Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 13, 2000	1

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

PA OWNERS ALERT ....!

New legislation requires that beginning Oct 23 2001, ALL ATV's must be registered with the Snowmobile/ATV Registration Section of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, EXCEPT those used SOLELY for farming and business. There is no longer an exception for ATV used solely on your own land.

ADDITIONALLY, Beginning Oct 23 2001, this new legislation REQUIRES liability insurance for all ATV's.

In plain English ... the legislation MANDATES liability insurance coverage ... and ... REQUIRES the operator carry proof of insurance conerage ... ANYWHERE THE VEHICLE IS BEING OPERATED.

I have no problem with carrying insurance coverage on my AMPHIBIOUS ATV. In fact, I have searched high and low for in ecxess of THREE years for ANY company offering AMPHIBIOUS ATV liability insurance.

TO DATE ... I HAVE FOUND NO COMPANY THAT WILL COVER AN AMHIBIOUS ATV ... !

Since our class of ATV is currently PROHIBITED from using the state's ATV Trails (because of size restrictions???)... IF WE LET THIS LEGILATION GO UNCHALLENGED AS IT IS WRITTEN ... The only place we will be able to ride our Amphibious ATV in PA ... is our drive way.

RSVP
JT Barleman

By Chris on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT, that legislation sounds exactly like that we have here in NY. The only exception is for agricultural use only. I was able to ensure my Max without any difficulty on the first call to State Farm. Just register it as an ATV and you'll be just fine. They gave me no trouble, got the paperwork done and got me insured on my first visit. The rates aren't that bad either, so it won't break the bank. (Did I forget to tell them it was amphibious? Hmmmmm, that must've slipped my mind. All I told them was that it was a Recreatives Industries Max Buffalo, and it had a 20HP engine. They were satisfied with that.)

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Chris ...!
Your post is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I have had numerous responses to my many posts requesting information regarding any company that will insure an AMPHIBIOUS ATV.
I hate to break this to you ... but ... you are paying your premiums for NOTHING.
The instant you file a claim and your insurance company discovers the vehicle is AMPHIBIOUS ... and ... you "forgot" to mention it during the application process ... Their lawyers are going to give your claim the old ONE FINGERED SALUTE ... and then tell you that the company will not pay your claim ... because you provided fraudulent information on your application.

JT

PS ANYBODY out there have the name of a insurance company that will insure an AMPHIBIOUS ATV ...?

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

ATTENTION PA OWNERS ...!

To further amplify just how screwed up the new ATV legislation really is ... consider the following. Under the new legislation ... not only does your AATV have to be registered with the Snowmobile/ATV Section of the PA DCNR ... IF IT IS USED IN THE WATER (for example to fish from in a pond OR used a duck hunting platform)... it must also be registered with the PA Fish and Boat Commission as a boat.

Additionally ... IF THE AATV IS USED AT NIGHT IN ANY POND, LAKE, STREAM AND/OR RIVER (LIKE A BOAT)... The AATV must display a current PA boat registration decal and numbers ... it must be equipped with Port and Starboard (Red & Green) running lights on the bow ... a stern light visible for 360 degrees ... a horn ... a fire extinguisher ... and all occupants must wear an approved life jacket.

I was given no answer to my question about any MANDATORY boat liability insurance requirements ... BUT ... the AATV must also comply with any engine, type (Gas or Electric) and horse power restrictions.

It is interesting to note ... THERE IS NOTHING TO PROHIBIT OPERATING AN AATV ... THAT IS EQUIPPED AS ABOVE ... AND ... THAT IS REGISTERED AS A BOAT ... IN ANY OF THE THREE RIVERS IN PITTSBURGH ...

Makes you wonder about the idiots minding the store ... doesn't it?

JT :)

By Chris on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT, I didn't get too upset about the amphib issue myself as it's not really a big deal to me for my use (woods and fields). Your points about the boat at the same here in NY as well, all lights, required secondary power source (aka a paddle), decals and boat registration... Yes, if you get it outfitted as a boat, it is a legal boat and has all the rights of any other boat. I did call my agent this morning and told him that my ATV was amphibious and he didn't really care at all. He asked if I was taking it boating and I said no, but I might cross a deep puddle or pond if I can't go around. He said that was no problem and that my current coverage as a "Recreational ATV" is fine. He even asked if I wanted damage coverage on it, "If I hit a tree and smashed it up or in case it sunk". I said no, just liability for me if fine. I agree that the legislation is a pain in the butt and makes it very difficult to use an ATV (of any type) anywhere but your driveway as you said, those are the rules we've been living with here in NY for some time now, and it does suck. At first, it was hard to get insurance here too, but that has since passed and now it's really not a problem.

By Motson on Unrecorded Date: Edit

I have my Max insured through Progressive. I live in Western New York. They have no problem insuring a Max or an Argo.

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Motson ...!

I must not be living right ...!

I contacted Progressive (the company DIRECTLY ... not through an agent). I was told the company DOES NOT offer any coverage for AMPHIBIOUS ATV's.

Accordingly ... I strongly suggest you contact the company yourself and verify that you have coverage OR get a refund of your premiums.

After all ... agents DO make mistakes and/or the customer occasionally "forgets" to mention that a MAX or ARGO is AMPHIBIOUS.

Chris ...!
Care to share the name of your insurance company with us have nots...?
JT

By Bob Bascomb on Unrecorded Date: Edit

jt

Is your machine currently registered???

I called the PA DNR and the main reason for the law change is to crack down or illegal ATV riding.

Is your machine registered?????

I rode last weekend on the Timberline trail near Chaffee, PA. We had a great time on a 38 mile trail. This trail allows class II atv's (actually they have a picture of a MAX II in their copy of the ATV law. We camped on the trail. Oh yeah... My Max is registered in PA and NY. My insurance is through progresive.

The weight requirement in PA for a class II ATV has also been changed for the better. It is now unlimited weight were before it was 700lbs.

Yeah... there are some aspects of the new law that I do not like. However, PA takes the money collected and pours it back into the trail network. NY takes your money and places it into the general fund...Typical!

By Oliver (Digipix) on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Bob,

How (and why) did you register your Max in PA and in NY? I thought if I were registered in one, it would qualify for the other? (That's how my car works anyway) I figured it's got a license plate, so you can track it down if you want. In NYS, you can't register your ATV unless you've got insurance already on it. I'm glad the weight requirement was raised, my Buffalo weighs 900lbs.

Kudos to PA for using the money to fund trail maintenance and development!!!! NYS should copy that example!!!!!

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Bob ...
Yes BOTH of my machines are registered with DCNR ... and ... have current decals. Both vehicle comply fully with current regulations.
CURRENT regulations are NOT the problem. It's the regulations that take effect on OCT 23 2001 that are the problem.

I admit when I talked to DCNR they indicated they did not intend to act as an enforcing agency for the new proof of insurance requirements.
In fact they indicated I can register and get my ATV plate without showing proof of insurance.

DCNR indicated it is going to leave enforcement of the insurance provisions to the LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. In other words ... ONCE THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCOVERS THAT NO ONE OFFERS INSURANCE FOR AATV's ... every game warden, county sheriff, or park ranger with an axe to grind ... is going to be handing out $300.oo tickets to every AATV they see.

JT

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

PROGRESSIVE ...!
My apologies Mr Motson. After reading your post about PROGRESSIVE ... I called them for the fourth time in the past two years.

The company agent indicated that he showed three previous requests for quotes and asked if the information was still correct.

I told him I still have my Argo and my Attex and I wanted ATV insurance for them. DAMN IF THIS TIME THE AGENT DIDN'T RESEARCH ATV'S THE COMPANY WOULD INSURE ... FIND BOTH VEHICLES ... ASK WHICH MODEL ... HOW MANY CC'S ... AND THEN GIVE ME A QUOTE fOR COVERAGE ...!

He just faxed me the quote ...!

Cost is UNDER $30.00 per month TOTAL and covers BOTH vehicles.

Breaking out my Check book right NOW ...!

JT :)

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

FOLLOW UP RE: PROGRESSIVE ...!

I called progressive again to find out why they now indicate they will provide insurance coverage on my AATV's after refusing coverage previously.

Turns out "We have a failure to communicate" and the way you request coverage determines whether you get it or not. If you ask for coverage for and ARGO or Max ATV ... it is on their list of ATV vehicles that they WILL insure. If you ask for coverage on an AMPHIBIOUS ATV ... their agents don't have a clue what you are talking about ... and ... you will be told the company DOES NOT insure amphibious vehicles.

IN PLAIN ENGLISH IT WORKS LIKE THIS ... THE COMPANY DOES NOT INSURE AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLES ... BUT IT DOES INSURE ALL MODELS OF ARGO AND MAX ATV's ... THAT ARE ON THEIR LIST.

GO FIGURE ...?

JT

P.S. The quote I received last night included uninsured motorist coverage ... by dropping the UIM provisions I saved $96.oo PER VEHICLE ... and ANNUAL COST to insure BOTH vehicles will be $125.oo TOTAL. That figures out to about $5.00 per month per vehicle ... NOW WE'RE TALKING ...!

By mud pup on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Hey Jt, would it be possible to insure your aatv first as a atv and then get it insured as a water vehicle? Could a person then avoid getting the peace sign with one finger from the lawyers then?

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

mudpup ...!
Good question ... I was going to ask my new insurance company (PROGRESSIVE) if they were aware that Argo's and Max's are amphibious ATV's.

Then I remembered a joke I once heard about a bird freezing to death in winter. On his last leg, he is so weak and unable to fly any longer that he falls from the sky and lands in a fresh cow pie. The bird is so overjoyed about being warm that he starts singing loudly. The singing attracts the attention of a hunting hawk and in nothing flat the bird becomes dinner for the hawk. The moral of the story ... is ... when you are up to your neck in shit ... CLOSE YOUR MOUTH.

So I DID.
As I see it ... I did not miss represent or distort ANY fact. I let the PROGESSIVE agent tell me if they offered coverage on an ARGO and/or MAX ATV. HE checked their vehicle list and said yes ... I BOUGHT THE INSURANCE THEY OFFERED.

RE: WATER VEHICLE.
If you are going to operate your AATV in the water (like a boat) Pennsylvania requires it be registered as a boat IN ADDITION TO BEING REGISTERED AS AN ATV. Thankfully, PA. does NOT require boat insurance ... (YET)
Currently ... my plan is to outfit and register my Argo as BOTH an ATV and as a BOAT ...!

Should prove REAL interesting if and/or when I ever have to file an insurance claim...! :)

JT

By Chris on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT, pretty much the same rules here in NY. I have my Max registered as an ATV and registered as a Snowmobile (this is legal if you have tracks on it, at least in winter). It is insured through state farm, one plan covering the vehicle under both registrations. I do not have it registed as a boat, as I don't go boating with it, I may cross a stream or something, but that's just it's ATV abilities coming into play there.

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Chris, You are getting close to the crux of why I'm so "upset" with the powers that be here in PA. These SOB's enact legislation establishing all these registration requirements ... then promply empower the "custodians" of the ATV and Snowmobile trails here in PA. to PROHIBIT Class Two ATV's (ATV's over 50 inches wide) from utilizing the trails.
Kinda makes me wonder why and what I pay registration fees for ...?

JT

By Chris on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT, I don't like the sound of that!!! My Buffalo is 55 inches wide, or something like that. Legislation/Regulations like you mention would really kill my ability to ride. I hate the sound of that. Especially since I tend to be one of the few who actually helps maintain the trails. In NYS, about the ONLY legal riding is via the winter with it registered as a snowmobile. It seems that the US is pretty much banning ATV use. It's too bad really, since these vehicles (Quads included) CAN be used without damaging the environment.

Just a note: I searched last night for regulations in my local town on ATV use, to see if there are any special regulations around here (in addition to NYS). To my great surprise, I did find "ATV" on the town web site that lists the local regulations. It stated: "For problems with ATV or Dirtbike activity, call 911". Guess that sums it up doesn't it?

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Chris, The way it works here in PA. is as follows:

You register your AATV with the Snowmobile/ATV section of the PA. Dept. of Natural Resourses and Conservation.

Based upon weight and over all diamentions there are two classes of ATV's. Class One vehicles DO NOT exceed 50 inches in width and this diamention fits almost all Quads. Class Two vehicles are over 50 inches in width and this diamention fits nearly every Amphibious ATV.

The kicker ... Nearly every ATV trail here in PA. is located in a State Park or on State Game lands. EACH of these trails has it's own set of regulations and I have yet to find one that does not restrict the use of the trail to class ONE vehicles and/or Snowmobiles.

This leaves us Class Two vehicle owners with two choices ... Ride on the ONLY ATV trail in the Alleghney National Forest that permits our class of vehicle ... OR ... find private property to ride on.

As I see it ...
There is NO CREDIBLE JUSTIFICATION for excluding Class Two ATV's from the use of the ATV Trails ... ESPECIALLY since Class Two ATV's are far more environmentally friendly than your typical Class One "Ditch Digging Gravel Kicker"

JT

By Chris on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT, that's pretty poor news. I haven't seen similar restrictions here in NY, but I might just be unaware of them too. I was always thinking a snowmobile/atv was just that, didn't think about segmenting them just to make life difficult.

By Jon Hoath (Argogeru) on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT AND CHRIS'
FEELING YOUR PAIN HERE IN MICHIGAN. WE HAVE THE 50 IN. RULE ALSO. I HAVE ONLY FOUND A FEW STATE OWNED PLACES TO RIDE AND THEIR YOU CONTEND WITH EVERYTHING FROM HUMMERS TO DIRT BIKES AND IT IS A BIG CLUSTER YOU KNOW WHAT. ON TOP OF THAT AATVS HAVE TO HAVE ROLL CAGES AND SEATBELTS BECAUSE YOU SIT IN THEM ON NOT ON THEM. IF THE ROLL CAGE AND SEATBELTS COME FROM THE FACTORY WE ALL KNOW HOW BAD THE GOUGING (SP?) PRICE IS ON THAT. I THINK IF WE COULD GET ONE OF OUR RICH SENETORS OR REPRESENTITIVES TO BUY A MAX OR ARGO WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE THESE STUPID REGULATIONS CHANGED. I AM PRETTY SURE THAT IS WHAT ITS GONNA TAKE.

By Peter Fazio (Pete_fazio) on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Hi folks,

Concerning the new PA ATV law wherein as of right now all Class II ATV's are prohibited from using the State Forest Trails. After reading on the PA DCNR website that class II's may be allowed with special permission of the district forester, I called the admin office at the Michaux State Forest in Adams county. I spoke with the Assistant District Forester about the present prohibition of class II ATV's. The following is what he told me : As of right now, rulemaking is in process concerning class II ATV's. Since class II's are now spec'd as over 50 inches wide and over 800 lbs, they needed to apply an upper limit as to what could use the trail system. The rule will most likely set a class II upper limit of 58 inches wide and maximum of 1200 lbs to be allowed to use SOME of the state forest trails. They are specifically looking at vehicles like Argo, Max, Gator, Mule, etc. to generate these rules. The class II upper limit is a move to prevent trail use by dune buggies, jeeps, trucks, etc. The forester I spoke with felt that the new rules for class II's would be in place for summer 2002 and that SOME of the trail systems would then be reopened for class II use. I say SOME, since they will prohibit class II's from using the more narrow trails. He also told me that they are planning new trails as well with the funding they have received. No dates or places as to when/where new trails would be constructed. So, there exists a ray of sunshine in this new ATV law and that we most likely will be allowed back on many state forest trails in the near future.

Pete Fazio

'97 Max IV

By Sid Webb on Unrecorded Date: Edit

I'm in Texas, near New Mexico. Does anyone know about such rules affecting trails in NM and West TX? Can you turn me on to a site where I can find such regs?

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Calling ALL AATV owners ...!
Not satified with sitting on my duff and waiting for the same idiots at PA DCNR to solve the Class Two AATV access problems to the state game lands and ATV trails ... I GOT IN TOUCH WITH MY STATE REPRESENTATIVE.

Believe it or not ... he agrees the current legislation is DISCRIMINATORY ... and ... that INFORMED input from us AATV owners has got to be the key to correcting this unjust legislation recently enacted which prohibits us Class Two owners from operating our vehicles on the State ATV trails.

He informs me that attempting to offer NEW legislation would be both time consuming ... and ... would probably fail due to the indifference of the legislators.

He also indicates the best way to attack OUR problem is by attaching an ammendment to ANOTHER unrelated bill under consideration which changes the language of the recently enacted ATV legislation.

Bearing in mind that the size and weight requirements in the current law were intended to exclude LARGE Off road vehicles like 4x4's ... Jeeps ... and SUV's from using the ATV trails.

My first thought was to ammend the current size restrictions to include a Maximum distance between EACH axle to not in excess of 36 inches.

I'm certain there must be many other ideas out there ... Accordingly ... I'm asking the AATV community for your help. Please forward your suggestions to me at the following E-mail address namelrab@sgi.net

My State Representative assures me he will do his best to help US ammend our current legislation.

By bigkodiak on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT
I am with you bud. I have been considering the fact that only a maxII 450 is the only machine that meets the weight class regulation. As a Bigfoot owner I am completely with you. I will e-mail you when I get an opportunity later.
Russ

By Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max Dealer (Fred4dot) on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT Barleman, Why don't you consider a PSI on the ground requirement. It is very easy to determine and should prevent conventional vehicles (If a vehicle could adhere to low PSI on the ground, it would do no harm anyhow and should be allowed). A PSI on the ground limitation would help eliminate one cause of concern from some who want no motors.

By JTBarleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Thanks Fred
Good point ... the State Forest people make a big deal out of the weight of a Class Two vehicle ... but ... it isn't the weight that is important ... it's the pressure of the foot print on the ground that matters.
Any other ideas ...?

By kush on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Should we make sure there is some kind of wording to allow tracked vehicles? You might be able to compare it to a snowmobile (tracked). What does a snowmobile weigh? Are they class 1 or class 2? This might help be another line of thinking. Since snowmobiles seem to be aloowed just about anywhere compared to the 6x6 crowd.

By bigkodiak on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT
I have been pondering this for many months. How about no greater than 2.5 PSI with a maximum length of 120 inches and 60 inches wide, with no greater than a 30 horsepower engine. with these restrictions that would leave all of the trucks out and allow even 8 wheelers to join in the fun.
Russ

By Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max Dealer (Fred4dot) on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT and others, You should try real hard to not have a width limitation because of tracks (my guess is tracks will get wider as the technology allows); same thing with horsepower (more horses will never be turned back). PSI on the ground is a very logical measurement. It will probably have to be in the eight PSI range or people will not be allowed. Most quads are in the 6 to 10 PSI on the ground range. Pickups are probably over 20.

A pretty good argument against the 50 inch width rule is a shovel is longer than that. Most forests require all vehicles to carry a shovel with which to be able to fight fire. A shovel tied across a Quad is over the 50". We have the 50" rule here also, but it has not been enforced against me to date.

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Kush & bigkodiak,
Thanks for the inputs.
RE: Tracked Vehicles:
This area is an entirely different can of worms ... and ... a real source of heartburn for me. Predictably the PA DCNR classifies Snowmobiles as NEITHER Class ONE nor Class Two ATV's. They are Snowmobiles ... and ... in typical DCNR fashion ... currently here in PA ... ATV's are not permitted to use the Snowmobile trails ... tracked or not ...! :[

Since wider TEN or TWELVE wheeled vehicles with super swamper tires and/or jet pumps are not all that far fetched ... and ... since I don't have any idea what is in the mind of the designers of AATV's ... I'd welcome the input from the Design and/or Legal Departments of ODG, Recreative Industries and/or ANY other manufacturer. After all ... This is as much their fight as it is ours ...!

For the time being ... limiting the distance between axles seems to be the easy way to exclude any "unwanted" vehicles. Unfortunately ... this is a catagory which seems to include our Class Two AATV's.

JT : |

By kush on Unrecorded Date: Edit

JT,

I agree that the distance between axles seems to be the easiest way of limiting machines out there. Maybe we can get input from other states as to what their laws are & see if we can have them incorporated. Another idea concerning snowmobiles. If we can get the sales figures for 6x6's compared to snowmobiles, we could show them that in comparision we would'nt be harming the trails as much as the snowmobilers.

By bigkodiak on Unrecorded Date: Edit

The problem with the distance between axles appears to me to be difficult to enforce. I can see a DCNR cop getting down now and measuring the distance (actually I would love to see that.) I still see that the maximum weight, physical dimensions, and ground pressure to be the most realistic in terms of written law and enforceability. A cop can get out and measure these with realistic ability and in a limited amount of time.
The distance that you have recommended between axles of 36" would be extreme. Although they would suit a quad, I could home manufacture a vehicle that consisted of 6, 8 or 10 wheels that I could easily put 33" truck tires underneath with a car type engine that would fit your requirements but would be just the type of vehicle we were trying to avoid on the trails.
Without some sort of maximum dimensions or weights we would be dooming our efforts within the legislature.
Russ

By Alan Harper on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Reading through this thread. Exactly what is
this easy method of determining ground
pressure? Tire PSI + 2?

Kush,
I think my snowmobile is about 600 lbs and
172 hp. Seems like I remember a maximun
legal snowmobile width of 42" or so.
Snowmobiles are only allowed on the trails
when the trails are snow covered. Nothing
motorized is allowed when dirt is showing.

Except for the 30 hp proposal, my Coot
exceeds all proposed limitations I have read
on this thread. I hate to think that 'I' am the type
vehicle we are trying to avoid.
Thanks,
Alan

www.industrial-magic.com/coot.html

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

bigkodiak,
Not to beliitle your reply ... BUT ... in my spare time I drive "Big" trucks (18 wheelers)

FYI The distance between AXLES is exactly that. It is a measurement between the center of one tire on one axle to the center of the tire on the NEXT axle.

Measuring the distance between axles in this manner is good enough for all FIFTY State Police organizations and the RCMP's. They ROUTINELY use this measurement as the basis to issue a ticket for over length. If this method is good enough for Smokey the Bear ... It sure as hell ought to be good enough to be used by your local Law Enforcement Officer.

Incidentally, in PA the DCNR only issues the plates (and take our money) DCNR delegates the responsibility for enforcement of the multitude of ATV laws and regulations from numerous sources to the Local Law Enforcement Authority.

One final point. While my AATV (an Argo Vangard) has a 50 inch wheelbase ... and it measures 25 inches between the AXLES ... I'm sad to say that 22 inch Goodyear Rawhide Two tires will barely fit on it. Accordingly ... Feel free to e-mail me a rough sketch of how you intend to put SIX, 33 inch tires under it ... and ... at the same time conform to currently existing WEIGHT restrictions that dictate that an ATV weigh NO MORE THAN 1000 pounds GVW ... Should be very interesting! : )

JT

By Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max Dealer (Fred4dot) on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Alan, to figure PSI on the ground, you need to know your machine's total operating weight and the square inch area of support provided by tires or track (contact area). pounds divided by contact area = PSI (pounds per square inch) on the ground (1500 lbs. machine supported by 1000 square inches is 1.5 PSI on the ground, not .66666 PSI as would a 1000 lbs. machine supported by 1500 square inches would be. To figure contact area is a little tougher and I'm not sure of the proper way. I figure width of the tire multiplied by how much of the round of the tire is on the ground at rest. The lower the pressure in the tire, the more the contact area. The wider the tire and the bigger circumference, the greater the contact area. Tracks are real easy. Add eight inches to the wheelbase dimension (subtract for notches and space between links) and multiple by track width. On a snowmobile, take the area of the track and add the area of the front runners.

Your coot could be a machine those people want to eliminate - you only have four tires and if I am not mistaken, they are pretty narrow. Wide soft tires and machines as light as possible are the answer for low PSI on the ground.

By bigkodiak on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Alan
I had thought about the Coot issue after my last post, unfortunately I don't know the weight of them. Also I know they utilize a large tire, with a great distance between axles. This is a prime example of why we CANNOT use the distance between axles. If my response led you to believe that I meant the 36" axle distance was acceptable, I don't believe that for a minute.
JT
My example of 33" tires on a six wheeler were ficticous, and the thought was merely fleeting, and not of an engineering decision. What the point was was to simply put into the light that the axle distance simply is not sufficient to include all true AATV's.
Fred
How I figured the ground pressure was to simply take the manufacturers ratings issued in their propaganda.
Russ

By Alan Harper on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Fred,
I rooted around on the Goodyear Ag site for a
while but never found the footprint area.
However, they said the average ground
pressure for bias ply tires was the tire inflation
pressure plus 2-3psi. The tire inflation sticker
on my dash says 1.5-2.5 psi so I guess that
translates to 3.5 to 5.5psi ground pressure.
The Coot manual says less than 2 psi but it
doesn't say how that is calculated. Still, not
bad for a roughly 1200 lb machine.
Alan

Guys, as you all come up with regulation
suggestions keep in mind that not every 4
wheeler is the hot rod type. I have nearly 5'
between the axles so it would irk me to have to
add a simulated tire and axle between the two
to meet a 36" requirement. Hey, how about we
only allow machines with at least 12" of
ground clearance?

By Alan Harper on Unrecorded Date: Edit

BigKodiak,
Actually I thought the king sized ATV idea was
kind of neat. I'll e-mail you a photo of a
prototype made by Lockheed in the 60's. I was
getting a little concerned with some of the
ideas being posted up the thread that seem to
be designed for 6&8 wheelers. Now, back to
grafting those Coot tires onto that 6x6...
Thanks,
Alan

By kush on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Guys,

I still think distance between axles is the way to go. You only need atape measue to figure it out. Is the DCNR guy or local Law enforcement official going to be able to figure out PSI on the ground? Wouldn't that change with different air pressures?

WE still need abetter way.

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

I agree ... BUT ... instead of trying to redefine what an ATV is ... What we need to do to get the ATV trails on State land open to OUR Class Two vehicles. Wording that says the ATV trails are open to any INSURED ATV ... registered with State DCNR ... and displaying a current ATV plate ... seems simple enough that even our "elected representatives" can't screw it up.
So ... let's hear some more ideas ...!

JT

By fazio on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Here's an update on the story about state forest trails and Class II ATV's.........A few weeks ago I started calling both the District Forest Ranger ( Michael Kusko : 717-352-2260) and the Assistant District Forest Ranger (Gary Zimmerman : 717-352-2211) for Michaux State Forest. After leaving many messages w/ the secretary about how I was looking for info about the status of the rule making concerning Class II ATV's, I finally received (2 weeks later) a phone message from Gary Zimmerman. The basic gist of the message was that Class II's are not presently allowed on State Forest trails and would NOT be allowed in the future !!! He made NO comment about the "claimed" rule making-in-process that was supposed to set an upper limit on weight and width for Class II's on state trails. I really think he just fed me a line last November about this so-called rule making to allow some Class II's back on the trails. I'm sorry to be the harbinger of bad news for AATV's, but he led me to believe that Class II ATV's are off the trails for good. Only exception, is that if you are a doctor-certified disabled person you may apply for a permit to use your Class II on some State trails. You can apply, and if you meet all the criteria, they MIGHT issue you a permit to traverse the trails legally ! This was a personal blow to me, since up 'til last summer we used to ride at Michaux quite often especially since it was relatively close by. I would take my wife and 3 little kids in our Max IV, enjoy the trails and have a picnic lunch out in the woods. All I can say is that it's a darn good thing the politicians put a stop to that type of destructive behavior, Lord knows my little family musta' been wreaking havoc on the forest environment. =8^( Sorry about the tone of the email but I'm pretty bummed out about the situation for finding places to ride down here in South-East PA and MD. I tell you what I really believe is the true agenda of the state forest service concerning ATV's in general. This is what I think is the plan.....under big pressure from the wacko-enviro-liberals the forest service politicos figured out a divide and conquer strategy to rid the state forests of ATV's.

Continued in next post -->

By fazio on Unrecorded Date: Edit

<-- Continued from previous post.
First part of the plan, since ATV's are already separated in PA as Class I and II, make new rules that exclude those big, heavy, trail wrecking Class II's (even though studies show Class II's, in particular 6 wheelers, have the least ground pressure and cause the least trail damage) . Class II owners are such an underwhelming minority compared to Class I owners that the politicians know we are insignificant vote-wise. No real flack from this, Class I owners can still ride, so they don't care that we are off the trail ( heck, they consider Class II's just slow, trail blocks). No real heat from this exclusion. Phase I complete. Next part is a bit multi-faceted, they have 2 avenues of approach to start attacking the Class I folks. First, due to emission regs they will exclude all 2-cycle powered Class I's, just like they did in CA back in the late '90s and like MD is about to do for watercraft. This one is also easy, 2-stroke emissions are killing the forest obviously (yeah right) and most of those are ridden by those annoying young people who don't vote (this is how politicians think). Next approach is also an environmental concern, they will ban all 2 wheel drive Class I's . The 2 wheel drive Class I's are typically the hi-performace sport oriented ATV's that destroy the trail bed with their high horsepower spinning rear wheels. They will show that this type of ATV causes the most trail erosion and needs to be eliminated from state trails to preserve the trails for other less destructive users. (they actually probably have some real ammo with this one) . Once again, these types of ATV's are ridden mostly by the annoying young people (non-voters) . At this point, they will have eliminated a good portion of the trails users and still will not suffer much politically, since the groups eliminated thus far are small in number (us Class II folks) and the younger sport oriented crowd (not real strong vote-wise) . The last group will be tougher for them. The 4WD, utility ATV. Ridden by many folks, but most importantly used by hunters, fishermen, etc who are definitely a strong voting block and have a decent lobby in the state legislature. If the politicians try to eliminate the hunter/fisherman's tool for land access they will encounter a strong opposition which can generate many a vote against the offending politician. I haven't figured out yet what they will use to eliminate this group, but I would bet in the years to come they will probably also go the way of the other motorized trail users. Sad story and I hope in my heart that it won't come true, but I'm a realist and I can see the writing on the wall.

Pete Fazio '97 Max IV

By JT Barleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

PA. OWNERS CALL TO ACTION:
It has just come to my attention that our DCNR (www.dcnr.state.ps.us) is holding a meeting the weekend of 12 thru 14 July (THIS WEEKEND) regarding the use of ATV trails on State forest land by Class 2 ATV's.

This information came to me during conversations with Mr William Slippy at the DCNR (717) 783-7941 and Mr. Rick Carlson, DCNR Trail Advisory (717)772-9087.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR US TO ACT:
You are urged to IMMEDIATELY contact these gentlemen, AND ALL YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES by phone, voice mail, telegram or e-mail and express you opinion of the current policy at DCNR which prohibits our class 2 ATV's from using ANY of the existing ATV trails in ANY state forest.
Now is the time for us to DEMAND that DCNR supervisiory personnel provide the leadership necessary to insure that all Forest Management personnel (Rangers) make necessary changes and to open existing ATV trails to Class 2 ATV's

JT Barleman
jon111@directvinternet.com

By JTBarleman on Unrecorded Date: Edit

CORRECTION:
OOPS ...! DCNR's web site ia www.dcnr.state.pa.us
NOT ps.us as I miss-typed in the original posting
SORRY : ( JT

By S. A. Murphy on Unrecorded Date: Edit

To the PA riders. I was able to regester and ride my MAX II at the Cooks Forest ATV trails. This maybe because it a Nationtal Forest. I had parked next to and talked with a Park Ranger for several minunets. There are several trail heads and all are easly excesses from most major roadways. I bought the trail regerstion at the Marienvilles' cycle shop. Also I have insurence with Progressive, and they had no problem with it being amphib.

By John Schwab (Johnschwab) on Unrecorded Date: Edit

S.A.Murphy- Is it possible that you were actually at the Timberline ATV Trail? Timberline is in the Allegheny National Forest and is the only trail that Class 2 ATVs are legal to ride on. If the Ranger you spoke to was named Gary Haynes then you were at Timberline. Cook Forest is a State forest and I doubt a ranger would have approved of you riding there. Let me know, since I have been working to get us expanded riding opportunities in Pa.
There is a terrific place to ride in Rew Pa. which is about ten minutes south of Bradford. It is called Majestic Camp and Lost Trails. It is a private business, open all year round except for deer season and they have terrific trails. Contact me and we will hook up and ride there sometime.
Anyone else who wants info contact me also.

By Eric Magyor on Unrecorded Date: Edit

I emailed S.A. Murphy about that Cook's Forest thing. Haven't heard anything back yet. The Timberline is a great trail to ride and if there was some kind of other trails in Cook's Forest it sure would be good to hear about them. How is that other place out in Rew? Is it all kidney bust em' riding or are there places where the wife and I can just take a nice ride through some woods?

By John Schwab (Johnschwab) on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Eric- Majestic Trails has a website, it is www.majestictrails.com The owners, Tom and Brenda are some of the most hospitable people you will find anywhere. Trails are about 27 miles long spread out over 1000 acres or so. There is a little of everything but nothing crazy. It is a great place for a casual ride. They own all of the trail maintenance equipment so they keep everything groomed and safe. You can also camp right on the premises. Their main customers are quads so you have to share the trail with them, but that has never been a problem as long as you avoid the weekends that they are having a charity fund-raising event.

By Eric Magyor on Unrecorded Date: Edit

Thanks for the info. I'll check it out for sure and it sounds like they have a real good thing going on there.