~"Serious offroading"~

[autotragic]

It’s neither subjective or objective. It’s relative.

Relative to a vehicle’s capability. Relative to the driver’s capability.

That’s what creates the pucker-factor to know when you’re seriously doing serious off-roading!

If an IFS equipped "trucklet" can do it, it definitely doesn't qualify as serious offroading™.

My thread, my rules

Sponsored

 

[Ratbert]

I say no, it could still be objectively measured. Like most major trail runs a set of minimum parameters necessary to qualify for serious off roading. Saying it's 100% subjective would mean that the dumb ass on a graded gravel road was "serious off roading" because they were nervous. There has to be at least an objective minimum standard before anyone who's ever driven off road would even remotely consider it serious. Whether we agree on that standard or your professional rock racer would consider it remotely challenging is irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure nothing can be 100% subjective. I never made that claim.

What objective measurements would you use to declare that a given trail was "serious"? How would you come up with those measurements without involving someone's subjective opinion of it?

 

[Mocopo]

I'm pretty sure nothing can be 100% subjective. I never made that claim.

What objective measurements would you use to declare that a given trail was "serious"? How would you come up with those measurements without involving someone's subjective opinion of it?

Objective standard doesn't mean the standard isn't built by concensus therefore taking opinion into consideration. You can have expert concensus be used to define what would constitute serious or not. But once the consensus has been reached and the standard defined, you can now use that to measure the seriousness of the offroading being done.

Measurements i would consider...
1. In order to achieve a certain success rate on an obstacle, do you need a certain type of tire?
2. In order to achieve a certain success rate in an obstacle, do you need a certain amount of clearance/breakover/approach/departure?
3. A certain amount of articulation? Tire PSI?
4. How often does failure result in body damage or vehicle component breakage?

These are just some examples of things that are pertinent to rock crawling, but i acknowledge that Overlanding may have other measurements of seriousness. The point is you can see that these types of measurements allow for an experienced driver to drag a stock sport through an obstacle, but acknowledges that for the average driver a more capable vehicle would be needed. You don't define the rule based on the exception.
The difficult part is gaining consensus on what these measurements should actually be. If failure meant body damage 50% of the time, I'd consider that serious, but id need to make my case and convince a majority, or at least a plurality, to agree with me. This means that if 99 out of 100 people say hopping a curb is not serious offroading, then it's not. And just because that one person freaks out and says it is, doesn't make it so.
Disclaimer: although I advocate for concensus on these sorts of issues, I do not condone it as a reliable measure for general instances of truth or morality, so no need to make that connection =)

 

[Ratbert]

Objective standard doesn't mean the standard isn't built by concensus therefore taking opinion into consideration. You can have expert concensus be used to define what would constitute serious or not. But once the consensus has been reached and the standard defined, you can now use that to measure the seriousness of the offroading being done.

Measurements i would consider...
1. In order to achieve a certain success rate on an obstacle, do you need a certain type of tire?
2. In order to achieve a certain success rate in an obstacle, do you need a certain amount of clearance/breakover/approach/departure?
3. A certain amount of articulation? Tire PSI?
4. How often does failure result in body damage or vehicle component breakage?

These are just some examples of things that are pertinent to rock crawling, but i acknowledge that Overlanding may have other measurements of seriousness. The point is you can see that these types of measurements allow for an experienced driver to drag a stock sport through an obstacle, but acknowledges that for the average driver a more capable vehicle would be needed. You don't define the rule based on the exception.
The difficult part is gaining consensus on what these measurements should actually be. If failure meant body damage 50% of the time, I'd consider that serious, but id need to make my case and convince a majority, or at least a plurality, to agree with me. This means that if 99 out of 100 people say hopping a curb is not serious offroading, then it's not. And just because that one person freaks out and says it is, doesn't make it so.
Disclaimer: although I advocate for concensus on these sorts of issues, I do not condone it as a reliable measure for general instances of truth or morality, so no need to make that connection =)

Assume you go through all of those calculations and come up with numerical values for every aspect of the trail, the vehicle, the driver, weather conditions, etc. You feed that into a computer and it spits out a number between 1 and 1,000. All objective measurements. Assume the number is 777.

Now you need to figure out whether that 777 is considered "serious". How do you do that without including opinions (that is, subjective opinions...all opinions are subjective). Any segmentation within that 1 to 1,000 scale is subjective.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Assume you go through all of those calculations and come up with numerical values for every aspect of the trail, the vehicle, the driver, weather conditions, etc. You feed that into a computer and it spits out a number between 1 and 1,000. All objective measurements. Assume the number is 777.

Now you need to figure out whether that 777 is considered "serious". How do you do that without including opinions (that is, subjective opinions...all opinions are subjective). Any segmentation within that 1 to 1,000 scale is subjective.

That's like saying requiring a 70% or better on any test for a passing grade is subjective though, even though it's pretty standard. Using that logic everything is subjective. This idea that nothing can be measured or defined unless everyone agrees is how we end up with 1,000 genders based on how you feel instead of the biological reality. No, driving down a gravel road isn't serious off roading even if you're doing it on a road bike. Is it hard? Yep. Do you have a high chance of failure due to multiple flat tires? Sure. Does that mean "your truth" is that you were doing serious offroading? Nope. You just picked the wrong tool for the job. Taking a Honda civic off road doesn't make every trail serious offroading it just makes you an unprepared moron. Being afraid of heights doesn't make black bear pass a difficult off road trail like the guides suggest. If it can be driven in 2wd it's not serious off roading period. People like to talk about the consequences of driving off the side of black bear like that's justification for it being considered a hard trail, that logic makes 550 a hard trail as there are some spots where I'd definitely rather try to drive straight down black bear. I think some of tfls list they put together to differentiate between off roaders and "soft roaders" are a good start. No cvt, real transfer case with low range, more ground clearance than it takes to clear a curb at the mall, etc. If you're vehicle doesn't require those things to complete the trail/obstacle it wasn't serious off roading despite how it made you feel.

 

[Twisted10]

If an IFS equipped "trucklet" can do it, it definitely doesn't qualify as serious offroading™.

My thread, my rules

 

[offtheworldlyroad]

I always take my off-roading seriously.

 

[Jeep Wick]

So this is something I've seen mentioned on these forums and on the internet in general in regards to Jeeps, specifically Wranglers VS "The Competition"...and pick your poison, could be a 4Runner or maybe a Land Cruiser...anything with 4wd really it doesn't matter.

But someone will inevitably say something like "well I'd only buy a Wrangler for Serious Offroading" because a Jeep isn't good enough for X...where X is any activity that apparently isn't Serious Offroading.

So great forum hivemind, what is Serious Offroading? Is it hopping curbs at the local strip mall or going to Moab? Something in between? What say you serious offroaders™?

I feel like the whole thing is just to make up reasons to drive boring ass cars but I'm just an internet idiot so what do I know.


Example of what I am talking about
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/riddle-me-this-lc250-vs-jlu.142268/

For me, "serious" off-road is when you need to bring spare parts and tools. I see guys packing a whole garage for some trails. I enjoy trails and adventures, but I'm not bringing anything beyond a tow rope and tire patches. I typically don't even have the spare.

 

[TheRaven]

I've always looked at it like this - if you are hitting the trails for the sake of hitting the trails...meaning that the "off-roading" part is your destination, that's "serious off-roading". I find myself on dirt regularly, but i'm using the trails as a means to get to something else. my off-roading is to get me to my destination, so I don't consider my off-roading to be "serious" in the sense that the OP is proposing. It's been over a decade since i've gone off-roading just for the sake of. Granted you could certainly argue that people do BOTH...meaning they use trails as a way to get to other "bigger" trails...but then the destination is still off-roading so it still fits my personal criteria.

 

[Twisted10]

things got pretty serious that night...

 

[autotragic]

things got pretty serious that night...

I hate those stupid things with the passion of a 1,000 burning suns.

 

[yokramer]

I've always looked at it like this - if you are hitting the trails for the sake of hitting the trails...meaning that the "off-roading" part is your destination, that's "serious off-roading". I find myself on dirt regularly, but i'm using the trails as a means to get to something else. my off-roading is to get me to my destination, so I don't consider my off-roading to be "serious" in the sense that the OP is proposing. It's been over a decade since i've gone off-roading just for the sake of. Granted you could certainly argue that people do BOTH...meaning they use trails as a way to get to other "bigger" trails...but then the destination is still off-roading so it still fits my personal criteria.

Just sounds like driving with extra steps to me

 

[Terrymo]

things got pretty serious that night...

Wow that thing must have a super tight turning radius

 

[autotragic]

Wow that thing must have a super tight turning radius

Turned so fast it just rolled over on itself.

 

[Mocopo]

Assume you go through all of those calculations and come up with numerical values for every aspect of the trail, the vehicle, the driver, weather conditions, etc. You feed that into a computer and it spits out a number between 1 and 1,000. All objective measurements. Assume the number is 777.

Now you need to figure out whether that 777 is considered "serious". How do you do that without including opinions (that is, subjective opinions...all opinions are subjective). Any segmentation within that 1 to 1,000 scale is subjective.

OR what if it was just s scale of 1-10? And then you made an app... and you have every trail a 1-10 rating... and labeled 1-3 as easy, 4-6 as moderate, 7-10 as Serious, or difficult, or extreme... then made it subscription based...

I plan on being the first!!

Sponsored