Colorado rules for ATVs may have changed? Information listed in the 2005 colorado big game rules define an ATV as weighing less than 600# dry weight. Most of you know that Arctic Cat & Polaris above the 300's weigh more that 600#.

I hope we can get this changed!!!

Moreelk

 

So what the hell are they if they aren't ATV's. "With the strock of a pen you are now a goat." What kind of non-researched moronic law is this? Let me guess, a democrat came up with it. After we take all the lawyers out and shoot them, whatever politicains are left are next on the list of those that need shootin', but we can't becaused they passed a law against it.

 

thats stupid. they better change it, or im never moving to colorado.lol. not like i was thinking of it anyway, but still. it sucks for ppl that already live there and ride quads. hey moreelk, do the quads run any different in colorado because of the high elevation? isnt coloardo the highest city in america? is there anything u change on the quads like jet or intake or anything like that? just wondering.

 

Hey Bear - don't hold back - tell us how you really feel....LOL If not a ATV its a OHV Off Highway Vehicle. Like a jeep or 4x4 truck. I think MN and WI are up to 900 pounds. I don't think you will see MN go over 999 pounds or 48 inches wide. They dont want to license the 6-8 wheeler argos etc as ATV's. Although they require them to have a ATV sticker. Go figure.

 

hey who the polaris ranger and yamaha rhino are both considered to be OHV's and they are running about 1100 pounds or so dry weight. and why would it make that big of a difference how heavy the machine is? maybe it is time for arctic cat and polaris to go on diets i guess. and bear rub your ears and say WOOOOOOSAWWWWWWW it will calm ya down lol.

 

Moreelk[/quote]
isnt coloardo the highest city in america?



....uhmmmmm.....actually it's a state!!

 

isnt coloardo the highest city in america?



....uhmmmmm.....actually it's a state!![/quote]

hey!! i said that first, even look! but yea, it is a state. thats pretty stupid.

 

I'm only guessing but I beleive the trail systems are designed to support a limited amount of weight. Trail bridges come to mind - both
spanned and reinforced. And bigger machines do tend to have more of a envioromental impact then lighter machines.

I don't exaclty understand your ranger rhino comment as yes they are not ATV's but rather OHVs because of both weight and width. Either element would disqualify them as ATV's.

I know the weight limit keeps creeping up but the width limit will likely remain pretty constant. It would be difficult to manage trail systems when not using some kind of standard for width - or weight for that matter. There are a lot of places that the 60 inch wide Ranger would not fit on existing ATV public trails. ie some bridges.

I was on a advisory panel for a side by side ATV being considered for production. It was designed to meet the 48 inch width, high flotation tires and weight limitations. Unfortunetly the regulations from state to state vary so much on specific definition of what a ATV is - the manufacturer had little hope to get it licensed in enough places that it was feasable to build. Some states require that a ATV be straddled like a bicycle and have handlebar steering. What we really need is a Federal definition that all the states can standardize and plan on. Then we wont have a big mess like we have with fishing regulations or yourthful atv riders where what is legal in one state is not in the other.

 

Yeah, but this 600 lbs limit makes all the AC line not ATV except for the diaper bikes and the 250 and 300. So my 400 isn't an ATV per Colorado. Seems these morons need to read manufacture's spec sheets before they do this kind of thing. Oh I'm sorry, that would require them to actually do their jobs right and we can't have that, can we.

 

hey!! i said that first, even look! but yea, it is a state. thats pretty stupid.[/quote]

yeah the city is Denver and it is like a mile above sea level.. but its in Colarado so ya got half of it right lol