Vehicle Class Comparison

Classification system derived from platforms observed in service on documented routes. Route accessibility verified by direct traverse where indicated.

Traverse vehicles stratified by track width envelope. Width determines corridor access and lateral stability margins on constrained passages.

Class Track Width Typical Axle Config Typical Mass Load Capacity Route Coverage
Standard >1,600 mm Single or tandem axle 2,200–3,800 kg 800–1,600 kg Primary routes, main corridors
Reduced 1,200–1,600 mm Single or tandem axle 1,400–2,200 kg 500–1,000 kg Primary + secondary routes, some narrow passages
Narrow 800–1,200 mm Single axle, tandem common 800–1,400 kg 300–700 kg Secondary routes, mountain passages, steep terrain
Ultra-narrow <800 mm Single axle <800 kg 150–400 kg Tertiary and service routes, minimal infrastructure

Ground clearance envelope determines obstacle engagement capability and technical segment viability. Measured minimum distance from substrate to lowest load-bearing point.

Class Ground Clearance Fully Accessible Routes Partial Access Routes Excluded Segments
Low <200 mm Routes 1, 4, 7 (paved/graded) Routes 2, 5 (bypass required) Route 3 (sections 2.1–2.7), Route 6 (boulder fields)
Standard 200–280 mm Routes 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 Route 3 (section 2.4–2.7 excluded), Route 6 (north segment excluded) Route 3 (canyon traverse, sections 2.8–3.2)
High 280–350 mm Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Route 3 (canyon section 3.1–3.2 marginal) None
Extended >350 mm Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 None None

Mechanical envelope and pivot geometry determine capability on broken terrain, angle transitions, and constraint passages.

Configuration Description Breakover Angle Tight Switchbacks (<6 m radius) Soft Substrate Performance Typical Use
Single-axle Unitary frame, single load-bearing point 28–35° Excellent (compact wheelbase) Excellent (low bearing load) Mountain passages, narrow routes
Tandem (rigid) Two axles, fixed frame geometry 18–24° Moderate (increased wheelbase constraint) Moderate (distributed load) Primary routes, load distribution
Tandem (articulated) Two axles, central articulation joint 22–30° Good (active pivot geometry) Good (adaptive load distribution) Technical terrain, variable substrates
Multi-unit (towed) Primary unit + single or multi-axle trailer 16–22° Poor (jackknife risk, longer turning radius) Fair (load distribution, but towing geometry limits substrate engagement) High-capacity runs, prepared corridors only

Comprehensive assessment of vehicle class combinations against documented traverse routes. Rows represent width and clearance class combinations; columns represent established routes. Assessment codes: "Full" = complete route traversable; "Partial" = segments excluded, bypass required; "Not Feasible" = insufficient capability envelope.

Vehicle Class (Width / Clearance) Route 1 (Primary North) Route 2 (Eastern Ridge) Route 3 (Canyon Transit) Route 4 (Plateau Loop) Route 5 (Southern Spur) Route 6 (Boulder Field)
Standard / Low Full Partial (low-clearance bypass) Not Feasible Full Partial (graded section only) Not Feasible
Standard / Standard Full Full Partial (sections 2.8–3.2 excluded) Full Full Partial (north access only)
Standard / High Full Full Full Full Full Full
Standard / Extended Full Full Full Full Full Full
Reduced / Low Full Partial (low-clearance bypass) Not Feasible Full Partial (graded section only) Not Feasible
Reduced / Standard Full Full Partial (sections 2.8–3.2 excluded) Full Full Partial (north access only)
Reduced / High Full Full Full Full Full Full
Reduced / Extended Full Full Full Full Full Full
Narrow / Low Full Partial (low-clearance bypass) Not Feasible Full Full Not Feasible
Narrow / Standard Full Full Partial (sections 2.8–3.2 excluded) Full Full Partial (north access only)
Narrow / High Full Full Full Full Full Full
Narrow / Extended Full Full Full Full Full Full
Ultra-narrow / Standard Full Full Full Full Full Partial (technical sections)
Ultra-narrow / High Full Full Full Full Full Full
Ultra-narrow / Extended Full Full Full Full Full Full

Vehicle mass directly determines viability on compressible substrates. Bearing pressure — mass divided by contact footprint area — limits traverse on soft surfaces where substrate compression creates impassable conditions or platform immobilization.

Substrate-Bearing Relationship

Vehicle Mass Class Typical Mass Range Bearing Pressure (kg/cm²) Optimal Substrates Marginal Substrates Prohibited Substrates
Ultra-light <500 kg 0.08–0.12 Peaty, wet sand, silt, fine silt Clay (wet), decomposed rock None (within normal environments)
Light 500–1,000 kg 0.12–0.25 Sand, gravel, sand/silt mix, hard-packed clay Peaty substrate, clay (wet) Saturated silt, deep peat
Medium 1,000–1,800 kg 0.25–0.45 Gravel, hard-packed clay, sand with stone Sand, silt, clay (damp) Saturated clay, peaty substrate, deep sand
Heavy 1,800–3,000 kg 0.45–0.75 Stone, bedrock, gravel (well-compacted) Hard clay, sand/gravel composite Saturated soils, peat, fine sand, deformable substrates
Very Heavy >3,000 kg >0.75 Bedrock, engineered surfaces Stone, gravel (must be large-grain) Most natural substrates; primary/secondary routes only

Implications for Route Selection

Light platforms (<1,000 kg) access tertiary routes and soft substrates where heavier platforms immobilize. Ultra-light platforms (<500 kg) traverse saturated peaty terrain and deep silt impassable to standard platforms. Conversely, heavy platforms restrict themselves to prepared routes and engineered substrates. Route 6 (Boulder Field) and Route 3 canyon sections provide case studies: platforms <800 kg achieve full clearance efficiency; platforms >2,000 kg require alternate corridors or staged operations.

See Surface Classification Reference for substrate descriptions and bearing-capacity tables by region.

This classification system is derived from platforms observed in service on documented routes. Route accessibility has been verified by direct traverse where indicated. All specifications represent field-observed envelope constraints and measured capability parameters. No judgment regarding operational preference or efficiency is implied by this classification.