Taalkeeta Mountain Scouting Trip. First time ever!

[Mark W]

Makes sense. I was kind of assuming that as well. I was thinking more overview maps in general if anyone wanted them. I have a plotter so if you want some large scale paper maps I could produce those. Also if you wanted any maps for publication I could put something together to consider. I would like an accurate track for personal use to go over with imagery. I have no plans to venture up there unaided.

Chad

Yeah, I was hoping to get back and add to this before this long. I don't mind showing you our tracks. I just don't want it to wind up out there for the general public. Accurate maps on a web page or anything like that.

We'll try to get some overview type stuff posted soon. And once I/we get a chance to do anysort of real writeup, I'm sure there will be some sort of graphics.

For now, If you want to look over the area that we traveled in, start at the Eureka Roadhouse/Eureka Lodge on the Glenn Highway (about 40 miles west of Glennallen). If you have any sat photos, (even Google Earth) you can easily pick out a trailhead about a mile east of there with a trail that heads north. You will loose this resolution right about when the trail reaches the Little Nelchina River (11 trail miles north). If you follow the Lil' Nel' west you reach Horsepasture Pass. At the north side of that pass you'll hit the Little Oshetna. Follow that further north and it joins the Oshetna. Further north the black joins the O' A bit north and west of that goose creek flows out the the high ground to the west and turns north. In the higher ground west of the Black/O' junction is Busche Creek, running a short ways north to join Goose. If you cross Goose right about where it turns east again after it's first northward run and run up the eastern edge of the deceptively flat looking groundto the north of there you will soon rch the Susitna.

We wandered through that general area. A bit further east than Horespasutre pass and also into the high ground between the Little and the Big Oshetna Rivers. And into the "hidden" valley behind the small canyon on the little O'

Pull up Goggle Earth and break out a USGS map of the area and you' get a good idea of where we were, even before we get some sort of track available to show.


Mark...

 

[84yota4x4]

I just found this thread and I am so impressed/jealous

I have to hand it to you guys, that was an amazing trek you were on. I dream of going on adventures like that!

I'm looking forward to reading a full report of the trip.

Brian

 

[Behemoth60]

Bring Tippy up and it'll take a heck of a marsh to stop us!

I was looking longingly at some of the silly machines that they were running at Moab this year, and Tippy isn't really all that crazy of a truck these days. It made me really want to get some trail time on it. Tippy and Tiny in Alaska would be something else. I wonder if I should put dually's on the rear? 2009 you say?

Peter Straub

 

[pismojim]

Sorry no track here but I did mark a few waypoints.

Peter, if you need a guide I can take you directly to the really good spots, let's go. I hear they are coming out with a 60-inch Bogger!

Here's three views of the location of our overlook of the Sustina River:

Look back at Post #5 for a Google Earth file...

 

[Mark W]

Next time I'm up there, I'm going out to the knob. Drive it (cross country down a steep spine through tall and heavy brush over deep hummocks), or hike it (over the saem terrain). But I'll be out on that knob looking down the 500 foot cliffs.


Mark...

 

[Mark W]

I was looking longingly at some of the silly machines that they were running at Moab this year, and Tippy isn't really all that crazy of a truck these days. It made me really want to get some trail time on it. Tippy and Tiny in Alaska would be something else. I wonder if I should put dually's on the rear? 2009 you say?

Peter Straub

Tippy and Tiny should be the perfect trail rigs for this country. Nothing crazy about them at all for the country that we're getting into. Assuming that holding decent trail speed over the faster sections is not a problem they'll do great out there.

This is the new rig being built by the guy whose been going out there longer than any of the small handful of other guys who know about the outer reaches (Most of them only get out there with him anyway).

http://pics.montypics.com/speedo/2007-07-29/1185766674_gus__s_buggy_build_up_034.jpg

With a rig like this making the tracks we're following (until we eventually get beyond his destination and move onward) Tippy and Tiny will not be overkill.

If you can do 2009, that gives me time for overflights, persuading the couple of guys who actually go overland beyond where we got to that they can share info with me, maybe another "quick" scouting run just to locate the connection(s), maybe a fuel cache too. And time to do it right when we go in, rather than fitting it in along with ACT2008


Mark...

 

[Wayneraintree]

that gives me time for overflights, persuading the couple of guys who actually go overland beyond where we got to that they can share info with me, maybe another "quick" scouting run just to locate the connection(s), maybe a fuel cache too. And time to do it right when we go in, rather than fitting it in along with ACT2008


Mark...

and the wheels keep on churnin' Sweet trip, glad everyone is safe and fulfilled. Gotta start building up a rig to try and make the cut for one of these runs

Mark, what is a good standard build for use on "scouting" runs like this and others in AK? After this trip, maybe your ideas have slightly changed? The link you posted appears to be more tractor or swamp buggy than anything else....

 

[Ducks]

Do you have some sort of open access to SAT imagery sold by entities such as Digital Globe, etc? I've spent the last few years looking at whats avail, and what would have to be tasked to acquired, etc... The costs are generally off the chart for the area's and resolution we're after.. And the stuff on file is more likely than not to have way too much cloud cover..

Better than 30 Meter DEM's dont really exist above a certain latitude, nothing farther north than the Homer area afaik... They're working on it, but AK is pretty far behind...

Yeah, I'm not trying to promise more than I have. I mainly was just looking for a quick and easy way to figure out the area you guys are interested in. I, of course, have Landsat and 30m DEMs which aren't useful here. I also have some cloud-free IKONOS. I am looking at acquiring some QuickBird imagery for a couple of potential projects in Alaska that, I think, are in that general vicinity. The mapping projects are large (15 million acres) so I could choose to acquire QuickBird imagery anywhere within the project and potentially have it overlap with your area of interest. Of course with optical satellite imagery, clouds are also always a problem. (Bummer that radar is probably not very helpful in this situation.)

It would be nice if my projects happened to coincide with the areas you guys are interested in. Was just looking to help out, no promises though...

Chad

 

[lowenbrau]

and the wheels keep on churnin' Sweet trip, glad everyone is safe and fulfilled. Gotta start building up a rig to try and make the cut for one of these runs

Mark, what is a good standard build for use on "scouting" runs like this and others in AK? After this trip, maybe your ideas have slightly changed? The link you posted appears to be more tractor or swamp buggy than anything else....

From my experience...

My rig was marginal in these conditions. The fact that I had to build it to drive 3800km each way to the trailhead dictated that I had to compromise on some things. The fact that I wanted to live in relative comfort from it for three and a half weeks also resulted in making some decisions that made the trail work harder. If I was willing to bivvy at night and eat MREs I'd have been a lot lighter and that would have helped. That being said, I wasn't stuck much. We spent a lot more time winching and tugging in 2001. I was always wishing for gearing, width and stability. If I had a tow rig I'd consider my FJ45 with the 350, 465, 203 and splitcase on some 40 or 44 boggers, or ideally, tractor tires and full width axles. There is no real penalty for wheelbase up there but the wider you are the happier you'll be in the buggy ruts. Unfortunately, the V8 gasser requires a mind blistering amount of fuel for ten days off road (about 5 days too few, really) Mark and Kevin used about 80 gal each and would have used more if we'd had it. The 45 would help for that because I could put a 100 gal tank midship. Better yet would be a suitable diesel. I'd love to turf the 350 for a 12HT but then I'd be tempted to drive it to AK and so begins the slippery slope of tradeoffs.

I wouldn’t have done anything much differently though. For me, the exploration was a part of the bigger vacation, one that cannot be repeated every year. I’d do things differently If I lived in AK and only needed to dedicate a week off work and a bunch of fuel to the run.

 

[Mark W]

and the wheels keep on churnin' Sweet trip, glad everyone is safe and fulfilled. Gotta start building up a rig to try and make the cut for one of these runs

Mark, what is a good standard build for use on "scouting" runs like this and others in AK? After this trip, maybe your ideas have slightly changed? The link you posted appears to be more tractor or swamp buggy than anything else....

I actually feel that my tan rig is now just about ideal for scouting anywhere that we would be looking to take any other Cruisers or other similar vehicles up here. (In spite of the tremendous areas that we talk about wandering in, the majority of Alaska is not reachable except by air or maybe boat (or of course snowmachine in the winter).

But a Scouting rig still has compromises. My rig for example is still very streetable. And there's little question about 40x18 inch boggers matching up to the 52x17 XLs that we have on Tippy and Tiny.

The guys who really get back in to the big country for long distance/long duration runs are usually are using Moose Buggies. They move slower on the trails that I refer to as "fast", but when it comes time to cross country through the brush or when the trail turns through the marshy lower areas, they excel. They can have pretty high carrying capacities too (they usually running on Dana 70s, Rockwells or ZF axles). They often have jen poles and other specialized add ons. The country where these are being used does not have a lot of tight trails in mature forests, so size and manuverability is not a major factor. Four wheel steering helps there a lot too, when it is a factor. A well built buggy can actually handle a surprising amount of side hill to (the width makes a big difference as does the amount of weight in the tires, wheels and axles). They make great rigs for hunting or for reaching hunting camps. Assuming they make good choices when they build them. Some of the guys who decide to build a "buggy" really don't know what they're doing, they just see other ones and figure they can toss tractor tires on what's left of their suburban and be cool too. Kinda like Cruiser wannabes I guess.

Sooo... Again, I feel that what I have in the tan rig is just about right for most Scouting. It's a very capable rig in almost any terrain (needs to sit an inch or two lower, but that's in the works). It will go most of the places where even the well built buggies can get. But for this specific quest, where we'll be following a barely used buggy trail to it's terminus and then pushing cross country for many miles further, rigs like Tippy and Tiny will be more capable. And the range of the diesel powerplants will be a big advantage (The guy whose building the new buggy I linked to carries 300 gallons of gasoline on some of his runs into his hunting camp).

If you want to build a rig for this sort of travel, without going all the way to a buggy or a rig like Tippy/Tiny, then just remember... TIRES... look to the largest tires that you can make fit and work and you'll be good. The rest of the rigs mods revolve around letting and making the tires work. Gears, steering, brakes, power, lockers, lift, flex... It's all about the tires. Then remember to keep it low as you can for stability, add LOTS of fuel capacity. And maximize room for gear,tools and supplies. And keep it simple and repairable.

There's a lot more to it than that, but I'm outta time right now.



Mark...

 

[Mark W]

From my experience...

My rig was marginal in these conditions. The fact that I had to build it to drive 3800km each way to the trailhead dictated that I had to compromise on some things. The fact that I wanted to live in relative comfort from it for three and a half weeks also resulted in making some decisions that made the trail work harder. If I was willing to bivvy at night and eat MREs I'd have been a lot lighter and that would have helped. That being said, I wasn't stuck much. We spent a lot more time winching and tugging in 2001. I was always wishing for gearing, width and stability. If I had a tow rig I'd consider my FJ45 with the 350, 465, 203 and splitcase on some 40 or 44 boggers, or ideally, tractor tires and full width axles. There is no real penalty for wheelbase up there but the wider you are the happier you'll be in the buggy ruts. Unfortunately, the V8 gasser requires a mind blistering amount of fuel for ten days off road (about 5 days too few, really) Mark and Kevin used about 80 gal each and would have used more if we'd had it. The 45 would help for that because I could put a 100 gal tank midship. Better yet would be a suitable diesel. I'd love to turf the 350 for a 12HT but then I'd be tempted to drive it to AK and so begins the slippery slope of tradeoffs.

I wouldn’t have done anything much differently though. For me, the exploration was a part of the bigger vacation, one that cannot be repeated every year. I’d do things differently If I lived in AK and only needed to dedicate a week off work and a bunch of fuel to the run.

As Bruce said above, his rig was not the ideal approach for the trails we were running. BUT for his overall trip, including road time and everything else that he had to consider, it was pretty darn close to a perfect rig.

And the fuel situation has me working to keep from wanting to put a diesel in the tan rig too. It's already a given that Tiny is getting a Turbo'd GM 6.2.


Mark...

 

[coldtaco]

Just remember to figure out what kind of mpg you will get with your new diesel, before you go on a long trip, as my 13B-T on the ACT 2006 used alot more fuel than I had anticipated, I think I ended up around 5 to 7mpg because my rpm's where around the 2000rpm most of the time in 4low.

 

[Mark W]

Bruce was getting about twice what we did with the gasoline powered rigs. Of course we were pushing a lot more tire than he was. And in my case a lot lower gearing, which I didn't hesitate to use.

I'm really surprised that you were at 5-7 on the Trek. I got 5-6 in my rig! (Same rig that I used on this run, but with the 2F, not the V8). My fuel use does not seem to have changed significantly with the new drivetrain. On the stretches which were the same as those that we covered during the Trek, and the ones that were similar in nature, I got 5 mpg this time out to.

When Peter was up last time Tippy was running 38x11s and a turbo'd 3B. He got 14 mpg over trails fairly comparable to what we ran in the Trek last year. Chalrie Arrons averaged 22MPG ON THE TRAIL with his turboed Hercules 4cylinder diesel in his M37!!!

I'm surprised that you needed to turn the 13BT that high for much distance or time. I did not realized that you were until now. Was it mainly a matter of just not having the particular gear ratio that you needed?


Mark...

 

[Mark W]

From my experience...

Unfortunately, the V8 gasser requires a mind blistering amount of fuel for ten days off road (about 5 days too few, really) Mark and Kevin used about 80 gal each and would have used more if we'd had it.

I was thinking about this, just tonight. You'd think that ten days on the trail for something like this would be plenty. Nope. Once I get the info I need and try again to push all the way back to the Talkeetna, along with more fuel I'm gonna have to set aside more time. At last a full two weeks on the trail.


Mark...

 

[Ratpuke]

Sounds like fun.

 

[Wayneraintree]

sounds like two weeks of bliss : )

Those are some wild fuel comsumption numbers..... diesel is X2 the mileage on that terrain? .. another reason to go diesel. I appreciate all the descriptions of an appropriate build.. sounds like you can't trade off too much and have an efficient trip...

 

[Mark W]

What kills the economy with the gasoline rigs is that fuel consumption is based more on the rpm you are turning than on the power you need to make. With the gas engines you wind up making excess power as you gently motor down the trail (which so far as the engine is concerned is most of the time). The Diesel engines use fuel based much more on the actual power needed to move the rig. And with the lower rpm of the power band you have an easier time creeping along at low speed in a higher gear without the annoyance of stalling, fouling plugs and that kind of stuff.

You just have to make sure that a diesel is peppy enough and powerful enough to push the larger tires through the mud and still be able to spin them up quickly if needed.

We have found that in the kind of mud/swamp/bog/marsh that we are dealing with, once you move up to the 40 inch Boggers and larger you can usually tractor through it with the wheels tuning a bit faster than you are moving, but without actually hitting it at higher speed and flooring the pedal to throw mud everywhere and blast through. Much friendly to the trail too!

This means that a diesel can be much more appropriate for this use than it would be for a recreational "mud bogger"


Mark...

 

[coldtaco]

Well, I would guess that with the new Marks gears low range was too low for most of the driving we did and 4high was too high? Last time I went out, this summer, I tried staying in 4 high as much as possible which seemed to work a bit better with keeping the rpms below 2000rpm.

 

[lowenbrau]

I would have thought the opposite. I was sucking for gears, running the 37s on 4:11s with a stock t-case and I was lugging the engine down to 500 RPM regularly in order to avoid abusing the clutch more than nessesary. Each bump resulted in a small puff of black smoke. I think I would have used less fuel with higher RPMs. The worst day was very (like Rubicon) slow, Between the bolders and hummoks you simply had to crawl. ACT 2001 was a lot faster.

 

[Mark W]

Yeah, I had a similar problem with the 4:1 low being much too low for most of the trail sections but the 1:1 high being not enough every time we had to slow down for any sort of mud or water or ??? That was the largest motivator for the 350/465/203/Orion setup to replace the 2F/H42/Orion. I sure don't mind the V8, but if I could have fit it all with the 2F I probably would have. But I NEEDED a 2:1 low range for the majority of the time I'm on the trail.

Not enough to do without the lower gears of the Orion though.

I found on this run that I was usually running 1st and 2nd (Chevy nomenclature of L-1-2-3) in 2:1 low on the faster trails so I could jump up to 3rd if things sped up. For the slower sections I ran 2nd and 3rd in 4:1 low since the ratios were a little closer together and I could drop down into 1st without having to deal with the unsync'd "low" of the 465. In this rig high range is strictly for road use now. And 8:1 "stupid low" is for when I find myself in really really nasty situations.

Mark...