Arctic Chat : Arctic Cat Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I'm thinking of snorkeling the H1 this weekend. Not 100% if I'll get to it or not, but thinking about doing it. I won't be doing the smokestack style snorks, as MN law prohibits snorks taller than 6" over the stock intake. So, I'll have to get creative. I like the hidden snorkel, but I want to go to a 2" snorkel to get more air (and subsequently rejet), so I'll have to do something exterior. We'll see what comes of it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
767 Posts
Ya I'm thinking on finally making a move on my 06 650v2 this weekend. It seems the safe way is to snorkel thru the removable plastic below the pod in case you have to put back to stock, ie.. buy a replacement plactic piece. I will consider making a hole there but definitely not thru the body. Both my 06's are still under warranty and I don't want to give arctic cat a chance to deny me if there's a problem which would not even be related to a snorkel. Just don't need that headache. What ever I do, the units will be able to be put in stock form without alot of work, but this will limit my options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Sanny are you serious about MN outlawing snorkels 6 inches higher than the box? Whats the reasoning behind that????? Here is an idea, move your box. Bring pipe straight off the carb to an air box located on your rack then snorkel 6 inches from there. Or do away with the box all together andrun the filter on the end of the snorkel.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I'm very serious about that. More states are following suit with that too, so you may wanna check your laws. There wasn't much fanfare about the change, but it came about last year. A DNR cop told me about it while out on the trail. he tried busting me,but I was under the 6" limit.

I don't really go through the super deep water. I want to snorkel it so that A) I can increase the airflow by increasing the ID intake to 2", B) getting cooler air into the combustion chamber and C) know exactly where the water level is in comparison to my intake. If I suddently his a hole that's deeper than anticipated, then I can see I'm taking in water and I can kill it before I hydrolock and really cause damage.

It seems as though the DNR guys were out to get me for whatever reason last year, but they weren't able to get me on anything because I wasn't breaking any laws/rules. I stayed on the trails and kept my bike within the laws. They saw my V2 and assumed that I was one of the miscreants that was tearing off the trails and destroying other wilderness/habitats. Not the case.

I'm not looking to turn my H1 into a submarine. I just want to know where I stand at all times, be it with air intake, voltage levels, temp levels, etc... An informed operator will have less severe issues out on the trail. My V2 snorks were only 2-3" higher than stock, but they looked nice (I thought anyways) and did what they were intended to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
why does it matter to them if your bike is snorkeled? What are they trying achieve by this law?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I'm assuming the theory is that if you rig your bike to go through deeper water, then you will be tempted to go into deeper water. Deeper water is found off the trails. Their thought (I'm assuming) is that if they remove the temptation, people will be less apt to go off the trails. I can also see them barking about "mud" tires, but that won't go anywhere IMO.

I wrote the DNR. Here was my letter and response:

Good morning,
I wanted to drop you an email to discuss my concerns with a law that was added for this year. That law is regarding snorkels. I have snorkels on my ATV that I added this winter, but I still am within the letter of the law because they do not exceed 6" above the stock air intake. However, the issue I have is with the government dictating what a person can and cannot do to their machine when I have done nothing wrong or broken the law.
I'm sure at this point you're thinking I'm just an angry ATV'er who's just ticked because I can't go tear up the deep mud. However, you would be making a false assumption if that's the case. The fact of the matter is that I stay on the trails, I don't go through very deep mud/water, and I respect the trails at all costs as I want them to be here for years to come. Also, I do not want to give the anti-ATV crowd any "ammunition" so to speak with regards to giving them reasons to ban the usage of my ATV. I have snorkels for a myriad of reasons, but as I stated they are not more than 6" above the stock intake. In fact, they are roughly 2" higher (if that), so you can easily tell that my intentions are not to go through deep water and mud.
My concern is that it's starting with snorkels, and will likely extend to tires, then to lifts, then to this or that. In reality, the government should be policing the laws, NOT creating laws for the limited few of society so that the DNR officers don't have to do their job and police the trails. I can speak first hand that in the 3 seasons of riding on the Red Top trail system, I've only seen the DNR twice (none last year at all). Coincidence? I don't think so. Someone isn't making the connection that if you don't patrol the trails that few people that are out to ride hard and go off the trail will be more apt to do just that. It's no different than the freeway. You can't find a cop between Forest Lake and Duluth and traffic goes 85-90mph. Why do you think that is? Think it's because everyone traveling that stretch has tricked out cars and thusly feel compelled to open them up, or is it because people know that you will very rarely find any government vehicle on that stretch of road, and thusly their odds of getting caught are next to nil. The answer isn't controlling what people can/cannot do to their machines but rather controlling and patrolling the environment which they are allowed to used their vehicles on.
Based on the ideology I'm speaking to in this email, the state should govern that no vehicles are allowed on the public roads if they have a computer chip that enhances the speed and power of that vehicle.
Now, does it make sense to do that? Of course not. The proper method is to police the roadways and punish those that break the pre-established laws...not punish those that have broken no laws at all but have a better capability to. To do anything otherwise is ridiculous.
I bring to you a scenario. What if a person bought an ATV and that person owns land that he uses his ATV on. Say this person installed snorkels because he wanted to ride it on his land and ride in some deep mud and water, but wanted to ride the state trails in a manner that is in line with the laws established. Based on this law, he could not do that, which is not right. He is being discriminated against.
I need to know who I need to write and petition to in order to get this law removed from the books. I will be heading up a petition if needed, and need to know who the appropriate person I need to deal with is.

Thanks,
Todd Sandberg

Dear Mr. Sandberg,

This is obviously a law as you indicate, therefore you need to work through your local legislatures to get this changed. I would also suggest you coordinate any effort to reverse this legislation with the State ATV organization. They can be reached at www.atvam.org . They have a lobbyist that works very closely with the State Legislature and knows which fights are worth fighting when. Could certainly make any efforts to reverse any of this language more productive.

Appreciate your well constructed comments, you make some good points.

Sincerely,

Ron



Ron Potter
OHV Program Supervisor
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4052
651-259-5632
[email protected]

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
jman my guess is that by limiting the height of the snorkles they can limit the amount of ATV going in the water.
I've rode some places where I've seen people run trucks & ATV's into ponds or streams for fun & ended up makeing a mess of them.
There are places that are more tolerant of that too...I have crossed streams & such.
I think we've all come across a stream or pond with muddy ruts around them from playing with ORV toys.
DNR guys do get around & see that stuff then we all as riders take the blame.
My guess is the DNR is trying to prevent that kind of activity?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Sanny you beat me to it & with a much better explanation I might add.
As far as the letter you wrote...have you pursued your petition or makeing any changes yet with current laws?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sanny651 @ Mar 8 2007, 12:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I'm assuming the theory is that if you rig your bike to go through deeper water, then you will be tempted to go into deeper water. Deeper water is found off the trails. Their thought (I'm assuming) is that if they remove the temptation, people will be less apt to go off the trails. I can also see them barking about "mud" tires, but that won't go anywhere IMO.[/b]
Fight fire with fire. The first time an ATV gets damaged from water intake on an approved trail, sue the DNR because 1) They prevented you from installing an accessory that would have prevented damage, and 2) they failed to maintain the train in a "safe manner," which is now defined by their new law as "within safe tolerance of an ATV with less than 6" snorkel."

And what about lower/higher ATVs ? If someone has a small, low ATV, they cannot safely traverse as deep water as a higher ATV with a lift kit...

I say make them pay for a few engines at $2k a pop and see how the law changes :)

Now, if they want to post a sign with a $500 fine and possible confiscation of your ATV if you go into illegal areas, that's strong handed, but at least it's legally logical. IMHO, this law referenced above is just asking for trouble.

Of course, I live in PA, a state that requires all ATVs to register and purchase plates, but does not provide a single STATE property on which it is legal to operate an ATV. (A few FEDERAL locations, but not state- yet). So, just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's legal. (Taxation without representation- impose this tax on ATVs, but not provide any recognized status)

I guess if you don't have your own political lobbyist group, one doesn't stand much of a chance in today's legislature... :(

Let us know if you hear of any progress.

-DiskDoctr
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Well, I got somewhere then it died so I need to revitalize my campaign. The people I wrote to got ousted in the last election. I got a response from one lady though and her response told me that her suggestion was to just abide by the law. Not lying. Don't try to change things, just learn to live with it. I reminded her that my vote did count as did my other ATV riding friends.. she may have thought about that as she packed up her office a few months ago after being voted out. :banman: thumbguy na na Clap :moon:

I should find out who my new rep is and get in his/her ear. I did bring this up to the state's largest ATV club (ATVAM), of which I'm a member.

Doctr, I'd like to put your theory to the test (as it would be fun to try) and in theory it should work. However, I'm not in a financial position to risk that, should things backfire on some "technicality" in court. I do agree that having a sign/posts that warn riders of the punishment of deviating from the trail is a good one. I don't mind DNR patrolling the trails either. I think more patrols would equate to less deviances.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
908 Posts
Sanny

Been thinkinh about this for a while. Just have not had the time to do. You know how a lot run a flex pipe just in the front under the pod. What if you built that area up just in front with alumn, plactic, something to look like the machine. You know in front of the H1 or V2 sticker. Build this out just a bit so that you can run a 2in or more hard hose under it. And have the box or what ever make it where you can pull off with the plastic pins. Paint it like you bike to match. And in the top of the box just over the pipe have something to install a outwears pre filter. Just a thought that have been going around my little brain.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Not a bad idea. I'm just not all that good with plastic fabbing and such. I might be able to make something work though. I'll be updating as I go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sanny651 @ Mar 8 2007, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
she may have thought about that as she packed up her office a few months ago after being voted out. :banman: thumbguy na na Clap :moon:

Doctr, I'd like to put your theory to the test (as it would be fun to try) and in theory it should work.[/b]
You do have a rebellious streak in you... :)

ATVs are here to stay. They (the ATV haters) can't stop them, and should remember the "home rule" policy. Many people don't care what happens elsewhere, but when in their home area, they get very defensive- preferring to "rule" their own home.

Start messing with people's backyards and personal family recreation, and you may be in for a surprise... :)

-DiskDoctr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
If those "Trail Cops" are that ambitious, they should be sent to the southern U.S. border. They would probably do a great job there. Right?

Don't understand the correlation between snorkels and damaging virgin land/earth. Most likely the deepest, wettest holes are the ones that everyone has already been through (i.e. on the trail). It sounds to me that someone got a little backing in the legislature to get a silly law passed. A little greasing to help get another law passed. One another, scratching backs......that's how our government functions. Very little true constituent representation.

The law could probably be overturned if a review was pushed by a legitimate lawmaker (I know, they don't exist). It is best to figure out how much the fine is and see if you can live with it every time you get fined. Hey, I would pay $15-20 if I got pinched once or twice a year for my snorkels.

Ride on!
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
This is from the MN DNR handbook online:
Civil penalties for OHVs start at $100 for first offense and range up to $500 and loss of license or registration for a third offense within three years. Penalties will be doubled for operation in wetlands or with snorkel devices."

It also states:
"Fines for second or subsequent violations in wetlands, including the use of snorkel devices or for careless/reckless operation, can be more than double."

And lastly, and most ironically:
"ATVs may not be operated with a snorkel device that has a raised air intake six inches or more above the manufacturer’s original air intake. Exception: ATVs with snorkel devices may be operated within the Iron Range OHV State Recreation Area and other designated public OHV recreation areas."

I say that it's the most ironic of them all because the Iron Range OHV park is a STATE FACILITY/PARK! So, what they are suggesting is either A) the owner have some sort of "agile" snorkel that allows him to raise or lower it depending on the location of his trip or B) have multiple ATV's, again depending on the location of the trip. Say I ride at Red Top (where our spring A-Chat ride was last June). That's one snorkel law. Go up north 2 hours...well that's another.

Just idiocy. I'll be contacting them again (likely tonight) to see what I can stir up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,284 Posts
threaded pvc connection? put the higher ones on when around the house and put the law abiding ones on when riding the "legal" trails. just a thought.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Oh, there are ways to do it. It just isn't right is my point. That's absolutely no different than outlawing performance chips, Z rated tires, or nitrous in a street vehicle. Just because you have the means doesn't mean that you should be punished for not breaking any laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sanny651 @ Mar 8 2007, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Exception: ATVs with snorkel devices may be operated within the Iron Range OHV State Recreation Area and other designated public OHV recreation areas."[/b]
This Exception does seem to be an outright contradiction to the (artificially created) purpose and intent of the main law. I hope you stir 'em up good Sanny!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DiskDoctr @ Mar 8 2007, 02:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sanny651 @ Mar 8 2007, 12:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm assuming the theory is that if you rig your bike to go through deeper water, then you will be tempted to go into deeper water. Deeper water is found off the trails. Their thought (I'm assuming) is that if they remove the temptation, people will be less apt to go off the trails. I can also see them barking about "mud" tires, but that won't go anywhere IMO.[/b]
Fight fire with fire. The first time an ATV gets damaged from water intake on an approved trail, sue the DNR because 1) They prevented you from installing an accessory that would have prevented damage, and 2) they failed to maintain the train in a "safe manner," which is now defined by their new law as "within safe tolerance of an ATV with less than 6" snorkel."

And what about lower/higher ATVs ? If someone has a small, low ATV, they cannot safely traverse as deep water as a higher ATV with a lift kit...

I say make them pay for a few engines at $2k a pop and see how the law changes :)

Now, if they want to post a sign with a $500 fine and possible confiscation of your ATV if you go into illegal areas, that's strong handed, but at least it's legally logical. IMHO, this law referenced above is just asking for trouble.

Of course, I live in PA, a state that requires all ATVs to register and purchase plates, but does not provide a single STATE property on which it is legal to operate an ATV. (A few FEDERAL locations, but not state- yet). So, just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's legal. (Taxation without representation- impose this tax on ATVs, but not provide any recognized status)

I guess if you don't have your own political lobbyist group, one doesn't stand much of a chance in today's legislature... :(

Let us know if you hear of any progress.

-DiskDoctr
[/b][/quote]


Don't start off by sueing the DNR.
1) waste of time and money
2) if you read sannys other post where he is waiting on a response from the legistlatures the DNR at least gave him and plan of action and somewhat sided with him
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Well, boys, I'm suprised. I got a response from one of the two representatives. It is as follows:
Hi, Todd. I've now had a chance to review your e-mail in more detail. I regret to say that I'm a babe in the woods on ATV issues so I can't say that I understand the problem fully, although you have written pretty clearly.

But here's what I think the point you are trying to make: The restrictions on longer snorkels was meant to keep rogue ATVers from ripping up trails and these guys would theoretically need a longer snorkel to ride in deeper stuff. But you are saying that longer snorkels have a legitimate purpose and that better enforcement of rogue riders would be the better solution?

The policy deadline for bills is March 23rd, so bills that are not in the "hopper" by now will likely not get a hearing this session. If you know of a specific bill that has been introduced, please let me know and I'll get on it. If not, maybe we can meet sometime and you can explain in more detail so that I get it more clearly and help work on something for the 08 session.

As a member of the Environmental Finance Committee, I can tell you that enforcement is among our top priorities in the DNR budget.

Rep. Paul Gardner
Minnesota House of Representatives District 53A


Looks like I'm making some sort of progress anyways, even if it'll likely be next year if/when something changes.

Back to the post at hand, I finished up the snorkels today. I was inspired by frontiercat's setup. I like that very much! I don't go in the super deep stuff and I rely heavily on my front racks in the winter, so I used 2" PVC and ran the airbox intake and belt intake low enough to steer clear of the racks, yet still elevate it just a tad. I'm more interested in knowing exactly where the water level is with my air intakes and also getting colder air into the combustion.
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top