BDM

Members
  • Content count

    1,159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

BDM last won the day on April 13 2011

BDM had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

232 Excellent

About BDM

  • Rank
    TT Gold Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    California
  1. You are right, beautiful. Bruce
  2. I'm not aware of any street emissions certified beta 2 stroke. See: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-03/2018-mc-ctrr.xls and https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/hmc/2018/2018.php from here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/cert.php Bruce
  3. Not enough information but...... If it ran/worked fine before sitting awhile could be a blocked or partially blocked pilot jet in the carb. Bruce
  4. Really sorry to hear that. I hope they are recovered. Bruce
  5. Here is the MVUM for the Angelina NF. It is the legal controlling document for motorized travel on the Forest, a requirement of the 2005 Travel Management Planning Rule. Among other things the 2005 Rule via a public process: 1) Designated Motorized Routes 2) Prohibited motorized use other on Designated Routes (ie no cross county travel, no user/club trails) 3) Required publication of a Motor Vehicle Use Map https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd548641.pdf A quick look, the MVUM seems to indicate there are no Designated Motorized MC trails in the Angelina. The routes shown being "Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles", some having a seasonal closure. It is extremely unfortunate that in many cases, on many forests, OHV users were all too often not fully engaged during Travel Management Planning. Many thought the FS staff would provide for OHV recreation, but often the enviros were much better organized and represented. Their voices were heard and often resulted in Forest Plans with greatly reduced or even no singletrack motorized trails. I have heard the that once Travel Management was completed for all the NFs in Arizona, not a single MC trail had survived (MC groups are work hard to correct the oversight). In your case the MVUM shows no Designated OHV routes and as a result non designated trails would be viewed as cross county travel and therefore illegal regardless of streams or roots. Here is a link to the FS web page with links to the MVUMs for other Texas Forests: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/texas/maps-pubs/?cid=stelprdb5300457 Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but perhap during the next Planning cycle the OHV community can/will press for OHV recreation opportunities. Sucks, I know. Bruce
  6. Were or are these FS routes/trails officially designated as "Motorized" and mapped on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) per the 2005 Planning Rule? If you don't know you need to find out. What Forest? Which trail Numbers? I can try and have a look at the documentation but I would need Forest, District and some effected trail numbers. If Travel Management has been completed for the Forest (most were done between 20054-2010) and the routes in question were never designated "Motorized" it's more than likely the train has already left the station. As noted by shrubitup above, Categorical Exclusions (CE) are used but in our experience not for the purpose of closing a route or changing a route's designation (ie the routes use). They are used as a process to to allow special/periodic activities which could impact the environment such as trail maintenance activities (including hardening stream crossings, bridges, water bars, brushing). Use of a CE to close a route to it's "Designated" use would in our view/experience be an inappropriate use of a CE and in the vernacular of the Forest Service result in a Process Error. Bruce Miller Public Lands Director Stewards of the Sequoia Division of CTUC 501c3 Non Profit
  7. If the area has completed the 2005 Travel Management Act, the routes should have been designated as to motorized and width (single track, <50", >50", 4X4). Once a route has been designated via a NEPA process it's designation can not be changed w/o another full NEPA process. The only way a motorized route can be closed to motorized (w/o NEPA) is via an Emergency Forest Order signed by the Forest Supervisor (maybe a District Ranger?). The Emergency Forest Order is temporary and usually must be renewed annually. It is required that the Forest Supervisor Identify the problem and develop a plan to mitigate the issue. It is not OK to change the use of a Designated Forest Route via an Emergency Forest Order period..... Be polite and professional but confident/firm as to your understanding of the process. You may have to form a volunteer group to provide necessary labor as FS budgets are very tight. Also if your state has an ORV sticker program, Forests with OHV opportunity should be applying for grants from the State fund. See our example here: http://stewardsofthesequoia.org/ Bruce
  8. I think they will sell direct to customer. Bruce
  9. That's OK, I get it. Sounds more like a brake pedal problem, you can file/grind away the first row of teeth so if it does catch the cover it will be more blunt, less sharp. Also there are several clutch cover guards available. Plastic, billet and carbon fiber I believe. Bruce
  10. What's the problem with the clutch cover? Bruce
  11. Update: Checked the docs the Beta and KTM/Husky emissions differ by noticeably less than 2X, closer to 1.5X HC+NOx as tested/standard KTM/Husky = 0.7/0.8 Beta = 1.0/1.4 So as you can see the standard is slightly less then 2X (0.8 vs 1.4) but the as measured is slightly less then 1.5X (0.7 vs 1.0). Just goes to show what the negative impact on performance/rideability a slight (KTM/Husky 0.7 vs Beta 1.0) reduction in emissions results in. Also notice that KTM/Husky were within one point of their max standard while Beta is comfortably under its standard by 4 points. Also worth noting, neither Beta or KTM/Husky (for engines under 510cc) are resorting to use of a catalyst, for whatever reason (cost/weight/safety). Bruce
  12. Beta is classed as a low volume manufacturer by the gov and as such is held to a more lenient emission standard. KTM used to fall in this category years ago but their popularity in the US forced them to meet the stricter standard. The same will happen to Beta if they choose to import a larger volume. I do not know the unit volume threshold when this occurs. Beta does have a standard they have to meet but I believe they output about 2X that of KTM/Husky (per CARB docs). At some point they may be forced to decide unit volume vs. running characteristics. This in an era where .gov agencies are insisting on eliminating paths for easy access to mods (locked ECUs, dealer fines) which allow the bikes to perform at their full potential. Bruce
  13. Parks OHMVR promised grazing acreage, a wildlife preserve and legal singletrack in the Onyx SVRA. Guess which 2 have occured. We need to press Parks to follow through and deliver on their promises. Bruce
  14. Thanks Kran. Called again and call went through, Up-Tite is open. Turns out that between his move, phone system changes and general reluctance to learn the tech newances the "Number Disconnected" message comes up. If me I would work the bugs out of the phone system but we're talking about George and I think he's OK with how it works. Bruce
  15. Couldn't agree with MITCHB more! ORVWatchKernCounty's mission is to end OHV use as we know it and they are focused/based in the Tehachapi/Rosamond area. Also San Bernardino County has more problematic Public Trespass ordinances requiring written permission from landowners to ride private property vs. fenced and signed. Not my area but, I believe Bean Cy has been closed/outlaw for OHV use for a number of years now and is an area of enhanced enforcement including helio, drone and game cameras. Not the area we should be drawing attention to. Support areas/communities that welcome/support us. Bruce