on my "hit list"!!!!!!!!!
Too many of us have worked hard and long to bring "respectability" to our
sport.......... we are the ones that MUST also bring "education" to our
sport. The days of being able to pretty much do as we please are gone.....
and will not be back. If we want to have an "open trail system" in our
state we best get on the action page and stop the ABUSE. The midwest and
east have NO open trails............. EVERYTHING is in a park of which they
pay anywhere from $5.00 a day to $35.00 day.
Me again......... sorry. Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandee McCullen [mailto:mccullen@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:08 PM
> To: Chatfield, Mike; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> Do you honestly think these guys/gals that are entering trails
> above their "vehicle" capabilities are going to listen to a "gate
> keeper" any more than they "read" the rating criteria??
> Right?!!!.......... I don't want to be the one at the 4.0+
> trails that everyone seems to think they're capable of doing nowdays.
>
> When the statewide route inventory is complete (within the next
> 18 months - 2 years) the agencies will be posting signs at the
> trailheads of all the "designated trails". They will be posting
> similar to what I recently sent...... Easy, Moderate, Hard,
> Extreme but without the "numbering". The access maps will have
> the "numbering" level criteria listed but the trailheads will
> not. They will be basing their rating criteria on the "1-5"
> rating system.
>
> Sandee
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
> > To: 'AZVJC'
> > Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
> >
> >
> > It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type
> obstacle to
> > the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall
> > to ride this
> > ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this trail..."
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> > To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> > Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
> >
> >
> > Sandee,
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
> > about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> > can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
> >
> > Scott K
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63322 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:25pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
Let me clarify.
It doesn't matter what numbers are used. Lets use a "5" scale system since
that seems to be the "standard" What I'm saying is that we need to redefine
the ratings so that the newer extreme trails are covered. The required
equipment is different for these trails between 4.5-Predator and 4.5-Axle
Alley. The idea is to update the ratings to make sure that the trails are
listed with the proper minimum equipment required.
I don't think that incrementing in tenths is the answer. Essentially that
would just be creating a 1 to 50 (0.1 to 5.0) system, you want to talk about
COMPLICATED!
What I'm saying is lets stick with the standard 10 point rating system, that
being a scale up to 5 in .5 increments. (IT IS still 10 different ratings).
- Mike
63323 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:29pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
Ok after rethinking this myself it does make more sense to stay within the
present system as our club pages are used to plan trips for a lot of people
that are outside the are. They can at this point relate to a system they are
used to. That being said the trails need to be rerated, and descriptions
rewritten.
We have a good forum for this how about a weekly pole and discussion pick
one trial a week. Just an idea. Jim F.
BTW FredTJ You are the first Eng I have ever heard of that even knew about
the KISS principle. I thought over engineering equaled job security LOL
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/
63324 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:28pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
What I mean by "Gate Keeper" isn't a person standing there saying you can or
can't go on the trail, but rather just a simple obstacle at the very
beginning designed to present enough of a challenge to keep those that
shouldn't be on the trail off of it.
L. Terminator USED to have one of these -- just two big rocks in the middle
of the trail. If you had trouble getting over those, you had no business on
L. Terminator. Upper Woodpecker has one (sort of) at the very beginning.
- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandee McCullen [mailto:mccullen@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:08 PM
To: Chatfield, Mike; 'AZVJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
Do you honestly think these guys/gals that are entering trails above their
"vehicle" capabilities are going to listen to a "gate keeper" any more than
they "read" the rating criteria?? Right?!!!.......... I don't want to be
the one at the 4.0+ trails that everyone seems to think they're capable of
doing nowdays.
When the statewide route inventory is complete (within the next 18 months -
2 years) the agencies will be posting signs at the trailheads of all the
"designated trails". They will be posting similar to what I recently
sent...... Easy, Moderate, Hard, Extreme but without the "numbering".
The access maps will have the "numbering" level criteria listed but the
trailheads will not. They will be basing their rating criteria on the "1-5"
rating system.
Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle to
> the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall
> to ride this
> ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this trail..."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> Sandee,
>
> I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
> about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
>
> Scott K
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63325 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:34pm
Subject: Re: Trail Ratings
Or a by-pass ;-)
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8
Scott Kruize wrote:
> Yeah, but there would always be big stack of rocks in front of it. :(
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
> It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle
> to the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall to
> ride this ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this
> trail..."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
> Sandee,
>
> I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
> about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
>
> Scott K
>
>
>
> 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/
63326 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:31pm
Subject: RE: FREDTJ: STL
State Trust Lands ARE for all intents and purposes private being that EACH parcel is already deeded to a specific school district and/or prison system for education.
State Trust Lands are NOT "Traded".............. they are SOLD or leased. There were no "swaps" involved in the White Tanks area. Catipillar SOLD their land to a developer. State Trust lands were not involved.
BLM however........... do "swap" lands. That's why I post any number of "meetings" ya'll need to attend............. BLM have "public meetings" involving all "swaps"...... most often no one shows. These swaps are NOT with State Trust Lands. Years ago BLM & STL did some "swaps" and the ASLD was accused of all sorts of "underhanded" dealings so they can no longer do anything other than lease or sell by "bidding".
State Trust Lands do NOT belong to the people of Arizona. They belong to a TRUST. These lands were given to the State when Arizona entered the union, to hold in Trust for the education system. The Arizona State Land Department are the appointed "trustees" of the Trusts....... The "PEOPLE OF ARIZONA" have absolutely nothing to do with the trusts nor do our taxes fund anything in regards to "trust" lands...........
There are some "State Lands" however but most of these lands are State Parks with no motorized recreation allowed. These are NOT Trust lands and only amount to a few hundred acres........... not 9.8 million.
I'm sorry to sound harpy about this issue but there is a huge miscommunication out there about "what" State Trust Lands are.
Would anyone be interested in attending a meeting having maybe the Commissioner of the State Land Dept. (trustee of the trusts) talk to everyone about WHAT State Trust Lands are??? I'm certain we could set it up to have a Q & A type format. It might answer some questions.................
Sandee
-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Wagner [mailto:jakewagner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:21 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] FREDTJ: STL
Fred:
What confuses me is how can it be "State Trust Land," but yet it's private land and land swaps are made with private contactors, I.E. the current developments in the White Tanks area.
I understand the land is sold off and used to fund schools, but it's "State Trust Land." Not Jake or Fred's Trust Land, and the money goes to the State to fund our school system not to our pockets for our own personal use. I'm usually one to understand things, but this I have never understood! So Why aren't the properties our homes sit on State Trust Land? We own the private property?
Jake, very confused
From: "FredTJ" <fredtj@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: STL Permits
STL is different than BLM or FS land. For one, STL is not public land,
it's private property. Also, by law, the State is "required" to make
money for education (and other things) from the land, which is why
permits are issued (for a fee and not free). Additional income comes from
sale of the land also. The money that the State takes in from STL is
suppose (by law) to be more than what's required to maintain it. STL, is
"for profit" private property. I think this is one of the things that
some people keep forgetting about.
Cheers,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] STL Permits
Sandee and I have exchanged a few e-mails and I figured I'd throw
this out to the club since a few are complaining about the cost of the
permit. A $20 Family Permit breaks down to $0.38 cents a week, and a $15
Individual Permit breaks down to $0.28 Cents a week. If you can't
afford it then you shouldn't be driving a Jeep!
On top of this most of my friends and I throw about $800 to $1,000 a
year at our TJs, $15/20 is a tank of gas people. I highly recommend
that each and everyone in the club has one because I have no sympathy for
someone who goes on a run and gets a minimun of a $500 fine. I myself
was ignorant and did not know that one was needed, but you bet your
butt I! went out and purchased one and everyone of my passengers has one .
All my regular wheeling friends also have them and we encourage all of
you to purchase one.
I don't agree with the permit, but I'd rather pay $15 than $500. I'm
already paying taxes, why should I have to pay for a permit to use the
land? BLM and the Forest Service do not require one and the money to
maintain the roads, etc come out of my paycheck via taxes every week.
See you all on the CK run, can't wait to trail test the body lift and
motor mount lift Scott K, Joey K and I put on my TJ tonight.
Jake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
63327 From: Stu Olson <solson8@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:51pm
Subject: RE: WAS Re: United Association...NOW beers on Stu!
Les, Les, Les.....I've been telling you now, for the past 6 months or so, to
stop believing everything that Kruize tells you!
TC!
Stu Olson
www.stu-offroad.com
-----Original Message-----
From: paparoach85251 [mailto:lespaparoach@m...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:43 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] 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.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63328 From: Stu Olson <solson8@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:51pm
Subject: RE: United Association
DOH!
Stu Olson
www.stu-offroad.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@qwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
To: Stu Olson; Chatfield, Mike; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] 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.
63329 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:54pm
Subject: FW: Crown King Early Run Heads Up
Both Stu and myself will have a quick drivers meeting to go over this
again,
but here goes. Everyone please remember at this point we have over 60 Jeeps
in the first two groups. By the law of averages somebody is going to break
and hold things up. Please stay as mellow as possible. Stu and I have been
talking and pretty much came up with the same idea. I know the usual method
is to stop after and obstacle and go back and shoot pics or spot. To get
this many vehicles through in a timely manor we need to try and keep moving.
Once you reach the top of the obstacle either wait until you see the next
vehicle crest or go back and spot them if they need it. But as soon as they
get to the top you must get in your vehicle and leave. I am not trying to
turn the run into a race but we all want to get there at a decent hour. I
want everyone to have fun and stay safe. This will be a great time to get to
know everyone on the run:) I am sure the c/b will be used a great deal if
you don't have one you might want to look into a quick install. I think you
will find it worth it. Looking forward to leading the parade:) Jim F. aka
Hackle
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx"
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
63330 From: FredTJ <fredtj@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:07pm
Subject: Re: FREDTJ: STL
Jake,
When I say "private property", I mean "not public property".. It's private property belonging to the State of Arizona. Not to me or anyone else, but to the State ;)
The lot that my house sits on is "private property". It belongs to me ;)
The STL belongs to the State, but unlike my lot, which belongs to me, the State, by law, has certain things that it MUST do with it, and that is make money, turn a profit. I haven't read the law, but I don't think it matters how the money is made from the land. It can be sold, it can be traded, just as I can sell my land or trade my land. The main difference, I think, is that I'm not tasked with making money from my lot ;)
All State Trust Land was deeded to the State from the Feds. It's held in trust (State Trust Land ;) )..
Does that help any, or am I just messing it up more ?
Anyway, the biggest difference between STL and Forest Land or BLM land, is the STL is private property (property of the State of Arizona), not public land like BLM and FS land. Big difference.
:)
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] FREDTJ: STL
Fred:
What confuses me is how can it be "State Trust Land," but yet it's private land and land swaps are made with private contactors, I.E. the current developments in the White Tanks area.
I understand the land is sold off and used to fund schools, but it's "State Trust Land." Not Jake or Fred's Trust Land, and the money goes to the State to fund our school system not to our pockets for our own personal use. I'm usually one to understand things, but this I have never understood! So Why aren't the properties our homes sit on State Trust Land? We own the private property?
Jake, very confused
From: "FredTJ" <fredtj@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: STL Permits
STL is different than BLM or FS land. For one, STL is not public land,
it's private property. Also, by law, the State is "required" to make
money for education (and other things) from the land, which is why
permits are issued (for a fee and not free). Additional income comes from
sale of the land also. The money that the State takes in from STL is
suppose (by law) to be more than what's required to maintain it. STL, is
"for profit" private property. I think this is one of the things that
some people keep forgetting about.
Cheers,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
63331 From: FredTJ <fredtj@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
I'm the odd ball engineer ( in many different ways ;) ). Sometimes I spend
much of day (at work), listening to some of the idiots that I work with, try
to over engineer everything that they see. Me, I like to find the $#%#$*(*%
problem, at the source, and fix it there, instead of putting bandaids on it
upstream. Too many people never see the original "problem". This is slightly
how I see this whole trail ratings discussion. From a quick glance, it seems
to me that the "problem" may simply be that some/all/a lot (whatever) of the
trails are classified wrongly. We're may be trying to fix that problem by
redoing the classification system itself instead of fixing the trail rating
on the web site ;)
:)
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hackle" <hackle@q...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
> Ok after rethinking this myself it does make more sense to stay within the
> present system as our club pages are used to plan trips for a lot of
people
> that are outside the are. They can at this point relate to a system they
are
> used to. That being said the trails need to be rerated, and descriptions
> rewritten.
> We have a good forum for this how about a weekly pole and discussion pick
> one trial a week. Just an idea. Jim F.
> BTW FredTJ You are the first Eng I have ever heard of that even knew about
> the KISS principle. I thought over engineering equaled job security LOL
>
> I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
> Marx"
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> http://www.rockrats.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
63332 From: The Acuna Family <mkacuna@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:11pm
Subject: Re: Best winch prices
You can get a Mile Marker E8000 for $409 @
http://www.thinkoffroad.com/thinkshop2/asp/product.asp?product=862&cat=61&ph
=&keywords=&recor=&SearchFor=&PT_ID= Rosser Jeep.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Siade, Randy" <randy.siade@u...>
To: "'Rick Norman'" <4x4xfun1@c...>; "AZ_VJC" <AZ_VJC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Best winch prices
> You can get a Ramsey 8000 for under $500.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Norman [mailto:4x4xfun1@c...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 5:07 PM
> > To: AZ_VJC
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Best winch prices
> >
> > It looks like I will be putting a winch on the front of the XJ (after
John
> > K makes me a bumper). I like either the Warn 8000 or 9000. Does anyone
in
> > town offer prices comparable to what I can find online?? I really would
> > like to support local business if possible.
> >
> > Any info will be much appreciated!
> >
> > Rick
> > XTRM XJ
> > 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/
>
>
>
63333 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:19pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
I see things the same way. I go straight to the heart of the problem and
try to fix it there.
To me trying to "Apply" the ratings as they are currently defined isn't
going to work. The problem is that the ratings were never designed to
accommodate the new extreme trails.
Its not as bad as trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. But it is
trying to fit a round peg into an octagon hole. Yea, if you pound it, it
will fit. But that isn't the best solution.
Sometimes (more often than not) the RIGHT way to do things isn't the EASIEST
way to do things.
- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: FredTJ [mailto:fredtj@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:15 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
I'm the odd ball engineer ( in many different ways ;) ). Sometimes I spend
much of day (at work), listening to some of the idiots that I work with, try
to over engineer everything that they see. Me, I like to find the $#%#$*(*%
problem, at the source, and fix it there, instead of putting bandaids on it
upstream. Too many people never see the original "problem". This is slightly
how I see this whole trail ratings discussion. From a quick glance, it seems
to me that the "problem" may simply be that some/all/a lot (whatever) of the
trails are classified wrongly. We're may be trying to fix that problem by
redoing the classification system itself instead of fixing the trail rating
on the web site ;)
:)
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hackle" <hackle@q...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
> Ok after rethinking this myself it does make more sense to stay within the
> present system as our club pages are used to plan trips for a lot of
people
> that are outside the are. They can at this point relate to a system they
are
> used to. That being said the trails need to be rerated, and descriptions
> rewritten.
> We have a good forum for this how about a weekly pole and discussion pick
> one trial a week. Just an idea. Jim F.
> BTW FredTJ You are the first Eng I have ever heard of that even knew about
> the KISS principle. I thought over engineering equaled job security LOL
>
> I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
> Marx"
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> http://www.rockrats.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63334 From: richard logan <rlogan@d...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:27pm
Subject: Mechanic Shop needed for engine swap
I am changing out my 4 cyl to a built 4.0 and changing my ax 5 speed to the ax 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upgrade OutlookŪ - Add COLOR to your Emails
OutlookŪ is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation
63335 From: Kyle Hagan <Kyle@s...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:26pm
Subject: Re: 4 Wheelers has 10 permits left
at 4:20pm only one left.
Kyle
----- Original Message -----
From: <SIMONLUKER@A...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:49 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] 4 Wheelers has 10 permits left
> only 10 left 2:00pm
> Simon
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63336 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:30pm
Subject: RE: FREDTJ: STL
Jake,
State Trust Land was land given to the states by the federal government as a trust to fund schools. The State holds the property and indeed it is private property, not public property. Getting a permit gives you permission to access the "private property".
The State holds the land in trust and then sells it off to fund the schools. The land that a house now sits on was sold to fund the schools and is no longer State Trust Land. This was the purpose of state trust land. Its working as designed. Your permit gives you access much like if you'd ask a private landowner for access. There is nothing public about State Trust Land from what I understand.
Later,
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Wagner [mailto:jakewagner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:21 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] FREDTJ: STL
Fred:
What confuses me is how can it be "State Trust Land," but yet it's private land and land swaps are made with private contactors, I.E. the current developments in the White Tanks area.
I understand the land is sold off and used to fund schools, but it's "State Trust Land." Not Jake or Fred's Trust Land, and the money goes to the State to fund our school system not to our pockets for our own personal use. I'm usually one to understand things, but this I have never understood! So Why aren't the properties our homes sit on State Trust Land? We own the private property?
Jake, very confused
From: "FredTJ" <fredtj@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: STL Permits
STL is different than BLM or FS land. For one, STL is not public land,
it's private property. Also, by law, the State is "required" to make
money for education (and other things) from the land, which is why
permits are issued (for a fee and not free). Additional income comes from
sale of the land also. The money that the State takes in from STL is
suppose (by law) to be more than what's required to maintain it. STL, is
"for profit" private property. I think this is one of the things that
some people keep forgetting about.
Cheers,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] STL Permits
Sandee and I have exchanged a few e-mails and I figured I'd throw
this out to the club since a few are complaining about the cost of the
permit. A $20 Family Permit breaks down to $0.38 cents a week, and a $15
Individual Permit breaks down to $0.28 Cents a week. If you can't
afford it then you shouldn't be driving a Jeep!
On top of this most of my friends and I throw about $800 to $1,000 a
year at our TJs, $15/20 is a tank of gas people. I highly recommend
that each and everyone in the club has one because I have no sympathy for
someone who goes on a run and gets a minimun of a $500 fine. I myself
was ignorant and did not know that one was needed, but you bet your
butt I went out and purchased one and everyone of my passengers has one .
All my regular wheeling friends also have them and we encourage all of
you to purchase one.
I don't agree with the permit, but I'd rather pay $15 than $500. I'm
already paying taxes, why should I have to pay for a permit to use the
land? BLM and the Forest Service do not require one and the money to
maintain the roads, etc come out of my paycheck via taxes every week.
See you all on the CK run, can't wait to trail test the body lift and
motor mount lift Scott K, Joey K and I put on my TJ tonight.
Jake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
63312 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 2:55pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
Sandee,
I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandee McCullen [mailto:mccullen@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:32 PM
To: AZVJC
Subject: [az_vjc] 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.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
63313 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:00pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
Would someone please explain to me how a 0 to 10 system, incremented by
whole numbers is MORE complicated than a 0 to 5 system incrementing by HALF
numbers? There is still TEN different ratings (not counting zero) it doesn't
matter to me if we call it 4.5 or 9 -- it is still the same rating. If a 5
scale rating system is recognized more than a 10 scale, then so be it, but
we still need to update the descriptions.
Really, the numbers don't mean too much.
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
OR
0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0
What needs to change is the Rating Descriptions, Required Equipment and
Recommended Equipment. My suggestion is to rewrite the descriptions and
then reclassify the trails in accordance with those revised descriptions. It
is obvious that many trails need to be reclassified, and I think that we
have a unique opportunity to redefine the trail ratings.
Take a look at the second draft:
http://www.azvjc.org/trails/altratings.asp
Remember the reasoning behind this is to educate new Wheelers. The obscure
ratings we currently use don't seem to differ greatly from 3.5 to 4.0 to 4.5
While the trails represented by these ratings do (FR42, L. Terminator, Axle
Alley). With the rating system I've proposed, there is a bigger difference
between FR42 and L. Terminator (2.0 vs 3.0) and L. Terminator to Axle Alley
(3.0 vs 4.5)
Also I'm not trying to permanently rate these trails, just trying to offer
MY idea of where they'd fit in. Some of the more extreme wheelers may want
to move some of the trails I've never done before from one rating into
another as well.
- Mike
63314 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:03pm
Subject: Re: Camping supplies/OHV supplies
Sandee,
Here is a list that I would suggest:
Recovery Strap
Extra Water (3-5 Gallons)
Extra Fuel
Hi Lift Jack
Bottle Jack
Lug Wrench
Various Tools
Blanket
Matches/lighter
Flash Light - Head Lamp (Head Lamp keeps your hands free for night repairs.)
On Board Air
Spare Tire
Food for at least one extra day
Signal Mirror
First Aid Kit (A good one)
Sun Screen
Insect Replant
Jacket
Hat
Knife
Side Arm (if you are so inclined)
Extra Set of keys for your vehicle
Wear good walking shoes
Gloves
Tarp
Rope/straps
A length of chain
An assortment of nuts and bolts, wire, tape, hoses, belts.
Spare Axles
Spare U Joints
Spare Hub
Shovel
Ax
Cell Phone
CB Radio
Camera
And, extra Jeepin Buddies to tow you home. :o}
Hope this gets you started . . . . .
Good Luck,
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8
Sandee McCullen wrote:
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
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63315 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:04pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle to
the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall to ride this
ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this trail..."
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
Sandee,
I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
Scott K
63316 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:02pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
Difficulity has nothing to do with it. CONSISTENCY is the key word. The
1-5 rating system is being used INTERNATIONALLY with the exception of Jeep
Jamboree...........
If 1-5 incremented in tenths is as easy as 1-10 incremented by whole numbers
why not stay with CONSISTENCY. Stay with 1-5
Just me again. S.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:01 PM
> To: 'az_vjc@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
>
>
> Would someone please explain to me how a 0 to 10 system, incremented by
> whole numbers is MORE complicated than a 0 to 5 system
> incrementing by HALF
> numbers? There is still TEN different ratings (not counting zero)
> it doesn't
> matter to me if we call it 4.5 or 9 -- it is still the same rating. If a 5
> scale rating system is recognized more than a 10 scale, then so be it, but
> we still need to update the descriptions.
>
> Really, the numbers don't mean too much.
> 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
> OR
> 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0
>
> What needs to change is the Rating Descriptions, Required Equipment and
> Recommended Equipment. My suggestion is to rewrite the descriptions and
> then reclassify the trails in accordance with those revised
> descriptions. It
> is obvious that many trails need to be reclassified, and I think that we
> have a unique opportunity to redefine the trail ratings.
>
> Take a look at the second draft:
>
> http://www.azvjc.org/trails/altratings.asp
>
> Remember the reasoning behind this is to educate new Wheelers.
> The obscure
> ratings we currently use don't seem to differ greatly from 3.5 to
> 4.0 to 4.5
> While the trails represented by these ratings do (FR42, L.
> Terminator, Axle
> Alley). With the rating system I've proposed, there is a bigger
> difference
> between FR42 and L. Terminator (2.0 vs 3.0) and L. Terminator to
> Axle Alley
> (3.0 vs 4.5)
>
> Also I'm not trying to permanently rate these trails, just trying to offer
> MY idea of where they'd fit in. Some of the more extreme wheelers may want
> to move some of the trails I've never done before from one rating into
> another as well.
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63317 From: tomas2691 <tomasr@a...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:12pm
Subject: Re: Trail Ratings
That could be a benefit to both our trails and to those who
would otherwise get in over their heads. But as soon as you
attempted to do that someone would cry "who died and made you
the trail god?".
;-)
-Roger
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Chatfield, Mike" <Mike@A...> wrote:
> It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type
obstacle to
> the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall to
ride this
> ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this
trail..."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> Sandee,
>
> I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found
out
> about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the
trail.
>
> Scott K
63318 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:13pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
Yeah, but there would always be big stack of rocks in front of it. :(
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
To: 'AZVJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle
to the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall to
ride this ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this
trail..."
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
Sandee,
I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
Scott K
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63319 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:08pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
Do you honestly think these guys/gals that are entering trails above their
"vehicle" capabilities are going to listen to a "gate keeper" any more than
they "read" the rating criteria?? Right?!!!.......... I don't want to be
the one at the 4.0+ trails that everyone seems to think they're capable of
doing nowdays.
When the statewide route inventory is complete (within the next 18 months -
2 years) the agencies will be posting signs at the trailheads of all the
"designated trails". They will be posting similar to what I recently
sent...... Easy, Moderate, Hard, Extreme but without the "numbering".
The access maps will have the "numbering" level criteria listed but the
trailheads will not. They will be basing their rating criteria on the "1-5"
rating system.
Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle to
> the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall
> to ride this
> ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this trail..."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> Sandee,
>
> I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
> about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
>
> Scott K
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63320 From: Jake Wagner <jakewagner@y...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:21pm
Subject: FREDTJ: STL
Fred:
What confuses me is how can it be "State Trust Land," but yet it's private land and land swaps are made with private contactors, I.E. the current developments in the White Tanks area.
I understand the land is sold off and used to fund schools, but it's "State Trust Land." Not Jake or Fred's Trust Land, and the money goes to the State to fund our school system not to our pockets for our own personal use. I'm usually one to understand things, but this I have never understood! So Why aren't the properties our homes sit on State Trust Land? We own the private property?
Jake, very confused
From: "FredTJ" <fredtj@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: STL Permits
STL is different than BLM or FS land. For one, STL is not public land,
it's private property. Also, by law, the State is "required" to make
money for education (and other things) from the land, which is why
permits are issued (for a fee and not free). Additional income comes from
sale of the land also. The money that the State takes in from STL is
suppose (by law) to be more than what's required to maintain it. STL, is
"for profit" private property. I think this is one of the things that
some people keep forgetting about.
Cheers,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] STL Permits
Sandee and I have exchanged a few e-mails and I figured I'd throw
this out to the club since a few are complaining about the cost of the
permit. A $20 Family Permit breaks down to $0.38 cents a week, and a $15
Individual Permit breaks down to $0.28 Cents a week. If you can't
afford it then you shouldn't be driving a Jeep!
On top of this most of my friends and I throw about $800 to $1,000 a
year at our TJs, $15/20 is a tank of gas people. I highly recommend
that each and everyone in the club has one because I have no sympathy for
someone who goes on a run and gets a minimun of a $500 fine. I myself
was ignorant and did not know that one was needed, but you bet your
butt I went out and purchased one and everyone of my passengers has one .
All my regular wheeling friends also have them and we encourage all of
you to purchase one.
I don't agree with the permit, but I'd rather pay $15 than $500. I'm
already paying taxes, why should I have to pay for a permit to use the
land? BLM and the Forest Service do not require one and the money to
maintain the roads, etc come out of my paycheck via taxes every week.
See you all on the CK run, can't wait to trail test the body lift and
motor mount lift Scott K, Joey K and I put on my TJ tonight.
Jake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
63321 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:17pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
Sorry Mike........... I misread the "gate keeper" definition.
The agencies WILL be building obstacles at the trailheads of certain
trails.......... the reason and object of this is:
to build an obstacle harder or as hard as any obstacle within the trail
itself thusly eliminating "some" of the ingress of the vehicles not yet
qualified to "meet the challenge". If we continue to see "rocks stacked"
and don't see some respectful wheel'n the trail will simply be CLOSED. The
best example of this is Jawbreaker......... if the BLM had their way this
trail would have been closed to ALL motorized use two years ago. I have
pounded the fact that mitigating actions were needed first to see if they
would work. My point made. If the BLM puts money into getting obstacles
built and the OHV community abuses this issue................. they no
longer have to deal with it. The trail will be PERMANENTLY CLOSED and
someone will end up on my "hit list"!!!!!!!!!
Too many of us have worked hard and long to bring "respectability" to our
sport.......... we are the ones that MUST also bring "education" to our
sport. The days of being able to pretty much do as we please are gone.....
and will not be back. If we want to have an "open trail system" in our
state we best get on the action page and stop the ABUSE. The midwest and
east have NO open trails............. EVERYTHING is in a park of which they
pay anywhere from $5.00 a day to $35.00 day.
Me again......... sorry. Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandee McCullen [mailto:mccullen@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:08 PM
> To: Chatfield, Mike; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> Do you honestly think these guys/gals that are entering trails
> above their "vehicle" capabilities are going to listen to a "gate
> keeper" any more than they "read" the rating criteria??
> Right?!!!.......... I don't want to be the one at the 4.0+
> trails that everyone seems to think they're capable of doing nowdays.
>
> When the statewide route inventory is complete (within the next
> 18 months - 2 years) the agencies will be posting signs at the
> trailheads of all the "designated trails". They will be posting
> similar to what I recently sent...... Easy, Moderate, Hard,
> Extreme but without the "numbering". The access maps will have
> the "numbering" level criteria listed but the trailheads will
> not. They will be basing their rating criteria on the "1-5"
> rating system.
>
> Sandee
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
> > To: 'AZVJC'
> > Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
> >
> >
> > It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type
> obstacle to
> > the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall
> > to ride this
> > ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this trail..."
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> > To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> > Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
> >
> >
> > Sandee,
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
> > about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> > can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
> >
> > Scott K
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63322 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:25pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
Let me clarify.
It doesn't matter what numbers are used. Lets use a "5" scale system since
that seems to be the "standard" What I'm saying is that we need to redefine
the ratings so that the newer extreme trails are covered. The required
equipment is different for these trails between 4.5-Predator and 4.5-Axle
Alley. The idea is to update the ratings to make sure that the trails are
listed with the proper minimum equipment required.
I don't think that incrementing in tenths is the answer. Essentially that
would just be creating a 1 to 50 (0.1 to 5.0) system, you want to talk about
COMPLICATED!
What I'm saying is lets stick with the standard 10 point rating system, that
being a scale up to 5 in .5 increments. (IT IS still 10 different ratings).
- Mike
63323 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:29pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
Ok after rethinking this myself it does make more sense to stay within the
present system as our club pages are used to plan trips for a lot of people
that are outside the are. They can at this point relate to a system they are
used to. That being said the trails need to be rerated, and descriptions
rewritten.
We have a good forum for this how about a weekly pole and discussion pick
one trial a week. Just an idea. Jim F.
BTW FredTJ You are the first Eng I have ever heard of that even knew about
the KISS principle. I thought over engineering equaled job security LOL
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/
63324 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:28pm
Subject: RE: Trail Ratings
What I mean by "Gate Keeper" isn't a person standing there saying you can or
can't go on the trail, but rather just a simple obstacle at the very
beginning designed to present enough of a challenge to keep those that
shouldn't be on the trail off of it.
L. Terminator USED to have one of these -- just two big rocks in the middle
of the trail. If you had trouble getting over those, you had no business on
L. Terminator. Upper Woodpecker has one (sort of) at the very beginning.
- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandee McCullen [mailto:mccullen@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:08 PM
To: Chatfield, Mike; 'AZVJC'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
Do you honestly think these guys/gals that are entering trails above their
"vehicle" capabilities are going to listen to a "gate keeper" any more than
they "read" the rating criteria?? Right?!!!.......... I don't want to be
the one at the 4.0+ trails that everyone seems to think they're capable of
doing nowdays.
When the statewide route inventory is complete (within the next 18 months -
2 years) the agencies will be posting signs at the trailheads of all the
"designated trails". They will be posting similar to what I recently
sent...... Easy, Moderate, Hard, Extreme but without the "numbering".
The access maps will have the "numbering" level criteria listed but the
trailheads will not. They will be basing their rating criteria on the "1-5"
rating system.
Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle to
> the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall
> to ride this
> ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this trail..."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
>
> Sandee,
>
> I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
> about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
>
> Scott K
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63325 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:34pm
Subject: Re: Trail Ratings
Or a by-pass ;-)
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8
Scott Kruize wrote:
> Yeah, but there would always be big stack of rocks in front of it. :(
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
> It would be really nice to be able to add a "Gate Keeper" type obstacle
> to the entrance of every trail... a sort of "you must be this tall to
> ride this ride..." or rather "your Jeep must be this capable to run this
> trail..."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'Sandee McCullen'; 'AZVJC'
> Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail Ratings
>
> Sandee,
>
> I couldn't agree more. For instance, I was very upset when I found out
> about the White Line bypass on Lower Terminator. I feel that if you
> can't make the Whiteline obstacle then you shouldn't be on the trail.
>
> Scott K
>
>
>
> 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/
63326 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:31pm
Subject: RE: FREDTJ: STL
State Trust Lands ARE for all intents and purposes private being that EACH parcel is already deeded to a specific school district and/or prison system for education.
State Trust Lands are NOT "Traded".............. they are SOLD or leased. There were no "swaps" involved in the White Tanks area. Catipillar SOLD their land to a developer. State Trust lands were not involved.
BLM however........... do "swap" lands. That's why I post any number of "meetings" ya'll need to attend............. BLM have "public meetings" involving all "swaps"...... most often no one shows. These swaps are NOT with State Trust Lands. Years ago BLM & STL did some "swaps" and the ASLD was accused of all sorts of "underhanded" dealings so they can no longer do anything other than lease or sell by "bidding".
State Trust Lands do NOT belong to the people of Arizona. They belong to a TRUST. These lands were given to the State when Arizona entered the union, to hold in Trust for the education system. The Arizona State Land Department are the appointed "trustees" of the Trusts....... The "PEOPLE OF ARIZONA" have absolutely nothing to do with the trusts nor do our taxes fund anything in regards to "trust" lands...........
There are some "State Lands" however but most of these lands are State Parks with no motorized recreation allowed. These are NOT Trust lands and only amount to a few hundred acres........... not 9.8 million.
I'm sorry to sound harpy about this issue but there is a huge miscommunication out there about "what" State Trust Lands are.
Would anyone be interested in attending a meeting having maybe the Commissioner of the State Land Dept. (trustee of the trusts) talk to everyone about WHAT State Trust Lands are??? I'm certain we could set it up to have a Q & A type format. It might answer some questions.................
Sandee
-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Wagner [mailto:jakewagner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:21 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] FREDTJ: STL
Fred:
What confuses me is how can it be "State Trust Land," but yet it's private land and land swaps are made with private contactors, I.E. the current developments in the White Tanks area.
I understand the land is sold off and used to fund schools, but it's "State Trust Land." Not Jake or Fred's Trust Land, and the money goes to the State to fund our school system not to our pockets for our own personal use. I'm usually one to understand things, but this I have never understood! So Why aren't the properties our homes sit on State Trust Land? We own the private property?
Jake, very confused
From: "FredTJ" <fredtj@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: STL Permits
STL is different than BLM or FS land. For one, STL is not public land,
it's private property. Also, by law, the State is "required" to make
money for education (and other things) from the land, which is why
permits are issued (for a fee and not free). Additional income comes from
sale of the land also. The money that the State takes in from STL is
suppose (by law) to be more than what's required to maintain it. STL, is
"for profit" private property. I think this is one of the things that
some people keep forgetting about.
Cheers,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] STL Permits
Sandee and I have exchanged a few e-mails and I figured I'd throw
this out to the club since a few are complaining about the cost of the
permit. A $20 Family Permit breaks down to $0.38 cents a week, and a $15
Individual Permit breaks down to $0.28 Cents a week. If you can't
afford it then you shouldn't be driving a Jeep!
On top of this most of my friends and I throw about $800 to $1,000 a
year at our TJs, $15/20 is a tank of gas people. I highly recommend
that each and everyone in the club has one because I have no sympathy for
someone who goes on a run and gets a minimun of a $500 fine. I myself
was ignorant and did not know that one was needed, but you bet your
butt I! went out and purchased one and everyone of my passengers has one .
All my regular wheeling friends also have them and we encourage all of
you to purchase one.
I don't agree with the permit, but I'd rather pay $15 than $500. I'm
already paying taxes, why should I have to pay for a permit to use the
land? BLM and the Forest Service do not require one and the money to
maintain the roads, etc come out of my paycheck via taxes every week.
See you all on the CK run, can't wait to trail test the body lift and
motor mount lift Scott K, Joey K and I put on my TJ tonight.
Jake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
63327 From: Stu Olson <solson8@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:51pm
Subject: RE: WAS Re: United Association...NOW beers on Stu!
Les, Les, Les.....I've been telling you now, for the past 6 months or so, to
stop believing everything that Kruize tells you!
TC!
Stu Olson
www.stu-offroad.com
-----Original Message-----
From: paparoach85251 [mailto:lespaparoach@m...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:43 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] 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.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63328 From: Stu Olson <solson8@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:51pm
Subject: RE: United Association
DOH!
Stu Olson
www.stu-offroad.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Hackle [mailto:hackle@qwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:47 PM
To: Stu Olson; Chatfield, Mike; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] 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.
63329 From: Hackle <hackle@q...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:54pm
Subject: FW: Crown King Early Run Heads Up
Both Stu and myself will have a quick drivers meeting to go over this
again,
but here goes. Everyone please remember at this point we have over 60 Jeeps
in the first two groups. By the law of averages somebody is going to break
and hold things up. Please stay as mellow as possible. Stu and I have been
talking and pretty much came up with the same idea. I know the usual method
is to stop after and obstacle and go back and shoot pics or spot. To get
this many vehicles through in a timely manor we need to try and keep moving.
Once you reach the top of the obstacle either wait until you see the next
vehicle crest or go back and spot them if they need it. But as soon as they
get to the top you must get in your vehicle and leave. I am not trying to
turn the run into a race but we all want to get there at a decent hour. I
want everyone to have fun and stay safe. This will be a great time to get to
know everyone on the run:) I am sure the c/b will be used a great deal if
you don't have one you might want to look into a quick install. I think you
will find it worth it. Looking forward to leading the parade:) Jim F. aka
Hackle
I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
Marx"
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
http://www.rockrats.org/
63330 From: FredTJ <fredtj@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:07pm
Subject: Re: FREDTJ: STL
Jake,
When I say "private property", I mean "not public property".. It's private property belonging to the State of Arizona. Not to me or anyone else, but to the State ;)
The lot that my house sits on is "private property". It belongs to me ;)
The STL belongs to the State, but unlike my lot, which belongs to me, the State, by law, has certain things that it MUST do with it, and that is make money, turn a profit. I haven't read the law, but I don't think it matters how the money is made from the land. It can be sold, it can be traded, just as I can sell my land or trade my land. The main difference, I think, is that I'm not tasked with making money from my lot ;)
All State Trust Land was deeded to the State from the Feds. It's held in trust (State Trust Land ;) )..
Does that help any, or am I just messing it up more ?
Anyway, the biggest difference between STL and Forest Land or BLM land, is the STL is private property (property of the State of Arizona), not public land like BLM and FS land. Big difference.
:)
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] FREDTJ: STL
Fred:
What confuses me is how can it be "State Trust Land," but yet it's private land and land swaps are made with private contactors, I.E. the current developments in the White Tanks area.
I understand the land is sold off and used to fund schools, but it's "State Trust Land." Not Jake or Fred's Trust Land, and the money goes to the State to fund our school system not to our pockets for our own personal use. I'm usually one to understand things, but this I have never understood! So Why aren't the properties our homes sit on State Trust Land? We own the private property?
Jake, very confused
From: "FredTJ" <fredtj@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: STL Permits
STL is different than BLM or FS land. For one, STL is not public land,
it's private property. Also, by law, the State is "required" to make
money for education (and other things) from the land, which is why
permits are issued (for a fee and not free). Additional income comes from
sale of the land also. The money that the State takes in from STL is
suppose (by law) to be more than what's required to maintain it. STL, is
"for profit" private property. I think this is one of the things that
some people keep forgetting about.
Cheers,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
63331 From: FredTJ <fredtj@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
I'm the odd ball engineer ( in many different ways ;) ). Sometimes I spend
much of day (at work), listening to some of the idiots that I work with, try
to over engineer everything that they see. Me, I like to find the $#%#$*(*%
problem, at the source, and fix it there, instead of putting bandaids on it
upstream. Too many people never see the original "problem". This is slightly
how I see this whole trail ratings discussion. From a quick glance, it seems
to me that the "problem" may simply be that some/all/a lot (whatever) of the
trails are classified wrongly. We're may be trying to fix that problem by
redoing the classification system itself instead of fixing the trail rating
on the web site ;)
:)
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hackle" <hackle@q...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
> Ok after rethinking this myself it does make more sense to stay within the
> present system as our club pages are used to plan trips for a lot of
people
> that are outside the are. They can at this point relate to a system they
are
> used to. That being said the trails need to be rerated, and descriptions
> rewritten.
> We have a good forum for this how about a weekly pole and discussion pick
> one trial a week. Just an idea. Jim F.
> BTW FredTJ You are the first Eng I have ever heard of that even knew about
> the KISS principle. I thought over engineering equaled job security LOL
>
> I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
> Marx"
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> http://www.rockrats.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
63332 From: The Acuna Family <mkacuna@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:11pm
Subject: Re: Best winch prices
You can get a Mile Marker E8000 for $409 @
http://www.thinkoffroad.com/thinkshop2/asp/product.asp?product=862&cat=61&ph
=&keywords=&recor=&SearchFor=&PT_ID= Rosser Jeep.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Siade, Randy" <randy.siade@u...>
To: "'Rick Norman'" <4x4xfun1@c...>; "AZ_VJC" <AZ_VJC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Best winch prices
> You can get a Ramsey 8000 for under $500.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Norman [mailto:4x4xfun1@c...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 5:07 PM
> > To: AZ_VJC
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Best winch prices
> >
> > It looks like I will be putting a winch on the front of the XJ (after
John
> > K makes me a bumper). I like either the Warn 8000 or 9000. Does anyone
in
> > town offer prices comparable to what I can find online?? I really would
> > like to support local business if possible.
> >
> > Any info will be much appreciated!
> >
> > Rick
> > XTRM XJ
> > 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/
>
>
>
63333 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:19pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
I see things the same way. I go straight to the heart of the problem and
try to fix it there.
To me trying to "Apply" the ratings as they are currently defined isn't
going to work. The problem is that the ratings were never designed to
accommodate the new extreme trails.
Its not as bad as trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. But it is
trying to fit a round peg into an octagon hole. Yea, if you pound it, it
will fit. But that isn't the best solution.
Sometimes (more often than not) the RIGHT way to do things isn't the EASIEST
way to do things.
- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: FredTJ [mailto:fredtj@c...]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:15 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
I'm the odd ball engineer ( in many different ways ;) ). Sometimes I spend
much of day (at work), listening to some of the idiots that I work with, try
to over engineer everything that they see. Me, I like to find the $#%#$*(*%
problem, at the source, and fix it there, instead of putting bandaids on it
upstream. Too many people never see the original "problem". This is slightly
how I see this whole trail ratings discussion. From a quick glance, it seems
to me that the "problem" may simply be that some/all/a lot (whatever) of the
trails are classified wrongly. We're may be trying to fix that problem by
redoing the classification system itself instead of fixing the trail rating
on the web site ;)
:)
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hackle" <hackle@q...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: Trail Ratings WHY?
> Ok after rethinking this myself it does make more sense to stay within the
> present system as our club pages are used to plan trips for a lot of
people
> that are outside the are. They can at this point relate to a system they
are
> used to. That being said the trails need to be rerated, and descriptions
> rewritten.
> We have a good forum for this how about a weekly pole and discussion pick
> one trial a week. Just an idea. Jim F.
> BTW FredTJ You are the first Eng I have ever heard of that even knew about
> the KISS principle. I thought over engineering equaled job security LOL
>
> I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member. "Groucho
> Marx"
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/index.htm/
> http://www.rockrats.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
63334 From: richard logan <rlogan@d...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:27pm
Subject: Mechanic Shop needed for engine swap
I am changing out my 4 cyl to a built 4.0 and changing my ax 5 speed to the ax 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upgrade OutlookŪ - Add COLOR to your Emails
OutlookŪ is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation
63335 From: Kyle Hagan <Kyle@s...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:26pm
Subject: Re: 4 Wheelers has 10 permits left
at 4:20pm only one left.
Kyle
----- Original Message -----
From: <SIMONLUKER@A...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:49 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] 4 Wheelers has 10 permits left
> only 10 left 2:00pm
> Simon
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
63336 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:30pm
Subject: RE: FREDTJ: STL
Jake,
State Trust Land was land given to the states by the federal government as a trust to fund schools. The State holds the property and indeed it is private property, not public property. Getting a permit gives you permission to access the "private property".
The State holds the land in trust and then sells it off to fund the schools. The land that a house now sits on was sold to fund the schools and is no longer State Trust Land. This was the purpose of state trust land. Its working as designed. Your permit gives you access much like if you'd ask a private landowner for access. There is nothing public about State Trust Land from what I understand.
Later,
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Wagner [mailto:jakewagner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:21 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] FREDTJ: STL
Fred:
What confuses me is how can it be "State Trust Land," but yet it's private land and land swaps are made with private contactors, I.E. the current developments in the White Tanks area.
I understand the land is sold off and used to fund schools, but it's "State Trust Land." Not Jake or Fred's Trust Land, and the money goes to the State to fund our school system not to our pockets for our own personal use. I'm usually one to understand things, but this I have never understood! So Why aren't the properties our homes sit on State Trust Land? We own the private property?
Jake, very confused
From: "FredTJ" <fredtj@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: STL Permits
STL is different than BLM or FS land. For one, STL is not public land,
it's private property. Also, by law, the State is "required" to make
money for education (and other things) from the land, which is why
permits are issued (for a fee and not free). Additional income comes from
sale of the land also. The money that the State takes in from STL is
suppose (by law) to be more than what's required to maintain it. STL, is
"for profit" private property. I think this is one of the things that
some people keep forgetting about.
Cheers,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Wagner
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] STL Permits
Sandee and I have exchanged a few e-mails and I figured I'd throw
this out to the club since a few are complaining about the cost of the
permit. A $20 Family Permit breaks down to $0.38 cents a week, and a $15
Individual Permit breaks down to $0.28 Cents a week. If you can't
afford it then you shouldn't be driving a Jeep!
On top of this most of my friends and I throw about $800 to $1,000 a
year at our TJs, $15/20 is a tank of gas people. I highly recommend
that each and everyone in the club has one because I have no sympathy for
someone who goes on a run and gets a minimun of a $500 fine. I myself
was ignorant and did not know that one was needed, but you bet your
butt I went out and purchased one and everyone of my passengers has one .
All my regular wheeling friends also have them and we encourage all of
you to purchase one.
I don't agree with the permit, but I'd rather pay $15 than $500. I'm
already paying taxes, why should I have to pay for a permit to use the
land? BLM and the Forest Service do not require one and the money to
maintain the roads, etc come out of my paycheck via taxes every week.
See you all on the CK run, can't wait to trail test the body lift and
motor mount lift Scott K, Joey K and I put on my TJ tonight.
Jake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.