# Running 16 inch on 200T



## Slvrmple72 (Jun 21, 2011)

Anybody else running 16 inch bar on 200T? All the guys around here stay at 14".


----------



## tree md (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm running 14" on mine but I have seen many use a 16". I have a 16" on my 260 and use it once I get into bigger wood.


----------



## tomtrees58 (Jun 21, 2011)

I RUN 16 ON them


----------



## Grouchy old man (Jun 21, 2011)

16 on mine too.


----------



## Scrat (Jun 21, 2011)

Slvrmple72 said:


> Anybody else running 16 inch bar on 200T? All the guys around here stay at 14".


 
I have used a buddies with a 16" and it cuts great, I just added a 200T to my arsenal a week ago and had it set up with a 16" bar from the dealer. I just used yesterday to chunk down a red oak till I ran out of bar length and it did fine. Of course this saw isn't even broken in yet, they seem to wake up after 5-10 tanks, so I am optimistic it will get even better. I guess it really depends on your needs. I have always used Husky's as my top handle saw and wanted a non biased opinion of which is better, a very over debated issue, so I got the 200T to compare myself.


----------



## tree MDS (Jun 21, 2011)

I have 14" bars on my 200's. I've been meaning to switch up to 16" forever though. I'm hoping I can get a 16" composit bar (if they make one), balance it out some. It seems like the 14" never wants to finish the other side of the box from a nice safe cutting position, or something.. hard to put my finger on it, but it's just off.


----------



## tree md (Jun 21, 2011)

I thought about going to a 16 as well but usually by the time I get into wood that size I am chunking and would rather have a rear handle for that. Plus I like to have a little more power when I get into wood that size. Seems to make the job go faster.


----------



## tree MDS (Jun 21, 2011)

tree md said:


> I thought about going to a 16 as well but usually by the time I get into wood that size I am chunking and would rather have a rear handle for that. Plus I like to have a little more power when I get into wood that size. Seems to make the job go faster.


 
I'm more thinking about switching up because of proper cut positioning (getting your body away from the piece/cut), than having the length for bigger wood. I use my husky's for real wood.


----------



## tree md (Jun 21, 2011)

I have been tossing around the idea of getting a couple of husky saws. I've been looking at the husky 338T as I am planing on buying a new climbing saw pretty soon and wouldn't mind having a 346XP... Only thing is all of my saws are Stihl. I really don't think it would make a lot of sense to start buying huskies. Every climber that I have talked to who is using the 338 is raving about it though. Kinda has me curious.


----------



## Chud (Jun 21, 2011)

I have always used 16 on mine.


----------



## chad556 (Jun 21, 2011)

I have run both sizes. Regular 16 and 14 and also a 14" E-lite bar. I would say unless you work with smaller trees the 16" is the way to go. That extra 2" is surprisingly useful without being overly bulky or awkward. I always use the 16 now when I have a choice From my experience but never having run one I would say the the 16" E-lite would be ideal because the 16" is slightly nose heavy to me. Pricey though.


----------



## TreeAce (Jun 21, 2011)

16 on my 200Ts. I think its a good set up. I also keep a 260 with a 20 inch handy. I do kinda wish i had went with 18 inch on the 260 though. I also freely admit to using a 192 for trimming sometimes. Mostly when the 200T is str8 over kill. A 192 and a silky makes for some enjoyable trimming IMO.


----------



## TreEmergencyB (Jun 21, 2011)

12 on mine, chain speed is your friend. If i need more bar i need more saw, who wants to beat up there 600$ climbing saw cutting through dead oak thats 14" in diameter.


----------



## Blakesmaster (Jun 21, 2011)

TreEmergencyB said:


> 12 on mine, chain speed is your friend. If i need more bar i need more saw, who wants to beat up there 600$ climbing saw cutting through dead oak thats 14" in diameter.


 
I'd like to try a 12 inch bar on my 200 for ####s n' grins but I think the 14 is just fine and can't really see spending the money if there won't be a marked improvement in power. BTW, your bar length has almost nothing to do with your chain speed.


----------



## CNBTreeTrimming (Jun 21, 2011)

TreEmergencyB said:


> 12 on mine, chain speed is your friend. If i need more bar i need more saw, who wants to beat up there 600$ climbing saw cutting through dead oak thats 14" in diameter.


Yeah good way to over heat one and melt the side cover.don't ask how I figured that out but the 14" dead oak is exactly what did it.


----------



## ipkyss (Jun 21, 2011)

I use a 16 for crane work and pine trees. Its a little tip heavy. 14" for everything else, but I also have three 200's in the truck so no swapping the bars.


----------



## TreEmergencyB (Jun 21, 2011)

Blakesmaster said:


> I'd like to try a 12 inch bar on my 200 for ####s n' grins but I think the 14 is just fine and can't really see spending the money if there won't be a marked improvement in power. BTW, your bar length has almost nothing to do with your chain speed.


 
you dont think less distance to travel wont improve chain speed? Longer bar longer chain longer cycle, shorter bar means more revolutions of the chain to me that = faster cutting/chain speed

BTW: i bought mine with a 12" RIPS let me tell you i can notice the difference between mine and my co-workers with a 16 on it


----------



## Blakesmaster (Jun 22, 2011)

TreEmergencyB said:


> you dont think less distance to travel wont improve chain speed? Longer bar longer chain longer cycle, shorter bar means more revolutions of the chain to me that = faster cutting/chain speed
> 
> BTW: i bought mine with a 12" RIPS let me tell you i can notice the difference between mine and my co-workers with a 16 on it


 
The sprocket is still spinning the same speed regardless of the bar length. The advantage of a shorter bar is in the power because there is less friction and weight from the shorter chain.


----------



## imagineero (Jun 22, 2011)

12" on mine too. A lot of guys in Aus run 12" or 14" max, even 14" is kind of not that common. Nobody runs 16" over here. I don't know if it's the harder wood here, or the smaller penises stateside, but it just doesnt happen 

The 12" is more than enough to satisfy, and it gives you a bit more confidence in residential work to pop branches off where you need them to go. Some guys say that the 14 or 16 gives you a bit of extra reach, but to me that's just bad practice right there. You don't want to be out at the end of some awful limb, straining and reaching on a top handle saw with an extra long bar, everything hanging in the balance and using the part of the bar most prone to kickback. Rig properly, climb properly. Get yourself in a safe position and cut safe. Having that extra long bar will only tempt you to do things you know you shouldn't, to save an extra 30 seconds!

Same story with big wood. Over here a 200T is $1500, and we go through them at about the same rate you guys do. When it's getting to the point I cant get through barrel/limbs with a 12" bar, it's time to step it up a notch. My next size up rear handled saw has a 16" bar, and the next one up a 20". I want to have the smallest saw I can up in the tree, and in that sense it's kind of tempting to put a bigger bar on the 200t, but lets get real here... it's time for a bigger saw!

Shaun


----------



## Scrat (Jun 22, 2011)

tree md said:


> I have been tossing around the idea of getting a couple of husky saws. I've been looking at the husky 338T as I am planing on buying a new climbing saw pretty soon and wouldn't mind having a 346XP... Only thing is all of my saws are Stihl. I really don't think it would make a lot of sense to start buying huskies. Every climber that I have talked to who is using the 338 is raving about it though. Kinda has me curious.


 
Tree Md,
I run both Huskys and Stihl, I am not brand loyal rather tool loyal...the one that gets the job done best. I run a 334T which is the less expensive version of the 338XPT and have done a muffler mod. It has run flawlessly since 07. The 200T is brand new and really hasn't broken in yet to give a truely fair evaluation on power. I can comment that the ergonomics on the Husky are definately superior. As for the 346XP it is an awesome saw, I have not run a 260 so I can't comment other than if it is anything like my MS460 it is probably great. The new MS261CQ model is almost a pound and a half heavier (12.3lb/3.75hp)than the Husky 346XP (11.0lb/3.7hp) so you can get a Husky 357XP (12.1lb/4.4hp) and increase hp from 3.75 to 4.4 hp for the same weight. I believe both outfits make great saws which give you many options.


----------



## Treepedo (Jun 22, 2011)

I am running 16" with the micro chain all stihl brand. When cutting sugar maple it will tear a few of the teeth off.
Cuts really fast, but what i like is the extra reach and it will take me all the way to the big wood and then its 66o time.


----------



## Nailsbeats (Jun 22, 2011)

The 16" does give you more reach, easier to see the kerf (even in the small cuts) as it keeps the powerhead back a bit so you can see while you back cut up to your hinge.

Only real downside for me is the length as it hangs from my saddle (more chain to catch on boots, ropes, etc.). So I also run a 14 and 12 to go with my 16's. Like anything in this game, you might as well just have them all.


----------



## pdqdl (Jun 22, 2011)

I prefer a 16".

That boxy little saw doesn't have enough reach to use a 12" or 14" bar in the kind of trees we have in our area. The tiny sacrifice in power for the bigger bar is more than compensated by all the places you can cut off a branch from where you are (left side of saw), without needing to crawl around the tree just so you can cut from the right side of the saw.


----------



## chad556 (Jun 24, 2011)

pdqdl said:


> I prefer a 16".
> 
> That boxy little saw doesn't have enough reach to use a 12" or 14" bar in the kind of trees we have in our area. The tiny sacrifice in power for the bigger bar is more than compensated by all the places you can cut off a branch from where you are (left side of saw), without needing to crawl around the tree just so you can cut from the right side of the saw.


 
Well put. That is exactly why I almost always have my 16" on. I have always thought of a 16" bar as small. Anything smaller and I would probably rather just use my silky :msp_smile:


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Jun 24, 2011)

14" here. I have 12" and 16" though, as my ht131 runs the same bars and chains. Just haven't really got around to trying a 16 yet because I'm always grabing the 260 with an 18" by then.
With a sharp chain I can bury that 14" in any wood and never have to worry about overheating, so I'm not motivated to push the limits on my only 200t at this time.


----------



## limbwalker54 (Jun 24, 2011)

When I max out the 16 on the 200T......I grab the old 036 with the 20 inch bar......

Love using a 16 on the 200T because I don't have to switch to a heavier saw until much later....saves the ol' back a little.


----------



## tree MDS (Jun 25, 2011)

pdqdl said:


> I prefer a 16".
> 
> That boxy little saw doesn't have enough reach to use a 12" or 14" bar in the kind of trees we have in our area. The tiny sacrifice in power for the bigger bar is more than compensated by all the places you can cut off a branch from where you are (left side of saw), without needing to crawl around the tree just so you can cut from the right side of the saw.



Yep. I learned with the 020's running 16's. I guess I never really adjusted to the 14" bars, even though its been years now sinse I ran a 16 on a topper. Seems like there's never enough reach for where I wanna be. I find myself having to re-adjust my position just that little bit, in order to get the far side of the box cut out, all too often. 

Next trip to the supply store I'm getting one.


----------



## MISteve (Dec 31, 2011)

Interesting thread. Right now I have just one climbing saw. I got a used Solo 633. Good running saw, and the price was right. It has a 16 inch bar. Will going to a 14 or even a 12 inch bar make the saw noticeably lighter? The saw is only 8 lbs, do not think they get much less than that.


----------



## Blakesmaster (Dec 31, 2011)

MISteve said:


> Interesting thread. Right now I have just one climbing saw. I got a used Solo 633. Good running saw, and the price was right. It has a 16 inch bar. Will going to a 14 or even a 12 inch bar make the saw noticeably lighter? The saw is only 8 lbs, do not think they get much less than that.



You won't notice much if any weight difference with a shorter bar. The main reason guys run shorter bars is power improvement.


----------



## MISteve (Dec 31, 2011)

This saw has plenty of power. It seems on the few times that I use all or most of the bar I could just as easily rope up a bigger saw. Maybe I will try a shorter bar. Is 12 too short?


----------



## Blakesmaster (Dec 31, 2011)

MISteve said:


> This saw has plenty of power. It seems on the few times that I use all or most of the bar I could just as easily rope up a bigger saw. Maybe I will try a shorter bar. Is 12 too short?



I can't say for sure having never run your saw. If you want my honest opinion, I wouldn't put any more money into it as there are better saw options out there. Save those pennies for a 201T or the new Husky coming out.


----------



## MISteve (Dec 31, 2011)

No doubt a new b/c combo is a good chunk of a new saw, good advice there. I doubt I will be buying the Stihl, too much money. I have no experience with their tree saws, but their other products are way over priced.


----------



## formationrx (Jan 2, 2012)

*14 ? 16?*

i run 14s on 200s and use a bigger saws for bigger wood


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 3, 2012)

Somebody woke up this old thread, so I'll say it again: put a 16 on that 200, and you won't look back. Power and weight won't really change with a two inch longer bar. Reach will!

Even if you don't need to cut big wood with that 16" bar, it will still enable you to cut small branches _to the left_, close to a big trunk. Without the longer bar, the boxy little engine gets in the way when you are cutting to the left, and you end up crawling around the trunk to make your cut on the right side of the engine. What a waste of time. 

Most dealers will give you either bar when you buy the saw. If you had just asked at the time of the sale...


----------



## formationrx (Jan 3, 2012)

*reply*

if you want to run a 16 and you feel comfortable with that-- thats great. for me, i dont want the longer bar. i dont want to increase the risk of being nicked by it. i want to move through the trees with ease and less bulk-- not more. the 14 works fine. for bigger wood i call for the 280 wood boss to be sent up. that saw cuts much faster and and never bogs. as for reach i dont--thats what the pole saw/clip is for. i never make a cut until i m in the proper position and i can make all my cuts proper without exertion. i also dont want to cut tiny suckers and limbs with a long ass bar. i simply prefer the control i have with the 14.


----------



## superjunior (Jan 3, 2012)

TreeAce said:


> 16 on my 200Ts. I think its a good set up. I also keep a 260 with a 20 inch handy. I do kinda wish i had went with 18 inch on the 260 though. I also freely admit to using a 192 for trimming sometimes. Mostly when the 200T is str8 over kill. A 192 and a silky makes for some enjoyable trimming IMO.



same here, same saws - although I'm happy with the 20 inch on the 026pro, I think its a perfect match. +1 on the silky and 192 for lite trimming


----------



## superjunior (Jan 3, 2012)

tree md said:


> I have been tossing around the idea of getting a couple of husky saws. I've been looking at the husky 338T as I am planing on buying a new climbing saw pretty soon and wouldn't mind having a 346XP... Only thing is all of my saws are Stihl. I really don't think it would make a lot of sense to start buying huskies. Every climber that I have talked to who is using the 338 is raving about it though. Kinda has me curious.



I'm curious too. My stihl dealer has been getting some husky saws in and should have their top handle saws in next week. I've been nursing my old girls and I'm due for a new climbing saw but I refuse to buy another stihl unless they change the caps. I picked up a couple commercial huskys that were comparable to the 460 and 660 and they just looked and felt so "home depot" - chain brakes, everything just reminded me of homelite.. I also checked out the 201 and nothing about that saw impressed me.


----------



## dts99 (Jan 3, 2012)

tree md said:


> I have been tossing around the idea of getting a couple of husky saws. I've been looking at the husky 338T as I am planing on buying a new climbing saw pretty soon and wouldn't mind having a 346XP... Only thing is all of my saws are Stihl. I really don't think it would make a lot of sense to start buying huskies. Every climber that I have talked to who is using the 338 is raving about it though. Kinda has me curious.



i run all stihl exept a 346xp, its slimmer than 260 better for climbing i think


----------



## Koa Man (Jan 4, 2012)

I run 16s on all my 200s. 14 on the one 192 I have.
Four of these just rebuilt by dealer at $200 a piece.
They run like new now and sure a lot cheaper than buying a new one,
although one of them is brand new and hasn't even been started by me yet.


----------



## TimberMcPherson (Jan 4, 2012)

I like 12's for general work, cuts fast, sharpens quick and give minimum resistance while pushing through the canopy. But have a 16 on our "dismantle" MS200.


----------



## k5alive (Jan 4, 2012)

I run 16'', keep it sharp with a good bar and you can rip through just about anything growing around here.


----------



## lone wolf (Jan 4, 2012)

Blakesmaster said:


> The sprocket is still spinning the same speed regardless of the bar length. The advantage of a shorter bar is in the power because there is less friction and weight from the shorter chain.



But the chain aint!


----------



## Blakesmaster (Jan 4, 2012)

lone wolf said:


> But the chain aint!



You're right...kinda. I made a picture!








Imagine the smallest circle as your sprocket/axle. As you can see in the first two pictures the axle will affect how fast the rim moves on the outer edge in a conventional setup on a car. In the second two pictures you see how it affects a chain. Yes, the chain will go around more times (faster) with the smaller one but it is not moving your teeth or cutting any faster. For that to take place your axle needs to be in the middle like in the first 2 pics.

View attachment 215106


----------



## lone wolf (Jan 4, 2012)

Formula for Chain Speed Calculation

Take chain pitch and multiply x two.
Multiply above number by number of teeth on sprocket of saw.
Multiply that number by saw RPM. The number you get will be chain speed in inches per minute. To convert to feet divide by 12. To convert to feet per second divide by 720.

Example: 3/8 chain, with 7 tooth sprocket.

3/8 x 2=3/4 or 0.75
0.75 x 7 (number of teeth on sprocket) = 5.25.
5.25 x 12,000 (saw RPM) = 63,000 inches per minute.
63,000 divided by 12 = 5,250 feet per minute, 63,000 divided by 720 = 87.50 feet per second.

Got more questions about pro saw chain speed? Call or stop in.


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 4, 2012)

Cool! 

My 200T runs at "a mile a minute".








Oops. I might need to count the teeth on the sprocket.


----------



## imagineero (Jan 5, 2012)

A lot of guys in aus run the 12" bars. What I run on mine is actually the 12" .043 gauge bar made for pole saws. If you run a couple chains on them with the pole saw, then .050 runs on them fine. They're a little narrower than the standard 12", and smaller diameter tip. Lots of guys seem to like the lite 12" bar because it's flexy. You can twist it easily, and it springs back.

I used to think that 12" was the way to go. I always thought that proper work positioning and not running a saw way out past your reach, then adding an extra 4" of bar to the saw and cutting with the kickback prone tip was dangerous, and put unnecessary strain on your body. I even used to think that getting that last little bit of power from the saw was good for making all kinds of jump cuts and chasing wood off the tree, giving you a little extra finesse. I used to change up to a bigger saw when I needed more than 12" of bar.

All that is behind me now. I compared my 12" bar to a 16" bar I couldnt help but notice the 16" bar was bigger, and I felt a little embarassed about my small one. Life was really great with that 16" bar, everything was way better. Until I noticed an 18" bar one day. That was way better! I could reach even further than the 16" guys, and the nose was only just a little heavier. But then I found a 20" bar.

Well, this year I'm doing things different. I'm selling off all my saws except one 200t and one 660. It's a 2 saw plan that covers everything. The 200T has a 36" bar on it. I Know it sounds like a lot of bar to run on a 35cc saw, but I pulled the spark arrester out. You get used to the balance pretty quick. I use the 200t for everything from pruning small fruit trees and shrubs right up to felling trees 6' in diameter. The small dogs let you really take advantage of the full length of the bar, and the reach is awesome. I hardly need to limbwalk anymore. It's not quite as fast as a bigger saw, but when you look at the time you save not swapping saws, it works out about even. Plus the 200T is really light. I'm putting a 6' bar on the 660 to do trees from 6' to 12'. I'm not going to do trees over 12' anymore.

The other benefit that you might not have thought of is that it makes it really easy on my groundies too. Instead of all those confusing numbers, I just say 'give me a saw' and they can ask 'the big one, or the little one?'. Some of the smarter guys work out which saw I want without even asking!

Shaun


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Jan 5, 2012)

A handsaw has to be faster then that 200 pushing that bar.


----------



## tree md (Jan 5, 2012)

Like I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I really like the 14" bar on my climbing saw. I started out climbing with a Stihl 028 super with an 18" bar and would use it throughout most removals. That was many moons ago and I'm glad someone showed me a better way. I don't see anything wrong with using a larger bar but using the lightest power to weight ratio really saves a lot of energy and saves your body as well.

Case in point: My 260 went down over the Summer and the only replacement I could find was a 261. I opted to wait until I could find a 260 or get mine rebuilt. So I started having to use the 361 mostly on the ground and in the tree when I needed a bigger saw. Then about 2 months ago my 044 went down and I had to start using the 660 on all of my big wood on the ground and in the tree. I started to notice that my shoulders would hurt at night sometimes making me wake up and toss and turn. I really didn't put 2 and 2 together until I had to work the next morning and pick up where I left off bucking a large log with the 660. As soon as I put the 660 in wood and started cutting I could feel the pain in my shoulder. It was crystal clear to me at that point how much using the right sized saw for the job really saves your body. Thankfully I have got all of my saws back up and running now so I am not having to use a saw that is too large for the job and wearing my body out. I doubt it matters much if you only cut occasionally but if you are cutting everyday for a living using the right sized saw for the job will save your body and give you longevity.


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 5, 2012)

imagineero said:


> ...
> 
> All that is behind me now. I compared my 12" bar to a 16" bar ...
> 
> ...



You sure went to a lot of work just to be a bit sarcastic. Good effort!

Does that bar actually fit the little 200, or does it just "look" mounted on the saw?


----------



## imagineero (Jan 6, 2012)

pdqdl said:


> You sure went to a lot of work just to be a bit sarcastic. Good effort!
> 
> Does that bar actually fit the little 200, or does it just "look" mounted on the saw?



I'm glad somebody got it ;-)

It wasnt really much work, I was trueing all my bars so they were all off the saws and I had the camera sitting there for the RDR chain review so I snapped one off. Standard mount bars wont fit on the small mount saws, they only have one bar nut and nothing lines up oiler/tensioner/sprocket etc. Looks about right though 

Shaun


----------



## David (saltas) (Jan 6, 2012)

Shaun

I was reading your post thinking wtf and it just got more and more ridiculous. 
I was thinking it is too early for april fools day

Any how there is a guy wanting help to quote tree removal in a caravan park, you might like to give him 2 cents worth, I remeber you posting how you quote a couple of months back


----------



## imagineero (Jan 6, 2012)

David (saltas) said:


> Shaun
> 
> I was reading your post thinking wtf and it just got more and more ridiculous.
> I was thinking it is too early for april fools day
> ...



I guess it would have been funnier to just leave it and see how many people agreed.... I guess there would have been a few ;-)

Just done the whole 'help out a quoter' again few days ago. Here's the link;

http://www.arboristsite.com/arborist-101/189278-2.htm#post3371940

I'm thinking I should just put my quote sheet up with written instructions and be done with it 

Shaun


----------



## alonfn4 (Feb 8, 2012)

*Yup I am running a 16"*

Its a little nose heavy but your wrists get used to it. I use it for the extra reach as it can come in very handy at times.


----------



## Saw Dust Smoken (Feb 8, 2012)

*16*

One 200T with 16 bar. Used that all day today. The other 200t with 14 bar. Never used a 12" bar.


----------



## the Aerialist (Feb 10, 2012)

*Been running a 16" E light composite bar on my 200T ...*

I recently bought a Stihl E light composite bar. They claim 30% reduction in weight and on the saw the balance is perfect. The idea was to have a bit more length to chunk down trunk sections before having a bigger saw sent up. I'm surprised that the extra 2" of reach is quite noticeable. I took down a large Pine yesterday and the additional reach was very helpful also when it came to the trunk chunking' I was able to do it all with the 200T. With a 14" bar I would have had to move around to cut through or have a bigger saw sent up. It has saved me time and effort so I like it, but it's kind of costly.


----------



## limbwalker54 (Feb 11, 2012)

.....Yep......opcorn:


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 12, 2012)

chad556 said:


> I have run both sizes. Regular 16 and 14 and also a 14" E-lite bar. I would say unless you work with smaller trees the 16" is the way to go. That extra 2" is surprisingly useful without being overly bulky or awkward. I always use the 16 now when I have a choice From my experience but never having run one I would say the the 16" E-lite would be ideal because the 16" is slightly nose heavy to me. Pricey though.



Wait tell u run an 18" . Even better no more reaching out. Close cuts on thick trunk trees. I don't even know how guys run a 14. Must have some little trees where they're at.


----------



## mattfr12 (Feb 12, 2012)

arborjockey said:


> Wait tell u run an 18" . Even better no more reaching out. Close cuts on thick trunk trees. I don't even know how guys run a 14. Must have some little trees where they're at.



Or use a bigger saw? 200t is a good saw for what Is intended for.


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 12, 2012)

*I assumed for trimming.*

I read the forum intro but Im not actually talking about the 200t. Not a fan of that thing. I am talking about using a 18" bar on a trim saw. Not because I cut 18" pieces wood or 16" or 12 " I change saws if the wood is bigger then 4-5"s. Its the reach and being able to get a flush cut on a big tree.


----------



## sgreanbeans (Feb 12, 2012)

arborjockey said:


> Its the reach and being able to get a flush cut on a big tree.



What do you mean?


----------



## Nailsbeats (Feb 12, 2012)

sgreanbeans said:


> What do you mean?



I would assume he is talking about being able to cut the branch collar off of a lead on a removal as to not catch on the rigging, etc....


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 12, 2012)

*at sgreenbeans*

When the trunk of a tree gets to be so big around its almost as if your cutting a branch off a 90 degree flat surface. If you take a rope and make a circle say 3' across. Now take that 200t with a 14" bar and place the left side of the wrap around bar next to the rope. Next the tip of the bar. See the angle? It works if you go left like nascar but when you want to cut to your right you're going to leave a stub. Most important is the reaching. The longer bar save my neck,elbow, and shoulders.


----------



## mattfr12 (Feb 12, 2012)

sgreanbeans said:


> What do you mean?



I read through it twice I'm lost also if you don't need all 18" of bar why use it.

I run 14" and think that a 14 baried in oak will put it to the test. After that I go to a 260 with n 18 and so on.


----------



## tree md (Feb 12, 2012)

My saws are configured as such:

192: 14" (used on the ground now for light limbing)
200: 14" (used on the majority of my removals and all prunes larger than handsaw need)
260: 16" (used on the ground as the main limbing saw and occasionally in the tree when doing crane work and bypassing the 200 entirely)
361: 20" (used on the ground for as big as I can get away with. Same in tree)
044: 25" (used on the ground and in the tree. this is my main ground saw which sees the most action)
660: 32" and 36" (my heaviest ground saw. Used for flush cutting stumps and bucking when needed, as well as in the tree as needed)

When I am climbing I will generally only change over saws one time. This means I will go from the 200 to the next largest saw I need to complete the work in the tree. Occasionally I will start out with the 260 and then go to the next biggest if I am doing crane work or swinging big leads from jump street. I very rarely need to go to the 660 (that is here, I had to use it on a daily basis when working an area with larger trees) except for when I am flush cutting here. I very rarely have a need for a larger saw than the 660. I have needed an 880 with 5' bar for one flush cut I had to make here and luckily have a friend who let me use his. When I first started out on my own I used an 028 super with an 18" bar which doubled for climbing and ground duty. I no longer even have an 18" bar in my line up. I'm glad I have moved on past those days and can use the right sized tool for whatever job I encounter these days. Different regions will have different requirements for saw needs.


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 14, 2012)

:chatter: WITH NO PICS
sorry guys. dont lose your tension span. I'll clarify with pics later.


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 17, 2012)

Oky doky


----------



## tree md (Feb 18, 2012)

arborjockey said:


> Oky doky



OK son, you're losing me here... Now what exactly is it you are trying to get across??? You said you don't smoke weed... I got high hopes for you.


----------



## Zale (Feb 18, 2012)

arborjockey said:


> Oky doky



Don't drink and draw. Someone could get hurt.


----------



## mattfr12 (Feb 18, 2012)

arborjockey said:


> Oky doky



Well it's a good thing your not an artist for a living, but then again it seems like the worse a painting looks the more it's worth.

Still lost tho I see the circle and is that a chainsaw you drew.


----------



## tree MDS (Feb 18, 2012)

Zale said:


> Don't drink and draw. Someone could get hurt.



I gave him "sketch rep". LOL!!


----------



## tree MDS (Feb 18, 2012)

arborjockey said:


> :chatter: WITH NO PICS
> sorry guys. dont lose your tension span. I'll clarify with pics later.



Maybe you could add some discriptive labeling to your pic to help further clarify? Just a suggestion.


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 18, 2012)

I understood the pic quite clearly. There are none so blind, as those who don't want to see.

The 200t has a boxy little engine. It doesn't trim close to a large trunk on the left side of the saw, particularly with a short bar. If you spend much time working in bigger trees, you might prefer a longer bar. 

It's that simple.

If you just like as light a saw as humanly possible, and you resent the weight of an extra two or four inches of bar, then you will prefer a shorter bar. If you are one heck of tree monkey, and don't mind running around a big trunk for flush cuts, only using the right side of the saw...you will prefer the shorter bar.

If you are concerned about poor control on a top-handled saw, you will prefer the shorter bar.
If you prefer a longer bar for greater reach into tight spaces or don't mind less control while reaching further out, you will prefer the longer bar.




Geez, there is no point in bickering about preferences.


----------



## Blakesmaster (Feb 18, 2012)

Turn the saw upside down and cut with the top of the bar. The ####'s the deal with you guys?


----------



## tree MDS (Feb 18, 2012)

Blakesmaster said:


> Turn the saw upside down and cut with the top of the bar. The ####'s the deal with you guys?



But won't it get all flooded out? and what about keeping the oil down in the crankcase, where it's needed to lubricate the bearings?? Hahahaha...


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 18, 2012)

Blakesmaster said:


> Turn the saw upside down and cut with the top of the bar. The ####'s the deal with you guys?



That requires cutting overhead or hanging upside down. Too much "tree monkey" for me. Then, the branch is going to fall on you.

I was thinking of putting an 18" on mine. It never occurred to me until suggested in this thread. I don't mind the weight.


----------



## Blakesmaster (Feb 18, 2012)

Here, I drew you a picture.


----------



## mattfr12 (Feb 18, 2012)

Blakesmaster said:


> Turn the saw upside down and cut with the top of the bar. The ####'s the deal with you guys?



I couldn't figure out what he was talking about untill you Posted. I've never had a problem running them upside down.
I definitely wouldn't go to a larger bar for that. 200t is a cool saw but it's way to slow for me to be cutting wood that would require an 16-18 inch bar. 260 is pretty light. And would save you a lot of time. If you bury a 200t with 16 inches of bar in oak your talking like15 seconds a cut with a new chain or more a 260 would fall in under 10 seconds.


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 18, 2012)

Blakesmaster said:


> Here, I drew you a picture.



I'm not.

And I've run them upside down, too. When you turn them upside down, you sacrifice much more control than if you just had a longer bar. So what is the advantage?

Upside down is the last ditch effort to get to the cut, not the standby alternative to an easy cut. If it works for you, I don't really mind if you prefer cutting that way. I don't.


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 19, 2012)

When dead wooding 140'+ fir trees, 8 hrs a day I dont see running my saw upside down a 1/4-1/3 of the time:bang:. Then you dont want to go back to a shorty. Makes you feel small. I dig the reach, saves on the back .


----------



## tree md (Feb 19, 2012)

pdqdl said:


> I understood the pic quite clearly. There are none so blind, as those who don't want to see.
> 
> The 200t has a boxy little engine. It doesn't trim close to a large trunk on the left side of the saw, particularly with a short bar. If you spend much time working in bigger trees, you might prefer a longer bar.
> 
> ...



Thanks for straightening that out David.

Thank God I've got saws of all shapes and sizes (most of the Stihl line up) and can use whatever saw/bar combination I choose. But I certainly don't know it all and I'm willing to learn from the new generation. Some of them sure do seem to have a lot going on.

OK so AJ, carry on son, give us a little more in depth explanation...


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 19, 2012)

pdqdl said:


> I'm not.
> 
> And I've run them upside down, too. When you turn them upside down, you sacrifice much more control that if you just had a longer bar. So what is the advantage?
> 
> Upside down is the last ditch effort to get to the cut, not the standby alternative to an easy cut. If it works for you, I don't really mind if you prefer cutting that way. I don't.



I see someone gets it.


Things are bad when your to dumb to read a picture. I don't mind if they cut upside down either but doing for an extended period is pure ignorance. If my former boss gave you 10 trees to dead wood and you ran your saw upside down pruning 1\4 of the time you'd be down the road. What else did I hear " use a bigger saw" if you use an 18" bar. So now I'm climbing a 1000 vertical feet a day with an extra 2-3lbs. Which is equivalent to 2-3000lbs of excess weght at the end of the day. Bigger saw is for bigger wood not trimming.


----------



## tree md (Feb 19, 2012)

Well, you've got the talking part done. How bout some pics and vids?


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 19, 2012)

tree md said:


> Well, you've got the talking part done. How bout some pics and vids?



Anything in particular? How about a 75 yr old riding a 43 yr old dirt bike above the clouds. We went up about 12,000' on Saturday. My cousin from Denmarks 1st ride. My grandfathers super rat was a factory ride in 69'. Still fast.


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 19, 2012)

*how about the dog*

Everybody loves pics of the dog and firewood.


----------



## tree md (Feb 19, 2012)

arborjockey said:


> Everybody loves pics of the dog and firewood.



I like pics of the girl wearing nothing but a climbing saddle... :biggrin:


----------



## arborjockey (Feb 19, 2012)

tree md said:


> I like pics of the girl wearing nothing but a climbing saddle... :biggrin:



great ground girl. see the brush pile? She help set the rigging and ran ropes. She floated the branches over the garage and down. To bad she was CRAZY.:msp_thumbdn:
T home owner wanted the most out of the stick. He got it.


----------

