ASA4WDC New Trail Rating System

[Linda]

I received the lastest ASA4WDC Wheeldust yesterday. The new trail rating system/requirements are listed in it. I like the added detail. It's about time!

But what is thing about vehicle weight and tire size?

What's the logic behind using weight as a criteria for tire size?

Shouldn't it be wheelbase and tire size?

[kjstinga]

I was also reading that and was wondering about the weight class. I also noticed a requirement for "upgraded axles". What does that mean?

I feel sorry for the people who end up running tech at Jamboree this year... Are they planning to have scales at the Jamboree and who is going to determine that somebody has "upgraded axles"?

Requirements are one thing if they have enough detail to define them; but "upgraded axles" is quite ambiguous.

[Sandee McCullen]

I was also reading that and was wondering about the weight class. I also noticed a requirement for "upgraded axles". What does that mean?

I feel sorry for the people who end up running tech at Jamboree this year... Are they planning to have scales at the Jamboree and who is going to determine that somebody has "upgraded axles"?

Requirements are one thing if they have enough detail to define them; but "upgraded axles" is quite ambiguous.

The group working on these requirements wanted the same requirements for everyone.............. Samurai's; Jeep; Scouts & full size trucks.
I guess I am to blame for the different "size/weight" classifications. I didn't like "lumping" everyone together and saw Chris V. had posted ratings/requirements like was used. I met with Chris and several members of his club to talk about these and, other than a couple of changes, pretty much followed what he had developed. We lessened the tire sizes a bit and the roll-bar / cage requirements a little to help "everyone" be able to fit into a safe and workable group.

Insurance staff had a lot to say about these requirements. When ASA4WDC went to renew their liability policy the "SAFETY" issue came up. When I explained what BLM was thinking of to help them with their liability as well as protecting the resources they asked to join in. They liked the idea of the "weight class" for the vehicles. A Sammy couldn't, for the most part, even turn a 35" tire and seeing as how they just seem to "jump" from rock to rock................ or fall in between ;>).............

Regarding "TECH".............. some of this needs to incorporate "common sense" and some of it is "honesty". I think most know approximately what their vehicle weights........ we can tell if a vehicle has a D-30; D-44 or D-60. We can check a locker vs a limited slip.........

If we don't start here.................. WHERE do we start to educate and enable management of trails? How long have we "discussed" safety or rock stacking; or by-passes etc.........???? We cannot blame the environmentals for rock stacking or oil spills on the extreme trails. That's OUR OWN. I guess if they cannot behave themselves through common respect and sense, then "rules" will have to be implemented to allow for the land managers to begin education through "citations" if needed.

Re liability: They cannot cover themselves against liability unless they show due diligence in "educating" and/or "warning" the public of the dangers.

[JamesT]

I think most know approximately what their vehicle weights........ .

I have no idea, but would like to have one.

Reminder to self: get vehicle weighed....

[k7mto]

we can tell if a vehicle has a D-30; D-44 or D-60. We can check a locker vs a limited slip.........


I assume the "Upgraded Axles" requirement doesn't just mean you've swapped original axles with something presumeably stronger/beefier. I defy any of those checking axles to tell me my Detroit locked, 4.56 geared, Warn Full-floater AMC 20 can't handle tough trails (it has for many years). It may be the original rear, but it is most assuredly "upgraded" :)

Let's hope those running tech aren't blinded by old myths such as the AMC 20 is a weak axle. Sure it was in it's stock configuration, but with the two-piece axles replaced with Full-floaters and a beefier R&P than a Dana 44, it's a mighty fine rear.

btw, last time I weighed my CJ, it was about 3500 lbs (including the weight of myself and my trail equipment).

[sschwar4]

I just noticed that street tires were not allowed on 3 and above trails. Any DOT tire is a street tire. What is the expectation (Off-Road only, M&S, AT)?

[sschwar4]

I was just looking through the newsletter... Does anyone know when they will publish a complete trail rating with requirements. I saw two versions of trail raitings, that contradict each other, page 8 and 11.

Example, 3.5 rating (pg 8) traction device required, (pg 11) hard locker required. My understanding was that limited slip was a traction device.

Another example 3.5 rating (pg 8) ledges 15"-20", (pg11) 3'-4' ledges. There is a big difference between 15" and 3' (36")

[DsrtJeeper]

To get a better idea of where Chris V. is coming from on weight issues and trail ratings; read the following:
AZ Rockcrawler (http://www.azrockcrawler.com/_images/trailrating/trailrating.html)

[Sandee McCullen]

I was just looking through the newsletter... Does anyone know when they will publish a complete trail rating with requirements. I saw two versions of trail raitings, that contradict each other, page 8 and 11.

Example, 3.5 rating (pg 8) traction device required, (pg 11) hard locker required. My understanding was that limited slip was a traction device.

Another example 3.5 rating (pg 8) ledges 15"-20", (pg11) 3'-4' ledges. There is a big difference between 15" and 3' (36")

The "ratings/requirements" that have been submitted to BLM are on the ASA4WDC WEB site. (asa4wdc.org) I will look at lowering some of the "tire" sizes and review the proposal of requiring a cage for a 4.0 for Jamboree.

[Sandee McCullen]

To get a better idea of where Chris V. is coming from on weight issues and trail ratings; read the following:
AZ Rockcrawler (http://www.azrockcrawler.com/_images/trailrating/trailrating.html)

Chris did a lot of work and research in developing this rating / equipment criteria. I THANK him bunches because he helped ALL OF US with "making brownie points" with the agencies as well as our insurance carrier. These types of things are what convince the agencies we DO CARE and are willing to compromise.

There is nothing in these proposals that is outside the limits of common sense or safety. Hopefully you will all review these with an open mind and remember ................. Chris was in your shoes at one time. He has broken and fixed and built a vehicle that can meet his challenge. He has also considered the safety of that challenge.................... when you and/or your vehicle can meet the challenge, please consider the safety of you and your vehicle.

Even if we totally disagree with the requirements/recommendations......... CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE. It won't be fun.

[skruize]

Sandee,

Most of that makes sense. However, rather than 38's for a medium weight vehicle on 4.5 trails, I think the much more commonly available and ran size of 37" is a better fit.

Scott

[FlexyXJ]

I assume the "Upgraded Axles" requirement doesn't just mean you've swapped original axles with something presumeably stronger/beefier. I defy any of those checking axles to tell me my Detroit locked, 4.56 geared, Warn Full-floater AMC 20 can't handle tough trails (it has for many years). It may be the original rear, but it is most assuredly "upgraded" :)

Let's hope those running tech aren't blinded by old myths such as the AMC 20 is a weak axle. Sure it was in it's stock configuration, but with the two-piece axles replaced with Full-floaters and a beefier R&P than a Dana 44, it's a mighty fine rear.

btw, last time I weighed my CJ, it was about 3500 lbs (including the weight of myself and my trail equipment).


Matt, I would not worry about your AMC 20. Most of the people that are really involved in this sport KNOW that an AMC 20 with one piece axles is as strong, if not stronger than a D44, with the exception of the axle tubes. You might as well consider the "MYTH" extinct, its very old school thinking. As for an upgraded axle, Its basicly COMMON SENSE. If you plan on running 33's or bigger on a "non-improved" D35, You are a dumb A**. If you Plan on running a "non-improved" D30 in a tj with 37's, Heres your sign. Personal opinion, I would not run anything bigger than a 35 on a TJ front end, even WITH axle upgrades just due to the fact its a crush sleeve, standard rotation design....But thats my opinion. I have seen these axles with everything from 31's to 37's, and some people get LUCKY and some dont. I watched (and listened) a TJ d30 EXPLODE on Axle alley with 33's. It had a Super 30kit in it, but broke the pinion....with 33's... :confused: Hopefully, people with D35's and 35+" tires really dont think they will hold up, cause they wont. They may not fail right now, but they will. This is where "policing" ourselves comes into play.....If you have a TJ (or any other jeep for that matter) With D35 (stock) and D30 (stock) with 3.55 gears and 37's on the jeep...you need to spend some $$$...or be BEHIND me. I am not saying that my Junk is built the best, or strongest by any means, but I have made certail points to Improve the weak points, that tend to show up with Sticky 35's and hard wheeling. Am I pushing my D30?? Even with CrMo shafts, OX locker and 4.56's, I still wait for the "pop". When I go to 37's I fully plan on an axle swap front AND rear, (33 spline D44) will be swapped for D60's....not right now, but in the near future. Lets all be sensible here.....Our axles WERE NOT designed for tires over 32" tall. The fact that they continue to work, well thank the aftermarket.


Stepping off soap box,


Joe

[Sandee McCullen]

Sandee,

Most of that makes sense. However, rather than 38's for a medium weight vehicle on 4.5 trails, I think the much more commonly available and ran size of 37" is a better fit.

Scott

I agree with you Scott............. I will be meeting with BLM this week again and will submit the proposal to lower the REQUIREMENT for tire size on the 3.5 +++ trails. Chris........... don't have a heart attack yet. I personally agree with your posted tire size but I also agree that we must reach a "common ground" if we expect to draw everyone into the folds. We may find these need to be adjusted but I'm thinking with all the other requirements the tire size is the least needed and probably one of the most expensive............ I'll get new ratings posted by the end of the week. HOPEFULLY.

Remember, these requirements are also what BLM demanded for Jamboree permit so our event permits also enter into these requirements.

[Linda]

After reading Chris V's suggested trail rating system you could use wheelbase as the key instead of weight and get the same results. It wouldn't make any difference since it is all approximate anyway.

Vehicles that are less than 90" are lightweight (Willys, Suzuki)
Vehicles between 90" to 110" are middleweight (Jeep, Toyota)
Vehicles over 110" are heavy weight (FS trucks)

I should mention that my Willys will probably weigh in close to 4500# when it is put back together. I just thought I would mention that since not all Willys are lightweight and have a wheelbase of less than 90". Not all Willys are "Jeeps" either. :)

[desertfabmotors]

Matt, I would not worry about your AMC 20. Most of the people that are really involved in this sport KNOW that an AMC 20 with one piece axles is as strong, if not stronger than a D44, with the exception of the axle tubes. You might as well consider the "MYTH" extinct, its very old school thinking. As for an upgraded axle, Its basicly COMMON SENSE. If you plan on running 33's or bigger on a "non-improved" D35, You are a dumb A**. If you Plan on running a "non-improved" D30 in a tj with 37's, Heres your sign. Personal opinion, I would not run anything bigger than a 35 on a TJ front end, even WITH axle upgrades just due to the fact its a crush sleeve, standard rotation design....But thats my opinion. I have seen these axles with everything from 31's to 37's, and some people get LUCKY and some dont. I watched (and listened) a TJ d30 EXPLODE on Axle alley with 33's. It had a Super 30kit in it, but broke the pinion....with 33's... :confused: Hopefully, people with D35's and 35+" tires really dont think they will hold up, cause they wont. They may not fail right now, but they will. This is where "policing" ourselves comes into play.....If you have a TJ (or any other jeep for that matter) With D35 (stock) and D30 (stock) with 3.55 gears and 37's on the jeep...you need to spend some $$$...or be BEHIND me. I am not saying that my Junk is built the best, or strongest by any means, but I have made certail points to Improve the weak points, that tend to show up with Sticky 35's and hard wheeling. Am I pushing my D30?? Even with CrMo shafts, OX locker and 4.56's, I still wait for the "pop". When I go to 37's I fully plan on an axle swap front AND rear, (33 spline D44) will be swapped for D60's....not right now, but in the near future. Lets all be sensible here.....Our axles WERE NOT designed for tires over 32" tall. The fact that they continue to work, well thank the aftermarket.


Stepping off soap box,


Joe

Well said,
If we ever get our 4-5 rated trails derocked and back to their true ratings, this is very true. :D

Todd

[Sandee McCullen]

After reading Chris V's suggested trail rating system you could use wheelbase as the key instead of weight and get the same results. It wouldn't make any difference since it is all approximate anyway.

Vehicles that are less than 90" are lightweight (Willys, Suzuki)
Vehicles between 90" to 110" are middleweight (Jeep, Toyota)
Vehicles over 110" are heavy weight (FS trucks)

I should mention that my Willys will probably weigh in close to 4500# when it is put back together. I just thought I would mention that since not all Willys are lightweight and have a wheelbase of less than 90". Not all Willys are "Jeeps" either. :)

I think the "weight" categories are simply to separate the size of the vehicle. A Samauri certainly does not need 37' tires whereas a full sized vehicle does. If everyone has a sound "breakout system" that can be used please get it to me........... I can always present our thoughts to the agencies and insurance. They don't understand this stuff so if it all "sounds" sensible they'll most likely work with it. Chris, I need your input on this also. Personally, I like the weight because much of this is based on the weight of the vehicle more than the wheelbase............ my CJ has a 100' wheelbase. Where does it rate???

Most of this is geared towards "information"............. we all know what our vehicles are capable of and what equipment is stock and what is upgraded. I "think" we know a stock vehicle is not capable of extreme trails. They were not build for that purpose.................. modified vehicles are.

So much of this is simple "common sense" it boggles my mind that we can harp and fuss about little "safety" things that are easy to comply with. The agencies and insurance are happy and the resources reflect no impact! That's all we're trying to do................. find a way to ensure our access with no damage to the resources and lessening liability to the managers.

[DsrtJeeper]

I think the "weight" categories are simply to separate the size of the vehicle. A Samauri certainly does not need 37' tires whereas a full sized vehicle does.

As an owner of a Samurai; i'm curious why the above was stated. I believe Chris V. runs 38's on his Samurai. If you are thinking of the small pumpkins on the Samurai diffs not needing as much clearance; please remember that Sammis use larger diffs/axles with 37" tires. The stockers aren't much good past 32-33" tires. Having seen the serious undercuts at the base of waterfalls on Anaconda and Annihilator; i'd definately need 37's to conquer them in my Sammy.
Thanks!

[Sandee McCullen]

As an owner of a Samurai; i'm curious why the above was stated. I believe Chris V. runs 38's on his Samurai. If you are thinking of the small pumpkins on the Samurai diffs not needing as much clearance; please remember that Sammis use larger diffs/axles with 37" tires. The stockers aren't much good past 32-33" tires. Having seen the serious undercuts at the base of waterfalls on Anaconda and Annihilator; i'd definately need 37's to conquer them in my Sammy.
Thanks!

I'm done with bickering about BASICS.............. if you all have some constructive ideas on how to present "ratings and/or specs" PLEASE do so. Picking everything apart is not getting us anywhere.
I'm sure Chris did some very in depth considerations in vehicle weight vs size vs stock vs modified before he posted these specs. He was absolutely correct in that the ASA4WDC trail ratings from 30+ years ago were not acceptable nor workable today.............. I felt he had submitted some reasonable plans / requirements. I talked to him at some length and obtained his approval to present these to the agencies. We MUST find a compromise regarding stock vs modified and what trails they are capable or qualified to do.

Chris' rating/requirements were a GREAT base for us to present to the agencies for a base to start in managing the impacts to the resources (a start at eliminating at least some of the rock stackers; by-passers and oil dumpers). These requirements satisfy the liability questions the agencies and insurance have. These specs also allow for those recreationists to have trails difficult enough to "meet their challenge".

We're only looking at "making something available for everyone" while making "management possible for the land managers".

If you have some good ideas on wording or specs that will help us reach a mutual goal please do so............ but let's quit with the nitty gritty stuff that isn't getting any of us anywhere.

Bottom line when we approach a trail................... use common sense.

Thanks,

[DsrtJeeper]

I'm done with bickering about BASICS.............. if you all have some constructive ideas on how to present "ratings and/or specs" PLEASE do so. Picking everything apart is not getting us anywhere.
I'm sure Chris did some very in depth considerations in vehicle weight vs size vs stock vs modified.

Chris' rating/requirements were a GREAT base for us to present to the agencies for a base to start in managing the impacts to the resources (a start at eliminating at least some of the rock stackers; by-passers and oil dumpers). These requirements also satisfy the liability questions the agencies and insurance have. These specs also allow for those recreationists to have trails difficult enough to "meet their challenge".

We're only looking at "making something available for everyone" while making "management possible for the land managers".

If you have some good ideas on wording or specs that will help us reach a mutual goal please do so............ but let's quit with the nitty gritty stuff that isn't getting any of us anywhere.

Thanks,

Excuse me, but I thought I had a good question there. I'm not bickering and have you seen any sign of me doing so throughout this post? I'm the one that posted Chris V's website. Obviously; if we are asking questions here; we have yet to fully understand the suggested standards. How can we submit constructive comments without first grasping the wording of said proposal? I respect your efforts; Sandee, but being short with me is not the answer. Do you not read into legal contracts or proposals, ask questions for clarity and then decide before you sign or agree? This isn't a subject to be taken lightly and there's bound to be many more questions. I guess i'll just sit back and bite my tongue and let others decide our fate. Sorry for offending you with my stupidity.
Eric :(

[Sandee McCullen]

Excuse me, but I thought I had a good question there. I'm not bickering and have you seen any sign of me doing so throughout this post? I'm the one that posted Chris V's website. Obviously; if we are asking questions here; we have yet to fully understand the suggested standards. How can we submit constructive comments without first grasping the wording of said proposal? I respect your efforts; Sandee, but being short with me is not the answer. Do you not read into legal contracts or proposals, ask questions for clarity and then decide before you sign or agree? This isn't a subject to be taken lightly and there's bound to be many more questions. I guess i'll just sit back and bite my tongue and let others decide our fate. Sorry for offending you with my stupidity.
Eric :(

I did not specifically "bite at you"........... the whole attitude about picking every word, every spec, every issue apart instead of using common sense is getting old. You most certainly are not alone......... There has been two weeks of fussing about "what is a roll bar vs a cage"; what is "upgraded vs stock"; use "length in lieu of weight"; etc etc. I think Chris' weight separations are clear and understandable. Nothing will be perfect............... not weight, not wheelbase, not specific listed vehicles but the general issue is addressed. "Not all vehicles should require the same equipment".

You did not offer "substansive corrections or specs"........... All I got was more "picking apart" a word or example. I apologize for specifically stating a "Samari" as an example of a "smaller vehicle" vs a "full sized truck". It was simply trying to show the common sense of different sized vehicles as a "guideline". I understand, as does Chris and the agencies, that these specs are not "written in stone" but are only a guideline. There will be no scales at the trail heads or at Jamboree; there will be no one "tearing down" a vehicle for axle checks; there will be no one measuring tire size. BUT, if we are not truthful with ourselves about our vehicles these are the guys that will get ALL technical trails closed permanently.

If you all have a problem with the wording or specs please simply write another proposal and we'll work with it. If the agencies catch all this bickering and fussing they will definitely start rethinking trusting us to police ourselves............. there again............... if they feel they cannot manage they will simply CLOSE and can and will rightfully do so. We MUST start working together. I'm not trying to rule any of this............... I just want us to show the managers we CAN and WILL take care of our own. We're certainly not showing any signs of doing that.

Don't forget............. they screen our WEB sites and mail all the time and it's getting worse.

I'll bow out of this.................... If there isn't support within our own I'll simply do as the agencies ask and if there isn't compliance they can shut the trails down. When I ask for my fellow 4-wheelers support and/or input all I get is fussing.

If I offended you, I apologize............... It was not meant to be personal.

[desertfabmotors]

The bottom line here is COMMON SENCE, COMMON SENSE, COMMON SENSE. :rolleyes:
Build your rigs for the type of trail you like to do. A modified rig is not a (example): lifted & locked up Samuri sitting on 37" tires with STOCK axles, a YJ lifted and locked sitting on 37" tires with a D30 & D35 axles or a full size rig with D44's and 42" tires. This will not hold up on the extreme trails. ( unless the drivers are rock stackers).
Most people that do the extreme trails know what type of mod's are needed to be done to thier rig, but there are the ones that think having a lift and lockers make them ready to do extreme trails. It is not hard to figure out. :p

Todd

[DsrtJeeper]

Believe it or not; I have plenty of common sense. So do the ppl asking questions here. It seems the minds at work have already decided what's best for us as everytime someone ask a simple question; the answer seems to be the same. "Common sense", "We need qualified people", etc....
Everyone can read into the proposal in different manners and this brings up the questions. If this was such an easy thing to understand; why are ppl asking questions? Why aren't ppl willing to answer the various questions with some politeness? There's over 3500 members here and you expected them all to fully understand from the get go??? How can you expect full co-operation if members are treated like fools for asking?

At first there was word of tech inspections and "requirements." Now you're saying that nothing is written in stone and that we will be policeing ourselves. That can be confusing in it's own. If we can't ask questions as members here; why have a club? I guess my comments or questions are not politically correct enough to suit you. Thus; my membership is not needed here.
Sorry for the waste of bandwidth. :rolleyes:

[desertfabmotors]

Believe it or not; I have plenty of common sense. So do the ppl asking questions here. It seems the minds at work have already decided what's best for us as everytime someone ask a simple question; the answer seems to be the same. "Common sense", "We need qualified people", etc....
Everyone can read into the proposal in different manners and this brings up the questions. If this was such an easy thing to understand; why are ppl asking questions? Why aren't ppl willing to answer the various questions with some politeness? There's over 3500 members here and you expected them all to fully understand from the get go??? How can you expect full co-operation if members are treated like fools for asking?

At first there was word of tech inspections and "requirements." Now you're saying that nothing is written in stone and that we will be policeing ourselves. That can be confusing in it's own. If we can't ask questions as members here; why have a club? I guess my comments or questions are not politically correct enough to suit you. Thus; my membership is not needed here.
Sorry for the waste of bandwidth. :rolleyes:

Nobody said you do not have any common sense, :confused: and the questions have been answered.
The trail requirments are guidelines,( example) A samuri with "stock axles" and 37" tires is not modified enough for the extreme trails. Just because it has 37" tires, lockers, cage ect. does not make it capable, the same goes for full size rigs with 42" tires and D44's.
With 3500 members we can sit here a pick apart wording for months.
I feel everyone knows how thier rig is built and what it is capable of doing.
Ask away untill we can figure how to answer the question in a different manner.

Todd

[Sandee McCullen]

Believe it or not; I have plenty of common sense. So do the ppl asking questions here. It seems the minds at work have already decided what's best for us as everytime someone ask a simple question; the answer seems to be the same. "Common sense", "We need qualified people", etc....
Everyone can read into the proposal in different manners and this brings up the questions. If this was such an easy thing to understand; why are ppl asking questions? Why aren't ppl willing to answer the various questions with some politeness? There's over 3500 members here and you expected them all to fully understand from the get go??? How can you expect full co-operation if members are treated like fools for asking?

At first there was word of tech inspections and "requirements." Now you're saying that nothing is written in stone and that we will be policeing ourselves. That can be confusing in it's own. If we can't ask questions as members here; why have a club? I guess my comments or questions are not politically correct enough to suit you. Thus; my membership is not needed here.
Sorry for the waste of bandwidth. :rolleyes:

Read the "proposal" any way you want......... the bottom line is we have to notice some requirements; information; mandates; suggestions; specs........ whatever word you want. The four major things the agencies are concerned with are: rock stacking that displaces water supplies or water sheds; making by-passes that destroy surrounding wash banks or resources; oil spills left that reenter the water table contaminating water AND liability.

By posting signs making it very clear vehicles must meet certain standards or specs is the only way to stop the destruction (and there's a BUNCH of it on the extreme trails) and lessen the liability if someone gets hurt.

When I say these requirements are "not written in stone" it simply means no one is going to be cited if a vehicle weighs 10 pounds over/under; or the cage isn't competition specs; or the tires are worn so they may be an inch shorter........ again common sense rules. You all know what your vehicle has and you all know what is meant by "upgraded, or roll bar vs a cage. If you don't want to be honest and upfront AND "safe" we can simply continue to wheel as has been done and let the agencies do the "policing"..... when a vehicle is stacking rocks or dripping oil they will be cited $500.00 - $2500.00. We all know the agencies do not have enough law enforcement to do this so what do you think the results might be?.............. CLOSURE. We've already lost Jawbreaker because of the abuse.............. with the 5 management plans coming to a close we are looking at a whole bunch more unless everyone stops with the picking and join in.

Regarding TECH.............. Jamboree will tech for these requirements. No, we will not "measure tires"; we will not tear down an axle; ........... we will check for lockers, as always; require tire size; winches when specified; roll bar and cages. We are REQUIRED to do this to ensure insurance. We have no choice. On the trails as casual use is where I'm asking everyone to police themselves. Most of this is simply being HONEST.

If you have a better way to EXPLAIN all this please do. There will never be a time everyone will agree but the posts are not "asking" they're *****ing......... the proposal for signs and requirements are not hard to understand.

I'm done trying to bring everyone together to keep our trails open and safe.......... Nothing has been directed at anyone specifically........... we are all in this together. "Treated like fools for asking"????? If you're taking this personally I'm sorry. No one has been treated like a "fool" and I will not apologize for wanting my sport to be able to continue into the future........ safely and with a good reputation.

BTW:........... as of yesterday it still looks like the BLM is looking at requiring "permits".............
No one seems willing to abide by some safety regulations............. wait until you have to obtain a permit to do a favorite trail or pay $40.00 a day to wheel. When they close down public lands because they cannot manage the abuse we're left with wheel'n facilities like back east.................. 400 - 1200 acre PARKS that cost $35.00 - $40.00 each time you go.

[FlexyXJ]

Matt, I would not worry about your AMC 20. Most of the people that are really involved in this sport KNOW that an AMC 20 with one piece axles is as strong, if not stronger than a D44, with the exception of the axle tubes. You might as well consider the "MYTH" extinct, its very old school thinking. As for an upgraded axle, Its basicly COMMON SENSE. If you plan on running 33's or bigger on a "non-improved" D35, You are a dumb A**. If you Plan on running a "non-improved" D30 in a tj with 37's, Heres your sign. Personal opinion, I would not run anything bigger than a 35 on a TJ front end, even WITH axle upgrades just due to the fact its a crush sleeve, standard rotation design....But thats my opinion. I have seen these axles with everything from 31's to 37's, and some people get LUCKY and some dont. I watched (and listened) a TJ d30 EXPLODE on Axle alley with 33's. It had a Super 30kit in it, but broke the pinion....with 33's... :confused: Hopefully, people with D35's and 35+" tires really dont think they will hold up, cause they wont. They may not fail right now, but they will. This is where "policing" ourselves comes into play.....If you have a TJ (or any other jeep for that matter) With D35 (stock) and D30 (stock) with 3.55 gears and 37's on the jeep...you need to spend some $$$...or be BEHIND me. I am not saying that my Junk is built the best, or strongest by any means, but I have made certail points to Improve the weak points, that tend to show up with Sticky 35's and hard wheeling. Am I pushing my D30?? Even with CrMo shafts, OX locker and 4.56's, I still wait for the "pop". When I go to 37's I fully plan on an axle swap front AND rear, (33 spline D44) will be swapped for D60's....not right now, but in the near future. Lets all be sensible here.....Our axles WERE NOT designed for tires over 32" tall. The fact that they continue to work, well thank the aftermarket.


Stepping off soap box,


Joe


This is the SAME thing.....I went through this. Suzuki Axles ARE NOT strong enough for 37's. PERIOD. They MIGHT do well for the "Starbucks Cruizer" but not for hardcore trail use. Dana 44 is a STRONG axle. But when you put a 42" swamper on a black rockcrawler wheel, you have *almost* 300 LBS each!!! Now factor in a 4:1 case, with an auto trans, and 4.88 (or higher) gear set, and well, you can see the weakness. I see sandee's point here. Police YOURSELF. If in doubt, ask someone who HAS another vehicle like yours, about what they think. Even a D35 is strong with a 30" tire on there, but pretty much NO ONE would even consider wheeling with a 37 or 40" MT/R on a D35....even with the "super" kit. Just like I dont plan on putting 37's on my 44 or my 30....will they live???? They might. Doubtful, but they MIGHT. These are the same "Mights" that you think about all of the time. I MIGHT roll...so you get a cage. I might have a tire blowout...So you have a spare. I MIGHT break an axle... so you have a spare. You MIGHT have to go potty in the wilderness...so you bring TP. My axles MIGHT hold 37's or 40's.... I'll bring Dana 60's, thank you.... :D


Joe

[Antman]

OK guys and gals, I think this whole thing is messed up. Not the plan, but the discussion. I think DSRTJEEPER was worried about his Sammy with UPGRADED axles running 37's and the comment made was you can't have a Sammy on 37's. I think he was trying to clarify that there will be situations where the rules or requirements don't match up. That's what he's worried about.

Maybe we should have some more input to Sandee about these requirements, or is she just setting a baseline for them, a common sense approach.
I can understand why the Agencies want this. This is the problem now. We have people on trails they shouldn't be on, stacking rocks and not de-stacking when their done, and people making by-passes because their vehicle can't do an obsticle. I don't run the trails in the desert much, but the last time I was down in Box canyon I had 2 guys in what looked like daddy's Pickup with all terrain tires ask me how rough the trail was up ahead. Luckily they were going in the opposite direction from me!
If we make an attempt to sign these trails with ratings and requirements, I think we will spend a lot of time replacing the signs. But as Sandee says, we got to do something or they will close them down.
I think Sandee is doing a good job and my hats off to her. I can however, sense the fustration in her emails on here at times, as I think she takes this very personnal. She would have to in order to do what she has done so far.

Please, lets give this gal our support when we can.