Why the 2008 1,000cc UTV Limit Still Affects Riders, Racing and California Law

In 2008, the UTV industry drew a line at 1,000cc.

At the time, it seemed like a straightforward way to define a new category of off-highway vehicle. The Yamaha Rhino, Polaris RANGER and RZR, Arctic Cat Prowler and Kawasaki TERYX all fit comfortably below the limit. No manufacturer was selling anything remotely comparable to today’s 225-horsepower Polaris RZR Pro R, 235-horsepower Segway Super Villain or 275-horsepower RZR Pro R Boost.

Nearly two decades later, however, that 1,000cc UTV limit continues to influence vehicle standards, manufacturer decisions, California helmet laws and the structure of UTV racing.

It is why the 1,997cc Polaris RZR Pro R and 2.0-liter Segway Super Villain are not legally considered recreational off-highway vehicles under California’s definition. It is one reason the Pro R required Open racing classes, and it helps explain why turbocharged 2.0-liter machines such as the RZR Pro R Boost and Super Villain require racing organizations to reconsider class eligibility again.

A definition created for the UTV market of 2008 is still shaping what happens at Glamis, Johnson Valley, Oceano Dunes, the Baja 1000, King of the Hammers and other major riding and racing destinations today.

Where the 1,000cc UTV Limit Came From

The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association, better known as ROHVA, was formed to promote the safe and responsible use of what the organization called recreational off-highway vehicles, or ROVs.

On November 10, 2008, ROHVA announced that it had received accreditation from the American National Standards Institute to develop a voluntary standard covering the equipment, configuration and performance of the emerging vehicle category.

ROHVA defined a recreational off-highway vehicle as a motorized off-highway vehicle with several identifying characteristics:

• Four or more non-highway tires
• A steering wheel
• Non-straddle seating
• Seatbelts
• An occupant protective structure
• An engine displacement of no more than 1,000cc

You can read the complete contemporary announcement in our historical archive: ROHVA’s 2008 UTV safety rules and 1,000cc definition.

Calling this a “1,000cc UTV limit” is convenient shorthand. It was not a blanket federal law prohibiting manufacturers from building larger side-by-sides. It was an industry definition establishing which gasoline-powered vehicles would fall within the ROV category and its voluntary standards.

That distinction became increasingly important as the definition spread beyond its original purpose.

Which Manufacturers Were Involved in 2008?

The surviving version of ROHVA’s original announcement identifies Arctic Cat, BRP, Polaris and Yamaha as the association’s sponsors in 2008.

Other major manufacturers became involved as the category expanded. Kawasaki was identified as a ROHVA sponsor by 2011. John Deere joined in 2012 after introducing the performance-oriented Gator RSX850i, and Honda joined in 2013 as it expanded its modern side-by-side lineup with the Pioneer.

The initial 1,000cc definition therefore did not represent every UTV manufacturer that would eventually enter the market. It originated with a relatively small group trying to establish standards for a rapidly developing category.

The definition nevertheless became highly influential because ROHVA was not simply creating marketing terminology. As an ANSI-accredited organization, it was developing an industry standard that manufacturers, regulators, legislators and safety organizations could reference.

Why 1,000cc Made Sense in 2008

The limit was not particularly restrictive when it was introduced.

The vehicles defining the recreational side-by-side market were considerably smaller and less powerful than today’s machines. The Yamaha Rhino 660 and 700 helped establish the recreational UTV category. The first Polaris RZR used a 760cc twin-cylinder engine. The original Kawasaki TERYX was powered by a 749cc V-twin, while the Arctic Cat Prowler also remained well below 1,000cc.

These machines were faster and more recreationally capable than earlier work-focused utility vehicles, but their performance was still modest by current standards.

The history of the Yamaha Rhino shows how that vehicle redefined what a side-by-side could be. The history of the Polaris RZR follows the next step, when the category moved toward lower seating positions, higher speeds and dedicated sport performance. The history of the Kawasaki TERYX and TERYX4 documents another important platform from this formative period.

Our broader look at UTV history in 2008 shows how quickly new vehicles, aftermarket companies and racing programs were developing around the emerging category.

Few people establishing standards in 2008 could have anticipated production side-by-sides with 30 inches of suspension travel, sophisticated active suspension, factory turbochargers, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engines and more horsepower than many passenger cars.

How an Industry Definition Became Much More

ROHVA completed the first ANSI/ROHVA voluntary vehicle standard in 2010. Updated versions followed as the market evolved, addressing vehicle controls, braking performance, stability, rollover protective structures, occupant-retention systems, handholds, labels and owner’s manuals.

The standard has been revised substantially since 2010, but ROHVA continues to describe gasoline-powered ROVs as having an engine displacement up to 1,000cc.

ROHVA also developed model state legislation that governments could use when creating laws for the emerging vehicle category. That model language included the same basic displacement boundary.

Racing organizations built their own UTV classes around the production market, which meant 1,000cc also became the accepted engine limit for many forms of UTV competition.

The result was a powerful feedback loop:

• The industry defined ROVs around a 1,000cc maximum.
• Manufacturers developed vehicles to fit the recognized category.
• Government agencies used the definition when writing laws.
• Racing organizations created classes around the same limit.
• Manufacturers continued developing engines that fit those standards and racing classes.

What began as a way to describe the market became one of the boundaries shaping the market.

California Put the 1,000cc ROV Definition Into Law

The most visible legal consequence is found in California.

ROHVA sponsored California Assembly Bill 1595, which was signed into law in 2012 and took effect on January 1, 2013. The legislation created a separate class of off-highway vehicle called a recreational off-highway vehicle.

Kawasaki publicly confirmed in 2012 that it and the other ROHVA manufacturers supported AB 1595, a position documented in our contemporary report on Kawasaki’s participation in the California legislation.

California Vehicle Code Section 500 defines an ROV as a vehicle meeting all of the following criteria:

• Designed primarily for off-highway operation
• Steered with a steering wheel
• Equipped with manufacturer-provided non-straddle seating
• Capable of more than 30 mph
• Powered by an engine no larger than 1,000cc

Additional sections of the California Vehicle Code established requirements specifically for vehicles meeting that definition.

On public lands, California’s ROV provisions generally require:

• A DOT-compliant helmet for the operator and every passenger
• A properly fastened seatbelt, shoulder belt or safety harness
• Passengers to use seating positions designed by the manufacturer on 2014-and-newer vehicles
• An operator to be at least 16 or directly supervised in the vehicle by an authorized adult
• Passengers to meet the state’s seating, restraint and handhold requirements

These are commonly described as California UTV helmet and passenger laws, but the statutory language applies specifically to vehicles meeting the state’s definition of an ROV.

UTVGuide.net covered the implementation of that law when it took effect in our 2013 article about the new California side-by-side helmet requirements.

Why the RZR Pro R Is Not an ROV in California

The Polaris RZR Pro R looks like a UTV. Polaris markets it as a side-by-side. It has a steering wheel, side-by-side seating, a roll cage, harnesses and the same RZR name used by smaller Polaris sport UTVs.

But its 1,997cc four-cylinder engine places it outside California’s legal ROV definition.

After the Pro R reached the market, the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of California State Parks issued guidance for land managers and law-enforcement personnel. The agency explained that the Pro R is not an ROV under California Vehicle Code Section 500 and is not subject to enforcement under the ROV-specific provisions beginning with Section 38600.

California instead classified the Pro R as a sand car for this purpose.

That means the ROV-specific California laws governing helmets, seatbelts, handholds and manufacturer-provided seating do not apply to the Pro R in the same way they apply to a 1,000cc RZR.

This does not mean a Pro R is exempt from every California off-highway vehicle law. Registration, identification, lighting, safe-operation and other generally applicable OHV requirements remain relevant.

It also does not mean riding without a helmet or restraint is a good idea. California State Parks strongly recommends using the safety equipment installed in the vehicle. A helmet and properly secured harness can reduce the risk of head impact, ejection and contact with the cage or other parts of the vehicle during a crash.

Does a RZR Pro R Require a Helmet at Glamis?

California Vehicle Code Section 38601 requires helmets for operators and passengers in vehicles legally classified as ROVs on public lands. The Bureau of Land Management includes that requirement in the published rules for the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, commonly known as Glamis.

However, California State Parks determined that the 1,997cc Pro R does not meet the state’s definition of an ROV. The ROV-specific helmet requirement therefore does not apply to the Pro R based on that classification.

The distinction can be confusing because a Pro R and a smaller RZR may be parked next to each other at Glamis while being treated differently under the same section of California law.

The smaller RZR meets the ROV definition and its occupants must wear helmets on public land. The visually similar Pro R exceeds the displacement ceiling and falls outside that specific requirement.

The same statutory distinction can follow riders to other California public riding areas, including Johnson Valley, Oceano Dunes, Ocotillo Wells and Dumont Dunes. Riders should still check current rules for the specific property, event and managing agency because special-use permits or location-specific regulations can impose additional requirements.

The Segway Super Villain Proves This Is Not Just a Polaris Issue

The Segway Super Villain SX20T makes the consequences of the old definition much broader than a discussion about Polaris.

Segway’s production Super Villain uses a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine producing 235 horsepower. It is paired with a multi-speed automatic transmission rather than the continuously variable transmission used by most high-performance side-by-sides.

In ordinary industry language, the Super Villain is unquestionably presented as a sport UTV or side-by-side. It has the seating position, occupant structure, suspension layout and intended use associated with the modern high-performance UTV market.

But its engine is approximately twice the size allowed by the traditional ROV definition. In California, its displacement also places it outside the specific definition in Vehicle Code Section 500, just as displacement excludes the RZR Pro R.

California State Parks issued a model-specific bulletin addressing the Polaris Pro R. We have not found an equivalent public bulletin specifically classifying the Segway Super Villain. The statutory displacement issue, however, is the same: a 2.0-liter engine exceeds California’s 1,000cc ceiling.

The Super Villain is especially significant because it combines more than 1,000cc with forced induction. That creates a racing-class problem similar to the one presented by the RZR Pro R Boost, but the Segway is not currently competing against the Polaris RZR Pro R Factory at the highest level of Best in the Desert or American Off-Road Racing Championship competition.

The RANGER XD 1500 Raises the Same Question for Utility UTVs

The Polaris RANGER XD 1500 demonstrates that the issue is not limited to high-performance sport UTVs.

Its 1,498cc three-cylinder engine also exceeds California’s 1,000cc ROV ceiling. Polaris and its customers commonly describe the XD 1500 as an extreme-duty utility UTV, but common industry terminology does not override the displacement requirement written into California Vehicle Code Section 500.

California State Parks issued a model-specific information bulletin addressing the Pro R. We have not found an equivalent public bulletin specifically addressing the RANGER XD 1500. However, the XD 1500 plainly exceeds the engine-displacement ceiling used in the statute.

The RANGER creates an additional layer of confusion because it is more likely to be used for farming, ranching, hunting, property maintenance and commercial work. Depending on how and where it is operated, occupational, private-property or agency requirements may apply even when the vehicle falls outside California’s ROV-specific helmet statute.

The XD 1500’s large engine is not simply a marketing exercise. Our Polaris RANGER XD 1500 engine guide explains how the 1,498cc three-cylinder was developed around torque, towing, cooling, serviceability and the demands of the STEELDRIVE transmission.

Current UTVs Outside the 1,000cc Definition

Four current or announced mainstream side-by-side platforms now demonstrate how far the market has moved beyond the original ROV boundary:

These vehicles are important because consumers, manufacturers, dealers and racing organizations clearly treat them as part of the modern UTV or side-by-side market. Yet their engine displacement places them outside the ROV definition that helped establish the category.

Why This Is Confusing for Riders and Law Enforcement

The average rider does not separate the terms UTV, side-by-side and ROV with legal precision. Manufacturers and dealers also use UTV and side-by-side broadly to describe vehicles with steering wheels, roll cages and adjacent seating.

California law uses a narrower definition.

That creates situations in which two nearly identical-looking vehicles are governed differently because one has a 999cc engine and the other has a 1,498cc, 1,997cc or 2.0-liter engine.

Law-enforcement officers cannot always identify engine displacement from a distance. A modified Pro R may look similar to other long-travel RZR models, while identifying a RANGER XP 1000 and RANGER XD 1500 may require familiarity with the specific platforms. The Segway Super Villain adds another visually recognizable UTV-style vehicle that does not fit California’s ROV displacement definition.

California State Parks anticipated this problem when it addressed the Pro R. Officials acknowledged that officers would likely contact Pro R drivers because the machine so closely resembles other RZR models.

Riders can reduce confusion by carrying current registration documents, understanding how their vehicle is classified and remaining cooperative if an officer needs to verify the model.

California Tried to Remove the 1,000cc Limit

The arrival of the Pro R exposed the gap between the legal definition and the modern side-by-side market.

California Assembly Bill 1617 was introduced in 2023 to remove the engine-displacement provision from Vehicle Code Section 500. Had it passed, vehicles meeting the other requirements could have been classified as ROVs regardless of engine size.

That change would have extended the state’s ROV operator, helmet, restraint, passenger and handhold provisions to qualifying vehicles over 1,000cc.

AB 1617 did not pass. It was filed as a failed bill in February 2024, leaving the 1,000cc limit in California law.

The failed legislation is significant because it shows that policymakers recognized the classification problem after the Pro R entered the market. Nevertheless, the boundary created around the UTV market of 2008 remains in effect.

Do Other States Have the Same UTV Helmet Exception?

Riders should not assume California’s over-1,000cc result applies in another state.

UTV helmet laws vary widely by state. Some states base their requirements on operator age. Others distinguish between public land, designated trails and public roads. Definitions may use vehicle width, weight, engine displacement, maximum speed or the manufacturer’s intended use.

Some jurisdictions use separate definitions for recreational off-highway vehicles and utility task vehicles. Others group side-by-sides with ATVs or use a broader OHV category that does not depend on the ROHVA definition.

Utah, for example, says helmets are not legally required for occupants of Type II ATVs, including side-by-sides, regardless of age, although the state recommends appropriate safety equipment. Nevada’s requirements can change depending on whether a UTV is operated strictly off-highway or on a road or trail open to street-legal vehicles.

California is the clearest example of the 1,000cc definition directly creating an exception to ROV-specific helmet requirements. Riders traveling between states should check current statutes and land-manager rules rather than relying on the classification used at home.

The 1,000cc Limit Also Shaped UTV Racing

Long before the Pro R arrived, organized UTV racing was largely based around production engines no larger than 1,000cc.

That reflected the vehicles manufacturers were selling and the established industry definition. Naturally aspirated and forced-induction classes developed over time, but the 1,000cc ceiling remained a central part of the formula.

Manufacturers built their racing programs accordingly. Can-Am developed the turbocharged Maverick X3 and later the Maverick R while keeping displacement below 1,000cc. The Maverick R produces 240 horsepower from a 999cc turbocharged three-cylinder engine.

Kawasaki followed the same displacement boundary with the TERYX H2, using a 999cc supercharged four-cylinder engine producing a claimed 250 horsepower.

Those machines demonstrate how much performance manufacturers can produce while remaining within the traditional UTV engine limit.

The RZR Pro R Forced Racing Organizations to Adapt

The naturally aspirated Pro R did not fit traditional 1,000cc racing rules. Polaris therefore worked with major sanctioning organizations to establish where the 1,997cc platform could compete.

SCORE International’s Pro UTV Open class became the most visible example. The class allows production-appearing UTVs with eligibility approved by SCORE officials and does not currently impose a displacement limit.

Best in the Desert and the American Off-Road Racing Championship also developed a premier UTV Pro formula allowing engines up to 2,000cc naturally aspirated while generally limiting turbocharged engines to 1,000cc.

The new structure gave Pro R owners a legitimate place to race without placing them directly into the established 1,000cc naturally aspirated or turbo categories.

The impact was immediate.

Branden Sims won the 2022 SCORE Baja 1000 Pro UTV Open class in a race-modified Pro R and finished as the UTV overall winner. Polaris launched its purpose-built RZR Pro R Factory program for 2023 and quickly became the dominant force in SCORE Pro UTV Open.

Our history of Polaris RZR Factory Racing follows the development of that program and its success in Baja and other major events.

The RZR Pro R Factory also competes at the highest level of Best in the Desert and American Off-Road Racing Championship UTV competition. At the 2026 Vegas to Reno, Brock Heger drove the RZR Pro R Factory to the UTV Pro and UTV overall victory while finishing seventh among all four-wheel vehicles.

Why the “UTV Overall” Winner Creates Debate

Creating an Open or UTV Pro class addressed eligibility, but it did not settle every competitive question.

Desert races frequently recognize winners in several UTV divisions. Those can include forced-induction, naturally aspirated, stock, sportsman and Open categories. Each class has its own rules and legitimate winner.

Race coverage and manufacturer announcements also place the finishing times from different UTV classes together to identify an overall UTV winner.

That is where the debate becomes more complicated.

A manufacturer such as Can-Am may engineer a 999cc race vehicle around the traditional limit, win its forced-induction class and still finish behind a purpose-built 2.0-liter Pro R in the combined UTV results. The Open or UTV Pro-class Polaris then receives the more prominent UTV overall distinction.

There is nothing unusual about comparing overall times across classes in off-road racing. SCORE and other organizations have long recognized overall finishers across vehicles built to different class rules.

But the UTV comparison carries additional baggage because the larger-displacement vehicles fall outside the definition that originally established the category. Separate classes acknowledge that the machines are different, while the overall result places them back into a single UTV competition.

That has created frustration among competitors and manufacturers that continued developing around the 1,000cc formula. From their perspective, the most visible UTV distinction may be won by a machine operating under substantially different displacement rules.

From Polaris’ perspective, the Pro R is a production side-by-side and belongs in UTV competition. The company developed a vehicle that pushed beyond the traditional boundary and worked with sanctioning organizations to create appropriate eligibility.

Both positions illustrate the same underlying problem: the term UTV is now much broader in everyday use than the technical category defined in 2008.

Where the Segway Super Villain Currently Races

The Segway Super Villain may have a turbocharged 2.0-liter engine, but it is not currently racing head-to-head with the Polaris RZR Factory Racing team in the premier Best in the Desert or American Off-Road Racing Championship UTV Pro category.

The naturally aspirated RZR Pro R qualifies for UTV Pro because that class allows engines up to 2,000cc naturally aspirated. Turbocharged engines are generally limited to 1,000cc, which prevents the 2.0-liter turbo Super Villain from qualifying under the standard UTV Pro formula.

Segway’s first major desert race was the 2025 Best in the Desert Silver State 300, where the Super Villain competed in the Super 10 class. Jacob Zuccone and Samantha Rode finished the race and earned the class victory, but the Super Villain was the only entry in Super 10. It finished behind the leading UTVs on elapsed time and was not competing directly against the premier Pro R race vehicles for the UTV Pro win.

The Super Villain later completed the 2025 Vegas to Reno and moved into the UTV Pro Stock Modified class for the 2026 Mint 400, where it earned a third-place class finish.

Current Pro Stock Modified rules make a specific exception for the Super Villain as the only approved 2.0-liter turbocharged vehicle. Its stock turbo engine must remain unmodified, the vehicle must meet a 3,500-pound minimum weight with occupants, and officials reserve the right to require a restrictor plate.

Those restrictions make the Super Villain program different from Polaris RZR Factory Racing. The purpose-built RZR Pro R Factory competes in the premier UTV Pro category and is capable of winning the combined UTV overall. Segway is currently using a more restricted, production-based class to develop and demonstrate the Super Villain rather than racing directly against the Polaris factory team.

The Super Villain still matters to the larger 1,000cc discussion because it proves another manufacturer is selling a mainstream 2.0-liter turbocharged sport side-by-side. Its racing treatment also demonstrates how difficult these vehicles are to place: instead of being admitted directly into the premier UTV category, the Segway required a special class or model-specific exception.

Should the Super Villain Race Against the Pro R Boost?

From an engine-configuration standpoint, the Segway Super Villain SX20T is the closest current production competitor to the Polaris RZR Pro R Boost.

Both use turbocharged four-cylinder engines of approximately 2.0 liters, placing them outside the traditional formula of up to 2,000cc naturally aspirated or 1,000cc forced induction.

That makes the two vehicles a more natural technical match than either one is for the 999cc turbocharged Can-Am Maverick R or 999cc supercharged Kawasaki TERYX H2.

They are not currently competing in the same major desert-racing class, however. The Super Villain has raced under restricted, production-based eligibility, including a stock-engine requirement, a 3,500-pound minimum weight and the possibility of a restrictor plate.

Polaris has worked with several racing organizations to establish a path for the RZR Pro R Boost, but its eligibility has not been finalized across every major series. Its turbocharged 2.0-liter engine does not fit neatly into classes developed for either 1,000cc turbo UTVs or naturally aspirated machines such as the original Pro R.

There is an important distinction within King of the Hammers. The announced B2 Desert classification applies to the KOH Desert Challenge; it does not automatically make the Pro R Boost eligible for the separate Ultra4 Racing UTV Hammers Championship. That race combines high-speed desert terrain with technical rock crawling, and Ultra4 had not determined where the Pro R Boost would compete as of publication.

Best in the Desert faces a similar decision. The naturally aspirated 1,997cc Pro R can compete under rules written for larger-displacement, non-turbo UTVs, while the established turbo classes have traditionally been based around engines near the 1,000cc limit. By combining a nearly 2.0-liter engine with turbocharging, the Pro R Boost falls outside both familiar formulas.

That leaves racing organizations with several options: expand an existing class, establish a separate class or place the Pro R Boost into a broader open or unlimited category. The decision will affect more than where the vehicle lines up. It may also influence manufacturer participation, competitive balance and whether Pro R Boost results are included when promoters recognize an overall UTV winner.

The future American Off-Road Racing Championship rules will be particularly important. A broadly written 2.0-liter turbo UTV class could give the Super Villain and Pro R Boost a logical place to compete directly.

Rules would still need to address their 40-horsepower difference, vehicle weight, transmission design, engine modifications, boost levels and whether purpose-built race vehicles are allowed to compete against production-based machines.

A class structured specifically around the Pro R Boost could instead keep the two vehicles separated even though they share the same basic engine formula.

This is another consequence of moving beyond the old 1,000cc boundary. The industry now has two production 2.0-liter turbo side-by-sides, but racing organizations have not yet settled on one common class in which they can compete.

The Super Villain and Pro R Boost Create Different Racing Problems

The Super Villain and Pro R Boost illustrate two different ways sanctioning organizations can respond when a new vehicle does not fit existing rules.

Segway entered racing with a production-based vehicle and developing factory program. The Super Villain received restricted or model-specific eligibility that allowed Segway to test the platform without immediately placing it against the leading purpose-built UTV race vehicles.

Polaris entered the discussion from a much stronger racing position. The naturally aspirated RZR Pro R Factory had already won SCORE championships, Baja races, Dakar SSV victories and major UTV overall titles. Polaris then worked proactively with sanctioning organizations to establish dedicated classes for the more powerful Pro R Boost.

The difference is important. Segway is currently racing the production-based Super Villain under special restrictions below the premier UTV Pro level. Polaris is establishing another top-level competition path for the Pro R Boost while continuing to race the naturally aspirated Pro R Factory in UTV Pro and SCORE Pro UTV Open.

Both vehicles demonstrate that the market has moved beyond the old 1,000cc turbo formula, but they are not yet direct competitors in the same leading desert-racing class.

A 2008 Definition Still Shapes the Market

The most remarkable part of this story is not that the UTV industry changed. Rapid innovation is expected in a competitive powersports market.

What is remarkable is how much influence the original definition still carries.

The 1,000cc line has affected:

• Which vehicles fit the ANSI/ROHVA standard
• How manufacturers planned engines and vehicle platforms
• How California defined an ROV
• Which California vehicles are covered by ROV-specific helmet and restraint laws
• How officers identify and enforce rules at public riding areas
• How UTV racing classes were originally structured
• Where the RZR Pro R was allowed to compete
• How UTV overall victories are perceived
• Where the Segway Super Villain fits in desert racing
• Why the RZR Pro R Boost now requires additional racing categories
• Whether future 2.0-liter turbo UTVs will compete together or in manufacturer-specific classes

The market has stretched the term UTV far beyond the vehicles ROHVA was describing in 2008. A 760cc RZR 800, a 1,498cc climate-controlled RANGER, a 2.0-liter Segway Super Villain and a 275-horsepower turbocharged Pro R Boost may all be called UTVs or side-by-sides in ordinary conversation, but they do not necessarily belong to the same technical, legal or competitive category.

Manufacturers can build beyond the original definition. Racing organizations can change their rulebooks. Legislatures can revise statutes. But each change requires someone to reconsider a boundary that has already been incorporated into standards, laws and competition.

California attempted to remove its displacement limit and failed. Racing organizations have repeatedly created new classes instead of abandoning the old formula. Manufacturers such as Can-Am and Kawasaki continue demonstrating what can be achieved within 999cc, while Polaris and Segway have pushed decisively beyond it.

In 2008, the industry drew a line at 1,000cc to define an emerging vehicle category. Almost 20 years later, riders, manufacturers, racers, lawmakers and law-enforcement officers are still dealing with the consequences.

Follow our UTV industry news and analysis for more coverage of the decisions, technology and regulations shaping the side-by-side market.