EarthRoamer XV Finished... Pics Inside

VikingVince

Explorer
teotwaki said:
Try to define "easy".

easy = vehicle's capabilities + driver's experience+ terrain

Because I referred to the 5 point scale (definitions are somewhere on this site), "easy" is generally understood to mean trails in the 1.0-2.0 range. The scale has specific criteria by which one can judge whether their vehicle and experience can handle the terrain, hopefully without accident or injury.
 
Last edited:

teotwaki

Excelsior!
Such scaling systems are useful for those who mostly already have enough experience on trails and need to communicate with others who use the same rating system. Note what is said below "there is no standard", so how can we expect others who read your message to have read the Scotty System and have any idea what is being referred to?

http://www.expeditionswest.com/resources/expedition_handbook/trail_rating.htm

Notes on the "Scotty Scale", emphasis added by me:

Trail Rating Guide

When using the Expeditions West Guides it is important to understand our definition of a specific trail rating used in our web site, as there is no standard rating system available. In addition, the difficulty of trails, and the capabilities of vehicles in recent years has changed dramatically.

We use the 1-5 scale, with intermediary numbers (like 2.5) to classify a trail. It is also possible to use a 1-10 scale, which is fine, though not as common. It is easy to convert our ratings to the 1-10 scale by simply doubling the rating number we use.

The one factor that can never be rated is driver experience. All of my ratings assume a driver with a good knowledge of their vehicles capabilities and dimensions, line selection, and basic accident avoidance techniques like left foot braking, correcting for a skid, throttle control, and threshold braking.

Vehicle Selection: Choosing a vehicle that is appropriate to the terrain being driven is a critical component of succesfully negotiating a trail. We have provided a chart of vehicles considered adequate for traveling a specific rating.


I think that claiming something is "generally understood" is really lame and snooty and if you had instead linked us to the Scotty Scale we would have appreciated your effort to share and to educate.

After reading the Scotty Scale I go back to the basics:

easy = vehicle's capabilities + driver's experience + terrain
 

Darren

Adventurer
Bongo Boy said:
The market he's targeting is not the market I'm in

Exactly. Which is why you feel need to put down the company and the concept, just as a few others have done here. If it's not for you, move along. You would've been wiser not to comment at all. You are out to lunch if you don't think that can handle many "easy" trails. Being that you're in Colorado, I would challenge all day long that it would handle, by far, the majority of the trails we have here, but because this vehicle isn't catered to you, and you're so upset by the price, you elect to post with ego than with validity. Great post.
 

kcowyo

ExPo Original
teotwaki said:
I think that claiming something is "generally understood" is really lame and snooty....

So is your post.

Vince is asking legitmate questions regarding Bongo Boy's comments. BB's comments regarding "easy trails" were confusing and misleading.

Your insults are neither necessary or welcome in this situation. It is as much a new member's responsibility to get familiar with a forums lingo and standards (ie: use the search feature), as it is a longtime member's responsibility to link to previously posted materiel for the benefit of people who want to make random, out of place, unresearched and negative comments.

Bongo Boy doesn't like the XV-JP because he doesn't go further than 100 miles from the nearest Starbucks, by his own admission. Fair enough. If one prefers to spend all of their time on the hardcore Holy Cross-type trails of CO, this may not be the best vehicle.

His comments added nothing to the thread in the form of sharing or educating. They only showed his disdain for the product and served to toot his own horn that he prefers the "harder stuff." We have a tradition and guidelines here about knocking other vehicle manufacturers. I find publicly crapping on a product you don't care for to be more offensive than not linking to an easily found trail rating scale.

Lighten up -
 

teotwaki

Excelsior!
kcowyo said:
So is your post.

Vince is asking legitmate questions regarding Bongo Boy's comments. BB's comments regarding "easy trails" were confusing and misleading.

Your insults are neither necessary or welcome in this situation. It is as much a new member's responsibility to get familiar with a forums lingo and standards (ie: use the search feature), as it is a longtime member's responsibility to link to previously posted materiel for the benefit of people who want to make random, out of place, unresearched and negative comments.

Bongo Boy doesn't like the XV-JP because he doesn't go further than 100 miles from the nearest Starbucks, by his own admission. Fair enough. If one prefers to spend all of their time on the hardcore Holy Cross-type trails of CO, this may not be the best vehicle.

His comments added nothing to the thread in the form of sharing or educating. They only showed his disdain for the product and served to toot his own horn that he prefers the "harder stuff." We have a tradition and guidelines here about knocking other vehicle manufacturers. I find publicly crapping on a product you don't care for to be more offensive than not linking to an easily found trail rating scale.

Lighten up -

Maybe you are mixing up two different things? BB's dislike of the ER vehicle and my dislike of "generally understood" comments?


I never agreed with BB nor defended him and that can't be read into my post.

I never claimed that Vince could not question BB or that BB could not be publicly castigated for trashing a vendors product in public.

However, there is also nothing wrong with questioning the source of an unknown trail rating standard that it turns out is admitted as being unique to this forum.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that the use of "generally understood" is unfriendly and also not in the spirit of the forum. To quote Vince's earlier post "..I've never done more than a 3.0 on a scale of 5.0...". Nowhere does he say that it was an obscure forum standard until I asked for a definition of "easy". Just how was I to search for this rating system until Vince at least said it was on the forum somewhere??

Once the source was clarified I did search out and post the "Scotty Scale" and the link to it. How is that unresearched, random and negative?

Before you admonish someone to "lighten up" you should "Preview Post" your own message before posting? Maybe delete insults such as "..doesn't go further than 100 miles from the nearest Starbucks"? And throw out ".. people who want to make random, out of place, unresearched and negative comments"? Since you are a member of the "Expedition Portal Team" your comments are "necessary and welcome"??? Is your behavior the official portal Forum approach?

Before you jump on my case again I would suggest that you look in a mirror.
 

Clutch

<---Pass
Teowaki's post didn't seem at all lame and snooty. In my eyes he was just stating that there isn't a standard trail rating system. (Hell, some people have a hard time driving down tarmac) What is easy for some is hard for others. How can you rate one's emtional stress on the trail?


As for Bongo Boy's statements, I see exactly where he is coming from. You really don't need all of the Gee Gaws some of these guys and girls have to enjoy the experience. I have seen some of the "expedition journey" pictures out there. Very pretty vehicles with nary a scratch...heck, you can take a car down some of the roads.

A ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND dollar Jeep with a Flip-Pac intergrated into it, yes, a little excessive and only for the elite citizens of the People's Rebublic of the United States. I wouldn't feel comfortable taken such a vehicle off road and into Third World countries. But hey, that is me....

If a person can afford such a luxury...go right ahead and do so.
 
Last edited:

cshontz

Supporting Sponsor
Which raises the question, is it even possible to form an entirely non-offensive post in a heated discussion such as this? I, for one, like to encourage e-drama - because without it, the Internet would be a very boring place.

:lurk:
 

teotwaki

Excelsior!
cshontz said:
Which raises the question, is it even possible to form an entirely non-offensive post in a heated discussion such as this? I, for one, like to encourage e-drama - because without it, the Internet would be a very boring place.

:lurk:

Dang!! You made me laugh so hard! Thanks!
 

kcowyo

ExPo Original
teotwaki said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that the use of "generally understood" is unfriendly and also not in the spirit of the forum.

No there is not. It's a shame you didn't phrase it that way originally.

teotwaki said:
Before you admonish someone to "lighten up" you should "Preview Post" your own message before posting? Maybe delete insults such as "..doesn't go further than 100 miles from the nearest Starbucks"? And throw out ".. people who want to make random, out of place, unresearched and negative comments"?

I didn't realize directly quoting someone was insulting. I still don't.


teowatki said:
Since you are a member of the "Expedition Portal Team" your comments are "necessary and welcome"??? Is your behavior the official portal Forum approach?

I didn't give myself that label of "team member." It was placed with my profile following my contributions here. I doubt many would consider it the "official approach", but it is my approach. Feel free to add me to your Ignore List if it bothers you.

teowatki said:
Before you jump on my case again I would suggest that you look in a mirror.

The mirror loves me and I would suggest PM's would be a better place for any additional discussion on this matter.
 

Clutch

<---Pass
cshontz said:
Which raises the question, is it even possible to form an entirely non-offensive post in a heated discussion such as this? I, for one, like to encourage e-drama - because without it, the Internet would be a very boring place.

:lurk:

X2.....:clapsmile

e-drama...that's a good one!
 

teotwaki

Excelsior!
kcowyo said:
No there is not. It's a shame you didn't phrase it that way originally..

It is an unrated and undocumented phrasing system. As a newbie you need to go search for it somewhere..... :ylsmoke:

kcowyo said:
I didn't realize directly quoting someone was insulting. I still don't..

.....still don't realize that they were not quotes but your own phrasing?? :xxrotflma

kcowyo said:
I didn't give myself that label of "team member." It was placed with my profile following my contributions here. I doubt many would consider it the "official approach", but it is my approach. Feel free to add me to your Ignore List if it bothers you...

Oh, so your pronouncement about "forum spirit" is just your opinion based on a large quantity of attack messages here? OK. If you desire to be ignored then don't post your attacks publicly. :bigbossHL:

kcowyo said:
The mirror loves me and I would suggest PM's would be a better place for any additional discussion on this matter.

You should have been the first to send a PM rather than slinging your comments in public then.:exclaim:
 

Ursidae69

Expedition Leader
viter said:
img_0672_std.jpg

What a great view.

:arabia:
 

teotwaki

Excelsior!
Ursidae69 said:
What a great view.

:arabia:


Even though this would not be the vehicle for me and realizing that the camera lens adds distortion, I was blown away by the view and how it all looks so factory-ish. Would be cool to get some place to buy some for rentals so that we could have the chance to play with one.

img_0672_std.jpg
 

bigreen505

Expedition Leader
Darren said:
You are out to lunch if you don't think that can handle many "easy" trails. Being that you're in Colorado, I would challenge all day long that it would handle, by far, the majority of the trails we have here,

Darren brings up a couple interesting points. First being, who exactly is the target market? $100,000 puts this squarely in Sportsmobile territory, but the two are clearly targeting different buyers just based on the physical size of the vehicles. Could you imagine a couple living out the XV-JP for months or years at a time? So who is the target market? People who can afford to buy one, traveling solo or as a couple over trails up to about a 3.0 rating, primarily for relatively short trips, who don't bring much stuff with them and certainly not bikes or kayaks (I guess a hitch mount could work for bikes)?

Second, I'm less interested in what the vehicle is capable of, rather what is a reasonable level of capability for this type of vehicle. Most of the trails to get to beautiful places to (rather than day trip rock crawling) are not difficult or at least there is a bypass for less hardcore trucks and drivers. Clearly a Sportsmobile can be made to be very capable, but the size always will be an issue. While the Earthroamer may be a capable platform, what is the chance that the height will be an issue?

Thoughts?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,530
Messages
2,875,569
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top