# Thoughts on milling saws?



## woodsrunner (Jun 16, 2009)

I'm looking to move up to a bigger saw for milling. Currently using my 395 with a 42 inch bar. On my GB mill that gives me about 34 inches of cut. I have alot of big chunks I want to mill into slabs. (Not looking to cut lumber or boards just full width slabs.) I want to be able to run a 60 or 72 inch bar. I have had good success with the 395 and the 42 inch bar but its about at its limit with that setup IMO. I'm considering all options. Currently I'm thinking 076, 090, 088, 084, 3120. I'm a husky guy, but, there are things I don't like about the 3120 (fixed jet carb). What is parts availability like for the 076 and 090? What would be reasonable prices for these saws used but in good condition? Is the 090 worth the extra cost? I have a GB double ended mill so even the 2 powerhead setup is up for consideration. Species are all hardwoods ( walnut, cherry, chestnut oak, white oak, red oak, poplar, hard maple). These are salvage logs and stumps and butt cutoffs from a recent timber sale I made. Some are really big (4+ ft diameter, one walnut stump is 6 ft across), some just average.
Let me know your experiences and best guesses folks. Thanks in advance.

Scott


----------



## ShoerFast (Jun 16, 2009)

Running a duel power-head set up comes to mind?


----------



## woodsrunner (Jun 16, 2009)

Yes the double powerhead is definitely on the list. I have been discouraged by some about this approach but I still think it makes a lot of sense. However, I can't seem to find anyone who has actually done that and can tell me how it really works. i.e. are (2) 395's going to give me 14.2 usable hp? Or just something more than (1) 3120?
I think 2 smaller saws would be a lot more useful than 1 big saw when the mill isn't in use.

Scott


----------



## woodsrunner (Jun 16, 2009)

Couple of pictures of the type of stuff I have to mill. the walnut stump is 6 ft by 4 ft, the chestnut oak log is about 11 ft long and 50 inches at the butt end.

Scott


----------



## BobL (Jun 16, 2009)

Some good questions there WS.



woodsrunner said:


> I'm looking to move up to a bigger saw for milling. Currently using my 395 with a 42 inch bar. On my GB mill that gives me about 34 inches of cut. I have alot of big chunks I want to mill into slabs. (Not looking to cut lumber or boards just full width slabs.) I want to be able to run a 60 or 72 inch bar. I have had good success with the 395 and the 42 inch bar but its about at its limit with that setup IMO.


Yep that's about a fair limit for the 395, as it would be for a 660.




> Currently I'm thinking 076, 090, 088, 084, 3120.


Good thinking



> I'm a husky guy, but, there are things I don't like about the 3120 (fixed jet carb).


That and the outboard clutch is what bug me about this otherwise mighty fine machine. I also reckon the bar bolts are to dinky - but that is just me! 



> What is parts availability like for the 076 and 090?


090 has parts available as third party parts. There are still plenty of spare 076s around but unless a 3rd party pick up that model these will be increasingly less common in the future.



> What would be reasonable prices for these saws used but in good condition?


That is a "how long is a piece of string" question as there are variable definitions of used and good. A good saw to me means that nothing is missing and there is no immediate mechanical work needed on it to start milling and don't worry about the cosmetics. But to some else this might mean "average". If you search around on this and the CS forum you will see what other people are paying for these saws. I paid US$300 at the time for my 076 with a 30" bar and it has milled around 70 logs since I have had it. A thread discussing my 880 and what others paid for various 880s and 84s is here. 



> Is the 090 worth the extra cost?


I can't really say as I have never run one. All I know is my 880 with the 64" rails and bar already weighs 72lb which is enough for me.



> I have a GB double ended mill so even the 2 powerhead setup is up for consideration.


It depends whether you are going to have help. I see a double powerhead as a 2 person operation and I don't want to be reliant on another person for my milling jollies!


----------



## Can8ianTimber (Jun 16, 2009)

Woodsrunner

I am by no means a pro but I have a 3120 and I have really enjoyed it. I used to have a Stihl 066 and there is no comparison so I understand your desire to step up a size. 

One questions I was going ask and I guess this is as good a place as any, Does it make sence to step up to a 090 for milling. I eventually want to step up to double ended like you are talking about. Maybe an 8' bar for mostly hardwoods. 

Has anyone here milled with a 090 and a 088 or 3120 that could tell the difference. My guess is that it is not only the increase in CC's but the general beefyness of the saw. On the other had the 090 is going to be more costly to fix. Can anyone shed some light on this.


----------



## BobL (Jun 16, 2009)

Can8ianTimber said:


> Has anyone here milled with a 090 and a 088 or 3120 that could tell the difference.


There is one Aussie guy, can't remember if it is on this forum or another, that reckons he can tell the difference esp on wider logs.



> My guess is that it is not only the increase in CC's but the general beefyness of the saw. On the other had the 090 is going to be more costly to fix.


 Not necessarily since 3rd part parts are available for this saw.


----------



## woodsrunner (Jun 17, 2009)

I've been pretty busy the few days and haven't had time to get back to say thanks for the replies. 

My problem is I sometimes tend to overthink these kind of things. I think I would like the 090 as a milling saw but I also think they are pretty overpriced these days (especially for something as old as they are). Economics does play into this. Parts availability is an issue as well. Utility also is an issue. Why pay as much for an 090 which is old, and parts supply may be shaky when I can buy another 395 new for about the same price and have excellent parts availability and another big saw thats pretty useful off the mill? Of course that pushes me to the double powerhead system. 

I'll keep thinking and maybe I'll come up with the answer for me. 

Scott


----------



## Brmorgan (Jun 17, 2009)

PM sent re: 084.

An average 090 will be absolutely spanked by a 3120/084/088 in narrower wood (relatively speaking) just due to the increased chain speed - I'd say probably up to 3-4 feet depending on wood species. On the other hand an 090 will chew through 6 feet of wood almost as fast as 4 feet where it would slow the newer saws down considerably. I've been considering trying a 9/10/11-pin 3/8 sprocket on my 090 to see how this affects the chain speed and overall cut speed, but I've also read that many of these non-standard sprockets aren't really up to the task of hard milling duty. There's also the ergonomics factor of using an older saw, like Bob pointed out. Not just the extra weight, but there's also no antivibe on most 090s, and yes, it hurts like hell the day after milling with mine sometimes!


----------



## woodsrunner (Jun 18, 2009)

Thanks for the reply Brad. Thats the kind of info I need to make a good decision. 
Scott


----------



## Brmorgan (Jun 18, 2009)

No problem. I should say though, that even with the discomfort I highly recommend experiencing cutting with an 090 sometime. It's like riding the biggest, baddest Harley ever made.


----------



## BobL (Jun 18, 2009)

Brmorgan said:


> I've been considering trying a 9/10/11-pin 3/8 sprocket on my 090 to see how this affects the chain speed and overall cut speed, but I've also read that many of these non-standard sprockets aren't really up to the task of hard milling duty.



That's what I heard as well.

Here is an interesting graph.





It shows chain speed as a function of RPM for different drive sprockets.

A Stock 090 maxes out at ~8k RPM while the 880 maxes at ~12k RPM.

Lets assume you are milling at 1000 RPM below max then even a 7 pin 3/8 chain will have a higher chain speed at 11k rpm than a 9 pin 404 chain at 7k RPM. Not only is the chain speed slower but 404 chain uses up more power because the top plate has to cross cut more wood fibre. You could probably pick up some extra cutting speed with extra low rakers on the 404 with the 090, eg Will Mallof suggests 0.045" rakers, and going to 10 pin or 11 pin does not going to gain a lot more. 

I agree with Brad, up to ~48" (especially in softwood) the 880, especially with 3/8 chain has enough power to out mill the 090 using the 404 chain. 

On harder wood it depends if the 880 can keep up the revs and take big enough chips with the cutters. If I was consistently cutting Aussie hardwood bigger than 40" I would consider a 090, but my 441, 660, 076 and 880 are more than enough for the size of logs I mill, and the odd log over 40"


----------



## oldsaw (Jun 18, 2009)

I'd be looking at a 3120 in his case because of the ability to use his current milling bars on the same saw. I bought a 3120 for that reason alone. I could adapt my Stihl mount bar to work with it and still have the 066 for a "back up" when in the field.

Mark


----------



## wavefreak (Jun 18, 2009)

BobL said:


> Lets assume you are milling at 1000 RPM below max then even a 7 pin 3/8 chain will have a higher chain speed at 11k rpm than a 9 pin 404 chain at 7k RPM. Not only is the chain speed slower but 404 chain uses up more power because the top plate has to cross cut more wood fibre. You could probably pick up some extra cutting speed with extra low rakers on the 404 with the 090, eg Will Mallof suggests 0.045" rakers, and going to 10 pin or 11 pin does not going to gain a lot more.
> 
> I agree with Brad, up to ~48" (especially in softwood) the 880, especially with 3/8 chain has enough power to out mill the 090 using the 404 chain.
> 
> On harder wood it depends if the 880 can keep up the revs and take big enough chips with the cutters. If I was consistently cutting Aussie hardwood bigger than 40" I would consider a 090, but my 441, 660, 076 and 880 are more than enough for the size of logs I mill, and the odd log over 40"



Doesn't increasing the chain speed also decrease the available torque? Seems to me there should be a sweet spot where the available torque and the chain speed are well matched to the application.


----------



## Can8ianTimber (Jun 18, 2009)

Here is some good advise I found back a couple years ago about double ended bar milling. 
http://www.procutportablesawmills.com/doublesawbars.html

It is not like doubling your power. I talked to this guy extensivly and he knows his stuff.

Here is more good stuff for general sawmilling info.
http://www.sawmillchainsaws.com/
He recommends the 3120 over the 088.


----------



## Brmorgan (Jun 18, 2009)

wavefreak said:


> Doesn't increasing the chain speed also decrease the available torque? Seems to me there should be a sweet spot where the available torque and the chain speed are well matched to the application.



Yes, it does decrease the torque at the sprocket. But since the 090 has enormous torque at low RPMs, it should be able to handle at least a 9 or 10 pin 3/8 or a 9-pin .404 as long as the wood isn't _too_ wide or hard. Mine will crosscut a 30" tree about the same speed as a 12" one, which tells me that I'm being held back by the chain speed and not available torque from the engine. Personally I don't really like the idea of filing the rakers down to make the chain more aggressive, because first of all it permanently modifies the chain so it's harder to adapt it to different types of wood, and secondly a more aggressive chain produces a rougher cut.


----------



## BobL (Jun 18, 2009)

Can8ianTimber said:


> Here is more good stuff for general sawmilling info.
> http://www.sawmillchainsaws.com/
> He recommends the 3120 over the 088.



This guys recommendations are based solely around the 880 being supplied stock with a 404 chain, and because Stihl cancelled warranty on Stihl chain saws sold in Canada and shipped to the U.S (my guess is he is miffed because he was was getting his saws this way) so he's using his website to express his upset, but this has nothing to do with how good the 880 is as a milling saw . The 3/8 v 404 chain is a non issue as most millers do not use standard bars and chains. He seems to forget that the 3120 is carby governed to 10k rpm (880 is coil governed to 12k), and does not have an H carby screw, and has an old style inboard sprocket making chain changing a PITA. In stock form the saws are very similar at milling but unless the carby is changed on the 3120 it is not possible to mod the exhaust without changing the entire carby. He also recommends a constant raker height (35"') whereas anyone that really knows what they are doing and has studied chains how chains work will know that constant raker/cutter angle is what is needed. Like I have said before old school operators (even Will Mallof who recommends a constant 45"') have a lot to offer but they do not know everything,


----------



## excess650 (Jun 18, 2009)

To my way of thinking, another 395xp woud be preferable. With a pair, you can run your double-end rig, and/or have a spare powerhead. It will limit the need for different mount bars and other parts as well. Spares are good!


----------



## Brmorgan (Jun 19, 2009)

Bob, that guy's company is located in a city about three hours north of where I live here in British Columbia. So I don't think he was having problems getting his saws shipped in that way, rather I think he encountered some hurdles with ones he was shipping out of the country with the mills he builds. I haven't been to his shop myself, but by all reports he runs a pretty stand-up operation there and builds good stuff, but you're right, he does seem to have a chip on his shoulder. Though if Stihl gave me the run-around just for stating my own opinion, I might too.


----------



## Can8ianTimber (Jun 19, 2009)

BobL said:


> This guys recommendations are based solely around the 880 being supplied stock with a 404 chain, and because Stihl cancelled warranty on Stihl chain saws sold in Canada and shipped to the U.S (my guess is he is miffed because he was was getting his saws this way) so he's using his website to express his upset, but this has nothing to do with how good the 880 is as a milling saw . The 3/8 v 404 chain is a non issue as most millers do not use standard bars and chains. He seems to forget that the 3120 is carby governed to 10k rpm (880 is coil governed to 12k), and does not have an H carby screw, and has an old style inboard sprocket making chain changing a PITA. In stock form the saws are very similar at milling but unless the carby is changed on the 3120 it is not possible to mod the exhaust without changing the entire carby. He also recommends a constant raker height (35"') whereas anyone that really knows what they are doing and has studied chains how chains work will know that constant raker/cutter angle is what is needed. Like I have said before old school operators (even Will Mallof who recommends a constant 45"') have a lot to offer but they do not know everything,



Sorry Bob

I am not trying to spread faulse info, I am just a wood lover trying to learn as much as I can about chainsaws. 

I am really suprised to see that the 090 is rated for 13 HP but the 088 is only rated for 8.6. At only 16 more CC's that does not seem right. Is it a matter if RPM's


----------



## Brmorgan (Jun 19, 2009)

That's SAE horsepower, an obsolete rating system now. It produces about the same amount of BHP as an 088 But the torque advantage of the 090 is huge - from a little over 5 ft-lbs to around 7. Probably helps that the 090 flywheel weighs about as much as a modern 50cc saw...

Anyway I saved the following nifty torque/horsepower chart from another thread on this site quite a while ago. I take no credit for it, and I'm not even sure who is responsible for it to give credit to. Hope they don't mind me reposting it.







PS - check out the 090G's torque rating compared the 070, which is the same engine. And some have built 090Gs with the big 137cc top-end so I can't imagine where the torque on one of those would rate.


----------



## BobL (Jun 19, 2009)

Brmorgan said:


> .
> .
> .
> Anyway I saved the following nifty torque/horsepower chart from another thread on this site quite a while ago.



The 090G torque value is high because it is geared down but don't forget the chain speed then also drops accordingly.


----------



## Stihlman441 (Jun 19, 2009)

Good work boys very interesting reading, its got me thinking which may be dangerous.


----------



## Brmorgan (Jun 19, 2009)

BobL said:


> The 090G torque value is high because it is geared down but don't forget the chain speed then also drops accordingly.



For sure, but if ya need to pull a 10-foot-plus chain, look no further! That's why they used to come with 1/2" chain quite often.

I'd like to see a few more big saws added to that chart, especially the Jonsereds 111s, Pioneer P60, and Mac 125.


----------



## BobL (Jun 19, 2009)

Brmorgan said:


> For sure, but if ya need to pull a 10-foot-plus chain, look no further! That's why they used to come with 1/2" chain quite often.



Sure but unless you are jungle or deep forest milling, for logs that big I'd be heading for a Lucas or similar.


----------



## harrygrey382 (Jun 19, 2009)

Brmorgan said:


> That's SAE horsepower, an obsolete rating system now. It produces about the same amount of BHP as an 088 But the torque advantage of the 090 is huge - from a little over 5 ft-lbs to around 7. Probably helps that the 090 flywheel weighs about as much as a modern 50cc saw...
> 
> Anyway I saved the following nifty torque/horsepower chart from another thread on this site quite a while ago. I take no credit for it, and I'm not even sure who is responsible for it to give credit to. Hope they don't mind me reposting it.
> 
> ...



That was my creation! Don't mind you posting it at all. I stopped showing i because people started getting touchy about basing too much on figures, which is kind of true.

I've added a couple since. The 038M and 441 spring to mind. What got me was the torque difference between the 070 and 076 (and 088) - why is the 070 so much higher, and is this correct? Well, now I have both, and will report back after a good shoot out!



Brmorgan said:


> I'd like to see a few more big saws added to that chart, especially the Jonsereds 111s, Pioneer P60, and Mac 125.


So would I - care on giving me the numbers? My sources were the German test reports and old stihl manuals (apparently unbiased and accurate)


----------



## Brmorgan (Jun 19, 2009)

Nope, I don't have any info like that. Only whatever's on Acres' site. I agree about basing too much on numbers - sometimes a saw might not post the absolute best numbers but aesthetics and design end up making it superior to the competition. Much like cars really. IMO the reason for the 070's superior torque is mostly due to the increased flywheel weight. Those saws don't weigh over 30 pounds dry for nothing!

Bob - Yeah I wouldn't want to CSM with a 10' bar, but some folks use bars that long for falling the odd tree still. Search Youtube for "090g sitka spruce" - I'm not sure how big the treeHow exactly can a Lucas mill cut a wide slab? Isn't it limited to slightly less than the diameter of the sawblade (not maximum log size, but slab width)? Sorry if these are dumb questions, I have only seen Lucas mills in passing and have never really researched them much.


----------



## woodsrunner (Jun 19, 2009)

I want to thank all of you for the great replies and info you have posted in this thread. Special thanks to harrygrey for graphing the torque and hp numbers and to Brmorgan for reposting the graph. That's good info guys. 
I really have enjoyed reading everyones replies. I have alot of good info to process before I make my decision.

Scott


----------



## BobL (Jun 19, 2009)

Brmorgan said:


> IMO the reason for the 070's superior torque is mostly due to the increased flywheel weight. Those saws don't weigh over 30 pounds dry for nothing!


Other things being more or less equal the bore to stroke ratio is one of the most important factor in determining torque.
Here you can see that max torque is very closely related to the BS ratio.
Look at where the 070 plots, it has a higher BS ratio that all saws except the 090.




What is important for cutting speed is the chain speed at the maximum torque. If the chain speed is low, cutting speed will be low. Irrespective of chain speed, if the max torque is insufficient to cope with the size and hardness of the wood the saw will bog down (like driving up a really steep hill in a car) which is where the saws high torque saw shine.



> How exactly can a Lucas mill cut a wide slab? Isn't it limited to slightly less than the diameter of the sawblade (not maximum log size, but slab width)? Sorry if these are dumb questions, I have only seen Lucas mills in passing and have never really researched them much.



Lucas mills have an optional slabber attachment, 5 ft blade is the standard slabber but it can fit longer bars. The biggest mills have 30 HP four stroke engines so they can pull 5 skip chains with very low rakers. They also sell a dedicated slabber mill with up to 72" bar, check out http://www.lucasmill.com/OurProducts/SlabbingMills/DedicatedSlabbingMill/tabid/274/Default.aspx


----------



## Brmorgan (Jun 20, 2009)

Hm, ya learn something every day. Here I thought that Lucas mills were all circular-only.


----------



## BobL (Jun 20, 2009)

Brmorgan said:


> Hm, ya learn something every day. Here I thought that Lucas mills were all circular-only.



There's a crazy young Queenslander calls himself weisyboy who runs his Lucas slabber with 0.05"+ rakers.


----------



## harrygrey382 (Jun 20, 2009)

BobL said:


> Other things being more or less equal the bore to stroke ratio is one of the most important factor in determining torque.
> Here you can see that max torque is very closely related to the BS ratio.
> Look at where the 070 plots, it has a higher BS ratio that all saws except the 090.


I'm not following here - for a start, the 1111 (050/051/075/076) has a longer stroke than 1106 series saws (070/090/contra), so that was another reason I didn't understand the higher torque.
Also, it's the higher the stroke to bore ratio the more torque right (always so in cars anyway, and it makes sense thinking about lever lengths)? Well here the 090 has a really low value, becuase of a very big bore and relatively small stroke, in fact all these saws do...


----------



## Brownpot Deaton (Jun 20, 2009)

well the rpm of the 090 is literally half that of the 075's......


----------



## BobL (Jun 20, 2009)

harrygrey382 said:


> I'm not following here - for a start, the 1111 (050/051/075/076) has a longer stroke than 1106 series saws (070/090/contra), so that was another reason I didn't understand the higher torque.
> Also, it's the higher the stroke to bore ratio the more torque right (always so in cars anyway, and it makes sense thinking about lever lengths)? Well here the 090 has a really low value, becuase of a very big bore and relatively small stroke, in fact all these saws do...



Yep, that is correct (I got my B/S mixed up with my S/B). I got out my old mech eng books and also found out that the S/B ratio mainly affects low end or low RPM torque which none of these engines have much off. Low end torque is important for low rpm acceleration and it (and the flywheel on the 070) probably contributes to why some of these older saws take longer to spin up to max RPMs. High end torque is affected more by other things than BS ratios.

As for the rest, I dunno - might post something in the CS forum and see what the tech heads there have to say.


----------



## woodsrunner (Jun 21, 2009)

*Another question*

So here's another question for you folks. Looking at the Husqvarna web site and the engine specifications have a "maximum power speed" listed for their saws. How does this magic rpm number match up with max torque and max hp. It would seem to indicate a "sweet spot" on the torque and hp curves. But how does an everyday user utilize this info? I know when I run heavy farm equipment with a tach I can dial in engine rpms for maximum useable power provided I know where the curves tell me to set rpm. Is there a way to maximize useable power with a chainsaw using something other than the "hold it wide open and let it rip" method? If I recall correctly the point where the hp curve and the torque curve cross would indicate the most efficient operating rpm for 4 stroke engines. But efficency is not necessarily my goal. Max cutting power is. Any thoughts on this? Seems like Rail-O-Matic used a tachometer to dial in 2 powerheads to run synchronously on a double ended bar. I'll see if I can find that post.

Scott


----------



## BobL (Jun 21, 2009)

woodsrunner said:


> .
> .
> But efficency is not necessarily my goal. Max cutting power is.
> .
> .



I agree once you know the RPM that's giving the optimum cutting speed being able to hold or stay on those RPM is pretty handy.

With any saw it's very tempting to just push harder to improve cutting speed and depending on the saw it may well do this for a short while but the RPMs eventually drop off and the cutting speed drops to less than before or it may bog down completely. The narrower the power band the trickier it can be to stay on optimum cutting speed RPM. This is what happens with saws like the 660 and to a lesser extent with the 880. Although the 076 is slower overall it seems to have a broader power band so this effect is not as critical to stay on or near maximum cutting speed. 

When I set up my tacho wrap handle clamp on the 880 I envisaged just using the tacho to tune the saw and then removing it but what I am finding is that I am using it a lot especially when milling big logs. With small stuff you can just sit on WOT and go for it but I don't plan to mill any more small logs with the 880 - it's just a waste of fuel when I can use 441 or 660. On bigger (40"+) harder logs I seem to get maximum cutting speed at around 10000 - 10500 RPM so I keep an eye on the tacho and it does seem to help, at least until I get a hang of using this saw.


----------



## woodsrunner (Jun 21, 2009)

I have found that I can "feel and hear" a "sweet spot" on my 395 but I am not satisfied with going just by feel. I would really like to have some empirical data that would let me look at torque and horsepower curves with rpm on one of the axis' of the graph and then dial the saw in using a tach and a timer. BTW, I ordered a tach yesterday should be here by next weekend, so maybe I'll make a little progress in my search (obsession) for the true sweet spot. 

Scott


----------



## Brownpot Deaton (Jun 21, 2009)

the "sweet spot" huh...

sounds like an 'informative' article in either the playboy or cosmos magazine.


----------



## BobL (Jun 22, 2009)

woodsrunner said:


> I have found that I can "feel and hear" a "sweet spot" on my 395 but I am not satisfied with going just by feel. I would really like to have some empirical data that would let me look at torque and horsepower curves with rpm on one of the axis' of the graph and then dial the saw in using a tach and a timer. BTW, I ordered a tach yesterday should be here by next weekend, so maybe I'll make a little progress in my search (obsession) for the true sweet spot.
> 
> Scott



I agree "feel and hear" is not the same as real cutting speed. Based on the sound alone it feels like the 880 is just spinning its wheels when it's operating at it;s fastest cutting speed. It feels like it should be cutting at a lower RPM but I think it's because I'm just used to the 076 sweet spot. A torque and power curve from a manufacturer are also only going to be indicative and the best way has to be by timing cuts in real situations. I timed some cutting speeds at different RPMs in 42" wide hardwood and I was very surprised since I found the max cutting speed is using relatively little forward pressure on the saw with it sitting @ between 10 and 10.5k RPM.


----------



## Brmorgan (Jun 22, 2009)

Brownpot Deaton said:


> the "sweet spot" huh...
> 
> sounds like an 'informative' article in either the playboy or cosmos magazine.



I swear I come to ArboristSite to read the articles! I don't even look at the nice pictures! :monkey:


----------



## Brownpot Deaton (Jun 22, 2009)

10.5K on the 880...wouldn't have thought that considering so close to the max, but makes sense consider more chain speed, not just brute power.......

just out of curiosity, what's the time difference over there Bobl, it's 2.10 am over here...?
jordan

nice one brmorgan.
guess the same goes for hooters too???


----------



## BobL (Jun 22, 2009)

Brownpot Deaton said:


> 10.5K on the 880...wouldn't have thought that considering so close to the max, but makes sense consider more chain speed, not just brute power.......


Yeah it surprised me as well. It's also probably closer to 10 than 10.5. Don't forget this is a slightly modded saw with the exhaust opened up by 85% minus some back pressure restriction since it has a short 8 x 3/4" pipe added to it.



> just out of curiosity, what's the time difference over there Bobl, it's 2.10 am over here...?



Were 10 hours ahead of Texan time. . . or behind but tomorrow!
2:10 am will be 12:10 pm
It's wierder when your clock reads 8 pm in the evening here it is 6 am tomorrow!


----------



## texx (Jun 22, 2009)

hey bob sorry to but in to the thread just want to ask you what size bar and chain did you use for milling with your 076 .
got mine in the mail today and keen to get all the other bits i need to go with it


----------



## BobL (Jun 22, 2009)

texx said:


> hey bob sorry to but in to the thread just want to ask you what size bar and chain did you use for milling with your 076 .
> got mine in the mail today and keen to get all the other bits i need to go with it



I have the following bars for the 076/880 (all 0.063)
1) - 30" Oregon, hard nose, 
2) - 30" Stihl, hard nose, 
3) - 30" GB, hard nose, 
4) - 42' GB hard nose, 
5) - 42" GB 3/8 sprocket nose
6) - 44" GB hard nose
7) - 60" GB roller nose
8) - 60" Stihl 404 sprocket nose

I have used them all on my mills except the 44" and the 30" Stihl
I have used the 42" hardnose the most, followed by the 42" sprocket nose follwed by the 60" roller.

Sorry for complicated answer.


----------



## harrygrey382 (Jun 22, 2009)

BobL said:


> Yeah it surprised me as well. It's also probably closer to 10 than 10.5.



this has me thinking - the stats say max power is at 8500. Why would you not run it at that?
Also, the 070, 090 and 076 max is at 7000 - surely running these two at max power RPMs would bring their cutting speed closer assuming they're not bogging?


----------



## woodsrunner (Jun 22, 2009)

harrygrey382 said:


> this has me thinking - the stats say max power is at 8500. Why would you not run it at that?
> Also, the 070, 090 and 076 max is at 7000 - surely running these two at max power RPMs would bring their cutting speed closer assuming they're not bogging?



Exactly! This is what is confusing. There are these "max power @XXXX rpm" statements but they don't really seem to mean much or be accurate. (Or maybe they are?) So is the only solution testing for your individual situation or is there a way by looking at torque/hp curves you can at least find a starting point to dial the saw in? Also what does max power really mean? 

As I said earlier, I may be overthinking this.

Scott


----------



## Can8ianTimber (Jun 22, 2009)

woodsrunner said:


> Exactly! This is what is confusing. There are these "max power @XXXX rpm" statements but they don't really seem to mean much or be accurate. (Or maybe they are?) So is the only solution testing for your individual situation or is there a way by looking at torque/hp curves you can at least find a starting point to dial the saw in? Also what does max power really mean?
> 
> As I said earlier, I may be overthinking this.
> 
> Scott



Get out and make some sawdust and feel it. Don't get stuck in "Analysis Paralysis"


----------



## BobL (Jun 22, 2009)

woodsrunner said:


> Exactly! This is what is confusing. There are these "max power @XXXX rpm" statements but they don't really seem to mean much or be accurate. (Or maybe they are?) So is the only solution testing for your individual situation or is there a way by looking at torque/hp curves you can at least find a starting point to dial the saw in? Also what does max power really mean?
> 
> As I said earlier, I may be overthinking this.
> 
> Scott



Max power @XXXX rpm is an indication of the ability of an engine to do work. Even after factory tuning this figure will not necessarily be the same for any two saws to begin and can even be different today compared to yesterday for the same saw. There are also a lot of variables after the engine. If the engine is subsequently geared too tall (that's the same as using a long a bar, or a big sprocket or an aggressive a chain, or cutting hard wood) it will never be able to reach those RPMs to deliver that power. If it is geared too low it will be doing a lot of work but you won't be getting anywhere.

Yep I definitely think we're over analysing. If you revisit Lakeside's posts you will see he constantly reminds us to tune to timed cuts.


----------



## woodsrunner (Jun 22, 2009)

Can8ianTimber said:


> Get out and make some sawdust and feel it. Don't get stuck in "Analysis Paralysis"



LMAO. At 6:00 pm today it was a 101 degrees F here. Almost that hot Saturday. I made the 395 sweat Saturday. Cut up a nice cherry log 30 inches in diameter and 8 feet long. When I got done there wasn't a dry piece of clothing on me anywhere. That cold Miller sure tasted good Saturday night. Seriously tho, if I'm going to pull the trigger on buying a bigger saw I want my logic to be right.

Scott


----------



## Bambi (Jun 22, 2009)

I have been a lurker for a long while and got some good info. I don't have a digital camera, big reason is most of the ones they sell are for hands of a baby and 35 mm cameras are a bit pricey.
Anyways an observation and a bit of wisdom. I logged back in the 70's and ran chainsaw mills back then. Some of us remember the days of chainsaws with NO anti vibe, big heavy units, the 090's weren't the only animals out there. When I think about it my hands and arms shudder at goin back to something without anti vibe. Heavy, get out of town, you know you were in for a workout.
Well I built a bunch of race cars and bikes. Loved Harleys but... you were not gonna beat a Jap bike. Drag racers figured it out so did Nascar. My friends Horsepower is King, Torque has become only a player. If you can build HI RPM Horspower you is gonna be the winner.
I am sure that some player could take an 090 and get a few more Rrr's out of it, but is it worth it.
Two stroke technology is amazing. I have a friend that does Motocross, runs 125cc Kawi's, water cooled and they are gettin over 45 Horsepower out of them, they ain't that heavy. If I remember some of the figures, (its been awhile) they were a lot lighter than them 090's even with the water cooling.
These days, I am not brand loyal, Stihl and Husky are both good saws. I run a 3120. I read someplace that someone was cutting black walnut, with a 3120 and a 12 Foot bar on it. Single motor, not a tandem unit. Years ago we never really had any luck running two motors, getting them in sync was trouble, the other issue is the same for many of us, we mill alone a lot of the time. Friends would always want to help out, its somethin new, but rare was the time they showed up to help again. Work is still a 4 letter word and millin is hard.
We used to file by hand, but that got lame, the new grinders are the way to go.
Technology has been a blessing, the new saws are the way to go. Chain technology has improved with better materials. Gas hasn't. 
Personally if I entertained the idea of goin back to an old saw or usin twins, I would make a mill and use a watercooled Kawi motor. Not gonna happen.
I have several bar setups, one using the auxilliary handle, has a nice roller bearing. I like the Cannon bars, they have more meat in them from top to bottom, a lot less flex. (Not thicker but there is more bar accross the flat). I use the auxilliary oiler with the big bars, but I do different with oil. I use winter bar oil in the can and regular bar oil in the saw. I have checked the heat of the bar and even tried usin good motor oil on the bar, with good success. Chains stayed lubed and easier to clean. Using motor oil, the bar was a lot cooler.
It is somethin you would have to try for yourself.
I hope this helps someone out. For what its worth, I'll have a softspot for the old 090's but the new stuff is really the way to go.
Happy millin

Bambi


----------



## MR4WD (Jun 22, 2009)

Bambi said:


> Well I built a bunch of race cars and bikes. Loved Harleys but... you were not gonna beat a Jap bike. Drag racers figured it out so did Nascar. My friends Horsepower is King, Torque has become only a player. If you can build HI RPM Horspower you is gonna be the winner.
> I am sure that some player could take an 090 and get a few more Rrr's out of it, but is it worth it.



I like your post, you know what you're talking about. However, I have a diesel pick up that makes 660 horse and 1290 torque. It'll run [email protected] It red lines at 4500 rpm. I can regularly woop the snot out of a twin turbo vette and still haul firewood in the winter. We can't totally write torque and low RPM out of the equation.


----------

